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
a commandement of his Father as one equal doth of another and that was nothing else but Gods counsel and decree to send his Son to undertake as hee did and execute the office of a Mediator Secondly if by command is meant what a superior require's of his inferior then I deny your Minor true it is that it is spoken of Jesus Christ that hee received a command of his Father because in regard of the humane nature and as our Mediator hee was inferior to him the Father saith hee is greater then I am But it is no where asserted in the Scriptures that the holy Ghost was commanded by the Father shew us a text for this purpose which if it could bee don I can readily have recourse to the former Answer I may therefore retort your own words Let no man think what is spoken of Christ as hee is man and Mediator is to bee applied to the holy Ghost unless hee can first prove hee is not God ARGUMENT 7. 7 Argum. of M. Bidle Hee that is the gift of God is not God The holy Spirit is the gift of God Ergò The Minor is plain by Act. 11. 17. Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift meaning the Spirit as hee did unto us who have beleeved on the Lord Jesus Christ was I one that could withstand God The Major though of it self sufficiently clear is further evidenced thus Hee that is not the giver of all things is not God hee that is the gift of God is not the giver of all things Ergò The Major is apparent from Acts 17. 25. God giveth to all life breath and all things The Minor is proved thus Hee that is himself given is not the giver of all things hee that is the gift of God is himself given Ergò The Major is undeniable for otherwise the same would bee the giver of all things and yet not the giver of all things inasmuch as hee himself a principal thing is given which implieth a contradiction The Minor needeth no proof Moreover a gift is in the power and at the disposal of the giver but it is gross and absurd to imagine that God can bee in the power or at the disposal of another Neither let any man here think to evade by saying That not the holy Spirit himself but onely his gifts are imparted to men since both the more learned Adversaries themselves confess that the Person of the holy Spirit is given together with his gifts and the Scripture putteth the matter out of doubt if you consult Nehem. 9. 20. and Rom. 5. 5. In both which places the holy Spirit is said to bee given contra-distinctly from his gifts and operations in the first contra-distinctly from the instruction flowing from him in the other contra-distinctly from the love of God diffused in our hearts by him Whence wee may draw this Corollarie that if the Person of the holy Spirit bee out of favor given to certain men as the aforesaid places testifie then hee was not personally present with them before and consequently by the concession of the Adversaries themselves cannot bee God since they will not deny that God is alwaies personally present with all alike But I fore-stall the following Argument ANSWER Answ This Argument might well have been spared which is brought in to increase the number and to make up a full dozen of Reasons To give and to send to bee given and to bee sent are I confess different much but mark what I say God's giving the Spirit and God's sendiug the Spirit are really one and the same God never send 's the Spirit but hee give 's the Spirit and hee never give 's the Spirit but hee freely send 's him to his servants That respective difference betwixt them make's this Argument of giving the Spirit to bee much weaker then the other of sending him as will appear by the examination of it Advers Hee that is the gift of God say you is not God because God is the giver of all things The holy Spirit is the gift of God Act. 11. 17. Sol. The Proposition if it bee generally extended to every gift of God as if you will logically dispute it ought to bee for if one were able to make an induction of every singular gift of God and if there were one particular excepted it would bee virtually false Hee that is the gift of God viz. of God the Father or God the Son is God for it is not unusual in the Scripture I must often put you in mind hereof for the name God to bee taken for the first Person of the Trinitie the second Person is called the Son of God the third Person is called the Spirit of God and the first Person is often so called not because hee is a higher God then God the Son or God the holy Ghost for they are equal but first because hee is the first in order and secondly because hee is the Person by whom the God-head is communicated to the Son c. Hence it is because the Father hath original from no other and is the principle of the Deitie hee is simply called God not the God of another God for if the Father had begot the divine essence hee might bee called not onely God but the Father of God but because hee doth not beget that essence which is communicated to the Son of God but the Son therefore hee is not called the Father of God but the Father of his Son And in proportion the like is to bee spoken concerning God the holy Ghost and the same order is to bee observed of the works wrought in time God the Father by the Son and thorough the holy Ghost bestoweth ordinarie extraordinarie gifts as it pleaseth him and these three Persons are co-eternal and coessential If your Proposition bee virtually particular it prove's nothing Som gift of God is not God It 's true in this sense no creäted gift of God is God himself but the holy Ghost is no such gift hee is a gift indeed but an uncreäted gift not lesser but equal to the Father or Son that give 's him And though I yield the holy Ghost is a gift yet your proof Act. 11. 17. is not convincing for to say nothing that som render the same grace by gift may very well bee understood the miraculous gifts of the holy Spirit which then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were bestowed upon the Gentiles And wee reade 1 Cor. 12. 6 7 8. that the gift and the Spirit the Giver are plainly distinguished But let that pass Advers Whereas you would prove the Proposition because hee is not the giver of all things that is given himself Answ In this there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nothing sound in it for I told you there was a difference betwixt these two to bee given and to bee sent to give and to bee given is of larger extension then to send and to bee sent for whosoever is sent is given but whosoever
so it 's necessarie saith S. Austin l. 1. de Trinitat c. 6. that wee should yield religious service to him that which is proper to God I shut up this Argument with the words of our Savior Matth. 28. 19. Go and baptize all Nations in the Name of the Father the Son and holy Ghost to bee baptized into the Name of the Father Son and holy Ghost is to bee obliged to the Faith Worship and Obedience of God the Father Son and holy Ghost Adver You endeavor to elude this plain convincing testimonie touching the Deitie of the holy Ghost Baptize them into the holy Ghost that is into the guidance of the holy Ghost which may I deny not bee a part of the meaning of the text You add Thus all the Israëlites were baptized into Moses 1 Corinth 10. 2. These two texts are unequally matched and paralleled Answ 1 First it is not said 1 Corinth 10. 2. that the Israëlites were baptized into the Name of the Father Son of God and Moses which would have been a seeming advantage to you but yet not forcible enough to have shielded you from the dint of the Argument Secondly the Baptism into which the Israëlites were baptized was not such a Sacrament as ours of Baptism is it was not a spiritual Sacrament of the Covenant of Grace appertaining to eternal life as our Baptism is their passing through the Sea and under the Cloud was don without sprinkling them with or dipping them in water and did seal up and evidently confirm that Moses was by the Lord deputed to bee a Guid and a Leader of his people whose Ministerie was not fully spiritual but 't is termed carnal God made choice of him to bee a happy instrument to deliver them out of bondage Now such as the deliverance is such is the Baptism but consider wee their passing through the red Sea and by the guidance of the Cloud as types and figures of the benefits which wee receive from Christ our true and spiritual Mediator for servitude in Egypt was a type of spiritual servitude under the power of Satan and sin and deliverance out of Egypt was a type of our deliverance from the snares of the devil and the commanding power of our own sins In this regard it 's denied that they were baptized into Moses hence is it said that som were baptized into the Baptism of John Act. 19. 2. but they are not said to bee baptized into John the reason is because the Ministerie of John was meerly spiritual and not carnal And S. Paul doth take it as a very absurd thing to bee abhorred of Christians to bee baptized into the name of any man 1 Corinth 1. 13 15. were yee baptized into the name of Paul and yet would hee bee acknowledged to bee their Guid and Doctor and a Father who by his Ministerie begot them through the Gospel 1 Corinth 4. 15. Thirdly this will further appear if wee do consider the use and the end of Baptism it is a sign and a seal of the new Covenant the Covenant of Grace which is signified and ratified thereby now consider this on the one part the great God of heaven and earth God the Father God the Son and God the holy Ghost undertake's to bee the God of his people which is their happiness on the other part the confederates the parties baptized and sealed as Gods own by Baptism which Austin call's Regius Character a Kingly Character do solemnly profess and oblige themselves to the faith and service not of any Angel for where is there such a condition expressed in the Covenant to tie us to creatures but as I said to the Faith Service and Obedience of God the Father God the Son and God the holy Ghost That which you say is true in it self though not in your meaning that God the Father and the Son by the Spirit do guid govern sanctifie and endow the Church and whereas before conversion and the giving up their names to Christ they lived according to the Prince of this world they ought thenceforth beeing admitted into the Church resign up themselves to the guidance of the holy Ghost But your saying that the holy Ghost is our Advocate in your sense and a chief instrument under God is as a dead slie in precious ointment this is spoken but cannot bee proved by you and it hath been before and shall hereafter bee disproved yea and your own concession touching the benefits received from the holy Ghost stand's not with this assertion Advers You say in your Dedicatory Epistle that the holy Ghost is our Advocate If I go not away the Advocate will not com unto you John 16. 7 8. And you boldly avouch that it ought so to bee translated every where as ours have also don 1 Joh. 2. 1. Wee have an Advocate with the Father Answ Hereto I answer You should have plainly told us what you meant by Advocate Is it to plead our cause with God as Lawyers do their clients cause before the Judg Or do you mean an Advocate one that make's prayers for us the rule hold's A deceitful man speak's in generalities I am not ignorant that som learned men which are strong defenders of the Deitie of the holy Ghost do translate the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in som texts as you do Advocate and if you had rendred it so in their sense I would have passed it over in silence The holy Ghost may bee called an Advocate but not so an Advocate to God the Father as Christ is which is by the merit of his passion and intercession In this meaning 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is often used in the Scripture but the holy Ghost may bee called an Advocate because in doubtful cases and in straits hee help 's us with his counsel and teacheth us all things John 14. 26. and when his servants shall bee convened before persecuting Magistrates and they then know not how to speak to them nor how to pray to God the holy Ghost will enable them both to speak to men and pray to God as Christians ought to do And because the instilling of this heavenly doctrine into the hearts of Gods servants is usually accompanied with spiritual joy and comfort hence is it as Cam. guesseth that this word is translated by the Learned oftentimes the Comforter You say the holy Ghost is not ranked with the Father and Son of God as beeing equal to them as is evident by other punctual places of Scripture 1 Cor. 12. 3 4 5 6. Ephes 4. 4 5 6. and 1 Corinth 8. 5 6. the holy Ghost is emphatically excluded from beeing either God or Lord by beeing contradistinguished from them both Answ 1 I answer these places might have been more fitly and seasonably alledged as Arguments to prove your Position then introduced as shifts to disprove our Reasons Answ 2 I answer directly by granting that in those places which you alledg and many others the Father is called God whereas
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
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
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
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
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
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
as it relate's to the person for whom the praier is made Thirdly a disabilitie either to enjoy or hold what is prayed for without the help of God for what can bee more foolish saith S. Austin agreeably to common reason then to pray to another for help to do or to have that which is in his own power to do and to have Epist 107. Now the holy Ghost is God almightie and according to the Scriptures give 's to every one his gifts as hee pleaseth To the objected place out of Revel 22. 17. there are many things which may bee said to infringe the strength thereof The Spirit saith Com. Ergò the blessed Spirit of which wee treat This follow 's not it is quasi à genere ad speciem affirmativè for how doth it appear in the text that this is meant of the holy Ghost Why may it not bee meant of an Angel that Angel which was mentioned Ver 16 For first you will not denie but an Angel is a Spirit express Scripture and sound reason do shew that Angels are spiritual substances Secondly nor can you denie that the holy Angels do desire the happiness of the Saints and their fellow-servants It may bee you will say then the text would have run in the plural number the Spirits say and not the Spirit To this I answer that S. John relate's onely what was don by that Angel which was sent by Jesus Christ to signifie this revelation to S. John Cha. 1. ver 1. and Chapt. 22. ver 16. particularly mentioned I would not have mentioned this answer which I apprehended as possible unless I had read it in Mr. Burroughs on Hos 2. lect 17. p. 606. as his own opinion Readers accept or reject this as you shall see cause Secondly there is another exposition of these words which you do conceal and it is of a singularly-pious and learned man in the opening of mystical divinitie Mr. Brightman on the place The Spirit saith hee signifie's single Christians in whom the Spirit dwel's and the Spouse signifie's the whole Church and multitude of beleevers Now it is the desire of them all singly and conjunctly that the Lord Jesus would com If this exposition hold's good the Argument as touching this place is of none effect but whether this bee the meaning of the text or not I leave it to the serious consideration of the judicious Reader Thirdly to adhere to that exposition which is most common and which you would disprove for wee shall finde that common answers are usually the truest The Spirit and the Spouse say Com. I answer there is in the words a Figure which they call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hendiadys and the meaning is The Spirit speaketh by the Spouse or the Spouse by the instinct of the Spirit saith Com that is the Spirit is the efficient cause why the Spouse praieth Com. Nor is this a singular example for such a Commentarie for the like phrase wee have in S. Paul Gal. 4. 6. it is the Spirit that crie's Abba Father It is said indeed that the Spirit is in their hearts but withall if you would play with these words as you do on those in the Revelation you might as fairly conclude your intent from them for it is not said that they by the Spirit but the Spirit in them crie's Abba Father Nor doth this text which you alledg affirm that the Spirit abiding without the Spouse doth say Com for then you might have some color for your gloss Besides this exposition ought not to seem strange because the very self-same expression is set down in the Scripture touching the holy Ghost Act. 15. 28. It seemed good to the holy Ghost and to us assembled in a Synod the meaning is thus It seemed good to us by the instinct and suggestion of the holy Ghost thus to determine A place parallel to this in the Revelation and sound reason will evince that it must needes bee so because praier is the gift of the holy Ghost Jude 20. It is hee that give 's his children the Spirit of supplication and if you will separate the Spirit and the Spouse in this holy action you must needes confess that the Spouse of Christ without the assistance of the blessed Spirit of Christ doth pray if so and when shee doth so such a praier is a praier of no account with God Advers This Author in his 12. Reason alledgeth that text Rom. 8. 27. The Spirit make's intercession to God Method reduceth this Argument to this place Answ There are two expositions of this place and none of the Writers were so prophane to take the meaning of the text as you have don Name the ancient Father whom you do follow Chrys in loc S. Chrysostom by the Spirit understand's not the person of the Spirit of God but the extraordinarie gifts of the Spirit And they which had those gifts were called Spiritual men or Ministers of the Spirit and when in great anxietie and distress Christians knew not which way to turn themselvs nor how or what to pray then as the Spirit of God came upon Jahaziel in the midst of the Congregation hee delivered the minde of the Lord to their exceeding great comfort 2 Chron. 20. 14. So likewise in such a stress som one of the Christians indued with the Spirit of praier stood up and with much importunitie and with many sighs poured out effectual praiers to the God of heaven which were profitable to the Church this is a pious sentence in it self considered but not fitly agreeing to this text as our Junius against Bellar. acknowledgeth and Paraeus in his Commentarie on this place doth prove The other exposition which is the more common is the sounder and more consonant to the context The Spirit prayeth that is the Spirit enableth us and maketh us to pray And if it bee objected that praier is a gift not onely of the Spirit but of God the Father also and God the Son being an outward work and so is common to all the Persons yet is not the Father said to pray not because hee is not the Author of praier for so undoubtedly hee is but because hee so give 's the things praied for that hee being the fountain of the Deitie receive's of no other Est l. 1. d. 20. The reasons of this exposition are these Because by the Spirit wee crie Abba Father ver 15. And because it is said the Spirit helpeth us against our infirmities viz. of praying as wee ought c. and the very words of the text will make this good as S. Austin exhort's intellige c. understand the words of the Scripture and thou shalt bee kept from blasphemie The person that praieth sigheth and groaneth the holy Ghost blessed for ever groaneth not as hee groaneth so hee praieth Hee is said to groan because hee make's us to groan and so hee praieth for us because hee make's us to pray for our selvs Thus God is said to
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