the minde or will of the Spirit for hee maketh intercession for the Saints according to or conformably to the will of God Your other Argument annexed to this whereby you would prove the holy Ghost to bee inferior to God hath been examined in its due place Argum. 9. ANSWER Answ The Major Hee that hath a will distinct from that of God is not God I grant the Proposition to bee true if it bee taken in your sense for a distinct and separate will for two such wills do necessarily require two distinct substances to which they do relate I denie your Minor The holy Ghost hath not a will distinct from that of God First I say this text doth not clearly hold forth to us any thing touching the will of God's Spirit The originall is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in our new translation is turned not the will but the minde of the Spirit Som render it the intention of the Spirit and others the spiritual sense and you know very well that the primarie signification of the word is thus to bee translated God know's the intention of the Spirit or act of the minde Secondly let us grant what you cannot prove that it is to bee translated what is the will or what is the desire of the Spirit To this I answer that the Spirit willeth and desireth as hee praieth it is a Metonymie hee is said to will and desire because hee inableth us to will and desire according to the will of God God know's the intention of the Spirit even as the Mother knoweth the crying and sobbing of her Infant and so our secret sighs which are infused into us are known of God our sighs indeed cannot bee expressed by us but the Spirit which work 's them in us direct's them unto God Apparent it is you were hard put to it to make up a ful dozen of Arguments out of an ambiguous text to prove a distinct will of the Spirit from the will of God the Father by a place where there is no convincing proof that there is any mention of the will of the Spirit at all Grant further that this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bee the will or what the Spirit of God desire 's by those groans yet will it not follow that there bee two distinct wills of God the Father and the Spirit What I have written touching the understanding of God and of the Spirit is by paritie of reason to bee applied to this Argument there is as I asserted but one will of God the Father and God the holy Ghost but yet this one will is otherwise in the Father otherwise in the holy Ghost in the Father of and from himself but in the holy Ghost by eternal communication of the Deitie to him Fourthly whereas you talk of conformitie and agreeableness which is alwaies betwixt two at the least I have answered the substance of this in the former Argument This agreeableness is not properly betwixt the will of the holy Ghost and of God the Father but betwixt the will of man acted to pray by the Spirit of God and the will of God and these must needs bee two To draw to a conclusion I denie not but agreeableness and equalitie are asscribed to the Persons of the Trinitie for the Jews collected and that justly too because the Son of God called God his Father hee made himself equal to God John 5. Nor did the Son of God think hee robbed God of his honor when hee made himself equal to his Father Phil 2. And what is spoken of the Son is true likewise of the holy Ghost and it is the general resolution of the Church that the holy Ghost is consubstantial co-equal co-omnipotent and co-eternal with God the Father and God the Son Now because equalitie is properly understood of quantitie and agreeableness in qualitie it will not bee amiss to explicate briefly in what sense similitude and equà litie are asscribed to the sacred Persons It is to bee observed that in regard of substance things are said to bee the same or divers If the substance bee one things are said to bee one in substance but if not the same substance they are said to bee divers in substance In regard of qualitie things are said to bee like which do agree in qualitie and unlike when they have not one qualitie In regard of quantitie they are said to bee equal or unequal Now because in God to speak properly there is neither qualitie nor quantitie for how should a finite qualitie or quantitie reside in an infinite substance or how is it possible that these should bee many infinites therefore it follow 's undeniably that these three viz. identitie similitude and quantitie are all one in God and one God because there is the same essence and substance of the three Persons and yet there is similitude and identitie betwixt the Persons founded not on the relation betwixt them but on the essence and therefore because there is no dissimilitude betwixt the essence there is no dissimilitude absolutely in the Persons yet it is so founded on the essence that it doth insinuate to us the pluralitie of the Persons The Persons are said to bee like as touching qualities because they do agree in the same perfection of qualities as in wisdom power goodness and such like these are really distinguished in the creatures but relating to God they neither amongst themselvs nor from the divine essence do differ really The Persons in Trinitie are said to bee equal because they do so agree in the same perfection that one Person doth not in the least degree exceed another for there are no degrees in that which is infinite that is said to bee better in quantitie that is better and hath a higher degree of excellencie then another as in Logick the degree of qualitie is quantitie so that greatness in God is nothing else but the excellencie of God in every perfection If the first Person was more potent and wiser then the holy Ghost there would bee likeness betwixt them but not equalitie there must of necessitie bee a distinction betwixt things like and equal for nothing is equal or like to it self The Father is not the holy Ghost and therefore when the Father Son and holy Ghost are said to bee one in essence goodness wisdom there is not in such an attribution a distinction of Persons but when wee say the Persons are like or equal as touching every imaginable perfection as in goodness wisdom power c. such an attribution necessarily require's a distinction of the Persons amongst themselvs I have now as I conceive fully answered your twelve Arguments I have set down all and concealed nothing which in your Arguments carrieth with it any shew of strength there remaineth yet one Argument in your Epistle by which you would countenance your Heresie in these words ARGUMENT 13. 13 Argum. of M. Bidle I beleeve say you the holy Ghost to bee the chief all ministring Spirits and I
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
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
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
is given is not sent for even God the Father who is never sent and who give 's all things as you will grant yet give 's himself in covenant to his children hee is their Father and all his glorious Attributes are set a work for their good for though one and the same Person cannot bee the sender and the Person that is sent yet may the same Person bee the Giver and the Gift There is no difference in the thing it self but in the different consideration of it the Giver so called as freely imparting himself som way to them to whom hee is given And the Gift in relation of the Terminus ad quem yea and wee ourselvs likewise as wee are bound may give ourselvs to God to bee disposed of and ruled by him according to his pleasure Further I say by limitation of your words hee that is not the Creätor Preserver and Giver of all things viz. which are creäted hee is not God This is true but is this any thing for your purpose Nothing at all Nay it make's strongly against you for the holy Ghost is the Creätor Preserver and Giver of all things hee give 's life and breath and all things to the creatures Hee is such a Gift that hee give 's all other gifts and so by this reason you might have soundly concluded that the holy Ghost is God for that text Act. 17. 25. speak's of God's blessings bestowed on the creatures And you ought not blasphemously to have made use of it to rob the blessed Spirit of the glorie of his Deitie Apply now what I have related of the several respects of the Giver and the Gift and you will easily discern that your advantage which you would gather from a seeming contradiction to bee a gift and not a gift to bee given and not to bee given is as good as nothing Advers A gift say you is in the power and disposal of another it 's absurd to think that God should bee so Answ There are three words of neer signification munus praemium and donum The two former munus and praemium are absolutely in the power of the Giver and do imply that they are a separate thing from him That the Giver hath a proprietie in them and that they are inferior to the Giver See Dan. in Lomb. l. 1. d. 18. Censura But it is otherwise of a Gift a thing is said to bee given which is either had or possessed from another when either simply or in a certain respect it was not so had or possessed before And so it doth not necessarily import any authoritie which the Giver hath over the gift but it signifie's onely a free communication of that which is given for hee give 's that make's this gift to bee had of another whether hee bee the author or original of it or not Hence is it as I said that God the Father when hee come's to us graciously and communicate's himself to us by his gifts is said to give himself And God the Son is said to bee given and to give himself for us and to us yea and the holy Spirit also doth give himself to us because it is an act of his free will and absolute power to communicate his gifts to whom hee pleaseth so saith the Scripture The Spirit blow's where it will John 3. And the Spirit divide's to every one his gifts as hee pleaseth 1 Cor. 12. And this is further evidenced because a righteous man hath God the Father God the Son and God the holy Ghost for hee is a Temple of the whole Trinitie and therefore hee hath received this best gift of all as given to him by the most sacred Trinitie Quest A scruple may here arise since the holy Ghost is given and that in time onely for it is a name of God which actually belong's to him not from eternitie but in time as do many other Creätor Preserver Lord the power indeed was from eternitie in God and these do belong to him ab aeterno in habitu Hal. because hee is habilis dominari creäre praeservare donabilis ab aeterno But the actual denomination to bee Creätor Preserver Lord Gift was not from eternitie when there was no creature no servant none to whom God was given Doth not this concession may some say prove a change in God Answ No it 's onely in the creatures which in time have a beeing and had none before that instant or som new work wrought in them by the unchangeable God and as for the relations which are betwixt the immutable God and the mutable creatures they are on the creatures part real relations on Gods part they are not real but in solâ ratione consistunt This is illustrated by these similitudes Wee say this is the right side and that is the left side of a pillar the right side or left side of the Equator and by the death of a son there is no change in the pillar the Equinoctial line or the father but in the man that turn's himself this way or that way to the pillar that cut 's the line and in the childe that die's and yet wee truly say this is the right side of the pillar of the Equator the man ceaseth to be a father when his childe is dead The like is to bee said of the holy Spirit when hee is given to us there is no change in him but the change is in us The decree that the Spirit should bee given to the elect was before all time yet the real execution of this decree as of all others was don in time Advers To prevent a solution of his Argument hee saith that not onely the gifts of the holy Ghost but himself is given Nehem. 9. 20. Rom. 5. 5. If hee was given out of his favor hee was not personally there before and consequently not God Answ To this I answer divers waies First ad hominem if hee come's personally to every Saint where hee was not before and is in this Saint in England in that Saint in Germanie c. Either the holy Ghost is divided from himself which cannot bee or else beeing in all Saints hee must needs bee infinite for you no where in all your reasons hint that there are many holy Ghosts and it is a strange creature to admiration which can bee in this place and not in that which is contiguous to it and in that which is far removed from it This I do mention that I might give an occasion to you plainly to discover yourself in such particulars as these are Secondly the weakness of this exception appear's because if it were convincing it would prove God the Father not to bee God for hee give 's himself to his children Why then should God the holy Ghost on this ground bee no God Thirdly I grant in a good sense that the holy Ghost and not onely the gifts of the holy Ghost are given Luke 11. 13. And albeit many Divines do varie in their
used not wine but onely water in the Eucharist if any of our predecessors either out of simplicitie or ignorance did not practise what the Lord taught us by his example there may by the favor of God bee pardon granted to his simplicitie but if wee which are instructed in his will should transgress wee might not presume of the same favor And the very like passage wee finde in Bede used by Wilfride in a Synod or Conference at Stransholch disputing with Cotmay about a very trifle the time of the observation of Easter 3. lib. hist Eccles Anglic. cap. 25. And Luther make's an allegorie on Deut. 19. they which err ignorantly are like to those which imprudently and casually killed a man such have the priviledg of a Citie of refuge but they which hear and will not learn are like wilfull murtherers they shall bee dragged from the horns of the Altar and lose their lives ARGUMENT 11. 11 Argum. of M. Bidle Hee that hath an understanding distinct from that of God is not God The holy Spirit hath an understanding distinct from God Ergò The Major is clear for hee that hath an understanding distinct from that of another must needs likewise have a distinct Essence wherein that understanding may reside The Minor is proved thus Hee that heareth from God and that at the second hand what hee shall speak hath an understanding distinct from that of God The holy Spirit so heareth from God Ergò The Minor is evident from Joh. 16. 13 14 15. The Major is confirmed thus Hee that is taught of God hath an understanding distinct from that of God Hee that heareth from God is taught of God Ergò The Minor is manifest from John 8. where our Savior Christ having said in the 26th verse Whatsoever I have heard from him the Father these things I speak In verse 28. hee expresseth the same sense thus According as the Father hath taught mee these things I speak The Major is of it self clear for hee that is taught hath an unknowing understanding since none can bee taught what hee knoweth already and hee that teacheth hath a knowing understanding otherwise hee could not teach another somthing but it implyeth a contradiction that the same understanding should at the same time bee both knowing and unknowing of the same thing Besides that the holy Spirit hath an understanding distinct from that of God is easily deducible from the words of the Apostle 1 Corin. 2. 10. where hee affirmerb that the Spirit searcheth the depths of God as Rom. 8. 27. hee intimateth that God searcheth the heart of the Spirit but to search the depths of any one necessarily supposeth one understanding in him that searcheth and another understanding in him whose depths are searched as is evident not onely by collation of other places of the Scripture as 1 Pet. 1. 11. Rev. 2. 23. but even by common sense dictating to every man so much that none can without absurdity bee said to search the depths of his own understanding Whence the Apostle going about to illustrate what hee had spoken of the Spirit of God by a similitude drawn from the Spirit of a man doth not say that the Spirit of a man doth search but know the things of a man though his former words did seem to lead him thereunto ANSWER Answ Hee that hath an understanding distinct from the understanding of God is not God To this I answer by distinguishing and limiting the Proposition thus Hee that hath an understanding really distinct divided and separated from the understanding of God is not God if you take the Proposition in this sense it 's true and granted with an unanimous consent of all Secondly thus hee that hath an understanding not really distinct but vet distinguished modally and that is in regard of the manner of having the understanding Or thirdly thus Hee that hath an understanding not really distinct from that understanding of God the Father but in regard of our understanding which is blemished since Adam's fall with much blindness weakness and take it at the best it is but finite whereas God's understanding is infinite and so are those manifold essentiall properties in God as they are called which are many not onely in regard of the outward works to which they do directly relate but also in regard of their different respects and our apprehension of them and yet they are in truth all one even the divine essence God himself The Proposition taken in this second and third sense is not true and so it 's to bee denied Advers Now whereas you say in the proof of the Major that a distinct understanding must needs have a distinct essence wherein it reside's and so as it seem's you hold forth this as a truth that God's understanding is in God as an accident in a subject I would bee loth to father on you such a tenet which you will not own but this is either your opinion or else you are to bee charged for not writing so accuratly and warily to prevent mistakes as is required in this Argument especially a writer of controversies Touching your Assertion that the understanding reside's in an essence if wee speak of a creäted understanding you shall meet with contradiction to this opinion from the pens of most subtile Philosophers J. C. Scaliger and acute Divines Zanchius which will tell you that it become's the soul in regard of the dignitie thereof to perform its acts by its own essence without the help of any accident and that the several faculties of the soul as they are called are but as so many notions and formalities of the same thing The soul the understanding and the will are the same thing it 's called the soul in regard of the essence the same essence is called the understanding as it apprehend's an object the same thing is called the will as it extend's it self to enjoy the good thing which is apprehended convenient for it But I will not contend about this point which if it were granted will not weaken the Argument Bee it granted that a finite understanding is an accident and really distinguished from and necessarily depending on its subject yet will it not bee verified of the infinite understanding of God whose Essence is most simple without all kindes of composition from whence result's a thing compounded as a third thing of it self one truly and really distinguished from the parts thereof God hath neither integral nor essential parts hee is not as a species constituted of the genus and the difference for God is the first and highest beeing not the constitution of subject and accidents not of act and potentia for that would argue imperfection For God is a most pure act not of Esse and Essence for the Esse of God is his Essence and that Essence of God is his Esse God's greatness is God's Essence God's goodness is God's Essence God's justice is God's Essence and it 's true of the rest God is