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
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
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
cause against the exceptions of such as have opposed them and the rather is the phrase to bee marked because as is observed it is not said one Elohim unus as one Jehovah unus in all the Scripture W. in 1. praec Decal but because they meet with contradiction of learned friends I pass them over Secondly and more particularly King David in his last words saith The Spirit of the Lord spake by mee and his word was in my tongue 2 Sam. 23. 2. and then verse 3. by way of explication hee add's the God of Israël said the rock of Israël spake to mee And yet more fully Esa 6. 3. that Person that is called the Lord of hosts and after that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Lord which is the proper name of God ver 9. is by Saint Paul an infallible Interpreter expounded of the holy Ghost Well spake the holy Ghost by Esaias the Prophet unto our Fathers Act. 28. 25. hearing yee shall hear and not understand and this is further proved because what God promised Levit. 26. 12. I will dwell in them and walk in them that is verified of all faithful Christians when the holy Ghost dwell's in them hence are they called the Temples of God and that is expounded by the holy Ghosts dwelling in them 1 Corin. 3. 16. and 1. 6. 20. 19. what can bee more plain The virtue of God is never separated from his Essence God is there where hee work 's and Gods working in a creature and dwelling in them differ much God work 's in all things and is with them according to his essence presence and power but hee work 's in his own and dwell's in them as in his Temple according to his singular and gracious presence Refut Adv. It is true indeed wee have the Spirit from God the Father and God the Son hee is the gift of God but this concession weakneth not our Argument but add's very much to our comfort and honor To conclude this Argument Acts 5. 3. Peter by the revelation of the blessed Spirit discover's the fraud the distrustful covetousness and gross hypocrisie of Ananias in that this wretched man beeing overcom with divelish perswasion with-held part of the money which hee had promised to God to bee dispensed by the Apostles to pious and charitable uses and to demonstrate the height and heinousness of this offence hee avoucheth that hee sinned and told a lie against the holy Ghost and by way of explication it 's added in the next verse thou hast not lied to men but to God Advers To this clear Scripture you make two Answers First to lie to the holy Ghost is to lie to men endued with the Spirit so Piscator yet will it not presently follow that the holy Ghost is God for one may lie to God and yet neither men nor the Spirit in them bee God but onely the Messengers of God what is don to Messengers redound's to him that send 's them 1 Thessal 4. 8 13. John 20. Luc. 10. 16. Answ I grant that Ananias did lie to men endued with the Spirit though not onely or principally against them for so S. Peter acknowledgeth you have not lied to men but to God and yet the holy Ghost is not to bee excluded as you have don from the beeing an object against whom this lie is told And well had it been for you if you had had the eyes of Piscator when you alledg what doth without wavering soundly conclude the Deitie of the holy Ghost out of this text I add grant that to lie against the holy Ghost is to lie against God speaking by his Spirit in his servants will this follow that the holy Ghost is not God dwelling in his servants nay rather the contrary may be concluded for the words import thus much Think not O Ananias because I said thou sinnedst against the holy Ghost that I intended onely that thou usedst dissimulation against mee and my brethren the rest of the Apostles in whom are the extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghost or as if the Spirit that is in us was a meer creäted Spirit thou art deceived if thou thinkest so thou shouldest then directly have sinned but against a creature but in this thy fact which is against the holy Ghost thou hast not lied to man but to God Who see 's not if hee will seriously perpend the text what it is to lie against the holy Ghost that it is to lie against God the holy Ghost and bee it granted that the despite don to the servants of God redound's to God which no man will deny yet touching the holy Ghost these texts are not fitly alledged for shew mee any place of Scripture where the holy Ghost is called the Messenger of God Search as long as you will you shall never finde such an expression in Gods Book Besides this concession abat's not the strength of our Argument for wrong don to the servants of God as they are his servants it 's against them as acted by the Spirit which dwell's in them and is no accidental gift nor creäted person but the holy God and so it tend's to the dishonor of the holy Ghost and this may further appear by these circumstances in the text How came Peter to know this lie of Ananias It 's not a man not a creature that can search the heart was it not then God that revealed this sin and the intentions of Ananias and of his wife to Peter even the blessed Spirit that enlightned sanctified and enriched him with extraordinary gifts And doth not the punishment inflicted on the man and his wife thew the severity and power of the holy Ghost in that hee can so instantly destroy his enemies And for further proof and confirmation of the Deitie of the holy Ghost out of this Scripture ver 9. for the sin was one and agreed on betwixt the husband and the wife and both of them are charged for their hypocritical and bold tempting the Spirit of God This fact of Ananias and Saphirah proclaimed evidently that whereas they had heard that the Spirit know's all sins is just to punish for sins which hee doth know is true and faithful to perform his threatnings and powerful and able to punish as hee had threatned yet they wretchedly against the clear light and check of their consciences in thus sinning against him would yet put God to it and make a trial and experiment whether God knew the infidelitie of their hearts and could discover it whether his patience mercie and love to mankinde would not spare them and avert that vindicative justice albeit hee had threatned often to punish them that doe commit this sceleratissimum genus tentationis as Peter Martyr phraseth it and whether hee had power to punish them for their dissembling hypocrisie Lay all these things together and they will amount to a full demonstration of the point in hand Advers If any man say you look more narrowly into the words hee shall
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
for a sin against the servant against a Person inferior to the Son then for a sin against the greater and against his wel-beloved Son And if a man bee not bereft of common sense hee must need 's conclude against this Disputant and therefore since the sin against the holy Ghost is unpardonable but the sin against the Son of God is not unpardonable as the text sheweth it must of necessitie bee yielded that the holy Ghost is God and superior to Christ as hee is man as hee is Mediator Fourthly if the holy Ghost were not God the sin committed against him could not bee the greatest sin Can a sin immediatly committed against a creature bee greater then that which is directly against the Creätor Doth not the greatness of the Person against whom the sin is committed aggravate the offence and make the sin to be so much the more heinous as the Person wronged by it is the greater Is not a sin against God which is a breach of the first Table greater I mean of an equal comparison then a sin against the 2d Table as this sin whereof wee treat must bee if it bee a sin against the creature I deny not but they that sin against a creature do sin against God whose authoritie and law forbidding it are slighted but shall therefore an immediate sin against the workmanship of God bee as you contend the more heinous then that which is against the great God himself I might tell you that you do onely say that this sin through the holy Ghost doth strike at God himself as a superior object thereof You can never prove that this sin is not terminated in the holy Ghost but for Argument sake grant it At the Assises as I remember malefactors are indicted for sinning against our Soveraign Lord and his Laws but is it as great a sin as that which is immediatly against his Majestie Suppose supreme Authority send 's Ambassadors to a forain Prince and they are disgraced and killed 't is your own comparison Argum 4 this redound's I deny not very much to the wrong of the supreme Authority and 't is don and interpreted to bee don to them not for their own but for his sake Suppose again a King should send more honorable Ambassadors then the former as Balak did to Balaam and joyn in commission with them his chief favorites was not the same sin committed against these later servants greater then the former But suppose a King himself should go in his own Person about the same business and they should e-equally contemn him was not the affront now and sin committed of a deeper die Give me leave Christian Reader to endeavor to explicate in as few words as may bee how the sin is said to bee against the holy Ghost It is an undeniable truth that all the actions of the divine Persons those onely excepted which are ad intra of intrinsecal relation are the joynt and undivided works of the three Persons because there is not a multiplied but one divine essence and the unitie of their working depend's on the unitie of the power which is all one with the essence Gregor Nazianz. Orat. de Theolog. Yet the blessed God is described in Scripture by a gracious condescending to our dull capacities which are unable to conceive the distinction of the Persons in the unitie of the God-head but by a distinction of their operations to us-ward and hence it is that the great works of Redemption Creätion and Sanctification are severally attributed to the several Persons not in a way of opposition but distinction which the School-men call Appropriation Thus power is asscribed to the Father because hee is the principle of the Son and of the holy Ghost and therefore because the mightie power of God is manifested by Creätion the Father is frequently stiled the Creätor Wisedom is asscribed to the Son of God because hee is termed conceptus Sapientiae hence is it that Redemption wherein the manifold wisedom of God is seen is appropriated to the Son hee is called Redeemer Goodness is asscribed to the holy Ghost because hee proceed's from the Father and the Son per modum amoris hence the good things of God which are communicated to us are appropriated to him hee is called our Sanctifier And for the same reason are sins thus distinguished there is a sin of Frailtiness and that is said to bee against the Father who is Power there is a sin of Ignorance and that is said to bee against the Son who is the Wisedom of God and there is a sin of Wilfulness and Malice and that is said to bee against the holy Ghost who is Goodness Bonav p. 1. Quaest 39. Art 8. This is a reason why this sin is unpardonable it 's a sin by appropriation both against his Person and his Gifts 't is not a sin of weakness nor a sin of ignorance no nor every gross sin against knowledg no nor every apostasie from the truth against the known truth for som may fall away either out of fear of the loss of their goods or lives or for preferment nor a few of this kinde have bewailed their follies have obtained pardon and proved glorious Martyrs but this is a sin wittingly and willingly and out of cankred malice committed against God the Father Son and a I said by appropriation against God the holy Ghost and his great work in their hearts and whereby they offer contumelie and despite to the Spirit of Grace and so will hee never give them the grace to repent Adver You say that God useth the Spirit but onely in things of greatest importance By this your saying you give your Reader a hint to suspect that you think every sin committed against God's Spirit is that unpardonable sin against the holy Ghost Speak out is not this your meaning if not so to what purpose should you say God never useth the Spirit but in matters of greatest importance If so I demand then who can be saved For every good man grieveth the blessed Spirit and sinneth against him I add this your Conclusion is such a Paradox which hath searce dropped from the pen of any Christian man You think belike that the Spirit is like to Arch-angels which are said to preside over Kingdoms and great Personages onely but the care of singular mean persons is under God committed to the Angels You think it seem's the Spirit work 's not but to bring forth a male-childe of whom the woman hath been long in travel to bee delivered for whom the Church hath sighed much and made many prayers to God to give her a Christian orthodoxal King or Emperor or to divert the rage of the persecutors of the Saints and to procure rest to the Church to raise up men of heroical spirits and parts to reform the Church or such like Belike then they that have but one talent or two talents or mean men which have but a low degree of sanctifying graces are not
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
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
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
finde that the translation is not true for the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ver 3. is construed with an Accusative case and with a Dative ver 4. and so it is to bee translated to bely and counterfeit the holy Ghost which is to bear us in hand that thou laidest down the money at the motion of the holy Ghost herein thou hast not lied to men but to God Answ The Adversarie would perswade the Reader that hee by his observation of the text had found out a fault in our common translations whereof the Authors out of their ignorance or inadvertencie took no notice if so hee think's hee is utterly mistaken for all translators ancient and of later days had the text before their eyes and saw the difference which is here noted by this Author and yet did purposely translate the words thou hast lied to the holy Ghost as holding forth the genuine meaning of the Spirit of God som excepted which yet for the point of controversie in hand proved out of this very Scripture are professed Adversaries to you Beza after hee had rendred the words to deceive or mock i. e. endeavor to deceive the holy Ghost I might add what others say hee retract's and go's in the steps of common translators Why I might say from others It 's not unusual amongst the Grecians to understand a preposition which is not expressed Hee saith because the 4th ver where the Dative case is used is an explication of the 3d. ver Besides the Hebrews do somtimes confound these whence these expressions benedico te evangelizo te which the Grecians derived from the Hebrews and the Latine Authors from the Grecians Besides in one manuscript I found the preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so have the Syrian and Arabian Interpreters read it Lastly because this interpretation which is followed by Erasmus to say they counterfeited the holy Ghost seem's to mee not to bee full They were indeed notorious hypocrits but Peter by the sequele accuseth them of a far higher crime that when as by the motion of the Spirit they had sold a parcel of ground and consecrated it to the Church they afterward kept back a part thereof as if in that case they had not to deal with God but with men which could not discover this their sacriledg and so they are in this regard said to tempt the Spirit of God Further were it granted that your translation were sound and that the words ought to bee so interpreted as you have don this neither hinder's us nor further's you none ever dreamed by the common translation to correct the meaning of the text that they might have an Argument thence to confute the Adversaries of the holy Ghost hee needeth not our lie to defend his cause But the strength of the Argument is not from the words singly taken ver 3. but from them and the explication of them in the fourth and ninth verses you counterfeit the holy Ghost to bee the Author of this fact and this is expounded to bee a lying to God viz. to God the holy Ghost whom you have counterfeited hee speaking in us and discovering this hypocrisie of your heart which you litle dreamed off And your exposition of the words as they stand in your Book is of that nature that albeit I have perpended it as exactly as I can yet do I conceive nothing in it but I may readily subscribe to it I am sure it nothing crosseth the Argument Thus much for the first Argument Argum. 2 Maj. Hee to whom religious worship is truly exhibited is God Min. The holy Ghost is hee to whom religious worship is exhibited Concl. Ergò The Major is not denied by the Adversarie and is evident of it self and strange it is to mee that any learned men which do acknowledge the Deitie of the holy Ghost should avouch as they do that there is neither precept to worship him nor any clear example in the Word that hee was worshipped 'T is a certain rule the sacred Persons of the Trinitie which are undivided in nature must bee likewise undivided in worship for any one to say the holy Ghost is God and with the same breath to profess their doubting whether hee is to bee worshipped is to speak contradictions and 't is all one as to acknowledg a King and to deny him honor and this is to make him a titular King and in truth no King at all The Minor is proved thus the holy Angels of God do worship him they worshipped the Lord of hosts Esa 6. 3. Holy holy holy is the Lord of hosts Heb. 1. 6. Whether the Prophet Esay understood this mysterie or not 't is not material to the point in hand nor whether their thrice chanting out holy implied the sacred Trinitie Yet why might not that bee intended But the Angels beeing intellectual substances worshipped they knew what and beeing confirmed in holiness they onely worshipped a fit object of worship and had they or sinful men worshipped the highest creature with religious adoration would not hee as the Angel in the revelation have rejected it and said See you do it not I am your fellow-servant but the Angels worshipped the holy Ghost I prove the blessed Apostle and irrefragable Interpreter inform's us that the Lord of hosts who put words into the mouth of Esay was the holy Ghost Act. 28. 25. Well said the holy Ghost by Esaiah the Prophet and as the Son of God is directly prayed unto Lord Jesus said Stephen that blessed martyr receive my Spirit Acts 7. Lord Jesus com quickly Apocal. 22. So is likewise the holy Spirit Awake thou North-winde and com thou South blow upon my garden that the Spices thereof may flow out O blessed Spirit breathe into my heart that by the love of God and my neighbor it may send forth a sweet savor Cant. 4. 16. The blessed Spirit of God is compared to the winde that as the winde blow's where it list's so doth the Spirit of God blow where hee will regenerat's whom hee pleaseth John 3. 8. And to this intent it is that S. John prayeth grace and peace not onely from God the Father and from Jesus Christ but also from the seven Spirits Apocal. 1. 4. The Spirit is but one in nature but it is said to bee seven that is manifold in regard of the distribution of many gifts which are from the Spirit and more plainly 2 Corinth 13. 13. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the holy Ghost bee with you all And this Argument is asserted by Justin Martyr as I have shewed in answer to your thirteenth Argument and by Clemens Alexandrinus at the end l. 3. Paedag. used in the ancient Liturgies and practised by the reformed Churches Sancta Trinitas miserere O holy Trinitie have mercie To these I may add this consideration that wee are the Temples of the holy Ghost It 's God onely that hath a Temple and
individual Spirit seduce all the wicked by himself If you dare not say so why is this example alledged yea and by your own silence your cause is lost I dare tell you that the holy Spirit sanctifieth with his gracious presence all the Saints that are in the world Nor is the reason alike betwixt those four hundred and all the wicked men in the world for they were assembled together in one place and all of them of one Spirit but suppose these four hundred had been severed and placed in so many remote Kingdoms will you have the forehead to say that one Spirit could seduce them all at once The former I grant may bee done by a creäted Spirit but not possible the later Argum. 4 Maj. Hee that is simply superior to Christ as man is God Min. The holy Ghost is so Concl. Ergò hee is God The Major is clear by the confession of the Adversarie for hee ranketh Christ in the second order next under God and the holy Ghost below Christ in the third rank and rightly if his supposition had been true for the humane nature simply considered beeing assumed into the person of the Son of God is neerest the cause and fountain of all greatness and is thereby exalted far above the state and condition of the highest Angels but hee is said to bee made lower then they are onely for a short time in regard of his sufferings Hebr. 2. from which those blessed Spirits were exempted The Minor is proved by those very Arguments whereby you endeavor to prove the holy Ghost to bee inferior to God First because Christ in this notion is sent of the holy Ghost The Lord God sent mee and his holy Spirit Esa 48. 16. I know som of ours do expound this of the Prophet Esay the Spirit sent him and so do the Hebrews suddenly change the Person saith Oecolampadius without any necessitie because they do abhor the mysterie of the Trinitie but wee saith hee with Catholiques do avouch that these are the words of Christ as the whole context evinceth But let that text bee meant so or otherwise It 's clear by Fsa 61. 1. applied to Christ Luke 4. 18. The Spirit of the Lord hath sent mee to binde up the broken hearted to preach the Gospel Secondly hee that receiveth of another is inferior to him of whom hee receiveth and dependent on him these are your own expressions but the humane nature of Christ receive's from the Spirit it's beeing for hee was conceived by the holy Ghost Matth. 1. and was anointed by him with abundant gifts without measure Luke 4. 18. To these I add that the holy Spirit by his mighty power raised Christ corporally from death Rom. 8. 11. as hee doth his people spiritually from the death of sin Lastly because it is a greater sin which is committed against the holy Ghost then that is which is committed against the Son Mat. 12. 31 32. this is pardonable the other shall never bee forgiven Advers To this last objected place you frame this Answer The sin against the holy Ghost is unpardonable not because the holy Ghost is God but because hee that sinneth against the holy Ghost doth in the same act sin against God with an high hand against his conscience renouncing the truth as the Renegadoes did Hebr. 10. 25 26. which things are the greatest affronts that can bee offered to God who useth the Spirit in none but in things of greatest importance Answ I grant the sin against the holy Ghost is not therefore simply unpardonable because it is simply against God for so are all sins and yet are they not the unpardonable sin and they are in a proper and true sense against the holy Ghost even the sins of his own people and hee is said to bee grieved for them Ephes 4. 30. and the sins of the wicked for which hee will bee revenged on them Esa 63. 10. But yet this I do peremptorily avouch unless the holy Ghost were God and equal to the Father and the Son of God it could not bee the greatest sin that was committed against him as the immediate and ultimate object thereof I will on your own principles argue against you for the fuller confirmation of this point I take this for a granted Maxim that the unpardonable sin is a sin and of necessitie must bee a sin against the holy Ghost This Assertion cannot with reason be denied Upon this supposition of yours that the holy Ghost is a creature I argue thus That the unpardonable sin may bee committed and yet the holy Ghost not at all sinned against First because the first and universal cause can immediatly of himself without the intervening of any creature so far enlighten a reprobate that this sin maliciously committed against this light shall bee for nature the very same every way as heinous and as unpardonable and yet not all against the holy Ghost It is true instruments are God's hands and as they can do nothing without God so God ordinarily will not work without them but is Gods hand shortened Can you give any reason why hee cannot do the same work without the creatures which is instrumentally produced by them Secondly suppose the Lord will not work thus immediatly by himself cannot hee imploy an Angel inferior to the holy Ghost about this work of illumination Cannot hee so far elevate this blessed creature above it self touching the former state and actuate his abilities that hee shall as a means under God so far enlighten man as is don at other times by the holy Ghost And the blessed Spirit in the mean time according to your profane opinion reside in one place and not intermeddle at all either to command or have any influence on this Angel in this imployment or if there should bee a deficiencie still in this creature which is very unreasonable to imagine cannot the great God supply the defect thereof In this case wee have the unpardonable sin committed and yet not at all committed against the holy Ghost Thirdly I confute you from this Scripture Matth. 12. on which our Argument is grounded The holy Ghost say you is God's Messenger and hee is sent as God's servant to enlighten men at the same time this great God send 's his Son also as his Messenger for so hee is often called but the holy Ghost is never called his Son this Son of God as you grant is next unto God himself higher and greater then the holy Ghost and besides which is another advantage to strengthen the Argument the holy Ghost is invisible the Son of God present's himself visible to them and his Person is directly and purposely scorned and abused by them and 't is not easie to bee proved that they had the like mischievous intentions and malicious purposes against the Person of the holy Ghost Judg now impartially whether is the greater sin and which in likelihood is the sin most unpardonable Whether the Lord will bee more offended
beholding to the Spirit for them God never sent his blessed Spirit to them how false and unsavory this expression is who seeth not And the follie thereof shall bee fully disproved in the next Reason When you wrote this you were half asleep or if deliberatly I will bee bold to say That your Sophistrie hath the upper hand of your Divinitie 5 Argum. Maj. Hee that produceth those works which God alone produceth is God Min. The holy Ghost doth so Concl. Ergò The Major is plain the Minor is proved by particular instances 1 Hee that create's the world is God The holy Ghost create's the world Ergò the holy Ghost is God The Major is proved both by Reason and Scripture First by Reason because to create is to make somthing of nothing or of that which to such a purpose is as good as nothing and this require's an infinite power which cannot no not by the absolute power of God bee communicated to a creature and by Scripture every where Gen. 1. 1. Jer. 10. 11. The true God the living God the everlasting God hath made the Earth the Heavens the Seas and the Fountains of water Apoc. 14. 7. The Minor is proved by Scripture the first verse in the Bible Elohim creäted Heaven and Earth and after in the same Chap. ver 26. Let Vs make man after Our Image hence it is said in the Original Where is God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 my Makers and Psal 149. 2. Let Israël rejoyce in him that made him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in his Makers which denote's the Trinitie of the Persons More distinctly Psal 33. 6. By the Word of the Lord were the Heavens made and all the host of them by the Spirit of his mouth that is God the Father by his Word i. e. his Wisedom which is Christ and by his Virtue which is the holy Ghost hath made all things and these three are but one God More clearly Psal 104. 30. Thou sendest forth thy Spirit and they are creäted The Prophet sheweth how the orderly course of the creatures is wisely disposed off and the Antithesis betwixt the Spirits i. e. souls of the creatures which die and the Spirit of God which creäte's and renewe's them So Elihu in Job The Spirit of God hath made mee and the breath of the Lord hath given mee life Job 35. 10. And 't is said touching our Savior That which is conceived of Marie is of the holy Ghost creäting the body by his omnipotent power of the substance of the Virgin Marie in a way unheard off from the begining of the world and his soul immediatly of nothing 2 Hee that support's and uphold's all the creatures in their beeing is God The holy Ghost doth so Ergò The Major is confirmed because preservation of the creatures is a work equivalent to creätion and 't is rightly called a continued creätion hence is the Lord described to bee a God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the present stretching out the heavens Esa 40. 22. All means under the Sun are but dead instruments without God To bee of himself is proper to the Lord and incommunicable to any creature hence is it as Glass observe's Orat. de Hebr. lin Necess that the Lord is called Adonai of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because hee is the basis and the prop to uphold all the creatures in the world they all depend on him as artificial works do on natural substances What can a Carpenter do without wood What can a Mason do without stones Yea as the light in the aire depend's on the bodie of the Sun wee live and move and have our â—eeinâ— in God Acts 17. 28. The Minor is confirmed not onely because the holy Ghost is Adoâ—ai as is shewed in the first Reason but because this is particularly affirmed of one work and in paritie of reason it hold's true in all the rest Gen. 1. 2. The Spirit of God is said to move upon the face of the waters By the Spirit of God cannot bee meant the winde which is the moving of the air for there was no distinction of things below in the first day they were a confused mass without form and without any virtue or efficacie Nor could the air of winde if there had been any such creature at that time have had the cherishing effect which is there asscribed to the Spirit wee are then to understand no creäted Spirit but the Creätor and Cherisher of all The Lord would teach us that this confused lump of the Elements creäted in the begining could not consist of it self but as it was necessarie it should have a Creätor for its beeing so likewise that it should have a Protector a Conservator and a Quickner for the continuance of the same and the Spirit that upheld this mass was the Spirit of God The word used by the Spirit is very emphatical 't is a Metaphor taken from Birds which do sit upon their eggs wave over them to bring forth their young ones or â—o cherish them beeing hatched Deut. 32. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Deuter. the Lord protected his Children as the Bird doth her young ones and brought them out of Egypt as hee did a beautiful world out of the Chaos so that in this place of Genesis is set forth the effectual comfortable motion of the Spirit on the indigested Chaos whereby hee sustained and as it were cherished that vast creature I might shew that this is not a singular exposition devised of late daies but asserted by many ancient Fathers yea and by som ancient Rabbins as P. Galatm l. 2. and H. Ainsworth on this text do witness but I omit them Hee that truly and properly work 's miracles is God The holy Ghost doth so Ergò The Major is proved even by one of the words which is used for a miracle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 derived of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which like a beautiful creature hath an allureing nature to drawmen to beleeve in God and to obey him Ainsworth on Exod. 7. 9. Or as Schindler of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because it demâ—nstrat's the truth and is as a divine seal thereof not imprinted in wax which will soon wear out but engraven as it were in brass and so is an indeleble Character Hereby did our Savior prove that hee was God Matth. 9. 5. as if hee had said it 's the same divine power to forgive sins and work miracles The Lord alone doth wondrous works Psal 78. 18. Somtimes hee work 's them for the prayers of his servants as hee did at and for the prayers of Elias 1 King 18. Somtimes by divine instinct and inspiration and then is the miracle said to be a miracle ex potestate Josuah said Sun stand thou still in the firmament And Peter to Aeneas Arise and this is a work so peculiar to God that the great School-man Aquin. cap. 2. quaest 14. 8. art 1. concludeth that that it cannot bee communicated to a creature no not to the
through particulars sanctification is Gods alone work None can wash away the filthiness of the minde but hee that made the minde Optat. Mil. l. 5. The Heathen shall know that the Lord doth sanctifie Israël Ezek. 37. 28. And is not this state compared to the raising up of the dead to life and to a new creätion Is not grace of a supernatural order and by it the Saints do regularly move to a supernatural end Every one of these of necessity require's the powerful work of a supreme Agent A creature hath no more power to make a Saint of a sinner then hee hath to make of a vile lump of earth a glorious star in heaven The Minor is proved hee is called the holy Ghost because holiness is from him per modum principii inhaerentis assistentis 1 Pet. 12. called the Spirit of holiness Rom. 1. 4. and wee are said to bee regenerated by the holy Ghost Joh. 3. 5. renewed by the holy Ghost Tit. 3. 5. to bee washed and sanctified by the Spirit of our God 1 Cor. 6. 11. As there is but one soul in a man which quicken's all the members of the natural bodie so is there but onely one holy Ghost which animate's all the mystical members of Jesus Christ and as Christ our head was conceived by the holy Ghost so the mystical bodie is conceived by the Spirit of God Every Christian as hee is a Christian hath his conception and new birth by the holy Ghost I might shew this at large in the particular graces which are sanctifying a catalogue of many of them wee read Gal. 5. 22. and it is as true of the rest which are not there recited they are all of them the fruit of the Spirit The Arguments which I have already recited will I hope and conceive give ample satisfaction to the Christian Reader there remaineth another grounded on the Word of God to prove the Deitie of the holy Ghost which I will set down not onely because many eminent Protestants and men of note of the Church of Rome do relie on it but because the Adversarie hath upon som plausible pretences excepted against it I am perswaded that there is scarce a good cause maintained but it is proved by som weak and false mediums It is acknowledged by Mel. Canus and 't is not contradicted by any loc l. 6. c. ult that not onely sacred Synods but the Popes themselves may thus err som of whose proofs may bee so far from beeing necessarie that they are not fit nor probable to conclude infallible cathedral definitions of Faith If then this Argument which is in the rere and hind-most should bee cut off as the faint and feeble Israëlites were by the Amalekites Deut. 25. 18. yet even then were the people of God victorious over their enemies so do not I doubt albeit this Argument should bee unproper I do not say it is but if it could bee demonstrated to bee so but som of the former if not all are unanswerable and like invincible fortresses which cannot bee surprised Thus I frame the Argument Argum. 8 Hee that is a heavenly witness and one in nature with God the Father is God The holy Ghost is so Ergò The Major is evident of it self and not contradicted by the Adversarie the reason why I onely name God the Father and not God the Son is because Mr Bidle will not yeild that the Word is God The Minor is proved by those words of S. John 1 Epist chap. 5. ver 7. There are three that bear witness in heaven the Father the Word and the holy Ghost and these three are one an express place one would think for the distinction of three Persons and the Unitie of nature in the blessed Trinitie I do take for granted that the Person to whom this witness is given is that Jesus is the Son of God the Messiah The heavenly witnesses which give testimonie hereof are three the Father at his Baptism speaking from heaven This is my beloved Son The Son called the Word for three reasons The Son of God who is called the Word either because hee is the Person on whom the promises of God do run God the Father promised him so Beza or because hee reveale's the secret counsel of God touching our salvation as wee by our words do open the meaning of our mindes to others or because in a divine eminent and ineffable manner is expressed to us by a term agreeable to our capacitie that the Son of God so is and was from everlasting from God the Father as our first act and conceit which is our internal and mental Word is and issueth out of our understanding For these or som other reasons it is that the Son of God is called the Word and hee bear's record to himself that hee is the Messiah partly by his works Joh. 4. 26. partly by his Doctrine Joh. 5. 18. Joh. 6. 29. 6. 37 46. partly by bis miracles Joh. 10. 25. The holy Ghost bare record of him at his Baptism when hee in a visible shape asscended from heaven and alighted on him I argue from this text This is hinted from this text because the holy Ghost is joyned with God the Father in giving witness which is all one upon supposition that hee is a creature as to add a drop to the Ocean It is true that the Spirit is joyned with the creatures somtimes in witness bearing But Acts 15. 28. Rom. 8. speaking by his Prophets but those very texts do strengthen our faith touching the Deitie of the holy Ghost For the further confirmation let it bee considered that all the creatures were made by J. Christ and nothing was made without him It is never spoken in the Scripture that the holy Ghost was made by him Colos 1. 16. all things in heaven and in earth visible and invisible were creäted by him and it is there added for illustration that thrones dominations principalities and powers were creäted by him The holy Ghost had hee been a creature and the chief of all the creatures would not have been omitted but by name expressed the holy Ghost principalities powers c. The Reader if hee please may see more proofs of this point in the Answer to the 8th Argument These three do bear witness in heaven the meaning is not as if the place where this record was given is in heaven or to the heavenly Inhabitants but this is a record to men on earth nor is it a testimonie which is given by the Angels hence I draw a second Argument If by the holy Ghost was not meant a divine testimonie or the testimonie of God himself then there are not onely three which bear witness in heaven as the text hold's forth and must bee verified of three but there are many more that witness Jesus is the Messiah Before his birth to Joseph Mat. 1. 20. After his birth to the Shepherds Luke 1. 10. And a multitude of the heavenly host praising
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
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
of your Argument and then will particularly applie it Somtimes the Superior heareth the Inferior thus God is frequently said to hear the praiers of his servants made in faith Somtimes the Inferior hear's the Superior and that is don many waies not onely by his bodily ears but by understanding what formerly was not known or when the judgment is more perfectly informed in a point before not fully known or beleeving what till that voice came was not beleeved or hearkning to the counsell or obeying the will and pleasure of God Somtimes an equall hear's an equall as common experience shew's If wee speak of the first acceptation God's hearing us and answering of us according to the tenor of our praiers then I appeal to your judgment and you must needs give sentence against your self that in this sense your Major is false If you speak of hearing in the second sense I grant your Major is true because so to hear argueth ignorance in whole or in part forgetfulness dulness slackness or plain neglect if not contempt of dutie which wee do all confess are inconsistent with the infinite knowledg and transcendent excellencie of the great God If you take it in the third sense an equal hearing an equal then I denie your Major for God the holy Ghost which heareth from God the Son is equal to him Advers The Minor say you is proved John 16. 13. Answ My answer is by advising that the words of the text may bee well observed the words run not thus Whatsoever the Spirit knoweth hee will speak but whatsoever hee heareth and this is likewise spoken of Christ John 8. 26. and 15. 16. Obj. This is not to bee understood as if the holy Ghost did hear any thing corporally and thus is hearing properly taken and for such a hearing I suppose you will not contend Sol. Nor secondly is it to bee taken of hearing viz. by revelation by which hearing hee should learn that which formerly hee knew not It 's indeed spoken that hee was that hee is and that hee shall bee if it had been onely said hee was one might have conceived that now hee is not If it had been said hee is onely it might have been thought that hee had not been alwaies If it had been onely said hee shall bee it might bee thought hee is not now Time past present and to come are asscribed to God yet not as to men to denote a beginning continuance and end of time for actions are said to have been which now are not and that they shall bee which now have no existence at all but when they are spoken of God there is no limitation of time at all God so hath been that hee is and shall bee hee shall bee yet so that hee is and hath been and this is to bee applied likewise to the hearing of the holy Ghost Hee hath alwaies heard and hee doth hear And in the future time it 's said in this place hee shall hear This hearing saith S. Austin Tractat. 99. in Joan. is everlasting Hee hath known hee doth know and hee will know His hearing is his knowing and his knowing is his beeing hee hath heard from him hee doth hear from him and hee will hear from him from whom hee proceed's so Austin And hee cal's the opening of this text John 16. arduam nimis arduam quaestionem This bee spoken to prevent that scruple in that it is said Hee shall hear Som of ours clear the words thus Whatsoever the holy Ghost shall hear that shall hee speak which import's thus much those things which the Father will have revealed to us those things and no other will hee reveal to us the truths which the Spirit shall reveal to us are truths received from God the Father the Spirit feign's nothing hee alter's nothing hee pervert's nothing The paraphrase of the text in the former Argument will dispell the foggie mists of this reason Advers The Major saith hee is proved thus Hee that is taught is not God Hee that heareth from another what hee shall speak is taught The Major is proved Esa 40. 13 14. Answ 1 To this I answer if you had not been infatuated you would have omitted that text in Esay for it directly overthroweth your assertion and expresly teacheth us that none have taught the Spirit of God But I answer Secondly hee that is taught properly that is learn's what hee formerly knew not is not God I readily assent for God's knowledg is infinite and cannot bee increased But how can you prove that the holy Ghost is taught by comparing say you John 8. 26 28 together Christ is taught by hearing This is but a very weak bul-rush it hath no strength at all in it This must needs bee your consequence in som places of Scripture and not onely so but even in common reason hee that heareth is taught therefore must it needs bee so taken John 16. 13. Is not this a wild inference That Scripture John 8. 26 28. speaketh not of the holy Ghost but expresly of Christ and then it must bee spoken of him either as God or Mediator man If in the former way then the text furthereth not but marreth your Argument if in the later then it is unfitly alledged for albeit a creäted substance by hearing another may properly bee taught yet far bee it from us to conceive that the Creätor the supreme God can learn what hee knew not Advers But saith hee let a man turn himself every way yet shall hee never bee able to make it out to a wise man that any can hear from another what hee will speak who is the prime Author of his speech Answ Well I see M. Bidle is a wise man in his own eies and all Christian men in the world besides himself and a handful of seduced ones are no better then fools but if hee had well perpended that text quoted by himself out of Esa 40. 13 14 15. hee would not have concluded the great God the three sacred Persons which are one Almightie God within the shallow compass of his brains I perceive hee is alwaies wrapped in the briars and cannot possibly extricate himself because hee apprehendeth not the meaning of that common distinction of God the holy Ghost as God for in this respect hee hath infinite knowledg of himself and of God the holy Ghost as hee is the holy Ghost for so doth hee receive knowledg and wisdom from God the Father and God the Son yet I pray let this bee remembred so as hee was never ignorant and life yet so as hee never wanted life and power yet so as hee was never weak because these persons communicating essence to the holy Ghost did communicate life power and knowledg So that the holy Ghost hath knowledg not by learning but by proceeding and all the creatures which hear and are taught they are taught by the holy Ghost And whereas hee illustrate's as hee think's his Assertion by a comparison taken from
and this shape is moved from place to place which clearly overthroweth your Argument Advers Exod. 20. compared with Act. 7. 53. Galat. 3. 19. Hebr. 2. 2. an Angel spoke and yet God is said to speak Ergò the Angel spoke in the Person of God Answ First I answer by concession admit that your exposition touching the speaking of the Law by Angels bee sound by those texts in the New Testament yet there will bee enough remaining in the text to enervate your Argument for did not God com down then was there not a manifestation of Gods glorie and severitie Did not Moses speak with the Lord face to face insomuch that his face did glister and was glorious Did not God himself write the Law in the two Tables and give them to Moses Did not hee see the back parts of God a glimps of his glorie Sith these things cannot bee denied the Argument will remain strong against you albeit the holy Angels were Gods instruments of pronouncing the Law And why should it bee a thing incredible for any man to beleeve that God may visibly manifest his presence either in wrath or mercie for can an Angel appear in a visible form and frame a voice and shall this with any color of reason bee denied to God Almightie Nor is it clearly proved by those cited Scriptures that Angels spoke the words of the Law in the Person of God For first was it ever heard that any Embassador when hee hath audience of a forain Prince deliver's his embassage otherwise then in the third person hee saith not I say so but my Prince saith thus and thus And have not wee an evident testimonie hereof in the holy Prophets which deliver not their message to Gods people in their own names but thus saith the Lord. Yea and the holy Angels themselvs in their visions declare that they are sent Dan. 9. And they likewise by som circumstance or other make it appear that they speak in the Name of the Lord. And S. Paul saith to this purpose pertinently and expresly that when the Law was delivered it was the voice not of a creäted Angel but of Christ that did shake the earth and men on earth Hebr. 12. 26. Besides there is mention made of Angels in the promulgation of the Law the Word was spoken by Angels hee saith not by an Angel how this can bee verified in them sith there were not many speeches not many voices but one distinct audible voice is hard to bee conceived Particularly in the two first places it is not said that the Law was spoken by Angels but ordained by Angels and so it might bee because holy Angels were attendants on the great God and instruments to shake the earth to raise thunder and lightning c. because they were witnesses and approvers of the deliverie thereof in which sense it is said that the Saints shall judg the world not by pronouncing but by approving the sentence of Christ 1 Cor. 6. And for that place in the Hebrews might it not relate to the words of the Law uttered at some other time Or it may bee Gods voice in the deliverie of the Law was uttered and pronounced by the ministerie of Angels and they by an extraordinarie way thundred out the words which God spoke to them to speak to the people as a Scrivener may write and speak the words which are dictated to him by another in the person of that author the principal author as in marriage the persons to bee married speak the very words from the Ministers mouth but I had rather hear the judgment of another then peremptorily in this perplexed case set down mine own opinion ARGUMENT 9. 9 Argum. of M. Bidle Hee that prayeth unto Christ to com to judgment is not God The holy Spirit doth so Ergo. The Major is granted The Minor is evident from Rev. 22. 17. compared with ver 12. Neither let any man think to elude this proof by saying that the Spirit is here said to pray onely because hee maketh the Bride to pray For when the Scripture would signifie the assistance of the holy Spirit in causing men to speak it is wont to affirm either that the holy Spirit speaketh in them as Matth. 10. 20. or that they speak by the holy Spirit as Rom. 8. 15. Wee have received the Spirit of adoption by whom wee crie Abba Father But there it is expresly said that the Spirit and the Bride say Com not the Spirit in the Bride nor the Bride by the Spirit I add what is pertinent to this head out of his 12th Reason Rom. 8. 27. The Spirit maketh intercession for us with groans unutterable and hee make's intercession for the Saints according to the will of God which prove's the holy Ghost to bee inferior to God inasmuch as hee is said to make intercession unto God with groans which is not so to bee understood as if the holy Spirit was here said to help our infirmities onely by suggesting petitions and groans unto us and making us to pray as is commonly but falsly affirmed for the very words of the context sufficiently refute such a gloss since they say that the Spirit himself not wee by the Spirit as wee have it in ver 15. of the same Chapter maketh intercession for us but to help others infirmities by making intercession for them is not to instill petitions into them but to pour out petitions apart in their behalf as is apparent both from the thing it self since none can intercede for himself all intercession requiring the intervening of a third Person and by the collation of ver 34. of the same Chapter and by the 30. verse of the 15. Chapter and by 2 Corinth 1. 11. Hebr. 7. 25. 1 Tim. 2. 1. Col. 4. 12. Ephes 6. 18. Neither let any man think to baffle off this Argument which is written with a beam of the Sun by saying that this is improperly spoken of the holy Spirit for besides that hee hath no other ground to say so but his own pre-conceived opinion touching the Deitie of the holy Spirit hee ought to know that the Scripture though it speak many things after the manner of men yet doth it no where speak any thing that argueth his inferioritie to and dependance on another But this passage of the Apostle plainly intimateth the holy Spirit to bee inferior to God and dependent on him otherwise what need had hee to intercede with God and that with groans unutterable on the behalf of the Saints ANSWER Answ The Major Proposition is undeniably true for religious invocation is an humble obsequiousness and an enjoyned dutie to bee performed to the great God and doth necessarily suppose in him that praie's first inferioritie of the nature of the partie that praie's to the object of invocation Secondly indigencie or want of that good thing which is praied for either in whole or in degree a defectibilitie or possibilitie not to have the good thing praied for
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
great without quantitie God is good and just without qualitie God is merciful without passion God is every where present without place the first and the last without time nor is hee compounded of Nature and Person because the Essence of God is most simple most infinite most immense and the same thing is both the Nature and the Person nor is this overthrown because there are three Persons for they are not three by composition of parts for the Persons are not many things they are but one thing though distinguished by relative properties for the divine relation in God is not properly an accident but a substantial attribute and make's no real composition in God but a distinction of our reason which crosseth not the absolute simplicitie of God no more then the same distinction of reason opposeth the absolute unitie of God because this denomination is extrinsecal arising from our manner of conceiving of it Suarez Thus is hee Deus trinus by co-existencie of Persons but the Catholick Faith teacheth us that in creatures the nature may bee really divided from the person thus the Son of God did assume the nature but not the person of man Advers The holy Spirit say you hath an understanding distinct from that of God because hee heareth from God and is taught of God Answ I denie your Minor if you mean distinct really as you ought to do if you intend thereby to prove your Assertion And your first reason because hee heareth from God and is taught of God is but an idle repetition of the fourth Argument For answer hereto that I may not bee charged with needless tautologies I refer you thither for your satisfaction Advers This say you is deducible from the words of the Apostle none can search his own understanding 1 Corinth 2. 10. Answ 1 If this bee true as you say why are wee then commanded to trie and to prove our own hearts to speak to our hearts to examine our hearts to consider our waies yea to search ourselvs How should wee comfortably know that wee are enriched with saving graces but by a reflexed act of the understanding whereby wee know that wee have them And are not our hearts deceitfull and wicked above all things Is there not great need then that wee should search them Or do you mean hereby that the Spirit hath a distinct understanding from the Father and the Son of God because hee searcheth the deep things of God what doth this else import but an ignorance till that is found which is searched out Not so nor will this help you for God who exactly and perfectly know's all things yet do you cite a text Rom. 8. 27. which sheweth that hee searcheth the heart of the Spirit yea further it is his peculiar honor to search the hearts and reins of men which import's thus much and no more that there is nothing so secret in man but the Lord both can and doth see the same most perfectly For the clearing of the main doubt know assuredly that there is the same understanding of God the Father God the Son and God the holy Ghost nor can wee truly say that the understanding of the Father is superior or equal to the understanding of the holy Ghost for these do alwaies presuppose a comparison betwixt divers which doth not agree to the unitie of the God-head Advertite Fratres for as wee cannot say the power of the Persons is equal nor the goodness of the Persons is equal but the same power the same goodness no more can wee say the understanding of the Father is equal to the understanding of the holy Ghost But thus may wee say the Persons of the Father of the Son and of the holy Ghost are equal in power and equal in goodness so are they likewise equal in understanding and albeit the divine understanding is but one and the same beeing yet is it considered of us in a common way as referred to the essence but singularly in regard of the Persons And hence is it also that such phrases are spoken of the Son of God and they are also truly verified of the holy Ghost that hee is a Principle of a Principle very God of very God light of light a fountain of a fountain when taken not essentially but personally so that the Son is a Principle true God a light and a fountain and so is the holy Ghost yet the Father is considered first in order and the Son from the Father and the holy Ghost from them both I add that this text 1 Corinth 2. 10. is so far from evincing that the holy Ghost is a creature that it strongly prove's his Deitie First because that hee must needs bee God that know's whatsoever the Father know's for how should a smite creature by search attain to the unsearchable depths of God's knowledg As of many other things so were the Angels without sin ignorant of God's counsels Revel 5. 13. and of the time when the day of Judgment shall bee Secondly the Apostle compare 's the Spirit of God to mans spirit and the Spirit of God is in God the Father and God the Son There is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 circumincessio as the Latines speak whereby is signified the unitie of the God-head in the distinct Persons that the Persons are so distinguished betwixt themselvs that they are altogether and most intimately one and the same thing and further hereby is noted a peculiar manner of the original of one Person from another distinguished from that procession of creatures as the Son from the Father which is sejunct from the Father and therefore it is called processio ad extra but here it is otherwise the Son from the Father and the holy Ghost from them both by a procession ad intra because hee doth intimè continue and is not another thing from the Person from whom hee proceed's Singula sunt in singulis omnia in singulis singula in omnibus omnia in omnibus unum omnia Hence may wee conclude that as the spirit of a man and a man are not two men so the Spirit of God and God viz the Father are not two separated substances but one God ARGUMENT 12. 12 Argum. of M. Bidle Hee that hath a will distinct in number from that of God is not God The holy Spirit hath a will distinct in number from that of God Ergò The Major is irrefragable The Minor is asserted thus Hee that willeth conformably to the will of God hath a will distinct in number from that of God The holy Spirit so willeth Ergò The Major is plain for conformitie must bee between two at least else it will not bee conformitie but identitie The Minor is confirmed by Rom. 8. 26 27. Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities for wee know not what to pray for as wee ought but the Spirit himself maketh intercession for us with groans unutterable but hee that searcheth the heart knoweth what is
do place him both according to Scriptures and the Primitive Christians and by name Justin Martyr in his Apologie in the third rank after God and Christ giving him a preheminence above all the rest of the heavenly host ANSWER I do willingly grant that since there is a Trinitie of Persons there must of necessitie bee acknowledged an order amongst them But how Not in regard of time as though the holy Ghost should bee in time after the Father and the Son of God for they are co-eternal nor 2ly in order of nature as if the holy Ghost should bee in nature after God the Father and God the Son for in this sense that is said to bee after another which depend's upon the nature of another which hath no place in this subject because the three Persons have but one undivided nature Neither in the third place is the holy Ghost to speak properly after the Father in dignitie for there is but one Deitie and there is equal glorie equal majestie of the three Persons The order then is in regard of original and principle as it is called the Father as Father is the principle of the Son and the Father and the Son are the principle of the holy Ghost In this regard it is that wee commonly say the Father is the first Person of the Trinitie as being of none The Son is the second Person of the Trinitie from his Father The holy Ghost is the third Person being from eternitie both from the Father and the Son This concession is not answerable to your opinion for if you would speak out of the Son as you do of the holy Ghost you hold as appear's by many of your Arguments both God's Son and the holy Ghost to bee creatures after God in time in nature and in dignitie Whereas you say this in your sense is according to Scriptures the texts which you have alledged I have discussed and made it clear both by my positive Arguments in proof of the point and by my answers to your Scriptures that your tenet is directly against Scriptures But say you this is agreeable to the Fathers this say I is very falsly and impudently spoken I am now upon the defensive part and will not set down a catalogue of their testimonies in their several ages as I might do and those that are not learned may clearly see how falsly you do boast of the Fathers by the Apostolical as it is called the Nicene Constantinopolitane and Athanasian Creeds Advers But yet say you Justin Martyr placeth the holy Ghost in the third rank Answ The blessed Martyr which wrote his Apologies about the year of our Lord 162. placeth the holy Ghost in his second Apologie in the third order not in your sense but in that meaning which is unanimously acknowledged by Orthodoxal Divines and this I prove by Justin Martyr himself who positively assert's in his first Apologie that the Son of God placed by him the second in order was alone properly the Son of God that hee was with his Father before the world was made Now as the Son of God the second in order was truly God so may wee argue by proportion that the holy Ghost who is the third in order is likewise God And this you might have learned by the words which do immediatly follow in Justin for when hee had said Wee have the Prophetical Spirit in the third place hee immediatly subjoin's these words Wee teach that hee is rightly to bee worshipped which honor agree's well to God not to a creature And in the same Apologie afterwards hee would prove the Trinitie of the Persons out of Plato And this of the third Person that it is written by Moses of him that hee moved in the begining of the creation upon the waters And in the same Apologie hee relate's the custom of the Church in his daies both touching Baptism that the person is washed with water not in the names but in the Name of the Father Son and holy Ghost And likewise touching the Eucharist as hee call's it when the Minister had taken bread and wine hee giv's the praise and glorie of all things to the Father Son and holy Ghost And after the receiving the Sacrament and giving relief to the poor the assembly is dismissed and saith hee in all things which wee use wee praise God the Father of all by his Son Jesus Christ through the holy Ghost And in his exposition of the Faith touching the holy Trinitie there is one saith hee truly the God of all and hee is known and understood in the Father Son and holy Ghost and saith they are of one essence and one divinitie and much more to this effect But this is enough Go now and boast of the Fathers in general and of Justin Martyr in particular and blush for shame if there bee any modestie left in you for your intolerable wrong offered to the holy Fathers and for fathering on them that abominable Heresie which they did detest A Post-script to the Readers THis Paper may fall into the hands both of the unknowing and skilfull Readers and is liable to various censures I do fore-see that those which are little versed in these points will complain that I affect obscurities and that they cannot understand my writing I desire them to consider that I do treat about the highest mysteries of Faith and that it is neither fit nor safe for mee to change the terms which are in common use amongst the learned the danger hereof is apparent by this memorable example Gregor Nazianz in an Oration of the praises of great Athanasius shew's the rents betwixt the Eastern and Western Churches occasioned by the use of these terms Hypostasis and Persona the Eastern Churches used the word Hypostasis and utterly disliked the name Person On the other side the Western Churches adhered to the name Person and could not endure the name Hypostasis The Eastern Churches judged the Western Churches to bee Sabellians i e. that they held but one Person called by three names And the Western Churches judged the Eastern to bee Tritheites and Arians maintaining three substances Athanasius apprehended the mistake and that both sides were sound in the faith though they differed in terms and so reconciled them I do intreat these Readers if they meet with difficulties that they would not presently cast the Book out of their hands but to take pains to know the meaning pray read perpend the text the context and parallel places of Scriptures meditate and where your endeavors fail you have recourse to the learned which will if it bee needfull for you to know resolve your doubts and somwhat clear your judgments and to encourage you I dare promise that you shall not repent of your labors but better understand som texts of Scriptures and humane Authors which handle this subject then formerly you have don I do fore-see also that the judicious Reader will accuse mee for frequent repetitions which are little better