through particulars sanctification is Gods alone work None can wash away the filthiness of the minde but hee that made the minde Optat. Mil. l. 5. The Heathen shall know that the Lord doth sanctifie Israël Ezek. 37. 28. And is not this state compared to the raising up of the dead to life and to a new creätion Is not grace of a supernatural order and by it the Saints do regularly move to a supernatural end Every one of these of necessity require's the powerful work of a supreme Agent A creature hath no more power to make a Saint of a sinner then hee hath to make of a vile lump of earth a glorious star in heaven The Minor is proved hee is called the holy Ghost because holiness is from him per modum principii inhaerentis assistentis 1 Pet. 12. called the Spirit of holiness Rom. 1. 4. and wee are said to bee regenerated by the holy Ghost Joh. 3. 5. renewed by the holy Ghost Tit. 3. 5. to bee washed and sanctified by the Spirit of our God 1 Cor. 6. 11. As there is but one soul in a man which quicken's all the members of the natural bodie so is there but onely one holy Ghost which animate's all the mystical members of Jesus Christ and as Christ our head was conceived by the holy Ghost so the mystical bodie is conceived by the Spirit of God Every Christian as hee is a Christian hath his conception and new birth by the holy Ghost I might shew this at large in the particular graces which are sanctifying a catalogue of many of them wee read Gal. 5. 22. and it is as true of the rest which are not there recited they are all of them the fruit of the Spirit The Arguments which I have already recited will I hope and conceive give ample satisfaction to the Christian Reader there remaineth another grounded on the Word of God to prove the Deitie of the holy Ghost which I will set down not onely because many eminent Protestants and men of note of the Church of Rome do relie on it but because the Adversarie hath upon som plausible pretences excepted against it I am perswaded that there is scarce a good cause maintained but it is proved by som weak and false mediums It is acknowledged by Mel. Canus and 't is not contradicted by any loc l. 6. c. ult that not onely sacred Synods but the Popes themselves may thus err som of whose proofs may bee so far from beeing necessarie that they are not fit nor probable to conclude infallible cathedral definitions of Faith If then this Argument which is in the rere and hind-most should bee cut off as the faint and feeble Israëlites were by the Amalekites Deut. 25. 18. yet even then were the people of God victorious over their enemies so do not I doubt albeit this Argument should bee unproper I do not say it is but if it could bee demonstrated to bee so but som of the former if not all are unanswerable and like invincible fortresses which cannot bee surprised Thus I frame the Argument Argum. 8 Hee that is a heavenly witness and one in nature with God the Father is God The holy Ghost is so Ergò The Major is evident of it self and not contradicted by the Adversarie the reason why I onely name God the Father and not God the Son is because Mr Bidle will not yeild that the Word is God The Minor is proved by those words of S. John 1 Epist chap. 5. ver 7. There are three that bear witness in heaven the Father the Word and the holy Ghost and these three are one an express place one would think for the distinction of three Persons and the Unitie of nature in the blessed Trinitie I do take for granted that the Person to whom this witness is given is that Jesus is the Son of God the Messiah The heavenly witnesses which give testimonie hereof are three the Father at his Baptism speaking from heaven This is my beloved Son The Son called the Word for three reasons The Son of God who is called the Word either because hee is the Person on whom the promises of God do run God the Father promised him so Beza or because hee reveale's the secret counsel of God touching our salvation as wee by our words do open the meaning of our mindes to others or because in a divine eminent and ineffable manner is expressed to us by a term agreeable to our capacitie that the Son of God so is and was from everlasting from God the Father as our first act and conceit which is our internal and mental Word is and issueth out of our understanding For these or som other reasons it is that the Son of God is called the Word and hee bear's record to himself that hee is the Messiah partly by his works Joh. 4. 26. partly by his Doctrine Joh. 5. 18. Joh. 6. 29. 6. 37 46. partly by bis miracles Joh. 10. 25. The holy Ghost bare record of him at his Baptism when hee in a visible shape asscended from heaven and alighted on him I argue from this text This is hinted from this text because the holy Ghost is joyned with God the Father in giving witness which is all one upon supposition that hee is a creature as to add a drop to the Ocean It is true that the Spirit is joyned with the creatures somtimes in witness bearing But Acts 15. 28. Rom. 8. speaking by his Prophets but those very texts do strengthen our faith touching the Deitie of the holy Ghost For the further confirmation let it bee considered that all the creatures were made by J. Christ and nothing was made without him It is never spoken in the Scripture that the holy Ghost was made by him Colos 1. 16. all things in heaven and in earth visible and invisible were creäted by him and it is there added for illustration that thrones dominations principalities and powers were creäted by him The holy Ghost had hee been a creature and the chief of all the creatures would not have been omitted but by name expressed the holy Ghost principalities powers c. The Reader if hee please may see more proofs of this point in the Answer to the 8th Argument These three do bear witness in heaven the meaning is not as if the place where this record was given is in heaven or to the heavenly Inhabitants but this is a record to men on earth nor is it a testimonie which is given by the Angels hence I draw a second Argument If by the holy Ghost was not meant a divine testimonie or the testimonie of God himself then there are not onely three which bear witness in heaven as the text hold's forth and must bee verified of three but there are many more that witness Jesus is the Messiah Before his birth to Joseph Mat. 1. 20. After his birth to the Shepherds Luke 1. 10. And a multitude of the heavenly host praising
God for this Messiah Glorie bee to God on high ver 13. At his resurrection to those that guarded the Sepulchre Matth. 28. 3 4. and to holy women ver 5. At his Asscension to the Disciples Acts 1. 10 11. and many the like These three saith the text are one these words afford another Argument To say nothing that if they had not intended unitie in nature but consent in witness bearing there was no necessitie of them and the former words would have carried that sense There are three that bear witness the Father the Son and the holy Ghost that Jesus is the Son of God In this record they all agree but because additions in Scripture are many times for explication or other purposes I add another ground The holy Ghost varying his language in this and the next verse saying in this verse that these are one and not as in the next verse that they do agree in one doth not this lead us by perpending the different language to a different interpretation of the words And to a more intimate an essential unitie in the former which as the phrase and common reason impart cannot agree to the later Advers To this the Adversarie take's a double exception First out of Beza that the Complutensian Bible prefixeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to both verses and the sense is the same in sense as appear's Matth. 19. 5 6. and ought to bee rendred alike in both verses Answ 1 To the first I answer Why should not wee rather think there might bee an addition in one Bible then an omission of any word which com's from God in all the rest that which is superfluous and not agreeable to the minde of God fully in the one must bee razed out by the concurrent testimonie of other Copies Answ 2 To the second I answer That you pour out Oracles and say the later is after the Hebrew idiome the former according to the ordinary phrase and tell us very magisterially both ought to bee rendred alike and yet you do not acquaint us how they ought to bee rendred and for your parallel place in Matth. 19. 5 6. to that I answer four things First albeit our English phrase is one in both yet the exact Translations in Latine are not the same in both places they religiously do in their Translations follow the Original in unam carnem or two shall bee in unâ carne Nor secondly is it so unanimously agreed on that the sense is one and the same in both places for the fifth verse may note out their state and condition before Marriage and the sixth verse after Matrimonie then are they one flesh and so this later will bee a consequent of the former Thirdly there is not the like reason betwixt these two texts for I need not say Ask the Scriptures ask the Learned but ask a very childe and hee will tell you that man and wife are two distinct and separated persons which may bee at a great distance in regard of place and likewise in regard of affection and none are so simple to think when man and wife are one flesh that they are one numerical and individual flesh But now ask the Scriptures and ask the Learned men and they will tell you that these three are one in nature and one in essence Lastly there is not a paritie because in Matthew there are the same subject persons meant in both verses but it is not so in John 7. 8. and therefore albeit in sense the verses there did intend one thing and no danger of translating both alike yet here in regard of this difference the case is altered thus then as you see besides the letter of the text there are many Arguments deduced from it which is not ordinary in other Scriptures to prove controverted points which do evidence this blessed truth The holy Spirit is God Advers It would have been hard if not impossible if men had not been pre-corrupted that it should ever com into any one's head to imagine that this phrase three are one did signifie have one essence for it is contrarie to common sense and to other places of Scripture wherein this kinde of speech perpetually signifie's an union in consent and agreement six times thus John 17. but never an union in essence Answ 1 To the first I answer That if I took any pleasure in invectives which I conceive never did any good you have ministred an opportune occasion for the dipping of my pen in gall but here and throughout my Book I have satisfied your desire I do forbear railings and reproachful terms and I onely say Christian Reader behold the Spirit of the man Answ 2 To the second whereas you say that our exposition is against common sense I say you write as if you were in a dream Cannot two bee one in essence That neer and intimate oneness that is betwixt the husband and the wife that neerness in consent doth necessarily presuppose the unitie of nature the same specifical though not the same individual nature and that oneness betwixt Christ and Christians The head and the members doth likewise necessarily presuppose the unitie of nature betwixt them both Heb. 2. 14. wee have flesh and blood and so hath Christ likewise took part of the same and hee took on him the seed of Abraham and well is it said in the Confession of Faith in the Synod of Chalcedon Christ is coëssential to his Father according to his Divinitie and hee is coëssential to us according to his Humanitie Is not water in the fountain in the river and that which is conveighed by pipes to houses one in essence Is not the light in the heavens in the air and in our houses one and the same beeing Answ 3 To the third I grant that unitie in consent is meant in part but this unitie of consent is in regard of the unitie of the divine operation and the unitie of divine operation argue's the unitie of the divine Essence I grant many things are said to bee one secundùm quid for as many consentanie Arguments as there bee of the first kinde and as many as there bee of the second kinde which do arise of the first orta Argumenta so many fountains there bee of unitie identitie and oneness There are som that are one as touching their understanding will work 's naturally one as all men are partakers of humane nature morally one as loving friends corporally one as husband and wife and spiritually one as Christ and Christians are No question of any of these but will it follow from hence that there is no other kinde of unitie an unitie simply more neer then any of the former You tell us to bee one is never taken to denote a union in essence Not to repeat what I have formerly written I say this is boldly spoken and contradicted by our blessed Savior John 10. 29. I and the Father saith hee are one how one In the former verses hee require's
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
humane nature of Christ as properly and originally wrought by it The Deitie shined with miracles and the Humanitie was exposed to injuries The Minor is proved by the words of our Savior Luke 11. 20. Christ cast's out devils by the finger of God Hee hath reference as is probable to Exod. 8. 19. The Magicians of Pharaoh acknowledged that the miracle of â—ice was wrought by the finger of God the holding up of the singer argue's power and authoritie and is a kinde of threatning to desist from evil and this text is expounded in S. Matth. 12. 28. Christ cast's out devils by the Spirit of God and yet more plainly if any thing can bee more plain there is no servant of God which God hath graced with this honor to bee an instrument of working miracles But it is the blessed Spirit that give 's this gift unto them 1 Cor. 12. 10. 4 Hee that inspired the holy Prophets and Apostles and infallibly guided the Penners of the holy Scripture is God The holy Ghost hath don both these Ergò hee is God The Major is clear by Scripture Luke 1. 70. God spake by the mouth not of som but of all the Prophets since the world began and the whole Scripture and every clause of Scripture is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 given by divine inspiration hence is it that the Scripture 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is called the Word of God and to bee esteemed of us as if it had been written with Gods own hand as the Decalogue was it is chirographum Dei as Austin elegantly a writing under God's own hand The Minor is proved by evident Scripture Prophesies of old time saith S. Peter came not by the will of man but the Prophets spoke as they were moved both for the matter and the words by the holy Ghost 2 Pet. 1. 21. The Spirit which began by inspiration sat still moving on those soul-refreshing waters sweetly and wisely assisting his Pen-men according to their several stiles till there was a perfect production till the Canon of the Scripture was completed And this is further proved in that what God is said to speak in the old Testament to David to Esay c. that in the new which is a commentary of much in the old is asscribed to the holy Ghost Heb. 3. 7. Act. 28. 25. and in many other places Well said the holy Ghost by Esaias to your Fathers Ergò I conclude the holy Ghost is God Hee that rule 's and govern's the Church by his absolute power is God The holy Ghost doth so Ergo. The Major is plain and cannot with any color of reason bee denied for the Church is the Church of God Acts 20. 28. his own enclosure from the commons of the world and one inferior to God cannot by his absolute power govern it it is God's own propertie and peculiar not to bee claimed by any creature to command by his own authority over the whole Church The Minor is evidently proved by Scripture the holy Ghost instruct's Peter remove's his scruples and laie's a charge upon him Arise get thee down and go to Cornelius with the Messengers doubting nothing for I have sent them Act. 10. 20. Is this a language beseeming a creature Will a creature speak thus with authority a holy creature Acts 13. 2. Separate to or for mee Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them Hath any creature a good creature the boldness thus imperiously to command in God's house Certainly this is the voice of God and not of an Angel Consonant hereto is that profession of the holy Assemblie at Jerusalem Acts 15. 28. It seemed good to the holy Ghost and to Vs that is to us inspired by the holy Ghost Had this happy societie of Saints consulting for the rest and peace of the Church and by the blessing of the Lord making a happy conclusion most sutable to the state and condition of those times forgotten to acknowledg God the Author and resolve finally this great work into a creature's inspiration Lastly to name no more Acts 20. 28. Take heed to your selves and to all the flock over which the holy Ghost hath made you overseers Words very emphatical belonging to the great God but too high to bee attributed to any creature Argum. 6 Hee that doth what hee will and disposeth his gifts as hee himself pleaseth is God The holy Ghost doth so Ergò The Major is plain our God is in the heavens and hee hath don whatsoever hee pleaseth Psal 115. 3. It 's blasphemie to conceive that God should bee like som Kings of Egypt which seem's to bee intimated by that speech of Pharaoh to Joseph and is asserted of these Caliphs in later times that they committed the whole Government of their Kingdom to their Vice-roys according to whose word and commandment all the people were ruled Gen. 41. 40. And they in the mean time enjoy themselvs and meddle not with the administration of the Kingdom Let Christians abhor such cogitations and firmly beleeve that there is nothing at all don by the creature but the Lord is the first efficient cause thereof and produceth it immediatly immediatione suppositi for hee is every where and immediatione virtutis suae infinitae Greg. de Val. tom 1. d. 8. q. 1. p. 2. And our Bradwardine laie's down these three Conclusions and prove's them First no creature at all can work without God Secondly no creature can make any thing at all unless God by himself and immediatly doth make the same thing Thirdly yea more immediatly then doth any working creature de causa Dei lib. 1. cap. 3. I may further confirm this Proposition by your own Arguments God give 's all things to all Argum. 5. And it is God that hath the power and disposition of all things Argum. 7. The Minor is confirmed Hebr. 2. 4. where the Apostle teacheth that several gifts 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 distributions and parting of his gifts severally to men are according to his pleasure And 1 Cor. 12. 11. hee divide's not to som only but to every man as hee pleaseth all gifts not onely the greatest most admirable gifts but those also of the middle sort yea and the meanest are the gifts of the Spirit hee worketh all in all Heathens sottishly asscribed several gifts to several gods som to Jupiter som to Apollo Mercurie som to Juno Diana but wee have been better taught then so to asscribe all to God the holy Ghost who give 's all to all Whereby this Author is confuted who affirmeth in answer to Mat. 12. 31. the acts of the Spirit his ministrie is not used but in things of the greatest importance Seventhly I add another Argument as a choice specialtie under the general concluded in the former Argument Hee that is the Author of saving Graces is God The holie Ghost is the Author of saving Graces Ergò The Major is proved because conversion and regeneration not to spend time in runing
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