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
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
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
expressions yet all agree in the main point against you that the holy Ghost was with all them to whom hee is given before hee was a gift to them as touching his natural and powerful presence and thus hee is also with the very devils reprobates the elect uncalled and all other creatures which are uncapable of this gift of holiness and of happiness Yet the holy Ghost when hee is given hee is with the Saints in a new way in such a manner as hee was not present before in this regard it is that the Saints are called the Temples of the holy Ghost and a Temple is Gods peculiar hee dwell's in the Saints and is graciously present with them they have him present by faith and other graces when hee is known and beloved of man And this is not onely understood of the gifts of God but of God himself whom wee know by faith and love by charitie Nor is it any marvel that God should bee present without any change on his part for the bodily Sun as wee know without any mutation in the Sun at all is present to him that will open his eies to look upon it This is then your palpable fallacie à dicto secundùm quid ad dictum simpliciter The holy Ghost was not graciously present with the elect before their calling Ergò hee is not God or was not essentially present with them before I abhor the consequence ARGUMENT 8. 8 Argum. of M. Bidle Hee that changeth place is not God The holy Spirit changeth place Ergò The Major is plain for if God should change place hee would cease to bee where hee was before and begin to bee where hee was not before which everteth his Omnipresence and consequently by the confession of the adversaries themselves his Deitie The Minor is ocularly apparant if following the * advice of the adversaries you will but go to Jordan for there Abi Ariane ad Jordanem Trinitatem videbis you shall have the holy Spirit in a bodily shape descending from heaven which is the terminus à quo alighting upon Christ which is the terminus ad quem Luke 3. 21 22. Neither let any man alledg that as much is spoken of God Exod. 3. and chap. 20. and Gen. 18. For if you compare Acts 7. 30 35 38 53. Gal. 3. 19. Heb. 2. 2 3. and chap. 13. 2. with the fore-said places you shall finde that it was not God himself that came down but onely an Angel sustaining the Person and Name of God which hath no place in the history touching the descent of the holy Spirit ANSWER Answ I except not against your Major nor against the explication and confirmation of it that God is every-where is religiously and unanimously acknowledged because the essence of God is most simple and infinite absolutely and so is the vertue of working infinite also and if it was not every-where it would be limited It 's a memorable expression used by Hermes Trismegistus a Heathen hee compare 's God to a perfect Sphere whose centre is every-where and circumference no where As the soul is in the bodie wholly in the whole bodie and wholly in every part of the bodie albeit it 's said to bee chiefly in the heart or brain because in and by those parts it perform's the most excellent operations so is our great God wholly in heaven wholly on the earth wholly every-where in a divine and spiritual manner not included in any place nor excluded out of it although hee is frequently said to bee in heaven because there most conspicuously hee manifest's his glorie and his goodness to the holy Angels and blessed Saints I denie your Minor for although the holy Ghost is said to descend from heaven yet was hee in heaven then and every-where else And there are divers circumstances in the text to convince what you from thence would denie that hee is God who descended and that the holy Ghost was not personally contained within the compass of a Dove real or in representation because hee did not assume into the unitie of his Person this Dove and if hee had don so yet would not hee have been definitively or circumscriptively therein nor can hee bee said to descend on Christ in regard of sanctification because Christ even from the instant of his incarnation was full of grace Nor was there any addition of holiness to Christ by the descent of a Dove upon him but hee represented himself in the shape of a Dove as in his sign and 't is not obscurely made out by the text that hee is God for what was the scope of the Evangelist why doth hee relate this storie was it not to manifest that Jesus Christ both by the voice of his Father and this descent of a Dove was publickly authorised to exercise his prophetical sacerdotal and regal offices to redeem the elect and to reconcile them to God The circumstance of the time may leade us to such a consideration hee is first inaugurated to this office and then hee begin's to put it in execution and so wee see that the Father by his voice and the holy Ghost by his visible descent upon him did call him to this great work None can send any Prophet but God alone much less is it in the power of any creature to send Jesus Christ to redeem the world Deut. 18. 15. See Luke 4. 18. Esa 61. 1. Moreover it is never spoken of any Angel or pure creature that the heaven was rent and opened as it is said hereof Mar. 1. 10. this was a symbol of the singular presence of God whereby wee may learn that this Spirit was God's Spirit yea God himself Add that it is somthing that this Spirit whereof you do speak descended on Jesus and remained on him John 1. 33. but where do wee reade that creäted spirits descended on and abode on him It is their office wee know to minister as servants unto him and to worship him Hebr. 1. 6. Lastly the same Spirit that descended on Jesus did also lead him into the wilderness to bee tempted of the Divel Matth. 4. 1. Is it in the power of any creature to lead Jesus Christ up and down especially into solitarie deserts and to this end to bee tempted by the Divel Well if this circumstance fail yet by other circumstances in the text it 's clear enough that S. Austin with good reason did say Go thou Arian to Jordane and there thou shalt see the Trinitie I add if there bee any sense of the Deitie in you consider I pray of your shall I call it extreme blindness or rather abominable impietie which you discover by this your Argument Why so the Prophet David saith that hee could not go any where from the presence of God's Spirit Psal 139. But if you say true suppose wee that you could have taken the wings of the morning and remove as the light of the Sun doth as it were transfuse it self from East to West
that a person is distinguished from a Person that the Spirit of God which is a Person and sent of God must needs be a person distinct from God that sent him If you will say you speak in the Person of your Adversaries I denie that any learned man ever expressed himself in that manner if you can name any let him bear his own blame The distinction of God taken essentially and personally differ's much from that which is betwixt the essence and person of God as in due place I will prove Yet because my intention aime's at the benefits of the Readers I will follow you in these your erring steps to treat of the difference betwixt the Essence of God and the Person of God There is a reall distinction and there is a distinction in regard of our rational conception The former is denied the later is asserted touching the nature of God and the Person of the holy Ghost for albeit in creäted things nature is one thing and a person is another thing for a man is not the humane nature Thomas is not the nature of Thomas yet in God by reason of the absolute simplicitie of his nature the divine nature and the Person are the same thing Thom. 1. Sum. q. 3. art 3. yet is there a distinction of reason as they speak for there is one respect of the nature and another of the person for the nature as it is the divine nature is communicated to the person and subsist's in it but the person is the very suppositum in which the nature subsist's and which in this particular consideration is incommunicable as the definition of a person evinceth in which regard it is that neither doth the distinction of the Persons multiply the natures in God nor doth the unitie of the nature confound the Persons I return now to the distinction God is taken either essentially or personally which I shall justifie against his clamors and pretensions for if you demand Hath hee no reasons to write tartly against it No sound ones I am sure but such as they are I will now examine Advers This dlstinction saith hee to omit the mention of Primitive Fathers Sol. And I commend your art for this preterition for no ancient Fathers can truly bee named to favor your Herefie the Fathers you omit are known branded Hereticks These you may name with shame enough but others I am sure you have none to speak for you Advers But yet what ever become's of Fathers it 's unheard of say you in the Scriptures and so it 's presumption to affirm any thing of God which hee hath not first affirmed of himself Answ 1 First my just answer is You are an Opponent now and your bare saying is of no validitie Doubtless if your words may bee taken for oracles you will carrie the cause What is your Nay to a world of Christians that do affirm it It 's as a feather laid in the ballance and weighed against a talent of gold Prove what you say or look for no credit to be given to your words Answ 2 Secondly this distinction is heard of in the Scriptures by necessarie inferences and sound consequences it 's grounded on the word of God as I shall in the sequele demonstrate And I have made good in the positive part by those many arguments which I have alledged to prove the Deitie of the holy Ghost and what is justly so inferred out of the word of God is proved by the word of God Advers Reas 1 This distinction you say is disclaimed by reason First because it is impossible for any man if hee will not delude himself with emptie terms to distinguish the essence from the person and not frame two beeings in his minde and consequently two Gods First I observe a palpable and gross error in Divinitie couched in this reason that a man must beleeve nothing touching God but what hee is able to conceive with his minde God's unconceivable truths by way of comprehension in the creature shall bee no truths to Master Bidle when they transcend the sphere of his capacitie whereas it is the honor of our faith to beleeve Gods word when it discover's truths not onely above our apprehensions but contrarie to our corrupted reason Our reason as now it is may bee a good servant but it is an ill master in points of faith Well I see the Deitie of the holy Ghost is impugned by this way not because it is not clearly revealed in Scriptures but because hee think's it a matter impossible and so upon the point hee denie's the omnipotencie and infinite nature of God Secondly if Mr Bidle cannot conceive hereof who besides his natural ignorance is further blinded by the Devil the god of this world for beeing a professed enemie to the blessed Spirit of light I do not marvel but that hee should take upon him to measure all the refined and sublimated apprehensions of the eminent servants of God by his own dull and erroneous conceptions is miserable follie This hath been plentifully don by them insomuch that at the least the foot-steps of the Trinitie are seen in many of the creatures is the common opinion of Divines Lombard lib. 1. dist 3. And those School-men that write on him their Master and hereto accord our learned Doctors who ever at large have handled that common place and most amply that much to bee admired and honored Mornaeus lib. de veritate Christ Relig. cap. 5 6. I will not instance now in any particular examples they are not I grant convincing demonstrations but liable to the exceptions of a captious Adversarie yet the ground-work beeing firmly laid in the word of truth and truly apprehended by faith they are subordinate helps to yield som glimpse and sparks of light to the point in hand and though I do forbear real instances in this place yet I will alledg an imaginarie fiction which hath strength to prove a real truth and it is such a fiction which is recited and approved by som of the Learned of both professions Suppose a father beget's a son and communicate's to him the same soul and bodie which hee hath still himself and both of these should communicate the same soul and bodie to a third here would bee three distinct persons yet the same essence in them all But you will say this is impossible for there must needs bee three souls and three bodies in three persons But now you deny that which I suppose I say if a father could so communicate the same essence to his son and retain it still to himself then would there bee but one nature in them all really I grant this is never don because in finite substances the essence must needs bee finite But if wee speak of God because hee is immaterial infinite and not capable of essential division this is truly don it 's a received Maxim in Logick Ficta similitudo probat fidémque facit fained similitudes prove Advers Reason 2 Secondly
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