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
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
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
in the turning of a hand the Spirit of the Lord would bee no where with you in these inferior parts of the world and if you could have ascended into heaven have had a glorified soul have been able to view all those heavenly mansions when the holy Ghost descended down from heaven you could not if you say true have found him there Besides by this your reasoning there could not then have been one Saint on earth in whom the holy Spirit did dwell who was enlightned purified comforted strengthned and guided by the holy Ghost for if notwithstanding the descending of the holy Ghost in this likeness this admirable action was no hinderance why the holy Ghost should not bee in every Saint what reason can bee alledged why albeit hee thus descended from heaven hee should not bee still essentially in heaven Surely the divinitie which you would teach us is odious divinitie and if you literally press the very words against the ubiquitie of the holy Ghost might not an Atheist as strongly argue and with as good reason as you do that God is not on earth hee is confined within the circles of the heaven Why because the Father spoke from heaven This is my welbeloved Son But what shift can you make to elude the words of the Psalmist and bee true and constant to your own Argument God bowed the heavens and came down Psal 18. 9. Here is in your own language terminus à quo hee came from heaven and terminus ad quem hee came to the preservation of his children and the destruction of his enemies And if I sinfully would dally with Scripture I might press you sore with the next verse Hee rode upon a Cherub and did flie yea hee did flie upon the wings of the winde And doth the supreme Majestie remove from place to place Yea and the Lord himself said Bring the Officers to the Tabernacle of the Congregation and I will com down and talk with them there Numb 11. 16 17. What should I speak of that gracious promise of Christ If any man keep my words I and the Father will com unto him and abide with him John 14. 23. What mean's the Lord 's leaving of his children for a time and that threatning I will go to my place Hos 5. 15. These and many like expressions to these in Gods word might bee as strong to conclude as yours that the supreme Majestie changeth place which is transcendently absurd Nor do wee want in Scripture visible demonstrations of the like presence of God to this of the Dove Was not the pillar of fire to conduct the Israëlites in the wilderness which moved ocularly from place to place visible sign of the Lords presence what else was the meaning of the Lord 's threatning in his wrath that hee would give over the people to Moses and to the conduct of an Angel contradistinct from God himself that hee would withdraw the sign of his presence from them Exod. 32. 34. as after hee did Exod. 33. And what now doth the great God go from place to place And was it not the Lord that passed by and was not in the great winde nor in the earth-quake nor in the fire but in the soft voice that spoke to Elias the Prophet 1 Kin. 19. 15. Much more in this kinde might bee alledged but this is enough to shew the weakness and impietie of this Adversarie who denieth the Deitie of the holy Ghost by no better argument then what would prove the supreme Majestie by himself so acknowledged to bee no true God at all Advers Nor will that evasion serve your turn to say that when wee reade of Gods appearing it 's meant of an Angel as appeare's by comparing texts in the Old Testament which speak of God to bee meant of Angels Exod 3. with Acts 7. 30. Answ I answer first that hereby you have weakned your own Argument Do not you see that if you are right in this answer that by analogie wee also might retort your Argument against yourself in this manner that albeit the holy Ghost is said to descend in the shape of a Dove yet it was but a created Angel which represented his Person and appeared in the name of the holy Ghost Secondly if it were yielded to you that an Angel as God's messenger somtimes spoke in the name of God must it needs therefore bee so in all places of the Scriptures And if not in all your Argument is gone Thirdly nor will this follow it was an Angel that spoke to Moses out of the Bush Ergò it was not Jehovah the Lord. This consequence is as weak as water it was an Angel indeed but an uncreated Angel the Angel of the Covenant so called Mal 3. 1. that Angel which wrastled with Jacob and was invocated by Jacob Hos 12. 3 4. And are creatures in your divinitie the object of religious invocation That Angel which redeemed Jacob out of all evill and blessed him Gen. 48. 16. who can do so but God alone And why else should Moses mention the good will of him that dwelt in the Bush Deut. 33. 16. And what was the meaning of that in S. Paul the stiff-necked Israëlites tempted Christ in the wilderness 1 Corinth 10. And the expressions there used do sitly agree to the Angel of the Covenant but not to a created Angel I am the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob. And hee sent Moses to deliver the Israëlites out of Egypt I have seen I have seen the affliction of my people And hee call's himself by the proper name of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I will hee that I will bee It 's a name full of mysteries and note 's the eternal and immutable essence of God and that in time as great Clerks have from thence collected This eternal and immutable God would becom man and if there bee any strength in the testimonie of the ancient Fathers Justin. Apol. 2. ad Antonin Irenae adv Haeres l. 4. c. 11. Tertul. adver Praxeam they will give their suffrages for us To name no more Advers The three men Gen. 18. were three Angels which appeared to Abraham and hee entertained Angels Hebr. 13. 2. Answ Who would imagin if hee did not see it that any man would raise such a high structure upon so weak a foundation Two of them were created Angels the text saith so but it doth not say that all three were creatures they all appeared like men and so Abraham at first sight took them to bee but one of them was the Angel of the Covenant Jehovah for so hee is called Gen. 18. 13. God reveale's to Abraham what hee will do to Sodom Ver. 18. and Abraham acknowledged him to bee the Lord and Judg of all the earth which is not the office as you will grant of a created Angel but of the Son of God and that it was in his power to save and destroy Sodom Here then the Lord appeare's in the shape of a man
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
unus Deus Trinitas quaecunque dixi in hoc libro de tuo agnoscant tui si quae de meo tu agnosce tui Amen ARGUMENT 1. 1 Argum. of M. Bidle HEe that is distinguished from God is not God The holy Spirit is distinguished from God Ergò The Major is evident for if hee should both bee God and bee distinguished from God hee would bee distinguished from himself which implieth a contradiction The Minor is confirmed by the whole current of the Scripture which calleth him the Spirit of God and saith that hee is sent by God and searcheth the depths of God c. Neither let any man here think to flie to that ignorant refuge of making a distinction between the Essence and Person of God saying that the holy Spirit is distinguished from God taken Personally not Essentially For this wretched distinction to omit the mention of the Primitive Fathers is not onely unheard of in the Scripture and so to bee rejected it being presumption to affirm any thing of the unsearchable nature of God which hee hath not first affirmed of himself in the Scripture but is also disclaimed by Reason For first it is impossible for any man if hee would but endeavor to conceive the thing and not delude both himself and others with emptie terms and words without understanding to distinguish the Person from the Essence of God and not to frame two beeings or things in his minde and consequently two Gods Secondly If the Person be distinct from the Essence of God then it is either somthing or nothing if nothing how can it bee distinguished since nothing hath no accidents If somthing then either some finite or infinite thing if finite then there will be somthing finite in God and consequently since by the confession of the Adversaries themselvs every thing in God is God himself God will bee finite which the Adversaries themselves will likewise confess to bee absurd If infinite then there will bee two infinites in God to wit the Person and Essence of God and consequently two Gods which is more absurd then the former Thirdly to talk of God taken onely Essentially is ridiculous not onely because there is no example thereof in Scripture but because God is the name of a Person and signifieth him that ruleth over others and when it is put for the most high God it denoteth him who with soveraign and absolute authoritie ruleth over all but none but a person can rule over others all actions being proper to persons wherefore to take God otherwise then Personally is to take him otherwise then hee is and indeed to mistake him ANSWER Answ Major Hee that is distinguished from God say you is not God To this Proposition I answer by clearing the meaning of it thus Hee that is that person which is distinguished that is really separated from and substantially divided from God is not God In this sense this Major is undoubtedly true Let no man look upon the Proposition thus limited as a forced evasion to elude the Argument for it hold's forth fully the minde of the Adversarie His opinion is the holy Ghost and God do differ as much as a finite creature differ's from the infinite Creätor Minor Your Minor run's thus The holy Spirit is distinguished from God for hee is the Spirit of God To this I answer both by denial and concession First by denial if the term distinguished be taken in the assumption as it is intended and explicated in the Proposition for the Spirit of God is not so distinguished from God as a creature is distinguished from the Creätor Secondly I assent to the Minor if it bee taken in an Orthodoxal sense for albeit the blessed Spirit is not so distinguished as to bee separated from God yet is hee distinguished from God taken personally as of necessitie it must be taken in this place as appear's by the proofs of the Minor for the third person of the Trinitie is neither the first nor the second person Further let us take a distinct view of the Syllogism and I avouch it is either a false Syllogism or it prove's nothing First it is a false Syllogism and consist's of four terms if the term God be taken in a different sense as essentially in the Proposition and Conclusion and personally in the Assumption it is a fault parallel to this reasoning Shee that is distinguished from man is not man A woman is distinguished from man Ergò a woman is not a man The word Man is a comprehensive word and in the learned languages and in common use in Scripture and amongst Philosophers is all one with animal rationale a reasonable creature Take man thus in the Major and take man in another sense in the Minor as a term to distinguish the sex and so the Syllogism consist's of four terms Secondly I answer if the term God be taken as it ought to bee in all the axioms in one sense then the Syllogism conclude's nothing for the Adversarie for this must bee the meaning of it Hee that is distinguished from God viz. from God the Father or God the Son is not God viz. not God the Father or God the Son The holy Ghost is distinguished from God viz. from God the Father and God the Son Ergò Hee is not God the Father or God the Son This Syllogism thus explicated is readily assented to by the unanimous consent of the Churches There is a fallacious homonymie of the word God which hee make's frequent use of to abuse his Reader which like corrupt blood run's thorow the veins of all his Arguments If hee knoweth not the meaning of it his ignorance is to bee pitied if hee know's it and yet presume's to seduce the unwarie his impietie is to bee detested Hee well fore-saw the usual distinction of God taken somtimes essentially and somtimes personally in the word of God would cut the sinews and strength of his reasons and therfore this as a great block must bee removed out of the way This hee cal's an ignorant refuge and a wretched distinction Behold brethren the modestie of the man whereby hee discover's the bitterness and arrogancie of his spirit a weak and wilful man who never took degree in Divinitie nor ever was a Professor of that highest and best learning magisterially condemneth millions of professed eminent Divines in this and former ages for flying to an ignorant refuge and for denying the truth by the help of a wretched distinction But what I pray is this ignorant distinction It is for making a distinction betwixt the Essence and Person of God I intreat the Reader to take notice of the palpable darkness which hee discover's even in the same place where hee accuseth his betters of ignorance of making a distinction betwixt the Essence and the Person of God But my friend was it your task to prove this Do but review the parts of your Syllogism and you shall finde that they drive on this design
that a person is distinguished from a Person that the Spirit of God which is a Person and sent of God must needs be a person distinct from God that sent him If you will say you speak in the Person of your Adversaries I denie that any learned man ever expressed himself in that manner if you can name any let him bear his own blame The distinction of God taken essentially and personally differ's much from that which is betwixt the essence and person of God as in due place I will prove Yet because my intention aime's at the benefits of the Readers I will follow you in these your erring steps to treat of the difference betwixt the Essence of God and the Person of God There is a reall distinction and there is a distinction in regard of our rational conception The former is denied the later is asserted touching the nature of God and the Person of the holy Ghost for albeit in creäted things nature is one thing and a person is another thing for a man is not the humane nature Thomas is not the nature of Thomas yet in God by reason of the absolute simplicitie of his nature the divine nature and the Person are the same thing Thom. 1. Sum. q. 3. art 3. yet is there a distinction of reason as they speak for there is one respect of the nature and another of the person for the nature as it is the divine nature is communicated to the person and subsist's in it but the person is the very suppositum in which the nature subsist's and which in this particular consideration is incommunicable as the definition of a person evinceth in which regard it is that neither doth the distinction of the Persons multiply the natures in God nor doth the unitie of the nature confound the Persons I return now to the distinction God is taken either essentially or personally which I shall justifie against his clamors and pretensions for if you demand Hath hee no reasons to write tartly against it No sound ones I am sure but such as they are I will now examine Advers This dlstinction saith hee to omit the mention of Primitive Fathers Sol. And I commend your art for this preterition for no ancient Fathers can truly bee named to favor your Herefie the Fathers you omit are known branded Hereticks These you may name with shame enough but others I am sure you have none to speak for you Advers But yet what ever become's of Fathers it 's unheard of say you in the Scriptures and so it 's presumption to affirm any thing of God which hee hath not first affirmed of himself Answ 1 First my just answer is You are an Opponent now and your bare saying is of no validitie Doubtless if your words may bee taken for oracles you will carrie the cause What is your Nay to a world of Christians that do affirm it It 's as a feather laid in the ballance and weighed against a talent of gold Prove what you say or look for no credit to be given to your words Answ 2 Secondly this distinction is heard of in the Scriptures by necessarie inferences and sound consequences it 's grounded on the word of God as I shall in the sequele demonstrate And I have made good in the positive part by those many arguments which I have alledged to prove the Deitie of the holy Ghost and what is justly so inferred out of the word of God is proved by the word of God Advers Reas 1 This distinction you say is disclaimed by reason First because it is impossible for any man if hee will not delude himself with emptie terms to distinguish the essence from the person and not frame two beeings in his minde and consequently two Gods First I observe a palpable and gross error in Divinitie couched in this reason that a man must beleeve nothing touching God but what hee is able to conceive with his minde God's unconceivable truths by way of comprehension in the creature shall bee no truths to Master Bidle when they transcend the sphere of his capacitie whereas it is the honor of our faith to beleeve Gods word when it discover's truths not onely above our apprehensions but contrarie to our corrupted reason Our reason as now it is may bee a good servant but it is an ill master in points of faith Well I see the Deitie of the holy Ghost is impugned by this way not because it is not clearly revealed in Scriptures but because hee think's it a matter impossible and so upon the point hee denie's the omnipotencie and infinite nature of God Secondly if Mr Bidle cannot conceive hereof who besides his natural ignorance is further blinded by the Devil the god of this world for beeing a professed enemie to the blessed Spirit of light I do not marvel but that hee should take upon him to measure all the refined and sublimated apprehensions of the eminent servants of God by his own dull and erroneous conceptions is miserable follie This hath been plentifully don by them insomuch that at the least the foot-steps of the Trinitie are seen in many of the creatures is the common opinion of Divines Lombard lib. 1. dist 3. And those School-men that write on him their Master and hereto accord our learned Doctors who ever at large have handled that common place and most amply that much to bee admired and honored Mornaeus lib. de veritate Christ Relig. cap. 5 6. I will not instance now in any particular examples they are not I grant convincing demonstrations but liable to the exceptions of a captious Adversarie yet the ground-work beeing firmly laid in the word of truth and truly apprehended by faith they are subordinate helps to yield som glimpse and sparks of light to the point in hand and though I do forbear real instances in this place yet I will alledg an imaginarie fiction which hath strength to prove a real truth and it is such a fiction which is recited and approved by som of the Learned of both professions Suppose a father beget's a son and communicate's to him the same soul and bodie which hee hath still himself and both of these should communicate the same soul and bodie to a third here would bee three distinct persons yet the same essence in them all But you will say this is impossible for there must needs bee three souls and three bodies in three persons But now you deny that which I suppose I say if a father could so communicate the same essence to his son and retain it still to himself then would there bee but one nature in them all really I grant this is never don because in finite substances the essence must needs bee finite But if wee speak of God because hee is immaterial infinite and not capable of essential division this is truly don it 's a received Maxim in Logick Ficta similitudo probat fidémque facit fained similitudes prove Advers Reason 2 Secondly
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
as it relate's to the person for whom the praier is made Thirdly a disabilitie either to enjoy or hold what is prayed for without the help of God for what can bee more foolish saith S. Austin agreeably to common reason then to pray to another for help to do or to have that which is in his own power to do and to have Epist 107. Now the holy Ghost is God almightie and according to the Scriptures give 's to every one his gifts as hee pleaseth To the objected place out of Revel 22. 17. there are many things which may bee said to infringe the strength thereof The Spirit saith Com. Ergò the blessed Spirit of which wee treat This follow 's not it is quasi à genere ad speciem affirmativè for how doth it appear in the text that this is meant of the holy Ghost Why may it not bee meant of an Angel that Angel which was mentioned Ver 16 For first you will not denie but an Angel is a Spirit express Scripture and sound reason do shew that Angels are spiritual substances Secondly nor can you denie that the holy Angels do desire the happiness of the Saints and their fellow-servants It may bee you will say then the text would have run in the plural number the Spirits say and not the Spirit To this I answer that S. John relate's onely what was don by that Angel which was sent by Jesus Christ to signifie this revelation to S. John Cha. 1. ver 1. and Chapt. 22. ver 16. particularly mentioned I would not have mentioned this answer which I apprehended as possible unless I had read it in Mr. Burroughs on Hos 2. lect 17. p. 606. as his own opinion Readers accept or reject this as you shall see cause Secondly there is another exposition of these words which you do conceal and it is of a singularly-pious and learned man in the opening of mystical divinitie Mr. Brightman on the place The Spirit saith hee signifie's single Christians in whom the Spirit dwel's and the Spouse signifie's the whole Church and multitude of beleevers Now it is the desire of them all singly and conjunctly that the Lord Jesus would com If this exposition hold's good the Argument as touching this place is of none effect but whether this bee the meaning of the text or not I leave it to the serious consideration of the judicious Reader Thirdly to adhere to that exposition which is most common and which you would disprove for wee shall finde that common answers are usually the truest The Spirit and the Spouse say Com. I answer there is in the words a Figure which they call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hendiadys and the meaning is The Spirit speaketh by the Spouse or the Spouse by the instinct of the Spirit saith Com that is the Spirit is the efficient cause why the Spouse praieth Com. Nor is this a singular example for such a Commentarie for the like phrase wee have in S. Paul Gal. 4. 6. it is the Spirit that crie's Abba Father It is said indeed that the Spirit is in their hearts but withall if you would play with these words as you do on those in the Revelation you might as fairly conclude your intent from them for it is not said that they by the Spirit but the Spirit in them crie's Abba Father Nor doth this text which you alledg affirm that the Spirit abiding without the Spouse doth say Com for then you might have some color for your gloss Besides this exposition ought not to seem strange because the very self-same expression is set down in the Scripture touching the holy Ghost Act. 15. 28. It seemed good to the holy Ghost and to us assembled in a Synod the meaning is thus It seemed good to us by the instinct and suggestion of the holy Ghost thus to determine A place parallel to this in the Revelation and sound reason will evince that it must needes bee so because praier is the gift of the holy Ghost Jude 20. It is hee that give 's his children the Spirit of supplication and if you will separate the Spirit and the Spouse in this holy action you must needes confess that the Spouse of Christ without the assistance of the blessed Spirit of Christ doth pray if so and when shee doth so such a praier is a praier of no account with God Advers This Author in his 12. Reason alledgeth that text Rom. 8. 27. The Spirit make's intercession to God Method reduceth this Argument to this place Answ There are two expositions of this place and none of the Writers were so prophane to take the meaning of the text as you have don Name the ancient Father whom you do follow Chrys in loc S. Chrysostom by the Spirit understand's not the person of the Spirit of God but the extraordinarie gifts of the Spirit And they which had those gifts were called Spiritual men or Ministers of the Spirit and when in great anxietie and distress Christians knew not which way to turn themselvs nor how or what to pray then as the Spirit of God came upon Jahaziel in the midst of the Congregation hee delivered the minde of the Lord to their exceeding great comfort 2 Chron. 20. 14. So likewise in such a stress som one of the Christians indued with the Spirit of praier stood up and with much importunitie and with many sighs poured out effectual praiers to the God of heaven which were profitable to the Church this is a pious sentence in it self considered but not fitly agreeing to this text as our Junius against Bellar. acknowledgeth and Paraeus in his Commentarie on this place doth prove The other exposition which is the more common is the sounder and more consonant to the context The Spirit prayeth that is the Spirit enableth us and maketh us to pray And if it bee objected that praier is a gift not onely of the Spirit but of God the Father also and God the Son being an outward work and so is common to all the Persons yet is not the Father said to pray not because hee is not the Author of praier for so undoubtedly hee is but because hee so give 's the things praied for that hee being the fountain of the Deitie receive's of no other Est l. 1. d. 20. The reasons of this exposition are these Because by the Spirit wee crie Abba Father ver 15. And because it is said the Spirit helpeth us against our infirmities viz. of praying as wee ought c. and the very words of the text will make this good as S. Austin exhort's intellige c. understand the words of the Scripture and thou shalt bee kept from blasphemie The person that praieth sigheth and groaneth the holy Ghost blessed for ever groaneth not as hee groaneth so hee praieth Hee is said to groan because hee make's us to groan and so hee praieth for us because hee make's us to pray for our selvs Thus God is said to
do place him both according to Scriptures and the Primitive Christians and by name Justin Martyr in his Apologie in the third rank after God and Christ giving him a preheminence above all the rest of the heavenly host ANSWER I do willingly grant that since there is a Trinitie of Persons there must of necessitie bee acknowledged an order amongst them But how Not in regard of time as though the holy Ghost should bee in time after the Father and the Son of God for they are co-eternal nor 2ly in order of nature as if the holy Ghost should bee in nature after God the Father and God the Son for in this sense that is said to bee after another which depend's upon the nature of another which hath no place in this subject because the three Persons have but one undivided nature Neither in the third place is the holy Ghost to speak properly after the Father in dignitie for there is but one Deitie and there is equal glorie equal majestie of the three Persons The order then is in regard of original and principle as it is called the Father as Father is the principle of the Son and the Father and the Son are the principle of the holy Ghost In this regard it is that wee commonly say the Father is the first Person of the Trinitie as being of none The Son is the second Person of the Trinitie from his Father The holy Ghost is the third Person being from eternitie both from the Father and the Son This concession is not answerable to your opinion for if you would speak out of the Son as you do of the holy Ghost you hold as appear's by many of your Arguments both God's Son and the holy Ghost to bee creatures after God in time in nature and in dignitie Whereas you say this in your sense is according to Scriptures the texts which you have alledged I have discussed and made it clear both by my positive Arguments in proof of the point and by my answers to your Scriptures that your tenet is directly against Scriptures But say you this is agreeable to the Fathers this say I is very falsly and impudently spoken I am now upon the defensive part and will not set down a catalogue of their testimonies in their several ages as I might do and those that are not learned may clearly see how falsly you do boast of the Fathers by the Apostolical as it is called the Nicene Constantinopolitane and Athanasian Creeds Advers But yet say you Justin Martyr placeth the holy Ghost in the third rank Answ The blessed Martyr which wrote his Apologies about the year of our Lord 162. placeth the holy Ghost in his second Apologie in the third order not in your sense but in that meaning which is unanimously acknowledged by Orthodoxal Divines and this I prove by Justin Martyr himself who positively assert's in his first Apologie that the Son of God placed by him the second in order was alone properly the Son of God that hee was with his Father before the world was made Now as the Son of God the second in order was truly God so may wee argue by proportion that the holy Ghost who is the third in order is likewise God And this you might have learned by the words which do immediatly follow in Justin for when hee had said Wee have the Prophetical Spirit in the third place hee immediatly subjoin's these words Wee teach that hee is rightly to bee worshipped which honor agree's well to God not to a creature And in the same Apologie afterwards hee would prove the Trinitie of the Persons out of Plato And this of the third Person that it is written by Moses of him that hee moved in the begining of the creation upon the waters And in the same Apologie hee relate's the custom of the Church in his daies both touching Baptism that the person is washed with water not in the names but in the Name of the Father Son and holy Ghost And likewise touching the Eucharist as hee call's it when the Minister had taken bread and wine hee giv's the praise and glorie of all things to the Father Son and holy Ghost And after the receiving the Sacrament and giving relief to the poor the assembly is dismissed and saith hee in all things which wee use wee praise God the Father of all by his Son Jesus Christ through the holy Ghost And in his exposition of the Faith touching the holy Trinitie there is one saith hee truly the God of all and hee is known and understood in the Father Son and holy Ghost and saith they are of one essence and one divinitie and much more to this effect But this is enough Go now and boast of the Fathers in general and of Justin Martyr in particular and blush for shame if there bee any modestie left in you for your intolerable wrong offered to the holy Fathers and for fathering on them that abominable Heresie which they did detest A Post-script to the Readers THis Paper may fall into the hands both of the unknowing and skilfull Readers and is liable to various censures I do fore-see that those which are little versed in these points will complain that I affect obscurities and that they cannot understand my writing I desire them to consider that I do treat about the highest mysteries of Faith and that it is neither fit nor safe for mee to change the terms which are in common use amongst the learned the danger hereof is apparent by this memorable example Gregor Nazianz in an Oration of the praises of great Athanasius shew's the rents betwixt the Eastern and Western Churches occasioned by the use of these terms Hypostasis and Persona the Eastern Churches used the word Hypostasis and utterly disliked the name Person On the other side the Western Churches adhered to the name Person and could not endure the name Hypostasis The Eastern Churches judged the Western Churches to bee Sabellians i e. that they held but one Person called by three names And the Western Churches judged the Eastern to bee Tritheites and Arians maintaining three substances Athanasius apprehended the mistake and that both sides were sound in the faith though they differed in terms and so reconciled them I do intreat these Readers if they meet with difficulties that they would not presently cast the Book out of their hands but to take pains to know the meaning pray read perpend the text the context and parallel places of Scriptures meditate and where your endeavors fail you have recourse to the learned which will if it bee needfull for you to know resolve your doubts and somwhat clear your judgments and to encourage you I dare promise that you shall not repent of your labors but better understand som texts of Scriptures and humane Authors which handle this subject then formerly you have don I do fore-see also that the judicious Reader will accuse mee for frequent repetitions which are little better
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
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