Lord yet are there not three Lords but one Lord saith the Athanasian Creed I am the Lord and there is none else there is no God besides mee and it shall bee known from East to West that there is none besides mee and there is none else Isa 45. 5 6. ARGUMENT 3. 3 Argum. of M. Bidle Hee that speaketh not of himself is not God The holy Spirit speaketh not of himself Ergò The Minor is clear from John 16. 13. The Major is proved thus God speaketh of himself therefore if there bee any one that speaketh not of himself hee is not God The antecedent is of it self apparant for God is the primarie Author of whatsoever hee doth but should hee not speak of himself hee must speak from another and so not bee the primarie but secondarie author of his speech which is absurd if at least that may bee called absurd which is impossible The consequence is undeniable For further confirmation of this Argument it is to bee observed that to speak or to do any thing not if himself according to the ordinarie phrase of Scripture is to speak or do by the shewing teaching commanding authorising or enabling of another and consequently incompatible with the supreme and self-sufficient Majestie of God Vid. John 5. 19 20 30. ch 7. v. 15 16 17 18 28. ch 8. v. 28. 42. ch 11. v. 50 51. ch 12. v. 49. 50. ch 14. v. 10 24. ch 15. 4. ch 18. 34. Luke 12. 56 57. ch 21. 30. 2 Cor. 3. 5. ANSWER Answ Hee that speaketh not of himself say you is not God I denie this your Major Proposition for though in a sense the Spirit of God speaketh not of himself yet is hee truly and properly God nor will I content my self with a bare denial of it which is enough for an Answerer but I will give you the reason hereof nor need I go far for a proof this Verse in John alledged by you might have taught you this truth for the person here is called by an excellencie the Spirit of truth and which lead's the Apostles and the Faithful into all truth the heavenly truth of eternal salvation This leading into truth is all one for substance with that translation of others shall teach you all truth And that which is in the Hebrew Psal 86. 11. lead mee thy way 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Septuag render it with the same word which the Evangelist useth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now this is properly a work of the great God and that which was long before fore-told They shall bee all taught of God John 5. 45. Can any thing bee more plainly spoken It is not denied but one man is said to bee a teacher of others Matth. 28. Go and teach all Nations And this is don two waies principally if not onely vel proponendo auxilia Aq. 1. 117. q. either by proposing to scholars general helps whereby the scholar is led as it were by the hand to the knowledg of unknown truths as by general rules sensible examples lively similitudes and such like to help the understanding or else by strengthning the understanding of the learner by shewing him how hee should deduce conclusions from principles but when a creature hath don all that hee can to the utmost of his power hee cannot infuse light into his scholars and elevate their minds to apprehend divine truth Let the Sun shine never so bright yet a blind man cannot see it and wee are taught to call no man Master on earth Mat. 23. So God alone is the fountain of illumination hee sitteth in his chair in heaven who teacheth our hearts on earth Object Besides if wee consider the condition of the Apostles to speak onely of them though they bee not the onely persons on whom that promise run's they were to bee dispest over all the known Regions of the world and if so how should a creature bee with them all as you do hold the holy Ghost to bee and assist all their mouths and pens infallibly in every place Sol. Surely to do so require's not onely celeritie but ubiquitie which is a propertie of the true God but incompatible to the condition of a creature which is finite as in essence so likewise in place and operation Nor will that shift serve the turn which is used by this Author in answer as hee saith to that grand Objection touching the Omnipresence of the holy Ghost by comparing this with the Parable of the Sower where Satan is said to snatch the Word of the hearts of hearers in ten thousand places at once for this is fallacia non parium The holy Ghost which dwell's in all the godly and leadeth them into all truth is one individual Spirit but it neither is nor possibly can bee one individual Devil which acteth his wickedness in all the wicked ones at once for there are millions of them dispersed every where in this lower Region of the world full of malice and policie to do mischief and every one of them is a Satan Wee read of the Devil and his Angels but you do not read of the holy Ghost and his Angels though I grant they are his Angels as creäted and commanded by him but not so as the Devil's Angels are his as a superior creature having rule over fellow-creatures I will once again propound your Major Hee that speaketh not of himself is not God This Proposition is not universally true I grant in this sense it is true hee that speaketh not of himself but what hee learn's by revelation and in time and what hee did not know from all eternitie hee is not God but such a kinde of hearing from another hath no place in the holy Ghost and therefore the Proposition if it bee taken generally is denied and the reason of my denying it is this because it is a propertie of the Father as to bee of and from himself the Fountain and the Principle as Divines do usually speak though not properly the cause of the Son of God and of the holy Ghost for then they should bee effects which sound 's harshly the Father is I say of himself and communicate's the Essence and the essential properties to the Son and both Father and Son to the holy Ghost who is eternal infinite omnipotent and omnipresent Our learned Junius hath observed a three-fold consideration of a Person one common in essence as the Person is God the second consideration as it is singular and absolute in Person as saith hee it subsist's in the unitie of the Essence the third is relative in the distinction and order of one Person to another contra Bellar. Controv. 2. l. 1. Praefat. let the Learned judg of these the last is to my purpose Now as the Persons do differ in the manner and order of subsisting so likewise though the outward action bee the same and common to all the Persons yet in the manner of working wee must conceive a difference Give mee leave to clear this
received truth by solving the strongest Objections which are framed against it Objection 1 Neither the Father nor the holy Ghost but onely the Son of God did assume our nature and this is an outward work to this it is answered that onely the Son of God became man yet the whole Trinitie did frame and work to the assumption of the humane nature illustrated thus Three do weave cloth to bee worn of one of them onely inchoativè it belonged to all the Persons terminativè it was personal and proper to the Son of God Objection 2 If it bee said onely the Father spoke from heaven This is my welbeloved Son so it is said not because all the Persons did not frame that voice but because the words were uttered in his Person the Father alone is said to speak those words because they related to the Son of God the thing signified did alone appertain to the Person of the Father nor is this rule crossed by the apparition of a Dove Objection 3 The holy Ghost alone descended and appeared to the Apostles in fiery cloven tongues because those visible Symbols did onely signifie the Person of the holy Ghost which the three Persons by one undivided operation did produce Mark then albeit the work bee the same and 't is from all the Persons yet is there a difference in the manner of working the Father and the Son as they are the Fountain of the Person of the holy Ghost so likewise are they the Fountain of the operations of the holy Ghost When wee read this expression then the holy Ghost speak's not of himself wee must not conceive that phrase to import any diminution of the Majestie of the holy Ghost nor doth it implie that hee is not God that hee is inferior to the first Person of the Trinitie hereby our Savior would teach the Disciples for they are his own words in John that they should not think the holy Ghost to bee greater then the Son of God albeit his works in the hearts of his Apostles should bee greater then those which hee whiles hee visibly conversed with them had wrought in them Nor should they think that the holy Ghost should bring any new Doctrine but the truths taught by him are the truths of God the Father there is a plenary consent of the Doctrine of the holy Ghost and of God the Father that which the holy Ghost speak's from the Father hee had not in time but by eternal procession from the Father and the Son of God There is no diversitie at all in the work in it self considered but the order of externally working answer's to the order of the divine Persons thus is the holy Ghost said not to work from himself but from the Father and Son By this which hath been spoken his reasons are already answered yet a word of them Advers God speak's of himself The holy Ghost speak's not of himself Ergò hee is not God Answ There is nothing but homonymies in both Propositions but I answer to this Objection God essentially taken speak's of himself and thus the holy Ghost as hee is God speak's of and from himself but if you take it thus by a reduplication of the Subject by a specificative limitation the holy Ghost as the holy Ghost is not of himself in regard of his Person but from the Father and the Son and in this regard speak's not from himself yet is a holy true God blessed for ever Advers If God say you speaketh not from himself hee should not bee the primary Author of his speech but the secondary and this is absurd impossible Answ I deny the consequence which is true when wee speak of causes subordinate to superior causes or of instrumental causes but the holy Ghost is not an instrument either separate from or conjunct with the first Person Hee is not inferior in dignitie or power to God the Father and God the Son for there is but one divine Essence subsisting in the three Persons which are not the subject of the Deitie for they are one God in Essence and so the prioritie of the first Person is in regard of the order of working without inferioritie in the third Person whether wee regard the Persons relatively and considered or the work produced by them It is needless for mee to spend time in examining the many particular places alledged by him for som of them do directly speak of the creatures and those are impertinent for what call you this The holy Ghost that speak's not from himself is not God why Because the same phrase is used of a creature or else they speak of Christ as God and then they are already answered I add that som of those expressions are so far from proving Christ not to bee God that they do strongly evince the Deitie of the Son of God I conclude in S. Austin's words Whatsoever the Father is as hee is God as hee is a substance as hee is eternitie the same is the Son of God and the holy Ghost If you will say What riddles are these I answer How litle is it that wee conceive of God Wee can have better apprehensions of God then wee can make expressions of him and hee is transcendently above both our apprehensions and expressions of him ARGUMENT 4. 4 Argum. of M. Bidle Hee that heareth from another what hee shall speak is not God The holy Spirit doth so Ergò The Minor is plain from the fore-cited place John 16. 13. The Major is proved thus Hee that is taught is not God Hee that heareth from another what hee shall speak is taught Ergò The Major is clear by Esay 40. 13 14. compared with Rom. 11. 34. 1 Cor. 2. 16. The Minor is evidenced by John 8. where our Savior having said in the 26. verse Whatsoever I have heard from him the Father these things I speak In the 28. verse hee expresseth the same sense thus According as the Father hath taught mee these things I speak Neither let any man go about to elude so pregnant an Argument by saying that this is spoken of the holy Spirit improperly for let him turn himself every way and scrue the words as hee please yet shall hee never bee able to make it out to a wise and considering man how it can possibly bee said that any one heareth from another what hee will speak who is the prime Author of his speech and into whom it is not at a certain time insinuated by another For this expression plainly intimateth that whatsoever the holy Spirit speaketh to the Disciples is first discovered and committed to him by Christ whose Embassador hee is it being proper to an Embassador to bee the Interpreter not of his own but of anothers will But it is contradictious to imagine that the most high God can have any thing discovered and committed to him by another ANSWER Answ I answer first in general by distinguishing of this word hearing which is the basis and ground
of your Argument and then will particularly applie it Somtimes the Superior heareth the Inferior thus God is frequently said to hear the praiers of his servants made in faith Somtimes the Inferior hear's the Superior and that is don many waies not onely by his bodily ears but by understanding what formerly was not known or when the judgment is more perfectly informed in a point before not fully known or beleeving what till that voice came was not beleeved or hearkning to the counsell or obeying the will and pleasure of God Somtimes an equall hear's an equall as common experience shew's If wee speak of the first acceptation God's hearing us and answering of us according to the tenor of our praiers then I appeal to your judgment and you must needs give sentence against your self that in this sense your Major is false If you speak of hearing in the second sense I grant your Major is true because so to hear argueth ignorance in whole or in part forgetfulness dulness slackness or plain neglect if not contempt of dutie which wee do all confess are inconsistent with the infinite knowledg and transcendent excellencie of the great God If you take it in the third sense an equal hearing an equal then I denie your Major for God the holy Ghost which heareth from God the Son is equal to him Advers The Minor say you is proved John 16. 13. Answ My answer is by advising that the words of the text may bee well observed the words run not thus Whatsoever the Spirit knoweth hee will speak but whatsoever hee heareth and this is likewise spoken of Christ John 8. 26. and 15. 16. Obj. This is not to bee understood as if the holy Ghost did hear any thing corporally and thus is hearing properly taken and for such a hearing I suppose you will not contend Sol. Nor secondly is it to bee taken of hearing viz. by revelation by which hearing hee should learn that which formerly hee knew not It 's indeed spoken that hee was that hee is and that hee shall bee if it had been onely said hee was one might have conceived that now hee is not If it had been said hee is onely it might have been thought that hee had not been alwaies If it had been onely said hee shall bee it might bee thought hee is not now Time past present and to come are asscribed to God yet not as to men to denote a beginning continuance and end of time for actions are said to have been which now are not and that they shall bee which now have no existence at all but when they are spoken of God there is no limitation of time at all God so hath been that hee is and shall bee hee shall bee yet so that hee is and hath been and this is to bee applied likewise to the hearing of the holy Ghost Hee hath alwaies heard and hee doth hear And in the future time it 's said in this place hee shall hear This hearing saith S. Austin Tractat. 99. in Joan. is everlasting Hee hath known hee doth know and hee will know His hearing is his knowing and his knowing is his beeing hee hath heard from him hee doth hear from him and hee will hear from him from whom hee proceed's so Austin And hee cal's the opening of this text John 16. arduam nimis arduam quaestionem This bee spoken to prevent that scruple in that it is said Hee shall hear Som of ours clear the words thus Whatsoever the holy Ghost shall hear that shall hee speak which import's thus much those things which the Father will have revealed to us those things and no other will hee reveal to us the truths which the Spirit shall reveal to us are truths received from God the Father the Spirit feign's nothing hee alter's nothing hee pervert's nothing The paraphrase of the text in the former Argument will dispell the foggie mists of this reason Advers The Major saith hee is proved thus Hee that is taught is not God Hee that heareth from another what hee shall speak is taught The Major is proved Esa 40. 13 14. Answ 1 To this I answer if you had not been infatuated you would have omitted that text in Esay for it directly overthroweth your assertion and expresly teacheth us that none have taught the Spirit of God But I answer Secondly hee that is taught properly that is learn's what hee formerly knew not is not God I readily assent for God's knowledg is infinite and cannot bee increased But how can you prove that the holy Ghost is taught by comparing say you John 8. 26 28 together Christ is taught by hearing This is but a very weak bul-rush it hath no strength at all in it This must needs bee your consequence in som places of Scripture and not onely so but even in common reason hee that heareth is taught therefore must it needs bee so taken John 16. 13. Is not this a wild inference That Scripture John 8. 26 28. speaketh not of the holy Ghost but expresly of Christ and then it must bee spoken of him either as God or Mediator man If in the former way then the text furthereth not but marreth your Argument if in the later then it is unfitly alledged for albeit a creäted substance by hearing another may properly bee taught yet far bee it from us to conceive that the Creätor the supreme God can learn what hee knew not Advers But saith hee let a man turn himself every way yet shall hee never bee able to make it out to a wise man that any can hear from another what hee will speak who is the prime Author of his speech Answ Well I see M. Bidle is a wise man in his own eies and all Christian men in the world besides himself and a handful of seduced ones are no better then fools but if hee had well perpended that text quoted by himself out of Esa 40. 13 14 15. hee would not have concluded the great God the three sacred Persons which are one Almightie God within the shallow compass of his brains I perceive hee is alwaies wrapped in the briars and cannot possibly extricate himself because hee apprehendeth not the meaning of that common distinction of God the holy Ghost as God for in this respect hee hath infinite knowledg of himself and of God the holy Ghost as hee is the holy Ghost for so doth hee receive knowledg and wisdom from God the Father and God the Son yet I pray let this bee remembred so as hee was never ignorant and life yet so as hee never wanted life and power yet so as hee was never weak because these persons communicating essence to the holy Ghost did communicate life power and knowledg So that the holy Ghost hath knowledg not by learning but by proceeding and all the creatures which hear and are taught they are taught by the holy Ghost And whereas hee illustrate's as hee think's his Assertion by a comparison taken from
and this shape is moved from place to place which clearly overthroweth your Argument Advers Exod. 20. compared with Act. 7. 53. Galat. 3. 19. Hebr. 2. 2. an Angel spoke and yet God is said to speak Ergò the Angel spoke in the Person of God Answ First I answer by concession admit that your exposition touching the speaking of the Law by Angels bee sound by those texts in the New Testament yet there will bee enough remaining in the text to enervate your Argument for did not God com down then was there not a manifestation of Gods glorie and severitie Did not Moses speak with the Lord face to face insomuch that his face did glister and was glorious Did not God himself write the Law in the two Tables and give them to Moses Did not hee see the back parts of God a glimps of his glorie Sith these things cannot bee denied the Argument will remain strong against you albeit the holy Angels were Gods instruments of pronouncing the Law And why should it bee a thing incredible for any man to beleeve that God may visibly manifest his presence either in wrath or mercie for can an Angel appear in a visible form and frame a voice and shall this with any color of reason bee denied to God Almightie Nor is it clearly proved by those cited Scriptures that Angels spoke the words of the Law in the Person of God For first was it ever heard that any Embassador when hee hath audience of a forain Prince deliver's his embassage otherwise then in the third person hee saith not I say so but my Prince saith thus and thus And have not wee an evident testimonie hereof in the holy Prophets which deliver not their message to Gods people in their own names but thus saith the Lord. Yea and the holy Angels themselvs in their visions declare that they are sent Dan. 9. And they likewise by som circumstance or other make it appear that they speak in the Name of the Lord. And S. Paul saith to this purpose pertinently and expresly that when the Law was delivered it was the voice not of a creäted Angel but of Christ that did shake the earth and men on earth Hebr. 12. 26. Besides there is mention made of Angels in the promulgation of the Law the Word was spoken by Angels hee saith not by an Angel how this can bee verified in them sith there were not many speeches not many voices but one distinct audible voice is hard to bee conceived Particularly in the two first places it is not said that the Law was spoken by Angels but ordained by Angels and so it might bee because holy Angels were attendants on the great God and instruments to shake the earth to raise thunder and lightning c. because they were witnesses and approvers of the deliverie thereof in which sense it is said that the Saints shall judg the world not by pronouncing but by approving the sentence of Christ 1 Cor. 6. And for that place in the Hebrews might it not relate to the words of the Law uttered at some other time Or it may bee Gods voice in the deliverie of the Law was uttered and pronounced by the ministerie of Angels and they by an extraordinarie way thundred out the words which God spoke to them to speak to the people as a Scrivener may write and speak the words which are dictated to him by another in the person of that author the principal author as in marriage the persons to bee married speak the very words from the Ministers mouth but I had rather hear the judgment of another then peremptorily in this perplexed case set down mine own opinion ARGUMENT 9. 9 Argum. of M. Bidle Hee that prayeth unto Christ to com to judgment is not God The holy Spirit doth so Ergo. The Major is granted The Minor is evident from Rev. 22. 17. compared with ver 12. Neither let any man think to elude this proof by saying that the Spirit is here said to pray onely because hee maketh the Bride to pray For when the Scripture would signifie the assistance of the holy Spirit in causing men to speak it is wont to affirm either that the holy Spirit speaketh in them as Matth. 10. 20. or that they speak by the holy Spirit as Rom. 8. 15. Wee have received the Spirit of adoption by whom wee crie Abba Father But there it is expresly said that the Spirit and the Bride say Com not the Spirit in the Bride nor the Bride by the Spirit I add what is pertinent to this head out of his 12th Reason Rom. 8. 27. The Spirit maketh intercession for us with groans unutterable and hee make's intercession for the Saints according to the will of God which prove's the holy Ghost to bee inferior to God inasmuch as hee is said to make intercession unto God with groans which is not so to bee understood as if the holy Spirit was here said to help our infirmities onely by suggesting petitions and groans unto us and making us to pray as is commonly but falsly affirmed for the very words of the context sufficiently refute such a gloss since they say that the Spirit himself not wee by the Spirit as wee have it in ver 15. of the same Chapter maketh intercession for us but to help others infirmities by making intercession for them is not to instill petitions into them but to pour out petitions apart in their behalf as is apparent both from the thing it self since none can intercede for himself all intercession requiring the intervening of a third Person and by the collation of ver 34. of the same Chapter and by the 30. verse of the 15. Chapter and by 2 Corinth 1. 11. Hebr. 7. 25. 1 Tim. 2. 1. Col. 4. 12. Ephes 6. 18. Neither let any man think to baffle off this Argument which is written with a beam of the Sun by saying that this is improperly spoken of the holy Spirit for besides that hee hath no other ground to say so but his own pre-conceived opinion touching the Deitie of the holy Spirit hee ought to know that the Scripture though it speak many things after the manner of men yet doth it no where speak any thing that argueth his inferioritie to and dependance on another But this passage of the Apostle plainly intimateth the holy Spirit to bee inferior to God and dependent on him otherwise what need had hee to intercede with God and that with groans unutterable on the behalf of the Saints ANSWER Answ The Major Proposition is undeniably true for religious invocation is an humble obsequiousness and an enjoyned dutie to bee performed to the great God and doth necessarily suppose in him that praie's first inferioritie of the nature of the partie that praie's to the object of invocation Secondly indigencie or want of that good thing which is praied for either in whole or in degree a defectibilitie or possibilitie not to have the good thing praied for
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
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
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
used not wine but onely water in the Eucharist if any of our predecessors either out of simplicitie or ignorance did not practise what the Lord taught us by his example there may by the favor of God bee pardon granted to his simplicitie but if wee which are instructed in his will should transgress wee might not presume of the same favor And the very like passage wee finde in Bede used by Wilfride in a Synod or Conference at Stransholch disputing with Cotmay about a very trifle the time of the observation of Easter 3. lib. hist Eccles Anglic. cap. 25. And Luther make's an allegorie on Deut. 19. they which err ignorantly are like to those which imprudently and casually killed a man such have the priviledg of a Citie of refuge but they which hear and will not learn are like wilfull murtherers they shall bee dragged from the horns of the Altar and lose their lives ARGUMENT 11. 11 Argum. of M. Bidle Hee that hath an understanding distinct from that of God is not God The holy Spirit hath an understanding distinct from God Ergò The Major is clear for hee that hath an understanding distinct from that of another must needs likewise have a distinct Essence wherein that understanding may reside The Minor is proved thus Hee that heareth from God and that at the second hand what hee shall speak hath an understanding distinct from that of God The holy Spirit so heareth from God Ergò The Minor is evident from Joh. 16. 13 14 15. The Major is confirmed thus Hee that is taught of God hath an understanding distinct from that of God Hee that heareth from God is taught of God Ergò The Minor is manifest from John 8. where our Savior Christ having said in the 26th verse Whatsoever I have heard from him the Father these things I speak In verse 28. hee expresseth the same sense thus According as the Father hath taught mee these things I speak The Major is of it self clear for hee that is taught hath an unknowing understanding since none can bee taught what hee knoweth already and hee that teacheth hath a knowing understanding otherwise hee could not teach another somthing but it implyeth a contradiction that the same understanding should at the same time bee both knowing and unknowing of the same thing Besides that the holy Spirit hath an understanding distinct from that of God is easily deducible from the words of the Apostle 1 Corin. 2. 10. where hee affirmerb that the Spirit searcheth the depths of God as Rom. 8. 27. hee intimateth that God searcheth the heart of the Spirit but to search the depths of any one necessarily supposeth one understanding in him that searcheth and another understanding in him whose depths are searched as is evident not onely by collation of other places of the Scripture as 1 Pet. 1. 11. Rev. 2. 23. but even by common sense dictating to every man so much that none can without absurdity bee said to search the depths of his own understanding Whence the Apostle going about to illustrate what hee had spoken of the Spirit of God by a similitude drawn from the Spirit of a man doth not say that the Spirit of a man doth search but know the things of a man though his former words did seem to lead him thereunto ANSWER Answ Hee that hath an understanding distinct from the understanding of God is not God To this I answer by distinguishing and limiting the Proposition thus Hee that hath an understanding really distinct divided and separated from the understanding of God is not God if you take the Proposition in this sense it 's true and granted with an unanimous consent of all Secondly thus hee that hath an understanding not really distinct but vet distinguished modally and that is in regard of the manner of having the understanding Or thirdly thus Hee that hath an understanding not really distinct from that understanding of God the Father but in regard of our understanding which is blemished since Adam's fall with much blindness weakness and take it at the best it is but finite whereas God's understanding is infinite and so are those manifold essentiall properties in God as they are called which are many not onely in regard of the outward works to which they do directly relate but also in regard of their different respects and our apprehension of them and yet they are in truth all one even the divine essence God himself The Proposition taken in this second and third sense is not true and so it 's to bee denied Advers Now whereas you say in the proof of the Major that a distinct understanding must needs have a distinct essence wherein it reside's and so as it seem's you hold forth this as a truth that God's understanding is in God as an accident in a subject I would bee loth to father on you such a tenet which you will not own but this is either your opinion or else you are to bee charged for not writing so accuratly and warily to prevent mistakes as is required in this Argument especially a writer of controversies Touching your Assertion that the understanding reside's in an essence if wee speak of a creäted understanding you shall meet with contradiction to this opinion from the pens of most subtile Philosophers J. C. Scaliger and acute Divines Zanchius which will tell you that it become's the soul in regard of the dignitie thereof to perform its acts by its own essence without the help of any accident and that the several faculties of the soul as they are called are but as so many notions and formalities of the same thing The soul the understanding and the will are the same thing it 's called the soul in regard of the essence the same essence is called the understanding as it apprehend's an object the same thing is called the will as it extend's it self to enjoy the good thing which is apprehended convenient for it But I will not contend about this point which if it were granted will not weaken the Argument Bee it granted that a finite understanding is an accident and really distinguished from and necessarily depending on its subject yet will it not bee verified of the infinite understanding of God whose Essence is most simple without all kindes of composition from whence result's a thing compounded as a third thing of it self one truly and really distinguished from the parts thereof God hath neither integral nor essential parts hee is not as a species constituted of the genus and the difference for God is the first and highest beeing not the constitution of subject and accidents not of act and potentia for that would argue imperfection For God is a most pure act not of Esse and Essence for the Esse of God is his Essence and that Essence of God is his Esse God's greatness is God's Essence God's goodness is God's Essence God's justice is God's Essence and it 's true of the rest God is
the minde or will of the Spirit for hee maketh intercession for the Saints according to or conformably to the will of God Your other Argument annexed to this whereby you would prove the holy Ghost to bee inferior to God hath been examined in its due place Argum. 9. ANSWER Answ The Major Hee that hath a will distinct from that of God is not God I grant the Proposition to bee true if it bee taken in your sense for a distinct and separate will for two such wills do necessarily require two distinct substances to which they do relate I denie your Minor The holy Ghost hath not a will distinct from that of God First I say this text doth not clearly hold forth to us any thing touching the will of God's Spirit The originall is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in our new translation is turned not the will but the minde of the Spirit Som render it the intention of the Spirit and others the spiritual sense and you know very well that the primarie signification of the word is thus to bee translated God know's the intention of the Spirit or act of the minde Secondly let us grant what you cannot prove that it is to bee translated what is the will or what is the desire of the Spirit To this I answer that the Spirit willeth and desireth as hee praieth it is a Metonymie hee is said to will and desire because hee inableth us to will and desire according to the will of God God know's the intention of the Spirit even as the Mother knoweth the crying and sobbing of her Infant and so our secret sighs which are infused into us are known of God our sighs indeed cannot bee expressed by us but the Spirit which work 's them in us direct's them unto God Apparent it is you were hard put to it to make up a ful dozen of Arguments out of an ambiguous text to prove a distinct will of the Spirit from the will of God the Father by a place where there is no convincing proof that there is any mention of the will of the Spirit at all Grant further that this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bee the will or what the Spirit of God desire 's by those groans yet will it not follow that there bee two distinct wills of God the Father and the Spirit What I have written touching the understanding of God and of the Spirit is by paritie of reason to bee applied to this Argument there is as I asserted but one will of God the Father and God the holy Ghost but yet this one will is otherwise in the Father otherwise in the holy Ghost in the Father of and from himself but in the holy Ghost by eternal communication of the Deitie to him Fourthly whereas you talk of conformitie and agreeableness which is alwaies betwixt two at the least I have answered the substance of this in the former Argument This agreeableness is not properly betwixt the will of the holy Ghost and of God the Father but betwixt the will of man acted to pray by the Spirit of God and the will of God and these must needs bee two To draw to a conclusion I denie not but agreeableness and equalitie are asscribed to the Persons of the Trinitie for the Jews collected and that justly too because the Son of God called God his Father hee made himself equal to God John 5. Nor did the Son of God think hee robbed God of his honor when hee made himself equal to his Father Phil 2. And what is spoken of the Son is true likewise of the holy Ghost and it is the general resolution of the Church that the holy Ghost is consubstantial co-equal co-omnipotent and co-eternal with God the Father and God the Son Now because equalitie is properly understood of quantitie and agreeableness in qualitie it will not bee amiss to explicate briefly in what sense similitude and equà litie are asscribed to the sacred Persons It is to bee observed that in regard of substance things are said to bee the same or divers If the substance bee one things are said to bee one in substance but if not the same substance they are said to bee divers in substance In regard of qualitie things are said to bee like which do agree in qualitie and unlike when they have not one qualitie In regard of quantitie they are said to bee equal or unequal Now because in God to speak properly there is neither qualitie nor quantitie for how should a finite qualitie or quantitie reside in an infinite substance or how is it possible that these should bee many infinites therefore it follow 's undeniably that these three viz. identitie similitude and quantitie are all one in God and one God because there is the same essence and substance of the three Persons and yet there is similitude and identitie betwixt the Persons founded not on the relation betwixt them but on the essence and therefore because there is no dissimilitude betwixt the essence there is no dissimilitude absolutely in the Persons yet it is so founded on the essence that it doth insinuate to us the pluralitie of the Persons The Persons are said to bee like as touching qualities because they do agree in the same perfection of qualities as in wisdom power goodness and such like these are really distinguished in the creatures but relating to God they neither amongst themselvs nor from the divine essence do differ really The Persons in Trinitie are said to bee equal because they do so agree in the same perfection that one Person doth not in the least degree exceed another for there are no degrees in that which is infinite that is said to bee better in quantitie that is better and hath a higher degree of excellencie then another as in Logick the degree of qualitie is quantitie so that greatness in God is nothing else but the excellencie of God in every perfection If the first Person was more potent and wiser then the holy Ghost there would bee likeness betwixt them but not equalitie there must of necessitie bee a distinction betwixt things like and equal for nothing is equal or like to it self The Father is not the holy Ghost and therefore when the Father Son and holy Ghost are said to bee one in essence goodness wisdom there is not in such an attribution a distinction of Persons but when wee say the Persons are like or equal as touching every imaginable perfection as in goodness wisdom power c. such an attribution necessarily require's a distinction of the Persons amongst themselvs I have now as I conceive fully answered your twelve Arguments I have set down all and concealed nothing which in your Arguments carrieth with it any shew of strength there remaineth yet one Argument in your Epistle by which you would countenance your Heresie in these words ARGUMENT 13. 13 Argum. of M. Bidle I beleeve say you the holy Ghost to bee the chief all ministring Spirits and I
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