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.

1 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.

2 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.

1 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 [Page 35] 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.

2 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 [Page 36] 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) [Page 37] 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.

2 Secondly, if M ^r 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 [Page 38] 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, If the person bee distinct from the Deitie, it is either somthing that make's the difference, or nothing; if somthing, it must bee ei­ther finite or infinite, both of them are false.

Answ. 1 To this I answer: first, by retorting this Argument against your self. First, I propose the many essential properties of God, and I ask, Are they somthing, or are they nothing? are they finite or infinite? for I observe that you speak reservedly in this place, and tell us what wee hold, not what your self maintain's; and in your eleventh Reason I might justly suspect, that in your opinion the understan­ding of God reside's in the divine essence, as in the subject of it; but however that is, if you resolve this objection, it's not unlike but [Page 39] you have answered your self. But I will follow you more closely, the God whom you, with the deluded Jews and Turks, do ac­knowledg to bee a Person, hath the divine Essence, and hee hath the divine Essence of and from himself; and this make's a distincti­on betwixt the thing, and the manner of the thing: now, the man­ner of having this nature from himself, and no other, is either som­thing or nothing; if somthing, it is either finite or infinite. I sup­pose, you will bee put to your shifts, if you will bee true to your own principles, to dissolve this doubt; you must plough with our heifer, I mean, make use of the knowledg of our learned Writers to unfold this riddle, or else it will remain unanswered.

2 Secondly, if you should, as an unskilful Pilot, stear the ship to split it on rocks, to the loss of your own life, and of the passengers; if you should lay a snare to catch the feet, not onely of the Adversa­ries, but your own too; this will afford no comfort to the Reader. I add therefore a punctual Answer: 3 thus you object, That whereby the Person is distinguished from the Essence, is somthing or no­thing. I grant, it is somthing, for it is not a meer notion devised by man's brain; for before a man was creäted, and if there were not left a living man to conceive of this mysterie, yet there is a distincti­on betwixt them; for essence denote's an absolute substance, but a Person is referred to another; that is communicable, this is incom­municable; that is without original, so is not the person of the Son of God and of the holy Ghost; the person beget's, is begotten, and proceed's, but the divine Essence neither beget's, nor is begot­ten, nor doth it proceed; one Person is not predicated of another, the Father is not the Son, nor is the Son the Father,—but the di­vine Essence is predicated of every Person. To proceed.

Advers. If that wherein they are distinguished (saith hee) bee aliquid, it is either finite or infinite. By this dilemma hee think's to reduce us to absurdi­ties: for the clearing up of this foggy mist cast before our eyes, Answ. it will not bee amiss to shew what is infinitie: For any thing to bee infinite is required that it bee boundless and without limits, not in regard of mathematical or philosophical dimensions, for these have alwaies actually their bounds of extension which they do not pass, but the infinitie of God hold's forth that absolute perfection which is in God, which is in it self boundless, in the highest degree actual and complete, and so this distinction of a thing to bee either finite [Page 40] or infinite, is all one for substance with this distinction, though expressed in other terms. Every thing is either the Creätor or the creature; certain it is, the power of God is in it self infinite, and yet it doth not, nor can it produce an infinite creature, for that were to place a creature in the throne of God, yea, to make him a creäted God, which implieth a plain contradiction. Now God's Omnipotency is not conversant about things impossible, and repugnant to the divine nature. This brief declaration premised, I will now present two An­swers to this Objection and either of them hath eminent Authors to avouch it. Christian Readers, consider well, and rest in that which you apprehend to bee best.

1 If it bee somthing, you say, it is either finite or infinite. My first Answer hereto is by a direct negation of the disjunction, which doth not consist of the full enumeration of the parts: this distribu­tion belong's to absolute positive things; every absolute and posi­tive thing is finite or infinite, but that which doth distinguish the Essence from the Person is no such thing: the Person considered in respect of the Essence is one thing, but it is distinguished in regard of the manner of having this divine Essence; thus the divers degrees of white, in color of whiteness, of light in the air, of heat in the water, are not whiteness, light, and heat it self, but they are affecti­ons of Ens; they are modi albedinis, lucis, & caloris: these different de­grees are aliquid, yet they are not the qualities themselves; so is there aliquid in Deo, somthing in God (so I am forced to speak) which is not a divers thing from God, nor the very Essence of God, but modus Essentiae, which is called [...]; so that the Person of the holy Ghost differ's from the divine Essence, as the manner of the thing doth from the thing it self, and the Persons differ amongst themselves, as modi à modis.

2 These divine relations, as they are opposed and distinguished a­mongst themselves, are infinite simply, as they are considered in genere Entis, in respect of the Essence which they do include, and so they are not multiplied, but one Ens. Hence is it, that the Father is not aliud à Filio,—nor is Deus triplex. Secondly, they may bee consi­dered in regard of the proper respects wherein they are opposed, and so they are infinite in respect of relation onely, and in this regard it is not inconvenient to say, that an infinite thing may bee multi­plied: there are not three things, but three distinct Persons, Deus est [Page 41] trinus, and Pater est alius à Filio.—Hence is it also, that School-men do approve, that adjectiva nomina in the concrete, because they do not signifie a thing per modum substantiae, as the Substantives do, but onely the number of Persons, may bee attributed in the plural num­ber to them: Thus, there are tres aeterne Personae, tres increätae, tres omnipotentes, creäntes, &c. If the first answer bee too jejune, and will not serve the turn, I hope the second will give satisfaction to the Reader.

Adv. Reas. 3 To talk of God (say you) taken onely essentially, is ridiculous.

1 First, because there is no example thereof in Scripture. 2 Secondly, because the name of God signifieth him that ruleth over others; but none but a Person can rule over others, all actions being proper to Persons.

Answ. 1 To the first of these I answer, by affirming that there are many examples of this distinction in Scripture. The name [God] is taken essentially, when it is not contracted either by 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.

2 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. 2 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 [Page 42] 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.

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 [Page 43] 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 Tertul. saith of the Son of God, hee is individ [...] & inseparatus à Patre, in Pa­tre [...]putand [...], et si non no­minatus. ad­vers. Pra [...]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.

2 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, [Page 44] 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 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.

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 [Page 45] 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 [Page 46] 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 [Page 47] 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 'tis 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.

• 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, [Page 48] 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.

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.

1 Somtimes the Superior heareth the Inferior: thus, God is frequently said to hear the praiers of his servants made in faith.

2 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.

3 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, [Page 50] 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 [Page 51] 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 [Page 52] 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 Ambassadors, which speak according to the will of the Prince that send's them: To this I say there are [...], vast differences betwixt the holy Ghost and an Ambassador. An Ambassador, as such, at least in this imploiment, is a servant, and a subject to his Prince, inferior to him, commanded by him, personally separated from him, capable of new instructi­ons to be imparted in his name to forain Princes in his absence; but none of these do belong, or can possibly bee applied to the holy Ghost, as hee is sent from the Father and Son.

ANSWER.

Answ. The Major, if it bee general, as it ought to bee, thus; Whosoever receiveth of another is not God, is false. For, to say no more yet, the Lord receiveth the prayers of his praying servants, hee receiveth the fruits of his vineyard, Mar. 12. 2. hee receive's not the persons of men, but sincere Christians, Gal. 2. 6. hee receiveth the acknowledg­ment of his honor, glorie, and power, Rev. 4. 11. And will you from hence infer that hee is not God?

If the Major bee particular in sense thus; Somthing that receive's from another is not God. I grant the Proposition is true in matter, but asyllogistical, and so is unwarrantable in the second explicate, or first figure, and justly to bee denied, as not sorting to your pur­pose.

2 Secondly, I answer first in general, that these three Arguments, viz. to hear from another, to speak what hee heare's, and to receive of a­nother, are multiplied words, not Arguments; they are like three dreams varied in forms, yet for substance they are but one. Yet I will say somthing in particular.

1 One thing or person may bee said to receive of another two man­ner of waies: First, by eternal procession to apply it to the holy Ghost; and by eternal generation, as doth the Son of God, hee re­ceive's the Essence, and, as they are called, the essential properties from his Father, who doth beget him, as from an intrinsecal prin­ciple, to him who is generated. Thus is it in natural generation, children receive from their parents their beeing and natural quali­ties: i'ts evident, hee that receive's his soul by infusion, receiveth at the same instant the essential faculties of the soul: and so wee may say the holy Ghost, as the holy Ghost, whatsoever hee is, or what­soever hee hath, hee hath received from the Father and the Son of God, not as from an external but intrinsecal principle; and it may bee said of the holy Ghost, as it is of the Son of God, that hee hath life in himself given by the Father, Joh. 5. 26. How did the Father and Son give life? by active spiration. How did the holy Ghost receive it? by eternal procession. And, what is it to have life in himself, but to have it essentially, and to bee life it self? The holy Ghost, as hee is God simply considered, as hee is the same Essence with the Father who is God, is (I grant) of himself, and hath from [Page 54] his Essence whatsoever hee hath; but, as this is communicated by eternal procession, so hee hath it from the first and second Person of the Trinitie. Wee may see a resemblance of this Mysterie in the creatures: thus Peter, as hee is a man, 'tis from his humane nature, and so whatsoever in this consideration hee hath is natural to him; but Peter, as hee is a Son, receive's all from his Parents by natural generation: and thus, albeit the holy Ghost receive's from another, viz. from God the Father, and God the Son, yet is hee properly and truly God.

2 This is the first way of receiving from another. Secondly, a thing may bee said, and it's usual, to receive in time, and from an exter­nal principle, as men do their beeing, habits of knowledg, &c. to bee in potentia to receive, and therefore is imperfect, and in som wants: Such a receiving as this is (I grant) belonge's not to God.

Advers. Now, to your Minor; the holy Ghost thus receive's, John 16. 14. Answ. I answer, if you will soundly prove this Minor, you must produce som other Scripture; for this holy text will not serve your turn: it doth not say, as you pretend, the Spirit receiveth of mee, which was to bee proved; and yet, if it had so expresly said, it would not have supported your impious cause, as I now have shewed; the text onely saith, hee receiveth of mine, viz. what is testified of mee by the Prophets; and that is don, when, by the powerful preaching of the Gospel, hee give's a clear testimonie that Christ is the Son of God, and Savior of the world, and chiefly hee receive's of mine, to speak after the manner of men, when hee bring's it home to the hearts of the elect by effectually calling and converting them, by raising up their mindes to know the divine truths, and their hearts by faith to embrace them, by rectifying their disordered affections, by enabling them to confess, publish, and magnifie the Lord Jesus with their tongues, and to conform their lives to those heavenly directions which Christ hath left us on record. Thus doth the holy Ghost glorifie Christ, in that whatsoever the holy Ghost work's in our hearts, whether it bee touching doctrine, remission of sins, or sanctification, hee receive's all from Christ, and so dispenseth them to us. The Spirit washeth us from our sins, but by the blood of Christ: hee hee mortifie's sins in us, but it is by virtue of the death of Christ: [Page 55] hee raiseth us up to newness of life, but by virtue of the resurrection of Christ, &c. In this consist's the glorie of Christ. And were you not blinded by Satan, you would bee so far from perverting this Scripture to the dishonor of the holy Ghost, that you would rather infer from thence both the Trinitie of the Persons, and the Deitie of the holy Ghost. All that the Father hath (saith Christ) are truly mine, and what are mine, the holy Ghost receive's, not as a scholar, from the directions of his Master, as though thereby hee learned any new thing formerly unknown: But, as the Son of God doth not speak from himself, but what hee hear's from the Father, no more doth the holy Ghost, but what hee receive's from the Son; all three Persons working the same work in our redemption.

Advers. Hee that receive's is not God, (say you) but God give's all things to all; to give all things, and not to give all things, is a contradiction.

Answ. I answer; hee that receive's in time by an external work of God, is not God. I grant it, but so doth not the holy Ghost receive; and the Scripture proofs which you do rely on, are imper­tinently alledged; for they do directly speak of God's crea­tures, as every one that look's into them must needs confess. Thus rather might you have argued for the Deitie of the holy Ghost:

• Hee that give's all things to the creatures, is God.
• The holy Ghost give's all things to the creatures, as I have pro­ved in my Arguments.
• Ergò Hee is God.

Else (say you) hee should give all things, and not all things, which is a contradiction. I see you take a great deal of pleasure ve­ry frequently almost in every Argument to reduce us to absurdities by contradictions (by such manner of arguing, to discover your follie this once for all) you may haply delude the simple and un­warie Readers. But I do wonder, if you do not write thus against the light of your own conscience; for every one, who is any whit versed in Logick, know's this to bee a received rule of contradicti­on, that it must bee meant of the same thing, at the same time, and in the same respect; but now, to receive in one regard, viz. from all eternitie, in reference to the Persons of the Trinitie, and to give all, viz. in time to the creatures, is no contradiction: for both parts [Page 56] are true; but it is impossible it should bee so, where there is a real contradiction. Now, because the ignorant Reader is onely in danger to be caught by this fallacie, I will propound a like example to his, which may serve as an antidote against it.

Hee that is taught, is not a School-master:

M. Bidle is a School-master:

Ergò Hee is not taught. This is true, or else M. Bidle must bee a School-master, and a School-master, which implieth a contra­diction. Will not every one bee ready to say, hee may bee both a School-master, and not a School-master in several references; a School-master, in regard of his scholars, and not a School-master, but a husband to his wife, a father to his children, and a master to his servant. I should have been ashamed to put down such trifies in writing, had not the bold fallacies of the Adversarie forced mee thereunto.

Advers. Lastly, Hee that is dependent, is not God; Hee that receive's from ano­ther is dependent: for, this is the very notion of dependencie.

Answ. I deny your Minor, if it bee taken without exception; for depen­dencie, if wee speak not of that which is logical and notional, which is mutual, but of that which is real and theological, as wee must: for this note's inferioritie, subordination, and reliance upon ano­ther in fieri, as a house and a ship to bee built, doth on the Carpenter; and in facto esse, when it is built, on the materials artificially com­pacted together: but to speak fully and properly, all things do im­mediatly and totally depend on God, they do depend on the holy Ghost, who is God. But this can have no place in your Argument, where there is unitie of nature, and equalitie of Persons: Thus ra­ther and more truly you might have argued; Hee, on whom all things depend, is God. The holy Ghost is a person, on whom all things depend, by him of nothing they were creäted, and but for him, as God, they would bee annihilated, and reduced to nothing. And whereas you say, it is the very notion of dependencie, this wee must take it, if wee will beleeve it on your own words; for other proofs wee are not to expect from you. In this, I say, you are mistaken; the notion of receiving carrie's us to the consideration of giving: to give and receive are relatives, which doth not formally implie dependencie, but relation. Albeit, I confess, to receive in [Page 57] time, as the creatures do, which have their beeing from God, de­note's prodependencie on the Creätor. But what doth this make a­gainst the Deitie of the holy Ghost? Nothing at all.

ANSWER.

Answ. It will not bee amiss, to premise som considerations touching sending, on which word the strength of the Argument depend's, that so the point may bee more fully cleared, and the Adversaries reason more distinctly answered.

A Person is said to be sent either properly or improperly.

To bee sent properly, according to our vulgar acception of the word, requireth these particulars.

1 First, that the Person sent bee really divided from, and actually [Page 58] separated from him that send's him, this is evidently seen by daily experience.

2 Secondly, it's required of him that is sent, that hee move's from an ubi, or from place to place, which is a necessarie condition, to ex­pedite the emploiment about which hee is sent.

3 Thirdly, it denote's, that the Person sent is inferior to the sender, either in nature or condition, or both: as, when the Lord send's Men or Angels about his service; 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 every­where, 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 [Page 59] 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 [Page 60] 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. 1 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 a commandement of his Father, as one equal doth of another, and that was nothing else but Gods counsel and decree [Page 61] to send his Son to undertake, as hee did, and execute the office of a Mediator.

2 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.

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 [Page 63] beget that essence, which is communicated to the Son of God, but the Son: therefore hee is not called the Father of God, but the Fa­ther of his Son. And in proportion the like is to bee spoken con­cerning God the holy Ghost, and the same order is to bee observed of the works wrought in time. God the Father by the Son, and thorough the holy Ghost bestoweth ordinarie, extraordinarie gifts, as it pleaseth him; and these three Persons are co-eternal, and co­essential.

If your Proposition bee virtually particular, it prove's nothing. Som gift of God is not God. It's true in this sense, no creäted gift of God, is God himself; but the holy Ghost is no such gift: hee is a gift indeed, but an uncreäted gift, not lesser, but equal to the Fa­ther or Son that give's him. And though I yield the holy Ghost is a gift, yet your proof, Act. 11. 17. is not convincing; for to say no­thing that som render, the same grace, by gift may very well bee understood the miraculous gifts of the holy Spirit, which then [...]. were bestowed upon the Gentiles. And wee reade, 1 Cor. 12. 6, 7, 8. that the gift, and the Spirit [the Giver,] are plainly distinguished. But let that pass.

Advers. Whereas you would prove the Proposition, because hee is not the giver of all things, that is given himself;

Answ. In this there is [...], nothing sound in it; for I told you there was a difference betwixt these two to bee given, and to bee sent; to give, and to bee given, is of larger extension then to send, and to bee sent: for whosoever is sent, is given; but whosoever is given, is not sent: for, even God the Father, who is never sent, and who give's all things, as you will grant, yet give's himself in cove­nant to his children; hee is their Father, and all his glorious Attri­butes are set a work for their good: for though one and the same Person cannot bee the sender, and the Person that is sent, yet may the same Person bee the Giver and the Gift. There is no difference in the thing it self, but in the different consideration of it, the Gi­ver so called, as freely imparting himself som way to them, to whom hee is given. And the Gift, in relation of the Terminus ad quem, yea, and wee ourselvs likewise, as wee are bound, may give ourselvs to God to bee disposed of, and ruled by him according to his plea­sure.

Further, I say, by limitation of your words, hee that is not the [Page 64] Creätor, Preserver and Giver of all things, viz. which are creäted, hee is not God. This is true; but is this any thing for your pur­pose? Nothing at all. Nay, it make's strongly against you; for the holy Ghost is the Creätor, Preserver and Giver of all things: hee give's life, and breath, and all things to the creatures. Hee is such a Gift, that hee give's all other gifts; and so by this reason you might have soundly concluded, that the holy Ghost is God: for that text, Act. 17. 25. speak's of God's blessings bestowed on the creatures. And you ought not blasphemously to have made use of it, to rob the bles­sed Spirit of the glorie of his Deitie. Apply now what I have re­lated of the several respects of the Giver and the Gift, and you will easily discern, that your advantage which you would gather from a seeming contradiction to bee a gift, and not a gift; to bee given, and not to bee given, is as good as nothing.

Advers. A gift (say you) is in the power and disposal of another; it's absurd to think that God should bee so.

Answ. There are three words of neer signification, munus, praemium, and donum. The two former, munus and praemium, are absolutely in the power of the Giver, and do imply, that they are a separate thing from him. That the Giver hath a proprietie in them, and that they are inferior to the Giver. See Dan. in Lomb. l. 1. d. 18. Censura. But it is otherwise of a Gift: a thing is said to bee given, which is either had or possessed from another, when either simply, or in a certain re­spect, it was not so had or possessed before. And so it doth not ne­cessarily import any authoritie which the Giver hath over the gift; but it signifie's onely a free communication of that which is given: for hee give's, that make's this gift to bee had of another, whether hee bee the author or original of it, or not. Hence is it, as I said, that God the Father, when hee come's to us graciously, and com­municate's himself to us by his gifts, is said to give himself. And God the Son is said to bee given, and to give himself for us, and to us: yea, and the holy Spirit also doth give himself to us, because it is an act of his free will and absolute power, to communicate his gifts to whom hee pleaseth; so saith the Scripture, The Spirit blow's where it will, John 3. And the Spirit divide's to every one his gifts as hee pleaseth, 1 Cor. 12. And this is further evidenced, because a righteous man hath God the Father, God the Son, and God the holy Ghost; (for hee is a Temple of the whole Trinitie) and therefore hee hath [Page 65] received this best gift of all, as given to him by the most sacred Tri­nitie.

Quest. A scruple may here arise, since the holy Ghost is given, and that in time onely; for it is a name of God which actually belong's to him not from eternitie, but in time, as do many other. Creätor, Preserver, Lord—the power indeed was from eternitie in God, and these do belong to him ab aeterno in habitu, Hal. because hee is habilis dominari, creäre, praeservare, donabilis ab aeterno. But the actual denomi­nation to bee Creätor, Preserver, Lord, Gift, was not from eterni­tie, when there was no creature, no servant, none to whom God was given. Doth not this concession (may some say) prove a change in God? Answ. No, it's onely in the creatures, which in time have a bee­ing, and had none before that instant, or som new work wrought in them by the unchangeable God; and as for the relations which are betwixt the immutable God, and the mutable creatures, they are on the creatures part real relations, on Gods part they are not real, but in solâ ratione consistunt. This is illustrated by these similitudes: Wee say this is the right side, and that is the left side of a pillar, the right side or left side of the Equator; and by the death of a son, there is no change in the pillar, the Equinoctial line, or the father: but in the man, that turn's himself this way or that way to the pil­lar, that cut's the line, and in the childe that die's; and yet wee truly say, this is the right side of the pillar, of the Equator: the man ceas­eth to be a father, when his childe is dead. The like is to bee said of the holy Spirit: when hee is given to us, there is no change in him, but the change is in us. The decree that the Spirit should bee given to the elect was before all time, yet the real execution of this decree, as of all others, was don in time.

Advers. To prevent a solution of his Argument, hee saith, that not onely the gifts of the holy Ghost, but himself is given, Nehem. 9. 20. Rom. 5. 5. If hee was given out of his favor, hee was not personally there before, and consequently not God.

Answ. To this I answer divers waies:

1 First, ad hominem, if hee come's personally to every Saint where hee was not before; and is in this Saint in England, in that Saint in Germanie, &c. Either the holy Ghost is divided from himself, which cannot bee, or else, beeing in all Saints, hee must needs bee infinite, for you no where in all your reasons hint that there are [Page 66] many holy Ghosts; and it is a strange creature to admiration which can bee in this place, and not in that which is contiguous to it, and in that which is far removed from it. This I do mention, that I might give an occasion to you plainly to discover yourself in such particulars as these are.

2 Secondly, the weakness of this exception appear's, because if it were convincing, it would prove God the Father not to bee God; for hee give's himself to his children. Why then should God the holy Ghost on this ground bee no God?

3 Thirdly, I grant in a good sense, that the holy Ghost, and not one­ly the gifts of the holy Ghost are given, Luke 11. 13. And albeit ma­ny Divines do varie in their expressions, yet all agree in the main point against you, that the holy Ghost was with all them to whom hee is given before hee was a gift to them, as touching his natural and powerful presence; and thus hee is also with the very devils, re­probates, the elect uncalled, and all other creatures which are un­capable of this gift of holiness and of happiness. Yet the holy Ghost, when hee is given, hee is with the Saints in a new way, in such a manner as hee was not present before: in this regard it is, that the Saints are called the Temples of the holy Ghost, and a Temple is Gods peculiar, hee dwell's in the Saints, and is graciously present with them, they have him present by faith, and other graces, when hee is known and beloved of man. And this is not onely understood of the gifts of God, but of God himself, whom wee know by faith, and love by charitie. Nor is it any marvel, that God should bee present without any change on his part; for the bodily Sun, as wee know, without any mutation in the Sun at all, is present to him that will open his eies to look upon it. This is then your palpable fallacie, à dicto secundùm quid ad dictum simpliciter. The holy Ghost was not graciously present with the elect before their calling, Ergò, hee is not God, or was not essentially present with them before. I abhor the consequence.

ANSWER.

Answ. I except not against your Major, nor against the explication and confirmation of it; that God is every-where, is religiously and una­nimously acknowledged, because the essence of God is most simple and infinite absolutely, and so is the vertue of working infinite also: and, if it was not every-where, it would be limited. It's a memorable expression used by Hermes Trismegistus, a Heathen, hee compare's God to a perfect Sphere, whose centre is every-where, and circumference no where. As the soul is in the bodie, wholly in the whole bodie, and wholly in every part of the bodie, albeit it's said to bee chiefly in the heart or brain, because in and by those parts it perform's the most excellent operations; so is our great God wholly in heaven, wholly on the earth, wholly every-where in a divine and spiritual manner, not included in any place, nor excluded out of it, although hee is frequently said to bee in heaven, because there most conspi­cuously hee manifest's his glorie and his goodness to the holy An­gels and blessed Saints.

I denie your Minor; for although the holy Ghost is said to de­scend from heaven, yet was hee in heaven then, and every-where else. And there are divers circumstances in the text to convince what you from thence would denie, that hee is God who descended, and that the holy Ghost was not personally contained within the compass of a Dove, real or in representation, because hee did not assume into the unitie of his Person this Dove; and if hee had don so, yet would not hee have been definitively or circumscriptively therein: nor can hee bee said to descend on Christ in regard of sanctification, because [Page 68] Christ even from the instant of his incarnation was full of grace. Nor was there any addition of holiness to Christ by the descent of a Dove upon him, but hee represented himself in the shape of a Dove as in his sign; and 'tis not obscurely made out by the text, that hee is God: for what was the scope of the Evangelist? why doth hee relate this storie? was it not to manifest that Jesus Christ, both by the voice of his Father, and this descent of a Dove, was publickly authorised to exercise his prophetical, sacerdotal and regal offices, to redeem the elect, and to reconcile them to God? The circumstance of the time may leade us to such a consideration; hee is first inau­gurated to this office, and then hee begin's to put it in execution: and so wee see that the Father by his voice, and the holy Ghost by his visible descent upon him, did call him to this great work. None can send any Prophet but God alone, much less is it in the power of any creature to send Jesus Christ to redeem the world, Deut. 18. 15. See Luke 4. 18. Esa. 61. 1. Moreover it is never spoken of any Angel or pure creature, that the heaven was rent, and opened, as it is said hereof, Mar. 1. 10. this was a symbol of the singular presence of God, whereby wee may learn that this Spirit was God's Spirit, yea God himself. Add that it is somthing that this Spirit whereof you do speak, descended on Jesus, and remained on him, John 1. 33. but where do wee reade that creäted spirits descended on, and abode on him? It is their office, wee know, to minister as servants unto him, and to worship him, Hebr. 1. 6. Lastly, the same Spirit that descend­ed on Jesus, did also lead him into the wilderness to bee tempted of the Divel, Matth. 4. 1. Is it in the power of any creature to lead Je­sus Christ up and down, especially into solitarie deserts, and to this end to bee tempted by the Divel? Well, if this circumstance fail, yet by other circumstances in the text it's clear enough, that S. Au­stin with good reason did say, Go thou Arian to Jordane, and there thou shalt see the Trinitie.

I add, if there bee any sense of the Deitie in you, consider I pray, of your (shall I call it) extreme blindness, or rather abominable impietie, which you discover by this your Argument. Why so? the Prophet David saith, that hee could not go any where from the presence of God's Spirit, Psal. 139. But if you say true, suppose wee, that you could have taken the wings of the morning, and remove, as the light of the Sun doth (as it were) transfuse it self from East to West in the [Page 69] 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 [Page 70] 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 1 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.

2 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.

3 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 [Page 71] 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, 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 [Page 72] 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.

1 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. 2 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. 3 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 4 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. 5 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 [Page 73] 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.

ANSWER.

Answ. The Major Proposition is undeniably true; for religious invoca­tion, is an humble obsequiousness, and an enjoyned dutie to bee performed to the great God; and doth necessarily suppose in him that praie's, first, inferioritie of the nature of the partie that praie's to the object of invocation. Secondly, indigencie or want of that good thing which is praied for, either in whole, or in degree, a defectibi­litie or possibilitie not to have the good thing praied for as it relate's to the person for whom the praier is made. Thirdly, a disabilitie, either to enjoy or hold what is prayed for, without the help of God: for, what can bee more foolish (saith S. Austin) agreeably to common reason, then to pray to another for help, to do, or to have that which is in his own power to do and to have. Epist. 107. Now the holy Ghost is God almightie, and according to the Scriptures, give's to every one his gifts as hee pleaseth.

To the objected place out of Revel. 22. 17. there are many things which may bee said to infringe the strength thereof.

1 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.

2 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, M ^r. 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.

3 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.

1 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.

2 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. [Page 77] Thus God is said to know, when hee make's others know. Now (saith hee to Abraham) I know that thou fearest mee, Gen. 22. 12.

Advers. None (say you) can intercede for himself, but this action require's a third person. Many Scrip heaped up.

Answ. I denie this assertion. To intercede is a general word, and of that latitude, that somtimes a man intercede's for himself, and somtimes for others, as the occasion or text will hold out the meaning either to the later or to the former. And thus the Spirit interpellat, orat, (or as others translate the word) postulat, clamat, when hee make's us in­tercede, pray, and crie to God; and those three words, as som say, are but one thing, called by different names, [...], praiers, when wee lay open to God our wants: the same praiers are [...], be­cause by our praiers wee testifie the desires of our hearts to God: and [...], intercessions, because wee do not pray diffidently and fearfully, but in an humble familiaritie wee speak to God, and do go boldly to the throne of grace. Com. in locum. The praiers which 1 Tim. 2. are intended, Rom. 8. 26. are of that nature, that whether they bee directed to God for ourselvs or for others, as wee are bound to pray both for our selvs and others, are intercessions, interpellations, or appellations, but yet they are not formally (as School-men speak) the praiers of the holy Ghost, but they are his, as an efficient cause thereof, they are the praiers which the holy Ghost enableth his ser­vants to make both for themselvs and others.

Touching the many Scriptures, which you have unconscionably heaped up together, to prove that intercession is alwaies for another, I briefly answer, by freely yielding that in those places which you have recited, The praiers are made, or intreated to bee made for o­ther men; but will it therefore follow, that in all other texts which mention praier, the Scripture is to bee so expounded? Nothing less. And if by virtue of those words in the texts fore-named, a Christian had no ground to pray for himself, hee must not then follow that maxim and approved rule, Charitie begin's at home, hee must onely pray for others, never for himself; for in som texts you have [...], Rom. 15. 30. Colos. 4. 12. and in som other, [...], as 2 Corinth. 1. 11. Ephes. 6. 18. which is such a dotage, as never entred into the brains of an advised Christian.

Advers. Albeit (say you) the Scripture speake's many things after the manner of men, yet never what argueth inferioritie and dependencie on another.

Answ. I grant this is a truth, when rightly expounded; it's but a beg­ging of the question, or but a vain supposition to take for granted, that the holy Ghost doth truly pray, which is constantly denied. Your Conclusion is proved by a false medium, although it cannot bee denied, but the Lord, not out of any power of ours, but out of a gracious condescension to us out of his free goodness, doth som­times in the Scripture speak, as if wee, base and feeble creatures, were able to encounter with God, yea and to overcom him, as Jacob wrastled with God, and hee could not prevail over him, Gen. 32. Ja­cob, as a Prince, had power not onely with men, but with God; and let mee alone (saith the Lord to Moses) that I may consume transgressing Israël, Exod. 32. The praiers of Moses did as it were binde the hands of the Almightie, that hee could not smite his people: and that is yet a higher expression Esa. 45. 11. [...] the Lord is, as it were at the command of the praiers of his servants, and many the like gra­cious expressions might bee named, so that neither head nor foot, neither Argument nor Inference hath any soundness in it.

ANSWER.

Answ. This Argument, as the rest, is so captiously and ambiguously pro­pounded, that I judg it expedient before I do punctually answer it, to put down, as I take it, three undeniable Conclusions; the one of them is touching the predicate, or later part: the other two touch­ing the subject or antecedent of the Proposition.

Conclus. 1 The first Conclusion, wee are to consider of God absolutely, as hee is plainly revealed in the Word, and accordingly acknowledged by all those which are in outward covenant with him, that hee is true God, the ever-living God, the onely wise and powerful God, &c. Thus in the Chaldean language in Jer. 10. 10, 11. both for a cauti­on and instruction to the Jews, when they should bee captives there, 'tis said, The gods that made not the heavens and the earth, they shall perish. Or else wee may conceive of God relatively, as distinctly to bee ap­prehended to bee God the Father, God the Son, God the holy Ghost. The former was alwaies necessarily beleeved to salvation, but not the later; so peremptorily to avouch, is to cover the graves of millions with a stone of despair. For if the Sun shine's not on the mountains, surely the vallies are not lightsom. Bellarmine judg­ing the Argument drawn from the word [Elohim] not sufficient to prove the Trinitie of the Persons, amongst other things add's this, In l. 2. de Chr. cap. 6. no. 7. that the Septuagints never turned it Dii. To this our learned Junius answer's, the reason hereof is, either because they themselvs knew not the mysterie of the Trinitie, or thought it not safe to propound it to them. And yet I grant that God never heard any but for his [Page 80] Sons sake, nor could ever any man make an acceptable praier to God, but by the help and direction of the holy Ghost. The former was clearly revealed in the Old Testament, The Lord thy God is one Lord, Deut. 6. 4. and in many other places not needful to bee reci­ted; but the mysterie of the Trinitie was not clearly revealed, but mystically expressed, and in great wisdom wee are sure. And if wee will beleeve Theodoret and many others, l. 2. ad Graecos. it was so or­dered partly, because the people of God then were uncapable to un­derstand that depth, and partly, to prevent Idolatrie, to which sin the Israëlites were very prone; for living amongst the Egyptians, then with Cananites, and other idolatrous people that did surround them, and were worshippers of many gods, if they had clearly and explicitely heard mention of God the Father, of God the Son, and God the holy Ghost, here is the danger, that they would have been Tritheïtes, and have beleeved that there were three gods; yet was this mysterie shadowed many waies in the Old Testament, lest it, being seen in the essentiall image of God, and evidently preached in the Gospel, should seem to Christians a new doctrine, or repugnant to the Old Testament.

Conclus. 2 The second Conclusion, to bee called a Disciple of Jesus Christ, and a Beleever on him, I speak of actuall faith, doth of necessitie require that hee should beleeve the promised Messiah was com into the world, I do not say, that it was alwaies necessarie to beleeve, that hee was God, the second Person of the blessed Trinitie; for I take it for granted, that in the infancie of the Church, not onely ordinarie Christians, but his choice Disciples apprehended not that divine truth: Nor do I say that it was absolutely necessarie to salvation to beleeve, that Christ was incarnated, and that hee was crucified for the sins of the world, for Cornelius, Act. 10. And it might bee the case of many others then, and before those daies, was in a good condition for beleeving in the promised Messiah, albeit then hee pitched not his faith on the Messiah, as already com in the flesh; and that was, wee may well presume, for want of sufficient instru­ction, for virtually beleeving on the Messiah, whom hee explicitely professed not; yet I say, that hee which is denominated a Beleever in Christ, and a Disciple of the Lord Jesus, doth not onely beleeve with his heart, but hee doth also profess with his tongue, that the Savior of the world was manifested in our flesh.

Conclus. 3 The third Conclusion is, Beleevers and Disciples are of two sorts: Som there are that are thoroughly instructed in the Articles of faith; and others there are, which either for want of capacitie, time to learn, or means of learning, (and these make their ignorance to bee invincible,) or else for want of industrie, or through their negli­gence to learn, are ignorant of many main heads of our Christian religion, which they might have known, and whereof they are sin­fully ignorant: This is a received truth in the world, all those who profess the Name of Christ, which are distinguished from Jews, Mahumetans, and Pagans, are usually, and may in a general way bee called Disciples and Beleevers. These Conclusions being thus pre­mised, the answer to the Argument will bee a very easie task.

Advers. Hee in whom men have not beleeved, is not God.

Answ. I answer, this Proposition, if it bee restrainedly understood, and meant of God taken personally, viz. for an explicite belief of the third Person, is not generally true, as it ought to bee. Many there are in the world, which were not so far enlightned, and yet were Beleevers and Disciples of Christ, as is shewed in the third Conclu­sion. But now, if the Proposition bee meant thus, as it is explained, hee that doth not beleeve in him that is God taken absolutely and essentially, can bee no Disciple or Beleever. I readily grant this to bee a truth, hee that doth not beleeve in one God, hee is no Disci­ple; nor do I think that any worthy the name of a Christian ever questioned the truth thereof.

Advers. Many (say you) were Disciples, which were so far from beleeving in God the holy Ghost to bee God, that they never heard whether there were an holy Ghost or not, Act. 19. 2.

Answ. To this I answer, that those Ephesians were Disciples and Be­leevers; for so the text call's them, but they were very children in knowledg at that time: they were converts, and baptized, for so saith the text, how ever Baptism is taken; and if properly, as it is most likely, either by John the Baptist, or one of his Disciples, they were not tam tincti, quàm sordidati, saith S. Ambrose: They then re­turned home to Ephesus, and wanted means at home of further in­struction, as wee may charitably judg, and probably gather, because that Paul and Timothy were forbidden to preach the word of God in Asia, Acts 16. 6. where Ephesus stood, but afterwards, as wee may [Page 82] read, Acts 19. and 20. Chapters, the glorious light did shine forth to idolatrous Ephesus, by the long continued disputations, and many Sermons of Saint Paul: so that in what sense soever the ho­ly Ghost bee taken in the question and answer, these Ephesians were very much unlike to those Christians, which according to that scomma propheticum, Esa. 65. 20. were children of an hundred years old. And, as Espencaeus out of his own knowledg saith of an ancient and noble Gentleman brought up in the Church, and so his ignorance was unexcusable, that hee did freely confess, that hee never had heard whether there was an holy Ghost or not, in 1 Tim. 3. cha digr. 17. But I will reason with you.

Either this ignorance of the Ephesians was vincible, or invin­cible; either it was sinfull, or sinless. That there was an holy Spirit of God expresly revealed in the Old Testament, and by the name of the Spirit of God, yea and manifested by extraordinarie inspirations and raptures, not onely by the holy Prophets, but also to others which had not a standing calling to that high office. Saul and the Messengers of Saul prophesied amongst the Prophets, 1 Sam. 19. And that hee is yet more fully revealed in the New Testament, you cannot denie, although you do boldly and wicked­ly denie his Deitie.

Well then, if these Ephesians never heard of the holy Ghost, either it was because they never had sufficient means to instruct them in that profound mysterie; and do you think that this is ve­ry probable? for they had, or might have had the writings of the Prophets; and if they were baptized by John, doth not hee ex­presly speak of the holy Ghost? Christ (saith hee) should baptize with the holy Ghost, Matth. 3. 11. Or might they not have repaired to som Christians in som place or other for a further instruction in the faith? Or if they never heard of the holy Ghost, it is else, because albeit they had som means of knowledg this way, yet did they not regard them, or sufficiently profit by them. Take it which way you will, and in neither of the waies is there any strength in the Argument to prove your odious assertion; but it argue's clear­ly, that you are given up by the just judgment of God to strong delusions to beleeve lies. How could it else have entred into your heart to think, that the ignorance of a few untaught Christians [Page 83] should bee a sound proof to overthrow a truth, which was unani­mously imbraced by sounder Christians? Shall God's truths bee no truths, because som sinfull and ignorant persons do not know them? Nay rather, you should thus have reasoned, since this was a divine truth preached by John the Baptist, and afterward more fully taught by Christ and his Apostles; therefore without wave­ring, much more without contradicting them, I will submit to their better judgment.

The Argument, by this which is already spoken, is fully answered; yet I will follow the Adversaries steps, and gather up his mistakings, for the better satisfaction of the Reader.

Advers. If any shall say by the holy Spirit is meant not the Person, but the gifts of the Spirit, besides that hee speak's without example, hee evacuate's the em­phasis, wee are so far from receiving the holy Ghost, that wee have not heard whether there bee an holy Ghost or not.

Answ. 1 First, let the Reader observe how the Adversarie is possessed with the spirit of giddiness, in contradicting himself. It's without ex­ample (saith hee) to say the Spirit is taken for the gifts of the Spi­rit, and yet within three lines after hee saith, wee may grant that this question, Have you received the holy Ghost? may bee meant of the gifts of the holy Ghost. And with the same breath hee saith, (strangely forgetting himself) that it is without example to take the holy Ghost for the gifts of the holy Ghost. I add further, that it is clearly prophesied, that extraordinarie gifts, as of prophesying and tongues, are called the holy Ghost, Joël 2. 28. Acts 2. 17. and in this Chapter, Acts 19. 6. the holy Ghost came upon them: How this is to bee understood, the words following do expound, They spoke with tongues, and prophesied, Ver. 6. So Acts 2. 4. thus John 7. 39. the holy Ghost was not yet, you cannot denie but hee was in Person before that time, and that hee was as touching sanctifying graces before. How then is it said, the holy Ghost was not yet? Of necessitie it must bee meant as touching miraculous operations, which were not yet bestowed on the Disciples. What can bee more plainly spoken?

2 Nor doth this overthrow the Ephesians arguing, and the em­phasis of the words: for however the holy Ghost bee taken, yet your Argument is not good; this onely can bee soundly inferred from their words, Wee are so far from receiving the miraculous gifts [Page 84] of the holy Ghost, that wee have not so much as heard whether there bee any such miraculous gifts of the holy Ghost or not: And if the question moved to them was not touching the Person, and sanctifying graces of the holy Ghost, but onely touching miracu­lous gifts, as 'tis most probable; (for they being Disciples might bee presumed not to bee ignorant, that there was an holy Spirit, and that hee was a Sanctifier of his servants) then either their answer is impertinent to the question, or else they must needs return their an­swer in effect thus, Wee have not heard whether there bee such mi­raculous gifts of the holy Ghost, or not.

Advers. S. Paul would have taken the hint, which hee did not, to have instructed them in the Deitie of the holy Ghost.

Answ. 1 First, to this I say, that this your pleading make's as strongly a­gainst your self, as against the truth; for do not you also put a dif­ference betwixt that prime creäted Spirit, as you do blaspheme, and his gifts? What then do you say against us, which make's not as much against your self also?

2 Secondly, how prove you that the holy Apostle did not instruct these Ephesians touching the holy Ghost? Is not this your pleading? It is not written, therefore it was not don; this is, say I, inconse­quent: All that hee preached is not written, and do not you see, that by this reasoning you wound your own cause? For can you shew that S. Paul taught these Ephesians such a doctrine touching the holy Ghost, which you do maintain, that hee was a creature?

3 Thirdly, it is not to bee doubted, but that hee opened to them the doctrine of the holy Ghost, that hee was God, and that hee taught them, that holy graces are fruits of the holy Spirit, which none but God can give.

Advers. Yet now (say you) wee are made to beleeve that a man is damned, that beleeve's not the Deitie of the holy Ghost. And so saying you think to aggravate our error.

Answ. To this I answer, you are to know, that wee make a great diffe­rence of times and persons; wee do not despair of their salvation, which were in the state of these Ephesians, or of others now in the like condition, if beleeving in one God, and that Jesus Christ is a Savior, and seeing their own sins and miseries, should relie on him for eternall life. And then (as the converted thief on the Cross) [Page 85] presently die, though they never heard of the holy Ghost, I would charitably judg of them, and conceive that God intended mercie to them by these gracious discoveries of himself to them at this time; but if God will graciously wink at such ignorance, and have mer­cie on them, this will yield no comfort at all to you, who have been bred up in the Church of Christ, and in our Schools, and have read the word of God; for you have wilfully shut your eies a­gainst the truth, which is as clear touching the holy Ghost, as if it had been written with the Sun beams; and you have stretched your wits to the uttermost to pervert the plain meaning of the Scripture, as appear's by your endeavoring to answer Matth. 28. and Acts 5. I may say to you, as S. Cyprian de Sacram. Dom. calicis, saith of som, which 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.

ANSWER.

Answ. Hee that hath an understanding distinct from the understanding of God, is not God.

1 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.

2 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.

3 Or thirdly thus: Hee that hath an understanding not really di­stinct [Page 87] 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, [Page 88] 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 great without quantitie; God is good and just without qualitie; God is merciful without pas­sion; God is every where present without place; the first and the last; without time; nor is hee compounded of Nature and Person, because the Essence of God is most simple, most infinite, most im­mense, and the same thing is both the Nature and the Person: nor is this overthrown, because there are three Persons; for they are not three by composition of parts, for the Persons are not many things, they are but one thing, though distinguished by relative properties; for the divine relation in God is not properly an accident, but a substantial attribute, and make's no real composition in God, but a distinction of our reason, which crosseth not the absolute simplicitie of God no more then the same distinction of reason opposeth the absolute unitie of God, because this denomination is extrinsecal, a­rising from our manner of conceiving of it, Suarez. Thus is hee Deus trinus, by co-existencie of Persons; but the Catholick Faith teacheth us, that in creatures, the nature may bee really divided from the person: thus the Son of God did assume the nature, but not the person of man.

Advers. The holy Spirit (say you) hath an understanding distinct from that of God, because hee heareth from God, and is taught of God.

Answ. I denie your Minor, if you mean distinct really, as you ought to do, if you intend thereby to prove your Assertion. And your first reason, because hee heareth from God, and is taught of God, is but an idle repetition of the fourth Argument. For answer hereto, that I may not bee charged with needless tautologies, I refer you thither for your satisfaction.

Advers. This (say you) is deducible from the words of the Apostle, none can [Page 89] search his own understanding, 1 Corinth. 2. 10.

Answ. 1 If this bee true, as you say, why are wee then commanded to trie and to prove our own hearts, to speak to our hearts, to exa­mine our hearts, to consider our waies, yea to search ourselvs? How should wee comfortably know that wee are enriched with sa­ving graces, but by a reflexed act of the understanding, whereby wee know that wee have them? And are not our hearts deceitfull and wicked above all things? Is there not great need then that wee should search them?

2 Or do you mean hereby, that the Spirit hath a distinct under­standing from the Father and the Son of God, because hee search­eth the deep things of God; what doth this else import, but an ignorance, till that is found which is searched out? Not so, nor will this help you; for God, who exactly and perfectly know's all things: yet do you cite a text, Rom. 8. 27. which sheweth, that hee searcheth the heart of the Spirit; yea further, it is his peculiar ho­nor to search the hearts and reins of men, which import's thus much and no more, that there is nothing so secret in man, but the Lord both can and doth see the same most perfectly.

3 For the clearing of the main doubt know assuredly, that there is the same understanding of God the Father, God the Son, and God the holy Ghost; nor can wee truly say, that the under­standing of the Father is superior or equal to the understanding of the holy Ghost: for these do alwaies presuppose a comparison be­twixt divers, which doth not agree to the unitie of the God-head; Advertite Fratres. for, as wee cannot say the power of the Persons is equal, nor the goodness of the Persons is equal, but the same power, the same goodness; no more can wee say the understanding of the Father is equal to the understanding of the holy Ghost: But thus may wee say, the Persons of the Father, of the Son, and of the holy Ghost are equal in power, and equal in goodness; so are they likewise e­qual in understanding: and albeit the divine understanding is but one and the same beeing, yet is it considered of us in a common way, as referred to the essence, but singularly in regard of the Per­sons. And hence is it also, that such phrases are spoken of the Son of God, and they are also truly verified of the holy Ghost, that hee is a Principle of a Principle, very God of very God, light of light, [Page 90] a fountain of a fountain, when taken not essentially, but personally; so that the Son is a Principle, true God, a light, and a fountain, and so is the holy Ghost; yet the Father is considered first in or­der, and the Son from the Father, and the holy Ghost from them both.

4 I add, that this text, 1 Corinth. 2. 10. is so far from evincing that the holy Ghost is a creature, that it strongly prove's his Deitie. 1 First, because that hee must needs bee God, that know's whatsoe­ver the Father know's; for how should a smite creature by search attain to the unsearchable depths of God's knowledg? As of many other things; so were the Angels without sin ignorant of God's counsels, Revel. 5. 13. and of the time when the day of Judgment shall bee. 2 Secondly, the Apostle compare's the Spirit of God to mans spirit, and the Spirit of God is in God the Father, and God the Son. There is [...], circumincessio, as the Latines speak, whereby is signified the unitie of the God-head in the distinct Per­sons, that the Persons are so distinguished betwixt themselvs, that they are altogether, and most intimately one and the same thing; and further, hereby is noted a peculiar manner of the original of one Person from another distinguished from that procession of crea­tures, as the Son from the Father, which is sejunct from the Fa­ther; and therefore it is called processio ad extra: but here it is other­wise, the Son from the Father, and the holy Ghost from them both, by a procession ad intra, because hee doth intimè continue, and is not another thing from the Person from whom hee proceed's: Singula sunt in singulis, & omnia in singulis, & singula in omnibus, & omnia in omnibus, & unum omnia. Hence may wee conclude, that as the spirit of a man and a man, are not two men; so the Spirit of God, and God, viz the Father, are not two separated substances, but one God.

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.

1 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.

2 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.

3 Grant further, that this [...] bee the will, or what the Spirit of God desire's by those groans, yet will it not follow, [Page 92] 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.

4 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 equàlitie 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 [Page 93] 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:

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 2 ^ly 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.