<!DOCTYPE ETS PUBLIC "-//UMDLPS//DTD EEBOPROOF 2.0//EN">
<ETS>
<TEMPHEAD>
<REVDESCR>
<CHANGE>
<DATE>2013-09-24</DATE>
<RESPSTMT>
<NAME>Leigh Rupinski</NAME>
<RESP>MURP</RESP>
</RESPSTMT>
<ITEM>Checklist: x *Add TEMPHEAD, change DATE, validate x*Review structure: FRONT,BODY, BACK, DIV or rarely GROUP x*Add DIV TYPEs, make sure that @types makes sense as a navigational aide, and work in the context of the whole text, validate x*Survey book for troublesome formats of all kinds, including lists, illustrations, tables, music, math, end-notes, quasi-tabular arrangments, and marginalia. x*Proof title page(s) x*Examine marginalia. Is it all best tagged as NOTE? x*Observe divtop and divbottom material marking beginnings and ends of divisions, check that they are correctly tagged as HEAD, CLOSER, OPENER, ARGUMENT, EPIGRAPH, SIGNED, DATELINE, BYLINE, etc. x*Check for GAPs x*Check PB placement and completeness, ensure sequence of N="" x*Check ^, italic I / J, _Initals, space between &amp;c. x*Check for illustrations and correct usage of FIGURE. Add FIGDESCs if necessary. x*Check q; startq endq Q x*If appropriate, check for yoghs. x*If appropriate, check for Latin problems, e.g. oe and ae digraphs x*If appropriate, check for abbreviation and brevigraph problems. x*If appropriate, check for units of measure, symbols (alchemical, astronomical, etc.) and the like. x*Correct illegibles from proofsheet x*Check illegible page, para, line, span, word, dollar signs
* Run Check
*Final validate Corrected [ ] illegible groups out of [ ]. Converted [ ] illegible groups to GAP DESC="illegible". DONE</ITEM>
</CHANGE>
</REVDESCR>
</TEMPHEAD>
<EEBO>
<IDG S="marc" R="UM" ID="A84130">
<STC T="W">E3361</STC>
<STC T="T">E446_14</STC>
<STC T="C">R201957</STC>
<BIBNO T="umi">99862431</BIBNO>
<VID>114590</VID>
</IDG>
<TEXT LANG="eng">
<FRONT>
<DIV1 TYPE="title page">
<PB REF="1" MS="y">
<P> <GAP DESC="foreign">: OR, A TREATISE OF THE HOLY GHOST.</P>
<P>IN WHICH, The God-head of the third Per&s;on of the Trinitie is &s;trongly a&s;&s;erted by Scripture-Arguments.</P>
<P>And defended again&s;t the Sophi&s;ticall &s;ubtleties of <HI>JOHN BIDLE.</HI></P>
<P>BY M^r. <HI>Nicolas E&s;twick,</HI> B. D. &s;omtime Fellow of Christ-Colledg in Cambridg, and now Pa&s;tor of <HI>Warkton</HI> in the Countie of <HI>Northampton.</HI></P>
<P><HI>LONDON,</HI> Printed by <HI>William Du-gard,</HI> for <HI>Ralph Smith,</HI> and are to bee &s;old at the Sign of the Bible in Corn-hill, neer the Royal-Exchange. 1648.</P>
<PB REF="2">
</DIV1>
<DIV1 TYPE="preface">
<PB REF="2">
<HEAD>THE PREFACE.</HEAD>
<P>_THe &s;ublime Argument, touching <HI>the unitie of the God-head, and the Trinitie of the Per&s;ons,</HI> is of that high concern|ment, that it obligeth Chri&s;tians to lay them&s;elvs out to the uttermo&s;t in the &s;earch of the means in the which it hath plea&s;ed the Lord to reveal him&s;elf, that wee might have right apprehen&s;ions of him; partly, becau&s;e it is very dan|gerous, and attended with &s;ad con&s;equences to have erroneous conceptions in this to-bee-adored &s;ubject: and partly, becau&s;e no &s;ubordinate truths can bee more profitably learned, whether wee re&s;pect the in|formation of our judgments, the reformation of our lives, or our &s;ound con&s;olation in every condition.</P>
<P>In this licentious age, wherein Here&s;ies, with more boldne&s;s (the more is the pitie) are not onely private|ly vented, but printed, and expo&s;ed to publick view, then in former ages, whereby many unwary and ungrounded Readers are infected with lepro&s;ie in
<PB REF="3"> their heads, and their judgments are corrupted, as o|ther wicked phancies, for want of humilitie, know|ledg in Scripture, Arts and Tongues, and due re&s;pect to the word of God, and the te&s;timonie of ancient and modern Divines, have been broached, &s;o hath <HI>the fundamentall Article touching the Deitie of the holy Gho&s;t</HI> been que&s;tioned, yea plainly contradicted.</P>
<P>Many months pa&s;&s;ed before I had a &s;ight of M^r. <HI>Bidle</HI>'s <HI>abhorred lines,</HI> nor did I &s;o much as de&s;ire to read them; but when I heard by the relation of a very learned man, and of much ob&s;ervation touching the&s;e times, that tho&s;e twelve Rea&s;ons did a great deal of hurt, I then u&s;ed the means to get a &s;ight of the Book, and I &s;aw it was <HI>Sophi&s;tically penned, and plau&s;i|bly contrived to do much mi&s;chief;</HI> and when I could not hear that any of the learned, which have far better abilities, more lea&s;ure, and encouraging accommoda|tions then I have, would &s;pend their precious time in convincing this Adver&s;arie of God, I re&s;olved, by the grace of the Spirit of God, to vindicate what lie's in mee his honor, in <HI>&s;hewing partly the weakne&s;s, partly the bla&s;phemie of his twelve Rea&s;ons,</HI> to &s;hew him, if it may bee, the danger of his Here&s;ie, and to clear the al|ledged Scriptures from his Sophi&s;trie, and to hold forth that little light which the ble&s;&s;ed Spirit hath freely imparted to mee, to the bettering of the un|der&s;tanding
<PB REF="3"> of the &s;imple Readers.</P>
<P>There have been many erroneous opinions, no fewer then &s;ix in my knowledg, (and 'tis not unlike but there are many more) touching the ble&s;&s;ed Spirit, the holy Gho&s;t; it is not fit, nor &s;afe for mee to &s;et down a Catalogue of them, le&s;t unawares (which is far from my intention) &s;om vain and un&s;ound Chri|&s;tians in the&s;e un&s;ettled daies &s;hould take an occa&s;ion to err from the beaten way of truth; and others, which have tender con&s;ciences, &s;hould bee offended with the &s;tinch of the&s;e rotten Here&s;ies, when they are pre&s;ented to them: yet nece&s;&s;ary it is, that I &s;hould &s;et down my Adver&s;aries <HI>tenet,</HI> that the Reader may know it, and that I may more punctually addre&s;s my&s;elf to an&s;wer him; and this hee hold's, <HI>That the holy Gho&s;t is a creature, a finite per&s;on, the prime and chief of all the good Angels, as the Divel by an unhappy excellencie is called the chief of all the evill Spirits:</HI> An ancient Here&s;ie this is in the Church of Chri&s;t condemned both by the &s;ingle te&s;timonie of many famous Doctors, and by a generall Synod at Con&s;tantinople, which hath been alwaies honored, and was held by the Sum|mons of <HI>Theodo&s;ius</HI> the fir&s;t, more then twelve hun|dred and three&s;core years ago.</P>
<P>O ble&s;&s;ed God! bee not angry with mee, I be&s;eech thee, who am but &s;infull du&s;t and a&s;hes, for adven|turing
<PB REF="4"> to &s;peak of thy glorious Maje&s;tie. Pardon, I humbly pray, for my Saviors &s;ake, all my &s;infull ap|prehen&s;ions of thine unconceivable Greatne&s;s, accept graciou&s;ly my &s;incere intentions to promote thy glo|rie, and guide mee (O my God!) that I may alwaies, as a weak and &s;infull creature ought to do, both think, and &s;peak, and write of thy glorious Maje&s;tie with holy fear and lowly reverence, and in&s;truct mee, O thou ble&s;&s;ed Spirit of Truth, that I may rea|dily untie the Sophi&s;tical knots of carnal and humane rea&s;on, which in <HI>pretence</HI> are grounded on the truth of thy Word, and yet there is no <HI>truth</HI> in them, nor any <HI>divine word</HI> for them: And enable mee to main|tain thy Greatne&s;s again&s;t a <HI>wretched man,</HI> which dare's &s;tand up, and both boldly and publickly argue again&s;t thine ever to bee adored Deitie.</P>
</DIV1>
</FRONT>
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="arguments in favor">
<PB N="1" REF="4">
<HEAD>The Deitie of the holy Gho&s;t proved by Scripture and Argument.</HEAD>
<ARGUMENT>
<P><HI>True Arguments grounded on the Word of God whereby the</HI> Deitie <HI>of the</HI> holy Gho&s;t <HI>is fully proved, and &s;uch pa&s;|&s;ages of Scriptures which are excepted against by the Adver|&s;arie are examined and clearly refuted.</HI></P>
</ARGUMENT>
<DIV2 N="1" TYPE="argument">
<HEAD>Argum. 1</HEAD>
<LIST TYPE="syllogism">
<ITEM><LABEL>Maj.</LABEL> <HI>_HEe that hath the names of God ab&s;olutely attributed to him is God. </HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><LABEL>Min.</LABEL> <HI>The Holy Gho&s;t hath the names of God ab&s;olutely at|tributed to him.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><LABEL>Concl.</LABEL> Erg&ograve; <HI>the holy Gho&s;t is God.</HI></ITEM>
</LIST>
<P>The <HI>Major</HI> is clear; for albeit the name of God bee given to An|gels, <HI>P&s;al.</HI> 8. 6. <HI>Heb.</HI> 2. 7. and to Magi&s;trates, they are Gods to whom the Word of God came, <HI>P&s;al.</HI> 82. 7. that is, to whom by divine vo|cation the office of Magi&s;tracie is committed; yet either this is not &s;poken in the &s;ingular number, <HI>I &s;aid yee are Gods,</HI> whereas the true God without contradiction is but <HI>one;</HI> or, when it is &s;poken &s;in|gularly, it is not without limitation, <HI>Mo&s;es, I have made thee a God to Pharaoh, Exod.</HI> 7. 1. Every man may readily conceive that a made God is is not a true God; or with &s;uch an affixed limitation that a &s;imple man can hardly mi&s;take: <HI>I have &s;aid yee are Gods,</HI> yet they are but mortal Gods; for as is threatned there, <HI>They mu&s;t die like mor|tal men;</HI> but the true God is immortal. So that in all the Scriptures wee &s;hall not finde the names of God a&s;&s;cribed to any creatures with|out <HI>addition, limitation,</HI> or <HI>correction of &s;peech,</HI> nor is this denied by the Adver&s;arie.</P>
<P>The <HI>Minor</HI> is proved, <HI>fir&s;t,</HI> more ob&s;curely, Gen. 1. 1. <HI>God cre&auml;ted:</HI>
<PB N="2" REF="5"> A word not of the &s;ingular, or dual, but plural number, and that is al&s;o with a word of the &s;ingular number. God cre&auml;ted, becau&s;e God is but one in nature, but in regard of the manner of beeing there are three Per&s;ons. And in ver&s;e 26. of the &s;ame Chapter, God &s;aith, <HI>Let &V;s make man after Our image,</HI> that is, in the image of the holy Trinitie: the&s;e, and many like to the&s;e are alledged out of the old Te&s;tament, and ju&s;tified to bee pertinent to prove this cau&s;e again&s;t the exceptions of &s;uch as have oppo&s;ed them; and the rather is the phra&s;e to bee marked, becau&s;e, as is ob&s;erved, it is not &s;aid, one, <HI>Elo|him unus,</HI> as one, <HI>Jehovah unus,</HI> in all the Scripture. <HI>W. in</HI> 1. <HI>praec. Decal.</HI> but becau&s;e they meet with contradiction of learned friends, I pa&s;s them over. <HI>Secondly,</HI> and more particularly, King <HI>David</HI> in his la&s;t words &s;aith, <HI>The Spirit of the Lord &s;pake by mee, and his word was in my tongue,</HI> 2 Sam. 23. 2. and then ver&s;e 3. by way of explicati|on hee add's, <HI>the God of I&s;ra&euml;l &s;aid, the rock of I&s;ra&euml;l &s;pake to mee.</HI> And yet more fully, E&s;a. 6. 3. that Per&s;on that is called the Lord of ho&s;ts, and after that, <GAP DESC="foreign"> the Lord, which is the proper name of God, ver. 9. is by Saint <HI>Paul,</HI> an infallible Interpreter, expounded of the holy Gho&s;t, <HI>Well &s;pake the holy Gho&s;t by E&s;aias the Prophet unto our Fathers,</HI> Act. 28. 25. <HI>hearing yee &s;hall hear, and not under&s;tand&mdash;</HI>and this is further proved, becau&s;e what God promi&s;ed <HI>Levit.</HI> 26. 12. I will dwell in them, and walk in them, that is verified of all faithful Chri&s;tians, when the holy Gho&s;t dwell's in them; hence are they called the Temples of God, and that is expounded by the holy Gho&s;ts dwelling in them, 1 <HI>Corin.</HI> 3. 16. and 1. 6. 20. 19. what can bee more plain? The virtue of God is never &s;eparated from his E&s;&s;ence. God is there where hee work's, and Gods working in a creature, and dwelling in them differ much. God work's in all things, and is with them according to his e&s;&s;ence, pre&s;ence and power, but hee work's in his own and dwell's in them, as in his Temple, according to his &s;ingular and gracious pre&s;ence. <MILESTONE UNIT="Refut. Adv."> It is true indeed, wee have the Spirit from God the Father, and God the Son, hee is the gift of God, but this conce&s;&s;ion weakneth not our Argu|ment, but add's very much to our comfort and honor. To con|clude this Argument, <HI>Acts</HI> 5. 3. <HI>Peter</HI> by the revelation of the ble&s;&s;ed Spirit, di&s;cover's the fraud, the di&s;tru&s;tful covetou&s;ne&s;s and gro&s;s hypocri&s;ie of <HI>Ananias,</HI> in that this wretched man beeing overcom with diveli&s;h per&s;wa&s;ion with-held part of the money which hee had
<PB N="3" REF="5"> promi&s;ed to God to bee di&s;pen&s;ed by the Apo&s;tles to pious and cha|ritable u&s;es: and to demon&s;trate the height and heinou&s;ne&s;s of this offence, hee avoucheth that hee &s;inned and told a lie again&s;t the holy Gho&s;t, and by way of explication, it's added in the next ver&s;e, <HI>thou ha&s;t not lied to men, but to God.</HI></P>
<P> <MILESTONE UNIT="Adver&s;."> To this clear Scripture you make two An&s;wers: Fir&s;t, <HI>to lie to the holy Gho&s;t, is to lie to men endued with the Spirit, &s;o</HI> Pi&s;cator; <HI>yet will it not pre&s;ently follow that the holy Gho&s;t is God, for one may lie to God, and yet neither men nor the Spirit in them bee God; but onely the Me&s;&s;engers of God; what is don to Me&s;&s;en|gers redound's to him that &s;end's them,</HI> 1 The&s;&s;al. 4. 8, 13. John 20. Luc. 10. 16.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE UNIT="An&s;w."> I grant that <HI>Ananias</HI> did lie to men endued with the Spirit, though not onely, or principally again&s;t them: for &s;o S. <HI>Peter</HI> ac|knowledgeth, you have not lied to men, but to God; and yet the holy Gho&s;t is not to bee excluded, as you have don, from the beeing an object again&s;t whom this lie is told. And well had it been for you, if you had had the eyes of <HI>Pi&s;cator,</HI> when you alledg what doth without wavering &s;oundly conclude the Deitie of the holy Gho&s;t out of this text. I add, grant that to lie again&s;t the holy Gho&s;t is to lie again&s;t God &s;peaking by his Spirit in his &s;ervants, will this follow that the holy Gho&s;t is not God dwelling in his &s;ervants? nay, rather the contrary may be concluded, for the words import thus much, Think not, O <HI>Ananias,</HI> becau&s;e I &s;aid thou &s;inned&s;t a|gain&s;t the holy Gho&s;t, that I intended onely that thou u&s;ed&s;t di&s;&s;i|mulation again&s;t mee, and my brethren the re&s;t of the Apo&s;tles, in whom are the extraordinary gifts of the holy Gho&s;t, or as if the Spirit that is in us was a meer cre&auml;ted Spirit, thou art deceived if thou thinke&s;t &s;o, thou &s;houlde&s;t then directly have &s;inned but again&s;t a creature; but in this thy fact which is again&s;t the holy Gho&s;t, thou ha&s;t not lied to man but to God. Who &s;ee's not, if hee will &s;e|riou&s;ly perpend the text, what it is to lie again&s;t the holy Gho&s;t; that it is to lie again&s;t God the holy Gho&s;t; and bee it granted, that the de&s;pite don to the &s;ervants of God redound's to God, which no man will deny; yet touching the holy Gho&s;t the&s;e texts are not fitly alledged: for &s;hew mee any place of Scripture where the holy Gho&s;t is called the Me&s;&s;enger of God. Search as long as you will, you &s;hall never finde &s;uch an expre&s;&s;ion in Gods Book. Be&s;ides,
<PB N="4" REF="6">
<GAP DESC="duplicate" EXTENT="1 page">
<PB N="5" REF="6">
<GAP DESC="duplicate" EXTENT="1 page">
<PB N="4" REF="7"> this conce&s;&s;ion abat's not the &s;trength of our Argument for wrong don to the &s;ervants of God, as they are his &s;ervants; it's again&s;t them as acted by the Spirit which dwell's in them, and is no acci|dental gift, nor cre&auml;ted per&s;on, but the holy God, and &s;o it tend's to the di&s;honor of the holy Gho&s;t, and this may further appear by the&s;e circum&s;tances in the text. How came <HI>Peter</HI> to know this lie of <HI>Ananias?</HI> It's not a man, not a creature that can &s;earch the heart, was it not then God that revealed this &s;in and the intenti|ons of <HI>Ananias</HI> and of his wife to <HI>Peter,</HI> even the ble&s;&s;ed Spirit that enlightned, &s;anctified and enriched him with extraordinary gifts? And doth not the puni&s;hment inflicted on the man and his wife thew the &s;everity and power of the holy Gho&s;t in that hee can &s;o in|&s;tantly de&s;troy his enemies? And for further proof and confirma|tion of the Deitie of the holy Gho&s;t out of this Scripture, ver. 9. for the &s;in was one, and agreed on betwixt the husband and the wife, and both of them are charged for their hypocritical and bold tempting the Spirit of God. This fact of <HI>Ananias</HI> and <HI>Saphirah</HI> pro|claimed evidently, that whereas they had heard that the Spirit know's all &s;ins, is ju&s;t to puni&s;h for &s;ins which hee doth know, is true and faithful to perform his threatnings, and powerful and able to puni&s;h as hee had threatned, yet they wretchedly again&s;t the clear light and check of their con&s;ciences in thus &s;inning again&s;t him, would yet put God to it, and make a trial and experiment whether God knew the infidelitie of their hearts, and could di&s;|cover it, whether his patience, mercie and love to mankinde would not &s;pare them, and avert that vindicative ju&s;tice, albeit hee had threatned often to puni&s;h them that doe commit this <HI>&s;celerati&s;&s;imum genus tentationis,</HI> as <HI>Peter Martyr</HI> phra&s;eth it, and whether hee had power to puni&s;h them for their di&s;&s;embling hypocri&s;ie. Lay all the&s;e things together, and they will amount to a full demon&s;tration of the point in hand.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE UNIT="Adver&s;."> <HI>If any man</HI> (&s;ay you) <HI>look more narrowly into the words, hee &s;hall finde that the tran&s;lation is not true, for the verb</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign"> ver. 3. <HI>is con&s;trued with an Accu&s;ative ca&s;e, and with a Dative,</HI> ver. 4. <HI>and &s;o it is to bee tran&s;la|ted,</HI> to bely and counterfeit <HI>the holy Gho&s;t, which is to bear us in hand that thou laide&s;t down the money at the motion of the holy Gho&s;t, herein thou ha&s;t not lied to men but to God.</HI></P>
<P> <MILESTONE UNIT="An&s;w."> The Adver&s;arie would per&s;wade the Reader that hee by his ob|&s;ervation
<PB N="5" REF="7"> of the text, had found out a fault in our common tran&s;la|tions, whereof the Authors out of their ignorance or inadvertencie took no notice; if &s;o hee think's hee is utterly mi&s;taken: for all tran&s;lators, ancient and of later days, had the text before their eyes, and &s;aw the difference which is here noted by this Author, and yet did purpo&s;ely tran&s;late the words, <HI>thou ha&s;t lied to the holy Gho&s;t,</HI> as holding forth the genuine meaning of the Spirit of God, &s;om excepted, which yet, for the point of controver&s;ie in hand proved out of this very Scripture, are profe&s;&s;ed Adver&s;aries to you. <HI>Beza,</HI> after hee had rendred the words <HI>to deceive,</HI> or <HI>mock;</HI> i. e. endeavor to deceive the holy Gho&s;t, (I might add what others &s;ay) hee retract's and go's in the &s;teps of common tran&s;lators. Why? I might &s;ay from others. It's not unu&s;ual among&s;t the Grecians to under&s;tand a prepo&s;ition which is not expre&s;&s;ed. Hee &s;aith, becau&s;e the 4^t^h. ver. where the Dative ca&s;e is u&s;ed, is an explication of the 3^d. ver. Be|&s;ides, the Hebrews do &s;omtimes confound the&s;e; whence the&s;e ex|pre&s;&s;ions, <HI>benedico te, evangelizo te,</HI> which the Grecians derived from the Hebrews, and the Latine Authors from the Grecians. Be&s;ides, in one manu&s;cript I found the prepo&s;ition <GAP DESC="foreign">, and &s;o have the Syrian and Arabian Interpreters read it. La&s;tly, becau&s;e this interpretation which is followed by <HI>Era&s;mus,</HI> to &s;ay, <HI>they coun|terfeited the holy Gho&s;t,</HI> &s;eem's to mee not to bee full. They were indeed notorious hypocrits, but <HI>Peter</HI> by the &s;equele accu&s;eth them of a far higher crime, that when, as by the motion of the Spirit, they had &s;old a parcel of ground, and con&s;ecrated it to the Church, they afterward kept back a part thereof, as if in that ca&s;e they had not to deal with God, but with men, which could not di&s;cover this their &s;acriledg, and &s;o they are in this regard &s;aid to tempt the Spi|rit of God.</P>
<P>Further, were it granted that your tran&s;lation were &s;ound, and that the words ought to bee &s;o interpreted, as you have don, this neither hinder's us, nor further's you; none ever dreamed by the common tran&s;lation to correct the meaning of the text, that they might have an Argument thence to confute the Adver&s;aries of the holy Gho&s;t; hee needeth not our lie to defend his cau&s;e. But the &s;trength of the Argument is not from the words &s;ingly taken, ver. 3. but from them, and the explication of them in the fourth and ninth ver&s;es, you counterfeit the holy Gho&s;t to bee the Author of
<PB N="6" REF="8"> this fact, and this is expounded to bee a lying to God, <HI>viz.</HI> to God the holy Gho&s;t whom you have counterfeited, hee &s;peaking in us, and di&s;covering this hypocri&s;ie of your heart which you litle dreamed off. And your expo&s;ition of the words, as they &s;tand in your Book, is of that nature, that albeit I have perpended it as ex|actly as I can, yet do I conceive nothing in it, but I may readily &s;ub&s;cribe to it; I am &s;ure it nothing cro&s;&s;eth the Argument. Thus much for the fir&s;t Argument.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="2" TYPE="argument">
<HEAD>Argum. 2</HEAD>
<P><LIST TYPE="syllogism">
<ITEM><LABEL>Maj.</LABEL> <HI>Hee to whom religious wor&s;hip is truly exhibited is God.</HI> </ITEM>
<ITEM><LABEL>Min.</LABEL> <HI>The holy Gho&s;t is hee to whom religious wor&s;hip is exhibited.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><LABEL>Concl.</LABEL> Erg&ograve;.</ITEM>
</LIST></P>
<P>The <HI>Major</HI> is not denied by the Adver&s;arie, and is evident of it &s;elf: and &s;trange it is to mee that any learned men, which do ac|knowledge the Deitie of the holy Gho&s;t, &s;hould avouch, as they do, that there is neither precept to wor&s;hip him, nor any clear example in the Word that hee was wor&s;hipped. 'Tis a certain rule, the &s;acred Per&s;ons of the Trinitie which are undivided in nature, mu&s;t bee likewi&s;e undivided in wor&s;hip: for any one to &s;ay the holy Gho&s;t is God, and with the &s;ame breath to profe&s;s their doubting whether hee is to bee wor&s;hipped, is to &s;peak contradictions; and 'tis all one as to acknowledg a King, and to deny him honor, and this is to make him a titular King, and in truth no King at all.</P>
<P>The <HI>Minor</HI> is proved thus: the holy Angels of God do wor&s;hip him, they wor&s;hipped the Lord of ho&s;ts. E&s;a. 6. 3. <HI>Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of ho&s;ts.</HI> Heb. 1. 6. Whether the Prophet <HI>E&s;ay</HI> under&s;tood this my&s;terie or not, 'tis not material to the point in hand, nor whether their thrice chanting out <HI>holy,</HI> implied the &s;acred Trini|tie. Yet why might not that bee intended? But the Angels beeing intellectual &s;ub&s;tances wor&s;hipped they knew what, and beeing con|firmed in holine&s;s, they onely wor&s;hipped a fit object of wor&s;hip, and had they, or &s;inful men wor&s;hipped the highe&s;t creature with religious adoration, would not hee, as the Angel in the revelation, have rejected it, and &s;aid, See you do it not? I am your fellow|&s;ervant? but the Angels wor&s;hipped the holy Gho&s;t. I prove, the ble&s;&s;ed Apo&s;tle and irrefragable Interpreter inform's us, that the Lord of ho&s;ts who put words into the mouth of <HI>E&s;ay</HI> was the holy Gho&s;t, Act. 28. 25. <HI>Well &s;aid the holy Gho&s;t by E&s;aiah the Prophet:</HI> and as the Son of God is directly prayed unto, <HI>Lord Je&s;us,</HI> &s;aid <HI>Ste|phen</HI>
<PB N="7" REF="8"> that ble&s;&s;ed martyr, <HI>receive my Spirit,</HI> Acts 7. <HI>Lord Je&s;us com quickly,</HI> Apocal. 22. So is likewi&s;e the holy Spirit, <HI>Awake thou North-winde, and com thou South, blow upon my garden, that the Spices thereof may flow out.</HI> O ble&s;&s;ed Spirit breathe into my heart, that by the love of God and my neighbor it may &s;end forth a &s;weet &s;avor, <HI>Cant.</HI> 4. 16. The ble&s;&s;ed Spirit of God is compared to the winde, that as <HI>the winde blow's where it li&s;t's,</HI> &s;o doth the Spirit of God blow where hee will, regenerat's whom hee plea&s;eth, <HI>John</HI> 3. 8. And to this intent it is that S. <HI>John</HI> prayeth, <HI>grace and peace,</HI> not onely from God the Father and from Je&s;us Chri&s;t, but al&s;o <HI>from the &s;even Spirits,</HI> Apocal. 1. 4. The Spirit is but one in nature, but it is &s;aid to bee <HI>&s;e|ven,</HI> that is, <HI>manifold,</HI> in regard of the di&s;tribution of many gifts which are from the Spirit, and more plainly 2 <HI>Corinth.</HI> 13. 13. <HI>The grace of our Lord Je&s;us Chri&s;t, and the love of God, and the fellow|&s;hip of the holy Gho&s;t bee with you all.</HI> And this Argument is a&s;|&s;erted by <HI>Ju&s;tin Martyr,</HI> as I have &s;hewed in an&s;wer to your thirteenth Argument, and by <HI>Clemens Alexandrinus</HI> at the end <HI>l.</HI> 3. <HI>Paedag.</HI> u&s;ed in the ancient Liturgies, and practi&s;ed by the reformed Churches. <HI>Sancta Trinitas mi&s;erere,</HI> O holy Trinitie have mercie. To the&s;e I may add this con&s;ideration, that wee are the Temples of the holy Gho&s;t. It's God onely that hath a Temple, and &s;o it's nece&s;&s;arie, &s;aith S. <HI>Au&s;tin l.</HI> 1. <HI>de Trinitat. c.</HI> 6. that wee &s;hould yield religious &s;ervice to him, that which is proper to God. I &s;hut up this Argu|ment with the words of our Savior, Matth. 28. 19. <HI>Go and baptize all Nations in the Name of the Father, the Son, and holy Gho&s;t:</HI> to bee ba|ptized into the Name of the Father, Son and, holy Gho&s;t, is to bee obliged to the Faith, Wor&s;hip, and Obedience of God the Father, Son, and holy Gho&s;t.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE UNIT="Adver."> You endeavor to elude this plain convincing te&s;timonie touch|ing the Deitie of the holy Gho&s;t. Baptize them <HI>into the holy Gho&s;t,</HI> that is, <HI>into the guidance of the holy Gho&s;t:</HI> which may, I deny not, bee a part of the meaning of the text. You add, <HI>Thus all the I&s;ra&euml;lites were baptized into Mo&s;es,</HI> 1 Corinth. 10. 2.</P>
<P>The&s;e two texts are unequally matched and paralleled:</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="1" UNIT="An&s;w."> <HI>Fir&s;t,</HI> it is not &s;aid 1 <HI>Corinth.</HI> 10. 2. that the I&s;ra&euml;lites were ba|ptized into the Name of the Father, Son of God, and <HI>Mo&s;es,</HI> which would have been a &s;eeming advantage to you, but yet not
<PB N="8" REF="9"> forcible enough to have &s;hielded you from the dint of the Argu|ment.</P>
<P><HI>Secondly,</HI> the Bapti&s;m into which the I&s;ra&euml;lites were baptized, was not &s;uch a Sacrament as ours of Bapti&s;m is; it was not a &s;piri|tual Sacrament of the Covenant of Grace appertaining to eternal life, as our Bapti&s;m is: their pa&s;&s;ing through the Sea, and under the Cloud was don without &s;prinkling them with, or dipping them in water, and did &s;eal up, and evidently confirm that <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> was by the Lord deputed to bee a Guid and a Leader of his people, who&s;e Mini&s;terie was not fully &s;piritual, but 'tis termed carnal. God made choice of him to bee a happy in&s;trument to deliver them out of bondage. Now &s;uch as the deliverance is, &s;uch is the Bapti&s;m; but con&s;ider wee their pa&s;&s;ing through the red Sea, and by the gui|dance of the Cloud, as types and figures of the benefits which wee receive from Chri&s;t our true and &s;piritual Mediator; for &s;ervitude in Egypt was a type of &s;piritual &s;ervitude under the power of Sa|tan, and &s;in: and deliverance out of Egypt was a type of our deli|verance from the &s;nares of the devil, and the commanding power of our own &s;ins: In this regard it's denied that they were baptized into <HI>Mo&s;es;</HI> hence is it &s;aid that &s;om were baptized into the Bapti&s;m of <HI>John,</HI> Act. 19. 2. but they are not &s;aid to bee baptized into <HI>John;</HI> the rea&s;on is, becau&s;e the Mini&s;terie of <HI>John</HI> was meerly &s;piritual, and not carnal. And S. <HI>Paul</HI> doth take it as a very ab&s;urd thing to bee abhorred of Chri&s;tians to bee baptized into the name of any man. 1 Corinth. 1. 13, 15. <HI>were yee baptized into the name of Paul?</HI> and yet would hee bee acknowledged to bee their Guid, and Doctor, and a Father, who by his Mini&s;terie begot them through the Go&s;pel, 1 <HI>Corinth.</HI> 4. 15.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="3"> <HI>Thirdly,</HI> this will further appear, if wee do con&s;ider the u&s;e and the end of Bapti&s;m; it is a &s;ign and a &s;eal of the new Covenant, the Covenant of Grace, which is &s;ignified and ratified thereby; now con&s;ider this on the one part, the great God of heaven and earth, God the Father, God the Son, and God the holy Gho&s;t un|dertake's to bee the God of his people, which is their happine&s;s: on the other part, the confederates, the parties baptized and &s;ealed as Gods own by Bapti&s;m (which <HI>Au&s;tin</HI> call's <HI>Regius Character,</HI> a Kingly Character,) do &s;olemnly profe&s;s and oblige them&s;elves to
<PB N="9" REF="9"> the faith and &s;ervice not of any Angel, for where is there &s;uch a condition expre&s;&s;ed in the Covenant to tie us to creatures? but as I &s;aid, to the Faith, Service, and Obedience of God the Father, God the Son, and God the holy Gho&s;t.</P>
<P>That which you &s;ay is true in it &s;elf, though not in your mea|ning, that God the Father, and the Son, by the Spirit, do guid, go|vern, &s;anctifie, and endow the Church; and whereas before conver|&s;ion, and the giving up their names to Chri&s;t, they lived according to the Prince of this world, they ought thenceforth, beeing ad|mitted into the Church, re&s;ign up them&s;elves to the guidance of the holy Gho&s;t. But your &s;aying that the holy Gho&s;t is our Advocate in your &s;en&s;e, and a chief in&s;trument under God, is as a dead &s;lie in precious ointment; this is &s;poken, but cannot bee proved by you; and it hath been before, and &s;hall hereafter bee di&s;proved; yea, and your own conce&s;&s;ion touching the benefits received from the holy Gho&s;t &s;tand's not with this a&s;&s;ertion.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE UNIT="Adver&s;."> You &s;ay in your Dedicatory Epi&s;tle that the holy Gho&s;t is our <HI>Advocate. If I go not away the Advocate will not com unto you,</HI> John 16. 7, 8. And you boldly avouch that it <HI>ought</HI> &s;o to bee tran&s;lated every where, as ours have al&s;o don. 1 Joh. 2. 1. <HI>Wee have an Advocate with the Father.</HI></P>
<P> <MILESTONE UNIT="An&s;w."> Hereto I an&s;wer: You &s;hould have plainly told us what you meant by <HI>Advocate.</HI> Is it <HI>to plead our cau&s;e</HI> with God, as Lawyers do their clients cau&s;e before the Judg? Or do you mean, <HI>an Advocate, one that make's prayers for us?</HI> the rule hold's, <HI>A deceitful man &s;peak's in generalities.</HI> I am not ignorant that &s;om learned men, which are &s;trong defenders of the Deitie of the holy Gho&s;t, do tran&s;late the word <GAP DESC="foreign"> in &s;om texts (as you do) <HI>Advocate;</HI> and if you had rendred it &s;o in their &s;en&s;e, I would have pa&s;&s;ed it over in &s;ilence. The holy Gho&s;t may bee called an Advocate, but not &s;o an Advocate to God the Father as Chri&s;t is, which is by the merit of his pa&s;&s;ion and interce&s;&s;ion. In this meaning <GAP DESC="foreign"> is often u&s;ed in the Scripture; but <HI>the holy Gho&s;t may bee called an Advocate,</HI> becau&s;e, in doubtful ca&s;es and in &s;traits, hee help's us with his coun&s;el, and teacheth us all things, <HI>John</HI> 14. 26. and when his &s;ervants &s;hall bee convened before per&s;ecuting Magi&s;trates, and they then know not how to &s;peak to them, nor how to pray to God, the holy Gho&s;t will enable them both to &s;peak to men, and pray to God, as Chri|&s;tians
<PB N="10" REF="10"> ought to do. And becau&s;e the in&s;tilling of this heavenly do|ctrine into the hearts of Gods &s;ervants is u&s;ually accompanied with &s;piritual joy and comfort, hence is it, as <HI>Cam.</HI> gue&s;&s;eth, that this word is tran&s;lated by the Learned oftentimes, <HI>the Comforter.</HI></P>
<P>You &s;ay, <HI>the holy Gho&s;t is not ranked with the Father and Son of God,</HI><HI>as beeing equal to them,</HI> as is evident by other punctual places of Scri|pture, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 12. 3, 4, 5, 6. <HI>Ephe&s;.</HI> 4. 4, 5, 6. and 1 <HI>Corinth.</HI> 8. 5, 6. <HI>the holy Ghost is emphatically excluded from beeing either God or Lord, by beeing con|tradi&s;tingui&s;hed from them both.</HI></P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="1" UNIT="An&s;w."> I an&s;wer, the&s;e places might have been more fitly and &s;ea&s;onably alledged as Arguments to prove your Po&s;ition, then introduced as &s;hifts to di&s;prove our Rea&s;ons.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="2" UNIT="An&s;w."> I an&s;wer, directly by granting that in tho&s;e places which you alledg, and many others, the Father is called God, whereas the Se|cond and Third Per&s;ons are not &s;o called by the name of God, nor is this conce&s;&s;ion to your advantage. The Father is &s;o called chiefly for the&s;e two rea&s;ons: <HI>Fir&s;t,</HI> becau&s;e hee is God of him&s;elf, and from no other Per&s;on; hee is often &s;tiled <GAP DESC="foreign">, without a prin|ciple of beeing, &s;o are not the Son, and the holy Gho&s;t. <HI>Second|ly,</HI> becau&s;e hee is the principle and the fountain communicating the Deitie to the Son and the holy Gho&s;t, and yet, when it is &s;aid, <HI>Wee have one God,</HI> and it is immediatly &s;ubjoyned, <HI>the Father,</HI> this is not &s;poken by way of exclu&s;ion, but inclu&s;ion of the Son and the holy Gho&s;t; for the Son is in the Father, and &s;o is the holy Gho&s;t too. All creatures, and particularly Idol-Gods, are excluded from beeing God; for God is oppo&s;ed to Idols in the later place, and I &s;uppo&s;e you will not take the Son of God and the holy Gho&s;t to bee Idols. Be&s;ides, the text might have lead you to this con&s;truction, for it is &s;aid, <HI>Wee have one Lord Je&s;us Chri&s;t,</HI> will you ra&s;hly exclude God the Father from beeing our Lord? will you deny that hee hath domini|on over us? And if the Father bee included in this term, Chri&s;t is our one Lord, why &s;hould not the Son bee included in the former, one God? And as for the other places, the works recited there do prove the holy Gho&s;t to bee God; the the 3^d. Argument fol|loweth:</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="3" TYPE="argument">
<HEAD>Argum 3</HEAD>
<LIST TYPE="syllogism">
<ITEM><LABEL>Maj</LABEL> <HI>Hee that hath the incommunicable properties of God, is God.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><LABEL>Min</LABEL> <HI>The holy Gho&s;t hath the incommunicable properties of God.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><LABEL>Concl</LABEL> Erg&ograve;.</ITEM>
</LIST>
<PB N="11" REF="10">
<P> The <HI>Major</HI> is confe&s;&s;edly true, and need's no proof; the <HI>Minor</HI> is confirmed by a few in&s;tances, and if it can bee proved that but one of them belong's to him, it's virtually proved true of them all, for all are but one in truth and nature, and one is all.</P>
<P><HI>Fir&s;t,</HI> the holy Gho&s;t is <HI>omni&s;cient,</HI> not onely in that hee lead's his &s;ervants into all truth; <HI>Joh.</HI> 16. 13. <HI>E&s;a.</HI> 40. 13. hee is <HI>true,</HI> the Spirit of Truth, and the Fountain of Truth; but chiefly is this confirmed, becau&s;e hee <HI>&s;earcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God,</HI> 1 Corin. 2. 10. which no creature can do.</P>
<P><HI>Secondly,</HI> becau&s;e hee is e&s;&s;entially and powerfully <HI>pre&s;ent every where.</HI> The holy Prophet took this as an undeniable truth, <HI>P&s;al.</HI> 139. 7. <HI>Whither &s;hall I flee from thy Spirit?</HI> This Interrogation (as appeareth al&s;o by the enumeration of places mo&s;t di&s;tant one from another, heaven and hell) implieth a peremptory a&s;&s;ertion, that hee could go no where, no not in his thoughts, but the Spirit of God was pre&s;ent there; and yet is hee not included or circum&s;cribed in any places, as bodily creatures, or limited, as the nature of Angels is, <HI>Ba&s;il de Spir. San. c.</HI> 22.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE UNIT="Adver&s;."> This beeing a pinching Argument, and ea&s;ily apprehended to bee very forcible by &s;lender capacities, mu&s;t (&s;eemingly) bee an&s;wered, and the wound which his cau&s;e receive's thereby mu&s;t have a skin drawn over it, though it is not curable by the art of man. Thus hee &s;aith: <HI>By this rea&s;on the devil is omnipre&s;ent, for hee &s;teal's the Word &s;owen in a thou&s;and places at once, hee dwell's in all wicked men. Let them an&s;wer to the&s;e, and then I will tell them how the Spirit, though hee is not om|nipre&s;ent, may bee in all the faithful at once.</HI></P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="1" UNIT="An&s;w."> <HI>First,</HI> I mu&s;t tell this Di&s;putant, that though hee &s;aith much and enough to prove our a&s;&s;ertion, yet it is not &s;o full as it ought to bee; for the Argument holdeth forth this truth, That God's Spi|rit is not onely in the hearts of his children, but there (and it is their happine&s;s that hee is e&s;&s;entially there) where they &s;hall never bee. Hee is every where.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="2" UNIT="An&s;w."> <HI>Secondly,</HI> I ob&s;erve that though many lines are penned in an&s;wer to the que&s;tion, yet po&s;itively doth hee a&s;&s;ert nothing at all. Hee leave's us to gue&s;s at his meaning, to prevent ab&s;urdities: with which hee might have been pre&s;&s;ed, if hee had told us how the holy Gho&s;t a creature is in all the faithful, and how the chief Devil is in all the wicked; now po&s;&s;ibly hee hath a &s;tarting hole, and may &s;ay,
<PB N="12" REF="11"> hee hath no &s;uch meaning. It became a plain dealing man, de&s;irous to have the truth revealed to him, as hee pretend's to bee, to have opened his minde clearly, and not to have left the Beader in &s;u&s;pence touching this particular.</P>
<P>You tell us, and this is all you &s;ay, that <HI>what wee can an&s;wer a|gain&s;t the Omnipre&s;ence of the Devil, you will apply the &s;ame An&s;wer to our Objection.</HI> And will you &s;o indeed?</P>
<P>Shew mee then out of the Word of God in any place, that the holy Gho&s;t hath his beeing by cre&auml;tion, and not by eternal pro|ce&s;&s;ion. I can plainly prove, and this you will not deny, that the Devil and his Angels were cre&auml;ted of God, and were good in the in&s;tant of their cre&auml;tion.</P>
<P>Shew mee out of the Word of God, that it is any where thus &s;po|ken, the holy Gho&s;t, and his Angels; as it is &s;aid expre&s;ly, the De|vil, and his Angels. Wee read indeed that <HI>Micha&euml;l</HI> and his Angels did fight with the Dragon and his Angels, <HI>Revel.</HI> 12. Who&s;oever is meant by <HI>Micha&euml;l,</HI> (and there are &s;everal interpretations thereof) yet none did &s;o much as dream of the holy Gho&s;t, whom you make the Prince of Angels.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="3"> Shew mee out of the Word of God, that the Devil and his Angels are every where, as it is &s;aid expre&s;ly of the holy Spirit. If you mount up into heaven, are they there? Are they not thru&s;t head|long from thence never to bee re-admitted to the pure and ble&s;&s;ed place? Are they in the bottom of the &s;ea, or in the places of the earth which are not inhabited unle&s;s by re&s;traint? If in an in&s;tant you were placed there, you might truly &s;ay, that you fled from the De|vil's pre&s;ence, and could be &s;om where, and the Devil not there.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="4"> Shew mee out of the holy Word, that inferior good Spirits, which, as Guardians and Protectors, do lead the &s;ervants of God into all truth, that they do &s;anctifie them, and that, in the Scripture phra&s;e, they <HI>dwell</HI> in them, and that it is not one onely holy Gho&s;t that doth all the&s;e, and as you your &s;elf contend. The Per&s;on of the holy Gho&s;t is given together with his gifts, <HI>Argum.</HI> 7. but I can &s;hew you that it is not one individual Devil, but they are innume|rable principalities and powers again&s;t which God's &s;ervants mu&s;t fight, as again&s;t enemies, with whom they mu&s;t make no peace, and which do damnably &s;educe, guid, and hold in woful ca|ptivitie all &s;inners. A legion of Devils was ca&s;t out of one man;
<PB N="13" REF="11"> every one of the&s;e wicked Spirits is a Devil, a Satan; hee is like a &s;imilar bodie, as a bone, every one is a Devil.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE UNIT="Adver&s;."> Whereas you object, <HI>that one lying Spirit &s;educed four hundred Pro|phets,</HI> 1 King. 22. 23. <HI>and add that there is the &s;ame rea&s;on of four hundred, and four millions;</HI> To this, I &s;ay, &s;peak out man, doth one wicked individual Spirit &s;educe all the wicked by him&s;elf? If you dare not &s;ay &s;o, why is this example alledged? yea, and by your own &s;ilence your cau&s;e is lo&s;t. I dare tell you that the holy Spirit &s;anctifieth with his gracious pre&s;ence all the Saints that are in the world. Nor is the rea&s;on alike betwixt tho&s;e four hundred, and all the wicked men in the world, for they were a&s;&s;embled together in one place, and all of them of one Spirit; but &s;uppo&s;e the&s;e four hundred had been &s;evered, and placed in &s;o many remote Kingdoms, will you have the forehead to &s;ay that one Spirit could &s;educe them all at once? The former, I grant, may bee done by a cre&auml;ted Spirit, but not po&s;&s;ible the later.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="4" TYPE="argument">
<HEAD>Argum. 4</HEAD>
<LIST TYPE="syllogism">
<ITEM><LABEL>Maj.</LABEL> <HI>Hee that is &s;imply &s;uperior to Chri&s;t, as man, is God.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><LABEL>Min.</LABEL> <HI>The holy Gho&s;t is &s;o.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><LABEL>Concl.</LABEL> Erg&ograve;, <HI>hee is God.</HI></ITEM>
</LIST>
<P>The <HI>Major</HI> is clear by the confe&s;&s;ion of the Adver&s;arie, for hee ranketh Chri&s;t in the &s;econd order, next under God, and the holy Gho&s;t below Chri&s;t in the third rank, and rightly, if his &s;uppo&s;iti|on had been true; for the humane nature, &s;imply con&s;idered, bee|ing a&s;&s;umed into the per&s;on of the Son of God, is neere&s;t the cau&s;e and fountain of all greatne&s;s, and is thereby exalted far above the &s;tate and condition of the highe&s;t Angels; but hee is &s;aid to bee made lower then they are, onely for a &s;hort time, in regard of his &s;ufferings, <HI>Hebr.</HI> 2. from which tho&s;e ble&s;&s;ed Spirits were ex|empted.</P>
<P>The <HI>Minor</HI> is proved by tho&s;e very Arguments, whereby you en|deavor to prove the holy Gho&s;t to bee inferior to God. <HI>Fir&s;t,</HI> be|cau&s;e Chri&s;t in this notion is &s;ent of the holy Gho&s;t, <HI>The Lord God &s;ent mee, and his holy Spirit,</HI> E&s;a. 48. 16. I know &s;om of ours do ex|pound this of the Prophet <HI>E&s;ay,</HI> the Spirit &s;ent him, and &s;o do the Hebrews &s;uddenly change the Per&s;on (&s;aith <HI>Oecolampadius)</HI> without any nece&s;&s;itie, becau&s;e they do abhor the my&s;terie of the Trinitie, but wee (&s;aith hee) with Catholiques do avouch that the&s;e are the words of Chri&s;t, as the whole context evinceth. But let that text
<PB N="14" REF="12"> bee meant &s;o or otherwi&s;e. It's clear by <HI>F&s;a.</HI> 61. 1. applied to Chri&s;t, Luke 4. 18. <HI>The Spirit of the Lord hath &s;ent mee to binde up the broken hearted, to preach the Go&s;pel.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Secondly,</HI> hee that receiveth of another is inferior to him of whom hee receiveth, and dependent on him, the&s;e are your own expre&s;&s;i|ons; but the humane nature of Chri&s;t receive's from the Spirit it's beeing, for hee was conceived by the holy Gho&s;t, <HI>Matth.</HI> 1. and was anointed by him with abundant gifts without mea&s;ure, <HI>Luke</HI> 4. 18.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="3"> To the&s;e I add, that the holy Spirit by his mighty power rai&s;ed Chri&s;t corporally from death, <HI>Rom.</HI> 8. 11. as hee doth his people &s;pi|ritually from the death of &s;in.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="4"> <HI>La&s;tly,</HI> becau&s;e it is a greater &s;in which is committed again&s;t the holy Gho&s;t, then that is which is committed again&s;t the Son, <HI>Mat.</HI> 12. 31, 32. this is pardonable, the other &s;hall never bee for|given.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE UNIT="Adver&s;."> To this la&s;t objected place you frame this An&s;wer: <HI>The &s;in again&s;t the holy Gho&s;t is unpardonable, not becau&s;e the holy Gho&s;t is God, but becau&s;e hee that &s;inneth again&s;t the holy Gho&s;t doth in the &s;ame act &s;in again&s;t God with an high hand again&s;t his con&s;cience, renoun|cing the truth, as the Renegadoes did,</HI> Hebr. 10. 25, 26. <HI>which things are the greate&s;t affronts that can bee offered to God, who u&s;eth the Spirit in none, but in things of greate&s;t importance.</HI></P>
<P> <MILESTONE UNIT="An&s;w."> I grant the &s;in again&s;t the holy Gho&s;t is not therefore <HI>&s;imply</HI> un|pardonable, becau&s;e it is &s;imply again&s;t God; for &s;o are all &s;ins, and yet are they not the unpardonable &s;in, and they are in a proper and true &s;en&s;e again&s;t the holy Gho&s;t, even the &s;ins of his own people, and hee is &s;aid to bee grieved for them, <HI>Ephe&s;.</HI> 4. 30. and the &s;ins of the wicked, for which hee will bee revenged on them, <HI>E&s;a.</HI> 63. 10. But yet this I do peremptorily avouch, unle&s;s the holy Gho&s;t were God, and equal to the Father, and the Son of God, it could not bee the greate&s;t &s;in that was committed again&s;t him, as the immedi|ate and ultimate object thereof. I will on your own principles argue again&s;t you for the fuller confirmation of this point.</P>
<P>I take this for a granted Maxim, that the unpardonable &s;in, is a &s;in, and of nece&s;&s;itie mu&s;t bee a &s;in again&s;t the holy Gho&s;t. This A&s;&s;ertion cannot with rea&s;on be denied. Upon this &s;uppo&s;ition of yours, that the holy Gho&s;t is a creature, I argue thus, That the unpardonable &s;in may bee committed, and yet the holy Gho&s;t not
<PB N="15" REF="12"> at all &s;inned again&s;t: <MILESTONE N="1"> <HI>Fir&s;t,</HI> becau&s;e the fir&s;t and univer&s;al cau&s;e can immediatly of him&s;elf, without the intervening of any creature, &s;o far enlighten a reprobate, that this &s;in maliciou&s;ly committed a|gain&s;t this light, &s;hall bee for nature the very &s;ame, every way as hei|nous, and as unpardonable, and yet not all again&s;t the holy Gho&s;t. It is true, in&s;truments are God's hands, and as they can do nothing without God, &s;o God ordinarily will not work without them; but is Gods hand &s;hortened? Can you give any rea&s;on why hee cannot do the &s;ame work without the creatures, which is in&s;tru|mentally produced by them? <MILESTONE N="2"> <HI>Secondly,</HI> &s;uppo&s;e the Lord will not work thus immediatly by him&s;elf, cannot hee imploy an Angel, in|ferior to the holy Gho&s;t, about this work of illumination? Can|not hee &s;o far elevate this ble&s;&s;ed creature above it &s;elf touching the former &s;tate, and actuate his abilities, that hee &s;hall, as a means un|der God, &s;o far enlighten man, as is don at other times by the holy Gho&s;t? And the ble&s;&s;ed Spirit in the mean time according to your profane opinion, re&s;ide in one place, and not intermeddle at all ei|ther to command, or have any influence on this Angel in this im|ployment? or if there &s;hould bee a deficiencie &s;till in this creature, (which is very unrea&s;onable to imagine) cannot the great God &s;up|ply the defect thereof? In this ca&s;e wee have the unpardonable &s;in committed, and yet not at all committed again&s;t the holy Gho&s;t. <MILESTONE N="3"> <HI>Thirdly,</HI> I confute you from this Scripture, <HI>Matth.</HI> 12. on which our Argument is grounded. The holy Gho&s;t (&s;ay you) is God's Me&s;&s;en|ger, and hee is &s;ent as God's &s;ervant to enlighten men; at the &s;ame time this great God &s;end's his Son al&s;o as his Me&s;&s;enger, for &s;o hee is often called, but the holy Gho&s;t is never called his Son: this Son of God, as you grant, is next unto God him&s;elf, higher and greater then the holy Gho&s;t; and be&s;ides, which is another ad|vantage to &s;trengthen the Argument, the holy Gho&s;t is invi&s;ible, the Son of God pre&s;ent's him&s;elf vi&s;ible to them, and his Per&s;on is di|rectly and purpo&s;ely &s;corned and abu&s;ed by them: and 'tis not ea&s;ie to bee proved that they had the like mi&s;chievous intentions, and malicious purpo&s;es again&s;t the Per&s;on of the holy Gho&s;t. Judg now impartially whether is the greater &s;in, and which in likelihood is the &s;in mo&s;t unpardonable? Whether the Lord will&punc; bee more of|fended for a &s;in again&s;t the &s;ervant, again&s;t a Per&s;on inferior to the Son, then for a &s;in again&s;t the greater, and again&s;t his wel-belo|ved
<PB N="16" REF="13"> Son? And if a man bee not bereft of common &s;en&s;e, hee mu&s;t need's conclude again&s;t this Di&s;putant; and therefore, &s;ince the &s;in again&s;t the holy Gho&s;t is unpardonable, but the &s;in again&s;t the Son of God is not unpardonable, as the text &s;heweth, it mu&s;t of nece&s;&s;itie bee yielded, that the holy Gho&s;t is God, and &s;uperior to Chri&s;t, as hee is man, as hee is Mediator. <MILESTONE N="4"> <HI>Fourthly,</HI> if the holy Gho&s;t were not God, the &s;in committed again&s;t him could not bee the greate&s;t &s;in. Can a &s;in immediatly committed again&s;t a creature, bee greater then that which is directly again&s;t the Cre&auml;tor? Doth not the greatne&s;s of the Per&s;on again&s;t whom the &s;in is committed, aggravate the offence, and make the &s;in to be &s;o much the more hei|nous, as the Per&s;on wronged by it is the greater? Is not a &s;in again&s;t God, which is a breach of the fir&s;t Table greater, (I mean of an e|qual compari&s;on) then a &s;in again&s;t the 2^d Table, as this &s;in whereof wee treat mu&s;t bee, if it bee a &s;in again&s;t the creature? I deny not, but they that &s;in again&s;t a creature, do &s;in again&s;t God, who&s;e authoritie and law forbidding it are &s;lighted; but &s;hall therefore an immediate &s;in again&s;t the workman&s;hip of God, bee, as you contend, the more heinous, then that which is again&s;t the great God him&s;elf? I might tell you that you do onely &s;ay, that this &s;in through the holy Gho&s;t doth &s;trike at God him&s;elf as a &s;uperior object thereof. You can never prove that this &s;in is not terminated in the holy Gho&s;t, but for Argument &s;ake grant it. At the A&s;&s;i&s;es, as I remember, male|factors are indicted for &s;inning again&s;t our Soveraign Lord and his Laws, but is it as great a &s;in as that which is immediatly again&s;t his Maje&s;tie? Suppo&s;e &s;upreme Authority &s;end's Amba&s;&s;adors to a fo|rain Prince, and they are di&s;graced and killed, ('tis your own com|pari&s;on, <HI>Argum</HI> 4) this redound's, I deny not, very much to the wrong of the &s;upreme Authority, and 'tis don, and interpreted to bee don to them, not for their own, but for his &s;ake. Suppo&s;e, a|gain, a King &s;hould &s;end more honorable Amba&s;&s;adors then the for|mer, as <HI>Balak</HI> did to <HI>Balaam,</HI> and joyn in commi&s;&s;ion with them his chief favorites, was not the &s;ame &s;in committed again&s;t the&s;e later &s;ervants greater then the former? But &s;uppo&s;e a King him&s;elf &s;hould go in his own Per&s;on about the &s;ame bu&s;ine&s;s, and they &s;hould e-equally contemn him, was not the affront now and &s;in committed of a deeper die? Give me leave (Chri&s;tian Reader) to endeavor to explicate, in as few words as may bee, how the &s;in is &s;aid to bee a|gain&s;t the holy Gho&s;t.</P>
<PB N="17" REF="13">
<P> It is an undeniable truth, that all the actions of the divine Per|&s;ons, (tho&s;e onely excepted which are <HI>ad intra,</HI> of intrin&s;ecal rela|tion) are the joynt and undivided works of the three Per&s;ons, be|cau&s;e there is not a multiplied, but one divine e&s;&s;ence, and the u|nitie of their working depend's on the unitie of the power, which is all one with the e&s;&s;ence, <HI>Gregor. Nazianz. Orat. de Theolog.</HI> Yet the ble&s;&s;ed God is de&s;cribed in Scripture by a gracious conde&s;cen|ding to our dull capacities, which are unable to conceive the di&s;tin|ction of the Per&s;ons in the unitie of the God-head, but by a di&s;tin|ction of their operations to us-ward: and hence it is, that the great works of Redemption, Cre&auml;tion, and Sanctification are &s;everally attributed to the &s;everal Per&s;ons, not in a way of oppo&s;ition, but di&s;tinction, which the School-men call Appropriation. Thus <HI>power</HI> is a&s;&s;cribed to the Father, becau&s;e hee is the principle of the Son, and of the holy Gho&s;t; and therefore, becau&s;e the mightie power of God is manife&s;ted by Cre&auml;tion, the Father is frequently &s;tiled the Cre&auml;tor. <HI>Wi&s;edom</HI> is a&s;&s;cribed to the Son of God, be|cau&s;e hee is termed <HI>conceptus Sapientiae:</HI> hence is it, that Redemption, wherein the manifold wi&s;edom of God is &s;een, is appropriated to the Son, hee is called Redeemer. <HI>Goodne&s;s</HI> is a&s;&s;cribed to the holy Gho&s;t, becau&s;e hee proceed's from the Father, and the Son <HI>per mo|dum amoris:</HI> hence the good things of God which are communicated to us are appropriated to him, hee is called our Sanctifier. And for the &s;ame rea&s;on are &s;ins thus di&s;tingui&s;hed; there is a <HI>&s;in of Frailti|ne&s;s,</HI> and that is &s;aid to bee again&s;t the Father, who is Power; there is a <HI>&s;in of Ignorance,</HI> and that is &s;aid to bee again&s;t the Son, who is the Wi&s;edom of God; and there is a <HI>&s;in of Wilfulne&s;s and Malice,</HI> and that is &s;aid to bee again&s;t the holy Gho&s;t, who is Goodne&s;s, <HI>Bonav. p.</HI> 1. <HI>Quae&s;t.</HI> 39. <HI>Art.</HI> 8. This is a rea&s;on why this &s;in is unpardonable, it's a &s;in by appropriation both again&s;t his Per&s;on and his Gifts; 'tis not a &s;in of weakne&s;s, nor a &s;in of ignorance, no nor every gro&s;s &s;in again&s;t knowledg, no nor every apo&s;ta&s;ie from the truth again&s;t the known truth; for &s;om may fall away either out of fear of the lo&s;s of their goods or lives, or for preferment; nor a few of this kinde have bewailed their follies, have obtained pardon, and pro|ved glorious Martyrs; but this is a &s;in wittingly, and willingly, and out of cankred malice committed again&s;t God the Father, Son, and (a I &s;aid) by appropriation, again&s;t God the holy Gho&s;t, and
<PB N="18" REF="14"> his great work in their hearts, and whereby they offer contumelie and de&s;pite to the Spirit of Grace, and &s;o will hee never give them the grace to repent.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE UNIT="Adver."> You &s;ay, <HI>that God u&s;eth the Spirit but onely in things of greate&s;t im|portance.</HI> By this your &s;aying, you give your Reader a hint to &s;u&s;pect that you think every &s;in committed again&s;t God's Spirit is that un|pardonable &s;in again&s;t the holy Gho&s;t. Speak out, is not this your meaning? if not &s;o, to what purpo&s;e &s;hould you &s;ay, <HI>God never u&s;eth the Spirit, but in matters of greate&s;t importance?</HI> If &s;o, I demand then who can be &s;aved? For every good man grieveth the ble&s;&s;ed Spirit, and &s;inneth again&s;t him. I add, <HI>this your Conclu&s;ion is &s;uch a Paradox which hath &s;earce dropped from the pen of any Chri&s;tian man.</HI> You think, belike, that the Spirit is like to Arch-angels, which are &s;aid to pre&s;ide over Kingdoms, and great Per&s;onages onely; but the care of &s;ingu|lar mean per&s;ons is, under God, committed to the Angels. You think, it &s;eem's, the Spirit work's not but to bring forth a male-childe, of whom the woman hath been long in travel to bee deli|vered, for whom the Church hath &s;ighed much, and made many prayers to God to give her a Chri&s;tian orthodoxal King or Empe|ror; or to divert the rage of the per&s;ecutors of the Saints, and to procure re&s;t to the Church, to rai&s;e up men of heroical &s;pirits and parts to reform the Church, or &s;uch like. Belike then, they that have but one talent, or two talents, or mean men, which have but a low degree of &s;anctifying graces, are not beholding to the Spirit for them, God never &s;ent his ble&s;&s;ed Spirit to them; how fal&s;e and un|&s;avory this expre&s;&s;ion is, who &s;eeth not? And the follie thereof &s;hall bee fully di&s;proved in the next Rea&s;on. When you wrote this you were half a&s;leep; or, if deliberatly, I will bee bold to &s;ay, That <HI>your Sophi&s;trie hath the upper hand of your Divinitie.</HI></P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="5" TYPE="argument">
<HEAD>5 Argum.</HEAD>
<LIST TYPE="syllogism">
<ITEM><LABEL>Maj.</LABEL> <HI>Hee that produceth tho&s;e works which God alone produceth, is God.</HI> </ITEM>
<ITEM><LABEL>Min.</LABEL> <HI>The holy Gho&s;t doth &s;o.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><LABEL>Concl.</LABEL> Erg&ograve;</ITEM>
</LIST>
<P>The <HI>Major</HI> is plain; the <HI>Minor</HI> is proved by particular in&s;tances.</P>
<LIST TYPE="syllogism">
<HEAD>1</HEAD>
<ITEM><HI>Hee that create's the world, is God.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>The holy Ghost create's the world.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>Erg&ograve; <HI>the holy Ghost is God.</HI></ITEM>
</LIST>
<P>The <HI>Major</HI> is proved both by Rea&s;on and Scripture: <HI>Fir&s;t,</HI> by <HI>Rea&s;on,</HI> becau&s;e, to create, is to make &s;omthing of nothing, or of
<PB N="19" REF="14"> that which, to &s;uch a purpo&s;e, is as good as nothing; and this re|quire's an infinite power, which cannot, no not by the ab&s;olute power of God, bee communicated to a creature; and by Scripture every where, <HI>Gen.</HI> 1. 1. <HI>Jer.</HI> 10. 11. The true God, the living God, the everla&s;ting God hath made the Earth, the Heavens, the Seas, and the Fountains of water, <HI>Apoc.</HI> 14. 7.</P>
<P>The <HI>Minor</HI> is proved by Scripture; the fir&s;t ver&s;e in the Bible <HI>E|lohim</HI> cre&auml;ted Heaven and Earth; and after in the &s;ame Chap. ver. 26. <HI>Let &V;s make man after Our Image:</HI> hence it is &s;aid in the Original, <HI>Where is God</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign"> <HI>my Makers;</HI> and P&s;al. 149. 2. <HI>Let I&s;ra&euml;l rejoyce in him that made him,</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>in his Makers:</HI> which denote's the Trinitie of the Per&s;ons. More di&s;tinctly, P&s;al. 33. 6. <HI>By the Word of the Lord were the Heavens made, and all the host of them by the Spirit of his mouth;</HI> that is, God the Father by his Word, <HI>i. e.</HI> his Wi&s;edom, which is Chri&s;t; and by his Virtue, which is the holy Gho&s;t, hath made all things, and the&s;e three are but one God. More clearly, <HI>P&s;al.</HI> 104. 30. <HI>Thou &s;ende&s;t forth thy Spirit, and they are cre&auml;ted.</HI> The Prophet &s;heweth how the orderly cour&s;e of the creatures is wi&s;ely di&s;po&s;ed off, and the <HI>Antithe&s;is</HI> betwixt the Spirits, <HI>i. e.</HI> &s;ouls of the creatures which die, and the Spirit of God which cre&auml;te's and renewe's them. So <HI>Elihu</HI> in <HI>Job, The Spirit of God hath made mee, and the breath of the Lord hath given mee life,</HI> Job 35. 10. And 'tis &s;aid touching our Savior, That which is conceived of <HI>Marie,</HI> is of the holy Gho&s;t, cre&auml;ting the body, by his omnipotent power, of the &s;ub&s;tance of the Virgin <HI>Marie,</HI> in a way unheard off from the begining of the world, and his &s;oul immediatly of nothing.</P>
<LIST TYPE="syllogism">
<HEAD>2</HEAD>
<ITEM><HI>Hee that &s;upport's and uphold's all the creatures in their beeing, is God.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>The holy Ghost doth &s;o.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>Erg&ograve;</ITEM>
</LIST>
<P>The <HI>Major</HI> is confirmed; becau&s;e pre&s;ervation of the creatures is a work equivalent to cre&auml;tion, and 'tis rightly called a continued cre&auml;tion: hence is the Lord de&s;cribed to bee a God <GAP DESC="foreign"> for the pre&s;ent &s;tretching out the heavens, <HI>E&s;a.</HI> 40. 22. All means under the Sun are but dead in&s;truments without God. To bee of him&s;elf is proper to the Lord, and incommunicable to any creature: hence is it (as <HI>Gla&s;&s;.</HI> ob&s;erve's <HI>Orat. de Hebr. lin. Nece&s;&s;:)</HI> that the Lord is called <HI>Adonai,</HI> of <GAP DESC="foreign">, becau&s;e hee is the <HI>ba&s;is,</HI> and the prop to uphold all the creatures in the world; they all depend on him as artificial
<PB N="20" REF="15"> works do on natural &s;ub&s;tances. What can a Carpenter do with|out wood? What can a Ma&s;on do without &s;tones? Yea, as the light in the aire depend's on the bodie of the Sun, <HI>wee live, and move, and have our <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter">eein<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter"> in God.</HI> Acts 17. 28.</P>
<P>The <HI>Minor</HI> is confirmed; not onely becau&s;e the holy Gho&s;t is Ado<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter">ai, as is &s;hewed in the fir&s;t Rea&s;on, but becau&s;e this is particu|larly affirmed of one work, and in paritie of rea&s;on it hold's true in all the re&s;t. Gen. 1. 2. The Spirit of God is &s;aid <HI>to move upon the face of the waters.</HI> By the Spirit of God cannot bee meant the winde, which is the moving of the air, for there was no di&s;tinction of things below in the fir&s;t day, they were a confu&s;ed ma&s;s without form, and without any virtue or efficacie. Nor could the air of winde, if there had been any &s;uch creature at that time, have had the cheri&s;hing effect which is there a&s;&s;cribed to the Spirit: wee are then to under&s;tand no cre&auml;ted Spirit, but the Cre&auml;tor and Cheri&s;her of all. The Lord would teach us that this confu&s;ed lump of the E|lements, cre&auml;ted in the begining, could not con&s;i&s;t of it &s;elf, but as it was nece&s;&s;arie it &s;hould have a Cre&auml;tor for its beeing, &s;o like|wi&s;e that it &s;hould have a Protector, a Con&s;ervator, and a Quickner for the continuance of the &s;ame, and the Spirit that upheld this ma&s;s, was the Spirit of God. The word u&s;ed by the Spirit is very emphatical; 'tis a Metaphor taken from Birds, which do &s;it upon their eggs, wave over them to bring forth their young ones, or <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter">o cheri&s;h them beeing hatched, <HI>Deut.</HI> 32. 11. <GAP DESC="foreign"> in <HI>Deuter.</HI> the Lord protected his Children as the Bird doth her young ones, and brought them out of Egypt, as hee did a beautiful world out of the Chaos: &s;o that in this place of <HI>Gene&s;is</HI> is &s;et forth the effectual com|fortable motion of the Spirit on the indige&s;ted Chaos, whereby hee &s;u&s;tained, and, as it were, cheri&s;hed that va&s;t creature. I might &s;hew that this is not a &s;ingular expo&s;ition devi&s;ed of late daies, but a&s;&s;er|ted by many ancient Fathers, yea, and by &s;om ancient Rabbins, as <HI>P. Galatm. l.</HI> 2. and <HI>H. Ain&s;worth</HI> on this text do witne&s;s, but I omit them.</P>
<LIST TYPE="syllogism">
<ITEM><HI>Hee that truly and properly work's miracles, is God.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>The holy Gho&s;t doth &s;o.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>Erg&ograve;</ITEM>
</LIST>
<P>The <HI>Major</HI> is proved even by one of the words which is u&s;ed for a miracle, <GAP DESC="foreign">, derived of <GAP DESC="foreign">, which, like a beautiful creature,
<PB N="21" REF="15"> hath an allureing nature to drawmen to beleeve in God, and to obey him, <HI>Ain&s;worth</HI> on <HI>Exod.</HI> 7. 9. Or, as <HI>Schindler,</HI> of <GAP DESC="foreign">, becau&s;e it de|m<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter">n&s;trat's the truth, and is as a divine &s;eal thereof, not imprinted in wax which will &s;oon wear out, but engraven (as it were) in bra&s;s, and &s;o is an indeleble Character. Hereby did our Savior prove that hee was God, <HI>Matth.</HI> 9. 5. as if hee had &s;aid, it's the &s;ame divine power to forgive &s;ins, and work miracles. <HI>The Lord alone doth wondrous works,</HI> P&s;al. 78. 18. Somtimes hee work's them for the prayers of his &s;ervants, as hee did at, and for the prayers of <HI>Elias,</HI> 1 <HI>King.</HI> 18. Somtimes by divine in&s;tinct and in&s;piration, and then is the miracle &s;aid to be a miracle <HI>ex pote&s;tate. Jo&s;uah</HI> &s;aid, <HI>Sun, &s;tand thou &s;till in the firmament.</HI> And <HI>Peter</HI> to <HI>Aeneas, Ari&s;e,&mdash;</HI>and this is a work &s;o peculiar to God, that the great School-man <HI>Aquin. cap.</HI> 2. <HI>quae&s;t.</HI> 14. 8. <HI>art.</HI> 1. concludeth, that that it cannot bee communicated to a creature, no not to the humane nature of Chri&s;t, as properly and originally wrought by it. The Deitie &s;hined with miracles, and the Humanitie was expo&s;ed to injuries.</P>
<P>The <HI>Minor</HI> is proved by the words of our Savior, <HI>Luke</HI> 11. 20. Chri&s;t ca&s;t's out devils by the finger of God. Hee hath reference, as is probable, to <HI>Exod.</HI> 8. 19. The Magicians of <HI>Pharaoh</HI> acknowledged that the miracle of <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter">ice was wrought by the finger of God; the holding up of the &s;inger argue's power and authoritie, and is a kinde of threatning to de&s;i&s;t from evil: and this text is expounded in S. <HI>Matth.</HI> 12. 28. Chri&s;t ca&s;t's out devils by the Spirit of God; and yet more plainly, if any thing can bee more plain, there is no &s;er|vant of God which God hath graced with this honor to bee an in|&s;trument of working miracles. But it is the ble&s;&s;ed Spirit that give's this gift unto them, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 12. 10.</P>
<LIST TYPE="syllogism">
<HEAD>4</HEAD>
<ITEM><HI>Hee that in&s;pired the holy Prophets and Apo&s;tles, and infallibly guided the Penners of the holy Scripture, is God.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>The holy Gho&s;t hath don both the&s;e.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>Erg&ograve;<HI>hee is God.</HI></ITEM>
</LIST>
<P>The <HI>Major</HI> is clear by Scripture, <HI>Luke</HI> 1. 70. God &s;pake by the mouth (not of &s;om but) of all the Prophets &s;ince the world began; and the whole Scripture, and every clau&s;e of Scripture is <GAP DESC="foreign">, given by divine in&s;piration: hence is it that <HI>the Scripture</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign"> is called <HI>the Word of God;</HI> and to bee e&s;teemed of us, as if it had been written with Gods own hand, as the Decalogue was: it is <HI>chirogra|phum</HI>
<PB N="22" REF="16"> <HI>Dei,</HI> as <HI>Au&s;tin</HI> elegantly, a writing under God's own hand.</P>
<P>The <HI>Minor</HI> is proved by evident Scripture. <HI>Prophe&s;ies of old time</HI> (&s;aith S. <HI>Peter) came not by the will of man, but the Prophets &s;poke as they were moved</HI> (both for the matter and the words) <HI>by the holy Gho&s;t,</HI> 2 <HI>Pet.</HI> 1. 21. The Spirit which began by in&s;piration, &s;at &s;till, moving on tho&s;e &s;oul-refre&s;hing waters, &s;weetly and wi&s;ely a&s;&s;i&s;ting his Pen-men according to their &s;everal &s;tiles, till there was a perfect pro|duction, till the Canon of the Scripture was completed. And this is further proved in that what God is &s;aid to &s;peak in the old Te&s;ta|ment to <HI>David,</HI> to <HI>E&s;ay,</HI> &amp;c. that in the new, which is a commentary of much in the old, is a&s;&s;cribed to the holy Gho&s;t, <HI>Heb.</HI> 3. 7. <HI>Act.</HI> 28. 25. and in many other places. <HI>Well &s;aid the holy Gho&s;t by E&s;aias to your Fathers.</HI> Erg&ograve;, I conclude, <HI>the holy Gho&s;t is God.</HI></P>
<LIST TYPE="syllogism">
<ITEM><HI>Hee that rule's and govern's the Church by his ab&s;olute power, is God.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>The holy Gho&s;t doth &s;o.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>Ergo.</ITEM>
</LIST>
<P>The <HI>Major</HI> is plain, and cannot with any color of rea&s;on bee de|nied; for the Church is the Church of God, <HI>Acts</HI> 20. 28. his own enclo&s;ure from the commons of the world, and one inferior to God cannot by his ab&s;olute power govern it; it is God's own proper|tie, and peculiar not to bee claimed by any creature, to command by his own authority over the whole Church.</P>
<P>The <HI>Minor</HI> is evidently proved by Scripture: the holy Gho&s;t in|&s;truct's <HI>Peter,</HI> remove's his &s;cruples, and laie's a charge upon him; <HI>Ari&s;e, get thee down, and go to Cornelius with the Me&s;&s;engers, doubting no|thing, for I have &s;ent them,</HI> Act. 10. 20. Is this a language be&s;eeming a creature? Will a creature &s;peak thus with authority, a holy crea|ture? <HI>Acts</HI> 13. 2. <HI>Separate to,</HI> or <HI>for mee, Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.</HI> Hath any creature, a good creature, the boldne&s;s thus imperiou&s;ly to command in God's hou&s;e? Certainly, this is the voice of God, and not of an Angel. Con&s;onant hereto is that profe&s;&s;ion of the holy A&s;&s;emblie at Jeru&s;alem, Acts 15. 28. <HI>It &s;eemed good to the holy Gho&s;t, and to &V;s;</HI> that is, to us in&s;pired by the holy Gho&s;t. Had this happy &s;ocietie of Saints con&s;ulting for the re&s;t and peace of the Church, and, by the ble&s;&s;ing of the Lord, making a happy conclu&s;ion, mo&s;t &s;utable to the &s;tate and condition of tho&s;e times, forgotten to acknowledg God the Author, and re&s;olve final|ly this great work into a creature's in&s;piration? La&s;tly, to name
<PB N="23" REF="16"> no more, Acts 20. 28. <HI>Take heed to your &s;elves, and to all the flock, over which the holy Gho&s;t hath made you over&s;eers.</HI> Words very emphatical, belonging to the great God, but too high to bee attributed to any creature.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="6" TYPE="argument">
<HEAD>Argum. 6</HEAD>
<LIST TYPE="syllogism">
<ITEM><HI>Hee that doth what hee will, and di&s;po&s;eth his gifts, as hee him&s;elf plea&s;eth, is God.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>The holy Gho&s;t doth &s;o.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>Erg&ograve;.</ITEM>
</LIST>
<P>The <HI>Major</HI> is plain; our <HI>God is in the heavens, and hee hath don what&s;oever hee plea&s;eth,</HI> P&s;al. 115. 3. It's bla&s;phemie to conceive that God &s;hould bee like &s;om Kings of Egypt, which &s;eem's to bee inti|mated by that &s;peech of <HI>Pharaoh</HI> to <HI>Jo&s;eph,</HI> and is a&s;&s;erted of the&s;e Ca|liphs in later times, that they committed the whole Government of their Kingdom to their Vice-roys, according to who&s;e word and commandment all the people were ruled, <HI>Gen.</HI> 41. 40. And they in the mean time enjoy them&s;elvs, and meddle not with the admini&s;tration of the Kingdom. Let Chri&s;tians abhor &s;uch cogitations, and firmly beleeve that there is nothing at all don by the creature, but the Lord is the fir&s;t efficient cau&s;e thereof, and produceth it immediatly, <HI>im|mediatione &s;uppo&s;iti:</HI> for hee is every where; and <HI>immediatione virtutis &s;uae infinitae, Greg. de Val. tom.</HI> 1. <HI>d.</HI> 8. <HI>q.</HI> 1. <HI>p.</HI> 2. And our <HI>Bradwardine</HI> laie's down the&s;e three Conclu&s;ions, and prove's them: <HI>Fir&s;t,</HI> no creature at all can work without God. <HI>Secondly,</HI> no creature can make any thing at all, unle&s;s God by him&s;elf, and immediatly doth make the &s;ame thing. <HI>Thirdly,</HI> yea more immediatly then doth any working creature. <HI>de cau&s;a Dei, lib.</HI> 1. <HI>cap.</HI> 3. I may further confirm this Propo|&s;ition by your own Arguments. <HI>God give's all things to all,</HI> Argum. 5. <HI>And it is God that hath the power and di&s;po&s;ition of all things,</HI> Argum. 7.</P>
<P>The <HI>Minor</HI> is confirmed, <HI>Hebr.</HI> 2. 4. where the Apo&s;tle teacheth, that <HI>&s;everal gifts,</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">, di&s;tributions and parting of his gifts &s;eve|rally to men are according to his plea&s;ure. And, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 12. 11. <HI>hee di|vide's</HI> not to &s;om only, but <HI>to every man as hee plea&s;eth,</HI> all gifts: not onely the greate&s;t &amp; mo&s;t admirable gifts, but tho&s;e al&s;o of the mid|dle &s;ort; yea, and the meane&s;t are the gifts of the Spirit, hee worketh all in all. Heathens &s;otti&s;hly a&s;&s;cribed &s;everal gifts to &s;everal gods; &s;om to <HI>Jupiter,</HI> &s;om to <HI>Apollo, Mercurie,</HI> &s;om to <HI>Juno, Diana:</HI> but wee have been better taught then &s;o, to a&s;&s;cribe all to God the holy Gho&s;t, who give's all to all. Whereby this Author is confuted, who
<PB N="24" REF="17">
<GAP DESC="duplicate" EXTENT="1 page">
<PB N="25" REF="17">
<GAP DESC="duplicate" EXTENT="1 page">
<PB N="24" REF="18"> affirmeth in an&s;wer to <HI>Mat.</HI> 12. 31. the acts of the Spirit, his mini&s;trie is not u&s;ed but in things of the greate&s;t importance.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="7" TYPE="argument">
<HEAD>Seventhly, I add another Argument as a choice &s;pecialtie under the general, concluded in the former Argument.</HEAD>
<LIST TYPE="syllogism">
<ITEM><HI>Hee that is the Author of &s;aving Graces, is God.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>The holie Gho&s;t is the Author of &s;aving Graces:</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>Erg&ograve;.</ITEM>
</LIST>
<P>The <HI>Major</HI> is proved, becau&s;e conver&s;ion, and regeneration (not to &s;pend time in runing through particulars) &s;anctification is Gods alone work. None can wa&s;h away the filthine&s;s of the minde, but hee that made the minde, <HI>Optat. Mil. l.</HI> 5. <HI>The Heathen &s;hall know that the Lord doth &s;anctifie I&s;ra&euml;l,</HI> Ezek. 37. 28. And is not this &s;tate compared to the rai&s;ing up of the dead to life, and to a new cre&auml;tion? Is not grace of a &s;upernatural order, and by it the Saints do regularly move to a &s;upernatural end? Every one of the&s;e of ne|ce&s;&s;ity require's the powerful work of a &s;upreme Agent. A creature hath no more power to make a Saint of a &s;inner, then hee hath to make of a vile lump of earth a glorious &s;tar in heaven.</P>
<P>The <HI>Minor</HI> is proved; hee is called the <HI>holy Gho&s;t,</HI> becau&s;e holi|ne&s;s is from him, <HI>per modum principii inhaerentis &amp; a&s;&s;i&s;tentis,</HI> 1 Pet. 12. called <HI>the Spirit of holine&s;s,</HI> Rom. 1. 4. and wee are &s;aid to bee <HI>regene|rated by the holy Gho&s;t,</HI> Joh. 3. 5. <HI>renewed by the holy Ghost,</HI> Tit. 3. 5. to bee <HI>wa&s;hed and &s;anctified by the Spirit of our God,</HI> 1 Cor. 6. 11. As there is but one &s;oul in a man which quicken's all the members of the na|tural bodie, &s;o is there but onely one holy Gho&s;t, which animate's all the my&s;tical members of Je&s;us Chri&s;t; and as Chri&s;t our head was conceived by the holy Gho&s;t, &s;o the my&s;tical bodie is conceived by the Spirit of God. Every Chri&s;tian, as hee is a Chri&s;tian, hath his conception and new birth by the holy Gho&s;t. I might &s;hew this at large in the particular graces which are &s;anctifying; a catalogue of many of them wee read <HI>Gal.</HI> 5. 22. and it is as true of the re&s;t, which are not there recited, they are all of them the fruit of the Spirit.</P>
<P>The Arguments which I have already recited, will, I hope, and conceive, give ample &s;atisfaction to the Chri&s;tian Reader: there re|maineth another, grounded on the Word of God, to prove <HI>the Dei|tie of the holy Gho&s;t;</HI> which I will &s;et down, not onely becau&s;e many eminent Prote&s;tants, and men of note of the Church of Rome, do
<PB N="25" REF="18"> relie on it, but becau&s;e the Adver&s;arie hath, upon &s;om plau&s;ible pre|tences, excepted again&s;t it, I am per&s;waded that there is &s;carce a good cau&s;e maintained, but it is proved by &s;om weak and fal&s;e <HI>mediums.</HI> It is acknowledged by <HI>Mel. Canus,</HI> and 'tis not contradicted by any, <HI>loc. l.</HI> 6. <HI>c. ult.</HI> that not onely &s;acred Synods, but the Popes them&s;elves may thus err; &s;om of who&s;e proofs may bee &s;o far from beeing nece&s;|&s;arie, that they are not fit nor probable to conclude infallible cathe|dral definitions of Faith. If then this Argument, which is in the rere and hind-mo&s;t, &s;hould bee cut off, (as the faint and feeble I&s;ra&euml;lites were by the Amalekites, <HI>Deut.</HI> 25. 18.) yet even then were the people of God victorious over their enemies; &s;o do not I doubt, albeit this Argument &s;hould bee unproper, (I do not &s;ay it is, but if it could bee demon&s;trated to bee &s;o) but &s;om of the former, if not all, are unan&s;werable, and like invincible fortre&s;&s;es which cannot bee &s;urpri&s;ed. Thus I frame the Argument:</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="8" TYPE="argument">
<HEAD>Argum. 8</HEAD>
<LIST TYPE="syllogism">
<ITEM><HI>Hee that is a heavenly witne&s;s, and one in nature with God the Father, is God.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>The holy Gho&s;t is &s;o:</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>Erg&ograve;.</ITEM>
</LIST>
<P>The <HI>Major</HI> is evident of it &s;elf, and not contradicted by the Adver|&s;arie: the rea&s;on why I onely name God the Father, and not God the Son is, becau&s;e M^r <HI>Bidle</HI> will not yeild that the Word is God.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="1"> The <HI>Minor</HI> is proved by tho&s;e words of S. <HI>John,</HI> 1 Epi&s;t. chap. 5. ver. 7. <HI>There are three that bear witne&s;s in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the holy Gho&s;t; and the&s;e three are one:</HI> an expre&s;s place, one would think, for the di&s;tinction of three Per&s;ons, and the Unitie of nature in the ble&s;&s;ed Trinitie. I do take for granted, that the Per&s;on to whom this witne&s;s is given, is, that Je&s;us is the Son of God, the Me&s;|&s;iah. The heavenly witne&s;&s;es which give te&s;timonie hereof are three: the Father, at his Bapti&s;m, &s;peaking from heaven, <HI>This is my beloved Son.</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>The Son cal|led the</HI> Word, <HI>for three rea&s;ons.</HI></NOTE>The Son of God, who is called the <HI>Word,</HI> either becau&s;e hee is the Per&s;on on whom the promi&s;es of God do run, God the Father promi&s;ed him, &s;o <HI>Beza;</HI> or <MILESTONE N="2"> becau&s;e hee reveale's the &s;ecret coun&s;el of God touching our &s;alvation, as wee by our words do open the meaning of our mindes to others: or <MILESTONE N="3"> becau&s;e, in a divine, eminent, and ineffable manner is expre&s;&s;ed to us, by a term agreeable to our ca|pacitie,that the Son of God &s;o is, and was from everla&s;ting from
<PB N="26" REF="19"> God the Father, as our fir&s;t act and conceit, (which is our internal and mental Word) is, and i&s;&s;ueth out of our under&s;tanding. For the&s;e or &s;om other rea&s;ons it is that the Son of God is called the Word; and hee bear's record to him&s;elf that hee is the Me&s;&s;iah, partly, <HI>by his works,</HI> Joh. 4. 26. partly, <HI>by his Doctrine,</HI> Joh. 5. 18.&mdash;Joh. 6. 29.&mdash;6. 37, 46. partly, <HI>by bis miracles,</HI> Joh. 10. 25. The holy Gho&s;t bare record of him at his Bapti&s;m, when hee, in a vi&s;ible &s;hape, a&s;&s;cended from heaven, and alighted on him. I argue from this text:</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="1"> This is hinted from this text, becau&s;e the holy Gho&s;t is joyned with God the Father in giving witne&s;s, which is all one, upon &s;up|po&s;ition, that hee is a creature, as to add a drop to the Ocean. It is true, that the Spirit is joyned with the creatures &s;omtimes in witne&s;s bearing. But <HI>Acts</HI> 15. 28. <HI>Rom.</HI> 8.<HI>&mdash;&s;peaking by his Prophets&mdash;</HI>but tho&s;e very texts do &s;trengthen our faith touching the Deitie of the holy Gho&s;t. For the further confirmation, let it bee con&s;idered, that all the creatures were made by J. Chri&s;t, and nothing was made without him. It is never &s;poken in the Scripture, that the holy Gho&s;t was made by him. Colo&s;. 1. 16. <HI>all things in heaven and in earth, vi&s;ible and invi&s;ible, were cre&auml;ted by him;</HI> and it is there added for illu&s;tration, that <HI>thrones, dominations, principalities and powers were cre&auml;ted by him.</HI> The holy Gho&s;t, had hee been a creature, and the chief of all the creatures, would not have been omitted, but by name expre&s;&s;ed, <HI>the holy Gho&s;t, principalities, powers,</HI> &amp;c. The Reader (if hee plea&s;e) may &s;ee more proofs of this point in the An&s;wer to the 8^t^h Argu|ment.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="2"> The&s;e <HI>three do bear witne&s;s in heaven;</HI> the meaning is not, as if the place where this record was given is in heaven, or to the heavenly In|habitants, but this is a record to men on earth; nor is it a te&s;timonie which is given by the Angels: hence I draw a &s;econd Argument, If by the holy Gho&s;t was not meant a divine te&s;timonie, or the te&s;timonie of God him&s;elf, then there are not onely three which bear witne&s;s in heaven, as the text hold's forth, and mu&s;t bee verified of three, but there are many more that witne&s;s Je&s;us is the Me&s;&s;iah. Before his birth, to <HI>Jo&s;eph,</HI> Mat. 1. 20. After his birth, to the Shepherds, <HI>Luke</HI> 1. 10. And a multitude of the heavenly ho&s;t prai&s;ing God for this Me&s;&s;iah. <HI>Glorie bee to God on high,</HI> ver. 13. At his re&s;urrection, to tho&s;e
<PB N="27" REF="19"> that guarded the Sepulchre, <HI>Matth.</HI> 28. 3, 4. and to holy women, <HI>ver.</HI> 5. At his A&s;&s;cen&s;ion, to the Di&s;ciples, <HI>Acts</HI> 1. 10, 11. and many the like.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="3"> <HI>The&s;e three</HI> (&s;aith the text) <HI>are one:</HI> the&s;e words afford another Argument. To &s;ay nothing, that if they had not intended unitie in nature, but con&s;ent in witne&s;s bearing, there was no nece&s;&s;itie of them; and the former words would have carried that &s;en&s;e, <HI>There are three that bear witne&s;s, the Father, the Son, and the holy Gho&s;t,</HI> that Je|&s;us is the Son of God. <MILESTONE N="1"> In this record they all agree; but becau&s;e ad|ditions in Scripture are many times for explication or other purpo|&s;es, I add another ground, <MILESTONE N="2"> The holy Gho&s;t varying his language in this and the next ver&s;e, &s;aying in this ver&s;e, that <HI>the&s;e are one;</HI> and not as in the next ver&s;e, that <HI>they do agree in one:</HI> doth not this lead us, by perpending the different language, to a different interpreta|tion of the words? And to a more intimate, an e&s;&s;ential unitie in the former, which, as the phra&s;e and common rea&s;on impart, can|not agree to the later.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE UNIT="Adver&s;."> To this the Adver&s;arie take's a double exception; <MILESTONE N="1"> Fir&s;t, out of <HI>Beza,</HI> that the <HI>Compluten&s;ian Bible prefixeth</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign"> <HI>to both ver&s;es; and <MILESTONE N="2"> the &s;en&s;e is the &s;ame in &s;en&s;e, as appear's</HI> Matth. 19. 5, 6. <HI>and ought to bee rendred alike in both ver&s;es.</HI></P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="1" UNIT="An&s;w."> To the <HI>fir&s;t</HI> I an&s;wer: Why &s;hould not wee rather think there might bee an addition in one Bible, then an omi&s;&s;ion of any word which com's from God in all the re&s;t? that which is &s;uperfluous and not agreeable to the minde of God fully in the one mu&s;t bee razed out by the concurrent te&s;timonie of other Copies.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="2" UNIT="An&s;w."> To the <HI>&s;econd</HI> I an&s;wer: That you pour out Oracles, and &s;ay, the later is after the Hebrew idiome, the former according to the ordinary phra&s;e, and tell us very magi&s;terially, both ought to bee rendred alike, and yet you do not acquaint us how they ought to bee rendred; and for your parallel place in <HI>Matth.</HI> 19. 5, 6. to that I an&s;wer four things: <MILESTONE N="1"> <HI>Fir&s;t,</HI> albeit our Engli&s;h phra&s;e is one in both, yet the exact Tran&s;lations in Latine are not the &s;ame in both places; they religiou&s;ly do, in their Tran&s;lations, follow the Original, <HI>in unam carnem,</HI> or two &s;hall bee <HI>in un&acirc; carne.</HI> <MILESTONE N="2"> Nor, <HI>&s;econdly,</HI> is it &s;o una|nimou&s;ly agreed on, that the &s;en&s;e is one and the &s;ame in both pla|ces; for the fifth ver&s;e may note out their &s;tate and condition before Marriage, and the &s;ixth ver&s;e, after Matrimonie, then are they one
<PB N="28" REF="20"> fle&s;h, and &s;o this later will bee a con&s;equent of the former. <MILESTONE N="3"> <HI>Thirdly,</HI> there is not the like rea&s;on betwixt the&s;e two texts; for I need not &s;ay, Ask the Scriptures, ask the Learned, but ask a very childe, and hee will tell you that man and wife are two di&s;tinct and &s;eparated per&s;ons, which may bee at a great di&s;tance, in regard of place, and likewi&s;e in regard of affection: and none are &s;o &s;imple to think, when man and wife are one fle&s;h, that they are one numerical and individual fle&s;h. But now ask the Scriptures, and ask the Learned men, and they will tell you, that the&s;e three are <HI>one in nature,</HI> and <HI>one in e&s;&s;ence. <MILESTONE N="4"> Lastly,</HI> there is not a paritie, becau&s;e in <HI>Matthew</HI> there are the &s;ame &s;ubject per&s;ons meant in both ver&s;es; but it is not &s;o in <HI>John</HI> 7. 8. and therefore, albeit in &s;en&s;e the ver&s;es there did intend one thing, and no danger of tran&s;lating both alike, yet here, in re|gard of this difference, the ca&s;e is altered: thus then, as you &s;ee, be|&s;ides the letter of the text, there are many Arguments deduced from it, which is not ordinary in other Scriptures, to prove controver|ted points, which do evidence this ble&s;&s;ed truth, <HI>The holy Spirit is God.</HI></P>
<P> <MILESTONE UNIT="Adver&s;."> <MILESTONE N="1"> <HI>It would have been hard, if not impo&s;sible, if men had not been pre-corru|pted, that it &s;hould ever com into any one's head to imagine, that this phra&s;e,</HI> three are one, <HI>did &s;ignifie,</HI> have one e&s;&s;ence: <HI>for <MILESTONE N="2"> it is contrarie to com|mon &s;en&s;e; and <MILESTONE N="3"> to other places of Scripture, wherein this kinde of &s;peech per|petually &s;ignifie's an union in con&s;ent and agreement; &s;ix times thus,</HI> John 17. <HI>but never an union in e&s;&s;ence.</HI> </P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="1" UNIT="An&s;w."> To the <HI>fir&s;t</HI> I an&s;wer: That if I took any plea&s;ure in invectives, which, I conceive, never did any good, you have mini&s;tred an op|portune occa&s;ion for the dipping of my pen in gall; but here, and throughout my Book, I have &s;atisfied your de&s;ire. I do forbear railings and reproachful terms, and I onely &s;ay, Chri&s;tian Reader, behold the Spirit of the man.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="2" UNIT="An&s;w."> To the <HI>&s;econd;</HI> whereas you &s;ay, that our expo&s;ition is again&s;t common &s;en&s;e, I &s;ay, you write as if you were in a dream. Cannot two bee one in e&s;&s;ence? That neer and intimate <HI>onene&s;s that is betwixt the husband and the wife;</HI> that neerne&s;s in con&s;ent doth nece&s;&s;arily pre&s;uppo&s;e the unitie of nature, the &s;ame &s;pecifical, though not the &s;ame individual nature; and that <HI>onene&s;s betwixt Chri&s;t and Chri&s;tians,</HI> The head and the members doth likewi&s;e nece&s;&s;arily pre&s;uppo&s;e the unitie of nature betwixt them both. <HI>Heb.</HI> 2. 14. wee have fle&s;h and
<PB N="29" REF="20"> blood, and &s;o hath Chri&s;t likewi&s;e took part of the &s;ame, and <HI>hee took on him the &s;eed of Abraham:</HI> and well is it &s;aid in the Confe&s;|&s;ion of Faith in the Synod of Chalcedon, Chri&s;t is co&euml;&s;&s;ential to his Father, according to his Divinitie, and hee is co&euml;&s;&s;ential to us according to his Humanitie. Is not water in the fountain, in the river, and that which is conveighed by pipes to hou&s;es one in e&s;|&s;ence? Is not the light in the heavens, in the air, and in our hou&s;es, one and the &s;ame beeing.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="3" UNIT="An&s;w."> To the <HI>third,</HI> I grant, that unitie in con&s;ent is meant in part; but this unitie of con&s;ent is in regard of the unitie of the divine operati|on; and the unitie of divine operation argue's the unitie of the di|vine E&s;&s;ence. I grant, many things are &s;aid to bee one <HI>&s;ecund&ugrave;m quid;</HI> for as many con&s;entanie Arguments as there bee of the fir&s;t kinde; and as many as there bee of the &s;econd kinde which do ari&s;e of the fir&s;t, <HI>orta Argumenta,</HI> &s;o many fountains there bee of unitie, identitie, and onene&s;s. There are &s;om that are one, as touching their under&s;tanding, will, work's; <HI>naturally one,</HI> as all men are partakers of humane nature; <HI>morally one,</HI> as loving friends; <HI>corporally one,</HI> as husband and wife; and <HI>&s;piritually one,</HI> as Chri&s;t and Chri&s;tians are. No que&s;tion of any of the&s;e: but will it follow from hence that there is no other kinde of unitie, an <HI>unitie &s;imply,</HI> more neer then any of the former? You tell us, to bee one, is never taken to denote a union in e&s;&s;ence. Not to repeat what I have formerly written, I &s;ay, this is boldly &s;poken, and con|tradicted by our ble&s;&s;ed Savior, <HI>John</HI> 10. 29. <HI>I and the Father</HI> (&s;aith hee) <HI>are one:</HI> how one? In the former ver&s;es hee require's they &s;hould beleeve in him, promi&s;eth that hee will give unto his children eter|nal life; and &s;uch is his divine power, that none can take them out of his hands; and u&s;eth the &s;elf &s;ame words in the next ver&s;e, <HI>none &s;hall take them out of my Father's hands:</HI> and then &s;aith, <HI>I and my Father are one;</HI> viz. <HI>in power,</HI> and con&s;equently, <HI>in e&s;&s;ence;</HI> for the power of God, and the e&s;&s;ence of God are all one thing. This my Adver&s;arie, which denie's this A&s;&s;ertion, &s;werv's not onely from the plain mea|ning of the text, but &s;hew's that hee hath le&s;s under&s;tanding then our very enemies of Chri&s;t had; for they collected, and that rightly from thence, that Chri&s;t profe&s;&s;ed him&s;elf thereby to bee God. </P>
<P> <MILESTONE UNIT="Adver&s;."> <HI>I omit</HI> (&s;aith hee) <HI>to &s;peak of the &s;u&s;pectedne&s;s of the place. It's not ex|tant in the ancient Greek Copies, nor in the Syriack Tran&s;lation, nor in mo&s;t ancient books of the Latine Edition, and rejected by &s;undry Interpreters, both ancient and modern.</HI></P>
<PB N="30" REF="21">
<P> <MILESTONE UNIT="Adver&s;."> This text is &s;o &s;utable to the matter in hand, and &s;o fitly an&s;wer|ing to the eighth ver&s;e in another kinde, and &s;o fully and di&s;tinctly confirming by the&s;e divine Witne&s;&s;es, that fundamental witne&s;&s;ed truth, Je&s;us is the Son of God, and the divinitie of the holy Gho&s;t beeing in other Scriptures &s;ufficiently demon&s;trated, that I can &s;ee no rea&s;on why this &s;hould bee thought a counterfeit addition to the Canon: and I have rea&s;on &s;trongly to &s;u&s;pect that you are convin|ced in your con&s;cience, that it is a parcel of God's Word, becau&s;e you do &s;o highly pa&s;s it over with a Rhetorical figure: for the mo&s;t compendious way to make a &s;hort work, had been &s;imply to have denied the authority therof, and to have plainly rejected it, as our Writers do the Apocryphal Scriptures which are alledged again&s;t them, to have &s;trengthned your A&s;&s;ertion by the be&s;t grounds you could devi&s;e, and then in the conclu&s;ion to have named, as not much material, the An&s;wer which you have mo&s;t in&s;i&s;ted upon. I deny not but Copies may bee alledged again&s;t Copies, ancient and mo|dern Writers again&s;t ancient and later, if negative witne&s;&s;es have the &s;ame force and authoritie that affirmative have to prove the que&s;tion; but who may wee blame for this difference? Wee can &s;u&s;pect none, but tho&s;e corrupted Fathers, in who&s;e de|praved &s;teps you have trod. It's not to be doubted, but they have offred the like violence to this place, as they did to a text in S. <HI>John,</HI> as is witne&s;&s;ed by <HI>Ambro&s;e.</HI> God is a Spirit, which they uncon&s;cio|nably cancelled, and razed out of their own books; and I wi&s;h, did not blot it out of the books of the Church: this &s;acriledg was plainly detected. You might, &s;aith the Father, <HI>lib.</HI> 3. <HI>de Spir. &s;ancto, cap.</HI> 11. aboli&s;h &s;entences of holy Scripture, but you could not de|&s;troy the faith: <HI>Plus vos illa litura prodebat, plus vos illa litura damna|bat</HI> (I add) <HI>qu&agrave;m litera nocebat;</HI> and the rather, becau&s;e I find this text, 1 <HI>Joh.</HI> 5. 7. cited by S. <HI>Cyprian, li. de &V;nitate Eccle&s;.</HI> which lived an hun|dred years before <HI>Macedonius</HI> the founder of this Here&s;ie, when the Church was not pe&s;tred with that noi&s;om weed, no nor with Aria|ni&s;m, whereby the Deitie of the Son of God chiefly, and &s;o the di|vine Trinitie was directly oppo&s;ed, and violent &s;pirits might be im|boldned to adventure on that impietie, becau&s;e the &s;cepter was in the hands of <HI>Con&s;tantius</HI> fir&s;t, and not long after of <HI>Valens,</HI> Arian Em|perors.</P>
<P>To the&s;e rea&s;ons taken out of the Scriptures, I might produce a
<PB N="31" REF="21"> cloud of humane witne&s;&s;es, and begin with the Fathers, which li|ved before the <GAP DESC="foreign">, and alledg the elaborate Treati&s;es of tho&s;e which then and after lived in the Church, and &s;how how this error hath been regi&s;tred in the black bill of Here&s;ies by <HI>Epiphan. to.</HI> 1. <HI>l.</HI> 3. <HI>haer.</HI> 74. and <HI>Augu&s;t. haer.</HI> 52. Then might I de&s;cend lower to the times before and &s;ince the &s;chi&s;m betwixt the Ea&s;tern and We&s;tern Churches, which albeit many points of faith were deeply corrupted, yet did they inviolably maintain even to this day, the unitie of the divine Nature, and the Trinitie of the per&s;ons: Then might I relate the con&s;ent of the reformed Churches, which have a &s;weet harmo|nie in their &s;everal Confe&s;&s;ions touching this point; but I know this Author, dreaming that hee hath not onely rea&s;on, but the te&s;ti|monie of the Scripture on his &s;ide, will reject them all, and &s;ay with <HI>Luther,</HI> though in a different ca&s;e, <HI>The Word of God is to be preferred above all:</HI> that make's for mee; if a thou&s;and <HI>Augu&s;tins,</HI> a thou&s;and <HI>Cy|prians,</HI> a thou&s;and <HI>Henricians</HI> (that is, Engli&s;h Churches ruled by <HI>Henry</HI> the Eighth) &s;hould &s;tand again&s;t him, hee would reject them all. And, as I remember, I have read one of the &s;ame brain with my Adver&s;arie, &s;aid, <HI>Luther hath pulled down the walls of Poperie, but the foundation</HI> thereof (meaning the doctrine of the Trinitie) <HI>remain's un|touched:</HI> therefore will I &s;pare that labor in tran&s;cribing their te&s;ti|monies. Yet let mee minde you of this, that as the foggie &s;moak, which aro&s;e out of the bottomle&s;s pit, chiefly by <HI>Macedonius</HI> Bi&s;hop of Con&s;tantinople, about the year of our Lord 361. was happily di&s;pelled by the light of the holy Fathers. They &s;o &s;harpned their weapons, and &s;o &s;ucce&s;sfully u&s;ed them, that they gave a deadly wound to tho&s;e Mon&s;ters, as <HI>Epiphanius</HI> cal's them; &s;o I do not doubt, but by the good providence of God, the Schi&s;ms &amp; Socinian Here&s;ies, which do annoy the Church for the pre&s;ent, and every new &s;tarted controver&s;ie will occa&s;ion that good, which hath been long &s;ince ob&s;erved, <HI>viz.</HI> the more full di&s;cu&s;&s;ion, and clearer di&s;coverie of oppo&s;ed truth, and cau&s;e the &s;incere and approved Profe&s;&s;ors of Gods cau&s;e to pray unto God more zealou&s;ly for divine illuminati|on, to &s;earch the Scriptures more diligently, to continue them&s;elvs together more firmly, and communicate their labors mutually more plentifully then they were accu&s;tomed to do, and put them on the labor of love for their brethren, with tenderne&s;s and compa&s;&s;ion to &s;trengthen them that &s;tand le&s;t they fall; and, like waking husband|men,
<PB N="32" REF="22">
<GAP DESC="duplicate" EXTENT="1 page">
<PB N="33" REF="22">
<GAP DESC="duplicate" EXTENT="1 page">
<PB N="32" REF="23"> vigilantly to guard tho&s;e fields of corn, where the in&s;truments of the envious &s;pirits are mo&s;t likely to &s;ow their tares. Gods faith|ful &s;ervants are burning lights, the Adver&s;aries which do top them, do burn, or at lea&s;t be&s;mear their fingers. But the&s;e lights do &s;hine thereby more brightly; and I do hope, that as S. <HI>Au&s;tin</HI> &s;aid of the ab|&s;urd Manichees, when they boa&s;ted (as all Sectaries will do) <HI>Veritas, Veritas,</HI> the Truth, the Truth, that &s;ound Chri&s;tians with better en|lightned and clearer judgments then formerly, will bee as able to &s;ay as it followeth in my Author, there is no truth at all in them. And, O that the &s;educed would make an heartie acknowledgment, wee took that for truth, for divine truth, but now, ble&s;&s;ed bee God, wee are convinced, and our eyes are enlightened to &s;ee it was but an error. I conclude as S. <HI>Au&s;tin</HI> did his fifteenth, the la&s;t, book of the Trinitie.</P>
<P><HI>Domine, Deus unus, Deus Trinitas, quaecunque dixi in hoc libro de tuo, agno&s;cant &amp; tui; &s;i quae de meo, &amp; tu agno&s;ce, &amp; tui.</HI> Amen. </P>
</DIV2>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 TYPE="counterarguments refuted">
<DIV2 N="1" TYPE="argument">
<PB N="33" REF="23">
<HEAD>ARGUMENT 1.</HEAD>
<LIST TYPE="syllogism">
<HEAD>1 Argum. of M. Bidle.</HEAD>
<ITEM>HEe that is di&s;tingui&s;hed from God, is not God. </ITEM>
<ITEM>The holy Spirit is di&s;tingui&s;hed from God.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Erg&ograve;.</ITEM>
</LIST>
<P>The <HI>Major</HI> is evident; for if hee &s;hould both bee God, and bee di&s;tin|gui&s;hed from God, hee would bee di&s;tingui&s;hed from him&s;elf, which implieth a contradiction. The <HI>Minor</HI> is confirmed by the whole current of the Scripture, which calleth him <HI>the Spirit of God,</HI> and &s;aith, that <HI>hee is &s;ent by God, and &s;earcheth the depths of God, &amp;c.</HI></P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="1"> Neither let any man here think to flie to that ignorant refuge of making a di&s;tinction between the <HI>E&s;&s;ence</HI> and <HI>Per&s;on</HI> of God, &s;aying, that the holy Spi|rit is distingui&s;hed from God, taken Per&s;onally, not E&s;&s;entially. For this wretched di&s;tinction (to omit the mention of the Primitive Fathers) is not onely unheard of in the Scripture, and &s;o to bee rejected, it being pre&s;umption to affirm any thing of the un&s;earchable nature of God, which hee hath not fir&s;t affirmed of him&s;elf in the Scripture; but is al&s;o di&s;claimed by Rea&s;on. For fir&s;t, it is impo&s;&s;ible for any man, if hee would but endeavor to conceive the thing, and not delude both him&s;elf and others with emptie terms and words without under&s;tanding, to di&s;tingui&s;h the Per&s;on from the E&s;&s;ence of God, and not to frame two beeings or things in his minde, and con&s;equently two Gods. <MILESTONE N="2"> <HI>Secondly,</HI> If the Per&s;on be di&s;tinct from the E&s;&s;ence of God, then it is either &s;omthing or nothing: if nothing, how can it bee di&s;tingui&s;hed, &s;ince nothing hath no accidents? If &s;omthing, then either &s;ome finite or infinite thing; if finite, then there will be &s;omthing finite in God: and con&s;equently, &s;ince by the confe&s;&s;ion of the Adver&s;aries them&s;elvs, every thing in God is God him|&s;elf, God will bee finite, which the Adver&s;aries them&s;elves will likewi&s;e con|fe&s;s to bee ab&s;urd. If infinite, then there will bee two infinites in God, to wit, the Per&s;on and E&s;&s;ence of God; and con&s;equently two Gods, which is more ab&s;urd then the former. <MILESTONE N="3"> <HI>Thirdly,</HI> to talk of God taken onely E&s;&s;entially is ridiculous, not onely becau&s;e there is no example thereof in Scripture, but be|cau&s;e God is the name of a Per&s;on, and &s;ignifieth him that ruleth over others; and when it is put for the mo&s;t high God, it denoteth him who with &s;overaign and ab&s;olute, authoritie ruleth over all; but none but a per&s;on can rule over
<PB N="34" REF="24"> others, all actions being proper to per&s;ons: wherefore to take God otherwi&s;e then Per&s;onally, is to take him otherwi&s;e then hee is, and indeed to mi&s;take him.</P>
<DIV3 TYPE="answer">
<HEAD>ANSWER.</HEAD>
<HEAD>An&s;w.</HEAD>
<P><LABEL>Major.</LABEL> Hee <HI>that is di&s;tingui&s;hed from God</HI> (&s;ay you) <HI>is not God.</HI></P>
<P>To this Propo&s;ition I an&s;wer, by clearing the meaning of it thus: Hee, that is, that per&s;on which is di&s;tingui&s;hed, that is, really &s;epa|rated from, and &s;ub&s;tantially divided from God, is not God. In this &s;en&s;e this <HI>Major</HI> is undoubtedly true.</P>
<P>Let no man look upon the Propo&s;ition thus limited, as a forced eva&s;ion to elude the Argument; for it hold's forth fully the minde of the Adver&s;arie: His opinion is, the holy Gho&s;t and God do differ as much as a finite creature differ's from the infinite Cre&auml;|tor.</P>
<P><LABEL>Minor.</LABEL> Your <HI>Minor</HI> run's thus, <HI>The holy Spirit is di&s;tingui&s;hed from God;</HI> for hee is the Spirit of God. To this I an&s;wer both by denial and con|ce&s;&s;ion.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="1"> <HI>Fir&s;t by denial,</HI> if the term, <HI>di&s;tingui&s;hed,</HI> be taken in the a&s;&s;umption, as it is intended and explicated in the Propo&s;ition; for the Spirit of God is not &s;o di&s;tingui&s;hed from God, as a creature is di&s;tingui&s;hed from the Cre&auml;tor.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="2"> <HI>Secondly,</HI> I a&s;&s;ent to the <HI>Minor,</HI> if it bee taken in an Orthodoxal &s;en&s;e; for albeit the ble&s;&s;ed Spirit is not &s;o di&s;tingui&s;hed, as to bee &s;e|parated from God, yet is hee di&s;tingui&s;hed from God taken per&s;o|nally, as of nece&s;&s;itie it mu&s;t be taken in this place, as appear's by the proofs of the <HI>Minor:</HI> for the third per&s;on of the Trinitie is neither the fir&s;t nor the &s;econd per&s;on.</P>
<P><HI>Further,</HI> let us take a di&s;tinct view of the Syllogi&s;m, and I avouch it is either a fal&s;e Syllogi&s;m, or it prove's nothing.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="1"> <HI>Fir&s;t,</HI> it is a fal&s;e Syllogi&s;m, and con&s;i&s;t's of four terms, if the term <HI>[God]</HI> be taken in a different &s;en&s;e, as e&s;&s;entially in the Propo|&s;ition, and Conclu&s;ion, and per&s;onally in the A&s;&s;umption, it is a fault parallel to this rea&s;oning.</P>
<LIST TYPE="syllogism">
<ITEM>Shee that is di&s;tingui&s;hed from man, is not man.</ITEM>
<ITEM>A woman is di&s;tingui&s;hed from man.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Erg&ograve;,</HI> a woman is not a man.</ITEM>
</LIST>
<P>The word <HI>[Man]</HI> is a comprehen&s;ive word, and in the learned
<PB N="35" REF="24"> languages, and in common u&s;e, in Scripture, and among&s;t Philo&s;o|phers, is all one with <HI>animal rationale,</HI> a rea&s;onable creature. Take man thus in the <HI>Major,</HI> and take man in another &s;en&s;e in the <HI>Minor,</HI> as a term to di&s;tingui&s;h the &s;ex, and &s;o the Syllogi&s;m con&s;i&s;t's of four terms.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="2"> <HI>Secondly,</HI> I an&s;wer, if the term <HI>[God]</HI> be taken, as it ought to bee, in all the axioms in one &s;en&s;e, then the Syllogi&s;m conclude's nothing for the Adver&s;arie; for this mu&s;t bee the meaning of it:</P>
<LIST TYPE="syllogism">
<ITEM>Hee that is di&s;tingui&s;hed from God, <HI>viz.</HI> from God the Father, or God the Son, is not God; <HI>viz.</HI> not God the Father, or God the Son.</ITEM>
<ITEM>The holy Gho&s;t is di&s;tingui&s;hed from God, <HI>viz.</HI> from God the Father, and God the Son.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Erg&ograve;,</HI> Hee is not God the Father, or God the Son.</ITEM>
</LIST>
<P>This Syllogi&s;m thus explicated, is readily a&s;&s;ented to by the una|nimous con&s;ent of the Churches.</P>
<P>There is a fallacious homonymie of the word <HI>[God,]</HI> which hee make's frequent u&s;e of to abu&s;e his Reader; which (like corrupt blood) run's thorow the veins of all his Arguments. If hee know|eth not the meaning of it, his ignorance is to bee pitied; if hee know's it, and yet pre&s;ume's to &s;educe the unwarie, his impietie is to bee dete&s;ted. Hee well fore-&s;aw the u&s;ual di&s;tinction of <HI>God taken</HI> &s;omtimes <HI>e&s;&s;entially,</HI> and &s;omtimes <HI>per&s;onally</HI> in the word of God, would cut the &s;inews and &s;trength of his rea&s;ons; and therfore this, as a great block, mu&s;t bee removed out of the way. This hee cal's an <HI>ignorant refuge,</HI> and <HI>a wretched di&s;tinction.</HI> Behold, brethren, the mode&s;tie of the man, whereby hee di&s;cover's the bitterne&s;s and ar|rogancie of his &s;pirit; a weak and wilful man, who never took de|gree in Divinitie, nor ever was a Profe&s;&s;or of that highe&s;t and be&s;t learning, magi&s;terially condemneth millions of profe&s;&s;ed eminent Divines in this and former ages, for flying to an ignorant refuge, and for denying the truth by the help of a wretched di&s;tinction.</P>
<P>But what, I pray, is this ignorant di&s;tinction? It is for making a di&s;tinction betwixt the E&s;&s;ence and Per&s;on of God.</P>
<P>I intreat the Reader to take notice of the palpable darkne&s;s which hee di&s;cover's, even in the &s;ame place where hee accu&s;eth his betters of ignorance, of making a di&s;tinction betwixt the E&s;&s;ence and the Per&s;on of God: But, my friend, was it your task to prove this? Do
<PB N="36" REF="25" MS="y"> but review the parts of your Syllogi&s;m, and you &s;hall finde that they drive on this de&s;ign, that a per&s;on is di&s;tingui&s;hed from a Per|&s;on, that the Spirit of God, which is a Per&s;on, and &s;ent of God, mu&s;t needs be a per&s;on di&s;tinct from God that &s;ent him. If you will &s;ay, you &s;peak in the Per&s;on of your Adver&s;aries, I denie, that any learned man ever expre&s;&s;ed him&s;elf in that manner; if you can name any, let him bear his own blame. The di&s;tinction of God taken e&s;|&s;entially and per&s;onally, differ's much from that which is betwixt the e&s;&s;ence and per&s;on of God, as in due place I will prove. Yet be|cau&s;e my intention aime's at the benefits of the Readers, I will fol|low you in the&s;e your erring &s;teps, to treat of the <HI>difference betwixt the E&s;&s;ence of God, and the Per&s;on of God.</HI> There is a reall di&s;tinction, and there is a di&s;tinction in regard of our rational conception. The former is denied, the later is a&s;&s;erted touching the nature of God, and the Per&s;on of the holy Gho&s;t; for albeit in cre&auml;ted things, na|ture is one thing, and a per&s;on is another thing: (for a man is not the humane nature: <HI>Thomas</HI> is not the nature of <HI>Thomas;)</HI> yet in God, by rea&s;on of the ab&s;olute &s;implicitie of his nature, the divine nature and the Per&s;on are the &s;ame thing, <HI>Thom.</HI> 1. <HI>Sum. q.</HI> 3. <HI>art.</HI> 3. yet is there a di&s;tinction of rea&s;on, as they &s;peak; for there is one re|&s;pect of the nature, and another of the per&s;on: for the nature, as it is the divine nature, is communicated to the per&s;on, and &s;ub&s;i&s;t's in it; but the per&s;on is the very <HI>&s;uppo&s;itum,</HI> in which the nature &s;ub&s;i&s;t's, and which in this particular con&s;ideration is incommunicable, as the definition of a per&s;on evinceth, in which regard it is, that nei|ther doth the di&s;tinction of the Per&s;ons multiply the natures in God, nor doth the unitie of the nature confound the Per&s;ons.</P>
<P>I return now to the di&s;tinction: God is taken either e&s;&s;entially, or per&s;onally, which I &s;hall ju&s;tifie again&s;t his clamors and preten|&s;ions; for, if you demand, Hath hee no rea&s;ons to write tartly a|gain&s;t it? No &s;ound ones, I am &s;ure; but &s;uch as they are, I will now examine.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE UNIT="Adver&s;."> This dl&s;tinction (&s;aith hee) to <HI>omit the mention of Primitive Fathers.</HI> <MILESTONE UNIT="Sol."> And I commend your art for this preterition; for no ancient Fa|thers can truly bee named to favor your Herefie: the Fathers you omit are known branded Hereticks. The&s;e you may name with &s;hame enough; but others, I am &s;ure, you have none to &s;peak for you. <MILESTONE UNIT="Adver&s;."> But yet what ever become's of Fathers, <HI>it's unheard of</HI> (&s;ay you)
<PB N="37" REF="25"> <HI>in the Scriptures, and</HI> &s;o <HI>it's pre&s;umption to affirm any thing of God, which hee hath not fir&s;t affirmed of him&s;elf.</HI></P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="1" UNIT="An&s;w."> <HI>Fir&s;t,</HI> my ju&s;t an&s;wer is, You are an Opponent now, and your bare &s;aying is of no validitie. Doubtle&s;s, if your words may bee taken for oracles, you will carrie the cau&s;e. What is your <HI>Nay</HI> to a world of Chri&s;tians that do affirm it? It's as a feather laid in the ballance, and weighed again&s;t a talent of gold. Prove what you &s;ay, or look for no credit to be given to your words.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="2" UNIT="An&s;w."> <HI>Secondly,</HI> this di&s;tinction is heard of in the Scriptures, by nece&s;&s;a|rie inferences and &s;ound con&s;equences it's grounded on the word of God, as I &s;hall in the &s;equele demon&s;trate. And I have made good in the <HI>po&s;itive part</HI> by tho&s;e many arguments which I have alledged to prove the Deitie of the holy Gho&s;t, and what is ju&s;tly &s;o inferred out of the word of God, is proved by the word of God.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="1" UNIT="Adver&s;. Rea&s;."> This di&s;tinction, you &s;ay, is di&s;claimed by rea&s;on: <HI>Fir&s;t, becau&s;e it is impo&s;&s;ible for any man, if hee will not delude him&s;elf with emptie terms, to di&s;tingui&s;h the e&s;&s;ence from the per&s;on, and not frame two beeings in his minde, and con&s;equently two Gods.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Fir&s;t,</HI> I ob&s;erve a palpable and gro&s;s error in Divinitie, couched in this rea&s;on, that a man mu&s;t beleeve nothing touching God, but what hee is able to conceive with his minde. God's unconceivable truths by way of comprehen&s;ion in the creature, &s;hall bee no truths to Ma&s;ter <HI>Bidle,</HI> when they tran&s;cend the &s;phere of his capacitie: whereas it is the honor of our faith to beleeve Gods word, when it di&s;cover's truths, not onely above our apprehen&s;ions, but contra|rie to our corrupted rea&s;on. Our rea&s;on, as now it is, may bee a good &s;ervant, but it is an ill ma&s;ter in points of faith. Well, I &s;ee the Deitie of the holy Gho&s;t is impugned by this way, not becau&s;e it is not clearly revealed in Scriptures, but becau&s;e hee think's it a matter impo&s;&s;ible, and &s;o upon the point hee denie's the omnipoten|cie and infinite nature of God.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="2"> <HI>Secondly,</HI> if M^r <HI>Bidle</HI> cannot conceive hereof, who, be&s;ides his na|tural ignorance, is further blinded by the Devil, the god of this world, for beeing a profe&s;&s;ed enemie to the ble&s;&s;ed Spirit of light, I do not marvel: but that hee &s;hould take upon him to mea&s;ure all the refined and &s;ublimated apprehen&s;ions of the eminent &s;ervants of God, by his own dull and erroneous conceptions, is mi&s;erable follie. This hath been plentifully don by them, in&s;omuch that, at
<PB N="38" REF="26"> the lea&s;t, the foot-&s;teps of the Trinitie are &s;een in many of the crea|tures, is the common opinion of Divines, <HI>Lombard. lib.</HI> 1. <HI>di&s;t.</HI> 3. And tho&s;e School-men that write on him, their Ma&s;ter, and hereto ac|cord our learned Doctors, who ever at large have handled that com|mon place, and mo&s;t amply, that much to bee admired and hono|red <HI>Mornaeus lib. de veritate Chri&s;t. Relig. cap.</HI> 5, 6. I will not in&s;tance now in any particular examples; they are not, I grant, convincing demon&s;trations, but liable to the exceptions of a captious Adver&s;a|rie; yet the ground-work beeing firmly laid in the word of truth, and truly apprehended by faith, they are &s;ubordinate helps to yield &s;om glimp&s;e and &s;parks of light to the point in hand; and though I do forbear real in&s;tances in this place, yet I will alledg an imagina|rie fiction, which hath &s;trength to prove a real truth, and it is &s;uch a fiction, which is recited and approved by &s;om of the Learned of both profe&s;&s;ions. Suppo&s;e a father beget's a &s;on, and communicate's to him the &s;ame &s;oul and bodie which hee hath &s;till him&s;elf, and both of the&s;e &s;hould communicate the &s;ame &s;oul and bodie to a third, here would bee three di&s;tinct per&s;ons, yet the &s;ame e&s;&s;ence in them all. But, you will &s;ay, this is impo&s;&s;ible; for there mu&s;t needs bee three &s;ouls and three bodies in three per&s;ons. But now you deny that which I &s;uppo&s;e; I &s;ay, if a father could &s;o communicate the &s;ame e&s;&s;ence to his &s;on, and retain it &s;till to him&s;elf, then would there bee but one nature in them all: really, I grant, this is never don; be|cau&s;e in finite &s;ub&s;tances the e&s;&s;ence mu&s;t needs bee finite. But if wee &s;peak of God, becau&s;e hee is immaterial, infinite, and not capable of e&s;&s;ential divi&s;ion, this is truly don: it's a received Maxim in Lo|gick, <HI>Ficta &s;imilitudo probat fid&eacute;mque facit,</HI> fained &s;imilitudes prove.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="2" UNIT="Adver&s;. Rea&s;on"> Secondly, <HI>If the per&s;on bee di&s;tinct from the Deitie, it is either &s;omthing that make's the difference, or nothing; if &s;omthing, it mu&s;t bee ei|ther finite or infinite, both of them are fal&s;e.</HI></P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="1" UNIT="An&s;w."> To this I an&s;wer: fir&s;t, by retorting this Argument again&s;t your &s;elf. <HI>Fir&s;t,</HI> I propo&s;e the many e&s;&s;ential properties of God, and I ask, Are they &s;omthing, or are they nothing? are they finite or infinite? for I ob&s;erve that you &s;peak re&s;ervedly in this place, and tell us what wee hold, not what your &s;elf maintain's; and in your eleventh Rea&s;on I might ju&s;tly &s;u&s;pect, that in your opinion the under&s;tan|ding of God re&s;ide's in the divine e&s;&s;ence, as in the &s;ubject of it; but however that is, if you re&s;olve this objection, it's not unlike but
<PB N="39" REF="26"> you have an&s;wered your &s;elf. But I will follow you more clo&s;ely, the God whom you, with the deluded Jews and Turks, do ac|knowledg to bee a Per&s;on, hath the divine E&s;&s;ence, and hee hath the divine E&s;&s;ence of and from him&s;elf; and this make's a di&s;tincti|on betwixt the thing, and the manner of the thing: now, the man|ner of having this nature from him&s;elf, and no other, is either &s;om|thing or nothing; if &s;omthing, it is either finite or infinite. I &s;up|po&s;e, you will bee put to your &s;hifts, if you will bee true to your own principles, to di&s;&s;olve this doubt; you mu&s;t plough with our heifer, I mean, make u&s;e of the knowledg of our learned Writers to unfold this riddle, or el&s;e it will remain unan&s;wered.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="2"> <HI>Secondly,</HI> if you &s;hould, as an unskilful Pilot, &s;tear the &s;hip to &s;plit it on rocks, to the lo&s;s of your own life, and of the pa&s;&s;engers; if you &s;hould lay a &s;nare to catch the feet, not onely of the Adver&s;a|ries, but your own too; this will afford no comfort to the Reader. I add therefore a punctual An&s;wer: <MILESTONE N="3"> thus you object, That whereby the Per&s;on is di&s;tingui&s;hed from the E&s;&s;ence, is &s;omthing or no|thing. I grant, it is &s;omthing, for it is not a meer notion devi&s;ed by man's brain; for before a man was cre&auml;ted, and if there were not left a living man to conceive of this my&s;terie, yet there is a di&s;tincti|on betwixt them; for e&s;&s;ence denote's an ab&s;olute &s;ub&s;tance, but a Per&s;on is referred to another; that is communicable, this is incom|municable; that is without original, &s;o is not the per&s;on of the Son of God and of the holy Gho&s;t; the per&s;on beget's, is begotten, and proceed's, but the divine E&s;&s;ence neither beget's, nor is begot|ten, nor doth it proceed; one Per&s;on is not predicated of another, the Father is not the Son, nor is the Son the Father,&mdash;but the di|vine E&s;&s;ence is predicated of every Per&s;on. To proceed.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE UNIT="Adver&s;."> <HI>If that wherein they are di&s;tingui&s;hed</HI> (&s;aith hee) <HI>bee</HI> aliquid, <HI>it is either finite or infinite.</HI> By this <HI>dilemma</HI> hee think's to reduce us to ab&s;urdi|ties: for the clearing up of this foggy mi&s;t ca&s;t before our eyes, <MILESTONE UNIT="An&s;w."> it will not bee ami&s;s to &s;hew what is infinitie: For any thing to bee infinite is required that it bee boundle&s;s and without limits, not in regard of mathematical or philo&s;ophical dimen&s;ions, for the&s;e have alwaies actually their bounds of exten&s;ion which they do not pa&s;s, but the infinitie of God hold's forth that ab&s;olute perfection which is in God, which is in it &s;elf boundle&s;s, in the highe&s;t degree actual and complete, and &s;o this di&s;tinction of a thing to bee either finite
<PB N="40" REF="27"> or infinite, is all one for &s;ub&s;tance with this di&s;tinction, though expre&s;&s;ed in other terms. Every thing is either the Cre&auml;tor or the creature; certain it is, the power of God is in it &s;elf 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 cre&auml;ted God, which implieth a plain contradiction. Now God's Omnipotency is not conver&s;ant about things impo&s;&s;ible, and repugnant to the divine nature. This brief declaration premi&s;ed, I will now pre&s;ent two An|&s;wers to this Objection and either of them hath eminent Authors to avouch it. Chri&s;tian Readers, con&s;ider well, and re&s;t in that which you apprehend to bee be&s;t.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="1"> <HI>If it bee &s;omthing,</HI> you &s;ay, <HI>it is either finite or infinite.</HI> My fir&s;t An&s;wer hereto is by a direct negation of the disjunction, which doth not con&s;i&s;t of the full enumeration of the parts: this di&s;tribu|tion belong's to ab&s;olute po&s;itive things; every ab&s;olute and po&s;i|tive thing is finite or infinite, but that which doth di&s;tingui&s;h the E&s;&s;ence from the Per&s;on is no &s;uch thing: the Per&s;on con&s;idered in re&s;pect of the E&s;&s;ence is one thing, but it is di&s;tingui&s;hed in regard of the manner of having this divine E&s;&s;ence; thus the divers degrees of white, in color of whitene&s;s, of light in the air, of heat in the water, are not whitene&s;s, light, and heat it &s;elf, but they are affecti|ons of <HI>Ens;</HI> they are <HI>modi albedinis, lucis, &amp; caloris:</HI> the&s;e different de|grees are <HI>aliquid,</HI> yet they are not the qualities them&s;elves; &s;o is there <HI>aliquid in Deo,</HI> &s;omthing in God (&s;o I am forced to &s;peak) which is not a divers thing from God, nor the very E&s;&s;ence of God, but <HI>modus E&s;&s;entiae,</HI> which is called <GAP DESC="foreign">; &s;o that the Per&s;on of the holy Gho&s;t differ's from the divine E&s;&s;ence, as the manner of the thing doth from the thing it &s;elf, and the Per&s;ons differ among&s;t them&s;elves, as <HI>modi &agrave; modis.</HI></P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="2"> The&s;e divine relations, as they are oppo&s;ed and di&s;tingui&s;hed a|mong&s;t them&s;elves, are infinite &s;imply, as they are con&s;idered in <HI>genere Entis,</HI> in re&s;pect of the E&s;&s;ence which they do include, and &s;o they are not multiplied, but one <HI>Ens.</HI> Hence is it, that the Father is not <HI>aliud &agrave; Filio,&mdash;</HI>nor is <HI>Deus triplex.</HI> Secondly, they may bee con&s;i|dered in regard of the proper re&s;pects wherein they are oppo&s;ed, and &s;o they are infinite in re&s;pect of relation onely, and in this regard it is not inconvenient to &s;ay, that an infinite thing may bee multi|plied: there are not three things, but three di&s;tinct Per&s;ons, <HI>Deus e&s;t</HI>
<PB N="41" REF="27"> <HI>trinus,</HI> and <HI>Pater e&s;t alius &agrave; Filio.&mdash;</HI>Hence is it al&s;o, that School-men do approve, that <HI>adjectiva nomina</HI> in the concrete, becau&s;e they do not &s;ignifie a thing <HI>per modum &s;ub&s;tantiae,</HI> as the Sub&s;tantives do, but onely the number of Per&s;ons, may bee attributed in the plural num|ber to them: Thus, there are <HI>tres aeterne Per&s;onae, tres incre&auml;tae, tres omnipotentes, cre&auml;ntes, &amp;c.</HI> If the fir&s;t an&s;wer bee too jejune, and will not &s;erve the turn, I hope the &s;econd will give &s;atisfaction to the Reader.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="3" UNIT="Adv. Rea&s;."> <HI>To talk of God</HI> (&s;ay you) <HI>taken onely e&s;&s;entially, is ridiculous.</HI> </P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="1"> <HI>Fir&s;t,</HI> becau&s;e there is no example thereof in Scripture. <MILESTONE N="2"> <HI>Secondly,</HI> becau&s;e the name of God &s;ignifieth him that ruleth over others; but none but a Per&s;on can rule over others, all actions being proper to Per&s;ons.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="1" UNIT="An&s;w."> To the fir&s;t of the&s;e I an&s;wer, by affirming that there are many examples of this di&s;tinction in Scripture. The name <HI>[God]</HI> is taken e&s;&s;entially, when it is not contracted either by the expre&s;s name of the Father, the Son, or the holy Gho&s;t, or when it is not limited by &s;om circum&s;tances in the text, which do infallibly lead us there|unto. And thus mo&s;t frequently in the Scriptures it is taken; but then it is taken per&s;onally, or <HI>&s;ecund&ugrave;m quid,</HI> in regard of a certain proprietie, which point's out a certain Per&s;on, which is &s;omtimes God the Father, &s;omtimes God the Son, and &s;omtimes God the ho|ly Gho&s;t; or el&s;e wee are guided to &s;uch a limitation, by perpending the text or places of Scriptures parallel to it. For in&s;tance, <HI>John</HI> 1. 1. the <HI>Word was God, and that Word was with God.</HI> In the fir&s;t place it mu&s;t bee taken e&s;&s;entially, in the &s;econd per&s;onally with God, <HI>viz.</HI> his Father; thus Chri&s;t is &s;aid to bee the Son of God, the image of God, <HI>viz.</HI> the Father.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="2"> To the <HI>&s;econd</HI> I might take exception to your rule in many parti|culars, which is not true in any cre&auml;ted acting things, which are not per&s;ons, no nor in the &s;oul of man, which hath many immanent actions, both in and when &s;eparated from the bodie, which are not actions of a per&s;on. <MILESTONE N="2"> But let your rule bee granted, as it relate's to this particular: actions are of per&s;ons, and not of the nature con&s;i|deredin the ab&s;tract. So barbarous School-men &s;ay, it is a man which doth di&s;pute, not <HI>home&iuml;tas.</HI> It is a hor&s;e that carrie's a man, not <HI>equina natura,</HI> or <HI>eque&iuml;tas:</HI> this is onely <HI>&s;uppo&s;itum.</HI> But then I mu&s;t tell you, to abate your mirth, that you give (through your
<PB N="42" REF="28"> ignorance) a fal&s;e interpretation of the meaning of Orthodoxal Di|vines touching that di&s;tinction, as though they thought that Gods nature generally, ab&s;olutely, and e&s;&s;entially con&s;idered as ab&s;tracted from God the Father, God the Son, and God the holy Gho&s;t did rule the world: this is but a figment of your own brain. But when they &s;ay, God worketh this or that, God is taken e&s;&s;entially: they mean nothing el&s;e but God the Father, God the Son, and God the holy Gho&s;t; and the government of the world, the particular in|&s;tanced in, being a work <HI>ad extra,</HI> relating to the creatures, belong's to all the Per&s;ons joyntly; this is a received Maxim of all Divines. Thus much of this Argument.</P>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="2" TYPE="argument">
<HEAD><HI>ARGUMENT</HI> 2.</HEAD>
<LIST TYPE="syllogism">
<HEAD>2 Argum. of M. Bidle.</HEAD>
<ITEM>If hee that gave the holy Spirit to the I&s;ra&euml;lites to instruct them, bee Je|hovah alone, then the holy Spirit is not Jehovah or God:</ITEM>
<ITEM>But hee that gave the holy Spirit to the I&s;ra&euml;lites to in&s;truct them, is Je|hovah alone.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Erg&ograve;.</HI> The &s;equele of the <HI>Major</HI> is plain: for, if hee that gave the holy Spirit bee Jehovah alone, and yet the holy Spirit that was given bee Jehovah too, the &s;ame will bee Jehovah alone, and not Jehovah alone, which implieth a contradiction. The <HI>Minor</HI> is evidenced by <HI>Nehem.</HI> 9. 6, 20.</ITEM>
</LIST>
<DIV3 TYPE="answer">
<HEAD>ANSWER.</HEAD>
<P> <MILESTONE UNIT="An&s;w."> I denie the con&s;equence of this hypothetical Syllogi&s;m, which is not nece&s;&s;arily inferred, as it &s;hould bee from the antecedent. I will not que&s;tion the truth of your a&s;&s;umption; but &s;uppo&s;e that the fir&s;t Per&s;on is evidently meant, <HI>Nehem.</HI> 9. 6. who is &s;aid to bee Jehovah a|lone; yet wil it not by the rules of Divinitie bee a nece&s;&s;arie &s;equele, that the holy Gho&s;t is not Jehovah or God, nor is there &s;o much as a &s;hadow of contradiction, as &s;hall bee evidenced; and they do know this well that are ver&s;ed in the&s;e points. When you &s;ay Je|hovah, or the fir&s;t per&s;on is Jehovah alone, there is in the words a fallacie of compo&s;ition and divi&s;ion, as the Logicians &s;peak. And that I might fortifie your Argument, and make it advantageous to you, if the exclu&s;ive particle had been added to the antecedent, thus, onely the Father is Jehovah; yet were not your cau&s;e confirmed thereby: for, it is a rule in the Logician <HI>Kecker. lib.</HI> 2. <HI>cap.</HI> 4. <HI>exclu&s;iva particula &s;ubjecti non excludit concomitantia:</HI> and hee in&s;tanceth in this
<PB N="43" REF="28"> very example, Onely the Father is true God, whereby (&s;aith hee) the Son of God and the holy Gho&s;t are not excluded from beeing God, but creatures onely. And profound <HI>Zanchius</HI> add's another ex|ample, Onely Chri&s;t is the Savior of the world, taken inclu&s;ively, all creatures are excluded, but neither the Father nor the holy Gho&s;t are to bee excluded from the great work of our redemption. Nor do wee want examples in the Scriptures to this purpo&s;e; <HI>None know the Son but the Father: nor doth any know the Son but the Father,</HI> Matth.. 11. 27. that is, onely the Father know's the Son, and onely the Son know's the Father. And again, <HI>No man know's the things of God, but onely the Spirit,</HI> 1 Cor. 2. that is, onely the Spirit know's the things of God; as in the former place the holy Gho&s;t is not to bee excluded, &s;o in the later, both Father and Son of God are to be in|cluded: Thus our ble&s;&s;ed Savior is de&s;cribed to have eies like a flame of fire, and to have many crowns on his head, and a name which none knew but hee him&s;elf, <HI>Revel.</HI> 19. 12. let the my&s;terie 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 <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">1 <HI>Tim.</HI> 6. 16. The King of kings one|ly hath im|mortalitie: none but the Father know's the day and hour of judg|ment.</NOTE> expre&s;&s;ions wee may reade in Scripture, by which exclu&s;ive particle onely &s;uch things are to bee excluded, which are not one and the &s;ame in <NOTE N="a" PLACE="marg"><HI>Tertul.</HI> &s;aith of the Son of God, hee is <HI>individ<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="3 letters"> &amp; in&s;eparatus &agrave; Patre, in Pa|tre <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="2 letters">putand<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="2 letters">, et &s;i non no|minatus. ad|ver&s;. Pra<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter">eum.</HI> So of the ho|ly Gho&s;t.</NOTE> e&s;&s;ence with the &s;ubject to which the exclu&s;ive particle is annexed. As if one &s;hould &s;ay, I beleeve in God the Father, who alone made the world; wee mu&s;t not conceive, that hee exclude's God the Son, and God the holy Gho&s;t from that great work of cre&auml;tion: but onely the creatures, which had no hand at all therein. This which I have &s;poken &s;eem's to carrie &s;om probabilitie with it, and that one may not without cau&s;e &s;u&s;pend his judgment from con|currence with tho&s;e Divines, which do commonly judg this propo|&s;ition thus enunciated to bee fal&s;e, onely the Father is Jehovah.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="2"> To the &s;ub&s;tance of your Argument, as it is propounded by you, the an&s;wer is ea&s;ie; <HI>Alone,</HI> both in the cited text, and in your argu|ment, is referred to the later part of the axiom: Thus, the fir&s;t per|&s;on of the Trinitie is Jehovah alone; this, I grant, is a very true Propo&s;ition, if it bee rightly under&s;tood, and yet make's nothing at all for your advantage; becau&s;e the particle <HI>[alone]</HI> doth not exclude any thing in re&s;pect of the &s;ubject, but onely of the predicate: and therefore is clearly true both of the Father, Son, and of the holy Gho&s;t. Thus, the Father is alone Jehovah, the Son is alone Jeho|vah,
<PB N="44" REF="29"> and God the holy Gho&s;t is alone Jehovah: and the rea&s;on is plain, and unan&s;werable; becau&s;e, albeit the Father is Lord, the Son is Lord, and the holy Gho&s;t is Lord; yet are there not three Lords, but one Lord, &s;aith the Athana&s;ian Creed. <HI>I am the Lord, and there is none el&s;e, there is no God be&s;ides mee: and it &s;hall bee known from Ea&s;t to We&s;t, that there is none be&s;ides mee, and there is none el&s;e,</HI> I&s;a. 45. 5, 6.</P>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="3" TYPE="argument">
<HEAD><HI>ARGUMENT</HI> 3.</HEAD>
<LIST TYPE="syllogism">
<HEAD>3 Argum. of M. Bidle.</HEAD>
<ITEM>Hee that &s;peaketh not of him&s;elf, is not God. </ITEM>
<ITEM>The holy Spirit &s;peaketh not of him&s;elf:</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Erg&ograve;.</HI></ITEM>
</LIST>
<P>The <HI>Minor</HI> is clear from <HI>John</HI> 16. 13. The <HI>Major</HI> is proved thus: God &s;peaketh of him&s;elf; therefore if there bee any one that &s;peaketh not of him&s;elf, hee is not God. The antecedent is of it &s;elf apparant; for God is the primarie Author of what&s;oever hee doth, but &s;hould hee not &s;peak of him|&s;elf, hee mu&s;t &s;peak from another, and &s;o not bee the primarie, but &s;econdarie author of his &s;peech, which is ab&s;urd, if at least that may bee called ab&s;urd, which is impo&s;&s;ible. The con&s;equence is undeniable. For further confirmation of this Argument, it is to bee ob&s;erved, that to &s;peak or to do any thing not if him&s;elf, according to the ordinarie phra&s;e of Scripture, is to &s;peak or do by the &s;hewing, teaching, commanding, authori&s;ing, or enabling of another, and con&s;equently incompatible with the &s;upreme and &s;elf-&s;ufficient Maje&s;tie of God. <HI>Vid. John</HI> 5. 19, 20, 30. <HI>ch.</HI> 7. <HI>v.</HI> 15, 16, 17, 18, 28. <HI>ch.</HI> 8. <HI>v.</HI> 28. 42. <HI>ch.</HI> 11. <HI>v.</HI> 50, 51. <HI>ch.</HI> 12. <HI>v.</HI> 49. 50. <HI>ch.</HI> 14. <HI>v.</HI> 10, 24. <HI>ch.</HI> 15. 4. <HI>ch.</HI> 18. 34. <HI>Luke</HI> 12. 56, 57. <HI>ch.</HI> 21. 30. 2 <HI>Cor.</HI> 3. 5.</P>
<DIV3 TYPE="answer">
<HEAD>ANSWER.</HEAD>
<P> <MILESTONE UNIT="An&s;w."> <HI>Hee that &s;peaketh not of him&s;elf</HI> (&s;ay you) <HI>is not God</HI> I denie this your <HI>Major</HI> Propo&s;ition; for though in a &s;en&s;e the Spirit of God &s;peaketh not of him&s;elf, yet is hee truly and properly God: nor will I content my &s;elf with a bare denial of it, which is enough for an An&s;werer, but I will give you the rea&s;on hereof; nor need I go far for a proof, this Ver&s;e in <HI>John</HI> alledged by you, might have taught you this truth; for, the per&s;on here is called by an excellen|cie the Spirit of truth: and which lead's the Apo&s;tles and the Faith|ful into all truth, the heavenly truth of eternal &s;alvation. This <HI>lead|ing into truth,</HI> is all one for &s;ub&s;tance with that tran&s;lation of others, <HI>&s;hall teach you all truth.</HI> And that which is in the Hebrew, <HI>P&s;al.</HI> 86. 11. <HI>lead mee thy way&mdash;</HI><GAP DESC="foreign">. The Septuag. render it with the &s;ame
<PB N="45" REF="29"> word which the Evangeli&s;t u&s;eth, <GAP DESC="foreign">&mdash;Now this is pro|perly a work of the great God, and that which was long before fore-told, <HI>They &s;hall bee all taught of God,</HI> John 5. 45. Can any thing bee more plainly &s;poken? It is not denied but one man is &s;aid to bee a teacher of others, <HI>Matth.</HI> 28. <HI>Go and teach all Nations:</HI> And this is don two waies principally, if not onely, <HI>vel proponendo auxilia&mdash;Aq.</HI> 1. 117. <HI>q. either</HI> by propo&s;ing to &s;cholars general helps, whereby the &s;cholar is led, as it were by the hand, to the knowledg of un|known truths; as by general rules, &s;en&s;ible examples, lively &s;imili|tudes, and &s;uch like, to help the under&s;tanding: <HI>or el&s;e,</HI> by &s;trength|ning the under&s;tanding of the learner, by &s;hewing him how hee &s;hould deduce conclu&s;ions from principles; but when a creature hath don all that hee can to the utmo&s;t of his power, hee cannot infu&s;e light into his &s;cholars, and elevate their minds to apprehend divine truth. Let the Sun &s;hine never &s;o bright, yet a blind man cannot &s;ee it: and wee are taught to <HI>call no man Ma&s;ter on earth,</HI> Mat. 23. So God alone is the fountain of illumination, hee &s;itteth in his chair in heaven, who teacheth our hearts on earth.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE UNIT="Object."> Be&s;ides, if wee con&s;ider the condition of the Apo&s;tles, to &s;peak onely of them, (though they bee not the onely per&s;ons on whom that promi&s;e run's) they were to bee di&s;pe&s;t over all the known Re|gions of the world; and if &s;o, how &s;hould a creature bee with them all, (as you do hold the holy Gho&s;t to bee) and a&s;&s;i&s;t all their mouths and pens infallibly in every place? <MILESTONE UNIT="Sol."> Surely, to do &s;o, 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 e&s;&s;ence, &s;o likewi&s;e in place and operation. Nor will that &s;hift &s;erve the turn which is u&s;ed by this Author, in an&s;wer (as hee &s;aith) to that grand Objection touching the Omni|pre&s;ence of the holy Gho&s;t, by comparing this with the Parable of the Sower, where Satan is &s;aid to <HI>&s;natch</HI> the Word of the hearts of hearers in ten thou&s;and places at once, for this is <HI>fallacia non parium.</HI> The holy Gho&s;t which dwell's in all the godly, and leadeth them into all truth, is one individual Spirit; but it neither is, nor po&s;|&s;ibly can bee, one individual Devil, which acteth his wickedne&s;s in all the wicked ones at once; for there are millions of them di&s;per&s;ed every where in this lower Region of the world, full of malice, and policie to do mi&s;chief, and every one of them is a Satan: Wee read
<PB N="46" REF="30"> of the Devil and his Angels, but you do not read of the holy Gho&s;t and his Angels, though (I grant) they are his Angels, as cre&auml;ted and commanded by him, but not &s;o as the Devil's Angels are his, as a &s;uperior creature having rule over fellow-creatures.</P>
<P>I will once again propound your <HI>Major.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Hee that &s;peaketh not of him&s;elf is not God.</HI> This Propo&s;ition is not univer&s;ally true: I grant, in this &s;en&s;e it is true; hee that &s;pea|keth not of him&s;elf, but what hee learn's by revelation, and in time, and what hee did not know from all eternitie, hee is not God; but &s;uch a kinde of hearing from another hath no place in the holy Gho&s;t, and therefore the Propo&s;ition, if it bee taken generally, is denied; and the rea&s;on of my denying it is this, becau&s;e it is a pro|pertie of the Father, as to bee of and from him&s;elf, the Fountain, and the Principle, as Divines do u&s;ually &s;peak, though not properly the cau&s;e of the Son of God and of the holy Gho&s;t; for then they &s;hould bee effects, which &s;ound's har&s;hly: the Father is (I &s;ay) of him&s;elf, and communicate's the E&s;&s;ence and the e&s;&s;ential properties to the Son, and both Father and Son to the holy Gho&s;t, who is e|ternal, infinite, omnipotent, and omnipre&s;ent. Our learned <HI>Junius</HI> hath ob&s;erved a three-fold con&s;ideration of a Per&s;on; <HI>one,</HI> common in e&s;&s;ence, as the Per&s;on is God; the <HI>&s;econd</HI> con&s;ideration, as it is &s;ingular and ab&s;olute in Per&s;on, as (&s;aith hee) it &s;ub&s;i&s;t's in the u|nitie of the E&s;&s;ence; the <HI>third</HI> is relative in the di&s;tinction and order of one Per&s;on to another, <HI>contra Bellar. Controv.</HI> 2. <HI>l.</HI> 1. <HI>Praefat.</HI> let the Learned judg of the&s;e, the la&s;t is to my purpo&s;e. Now, as the Per&s;ons do differ in the manner and order of &s;ub&s;i&s;ting, &s;o likewi&s;e, though the outward action bee the &s;ame, and common to all the Per&s;ons, yet in the manner of working wee mu&s;t conceive a diffe|rence. Give mee leave to clear this received truth by &s;olving the &s;tronge&s;t Objections which are framed again&s;t it.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="1" UNIT="Objection"> Neither the Father, nor the holy Gho&s;t, but onely the Son of God did a&s;&s;ume our nature, and this is an outward work; to this it is an&s;wered, that onely the Son of God became man, yet the whole Trinitie did frame, and work to the a&s;&s;umption of the humane na|ture: illu&s;trated thus, Three do weave cloth to bee worn of one of them onely; <HI>inchoativ&egrave;,</HI> it belonged to all the Per&s;ons; <HI>termina|tiv&egrave;,</HI> it was per&s;onal and proper to the Son of God.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="2" UNIT="Objection"> If it bee &s;aid onely the Father &s;poke from heaven, <HI>This is my wel|beloved</HI>
<PB N="47" REF="30"> <HI>Son,</HI> &s;o it is &s;aid, not becau&s;e all the Per&s;ons did not frame that voice, but becau&s;e the words were uttered in his Per&s;on; the Father alone is &s;aid to &s;peak tho&s;e words, becau&s;e they related to the Son of God, the thing &s;ignified did alone appertain to the Per|&s;on of the Father: nor is this rule cro&s;&s;ed by the apparition of a Dove. <MILESTONE N="3" UNIT="Objection"> The holy Gho&s;t alone de&s;cended, and appeared to the A|po&s;tles in fiery cloven tongues, becau&s;e tho&s;e vi&s;ible Symbols did onely &s;ignifie the Per&s;on of the holy Gho&s;t, which the three Per&s;ons, by one undivided operation, did produce.</P>
<P>Mark then, albeit the work bee the &s;ame, and 'tis from all the Per&s;ons, yet is there a difference in the manner of working: the Father, and the Son, as they are the Fountain of the Per&s;on of the holy Gho&s;t, &s;o likewi&s;e are they the Fountain of the operations of the holy Gho&s;t. When wee read this expre&s;&s;ion then, the <HI>holy Gho&s;t &s;peak's not of him&s;elf,</HI> wee mu&s;t not conceive that phra&s;e to import any diminution of the Maje&s;tie of the holy Gho&s;t, nor doth it im|plie that hee is not God, that hee is inferior to the fir&s;t Per&s;on of the Trinitie: hereby our Savior would teach the Di&s;ciples, for they are his own words in <HI>John,</HI> that they &s;hould not think the holy Gho&s;t to bee greater then the Son of God, albeit his works in the hearts of his Apo&s;tles &s;hould bee greater then tho&s;e, which hee, whiles hee vi&s;ibly conver&s;ed with them, had wrought in them. Nor &s;hould they think that the holy Gho&s;t &s;hould bring any new Do|ctrine, but the truths taught by him, are the truths of God the Fa|ther; there is a plenary con&s;ent of the Doctrine of the holy Gho&s;t, and of God the Father; that which the holy Gho&s;t &s;peak's from the Father, hee had not in time, but by eternal proce&s;&s;ion from the Fa|ther and the Son of God. There is no diver&s;itie at all in the work, in it &s;elf con&s;idered, but the order of externally working an&s;wer's to the order of the divine Per&s;ons: thus is the holy Gho&s;t &s;aid not to work from him&s;elf, but from the Father and Son. By this which hath been &s;poken, his rea&s;ons are already an&s;wered; yet a word of them.</P>
<LIST TYPE="syllogism">
<HEAD>Adver&s;.</HEAD>
<ITEM><HI>God &s;peak's of him&s;elf.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>The holy Gho&s;t &s;peak's not of him&s;elf:</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>Erg&ograve; <HI>hee is not God.</HI></ITEM>
</LIST>
<P> <MILESTONE UNIT="An&s;w."> There is nothing but homonymies in both Propo&s;itions; but I an&s;wer to this Objection: God, e&s;&s;entially taken, &s;peak's of him|&s;elf,
<PB N="48" REF="31"> and thus the holy Gho&s;t, as hee is God, &s;peak's of and from him&s;elf: but if you take it thus, by a reduplication of the Subject, by a &s;pecificative limitation, the holy Gho&s;t, as the holy Gho&s;t, is not of him&s;elf, in regard of his Per&s;on, but from the Father and the Son; and in this regard &s;peak's not from him&s;elf, yet is a holy, true God, ble&s;&s;ed for ever.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE UNIT="Adver&s;."> <HI>If God</HI> (&s;ay you) <HI>&s;peaketh not from him&s;elf, hee &s;hould not bee the primary Author of his &s;peech, but the &s;econdary; and this is ab|&s;urd, impo&s;&s;ible.</HI></P>
<P> <MILESTONE UNIT="An&s;w."> I deny the con&s;equence; which is true, when wee &s;peak of cau&s;es &s;ubordinate to &s;uperior cau&s;es, or of in&s;trumental cau&s;es; but the holy Gho&s;t is not an in&s;trument either &s;eparate from, or conjunct with the fir&s;t Per&s;on. Hee is not inferior in dignitie or power to God the Father, and God the Son; for there is but one divine E&s;|&s;ence &s;ub&s;i&s;ting in the three Per&s;ons, which are not the &s;ubject of the Deitie, for they are one God in E&s;&s;ence; and &s;o the prioritie of the fir&s;t Per&s;on is in regard of the order of working, without infe|rioritie in the third Per&s;on, whether wee regard the Per&s;ons rela|tively and con&s;idered, or the work produced by them.</P>
<P>It is needle&s;s for mee to &s;pend time in examining the many parti|cular places alledged by him; for &s;om of them do directly &s;peak of the creatures, and tho&s;e are impertinent; for what call you this? The holy Gho&s;t that &s;peak's not from him&s;elf is not God; why? Becau&s;e the &s;ame phra&s;e is u&s;ed of a creature: or el&s;e they &s;peak of Chri&s;t, as God, and then they are already an&s;wered. I add, that &s;om of tho&s;e expre&s;&s;ions are &s;o far from proving Chri&s;t not to bee God, that they do &s;trongly evince the Deitie of the Son of God. I conclude in S. <HI>Au&s;tin's</HI> words, What&s;oever the Father is, as hee is God, as hee is a &s;ub&s;tance, as hee is eternitie, the &s;ame is the Son of God, and the holy Gho&s;t. If you will &s;ay, What riddles are the&s;e? I an&s;wer, How litle is it that wee conceive of God? Wee can have better apprehen&s;ions of God, then wee can make expre&s;&s;ions of him, and hee is tran&s;cendently above both our apprehen&s;ions and expre&s;&s;ions of him.</P>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="4" TYPE="argument">
<HEAD><HI>ARGUMENT</HI> 4.</HEAD>
<LIST TYPE="syllogism">
<HEAD>4 Argum. of M. Bidle.</HEAD>
<ITEM>Hee that heareth from another what hee &s;hall &s;peak, is not God. </ITEM>
<ITEM>The holy Spirit doth &s;o:</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Erg&ograve;.</HI> </ITEM>
</LIST>
<P>The <HI>Minor</HI> is plain from the fore-cited place <HI>John</HI> 16. 13. The
<PB N="49" REF="31"> <HI>Major</HI> is proved thus: Hee that is taught, is not God; Hee that heareth from another what hee &s;hall &s;peak, is taught: <HI>Erg&ograve;.</HI> The <HI>Major</HI> is clear by <HI>E&s;ay</HI> 40. 13, 14. compared with <HI>Rom.</HI> 11. 34. 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 2. 16. The <HI>Mi|nor</HI> is evidenced by <HI>John</HI> 8. where our Savior having &s;aid in the 26. ver&s;e, <HI>What&s;oever I have heard from him (the Father) the&s;e things I &s;peak.</HI> In the 28. ver&s;e hee expre&s;&s;eth the &s;ame &s;en&s;e thus: <HI>According as the Father hath taught mee, the&s;e things I &s;peak.</HI> Neither let any man go about to elude &s;o pregnant an Argument, by &s;aying that this is &s;poken of the holy Spirit improperly; for let him turn him&s;elf every way, and &s;crue the words as hee plea&s;e, yet &s;hall hee never bee able to make it out to a wi&s;e and con&s;idering man, how it can po&s;&s;ibly bee &s;aid, that any one heareth from another what hee will &s;peak, who is the prime Author of his &s;peech, and into whom it is not at a certain time in&s;inuated by another. For this expre&s;&s;ion plainly intimateth, that what&s;oever the holy Spirit &s;peaketh to the Di&s;ciples, is first di&s;covered and committed to him by Chri&s;t, who&s;e Emba&s;&s;ador hee is, it being proper to an Emba&s;&s;ador to bee the Interpreter not of his own, but of anothers will. But it is contradictious to imagine, that the mo&s;t high God can have any thing di&s;covered and committed to him by another.</P>
<DIV3 TYPE="answer">
<HEAD>ANSWER.</HEAD>
<P> <MILESTONE UNIT="An&s;w."> I an&s;wer fir&s;t in general, by di&s;tingui&s;hing of this word <HI>[hearing,]</HI> which is the <HI>ba&s;is</HI> and ground of your Argument; and then will particularly applie it.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="1"> Somtimes the <HI>Superior heareth the Inferior:</HI> thus, God is frequently &s;aid to hear the praiers of his &s;ervants made in faith.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="2"> Somtimes the <HI>Inferior hear's the Superior,</HI> and that is don many waies; not onely by his bodily ears, but by under&s;tanding what for|merly was not known: or, when the judgment is more perfectly in|formed in a point, before not fully known; or beleeving what, till that voice came, was not beleeved, or hearkning to the coun&s;ell, or obeying the will and plea&s;ure of God.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="3"> Somtimes <HI>an equall hear's an equall,</HI> as common experience &s;hew's. </P>
<P>If wee &s;peak of the fir&s;t acceptation, God's hearing us, and an&s;wer|ing of us according to the tenor of our praiers, then I appeal to your judgment, and you mu&s;t needs give &s;entence again&s;t your &s;elf, that in this &s;en&s;e your <HI>Major</HI> is fal&s;e.</P>
<P>If you &s;peak of hearing in the &s;econd &s;en&s;e, I grant your <HI>Major</HI> is true; becau&s;e, &s;o to hear argueth ignorance in whole or in part, for|getfulne&s;s,
<PB N="50" REF="32"> dulne&s;s, &s;lackne&s;s, or plain neglect, if not contempt of dutie, which wee do all confe&s;s, are incon&s;i&s;tent with the infinite knowledg and tran&s;cendent excellencie of the great God.</P>
<P>If you take it in the third &s;en&s;e, an equal hearing an equal, then I denie your <HI>Major;</HI> for God the holy Gho&s;t, which heareth from God the Son, is equal to him.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE UNIT="Adver&s;."> The <HI>Minor</HI> (&s;ay you) is proved <HI>John</HI> 16. 13. </P>
<P> <MILESTONE UNIT="An&s;w."> My an&s;wer is, by advi&s;ing that the words of the text may bee well ob&s;erved; the words run not thus, What&s;oever the Spirit knoweth, hee will &s;peak; but, what&s;oever hee heareth: and this is likewi&s;e &s;poken of Chri&s;t, <HI>John</HI> 8. 26. and 15. 16. <MILESTONE UNIT="Obj."> This is not to bee under|&s;tood, as if the holy Gho&s;t did <HI>hear</HI> any thing <HI>corporally;</HI> and thus is hearing properly taken, and for &s;uch a hearing, I &s;uppo&s;e, you will not contend. <MILESTONE UNIT="Sol."> Nor &s;econdly, is it to bee taken of <HI>hearing, viz. by revelation,</HI> by which hearing hee &s;hould learn that which for|merly hee knew not. It's indeed &s;poken, that hee was, that hee is, and that hee &s;hall bee; if it had been onely &s;aid, <HI>hee was,</HI> one might have conceived that now hee is not: If it had been &s;aid, <HI>hee is onely,</HI> it might have been thought, that hee had not been alwaies. If it had been onely &s;aid, <HI>hee &s;hall bee,</HI> it might bee thought hee is not now. Time pa&s;t, pre&s;ent, and to come are a&s;&s;cribed to God; yet not as to men, to denote a beginning, continuance, and end of time: for, actions are &s;aid to have been, which now are not, and that they &s;hall bee, which now have no exi&s;tence at all: but when they are &s;poken of God, there is no limitation of time at all. God &s;o hath been, that hee is, and &s;hall bee: hee &s;hall bee, yet &s;o, that hee is and hath been, and this is to bee applied likewi&s;e to the hearing of the holy Gho&s;t. Hee hath alwaies heard, and hee doth hear. And in the future time it's &s;aid in this place, hee &s;hall hear. This hearing, &s;aith S. <HI>Au&s;tin, Tractat.</HI> 99. <HI>in Joan.</HI> is everla&s;ting. 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, &s;o <HI>Au&s;tin.</HI> And hee cal's the opening of this text, <HI>John</HI> 16. <HI>arduam, nimis arduam quae&s;tionem.</HI> This bee &s;poken to prevent that &s;cruple, in that it is &s;aid, Hee &s;hall hear. Som of ours clear the words thus, What&s;oever the holy Gho&s;t &s;hall hear, that &s;hall hee &s;peak, which import's thus much, tho&s;e things which the Father will have re|vealed
<PB N="51" REF="32"> to us, tho&s;e things, and no other will hee reveal to us; the truths which the Spirit &s;hall reveal to us, are truths received from God the Father; the Spirit feign's nothing, hee alter's nothing, hee pervert's nothing. The paraphra&s;e of the text in the former Argu|ment will di&s;pell the foggie mi&s;ts of this rea&s;on.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE UNIT="Adver&s;."> <HI>The</HI> Major (&s;aith hee) <HI>is proved thus:</HI> Hee <HI>that is taught, is not God;</HI> Hee <HI>that heareth from another what hee &s;hall &s;peak, is taught.</HI> The <HI>Major</HI> is proved <HI>E&s;a.</HI> 40. 13, 14.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="1" UNIT="An&s;w."> To this I an&s;wer, if you had not been infatuated, you would have omitted that text in <HI>E&s;ay;</HI> for it directly overthroweth your a&s;&s;ertion, and expre&s;ly teacheth us, that none have taught the Spirit of God. But I an&s;wer</P>
<P><HI>Secondly,</HI> hee that is taught properly, that is, learn's what hee for|merly knew not, is not God, I readily a&s;&s;ent; for God's knowledg is infinite, and cannot bee increa&s;ed.</P>
<P>But how can you prove, that the holy Gho&s;t is taught? by com|paring (&s;ay you) <HI>John</HI> 8. 26, 28 together. Chri&s;t is taught by hear|ing. This is but a very weak bul-ru&s;h, it hath no &s;trength at all in it. This mu&s;t needs bee your con&s;equence, in &s;om places of Scri|pture, and not onely &s;o, but even in common rea&s;on, hee that hear|eth is taught: therefore mu&s;t it needs bee &s;o taken <HI>John</HI> 16. 13. Is not this a wild inference? That Scripture <HI>John</HI> 8. 26, 28. &s;peaketh not of the holy Gho&s;t, but expre&s;ly of Chri&s;t: and then it mu&s;t bee &s;poken 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 la|ter, then it is unfitly alledged: for, albeit a cre&auml;ted &s;ub&s;tance, by hearing another, may properly bee taught, yet far bee it from us to conceive, that the Cre&auml;tor, the &s;upreme God, can learn what hee knew not.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE UNIT="Adver&s;."> <HI>But</HI> (&s;aith hee) let <HI>a man turn him&s;elf every way, yet &s;hall hee never bee able to make it out to a wi&s;e man,</HI> that any <HI>can hear from another what hee will &s;peak, who is the prime Author of his &s;peech.</HI></P>
<P> <MILESTONE UNIT="An&s;w."> Well, I &s;ee M. <HI>Bidle</HI> is a wi&s;e man in his own eies, and all Chri&s;ti|an men in the world be&s;ides him&s;elf, and a handful of &s;educed ones, are no better then fools; but if hee had well perpended that text quoted by him&s;elf out of <HI>E&s;a.</HI> 40. 13, 14, 15. hee would not have concluded the great God, the three &s;acred Per&s;ons, which are one Almightie God, within the &s;hallow compa&s;s of his brains. I per|ceive
<PB N="52" REF="33"> hee is alwaies wrapped in the briars, and cannot po&s;&s;ibly ex|tricate him&s;elf, becau&s;e hee apprehendeth not the meaning of that common di&s;tinction of God the holy Gho&s;t, as God: for, in this re|&s;pect hee hath infinite knowledg of him&s;elf, and of God the holy Gho&s;t, as hee is the holy Gho&s;t; for &s;o doth hee receive knowledg and wi&s;dom from God the Father, and God the Son; yet, I pray, let this bee remembred, &s;o as hee was never ignorant: and life, yet &s;o as hee never wanted life: and power, yet &s;o as hee was never weak; becau&s;e the&s;e per&s;ons, communicating e&s;&s;ence to the holy Gho&s;t, did communicate life, power and knowledg: So that the holy Gho&s;t hath knowledg, not by learning, but by proceeding; and all the creatures which hear, and are taught, they are taught by the holy Gho&s;t. And whereas hee illu&s;trate's, as hee think's, his A&s;&s;ertion, by a compari&s;on taken from Amba&s;&s;adors, which &s;peak according to the will of the Prince that &s;end's them: To this I &s;ay there are <GAP DESC="foreign">, va&s;t differences betwixt the holy Gho&s;t and an Amba&s;&s;ador. An Amba&s;&s;ador, as &s;uch, at lea&s;t in this imploiment, is a &s;ervant, and a &s;ubject to his Prince, inferior to him, commanded by him, per&s;onally &s;eparated from him, capable of new in&s;tructi|ons to be imparted in his name to forain Princes in his ab&s;ence; but none of the&s;e do belong, or can po&s;&s;ibly bee applied to the holy Gho&s;t, as hee is &s;ent from the Father and Son.</P>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="5" TYPE="argument">
<HEAD><HI>ARGUMENT</HI> 5.</HEAD>
<LIST TYPE="syllogism">
<HEAD>5 Argum. of M. Bidle.</HEAD>
<ITEM>Hee that receiveth of another, is not God.</ITEM>
<ITEM>The holy Spirit doth &s;o.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Erg&ograve;.</HI></ITEM>
</LIST>
<P>The <HI>Minor</HI> is witne&s;&s;ed by the afore&s;aid place <HI>John</HI> 16. 14. The <HI>Major</HI> is proved thus: God is hee that giveth all things to all; wherefore if there bee any one that receiveth of anothers, hee cannot bee God. The antece|dent is plain by <HI>Acts</HI> 17. 25. <HI>Rom.</HI> 11. 35, 36. The con&s;equence is undenia|ble: for, if God &s;hould give all things to all, and yet receive of anothers, Hee would both give all things, and not give all things, which implieth a contra|diction. The <HI>Major</HI> of the Pro&s;yllogi&s;m is otherwi&s;e urged thus: Hee that is dependent, is not God; Hee that receiveth of anothers, is dependent: <HI>Er|g&ograve;.</HI> The <HI>Major</HI> is unque&s;tionable: for to &s;ay that one is dependent, and yet God, is in effect to &s;ay, hee is God, and not God, which implieth a contradi|ction. The <HI>Minor</HI> al&s;o is evident; for to receive of anothers, is the very no|tion of dependencie.</P>
<DIV3 TYPE="answer">
<PB N="53" REF="33">
<HEAD>ANSWER.</HEAD>
<P> <MILESTONE UNIT="An&s;w."> The <HI>Major,</HI> if it bee general, as it ought to bee, thus; <HI>Who&s;oever receiveth of another is not God,</HI> is fal&s;e. For, to &s;ay no more yet, the Lord receiveth the prayers of his praying &s;ervants, hee receiveth the fruits of his vineyard, <HI>Mar.</HI> 12. 2. hee receive's not the per&s;ons of men, but &s;incere Chri&s;tians, <HI>Gal.</HI> 2. 6. hee receiveth the acknowledg|ment of his honor, glorie, and power, <HI>Rev.</HI> 4. 11. And will you from hence infer that hee is not God?</P>
<P>If the <HI>Major</HI> bee particular in &s;en&s;e thus; Somthing that receive's from another is not God. I grant the Propo&s;ition is true in matter, but a&s;yllogi&s;tical, and &s;o is unwarrantable in the &s;econd explicate, or fir&s;t figure, and ju&s;tly to bee denied, as not &s;orting to your pur|po&s;e.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="2"> Secondly, I an&s;wer fir&s;t in general, that the&s;e three Arguments, viz. <HI>to hear from another, to &s;peak what hee heare's,</HI> and <HI>to receive of a|nother,</HI> are multiplied words, not Arguments; they are like three dreams varied in forms, yet for &s;ub&s;tance they are but one. Yet I will &s;ay &s;omthing in particular.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="1"> One thing or per&s;on may bee &s;aid to receive of another two man|ner of waies: <HI>Fir&s;t,</HI> by eternal proce&s;&s;ion to apply it to the holy Gho&s;t; and by eternal generation, as doth the Son of God, hee re|ceive's the E&s;&s;ence, and, as they are called, the e&s;&s;ential properties from his Father, who doth beget him, as from an intrin&s;ecal prin|ciple, to him who is generated. Thus is it in natural generation, children receive from their parents their beeing and natural quali|ties: i'ts evident, hee that receive's his &s;oul by infu&s;ion, receiveth at the &s;ame in&s;tant the e&s;&s;ential faculties of the &s;oul: and &s;o wee may &s;ay the holy Gho&s;t, as the holy Gho&s;t, what&s;oever hee is, or what|&s;oever hee hath, hee hath received from the Father and the Son of God, not as from an external but intrin&s;ecal principle; and it may bee &s;aid of the holy Gho&s;t, as it is of the Son of God, that <HI>hee hath life in him&s;elf given by the Father,</HI> Joh. 5. 26. How did the Father and Son give life? by active &s;piration. How did the holy Gho&s;t receive it? by eternal proce&s;&s;ion. And, what is it to have life in him&s;elf, but to have it e&s;&s;entially, and to bee life it &s;elf? The holy Gho&s;t, as hee is God &s;imply con&s;idered, as hee is the &s;ame E&s;&s;ence with the Father who is God, is (I grant) of him&s;elf, and hath from
<PB N="54" REF="34"> his E&s;&s;ence what&s;oever hee hath; but, as this is communicated by eternal proce&s;&s;ion, &s;o hee hath it from the fir&s;t and &s;econd Per&s;on of the Trinitie. Wee may &s;ee a re&s;emblance of this My&s;terie in the creatures: thus <HI>Peter,</HI> as hee is a man, 'tis from his humane nature, and &s;o what&s;oever in this con&s;ideration hee hath is natural to him; but <HI>Peter,</HI> as hee is a Son, receive's all from his Parents by natural generation: and thus, albeit the holy Gho&s;t receive's from another, <HI>viz.</HI> from God the Father, and God the Son, yet is hee properly and truly God.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="2"> This is the fir&s;t way of receiving from another. <HI>Secondly,</HI> a thing may bee &s;aid, and it's u&s;ual, to receive in time, and from an exter|nal principle, as men do their beeing, habits of knowledg, &amp;c. to bee <HI>in potentia</HI> to receive, and therefore is imperfect, and in &s;om wants: Such a receiving as this is (I grant) belonge's not to God.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE UNIT="Adver&s;."> Now, to your <HI>Minor; the holy Gho&s;t thus receive's,</HI> John 16. 14. <MILESTONE UNIT="An&s;w."> I an&s;wer, if you will &s;oundly prove this <HI>Minor,</HI> you mu&s;t produce &s;om other Scripture; for this holy text will not &s;erve your turn: it doth not &s;ay, as you pretend, the Spirit receiveth of mee, which was to bee proved; and yet, if it had &s;o expre&s;ly &s;aid, it would not have &s;upported your impious cau&s;e, as I now have &s;hewed; the text onely &s;aith, <HI>hee receiveth of mine,</HI> viz. what is te&s;tified of mee by the Prophets; and that is don, when, by the powerful preaching of the Go&s;pel, hee give's a clear te&s;timonie that Chri&s;t is the Son of God, and Savior of the world, and chiefly hee receive's of mine, to &s;peak after the manner of men, when hee bring's it home to the hearts of the elect by effectually calling and converting them, by rai&s;ing up their mindes to know the divine truths, and their hearts by faith to embrace them, by rectifying their di&s;ordered affections, by enabling them to confe&s;s, publi&s;h, and magnifie the Lord Je&s;us with their tongues, and to conform their lives to tho&s;e heavenly directions which Chri&s;t hath left us on record. Thus doth the holy Gho&s;t glorifie Chri&s;t, in that what&s;oever the holy Gho&s;t work's in our hearts, whether it bee touching doctrine, remi&s;&s;ion of &s;ins, or &s;anctification, hee receive's all from Chri&s;t, and &s;o di&s;pen&s;eth them to us. The Spirit wa&s;heth us from our &s;ins, but by the blood of Chri&s;t: hee hee mortifie's &s;ins in us, but it is by virtue of the death of Chri&s;t:
<PB N="55" REF="34"> hee rai&s;eth us up to newne&s;s of life, but by virtue of the re&s;urrection of Chri&s;t, &amp;c. In this con&s;i&s;t's the glorie of Chri&s;t. And were you not blinded by Satan, you would bee &s;o far from perverting this Scripture to the di&s;honor of the holy Gho&s;t, that you would rather infer from thence both the Trinitie of the Per&s;ons, and the Deitie of the holy Gho&s;t. All that the Father hath (&s;aith Chri&s;t) are truly mine, and what are mine, the holy Gho&s;t receive's, not as a &s;cholar, from the directions of his Ma&s;ter, as though thereby hee learned any new thing formerly unknown: But, as the Son of God doth not &s;peak from him&s;elf, but what hee hear's from the Father, no more doth the holy Gho&s;t, but what hee receive's from the Son; all three Per&s;ons working the &s;ame work in our redemption.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE UNIT="Adver&s;."> <HI>Hee that receive's is not God,</HI> (&s;ay you) <HI>but God give's all things to all; to give all things, and not to give all things, is a contradiction.</HI></P>
<P> <MILESTONE UNIT="An&s;w."> I an&s;wer; hee that receive's in time by an external work of God, is not God. I grant it, but &s;o doth not the holy Gho&s;t receive; and the Scripture proofs which you do rely on, are imper|tinently alledged; for they do directly &s;peak of God's crea|tures, as every one that look's into them mu&s;t needs confe&s;s. Thus rather might you have argued for the Deitie of the holy Gho&s;t:</P>
<LIST TYPE="syllogism">
<ITEM>Hee that give's all things to the creatures, is God.</ITEM>
<ITEM>The holy Gho&s;t give's all things to the creatures, as I have pro|ved in my Arguments.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Erg&ograve;</HI> Hee is God.</ITEM>
</LIST>
<P>El&s;e (&s;ay you) hee &s;hould give all things, and not all things, which is a contradiction. I &s;ee you take a great deal of plea&s;ure ve|ry frequently almo&s;t in every Argument to reduce us to ab&s;urdities by contradictions (by &s;uch manner of arguing, to di&s;cover your follie this once for all) you may haply delude the &s;imple and un|warie Readers. But I do wonder, if you do not write thus again&s;t the light of your own con&s;cience; for every one, who is any whit ver&s;ed in Logick, know's this to bee a received rule of <HI>contradicti|on, that it mu&s;t bee meant of the &s;ame thing, at the &s;ame time, and in the &s;ame re&s;pect;</HI> but now, to receive in one regard, <HI>viz.</HI> from all eternitie, in reference to the Per&s;ons of the Trinitie, and to give all, <HI>viz.</HI> in time to the creatures, is no contradiction: for both parts
<PB N="56" REF="35"> are true; but it is impo&s;&s;ible it &s;hould bee &s;o, where there is a real contradiction. Now, becau&s;e the ignorant Reader is onely in danger to be caught by this fallacie, I will propound a like example to his, which may &s;erve as an antidote again&s;t it.</P>
<P>Hee that is taught, is not a School-ma&s;ter:</P>
<P>M. <HI>Bidle</HI> is a School-ma&s;ter:</P>
<P><HI>Erg&ograve;</HI> Hee is not taught. This is true, or el&s;e M. <HI>Bidle</HI> mu&s;t bee a School-ma&s;ter, and a School-ma&s;ter, which implieth a contra|diction. Will not every one bee ready to &s;ay, hee may bee both a School-ma&s;ter, and not a School-ma&s;ter in &s;everal references; a School-ma&s;ter, in regard of his &s;cholars, and not a School-ma&s;ter, but a husband to his wife, a father to his children, and a ma&s;ter to his &s;ervant. I &s;hould have been a&s;hamed to put down &s;uch trifies in writing, had not the bold fallacies of the Adver&s;arie forced mee thereunto.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE UNIT="Adver&s;."> La&s;tly, <HI>Hee that is dependent, is not God; Hee that receive's from ano|ther is dependent: for, this is the very notion of dependencie.</HI></P>
<P> <MILESTONE UNIT="An&s;w."> I deny your <HI>Minor,</HI> if it bee taken without exception; for depen|dencie, if wee &s;peak not of that which is logical and notional, which is mutual, but of that which is real and theological, as wee mu&s;t: for this note's inferioritie, &s;ubordination, and reliance upon ano|ther <HI>in fieri,</HI> as a hou&s;e and a &s;hip to bee built, doth on the Carpenter; and <HI>in facto e&s;&s;e,</HI> when it is built, on the materials artificially com|pacted together: but to &s;peak fully and properly, all things do im|mediatly and totally depend on God, they do depend on the holy Gho&s;t, who is God. But this can have no place in your Argument, where there is unitie of nature, and equalitie of Per&s;ons: Thus ra|ther and more truly you might have argued; Hee, on whom all things depend, is God. The holy Gho&s;t is a per&s;on, on whom all things depend, by him of nothing they were cre&auml;ted, and but for him, as God, they would bee annihilated, and reduced to nothing. And whereas you &s;ay, it is the very notion of dependencie, this wee mu&s;t take it, if wee will beleeve it on your own words; for other proofs wee are not to expect from you. In this, I &s;ay, you are mi&s;taken; the notion of receiving carrie's us to the con&s;ideration of giving: to give and receive are relatives, which doth not formally implie dependencie, but relation. Albeit, I confe&s;s, to receive in
<PB N="57" REF="35"> time, as the creatures do, which have their beeing from God, de|note's prodependencie on the Cre&auml;tor. But what doth this make a|gain&s;t the Deitie of the holy Gho&s;t? Nothing at all.</P>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="6" TYPE="argument">
<HEAD><HI>ARGUMENT</HI> 6.</HEAD>
<LIST TYPE="syllogism">
<HEAD>6 Argum. of M. Bidle.</HEAD>
<ITEM>Hee that is &s;ent by another, is not God. </ITEM>
<ITEM>The holy Spirit is &s;ent by another.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Erg&ograve;.</HI> </ITEM>
</LIST>
<P>The <HI>Minor</HI> is plain from the fore-quoted place <HI>John</HI> 16. 7. The <HI>Major</HI> is evinced thus: Hee that mini&s;treth is not God; hee that is &s;ent ministreth: <HI>Erg&ograve;.</HI> The <HI>Major</HI> is undubitable, it being di&s;&s;onant to the &s;u|preme Maje&s;tie of God to mini&s;ter and &s;erve another; for that were to bee God, and not God; to exerci&s;e &s;overaign dominion over all, and not to exer|ci&s;e it. The <HI>Minor</HI> is confirmed by <HI>Heb.</HI> 1. <HI>ult.</HI> where the divine Author &s;heweth, that the Angels are all mini&s;tring &s;pirits, in that they are &s;ent forth; as hee before intimated Chri&s;t to bee Lord, becau&s;e hee &s;itteth at the right hand of God. Thus <HI>David, P&s;al.</HI> 2. declareth the Soveraigntie of God, in &s;aying, that hee &s;itteth in heaven. The <HI>Minor</HI> is further proved thus: Hee that receiveth a command for the performance of &s;omthing, doth mini&s;ter; Hee that is &s;ent forth, receiveth a command for the performance of &s;om|thing: <HI>Erg&ograve;.</HI> The <HI>Major</HI> is evident to common &s;en&s;e, &s;ince it &s;uiteth with none but mini&s;ters and inferiors to receive commands. The <HI>Minor</HI> is mani|fe&s;t by <HI>John</HI> 12. 49. <HI>The Father that hath &s;ent mee, hee gave mee a command what I &s;hall &s;peak.</HI> Neither let any man here reply, that this very thing is &s;poken al&s;o of Chri&s;t, unle&s;s, having fir&s;t proved that Chri&s;t is &s;upreme God, hee will grant that what&s;oever is &s;poken of him, is &s;poken of him as God: or can make good that to bee &s;ent at lea&s;t may agree to him as God. The contrarie whereof I &s;uppo&s;e I have clearly proved in this Argu|ment, &s;hewing that it is un&s;utable to the divine Maje&s;tie.</P>
<DIV3 TYPE="answer">
<HEAD>ANSWER.</HEAD>
<P> <MILESTONE UNIT="An&s;w."> It will not bee ami&s;s, to premi&s;e &s;om con&s;iderations touching <HI>&s;ending,</HI> on which word the &s;trength of the Argument depend's, that &s;o the point may bee more fully cleared, and the Adver&s;aries rea&s;on more di&s;tinctly an&s;wered.</P>
<P>A Per&s;on is &s;aid to be &s;ent either properly or improperly.</P>
<P><HI>To bee &s;ent</HI> properly, according to our vulgar acception of the word, requireth the&s;e particulars.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="1"> <HI>Fir&s;t,</HI> that the Per&s;on &s;ent bee really divided from, and actually
<PB N="58" REF="36"> &s;eparated from him that &s;end's him, this is evidently &s;een by daily experience.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="2"> <HI>Secondly,</HI> it's required of him that is &s;ent, that hee move's from an <HI>ubi,</HI> or from place to place, which is a nece&s;&s;arie condition, to ex|pedite the emploiment about which hee is &s;ent.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="3"> <HI>Thirdly,</HI> it denote's, that the Per&s;on &s;ent is inferior to the &s;ender, either in nature or condition, or both: as, when the Lord &s;end's Men or Angels about his &s;ervice; in this &s;en&s;e Princes &s;end their &s;ubjects, Parents their children, Ma&s;ters their &s;ervants.&mdash;And thus bodies repre&s;entative, whether civill or eccle&s;ia&s;tical, may &s;end &s;om of their members about publick affairs of Church or State, becau&s;e the whole is greater then the parts thereof. And when an equal or &s;uperior act's for an equal or inferior in points of wrong and ju|&s;tice, charitie and mercie, this is not don (unle&s;s upon a compact and mutual con&s;ent) by &s;ending them, but by a voluntarie conde|&s;cen&s;ion, or by the prevalent per&s;ua&s;ion of equals or inferiors.</P>
<P>But now, when wee &s;peak of <HI>divine &s;ending,</HI> in reference to the Per&s;ons of the ble&s;&s;ed Trinitie, wee mu&s;t abandon all ba&s;e and low conceptions, and rai&s;e up our &s;pirits by the light of other Scri|ptures, to an apprehen&s;ion of the excellencie of the nature thereof.</P>
<P>The <HI>mi&s;&s;ion of a divine Per&s;on</HI> may bee con&s;idered, <NOTE PLACE="marg">Divine Mi&s;|&s;ion con&s;ide|red</NOTE></P>
<P><HI>Fir&s;t, negatively</HI> what it is not; and then po&s;itively what it is.</P>
<P><HI>Fir&s;t,</HI> it denote's not a divi&s;ion or &s;eparation of the divine Per|&s;ons; for this would nece&s;&s;arily imply the multiplication of the <NOTE PLACE="marg">1. <HI>Negative|ly.</HI></NOTE> Deitie, and de&s;troy the unitie of the divine nature, which is impo&s;|&s;ible.</P>
<P><HI>Secondly,</HI> it denote's not a moving from place to place, a change of place; for the third Per&s;on, in regard of the e&s;&s;ence, is every|where, and there is no place any where whither hee can com, where hee was not alwaies pre&s;ent.</P>
<P><HI>Thirdly,</HI> nor doth it denote any inferioritie or inequalitie of the divine Per&s;on, but in re&s;pect of the divine Per&s;on &s;ending, they are one in nature, and co-equal, and co-eternal, touching their Per|&s;ons.</P>
<P>But <HI>po&s;itively,</HI> this mi&s;&s;ion argue's a di&s;tinction of the divine Per|&s;ons. <NOTE PLACE="marg">2. <HI>Po&s;itively.</HI></NOTE> The Father, in Scripture phra&s;e, is no where &s;aid to bee &s;ent, but hee &s;end's the Son and the holy Gho&s;t; becau&s;e hee is fir&s;t in order. The fir&s;t Per&s;on of the Trinitie, hee is of him&s;elf, and from
<PB N="59" REF="36"> him&s;elf, and the fountain of communicating the God-head to his Son, and both the Father and the Son to the holy Gho&s;t. And, as it denote's a di&s;tinction of Per&s;ons, &s;o is it properly an external per|&s;onal operation; for although mi&s;&s;ion, <HI>quantum ad principale &s;ignifi|catum,</HI> is external; yet, <HI>ratione connotati,</HI> it's onely in time. <HI>Halen&s;is.</HI> And &s;o the whole is called temporal; as, when a nece&s;&s;arie thing is joyned with a contingent, the whole is judged contingent; &s;o &s;aith our Countriman plainly thus: <HI>This mi&s;&s;ion is nothing el&s;e, but a new manner of the manife&s;tation of the pre&s;ence of the holy Gho&s;t by &s;om effect.</HI> And this is don either vi&s;ibly, by &s;om vi&s;ible Symbol and external repre&s;entation of his pre&s;ence; as, by de&s;cending from heaven on Chri&s;t in the likene&s;s of a Dove, or in fierie cloven tongues on the Apo&s;tles: And this was extraordinarie; or ordinarily God the Fa|ther or Son is &s;aid to &s;end him into the hearts of his children, by working &s;aving graces in them, when hee manife&s;t's his pre&s;ence by &s;piritual operations. It's not in the power of man thus to &s;end him; for all that hee can do is onely external, di&s;po&s;ing by admini&s;trati|on of Sacraments, obtaining by Prayer, in&s;tructing and moving outwardly by preaching.&mdash;The holy Gho&s;t is &s;ent in the u&s;e of the&s;e Ordinances, yet not by them, but by rea&s;on of internal grace, which God alone cre&auml;tes in the &s;oul.</P>
<P>The&s;e conclu&s;ions being laid down, it will bee an ea&s;ie task to un|tie the &s;uppo&s;ed knots of this Argument.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE UNIT="Adver&s;."> <HI>Hee that is &s;ent by another, is not God, the holy Gho&s;t is &s;ent.</HI> The <HI>Major</HI> is proved, becau&s;e <HI>hee that is &s;ent mini&s;treth,</HI> Hebr. 1. ult.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE UNIT="An&s;w."> I an&s;wer, if the <HI>Major</HI> Propo&s;ition in &s;en&s;e bee general, as it ought to bee, thus, who&s;oever is &s;ent, is le&s;s then hee is that &s;ent him, is fal&s;e: hee indeed that is &s;ent by the command properly of another, is inferior to the per&s;on that &s;end's him; but the mi&s;&s;ion of the holy Gho&s;t, is (as I &s;aid) but a manife&s;tation of his pre&s;ence by &s;om ef|fect, which was actually in the very &s;ame place invi&s;ibly, and with the &s;ame per&s;ons to whom hee is &s;ent; it argue's the di&s;tinction of the per&s;ons, not the multiplication of the natures, or the diminu|tion of the divine power, &s;tate, authoritie, or honor.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE UNIT="Adver&s;."> You would prove the <HI>Major,</HI> becau&s;e <HI>hee ministreth that is &s;ent.</HI> <MILESTONE UNIT="An&s;w."> I grant the <HI>Major</HI> to bee true, if it bee properly taken, if mini&s;tring bee taken for &s;erving; for the holy Gho&s;t is not <GAP DESC="foreign">, the &s;ervant of the fir&s;t or &s;econd Per&s;on. This to a&s;&s;ert, is (I confe&s;s) an odious
<PB N="60" REF="37"> error, and though the phra&s;e is &s;trange and har&s;h, and not to bee al|lowed, no not to &s;ay, that God is a Mini&s;ter, <HI>&agrave; mini&s;trando gratiam,</HI> not intending thereby to imply that hee is under God, but above the faithful; yet two of our eminent Divines do &s;o &s;peak. And <HI>Ruffin in expo&s;. Symboli</HI> &s;aith, <HI>Deus ju&s;tis mini&s;trat ad perpetuitatem glo|riae, &amp; peccatoribus ad prolixitatem poenae &amp; confu&s;ionis.</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign"> <HI>exulet.</HI> I grant your <HI>Major.</HI></P>
<P>The <HI>Minor</HI> I denie; for who&s;oever is &s;ent, mini&s;tred not. Bee it granted, that who&s;oever mini&s;treth, may bee &s;aid to bee &s;ent, yet it hold's not reciprocally, who&s;oever is &s;ent mini&s;treth; that proof out of <HI>Hebr.</HI> 1. is no proof at all. It is your ordinarie fault to ap|ply what is directly &s;poken of the creatures to the great God. The Angels indeed, which are mini&s;tring &s;pirits, are &s;ent abroad for the benefit of the heires of &s;alvation; but you cannot &s;olidly from thence infer, that the holy Gho&s;t, which is &s;ent, is in the rank of mini&s;tring &s;pirits. It is true of the creature, but you can never from thence conclude it to bee true of the Cre&auml;tor.</P>
<P>If there bee any pertinencie in that which you alledg touching our Saviors &s;itting at the right of God, it make's again&s;t you; for notwith&s;tanding his &s;itting there, hee is &s;aid to bee &s;ent: and whereas you &s;ay, Gods &s;itting in heaven note's his &s;overaigntie, im|plying that the holy Gho&s;ts being &s;ent from heaven, 1 <HI>Pet.</HI> 1. 11. &s;hould note inferioritie, this would bee much for your purpo&s;e, if you could prove, which you &s;hall never bee able to do, that the ho|ly Gho&s;t, when hee is &s;ent to his &s;ervants to dwell in them, to &s;an|ctifie, and to govern them, did leave heaven; God the Father, Son, and holy Gho&s;t &s;it in heaven, and rule by a general providence all the creatures in the world, and &s;hall hee bee &s;aid not to rule in hea|ven, when by his Spirit, which is there al&s;o, hee by his &s;pecial and admirable providence rule's in the hearts of his own children? A&s;|&s;uredly there can bee no good rea&s;on &s;o to determine.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE UNIT="Adver&s;."> Hee that <HI>receive's a commandement</HI> (you &s;ay) <HI>doth mini&s;ter: Hee that is &s;ent, receive's a commandement,</HI> John 12. 49.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE UNIT="An&s;w."> <MILESTONE N="1"> <HI>Fir&s;t,</HI> I &s;ay an equal may receive a commandement from an equal by con&s;ent of both parties, as a Prince of another Prince, a brother of a brother, one citizen of another; &s;o Chri&s;t, as the eternal Son of God, received a commandement of his Father, as one equal doth of another, and that was nothing el&s;e but Gods coun&s;el and decree
<PB N="61" REF="37"> to &s;end his Son to undertake, as hee did, and execute the office of a Mediator.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="2"> <HI>Secondly,</HI> if by command is meant what a &s;uperior require's of his inferior, then I deny your <HI>Minor:</HI> true it is, that it is &s;poken of Je&s;us Chri&s;t, that hee received a command of his Father; becau&s;e, in regard of the humane nature, and as our Mediator, hee was in|ferior to him; <HI>the Father</HI> (&s;aith hee) <HI>is greater then I am.</HI> But it is no where a&s;&s;erted in the Scriptures, that the holy Gho&s;t was comman|ded by the Father; &s;hew us a text for this purpo&s;e, which, if it could bee don, I can readily have recour&s;e to the former An&s;wer: I may therefore retort your own words. Let no man think what is &s;po|ken of Chri&s;t, as hee is man, and Mediator, is to bee applied to the holy Gho&s;t, unle&s;s hee can fir&s;t prove hee is not God.</P>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="7" TYPE="argument">
<HEAD><HI>ARGUMENT</HI> 7.</HEAD>
<LIST TYPE="syllogism">
<HEAD>7 Argum. of M. Bidle.</HEAD>
<ITEM>Hee that is the gift of God, is not God.</ITEM>
<ITEM>The holy Spirit is the gift of God:</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Erg&ograve;.</HI> </ITEM>
</LIST>
<P>The <HI>Minor</HI> is plain by <HI>Act.</HI> 11. 17. <HI>Fora&s;much then as God gave them the like gift</HI> (meaning the Spirit) <HI>as hee did unto us, who have beleeved on the Lord Je&s;us Chri&s;t, was I one that could with|&s;tand God?</HI> The <HI>Major,</HI> though of it &s;elf &s;ufficiently clear, is further evi|denced thus; Hee that is not the giver of all things, is not God; hee that is the gift of God, is not the giver of all things: <HI>Erg&ograve;.</HI> The <HI>Major</HI> is appa|rent from <HI>Acts</HI> 17. 25. <HI>God giveth to all, life, breath, and all things.</HI> The <HI>Minor</HI> is proved thus; Hee that is him&s;elf given, is not the giver of all things; hee that is the gift of God, is him&s;elf given: <HI>Erg&ograve;.</HI> The <HI>Major</HI> is undeniable; for otherwi&s;e the &s;ame would bee the giver of all things, and yet not the giver of all things, ina&s;much as hee him&s;elf, a prin|cipal thing, is given, which implieth a contradiction. The <HI>Minor</HI> needeth no proof. Moreover, a gift is in the power, and at the di&s;po&s;al of the giver; but it is gro&s;s and ab&s;urd to imagine that God can bee in the power, or at the di&s;po&s;al of another. Neither let any man here think to evade by &s;aying, That not the holy Spirit him&s;elf, but onely his gifts are imparted to men; &s;ince both the more learned Adver&s;aries them&s;elves confe&s;s, that the Per&s;on of the holy Spirit is given together with his gifts; and the Scripture putteth the matter out of doubt, if you con&s;ult <HI>Nehem.</HI> 9. 20. and <HI>Rom.</HI> 5. 5. In both which places, the holy Spirit is &s;aid to bee given contra-di&s;tinctly from his gifts and operations: in the fir&s;t, contra-di&s;tinctly from the in&s;truction flow|ing
<PB N="62" REF="38"> from him; in the <HI>other,</HI> contra-di&s;tinctly from the love of God diffu&s;ed in our hearts by him. Whence wee may draw this Corollarie, that if the Per&s;on of the holy Spirit bee out of favor given to certain men, as the afore|&s;aid places te&s;tifie, then hee was not per&s;onally pre&s;ent with them before, and con&s;equently by the conce&s;&s;ion of the Adver&s;aries, them&s;elves, cannot bee God, &s;ince they will not deny that God is alwaies per&s;onally pre&s;ent with all alike. But I fore-&s;tall the following Argument.</P>
<DIV3 TYPE="answer">
<HEAD>ANSWER.</HEAD>
<P> <MILESTONE UNIT="An&s;w."> This Argument might well have been &s;pared, which is brought in to increa&s;e the number, and to make up a full dozen of Rea&s;ons. <HI>To give,</HI> and <HI>to &s;end, to bee given,</HI> and <HI>to bee &s;ent,</HI> are I confe&s;s, different much; but (mark what I &s;ay) <HI>God's giving the Spirit,</HI> and <HI>God's &s;en|diug the Spirit,</HI> are really one and the &s;ame. God never &s;end's the Spirit, but hee give's the Spirit; and hee never give's the Spirit, but hee freely &s;end's him to his &s;ervants. That re&s;pective difference betwixt them make's this Argument of giving the Spirit to bee much weaker then the other of &s;ending him, as will appear by the examination of it.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE UNIT="Adver&s;."> <HI>Hee that is the gift of God</HI> (&s;ay you) <HI>is not God; becau&s;e God is the gi|ver of all things.</HI> The holy Spirit is the gift of God, <HI>Act.</HI> 11. 17.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE UNIT="Sol."> The Propo&s;ition, if it bee generally extended to every gift of God; (as, if you will logically di&s;pute, it ought to bee: for if one were able to make an induction of every &s;ingular gift of God, and if there were one particular excepted) it would bee virtually fal&s;e. Hee that is the gift of God, <HI>viz.</HI> of God the Father, or God the Son, is God; for, it is not unu&s;ual in the Scripture, I mu&s;t often put you in mind hereof, for the name <HI>[God]</HI> to bee taken for the fir&s;t Per&s;on of the Trinitie, the &s;econd Per&s;on is called the Son of God, the third Per&s;on is called the Spirit of God: and the fir&s;t Per&s;on is often &s;o called, not becau&s;e hee is a higher God then God the Son, or God the holy Gho&s;t, for they are equal; but fir&s;t, becau&s;e hee is the fir&s;t in order: and &s;econdly, becau&s;e hee is the Per&s;on, by whom the God-head is communicated to the Son, &amp;c. Hence it is, becau&s;e the Father hath original from no other, and is the principle of the Deitie, hee is &s;imply called God; not the God of another God: for, if the Father had begot the divine e&s;&s;ence, hee might bee called not onely God, but the Father of God; but, becau&s;e hee doth not
<PB N="63" REF="38"> beget that e&s;&s;ence, which is communicated to the Son of God, but the Son: therefore hee is not called the Father of God, but the Fa|ther of his Son. And in proportion the like is to bee &s;poken con|cerning God the holy Gho&s;t, and the &s;ame order is to bee ob&s;erved of the works wrought in time. God the Father by the Son, and thorough the holy Gho&s;t be&s;toweth ordinarie, extraordinarie gifts, as it plea&s;eth him; and the&s;e three Per&s;ons are co-eternal, and co|e&s;&s;ential.</P>
<P>If your Propo&s;ition bee virtually particular, it prove's nothing. Som gift of God is not God. It's true in this &s;en&s;e, no cre&auml;ted gift of God, is God him&s;elf; but the holy Gho&s;t is no &s;uch gift: hee is a gift indeed, but an uncre&auml;ted gift, not le&s;&s;er, but equal to the Fa|ther or Son that give's him. And though I yield the holy Gho&s;t is a gift, yet your proof, <HI>Act.</HI> 11. 17. is not convincing; for to &s;ay no|thing that &s;om render, <HI>the &s;ame grace,</HI> by gift may very well bee under&s;tood the miraculous gifts of the holy Spirit, which then <NOTE PLACE="marg"><GAP DESC="foreign">.</NOTE> were be&s;towed upon the Gentiles. And wee reade, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 12. 6, 7, 8. that the gift, and the Spirit [the Giver,] are plainly di&s;tingui&s;hed. But let that pa&s;s.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE UNIT="Adver&s;."> Whereas you would prove the Propo&s;ition, becau&s;e hee is not the <HI>giver</HI> of all things, that is <HI>given</HI> him&s;elf;</P>
<P> <MILESTONE UNIT="An&s;w."> In this there is <GAP DESC="foreign">, nothing &s;ound in it; for I told you there was a difference betwixt the&s;e two to bee given, and to bee &s;ent; to give, and to bee given, is of larger exten&s;ion then to &s;end, and to bee &s;ent: for who&s;oever is &s;ent, is given; but who&s;oever is given, is not &s;ent: for, even God the Father, who is never &s;ent, and who give's all things, as you will grant, yet give's him&s;elf in cove|nant to his children; hee is their Father, and all his glorious Attri|butes are &s;et a work for their good: for though one and the &s;ame Per&s;on cannot bee the &s;ender, and the Per&s;on that is &s;ent, yet may the &s;ame Per&s;on bee the Giver and the Gift. There is no difference in the thing it &s;elf, but in the different con&s;ideration of it, the Gi|ver &s;o called, as freely imparting him&s;elf &s;om way to them, to whom hee is given. And the Gift, in relation of the <HI>Terminus ad quem,</HI> yea, and wee our&s;elvs likewi&s;e, as wee are bound, may give our&s;elvs to God to bee di&s;po&s;ed of, and ruled by him according to his plea|&s;ure.</P>
<P>Further, I &s;ay, by limitation of your words, hee that is not the
<PB N="64" REF="39"> Cre&auml;tor, Pre&s;erver and Giver of all things, <HI>viz.</HI> which are cre&auml;ted, hee is not God. This is true; but is this any thing for your pur|po&s;e? Nothing at all. Nay, it make's &s;trongly again&s;t you; for the holy Gho&s;t is the Cre&auml;tor, Pre&s;erver and Giver of all things: hee give's life, and breath, and all things to the creatures. Hee is &s;uch a Gift, that hee give's all other gifts; and &s;o by this rea&s;on you might have &s;oundly concluded, that the holy Gho&s;t is God: for that text, <HI>Act.</HI> 17. 25. &s;peak's of God's ble&s;&s;ings be&s;towed on the creatures. And you ought not bla&s;phemou&s;ly to have made u&s;e of it, to rob the ble&s;|&s;ed Spirit of the glorie of his Deitie. Apply now what I have re|lated of the &s;everal re&s;pects of the Giver and the Gift, and you will ea&s;ily di&s;cern, that your advantage which you would gather from a &s;eeming contradiction to bee a gift, and not a gift; to bee given, and not to bee given, is as good as nothing.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE UNIT="Adver&s;."> <HI>A gift</HI> (&s;ay you) <HI>is in the power and di&s;po&s;al of another;</HI> it's <HI>ab&s;urd to think that God &s;hould bee &s;o.</HI></P>
<P> <MILESTONE UNIT="An&s;w."> There are three words of neer &s;ignification, <HI>munus, praemium,</HI> and <HI>donum.</HI> The two former, <HI>munus</HI> and <HI>praemium,</HI> are ab&s;olutely in the power of the Giver, and do imply, that they are a &s;eparate thing from him. That the Giver hath a proprietie in them, and that they are inferior to the Giver. See <HI>Dan. in Lomb. l.</HI> 1. <HI>d.</HI> 18. <HI>Cen&s;ura.</HI> But it is otherwi&s;e of a <HI>Gift:</HI> a thing is &s;aid to bee given, which is either had or po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ed from another, when either &s;imply, or in a certain re|&s;pect, it was not &s;o had or po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ed before. And &s;o it doth not ne|ce&s;&s;arily import any authoritie which the Giver hath over the gift; but it &s;ignifie'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 &s;aid, that God the Father, when hee come's to us graciou&s;ly, and com|municate's him&s;elf to us by his gifts, is &s;aid to give him&s;elf. And God the Son is &s;aid to bee given, and to give him&s;elf for us, and to us: yea, and the holy Spirit al&s;o doth give him&s;elf to us, becau&s;e it is an act of his free will and ab&s;olute power, to communicate his gifts to whom hee plea&s;eth; &s;o &s;aith the Scripture, <HI>The Spirit blow's where it will,</HI> John 3. And the <HI>Spirit divide's to every one his gifts as hee plea&s;eth,</HI> 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 12. And this is further evidenced, becau&s;e a righteous man hath God the Father, God the Son, and God the holy Gho&s;t; (for hee is a Temple of the whole Trinitie) and therefore hee hath
<PB N="65" REF="39"> received this be&s;t gift of all, as given to him by the mo&s;t &s;acred Tri|nitie.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE UNIT="Que&s;t."> A &s;cruple may here ari&s;e, &s;ince the holy Gho&s;t is <HI>given,</HI> 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. Cre&auml;tor, Pre&s;erver, Lord&mdash;the power indeed was from eternitie in God, and the&s;e do belong to him <HI>ab aeterno in habitu, Hal.</HI> becau&s;e hee is <HI>habilis dominari, cre&auml;re, prae&s;ervare, donabilis ab aeterno.</HI> But the actual denomi|nation to bee Cre&auml;tor, Pre&s;erver, Lord, Gift, was not from eterni|tie, when there was no creature, no &s;ervant, none to whom God was given. Doth not this conce&s;&s;ion (may &s;ome &s;ay) prove a change in God? <MILESTONE UNIT="An&s;w."> No, it's onely in the creatures, which in time have a bee|ing, and had none before that in&s;tant, or &s;om 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 <HI>in &s;ol&acirc; ratione con&s;i&s;tunt.</HI> This is illu&s;trated by the&s;e &s;imilitudes: Wee &s;ay this is the right &s;ide, and that is the left &s;ide of a pillar, the right &s;ide or left &s;ide of the Equator; and by the death of a &s;on, there is no change in the pillar, the Equinoctial line, or the father: but in the man, that turn's him&s;elf this way or that way to the pil|lar, that cut's the line, and in the childe that die's; and yet wee truly &s;ay, this is the right &s;ide of the pillar, of the Equator: the man cea&s;|eth to be a father, when his childe is dead. The like is to bee &s;aid 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 &s;hould bee given to the elect was before all time, yet the real execution of this decree, as of all others, was don in time.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE UNIT="Adver&s;."> To prevent a &s;olution of his Argument, hee &s;aith, <HI>that not onely the gifts of the holy Ghost, but him&s;elf is given,</HI> Nehem. 9. 20. Rom. 5. 5. <HI>If hee was given out of his favor, hee was not per&s;onally there before, and con&s;equently not God.</HI></P>
<P> <MILESTONE UNIT="An&s;w."> To this I an&s;wer divers waies: </P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="1"> <HI>Fir&s;t, ad hominem,</HI> if hee come's per&s;onally to every Saint where hee was not before; and is in this Saint in England, in that Saint in Germanie, &amp;c. Either the holy Gho&s;t is divided from him&s;elf, which cannot bee, or el&s;e, beeing in all Saints, hee mu&s;t needs bee infinite, for you no where in all your rea&s;ons hint that there are
<PB N="66" REF="40"> many holy Gho&s;ts; and it is a &s;trange 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 occa&s;ion to you plainly to di&s;cover your&s;elf in &s;uch particulars as the&s;e are.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="2"> <HI>Secondly,</HI> the weakne&s;s of this exception appear's, becau&s;e if it were convincing, it would prove God the Father not to bee God; for hee give's him&s;elf to his children. Why then &s;hould God the holy Gho&s;t on this ground bee no God?</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="3"> <HI>Thirdly,</HI> I grant in a good &s;en&s;e, that the holy Gho&s;t, and not one|ly the gifts of the holy Gho&s;t are given, <HI>Luke</HI> 11. 13. And albeit ma|ny Divines do varie in their expre&s;&s;ions, yet all agree in the main point again&s;t you, that the holy Gho&s;t was with all them to whom hee is given before hee was a gift to them, as touching his natural and powerful pre&s;ence; and thus hee is al&s;o with the very devils, re|probates, the elect uncalled, and all other creatures which are un|capable of this gift of holine&s;s and of happine&s;s. Yet the holy Gho&s;t, when hee is given, hee is with the Saints in a new way, in &s;uch a manner as hee was not pre&s;ent before: in this regard it is, that the Saints are called the Temples of the holy Gho&s;t, and a Temple is Gods peculiar, hee dwell's in the Saints, and is graciou&s;ly pre&s;ent with them, they have him pre&s;ent by faith, and other graces, when hee is known and beloved of man. And this is not onely under&s;tood of the gifts of God, but of God him&s;elf, whom wee know by faith, and love by charitie. Nor is it any marvel, that God &s;hould bee pre&s;ent without any change on his part; for the bodily Sun, as wee know, without any mutation in the Sun at all, is pre&s;ent to him that will open his eies to look upon it. This is then your palpable fallacie, <HI>&agrave; dicto &s;ecund&ugrave;m quid ad dictum &s;impliciter.</HI> The holy Gho&s;t was not graciou&s;ly pre&s;ent with the elect before their calling, <HI>Erg&ograve;,</HI> hee is not God, or was not e&s;&s;entially pre&s;ent with them before. I abhor the con&s;equence.</P>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="8" TYPE="argument">
<HEAD><HI>ARGUMENT</HI> 8.</HEAD>
<LIST TYPE="syllogism">
<HEAD>8 Argum. of M. Bidle.</HEAD>
<ITEM>Hee that changeth place, is not God. </ITEM>
<ITEM>The holy Spirit changeth place.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Erg&ograve;.</HI> </ITEM>
</LIST>
<P>The <HI>Major</HI> is plain; for, if God &s;hould change place, hee would cea&s;e to bee where hee was before, and begin to bee where hee was not before,
<PB N="67" REF="40"> which everteth his Omnipre&s;ence: and con&s;equently, by the confe&s;&s;ion of the adver&s;aries them&s;elves, his Deitie The <HI>Minor</HI> is ocularly apparant, if (fol|lowing the * advice of the adver&s;aries) you will but go to Jordan, for there <NOTE PLACE="marg">Abi, Aria|ne, ad Jor|danem, &amp; Trinitatem videbis.</NOTE> you &s;hall have the holy Spirit in a bodily &s;hape de&s;cending from heaven, which is the <HI>terminus &agrave; quo,</HI> alighting upon Chri&s;t, which is the <HI>terminus ad quem, Luke</HI> 3. 21, 22. Neither let any man alledg, that as much is &s;poken of God, <HI>Exod.</HI> 3. and <HI>chap.</HI> 20. and <HI>Gen.</HI> 18. For if you compare <HI>Acts</HI> 7. 30, 35, 38, 53. <HI>Gal.</HI> 3. 19. <HI>Heb.</HI> 2. 2, 3. and <HI>chap.</HI> 13. 2. with the fore-&s;aid places, you &s;hall finde, that it was not God him&s;elf that came down, but onely an Angel, &s;u&s;taining the Per&s;on and Name of God; which hath no place in the hi&s;tory, touching the de&s;cent of the holy Spirit.</P>
<DIV3 TYPE="answer">
<HEAD>ANSWER.</HEAD>
<P> <MILESTONE UNIT="An&s;w."> I except not again&s;t your <HI>Major,</HI> nor again&s;t the explication and confirmation of it; that God is every-where, is religiou&s;ly and una|nimou&s;ly acknowledged, becau&s;e the e&s;&s;ence of God is mo&s;t &s;imple and infinite ab&s;olutely, and &s;o is the vertue of working infinite al&s;o: and, if it was not every-where, it would be limited. It's a memorable expre&s;&s;ion u&s;ed by <HI>Hermes Tri&s;megi&s;tus,</HI> a Heathen, hee compare's <HI>God</HI> to <HI>a perfect Sphere, who&s;e centre is every-where, and circumference no where.</HI> As the &s;oul is in the bodie, wholly in the whole bodie, and wholly in every part of the bodie, albeit it's &s;aid to bee chiefly in the heart or brain, becau&s;e in and by tho&s;e parts it perform's the mo&s;t excellent operations; &s;o is our great God wholly in heaven, wholly on the earth, wholly every-where in a divine and &s;piritual manner, not <HI>included</HI> in any place, nor <HI>excluded</HI> out of it, although hee is frequently &s;aid to bee in heaven, becau&s;e there mo&s;t con&s;pi|cuou&s;ly hee manife&s;t's his glorie and his goodne&s;s to the holy An|gels and ble&s;&s;ed Saints.</P>
<P>I denie your <HI>Minor;</HI> for although the holy Gho&s;t is &s;aid to de|&s;cend from heaven, yet was hee in heaven then, and every-where el&s;e. And there are divers circum&s;tances in the text to convince what you from thence would denie, that hee is God who de&s;cended, and that the holy Gho&s;t was not per&s;onally contained within the compa&s;s of a Dove, real or in repre&s;entation, becau&s;e hee did not a&s;&s;ume into the unitie of his Per&s;on this Dove; and if hee had don &s;o, yet would not hee have been <HI>definitively</HI> or <HI>circum&s;criptively</HI> therein: nor can hee bee &s;aid to de&s;cend on Chri&s;t in regard of &s;anctification, becau&s;e
<PB N="68" REF="41"> Chri&s;t even from the in&s;tant of his incarnation was full of grace. Nor was there any addition of holine&s;s to Chri&s;t by the de&s;cent of a Dove upon him, but hee repre&s;ented him&s;elf in the &s;hape of a Dove as in his &s;ign; and 'tis not ob&s;curely made out by the text, that hee is God: for what was the &s;cope of the Evangeli&s;t? why doth hee relate this &s;torie? was it not to manife&s;t that Je&s;us Chri&s;t, both by the voice of his Father, and this de&s;cent of a Dove, was publickly authori&s;ed to exerci&s;e his prophetical, &s;acerdotal and regal offices, to redeem the elect, and to reconcile them to God? The circum&s;tance of the time may leade us to &s;uch a con&s;ideration; hee is fir&s;t inau|gurated to this office, and then hee begin's to put it in execution: and &s;o wee &s;ee that the Father by his voice, and the holy Gho&s;t by his vi&s;ible de&s;cent upon him, did call him to this great work. None can &s;end any Prophet but God alone, much le&s;s is it in the power of any creature to &s;end Je&s;us Chri&s;t to redeem the world, <HI>Deut.</HI> 18. 15. See <HI>Luke</HI> 4. 18. <HI>E&s;a.</HI> 61. 1. Moreover it is never &s;poken of any Angel or pure creature, that the heaven was rent, and opened, as it is &s;aid hereof, <HI>Mar.</HI> 1. 10. this was a &s;ymbol of the &s;ingular pre&s;ence of God, whereby wee may learn that this Spirit was God's Spirit, yea God him&s;elf. Add that it is &s;omthing that this Spirit whereof you do &s;peak, de&s;cended on Je&s;us, and remained on him, <HI>John</HI> 1. 33. but where do wee reade that cre&auml;ted &s;pirits de&s;cended on, and abode on him? It is their office, wee know, to mini&s;ter as &s;ervants unto him, and to wor&s;hip him, <HI>Hebr.</HI> 1. 6. La&s;tly, the &s;ame Spirit that de&s;cend|ed on Je&s;us, did al&s;o lead him into the wilderne&s;s to bee tempted of the Divel, <HI>Matth.</HI> 4. 1. Is it in the power of any creature to lead Je|&s;us Chri&s;t up and down, e&s;pecially into &s;olitarie de&s;erts, and to this end to bee tempted by the Divel? Well, if this circum&s;tance fail, yet by other circum&s;tances in the text it's clear enough, that S. <HI>Au|&s;tin</HI> with good rea&s;on did &s;ay, <HI>Go thou Arian to Jordane, and there thou &s;halt &s;ee the Trinitie.</HI></P>
<P>I add, if there bee any &s;en&s;e of the Deitie in you, con&s;ider I pray, of your (&s;hall I call it) <HI>extreme blindne&s;s,</HI> or rather <HI>abominable impietie,</HI> which you di&s;cover by this your Argument. Why &s;o? the Prophet <HI>David</HI> &s;aith, that <HI>hee could not go any where from the pre&s;ence of God's Spirit, P&s;al.</HI> 139. But if you &s;ay true, &s;uppo&s;e wee, that you could have taken the wings of the morning, and remove, as the light of the Sun doth (as it were) transfu&s;e it &s;elf from Ea&s;t to We&s;t in the
<PB N="69" REF="41"> turning of a hand, the Spirit of the Lord would bee no where with you in the&s;e inferior parts of the world; and if you could have a|&s;cended into heaven, &amp; have had a glorified &s;oul, &amp; have been able to view all tho&s;e heavenly man&s;ions, when the holy Gho&s;t de&s;cended down from heaven, you could not (if you &s;ay true) have found him there. Be&s;ides, by this your rea&s;oning, there could not then have been one Saint on earth, in whom the holy Spirit did dwell, who was enlightned, purified, comforted, &s;trengthned and guided by the holy Gho&s;t; for, if notwith&s;tanding the de&s;cending of the holy Gho&s;t in this likene&s;s, this admirable action was no hinde|rance why the holy Gho&s;t &s;hould not bee in every Saint, what rea|&s;on can bee alledged, why, albeit hee thus de&s;cended from heaven, hee &s;hould not bee &s;till e&s;&s;entially in heaven? Surely the divinitie which you would teach us is odious divinitie, and if you literally pre&s;s the very words again&s;t the ubiquitie of the holy Gho&s;t, might not an Athei&s;t as &s;trongly argue, and with as good rea&s;on as you do, that God is not on earth, hee is confined within the circles of the heaven, Why? becau&s;e the Father &s;poke from heaven, This is my welbeloved Son. But what &s;hift can you make to elude the words of the P&s;almi&s;t, and bee true and con&s;tant to your own Argument? God <HI>bowed the heavens, and came down,</HI> P&s;al. 18. 9. Here is in your own language <HI>terminus &agrave; quo,</HI> hee came from heaven; and <HI>terminus ad quem,</HI> hee came to the pre&s;ervation of his children, and the de&s;truction of his enemies. And, if I &s;infully would dally with Scripture, I might pre&s;s you &s;ore with the next ver&s;e, <HI>Hee rode upon a Cherub, and did flie, yea hee did flie upon the wings of the winde.</HI> And doth the &s;upreme Maje&s;tie remove from place to place? Yea, and the Lord him&s;elf &s;aid, <HI>Bring the Officers to the Tabernacle of the Congregation, and I will com down, and talk with them there,</HI> Numb. 11. 16, 17. What &s;hould I &s;peak of that gracious promi&s;e of Chri&s;t, <HI>If any man keep my words, I and the Father will com unto him, and abide with him,</HI> John 14. 23. What mean's the Lord's leaving of his children for a time, and that threatning, <HI>I will go to my place,</HI> Ho&s;. 5. 15. The&s;e and many like ex|pre&s;&s;ions to the&s;e in Gods word might bee as &s;trong to conclude as yours, that the &s;upreme Maje&s;tie changeth place, which is tran|&s;cendently ab&s;urd.</P>
<P>Nor do wee want in Scripture vi&s;ible demon&s;trations of the like pre&s;ence of God to this of the Dove. Was not the pillar of fire to
<PB N="70" REF="42"> conduct the I&s;ra&euml;lites in the wilderne&s;s, which moved ocularly from place to place vi&s;ible &s;ign of the Lords pre&s;ence? what el&s;e was the meaning of the Lord's threatning in his wrath that hee would give over the people to <HI>Mo&s;es,</HI> and to the conduct of an Angel contra|di&s;tinct from God him&s;elf, that hee would withdraw the &s;ign of his pre&s;ence from them, <HI>Exod.</HI> 32. 34. as after hee did, <HI>Exod.</HI> 33. And what now doth the great God go from place to place? And was it not the Lord that pa&s;&s;ed by, and was not in the great winde, nor in the earth-quake, nor in the fire, but in the <HI>&s;oft voice</HI> that &s;poke to <HI>Elias</HI> the Prophet, 1 <HI>Kin.</HI> 19. 15. Much more in this kinde might bee alledged, but this is enough to &s;hew the weakne&s;s and impietie of this Adver&s;arie, who denieth the Deitie of the holy Gho&s;t by no better argument then what would prove the &s;upreme Maje&s;tie, by him&s;elf &s;o acknowledged, to bee no true God at all.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE UNIT="Adver&s;."> Nor will that eva&s;ion &s;erve your turn to &s;ay, that when wee reade of Gods appearing, it's meant of an Angel, as <HI>appeare's, by comparing texts in the Old Testament which &s;peak of God, to bee meant of Angels, Ex|od.</HI> 3. with <HI>Acts</HI> 7. 30.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE UNIT="An&s;w."> I an&s;wer <MILESTONE N="1"> <HI>first,</HI> that hereby you have weakned your own Argu|ment: Do not you &s;ee, that if you are right in this an&s;wer, that by analogie wee al&s;o might retort your Argument again&s;t your&s;elf in this manner, that albeit the holy Gho&s;t is &s;aid to de&s;cend in the &s;hape of a Dove, yet it was but a created Angel, which repre&s;ented his Per&s;on, and appeared in the name of the holy Gho&s;t.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="2"> <HI>Secondly,</HI> if it were yielded to you, that an Angel, as God's me&s;|&s;enger, &s;omtimes &s;poke in the name of God, mu&s;t it needs therefore bee &s;o in all places of the Scriptures? And if not in all, your Argu|ment is gone.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="3"> <HI>Thirdly,</HI> nor will this follow it was an Angel that &s;poke to <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> out of the Bu&s;h, <HI>Erg&ograve;</HI> it was not Jehovah the Lord. This con&s;e|quence is as weak as water: it was an Angel indeed, but an <HI>uncrea|ted Angel, the Angel of the Covenant,</HI> &s;o called <HI>Mal</HI> 3. 1. that Angel which wra&s;tled with <HI>Jacob,</HI> and was invocated by <HI>Jacob, Ho&s;.</HI> 12. 3, 4. And are creatures in your divinitie the object of religious invoca|tion? <HI>That Angel which redeemed Jacob out of all evill,</HI> and ble&s;&s;ed him, <HI>Gen.</HI> 48. 16. who can do &s;o but God alone? And why el&s;e &s;hould <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> mention the <HI>good will of him that dwelt in the Bu&s;h?</HI> Deut. 33. 16. And what was the meaning of that in S. <HI>Paul?</HI> the <HI>&s;tiff-necked I&s;ra&euml;|lites</HI>
<PB N="71" REF="42"> <HI>tempted Chri&s;t in the wilderne&s;s,</HI> 1 <HI>Corinth.</HI> 10. And the expre&s;&s;ions there u&s;ed do &s;itly agree to the Angel of the Covenant, but not to a created Angel. I am the God of <HI>Abraham, I&s;aac,</HI> and <HI>Jacob.</HI> And hee &s;ent <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> to deliver the I&s;ra&euml;lites out of Egypt. I have &s;een, I have &s;een the affliction of my people. And hee call's him&s;elf by the pro|per name of God <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>I will hee that I will bee.</HI> It's a name full of my&s;teries, and note's the eternal and immutable e&s;&s;ence of God, and that in time, as great Clerks have from thence collected. This eter|nal and immutable God would becom man: and if there bee any &s;trength in the te&s;timonie of the ancient Fathers, <HI>Justin. Apol.</HI> 2. <HI>ad Antonin. Irenae. adv. Haere&s;. l.</HI> 4. <HI>c.</HI> 11. <HI>Tertul. adver. Praxeam,</HI> they will give their &s;uffrages for us. To name no more.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE UNIT="Adver&s;."> The three men, <HI>Gen.</HI> 18. were three Angels which appeared to <HI>A|braham,</HI> and hee entertained Angels, <HI>Hebr.</HI> 13. 2.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE UNIT="An&s;w."> Who would imagin, if hee did not &s;ee it, that any man would rai&s;e &s;uch a high &s;tructure upon &s;o weak a foundation! Two of them were created Angels, the text &s;aith &s;o; but it doth not &s;ay, that all three were creatures: they all appeared like men, and &s;o <HI>A|braham</HI> at fir&s;t &s;ight took them to bee, but one of them was the An|gel of the Covenant, Jehovah, for &s;o hee is called <HI>Gen.</HI> 18. 13. God reveale's to <HI>Abraham</HI> what hee will do to Sodom, Ver. 18. and <HI>Abra|ham</HI> 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 &s;ave and de&s;troy Sodom. Here then the Lord appeare's in the &s;hape of a man, and this &s;hape is moved from place to place, which clearly overthroweth your Argument.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE UNIT="Adver&s;."> <HI>Exod.</HI> 20. compared with <HI>Act.</HI> 7. 53. <HI>Galat.</HI> 3. 19. <HI>Hebr.</HI> 2. 2. an Angel &s;poke, and yet God is &s;aid to &s;peak; Erg&ograve;, <HI>the Angel &s;poke in the Per|&s;on of God.</HI></P>
<P> <MILESTONE UNIT="An&s;w."> <HI>Fir&s;t,</HI> I an&s;wer <HI>by conce&s;&s;ion,</HI> admit that your expo&s;ition touching the &s;peaking of the Law by Angels, bee &s;ound by tho&s;e texts in the New Te&s;tament, yet there will bee enough remaining in the text to enervate your Argument; for, did not God com down then? was there not a manife&s;tation of Gods glorie and &s;everitie? Did not <HI>Mo|&s;es</HI> &s;peak with the Lord face to face, in&s;omuch that his face did gli|&s;ter, and was glorious? Did not God him&s;elf write the Law in the two Tables, and give them to <HI>Mo&s;es?</HI> Did not hee &s;ee the back parts
<PB N="72" REF="43"> of God, a glimps of his glorie? Sith the&s;e things cannot bee denied, the Argument will remain &s;trong again&s;t you, albeit the holy An|gels were Gods in&s;truments of pronouncing the Law. And why &s;hould it bee a thing incredible for any man to beleeve, that God may vi&s;ibly manife&s;t his pre&s;ence either in wrath or mercie? for can an Angel appear in a vi&s;ible form, and frame a voice, and &s;hall this with any color of rea&s;on bee denied to God Almightie?</P>
<P>Nor is it clearly proved by tho&s;e cited Scriptures, that Angels &s;poke the words of the Law in the Per&s;on of God.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="1"> For <HI>fir&s;t,</HI> was it ever heard that any Emba&s;&s;ador, when hee hath audience of a forain Prince, deliver's his emba&s;&s;age otherwi&s;e then in the third per&s;on; hee &s;aith not, I &s;ay &s;o, but <HI>my Prince &s;aith thus and thus.</HI> <MILESTONE N="2"> And have not wee an evident te&s;timonie hereof in the holy Prophets, which deliver not their me&s;&s;age to Gods people in their own names, but <HI>thus &s;aith the Lord.</HI> <MILESTONE N="3"> Yea and the holy Angels them&s;elvs in their vi&s;ions declare that they are &s;ent, <HI>Dan.</HI> 9. And they likewi&s;e by &s;om circum&s;tance or other make it appear, that they &s;peak in the Name of the Lord. And <MILESTONE N="4"> S. <HI>Paul</HI> &s;aith to this pur|po&s;e pertinently and expre&s;ly, that when the Law was delivered, it was the voice not of a cre&auml;ted Angel, but of Chri&s;t, that did <HI>&s;hake the earth, and men on earth,</HI> Hebr. 12. 26. <MILESTONE N="5"> Be&s;ides, there is mention made of Angels in the promulgation of the Law; the Word was &s;poken by Angels, hee &s;aith not by an Angel: how this can bee verified in them, &s;ith there were not many &s;peeches, not many voices, but one di&s;tinct audible voice, is hard to bee conceived.</P>
<P>Particularly in the two fir&s;t places it is not &s;aid, that the Law was &s;poken by Angels, but <HI>ordained by Angels:</HI> and &s;o it might bee, be|cau&s;e holy Angels were attendants on the great God, and in&s;tru|ments to &s;hake the earth, to rai&s;e thunder and lightning, &amp;c. becau&s;e they were witne&s;&s;es and approvers of the deliverie thereof, in which &s;en&s;e it is &s;aid, that the Saints &s;hall judg the world, not by pro|nouncing, but by approving the &s;entence of Chri&s;t, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 6. And for that place in the <HI>Hebrews,</HI> might it not relate to the words of the Law uttered at &s;ome other time? Or it may bee, Gods voice in the deliverie of the Law was uttered and pronounced by the mini|&s;terie of Angels, and they by an extraordinarie way thundred out the words which God &s;poke to them to &s;peak to the people; as a Scrivener may write and &s;peak the words which are dictated to him
<PB N="73" REF="43"> by another in the per&s;on of that author, the principal author; as in marriage the per&s;ons to bee married &s;peak the very words from the Mini&s;ters mouth: but I had rather hear the judgment of another, then peremptorily in this perplexed ca&s;e &s;et down mine own opi|nion.</P>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="9" TYPE="argument">
<HEAD><HI>ARGUMENT</HI> 9.</HEAD>
<LIST TYPE="syllogism">
<HEAD>9 Argum. of M. Bidle.</HEAD>
<ITEM>Hee that prayeth unto Chri&s;t to com to judgment, is not God. </ITEM>
<ITEM>The holy Spirit doth &s;o.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Ergo.</HI> </ITEM>
</LIST>
<P>The <HI>Major</HI> is granted. The <HI>Minor</HI> is evident from <HI>Rev.</HI> 22. 17. compared with <HI>ver.</HI> 12. Neither let any man think to elude this proof, by &s;ay|ing, that the Spirit is here &s;aid to pray, onely becau&s;e hee maketh the Bride to pray. For when the Scripture would &s;ignifie the a&s;&s;i&s;tance of the holy Spirit in cau&s;ing men to &s;peak, it is wont to affirm, either that the holy Spirit &s;peaketh in them, as <HI>Matth.</HI> 10. 20. or that they &s;peak by the holy Spirit, as <HI>Rom.</HI> 8. 15. <HI>Wee have received the Spirit of adoption, by whom wee crie Abba Father.</HI> But there it is expre&s;ly &s;aid, that the Spirit and the Bride &s;ay, <HI>Com;</HI> not the Spirit in the Bride, nor the Bride by the Spirit.</P>
<P><HI>I add what is pertinent to this head out of his 12^t^h. Rea&s;on.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Rom.</HI> 8. 27. The Spirit maketh interce&s;&s;ion for us with groans unutterable, and hee make's interce&s;&s;ion for the Saints, according to the will of God, which prove's the holy Ghost to bee inferior to God, ina&s;much as hee is &s;aid to make interce&s;&s;ion unto God with groans: which is not &s;o to bee under&s;tood, as if the holy Spirit was here &s;aid to help our infirmities onely by &s;ugge&s;ting peti|tions and groans unto us, and making us to pray (as is commonly, but fal&s;ly affirmed) for the very words of the context &s;ufficiently refute &s;uch a glo&s;s, &s;ince they &s;ay, that the Spirit him&s;elf, (not wee by the Spirit, as wee have it in ver. 15. of the &s;ame Chapter) maketh interce&s;&s;ion for us: but to help others infirmities, by making interce&s;&s;ion for them, is not to in&s;till petitions into them, but to pour out petitions apart in their behalf, as is apparent both from the thing it &s;elf, (&s;ince none can intercede for him&s;elf, all interce&s;&s;ion re|quiring the intervening of a third Per&s;on) and by the collation of ver. 34. of the &s;ame Chapter, and by the 30. ver&s;e of the 15. Chapter, and by 2 <HI>Corinth.</HI> 1. 11. <HI>Hebr.</HI> 7. 25. 1 <HI>Tim.</HI> 2. 1. <HI>Col.</HI> 4. 12. <HI>Ephe&s;.</HI> 6. 18. Neither let any man think to baffle off this Argument, which is written with a beam of the Sun, by &s;aying that this is improperly &s;poken of the holy Spirit; for, be&s;ides that hee hath no other ground to &s;ay &s;o, but his own pre-conceived opinion touching the Deitie of the holy Spirit, hee ought to know, that the Scripture, though it &s;peak many things after the manner of men, yet doth it no where
<PB N="74" REF="44"> &s;peak any thing that argueth his inferioritie to, and dependance on another. But this pa&s;&s;age of the Apo&s;tle plainly intimateth the holy Spirit to bee in|ferior to God, and dependent on him; otherwi&s;e what need had hee to inter|cede with God, and that with groans unutterable, on the behalf of the Saints?</P>
<DIV3 TYPE="answer">
<HEAD>ANSWER.</HEAD>
<P> <MILESTONE UNIT="An&s;w."> The <HI>Major</HI> Propo&s;ition is undeniably true; for religious invoca|tion, is an humble ob&s;equiou&s;ne&s;s, and an enjoyned dutie to bee performed to the great God; and doth nece&s;&s;arily &s;uppo&s;e in him that praie's, <HI>fir&s;t, inferioritie</HI> of the nature of the partie that praie's to the object of invocation. <HI>Secondly, indigencie or want</HI> of that good thing which is praied for, either in whole, or in degree, a defectibi|litie or po&s;&s;ibilitie not to have the good thing praied for as it relate's to the per&s;on for whom the praier is made. <HI>Thirdly, a di&s;abilitie,</HI> either to enjoy or hold what is prayed for, without the help of God: for, <HI>what can bee more fooli&s;h</HI> (&s;aith S. <HI>Au&s;tin) agreeably to common rea&s;on, then to pray to another for help, to do, or to have that which is in his own power to do and to have. Epi&s;t.</HI> 107. Now the holy Gho&s;t is God almightie, and according to the Scriptures, give's to every one his gifts as hee plea&s;eth.</P>
<P>To the objected place out of <HI>Revel.</HI> 22. 17. there are many things which may bee &s;aid to infringe the &s;trength thereof.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="1"> The Spirit &s;aith, <HI>Com.</HI> Erg&ograve;, the ble&s;&s;ed Spirit of which wee treat, This follow's not: it is <HI>qua&s;i &agrave; genere ad &s;peciem affirmativ&egrave;;</HI> for how doth it appear in the text, that this is meant of the holy Gho&s;t? Why may it not bee meant of an Angel, that Angel which was mentioned Ver 16? For <HI>fir&s;t,</HI> you will not denie but an Angel is a Spirit; expre&s;s Scripture and &s;ound rea&s;on do &s;hew, that Angels are &s;piritual &s;ub&s;tances. <HI>Secondly,</HI> nor can you denie, that the holy Angels do de&s;ire the happine&s;s of the Saints, and their fellow-&s;er|vants. It may bee you will &s;ay, then the text would have run in the plural number, the Spirits &s;ay, and not the Spirit. To this I an|&s;wer, that S. <HI>John</HI> relate's onely what was don by that Angel, which was &s;ent by Je&s;us Chri&s;t to &s;ignifie this revelation to S. <HI>John,</HI> Cha. 1. ver. 1. and Chapt. 22. ver. 16. particularly mentioned. I would not have mentioned this an&s;wer, which I apprehended as po&s;&s;ible, un|le&s;s I had read it in Mr. <HI>Burroughs</HI> on <HI>Ho&s;.</HI> 2. <HI>lect.</HI> 17. <HI>p.</HI> 606. as his own opinion. Readers, accept or reject this as you &s;hall &s;ee cau&s;e.</P>
<PB N="75" REF="44">
<P> <MILESTONE N="2"> <HI>Secondly,</HI> there is another expo&s;ition of the&s;e words which you do conceal, and it is of a &s;ingularly-pious and learned man in the opening of my&s;tical divinitie, M^r. <HI>Brightman</HI> on the place, <HI>The Spirit</HI> (&s;aith hee) <HI>&s;ignifie's &s;ingle Chri&s;tians, in whom the Spirit dwel's, and the Spou&s;e &s;ignifie's the whole Church, and multitude of beleevers. Now, it is the de&s;ire of them all &s;ingly and conjunctly, that the Lord Je&s;us would com.</HI> If this expo&s;ition 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 &s;erious con&s;ideration of the judicious Reader.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="3"> <HI>Thirdly,</HI> to adhere to that expo&s;ition which is mo&s;t common, and which you would di&s;prove; (for wee &s;hall finde, that common an|&s;wers are u&s;ually the true&s;t.) <HI>The Spirit and the Spou&s;e &s;ay,</HI> Com. I an&s;wer, there is in the words a Figure, which they call <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>Hendiadys;</HI> and the meaning is, <HI>The Spirit &s;peaketh by the Spou&s;e,</HI> or the Spou&s;e by the in&s;tinct of the Spirit, &s;aith, <HI>Com,</HI> that is, the Spi|rit is the efficient cau&s;e, why the Spou&s;e praieth, <HI>Com.</HI> Nor is this a &s;ingular example for &s;uch a Commentarie, for the like phra&s;e wee have in S. <HI>Paul, Gal.</HI> 4. 6. <HI>it is the Spirit that crie's Abba, Father.</HI> It is &s;aid indeed, that the Spirit is in their hearts, but withall, if you would play with the&s;e words, as you do on tho&s;e in the <HI>Revelation,</HI> you might as fairly conclude your intent from them; for it is not &s;aid, that they, by the Spirit, but the Spirit in them crie's Abba, Fa|ther. Nor doth this text which you alledg affirm that the Spirit abiding without the Spou&s;e doth &s;ay, <HI>Com;</HI> for then you might have &s;ome color for your glo&s;s: Be&s;ides, this expo&s;ition ought not to &s;eem &s;trange, becau&s;e the very &s;elf-&s;ame expre&s;&s;ion is &s;et down in the Scripture touching the holy Gho&s;t, <HI>Act.</HI> 15. 28. <HI>It &s;eemed good to the holy Gho&s;t and to us,</HI> a&s;&s;embled in a Synod; the meaning is thus, It <HI>&s;eemed good to us by the in&s;tinct and &s;ugge&s;tion of the holy Gho&s;t</HI> thus to de|termine. A place parallel to this in the <HI>Revelation,</HI> and &s;ound rea&s;on will evince, that it mu&s;t needes bee &s;o, becau&s;e <HI>praier is the gift of the holy Ghost,</HI> Jude 20. It is hee that give's his children the Spirit of &s;upplication, and if you will &s;eparate the Spirit and the Spou&s;e in this holy action, you mu&s;t needes confe&s;s, that the Spou&s;e of Chri&s;t, without the a&s;&s;i&s;tance of the ble&s;&s;ed Spirit of Chri&s;t, doth pray; if &s;o, and when &s;hee doth &s;o, &s;uch a praier is a praier of no account with God.</P>
<PB N="76" REF="45">
<P> <MILESTONE UNIT="Adver&s;."> This Author in his 12. Rea&s;on alledgeth that text <HI>Rom.</HI> 8. 27. <HI>The Spirit make's interce&s;&s;ion to God.</HI> Method reduceth this Argument to this place.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE UNIT="An&s;w."> There are two expo&s;itions of this place, and none of the Writers were &s;o prophane, to take the meaning of the text as you have don. Name the ancient Father, whom you do follow.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="1"> <NOTE PLACE="marg">Chry&s;. in loc.</NOTE> S. <HI>Chry&s;ostom,</HI> by the Spirit, under&s;tand's not the per&s;on of the Spi|rit of God, but the extraordinarie gifts of the Spirit. And they which had tho&s;e gifts were called Spiritual men, or Mini&s;ters of the Spirit; and when in great anxietie and di&s;tre&s;s Chri&s;tians knew not which way to turn them&s;elvs, nor how, or what to pray, then, as the Spirit of God came upon Jahaziel in the mid&s;t of the Con|gregation, &amp; hee delivered the minde of the Lord to their exceeding great comfort, 2 <HI>Chron.</HI> 20. 14. So likewi&s;e, in &s;uch a &s;tre&s;s, &s;om one of the Chri&s;tians indued with the Spirit of praier, &s;tood up, and with much importunitie, and with many &s;ighs poured out effectual prai|ers to the God of heaven, which were profitable to the Church; this is a pious &s;entence in it &s;elf con&s;idered, but not fitly agreeing to this text, as our <HI>Junius</HI> again&s;t <HI>Bellar.</HI> acknowledgeth, and <HI>Paraeus</HI> in his Commentarie on this place doth prove.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="2"> The other expo&s;ition, which is the more common, is the &s;ounder, and more con&s;onant to the context: <HI>The Spirit prayeth,</HI> that is, <HI>the Spirit enableth us, and maketh us to pray.</HI> And if it bee objected, that praier is a gift, not onely of the Spirit, but of God the Father al&s;o, and God the Son being an outward work, and &s;o is common to all the Per&s;ons; yet is not the Father &s;aid to pray, not becau&s;e hee is not the Author of praier, for &s;o undoubtedly hee is, but becau&s;e hee &s;o give's the things praied for, that hee being the fountain of the Deitie, receive's of no other, <HI>E&s;t. l.</HI> 1. <HI>d.</HI> 20.</P>
<P>The rea&s;ons of this expo&s;ition are the&s;e: Becau&s;e by the Spirit wee crie Abba, Father, ver. 15. And becau&s;e it is &s;aid, the Spirit helpeth us again&s;t our infirmities, <HI>viz.</HI> of praying as wee ought, &amp;c. and the very words of the text will make this good, as S. <HI>Au&s;tin</HI> ex|hort's, <HI>intellige, &amp;c.</HI> under&s;tand the words of the Scripture, and thou &s;halt bee kept from bla&s;phemie. The per&s;on that praieth, &s;igheth and groaneth; the holy Gho&s;t, ble&s;&s;ed for ever, groaneth not: as hee groaneth, &s;o hee praieth; <HI>Hee is &s;aid to</HI> groan, <HI>becau&s;e hee make's us to groan, and &s;o hee praieth for us, becau&s;e hee make's us to pray for our &s;elvs.</HI>
<PB N="77" REF="45"> Thus God is &s;aid to know, when hee make's others know. Now (&s;aith hee to <HI>Abraham) I know that thou feare&s;t mee,</HI> Gen. 22. 12.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE UNIT="Adver&s;."> <HI>None</HI> (&s;ay you) <HI>can intercede for him&s;elf, but this action require's a third per&s;on.</HI> Many Scrip heaped up.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE UNIT="An&s;w."> I denie this a&s;&s;ertion. To intercede is a general word, and of that latitude, that &s;omtimes a man intercede's for him&s;elf, and &s;omtimes for others, as the occa&s;ion or text will hold out the meaning either to the later or to the former. And thus the Spirit <HI>interpellat, orat,</HI> (or as others tran&s;late the word) <HI>po&s;tulat, clamat,</HI> when hee make's us in|tercede, pray, and crie to God; and tho&s;e three words, as &s;om &s;ay, are but one thing, called by different names, <GAP DESC="foreign">, praiers, when wee lay open to God our wants: the &s;ame praiers are <GAP DESC="foreign">, be|cau&s;e by our praiers wee te&s;tifie the de&s;ires of our hearts to God: and <GAP DESC="foreign">, interce&s;&s;ions, becau&s;e wee do not pray diffidently and fearfully, but in an humble familiaritie wee &s;peak to God, and do go boldly to the throne of grace. <HI>Com. in locum.</HI> The praiers which <NOTE PLACE="marg">1 Tim. 2.</NOTE> are intended, <HI>Rom.</HI> 8. 26. are of that nature, that whether they bee directed to God for our&s;elvs or for others, as wee are bound to pray both for our &s;elvs and others, are interce&s;&s;ions, interpellations, or appellations, but yet they are not formally (as School-men &s;peak) the praiers of the holy Gho&s;t, but they are his, as an efficient cau&s;e thereof, they are the praiers which the holy Gho&s;t enableth his &s;er|vants to make both for them&s;elvs and others.</P>
<P>Touching the many Scriptures, which you have uncon&s;cionably heaped up together, to prove that interce&s;&s;ion is alwaies for another, I briefly an&s;wer, by freely yielding that in tho&s;e places which you have recited, The praiers are made, or intreated to bee made for o|ther men; but will it therefore follow, that in all other texts which mention praier, the Scripture is to bee &s;o expounded? Nothing le&s;s. And if by virtue of tho&s;e words in the texts fore-named, a Chri&s;tian had no ground to pray for him&s;elf, hee mu&s;t not then follow that maxim and approved rule, <HI>Charitie begin's at home,</HI> hee mu&s;t onely pray for others, never for him&s;elf; for in &s;om texts you have <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>Rom.</HI> 15. 30. <HI>Colo&s;.</HI> 4. 12. and in &s;om other, <GAP DESC="foreign">, as 2 <HI>Corinth.</HI> 1. 11. <HI>Ephe&s;.</HI> 6. 18. which is &s;uch a dotage, as never entred into the brains of an advi&s;ed Chri&s;tian.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE UNIT="Adver&s;."> <HI>Albeit</HI> (&s;ay you) <HI>the Scripture &s;peake's many things after the manner of men, yet never what argueth inferioritie and dependencie on another.</HI></P>
<PB N="78" REF="46">
<P> <MILESTONE UNIT="An&s;w."> I grant this is a truth, when rightly expounded; it's but a beg|ging of the que&s;tion, or but a vain &s;uppo&s;ition to take for granted, that the holy Gho&s;t doth truly pray, which is con&s;tantly denied. Your Conclu&s;ion is proved by a fal&s;e <HI>medium,</HI> although it cannot bee denied, but the Lord, not out of any power of ours, but out of a gracious conde&s;cen&s;ion to us out of his free goodne&s;s, doth &s;om|times in the Scripture &s;peak, as if wee, ba&s;e and feeble creatures, were able to encounter with God, yea and to overcom him, as <HI>Jacob</HI> wra&s;tled with God, and hee could not prevail over him, <HI>Gen.</HI> 32. <HI>Ja|cob,</HI> as a Prince, had power not onely with men, but with God; and <HI>let mee alone</HI> (&s;aith the Lord to <HI>Mo&s;es) that I may con&s;ume tran&s;gre&s;&s;ing I&s;ra&euml;l,</HI> Exod. 32. The praiers of <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> did as it were binde the hands of the Almightie, that hee could not &s;mite his people: and that is yet a higher expre&s;&s;ion <HI>E&s;a.</HI> 45. 11. <GAP DESC="foreign"> the Lord is, as it were at the command of the praiers of his &s;ervants, and many the like gra|cious expre&s;&s;ions might bee named, &s;o that neither head nor foot, neither Argument nor Inference hath any &s;oundne&s;s in it.</P>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="10" TYPE="argument">
<HEAD><HI>ARGUMENT</HI> 10.</HEAD>
<LIST TYPE="syllogism">
<HEAD>10 Argum. of M. Bidle.</HEAD>
<ITEM>Hee in whom men have not beleeved, and yet have been Di&s;ciples and Be|leevers, is not God.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Men have not beleeved in the holy Spirit, and yet have been &s;o.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Erg&ograve;</HI> </ITEM>
</LIST>
<P>The <HI>Major</HI> is plain; for how can any bee Di&s;ciples &amp; Beleevers, ac|cording to the phra&s;e of Scripture, and yet not beleeve in him that is God? The <HI>Minor</HI> is proved thus: Men have not &s;o much as heard whether there were an holy Spirit, and yet have been Di&s;ciples and Beleevers. <HI>Erg&ograve;.</HI> They have not beleeved in the holy Spirit, and yet have been Di&s;ciples and Beleevers. The Antecedent is apparant from <HI>Acts</HI> 19. 2. The Con&s;equence is grounded on that of the Apo&s;tle, <HI>Rom.</HI> 10. 14. <HI>How &s;hall they beleeve on him, of whom they have not heard?</HI> Now if any man, to decline the dint of this Argument, &s;hall &s;ay, that by holy Spirit in the&s;e words, <GAP DESC="foreign">, is meant, not the Per&s;on, but the Gifts of the holy Spirit: Hee, be&s;ides that hee perverteth the plain and genuine meaning of the words, and &s;peaketh without example, doth al&s;o evacuate the empha&s;is of the Particles <GAP DESC="foreign">, which imply, that the&s;e Di&s;ciples were &s;o far from ha|ving received the Gifts of the holy Spirit, whereof wee may grant, that the que&s;tion made mention, that they had not &s;o much as heard whether there were an holy Spirit or not: Again, that the holy Spirit is not God, doth further
<PB N="79" REF="46"> appear by this very in&s;tance, &s;ince the Apo&s;tle, when there was &s;o ample an oc|ca&s;ion offered to declare it, (if it been &s;o) doth quite decline it: For it is in|credible that hee, who was &s;o intent and vigilant in propagating the Truth, as that ca&s;ually &s;eeing an Altar at Athens in&s;cribed to the unknown God, hee pre&s;ently took a hint from thence to preach unto the Heathens the true God; yet here being told by Di&s;ciples that they had not &s;o much as heard whether there were an holy Spirit, or not, &s;hould not make u&s;e of the opportunity to di&s;cover unto them, and in them to us, the Deitie of the holy Spirit, but &s;uffer them to remain in ignorance touching a point of &s;uch con&s;equence, that with|out the knowledg thereof (if wee beleeve many now adaies) men cannot bee &s;aved. Certainly, the Apo&s;tle had greater care both of the truth of God, and the &s;alvation of men, then to do &s;o.</P>
<DIV3 TYPE="answer">
<HEAD>ANSWER.</HEAD>
<P> <MILESTONE UNIT="An&s;w."> This Argument, as the re&s;t, is &s;o captiou&s;ly and ambiguou&s;ly pro|pounded, that I judg it expedient before I do punctually an&s;wer it, to put down, as I take it, three undeniable Conclu&s;ions; the one of them is touching the predicate, or later part: the other two touch|ing the &s;ubject or antecedent of the Propo&s;ition.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="1" UNIT="Conclu&s;."> <HI>The fir&s;t Conclu&s;ion,</HI> wee are to con&s;ider of God <HI>ab&s;olutely,</HI> as hee is plainly revealed in the Word, and accordingly acknowledged by all tho&s;e which are in outward covenant with him, that hee is true God, the ever-living God, the onely wi&s;e and powerful God, &amp;c. Thus in the Chaldean language in <HI>Jer.</HI> 10. 10, 11. both for a cauti|on and in&s;truction to the Jews, when they &s;hould bee captives there, 'tis &s;aid, <HI>The gods that made not the heavens and the earth, they &s;hall peri&s;h.</HI> Or el&s;e wee may conceive of God <HI>relatively,</HI> as di&s;tinctly to bee ap|prehended to bee God the Father, God the Son, God the holy Gho&s;t. The former was alwaies nece&s;&s;arily beleeved to &s;alvation, but not the later; &s;o peremptorily to avouch, is to cover the graves of millions with a &s;tone of de&s;pair. For if the Sun &s;hine's not on the mountains, &s;urely the vallies are not light&s;om. <HI>Bellarmine</HI> judg|ing the Argument drawn from the word <HI>[Elohim]</HI> not &s;ufficient to prove the Trinitie of the Per&s;ons, among&s;t other things add's this, <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>In l.</HI> 2. <HI>de Chr. cap.</HI> 6. <HI>no.</HI> 7.</NOTE> that the Septuagints never turned it <HI>Dii.</HI> To this our learned <HI>Junius</HI> an&s;wer's, the rea&s;on hereof is, either becau&s;e they them&s;elvs knew not the my&s;terie of the Trinitie, or thought it not &s;afe to propound it to them. And yet I grant that God never heard any but for his
<PB N="80" REF="47"> Sons &s;ake, nor could ever any man make an acceptable praier to God, but by the help and direction of the holy Gho&s;t. The former was clearly revealed in the Old Te&s;tament, <HI>The Lord thy God is one Lord,</HI> Deut. 6. 4. and in many other places not needful to bee reci|ted; but the my&s;terie of the Trinitie was not clearly revealed, but my&s;tically expre&s;&s;ed, and in great wi&s;dom wee are &s;ure. And if wee will beleeve <HI>Theodoret</HI> and many others, <HI>l.</HI> 2. <HI>ad Graecos.</HI> it was &s;o or|dered <HI>partly,</HI> becau&s;e the people of God then were uncapable to un|der&s;tand that depth, and <HI>partly,</HI> to prevent Idolatrie, to which &s;in the I&s;ra&euml;lites were very prone; for living among&s;t the Egyptians, then with Cananites, and other idolatrous people that did &s;urround them, and were wor&s;hippers of many gods, if they had clearly and explicitely heard mention of God the Father, of God the Son, and God the holy Gho&s;t, here is the danger, that they would have been Trithe&iuml;tes, and have beleeved that there were three gods; yet was this my&s;terie &s;hadowed many waies in the Old Te&s;tament, le&s;t it, being &s;een in the e&s;&s;entiall image of God, and evidently preached in the Go&s;pel, &s;hould &s;eem to Chri&s;tians a new doctrine, or repugnant to the Old Te&s;tament.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="2" UNIT="Conclu&s;."> <HI>The &s;econd Conclu&s;ion,</HI> to bee called a Di&s;ciple of Je&s;us Chri&s;t, and a Beleever on him, I &s;peak of actuall faith, doth of nece&s;&s;itie require that hee &s;hould beleeve the promi&s;ed Me&s;&s;iah was com into the world, I do not &s;ay, that it was alwaies nece&s;&s;arie to beleeve, that hee was God, the &s;econd Per&s;on of the ble&s;&s;ed Trinitie; for I take it for granted, that in the infancie of the Church, not onely ordinarie Chri&s;tians, but his choice Di&s;ciples apprehended not that divine truth: Nor do I &s;ay that it was ab&s;olutely nece&s;&s;arie to &s;alvation to beleeve, that Chri&s;t was incarnated, and that hee was crucified for the &s;ins of the world, for <HI>Cornelius, Act.</HI> 10. And it might bee the ca&s;e of many others then, and before tho&s;e daies, was in a good condition for beleeving in the promi&s;ed Me&s;&s;iah, albeit then hee pitched not his faith on the Me&s;&s;iah, as already com in the fle&s;h; and that was, wee may well pre&s;ume, for want of &s;ufficient in&s;tru|ction, for virtually beleeving on the Me&s;&s;iah, whom hee explicitely profe&s;&s;ed not; yet I &s;ay, that hee which is denominated a Beleever in Chri&s;t, and a Di&s;ciple of the Lord Je&s;us, doth not onely beleeve with his heart, but hee doth al&s;o profe&s;s with his tongue, that the Savior of the world was manife&s;ted in our fle&s;h.</P>
<PB N="81" REF="47">
<P> <MILESTONE N="3" UNIT="Conclu&s;."> <HI>The third Conclu&s;ion</HI> is, Beleevers and Di&s;ciples are of two &s;orts: Som there are that are thoroughly in&s;tructed in the Articles of faith; and others there are, which either for want of capacitie, time to learn, or means of learning, (and the&s;e make their ignorance to bee invincible,) or el&s;e for want of indu&s;trie, or through their negli|gence to learn, are ignorant of many main heads of our Chri&s;tian religion, which they might have known, and whereof they are &s;in|fully ignorant: This is a received truth in the world, all tho&s;e who profe&s;s the Name of Chri&s;t, which are di&s;tingui&s;hed from Jews, Mahumetans, and Pagans, are u&s;ually, and may in a general way bee called Di&s;ciples and Beleevers. The&s;e Conclu&s;ions being thus pre|mi&s;ed, the an&s;wer to the Argument will bee a very ea&s;ie task.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE UNIT="Adver&s;."> <HI>Hee in whom men have not beleeved, is not God.</HI> </P>
<P> <MILESTONE UNIT="An&s;w."> I an&s;wer, this Propo&s;ition, if it bee re&s;trainedly under&s;tood, and meant of God taken per&s;onally, <HI>viz.</HI> for an explicite belief of the third Per&s;on, is not generally true, as it ought to bee. Many there are in the world, which were not &s;o far enlightned, and yet were Beleevers and Di&s;ciples of Chri&s;t, as is &s;hewed in the third Conclu|&s;ion. But now, if the Propo&s;ition bee meant thus, as it is explained, hee that doth not beleeve in him that is God taken ab&s;olutely and e&s;&s;entially, can bee no Di&s;ciple or Beleever. I readily grant this to bee a truth, hee that doth not beleeve in one God, hee is no Di&s;ci|ple; nor do I think that any worthy the name of a Chri&s;tian ever que&s;tioned the truth thereof.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE UNIT="Adver&s;."> <HI>Many</HI> (&s;ay you) <HI>were Di&s;ciples, which were &s;o far from beleeving in God the holy Gho&s;t to bee God, that they never heard whether there were an holy Gho&s;t or not,</HI> Act. 19. 2.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE UNIT="An&s;w."> To this I an&s;wer, that tho&s;e Ephe&s;ians were Di&s;ciples and Be|leevers; for &s;o the text call's them, but they were very children in knowledg at that time: they were converts, and baptized, for &s;o &s;aith the text, how ever Bapti&s;m is taken; and if properly, as it is mo&s;t likely, either by <HI>John</HI> the Bapti&s;t, or one of his Di&s;ciples, they were not <HI>tam tincti, qu&agrave;m &s;ordidati,</HI> &s;aith S. <HI>Ambro&s;e:</HI> They then re|turned home to Ephe&s;us, and wanted means at home of further in|&s;truction, as wee may charitably judg, and probably gather, becau&s;e that <HI>Paul</HI> and <HI>Timothy</HI> were forbidden to preach the word of God in A&s;ia, <HI>Acts</HI> 16. 6. where Ephe&s;us &s;tood, but afterwards, as wee may
<PB N="82" REF="48"> read, <HI>Acts</HI> 19. and 20. Chapters, the glorious light did &s;hine forth to idolatrous Ephe&s;us, by the long continued di&s;putations, and many Sermons of Saint <HI>Paul:</HI> &s;o that in what &s;en&s;e &s;oever the ho|ly Gho&s;t bee taken in the que&s;tion and an&s;wer, the&s;e Ephe&s;ians were very much unlike to tho&s;e Chri&s;tians, which according to that <HI>&s;comma propheticum,</HI> E&s;a. 65. 20. were <HI>children of an hundred years old.</HI> And, as <HI>E&s;pencaeus</HI> out of his own knowledg &s;aith of an ancient and noble Gentleman brought up in the Church, and &s;o his ignorance was unexcu&s;able, that hee did freely confe&s;s, that hee never had heard whether there was an holy Gho&s;t or not, <HI>in</HI> 1 <HI>Tim.</HI> 3. <HI>cha digr.</HI> 17. But I will rea&s;on with you.</P>
<P>Either this ignorance of the Ephe&s;ians was vincible, or invin|cible; either it was &s;infull, or &s;inle&s;s. That there was an holy Spirit of God expre&s;ly revealed in the Old Te&s;tament, and by the name of the Spirit of God, yea and manife&s;ted by extraordinarie in&s;pirations and raptures, not onely by the holy Prophets, but al&s;o to others which had not a &s;tanding calling to that high office. <HI>Saul</HI> and the Me&s;&s;engers of <HI>Saul</HI> prophe&s;ied among&s;t the Prophets, 1 <HI>Sam.</HI> 19. And that hee is yet more fully revealed in the New Te&s;tament, you cannot denie, although you do boldly and wicked|ly denie his Deitie.</P>
<P>Well then, if the&s;e Ephe&s;ians never heard of the holy Gho&s;t, either it was becau&s;e they never had &s;ufficient means to in&s;truct them in that profound my&s;terie; and do you think that this is ve|ry probable? for they had, or might have had the writings of the Prophets; and if they were baptized by <HI>John,</HI> doth not hee ex|pre&s;ly &s;peak of the holy Gho&s;t? <HI>Christ</HI> (&s;aith hee) <HI>&s;hould baptize with the holy Gho&s;t,</HI> Matth. 3. 11. Or might they not have repaired to &s;om Chri&s;tians in &s;om place or other for a further in&s;truction in the faith? Or if they never heard of the holy Gho&s;t, it is el&s;e, becau&s;e albeit they had &s;om means of knowledg this way, yet did they not regard them, or &s;ufficiently profit by them. Take it which way you will, and in neither of the waies is there any &s;trength in the Argument to prove your odious a&s;&s;ertion; but it argue's clear|ly, that you are given up by the ju&s;t judgment of God to &s;trong delu&s;ions to beleeve lies. How could it el&s;e have entred into your heart to think, that the ignorance of a few untaught Chri&s;tians
<PB N="83" REF="48"> &s;hould bee a &s;ound proof to overthrow a truth, which was unani|mou&s;ly imbraced by &s;ounder Chri&s;tians? Shall God's truths bee no truths, becau&s;e &s;om &s;infull and ignorant per&s;ons do not know them? Nay rather, you &s;hould thus have rea&s;oned, &s;ince this was a divine truth preached by <HI>John</HI> the Bapti&s;t, and afterward more fully taught by Chri&s;t and his Apo&s;tles; therefore without wave|ring, much more without contradicting them, I will &s;ubmit to their better judgment.</P>
<P>The Argument, by this which is already &s;poken, is fully an&s;wered; yet I will follow the Adver&s;aries &s;teps, and gather up his mi&s;takings, for the better &s;atisfaction of the Reader.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE UNIT="Adver&s;."> <HI>If any &s;hall &s;ay by the holy Spirit is meant not the Per&s;on, but the gifts of the Spirit, be&s;ides that hee &s;peak's without example, hee evacuate's the em|pha&s;is, wee are &s;o far from receiving the holy Ghost, that wee have not heard whether there bee an holy Gho&s;t or not.</HI></P>
<P> <MILESTONE UNIT="An&s;w."> <MILESTONE N="1"> <HI>Fir&s;t,</HI> let the Reader ob&s;erve how the Adver&s;arie is po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ed with the &s;pirit of giddine&s;s, in contradicting him&s;elf. It's without ex|ample (&s;aith hee) to &s;ay the Spirit is taken for the gifts of the Spi|rit, and yet within three lines after hee &s;aith, wee may grant that this que&s;tion, Have you received the holy Gho&s;t? may bee meant of the gifts of the holy Gho&s;t. And with the &s;ame breath hee &s;aith, (&s;trangely forgetting him&s;elf) that it is without example to take the holy Gho&s;t for the gifts of the holy Gho&s;t. I add further, that it is clearly prophe&s;ied, that extraordinarie gifts, as of prophe&s;ying and tongues, are called the holy Gho&s;t, <HI>Jo&euml;l</HI> 2. 28. <HI>Acts</HI> 2. 17. and in this Chapter, <HI>Acts</HI> 19. 6. the holy Gho&s;t came upon them: How this is to bee under&s;tood, the words following do expound, <HI>They &s;poke with tongues, and prophe&s;ied,</HI> Ver. 6. So <HI>Acts</HI> 2. 4. thus <HI>John</HI> 7. 39. <HI>the holy Gho&s;t was not yet,</HI> you cannot denie but hee was in Per&s;on before that time, and that hee was as touching &s;anctifying graces before. How then is it &s;aid, the holy Gho&s;t was not yet? Of nece&s;&s;itie it mu&s;t bee meant as touching miraculous operations, which were not yet be&s;towed on the Di&s;ciples. What can bee more plainly &s;poken?</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="2"> Nor doth this overthrow the Ephe&s;ians arguing, and the em|pha&s;is of the words: for however the holy Gho&s;t bee taken, yet your Argument is not good; this onely can bee &s;oundly inferred from their words, Wee are &s;o far from receiving the miraculous gifts
<PB N="84" REF="49"> of the holy Gho&s;t, that wee have not &s;o much as heard whether there bee any &s;uch miraculous gifts of the holy Gho&s;t or not: And if the que&s;tion moved to them was not touching the Per&s;on, and &s;anctifying graces of the holy Gho&s;t, but onely touching miracu|lous gifts, as 'tis mo&s;t probable; (for they being Di&s;ciples might bee pre&s;umed not to bee ignorant, that there was an holy Spirit, and that hee was a Sanctifier of his &s;ervants) then either their an&s;wer is impertinent to the que&s;tion, or el&s;e they mu&s;t needs return their an|&s;wer in effect thus, Wee have not heard whether there bee &s;uch mi|raculous gifts of the holy Gho&s;t, or not.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE UNIT="Adver&s;."> <HI>S.</HI> Paul <HI>would have taken the hint, which hee did not, to have in&s;tructed them in the Deitie of the holy Gho&s;t.</HI></P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="1" UNIT="An&s;w."> <HI>Fir&s;t,</HI> to this I &s;ay, that this your pleading make's as &s;trongly a|gain&s;t your &s;elf, as again&s;t the truth; for do not you al&s;o put a dif|ference betwixt that prime cre&auml;ted Spirit, as you do bla&s;pheme, and his gifts? What then do you &s;ay again&s;t us, which make's not as much again&s;t your &s;elf al&s;o?</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="2"> <HI>Secondly,</HI> how prove you that the holy Apo&s;tle did not in&s;truct the&s;e Ephe&s;ians touching the holy Gho&s;t? Is not this your pleading? It is not written, therefore it was not don; this is, &s;ay I, incon&s;e|quent: All that hee preached is not written, and do not you &s;ee, that by this rea&s;oning you wound your own cau&s;e? For can you &s;hew that S. <HI>Paul</HI> taught the&s;e Ephe&s;ians &s;uch a doctrine touching the holy Gho&s;t, which you do maintain, that hee was a creature?</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="3"> <HI>Thirdly,</HI> it is not to bee doubted, but that hee opened to them the doctrine of the holy Gho&s;t, that hee was God, and that hee taught them, that holy graces are fruits of the holy Spirit, which none but God can give.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE UNIT="Adver&s;."> <HI>Yet now</HI> (&s;ay you) <HI>wee are made to beleeve that a man is damned, that beleeve's not the Deitie of the holy Gho&s;t.</HI> And &s;o &s;aying you think to aggravate our error.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE UNIT="An&s;w."> To this I an&s;wer, you are to know, that wee make a great diffe|rence of times and per&s;ons; wee do not de&s;pair of their &s;alvation, which were in the &s;tate of the&s;e Ephe&s;ians, or of others now in the like condition, if beleeving in one God, and that Je&s;us Chri&s;t is a Savior, and &s;eeing their own &s;ins and mi&s;eries, &s;hould relie on him for eternall life. And then (as the converted thief on the Cro&s;s)
<PB N="85" REF="49"> pre&s;ently die, though they never heard of the holy Gho&s;t, I would charitably judg of them, and conceive that God intended mercie to them by the&s;e gracious di&s;coveries of him&s;elf to them at this time; but if God will graciou&s;ly wink at &s;uch ignorance, and have mer|cie on them, this will yield no comfort at all to you, who have been bred up in the Church of Chri&s;t, and in our Schools, and have read the word of God; for you have wilfully &s;hut your eies a|gain&s;t the truth, which is as clear touching the holy Gho&s;t, as if it had been written with the Sun beams; and you have &s;tretched your wits to the uttermo&s;t to pervert the plain meaning of the Scripture, as appear's by your endeavoring to an&s;wer <HI>Matth.</HI> 28. and <HI>Acts</HI> 5. I may &s;ay to you, as S. <HI>Cyprian de Sacram. Dom. calicis,</HI> &s;aith of &s;om, which u&s;ed not wine, but onely water in the Euchari&s;t, if any of our predece&s;&s;ors, either out of &s;implicitie or ignorance, did not practi&s;e what the Lord taught us by his example, there may, by the favor of God, bee pardon granted to his &s;implicitie; but if wee, which are in&s;tructed in his will, &s;hould tran&s;gre&s;s, wee might not pre&s;ume of the &s;ame favor. And the very like pa&s;&s;age wee finde in <HI>Bede,</HI> u&s;ed by <HI>Wilfride</HI> in a Synod or Conference at <HI>Stran&s;holch</HI> di&s;puting with <HI>Cotmay</HI> about a very trifle, the time of the ob&s;erva|tion of Ea&s;ter. 3. <HI>lib. hi&s;t. Eccle&s;. Anglic. cap.</HI> 25. And <HI>Luther</HI> make's an allegorie on <HI>Deut.</HI> 19. they which err ignorantly, are like to tho&s;e which imprudently and ca&s;ually killed a man, &s;uch have the privi|ledg of a Citie of refuge; but they which hear, and will not learn, are like wilfull murtherers, they &s;hall bee dragged from the horns of the Altar, and lo&s;e their lives.</P>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="11" TYPE="argument">
<HEAD><HI>ARGUMENT</HI> 11.</HEAD>
<LIST TYPE="syllogism">
<HEAD>11 Argum. of M. Bidle.</HEAD>
<ITEM>Hee that hath an under&s;tanding di&s;tinct from that of God, is not God;</ITEM>
<ITEM>The holy Spirit hath an under&s;tanding di&s;tinct from God;</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Erg&ograve;</HI></ITEM>
</LIST>
<P>The <HI>Major</HI> is clear; for hee that hath an under&s;tanding di&s;tinct from that of another, mu&s;t needs likewi&s;e have a di&s;tinct E&s;&s;ence, wherein that under&s;tanding may re&s;ide. The <HI>Minor</HI> is proved thus, Hee that heareth from God, and that at the &s;econd hand, what hee &s;hall &s;peak, hath an under|&s;tanding di&s;tinct from that of God; The holy Spirit &s;o heareth from God; <HI>Erg&ograve;.</HI> The <HI>Minor</HI> is evident from <HI>Joh.</HI> 16. 13, 14, 15. The <HI>Major</HI> is con|firmed
<PB N="86" REF="50"> thus: Hee that is taught of God, hath an under&s;tanding di&s;tinct from that of God; Hee that heareth from God, is taught of God; <HI>Erg&ograve;.</HI> The <HI>Minor</HI> is manife&s;t from <HI>John</HI> 8. where our Savior Chri&s;t having &s;aid in the <HI>26^t^h</HI> ver&s;e, <HI>What&s;oever I have heard from him</HI> (the Father) <HI>the&s;e things I &s;peak.</HI> In ver&s;e 28. hee expre&s;&s;eth the &s;ame &s;en&s;e thus. <HI>Accor|ding as the Father hath taught mee, the&s;e things I &s;peak.</HI> The <HI>Ma|jor</HI> is of it &s;elf clear; for hee that is taught, hath an unknowing un|derstanding, &s;ince none can bee taught what hee knoweth already; and hee that teacheth hath a knowing under&s;tanding, otherwi&s;e hee could not teach ano|ther &s;omthing; but it implyeth a contradiction that the &s;ame under&s;tanding &s;hould at the &s;ame time bee both knowing and unknowing of the &s;ame thing. Be&s;ides, that the holy Spirit hath an under&s;tanding di&s;tinct from that of God, is ea&s;ily deducible from the words of the Apo&s;tle, 1 <HI>Corin.</HI> 2. 10. where hee affirmerb, that the Spirit &s;earcheth the depths of God, (as <HI>Rom.</HI> 8. 27. hee intimateth, that God &s;earcheth the heart of the Spirit:) but to &s;earch the depths of any one nece&s;&s;arily &s;uppo&s;eth one under&s;tanding in him that &s;earcheth, and another under&s;tanding in him who&s;e depths are &s;earched, as is evident not onely by collation of other places of the Scripture, as 1 <HI>Pet.</HI> 1. 11. <HI>Rev.</HI> 2. 23. but even by common &s;en&s;e, dictating to every man &s;o much, that none can with|out ab&s;urdity bee &s;aid to &s;earch the depths of his own under&s;tanding. Whence the Apo&s;tle going about to illu&s;trate what hee had &s;poken of the Spirit of God, by a &s;imilitude drawn from the Spirit of a man, doth not &s;ay, that the Spirit of a man doth &s;earch, but know the things of a man, though his former words did &s;eem to lead him thereunto.</P>
<DIV3 TYPE="answer">
<HEAD>ANSWER.</HEAD>
<P> <MILESTONE UNIT="An&s;w."> Hee that hath an under&s;tanding di&s;tinct from the under&s;tanding of God, is not God.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="1"> To this I an&s;wer, by di&s;tingui&s;hing and limiting the Propo&s;ition thus: Hee that hath an under&s;tanding really di&s;tinct, divided and &s;eparated from the under&s;tanding of God, is not God, if you take the Propo&s;ition in this &s;en&s;e, it's true and granted with an unani|mous con&s;ent of all.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="2"> <HI>Secondly</HI> thus, hee that hath an under&s;tanding not really di&s;tinct, but vet di&s;tingui&s;hed modally, and that is in regard of the manner of having the under&s;tanding.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="3"> Or <HI>thirdly</HI> thus: Hee that hath an under&s;tanding not really di|&s;tinct
<PB N="87" REF="50"> from that under&s;tanding of God the Father, but in regard of our under&s;tanding, which is blemi&s;hed &s;ince <HI>Adam</HI>'s fall with much blindne&s;s, weakne&s;s; and take it at the be&s;t, it is but finite, whereas God's under&s;tanding is infinite, and &s;o are tho&s;e manifold e&s;&s;entiall 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 al&s;o in regard of their different re&s;pects, and our apprehen&s;ion of them, and yet they are in truth all one even the divine e&s;&s;ence, God him&s;elf.</P>
<P>The Propo&s;ition taken in this &s;econd and third &s;en&s;e, is not true, and &s;o it's to bee denied.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE UNIT="Adver&s;."> Now whereas you &s;ay in the proof of the <HI>Major,</HI> that a di&s;tinct under&s;tanding mu&s;t needs have a di&s;tinct e&s;&s;ence wherein it re&s;ide's, and &s;o as it &s;eem's you hold forth this as a truth, that <HI>God's un|derstanding is in God, as an accident in a &s;ubject.</HI> I would bee loth to father on you &s;uch a <HI>tenet,</HI> which you will not own; but this is either your opinion, or el&s;e you are to bee charged for not writing &s;o accuratly and warily to prevent mi&s;takes, as is required in this Ar|gument, e&s;pecially a writer of controver&s;ies.</P>
<P>Touching your A&s;&s;ertion, that the under&s;tanding re&s;ide's in an e&s;&s;ence, if wee &s;peak of a cre&auml;ted under&s;tanding, you &s;hall meet with contradiction to this opinion from the pens of mo&s;t &s;ubtile Philo&s;ophers, <HI>J. C. Scaliger,</HI> and acute Divines, <HI>Zanchius&mdash;</HI>which will tell you, that it become's the &s;oul, in regard of the dignitie thereof, to perform its acts by its own e&s;&s;ence without the help of any accident, and that the &s;everal faculties of the &s;oul (as they are called) are but as &s;o many notions and formalities of the &s;ame thing. The &s;oul, the under&s;tanding, and the will are the &s;ame thing; it's called the &s;oul in regard of the e&s;&s;ence; the &s;ame e&s;&s;ence is called the under&s;tanding, as it apprehend's an object; the &s;ame thing is called the will, as it extend's it &s;elf to enjoy the good thing which is apprehended convenient for it. But I will not contend a|bout this point, which if it were granted, will not weaken the Ar|gument. Bee it granted, that a finite under&s;tanding is an accident, and really di&s;tingui&s;hed from, and nece&s;&s;arily depending on its &s;ub|ject; yet will it not bee verified of the infinite under&s;tanding of God, who&s;e E&s;&s;ence is mo&s;t &s;imple without all kindes of compo&s;iti|on,
<PB N="88" REF="51"> from whence re&s;ult's a thing compounded as a third thing, of it &s;elf one, truly and really di&s;tingui&s;hed from the parts thereof. God hath neither integral nor e&s;&s;ential parts; hee is not as a <HI>&s;pecies</HI> con&s;tituted of the <HI>genus</HI> and the difference; for God is the fir&s;t and highe&s;t beeing: not the con&s;titution of &s;ubject and accidents, not of act and <HI>potentia,</HI> for that would argue imperfection: For God is a mo&s;t pure act: not of <HI>E&s;&s;e</HI> and E&s;&s;ence, for the <HI>E&s;&s;e</HI> of God is his E&s;|&s;ence, and that E&s;&s;ence of God is his <HI>E&s;&s;e;</HI> God's greatne&s;s is God's E&s;&s;ence; God's goodne&s;s is God's E&s;&s;ence; God's ju&s;tice is God's E&s;&s;ence; and it's true of the re&s;t. God is great without quantitie; God is good and ju&s;t without qualitie; God is merciful without pa&s;|&s;ion; God is every where pre&s;ent without place; the fir&s;t and the la&s;t; without time; nor is hee compounded of Nature and Per&s;on, becau&s;e the E&s;&s;ence of God is mo&s;t &s;imple, mo&s;t infinite, mo&s;t im|men&s;e, and the &s;ame thing is both the Nature and the Per&s;on: nor is this overthrown, becau&s;e there are three Per&s;ons; for they are not three by compo&s;ition of parts, for the Per&s;ons are not many things, they are but one thing, though di&s;tingui&s;hed by relative properties; for the divine relation in God is not properly an accident, but a &s;ub&s;tantial attribute, and make's no real compo&s;ition in God, but a di&s;tinction of our rea&s;on, which cro&s;&s;eth not the ab&s;olute &s;implicitie of God no more then the &s;ame di&s;tinction of rea&s;on oppo&s;eth the ab&s;olute unitie of God, becau&s;e this denomination is extrin&s;ecal, a|ri&s;ing from our manner of conceiving of it, <HI>Suarez.</HI> Thus is hee <HI>Deus trinus,</HI> by co-exi&s;tencie of Per&s;ons; but the Catholick Faith teacheth us, that in creatures, the nature may bee really divided from the per&s;on: thus the Son of God did a&s;&s;ume the nature, but not the per&s;on of man.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE UNIT="Adver&s;."> <HI>The holy Spirit</HI> (&s;ay you) <HI>hath an under&s;tanding di&s;tinct from that of God, becau&s;e hee heareth from God, and is taught of God.</HI></P>
<P> <MILESTONE UNIT="An&s;w."> I denie your <HI>Minor,</HI> if you mean di&s;tinct really, as you ought to do, if you intend thereby to prove your A&s;&s;ertion. And your fir&s;t rea&s;on, becau&s;e hee heareth from God, and is taught of God, is but an idle repetition of the fourth Argument. For an&s;wer hereto, that I may not bee charged with needle&s;s tautologies, I refer you thither for your &s;atisfaction.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE UNIT="Adver&s;."> <HI>This</HI> (&s;ay you) <HI>is deducible from the words of the Apo&s;tle, none can</HI>
<PB N="89" REF="51"> <HI>&s;earch his own under&s;tanding,</HI> 1 Corinth. 2. 10.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="1" UNIT="An&s;w."> If this bee true, as you &s;ay, why are wee then commanded to trie and to prove our own hearts, to &s;peak to our hearts, to exa|mine our hearts, to con&s;ider our waies, yea to &s;earch our&s;elvs? How &s;hould wee comfortably know that wee are enriched with &s;a|ving graces, but by a reflexed act of the under&s;tanding, 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 &s;hould &s;earch them?</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="2"> Or do you mean hereby, that the Spirit hath a di&s;tinct under|&s;tanding from the Father and the Son of God, becau&s;e hee &s;earch|eth the deep things of God; what doth this el&s;e import, but an ignorance, till that is found which is &s;earched out? Not &s;o, nor will this help you; for God, who exactly and perfectly know's all things: yet do you cite a text, <HI>Rom.</HI> 8. 27. which &s;heweth, that hee &s;earcheth the heart of the Spirit; yea further, it is his peculiar ho|nor to &s;earch the hearts and reins of men, which import's thus much and no more, that there is nothing &s;o &s;ecret in man, but the Lord both can and doth &s;ee the &s;ame mo&s;t perfectly.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="3"> For the clearing of the main doubt know a&s;&s;uredly, that there is the &s;ame under&s;tanding of God the Father, God the Son, and God the holy Gho&s;t; nor can wee truly &s;ay, that the under|&s;tanding of the Father is &s;uperior or equal to the under&s;tanding of the holy Gho&s;t: for the&s;e do alwaies pre&s;uppo&s;e a compari&s;on be|twixt <HI>divers,</HI> which doth not agree to the unitie of the God-head; <NOTE PLACE="marg">Advertite Fratres.</NOTE> for, as wee cannot &s;ay the power of the Per&s;ons is equal, nor the goodne&s;s of the Per&s;ons is equal, but the &s;ame power, the &s;ame goodne&s;s; no more can wee &s;ay the under&s;tanding of the Father is equal to the under&s;tanding of the holy Gho&s;t: But thus may wee &s;ay, the Per&s;ons of the Father, of the Son, and of the holy Gho&s;t are equal in power, and equal in goodne&s;s; &s;o are they likewi&s;e e|qual in under&s;tanding: and albeit the divine under&s;tanding is but one and the &s;ame beeing, yet is it con&s;idered of us in a common way, as referred to the e&s;&s;ence, but &s;ingularly in regard of the Per|&s;ons. And hence is it al&s;o, that &s;uch phra&s;es are &s;poken of the Son of God, and they are al&s;o truly verified of the holy Gho&s;t, that hee is a Principle of a Principle, very God of very God, light of light,
<PB N="90" REF="52"> a fountain of a fountain, when taken not e&s;&s;entially, but per&s;onally; &s;o that the Son is a Principle, true God, a light, and a fountain, and &s;o is the holy Gho&s;t; yet the Father is con&s;idered fir&s;t in or|der, and the Son from the Father, and the holy Gho&s;t from them both.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="4"> I add, that this text, 1 <HI>Corinth.</HI> 2. 10. is &s;o far from evincing that the holy Gho&s;t is a creature, that it &s;trongly prove's his Deitie. <MILESTONE N="1"> <HI>First,</HI> becau&s;e that hee mu&s;t needs bee God, that know's what&s;oe|ver the Father know's; for how &s;hould a &s;mite creature by &s;earch attain to the un&s;earchable depths of God's knowledg? As of many other things; &s;o were the Angels without &s;in ignorant of God's coun&s;els, <HI>Revel.</HI> 5. 13. and of the time when the day of Judgment &s;hall bee. <MILESTONE N="2"> <HI>Secondly,</HI> the Apo&s;tle compare's the Spirit of God to mans &s;pirit, and the Spirit of God is in God the Father, and God the Son. There is <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>circumince&s;&s;io,</HI> as the Latines &s;peak, whereby is &s;ignified the unitie of the God-head in the di&s;tinct Per|&s;ons, that the Per&s;ons are &s;o di&s;tingui&s;hed betwixt them&s;elvs, that they are altogether, and mo&s;t intimately one and the &s;ame thing; and further, hereby is noted a peculiar manner of the original of one Per&s;on from another di&s;tingui&s;hed from that proce&s;&s;ion of crea|tures, as the Son from the Father, which is &s;ejunct from the Fa|ther; and therefore it is called <HI>proce&s;&s;io ad extra:</HI> but here it is other|wi&s;e, the Son from the Father, and the holy Gho&s;t from them both, by a proce&s;&s;ion <HI>ad intra,</HI> becau&s;e hee doth <HI>intim&egrave;</HI> continue, and is not another thing from the Per&s;on from whom hee proceed's: <HI>Singula &s;unt in &s;ingulis, &amp; omnia in &s;ingulis, &amp; &s;ingula in omnibus, &amp; omnia in omnibus, &amp; unum omnia.</HI> Hence may wee conclude, that as the &s;pirit of a man and a man, are not two men; &s;o the Spirit of God, and God, <HI>viz</HI> the Father, are not two &s;eparated &s;ub&s;tances, but one God.</P>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="12" TYPE="argument">
<HEAD><HI>ARGUMENT</HI> 12.</HEAD>
<LIST TYPE="syllogism">
<HEAD>12 Argum. of M. Bidle.</HEAD>
<ITEM>Hee that hath a will di&s;tinct in number from that of God, is not God.</ITEM>
<ITEM>The holy Spirit hath a will di&s;tinct in number from that of God.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Erg&ograve;</HI> </ITEM>
</LIST>
<P>The <HI>Major</HI> is irrefragable. The <HI>Minor</HI> is a&s;&s;erted thus: Hee that willeth conformably to the will of God, hath a will di&s;tinct in number from that of God: The holy Spirit &s;o willeth; <HI>Erg&ograve;.</HI> The <HI>Major</HI> is plain; for conformitie mu&s;t bee between two at lea&s;t, el&s;e it will not bee conformitie,
<PB N="91" REF="52"> but identitie. The <HI>Minor</HI> is confirmed by <HI>Rom.</HI> 8. 26, 27. Likewi&s;e the Spirit al&s;o helpeth our infirmities; for wee know not what to pray for as wee ought, but the Spirit him&s;elf maketh interce&s;&s;ion for us with groans unuttera|ble: but hee that &s;earcheth the heart, knoweth what is the minde (or will) of the Spirit; for hee maketh interce&s;&s;ion for the Saints according to (or con|formably to) the will of God. <HI>Your other Argument, annexed to this, whereby you would prove the holy Gho&s;t to bee inferior to God, hath been examined in its due place,</HI> Argum. 9.</P>
<DIV3 TYPE="answer">
<HEAD>ANSWER.</HEAD>
<P> <MILESTONE UNIT="An&s;w."> The <HI>Major,</HI> Hee that hath a will di&s;tinct from that of God, is not God. I grant the Propo&s;ition to bee true, if it bee taken in your &s;en&s;e for a di&s;tinct and &s;eparate will; for two &s;uch wills do nece&s;&s;a|rily require two di&s;tinct &s;ub&s;tances, to which they do relate.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="1"> I denie your <HI>Minor.</HI> The holy Gho&s;t hath not a will di&s;tinct from that of God. <HI>First,</HI> I &s;ay, this text doth not clearly hold forth to us any thing touching the will of God's Spirit. The originall is, <GAP DESC="foreign">, and in our new tran&s;lation is turned, not the will, but the minde of the Spirit. Som render it the intention of the Spirit, and others the &s;piritual &s;en&s;e; and you know very well, that the primarie &s;ignification of the word is thus to bee tran&s;lated. God know's the intention of the Spirit, or act of the minde.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="2"> <HI>Secondly,</HI> let us grant what you cannot prove, that it is to bee tran&s;lated <HI>what is the will,</HI> or <HI>what is the de&s;ire</HI> of the Spirit. To this I an&s;wer, that the Spirit willeth and de&s;ireth, as hee praieth; it is a Metonymie, hee is &s;aid to will and de&s;ire, becau&s;e hee inableth us to will and de&s;ire according to the will of God; God know's the intention of the Spirit, even as the Mother knoweth the crying and &s;obbing of her Infant; and &s;o our &s;ecret &s;ighs, which are infu&s;ed in|to us, are known of God: our &s;ighs indeed cannot bee expre&s;&s;ed 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 di&s;tinct 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.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="3"> Grant further, that this <GAP DESC="foreign"> bee the <HI>will,</HI> or what the Spirit of God de&s;ire's by tho&s;e groans, yet will it not follow,
<PB N="92" REF="53"> that there bee two di&s;tinct wills of God the Father and the Spirit. What I have written touching the under&s;tanding of God and of the Spirit, is by paritie of rea&s;on to bee applied to this Argument: there is, as I a&s;&s;erted, but one will of God the Father, and God the holy Gho&s;t, but yet this one will is otherwi&s;e in the Father, otherwi&s;e in the holy Gho&s;t; in the Father, of and from him&s;elf, but in the holy Gho&s;t by eternal communication of the Deitie to him.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="4"> Fourthly, whereas you talk of conformitie and agreeablene&s;s, which is alwaies betwixt two at the lea&s;t, I have an&s;wered the &s;ub|&s;tance of this in the former Argument. This agreeablene&s;s is not properly betwixt the will of the holy Gho&s;t, 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 the&s;e mu&s;t needs bee two. To draw to a con|clu&s;ion, I denie not, but agreeablene&s;s and equalitie are a&s;&s;cribed to the Per&s;ons of the Trinitie; for the Jews collected, and that ju&s;tly too, becau&s;e the Son of God called God his Father, hee made him|&s;elf equal to God, <HI>John</HI> 5. Nor did the Son of God think hee rob|bed God of his honor, when hee made him&s;elf equal to his Father, <HI>Phil</HI> 2. And what is &s;poken of the Son, is true likewi&s;e of the ho|ly Gho&s;t; and it is the general re&s;olution of the Church, that the holy Gho&s;t is con&s;ub&s;tantial, co-equal, co-omnipotent, and co-eternal with God the Father, and God the Son. Now, becau&s;e e|qualitie is properly under&s;tood of quantitie, and agreeablene&s;s in qualitie; it will not bee ami&s;s to explicate briefly in what &s;en&s;e <HI>&s;i|militude</HI> and <HI>equ&agrave;litie</HI> are a&s;&s;cribed to the &s;acred Per&s;ons. It is to bee ob&s;erved, that in regard of &s;ub&s;tance, things are &s;aid to bee the &s;ame or divers: If the &s;ub&s;tance bee one, things are &s;aid to bee <HI>one in &s;ub&s;tance;</HI> but if not the &s;ame &s;ub&s;tance, they are &s;aid to bee divers in &s;ub&s;tance. In regard of <HI>qualitie,</HI> things are &s;aid to <HI>bee like,</HI> which do agree in qualitie; and <HI>unlike,</HI> when they have not one qualitie. In regard of <HI>quantitie,</HI> they are &s;aid to bee <HI>equal</HI> or <HI>unequal.</HI> Now, be|cau&s;e in God, to &s;peak properly, there is neither qualitie nor quan|titie, (for how &s;hould a finite qualitie or quantitie re&s;ide in an infi|nite &s;ub&s;tance? or how is it po&s;&s;ible that the&s;e &s;hould bee many infi|nites?) therefore it follow's undeniably, that the&s;e three, <HI>viz.</HI> iden|titie, &s;imilitude, and quantitie, are all one in God, and one God, becau&s;e there is the &s;ame e&s;&s;ence and &s;ub&s;tance of the three Per&s;ons, and yet there is &s;imilitude and identitie betwixt the Per&s;ons founded
<PB N="93" REF="53"> not on the relation betwixt them, but on the e&s;&s;ence; and there|fore, becau&s;e there is no di&s;&s;imilitude betwixt the e&s;&s;ence, there is no di&s;&s;imilitude ab&s;olutely in the Per&s;ons: yet it is &s;o founded on the e&s;&s;ence, that it doth in&s;inuate to us the pluralitie of the Per&s;ons. The Per&s;ons are &s;aid to bee like, as touching qualities, becau&s;e they do agree in the &s;ame perfection of qualities: as in wi&s;dom, power, goodne&s;s, and &s;uch like; the&s;e are really di&s;tingui&s;hed in the crea|tures, but relating to God, they neither among&s;t them&s;elvs, nor from the divine e&s;&s;ence do differ really.</P>
<P>The Per&s;ons in Trinitie are &s;aid to bee equal, becau&s;e they do &s;o agree in the &s;ame perfection, that one Per&s;on doth not in the lea&s;t degree exceed another; for there are no degrees in that which is in|finite: that is &s;aid to bee better in quantitie, that is better, and hath a higher degree of excellencie then another; as in Logick, the de|gree of qualitie is quantitie, &s;o that greatne&s;s in God is nothing el&s;e, but the excellencie of God in every perfection. If the fir&s;t Per|&s;on was more potent, and wi&s;er then the holy Gho&s;t, there would bee likene&s;s betwixt them, but not equalitie; there mu&s;t of nece&s;&s;itie bee a di&s;tinction betwixt things like and equal: for nothing is e|qual or like to it &s;elf. The Father is not the holy Gho&s;t, and there|fore when the Father, Son, and holy Gho&s;t are &s;aid to bee one in e&s;&s;ence, goodne&s;s, wi&s;dom, there is not in &s;uch an attribution, a di|&s;tinction of Per&s;ons; but when wee &s;ay, the Per&s;ons are like or e|qual, as touching every imaginable perfection: as in goodne&s;s, wi&s;|dom, power, &amp;c. &s;uch an attribution nece&s;&s;arily require's a di&s;tincti|on of the Per&s;ons among&s;t them&s;elvs.</P>
<P>I have now (as I conceive) fully an&s;wered your twelve Argu|ments. I have &s;et down all, and concealed nothing which in your Arguments carrieth with it any &s;hew of &s;trength; there remaineth yet one Argument in your Epi&s;tle, by which you would counte|nance your Here&s;ie, in the&s;e words:</P>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="13" TYPE="argument">
<HEAD><HI>ARGUMENT</HI> 13.</HEAD>
<P><LABEL>13 Argum. of M. Bidle.</LABEL> I beleeve <HI>(&s;ay you)</HI> the holy Gho&s;t to bee the chief all mini&s;tring Spi|rits, and I do place him, both according to Scriptures, and the Primitive Chri&s;tians, and by name <HI>Ju&s;tin Martyr</HI> in his <HI>Apologie,</HI> in the third rank after God and Chri&s;t, giving him a preheminence above all the re&s;t of the heavenly host.</P>
<DIV3 TYPE="answer">
<PB N="94" REF="54">
<HEAD>ANSWER.</HEAD>
<P>I do willingly grant, that &s;ince there is a Trinitie of Per&s;ons, there mu&s;t of nece&s;&s;itie bee acknowledged an order among&s;t them. But how? <HI>Not in regard of time,</HI> as though the holy Gho&s;t &s;hould bee in time after the Father, and the Son of God, for they are co-eter|nal: <HI>nor</HI> 2^l^y <HI>in order of nature,</HI> as if the holy Gho&s;t &s;hould bee in na|ture after God the Father, and God the Son; for in this &s;en&s;e, that is &s;aid to bee after another, which depend's upon the nature of an|other, which hath no place in this &s;ubject, becau&s;e the three Per|&s;ons have but one undivided nature. <HI>Neither,</HI> in the <HI>third place, is the holy Gho&s;t,</HI> to &s;peak properly, <HI>after the Father in dignitie;</HI> for there is but one Deitie, and there is equal glorie, equal maje&s;tie of the three Per&s;ons: The <HI>order then is in regard of original and principle,</HI> as it is cal|led, the Father as Father is the principle of the Son, and the Father and the Son are the principle of the holy Gho&s;t. In this regard it is, that wee commonly &s;ay, the Father is the fir&s;t Per&s;on of the Tri|nitie, as being of none: The Son is the &s;econd Per&s;on of the Tri|nitie from his Father. The holy Gho&s;t is the third Per&s;on, being from eternitie both from the Father and the Son.</P>
<P>This conce&s;&s;ion is not an&s;werable to your opinion; for if you would &s;peak out of the Son, as you do of the holy Gho&s;t, you hold, as appear's by many of your Arguments, both God's Son, and the holy Gho&s;t to bee creatures after God in time, in nature, and in dignitie.</P>
<P>Whereas you &s;ay, this in your &s;en&s;e is according to Scriptures, the texts which you have alledged I have di&s;cu&s;&s;ed, and made it clear both by my po&s;itive Arguments in proof of the point, and by my an&s;wers to your Scriptures, that your <HI>tenet</HI> is directly again&s;t Scri|ptures.</P>
<P>But (&s;ay you) this is agreeable to the Fathers: this (&s;ay I) is ve|ry fal&s;ly and impudently &s;poken. I am now upon the defen&s;ive part, and will not &s;et down a catalogue of their te&s;timonies in their &s;eve|ral ages as I might do, and tho&s;e that are not learned may clearly &s;ee how fal&s;ly you do boa&s;t of the Fathers by the Apo&s;tolical (as it is called) the Nicene, Con&s;tantinopolitane, and Athana&s;ian Creeds.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE UNIT="Adver&s;."> <HI>But yet</HI> (&s;ay you) Ju&s;tin Martyr <HI>placeth the holy Gho&s;t in the third rank.</HI></P>
<PB N="95" REF="54">
<P> <MILESTONE UNIT="An&s;w."> The ble&s;&s;ed Martyr, which wrote his Apologies about the year of our Lord, 162. placeth the holy Gho&s;t in his &s;econd Apologie in the third order, not in your &s;en&s;e, but in that meaning which is unanimou&s;ly acknowledged by Orthodoxal Divines; and this I prove by <HI>Ju&s;tin Martyr</HI> him&s;elf, who po&s;itively a&s;&s;ert's in his fir&s;t A|pologie, that the Son of God placed by him the &s;econd 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 &s;econd in order, was truly God; &s;o may wee argue by proportion, that the holy Gho&s;t, who is the third in order, is likewi&s;e God. And this you might have learned by the words, which do immediatly follow in <HI>Ju&s;tin;</HI> for, when hee had &s;aid, <HI>Wee have the Prophetical Spirit in the third place,</HI> hee immediatly &s;ubjoin's the&s;e words, <HI>Wee teach that hee is rightly to bee wor&s;hipped, which honor agree's well to God, not to a crea|ture.</HI> And in the &s;ame Apologie afterwards, hee would prove the Trinitie of the Per&s;ons out of <HI>Plato.</HI> And this of the third Per&s;on, that it is written by <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> of him, that hee moved (in the begining of the creation) upon the waters. And in the &s;ame Apologie hee relate's the cu&s;tom of the Church in his daies, both touching Ba|pti&s;m, that the per&s;on is wa&s;hed with water (not in the names, but) in the Name of the Father, Son, and holy Gho&s;t. And likewi&s;e touching the Euchari&s;t (as hee call's it) when the Mini&s;ter had taken bread and wine, hee giv's the prai&s;e and glorie of all things to the Father, Son, and holy Gho&s;t. And after the receiving the Sacra|ment, and giving relief to the poor, the a&s;&s;embly is di&s;mi&s;&s;ed, and (&s;aith hee) in all things which wee u&s;e, wee prai&s;e God the Father of all by his Son Je&s;us Chri&s;t through the holy Gho&s;t. And in his expo&s;ition of the Faith, touching the holy Trinitie, there is one (&s;aith hee) truly the God of all, and hee is known and under&s;tood in the Father, Son, and holy Gho&s;t, and &s;aith, they are of one e&s;|&s;ence, and one divinitie, and much more to this effect. But this is enough.</P>
<P>Go now and boa&s;t of the Fathers in general, and of <HI>Ju&s;tin Martyr</HI> in particular, and blu&s;h for &s;hame, if there bee any mode&s;tie left in you, for your intolerable wrong offered to the holy Fathers, and for fathering on them that abominable Here&s;ie which they did de|te&s;t. </P>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
<BACK>
<DIV1 TYPE="postscript">
<PB N="96" REF="55">
<HEAD>A Po&s;t-&s;cript to the Readers.</HEAD>
<P>THis Paper may fall into the hands both of the unknowing and skilfull Readers, and is liable to various cen&s;ures.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="1"> I do fore-&s;ee, that tho&s;e which are little ver&s;ed in the&s;e points will complain, that I affect ob&s;curities, and that they cannot under|&s;tand my writing. I de&s;ire them to con&s;ider, that I do treat about the highe&s;t my&s;teries of Faith, and that it is neither fit nor &s;afe for mee to change the terms which are in common u&s;e among&s;t the learned; the danger hereof is apparent by this memorable example. <HI>Gregor Nazianz</HI> in an Oration of the prai&s;es of great <HI>Athana&s;ius,</HI> &s;hew's the rents betwixt the Ea&s;tern and We&s;tern Churches, occa|&s;ioned by the u&s;e of the&s;e terms, <HI>Hypo&s;ta&s;is</HI> and <HI>Per&s;ona;</HI> the Ea&s;tern Churches u&s;ed the word <HI>Hypo&s;ta&s;is,</HI> and utterly di&s;liked the name <HI>Per&s;on.</HI> On the other &s;ide, the We&s;tern Churches adhered to the name <HI>Per&s;on,</HI> and could not endure the name <HI>Hypo&s;ta&s;is.</HI> The Ea&s;tern Churches judged the We&s;tern Churches to bee <HI>Sabellians, i e.</HI> that they held but one Per&s;on called by three names. And the We&s;tern Churches judged the Ea&s;tern to bee <HI>Tritheites</HI> and <HI>Arians,</HI> maintain|ing three &s;ub&s;tances. <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI> apprehended the mi&s;take, and that both &s;ides were &s;ound in the faith, though they differed in terms, and &s;o reconciled them. I do intreat the&s;e Readers, if they meet with difficulties, that they would not pre&s;ently ca&s;t the Book out of their hands, but to take pains to know the meaning, pray, read, per|pend the text, the context, and parallel places of Scriptures, medi|tate, and where your endeavors fail you, have recour&s;e to the learn|ed, which will, if it bee needfull for you to know, re&s;olve your doubts, and &s;omwhat clear your judgments, and to encourage you, I dare promi&s;e, that you &s;hall not repent of your labors, but better under&s;tand &s;om texts of Scriptures and humane Authors which handle this &s;ubject, then formerly you have don.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="2"> I do fore-&s;ee al&s;o, that the judicious Reader will accu&s;e mee for frequent repetitions, which are little better then vain tautologies. My Apologie is, the cour&s;e of my Adver&s;aries Arguments lead mee thereunto; for if I had not applied a particular an&s;wer to every one of them, hee would have in&s;ulted over mee, and judged them to bee unan&s;werable; that I had been like a childe, which skip's when hee
<PB N="97" REF="55"> cannot read; and that I would not touch the coals, which would have burn'd my fingers.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="2"> <HI>Secondly,</HI> perhaps I &s;hall bee <HI>blamed</HI> for <HI>tedious di&s;cour&s;es,</HI> and for excur&s;ions &s;omtimes, which are of neer kin to digre&s;&s;ions. I do con|fe&s;s, that this was purpo&s;ely don to clear up doubts, and to make the di&s;cour&s;e more profitable for the Reader; for had I intended meerly to an&s;wer the Arguments in a Schola&s;tical way, a &s;hort di|&s;tinction applied in a few lines might have &s;erved the turn for his longe&s;t Argument; but then (as I conceive) I had mi&s;&s;ed of my end, the information of the judgment of weaker Chri&s;tians.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="3"> <HI>Thirdly,</HI> I &s;hall bee <HI>blamed</HI> for <HI>rudene&s;s of language,</HI> I denie it not; my minde was &s;o intent on the matter, the bodie, that I had little re|gard of the words to clothe it hand&s;omly withall.</P>
<P> <MILESTONE N="4"> I do &s;u&s;pect that &s;om of my learned brethren will bee di&s;plea&s;ed with mee for writing thus more then once, <HI>The holy Gho&s;t, not as the holy Gho&s;t, yet, as God, is of him&s;elf.</HI> I do confe&s;s, the &s;trength of my Adver&s;aries rea&s;ons did not nece&s;&s;itate mee to u&s;e &s;uch an expre&s;&s;ion; and had I timely con&s;idered of it, both to prevent the &s;eeming ad|vantage to an enemie, and the needle&s;s cen&s;ure of friends, I would have forborn it. And albeit this term <GAP DESC="foreign">, fir&s;t u&s;ed by <HI>Calvin,</HI> as applied to the Son of God and the holy Gho&s;t, becau&s;e hee con|futed <HI>Valentinus Gentilis,</HI> which &s;aid, the Son and Spirit had not one and the &s;elf-&s;ame e&s;&s;ence with the Father, but were e&s;&s;entiall: In this re&s;pect, I &s;ay, hee u&s;ed the term, which &s;om of his Adver&s;aries, and &s;om learned Prote&s;tants, to &s;peak the lea&s;t, di&s;liked. Yet they know full well, that phra&s;e is the u&s;ual language of our approved Au|thors, and ju&s;tified by eminent Divines; and it is u&s;ual for one and the &s;elf-&s;ame &s;ubject to admit of divers re&s;pects, and thereupon of divers attributions. The e&s;&s;ence of the Son of God, and of the holy Gho&s;t, as it is the e&s;&s;ence, hath no principle, but is of it &s;elf; and &s;o the holy Gho&s;t, according to e&s;&s;ence, is <GAP DESC="foreign">; according to per&s;o|nalitie, or as the holy Gho&s;t, is from the Father and the Son: And this is no error, as <HI>Bellarmine</HI> him&s;elf, no friend to <HI>Calvin,</HI> acknow|ledgeth, <HI>l.</HI> 2. <HI>de Chri&s;to, c.</HI> 19. albeit hee di&s;like's his manner of &s;peak|ing, yet not his judgment. And <HI>Gregorie de Valentia,</HI> a learned Je|&s;uit, finde's fault with <HI>Genebrard</HI> for calling <HI>Calvin</HI> an <HI>Autothean;</HI> for if hee bee attentively read (&s;aith hee) his meaning will bee found, that the Son of God, as hee is God, &amp; &s;o hee is e&s;&s;entially, is of him|&s;elf;
<PB N="98" REF="56"> but as a Per&s;on, hee is of his Father; and this is true. The Fa|thers, when they &s;ay hee is God of God, they take the name of God per&s;onally; but yet the Son, as hee is e&s;&s;entially God, <HI>i. e.</HI> that mo&s;t &s;imple thing which is God, hee is not of another, becau&s;e in this re&s;pect hee is an ab&s;olute thing, <HI>tom.</HI> 1. <HI>di&s;t.</HI> 2. <HI>q.</HI> 1. <HI>&s;ect.</HI> 27.</P>
<P>I do intreat the learned, if they do di&s;cover any real faults here|in, (which is not unlikely; for another may &s;ooner &s;ee mine errors then I can &s;ee them my &s;elf; and &s;o perhaps may I &s;ee another mans, which the Author take's no &s;pecial notice of) that they would in a Chri&s;tian manner, with &s;ound rea&s;ons reform my judgment: For truly I am not in love of any error, if known, but do carrie a minde alwaies readie to renounce my judgment, and to give place to the truth in any point, when it &s;hall bee manife&s;ted to mee.</P>
<P>La&s;tly, I do earne&s;tly be&s;eech both kindes of Readers to be&s;tow tho&s;e &s;piritual alms upon mee, which are both my due to demand, and their dutie to afford mee, that they would pray to God for mee, that I may faithfully imploy that &s;mall talent which the Lord hath imparted to mee, for his glorie, mine own and others benefit. All the glorie, the riches, the highe&s;t preferments, and all imaginable perfections in this world are but un&s;atisfying &s;hadows, and meer pictures of happine&s;s; but happy, thrice happy, yea a thou&s;and times happy is that man, who&s;e God is the Lord.</P>
<P>I now addre&s;s my &s;peech to you, M^r. <HI>Bidle:</HI> I confe&s;s, I can pro|mi&s;e nothing to my&s;elf touching your conver&s;ion; I fear you have hardned your heart, and made it like an Adamant, uncapable of any impre&s;&s;ion of this heavenly truth. You glorie, that you have di&s;pu|ted with many learned men, and could not receive &s;atisfaction from them, no not &s;o much as to one of your Arguments; I do not doubt but you have heard from them the &s;ame an&s;wers which I have made, and more forcibly urged upon you then I have don; yet I do &s;peak as loud as you do, that I have examined them all, and am in mine own judgment &s;atisfied in mine an&s;wer touching every one of them, and do confidently &s;ay, there is no &s;trength in any one of them to prove your dete&s;table Here&s;ie, but they are a number of Sophi&s;tical fallacies, which I have plainly detected.</P>
<P>It grieve's mee, that any one &s;hould rake out of the grave old rot|ten Here&s;ies, to infect the world with their &s;tink, e&s;pecially that my Countriman &s;hould, to the joy of Adver&s;aries, and the great di&s;ad|vantage
<PB N="99" REF="56"> of our Religion, vent them in print. Mee think's I &s;ee you, M^r. <HI>Bidle,</HI> &s;truggling to extingui&s;h that little light which is in you, in that you &s;et your wits awork to pervert plain Scriptures in the end of your Book by your forced an&s;wers to them, which I have laid open in ju&s;tifying of our Arguments, and (not &s;o much as barely to mention our &s;tronge&s;t rea&s;ons) what may wee judg to bee your meaning herein, but a conviction that you can give to them no pro|bable an&s;wer at all? Doth not the Chri&s;tian world, in the &s;ucce&s;&s;ion of many ages, wherein your Here&s;ie hath been cried down to the pit of hell, &s;trike terror into you? Doth not the con&s;ent of the Re|formed Churches, which you have de&s;erted, lie as heavie as a moun|tain upon you? Doth not your con&s;cience check you, for cleaving to a few rotten branches cut off from the Church, and for &s;triving in the &s;toutne&s;s of your &s;pirit again&s;t the &s;tream both of clear Scri|ptures, and the unanimous judgment of the Church of Chri&s;t? Can you think, that wi&s;dom &s;hould bee with you, and follie with them all? Con&s;ider, I pray, that you have &s;et your&s;elf again&s;t a &s;trong Ad|ver&s;arie, hee cannot bee re&s;i&s;ted, hee will prevail over you. Yield up then your weapons in time unto him, give glorie to his great Name, and put forth all your &s;trength for time to com, to bring honor to his greatne&s;s, as you have been a diveli&s;h in&s;trument to defie &s;upreme Maje&s;tie: it is <HI>a happy victorie to bee conquered of Truth.</HI></P>
</DIV1>
<TRAILER>FINIS.</TRAILER>
</BACK>
</TEXT>
</EEBO>
</ETS>
