〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: OR, A TREATISE OF THE HOLY GHOST.  
IN WHICH, The Godhead of the third Person of the Trinity is strongly asserted by Scripture-Arguments.  
And defended against the Sophistical subtleties of JOHN BIDLE.  
BY Mr. Nicolas Estwick, B. D. sometime Fellow of Christ-Colledg in Cambridg, and now Pastor of Warkton in the County of Northampton.  
LONDON, Printed by William Dugard, for Ralph Smith, and are to be sold at the Sign of the Bible in Cornhill, near the Royal-Exchange. 1648.   

THE PREFACE.  
THe sublime Argument, touching the unity of the Godhead, and the Trinity of the Persons, is of that high concernment, that it obligeth Christians to lay themselves out to the uttermost in the search of the means in the which it hath pleased the Lord to reveal himself, that we might have right apprehensions of him; partly, because it is very dangerous, and attended with sad consequences to have erroneous conceptions in this to-bee-adored subject: and partly, because no subordinate truths can be more profitably learned, whether we respect the information of our judgements, the reformation of our lives, or our sound consolation in every condition.  
In this licentious age, wherein Heresies, with more boldness (the more is the pity) are not only privately vented, but printed, and exposed to public view, then in former ages, whereby many unwary and ungrounded Readers are infected with leprosy in their heads, and their judgements are corrupted, as other wicked fancies, for want of humility, knowledge in Scripture, Arts and Tongues, and due respect to the word of God, and the testimony of ancient and modern Divines, have been broached, so hath the fundamental Article touching the Deity of the holy Ghost been questioned, yea plainly contradicted.  
Many months passed before I had a sight of Mr. Bidle's abhorred lines, nor did I so much as desire to read them; but when I heard by the relation of a very learned man, and of much observation touching these times, that those twelve Reasons did a great deal of hurt, I then used the means to get a sight of the Book, and I saw it was Sophistically penned, and plausibly contrived to do much mischief; and when I could not hear that any of the learned, which have far better abilities, more leisure, and encouraging accommodations than I have, would spend their precious time in convincing this Adversary of God, I resolved, by the grace of the Spirit of God, to vindicate what lies in me his honour, in showing partly the weakness, partly the blasphemy of his twelve Reasons, to show him, if it may be, the danger of his Heresy, and to clear the alleged Scriptures from his Sophistry, and to hold forth that little light which the blessed Spirit hath freely imparted to me, to the bettering of the understanding of the simple Readers.  
There have been many erroneous opinions, no fewer than six in my knowledge, (and 'tis not unlike but there are many more) touching the blessed Spirit, the holy Ghost; it is not fit, nor safe for me to set down a Catalogue of them, lest unawares (which is far from my intention) some vain and unsound Christians in these unsettled days should take an occasion to err from the beaten way of truth; and others, which have tender consciences, should be offended with the stinch of these rotten Heresies, when they are presented to them: yet necessary it is, that I should set down my Adversaries tenet, that the Reader may know it, and that I may more punctually address myself to answer him; and this he holds, That the holy Ghost is a creature, a finite person, the prime and chief of all the good Angels, as the Devil by an unhappy excellency is called the chief of all the evil Spirits: An ancient Heresy this is in the Church of Christ condemned both by the single testimony of many famous Doctors, and by a general Synod at Constantinople, which hath been always honoured, and was held by the Summons of Theodosius the first, more than twelve hundred and threescore years ago.  
O blessed God be not angry with me, I beseech thee, who am but sinful dust and ashes, for adventuring to speak of thy glorious Majesty. Pardon, I humbly pray, for my Saviors sake, all my sinful apprehensions of thine unconceivable Greatness, accept graciously my sincere intentions to promote thy glory, and guide me (O my God) that I may always, as a weak and sinful creature ought to do, both think, and speak, and write of thy glorious Majesty with holy fear and lowly reverence, and instruct me, O thou blessed Spirit of Truth, that I may readily untie the Sophistical knots of carnal and humane reason, which in pretence are grounded on the truth of thy Word, and yet there is no truth in them, nor any divine word for them: And enable me to maintain thy Greatness against a wretched man, which dares stand up, and both boldly and publicly argue against thine ever to be adored Deity.   

The Deity of the holy Ghost proved by Scripture and Argument.  
True Arguments grounded on the Word of God whereby the Deity of the holy Ghost is fully proved, and such passages of Scriptures which are excepted against by the Adversary are examined and clearly refuted.  

Argum. 1  

Maj. He that hath the names of God absolutely attributed to him is God.  
Min. The Holy Ghost hath the names of God absolutely attributed to him.  
Concl. Ergò the holy Ghost is God.   
The Major is clear; for albeit the name of God be given to Angels, Psal. 8. 6. Heb. 2. 7. and to Magistrates, they are Gods to whom the Word of God came, Psal. 82. 7. that is, to whom by divine vocation the office of Magistracy is committed; yet either this is not spoken in the singular number, I said ye are Gods, whereas the true God without contradiction is but one; or, when it is spoken singularly, it is not without limitation, Moses, I have made thee a God to Pharaoh, Exod. 7. 1. Every man may readily conceive that a made God is is not a true God; or with such an affixed limitation that a simple man can hardly mistake: I have said ye are Gods, yet they are but mortal Gods; for as is threatened there, They must die like mortal men; but the true God is immortal. So that in all the Scriptures we shall not find the names of God ascribed to any creatures without addition, limitation, or correction of speech, nor is this denied by the Adversary.  
The Minor is proved, first, more obscurely, Gen. 1. 1. God creäted: A word not of the singular, or dual, but plural number, and that is also with a word of the singular number. God creäted, because God is but one in nature, but in regard of the manner of being there are three Persons. And in verse 26. of the same Chapter, God saith, Let Us make man after Our image, that is, in the image of the holy Trinity: these, and many like to these are alleged out of the old Testament, and justified to be pertinent to prove this cause against the exceptions of such as have opposed them; and the rather is the phrase to be marked, because, as is observed, it is not said, one, Elohim unus, as one, Jehovah unus, in all the Scripture. W. in 1. praec. Decal. but because they meet with contradiction of learned friends, I pass them over. Secondly, and more particularly, King David in his last words saith, The Spirit of the Lord spoke by me, and his word was in my tongue, 2 Sam. 23. 2. and then verse 3. by way of explication he adds, the God of Israël said, the rock of Israël spoke to me. And yet more fully, Esa. 6. 3. that Person that is called the Lord of hosts, and after that, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Lord, which is the proper name of God, ver. 9 is by Saint Paul, an infallible Interpreter, expounded of the holy Ghost, Well spoke the holy Ghost by Esaias the Prophet unto our Fathers, Act. 28. 25. hearing ye shall hear, and not understand— and this is further proved, because what God promised Levit. 26. 12. I will dwell in them, and walk in them, that is verified of all faithful Christians, when the holy Ghost dwell's in them; hence are they called the Temples of God, and that is expounded by the holy Ghosts dwelling in them, 1 Corin. 3. 16. and 1. 6. 20. 19 what can be more plain? The virtue of God is never separated from his Essence. God is there where he 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 essence, presence and power, but he work's in his own and dwell's in them, as in his Temple, according to his singular and gracious presence. Refut. Adu. It is true indeed, we have the Spirit from God the Father, and God the Son, he is the gift of God, but this concession weakeneth not our Argument, but adds very much to our comfort and honour. To conclude this Argument, Acts 5. 3. Peter by the revelation of the blessed Spirit, discover's the fraud, the distrustful covetousness and gross hypocrisy of Ananias, in that this wretched man being overcome with devilish persuasion withheld part of the money which he had promised to God to be dispensed by the Apostles to pious and charitable uses: and to demonstrate the height and heinousness of this offence, he avoucheth that he sinned and told a lie against the holy Ghost, and by way of explication, it's added in the next verse, thou hast not lied to men, but to God.  
Advers. To this clear Scripture you make two Answers: First, to lie to the holy Ghost, is to lie to men endued with the Spirit, so Piscator; yet will it not presently follow that the holy Ghost is God, for one may lie to God, and yet neither men nor the Spirit in them be God; but only the Messengers of God; what is done to Messengers redound's to him that send's them, 1 Thessaly. 4. 8, 13. John 20. Luc. 10. 16.  
Answ. I grant that Ananias did lie to men endued with the Spirit, though not only, or principally against them: for so S. Peter acknowledgeth, you have not lied to men, but to God; and yet the holy Ghost is not to be excluded, as you have done, from the being an object against whom this lie is told. And well had it been for you, if you had had the eyes of Piscator, when you allege what doth without wavering sound conclude the Deity of the holy Ghost out of this text. I add, grant that to lie against the holy Ghost is to lie against God speaking by his Spirit in his servants, will this follow that the holy Ghost is not God dwelling in his servants? nay, rather the contrary may be concluded, for the words import thus much, Think not, O Ananias, because I said thou sinnedst against the holy Ghost, that I intended only that thou usedst dissimulation against me, and my brethren the rest of the Apostles, in whom are the extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghost, or as if the Spirit that is in us was a mere created Spirit, thou art deceived if thou thinkest so, thou shouldest then directly have sinned but against a creature; but in this thy fact which is against the holy Ghost, thou hast not lied to man but to God. Who see's not, if he will seriously perpend the text, what it is to lie against the holy Ghost; that it is to lie against God the holy Ghost; and be it granted, that the despite done to the servants of God redound's to God, which no man will deny; yet touching the holy Ghost these texts are not fitly alleged: for show me any place of Scripture where the holy Ghost is called the Messenger of God. Search as long as you will, you shall never find such an expression in God's Book. Besides, this concession abat's not the strength of our Argument for wrong done to the servants of God, as they are his servants; it's against them as acted by the Spirit which dwell's in them, and is no accidental gift, nor created person, but the holy God, and so it tends to the dishonour of the holy Ghost, and this may further appear by these circumstances in the text. How came Peter to know this lie of Ananias? It's not a man, not a creature that can search the heart, was it not then God that revealed this sin and the intentions of Ananias and of his wife to Peter, even the blessed Spirit that enlightened, sanctified and enriched him with extraordinary gifts? And doth not the punishment inflicted on the man and his wife thew the severity and power of the holy Ghost in that he can so instantly destroy his enemies? And for further proof and confirmation of the Deity of the holy Ghost out of this Scripture, ver. 9 for the sin 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 Ananias and Saphirah proclaimed evidently, that whereas they had heard that the Spirit knows all sins, is just to punish for sins which he doth know, is true and faithful to perform his threaten, and powerful and able to punish as he had threatened, yet they wretchedly against the clear light and check of their consciences in thus sinning against him, would yet put God to it, and make a trial and experiment whether God knew the infidelity of their hearts, and could discover it, whether his patience, mercy and love to mankind would not spare them, and avert that vindicative justice, albeit he had threatened often to punish them that do commit this sceleratissimum genus tentationis, as Peter Martyr phraseth it, and whether he had power to punish them for their dissembling hypocrisy. Lay all these things together, and they will amount to a full demonstration of the point in hand.  
Advers. If any man (say you) look more narrowly into the words, he shall find that the translation is not true, for the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ver. 3. is construed with an Accusative case, and with a Dative, ver. 4. and so it is to be translated, to belly and counterfeit the holy Ghost, which is to bear us in hand that thou laidest down the money at the motion of the holy Ghost, herein thou hast not lied to men but to God.  
Answ. The Adversary would persuade the Reader that he by his observation of the text, had found out a fault in our common translations, whereof the Authors out of their ignorance or inadvertency took no notice; if so he thinks he is utterly mistaken: for all translators, ancient and of later days, had the text before their eyes, and saw the difference which is here noted by this Author, and yet did purposely translate the words, thou hast lied to the holy Ghost, as holding forth the genuine meaning of the Spirit of God, some excepted, which yet, for the point of controversy in hand proved out of this very Scripture, are professed Adversaries to you. Beza, after he had rendered the words to deceive, or mock; i. e. endeavour to deceive the holy Ghost, (I might add what others say) he retract's and goes in the steps of common translators. Why? I might say from others. It's not unusual amongst the Grecians to understand a preposition which is not expressed. He saith, because the 4th. ver. where the Dative case is used, is an explication of the 3d. ver. Besides, the Hebrews do sometimes confound these; whence these expressions, benedico te, evangelizo te, which the Grecians derived from the Hebrews, and the Latin Authors from the Grecians. Besides, in one manuscript I found the preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and so have the Syrian and Arabian Interpreters read it. Lastly, because this interpretation which is followed by Erasmus, to say, they counterfeited the holy Ghost, seems to me not to be full. They were indeed notorious hypocrites, but Peter by the sequel accuseth them of a far higher crime, that when, as by the motion of the Spirit, they had sold a parcel of ground, and consecrated it to the Church, they afterward kept back a part thereof, as if in that case they had not to deal with God, but with men, which could not discover this their sacrilege, and so they are in this regard said to tempt the Spirit of God.  
Further, were it granted that your translation were sound, and that the words ought to be so interpreted, as you have done, this neither hinders us, nor further's you; none ever dreamt by the common translation to correct the meaning of the text, that they might have an Argument thence to confute the Adversaries of the holy Ghost; he needeth not our lie to defend his cause. But the strength of the Argument is not from the words singly taken, ver. 3. but from them, and the explication of them in the fourth and ninth verses, you sergeant the holy Ghost to be the Author of this fact, and this is expounded to be a lying to God, viz. to God the holy Ghost whom you have counterfeited, he speaking in us, and discovering this hypocrisy of your heart which you little dreamt off. And your exposition of the words, as they stand in your Book, is of that nature, that albeit I have prepended it as exactly as I can, yet do I conceive nothing in it, but I may readily subscribe to it; I am sure it nothing crosseth the Argument. Thus much for the first Argument.   

Argum. 2  


Maj. He to whom religious worship is truly exhibited is God.  
Min. The holy Ghost is he to whom religious worship is exhibited.  
Concl. Ergò.    
The Major is not denied by the Adversary, and is evident of itself: and strange it is to me that any learned men, which do acknowledge the Deity of the holy Ghost, should avouch, as they do, that there is neither precept to worship him, nor any clear example in the Word that he was worshipped. 'Tis a certain rule, the sacred Persons of the Trinity which are undivided in nature, must be likewise undivided in worship: for any one to say the holy Ghost is God, and with the same breath to profess their doubting whether he is to be worshipped, is to speak contradictions; and 'tis all one as to acknowledge a King, and to deny him honour, and this is to make him a titular King, and in truth no King at all.  
The Minor is proved thus: the holy Angels of God do worship him, they worshipped the Lord of hosts. Esa. 6. 3. Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts. Heb. 1. 6. Whether the Prophet Esay understood this mystery or not, 'tis not material to the point in hand, nor whether their thrice chanting out holy, implied the sacred Trinity. Yet why might not that be intended? But the Angels being intellectual substances worshipped they knew what, and being confirmed in holiness, they only worshipped a fit object of worship, and had they, or sinful men worshipped the highest creature with religious adoration, would not he, as the Angel in the revelation, have rejected it, and said, See you do it not? I am your fellow-servant? but the Angels worshipped the holy Ghost. I prove, the blessed Apostle and irrefragable Interpreter informs us, that the Lord of hosts who put words into the mouth of Esay was the holy Ghost, Act. 28. 25. Well said the holy Ghost by Esaiah the Prophet: and as the Son of God is directly prayed unto, Lord Jesus, said Stephen that blessed martyr, receive my Spirit, Acts 7. Lord Jesus come quickly, Apocal. 22. So is likewise the holy Spirit, Awake thou Northwind, and come thou South, blow upon my garden, that the Spices thereof may flow out. O blessed Spirit breathe into my heart, that by the love of God and my neighbour it may send forth a sweet savour, Cant. 4. 16. The blessed Spirit of God is compared to the wind, that as the wind blows where it list's, so doth the Spirit of God blow where he will, regenerat's whom he pleaseth, John 3. 8. And to this intent it is that S. John prayeth, grace and peace, not only from God the Father and from Jesus Christ, but also from the seven Spirits, Apocal. 1. 4. The Spirit is but one in nature, but it is said to be seven, that is, manifold, in regard of the distribution of many gifts which are from the Spirit, and more plainly 2 Corinth. 13. 13. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the holy Ghost be with you all. And this Argument is asserted by Justin Martyr, as I have showed in answer to your thirteenth Argument, and by Clemens Alexandrinus at the end l. 3. Paedag. used in the ancient Liturgies, and practised by the reformed Churches. Sancta Trinitas miserere, O holy Trinity have mercy. To these I may add this consideration, that we are the Temples of the holy Ghost. It's God only that hath a Temple, and so it's necessary, saith S. Austin l. 1. de Trinitat. c. 6. that we should yield religious service to him, that which is proper to God. I shut up this Argument with the words of our Saviour, Matth. 28. 19 Go and baptise all Nations in the Name of the Father, the Son, and holy Ghost: to be baptised into the Name of the Father, Son and, holy Ghost, is to be obliged to the Faith, Worship, and Obedience of God the Father, Son, and holy Ghost.  
Adver. You endeavour to elude this plain convincing testimony touching the Deity of the holy Ghost. Baptise them into the holy Ghost, that is, into the guidance of the holy Ghost: which may, I deny not, be a part of the meaning of the text. You add, Thus all the Israëlites were baptised into Moses, 1 Corinth. 10. 2.  
These two texts are unequally matched and paralleled:  
Answ. 1 First, it is not said 1 Corinth. 10. 2. that the Israëlites were baptised into the Name of the Father, Son of God, and Moses, which would have been a seeming advantage to you, but yet not forcible enough to have shielded you from the dint of the Argument.  
Secondly, the Baptism into which the Israëlites were baptised, was not such a Sacrament as ours of Baptism is; it was not a spiritual Sacrament of the Covenant of Grace appertaining to eternal life, as our Baptism is: their passing through the Sea, and under the Cloud was done without sprinkling them with, or dipping them in water, and did seal up, and evidently confirm that Moses was by the Lord deputed to be a Guide and a Leader of his people, whose Ministry was not fully spiritual, but 'tis termed carnal. God made choice of him to be a happy instrument to deliver them out of bondage. Now such as the deliverance is, such is the Baptism; but consider we their passing through the red Sea, and by the guidance of the Cloud, as types and figures of the benefits which we receive from Christ our true and spiritual Mediator; for servitude in Egypt was a type of spiritual servitude under the power of Satan, and sin: and deliverance out of Egypt was a type of our deliverance from the snares of the devil, and the commanding power of our own sins: In this regard it's denied that they were baptised into Moses; hence is it said that some were baptised into the Baptism of John, Act. 19 2. but they are not said to be baptised into John; the reason is, because the Ministry of John was merely spiritual, and not carnal. And S. Paul doth take it as a very absurd thing to be abhorred of Christians to be baptised into the name of any man. 1 Corinth. 1. 13, 15. were ye baptised into the name of Paul? and yet would he be acknowledged to be their Guide, and Doctor, and a Father, who by his Ministry begot them through the Gospel, 1 Corinth. 4. 15.  
Thirdly, this will further appear, if we do consider the use and the end of Baptism; it is a sign and a seal of the new Covenant, the Covenant of Grace, which is signified and ratified thereby; now consider this on the one part, the great God of heaven and earth, God the Father, God the Son, and God the holy Ghost undertake's to be the God of his people, which is their happiness: on the other part, the confederates, the parties baptised and sealed as Gods own by Baptism (which Austin calls Regius Character, a Kingly Character,) do solemnly profess and oblige themselves to the faith and service not of any Angel, for where is there such a condition expressed in the Covenant to tie us to creatures? but as I said, to the Faith, Service, and Obedience of God the Father, God the Son, and God the holy Ghost.  
That which you say is true in itself, though not in your meaning, that God the Father, and the Son, by the Spirit, do guide, govern, sanctify, and endow the Church; and whereas before conversion, and the giving up their names to Christ, they lived according to the Prince of this world, they ought thenceforth, being admitted into the Church, resign up themselves to the guidance of the holy Ghost. But your saying that the holy Ghost is our Advocate in your sense, and a chief instrument under God, is as a dead sly in precious ointment; this is spoken, but cannot be proved by you; and it hath been before, and shall hereafter be disproved; yea, and your own concession touching the benefits received from the holy Ghost stands not with this assertion.  
Advers. You say in your Dedicatory Epistle that the holy Ghost is our Advocate. If I go not away the Advocate will not come unto you, John 16. 7, 8. And you boldly avouch that it ought so to be translated every where, as ours have also done. 1 Joh. 2. 1. We have an Advocate with the Father.  
Answ. Hereto I answer: You should have plainly told us what you meant by Advocate. Is it to plead our cause with God, as Lawyers do their client's cause before the Judge? Or do you mean, an Advocate, one that makes prayers for us? the rule holds, A deceitful man speaks in generalities. I am not ignorant that some learned men, which are strong defenders of the Deity of the holy Ghost, do translate the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in some texts (as you do) Advocate; and if you had rendered it so in their sense, I would have passed it over in silence. The holy Ghost may be called an Advocate, but not so an Advocate to God the Father as Christ is, which is by the merit of his passion and intercession. In this meaning 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is often used in the Scripture; but the holy Ghost may be called an Advocate, because, in doubtful cases and in straits, he help's us with his counsel, and teacheth us all things, John 14. 26. and when his servants shall be convened before persecuting Magistrates, and they then know not how to speak to them, nor how to pray to God, the holy Ghost will enable them both to speak to men, and pray to God, as Christians ought to do. And because the instilling of this heavenly doctrine into the hearts of God's servants is usually accompanied with spiritual joy and comfort, hence is it, as Cam. guesseth, that this word is translated by the Learned oftentimes, the Comforter.  
You say, the holy Ghost is not ranked with the Father and Son of God, as being equal to them, as is evident by other punctual places of Scripture, 1 Cor. 12. 3, 4, 5, 6. Ephes. 4. 4, 5, 6. and 1 Corinth. 8. 5, 6. the holy Ghost is emphatically excluded from being either God or Lord, by being contradistinguished from them both.  
Answ. 1 I answer, these places might have been more fitly and seasonably alleged as Arguments to prove your Position, then introduced as shifts to disprove our Reasons.  
Answ. 2 I answer, directly by granting that in those places which you allege, and many others, the Father is called God, whereas the Second and Third Persons are not so called by the name of God, nor is this concession to your advantage. The Father is so called chief for these two reasons: First, because he is God of himself, and from no other Person; he is often styled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, without a principle of being, so are not the Son, and the holy Ghost. Secondly, because he is the principle and the fountain communicating the Deity to the Son and the holy Ghost, and yet, when it is said, We have one God, and it is immediately subjoined, the Father, this is not spoken by way of exclusion, but inclusion of the Son and the holy Ghost; for the Son is in the Father, and so is the holy Ghost too. All creatures, and particularly Idol-Gods, are excluded from being God; for God is opposed to Idols in the later place, and I suppose you will not take the Son of God and the holy Ghost to be Idols. Besides, the text might have lead you to this construction, for it is said, We have one Lord Jesus Christ, will you rashly exclude God the Father from being our Lord? will you deny that he hath dominion over us? And if the Father be included in this term, Christ is our one Lord, why should not the Son be included in the former, one God? And as for the other places, the works recited there do prove the holy Ghost to be God; the the 3d. Argument followeth:   

Argum 3  

Maj He that hath the incommunicable properties of God, is God.  
Min The holy Ghost hath the incommunicable properties of God.  
Concl Ergò.   
The Major is confessedly true, and need's no proof; the Minor is confirmed by a few instances, and if it can be proved that but one of them belongs to him, it's virtually proved true of them all, for all are but one in truth and nature, and one is all.  
First, the holy Ghost is omniscient, not only in that he leads his servants into all truth; Joh. 16. 13. Esa. 40. 13. he is true, the Spirit of Truth, and the Fountain of Truth; but chief is this confirmed, because he searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God, 1 Corin. 2. 10. which no creature can do.  
Secondly, because he is essentially and powerfully present every where. The holy Prophet took this as an undeniable truth, Psal. 139. 7. Whither shall I flee from thy Spirit? This Interrogation (as appeareth also by the enumeration of places most distant one from another, heaven and hell) implieth a peremptory assertion, that he could go no where, no not in his thoughts, but the Spirit of God was present there; and yet is he not included or circumscribed in any places, as bodily creatures, or limited, as the nature of Angels is, Basil de Spir. San. c. 22.  
Advers. This being a pinching Argument, and easily apprehended to be very forcible by slender capacities, must (seemingly) be answered, and the wound which his cause receive's thereby must have a skin drawn over it, though it is not curable by the art of man. Thus he saith: By this reason the devil is omnipresent, for he steal's the Word sown in a thousand places at once, he dwell's in all wicked men. Let them answer to these, and then I will tell them how the Spirit, though he is not omnipresent, may be in all the faithful at once.  
Answ. 1 First, I must tell this Disputant, that though he saith much and enough to prove our assertion, yet it is not so full as it ought to be; for the Argument holdeth forth this truth, That God's Spirit is not only in the hearts of his children, but there (and it is their happiness that he is essentially there) where they shall never be. He is every where.  
Answ. 2 Secondly, I observe that though many lines are penned in answer to the question, yet positively doth he assert nothing at all. He leave's us to guests at his meaning, to prevent absurdities: with which he might have been pressed, if he had told us how the holy Ghost a creature is in all the faithful, and how the chief Devil is in all the wicked; now possibly he hath a starting hole, and may say, he hath no such meaning. It became a plain dealing man, desirous to have the truth revealed to him, as he pretends to be, to have opened his mind clearly, and not to have left the Beader in suspense touching this particular.  
You tell us, and this is all you say, that what we can answer against the Omnipresence of the Devil, you will apply the same Answer to our Objection. And will you so indeed?  
Show me then out of the Word of God in any place, that the holy Ghost hath his being by creätion, and not by eternal procession. I can plainly prove, and this you will not deny, that the Devil and his Angels were creäted of God, and were good in the instant of their creätion.  
Show me out of the Word of God, that it is any where thus spoken, the holy Ghost, and his Angels; as it is said expressly, the Devil, and his Angels. We read indeed that Michaël and his Angels did fight with the Dragon and his Angels, Revel. 12. Whosoever is meant by Michaël, (and there are several interpretations thereof) yet none did so much as dream of the holy Ghost, whom you make the Prince of Angels.  
Show me out of the Word of God, that the Devil and his Angels are every where, as it is said expressly of the holy Spirit. If you mount up into heaven, are they there? Are they not thrust headlong from thence never to be readmitted to the pure and blessed place? Are they in the bottom of the sea, or in the places of the earth which are not inhabited unless by restraint? If in an instant you were placed there, you might truly say, that you fled from the Devil's presence, and could be some where, and the Devil not there.  
Show me out of the holy Word, that inferior good Spirits, which, as Guardians and Protectors, do lead the servants of God into all truth, that they do sanctify them, and that, in the Scripture phrase, they dwell in them, and that it is not one only holy Ghost that doth all these, and as you yourself contend. The Person of the holy Ghost is given together with his gifts, Argum. 7. but I can show you that it is not one individual Devil, but they are innumerable principalities and powers against which God's servants must fight, as against enemies, with whom they must make no peace, and which do damnably seduce, guide, and hold in woeful captivity all sinners. A legion of Devils was cast out of one man; every one of these wicked Spirits is a Devil, a Satan; he is like a similar body, as a bone, every one is a Devil.  
Advers. Whereas you object, that one lying Spirit seduced four hundred Prophets, 1 King. 22. 23. and add that there is the same reason of four hundred, and four millions; To this, I say, speak out man, doth one wicked individual Spirit seduce all the wicked by himself? If you dare not say so, why is this example alleged? yea, and by your own silence your cause is lost. I dare tell you that the holy Spirit sanctifieth with his gracious presence all the Saints that are in the world. Nor is the reason alike betwixt those four hundred, and all the wicked men in the world, for they were assembled together in one place, and all of them of one Spirit; but suppose these four hundred had been severed, and placed in so many remote Kingdoms, will you have the forehead to say that one Spirit could seduce them all at once? The former, I grant, may be done by a created Spirit, but not possible the later.   

Argum. 4  

Maj. He that is simply superior to Christ, as man, is God.  
Min. The holy Ghost is so.  
Concl. Ergò, he is God.   
The Major is clear by the confession of the Adversary, for he ranketh Christ in the second order, next under God, and the holy Ghost below Christ in the third rank, and rightly, if his supposition had been true; for the humane nature, simply considered, being assumed into the person of the Son of God, is nearest the cause and fountain of all greatness, and is thereby exalted far above the state and condition of the highest Angels; but he is said to be made lower than they are, only for a short time, in regard of his sufferings, Hebr. 2. from which those blessed Spirits were exempted.  
The Minor is proved by those very Arguments, whereby you endeavour to prove the holy Ghost to be inferior to God. First, because Christ in this notion is sent of the holy Ghost, The Lord God sent me, and his holy Spirit, Esa. 48. 16. I know some of ours do expound this of the Prophet Esay, the Spirit sent him, and so do the Hebrews suddenly change the Person (saith Oecolampadius) without any necessity, because they do abhor the mystery of the Trinity, but we (saith he) with Catholics do avouch that these are the words of Christ, as the whole context evinceth. But let that text be meant so or otherwise. It's clear by Fsa. 61. 1. applied to Christ, Luke 4. 18. The Spirit of the Lord hath sent me to bind up the broken hearted, to preach the Gospel.  
Secondly, he that receiveth of another is inferior to him of whom he receiveth, and dependent on him, these are your own expressions; but the humane nature of Christ receive's from the Spirit its being, for he was conceived by the holy Ghost, Matth. 1. and was anointed by him with abundant gifts without measure, Luke 4. 18.  
To these I add, that the holy Spirit by his mighty power raised Christ corporally from death, Rom. 8. 11. as he doth his people spiritually from the death of sin.  
Lastly, because it is a greater sin which is committed against the holy Ghost, then that is which is committed against the Son, Mat. 12. 31, 32. this is pardonable, the other shall never be forgiven.  
Advers. To this last objected place you frame this Answer: The sin against the holy Ghost is unpardonable, not because the holy Ghost is God, but because he that sinneth against the holy Ghost doth in the same act sin against God with an high hand against his conscience, renouncing the truth, as the Renegadoes did, Hebr. 10. 25, 26. which things are the greatest affronts that can be offered to God, who useth the Spirit in none, but in things of greatest importance.  
Answ. I grant the sin against the holy Ghost is not therefore simply unpardonable, because it is simply against God; for so are all sins, and yet are they not the unpardonable sin, and they are in a proper and true sense against the holy Ghost, even the sins of his own people, and he is said to be grieved for them, Ephes. 4. 30. and the sins of the wicked, for which he will be revenged on them, Esa. 63. 10. But yet this I do peremptorily avouch, unless the holy Ghost were God, and equal to the Father, and the Son of God, it could not be the greatest sin that was committed against him, as the immediate and ultimate object thereof. I will on your own principles argue against you for the fuller confirmation of this point.  
I take this for a granted Maxim, that the unpardonable sin, is a sin, and of necessity must be a sin against the holy Ghost. This Assertion cannot with reason be denied. Upon this supposition of yours, that the holy Ghost is a creature, I argue thus, That the unpardonable sin may be committed, and yet the holy Ghost not at all sinned against: First, because the first and universal cause can immediately of himself, without the intervening of any creature, so far enlighten a reprobate, that this sin maliciously committed against this light, shall be for nature the very same, every way as heinous, and as unpardonable, and yet not all against the holy Ghost. It is true, instruments are God's hands, and as they can do nothing without God, so God ordinarily will not work without them; but is God's hand shortened? Can you give any reason why he cannot do the same work without the creatures, which is instrumentally produced by them? Secondly, suppose the Lord will not work thus immediately by himself, cannot he employ an Angel, inferior to the holy Ghost, about this work of illumination? Cannot he so far elevate this blessed creature above itself touching the former state, and actuate his abilities, that he shall, as a means under God, so far enlighten man, as is done at other times by the holy Ghost? And the blessed Spirit in the mean time according to your profane opinion, reside in one place, and not intermeddle at all either to command, or have any influence on this Angel in this employment? or if there should be a deficiency still in this creature, (which is very unreasonable to imagine) cannot the great God supply the defect thereof? In this case we have the unpardonable sin committed, and yet not at all committed against the holy Ghost. Thirdly, I confute you from this Scripture, Matth. 12. on which our Argument is grounded. The holy Ghost (say you) is God's Messenger, and he is sent as God's servant to enlighten men; at the same time this great God send's his Son also as his Messenger, for so he is often called, but the holy Ghost is never called his Son: this Son of God, as you grant, is next unto God himself, higher and greater than the holy Ghost; and besides, which is another advantage to strengthen the Argument, the holy Ghost is invisible, the Son of God presents himself visible to them, and his Person is directly and purposely scorned and abused by them: and 'tis not easy to be proved that they had the like mischievous intentions, and malicious purposes against the Person of the holy Ghost. Judge now impartially whether is the greater sin, and which in likelihood is the sin most unpardonable? Whether the Lord will▪ be more offended for a sin against the servant, against a Person inferior to the Son, then for a sin against the greater, and against his well-beloved Son? And if a man be not bereft of common sense, he must need's conclude against this Disputant; and therefore, since the sin against the holy Ghost is unpardonable, but the sin against the Son of God is not unpardonable, as the text showeth, it must of necessity be yielded, that the holy Ghost is God, and superior to Christ, as he is man, as he is Mediator. Fourthly, if the holy Ghost were not God, the sin committed against him could not be the greatest sin. Can a sin immediately committed against a creature, be greater than that which is directly against the Creätor? Doth not the greatness of the Person against whom the sin is committed, aggravate the offence, and make the sin to be so much the more heinous, as the Person wronged by it is the greater? Is not a sin against God, which is a breach of the first Table greater, (I mean of an equal comparison) than a sin against the 2d Table, as this sin whereof we treat must be, if it be a sin against the creature? I deny not, but they that sin against a creature, do sin against God, whose authority and law forbidding it are slighted; but shall therefore an immediate sin against the workmanship of God, be, as you contend, the more heinous, then that which is against the great God himself? I might tell you that you do only say, that this sin through the holy Ghost doth strike at God himself as a superior object thereof. You can never prove that this sin is not terminated in the holy Ghost, but for Argument sake grant it. At the Assizes, as I remember, malefactors are indicted for sinning against our Sovereign Lord and his Laws, but is it as great a sin as that which is immediately against his Majesty? Suppose supreme Authority send's Ambassadors to a foreign Prince, and they are disgraced and killed, ('tis your own comparison, Argum 4) this redound's, I deny not, very much to the wrong of the supreme Authority, and 'tis done, and interpreted to be done to them, not for their own, but for his sake. Suppose, again, a King should send more honourable Ambassadors than the former, as Balak did to Balaam, and join in commission with them his chief favourites, was not the same sin committed against these later servants greater than the former? But suppose a King himself should go in his own Person about the same business, and they should e-equally contemn him, was not the affront now and sin committed of a deeper die? Give me leave (Christian Reader) to endeavour to explicate, in as few words as may be, how the sin is said to be against the holy Ghost.  
It is an undeniable truth, that all the actions of the divine Persons, (those only excepted which are ad intra, of intrinsecal relation) are the joint and undivided works of the three Persons, because there is not a multiplied, but one divine essence, and the unity of their working depends on the unity of the power, which is all one with the essence, Gregor. Nazianz. Orat. de Theolog. Yet the blessed God is described in Scripture by a gracious condescending to our dull capacities, which are unable to conceive the distinction of the Persons in the unity of the Godhead, but by a distinction of their operations to us-ward: and hence it is, that the great works of Redemption, Creätion, and Sanctification are severally attributed to the several Persons, not in a way of opposition, but distinction, which the Schoolmen call Appropriation. Thus power is ascribed to the Father, because he is the principle of the Son, and of the holy Ghost; and therefore, because the mighty power of God is manifested by Creätion, the Father is frequently styled the Creätor. Wisdom is ascribed to the Son of God, because he is termed conceptus Sapientiae: hence is it, that Redemption, wherein the manifold wisdom of God is seen, is appropriated to the Son, he is called Redeemer. Goodness is ascribed to the holy Ghost, because he proceeds from the Father, and the Son per modum amoris: hence the good things of God which are communicated to us are appropriated to him, he is called our Sanctifier. And for the same reason are sins thus distinguished; there is a sin of Frailtiness, and that is said to be against the Father, who is Power; there is a sin of Ignorance, and that is said to be against the Son, who is the Wisdom of God; and there is a sin of Wilfulness and Malice, and that is said to be against the holy Ghost, who is Goodness, Bonav. p. 1. Quaest. 39 Art. 8. This is a reason why this sin is unpardonable, it's a sin by appropriation both against his Person and his Gifts; 'tis not a sin of weakness, nor a sin of ignorance, no nor every gross sin against knowledge, no nor every apostasy from the truth against the known truth; for some may fall away either out of fear of the loss of their goods or lives, or for preferment; nor a few of this kind have bewailed their follies, have obtained pardon, and proved glorious Martyrs; but this is a sin wittingly, and willingly, and out of cankered malice committed against God the Father, Son, and (a I said) by appropriation, against God the holy Ghost, and his great work in their hearts, and whereby they offer contumely and despite to the Spirit of Grace, and so will he never give them the grace to repent.  
Adver. You say, that God useth the Spirit but only in things of greatest importance. By this your saying, you give your Reader a hint to suspect that you think every sin committed against God's Spirit is that unpardonable sin against the holy Ghost. Speak out, is not this your meaning? if not so, to what purpose should you say, God never useth the Spirit, but in matters of greatest importance? If so, I demand then who can be saved? For every good man grieveth the blessed Spirit, and sinneth against him. I add, this your Conclusion is such a Paradox which hath searce dropped from the pen of any Christian man. You think, belike, that the Spirit is like to Archangels, which are said to preside over Kingdoms, and great Personages only; but the care of singular mean persons is, under God, committed to the Angels. You think, it seems, the Spirit work's not but to bring forth a male-child, of whom the woman hath been long in travel to be delivered, for whom the Church hath sighed much, and made many prayers to God to give her a Christian orthodoxal King or Emperor; or to divert the rage of the persecutors of the Saints, and to procure rest to the Church, to raise up men of heroical spirits and parts to reform the Church, or such like. Belike then, they that have but one talon, or two talents, or mean men, which have but a low degree of sanctifying graces, are not beholding to the Spirit for them, God never sent his blessed Spirit to them; how false and unsavoury this expression is, who seethe not? And the folly thereof shall be fully disproved in the next Reason. When you wrote this you were half asleep; or, if deliberately, I will be bold to say, That your Sophistry hath the upper hand of your Divinity.   

5 Argum.  

Maj. He that produceth those works which God alone produceth, is God.  
Min. The holy Ghost doth so.  
Concl. Ergò   
The Major is plain; the Minor is proved by particular instances.  

1  
He that create's the world, is God.  
The holy Ghost create's the world.  
Ergò the holy Ghost is God.   
The Major is proved both by Reason and Scripture: First, by Reason, because, to create, is to make something of nothing, or of that which, to such a purpose, is as good as nothing; and this require's an infinite power, which cannot, no not by the absolute power of God, be communicated to a creature; and by Scripture every where, Gen. 1. 1. Jer. 10. 11. The true God, the living God, the everlasting God hath made the Earth, the Heavens, the Seas, and the Fountains of water, Apoc. 14. 7.  
The Minor is proved by Scripture; the first verse in the Bible Elohim creäted Heaven and Earth; and after in the same Chap. ver. 26. Let Us make man after Our Image: hence it is said in the Original, Where is God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 my Makers; and Psal. 149. 2. Let Israël rejoice in him that made him, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in his Makers: which denotes the Trinity of the Persons. More distinctly, Psal. 33. 6. By the Word of the Lord were the Heavens made, and all the host of them by the Spirit of his mouth; that is, God the Father by his Word, i. e. his Wisdom, which is Christ; and by his Virtue, which is the holy Ghost, hath made all things, and these three are but one God. More clearly, Psal. 104. 30. Thou sendest forth thy Spirit, and they are creäted. The Prophet showeth how the orderly course of the creatures is wisely disposed off, and the Antithesis betwixt the Spirits, i. e. souls of the creatures which die, and the Spirit of God which creäte's and renewe's them. So Elihu in Job, The Spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Lord hath given me life, Job 35. 10. And 'tis said touching our Saviour, That which is conceived of Marie, is of the holy Ghost, creäting the body, by his omnipotent power, of the substance of the Virgin Marie, in a way unheard off from the beginning of the world, and his soul immediately of nothing.  

2  
He that support's and uphold's all the creatures in their being, is God.  
The holy Ghost doth so.  
Ergò   
The Major is confirmed; because preservation of the creatures is a work equivalent to creätion, and 'tis rightly called a continued creätion: hence is the Lord described to be a God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the present stretching out the heavens, Esa. 40. 22. All means under the Sun are but dead instruments without God. To be of himself is proper to the Lord, and incommunicable to any creature: hence is it (as Glass. observe's Orat. de Hebr. lin. Necess:) that the Lord is called Adonai, of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, because he is the basis, and the prop to uphold all the creatures in the world; they all depend on him as artificial works do on natural substances. What can a Carpenter do without wood? What can a Mason do without stones? Yea, as the light in the air depends on the body of the Sun, we live, and move, and have our ●eein● in God. Acts 17. 28.  
The Minor is confirmed; not only because the holy Ghost is Ado●ai, as is showed in the first Reason, but because this is particularly affirmed of one work, and in parity of reason it holds true in all the rest. Gen. 1. 2. The Spirit of God is said to move upon the face of the waters. By the Spirit of God cannot be meant the wind, which is the moving of the air, for there was no distinction of things below in the first day, they were a confused mass without form, and without any virtue or efficacy. Nor could the air of wind, if there had been any such creature at that time, have had the cherishing effect which is there ascribed to the Spirit: we are then to understand no creäted Spirit, but the Creätor and Cherisher of all. The Lord would teach us that this confused lump of the Elements, creäted in the beginning, could not consist of itself, but as it was necessary it should have a Creätor for its being, so likewise that it should have a Protector, a Conservator, and a Quickener for the continuance of the same, and the Spirit that upheld this mass, was the Spirit of God. The word used by the Spirit is very emphatical; 'tis a Metaphor taken from Birds, which do sit upon their eggs, wave over them to bring forth their young ones, or ●o cherish them being hatched, Deut. 32. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Deuter. the Lord protected his Children as the Bird doth her young ones, and brought them out of Egypt, as he did a beautiful world out of the Chaos: so that in this place of Genesis is set forth the effectual comfortable motion of the Spirit on the indigested Chaos, whereby he sustained, and, as it were, cherished that vast creature. I might show that this is not a singular exposition devised of late days, but asserted by many ancient Fathers, yea, and by some ancient Rabbins, as P. Galatm. l. 2. and H. Ainsworth on this text do witness, but I omit them.  

He that truly and properly work's miracles, is God.  
The holy Ghost doth so.  
Ergò   
The Major is proved even by one of the words which is used for a miracle, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, derived of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which, like a beautiful creature, hath an allureing nature to drawmen to believe in God, and to obey him, Ainsworth on Exod. 7. 9 Or, as Schindler, of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, because it dem●nstrat's the truth, and is as a divine seal thereof, not imprinted in wax which will soon wear out, but engraven (as it were) in brass, and so is an indelible Character. Hereby did our Saviour prove that he was God, Matth. 9 5. as if he had said, it's the same divine power to forgive sins, and work miracles. The Lord alone doth wondrous works, Psal. 78. 18. Sometimes he work's them for the prayers of his servants, as he did at, and for the prayers of Elias, 1 King. 18. Sometimes by divine instinct and inspiration, and then is the miracle said to be a miracle ex potestate. Josuah said, Sun, stand thou still in the firmament. And Peter to Aeneas, Arise,— and this is a work so peculiar to God, that the great School-man Aquin. cap. 2. quaest. 14. 8. art. 1. concludeth, that that it cannot be communicated to a creature, no not to the humane nature of Christ, as properly and originally wrought by it. The Deity shined with miracles, and the Humanity was exposed to injuries.  
The Minor is proved by the words of our Saviour, Luke 11. 20. Christ casts out devils by the finger of God. He hath reference, as is probable, to Exod. 8. 19 The Magicians of Pharaoh acknowledged that the miracle of ●ice was wrought by the finger of God; the holding up of the singer argue's power and authority, and is a kind of threatening to desist from evil: and this text is expounded in S. Matth. 12. 28. Christ casts out devils by the Spirit of God; and yet more plainly, if any thing can be more plain, there is no servant of God which God hath graced with this honour to be an instrument of working miracles. But it is the blessed Spirit that give's this gift unto them, 1 Cor. 12. 10.  

4  
He that inspired the holy Prophets and Apostles, and infallibly guided the Penners of the holy Scripture, is God.  
The holy Ghost hath done both these.  
Ergò he is God.   
The Major is clear by Scripture, Luke 1. 70. God spoke by the mouth (not of some but) of all the Prophets since the world began; and the whole Scripture, and every clause of Scripture is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, given by divine inspiration: hence is it that the Scripture 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is called the Word of God; and to be esteemed of us, as if it had been written with Gods own hand, as the Decalogue was: it is chirographum Dei, as Austin elegantly, a writing under God's own hand.  
The Minor is proved by evident Scripture. Prophecies of old time (saith S. Peter) came not by the will of man, but the Prophets spoke as they were moved (both for the matter and the words) by the holy Ghost, 2 Pet. 1. 21. The Spirit which began by inspiration, sat still, moving on those soul-refreshing waters, sweetly and wisely assisting his Penmen according to their several styles, till there was a perfect production, till the Canon of the Scripture was completed. And this is further proved in that what God is said to speak in the old Testament to David, to Esay, etc. that in the new, which is a commentary of much in the old, is ascribed to the holy Ghost, Heb. 3. 7. Act. 28. 25. and in many other places. Well said the holy Ghost by Esaias to your Fathers. Ergò, I conclude, the holy Ghost is God.  

He that rule's and govern's the Church by his absolute power, is God.  
The holy Ghost doth so.  
Ergo.   
The Major is plain, and cannot with any colour of reason be denied; for the Church is the Church of God, Acts 20. 28. his own enclosure from the commons of the world, and one inferior to God cannot by his absolute power govern it; it is God's own property, and peculiar not to be claimed by any creature, to command by his own authority over the whole Church.  
The Minor is evidently proved by Scripture: the holy Ghost instructs Peter, remove's his scruples, and laie's a charge upon him; Arise, get thee down, and go to Cornelius with the Messengers, doubting nothing, for I have sent them, Act. 10. 20. Is this a language beseeming a creature? Will a creature speak thus with authority, a holy creature? Acts 13. 2. Separate to, or for me, Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. Hath any creature, a good creature, the boldness thus imperiously to command in God's house? Certainly, this is the voice of God, and not of an Angel. Consonant hereto is that profession of the holy Assembly at Jerusalem, Acts 15. 28. It seemed good to the holy Ghost, and to Us; that is, to us inspired by the holy Ghost. Had this happy society of Saints consulting for the rest and peace of the Church, and, by the blessing of the Lord, making a happy conclusion, most suitable to the state and condition of those times, forgotten to acknowledge God the Author, and resolve finally this great work into a creatures' inspiration? Lastly, to name no more, Acts 20. 28. Take heed to yourselves, and to all the flock, over which the holy Ghost hath made you overseers. Words very emphatical, belonging to the great God, but too high to be attributed to any creature.   

Argum. 6  

He that doth what he will, and disposeth his gifts, as he himself pleaseth, is God.  
The holy Ghost doth so.  
Ergò.   
The Major is plain; our God is in the heavens, and he hath done whatsoever he pleaseth, Psal. 115. 3. It's blasphemy to conceive that God should be like some Kings of Egypt, which seems to be intimated by that speech of Pharaoh to Joseph, and is asserted of these Caliphs' in later times, that they committed the whole Government of their Kingdom to their Viceroys, according to whose word and commandment all the people were ruled, Gen. 41. 40. And they in the mean time enjoy themselves, and meddle not with the administration of the Kingdom. Let Christians abhor such cogitations, and firmly believe that there is nothing at all done by the creature, but the Lord is the first efficient cause thereof, and produceth it immediately, immediatione suppositi: for he is every where; and immediatione virtutis suae infinitae, Greg. de Val. tom. 1. d. 8. q. 1. p. 2. And our Bradwardine laie's down these three Conclusions, and proves them: First, no creature at all can work without God. Secondly, no creature can make any thing at all, unless God by himself, and immediately doth make the same thing. Thirdly, yea more immediately than doth any working creature. de causa Dei, lib. 1. cap. 3. I may further confirm this Proposition by your own Arguments. God give's all things to all, Argum. 5. And it is God that hath the power and disposition of all things, Argum. 7.  
The Minor is confirmed, Hebr. 2. 4. where the Apostle teacheth, that several gifts, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, distributions and parting of his gifts severally to men are according to his pleasure. And, 1 Cor. 12. 11. he divide's not to some only, but to every man as he pleaseth, all gifts: not only the greatest & most admirable gifts, but those also of the middle sort; yea, and the meanest are the gifts of the Spirit, he worketh all in all. Heathens sottishly ascribed several gifts to several gods; some to Jupiter, some to Apollo, Mercury, some to Juno, Diana: but we have been better taught then so, to asscribe all to God the holy Ghost, who give's all to all. Whereby this Author is confuted, who affirmeth in answer to Mat. 12. 31. the acts of the Spirit, his ministry is not used but in things of the greatest importance.   

Seventhly, I add another Argument as a choice speciality under the general, concluded in the former Argument.  

He that is the Author of saving Graces, is God.  
The holy Ghost is the Author of saving Graces:  
Ergò.   
The Major is proved, because conversion, and regeneration (not to spend time in running through particulars) sanctification is Gods alone work. None can wash away the filthiness of the mind, but he that made the mind, Optat. Mil. l. 5. The Heathen shall know that the Lord doth sanctify Israël, Ezek. 37. 28. And is not this state compared to the raising up of the dead to life, and to a new creätion? Is not grace of a supernatural order, and by it the Saints do regularly move to a supernatural end? Every one of these of necessity require's the powerful work of a supreme Agent. A creature hath no more power to make a Saint of a sinner, than he hath to make of a vile lump of earth a glorious star in heaven.  
The Minor is proved; he is called the holy Ghost, because holiness is from him, per modum principii inhaerentis & assistentis, 1 Pet. 12. called the Spirit of holiness, Rom. 1. 4. and we are said to be regenerated by the holy Ghost, Joh. 3. 5. renewed by the holy Ghost, Tit. 3. 5. to be washed and sanctified by the Spirit of our God, 1 Cor. 6. 11. As there is but one soul in a man which quicken's all the members of the natural body, so is there but only one holy Ghost, which animates all the mystical members of Jesus Christ; and as Christ our head was conceived by the holy Ghost, so the mystical body is conceived by the Spirit of God. Every Christian, as he is a Christian, hath his conception and new birth by the holy Ghost. I might show this at large in the particular graces which are sanctifying; a catalogue of many of them we read Gal. 5. 22. and it is as true of the rest, which are not there recited, they are all of them the fruit of the Spirit.  
The Arguments which I have already recited, will, I hope, and conceive, give ample satisfaction to the Christian Reader: there remaineth another, grounded on the Word of God, to prove the Deity of the holy Ghost; which I will set down, not only because many eminent Protestants, and men of note of the Church of Rome, do rely on it, but because the Adversary hath, upon some plausible pretences, excepted against it, I am persuaded that there is scarce a good cause maintained, but it is proved by some weak and false mediums. It is acknowledged by Mel. Canus, and 'tis not contradicted by any, loc. l. 6. c. ult. that not only sacred Synods, but the Popes themselves may thus err; some of whose proofs may be so far from being necessary, that they are not fit nor probable to conclude infallible cathedral definitions of Faith. If then this Argument, which is in the rear and hindmost, should be cut off, (as the faint and feeble Israëlites were by the Amalekites, Deut. 25. 18.) yet even then were the people of God victorious over their enemies; so do not I doubt, albeit this Argument should be unproper, (I do not say it is, but if it could be demonstrated to be so) but some of the former, if not all, are unanswerable, and like invincible fortresses which cannot be surprised. Thus I frame the Argument:   

Argum. 8  

He that is a heavenly witness, and one in nature with God the Father, is God.  
The holy Ghost is so:  
Ergò.   
The Major is evident of itself, and not contradicted by the Adversary: the reason why I only name God the Father, and not God the Son is, because Mr Bidle will not yield that the Word is God.  
The Minor is proved by those words of S. John, 1 Epist. chap. 5. ver. 7. There are three that bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the holy Ghost; and these three are one: an express place, one would think, for the distinction of three Persons, and the Unity of nature in the blessed Trinity. I do take for granted, that the Person to whom this witness is given, is, that Jesus is the Son of God, the Messiah. The heavenly witnesses which give testimony hereof are three: the Father, at his Baptism, speaking from heaven, This is my beloved Son. 
The Son called the Word, for three reasons.  The Son of God, who is called the Word, either because he is the Person on whom the promises of God do run, God the Father promised him, so Beza; or because he reveale's the secret counsel of God touching our salvation, as we by our words do open the meaning of our minds to others: or because, in a divine, eminent, and ineffable manner is expressed to us, by a term agreeable to our capacity, that the Son of God so is, and was from everlasting from God the Father, as our first act and conceit, (which is our internal and mental Word) is, and issueth out of our understanding. For these or some other reasons it is that the Son of God is called the Word; and he bear's record to himself that he is the Messiah, partly, by his works, Joh. 4. 26. partly, by his Doctrine, Joh. 5. 18.— Joh. 6. 29.— 6. 37, 46. partly, by bis miracles, Joh. 10. 25. The holy Ghost bare record of him at his Baptism, when he, in a visible shape, asscended from heaven, and alighted on him. I argue from this text:  
This is hinted from this text, because the holy Ghost is joined with God the Father in giving witness, which is all one, upon supposition, that he is a creature, as to add a drop to the Ocean. It is true, that the Spirit is joined with the creatures sometimes in witness bearing. But Acts 15. 28. Rom. 8. — speaking by his Prophets— but those very texts do strengthen our faith touching the Deity of the holy Ghost. For the further confirmation, let it be considered, that all the creatures were made by J. Christ, and nothing was made without him. It is never spoken in the Scripture, that the holy Ghost was made by him. Colos. 1. 16. all things in heaven and in earth, visible and invisible, were creäted by him; and it is there added for illustration, that thrones, dominations, principalities and powers were creäted by him. The holy Ghost, had he been a creature, and the chief of all the creatures, would not have been omitted, but by name expressed, the holy Ghost, principalities, powers, etc. The Reader (if he please) may see more proofs of this point in the Answer to the 8th Argument.  
These three do bear witness in heaven; the meaning is not, as if the place where this record was given is in heaven, or to the heavenly Inhabitants, but this is a record to men on earth; nor is it a testimony which is given by the Angels: hence I draw a second Argument, If by the holy Ghost was not meant a divine testimony, or the testimony of God himself, than there are not only three which bear witness in heaven, as the text holds forth, and must be verified of three, but there are many more that witness Jesus is the Messiah. Before his birth, to Joseph, Mat. 1. 20. After his birth, to the Shepherds, Luke 1. 10. And a multitude of the heavenly host praising God for this Messiah. Glory be to God on high, ver. 13. At his resurrection, to those that guarded the Sepulchre, Matth. 28. 3, 4. and to holy women, ver. 5. At his Asscension, to the Disciples, Acts 1. 10, 11. and many the like.  
These three (saith the text) are one: these words afford another Argument. To say nothing, that if they had not intended unity in nature, but consent in witness bearing, there was no necessity of them; and the former words would have carried that sense, There are three that bear witness, the Father, the Son, and the holy Ghost, that Jesus is the Son of God. In this record they all agree; but because additions in Scripture are many times for explication or other purposes, I add another ground, The holy Ghost varying his language in this and the next verse, saying in this verse, that these are one; and not as in the next verse, that they do agree in one: doth not this lead us, by perpending the different language, to a different interpretation of the words? And to a more intimate, an essential unity in the former, which, as the phrase and common reason impart, cannot agree to the later.  
Advers. To this the Adversary takes a double exception; First, out of Beza, that the Complutensian Bible prefixeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to both verses; and the sense is the same in sense, as appears Matth. 19 5, 6. and aught to be rendered alike in both verses.  
Answ. 1 To the first I answer: Why should not we rather think there might be an addition in one Bible, than an omission of any word which comes from God in all the rest? that which is superfluous and not agreeable to the mind of God fully in the one must be razed out by the concurrent testimony of other Copies.  
Answ. 2 To the second I answer: That you pour out Oracles, and say, the later is after the Hebrew idiom, the former according to the ordinary phrase, and tell us very magisterially, both aught to be rendered alike, and yet you do not acquaint us how they ought to be rendered; and for your parallel place in Matth. 19 5, 6. to that I answer four things: First, albeit our English phrase is one in both, yet the exact Translations in Latin are not the same in both places; they religiously do, in their Translations, follow the Original, in unam carnem, or two shall be in unâ carne. Nor, secondly, is it so unanimously agreed on, that the sense is one and the same in both places; for the fifth verse may note out their state and condition before Marriage, and the sixth verse, after Matrimony, then are they one flesh, and so this later will be a consequent of the former. Thirdly, there is not the like reason betwixt these two texts; for I need not say, Ask the Scriptures, ask the Learned, but ask a very child, and he will tell you that man and wife are two distinct and separated persons, which may be at a great distance, in regard of place, and likewise in regard of affection: and none are so simple to think, when man and wife are one flesh, that they are one numerical and individual flesh. But now ask the Scriptures, and ask the Learned men, and they will tell you, that these three are one in nature, and one in essence. Lastly, there is not a parity, because in Matthew there are the same subject persons meant in both verses; but it is not so in John 7. 8. and therefore, albeit in sense the verses there did intent one thing, and no danger of translating both alike, yet here, in regard of this difference, the case is altered: thus then, as you see, besides the letter of the text, there are many Arguments deduced from it, which is not ordinary in other Scriptures, to prove controverted points, which do evidence this blessed truth, The holy Spirit is God.  
Advers. It would have been hard, if not impossible, if men had not been precorrupted, that it should ever come into any one's head to imagine, that this phrase, three are one, did signify, have one essence: for it is contrary to common sense; and to other places of Scripture, wherein this kind of speech perpetually signifies an union in consent and agreement; six times thus, John 17. but never an union in essence.  
Answ. 1 To the first I answer: That if I took any pleasure in invectives, which, I conceive, never did any good, you have ministered an opportune occasion for the dipping of my pen in gall; but here, and throughout my Book, I have satisfied your desire. I do forbear rail and reproachful terms, and I only say, Christian Reader, behold the Spirit of the man.  
Answ. 2 To the second; whereas you say, that our exposition is against common sense, I say, you writ as if you were in a dream. Cannot too be one in essence? That near and intimate oneness that is betwixt the husband and the wife; that nearness in consent doth necessarily presuppose the unity of nature, the same specifical, though not the same individual nature; and that oneness betwixt Christ and Christians, The head and the members doth likewise necessarily presuppose the unity of nature betwixt them both. Heb. 2. 14. we have flesh and blood, and so hath Christ likewise took part of the same, and he took on him the seed of Abraham: and well is it said in the Confession of Faith in the Synod of Chalcedon, Christ is coëssential to his Father, according to his Divinity, and he is coëssential to us according to his Humanity. Is not water in the fountain, in the river, and that which is conveyed by pipes to houses one in essence? Is not the light in the heavens, in the air, and in our houses, one and the same being.  
Answ. 3 To the third, I grant, that unity in consent is meant in part; but this unity of consent is in regard of the unity of the divine operation; and the unity of divine operation argue's the unity of the divine Essence. I grant, many things are said to be one secundùm quid; for as many consentanie Arguments as there be of the first kind; and as many as there be of the second kind which do arise of the first, orta Argumenta, so many fountains there be of unity, identity, and oneness. There are some that are one, as touching their understanding, will, work's; naturally one, as all men are partakers of humane nature; morally one, as loving friends; corporally one, as husband and wife; and spiritually one, as Christ and Christians are. No question of any of these: but will it follow from hence that there is no other kind of unity, an unity simply, more near than any of the former? You tell us, to be one, is never taken to denote a union in essence. Not to repeat what I have formerly written, I say, this is boldly spoken, and contradicted by our blessed Saviour, John 10. 29. I and the Father (saith he) are one: how one? In the former verses he require's they should believe in him, promiseth that he will give unto his children eternal life; and such is his divine power, that none can take them out of his hands; and useth the self same words in the next verse, none shall take them out of my Father's hands: and then saith, I and my Father are one; viz. in power, and consequently, in essence; for the power of God, and the essence of God are all one thing. This my Adversary, which denies this Assertion, swerv's not only from the plain meaning of the text, but shows that he hath less understanding than our very enemies of Christ had; for they collected, and that rightly from thence, that Christ professed himself thereby to be God.  
Advers. I omit (saith he) to speak of the suspectedness of the place. It's not extant in the ancient Greek Copies, nor in the Syriack Translation, nor in most ancient books of the Latin Edition, and rejected by sundry Interpreters, both ancient and modern.  
Advers. This text is so suitable to the matter in hand, and so fitly answering to the eighth verse in another kind, and so fully and distinctly confirming by these divine Witnesses, that fundamental witnessed truth, Jesus is the Son of God, and the divinity of the holy Ghost being in other Scriptures sufficiently demonstrated, that I can see no reason why this should be thought a counterfeit addition to the Canon: and I have reason strongly to suspect that you are convinced in your conscience, that it is a parcel of God's Word, because you do so highly pass it over with a Rhetorical figure: for the most compendious way to make a short work, had been simply to have denied the authority thereof, and to have plainly rejected it, as our Writers do the Apocryphal Scriptures which are alleged against them, to have strengthened your Assertion by the best grounds you could devise, and then in the conclusion to have named, as not much material, the Answer which you have most insisted upon. I deny not but Copies may be alleged against Copies, ancient and modern Writers against ancient and later, if negative witnesses have the same force and authority that affirmative have to prove the question; but who may we blame for this difference? We can suspect none, but those corrupted Fathers, in whose depraved steps you have trod. It's not to be doubted, but they have offered the like violence to this place, as they did to a text in S. John, as is witnessed by Ambrose. God is a Spirit, which they unconscionably canceled, and razed out of their own books; and I wish, did not blot it out of the books of the Church: this sacrilege was plainly detected. You might, saith the Father, lib. 3. de Spir. sancto, cap. 11. abolish sentences of holy Scripture, but you could not destroy the faith: Plus vos illa litura prodebat, plus vos illa litura damnabat (I add) quàm litera nocebat; and the rather, because I find this text, 1 Joh. 5. 7. cited by S. Cyprian, li. de Vnitate Eccles. which lived an hundred years before Macedonius the founder of this Heresy, when the Church was not pestered with that noisome weed, no nor with Arianism, whereby the Deity of the Son of God chief, and so the divine Trinity was directly opposed, and violent spirits might be emboldened to adventure on that impiety, because the sceptre was in the hands of Constantius first, and not long after of Valens, Arian Emperors.  
To these reasons taken out of the Scriptures, I might produce a cloud of humane witnesses, and begin with the Fathers, which lived before the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and allege the elaborate Treatises of those which then and after lived in the Church, and show how this error hath been registered in the black bill of Heresies by Epiphan. to. 1. l. 3. haer. 74. and August. haer. 52. Then might I descend lower to the times before and since the schism betwixt the Eastern and Western Churches, which albeit many points of faith were deeply corrupted, yet did they inviolably maintain even to this day, the unity of the divine Nature, and the Trinity of the persons: Then might I relate the consent of the reformed Churches, which have a sweet harmony in their several Confessions touching this point; but I know this Author, dreaming that he hath not only reason, but the testimony of the Scripture on his side, will reject them all, and say with Luther, though in a different case, The Word of God is to be preferred above all: that makes for me; if a thousand Augustins, a thousand Cyprians, a thousand Henricians (that is, English Churches ruled by Henry the Eighth) should stand against him, he would reject them all. And, as I remember, I have read one of the same brain with my Adversary, said, Luther hath pulled down the walls of Popery, but the foundation thereof (meaning the doctrine of the Trinity) remains untouched: therefore will I spare that labour in transcribing their testimonies. Yet let me mind you of this, that as the foggy smoke, which arose out of the bottomless pit, chief by Macedonius Bishop of Constantinople, about the year of our Lord 361. was happily dispelled by the light of the holy Fathers. They so sharpened their weapons, and so successfully used them, that they gave a deadly wound to those Monsters, as Epiphanius calls them; so I do not doubt, but by the good providence of God, the Schisms & Socinian Heresies, which do annoy the Church for the present, and every new started controversy will occasion that good, which hath been long since observed, viz. the more full discussion, and clearer discovery of opposed truth, and cause the sincere and approved Professors of God's cause to pray unto God more zealously for divine illumination, to search the Scriptures more diligently, to continue themselves together more firmly, and communicate their labours mutually more plentifully than they were accustomed to do, and put them on the labour of love for their brethren, with tenderness and compassion to strengthen them that stand lest they fall; and, like waking husbandmen, vigilantly to guard those fields of corn, where the instruments of the envious spirits are most likely to sow their tares. God's faithful servants are burning lights, the Adversaries which do top them, do burn, or at least besmear their fingers. But these lights do shine thereby more brightly; and I do hope, that as S. Austin said of the absurd Manichees, when they boasted (as all Sectaries will do) Veritas, Veritas, the Truth, the Truth, that sound Christians with better enlightened and clearer judgements then formerly, will be as able to say as it followeth in my Author, there is no truth at all in them. And, O that the seduced would make an hearty acknowledgement, we took that for truth, for divine truth, but now, blessed be God, we are convinced, and our eyes are enlightened to see it was but an error. I conclude as S. Austin did his fifteenth, the last, book of the Trinity.  
Domine, Deus unus, Deus Trinitas, quaecunque dixi in hoc libro de tuo, agnoscant & tui; si quae de meo, & tu agnosce, & tui. Amen.    


ARGUMENT 1.  

1 Argum. of M. Bidle.  
He that is distinguished from God, is not God.  
The holy Spirit is distinguished from God.  
Ergò.   
The Major is evident; for if he should both be God, and be distinguished from God, he would be distinguished from himself, which implieth a contradiction. The Minor is confirmed by the whole current of the Scripture, which calleth him the Spirit of God, and saith, that he is sent by God, and searcheth the depths of God, etc.  
Neither let any man here think to fly to that ignorant refuge of making a distinction between the Essence and Person of God, saying, that the holy Spirit is distinguished from God, taken Personally, not Essentially. For this wretched distinction (to omit the mention of the Primitive Fathers) is not only unheard of in the Scripture, and so to be rejected, it being presumption to affirm any thing of the unsearchable nature of God, which he hath not first affirmed of himself in the Scripture; but is also disclaimed by Reason. For first, it is impossible for any man, if he would but endeavour to conceive the thing, and not delude both himself and others with empty terms and words without understanding, to distinguish the Person from the Essence of God, and not to frame two beings or things in his mind, and consequently two Gods. Secondly, If the Person be distinct from the Essence of God, than it is either something or nothing: if nothing, how can it be distinguished, since nothing hath no accidents? If something, then either some finite or infinite thing; if finite, then there will be something finite in God: and consequently, since by the confession of the Adversaries themselves, every thing in God is God himself, God will be finite, which the Adversaries themselves will likewise confess to be absurd. If infinite, then there will be two infinites in God, to wit, the Person and Essence of God; and consequently two Gods, which is more absurd than the former. Thirdly, to talk of God taken only Essentially is ridiculous, not only because there is no example thereof in Scripture, but because God is the name of a Person, and signifieth him that ruleth over others; and when it is put for the most high God, it denoteth him who with sovereign and absolute, authority ruleth over all; but none but a person can rule over others, all actions being proper to persons: wherefore to take God otherwise then Personally, is to take him otherwise then he is, and indeed to mistake him.  

ANSWER.  
Answ.  
Major. He that is distinguished from God (say you) is not God.  
To this Proposition I answer, by clearing the meaning of it thus: He, that is, that person which is distinguished, that is, really separated from, and substantially divided from God, is not God. In this sense this Major is undoubtedly true.  
Let no man look upon the Proposition thus limited, as a forced evasion to elude the Argument; for it holds forth fully the mind of the Adversary: His opinion is, the holy Ghost and God do differ as much as a finite creature differs from the infinite Creätor.  
Minor. Your Minor runs thus, The holy Spirit is distinguished from God; for he is the Spirit of God. To this I answer both by denial and concession.  
First by denial, if the term, distinguished, be taken in the assumption, as it is intended and explicated in the Proposition; for the Spirit of God is not so distinguished from God, as a creature is distinguished from the Creätor.  
Secondly, I assent to the Minor, if it be taken in an Orthodoxal sense; for albeit the blessed Spirit is not so distinguished, as to be separated from God, yet is he distinguished from God taken personally, as of necessity it must be taken in this place, as appears by the proofs of the Minor: for the third person of the Trinity is neither the first nor the second person.  
Further, let us take a distinct view of the Syllogism, and I avouch it is either a false Syllogism, or it proves nothing.  
First, it is a false Syllogism, and consists of four terms, if the term [God] be taken in a different sense, as essentially in the Proposition, and Conclusion, and personally in the Assumption, it is a fault parallel to this reasoning.  

She that is distinguished from man, is not man.  
A woman is distinguished from man.  
Ergò, a woman is not a man.   
The word [Man] is a comprehensive word, and in the learned languages, and in common use, in Scripture, and amongst Philosophers, is all one with animal rationale, a reasonable creature. Take man thus in the Major, and take man in another sense in the Minor, as a term to distinguish the sex, and so the Syllogism consists of four terms.  
Secondly, I answer, if the term [God] be taken, as it ought to be, in all the axioms in one sense, than the Syllogism concludes nothing for the Adversary; for this must be the meaning of it:  

He that is distinguished from God, viz. from God the Father, or God the Son, is not God; viz. not God the Father, or God the Son.  
The holy Ghost is distinguished from God, viz. from God the Father, and God the Son.  
Ergò, He is not God the Father, or God the Son.   
This Syllogism thus explicated, is readily assented to by the unanimous consent of the Churches.  
There is a fallacious homonymy of the word [God,] which he makes frequent use of to abuse his Reader; which (like corrupt blood) runs thorough the veins of all his Arguments. If he knoweth not the meaning of it, his ignorance is to be pitied; if he knows it, and yet presume's to seduce the unwary, his impiety is to be detested. He well foresaw the usual distinction of God taken sometimes essentially, and sometimes personally in the word of God, would cut the sinews and strength of his reasons; and therefore this, as a great block, must be removed out of the way. This he calls an ignorant refuge, and a wretched distinction. Behold, brethren, the modesty of the man, whereby he discover's the bitterness and arrogancy of his spirit; a weak and wilful man, who never took degree in Divinity, nor ever was a Professor of that highest and best learning, magisterially condemneth millions of professed eminent Divines in this and former ages, for flying to an ignorant refuge, and for denying the truth by the help of a wretched distinction.  
But what, I pray, is this ignorant distinction? It is for making a distinction betwixt the Essence and Person of God.  
I entreat the Reader to take notice of the palpable darkness which he discover's, even in the same place where he accuseth his betters of ignorance, of making a distinction betwixt the Essence and the Person of God: But, my friend, was it your task to prove this? Do but review the parts of your Syllogism, and you shall find that they drive on this design, that a person is distinguished from a Person, that the Spirit of God, which is a Person, and sent of God, must needs be a person distinct from God that sent him. If you will say, you speak in the Person of your Adversaries, I deny, that any learned man ever expressed himself in that manner; if you can name any, let him bear his own blame. The distinction of God taken essentially and personally, differs much from that which is betwixt the essence and person of God, as in due place I will prove. Yet because my intention aime's at the benefits of the Readers, I will follow you in these your erring steps, to treat of the difference betwixt the Essence of God, and the Person of God. There is a real distinction, and there is a distinction in regard of our rational conception. The former is denied, the later is asserted touching the nature of God, and the Person of the holy Ghost; for albeit in created things, nature is one thing, and a person is another thing: (for a man is not the humane nature: Thomas is not the nature of Thomas;) yet in God, by reason of the absolute simplicity of his nature, the divine nature and the Person are the same thing, Thom. 1. Sum. q. 3. art. 3. yet is there a distinction of reason, as they speak; for there is one respect of the nature, and another of the person: for the nature, as it is the divine nature, is communicated to the person, and subsists in it; but the person is the very suppositum, in which the nature subsists, and which in this particular consideration is incommunicable, as the definition of a person evinceth, in which regard it is, that neither doth the distinction of the Persons multiply the natures in God, nor doth the unity of the nature confound the Persons.  
I return now to the distinction: God is taken either essentially, or personally, which I shall justify against his clamours and pretensions; for, if you demand, Hath he no reasons to write tartly against it? No sound ones, I am sure; but such as they are, I will now examine.  
Advers. This dlstinction (saith he) to omit the mention of Primitive Fathers. Sol. And I commend your art for this preterition; for no ancient Fathers can truly be named to favour your Heresy: the Fathers you omit are known branded Heretics. These you may name with shame enough; but others, I am sure, you have none to speak for you. Advers. But yet what ever becomes of Fathers, it's unheard of (say you) in the Scriptures, and so it's presumption to affirm any thing of God, which he hath not first affirmed of himself.  
Answ. 1 First, my just answer is, You are an Opponent now, and your bare saying is of no validity. Doubtless, if your words may be taken for oracles, you will carry the cause. What is your Nay to a world of Christians that do affirm it? It's as a feather laid in the balance, and weighed against a talon of gold. Prove what you say, or look for no credit to be given to your words.  
Answ. 2 Secondly, this distinction is heard of in the Scriptures, by necessary inferences and sound consequences it's grounded on the word of God, as I shall in the sequel demonstrate. And I have made good in the positive part by those many arguments which I have alleged to prove the Deity of the holy Ghost, and what is justly so inferred out of the word of God, is proved by the word of God.  
Advers. Reas. 1 This distinction, you say, is disclaimed by reason: First, because it is impossible for any man, if he will not delude himself with empty terms, to distinguish the essence from the person, and not frame two beings in his mind, and consequently two Gods.  
First, I observe a palpable and gross error in Divinity, couched in this reason, that a man must believe nothing touching God, but what he is able to conceive with his mind. God's unconceivable truths by way of comprehension in the creature, shall be no truths to Master Bidle, when they transcend the sphere of his capacity: whereas it is the honour of our faith to believe God's word, when it discover's truths, not only above our apprehensions, but contrary to our corrupted reason. Our reason, as now it is, may be a good servant, but it is an ill master in points of faith. Well, I see the Deity of the holy Ghost is impugned by this way, not because it is not clearly revealed in Scriptures, but because he thinks it a matter impossible, and so upon the point he denies the omnipotency and infinite nature of God.  
Secondly, if Mr Bidle cannot conceive hereof, who, besides his natural ignorance, is further blinded by the Devil, the god of this world, for being a professed enemy to the blessed Spirit of light, I do not marvel: but that he should take upon him to measure all the refined and sublimated apprehensions of the eminent servants of God, by his own dull and erroneous conceptions, is miserable folly. This hath been plentifully done by them, insomuch that, at the least, the footsteps of the Trinity are seen in many of the creatures, is the common opinion of Divines, Lombard. lib. 1. dist. 3. And those Schoolmen that writ on him, their Master, and hereto accord our learned Doctors, who ever at large have handled that common place, and most amply, that much to be admired and honoured Mornaeus lib. de veritate Christ. Relig. cap. 5, 6. I will not instance now in any particular examples; they are not, I grant, convincing demonstrations, but liable to the exceptions of a captious Adversary; yet the groundwork being firmly laid in the word of truth, and truly apprehended by faith, they are subordinate helps to yield some glimpse and sparks of light to the point in hand; and though I do forbear real instances in this place, yet I will allege an imaginary fiction, which hath strength to prove a real truth, and it is such a fiction, which is recited and approved by some of the Learned of both professions. Suppose a father begets a son, and communicate's to him the same soul and body which he hath still himself, and both of these should communicate the same soul and body to a third, here would be three distinct persons, yet the same essence in them all. But, you will say, this is impossible; for there must needs be three souls and three bodies in three persons. But now you deny that which I suppose; I say, if a father could so communicate the same essence to his son, and retain it still to himself, than would there be but one nature in them all: really, I grant, this is never done; because in finite substances the essence must needs be finite. But if we speak of God, because he is immaterial, infinite, and not capable of essential division, this is truly done: it's a received Maxim in Logic, Ficta similitudo probat fidémque facit, feigned similitudes prove.  
Advers. Reason 2 Secondly, If the person be distinct from the Deity, it is either something that makes the difference, or nothing; if something, it must be either finite or infinite, both of them are false.  
Answ. 1 To this I answer: first, by retorting this Argument against yourself. First, I propose the many essential properties of God, and I ask, Are they something, or are they nothing? are they finite or infinite? for I observe that you speak reservedly in this place, and tell us what we hold, not what yourself maintain's; and in your eleventh Reason I might justly suspect, that in your opinion the understanding of God resides in the divine essence, as in the subject of it; but however that is, if you resolve this objection, it's not unlike but you have answered yourself. But I will follow you more closely, the God whom you, with the deluded Jews and Turks, do acknowledge to be a Person, hath the divine Essence, and he hath the divine Essence of and from himself; and this makes a distinction betwixt the thing, and the manner of the thing: now, the manner of having this nature from himself, and no other, is either something or nothing; if something, it is either finite or infinite. I suppose, you will be put to your shifts, if you will be true to your own principles, to dissolve this doubt; you must plough with our heifer, I mean, make use of the knowledge of our learned Writers to unfold this riddle, or else it will remain unanswered.  
Secondly, if you should, as an unskilful Pilot, steer the ship to split it on rocks, to the loss of your own life, and of the passengers; if you should lay a snare to catch the feet, not only of the Adversaries, but your own too; this will afford no comfort to the Reader. I add therefore a punctual Answer: thus you object, That whereby the Person is distinguished from the Essence, is something or nothing. I grant, it is something, for it is not a mere notion devised by man's brain; for before a man was creäted, and if there were not left a living man to conceive of this mystery, yet there is a distinction betwixt them; for essence denotes an absolute substance, but a Person is referred to another; that is communicable, this is incommunicable; that is without original, so is not the person of the Son of God and of the holy Ghost; the person begets, is begotten, and proceeds, but the divine Essence neither begets, nor is begotten, nor doth it proceed; one Person is not predicated of another, the Father is not the Son, nor is the Son the Father,— but the divine Essence is predicated of every Person. To proceed.  
Advers. If that wherein they are distinguished (saith he) be aliquid, it is either finite or infinite. By this dilemma he think's to reduce us to absurdities: for the clearing up of this foggy mist cast before our eyes, Answ. it will not be amiss to show what is infinity: For any thing to be infinite is required that it be boundless and without limits, not in regard of mathematical or philosophical dimensions, for these have always actually their bounds of extension which they do not pass, but the infinity of God holds forth that absolute perfection which is in God, which is in itself boundless, in the highest degree actual and complete, and so this distinction of a thing to be either finite or infinite, is all one for substance with this distinction, though expressed in other terms. Every thing is either the Creätor or the creature; certain it is, the power of God is in itself infinite, and yet it doth not, nor can it produce an infinite creature, for that were to place a creature in the throne of God, yea, to make him a creäted God, which implieth a plain contradiction. Now God's Omnipotency is not conversant about things impossible, and repugnant to the divine nature. This brief declaration premised, I will now present two Answers to this Objection and either of them hath eminent Authors to avouch it. Christian Readers, consider well, and rest in that which you apprehend to be best.  
If it be something, you say, it is either finite or infinite. My first Answer hereto is by a direct negation of the disjunction, which doth not consist of the full enumeration of the parts: this distribution belongs to absolute positive things; every absolute and positive thing is finite or infinite, but that which doth distinguish the Essence from the Person is no such thing: the Person considered in respect of the Essence is one thing, but it is distinguished in regard of the manner of having this divine Essence; thus the divers degrees of white, in colour of whiteness, of light in the air, of heat in the water, are not whiteness, light, and heat itself, but they are affections of Ens; they are modi albedinis, lucis, & caloris: these different degrees are aliquid, yet they are not the qualities themselves; so is there aliquid in Deo, something in God (so I am forced to speak) which is not a divers thing from God, nor the very Essence of God, but modus Essentiae, which is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; so that the Person of the holy Ghost differs from the divine Essence, as the manner of the thing doth from the thing itself, and the Persons differ amongst themselves, as modi à modis.  
These divine relations, as they are opposed and distinguished amongst themselves, are infinite simply, as they are considered in genere Entis, in respect of the Essence which they do include, and so they are not multiplied, but one Ens. Hence is it, that the Father is not aliud à Filio,— nor is Deus triplex. Secondly, they may be considered in regard of the proper respects wherein they are opposed, and so they are infinite in respect of relation only, and in this regard it is not inconvenient to say, that an infinite thing may be multiplied: there are not three things, but three distinct Persons, Deus est trinus, and Pater est alius à Filio.— Hence is it also, that Schoolmen do approve, that adjectiva nomina in the concrete, because they do not signify a thing per modum substantiae, as the Substantives do, but only the number of Persons, may be attributed in the plural number to them: Thus, there are tres aeterne Personae, tres increätae, tres omnipotentes, creäntes, etc. If the first answer be too jejune, and will not serve the turn, I hope the second will give satisfaction to the Reader.  
Adu. Reas. 3 To talk of God (say you) taken only essentially, is ridiculous.  
First, because there is no example thereof in Scripture. Secondly, because the name of God signifieth him that ruleth over others; but none but a Person can rule over others, all actions being proper to Persons.  
Answ. 1 To the first of these I answer, by affirming that there are many examples of this distinction in Scripture. The name [God] is taken essentially, when it is not contracted either by the express name of the Father, the Son, or the holy Ghost, or when it is not limited by some circumstances in the text, which do infallibly lead us thereunto. And thus most frequently in the Scriptures it is taken; but than it is taken personally, or secundùm quid, in regard of a certain propriety, which points out a certain Person, which is sometimes God the Father, sometimes God the Son, and sometimes God the holy Ghost; or else we are guided to such a limitation, by perpending the text or places of Scriptures parallel to it. For instance, John 1. 1. the Word was God, and that Word was with God. In the first place it must be taken essentially, in the second personally with God, viz. his Father; thus Christ is said to be the Son of God, the image of God, viz. the Father.  
To the second I might take exception to your rule in many particulars, which is not true in any creäted acting things, which are not persons, no nor in the soul of man, which hath many immanent actions, both in and when separated from the body, which are not actions of a person. But let your rule be granted, as it relate's to this particular: actions are of persons, and not of the nature consideredin the abstract. So barbarous Schoolmen say, it is a man which doth dispute, not homeïtas. It is a horse that carry's a man, not equina natura, or equeïtas: this is only suppositum. But then I must tell you, to abate your mirth, that you give (through your ignorance) a false interpretation of the meaning of Orthodoxal Divines touching that distinction, as though they thought that God's nature generally, absolutely, and essentially considered as abstracted from God the Father, God the Son, and God the holy Ghost did rule the world: this is but a figment of your own brain. But when they say, God worketh this or that, God is taken essentially: they mean nothing else but God the Father, God the Son, and God the holy Ghost; and the government of the world, the particular instanced in, being a work ad extra, relating to the creatures, belongs to all the Persons jointly; this is a received Maxim of all Divines. Thus much of this Argument.    

ARGUMENT 2.  

2 Argum. of M. Bidle.  
If he that gave the holy Spirit to the Israëlites to instruct them, be Jehovah alone, than the holy Spirit is not Jehovah or God:  
But he that gave the holy Spirit to the Israëlites to instruct them, is Jehovah alone.  
Ergò. The sequel of the Major is plain: for, if he that gave the holy Spirit be Jehovah alone, and yet the holy Spirit that was given be Jehovah too, the same will be Jehovah alone, and not Jehovah alone, which implieth a contradiction. The Minor is evidenced by Nehem. 9 6, 20.   

ANSWER.  
Answ. I deny the consequence of this hypothetical Syllogism, which is not necessarily inferred, as it should be from the antecedent. I will not question the truth of your assumption; but suppose that the first Person is evidently meant, Nehem. 9 6. who is said to be Jehovah alone; yet will it not by the rules of Divinity be a necessary sequel, that the holy Ghost is not Jehovah or God, nor is there so much as a shadow of contradiction, as shall be evidenced; and they do know this well that are versed in these points. When you say Jehovah, or the first person is Jehovah alone, there is in the words a fallacy of composition and division, as the Logicians speak. And that I might fortify your Argument, and make it advantageous to you, if the exclusive particle had been added to the antecedent, thus, only the Father is Jehovah; yet were not your cause confirmed thereby: for, it is a rule in the Logician Kecker. lib. 2. cap. 4. exclusiva particula subjecti non excludit concomitantia: and he instanceth in this very example, Only the Father is true God, whereby (saith he) the Son of God and the holy Ghost are not excluded from being God, but creatures only. And profound Zanchius adds another example, Only Christ is the Saviour of the world, taken inclusively, all creatures are excluded, but neither the Father nor the holy Ghost are to be excluded from the great work of our redemption. Nor do we want examples in the Scriptures to this purpose; None know the Son but the Father: nor doth any know the Son but the Father, Matth.. 11. 27. that is, only the Father knows the Son, and only the Son knows the Father. And again, No man knows the things of God, but only the Spirit, 1 Cor. 2. that is, only the Spirit knows the things of God; as in the former place the holy Ghost is not to be excluded, so in the later, both Father and Son of God are to be included: Thus our blessed Saviour is described to have eyes like a flame of fire, and to have many crowns on his head, and a name which none knew but he himself, Revel. 19 12. let the mystery be what it will be which is intended by this name, yet certainly the Father and Spirit are not to be denied the knowledge of it: and many the like 
* 1 Tim. 6. 16. The King of kings only hath immortality: none but the Father knows the day and hour of judgement.  expressions we may read in Scripture, by which exclusive particle only such things are to be excluded, which are not one and the same in 
a Tertul. saith of the Son of God, he is individ●●● & inseparatus à Patre, in Patre ●●putand●●, et si non nominatus. advers. Pra●eum. So of the holy Ghost.  essence with the subject to which the exclusive particle is annexed. As if one should say, I believe in God the Father, who alone made the world; we must not conceive, that he exclude's God the Son, and God the holy Ghost from that great work of creätion: but only the creatures, which had no hand at all therein. This which I have spoken seems to carry some probability with it, and that one may not without cause suspend his judgement from concurrence with those Divines, which do commonly judge this proposition thus enunciated to be false, only the Father is Jehovah.  
To the substance of your Argument, as it is propounded by you, the answer is easy; Alone, both in the cited text, and in your argument, is referred to the later part of the axiom: Thus, the first person of the Trinity is Jehovah alone; this, I grant, is a very true Proposition, if it be rightly understood, and yet makes nothing at all for your advantage; because the particle [alone] doth not exclude any thing in respect of the subject, but only of the predicate: and therefore is clearly true both of the Father, Son, and of the holy Ghost. Thus, the Father is alone Jehovah, the Son is alone Jehovah, and God the holy Ghost is alone Jehovah: and the reason is plain, and unanswerable; because, albeit the Father is Lord, the Son is Lord, and the holy Ghost is Lord; yet are there not three Lords, but one Lord, saith the Athanasian Creed. I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is no God besides me: and it shall be known from East to West, that there is none besides me, and there is none else, Isa. 45. 5, 6.    

ARGUMENT 3.  

3 Argum. of M. Bidle.  
He that speaketh not of himself, is not God.  
The holy Spirit speaketh not of himself:  
Ergò.   
The Minor is clear from John 16. 13. The Major is proved thus: God speaketh of himself; therefore if there be any one that speaketh not of himself, he is not God. The antecedent is of itself apparent; for God is the primary Author of whatsoever he doth, but should he not speak of himself, he must speak from another, and so not be the primary, but secondary author of his speech, which is absurd, if at least that may be called absurd, which is impossible. The consequence is undeniable. For further confirmation of this Argument, it is to be observed, that to speak or to do any thing not if himself, according to the ordinary phrase of Scripture, is to speak or do by the showing, teaching, commanding, authorising, or enabling of another, and consequently incompatible with the supreme and self-sufficient Majesty of God. Vid. John 5. 19, 20, 30. ch. 7. v. 15, 16, 17, 18, 28. ch. 8. v. 28. 42. ch. 11. v. 50, 51. ch. 12. v. 49. 50. ch. 14. v. 10, 24. ch. 15. 4. ch. 18. 34. Luke 12. 56, 57 ch. 21. 30. 2 Cor. 3. 5.  

ANSWER.  
Answ. He that speaketh not of himself (say you) is not God I deny this your Major Proposition; for though in a sense the Spirit of God speaketh not of himself, yet is he truly and properly God: nor will I content myself with a bare denial of it, which is enough for an Answerer, but I will give you the reason hereof; nor need I go far for a proof, this Verse in John alleged by you, might have taught you this truth; for, the person here is called by an excellency the Spirit of truth: and which leads the Apostles and the Faithful into all truth, the heavenly truth of eternal salvation. This leading into truth, is all one for substance with that translation of others, shall teach you all truth. And that which is in the Hebrew, Psal. 86. 11. lead me thy way— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The Septuag. render it with the same word which the Evangelist useth, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— Now this is properly a work of the great God, and that which was long before foretell, They shall be all taught of God, John 5. 45. Can any thing be more plainly spoken? It is not denied but one man is said to be a teacher of others, Matth. 28. Go and teach all Nations: And this is done two ways principally, if not only, vel proponendo auxilia— Aq. 1. 117. q. either by proposing to scholars general helps, whereby the scholar is led, as it were by the hand, to the knowledge of unknown truths; as by general rules, sensible examples, lively similitudes, and such like, to help the understanding: or else, by strengthening the understanding of the learner, by showing him how he should deduce conclusions from principles; but when a creature hath done all that he can to the utmost of his power, he cannot infuse light into his scholars, and elevate their minds to apprehend divine truth. Let the Sun shine never so bright, yet a blind man cannot see it: and we are taught to call no man Master on earth, Mat. 23. So God alone is the fountain of illumination, he sitteth in his chair in heaven, who teacheth our hearts on earth.  
Object. Besides, if we consider the condition of the Apostles, to speak only of them, (though they be not the only persons on whom that promise runs) they were to be dispest over all the known Regions of the world; and if so, how should a creature be with them all, (as you do hold the holy Ghost to be) and assist all their mouths and pens infallibly in every place? Sol. Surely, to do so, require's not only celerity but ubiquity, which is a property of the true God, but incompatible to the condition of a creature, which is finite, as in essence, so likewise in place and operation. Nor will that shift serve the turn which is used by this Author, in answer (as he saith) to that grand Objection touching the Omnipresence of the holy Ghost, by comparing this with the Parable of the Sour, where Satan is said to snatch the Word of the hearts of hearers in ten thousand places at once, for this is fallacia non parium. The holy Ghost which dwell's in all the godly, and leadeth them into all truth, is one individual Spirit; but it neither is, nor possibly can be, one individual Devil, which acteth his wickedness in all the wicked ones at once; for there are millions of them dispersed every where in this lower Region of the world, full of malice, and policy to do mischief, and every one of them is a Satan: We read of the Devil and his Angels, but you do not read of the holy Ghost and his Angels, though (I grant) they are his Angels, as creäted and commanded by him, but not so as the Devil's Angels are his, as a superior creature having rule over fellow-creatures.  
I will once again propound your Major.  
He that speaketh not of himself is not God. This Proposition is not universally true: I grant, in this sense it is true; he that speaketh not of himself, but what he learns by revelation, and in time, and what he did not know from all eternity, he is not God; but such a kind of hearing from another hath no place in the holy Ghost, and therefore the Proposition, if it be taken generally, is denied; and the reason of my denying it is this, because it is a property of the Father, as to be of and from himself, the Fountain, and the Principle, as Divines do usually speak, though not properly the cause of the Son of God and of the holy Ghost; for than they should be effects, which sound's harshly: the Father is (I say) of himself, and communicate's the Essence and the essential properties to the Son, and both Father and Son to the holy Ghost, who is eternal, infinite, omnipotent, and omnipresent. Our learned Junius hath observed a threefold consideration of a Person; one, common in essence, as the Person is God; the second consideration, as it is singular and absolute in Person, as (saith he) it subsists in the unity of the Essence; the third is relative in the distinction and order of one Person to another, contra Bellar. Controu. 2. l. 1. Praefat. let the Learned judge of these, the last is to my purpose. Now, as the Persons do differ in the manner and order of subsisting, so likewise, though the outward action be the same, and common to all the Persons, yet in the manner of working we must conceive a difference. Give me leave to clear this received truth by solving the strongest Objections which are framed against it.  
Objection 1 Neither the Father, nor the holy Ghost, but only the Son of God did assume our nature, and this is an outward work; to this it is answered, that only the Son of God became man, yet the whole Trinity did frame, and work to the assumption of the humane nature: illustrated thus, Three do wove cloth to be worn of one of them only; inchoatiuè, it belonged to all the Persons; terminatiuè, it was personal and proper to the Son of God.  
Objection 2 If it be said only the Father spoke from heaven, This is my well-beloved Son, so it is said, not because all the Persons did not frame that voice, but because the words were uttered in his Person; the Father alone is said to speak those words, because they related to the Son of God, the thing signified did alone appertain to the Person of the Father: nor is this rule crossed by the apparition of a Dove. Objection 3 The holy Ghost alone descended, and appeared to the Apostles in fiery cloven tongues, because those visible Symbols did only signify the Person of the holy Ghost, which the three Persons, by one undivided operation, did produce.  
Mark then, albeit the work be the same, and 'tis from all the Persons, yet is there a difference in the manner of working: the Father, and the Son, as they are the Fountain of the Person of the holy Ghost, so likewise are they the Fountain of the operations of the holy Ghost. When we read this expression then, the holy Ghost speaks not of himself, we must not conceive that phrase to import any diminution of the Majesty of the holy Ghost, nor doth it imply that he is not God, that he is inferior to the first Person of the Trinity: hereby our Saviour would teach the Disciples, for they are his own words in John, that they should not think the holy Ghost to be greater than the Son of God, albeit his works in the hearts of his Apostles should be greater than those, which he, whiles he visibly conversed with them, had wrought in them. Nor should they think that the holy Ghost should bring any new Doctrine, but the truths taught by him, are the truths of God the Father; there is a plenary consent of the Doctrine of the holy Ghost, and of God the Father; that which the holy Ghost speaks from the Father, he had not in time, but by eternal procession from the Father and the Son of God. There is no diversity at all in the work, in itself considered, but the order of externally working answers to the order of the divine Persons: thus is the holy Ghost said not to work from himself, but from the Father and Son. By this which hath been spoken, his reasons are already answered; yet a word of them.  

Advers.  
God speaks of himself.  
The holy Ghost speaks not of himself:  
Ergò he is not God.   
Answ. There is nothing but homonymies in both Propositions; but I answer to this Objection: God, essentially taken, speaks of himself, and thus the holy Ghost, as he is God, speaks of and from himself: but if you take it thus, by a reduplication of the Subject, by a specificative limitation, the holy Ghost, as the holy Ghost, is not of himself, in regard of his Person, but from the Father and the Son; and in this regard speaks not from himself, yet is a holy, true God, blessed for ever.  
Advers. If God (say you) speaketh not from himself, he should not be the primary Author of his speech, but the secondary; and this is absurd, impossible.  
Answ. I deny the consequence; which is true, when we speak of causes subordinate to superior causes, or of instrumental causes; but the holy Ghost is not an instrument either separate from, or conjunct with the first Person. He is not inferior in dignity or power to God the Father, and God the Son; for there is but one divine Essence subsisting in the three Persons, which are not the subject of the Deity, for they are one God in Essence; and so the priority of the first Person is in regard of the order of working, without inferiority in the third Person, whether we regard the Persons relatively and considered, or the work produced by them.  
It is needless for me to spend time in examining the many particular places alleged by him; for some of them do directly speak of the creatures, and those are impertinent; for what call you this? The holy Ghost that speaks not from himself is not God; why? Because the same phrase is used of a creature: or else they speak of Christ, as God, and then they are already answered. I add, that some of those expressions are so far from proving Christ not to be God, that they do strongly evince the Deity of the Son of God. I conclude in S. Austin's words, Whatsoever the Father is, as he is God, as he is a substance, as he is eternity, the same is the Son of God, and the holy Ghost. If you will say, What riddles are these? I answer, How little is it that we conceive of God? We can have better apprehensions of God, than we can make expressions of him, and he is transcendently above both our apprehensions and expressions of him.    

ARGUMENT 4.  

4 Argum. of M. Bidle.  
He that heareth from another what he shall speak, is not God.  
The holy Spirit doth so:  
Ergò.   
The Minor is plain from the forecited place John 16. 13. The Major is proved thus: He that is taught, is not God; He that heareth from another what he shall speak, is taught: Ergò. The Major is clear by Esay 40. 13, 14. compared with Rom. 11. 34. 1 Cor. 2. 16. The Minor is evidenced by John 8. where our Saviour having said in the 26. verse, Whatsoever I have heard from him (the Father) these things I speak. In the 28. verse he expresseth the same sense thus: According as the Father hath taught me, these things I speak. Neither let any man go about to elude so pregnant an Argument, by saying that this is spoken of the holy Spirit improperly; for let him turn himself every way, and screw the words as he please, yet shall he never be able to make it out to a wise and considering man, how it can possibly be said, that any one heareth from another what he will speak, who is the prime Author of his speech, and into whom it is not at a certain time insinuated by another. For this expression plainly intimateth, that whatsoever the holy Spirit speaketh to the Disciples, is first discovered and committed to him by Christ, whose Ambassador he is, it being proper to an Ambassador to be the Interpreter not of his own, but of another's will. But it is contradictious to imagine, that the most high God can have any thing discovered and committed to him by another.  

ANSWER.  
Answ. I answer first in general, by distinguishing of this word [hearing,] which is the basis and ground of your Argument; and then will particularly apply it.  
Sometimes the Superior heareth the Inferior: thus, God is frequently said to hear the prayers of his servants made in faith.  
Sometimes the Inferior here's the Superior, and that is done many ways; not only by his bodily ears, but by understanding what formerly was not known: or, when the judgement is more perfectly informed in a point, before not fully known; or believing what, till that voice came, was not believed, or harkening to the counsel, or obeying the will and pleasure of God.  
Sometimes an equal here's an equal, as common experience shows.  
If we speak of the first acceptation, God's hearing us, and answering of us according to the tenor of our prayers, than I appeal to your judgement, and you must needs give sentence against yourself, that in this sense your Major is false.  
If you speak of hearing in the second sense, I grant your Major is true; because, so to hear argueth ignorance in whole or in part, forgetfulness, dulness, slackness, or plain neglect, if not contempt of duty, which we do all confess, are inconsistent with the infinite knowledge and transcendent excellency of the great God.  
If you take it in the third sense, an equal hearing an equal, than I deny your Major; for God the holy Ghost, which heareth from God the Son, is equal to him.  
Advers. The Minor (say you) is proved John 16. 13.  
Answ. My answer is, by advising that the words of the text may be well observed; the words run not thus, Whatsoever the Spirit knoweth, he will speak; but, whatsoever he heareth: and this is likewise spoken of Christ, John 8. 26. and 15. 16. Obj. This is not to be understood, as if the holy Ghost did hear any thing corporally; and thus is hearing properly taken, and for such a hearing, I suppose, you will not contend. Sol. Nor secondly, is it to be taken of hearing, viz. by revelation, by which hearing he should learn that which formerly he knew not. It's indeed spoken, that he was, that he is, and that he shall be; if it had been only said, he was, one might have conceived that now he is not: If it had been said, he is only, it might have been thought, that he had not been always. If it had been only said, he shall be, it might be thought he is not now. Time past, present, and to come are ascribed to God; yet not as to men, to denote a beginning, continuance, and end of time: for, actions are said to have been, which now are not, and that they shall be, which now have no existence at all: but when they are spoken of God, there is no limitation of time at all. God so hath been, that he is, and shall be: he shall be, yet so, that he is and hath been, and this is to be applied likewise to the hearing of the holy Ghost. He hath always heard, and he doth hear. And in the future time it's said in this place, he shall hear. This hearing, saith S. Austin, Tractat. 99 in Joan. is everlasting. He hath known, he doth know, and he will know. His hearing is his knowing, and his knowing is his being: he hath heard from him, he doth hear from him, and he will hear from him, from whom he proceeds, so Austin. And he calls the opening of this text, John 16. arduam, nimis arduam quaestionem. This be spoken to prevent that scruple, in that it is said, He shall hear. Some of ours clear the words thus, Whatsoever the holy Ghost shall hear, that shall he speak, which imports thus much, those things which the Father will have revealed to us, those things, and no other will he reveal to us; the truths which the Spirit shall reveal to us, are truths received from God the Father; the Spirit feign's nothing, he alter's nothing, he perverts nothing. The paraphrase of the text in the former Argument will dispel the foggy mists of this reason.  
Advers. The Major (saith he) is proved thus: He that is taught, is not God; He that heareth from another what he shall speak, is taught. The Major is proved Esa. 40. 13, 14.  
Answ. 1 To this I answer, if you had not been infatuated, you would have omitted that text in Esay; for it directly overthroweth your assertion, and expressly teacheth us, that none have taught the Spirit of God. But I answer  
Secondly, he that is taught properly, that is, learns what he formerly knew not, is not God, I readily assent; for God's knowledge is infinite, and cannot be increased.  
But how can you prove, that the holy Ghost is taught? by comparing (say you) John 8. 26, 28 together. Christ is taught by hearing. This is but a very weak bulrush, it hath no strength at all in it. This must needs be your consequence, in some places of Scripture, and not only so, but even in common reason, he that heareth is taught: therefore must it needs be so taken John 16. 13. Is not this a wild inference? That Scripture John 8. 26, 28. speaketh not of the holy Ghost, but expressly of Christ: and then it must be spoken of him either as God, or Mediator, man. If in the former way, than the text furthereth not, but marreth your Argument; if in the later, than it is unfitly alleged: for, albeit a created substance, by hearing another, may properly be taught, yet far be it from us to conceive, that the Creätor, the supreme God, can learn what he knew not.  
Advers. But (saith he) let a man turn himself every way, yet shall he never be able to make it out to a wise man, that any can hear from another what he will speak, who is the prime Author of his speech.  
Answ. Well, I see M. Bidle is a wise man in his own eyes, and all Christian men in the world besides himself, and a handful of seduced ones, are no better than fools; but if he had well prepended that text quoted by himself out of Esa. 40. 13, 14, 15. he would not have concluded the great God, the three sacred Persons, which are one Almighty God, within the shallow compass of his brains. I perceive he is always wrapped in the briers, and cannot possibly extricate himself, because he apprehendeth not the meaning of that common distinction of God the holy Ghost, as God: for, in this respect he hath infinite knowledge of himself, and of God the holy Ghost, as he is the holy Ghost; for so doth he receive knowledge and wisdom from God the Father, and God the Son; yet, I pray, let this be remembered, so as he was never ignorant: and life, yet so as he never wanted life: and power, yet so as he was never weak; because these persons, communicating essence to the holy Ghost, did communicate life, power and knowledge: So that the holy Ghost hath knowledge, not by learning, but by proceeding; and all the creatures which hear, and are taught, they are taught by the holy Ghost. And whereas he illustrate's, as he thinks, his Assertion, by a comparison taken from Ambassadors, which speak according to the will of the Prince that send's them: To this I say there are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, vast differences betwixt the holy Ghost and an Ambassador. An Ambassador, as such, at least in this employment, is a servant, and a subject to his Prince, inferior to him, commanded by him, personally separated from him, capable of new instructions to be imparted in his name to foreign Princes in his absence; but none of these do belong, or can possibly be applied to the holy Ghost, as he is sent from the Father and Son.    

ARGUMENT 5.  

5 Argum. of M. Bidle.  
He that receiveth of another, is not God.  
The holy Spirit doth so.  
Ergò.   
The Minor is witnessed by the aforesaid place John 16. 14. The Major is proved thus: God is he that giveth all things to all; wherefore if there be any one that receiveth of another's, he cannot be God. The antecedent is plain by Acts 17. 25. Rom. 11. 35, 36. The consequence is undeniable: for, if God should give all things to all, and yet receive of another's, He would both give all things, and not give all things, which implieth a contradiction. The Major of the Prosyllogism is otherwise urged thus: He that is dependent, is not God; He that receiveth of another's, is dependent: Ergò. The Major is unquestionable: for to say that one is dependent, and yet God, is in effect to say, he is God, and not God, which implieth a contradiction. The Minor also is evident; for to receive of another's, is the very notion of dependency.  

ANSWER.  
Answ. The Major, if it be general, as it ought to be, thus; Whosoever receiveth of another is not God, is false. For, to say no more yet, the Lord receiveth the prayers of his praying servants, he receiveth the fruits of his vineyard, Mar. 12. 2. he receive's not the persons of men, but sincere Christians, Gal. 2. 6. he receiveth the acknowledgement of his honour, glory, and power, Rev. 4. 11. And will you from hence infer that he is not God?  
If the Major be particular in sense thus; Something that receive's from another is not God. I grant the Proposition is true in matter, but asyllogistical, and so is unwarrantable in the second explicate, or first figure, and justly to be denied, as not sorting to your purpose.  
Secondly, I answer first in general, that these three Arguments, viz. to hear from another, to speak what he here's, and to receive of another, are multiplied words, not Arguments; they are like three dreams varied in forms, yet for substance they are but one. Yet I will say something in particular.  
One thing or person may be said to receive of another two manner of ways: First, by eternal procession to apply it to the holy Ghost; and by eternal generation, as doth the Son of God, he receive's the Essence, and, as they are called, the essential properties from his Father, who doth beget him, as from an  principle, to him who is generated. Thus is it in natural generation, children receive from their parents their being and natural qualities: it's evident, he that receive's his soul by infusion, receiveth at the same instant the essential faculties of the soul: and so we may say the holy Ghost, as the holy Ghost, whatsoever he is, or whatsoever he hath, he hath received from the Father and the Son of God, not as from an external but intrinsecal principle; and it may be said of the holy Ghost, as it is of the Son of God, that he hath life in himself given by the Father, Joh. 5. 26. How did the Father and Son give life? by active spiration. How did the holy Ghost receive it? by eternal procession. And, what is it to have life in himself, but to have it essentially, and to be life itself? The holy Ghost, as he is God simply considered, as he is the same Essence with the Father who is God, is (I grant) of himself, and hath from his Essence whatsoever he hath; but, as this is communicated by eternal procession, so he hath it from the first and second Person of the Trinity. We may see a resemblance of this Mystery in the creatures: thus Peter, as he is a man, 'tis from his humane nature, and so whatsoever in this consideration he hath is natural to him; but Peter, as he is a Son, receive's all from his Parents by natural generation: and thus, albeit the holy Ghost receive's from another, viz. from God the Father, and God the Son, yet is he properly and truly God.  
This is the first way of receiving from another. Secondly, a thing may be said, and it's usual, to receive in time, and from an external principle, as men do their being, habits of knowledge, etc. to be in potentia to receive, and therefore is imperfect, and in some wants: Such a receiving as this is (I grant) belonge's not to God.  
Advers. Now, to your Minor; the holy Ghost thus receive's, John 16. 14. Answ. I answer, if you will sound prove this Minor, you must produce some other Scripture; for this holy text will not serve your turn: it doth not say, as you pretend, the Spirit receiveth of me, which was to be proved; and yet, if it had so expressly said, it would not have supported your impious cause, as I now have showed; the text only saith, he receiveth of mine, viz. what is testified of me by the Prophets; and that is done, when, by the powerful preaching of the Gospel, he give's a clear testimony that Christ is the Son of God, and Saviour of the world, and chief he receive's of mine, to speak after the manner of men, when he bring's it home to the hearts of the elect by effectually calling and converting them, by raising up their minds to know the divine truths, and their hearts by faith to embrace them, by rectifying their disordered affections, by enabling them to confess, publish, and magnify the Lord Jesus with their tongues, and to conform their lives to those heavenly directions which Christ hath left us on record. Thus doth the holy Ghost glorify Christ, in that whatsoever the holy Ghost work's in our hearts, whether it be touching doctrine, remission of sins, or sanctification, he receive's all from Christ, and so dispenseth them to us. The Spirit washeth us from our sins, but by the blood of Christ: he he mortifie's sins in us, but it is by virtue of the death of Christ: he raiseth us up to newness of life, but by virtue of the resurrection of Christ, etc. In this consists the glory of Christ. And were you not blinded by Satan, you would be so far from perverting this Scripture to the dishonour of the holy Ghost, that you would rather infer from thence both the Trinity of the Persons, and the Deity of the holy Ghost. All that the Father hath (saith Christ) are truly mine, and what are mine, the holy Ghost receive's, not as a scholar, from the directions of his Master, as though thereby he learned any new thing formerly unknown: But, as the Son of God doth not speak from himself, but what he here's from the Father, no more doth the holy Ghost, but what he receive's from the Son; all three Persons working the same work in our redemption.  
Advers. He that receive's is not God, (say you) but God give's all things to all; to give all things, and not to give all things, is a contradiction.  
Answ. I answer; he that receive's in time by an external work of God, is not God. I grant it, but so doth not the holy Ghost receive; and the Scripture proofs which you do rely on, are impertinently alleged; for they do directly speak of God's creatures, as every one that looks into them must needs confess. Thus rather might you have argued for the Deity of the holy Ghost:  

He that give's all things to the creatures, is God.  
The holy Ghost give's all things to the creatures, as I have proved in my Arguments.  
Ergò He is God.   
Else (say you) he should give all things, and not all things, which is a contradiction. I see you take a great deal of pleasure very frequently almost in every Argument to reduce us to absurdities by contradictions (by such manner of arguing, to discover your folly this once for all) you may haply delude the simple and unwary Readers. But I do wonder, if you do not write thus against the light of your own conscience; for every one, who is any whit versed in Logic, knows this to be a received rule of contradiction, that it must be meant of the same thing, at the same time, and in the same respect; but now, to receive in one regard, viz. from all eternity, in reference to the Persons of the Trinity, and to give all, viz. in time to the creatures, is no contradiction: for both parts are true; but it is impossible it should be so, where there is a real contradiction. Now, because the ignorant Reader is only in danger to be caught by this fallacy, I will propound a like example to his, which may serve as an antidote against it.  
He that is taught, is not a Schoolmaster:  
M. Bidle is a Schoolmaster:  
Ergò He is not taught. This is true, or else M. Bidle must be a Schoolmaster, and a Schoolmaster, which implieth a contradiction. Will not every one be ready to say, he may be both a Schoolmaster, and not a Schoolmaster in several references; a Schoolmaster, in regard of his scholars, and not a Schoolmaster, but a husband to his wife, a father to his children, and a master to his servant. I should have been ashamed to put down such trifies in writing, had not the bold fallacies of the Adversary forced me thereunto.  
Advers. Lastly, He that is dependent, is not God; He that receive's from another is dependent: for, this is the very notion of dependency.  
Answ. I deny your Minor, if it be taken without exception; for dependency, if we speak not of that which is logical and notional, which is mutual, but of that which is real and theological, as we must: for this note's inferiority, subordination, and reliance upon another in fieri, as a house and a ship to be built, doth on the Carpenter; and in facto esse, when it is built, on the materials artificially compacted together: but to speak fully and properly, all things do immediately and totally depend on God, they do depend on the holy Ghost, who is God. But this can have no place in your Argument, where there is unity of nature, and equality of Persons: Thus rather and more truly you might have argued; He, on whom all things depend, is God. The holy Ghost is a person, on whom all things depend, by him of nothing they were creäted, and but for him, as God, they would be annihilated, and reduced to nothing. And whereas you say, it is the very notion of dependency, this we must take it, if we will believe it on your own words; for other proofs we are not to expect from you. In this, I say, you are mistaken; the notion of receiving carry's us to the consideration of giving: to give and receive are relatives, which doth not formally imply dependency, but relation. Albeit, I confess, to receive in time, as the creatures do, which have their being from God, denotes prodependencie on the Creätor. But what doth this make against the Deity of the holy Ghost? Nothing at all.    

ARGUMENT 6.  

6 Argum. of M. Bidle.  
He that is sent by another, is not God.  
The holy Spirit is sent by another.  
Ergò.   
The Minor is plain from the forequoted place John 16. 7. The Major is evinced thus: He that ministereth is not God; he that is sent ministereth: Ergò. The Major is undubitable, it being dissonant to the supreme Majesty of God to minister and serve another; for that were to be God, and not God; to exercise sovereign dominion over all, and not to exercise it. The Minor is confirmed by Heb. 1. ult. where the divine Author showeth, that the Angels are all ministering spirits, in that they are sent forth; as he before intimated Christ to be Lord, because he sitteth at the right hand of God. Thus David, Psal. 2. declareth the Sovereignty of God, in saying, that he sitteth in heaven. The Minor is further proved thus: He that receiveth a command for the performance of something, doth minister; He that is sent forth, receiveth a command for the performance of something: Ergò. The Major is evident to common sense, since it suiteth with none but ministers and inferiors to receive commands. The Minor is manifest by John 12. 49. The Father that hath sent me, he gave me a command what I shall speak. Neither let any man here reply, that this very thing is spoken also of Christ, unless, having first proved that Christ is supreme God, he will grant that whatsoever is spoken of him, is spoken of him as God: or can make good that to be sent at least may agree to him as God. The contrary whereof I suppose I have clearly proved in this Argument, showing that it is unsuitable to the divine Majesty.  

ANSWER.  
Answ. It will not be amiss, to premise some considerations touching sending, on which word the strength of the Argument depends, that so the point may be more fully cleared, and the Adversaries reason more distinctly answered.  
A Person is said to be sent either properly or improperly.  
To be sent properly, according to our vulgar acception of the word, requireth these particulars.  
First, that the Person sent be really divided from, and actually separated from him that send's him, this is evidently seen by daily experience.  
Secondly, it's required of him that is sent, that he moves from an ubi, or from place to place, which is a necessary condition, to expedite the employment about which he is sent.  
Thirdly, it denotes, that the Person sent is inferior to the sender, either in nature or condition, or both: as, when the Lord send's Men or Angels about his service; in this sense Princes send their subjects, Parents their children, Masters their servants.— And thus bodies representative, whether civil or ecclesiastical, may send some of their members about public affairs of Church or State, because the whole is greater than the parts thereof. And when an equal or superior act's for an equal or inferior in points of wrong and justice, charity and mercy, this is not done (unless upon a compact and mutual consent) by sending them, but by a voluntary condescension, or by the prevalent persuasion of equals or inferiors.  
But now, when we speak of divine sending, in reference to the Persons of the blessed Trinity, we must abandon all base and low conceptions, and raise up our spirits by the light of other Scriptures, to an apprehension of the excellency of the nature thereof.  
The mission of a divine Person may be considered, 
Divine Mission considered   
First, negatively what it is not; and then positively what it is.  
First, it denotes not a division or separation of the divine Persons; for this would necessarily imply the multiplication of the 
1. Negatively.  Deity, and destroy the unity of the divine nature, which is impossible.  
Secondly, it denotes not a moving from place to place, a change of place; for the third Person, in regard of the essence, is , and there is no place any where whither he can come, where he was not always present.  
Thirdly, nor doth it denote any inferiority or inequality of the divine Person, but in respect of the divine Person sending, they are one in nature, and coequal, and coeternal, touching their Persons.  
But positively, this mission argue's a distinction of the divine Persons. 
2. Positively.  The Father, in Scripture phrase, is not where said to be sent, but he send's the Son and the holy Ghost; because he is first in order. The first Person of the Trinity, he is of himself, and from himself, and the fountain of communicating the Godhead to his Son, and both the Father and the Son to the holy Ghost. And, as it denotes a distinction of Persons, so is it properly an external personal operation; for although mission, quantum ad principale significatum, is external; yet, ratione connotati, it's only in time. Halensis. And so the whole is called temporal; as, when a necessary thing is joined with a contingent, the whole is judged contingent; so saith our Countryman plainly thus: This mission is nothing else, but a new manner of the manifestation of the presence of the holy Ghost by some effect. And this is done either visibly, by some visible Symbol and external representation of his presence; as, by descending from heaven on Christ in the likeness of a Dove, or in fiery cloven tongues on the Apostles: And this was extraordinary; or ordinarily God the Father or Son is said to send him into the hearts of his children, by working saving graces in them, when he manifests his presence by spiritual operations. It's not in the power of man thus to send him; for all that he can do is only external, disposing by administration of Sacraments, obtaining by Prayer, instructing and moving outwardly by preaching.— The holy Ghost is sent in the use of these Ordinances, yet not by them, but by reason of internal grace, which God alone creätes in the soul.  
These conclusions being laid down, it will be an easy task to untie the supposed knots of this Argument.  
Advers. He that is sent by another, is not God, the holy Ghost is sent. The Major is proved, because he that is sent ministereth, Hebr. 1. ult.  
Answ. I answer, if the Major Proposition in sense be general, as it ought to be, thus, whosoever is sent, is less than he is that sent him, is false: he indeed that is sent by the command properly of another, is inferior to the person that send's him; but the mission of the holy Ghost, is (as I said) but a manifestation of his presence by some effect, which was actually in the very same place invisibly, and with the same persons to whom he is sent; it argue's the distinction of the persons, not the multiplication of the natures, or the diminution of the divine power, state, authority, or honour.  
Advers. You would prove the Major, because he ministereth that is sent. Answ. I grant the Major to be true, if it be properly taken, if ministering be taken for serving; for the holy Ghost is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the servant of the first or second Person. This to assert, is (I confess) an odious error, and though the phrase is strange and harsh, and not to be allowed, no not to say, that God is a Minister, à ministrando gratiam, not intending thereby to imply that he is under God, but above the faithful; yet two of our eminent Divines do so speak. And Ruffian in expos. Symboli saith, Deus justis ministrat ad perpetuitatem gloriae, & peccatoribus ad prolixitatem poenae & confusionis. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 exulet. I grant your Major.  
The Minor I deny; for whosoever is sent, ministered not. Be it granted, that whosoever ministereth, may be said to be sent, yet it holds not reciprocally, whosoever is sent ministereth; that proof out of Hebr. 1. is no proof at all. It is your ordinary fault to apply what is directly spoken of the creatures to the great God. The Angels indeed, which are ministering spirits, are sent abroad for the benefit of the heirs of salvation; but you cannot solidly from thence infer, that the holy Ghost, which is sent, is in the rank of ministering spirits. It is true of the creature, but you can never from thence conclude it to be true of the Creätor.  
If there be any pertinency in that which you allege touching our Saviors sitting at the right of God, it makes against you; for notwithstanding his sitting there, he is said to be sent: and whereas you say, Gods sitting in heaven note's his sovereignty, implying that the holy Ghosts being sent from heaven, 1 Pet. 1. 11. should note inferiority, this would be much for your purpose, if you could prove, which you shall never be able to do, that the holy Ghost, when he is sent to his servants to dwell in them, to sanctify, and to govern them, did leave heaven; God the Father, Son, and holy Ghost sit in heaven, and rule by a general providence all the creatures in the world, and shall he be said not to rule in heaven, when by his Spirit, which is there also, he by his special and admirable providence rule's in the hearts of his own children? Assuredly there can be no good reason so to determine.  
Advers. He that receive's a commandment (you say) doth minister: He that is sent, receive's a commandment, John 12. 49.  
Answ. First, I say an equal may receive a commandment from an equal by consent of both parties, as a Prince of another Prince, a brother of a brother, one citizen of another; so Christ, as the eternal Son of God, received a commandment of his Father, as one equal doth of another, and that was nothing else but God's counsel and decree to send his Son to undertake, as he did, and execute the office of a Mediator.  
Secondly, if by command is meant what a superior require's of his inferior, than I deny your Minor: true it is, that it is spoken of Jesus Christ, that he received a command of his Father; because, in regard of the humane nature, and as our Mediator, he was inferior to him; the Father (saith he) is greater than I am. But it is not where asserted in the Scriptures, that the holy Ghost was commanded by the Father; show us a text for this purpose, which, if it could be done, I can readily have recourse to the former Answer: I may therefore retort your own words. Let no man think what is spoken of Christ, as he is man, and Mediator, is to be applied to the holy Ghost, unless he can first prove he is not God.    

ARGUMENT 7.  

7 Argum. of M. Bidle.  
He that is the gift of God, is not God.  
The holy Spirit is the gift of God:  
Ergò.   
The Minor is plain by Act. 11. 17. Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift (meaning the Spirit) as he did unto us, who have believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, was I one that could withstand God? The Major, though of itself sufficiently clear, is further evidenced thus; He that is not the giver of all things, is not God; he that is the gift of God, is not the giver of all things: Ergò. The Major is apparent from Acts 17. 25. God giveth to all, life, breath, and all things. The Minor is proved thus; He that is himself given, is not the giver of all things; he that is the gift of God, is himself given: Ergò. The Major is undeniable; for otherwise the same would be the giver of all things, and yet not the giver of all things, inasmuch as he himself, a principal thing, is given, which implieth a contradiction. The Minor needeth no proof. Moreover, a gift is in the power, and at the disposal of the giver; but it is gross and absurd to imagine that God can be in the power, or at the disposal of another. Neither let any man here think to evade by saying, That not the holy Spirit himself, but only his gifts are imparted to men; since both the more learned Adversaries themselves confess, that the Person of the holy Spirit is given together with his gifts; and the Scripture putteth the matter out of doubt, if you consult Nehem. 9 20. and Rom. 5. 5. In both which places, the holy Spirit is said to be given contradistinctly from his gifts and operations: in the first, contradistinctly from the instruction flowing from him; in the other, contradistinctly from the love of God diffused in our hearts by him. Whence we may draw this Corollary, that if the Person of the holy Spirit be out of favour given to certain men, as the aforesaid places testify, than he was not personally present with them before, and consequently by the concession of the Adversaries, themselves, cannot be God, since they will not deny that God is always personally present with all alike. But I forestall the following Argument.  

ANSWER.  
Answ. This Argument might well have been spared, which is brought in to increase the number, and to make up a full dozen of Reasons. To give, and to send, to be given, and to be sent, are I confess, different much; but (mark what I say) God's giving the Spirit, and God's sendiug the Spirit, are really one and the same. God never send's the Spirit, but he give's the Spirit; and he never give's the Spirit, but he freely send's him to his servants. That respective difference betwixt them makes this Argument of giving the Spirit to be much weaker than the other of sending him, as will appear by the examination of it.  
Advers. He that is the gift of God (say you) is not God; because God is the giver of all things. The holy Spirit is the gift of God, Act. 11. 17.  
Sol. The Proposition, if it be generally extended to every gift of God; (as, if you will logically dispute, it ought to be: for if one were able to make an induction of every singular gift of God, and if there were one particular excepted) it would be virtually false. He that is the gift of God, viz. of God the Father, or God the Son, is God; for, it is not unusual in the Scripture, I must often put you in mind hereof, for the name [God] to be taken for the first Person of the Trinity, the second Person is called the Son of God, the third Person is called the Spirit of God: and the first Person is often so called, not because he is a higher God than God the Son, or God the holy Ghost, for they are equal; but first, because he is the first in order: and secondly, because he is the Person, by whom the Godhead is communicated to the Son, etc. Hence it is, because the Father hath original from no other, and is the principle of the Deity, he is simply called God; not the God of another God: for, if the Father had begot the divine essence, he might be called not only God, but the Father of God; but, because he doth not beget that essence, which is communicated to the Son of God, but the Son: therefore he is not called the Father of God, but the Father of his Son. And in proportion the like is to be spoken concerning God the holy Ghost, and the same order is to be observed of the works wrought in time. God the Father by the Son, and through the holy Ghost bestoweth ordinary, extraordinary gifts, as it pleaseth him; and these three Persons are coeternal, and coessential.  
If your Proposition be virtually particular, it proves nothing. Some gift of God is not God. It's true in this sense, no creäted gift of God, is God himself; but the holy Ghost is no such gift: he is a gift indeed, but an uncreäted gift, not lesser, but equal to the Father or Son that give's him. And though I yield the holy Ghost is a gift, yet your proof, Act. 11. 17. is not convincing; for to say nothing that some render, the same grace, by gift may very well be understood the miraculous gifts of the holy Spirit, which then 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  were bestowed upon the Gentiles. And we read, 1 Cor. 12. 6, 7, 8. that the gift, and the Spirit [the Giver,] are plainly distinguished. But let that pass.  
Advers. Whereas you would prove the Proposition, because he is not the giver of all things, that is given himself;  
Answ. In this there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, nothing sound in it; for I told you there was a difference betwixt these two to be given, and to be sent; to give, and to be given, is of larger extension then to send, and to be sent: for whosoever is sent, is given; but whosoever is given, is not sent: for, even God the Father, who is never sent, and who give's all things, as you will grant, yet give's himself in covenant to his children; he is their Father, and all his glorious Attributes are set a work for their good: for though one and the same Person cannot be the sender, and the Person that is sent, yet may the same Person be the Giver and the Gift. There is no difference in the thing itself, but in the different consideration of it, the Giver so called, as freely imparting himself some way to them, to whom he is given. And the Gift, in relation of the Terminus ad quem, yea, and we ourselus likewise, as we are bound, may give ourselus to God to be disposed of, and ruled by him according to his pleasure.  
Further, I say, by limitation of your words, he that is not the Creätor, Preserver and Giver of all things, viz. which are creäted, he is not God. This is true; but is this any thing for your purpose? Nothing at all. Nay, it makes strongly against you; for the holy Ghost is the Creätor, Preserver and Giver of all things: he give's life, and breath, and all things to the creatures. He is such a Gift, that he give's all other gifts; and so by this reason you might have sound concluded, that the holy Ghost is God: for that text, Act. 17. 25. speaks of God's blessings bestowed on the creatures. And you ought not blasphemously to have made use of it, to rob the blessed Spirit of the glory of his Deity. Apply now what I have related of the several respects of the Giver and the Gift, and you will easily discern, that your advantage which you would gather from a seeming contradiction to be a gift, and not a gift; to be given, and not to be given, is as good as nothing.  
Advers. A gift (say you) is in the power and disposal of another; it's absurd to think that God should be so.  
Answ. There are three words of near signification, munus, praemium, and donum. The two former, munus and praemium, are absolutely in the power of the Giver, and do imply, that they are a separate thing from him. That the Giver hath a propriety in them, and that they are inferior to the Giver. See Dan. in Lomb. l. 1. d. 18. Censura. But it is otherwise of a Gift: a thing is said to be given, which is either had or possessed from another, when either simply, or in a certain respect, it was not so had or possessed before. And so it doth not necessarily import any authority which the Giver hath over the gift; but it signifies only a free communication of that which is given: for he give's, that makes this gift to be had of another, whether he be the author or original of it, or not. Hence is it, as I said, that God the Father, when he comes to us graciously, and communicate's himself to us by his gifts, is said to give himself. And God the Son is said to be given, and to give himself for us, and to us: yea, and the holy Spirit also doth give himself to us, because it is an act of his free will and absolute power, to communicate his gifts to whom he pleaseth; so saith the Scripture, The Spirit blows where it will, John 3. And the Spirit divides to every one his gifts as he pleaseth, 1 Cor. 12. And this is further evidenced, because a righteous man hath God the Father, God the Son, and God the holy Ghost; (for he is a Temple of the whole Trinity) and therefore he hath received this best gift of all, as given to him by the most sacred Trinity.  
Quest. A scruple may here arise, since the holy Ghost is given, and that in time only; for it is a name of God which actually belongs to him not from eternity, but in time, as do many other. Creätor, Preserver, Lord— the power indeed was from eternity in God, and these do belong to him ab aeterno in habitu, Hal. because he is habilis dominari, creäre, praeservare, donabilis ab aeterno. But the actual denomination to be Creätor, Preserver, Lord, Gift, was not from eternity, when there was no creature, no servant, none to whom God was given. Doth not this concession (may some say) prove a change in God? Answ. No, it's only in the creatures, which in time have a being, and had none before that instant, or some 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 God's part they are not real, but in solâ ratione consistunt. This is illustrated by these similitudes: We say this is the right side, and that is the left side of a pillar, the right side or left side of the Equator; and by the death of a son, there is no change in the pillar, the Equinoctial line, or the father: but in the man, that turns himself this way or that way to the pillar, that cut's the line, and in the child that dies; and yet we truly say, this is the right side of the pillar, of the Equator: the man ceaseth to be a father, when his child is dead. The like is to be said of the holy Spirit: when he is given to us, there is no change in him, but the change is in us. The decree that the Spirit should be given to the elect was before all time, yet the real execution of this decree, as of all others, was done in time.  
Advers. To prevent a solution of his Argument, he saith, that not only the gifts of the holy Ghost, but himself is given, Nehem. 9 20. Rom. 5. 5. If he was given out of his favour, he was not personally there before, and consequently not God.  
Answ. To this I answer divers ways:  
First, ad hominem, if he comes personally to every Saint where he was not before; and is in this Saint in England, in that Saint in Germany, etc. Either the holy Ghost is divided from himself, which cannot be, or else, being in all Saints, he must needs be infinite, for you not where in all your reason's hint that there are many holy Ghosts; and it is a strange creature to admiration which can be in this place, and not in that which is contiguous to it, and in that which is far removed from it. This I do mention, that I might give an occasion to you plainly to discover yourself in such particulars as these are.  
Secondly, the weakness of this exception appears, because if it were convincing, it would prove God the Father not to be God; for he give's himself to his children. Why then should God the holy Ghost on this ground be no God?  
Thirdly, I grant in a good sense, that the holy Ghost, and not only the gifts of the holy Ghost are given, Luke 11. 13. And albeit many Divines do  in their expressions, yet all agree in the main point against you, that the holy Ghost was with all them to whom he is given before he was a gift to them, as touching his natural and powerful presence; and thus he is also with the very devils, reprobates, the elect uncalled, and all other creatures which are uncapable of this gift of holiness and of happiness. Yet the holy Ghost, when he is given, he is with the Saints in a new way, in such a manner as he was not present before: in this regard it is, that the Saints are called the Temples of the holy Ghost, and a Temple is God's peculiar, he dwell's in the Saints, and is graciously present with them, they have him present by faith, and other graces, when he is known and beloved of man. And this is not only understood of the gifts of God, but of God himself, whom we know by faith, and love by charity. Nor is it any marvel, that God should be present without any change on his part; for the bodily Sun, as we know, without any mutation in the Sun at all, is present to him that will open his eyes to look upon it. This is then your palpable fallacy, à dicto secundùm quid ad dictum simpliciter. The holy Ghost was not graciously present with the elect before their calling, Ergò, he is not God, or was not essentially present with them before. I abhor the consequence.    

ARGUMENT 8.  

8 Argum. of M. Bidle.  
He that changeth place, is not God.  
The holy Spirit changeth place.  
Ergò.   
The Major is plain; for, if God should change place, he would cease to be where he was before, and begin to be where he was not before, which everteth his Omnipresence: and consequently, by the confession of the adversaries themselves, his Deity The Minor is ocularly apparent, if (following the * advice of the adversaries) you will but go to Jordan, for there 
Abi, Ariane, ad Jordanem, & Trinitatem videbis.  you shall have the holy Spirit in a bodily shape descending from heaven, which is the terminus à quo, alighting upon Christ, which is the terminus ad quem, Luke 3. 21, 22. Neither let any man allege, that as much is spoken of God, Exod. 3. and chap. 20. and Gen. 18. For if you compare Acts 7. 30, 35, 38, 53. Gal. 3. 19 Heb. 2. 2, 3. and chap. 13. 2. with the foresaid places, you shall find, that it was not God himself that came down, but only an Angel, sustaining the Person and Name of God; which hath no place in the history, touching the descent of the holy Spirit.  

ANSWER.  
Answ. I except not against your Major, nor against the explication and confirmation of it; that God is , is religiously and unanimously acknowledged, because the essence of God is most simple and infinite absolutely, and so is the virtue of working infinite also: and, if it was not , it would be limited. It's a memorable expression used by Hermes Trismegistus, a Heathen, he compare's God to a perfect Sphere, whose centre is , and circumference no where. As the soul is in the body, wholly in the whole body, and wholly in every part of the body, albeit it's said to be chief in the heart or brain, because in and by those parts it perform's the most excellent operations; so is our great God wholly in heaven, wholly on the earth, wholly  in a divine and spiritual manner, not included in any place, nor excluded out of it, although he is frequently said to be in heaven, because there most conspicuously he manifests his glory and his goodness to the holy Angels and blessed Saints.  
I deny your Minor; for although the holy Ghost is said to descend from heaven, yet was he in heaven then, and  else. And there are divers circumstances in the text to convince what you from thence would deny, that he is God who descended, and that the holy Ghost was not personally contained within the compass of a Dove, real or in representation, because he did not assume into the unity of his Person this Dove; and if he had done so, yet would not he have been definitively or circumscriptively therein: nor can he be said to descend on Christ in regard of sanctification, because Christ even from the instant of his incarnation was full of grace. Nor was there any addition of holiness to Christ by the descent of a Dove upon him, but he represented himself in the shape of a Dove as in his sign; and 'tis not obscurely made out by the text, that he is God: for what was the scope of the Evangelist? why doth he relate this story? was it not to manifest that Jesus Christ, both by the voice of his Father, and this descent of a Dove, was publicly authorised to exercise his prophetical, sacerdotal and regal offices, to redeem the elect, and to reconcile them to God? The circumstance of the time may lead us to such a consideration; he is first inaugurated to this office, and then he begins to put it in execution: and so we see that the Father by his voice, and the holy Ghost by his visible descent upon him, did call him to this great work. None can send any Prophet but God alone, much less is it in the power of any creature to send Jesus Christ to redeem the world, Deut. 18. 15. See Luke 4. 18. Esa. 61. 1. Moreover it is never spoken of any Angel or pure creature, that the heaven was rend, and opened, as it is said hereof, Mar. 1. 10. this was a symbol of the singular presence of God, whereby we may learn that this Spirit was God's Spirit, yea God himself. Add that it is something that this Spirit whereof you do speak, descended on Jesus, and remained on him, John 1. 33. but where do we read that created spirits descended on, and abode on him? It is their office, we know, to minister as servants unto him, and to worship him, Hebr. 1. 6. Lastly, the same Spirit that descended on Jesus, did also lead him into the wilderness to be tempted of the Devil, Matth. 4. 1. Is it in the power of any creature to lead Jesus Christ up and down, especially into solitary deserts, and to this end to be tempted by the Devil? Well, if this circumstance fail, yet by other circumstances in the text it's clear enough, that S. Austin with good reason did say, Go thou Arian to Jordane, and there thou shalt see the Trinity.  
I add, if there be any sense of the Deity in you, consider I pray, of your (shall I call it) extreme blindness, or rather abominable impiety, which you discover by this your Argument. Why so? the Prophet David saith, that he could not go any where from the presence of God's Spirit, Psal. 139. But if you say true, suppose we, that you could have taken the wings of the morning, and remove, as the light of the Sun doth (as it were) transfuse itself from East to West in the turning of a hand, the Spirit of the Lord would be no where with you in these inferior parts of the world; and if you could have ascended into heaven, & have had a glorified soul, & have been able to view all those heavenly mansions, when the holy Ghost descended down from heaven, you could not (if you say true) have found him there. Besides, by this your reasoning, there could not then have been one Saint on earth, in whom the holy Spirit did dwell, who was enlightened, purified, comforted, strengthened and guided by the holy Ghost; for, if notwithstanding the descending of the holy Ghost in this likeness, this admirable action was no hindrance why the holy Ghost should not be in every Saint, what reason can be alleged, why, albeit he thus descended from heaven, he should not be still essentially in heaven? Surely the divinity which you would teach us is odious divinity, and if you literally press the very words against the ubiquity of the holy Ghost, might not an Atheist as strongly argue, and with as good reason as you do, that God is not on earth, he is confined within the circles of the heaven, Why? because the Father spoke from heaven, This is my well-beloved Son. But what shift can you make to elude the words of the Psalmist, and be true and constant to your own Argument? God bowed the heavens, and came down, Psal. 18. 9 Here is in your own language terminus à quo, he came from heaven; and terminus ad quem, he came to the preservation of his children, and the destruction of his enemies. And, if I sinfully would dally with Scripture, I might press you sore with the next verse, He road upon a Cherub, and did fly, yea he did fly upon the wings of the wind. And doth the supreme Majesty remove from place to place? Yea, and the Lord himself said, Bring the Officers to the Tabernacle of the Congregation, and I will come down, and talk with them there, Numb. 11. 16, 17. What should I speak of that gracious promise of Christ, If any man keep my words, I and the Father will come unto him, and abide with him, John 14. 23. What mean's the Lord's leaving of his children for a time, and that threatening, I will go to my place, Hos. 5. 15. These and many like expressions to these in God's word might be as strong to conclude as yours, that the supreme Majesty changeth place, which is transcendently absurd.  
Nor do we want in Scripture visible demonstrations of the like presence of God to this of the Dove. Was not the pillar of fire to conduct the Israëlites in the wilderness, which moved ocularly from place to place visible sign of the Lords presence? what else was the meaning of the Lord's threatening in his wrath that he would give over the people to Moses, and to the conduct of an Angel contradistinct from God himself, that he would withdraw the sign of his presence from them, Exod. 32. 34. as after he did, Exod. 33. And what now doth the great God go from place to place? And was it not the Lord that passed by, and was not in the great wind, nor in the earthquake, nor in the fire, but in the soft voice that spoke to Elias the Prophet, 1 Kin. 19 15. Much more in this kind might be alleged, but this is enough to show the weakness and impiety of this Adversary, who denieth the Deity of the holy Ghost by no better argument than what would prove the supreme Majesty, by himself so acknowledged, to be no true God at all.  
Advers. Nor will that evasion serve your turn to say, that when we read of Gods appearing, it's meant of an Angel, as appears, by comparing texts in the Old Testament which speak of God, to be meant of Angels, Exod. 3. with Acts 7. 30.  
Answ. I answer first, that hereby you have weakened your own Argument: Do not you see, that if you are right in this answer, that by analogy we also might retort your Argument against yourself in this manner, that albeit the holy Ghost is said to descend in the shape of a Dove, yet it was but a created Angel, which represented his Person, and appeared in the name of the holy Ghost.  
Secondly, if it were yielded to you, that an Angel, as God's messenger, sometimes spoke in the name of God, must it needs therefore be so in all places of the Scriptures? And if not in all, your Argument is gone.  
Thirdly, nor will this follow it was an Angel that spoke to Moses out of the Bush, Ergò it was not Jehovah the Lord. This consequence is as weak as water: it was an Angel indeed, but an uncreated Angel, the Angel of the Covenant, so called Malipiero 3. 1. that Angel which wrestled with Jacob, and was invocated by Jacob, Hos. 12. 3, 4. And are creatures in your divinity the object of religious invocation? That Angel which redeemed Jacob out of all evil, and blessed him, Gen. 48. 16. who can do so but God alone? And why else should Moses mention the good will of him that dwelled in the Bush? Deut. 33. 16. And what was the meaning of that in S. Paul? the stiffnecked Israëlites tempted Christ in the wilderness, 1 Corinth. 10. And the expressions there used do fitly agree to the Angel of the Covenant, but not to a created Angel. I am the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. And he sent Moses to deliver the Israëlites out of Egypt. I have seen, I have seen the affliction of my people. And he calls himself by the proper name of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I will he that I will be. It's a name full of mysteries, and note's the eternal and immutable essence of God, and that in time, as great Clerks have from thence collected. This eternal and immutable God would become man: and if there be any strength in the testimony of the ancient Fathers, Justin. Apol. 2. ad Antonin. Irenae. adv. Haeres. l. 4. c. 11. Tertul. adver. Praxeam, they will give their suffrages for us. To name no more.  
Advers. The three men, Gen. 18. were three Angels which appeared to Abraham, and he entertained Angels, Hebr. 13. 2.  
Answ. Who would imagine, if he did not see it, that any man would raise such a high structure upon so weak a foundation! Two of them were created Angels, the text saith so; but it doth not say, that all three were creatures: they all appeared like men, and so Abraham at first sight took them to be, but one of them was the Angel of the Covenant, Jehovah, for so he is called Gen. 18. 13. God reveale's to Abraham what he will do to Sodom, Ver. 18. and Abraham acknowledged him to be the Lord, and Judge of all the earth, which is not the office, as you will grant, of a created Angel, but of the Son of God, and that it was in his power to save and destroy Sodom. Here then the Lord appears in the shape of a man, and this shape is moved from place to place, which clearly overthroweth your Argument.  
Advers. Exod. 20. compared with Act. 7. 53. Galat. 3. 19 Hebr. 2. 2. an Angel spoke, and yet God is said to speak; Ergò, the Angel spoke in the Person of God.  
Answ. First, I answer by concession, admit that your exposition touching the speaking of the Law by Angels, be sound by those texts in the New Testament, yet there will be enough remaining in the text to enervate your Argument; for, did not God come down then? was there not a manifestation of God's glory and severity? Did not Moses speak with the Lord face to face, insomuch that his face did glister, and was glorious? Did not God himself write the Law in the two Tables, and give them to Moses? Did not he see the back parts of God, a glimpse of his glory? Sith these things cannot be denied, the Argument will remain strong against you, albeit the holy Angels were God's instruments of pronouncing the Law. And why should it be a thing incredible for any man to believe, that God may visibly manifest his presence either in wrath or mercy? for can an Angel appear in a visible form, and frame a voice, and shall this with any colour of reason be denied to God Almighty?  
Nor is it clearly proved by those cited Scriptures, that Angels spoke the words of the Law in the Person of God.  
For first, was it ever heard that any Ambassador, when he hath audience of a foreign Prince, deliver's his embassage otherwise then in the third person; he saith not, I say so, but my Prince saith thus and thus. And have not we an evident testimony hereof in the holy Prophets, which deliver not their message to God's people in their own names, but thus saith the Lord. Yea and the holy Angels themselves in their visions declare that they are sent, Dan. 9 And they likewise by some circumstance or other make it appear, that they speak in the Name of the Lord. And S. Paul saith to this purpose pertinently and expressly, that when the Law was delivered, it was the voice not of a created Angel, but of Christ, that did shake the earth, and men on earth, Hebr. 12. 26. Besides, there is mention made of Angels in the promulgation of the Law; the Word was spoken by Angels, he saith not by an Angel: how this can be verified in them, sigh there were not many speeches, not many voices, but one distinct audible voice, is hard to be conceived.  
Particularly in the two first places it is not said, that the Law was spoken by Angels, but ordained by Angels: and so it might be, because holy Angels were attendants on the great God, and instruments to shake the earth, to raise thunder and lightning, etc. because they were witnesses and approvers of the delivery thereof, in which sense it is said, that the Saints shall judge the world, not by pronouncing, but by approving the sentence of Christ, 1 Cor. 6. And for that place in the Hebrews, might it not relate to the words of the Law uttered at some other time? Or it may be, God's voice in the delivery of the Law was uttered and pronounced by the ministry of Angels, and they by an extraordinary way thundered out the words which God spoke to them to speak to the people; as a Scrivener may write and speak the words which are dictated to him by another in the person of that author, the principal author; as in marriage the persons to be married speak the very words from the Minister's mouth: but I had rather hear the judgement of another, then peremptorily in this perplexed case set down mine own opinion.    

ARGUMENT 9  

9 Argum. of M. Bidle.  
He that prayeth unto Christ to come to judgement, is not God.  
The holy Spirit doth so.  
Ergo.   
The Major is granted. The Minor is evident from Rev. 22. 17. compared with ver. 12. Neither let any man think to elude this proof, by saying, that the Spirit is here said to pray, only because he maketh the Bride to pray. For when the Scripture would signify the assistance of the holy Spirit in causing men to speak, it is wont to affirm, either that the holy Spirit speaketh in them, as Matth. 10. 20. or that they speak by the holy Spirit, as Rom. 8. 15. We have received the Spirit of adoption, by whom we cry Abba Father. But there it is expressly said, that the Spirit and the Bride say, Come; not the Spirit in the Bride, nor the Bride by the Spirit.  
I add what is pertinent to this head out of his 12th. Reason.  
Rom. 8. 27. The Spirit maketh intercession for us with groans unutterable, and he makes intercession for the Saints, according to the will of God, which proves the holy Ghost to be inferior to God, inasmuch as he is said to make intercession unto God with groans: which is not so to be understood, as if the holy Spirit was here said to help our infirmities only by suggesting petitions and groans unto us, and making us to pray (as is commonly, but falsely affirmed) for the very words of the context sufficiently refute such a gloss, since they say, that the Spirit himself, (not wee by the Spirit, as we have it in ver. 15. of the same Chapter) maketh intercession for us: but to help others infirmities, by making intercession for them, is not to instill petitions into them, but to pour out petitions apart in their behalf, as is apparent both from the thing itself, (since none can intercede for himself, all intercession requiring the intervening of a third Person) and by the collation of ver. 34. of the same Chapter, and by the 30. verse of the 15. Chapter, and by 2 Corinth. 1. 11. Hebr. 7. 25. 1 Tim. 2. 1. Col. 4. 12. Ephes. 6. 18. Neither let any man think to baffle off this Argument, which is written with a beam of the Sun, by saying that this is improperly spoken of the holy Spirit; for, besides that he hath no other ground to say so, but his own preconceived opinion touching the Deity of the holy Spirit, he ought to know, that the Scripture, though it speak many things after the manner of men, yet doth it no where speak any thing that argueth his inferiority to, and dependence on another. But this passage of the Apostle plainly intimateth the holy Spirit to be inferior to God, and dependent on him; otherwise what need had he to intercede with God, and that with groans unutterable, on the behalf of the Saints?  

ANSWER.  
Answ. The Major Proposition is undeniably true; for religious invocation, is an humble obsequiousness, and an enjoined duty to be performed to the great God; and doth necessarily suppose in him that praie's, first, inferiority of the nature of the party that praie's to the object of invocation. Secondly, indigency or want of that good thing which is prayed for, either in whole, or in degree, a defectibility or possibility not to have the good thing prayed for as it relate's to the person for whom the prayer is made. Thirdly, a disability, either to enjoy or hold what is prayed for, without the help of God: for, what can be more foolish (saith S. Austin) agreeably to common reason, then to pray to another for help, to do, or to have that which is in his own power to do and to have. Epist. 107. Now the holy Ghost is God almighty, and according to the Scriptures, give's to every one his gifts as he pleaseth.  
To the objected place out of Revel. 22. 17. there are many things which may be said to infringe the strength thereof.  
The Spirit saith, Com. Ergò, the blessed Spirit of which we treat, This follow's not: it is quasi à genere ad speciem affirmatiuè; for how doth it appear in the text, that this is meant of the holy Ghost? Why may it not be meant of an Angel, that Angel which was mentioned Ver 16? For first, you will not deny but an Angel is a Spirit; express Scripture and sound reason do show, that Angels are spiritual substances. Secondly, nor can you deny, that the holy Angels do desire the happiness of the Saints, and their fellow-servants. It may be you will say, than the text would have run in the plural number, the Spirits say, and not the Spirit. To this I answer, that S. John relate's only what was done by that Angel, which was sent by Jesus Christ to signify this revelation to S. John, Cham 1. ver. 1. and Chapt. 22. ver. 16. particularly mentioned. I would not have mentioned this answer, which I apprehended as possible, unless I had read it in Mr. Burroughs on Hos. 2. lect. 17. p. 606. as his own opinion. Readers, accept or reject this as you shall see cause.  
Secondly, there is another exposition of these words which you do conceal, and it is of a singularly-pious and learned man in the opening of mystical divinity, Mr. Brightman on the place, The Spirit (saith he) signifies single Christians, in whom the Spirit dwells, and the Spouse signifies the whole Church, and multitude of believers. Now, it is the desire of them all singly and conjunctly, that the Lord Jesus would come. If this exposition holds good, the Argument, as touching this place, is of none effect; but whether this be the meaning of the text, or not, I leave it to the serious consideration of the judicious Reader.  
Thirdly, to adhere to that exposition which is most common, and which you would disprove; (for we shall find, that common answers are usually the truest.) The Spirit and the Spouse say, Com. I answer, there is in the words a Figure, which they call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Hendiadys; and the meaning is, The Spirit speaketh by the Spouse, or the Spouse by the instinct of the Spirit, saith, Come, that is, the Spirit is the efficient cause, why the Spouse prayeth, Com. Nor is this a singular example for such a Commentary, for the like phrase we have in S. Paul, Gal. 4. 6. it is the Spirit that cry's Abba, Father. It is said indeed, that the Spirit is in their hearts, but withal, if you would play with these words, as you do on those in the Revelation, you might as fairly conclude your intent from them; for it is not said, that they, by the Spirit, but the Spirit in them cry's Abba, Father. Nor doth this text which you allege affirm that the Spirit abiding without the Spouse doth say, Come; for than you might have some colour for your gloss: Besides, this exposition ought not to seem strange, because the very selfsame expression is set down in the Scripture touching the holy Ghost, Act. 15. 28. It seemed good to the holy Ghost and to us, assembled in a Synod; the meaning is thus, It seemed good to us by the instinct and suggestion of the holy Ghost thus to determine. A place parallel to this in the Revelation, and sound reason will evince, that it must needs be so, because prayer is the gift of the holy Ghost, Judas 20. It is he that give's his children the Spirit of supplication, and if you will separate the Spirit and the Spouse in this holy action, you must needs confess, that the Spouse of Christ, without the assistance of the blessed Spirit of Christ, doth pray; if so, and when she doth so, such a prayer is a prayer of no account with God.  
Advers. This Author in his 12. Reason allegeth that text Rom. 8. 27. The Spirit makes intercession to God. Method reduceth this Argument to this place.  
Answ. There are two expositions of this place, and none of the Writers were so profane, to take the meaning of the text as you have done. Name the ancient Father, whom you do follow.  

Chrys. in loc.  S. Chrysostom, by the Spirit, understands not the person of the Spirit of God, but the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit. And they which had those gifts were called Spiritual men, or Ministers of the Spirit; and when in great anxiety and distress Christians knew not which way to turn themselves, nor how, or what to pray, then, as the Spirit of God came upon Jahaziel in the midst of the Congregation, & he delivered the mind of the Lord to their exceeding great comfort, 2 Chron. 20. 14. So likewise, in such a stress, some one of the Christians endued with the Spirit of prayer, stood up, and with much importunity, and with many sighs poured out effectual prayers to the God of heaven, which were profitable to the Church; this is a pious sentence in itself considered, but not fitly agreeing to this text, as our Junius against Bellar. acknowledgeth, and Paraeus in his Commentary on this place doth prove.  
The other exposition, which is the more common, is the sounder, and more consonant to the context: The Spirit prayeth, that is, the Spirit enableth us, and maketh us to pray. And if it be objected, that prayer is a gift, not only of the Spirit, but of God the Father also, and God the Son being an outward work, and so is common to all the Persons; yet is not the Father said to pray, not because he is not the Author of prayer, for so undoubtedly he is, but because he so give's the things prayed for, that he being the fountain of the Deity, receive's of no other, Est. l. 1. d. 20.  
The reasons of this exposition are these: Because by the Spirit we cry Abba, Father, ver. 15. And because it is said, the Spirit helpeth us against our infirmities, viz. of praying as we ought, etc. and the very words of the text will make this good, as S. Austin exhort's, intellige, etc. understand the words of the Scripture, and thou shalt be kept from blasphemy. The person that prayeth, sigheth and groaneth; the holy Ghost, blessed for ever, groaneth not: as he groaneth, so he prayeth; He is said to groan, because he makes us to groan, and so he prayeth for us, because he makes us to pray for our selus. Thus God is said to know, when he makes others know. Now (saith he to Abraham) I know that thou fearest me, Gen. 22. 12.  
Advers. None (say you) can intercede for himself, but this action require's a third person. Many Scrip heaped up.  
Answ. I deny this assertion. To intercede is a general word, and of that latitude, that sometimes a man intercede's for himself, and sometimes for others, as the occasion or text will hold out the meaning either to the later or to the former. And thus the Spirit interpellat, orat, (or as others translate the word) postulat, clamat, when he makes us intercede, pray, and cry to God; and those three words, as some say, are but one thing, called by different names, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, prayers, when we lay open to God our wants: the same prayers are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, because by our prayers we testify the desires of our hearts to God: and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, intercessions, because we do not pray diffidently and fearfully, but in an humble familiarity we speak to God, and do go boldly to the throne of grace. Com. in locum. The prayers which 
1 Tim. 2.  are intended, Rom. 8. 26. are of that nature, that whether they be directed to God for ourselus or for others, as we are bound to pray both for our selus and others, are intercessions, interpellations, or appellations, but yet they are not formally (as Schoolmen speak) the prayers of the holy Ghost, but they are his, as an efficient cause thereof, they are the prayers which the holy Ghost enableth his servants to make both for themselves and others.  
Touching the many Scriptures, which you have unconscionably heaped up together, to prove that intercession is always for another, I briefly answer, by freely yielding that in those places which you have recited, The prayers are made, or entreated to be made for other men; but will it therefore follow, that in all other texts which mention prayer, the Scripture is to be so expounded? Nothing less. And if by virtue of those words in the texts forenamed, a Christian had no ground to pray for himself, he must not then follow that maxim and approved rule, Charity begins at home, he must only pray for others, never for himself; for in some texts you have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Rom. 15. 30. Colos. 4. 12. and in some other, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as 2 Corinth. 1. 11. Ephes. 6. 18. which is such a dotage, as never entered into the brains of an advised Christian.  
Advers. Albeit (say you) the Scripture speaks many things after the manner of men, yet never what argueth inferiority and dependency on another.  
Answ. I grant this is a truth, when rightly expounded; it's but a begging of the question, or but a vain supposition to take for granted, that the holy Ghost doth truly pray, which is constantly denied. Your Conclusion is proved by a false medium, although it cannot be denied, but the Lord, not out of any power of ours, but out of a gracious condescension to us out of his free goodness, doth sometimes in the Scripture speak, as if we, base and feeble creatures, were able to encounter with God, yea and to overcome him, as Jacob wrestled with God, and he could not prevail over him, Gen. 32. Jacob, as a Prince, had power not only with men, but with God; and let me alone (saith the Lord to Moses) that I may consume transgressing Israël, Exod. 32. The prayers of Moses did as it were bind the hands of the Almighty, that he could not smite his people: and that is yet a higher expression Esa. 45. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Lord is, as it were at the command of the prayers of his servants, and many the like gracious expressions might be named, so that neither head nor foot, neither Argument nor Inference hath any soundness in it.    

ARGUMENT 10.  

10 Argum. of M. Bidle.  
He in whom men have not believed, and yet have been Disciples and Believers, is not God.  
Men have not believed in the holy Spirit, and yet have been so.  
Ergò   
The Major is plain; for how can any be Disciples & Believers, according to the phrase of Scripture, and yet not believe in him that is God? The Minor is proved thus: Men have not so much as heard whether there were an holy Spirit, and yet have been Disciples and Believers. Ergò. They have not believed in the holy Spirit, and yet have been Disciples and Believers. The Antecedent is apparent from Acts 19 2. The Consequence is grounded on that of the Apostle, Rom. 10. 14. How shall they believe on him, of whom they have not heard? Now if any man, to decline the dint of this Argument, shall say, that by holy Spirit in these words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is meant, not the Person, but the Gifts of the holy Spirit: He, besides that he perverteth the plain and genuine meaning of the words, and speaketh without example, doth also evacuate the emphasis of the Particles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which imply, that these Disciples were so far from having received the Gifts of the holy Spirit, whereof we may grant, that the question made mention, that they had not so much as heard whether there were an holy Spirit or not: Again, that the holy Spirit is not God, doth further appear by this very instance, since the Apostle, when there was so ample an occasion offered to declare it, (if it been so) doth quite decline it: For it is incredible that he, who was so intent and vigilant in propagating the Truth, as that casually seeing an Altar at Athens inscribed to the unknown God, he presently took a hint from thence to preach unto the Heathens the true God; yet here being told by Disciples that they had not so much as heard whether there were an holy Spirit, or not, should not make use of the opportunity to discover unto them, and in them to us, the Deity of the holy Spirit, but suffer them to remain in ignorance touching a point of such consequence, that without the knowledge thereof (if we believe many now adays) men cannot be saved. Certainly, the Apostle had greater care both of the truth of God, and the salvation of men, then to do so.  

ANSWER.  
Answ. This Argument, as the rest, is so captiously and ambiguously propounded, that I judge it expedient before I do punctually answer it, to put down, as I take it, three undeniable Conclusions; the one of them is touching the predicate, or later part: the other two touching the subject or antecedent of the Proposition.  
Conclus. 1 The first Conclusion, we are to consider of God absolutely, as he is plainly revealed in the Word, and accordingly acknowledged by all those which are in outward covenant with him, that he is true God, the everliving God, the only wise and powerful God, etc. Thus in the Chaldean language in Jer. 10. 10, 11. both for a caution and instruction to the Jews, when they should be captives there, 'tis said, The gods that made not the heavens and the earth, they shall perish. Or else we may conceive of God relatively, as distinctly to be apprehended to be God the Father, God the Son, God the holy Ghost. The former was always necessarily believed to salvation, but not the later; so peremptorily to avouch, is to cover the graves of millions with a stone of despair. For if the Sun shine's not on the mountains, surely the valleys are not lightsome. Bellarmine judging the Argument drawn from the word [Elohim] not sufficient to prove the Trinity of the Persons, amongst other things adds this, 
In l. 2. de Chr. cap. 6. no. 7.  that the Septuagints never turned it Dii. To this our learned Junius answers, the reason hereof is, either because they themselves knew not the mystery of the Trinity, or thought it not safe to propound it to them. And yet I grant that God never heard any but for his Son's sake, nor could ever any man make an acceptable prayer to God, but by the help and direction of the holy Ghost. The former was clearly revealed in the Old Testament, The Lord thy God is one Lord, Deut. 6. 4. and in many other places not needful to be recited; but the mystery of the Trinity was not clearly revealed, but mystically expressed, and in great wisdom we are sure. And if we will believe Theodoret and many others, l. 2. ad Graecos. it was so ordered partly, because the people of God then were uncapable to understand that depth, and partly, to prevent Idolatry, to which sin the Israëlites were very prone; for living amongst the Egyptians, then with Canaanites, and other idolatrous people that did surround them, and were worshippers of many gods, if they had clearly and explicitly heard mention of God the Father, of God the Son, and God the holy Ghost, here is the danger, that they would have been Tritheïtes, and have believed that there were three gods; yet was this mystery shadowed many ways in the Old Testament, lest it, being seen in the essential image of God, and evidently preached in the Gospel, should seem to christian's a new doctrine, or repugnant to the Old Testament.  
Conclus. 2 The second Conclusion, to be called a Disciple of Jesus Christ, and a Believer on him, I speak of actual faith, doth of necessity require that he should believe the promised Messiah was come into the world, I do not say, that it was always necessary to believe, that he was God, the second Person of the blessed Trinity; for I take it for granted, that in the infancy of the Church, not only ordinary Christians, but his choice Disciples apprehended not that divine truth: Nor do I say that it was absolutely necessary to salvation to believe, that Christ was incarnated, and that he was crucified for the sins of the world, for Cornelius, Act. 10. And it might be the case of many others then, and before those days, was in a good condition for believing in the promised Messiah, albeit then he pitched not his faith on the Messiah, as already come in the flesh; and that was, we may well presume, for want of sufficient instruction, for virtually believing on the Messiah, whom he explicitly professed not; yet I say, that he which is denominated a Believer in Christ, and a Disciple of the Lord Jesus, doth not only believe with his heart, but he doth also profess with his tongue, that the Saviour of the world was manifested in our flesh.  
Conclus. 3 The third Conclusion is, Believers and Disciples are of two sorts: Some there are that are thoroughly instructed in the Articles of faith; and others there are, which either for want of capacity, time to learn, or means of learning, (and these make their ignorance to be invincible,) or else for want of industry, or through their negligence to learn, are ignorant of many main heads of our Christian religion, which they might have known, and whereof they are sinfully ignorant: This is a received truth in the world, all those who profess the Name of Christ, which are distinguished from Jews, Mahometans, and Pagans, are usually, and may in a general way be called Disciples and Believers. These Conclusions being thus premised, the answer to the Argument will be a very easy task.  
Advers. He in whom men have not believed, is not God.  
Answ. I answer, this Proposition, if it be restrainedly understood, and meant of God taken personally, viz. for an explicit belief of the third Person, is not generally true, as it ought to be. Many there are in the world, which were not so far enlightened, and yet were Believers and Disciples of Christ, as is showed in the third Conclusion. But now, if the Proposition be meant thus, as it is explained, he that doth not believe in him that is God taken absolutely and essentially, can be no Disciple or Believer. I readily grant this to be a truth, he that doth not believe in one God, he is no Disciple; nor do I think that any worthy the name of a Christian ever questioned the truth thereof.  
Advers. Many (say you) were Disciples, which were so far from believing in God the holy Ghost to be God, that they never heard whether there were an holy Ghost or not, Act. 19 2.  
Answ. To this I answer, that those Ephesians were Disciples and Believers; for so the text calls them, but they were very children in knowledge at that time: they were converts, and baptised, for so saith the text, how ever Baptism is taken; and if properly, as it is most likely, either by John the Baptist, or one of his Disciples, they were not tam tincti, quàm sordidati, saith S. Ambrose: They than returned home to Ephesus, and wanted means at home of further instruction, as we may charitably judge, and probably gather, because that Paul and Timothy were forbidden to preach the word of God in Asia, Acts 16. 6. where Ephesus stood, but afterwards, as we may read, Acts 19 and 20. Chapters, the glorious light did shine forth to idolatrous Ephesus, by the long continued disputations, and many Sermons of Saint Paul: so that in what sense soever the holy Ghost be taken in the question and answer, these Ephesians were very much unlike to those Christians, which according to that scomma propheticum, Esa. 65. 20. were children of an hundred years old. And, as Espencaeus out of his own knowledge saith of an ancient and noble Gentleman brought up in the Church, and so his ignorance was unexcusable, that he did freely confess, that he never had heard whether there was an holy Ghost or not, in 1 Tim. 3. cha digr. 17. But I will reason with you.  
Either this ignorance of the Ephesians was vincible, or invincible; either it was sinful, or sinless. That there was an holy Spirit of God expressly revealed in the Old Testament, and by the name of the Spirit of God, yea and manifested by extraordinary inspirations and raptures, not only by the holy Prophets, but also to others which had not a standing calling to that high office. Saul and the Messengers of Saul prophesied amongst the Prophets, 1 Sam. 19 And that he is yet more fully revealed in the New Testament, you cannot deny, although you do boldly and wickedly deny his Deity.  
Well then, if these Ephesians never heard of the holy Ghost, either it was because they never had sufficient means to instruct them in that profound mystery; and do you think that this is very probable? for they had, or might have had the writings of the Prophets; and if they were baptised by John, doth not he expressly speak of the holy Ghost? Christ (saith he) should baptise with the holy Ghost, Matth. 3. 11. Or might they not have repaired to some Christians in some place or other for a further instruction in the faith? Or if they never heard of the holy Ghost, it is else, because albeit they had some means of knowledge this way, yet did they not regard them, or sufficiently profit by them. Take it which way you will, and in neither of the ways is there any strength in the Argument to prove your odious assertion; but it argue's clearly, that you are given up by the just judgement of God to strong delusions to believe lies. How could it else have entered into your heart to think, that the ignorance of a few untaught Christians should be a sound proof to overthrow a truth, which was unanimously embraced by sounder Christians? Shall God's truths be no truths, because some sinful and ignorant persons do not know them? Nay rather, you should thus have reasoned, since this was a divine truth preached by John the Baptist, and afterward more fully taught by Christ and his Apostles; therefore without wavering, much more without contradicting them, I will submit to their better judgement.  
The Argument, by this which is already spoken, is fully answered; yet I will follow the Adversaries steps, and gather up his mistake, for the better satisfaction of the Reader.  
Advers. If any shall say by the holy Spirit is meant not the Person, but the gifts of the Spirit, besides that he speaks without example, he evacuate's the emphasis, we are so far from receiving the holy Ghost, that we have not heard whether there be an holy Ghost or not.  
Answ. First, let the Reader observe how the Adversary is possessed with the spirit of giddiness, in contradicting himself. It's without example (saith he) to say the Spirit is taken for the gifts of the Spirit, and yet within three lines after he saith, we may grant that this question, Have you received the holy Ghost? may be meant of the gifts of the holy Ghost. And with the same breath he saith, (strangely forgetting himself) that it is without example to take the holy Ghost for the gifts of the holy Ghost. I add further, that it is clearly prophesied, that extraordinary gifts, as of prophesying and tongues, are called the holy Ghost, Joël 2. 28. Acts 2. 17. and in this Chapter, Acts 19 6. the holy Ghost came upon them: How this is to be understood, the words following do expound, They spoke with tongues, and prophesied, Ver. 6. So Acts 2. 4. thus John 7. 39 the holy Ghost was not yet, you cannot deny but he was in Person before that time, and that he was as touching sanctifying graces before. How then is it said, the holy Ghost was not yet? Of necessity it must be meant as touching miraculous operations, which were not yet bestowed on the Disciples. What can be more plainly spoken?  
Nor doth this overthrow the Ephesians arguing, and the emphasis of the words: for however the holy Ghost be taken, yet your Argument is not good; this only can be sound inferred from their words, We are so far from receiving the miraculous gifts of the holy Ghost, that we have not so much as heard whether there be any such miraculous gifts of the holy Ghost or not: And if the question moved to them was not touching the Person, and sanctifying graces of the holy Ghost, but only touching miraculous gifts, as 'tis most probable; (for they being Disciples might be presumed not to be ignorant, that there was an holy Spirit, and that he was a Sanctifier of his servants) then either their answer is impertinent to the question, or else they must needs return their answer in effect thus, We have not heard whether there be such miraculous gifts of the holy Ghost, or not.  
Advers. S. Paul would have taken the hint, which he did not, to have instructed them in the Deity of the holy Ghost.  
Answ. 1 First, to this I say, that this your pleading makes as strongly against yourself, as against the truth; for do not you also put a difference betwixt that prime created Spirit, as you do blaspheme, and his gifts? What then do you say against us, which makes not as much against yourself also?  
Secondly, how prove you that the holy Apostle did not instruct these Ephesians touching the holy Ghost? Is not this your pleading? It is not written, therefore it was not done; this is, say I, inconsequent: All that he preached is not written, and do not you see, that by this reasoning you wound your own cause? For can you show that S. Paul taught these Ephesians such a doctrine touching the holy Ghost, which you do maintain, that he was a creature?  
Thirdly, it is not to be doubted, but that he opened to them the doctrine of the holy Ghost, that he was God, and that he taught them, that holy graces are fruits of the holy Spirit, which none but God can give.  
Advers. Yet now (say you) we are made to believe that a man is damned, that beleeve's not the Deity of the holy Ghost. And so saying you think to aggravate our error.  
Answ. To this I answer, you are to know, that we make a great difference of times and persons; we do not despair of their salvation, which were in the state of these Ephesians, or of others now in the like condition, if believing in one God, and that Jesus Christ is a Saviour, and seeing their own sins and miseries, should rely on him for eternal life. And then (as the converted thief on the Cross) presently die, though they never heard of the holy Ghost, I would charitably judge of them, and conceive that God intended mercy to them by these gracious discoveries of himself to them at this time; but if God will graciously wink at such ignorance, and have mercy on them, this will yield no comfort at all to you, who have been bred up in the Church of Christ, and in our Schools, and have read the word of God; for you have wilfully shut your eyes against the truth, which is as clear touching the holy Ghost, as if it had been written with the Sun beams; and you have stretched your wits to the uttermost to pervert the plain meaning of the Scripture, as appears by your endeavouring to answer Matth. 28. and Acts 5. I may say to you, as S. Cyprian de Sacram. Dom. calicis, saith of some, which used not wine, but only water in the Eucharist, if any of our predecessors, either out of simplicity or ignorance, did not practise what the Lord taught us by his example, there may, by the favour of God, be pardon granted to his simplicity; but if we, which are instructed in his will, should transgress, we might not presume of the same favour. And the very like passage we find in Bede, used by Wilfride in a Synod or Conference at Stransholch disputing with Cotmay about a very trifle, the time of the observation of Easter. 3. lib. hist. Eccles. Anglic. cap. 25. And Luther makes an allegory on Deut. 19 they which err ignorantly, are like to those which imprudently and casually killed a man, such have the privilege of a City of refuge; but they which hear, and will not learn, are like wilful murderers, they shall be dragged from the horns of the Altar, and lose their lives.    

ARGUMENT 11.  

11 Argum. of M. Bidle.  
He that hath an understanding distinct from that of God, is not God;  
The holy Spirit hath an understanding distinct from God;  
Ergò   
The Major is clear; for he that hath an understanding distinct from that of another, must needs likewise have a distinct Essence, wherein that understanding may reside. The Minor is proved thus, He that heareth from God, and that at the second hand, what he shall speak, hath an understanding distinct from that of God; The holy Spirit so heareth from God; Ergò. The Minor is evident from Joh. 16. 13, 14, 15. The Major is confirmed thus: He that is taught of God, hath an understanding distinct from that of God; He that heareth from God, is taught of God; Ergò. The Minor is manifest from John 8. where our Saviour Christ having said in the 26th verse, Whatsoever I have heard from him (the Father) these things I speak. In verse 28. he expresseth the same sense thus. According as the Father hath taught me, these things I speak. The Major is of itself clear; for he that is taught, hath an unknowing understanding, since none can be taught what he knoweth already; and he that teacheth hath a knowing understanding, otherwise he could not teach another something; but it implieth a contradiction that the same understanding should at the same time be both knowing and unknowing of the same thing. Besides, that the holy Spirit hath an understanding distinct from that of God, is easily deducible from the words of the Apostle, 1 Corin. 2. 10. where he affirmerb, that the Spirit searcheth the depths of God, (as Rom. 8. 27. he intimateth, that God searcheth the heart of the Spirit:) but to search the depths of any one necessarily supposeth one understanding in him that searcheth, and another understanding in him whose depths are searched, as is evident not only by collation of other places of the Scripture, as 1 Pet. 1. 11. Rev. 2. 23. but even by common sense, dictating to every man so much, that none can without absurdity be said to search the depths of his own understanding. Whence the Apostle going about to illustrate what he had spoken of the Spirit of God, by a similitude drawn from the Spirit of a man, doth not say, that the Spirit of a man doth search, but know the things of a man, though his former words did seem to lead him thereunto.  

ANSWER.  
Answ. He that hath an understanding distinct from the understanding of God, is not God.  
To this I answer, by distinguishing and limiting the Proposition thus: He that hath an understanding really distinct, divided and separated from the understanding of God, is not God, if you take the Proposition in this sense, it's true and granted with an unanimous consent of all.  
Secondly thus, he that hath an understanding not really distinct, but yet distinguished modally, and that is in regard of the manner of having the understanding.  
Or thirdly thus: He that hath an understanding not really distinct from that understanding of God the Father, but in regard of our understanding, which is blemished since Adam's fall with much blindness, weakness; and take it at the best, it is but finite, whereas God's understanding is infinite, and so are those manifold essential properties in God, as they are called, which are many, not only in regard of the outward works, to which they do directly relate, but also in regard of their different respects, and our apprehension of them, and yet they are in truth all one even the divine essence, God himself.  
The Proposition taken in this second and third sense, is not true, and so it's to be denied.  
Advers. Now whereas you say in the proof of the Major, that a distinct understanding must needs have a distinct essence wherein it resides, and so as it seems you hold forth this as a truth, that God's understanding is in God, as an accident in a subject. I would be loath to father on you such a tenet, which you will not own; but this is either your opinion, or else you are to be charged for not writing so accuratly and warily to prevent mistakes, as is required in this Argument, especially a writer of controversies.  
Touching your Assertion, that the understanding resides in an essence, if we speak of a created understanding, you shall meet with contradiction to this opinion from the pens of most subtle Philosophers, J. C. Scaliger, and acute Divines, Zanchius— which will tell you, that it becomes the soul, in regard of the dignity thereof, to perform its acts by its own essence without the help of any accident, and that the several faculties of the soul (as they are called) are but as so many notions and formalities of the same thing. The soul, the understanding, and the will are the same thing; it's called the soul in regard of the essence; the same essence is called the understanding, as it apprehend's an object; the same thing is called the will, as it extends itself to enjoy the good thing which is apprehended convenient for it. But I will not contend about this point, which if it were granted, will not weaken the Argument. Be it granted, that a finite understanding is an accident, and really distinguished from, and necessarily depending on its subject; yet will it not be verified of the infinite understanding of God, whose Essence is most simple without all kinds of composition, from whence results a thing compounded as a third thing, of itself one, truly and really distinguished from the parts thereof. God hath neither integral nor essential parts; he is not as a species constituted of the genus and the difference; for God is the first and highest being: not the constitution of subject and accidents, not of act and potentia, for that would argue imperfection: For God is a most pure act: not of Esse and Essence, for the Esse of God is his Essence, and that Essence of God is his Esse; God's greatness is God's Essence; God's goodness is God's Essence; God's justice is God's Essence; and it's true of the rest. God is great without quantity; God is good and just without quality; God is merciful without passion; God is every where present without place; the first and the last; without time; nor is he compounded of Nature and Person, because the Essence of God is most simple, most infinite, most immense, and the same thing is both the Nature and the Person: nor is this overthrown, because there are three Persons; for they are not three by composition of parts, for the Persons are not many things, they are but one thing, though distinguished by relative properties; for the divine relation in God is not properly an accident, but a substantial attribute, and makes no real composition in God, but a distinction of our reason, which crosseth not the absolute simplicity of God no more than the same distinction of reason opposeth the absolute unity of God, because this denomination is , arising from our manner of conceiving of it, Suarez. Thus is he Deus trinus, by co-existencie of Persons; but the Catholic Faith teacheth us, that in creatures, the nature may be really divided from the person: thus the Son of God did assume the nature, but not the person of man.  
Advers. The holy Spirit (say you) hath an understanding distinct from that of God, because he heareth from God, and is taught of God.  
Answ. I deny your Minor, if you mean distinct really, as you ought to do, if you intent thereby to prove your Assertion. And your first reason, because he heareth from God, and is taught of God, is but an idle repetition of the fourth Argument. For answer hereto, that I may not be charged with needless tautologies, I refer you thither for your satisfaction.  
Advers. This (say you) is deducible from the words of the Apostle, none can search his own understanding, 1 Corinth. 2. 10.  
Answ. 1 If this be true, as you say, why are we then commanded to try and to prove our own hearts, to speak to our hearts, to examine our hearts, to consider our ways, yea to search ourselus? How should we comfortably know that we are enriched with saving graces, but by a reflexed act of the understanding, whereby we know that we have them? And are not our hearts deceitful and wicked above all things? Is there not great need then that we should search them?  
Or do you mean hereby, that the Spirit hath a distinct understanding from the Father and the Son of God, because he searcheth the deep things of God; what doth this else import, but an ignorance, till that is found which is searched out? Not so, nor will this help you; for God, who exactly and perfectly knows all things: yet do you cite a text, Rom. 8. 27. which showeth, that he searcheth the heart of the Spirit; yea further, it is his peculiar honour to search the hearts and reins of men, which imports thus much and no more, that there is nothing so secret in man, but the Lord both can and doth see the same most perfectly.  
For the clearing of the main doubt know assuredly, that there is the same understanding of God the Father, God the Son, and God the holy Ghost; nor can we truly say, that the understanding of the Father is superior or equal to the understanding of the holy Ghost: for these do always presuppose a comparison betwixt divers, which doth not agree to the unity of the Godhead; 
Advertite Fratres.  for, as we cannot say the power of the Persons is equal, nor the goodness of the Persons is equal, but the same power, the same goodness; no more can we say the understanding of the Father is equal to the understanding of the holy Ghost: But thus may we say, the Persons of the Father, of the Son, and of the holy Ghost are equal in power, and equal in goodness; so are they likewise equal in understanding: and albeit the divine understanding is but one and the same being, yet is it considered of us in a common way, as referred to the essence, but singularly in regard of the Persons. And hence is it also, that such phrases are spoken of the Son of God, and they are also truly verified of the holy Ghost, that he is a Principle of a Principle, very God of very God, light of light, a fountain of a fountain, when taken not essentially, but personally; so that the Son is a Principle, true God, a light, and a fountain, and so is the holy Ghost; yet the Father is considered first in order, and the Son from the Father, and the holy Ghost from them both.  
I add, that this text, 1 Corinth. 2. 10. is so far from evincing that the holy Ghost is a creature, that it strongly proves his Deity. First, because that he must needs be God, that knows whatsoever the Father knows; for how should a smite creature by search attain to the unsearchable depths of God's knowledge? As of many other things; so were the Angels without sin ignorant of God's counsels, Revel. 5. 13. and of the time when the day of Judgement shall be. Secondly, the Apostle compare's the Spirit of God to man's spirit, and the Spirit of God is in God the Father, and God the Son. There is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, circumincessio, as the Latins speak, whereby is signified the unity of the Godhead in the distinct Persons, that the Persons are so distinguished betwixt themselves, that they are altogether, and most intimately one and the same thing; and further, hereby is noted a peculiar manner of the original of one Person from another distinguished from that procession of creatures, as the Son from the Father, which is sejunct from the Father; and therefore it is called processio ad extra: but here it is otherwise, the Son from the Father, and the holy Ghost from them both, by a procession ad intra, because he doth intimè continue, and is not another thing from the Person from whom he proceeds: Singula sunt in singulis, & omnia in singulis, & singula in omnibus, & omnia in omnibus, & unum omnia. Hence may we conclude, that as the spirit of a man and a man, are not two men; so the Spirit of God, and God, viz the Father, are not two separated substances, but one God.    

ARGUMENT 12.  

12 Argum. of M. Bidle.  
He that hath a will distinct in number from that of God, is not God.  
The holy Spirit hath a will distinct in number from that of God.  
Ergò   
The Major is irrefragable. The Minor is asserted thus: He that willeth conformably to the will of God, hath a will distinct in number from that of God: The holy Spirit so willeth; Ergò. The Major is plain; for conformity must be between two at least, else it will not be conformity, but identity. The Minor is confirmed by Rom. 8. 26, 27. Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities; for we know not what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself maketh intercession for us with groans unutterable: but he that searcheth the heart, knoweth what is the mind (or will) of the Spirit; for he maketh intercession for the Saints according to (or conformably to) the will of God. Your other Argument, annexed to this, whereby you would prove the holy Ghost to be inferior to God, hath been examined in its due place, Argum. 9  

ANSWER.  
Answ. The Major, He that hath a will distinct from that of God, is not God. I grant the Proposition to be true, if it be taken in your sense for a distinct and separate will; for two such wills do necessarily require two distinct substances, to which they do relate.  
I deny your Minor. The holy Ghost hath not a will distinct from that of God. First, I say, this text doth not clearly hold forth to us any thing touching the will of God's Spirit. The original is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and in our new translation is turned, not the will, but the mind of the Spirit. Some render it the intention of the Spirit, and others the spiritual sense; and you know very well, that the primary signification of the word is thus to be translated. God knows the intention of the Spirit, or act of the mind.  
Secondly, let us grant what you cannot prove, that it is to be translated what is the will, or what is the desire of the Spirit. To this I answer, that the Spirit willeth and desireth, as he prayeth; it is a Metonymy, he is said to will and desire, because he enableth us to will and desire according to the will of God; God knows the intention of the Spirit, even as the Mother knoweth the crying and sobbing of her Infant; and so our secret sighs, which are infused into us, are known of God: our sighs indeed cannot be expressed by us, but the Spirit, which work's them in us, direct's them unto God. Apparent it is you were hard put to it to make up a full dozen of Arguments out of an ambiguous text, to prove a distinct will of the Spirit from the will of God the Father, by a place where there is no convincing proof that there is any mention of the will of the Spirit at all.  
Grant further, that this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be the will, or what the Spirit of God desire's by those groans, yet will it not follow, that there be two distinct wills of God the Father and the Spirit. What I have written touching the understanding of God and of the Spirit, is by parity of reason to be applied to this Argument: there is, as I asserted, but one will of God the Father, and God the holy Ghost, but yet this one will is otherwise in the Father, otherwise in the holy Ghost; in the Father, of and from himself, but in the holy Ghost by eternal communication of the Deity to him.  
Fourthly, whereas you talk of conformity and agreeableness, which is always betwixt two at the least, I have answered the substance of this in the former Argument. This agreeableness is not properly betwixt the will of the holy Ghost, and of God the Father, but betwixt the will of man acted to pray by the Spirit of God, and the will of God, and these must needs be two. To draw to a conclusion, I deny not, but agreeableness and equality are ascribed to the Persons of the Trinity; for the Jews collected, and that justly too, because the Son of God called God his Father, he made himself equal to God, John 5. Nor did the Son of God think he rob God of his honour, when he made himself equal to his Father, Phillip 2. And what is spoken of the Son, is true likewise of the holy Ghost; and it is the general resolution of the Church, that the holy Ghost is consubstantial, coequal, co-omnipotent, and coeternal with God the Father, and God the Son. Now, because equality is properly understood of quantity, and agreeableness in quality; it will not be amiss to explicate briefly in what sense similitude and equàlitie are ascribed to the sacred Persons. It is to be observed, that in regard of substance, things are said to be the same or divers: If the substance be one, things are said to be one in substance; but if not the same substance, they are said to be divers in substance. In regard of quality, things are said to be like, which do agree in quality; and unlike, when they have not one quality. In regard of quantity, they are said to be equal or unequal. Now, because in God, to speak properly, there is neither quality nor quantity, (for how should a finite quality or quantity reside in an infinite substance? or how is it possible that these should be many infinites?) therefore it follow's undeniably, that these three, viz. identity, similitude, and quantity, are all one in God, and one God, because there is the same essence and substance of the three Persons, and yet there is similitude and identity betwixt the Persons founded not on the relation betwixt them, but on the essence; and therefore, because there is no dissimilitude betwixt the essence, there is no dissimilitude absolutely in the Persons: yet it is so founded on the essence, that it doth insinuate to us the plurality of the Persons. The Persons are said to be like, as touching qualities, because they do agree in the same perfection of qualities: as in wisdom, power, goodness, and such like; these are really distinguished in the creatures, but relating to God, they neither amongst themselves, nor from the divine essence do differ really.  
The Persons in Trinity are said to be equal, because they do so agree in the same perfection, that one Person doth not in the least degree exceed another; for there are no degrees in that which is infinite: that is said to be better in quantity, that is better, and hath a higher degree of excellency than another; as in Logic, the degree of quality is quantity, so that greatness in God is nothing else, but the excellency of God in every perfection. If the first Person was more potent, and wiser than the holy Ghost, there would be likeness betwixt them, but not equality; there must of necessity be a distinction betwixt things like and equal: for nothing is equal or like to itself. The Father is not the holy Ghost, and therefore when the Father, Son, and holy Ghost are said to be one in essence, goodness, wisdom, there is not in such an attribution, a distinction of Persons; but when we say, the Persons are like or equal, as touching every imaginable perfection: as in goodness, wisdom, power, etc. such an attribution necessarily require's a distinction of the Persons amongst themselves.  
I have now (as I conceive) fully answered your twelve Arguments. I have set down all, and concealed nothing which in your Arguments carrieth with it any show of strength; there remaineth yet one Argument in your Epistle, by which you would countenance your Heresy, in these words:    

ARGUMENT 13.  
13 Argum. of M. Bidle. I believe (say you) the holy Ghost to be the chief all ministering Spirits, and I do place him, both according to Scriptures, and the Primitive Christians, and by name Justin Martyr in his Apology, in the third rank after God and Christ, giving him a pre-eminence above all the rest of the heavenly host.  

ANSWER.  
I do willingly grant, that since there is a Trinity of Persons, there must of necessity be acknowledged an order amongst them. But how? Not in regard of time, as though the holy Ghost should be in time after the Father, and the Son of God, for they are coeternal: nor 2ly in order of nature, as if the holy Ghost should be in nature after God the Father, and God the Son; for in this sense, that is said to be after another, which depends upon the nature of another, which hath no place in this subject, because the three Persons have but one undivided nature. Neither, in the third place, is the holy Ghost, to speak properly, after the Father in dignity; for there is but one Deity, and there is equal glory, equal majesty of the three Persons: The order than is in regard of original and principle, as it is called, the Father as Father is the principle of the Son, and the Father and the Son are the principle of the holy Ghost. In this regard it is, that we commonly say, the Father is the first Person of the Trinity, as being of none: The Son is the second Person of the Trinity from his Father. The holy Ghost is the third Person, being from eternity both from the Father and the Son.  
This concession is not answerable to your opinion; for if you would speak out of the Son, as you do of the holy Ghost, you hold, as appears by many of your Arguments, both God's Son, and the holy Ghost to be creatures after God in time, in nature, and in dignity.  
Whereas you say, this in your sense is according to Scriptures, the texts which you have alleged I have discussed, and made it clear both by my positive Arguments in proof of the point, and by my answers to your Scriptures, that your tenet is directly against Scriptures.  
But (say you) this is agreeable to the Fathers: this (say I) is very falsely and impudently spoken. I am now upon the defensive part, and will not set down a catalogue of their testimonies in their several ages as I might do, and those that are not learned may clearly see how falsely you do boast of the Fathers by the Apostolical (as it is called) the Nicene, Constantinopolitan, and Athanasian Creeds.  
Advers. But yet (say you) Justin Martyr placeth the holy Ghost in the third rank.  
Answ. The blessed Martyr, which wrote his Apologies about the year of our Lord, 162. placeth the holy Ghost in his second Apology in the third order, not in your sense, but in that meaning which is unanimously acknowledged by Orthodoxal Divines; and this I prove by Justin Martyr himself, who positively asserts in his first Apology, that the Son of God placed by him the second in order, was alone properly the Son of God, that he was with his Father before the world was made. Now, as the Son of God, the second in order, was truly God; so may we argue by proportion, that the holy Ghost, who is the third in order, is likewise God. And this you might have learned by the words, which do immediately follow in Justin; for, when he had said, We have the Prophetical Spirit in the third place, he immediately subjoin's these words, We teach that he is rightly to be worshipped, which honour agrees well to God, not to a creature. And in the same Apology afterwards, he would prove the Trinity of the Persons out of Plato. And this of the third Person, that it is written by Moses of him, that he moved (in the beginning of the creation) upon the waters. And in the same Apology he relate's the custom of the Church in his days, both touching Baptism, that the person is washed with water (not in the names, but) in the Name of the Father, Son, and holy Ghost. And likewise touching the Eucharist (as he calls it) when the Minister had taken bread and wine, he gives the praise and glory of all things to the Father, Son, and holy Ghost. And after the receiving the Sacrament, and giving relief to the poor, the assembly is dismissed, and (saith he) in all things which we use, we praise God the Father of all by his Son Jesus Christ through the holy Ghost. And in his exposition of the Faith, touching the holy Trinity, there is one (saith he) truly the God of all, and he is known and understood in the Father, Son, and holy Ghost, and saith, they are of one essence, and one divinity, and much more to this effect. But this is enough.  
Go now and boast of the Fathers in general, and of Justin Martyr in particular, and blush for shame, if there be any modesty left in you, for your intolerable wrong offered to the holy Fathers, and for fathering on them that abominable Heresy which they did detest.     

A Postscript to the Readers.  
THis Paper may fall into the hands both of the unknowing and skilful Readers, and is liable to various censures.  
I do foresee, that those which are little versed in these points will complain, that I affect obscurities, and that they cannot understand my writing. I desire them to consider, that I do treat about the highest mysteries of Faith, and that it is neither fit nor safe for me to change the terms which are in common use amongst the learned; the danger hereof is apparent by this memorable example. Gregor Nazianz in an Oration of the praises of great Athanasius, shows the rents betwixt the Eastern and Western Churches, occasioned by the use of these terms, Hypostasis and Persona; the Eastern Churches used the word Hypostasis, and utterly disliked the name Person. On the other side, the Western Churches adhered to the name Person, and could not endure the name Hypostasis. The Eastern Churches judged the Western Churches to be Sabellians, i e. that they held but one Person called by three names. And the Western Churches judged the Eastern to be Tritheites and Arians, maintaining three substances. Athanasius apprehended the mistake, and that both sides were sound in the faith, though they differed in terms, and so reconciled them. I do entreat these Readers, if they meet with difficulties, that they would not presently cast the Book out of their hands, but to take pains to know the meaning, pray, read, perpend the text, the context, and parallel places of Scriptures, meditate, and where your endeavours fail you, have recourse to the learned, which will, if it be needful for you to know, resolve your doubts, and somewhat clear your judgements, and to encourage you, I dare promise, that you shall not repent of your labours, but better understand some texts of Scriptures and humane Authors which handle this subject, then formerly you have done.  
I do foresee also, that the judicious Reader will accuse me for frequent repetitions, which are little better than vain tautologies. My Apology is, the course of my Adversaries Arguments lead me thereunto; for if I had not applied a particular answer to every one of them, he would have insulted over me, and judged them to be unanswerable; that I had been like a child, which skips when he cannot read; and that I would not touch the coals, which would have burned my fingers.  
Secondly, perhaps I shall be blamed for tedious discourses, and for excursions sometimes, which are of near kin to digressions. I do confess, that this was purposely done to clear up doubts, and to make the discourse more profitable for the Reader; for had I intended merely to answer the Arguments in a Scholastical way, a short distinction applied in a few lines might have served the turn for his longest Argument; but then (as I conceive) I had miss of my end, the information of the judgement of weaker Christians.  
Thirdly, I shall be blamed for rudeness of language, I deny it not; my mind was so intent on the matter, the body, that I had little regard of the words to cloth it handsomely withal.  
I do suspect that some of my learned brethren will be displeased with me for writing thus more than once, The holy Ghost, not as the holy Ghost, yet, as God, is of himself. I do confess, the strength of my Adversaries reasons did not necessitate me to use such an expression; and had I timely considered of it, both to prevent the seeming advantage to an enemy, and the needless censure of friends, I would have forborn it. And albeit this term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, first used by Calvin, as applied to the Son of God and the holy Ghost, because he confuted Valentinus Gentilis, which said, the Son and Spirit had not one and the selfsame essence with the Father, but were essential: In this respect, I say, he used the term, which some of his Adversaries, and some learned Protestants, to speak the least, disliked. Yet they know full well, that phrase is the usual language of our approved Authors, and justified by eminent Divines; and it is usual for one and the selfsame subject to admit of divers respects, and thereupon of divers attributions. The essence of the Son of God, and of the holy Ghost, as it is the essence, hath no principle, but is of itself; and so the holy Ghost, according to essence, is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; according to personality, or as the holy Ghost, is from the Father and the Son: And this is no error, as Bellarmine himself, no friend to Calvin, acknowledgeth, l. 2. de Christo, c. 19 albeit he dislike's his manner of speaking, yet not his judgement. And Gregory de Valentia, a learned Jesuit, finds fault with Genebrard for calling Calvin an Autothean; for if he be attentively read (saith he) his meaning will be found, that the Son of God, as he is God, & so he is essentially, is of himself; but as a Person, he is of his Father; and this is true. The Fathers, when they say he is God of God, they take the name of God personally; but yet the Son, as he is essentially God, i. e. that most simple thing which is God, he is not of another, because in this respect he is an absolute thing, tom. 1. dist. 2. q. 1. sect. 27.  
I do entreat the learned, if they do discover any real faults herein, (which is not unlikely; for another may sooner see mine errors than I can see them myself; and so perhaps may I see another man's, which the Author takes no special notice of) that they would in a Christian manner, with sound reasons reform my judgement: For truly I am not in love of any error, if known, but do carry a mind always ready to renounce my judgement, and to give place to the truth in any point, when it shall be manifested to me.  
Lastly, I do earnestly beseech both kinds of Readers to bestow those spiritual alms upon me, which are both my due to demand, and their duty to afford me, that they would pray to God for me, that I may faithfully employ that small talon which the Lord hath imparted to me, for his glory, mine own and others benefit. All the glory, the riches, the highest preferments, and all imaginable perfections in this world are but unsatisfying shadows, and mere pictures of happiness; but happy, thrice happy, yea a thousand times happy is that man, whose God is the Lord.  
I now address my speech to you, Mr. Bidle: I confess, I can promise nothing to myself touching your conversion; I fear you have hardened your heart, and made it like an Adamant, uncapable of any impression of this heavenly truth. You glory, that you have disputed with many learned men, and could not receive satisfaction from them, no not so much as to one of your Arguments; I do not doubt but you have heard from them the same answers which I have made, and more forcibly urged upon you then I have done; yet I do speak as loud as you do, that I have examined them all, and am in mine own judgement satisfied in mine answer touching every one of them, and do confidently say, there is no strength in any one of them to prove your detestable Heresy, but they are a number of Sophistical fallacies, which I have plainly detected.  
It grieve's me, that any one should rake out of the grave old rotten Heresies, to infect the world with their stink, especially that my Countryman should, to the joy of Adversaries, and the great disadvantage of our Religion, vent them in print. Me thinks I see you, Mr. Bidle, struggling to extinguish that little light which is in you, in that you set your wits a-work to pervert plain Scriptures in the end of your Book by your forced answers to them, which I have laid open in justifying of our Arguments, and (not so much as barely to mention our strongest reasons) what may we judge to be your meaning herein, but a conviction that you can give to them no probable answer at all? Doth not the Christian world, in the succession of many ages, wherein your Heresy hath been cried down to the pit of hell, strike terror into you? Doth not the consent of the Reformed Churches, which you have deserted, lie as heavy as a mountain upon you? Doth not your conscience check you, for cleaving to a few rotten branches cut off from the Church, and for striving in the stoutness of your spirit against the stream both of clear Scriptures, and the unanimous judgement of the Church of Christ? Can you think, that wisdom should be with you, and folly with them all? Consider, I pray, that you have set yourself against a strong Adversary, he cannot be resisted, he will prevail over you. Yield up then your weapons in time unto him, give glory to his great Name, and put forth all your strength for time to come, to bring honour to his greatness, as you have been a devilish instrument to defy supreme Majesty: it is a happy victory to be conquered of Truth.   
FINIS.