The Socinians on the other hand, observing that such things are assigned and ascribed unto him, as that if they acknowledge him to be a person, or a substance, they must upon necessity admit him to be God, though they seemed not at first at all agreed what to think or say concerning him positively, yet they all concurred peremptorily in denying his personality. Hereon, some of them said he was the Gospel, which others of them have confuted; some that he was Christ. Neither could they agree whether there was one Holy Ghost or more; whether the spirit of God and the Good spirit of God, and the holy spirit, be the same or no. In general now they conclude that he is vis Dei, or virtus Dei, or efficacia Dei; no substance, but a quality that may be considered either as being in God, and then they say it is the spirit of God; or as sanctifying, ⟨p. 89⟩and conforming men unto God, and then they say, it is the Holy Ghost. Whether these things do answer the Revelation made in the Scripture concerning the Eternal Spirit of God, will be immediately manifested. Our Quakers, who have for a long season hovered up and down like a swarm of flies with a confused noise and humming, begin now to settle in the opinions lately by them declared for. But what their thoughts will fall into be, concerning the Holy Ghost, when they shall be contented to speak Intelligibly, and according to the usage of other men, or the pattern of Scripture, the great rule of speaking or treating about spiritual things, I know not; and am uncertain whether they do so themselves or no. Whether he may be the light within them, or an infallible afflatus is uncertain. In the mean time, what is revealed unto us in the Scripture to be believed concerning the Holy Ghost, his Deity, and personality, may be seen in the ensuing testimonies.
The Socinians on the other hand, observing that such things are assigned and ascribed unto him, as that if they acknowledge him to be a person, or a substance, they must upon necessity admit him to be God, though they seemed not at first at all agreed what to think or say concerning him positively, yet they all coneurred peremptorily in denying his personality. Hereon, some of them said he was the Gospel, which others of them have confuted; some that he was Christ. Neither could they agree whether there was one Holy Ghost or more; whether the spirit of God and the Good spirit of God, and the holy spirit, be the same or no. In general now they conclude that he is vis Dei, or virtus Dei, or efficacia Dei; no substance, but a quality that may be considered either as being in God, and then they say it is the spirit of God; or as sanctifying, ⟨p. 89⟩and conforming men unto God, and then they say, it is the Holy Ghost. Whether these things do answer the Revelation made in the Scripture concerning the Eternal Spirit of God, will be immediately manifested. Our Quakers, who have for a long season hovered up and down like a swarm of flies with a confused noise and humming, begin now to settle in the opinions lately by them declared for. But what their thoughts will fall into be, concerning the Holy Ghost, when they shall be contented to speak Intelligibly, and according to the usage of other men, or the pattern of Scripture, the great rule of speaking or treating about spiritual things, I know not; and am uncertain whether they do so themselves or no. Whether he may be the light within them, or an infallible afflatus is uncertain. In the mean time, what is revealed unto us in the Scripture to be believed concerning the Holy Ghost, his Deity, and personality, may be seen in the ensuing testimonies.
