so it 's necessarie saith S. Austin l. 1. de Trinitat c. 6. that wee should yield religious service to him that which is proper to God I shut up this Argument with the words of our Savior Matth. 28. 19. Go and baptize all Nations in the Name of the Father the Son and holy Ghost to bee baptized into the Name of the Father Son and holy Ghost is to bee obliged to the Faith Worship and Obedience of God the Father Son and holy Ghost Adver You endeavor to elude this plain convincing testimonie touching the Deitie of the holy Ghost Baptize them into the holy Ghost that is into the guidance of the holy Ghost which may I deny not bee a part of the meaning of the text You add Thus all the Israëlites were baptized into Moses 1 Corinth 10. 2. These two texts are unequally matched and paralleled Answ 1 First it is not said 1 Corinth 10. 2. that the Israëlites were baptized into the Name of the Father Son of God and Moses which would have been a seeming advantage to you but yet not forcible enough to have shielded you from the dint of the Argument Secondly the Baptism into which the Israëlites were baptized was not such a Sacrament as ours of Baptism is it was not a spiritual Sacrament of the Covenant of Grace appertaining to eternal life as our Baptism is their passing through the Sea and under the Cloud was don without sprinkling them with or dipping them in water and did seal up and evidently confirm that Moses was by the Lord deputed to bee a Guid and a Leader of his people whose Ministerie was not fully spiritual but 't is termed carnal God made choice of him to bee a happy instrument to deliver them out of bondage Now such as the deliverance is such is the Baptism but consider wee their passing through the red Sea and by the guidance of the Cloud as types and figures of the benefits which wee receive from Christ our true and spiritual Mediator for servitude in Egypt was a type of spiritual servitude under the power of Satan and sin and deliverance out of Egypt was a type of our deliverance from the snares of the devil and the commanding power of our own sins In this regard it 's denied that they were baptized into Moses hence is it said that som were baptized into the Baptism of John Act. 19. 2. but they are not said to bee baptized into John the reason is because the Ministerie of John was meerly spiritual and not carnal And S. Paul doth take it as a very absurd thing to bee abhorred of Christians to bee baptized into the name of any man 1 Corinth 1. 13 15. were yee baptized into the name of Paul and yet would hee bee acknowledged to bee their Guid and Doctor and a Father who by his Ministerie begot them through the Gospel 1 Corinth 4. 15. Thirdly this will further appear if wee do consider the use and the end of Baptism it is a sign and a seal of the new Covenant the Covenant of Grace which is signified and ratified thereby now consider this on the one part the great God of heaven and earth God the Father God the Son and God the holy Ghost undertake's to bee the God of his people which is their happiness on the other part the confederates the parties baptized and sealed as Gods own by Baptism which Austin call's Regius Character a Kingly Character do solemnly profess and oblige themselves to the faith and service not of any Angel for where is there such a condition expressed in the Covenant to tie us to creatures but as I said to the Faith Service and Obedience of God the Father God the Son and God the holy Ghost That which you say is true in it self though not in your meaning that God the Father and the Son by the Spirit do guid govern sanctifie and endow the Church and whereas before conversion and the giving up their names to Christ they lived according to the Prince of this world they ought thenceforth beeing admitted into the Church resign up themselves to the guidance of the holy Ghost But your saying that the holy Ghost is our Advocate in your sense and a chief instrument under God is as a dead slie in precious ointment this is spoken but cannot bee proved by you and it hath been before and shall hereafter bee disproved yea and your own concession touching the benefits received from the holy Ghost stand's not with this assertion Advers You say in your Dedicatory Epistle that the holy Ghost is our Advocate If I go not away the Advocate will not com unto you John 16. 7 8. And you boldly avouch that it ought so to bee translated every where as ours have also don 1 Joh. 2. 1. Wee have an Advocate with the Father Answ Hereto I answer You should have plainly told us what you meant by Advocate Is it to plead our cause with God as Lawyers do their clients cause before the Judg Or do you mean an Advocate one that make's prayers for us the rule hold's A deceitful man speak's in generalities I am not ignorant that som learned men which are strong defenders of the Deitie of the holy Ghost do translate the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in som texts as you do Advocate and if you had rendred it so in their sense I would have passed it over in silence The holy Ghost may bee called an Advocate but not so an Advocate to God the Father as Christ is which is by the merit of his passion and intercession In this meaning 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is often used in the Scripture but the holy Ghost may bee called an Advocate because in doubtful cases and in straits hee help 's us with his counsel and teacheth us all things John 14. 26. and when his servants shall bee convened before persecuting Magistrates and they then know not how to speak to them nor how to pray to God the holy Ghost will enable them both to speak to men and pray to God as Christians ought to do And because the instilling of this heavenly doctrine into the hearts of Gods servants is usually accompanied with spiritual joy and comfort hence is it as Cam. guesseth that this word is translated by the Learned oftentimes the Comforter You say the holy Ghost is not ranked with the Father and Son of God as beeing equal to them as is evident by other punctual places of Scripture 1 Cor. 12. 3 4 5 6. Ephes 4. 4 5 6. and 1 Corinth 8. 5 6. the holy Ghost is emphatically excluded from beeing either God or Lord by beeing contradistinguished from them both Answ 1 I answer these places might have been more fitly and seasonably alledged as Arguments to prove your Position then introduced as shifts to disprove our Reasons Answ 2 I answer directly by granting that in those places which you alledg and many others the Father is called God whereas
the express name of the Father the Son or the holy Ghost or when it is not limited by som circumstances in the text which do infallibly lead us thereunto And thus most frequently in the Scriptures it is taken but then it is taken personally or secundùm quid in regard of a certain proprietie which point's out a certain Person which is somtimes God the Father somtimes God the Son and somtimes God the holy Ghost or else wee are guided to such a limitation by perpending the text or places of Scriptures parallel to it For instance John 1. 1. the Word was God and that Word was with God In the first place it must bee taken essentially in the second personally with God viz. his Father thus Christ is said to bee the Son of God the image of God viz. the Father To the second I might take exception to your rule in many particulars which is not true in any creäted acting things which are not persons no nor in the soul of man which hath many immanent actions both in and when separated from the bodie which are not actions of a person But let your rule bee granted as it relate's to this particular actions are of persons and not of the nature consideredin the abstract So barbarous School-men say it is a man which doth dispute not homeïtas It is a horse that carrie's a man not equina natura or equeïtas this is onely suppositum But then I must tell you to abate your mirth that you give through your ignorance a false interpretation of the meaning of Orthodoxal Divines touching that distinction as though they thought that Gods nature generally absolutely and essentially considered as abstracted from God the Father God the Son and God the holy Ghost did rule the world this is but a figment of your own brain But when they say God worketh this or that God is taken essentially they mean nothing else but God the Father God the Son and God the holy Ghost and the government of the world the particular instanced in being a work ad extra relating to the creatures belong's to all the Persons joyntly this is a received Maxim of all Divines Thus much of this Argument ARGUMENT 2. 2 Argum. of M. Bidle If hee that gave the holy Spirit to the Israëlites to instruct them bee Jehovah alone then the holy Spirit is not Jehovah or God But hee that gave the holy Spirit to the Israëlites to instruct them is Jehovah alone Ergò The sequele of the Major is plain for if hee that gave the holy Spirit bee Jehovah alone and yet the holy Spirit that was given bee Jehovah too the same will bee Jehovah alone and not Jehovah alone which implieth a contradiction The Minor is evidenced by Nehem. 9. 6 20. ANSWER Answ I denie the consequence of this hypothetical Syllogism which is not necessarily inferred as it should bee from the antecedent I will not question the truth of your assumption but suppose that the first Person is evidently meant Nehem. 9. 6. who is said to bee Jehovah alone yet wil it not by the rules of Divinitie bee a necessarie sequele that the holy Ghost is not Jehovah or God nor is there so much as a shadow of contradiction as shall bee evidenced and they do know this well that are versed in these points When you say Jehovah or the first person is Jehovah alone there is in the words a fallacie of composition and division as the Logicians speak And that I might fortifie your Argument and make it advantageous to you if the exclusive particle had been added to the antecedent thus onely the Father is Jehovah yet were not your cause confirmed thereby for it is a rule in the Logician Kecker lib. 2. cap. 4. exclusiva particula subjecti non excludit concomitantia and hee instanceth in this very example Onely the Father is true God whereby saith hee the Son of God and the holy Ghost are not excluded from beeing God but creatures onely And profound Zanchius add's another example Onely Christ is the Savior of the world taken inclusively all creatures are excluded but neither the Father nor the holy Ghost are to bee excluded from the great work of our redemption Nor do wee want examples in the Scriptures to this purpose None know the Son but the Father nor doth any know the Son but the Father Matth. 11. 27. that is onely the Father know's the Son and onely the Son know's the Father And again No man know's the things of God but onely the Spirit 1 Cor. 2. that is onely the Spirit know's the things of God as in the former place the holy Ghost is not to bee excluded so in the later both Father and Son of God are to be included Thus our blessed Savior is described to have eies like a flame of fire and to have many crowns on his head and a name which none knew but hee himself Revel 19. 12. let the mysterie bee what it wil bee which is intended by this name yet certainly the Father and Spirit are not to bee denied the knowledg of it and many the like * 1 Tim. 6. 16. The King of kings onely hath immortalitie none but the Father know's the day and hour of judgment expressions wee may reade in Scripture by which exclusive particle onely such things are to bee excluded which are not one and the same in a Tertul. saith of the Son of God hee is individâ—â—â— inseparatus à Patre in Patre â—â—putandâ—â— et si non nominatus advers Praâ—eum So of the holy Ghost essence with the subject to which the exclusive particle is annexed As if one should say I beleeve in God the Father who alone made the world wee must not conceive that hee exclude's God the Son and God the holy Ghost from that great work of creätion but onely the creatures which had no hand at all therein This which I have spoken seem's to carrie som probabilitie with it and that one may not without cause suspend his judgment from concurrence with those Divines which do commonly judg this proposition thus enunciated to bee false onely the Father is Jehovah To the substance of your Argument as it is propounded by you the answer is easie Alone both in the cited text and in your argument is referred to the later part of the axiom Thus the first person of the Trinitie is Jehovah alone this I grant is a very true Proposition if it bee rightly understood and yet make's nothing at all for your advantage because the particle alone doth not exclude any thing in respect of the subject but onely of the predicate and therefore is clearly true both of the Father Son and of the holy Ghost Thus the Father is alone Jehovah the Son is alone Jehovah and God the holy Ghost is alone Jehovah and the reason is plain and unanswerable because albeit the Father is Lord the Son is Lord and the holy Ghost is
Lord yet are there not three Lords but one Lord saith the Athanasian Creed I am the Lord and there is none else there is no God besides mee and it shall bee known from East to West that there is none besides mee and there is none else Isa 45. 5 6. ARGUMENT 3. 3 Argum. of M. Bidle Hee that speaketh not of himself is not God The holy Spirit speaketh not of himself Ergò The Minor is clear from John 16. 13. The Major is proved thus God speaketh of himself therefore if there bee any one that speaketh not of himself hee is not God The antecedent is of it self apparant for God is the primarie Author of whatsoever hee doth but should hee not speak of himself hee must speak from another and so not bee the primarie but secondarie author of his speech which is absurd if at least that may bee called absurd which is impossible The consequence is undeniable For further confirmation of this Argument it is to bee observed that to speak or to do any thing not if himself according to the ordinarie phrase of Scripture is to speak or do by the shewing teaching commanding authorising or enabling of another and consequently incompatible with the supreme and self-sufficient Majestie of God Vid. John 5. 19 20 30. ch 7. v. 15 16 17 18 28. ch 8. v. 28. 42. ch 11. v. 50 51. ch 12. v. 49. 50. ch 14. v. 10 24. ch 15. 4. ch 18. 34. Luke 12. 56 57. ch 21. 30. 2 Cor. 3. 5. ANSWER Answ Hee that speaketh not of himself say you is not God I denie this your Major Proposition for though in a sense the Spirit of God speaketh not of himself yet is hee truly and properly God nor will I content my self with a bare denial of it which is enough for an Answerer but I will give you the reason hereof nor need I go far for a proof this Verse in John alledged by you might have taught you this truth for the person here is called by an excellencie the Spirit of truth and which lead's the Apostles and the Faithful into all truth the heavenly truth of eternal salvation This leading into truth is all one for substance with that translation of others shall teach you all truth And that which is in the Hebrew Psal 86. 11. lead mee thy way 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Septuag render it with the same word which the Evangelist useth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now this is properly a work of the great God and that which was long before fore-told They shall bee all taught of God John 5. 45. Can any thing bee more plainly spoken It is not denied but one man is said to bee a teacher of others Matth. 28. Go and teach all Nations And this is don two waies principally if not onely vel proponendo auxilia Aq. 1. 117. q. either by proposing to scholars general helps whereby the scholar is led as it were by the hand to the knowledg of unknown truths as by general rules sensible examples lively similitudes and such like to help the understanding or else by strengthning the understanding of the learner by shewing him how hee should deduce conclusions from principles but when a creature hath don all that hee can to the utmost of his power hee cannot infuse light into his scholars and elevate their minds to apprehend divine truth Let the Sun shine never so bright yet a blind man cannot see it and wee are taught to call no man Master on earth Mat. 23. So God alone is the fountain of illumination hee sitteth in his chair in heaven who teacheth our hearts on earth Object Besides if wee consider the condition of the Apostles to speak onely of them though they bee not the onely persons on whom that promise run's they were to bee dispest over all the known Regions of the world and if so how should a creature bee with them all as you do hold the holy Ghost to bee and assist all their mouths and pens infallibly in every place Sol. Surely to do so require's not onely celeritie but ubiquitie which is a propertie of the true God but incompatible to the condition of a creature which is finite as in essence so likewise in place and operation Nor will that shift serve the turn which is used by this Author in answer as hee saith to that grand Objection touching the Omnipresence of the holy Ghost by comparing this with the Parable of the Sower where Satan is said to snatch the Word of the hearts of hearers in ten thousand places at once for this is fallacia non parium The holy Ghost which dwell's in all the godly and leadeth them into all truth is one individual Spirit but it neither is nor possibly can bee one individual Devil which acteth his wickedness in all the wicked ones at once for there are millions of them dispersed every where in this lower Region of the world full of malice and policie to do mischief and every one of them is a Satan Wee read of the Devil and his Angels but you do not read of the holy Ghost and his Angels though I grant they are his Angels as creäted and commanded by him but not so as the Devil's Angels are his as a superior creature having rule over fellow-creatures I will once again propound your Major Hee that speaketh not of himself is not God This Proposition is not universally true I grant in this sense it is true hee that speaketh not of himself but what hee learn's by revelation and in time and what hee did not know from all eternitie hee is not God but such a kinde of hearing from another hath no place in the holy Ghost and therefore the Proposition if it bee taken generally is denied and the reason of my denying it is this because it is a propertie of the Father as to bee of and from himself the Fountain and the Principle as Divines do usually speak though not properly the cause of the Son of God and of the holy Ghost for then they should bee effects which sound 's harshly the Father is I say of himself and communicate's the Essence and the essential properties to the Son and both Father and Son to the holy Ghost who is eternal infinite omnipotent and omnipresent Our learned Junius hath observed a three-fold consideration of a Person one common in essence as the Person is God the second consideration as it is singular and absolute in Person as saith hee it subsist's in the unitie of the Essence the third is relative in the distinction and order of one Person to another contra Bellar. Controv. 2. l. 1. Praefat. let the Learned judg of these the last is to my purpose Now as the Persons do differ in the manner and order of subsisting so likewise though the outward action bee the same and common to all the Persons yet in the manner of working wee must conceive a difference Give mee leave to clear this
received truth by solving the strongest Objections which are framed against it Objection 1 Neither the Father nor the holy Ghost but onely the Son of God did assume our nature and this is an outward work to this it is answered that onely the Son of God became man yet the whole Trinitie did frame and work to the assumption of the humane nature illustrated thus Three do weave cloth to bee worn of one of them onely inchoativè it belonged to all the Persons terminativè it was personal and proper to the Son of God Objection 2 If it bee said onely the Father spoke from heaven This is my welbeloved Son so it is said not because all the Persons did not frame that voice but because the words were uttered in his Person the Father alone is said to speak those words because they related to the Son of God the thing signified did alone appertain to the Person of the Father nor is this rule crossed by the apparition of a Dove Objection 3 The holy Ghost alone descended and appeared to the Apostles in fiery cloven tongues because those visible Symbols did onely signifie the Person of the holy Ghost which the three Persons by one undivided operation did produce Mark then albeit the work bee the same and 't is from all the Persons yet is there a difference in the manner of working the Father and the Son as they are the Fountain of the Person of the holy Ghost so likewise are they the Fountain of the operations of the holy Ghost When wee read this expression then the holy Ghost speak's not of himself wee must not conceive that phrase to import any diminution of the Majestie of the holy Ghost nor doth it implie that hee is not God that hee is inferior to the first Person of the Trinitie hereby our Savior would teach the Disciples for they are his own words in John that they should not think the holy Ghost to bee greater then the Son of God albeit his works in the hearts of his Apostles should bee greater then those which hee whiles hee visibly conversed with them had wrought in them Nor should they think that the holy Ghost should bring any new Doctrine but the truths taught by him are the truths of God the Father there is a plenary consent of the Doctrine of the holy Ghost and of God the Father that which the holy Ghost speak's from the Father hee had not in time but by eternal procession from the Father and the Son of God There is no diversitie at all in the work in it self considered but the order of externally working answer's to the order of the divine Persons thus is the holy Ghost said not to work from himself but from the Father and Son By this which hath been spoken his reasons are already answered yet a word of them Advers God speak's of himself The holy Ghost speak's not of himself Ergò hee is not God Answ There is nothing but homonymies in both Propositions but I answer to this Objection God essentially taken speak's of himself and thus the holy Ghost as hee is God speak's of and from himself but if you take it thus by a reduplication of the Subject by a specificative limitation the holy Ghost as the holy Ghost is not of himself in regard of his Person but from the Father and the Son and in this regard speak's not from himself yet is a holy true God blessed for ever Advers If God say you speaketh not from himself hee should not bee the primary Author of his speech but the secondary and this is absurd impossible Answ I deny the consequence which is true when wee speak of causes subordinate to superior causes or of instrumental causes but the holy Ghost is not an instrument either separate from or conjunct with the first Person Hee is not inferior in dignitie or power to God the Father and God the Son for there is but one divine Essence subsisting in the three Persons which are not the subject of the Deitie for they are one God in Essence and so the prioritie of the first Person is in regard of the order of working without inferioritie in the third Person whether wee regard the Persons relatively and considered or the work produced by them It is needless for mee to spend time in examining the many particular places alledged by him for som of them do directly speak of the creatures and those are impertinent for what call you this The holy Ghost that speak's not from himself is not God why Because the same phrase is used of a creature or else they speak of Christ as God and then they are already answered I add that som of those expressions are so far from proving Christ not to bee God that they do strongly evince the Deitie of the Son of God I conclude in S. Austin's words Whatsoever the Father is as hee is God as hee is a substance as hee is eternitie the same is the Son of God and the holy Ghost If you will say What riddles are these I answer How litle is it that wee conceive of God Wee can have better apprehensions of God then wee can make expressions of him and hee is transcendently above both our apprehensions and expressions of him ARGUMENT 4. 4 Argum. of M. Bidle Hee that heareth from another what hee shall speak is not God The holy Spirit doth so Ergò The Minor is plain from the fore-cited place John 16. 13. The Major is proved thus Hee that is taught is not God Hee that heareth from another what hee shall speak is taught Ergò The Major is clear by Esay 40. 13 14. compared with Rom. 11. 34. 1 Cor. 2. 16. The Minor is evidenced by John 8. where our Savior having said in the 26. verse Whatsoever I have heard from him the Father these things I speak In the 28. verse hee expresseth the same sense thus According as the Father hath taught mee these things I speak Neither let any man go about to elude so pregnant an Argument by saying that this is spoken of the holy Spirit improperly for let him turn himself every way and scrue the words as hee please yet shall hee never bee able to make it out to a wise and considering man how it can possibly bee said that any one heareth from another what hee will speak who is the prime Author of his speech and into whom it is not at a certain time insinuated by another For this expression plainly intimateth that whatsoever the holy Spirit speaketh to the Disciples is first discovered and committed to him by Christ whose Embassador hee is it being proper to an Embassador to bee the Interpreter not of his own but of anothers will But it is contradictious to imagine that the most high God can have any thing discovered and committed to him by another ANSWER Answ I answer first in general by distinguishing of this word hearing which is the basis and ground
finde 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 bee translated to bely 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 Adversarie would perswade the Reader that hee by his observation of the text had found out a fault in our common translations whereof the Authors out of their ignorance or inadvertencie took no notice if so hee think's hee 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 som excepted which yet for the point of controversie in hand proved out of this very Scripture are professed Adversaries to you Beza after hee had rendred the words to deceive or mock i. e. endeavor to deceive the holy Ghost I might add what others say hee retract's and go's 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 Hee saith because the 4th ver where the Dative case is used is an explication of the 3d. ver Besides the Hebrews do somtimes confound these whence these expressions benedico te evangelizo te which the Grecians derived from the Hebrews and the Latine 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 seem's to mee not to bee full They were indeed notorious hypocrits but Peter by the sequele 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 sacriledg 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 bee so interpreted as you have don this neither hinder's us nor further's you none ever dreamed 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 hee 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 counterfeit the holy Ghost to bee the Author of this fact and this is expounded to bee a lying to God viz. to God the holy Ghost whom you have counterfeited hee speaking in us and discovering this hypocrisie of your heart which you litle dreamed off And your exposition of the words as they stand in your Book is of that nature that albeit I have perpended 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. Hee to whom religious worship is truly exhibited is God Min. The holy Ghost is hee to whom religious worship is exhibited Concl. Ergò The Major is not denied by the Adversarie and is evident of it self and strange it is to mee that any learned men which do acknowledge the Deitie 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 hee was worshipped 'T is a certain rule the sacred Persons of the Trinitie which are undivided in nature must bee likewise undivided in worship for any one to say the holy Ghost is God and with the same breath to profess their doubting whether hee is to bee worshipped is to speak contradictions and 't is all one as to acknowledg a King and to deny him honor and this is to make him a titular King and in truth no King at all 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 mysterie or not 't is not material to the point in hand nor whether their thrice chanting out holy implied the sacred Trinitie Yet why might not that bee intended But the Angels beeing intellectual substances worshipped they knew what and beeing confirmed in holiness they onely worshipped a fit object of worship and had they or sinful men worshipped the highest creature with religious adoration would not hee 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 inform's 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 com quickly Apocal. 22. So is likewise the holy Spirit Awake thou North-winde and com 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 neighbor it may send forth a sweet savor Cant. 4. 16. The blessed Spirit of God is compared to the winde that as the winde blow's where it list's so doth the Spirit of God blow where hee will regenerat's whom hee pleaseth John 3. 8. And to this intent it is that S. John prayeth grace and peace not onely 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 bee 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 bee with you all And this Argument is asserted by Justin Martyr as I have shewed 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 Trinitie have mercie To these I may add this consideration that wee are the Temples of the holy Ghost It 's God onely that hath a Temple and
individual Spirit seduce all the wicked by himself If you dare not say so why is this example alledged 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 bee done by a creäted Spirit but not possible the later Argum. 4 Maj. Hee that is simply superior to Christ as man is God Min. The holy Ghost is so Concl. Ergò hee is God The Major is clear by the confession of the Adversarie for hee 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 beeing assumed into the person of the Son of God is neerest the cause and fountain of all greatness and is thereby exalted far above the state and condition of the highest Angels but hee is said to bee made lower then they are onely 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 endeavor to prove the holy Ghost to bee inferior to God First because Christ in this notion is sent of the holy Ghost The Lord God sent mee and his holy Spirit Esa 48. 16. I know som 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 necessitie because they do abhor the mysterie of the Trinitie but wee saith hee with Catholiques do avouch that these are the words of Christ as the whole context evinceth But let that text bee meant so or otherwise It 's clear by Fsa 61. 1. applied to Christ Luke 4. 18. The Spirit of the Lord hath sent mee to binde up the broken hearted to preach the Gospel Secondly hee that receiveth of another is inferior to him of whom hee receiveth and dependent on him these are your own expressions but the humane nature of Christ receive's from the Spirit it's beeing for hee 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 hee 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 bee 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 hee 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 bee 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 hee is said to bee grieved for them Ephes 4. 30. and the sins of the wicked for which hee will bee 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 bee 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 necessitie must bee 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 bee committed and yet the holy Ghost not at all sinned against First because the first and universal cause can immediatly of himself without the intervening of any creature so far enlighten a reprobate that this sin maliciously committed against this light shall bee 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 Gods hand shortened Can you give any reason why hee cannot do the same work without the creatures which is instrumentally produced by them Secondly suppose the Lord will not work thus immediatly by himself cannot hee imploy an Angel inferior to the holy Ghost about this work of illumination Cannot hee so far elevate this blessed creature above it self touching the former state and actuate his abilities that hee shall as a means under God so far enlighten man as is don 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 imployment or if there should bee a deficiencie still in this creature which is very unreasonable to imagine cannot the great God supply the defect thereof In this case wee 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 hee 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 hee 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 then the holy Ghost and besides which is another advantage to strengthen the Argument the holy Ghost is invisible the Son of God present's himself visible to them and his Person is directly and purposely scorned and abused by them and 't is not easie to bee proved that they had the like mischievous intentions and malicious purposes against the Person of the holy Ghost Judg now impartially whether is the greater sin and which in likelihood is the sin most unpardonable Whether the Lord will bee more offended
know when hee make's others know Now saith hee to Abraham I know that thou fearest mee Gen. 22. 12. Advers None say you can intercede for himself but this action require's a third person Many Scrip heaped up Answ I denie this assertion To intercede is a general word and of that latitude that somtimes a man intercede's for himself and somtimes for others as the occasion or text will hold out the meaning either to the later or to the former And thus the Spirit interpellat orat or as others translate the word postulat clamat when hee make's us intercede pray and crie to God and those three words as som say are but one thing called by different names 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 praiers when wee lay open to God our wants the same praiers are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because by our praiers wee testifie the desires of our hearts to God and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 intercessions because wee do not pray diffidently and fearfully but in an humble familiaritie wee speak to God and do go boldly to the throne of grace Com. in locum The praiers which 1 Tim. 2. are intended Rom. 8. 26. are of that nature that whether they bee directed to God for ourselvs or for others as wee are bound to pray both for our selvs and others are intercessions interpellations or appellations but yet they are not formally as School-men speak the praiers of the holy Ghost but they are his as an efficient cause thereof they are the praiers which the holy Ghost enableth his servants to make both for themselvs and others Touching the many Scriptures which you have unconscionably heaped up together to prove that intercession is alwaies for another I briefly answer by freely yielding that in those places which you have recited The praiers are made or intreated to bee made for other men but will it therefore follow that in all other texts which mention praier the Scripture is to bee so expounded Nothing less And if by virtue of those words in the texts fore-named a Christian had no ground to pray for himself hee must not then follow that maxim and approved rule Charitie begin's at home hee must onely pray for others never for himself for in som texts you have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 15. 30. Colos 4. 12. and in som other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as 2 Corinth 1. 11. Ephes 6. 18. which is such a dotage as never entred into the brains of an advised Christian Advers Albeit say you the Scripture speake's many things after the manner of men yet never what argueth inferioritie and dependencie on another Answ I grant this is a truth when rightly expounded it 's but a begging of the question or but a vain supposition to take for granted that the holy Ghost doth truly pray which is constantly denied Your Conclusion is proved by a false medium although it cannot bee denied but the Lord not out of any power of ours but out of a gracious condescension to us out of his free goodness doth somtimes in the Scripture speak as if wee base and feeble creatures were able to encounter with God yea and to overcom him as Jacob wrastled with God and hee could not prevail over him Gen. 32. Jacob as a Prince had power not onely with men but with God and let mee alone saith the Lord to Moses that I may consume transgressing Israël Exod. 32. The praiers of Moses did as it were binde the hands of the Almightie that hee could not smite his people and that is yet a higher expression Esa 45. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Lord is as it were at the command of the praiers of his servants and many the like gracious expressions might bee named so that neither head nor foot neither Argument nor Inference hath any soundness in it ARGUMENT 10. 10 Argum. of M. Bidle Hee in whom men have not beleeved and yet have been Disciples and Beleevers is not God Men have not beleeved in the holy Spirit and yet have been so Ergò The Major is plain for how can any bee Disciples Beleevers according to the phrase of Scripture and yet not beleeve 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 Beleevers Ergò They have not beleeved in the holy Spirit and yet have been Disciples and Beleevers The Antecedent is apparant from Acts 19. 2. The Consequence is grounded on that of the Apostle Rom. 10. 14. How shall they beleeve 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 Hee besides that hee 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 wee 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 hee who was so intent and vigilant in propagating the Truth as that casually seeing an Altar at Athens inscribed to the unknown God hee 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 Deitie of the holy Spirit but suffer them to remain in ignorance touching a point of such consequence that without the knowledg thereof if wee beleeve many now adaies men cannot bee 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 judg it expedient before I do punctually answer it to put down as I take it three undeniable Conclusions the one of them is touching the predicate or later part the other two touching the subject or antecedent of the Proposition Conclus 1 The first Conclusion wee are to consider of God absolutely as hee is plainly revealed in the Word and accordingly acknowledged by all those which are in outward covenant with him that hee is true God the ever-living God the onely wise and powerful God c. Thus in the Chaldean language in Jer. 10. 10 11. both for a caution and instruction to the Jews when they should bee captives there 't is said The gods that
office Saul and the Messengers of Saul prophesied amongst the Prophets 1 Sam. 19. And that hee is yet more fully revealed in the New Testament you cannot denie although you do boldly and wickedly denie his Deitie Well then if these Ephesians never heard of the holy Ghost either it was because they never had sufficient means to instruct them in that profound mysterie and do you think that this is very probable for they had or might have had the writings of the Prophets and if they were baptized by John doth not hee expresly speak of the holy Ghost Christ saith hee should baptize with the holy Ghost Matth. 3. 11. Or might they not have repaired to som Christians in som place or other for a further instruction in the faith Or if they never heard of the holy Ghost it is else because albeit they had som means of knowledg this way yet did they not regard them or sufficiently profit by them Take it which way you will and in neither of the waies is there any strength in the Argument to prove your odious assertion but it argue's clearly that you are given up by the just judgment of God to strong delusions to beleeve lies How could it else have entred into your heart to think that the ignorance of a few untaught Christians should bee a sound proof to overthrow a truth which was unanimously imbraced by sounder Christians Shall God's truths bee no truths because som sinfull and ignorant persons do not know them Nay rather you should thus have reasoned since this was a divine truth preached by John the Baptist and afterward more fully taught by Christ and his Apostles therefore without wavering much more without contradicting them I will submit to their better judgment The Argument by this which is already spoken is fully answered yet I will follow the Adversaries steps and gather up his mistakings for the better satisfaction of the Reader Advers If any shall say by the holy Spirit is meant not the Person but the gifts of the Spirit besides that hee speak's without example hee evacuate's the emphasis wee are so far from receiving the holy Ghost that wee have not heard whether there bee an holy Ghost or not Answ First let the Reader observe how the Adversarie is possessed with the spirit of giddiness in contradicting himself It 's without example saith hee to say the Spirit is taken for the gifts of the Spirit and yet within three lines after hee saith wee may grant that this question Have you received the holy Ghost may bee meant of the gifts of the holy Ghost And with the same breath hee saith strangely forgetting himself that it is without example to take the holy Ghost for the gifts of the holy Ghost I add further that it is clearly prophesied that extraordinarie gifts as of prophesying and tongues are called the holy Ghost Joël 2. 28. Acts 2. 17. and in this Chapter Acts 19. 6. the holy Ghost came upon them How this is to bee understood the words following do expound They spoke with tongues and prophesied Ver. 6. So Acts 2. 4. thus John 7. 39. the holy Ghost was not yet you cannot denie but hee was in Person before that time and that hee was as touching sanctifying graces before How then is it said the holy Ghost was not yet Of necessitie it must bee meant as touching miraculous operations which were not yet bestowed on the Disciples What can bee more plainly spoken Nor doth this overthrow the Ephesians arguing and the emphasis of the words for however the holy Ghost bee taken yet your Argument is not good this onely can bee soundly inferred from their words Wee are so far from receiving the miraculous gifts of the holy Ghost that wee have not so much as heard whether there bee any such miraculous gifts of the holy Ghost or not And if the question moved to them was not touching the Person and sanctifying graces of the holy Ghost but onely touching miraculous gifts as 't is most probable for they being Disciples might bee presumed not to bee ignorant that there was an holy Spirit and that hee was a Sanctifier of his servants then either their answer is impertinent to the question or else they must needs return their answer in effect thus Wee have not heard whether there bee such miraculous gifts of the holy Ghost or not Advers S. Paul would have taken the hint which hee did not to have instructed them in the Deitie of the holy Ghost Answ 1 First to this I say that this your pleading make's as strongly against your self as against the truth for do not you also put a difference betwixt that prime creäted Spirit as you do blaspheme and his gifts What then do you say against us which make's not as much against your self also Secondly how prove you that the holy Apostle did not instruct these Ephesians touching the holy Ghost Is not this your pleading It is not written therefore it was not don this is say I inconsequent All that hee preached is not written and do not you see that by this reasoning you wound your own cause For can you shew that S. Paul taught these Ephesians such a doctrine touching the holy Ghost which you do maintain that hee was a creature Thirdly it is not to bee doubted but that hee opened to them the doctrine of the holy Ghost that hee was God and that hee taught them that holy graces are fruits of the holy Spirit which none but God can give Advers Yet now say you wee are made to beleeve that a man is damned that beleeve's not the Deitie of the holy Ghost And so saying you think to aggravate our error Answ To this I answer you are to know that wee make a great difference of times and persons wee do not despair of their salvation which were in the state of these Ephesians or of others now in the like condition if beleeving in one God and that Jesus Christ is a Savior and seeing their own sins and miseries should relie on him for eternall life And then as the converted thief on the Cross presently die though they never heard of the holy Ghost I would charitably judg of them and conceive that God intended mercie to them by these gracious discoveries of himself to them at this time but if God will graciously wink at such ignorance and have mercie on them this will yield no comfort at all to you who have been bred up in the Church of Christ and in our Schools and have read the word of God for you have wilfully shut your eies against the truth which is as clear touching the holy Ghost as if it had been written with the Sun beams and you have stretched your wits to the uttermost to pervert the plain meaning of the Scripture as appear's by your endeavoring to answer Matth. 28. and Acts 5. I may say to you as S. Cyprian de Sacram. Dom. calicis saith of som which