from God for though their persons are distinguished yet the Essence is the same But B. foresaw this answer and seeing he wanted arguments he falls a railing 1 He calls this an ignorant refuge A bold censure for a rustick Paedagogue to pass upon so many learned men whose shoes he will never be worthy to bear He adds That no man can conceive it in his minde Alas vain man doest thou think to conceive these great mysteries which the very Angels adore But come a litle lower canst thou conceive what the eternity of God is What his infinity or immensity is All the conceptions of thy minde are finite Yet a little lower Canst thou conceive what a Spirit â—s What a soul is wiser men then B. could never yet do it and therefore they can only describe them by Negatives and tell us what they are not but cannot tell us what they are Yet a little lower Canst thou tell how every quantity may be divided into infinite parts What is the nature of the Load-stone nay Why thy hair is black or white Canst thou tell what is the essence of a pebble canst thou give the definition of a Feather Away vain man lay thy hand upon thy mouth and henceforth never grudge that thou canst not conceive such a mystery as this is in thy minde I believe B. can as hardly conceive the resurrection of the body especially when one Canibal eats another and a beast him and another man that beast c. will he therefore dis-believe the resurrection of the body Can B. conceive how the soule and body are united together it hath puzled other manner of Philosophers then B. is will he therefore conclude that the soule and body are not united together But he faith It is a distinction unheard of in Scripture Answ That is false 1 It is clearly John 1. â— The word was with God and the word was God wiâ—h God there God is taken personally the Son was with the Father was God there it is taken essentially the Son was God had the Essence of God It is a silly cavil of B's that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not to be understood in the same sense because the Father is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the God Christ onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a God Nay not onely B. brings this exception but which is the wonder his fellow-creatures his puny disciples that I dare say never saw Athens are all on a sudden turned Grecians they that were the other day but Graculi momento turbinis are become Graeculi before ever they could construe this Latine Graecum est non potest legi But let not B. think to do as other Hereticks have done to justle out an article of faith by an article of Grammar Such 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may satisfie a pedantick Grammaticaster or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but will never sway with serious or judicious men The observation is false and foolish For the Father is many times called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without an article Seek the Kingdom 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Matth. 7. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mat. 10. 6. And Christ is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with an article Heb. 1. 8. and 1 John 5. 20. So that being all B. hath to say to that place it doth 1 Fully prove the Divinity of Christ 2 By consequence give good ground for our distinction between the divine Essence and a divine Person 3 This also we read in Scripture These three are one 1 John 5. 7. 4 Two things are cleer in the Scripture 1 That there is but one God 2 That yet the Father is God the Son is God the Holy Ghost is God But he goes on to an argument as he thinks a very subtil one If the Person be distinct from the Essence of God then it is either something or nothing if nothing how can it be distinguished By the way friend is there no distinction no difference between something nothing If something then either finile or infinue finite we will not say if infinite then there are two infinites in God the Person and the Essence An old argument new sodden I answer 1 But what if I should say a person barely considered is neither yes a thing properly nor yet nothing but modus râ—â— the manner of a thing modus substautialis Had B. studied Philosophy a little better before he had made such a bold Essay in Divinity he would not have wondred at it The folding of my hands is not a thing for then I should be a Creator and make a thing nor is it plainly nothing for there is a difference between my hands folded and stretched-out but nothing cannot make a difference as B. saith 2 I answer a person considered precisely and by it self is neither finite nor infinite for these are the properties of essences Indeed every essence or being is either finite or infinite but the person singly considered is not a being but the manner of a being Or 3 The Persons considered with the Essence are infinite and yet they are not three infinites because they have but one Essence and so one infinity But he addes To talk of God Essentially taken is ridiculous because God is the name of a person Wretched ignorance B. doth not understand the meaning of his Adversaries None ever took God essentially in that sense for an essence abstracted from a person but the meaning is this that I may a little instruct him in this principle We say God essentially considered acts not as if the abstracted nature of God did act but because it is an act common to all the Persons Thus to create is an act of God essentially considered because all the Trinity creates but to beget the Son is an act of God personally considered because that is an act proper to the first Person Object 2. His second Argument is this He that gave the holy Spirit is Jehovah alone Neh. 9. 6 2c Therefore the Spirit is not God Answ This exclusive Particle doth exclude Creatures and Idol-gods but not the other Persons of the Trinity So it is used in many other places Matth. 11. 27. The day of Judgment none knowes but the Father only and yet Christ as God could not be ignorant of it for he knew even the thoughts of the heart Math. 9. 4 which is much more nor could the Spirit be ignorant of it for that searcheth even the deep things of God 1 Cor. 2. 10. so 1 Cor. 2. 11. the things of God knoweth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not onely no man but no person for so the word signifies but the Spirit of God Shall any weak or perverse Disputant infer from hence Therefore the Father knowes them not or knowledge is not properly attributable to God as Mr. Goodwin tells us So Rev. 19. 1â— Christ had a Name which noâ—â— knew but himself what did not God the Father know it So Deut. 32. 12. The Lord alone did lead
6. 16. You are the temples of the living God as God hath said I will dwell in them We are temples of God in one place of the Holy Ghost in another If this will not satisfie as that will satisfie a blinde minde and a perverse spirit It 's proper to God to have a temple as it is proper to him to be worshipped especially for such a creature as man to be a temple to to whom can this belong but to the Creator of man The Adversary of the Holy Ghost talkes much of reason and wisdome c. It were to be wished that he would make a little use of it here Well what saith he to this clear place He is resolved to say something ne nihil dixisse videatur 1 He saith Indeed it would follow the Argument would hold if it could be proved that our body is so the temple of the Holy Ghost as to be his by interest and dedicated to his honour Well said but who ever did understand any thing else or how can any thing else be understood especially by him that pretends so much understanding What is it for a temple to be crected to one but for his honour worship and service was ever temple duly consecrated for other ends 2 He saith That God is here distinguished from the Spirit And did not B. know that we allow a distinction between the Persons though not in the Essence of the Sacred Trinity Also that we distinguish between the divine nature and a divine person But this will more fitly and fully be answered under his second Argument I might mention 2 Cor. 3. 17. The Lord is that Spirit and where the Spirit of the Lord is there is liberly and many other places but I study brevity Arg. 2. He to whom Religious worship is duly and truly exhibited is God But Religious Worship is duly and truly given to the Holy Ghost Therefore the Holy Ghost is God For the Maior one would think a few words would suffice to satisfie a man that cals himself a Protestant But when once men relinquish principles they rest no where And so B. laies down tâ—â—s aâ—â—ertion that the Holy Ghost is the intermediate object of worship and so may be worshipped But 1 Worship is an incommunicâ—ble propâ—rty God may assoon appoint that a creâ—tâ—â—e shall be Omnipotent which is a contradiction as that a creature shall be worshipped I mean with Religious worship for a civil I worship or respect we confess is due to many men and to Angels 2 It is quite contrary to expresse Scripture Deut. 6. compared with Matth. 4. Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him onely shalt thou serve Paul calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the worshiping of Angels an errour Coloss 2. 18. So Revel 22. 8 9. observe Worship not me I am thy fellow-servant now so all the Angels are Heb. 1. 14. Are they not all Ministring spirits If then the Holy Ghost be an Angel or Ministring spirit as B. saith he is not to be worshipped Again worship God let him have all thy worship what can be more clear or pregnant So you have the Major confirmed But the Minor is principally to be proved And I shall prove it 1 By Isai 6. 1. I saw the Lord sitting upon his throne This Lord was worshipped by the Seraphims ver 3. they cried Holy holy holy is the Lord of Hosts This Lord sends a message by the Prophet vers 9 10. Go ye and tell this people c. Now go along with me to Act. 28. 25. 26 27. where you have the very same message Paul brings it in thus Well spake the Holy Ghost by Isaiah the Prophet Paul saith the Holy Ghost spake and in the sixth of Isaiah The Lord spake nor can it be said that the Lord spake by the Holy Ghost as being one of those Angels and that the same action may be attributed to severall persons as God is said to save men and Paul is said to save men For though that is a truth yet here it cannot be so understood as if the Holy Ghost were Gods Instrument in delivering this message as Paul was in the saving of souls for he that spake immediately is evidently distinguished from the Angels Vers 6 7. you read one of the Seraphims flew and touched the lips of the Prophet then vers 8. he passeth from the Angels and tells you he heard the voice of the Lord. The Lord that was upon his throne vers 1. that was worshipped vers 2. If it be yet said There is a difference in the textâ— for in the one the Lord speaketh these things to Isaiah i. e. in a vision in the other it is that the holy Spirit spake them by Isaiah to the Fathers I answer that alters not the case for the Scripture informs us that it was the same Authour that spake to the Prophets and by the Prophets to the people It was God that spake unto the Fathers by the Prophets Heb. 1. â— which is parallel to this place The Holy Ghost spake by Isaiah to the Fathers The meaning of it is onely this that the Holy Ghost sent this message by Isaiah to the Fathers Now he that sent that message was God immediately as we have proved 2 That worship is due to the Holy Ghost will appear from Psal 95. 8. It is said vers 6. O come let us worship and how down let us kneel before the Lord our Maker Vers 7. If you will hear his voice ver 8. Harden not your hearts But you will say How doth it appear that the Holy Ghost is here intended I answer by comparing this place with Heb. 3. 7 8 9. wherefore as the Holy Ghost saith To day if you will hear his voice c. How did the Holy Ghost say it By the mouth of David Whospake by the mouth of David Why God Heb. 1. 1. And observe it Saint Paul or whoever was the Authour of that Epistle to the Hebrews brings in the Holy Ghost speaking thus of himself Your fathers tempted me and proved me and saw my works fourty years and so Vers 11. I sware they shall not enter into my rest Who was it whom they tempted They tempted the most High God Psal 78. 18. Who was it whose works they saw fourty years Who can do those marvellous works but God They are called Gods marvellous works Psal 105. 5. Who was it that sware it was the Lord Numb 3â— 10 11. The Lord sware saying None of them shall see the Land The word in the Original is Jehovah a name peculiar to God and never given to any Angel And that it was the Lord himself that sware immediately is beyond all contradiction especially if this place be compared with Numbers 14. And yet here all these things are attributed to the Holy Ghost 3 Swearing is a part of worship and we ought to swear by none bur God Now the Apostle swears by the Holy Ghost Rom. 9. 1. My conscience bearing me
Major I prove it 1 Because the Scripture attributes that word that was spoken and written by Prophets or Apostles unto God Heb. 1. 1. God spake in times past by the Prophets Here is the principal cause God the instrumental cause the Prophets To one of these the Holy Ghost must be referred Luke 1. 7â— And so 1 Thâ—ss 2. 13. Paul commends the Thâ—ssalonians for receiving his word not as the word of man but as it is indeed the Word of God Hence all the Scripture is said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of divine inspiration 2 Tim. â— 16. or inspired by God But so it could not be if it were inspired by any creature whether Angel or man and indeed it cannot be otherwise but that God should be the inspirer of it because the Scripture cannot be founded upon the authority of a meer creature for then it would not be infallible nor would our faith be a divine faith Let us suppose that the Holy Ghost were an Angel as B. affirmes I say we could not believe him with a divine faith nor look upon his Word as absolutely infallible which if I mistake not is fully proved from Gal. 1. 8. Though we or an Angel from Heaven should preach any other Gospel unto you then that which we have preached let him be accursed Where evident it is the Apostle puts himself and Angels both into the same rank in that respect and supposeth that neither of then were simply in fallible and that we could not safely rely upon either of them with a divine faith But now we may safely rely upon the Word and authority of the Holy Ghost for that is called a fure Word yea more sure then a voice from Heaven as you may see 2 Pet. 1. 19. and therefore so sure because it was spoken by the H. Ghost V 2â— For the Minor it is proved 1 By that place fore-mentioned Acts 28. 25. The Hâ— Ghost spake by I saiâ—h 2 By 2 Peâ— 1. 21. Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost Where the Deity of the Holy Ghost is not obscurely proved for he tels us Verse 20. Scripture is not of private interpretation that is it is not to be interpreted according to mens private pre-conceived opinions but according to the minde of the Holy Ghost who was the Arthour of it A parallel place you have Hâ—b 9. 8. The Holy Ghost this signifying c. where the minde of the Holy Ghost is made the genuine sense of the Scripture now Scripture is to be interpreted according to the minde of none but the Authour of it Many other places might be added but I do not desire to multiply places Whereas B. saith the H. Ghost is an Angel that cannot be for the Holy Ghostâ— you 〈◊〉 iâ— the Authour of the Scripture and doth fully understand all Scripture-mysteries but now the Angels are ignorant of them they knew not the day of judgement they are ignorant in great pair of Gospel-mysteries 1 Pet. 1. 12. The Apostles preached the Gospel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with or by the Holy Ghost which things the Angels desire to look 〈◊〉 Observe 1 The Angels are â—â—â—aly â—â—stinguished from the Holy Ghost 2 The Holy Ghost is the Dictator of Gospel-mystâ—ries the Angels are Students learners in them Arg. 6. He who is â—â—â— in natuâ—â— and essence with the Father is God But the Holy Ghost is one with the Father Therefore the Holy Ghost is God The Major will not be denied The Minor is proved from 1 John 5. 7. There are three that bear record in Heaven the Father the word and the Spirit and these are one Consider 1 If the Spirit were an Angel there were three thousand witnesses in Heaven 2 Again there is a clear variation of the phrase in the next Verse there it is they agree in one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but here it is not they agree in one but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they are one it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not the personal number 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Neutral to note that though there is in the Trinity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a person and a person yet there is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a thing and a thing though there are three Persons yet there is but one nature but one Essence Had the H. G. bin an Angel John had committed a wilful and gross offence in varying the phrase whereby just cause of suspition was given to think that he was one with God not only by consent for so the Water Spirit and Bloud are one they consent in their testimony but also in Essence 3 â—ook to Verse 9. If we receive the witness of men the witness of God is greater He takes notice only of two Witnesses the witness of God and the witness of men The witness of the Holy Ghost is not the witness of men nay the contrary is most clearly implied that it is the witness of God But this place is no better then its companions and therefore B. offers violence to it 1 He saith This phrase is never taken to signifie one in â—â—ssâ—ndâ— but always one in consent I answer This is false the contrary is evident from John 10. 29 I and my Father are one Had Christ meant only one in consent the Jews would never have been ready to stone him Again he gives this as a reason why none could pluck hiâ— sheep out of his hand because he had one and the same power and so the same Essence with God For if he had only been one in consent with the Father one might assoon have pluckt his sheep out of his hand as out of the hand of any of his Disciples for they also were one in consent with God But here lies the sorce of the argument My Father is greater then all and therefore none can pluck them out of his hand And I am as great as the Father for I and he are one and therefore it will be as hard a work to pluck them out of mine hand And it is observable when the Jâ—ws charge him with making himself God he doth not flie to B's refuge to say he meant onely one in consent which if true had been the fairest and best way but he argues from their own principles that they allow Magistrates to be gods and therefore he may be call'd God because lie hath aâ—tority from God as Magistrates have was in a more â—miâ—â—â—nt way sanctified by God and sent into the World by the way holding forth that he had another nature and being and was a person before he was sont into the World how could nothing be sanctified sent into the World and therefore had not onely the humane nâ—â—â— which he received from the Virgin after he was sent into the world but also a divine nature by which he was God But B. faith That it