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 onely 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 Argument XII 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 Ergo 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 Ergo The Major is plain for conformity must be between twain 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 grones unutterable But he that searcheth the hearts knoweth the minde of the Spirit for he maketh intercession for the Saints according to the will of God Neither let any man here reply that there is no mention made in the Greek either of the will of the Spirit or of the will of God For first the word intercede which signifieth to make suit for something implyeth both the will of him that maketh the suit for if he did not will the thing he would not make suit for it and also the will of him to whom the suit is made for were he not endued with a will it would be bootless to make suit unto him all suits whatsoever being made to bend the will of him to whom they are made so that this without any more sufficiently sheweth that the Holy Spirit hath a will distinct in number from that of God since the one sueth the other is sued to at the same time and for the same thing Secondly the word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} in English rendred Mind doth here signifie the same with Will or Desire as appeareth from the 6. and 7. verses of this Chapter and also from the verb {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} whence it is derived which signifieth to Affect Will Desire Pursue see verse 5. of the same chapter and Col. 3. 2. Thirdly though the Greek hath {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} according to God yet is this in the judgement of the English Translators themselves the same as if it had been said {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} according to the will of God neither can any other commodious interpretation be put upon the words But this passage of the Apostle doth further afford us a second and third impregnable Argument of the Holy Spirit 's being inferiour to God For first he is here said to make intercession for us as we before urged his praying to Christ Argument 9. and that with grones unutterable which is not so to be understood as if the Holy Spirit were here said to help our infirmities onely by suggesting petitions and groanes unto us as is commonly but falsly affirmed for the very words of the context sufficiently exclude such a gloss since they say that the Spirit himself not we by the Spirit as we have it in the 15. verse of the same chapter maketh intercession for us yea vicarious intercession as the Greek word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} signifieth But to help others infirmities by making intercession and what is more vicarious intercession for them is not to instil petitions into them but to pour out petitions apart in their behalf as is apparent both from the thing is self since none can intercede for himself all intercession at least such as is here spoken of requiring the entermise of a third person and by the Collation of verse 34. of the same Chapter and 1 Tim. 2. 1. Heb. 7. 25. Neither let any man think to baffle off this place which is written with a beam of the Sun and hath together with that Joh. 16. 13 14. quite nonplussed not onely Modern Authors but the Fathers themselves 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 speaketh some things of God in a figure and improperly yet doth it nowhere say any thing that argueth his inferiority to and dependance on another But this passage of the Apostle plainly intimateth that the Holy Spirit is inferiour to God and dependent on him otherwise what need had he to make intercession to God and that with grones unutterable for the Saints Secondly the Holy Spirit is here distinguished from him that searcheth the hearts and this description is made use of to put a difference between God and the Holy Spirit but how could this be done were the holy Spirit also a searcher of the hearts For can a description that is common yea alike common to twain for so the Adversaries hold concerning God and the Holy Spirit be set to distinguish the one from the other For instance to prepare the Passover for Christ is an action common to Peter with John for they twain were sent by Christ to that purpose and did accordingly perform it see Luke 22. 8 13. wherefore can a description taken from this action be fit to difference Peter from John and is it suitable to say He that prepared the Passeover for Christ was a greater Apostle then John would not this plainly argue that John did not prepare the Passeover for Christ So that it is apparent that the Holy Spirit is not a searcher of the hearts If therefore it would not follow that the Holy Spirit is God although it had been said in the Scripture that he searcheth the hearts unless he had such a faculty originally and of himself for nothing hinders but that God may confer it upon others as we see by the Scripture that he hath de facto conferred it on Christ having given him all judgement and that because he is the Son of man John 5. 22 27. for such judgement requireth that he be a searcher of the hearts If I say it would not even then follow that he is God how clearly how irrefragably doth it on the contrary follow that he is not God but hath an
the Father maketh no discovery of himself to the world immediately and Christ to prove his Authority and Mission from God appealeth to the works which he did by the finger of God the Holy Spirit see Luke 11. 20. compared with Mat. 12. 28. Wherefore I report this Argument against the Adversaries as quite subverting their opinion touching the Godhead of the Holy Spirit For if the Holy Spirit were God you would commit no sin but what would be against the holy Spirit in that all sins are committed against God as being the transgressions of his Law Again when we sinned against the Father we must of necessity also sin against the holy Spirit if he be the same God with the Father For as the Adversaries hold that the works of the Trinity ad extra that is to without are common to all three so must they by the same reason confess that whatsoever is done to any one of them ab extra that is from without is also common to all three An exposition of Isai. 6. 9 10. And he said Go and tel this people Hear ye indeed but understand not and see ye indeed but perceive not Make the heart of this people fat and make their ears heavy and shut their eyes lest they see with their eyes and hear with their ears and understand with their heart and convert and be healed compared with Acts 28. 25 26 27. Well spake the holy Spirit by Isaias the Prophet unto our Fathers saying Go unto this people and say Hearing ye shall hear and shall not understand c. Because that which in Isaiah is attributed to the Lord is in the Acts ascribed to the holy Spirit the Adversaries hence conclude that the holy Spirit is the Lord Which kinde of arguing though it be very frequent with them is yet very frivolous for at this rate I may also conclude that because what is attributed to the Lord Exod. 32. 11. Lord why doth thy wrath wax hot against thy people which thou hast brought forth out of the land of Egypt is in the seventh verse of the same chapter ascribed to Moses And the Lord said unto Moses Go get thee down for thy people which thow broughtest out of the land of Egypt c. therefore Moses is the Lord And because what is attributed to the Lord Isa. 65. 1. I am sought of them that asked not for me I am found of them that sought me not I said Behold me behold me unto a nation that was not called by my name is in the 10 of the Romanes vers. 20. ascribed to Isaiah But Isaias is very bold and saith I was found of them that sought me not I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me therefore Isaiah is the Lord And because what is attributed to God 2 Tim. 1. 8 9. According to the power of God who hath saved us and called us c. is by Paul attributed to himself 1 Cor. 9. 22. I am made all things to all men that I might by all means save some and to Timothy 1 Tim. 4. 16. In doing this thou shalt both save thy self and them that hear thee therefore Paul yen Timothy is God If the Adversaries say that these things are otherwise ascribed to the Lord then to the men aforesaid I answer This is more then is held forth in the texts themselves which neither express nor intimate any such thing If they further contend that though such a thing be neither expressed nor intimated in the said texts yet other texts and the nature of the thing it self doth sufficiently teach it I reply that I can make the same answer touching the Lord and the holy Spirit But it is well that there is such an intimation in the texts themselves for in the one the Lord speaketh those things to Isaiah in a vision in the other it is said that the holy Spirit spake them by Isaiah to the Fathers Which twain every one may easily perceive to be different since Isaiah onely heard those words in the vision for had the Fathers the people of Israel been also there why should God bid Isaiah go and tell them to the people wherefore Paul ascribeth these words to the Holy Spirit onely to intimate that whatsoever is spoken in the Scripture was recorded by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and so spoken by him An Exposition of 2 Cor. 3. 17. Now the Lord is that Spirit By that Spirit is not here meant the third Person of the HOLY TRINITY otherwise the Lord that is Christ for the Apostle Paul by {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} the Lord doth always unless he cite some place out of the Old Covenant understand Christ will be the Holy Spirit which is repugnant to the Scripture wherein there is a plain distinction everywhere made between Christ and the holy Spirit Understand therefore what the expression it self implyeth the same Spirit that was before in the sixth verse opposed to the Letter and consequently the mystery or hidden sence of the Law denoted by the Letter for thus the word Spirit is also taken Rom. 2. 29. Circumcision is that of the heart in the Spirit and not in the Letter And Rom. 7. 6. But now we are delivered from the Law that being dead wherein we are held so that we serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the Letter And Rev. 11. 8. Their dead bodies shall lye in the streets of the great City which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt where also our Lord was crucified Jerusalem is here spiritually that is mystically called Sodom and Egypt because of the abominable filthiness thereof and cruelty towards the people of God Wherefore the sence of the words of Paul is this namely that the Lord Christ is the Mystery Life Scope and Kernel of the Law as being both foretold therein and prefigured by the Ceremonies thereof An Answer to the grand Objection of the Adversaries touching the supposed Omnipresence of the HOLY SPIRIT AFter I had thorowly sifted this Controversie I found that the Adversaries who so much cry down Reason saying that we must renounce it when we speak of Divine Mysteries and simply rest in the words of the Scripture do notwithstanding in the upshot wave the Scripture as giving a very uncertain testimony to their doctrine in this point and ground themselves on the meer conjectures of their own Reason For thus they argue The holy Spirit if he were not omnipresent and consequently God could not inspire and dwell in so many men at one time For answer hereunto I will onely ask them one Question which if they resolve I will then tell them how the holy Spirit though he be not omnipresent may inspire all the faithful in the world at one time Our Saviour in the fourth of Mark explaining the Parable of the sower saith in vers. 15. And these are they by the way side where the word is sown but when they have
Jehovah alone and yet the Holy Spirit that was given be Jehovah too the same will be Jehovah alone and not Jehovah alone which implyeth a contradiction The minor is evidenced by Neh. 9. 6 20. Argument III. He that speaketh not of himself is not God The Holy Spirit speaketh not of himself Ergo The minor is clear from Joh. 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 it self 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 nor 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 of himself according to the ordinary phrase of the Scripture is to speak or do by the shewing teaching commanding authorizing or enabling of another and consequently incompatible with the supream and self-sufficient Majesty of God Vid. John 5. 19. 20 30. Joh. 7. 15 16 17 18 28. John 8. 28 42. Joh. 11. 50 51. John 12. 49 50. John 14. 10 24. John 15. 4. John 18. 34. Luke 12. 56 57. Luke 21. 30. 2 Cor. 3. 5. Argument IIII. He that heareth from another what he shall speak is not God The Holy Spirit doth so Ergo 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 Ergo The Major is clear by Isa. 40. 13 14. compared with Rom. 11. 34. 1 Cor. 2. 16. For these places of the Apostle compared with that of the Prophet shew that Isaiah did not by the Spirit of the Lord there understand the Holy Spirit but the minde or intention of God The Minor is evidenced by John B. 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 sence 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 scrue the words as he pleases 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 Embassadour he is it being proper to an Embassador to be the Interpreter nor 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 Argument V. He that receiveth of anothers is not God The Holy Spirit doth so Ergo 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 anothers 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 recieve of anothers he would both give all things and not give all things have all things of his owne and have something of anothers both which imply a contradiction The Major of the Prosyllogisme is otherwise urged thus He that is dependent is not God He that receiveth of anothers is dependent Ergo 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 implyeth a contradiction The Minor also is evident for to receive of anothers is the notion of dependency Argument VI He that is sent by another is not God The Holy Spirit is sent by another Ergo The Minor is plain from the fore-quoted place John 16. 7. The Major is evinced thus He that Ministreth is not God He that is sent Ministreth Ergo The Major is indubitable it being dissonant to the supreame Majesty of God to Minister and serve another for that were to be God and not God to exercise soveraign dominion over all and not to exercise it The Minor is confirmed by Heb. 1. ult. where the divine Author sheweth that the Angels are all Ministring Spirits in that they are sent forth as he before intimateth Christ to be Lord because he sitteth at the right hand of God Thus David Psal. 2. declareth the Soveraignty 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 Ergo The Major is evident to common sence since it suiteth with none but Ministers and inferiours to receive commands The Minor is manifested 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 supream 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 shewing that it is unsutable to the divine Majesty Argument VII He that is the gift of God is not God The holy Spirit is the gift of God Ergo The Minor is plain by Acts. 12. 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 it self sufficiently clear is yet 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 Ergo The Major is apparent from Act. 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 Ergo 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 implyeth 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 end of their prayers since there is neither precept nor example for it in all the Scriture and being taxed by me for giving the glory of God to another and w 〈…〉 ing what the hath not commanded nor ever came into his heart have in a cruel and unchristian manner resorted to the arm of flesh and instigated the Magistrate against me hoping by his sword not that of the Spirit to uphold their Will-worship but in vain since every plant that the Heavenly Father hath not set shall be rooted up and that this practice of Worshipping the Holy Spirit as God is such a plant as God never set in his word would soon appear to the Honourable House could they be but so far prevailed with as laying aside all prejudice seriously to weigh the many and solid proofs that I produce for my opinion out of the Scripture together with the sleight or rather no proofes of the adverse party for their opinion which they themselves know not what to make of but that they endeavour to delude both themselves and others with Personalities Moods Subsistences and such like brain-sick Notions that have neither sap nor sence in them and were first hatched by the subtilty of Satan in the heads of Platonists to pervert the worship of the true God Neither could this controversie be set on on foot in a fitter juncture of time then this wherein the Parliament and Kingdome have solemnly engaged themselves to reform Religion both in Discipline and Doctrine For amongst all the corruptions in Doctrine which certainly are many there is none that more deserveth to be amended then this that so palpably thwarteth the whole renour of the Scripture and trencheth to the very object of our worship and therefore ought not to be lightly passed over by any man that professeth himself a Christian much more a Reformer God is jealous of his honour and will not give it to another we therefore as beloved children should imitate our Heavenly Father hetein and not upon any pretence whatsoever depart from his express command and give the worship of the supreme Lord of Heaven and Earth to him whom the Scripture nowhere affirmeth to be God For my own particular after a long impartial inquiry of the truth in this controversie and after much and earnest calling upon God to give unto me the spirit of wisdome and revelation in the knowledge of him I finde my self obliged both by the principles of Scripture and of Reason to embrace the opinion I now hold forth and as much as in me fyeth to endeavour that the honour of Almighty God be not transferred to another not onely to the offence of God himself but also of his Holy Spirit who cannot but be grieved to have that ignorantly ascribed to himself which is proper to God that sends him and which he nowhere challengeth to himself in the Scripture What shall befal me in the pursuance of this work I refer to the disposal of the all wise God whose glory is dearer to me not onely then my libery but then my life It will be your part Honored Sir into whose hands God hath put such an opportunity to examine the business impartally and to be an helper to the truth considering that this controversie is of the greatest importance in the world and that the divine truth suffers her self not to be despised scot-free Neither let the meanness of my outward presence deter you from stirring since it is the part of a wise man as in all things so especially in matters of Religion not to regard so much who it is that speaketh as what it is that is spoken remembring how our Saviour in the Gospel saith that God is wont to hide his secrets from the wise and prudent and to reveal them unto Children In which number I willingly reckon myself being conscious of mine own personal weakness but well assured of the strength and evidence of the Scripture to bear me out in this cause and remain April 1. 1647. Yours in the Lord J. Biddle XII ARGUMENTS drawn out of the Scripture Wherein the commonly-received Opinion touching the Deity of the Holy Spirit is clearly and fully refuted Argument 1. HE that is distinguished from God is not God The holy Spirit is distinguished from God Ergo The Major is evident for if he should be both God and 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 c. Neither let any man here think to flie 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 onely unheard-of in 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 minde and consequently two Gods Secondly If the person be distinct from the Essence of God then it must needs be something since nothing hath no accident and therefore neither can it happen to it to be distinguished 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 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 then the former Thirdly to talk of God taken impersonally is ridiculous not onely because there is no example thereof in Scripture but because God is the name of a * Person and signifieth him that hath sublime dominion or power and when it is put for the most high God it denoteth him who with Soveraign 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 Argument II. If he that gave the Holy Spirit to the Israelites to instruct them be Jehovah alone then the Holy Spirit is not Jehovah or God But he that gave the Holy to the Israelites to instruct them is Jehovah alone Ergo The sequele of the major is plain for if he that gave the Holy Spirit be