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 power or at the disposal of another Neither let any man here think to evade by saying that not the Holy Spirit himself but onely his gifts are imparted to men Since both the more learned adversaries themselves confess that the Person of the Holy Spirit is given together with his gifts and the Scripture putteth the matter out of doubt if you consult Neh. 9. 20. and Rom. 5. 5. In both which places the Holy Spirit is said to be given contradistinctly from his gifts and operations in the first contradistinctly from the instruction flowing from him in the other contradistinctly from the love of God diffused in our hearts by him Whence we may draw this Corollary that if the Person of the Holy Spirit be out of favour given to certain men as the aforesaid places testifie then he was not personally present with them before and consequently by the concession of the adversaries themselves cannot be God since they will not deny that God is always personally present with all alike But I forestal the following Argument Argument VIII He that changeth place is not God The holy Spirit changeth place Ergo The Major is plain for if God should change place he would cease to be where he was before and begin to be where he was not before which everteth his Omnipresence and consequently by the confession of the adversaries themselves his Deity The Minor is ocularly apparent if following the * advice of the adversaries you will but go to Jordan for there you shal have the holy Spirit in a bodily shape despending from heaven which is the terminus a quo and alighting upon Christ which is the terminus ad-quem Luke 3. 21 22. Joh. 1. 32. Neither let any man alleadge that as much is spoken of God Exod. 3. and chap. 20. and Gen. 18. For if you compare Acts 7. 30 35 38 53. Gal. 3. 19. Heb. 2. 2 3. and chap. 13. 2. with the foresaid places you shall finde that it was not God himself that came down but onely an Angel sustaining the Person and Name of God which hath no place in the history touching the descent of the holy Spirit Argument IX He that prayeth unto Christ to come to judgement is not God The holy Spirit doth so Ergo The Major is granted The Minor is evident from Revel. 22. 17. compared with the 12 verse Neither let any man think to elude this proof by saying that the Spirit is here said to pray onely because he maketh the Bride to pray for when the Scripture would signifie the assistance of the holy Spirit in causing men to speak it is wont to affirm either that the holy Spirit speaketh in them as Matth. 10. 20. or that they spake by the holy Spirit as Rom. 8. 15. We have received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry Abba Father But here it is expresly said that the Spirit and the Bride say Come not the Spirit in the Bride nor the Bride by the Spirit Argument X. He in whom men have not believed and yet have been disciples and believers is not God Men have not believed in the holy Spirit and yet have been so Ergo The Major is plain for how can they be disciples and believers according to the phrase of Scripture and not believe in him that is God The Minor is proved thus Men have not so much as heard whether there were an holy Spirit and yet have been disciples and believers Ergo They have not believed in the holy Spirit and yet have been disciples and believers The Antecedent is apparent from Acts 19. 2. The Consequence is grounded on that of the Apostle Rom. 10. 14. How shall they believe in 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 {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} is meant not the Person but the Gifts of the holy Spirit He besides that he perverteth the plain and genuine meaning of the words and speaketh without example * doth also evacuate the emphasis of the Particles {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} which imply that these disciples were so far from having received the gifts of the holy Spirit whereof we may without prejudice to our cause 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 had been so doth quite decline it for it is incredible that he who was so intent and vigilant in propagating the Truth as that casually seeing an Altar at Athens inscribed To the unknown God he presently took a hint from thence to preach unto the Heathen the true God yet here being told by disciples that they had not so much as heard whether there were an holy Spirit or not should not make use of the opportunity to discover unto them and in them to us the Deity of the holy Spirit but suffer them to remain in ignorance touching a point of such consequence that without the knowledge thereof if we believe many now-a-days men cannot be saved Certainly the Apostle had a greater care both of the Truth of God and the salvation of men then to do so Argument XI He that hath an understanding distinct from that of God is not God The holy Spirit hath an understanding distinct from that of God Ergo The Major is clear for he that hath an understanding distinct from that of another must needs likewise have a distinct essence wherein that understanding may reside The Minor is proved thus He that heareth from God at the second hand namely by Christ Jesus what he shall speak hath an understanding distinct from that of God The holy Spirit so heareth from God Ergo The Minor is evident from Joh. 16. 13 14 15. The Major is confirmed thus He that is taught of God hath an understanding distinct from that of God He that heareth from God what he shall speak is taught of God Ergo The Minor is manifest from Joh. 8. where our Saviour Christ having said in vers 26. Whatsoever I have heard from him the Father these things I speak In vers 28. he expresseth the same sence thus According as the Father hath taught me these things I speak The Major is of it self clear for he that is taught hath an unknowing understanding since none can be taught what he knoweth already and he that teacheth hath a knowing understanding otherwise he could not teach another something but it implieth a contradiction that the same understanding should at the same time be both knowing unknowing of the same thing Besides that the holy Spirit hath an understanding distinct from that of God is easily deducible from the words of the Apostle 1 Cor. 2. 10. where he affirmeth that the
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