was the Lord for he saith expresly I am the God of Abraham whereas the good Angels and messengers of God never spake in that manner in the first person I am thy fellow-servant said that Angel Revel 22. So the Prophets used to speak of God in the third person Thus saith the Lord. Object 9. His ninth Argument is this He that prayeth unto Christ is not God But the Spirit prayeth to Christ to come to judgement Revel 22. Therefore it is not God Answ It can never be proved that this Teâ—t is to be meant of the Spirit of God it may very well be meant of any Angel For 1 Certainly the Angels desire to see the happinesse of the Saints compleated 2 In the very verse before the Text there is mention made of a created Angel Object But then it would not have been Spirit in the singular number Answ There is no necessity of that for why may not one good Spirit signifie more good Angels as well as one unclean spirit signifie a legion Mark 5. 2 9. But what if it were meant of the Spirit of God The meaning onely is this the Spirit speaketh in the Spouse and dictates to the Spouse It is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Figure very frequent both in Scripture and in other Authors though the Adversary doth magisterially forbid us this Interpretation without giving one reall proof against it I shall adde here what B. hath in his twelfth Reason which indeed properly belongs to this place He quotes Rom. 8. 27. The Spirit maketh intercession for us with groanes unutterable The Spirit saith B. poures out petitions apart in our behalf This our adversary calls an invincible argument but I hope by that time we have done with it it will be found like the invincible Navy Nomen praeterea nihil I answer The Spirit is said to intercede because it makes us to intercede For proof of this 1 It is ordinary in Scripture for God to be said to do that which he maketh us to do thus Gen. 22. 12. God is said to know when he maketh others to know So Matth. 10. 20. The Spirit of your Father speaketh in you which is thus expounded Luke 21. 15. I will give you a mouth and wisdome which all your adversaries shall not be able to gain-say So that the Spirit speaking in them and they speaking by the Spirit signifie the same thing Thus a Scrivener is said to write when by directing our hands he makes us to write 2 It is the Spirit within us not without us that makes intercession for us our prayer therefore is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Jam. 5. 16. haply to note that it is wrought in us by the Spirit 3 This interpretation suites best with the Context all along he is speaking of the Spirits operation in us ver 11. If the Spirit of God dwell in you Verse 15. is parallel to this 27. Ye have received the Spirit of Adoption by which we cry Abba Father These are equivalent expressions the Spirit in us cries Abba Father and we by the Spirit cry Abba Father And the same thing you since expressed both wayes by the former phrase Gal. 4. 6. by the latter Rom. 8. 15. which if well considered will fully answer Bâ—ales Argument But indeed we need to go no further for an antidote against B's poisonous interpretation then the 26 verse and we may adde the 27 verse to it Thence I argue 1 Such an interpretation must be understood as helps our infirmities in praying But our infirmities in praying are helped by the Spirits inabling us to pray and not by I know not what intercession of the Spirit apart 2 Such an intercession of the Spirit must be understood as teacheth us how to pray as we ought but it is not a supposed intercession of the Spirit of God apart from us that doth that how the prayer of an Angel which we neither hear nor know should teach us to pray is not easie to conceive but the Spirit in us enlightening our mindes dictating to us what we should ask that and that alone helps us against our ignorance 3 Whos 's the groanings are his the intercession is That is clear to any one that reads the 26 verse The Spirit maketh intercession for us with groanings c. But the groanings are ours as appears 1 So they are said to be vers 23. 2 They are groanings that cannot be uttered I suppose B. will not say but the Spirit is able to utter all his minde 3 Nor can it easily be imagined that the blessed Spirit which is our comforter and the Spirit of glory should be subject to groaning seeing the very glorified Saints are freed from them then whom the Spirit cannot be thought to be less happy or more miserable 4 If the minde of the Spirit be our minds assisted by the Spirit then the intercession of the Spirit is our intercession helped by the Spirit But the minde of the Spirit is meant of our minds or our desires assisted by the Spirit because Gods searching the heart is given as a ground of Gods knowing the minde of the Spirit Now there were neither coherence nor consequence between the searching of our hearts and the knowing the minde of the Spirit if the minde of the Spirit were to be understood properly 5 The intercession of the Spirit is according to the will of God But the Spirits interceding for us apart as B. supposeth is not according to the will of God Nay that an Angel for such B. saith the Spirit is should intercede for us is contrary to the will of God for this is the will of God There is but one Mediator 1 Tim. 2. 6. that is one Mediator of Intercession as well as one of Redemption as we generally say against the Papists for of intercession he is speaking in that Chapter ver 1. And on the other side it is the will of God that the Spirit should intercede for us in our sense that it should help us in our prayers and intercessions by convincing comforting enlightening guiding and teaching us by helping our infirmities and therefore so it must be here understood To adde one thing I should desire nothing more then that both our doctrines might be tried by this Text I durst willingly venter all upon its arbitration For besides what hath been said let this be considered How it can possibly be that the Holy Ghost should be onely a created Angel and yet here be said to know the particular wants and most secret desires of every particular Saint Considering 1 That it is the property of God to search the heart Jer. 17. 9 10. The heart is deceitfull who can know it I the Lord search the heart Where nothing more evident then that he speaks exclusively So here in this very place these 26 and 27 verses 2 That it is not imaginable that that person that is ignorant of the day of Judgement can know all mens hearts But so all
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
witness in the Holy Ghost Swearing is nothing else but a calling God to witness and as God alone doth search the heart he alone is able to judge the heart whether he that swears swears in truth So he only is to be sworn by 4 This appears from Revel 1. 4 5. Grace bâ— unâ—o you and peace from him which is and was and is to come and from the seven spirits which are before his throne and from Jesus Christ c. You see Saint John prays to all the Persons in the Trinity amongst the rest the seven spirits The Spirit of God is called the seven spirits because of its manifold gifts and operations Seven is a note of perfection and seven spirits in relation to the seven Churches The seven Churches were as liberally provided for as if they had had seven spirits These seven spirits cannot be meant of Angels for 1 these seven spirits are put before Christ whereas the Angels are far below him Heb. 1. 2 The good Angels would never accept of Prayer or Worship Revel 22. 8 9. 3 Prayers are not to be directed to any creature to any Angel for we are to pray to none but those that know our hearts Rom. 8. 27. We must pray to none but him that is the object of our faith Rom. 10. 14. God hath commanded us onely to call upon himself Psal 50. 15. Call upon me not upon an Angel in the day of trouble Christ bids us pray only to Our Father And much more might be said but I am ashamed to see that we should need arguments to dispute down such rotten Popish Tenents out of those that profess Protestancie From all these it cleerly follows that these seven spirits cannot be understood to be created Angels 4. Nor are the Angels the fountains of grace and peace The seven spirits here prayed to are so If it be said though they are not the fountains yet they are instruments I Ans 1. The instruments of grace must not be prayed to Ministers are Gods instruments in the working of grace yet we must not pray to them 2 The Scripture never in the least hints that Angels are Gods instruments in working of grace And if it were true as it is most false that the Holy Ghost were an Angel yet will it not follow because one Angel is said to have some causality in the working of grace therefore 7 have rather because it is attributed onely to one the rest are excluded 3 If Angels are instruments then either moral or natural not moral for that consists in perswasion c. Angels do not perswade c. nor natural for grace being created must needs be immediately produced by God and besides B. and all the Socinians are so far from allowing such a Physical influence of Angels upon the will c. that they deny it to God himself and tell us he can onely perswade the heart but not work physically upon it The best of creatures are in the condition of those wise Virgins that have oil only for their own use If it be said Here the seven spirits are put before Christ whereas Christ being the second Person should be put before the Spirit I answer 1 Nothing can be gathered from this order Sometimes the Son is mentioned before the Father 2 Cor. 13. 14. The reason is though there be a priority of order among the Persons of the blessed Trinity yet there is no precedencie in dignity 2 The Spirit of God is superiour to Christ as Mediatour and so he is spoken of here as is evident Arg. 3. He in whose name Baptisme is to be administred is God But Baptisme is to be administred in the Name of the Holy Ghost Therefore the Holy Ghost is God For the Minor that cannot be denied it is express Scripture Matth. 28. â—9 The Major will easily be proved â— If you consider what it is to be baptized into ones name it is to be baptized into ones worship faith and do â—râ—ne and further to be baptized by the authority or at the appointment af one 2 If you consider what Baptisme is it is a Seal of the Covenant of Grace Now in whose name is Baptisme to be administred but in his who is able to seal to us Gods part of the Covenant and to whom we owe the performance of our part To whom doth it belong to appoint Sacraments but to God alone 3 If you consider how much Paul dreaded the thoughts of it that any man should say He was baptized in the name of Paul 1 Cor. 1. 13 14 15. And no reason can be given why if it was lawful to baptize in the name of any servant or Minister it were not as lawful to baptize in the name of Paul as in the name of any Angel 4 If you consider that Ephes â— One Lord one Faith one Baptisme where it is not obscurely implied that Baptisme is to be in the name of none but the Lord and also that these three mentioned in Baptism are but one one Lord. But the Theomachist objects The Jews are said to be baptized into Moses 1 Cor. 10. 2. I answer 1 There is difference between these phrases being baptized into one and in his name Certainly there was as much reason why the Corinthians might be baptized in the name of Paul as the Israelites in the name of Moses And therefore as Paul abhorred the thoughts of it that any should be baptized in his name so doubtless Moses would not have arrogated it to himself nor Paul have given it to Moses 2 Moses is taken several ways To omit other senses sometimes it is taken for the Law and worship of God delivered by the hand of Moses Luke 16. 31. If they heare not Moses and the Prophets Why Moses where was he And the Prophets do they live for ever It was only the Word of God written by Moses and the Prophets Acts 21. 21. Thou teachest all the Jews to forsake Moses so the meaning of it may be only this They were baptized or initiated into the Law and worship of God delivered by Moses now what is this to the purpose Or 3 The Preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be put for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it is in other places Acts 7. 35. The Law was given 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into the dispositions of Angels for by the dispositions of Angels according to Gal. 3. 19. It was ordained by Angels Whereas B. saith We are baptized into the guidance of the Spirit into the confession and obedience of it it being the chief instrument whereby God guides governs sanctifies the Church Alas whither will a wandring creature rove We use to judge the Papists sufficiently absurd and I doubt not but B. will join with us in it for making a visible head of the Church distinct from Christ Now B. makes an invisible head the Vicar of God and Christ and that one of those Angels that are so far from being heads of the
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
them and yet Christ is said to lead them 1 Cor. 10. 4 9. and also the the Spirit Neh. 9. 20. So Psal 136. 4. The Lord alone doth great wonders and yet we have proved that the Holy Ghost doth great wonders Object 3. His third Argument is this He that speaketh not of himself is not God But the Holy Ghost speaketh not of himself Therefore the Holy Ghost is not God The Minor is proved from Joh. 16. 13. Answ This is the fruit of Gods condescensions to unthanfull men they take occasion to slight him for them Thus because Christ was pleased to assume the nature of man some have rendered him this thanks to dispute him out of his Godhead Thus because God in Scripture condescends to our capacity therefore they have requited him thus to say that all things must be understood properly of God how much soever they tend to his dishonour Ungratefull wretches assure your selves this wicked unthankfulnesse shall not go unpunished But to answer 1 This phrase doth note an order though no inequality in the Divine Persons Now as the Holy Ghost in regard of his person is not of himself but from the Father and the Son so he acts also from them 2 This phrase doth note the consent that was between the Father and the Spirit as if Christ had said The Spirit shall not speak one thing and the Father another but both shall agree according to that There are three that bear record in heaven 1 Ioh. 5. 7. There is not the single testimony of the Spirit but the joynt attestation of all the three Persons He shall not speak from himself alone the exclusive particle is often understood So Deut. 6. 13. is expounded by Christ Matth. 4. 16. But he shall speak what he hears the very same things that the Father speaks and he hears he shall speak Nor doth this hearing argue any inferiority one man may hear another that is no more learned then himself As if I should say of three Ambassadors of equall parts and power Such an one of them you may safely treat with for he shall not speak of himself but whatsoever he shall hear that shall he speak My meaning is not He shall not speak by his own power or vertue nor from his own knowledge but onely to shew that there is a consent between them all 3 The words may be taken thus He shall not speak of himself concerning himself onely or principally but whatsoever he shall hear concerning me c. that is fit for you to know he shall â—â—ew you So thâ—t it notes not his manner of spâ—aking but the matter that he shall 〈◊〉 of But B. saith This phrase in Scripture to do a thing not of himself notes to do a thing by the teaching command authority of another I answer There are many phrases which are spoken both of God and man but B. must know that things are not attributed to God and man univocally that is in one and the same sense God is said to repent and man is said to repent yet I hope B. is not so brutish as to think God repents and grieves properly how then should he be perfectly happy But since I writ my last I have ground to recall my hopes for B's followers who it is like dare not speak a word without their Masters warrant are such things that they say God is grieved properly Lest any man should think I wrong them and that the World may see what rare intelligent creatures these are that cannot believe the Deity of the Holy Ghost because of too much reason I will give you their own words as I had them out of a pâ—tifull Manuscript which is much applauded by that party They are these We must either conclude that God doth repent and grieve and that properly too or else we must in effect say Scripture thou liest Oh prodigious wit profound judgement quintessence of learning mirroâ—r of reason And yet these are the onely Animalia vatioxalia and we poor mortalls that believe Personalities Trinunities c. it is a favour if they will allow us to be Animals but for rationality we must leave it with them and it is confessed they have great need of it But to return God is said to have hands and feet c. and so are men yet I hope not in the same sense And yet a man might as well urge these eâ—pâ—â—ssions to prove that God hath hands c. because when it is spoken of men it is so to be taken as to infer with B. because when a man is said not to speak of himself it is meant he speaks by the direction and at the appointment of another therefore it is so to be understood when it is attributed to God the Holy Ghost And yet it is false that it alwayes is so taken among men Suppose a King should say I will leavy such a tax or do such a thing but I will not do it of my self but I will conferre with my Councill about it doth this note that he levies the tax by the teaching command authority of another and not by his own authority Object 4 His fourth Argument is this The Spirit heareth from another Ioh. 16. 13. Therefore it is not God Answ This Argument is the same for substance with the other and the same answer will suffice But B. soresaw what answer would stop his mouth and therefore he laies a strict charge upon us not to say this is spoken improperly Well but â— Shall we take it properly hath the Holy Ghost bodily ears to hear 2 Or was the Holy Ghost to learn was he to seek in Gospel-mysteries How can that be imagined of him that dictated the Scripture and fully understood all the meaning of it Heb. 9. 8. Besides a Text that B. himself cites will not permit this which is Isa 40. 13 14. compared with Ro. 11. 34. I confess I cannot but admire both the wisdome of God and the besortednesse of this man that should cite such a Text that is enough to overthrow all he saith I beseech you follow his directions compare those Texts together what in one place Rom. 11. 34. is said of the Lord Who hath known the minde of the Lord or who hath been his Counsellor that in Isai 40. 13. is spoken of the Spirit of God Who hath directed the Spirit of the Lord or being his Counsellour hath taught him The same independency and self-sufficiency is attributed to them both Again that Spirit of the Lord Isai 40. 13. is there called the Lord God vers 10. is said to be infinite ver 12 15. is said to be he to whom sacrifices belong ver 16. which is Gods prerogative is called God ver 18. All which if I listed to prosecute them would make so many unanswerable Demonstrations It is a signe of a desperate cause that B. is forced to this refuge that by the Spirit of God here is not meant the Holy Spirit but onely the
minde of God which indeed deserves not a refutation for that phrase is never so taken in all Scripture or any other Authour Nor doth B. cite any place wherein it is so taken the more his boldnesse to foist in such a novell interpretation without any example Wherreas he parallels it with 1 Cor. 2. 16. Who hath known the minde of the Lord that is nothing to the purpose For 1 By the minde of the Lord may very well be meant the minde of the Spirit or the minde of Christ rather as appears by the Antithesiâ— in this place but we have the minde of Christ 2 If it were the minde of the Father it would give him no help for the Father Son and Spirit have all one minde and so that is all that would follow not that the Spirit of the Lord and the minde of the Lord are the same as B. groundlesly fancies but that the minde of the Father and the minde of the Spirit is one and the same Object 5. His fifth Argument is this He that receiveth of another is not God But the Holy Ghost receiveth of another Ioh. 16. 14. He shall receive of mine aâ—â— shew it to you Therefore the Holy Ghost iâ— not God Answ This also is but the same Argument over again repeated only I suppose to make up the dozen The answer to the third Argument will suffice for this yet something may be added For suppose the Holy Ghost did properly receive any thing from the Father yet could he not properly be said to receive any thing of Christ according to â—'s supposition that looks upon Christ but as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a meer man for contrariwise Christ as man received all his fulnesse from the Spirit Joh. 3. 34. He received the Spirit without measure Isai â—1 1. Again it is not said he shall receive of me but of mine that is he shall take my wisdome righteousnesse holiness my death resurrection c. and shall shew them to you shall make a full discovery of those mysteries to you he shall take my blood and sprinkle it upon your consciences my death and thereby destroy the body of death in you my resurrection and by shewing that to you and working a serious consideration of it in you shall quicken you to newnesse of life The meaning is not as B. ignorantly supposeth that the Holy Ghost receives any knowledge of Christ for his own perfection seeing he did so perfectly understand all Scripture-mysteries before as we have proved but onely that he shall receive or take these things to shew them to you Object 6 Arg. 6. He that is sent of God is not God But the Holy Ghost is sent of God Therefore he is not God Answ Still the same mistake the same answer will suffice again for indeed for substance this is still but the same Argument The Holy Ghost is not properly sent nor can be that is from one place to another for he fills all places as I have proved already and therefore this must not be so brutishly understood as if the Spirit were sent a long journey from heaven to earth but onely this I will undertake saith God that my Spirit shall be a Comforter to you and this God might will without any disparagement to the Holy Ghost because the Father and the Spirit have both one nature one will and so what the one wils the other wils also and so the Holy Ghost did actually consent to this promise of the Father now by consent one equall may send another Thus Christ who thought it no robbery to be equall with God Phil. â— 6. yet was sent of God Nay even in civill States one may be sent as an Ambassadour by his equalls Suppose a State governed Aristocratically by eight men four of these may send the other four with their consent upon an Ambassage and yet all of them are equall in power and dignity Object â— Arg. â— He that is the gift of God is not God But the Spirit of God is the gift of God Ergo he is not God Answ I confesse here are new words animus â—amen idem but the same sense In a word the Major is false God gives himself in Covenant to his people I will be their God Jer. 32. 3â— Let us see whether his Argument will not as well disprove the Godhead of the Father as of the Spirit He that is the gift of God is not God But God the Father is the gift of God for he given himself as Christ also is said to give himself Gal. 2. 20. The conclusion then is according to B's principles God the Father is not God a conclusion indeed suitable to the premisses but both to be abominated by every pious soul But B. addes A gift is in the power and at the disposal of another I answer 1 That is false I may give my daughter to a man to wife and yet she is not in my power for this I cannot do without her consent So neither can God give the Spirit without its consent 2 What if I should grant the Holy Ghost were at the disposal of Gods will remember that the Father and the Spirit have but one will and so that is no more then to be at its own disposal 3 This Argument may be strongly retorted therefore the Holy Ghost is not a created gift because he is at his own disposall as we have proved in the seventh Argument Object â— His eighth Argument is this He that changeth place is not God But the Holy Ghost changeth place Luke 3. â—â— 22. Therefore he is not God Answ 1 Certain it is that God is often said in Scripture to change place Psal 18. 9. God bowed the Heavens and came down Hos 5. â—5 I will go and return to my place Gen. 1â— 21. The Lord came down to set the City though elswhere he is said to be Omnipresent 2 Chron. 6. 18. Psal â—â—9 Jer. 23. 24. But he saw the weaknesse of this Argument and therefore he adds this Nor let any man alledge that thus much is said of God Exod. 3. For it is not God that came down but an Angel as you may see Acts â— 30 35 3â— Which by the way is a transition to another Argument Yet I shall follow him even in his extravagancies I answer therefore 1 This doth not at all weaken our answer for what though Angels came down at some time and not God yet it remains a truth that the great God is said to change his place though not properly as hath been proved 2 Nor doth it follow because sometime an Angel came down and spake therefore God never came down nor spake 3 God himself is called an Angel Mal. â— 1. Christ is called the Angel of the Covenant The Angel that wrestled with Jacob Gen. 32 was the Lord for Jacob made supplication to him Hos 12. 4. Gen. 32. 26. Now worship is peculiar to God 4 Evident it is that this Angel Exod. 3.