and this shape is moved from place to place which clearly overthroweth your Argument Advers Exod. 20. compared with Act. 7. 53. Galat. 3. 19. Hebr. 2. 2. an Angel spoke and yet God is said to speak Ergò the Angel spoke in the Person of God Answ First I answer by concession admit that your exposition touching the speaking of the Law by Angels bee sound by those texts in the New Testament yet there will bee enough remaining in the text to enervate your Argument for did not God com down then was there not a manifestation of Gods glorie and severitie Did not Moses speak with the Lord face to face insomuch that his face did glister and was glorious Did not God himself write the Law in the two Tables and give them to Moses Did not hee see the back parts of God a glimps of his glorie Sith these things cannot bee denied the Argument will remain strong against you albeit the holy Angels were Gods instruments of pronouncing the Law And why should it bee a thing incredible for any man to beleeve that God may visibly manifest his presence either in wrath or mercie for can an Angel appear in a visible form and frame a voice and shall this with any color of reason bee denied to God Almightie Nor is it clearly proved by those cited Scriptures that Angels spoke the words of the Law in the Person of God For first was it ever heard that any Embassador when hee hath audience of a forain Prince deliver's his embassage otherwise then in the third person hee saith not I say so but my Prince saith thus and thus And have not wee an evident testimonie hereof in the holy Prophets which deliver not their message to Gods people in their own names but thus saith the Lord. Yea and the holy Angels themselvs in their visions declare that they are sent Dan. 9. And they likewise by som circumstance or other make it appear that they speak in the Name of the Lord. And S. Paul saith to this purpose pertinently and expresly that when the Law was delivered it was the voice not of a creäted Angel but of Christ that did shake the earth and men on earth Hebr. 12. 26. Besides there is mention made of Angels in the promulgation of the Law the Word was spoken by Angels hee saith not by an Angel how this can bee verified in them sith there were not many speeches not many voices but one distinct audible voice is hard to bee conceived Particularly in the two first places it is not said that the Law was spoken by Angels but ordained by Angels and so it might bee because holy Angels were attendants on the great God and instruments to shake the earth to raise thunder and lightning c. because they were witnesses and approvers of the deliverie thereof in which sense it is said that the Saints shall judg the world not by pronouncing but by approving the sentence of Christ 1 Cor. 6. And for that place in the Hebrews might it not relate to the words of the Law uttered at some other time Or it may bee Gods voice in the deliverie of the Law was uttered and pronounced by the ministerie of Angels and they by an extraordinarie way thundred out the words which God spoke to them to speak to the people as a Scrivener may write and speak the words which are dictated to him by another in the person of that author the principal author as in marriage the persons to bee married speak the very words from the Ministers mouth but I had rather hear the judgment of another then peremptorily in this perplexed case set down mine own opinion ARGUMENT 9. 9 Argum. of M. Bidle Hee that prayeth unto Christ to com to judgment is not God The holy Spirit doth so Ergo. The Major is granted The Minor is evident from Rev. 22. 17. compared with ver 12. Neither let any man think to elude this proof by saying that the Spirit is here said to pray onely because hee 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 speak by the holy Spirit as Rom. 8. 15. Wee have received the Spirit of adoption by whom wee crie Abba Father But there it is expresly said that the Spirit and the Bride say Com not the Spirit in the Bride nor the Bride by the Spirit I add what is pertinent to this head out of his 12th Reason Rom. 8. 27. The Spirit maketh intercession for us with groans unutterable and hee make's intercession for the Saints according to the will of God which prove's the holy Ghost to bee inferior to God inasmuch as hee is said to make intercession unto God with groans which is not so to bee understood as if the holy Spirit was here said to help our infirmities onely by suggesting petitions and groans unto us and making us to pray as is commonly but falsly affirmed for the very words of the context sufficiently refute such a gloss since they say that the Spirit himself not wee by the Spirit as wee have it in ver 15. of the same Chapter maketh intercession for us but to help others infirmities by making intercession for them is not to instill petitions into them but to pour out petitions apart in their behalf as is apparent both from the thing it self since none can intercede for himself all intercession requiring the intervening of a third Person and by the collation of ver 34. of the same Chapter and by the 30. verse of the 15. Chapter and by 2 Corinth 1. 11. Hebr. 7. 25. 1 Tim. 2. 1. Col. 4. 12. Ephes 6. 18. Neither let any man think to baffle off this Argument which is written with a beam of the Sun by saying that this is improperly spoken of the holy Spirit for besides that hee hath no other ground to say so but his own pre-conceived opinion touching the Deitie of the holy Spirit hee ought to know that the Scripture though it speak many things after the manner of men yet doth it no where speak any thing that argueth his inferioritie to and dependance on another But this passage of the Apostle plainly intimateth the holy Spirit to bee inferior to God and dependent on him otherwise what need had hee to intercede with God and that with groans unutterable on the behalf of the Saints ANSWER Answ The Major Proposition is undeniably true for religious invocation is an humble obsequiousness and an enjoyned dutie to bee performed to the great God and doth necessarily suppose in him that praie's first inferioritie of the nature of the partie that praie's to the object of invocation Secondly indigencie or want of that good thing which is praied for either in whole or in degree a defectibilitie or possibilitie not to have the good thing praied for
of your Argument and then will particularly applie it Somtimes the Superior heareth the Inferior thus God is frequently said to hear the praiers of his servants made in faith Somtimes the Inferior hear's the Superior and that is don many waies not onely by his bodily ears but by understanding what formerly was not known or when the judgment is more perfectly informed in a point before not fully known or beleeving what till that voice came was not beleeved or hearkning to the counsell or obeying the will and pleasure of God Somtimes an equall hear's an equall as common experience shew's If wee speak of the first acceptation God's hearing us and answering of us according to the tenor of our praiers then I appeal to your judgment and you must needs give sentence against your self that in this sense your Major is false If you speak of hearing in the second sense I grant your Major is true because so to hear argueth ignorance in whole or in part forgetfulness dulness slackness or plain neglect if not contempt of dutie which wee do all confess are inconsistent with the infinite knowledg and transcendent excellencie of the great God If you take it in the third sense an equal hearing an equal then I denie your Major for God the holy Ghost which heareth from God the Son is equal to him Advers The Minor say you is proved John 16. 13. Answ My answer is by advising that the words of the text may bee well observed the words run not thus Whatsoever the Spirit knoweth hee will speak but whatsoever hee heareth and this is likewise spoken of Christ John 8. 26. and 15. 16. Obj. This is not to bee understood as if the holy Ghost did hear any thing corporally and thus is hearing properly taken and for such a hearing I suppose you will not contend Sol. Nor secondly is it to bee taken of hearing viz. by revelation by which hearing hee should learn that which formerly hee knew not It 's indeed spoken that hee was that hee is and that hee shall bee if it had been onely said hee was one might have conceived that now hee is not If it had been said hee is onely it might have been thought that hee had not been alwaies If it had been onely said hee shall bee it might bee thought hee is not now Time past present and to come are asscribed to God yet not as to men to denote a beginning continuance and end of time for actions are said to have been which now are not and that they shall bee which now have no existence at all but when they are spoken of God there is no limitation of time at all God so hath been that hee is and shall bee hee shall bee yet so that hee is and hath been and this is to bee applied likewise to the hearing of the holy Ghost Hee hath alwaies heard and hee doth hear And in the future time it 's said in this place hee shall hear This hearing saith S. Austin Tractat. 99. in Joan. is everlasting Hee hath known hee doth know and hee will know His hearing is his knowing and his knowing is his beeing hee hath heard from him hee doth hear from him and hee will hear from him from whom hee proceed's so Austin And hee cal's the opening of this text John 16. arduam nimis arduam quaestionem This bee spoken to prevent that scruple in that it is said Hee shall hear Som of ours clear the words thus Whatsoever the holy Ghost shall hear that shall hee speak which import's thus much those things which the Father will have revealed to us those things and no other will hee reveal to us the truths which the Spirit shall reveal to us are truths received from God the Father the Spirit feign's nothing hee alter's nothing hee pervert's nothing The paraphrase of the text in the former Argument will dispell the foggie mists of this reason Advers The Major saith hee is proved thus Hee that is taught is not God Hee that heareth from another what hee shall speak is taught The Major is proved Esa 40. 13 14. Answ 1 To this I answer if you had not been infatuated you would have omitted that text in Esay for it directly overthroweth your assertion and expresly teacheth us that none have taught the Spirit of God But I answer Secondly hee that is taught properly that is learn's what hee formerly knew not is not God I readily assent for God's knowledg is infinite and cannot bee increased But how can you prove that the holy Ghost is taught by comparing say you John 8. 26 28 together Christ is taught by hearing This is but a very weak bul-rush it hath no strength at all in it This must needs bee your consequence in som places of Scripture and not onely so but even in common reason hee that heareth is taught therefore must it needs bee so taken John 16. 13. Is not this a wild inference That Scripture John 8. 26 28. speaketh not of the holy Ghost but expresly of Christ and then it must bee spoken of him either as God or Mediator man If in the former way then the text furthereth not but marreth your Argument if in the later then it is unfitly alledged for albeit a creäted substance by hearing another may properly bee taught yet far bee it from us to conceive that the Creätor the supreme God can learn what hee knew not Advers But saith hee let a man turn himself every way yet shall hee never bee able to make it out to a wise man that any can hear from another what hee will speak who is the prime Author of his speech Answ Well I see M. Bidle is a wise man in his own eies and all Christian men in the world besides himself and a handful of seduced ones are no better then fools but if hee had well perpended that text quoted by himself out of Esa 40. 13 14 15. hee would not have concluded the great God the three sacred Persons which are one Almightie God within the shallow compass of his brains I perceive hee is alwaies wrapped in the briars and cannot possibly extricate himself because hee apprehendeth not the meaning of that common distinction of God the holy Ghost as God for in this respect hee hath infinite knowledg of himself and of God the holy Ghost as hee is the holy Ghost for so doth hee receive knowledg and wisdom from God the Father and God the Son yet I pray let this bee remembred so as hee was never ignorant and life yet so as hee never wanted life and power yet so as hee was never weak because these persons communicating essence to the holy Ghost did communicate life power and knowledg So that the holy Ghost hath knowledg not by learning but by proceeding and all the creatures which hear and are taught they are taught by the holy Ghost And whereas hee illustrate's as hee think's his Assertion by a comparison taken from
is given is not sent for even God the Father who is never sent and who give 's all things as you will grant yet give 's himself in covenant to his children hee is their Father and all his glorious Attributes are set a work for their good for though one and the same Person cannot bee the sender and the Person that is sent yet may the same Person bee the Giver and the Gift There is no difference in the thing it self but in the different consideration of it the Giver so called as freely imparting himself som way to them to whom hee is given And the Gift in relation of the Terminus ad quem yea and wee ourselvs likewise as wee are bound may give ourselvs to God to bee disposed of and ruled by him according to his pleasure Further I say by limitation of your words hee that is not the Creätor Preserver and Giver of all things viz. which are creäted hee is not God This is true but is this any thing for your purpose Nothing at all Nay it make's strongly against you for the holy Ghost is the Creätor Preserver and Giver of all things hee give 's life and breath and all things to the creatures Hee is such a Gift that hee give 's all other gifts and so by this reason you might have soundly concluded that the holy Ghost is God for that text Act. 17. 25. speak's of God's blessings bestowed on the creatures And you ought not blasphemously to have made use of it to rob the blessed Spirit of the glorie of his Deitie Apply now what I have related of the several respects of the Giver and the Gift and you will easily discern that your advantage which you would gather from a seeming contradiction to bee a gift and not a gift to bee given and not to bee given is as good as nothing Advers A gift say you is in the power and disposal of another it 's absurd to think that God should bee so Answ There are three words of neer signification munus praemium and donum The two former munus and praemium are absolutely in the power of the Giver and do imply that they are a separate thing from him That the Giver hath a proprietie in them and that they are inferior to the Giver See Dan. in Lomb. l. 1. d. 18. Censura But it is otherwise of a Gift a thing is said to bee given which is either had or possessed from another when either simply or in a certain respect it was not so had or possessed before And so it doth not necessarily import any authoritie which the Giver hath over the gift but it signifie's onely a free communication of that which is given for hee give 's that make's this gift to bee had of another whether hee bee the author or original of it or not Hence is it as I said that God the Father when hee come's to us graciously and communicate's himself to us by his gifts is said to give himself And God the Son is said to bee given and to give himself for us and to us yea and the holy Spirit also doth give himself to us because it is an act of his free will and absolute power to communicate his gifts to whom hee pleaseth so saith the Scripture The Spirit blow's where it will John 3. And the Spirit divide's to every one his gifts as hee pleaseth 1 Cor. 12. And this is further evidenced because a righteous man hath God the Father God the Son and God the holy Ghost for hee is a Temple of the whole Trinitie and therefore hee hath received this best gift of all as given to him by the most sacred Trinitie Quest A scruple may here arise since the holy Ghost is given and that in time onely for it is a name of God which actually belong's to him not from eternitie but in time as do many other Creätor Preserver Lord the power indeed was from eternitie in God and these do belong to him ab aeterno in habitu Hal. because hee is habilis dominari creäre praeservare donabilis ab aeterno But the actual denomination to bee Creätor Preserver Lord Gift was not from eternitie when there was no creature no servant none to whom God was given Doth not this concession may some say prove a change in God Answ No it 's onely in the creatures which in time have a beeing and had none before that instant or som new work wrought in them by the unchangeable God and as for the relations which are betwixt the immutable God and the mutable creatures they are on the creatures part real relations on Gods part they are not real but in solâ ratione consistunt This is illustrated by these similitudes Wee say this is the right side and that is the left side of a pillar the right side or left side of the Equator and by the death of a son there is no change in the pillar the Equinoctial line or the father but in the man that turn's himself this way or that way to the pillar that cut 's the line and in the childe that die's and yet wee truly say this is the right side of the pillar of the Equator the man ceaseth to be a father when his childe is dead The like is to bee said of the holy Spirit when hee is given to us there is no change in him but the change is in us The decree that the Spirit should bee given to the elect was before all time yet the real execution of this decree as of all others was don in time Advers To prevent a solution of his Argument hee saith that not onely the gifts of the holy Ghost but himself is given Nehem. 9. 20. Rom. 5. 5. If hee was given out of his favor hee was not personally there before and consequently not God Answ To this I answer divers waies First ad hominem if hee come's personally to every Saint where hee was not before and is in this Saint in England in that Saint in Germanie c. Either the holy Ghost is divided from himself which cannot bee or else beeing in all Saints hee must needs bee infinite for you no where in all your reasons hint that there are many holy Ghosts and it is a strange creature to admiration which can bee in this place and not in that which is contiguous to it and in that which is far removed from it This I do mention that I might give an occasion to you plainly to discover yourself in such particulars as these are Secondly the weakness of this exception appear's because if it were convincing it would prove God the Father not to bee God for hee give 's himself to his children Why then should God the holy Ghost on this ground bee no God Thirdly I grant in a good sense that the holy Ghost and not onely the gifts of the holy Ghost are given Luke 11. 13. And albeit many Divines do varie in their
individual Spirit seduce all the wicked by himself If you dare not say so why is this example alledged yea and by your own silence your cause is lost I dare tell you that the holy Spirit sanctifieth with his gracious presence all the Saints that are in the world Nor is the reason alike betwixt those four hundred and all the wicked men in the world for they were assembled together in one place and all of them of one Spirit but suppose these four hundred had been severed and placed in so many remote Kingdoms will you have the forehead to say that one Spirit could seduce them all at once The former I grant may bee done by a creäted Spirit but not possible the later Argum. 4 Maj. Hee that is simply superior to Christ as man is God Min. The holy Ghost is so Concl. Ergò hee is God The Major is clear by the confession of the Adversarie for hee ranketh Christ in the second order next under God and the holy Ghost below Christ in the third rank and rightly if his supposition had been true for the humane nature simply considered beeing assumed into the person of the Son of God is neerest the cause and fountain of all greatness and is thereby exalted far above the state and condition of the highest Angels but hee is said to bee made lower then they are onely for a short time in regard of his sufferings Hebr. 2. from which those blessed Spirits were exempted The Minor is proved by those very Arguments whereby you endeavor to prove the holy Ghost to bee inferior to God First because Christ in this notion is sent of the holy Ghost The Lord God sent mee and his holy Spirit Esa 48. 16. I know som of ours do expound this of the Prophet Esay the Spirit sent him and so do the Hebrews suddenly change the Person saith Oecolampadius without any necessitie because they do abhor the mysterie of the Trinitie but wee saith hee with Catholiques do avouch that these are the words of Christ as the whole context evinceth But let that text bee meant so or otherwise It 's clear by Fsa 61. 1. applied to Christ Luke 4. 18. The Spirit of the Lord hath sent mee to binde up the broken hearted to preach the Gospel Secondly hee that receiveth of another is inferior to him of whom hee receiveth and dependent on him these are your own expressions but the humane nature of Christ receive's from the Spirit it's beeing for hee was conceived by the holy Ghost Matth. 1. and was anointed by him with abundant gifts without measure Luke 4. 18. To these I add that the holy Spirit by his mighty power raised Christ corporally from death Rom. 8. 11. as hee doth his people spiritually from the death of sin Lastly because it is a greater sin which is committed against the holy Ghost then that is which is committed against the Son Mat. 12. 31 32. this is pardonable the other shall never bee forgiven Advers To this last objected place you frame this Answer The sin against the holy Ghost is unpardonable not because the holy Ghost is God but because hee that sinneth against the holy Ghost doth in the same act sin against God with an high hand against his conscience renouncing the truth as the Renegadoes did Hebr. 10. 25 26. which things are the greatest affronts that can bee offered to God who useth the Spirit in none but in things of greatest importance Answ I grant the sin against the holy Ghost is not therefore simply unpardonable because it is simply against God for so are all sins and yet are they not the unpardonable sin and they are in a proper and true sense against the holy Ghost even the sins of his own people and hee is said to bee grieved for them Ephes 4. 30. and the sins of the wicked for which hee will bee revenged on them Esa 63. 10. But yet this I do peremptorily avouch unless the holy Ghost were God and equal to the Father and the Son of God it could not bee the greatest sin that was committed against him as the immediate and ultimate object thereof I will on your own principles argue against you for the fuller confirmation of this point I take this for a granted Maxim that the unpardonable sin is a sin and of necessitie must bee a sin against the holy Ghost This Assertion cannot with reason be denied Upon this supposition of yours that the holy Ghost is a creature I argue thus That the unpardonable sin may bee committed and yet the holy Ghost not at all sinned against First because the first and universal cause can immediatly of himself without the intervening of any creature so far enlighten a reprobate that this sin maliciously committed against this light shall bee for nature the very same every way as heinous and as unpardonable and yet not all against the holy Ghost It is true instruments are God's hands and as they can do nothing without God so God ordinarily will not work without them but is Gods hand shortened Can you give any reason why hee cannot do the same work without the creatures which is instrumentally produced by them Secondly suppose the Lord will not work thus immediatly by himself cannot hee imploy an Angel inferior to the holy Ghost about this work of illumination Cannot hee so far elevate this blessed creature above it self touching the former state and actuate his abilities that hee shall as a means under God so far enlighten man as is don at other times by the holy Ghost And the blessed Spirit in the mean time according to your profane opinion reside in one place and not intermeddle at all either to command or have any influence on this Angel in this imployment or if there should bee a deficiencie still in this creature which is very unreasonable to imagine cannot the great God supply the defect thereof In this case wee have the unpardonable sin committed and yet not at all committed against the holy Ghost Thirdly I confute you from this Scripture Matth. 12. on which our Argument is grounded The holy Ghost say you is God's Messenger and hee is sent as God's servant to enlighten men at the same time this great God send 's his Son also as his Messenger for so hee is often called but the holy Ghost is never called his Son this Son of God as you grant is next unto God himself higher and greater then the holy Ghost and besides which is another advantage to strengthen the Argument the holy Ghost is invisible the Son of God present's himself visible to them and his Person is directly and purposely scorned and abused by them and 't is not easie to bee proved that they had the like mischievous intentions and malicious purposes against the Person of the holy Ghost Judg now impartially whether is the greater sin and which in likelihood is the sin most unpardonable Whether the Lord will bee more offended
Ambassadors which speak according to the will of the Prince that send 's them To this I say there are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vast differences betwixt the holy Ghost and an Ambassador An Ambassador as such at least in this imploiment is a servant and a subject to his Prince inferior to him commanded by him personally separated from him capable of new instructions to be imparted in his name to forain Princes in his absence but none of these do belong or can possibly bee applied to the holy Ghost as hee is sent from the Father and Son ARGUMENT 5. 5 Argum. of M. Bidle Hee that receiveth of another is not God The holy Spirit doth so Ergò The Minor is witnessed by the aforesaid place John 16. 14. The Major is proved thus God is hee that giveth all things to all wherefore if there bee any one that receiveth of anothers hee cannot bee 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 receive of anothers Hee would both give all things and not give all things which implieth a contradiction The Major of the Prosyllogism is otherwise urged thus Hee that is dependent is not God Hee that receiveth of anothers is dependent Ergò The Major is unquestionable for to say that one is dependent and yet God is in effect to say hee is God and not God which implieth a contradiction The Minor also is evident for to receive of anothers is the very notion of dependencie ANSWER Answ The Major if it bee general as it ought to bee thus Whosoever receiveth of another is not God is false For to say no more yet the Lord receiveth the prayers of his praying servants hee receiveth the fruits of his vineyard Mar. 12. 2. hee receive's not the persons of men but sincere Christians Gal. 2. 6. hee receiveth the acknowledgment of his honor glorie and power Rev. 4. 11. And will you from hence infer that hee is not God If the Major bee particular in sense thus Somthing that receive's from another is not God I grant the Proposition is true in matter but asyllogistical and so is unwarrantable in the second explicate or first figure and justly to bee denied as not sorting to your purpose Secondly I answer first in general that these three Arguments viz. to hear from another to speak what hee heare's and to receive of another are multiplied words not Arguments they are like three dreams varied in forms yet for substance they are but one Yet I will say somthing in particular One thing or person may bee said to receive of another two manner of waies First by eternal procession to apply it to the holy Ghost and by eternal generation as doth the Son of God hee receive's the Essence and as they are called the essential properties from his Father who doth beget him as from an intrinsecal principle to him who is generated Thus is it in natural generation children receive from their parents their beeing and natural qualities i'ts evident hee that receive's his soul by infusion receiveth at the same instant the essential faculties of the soul and so wee may say the holy Ghost as the holy Ghost whatsoever hee is or whatsoever hee hath hee hath received from the Father and the Son of God not as from an external but intrinsecal principle and it may bee said of the holy Ghost as it is of the Son of God that hee hath life in himself given by the Father Joh. 5. 26. How did the Father and Son give life by active spiration How did the holy Ghost receive it by eternal procession And what is it to have life in himself but to have it essentially and to bee life it self The holy Ghost as hee is God simply considered as hee is the same Essence with the Father who is God is I grant of himself and hath from his Essence whatsoever hee hath but as this is communicated by eternal procession so hee hath it from the first and second Person of the Trinitie Wee may see a resemblance of this Mysterie in the creatures thus Peter as hee is a man 't is from his humane nature and so whatsoever in this consideration hee hath is natural to him but Peter as hee is a Son receive's all from his Parents by natural generation and thus albeit the holy Ghost receive's from another viz. from God the Father and God the Son yet is hee properly and truly God This is the first way of receiving from another Secondly a thing may bee said and it 's usual to receive in time and from an external principle as men do their beeing habits of knowledg c. to bee in potentia to receive and therefore is imperfect and in som wants Such a receiving as this is I grant belonge's not to God Advers Now to your Minor the holy Ghost thus receive's John 16. 14. Answ I answer if you will soundly prove this Minor you must produce som other Scripture for this holy text will not serve your turn it doth not say as you pretend the Spirit receiveth of mee which was to bee proved and yet if it had so expresly said it would not have supported your impious cause as I now have shewed the text onely saith hee receiveth of mine viz. what is testified of mee by the Prophets and that is don when by the powerful preaching of the Gospel hee give 's a clear testimonie that Christ is the Son of God and Savior of the world and chiefly hee receive's of mine to speak after the manner of men when hee bring 's it home to the hearts of the elect by effectually calling and converting them by raising up their mindes to know the divine truths and their hearts by faith to embrace them by rectifying their disordered affections by enabling them to confess publish and magnifie the Lord Jesus with their tongues and to conform their lives to those heavenly directions which Christ hath left us on record Thus doth the holy Ghost glorifie Christ in that whatsoever the holy Ghost work 's in our hearts whether it bee touching doctrine remission of sins or sanctification hee receive's all from Christ and so dispenseth them to us The Spirit washeth us from our sins but by the blood of Christ hee hee mortifie's sins in us but it is by virtue of the death of Christ hee raiseth us up to newness of life but by virtue of the resurrection of Christ c. In this consist's the glorie of Christ And were you not blinded by Satan you would bee so far from perverting this Scripture to the dishonor of the holy Ghost that you would rather infer from thence both the Trinitie of the Persons and the Deitie of the holy Ghost All that the Father hath saith Christ are truly mine and what are mine the holy Ghost receive's not as a scholar from the directions of his Master as though thereby hee learned
any new thing formerly unknown But as the Son of God doth not speak from himself but what hee hear's from the Father no more doth the holy Ghost but what hee receive's from the Son all three Persons working the same work in our redemption Advers Hee that receive's is not God say you but God give 's all things to all to give all things and not to give all things is a contradiction Answ I answer hee that receive's in time by an external work of God is not God I grant it but so doth not the holy Ghost receive and the Scripture proofs which you do rely on are impertinently alledged for they do directly speak of God's creatures as every one that look's into them must needs confess Thus rather might you have argued for the Deitie of the holy Ghost Hee that give 's all things to the creatures is God The holy Ghost give 's all things to the creatures as I have proved in my Arguments Ergò Hee is God Else say you hee should give all things and not all things which is a contradiction I see you take a great deal of pleasure very frequently almost in every Argument to reduce us to absurdities by contradictions by such manner of arguing to discover your follie this once for all you may haply delude the simple and unwarie Readers But I do wonder if you do not write thus against the light of your own conscience for every one who is any whit versed in Logick know's this to bee a received rule of contradiction that it must bee meant of the same thing at the same time and in the same respect but now to receive in one regard viz. from all eternitie in reference to the Persons of the Trinitie and to give all viz. in time to the creatures is no contradiction for both parts are true but it is impossible it should bee so where there is a real contradiction Now because the ignorant Reader is onely in danger to be caught by this fallacie I will propound a like example to his which may serve as an antidote against it Hee that is taught is not a School-master M. Bidle is a School-master Ergò Hee is not taught This is true or else M. Bidle must bee a School-master and a School-master which implieth a contradiction Will not every one bee ready to say hee may bee both a School-master and not a School-master in several references a School-master in regard of his scholars and not a School-master but a husband to his wife a father to his children and a master to his servant I should have been ashamed to put down such trifies in writing had not the bold fallacies of the Adversarie forced mee thereunto Advers Lastly Hee that is dependent is not God Hee that receive's from another is dependent for this is the very notion of dependencie Answ I deny your Minor if it bee taken without exception for dependencie if wee speak not of that which is logical and notional which is mutual but of that which is real and theological as wee must for this note 's inferioritie subordination and reliance upon another in fieri as a house and a ship to bee built doth on the Carpenter and in facto esse when it is built on the materials artificially compacted together but to speak fully and properly all things do immediatly and totally depend on God they do depend on the holy Ghost who is God But this can have no place in your Argument where there is unitie of nature and equalitie of Persons Thus rather and more truly you might have argued Hee on whom all things depend is God The holy Ghost is a person on whom all things depend by him of nothing they were creäted and but for him as God they would bee annihilated and reduced to nothing And whereas you say it is the very notion of dependencie this wee must take it if wee will beleeve it on your own words for other proofs wee are not to expect from you In this I say you are mistaken the notion of receiving carrie's us to the consideration of giving to give and receive are relatives which doth not formally implie dependencie but relation Albeit I confess to receive in time as the creatures do which have their beeing from God denote's prodependencie on the Creätor But what doth this make against the Deitie of the holy Ghost Nothing at all ARGUMENT 6. 6 Argum. of M. Bidle Hee that is sent by another is not God The holy Spirit is sent by another Ergò The Minor is plain from the fore-quoted place John 16. 7. The Major is evinced thus Hee that ministreth is not God hee that is sent ministreth Ergò The Major is undubitable it being dissonant to the supreme Majestie of God to minister and serve another for that were to bee 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 hee before intimated Christ to bee Lord because hee sitteth at the right hand of God Thus David Psal 2. declareth the Soveraigntie of God in saying that hee sitteth in heaven The Minor is further proved thus Hee that receiveth a command for the performance of somthing doth minister Hee that is sent forth receiveth a command for the performance of somthing Ergò The Major is evident to common sense since it suiteth with none but ministers and inferiors to receive commands The Minor is manifest by John 12. 49. The Father that hath sent mee hee gave mee 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 supreme God hee will grant that whatsoever is spoken of him is spoken of him as God or can make good that to bee sent at least may agree to him as God The contrarie whereof I suppose I have clearly proved in this Argument shewing that it is unsutable to the divine Majestie ANSWER Answ It will not bee amiss to premise som considerations touching sending on which word the strength of the Argument depend's that so the point may bee more fully cleared and the Adversaries reason more distinctly answered A Person is said to be sent either properly or improperly To bee sent properly according to our vulgar acception of the word requireth these particulars First that the Person sent bee really divided from and actually separated from him that send 's him this is evidently seen by daily experience Secondly it 's required of him that is sent that hee move's from an ubi or from place to place which is a necessarie condition to expedite the emploiment about which hee is sent Thirdly it denote's that the Person sent is inferior to the sender either in nature or condition or both as when the Lord send 's Men or Angels about his service
know when hee make's others know Now saith hee to Abraham I know that thou fearest mee Gen. 22. 12. Advers None say you can intercede for himself but this action require's a third person Many Scrip heaped up Answ I denie this assertion To intercede is a general word and of that latitude that somtimes a man intercede's for himself and somtimes for others as the occasion or text will hold out the meaning either to the later or to the former And thus the Spirit interpellat orat or as others translate the word postulat clamat when hee make's us intercede pray and crie to God and those three words as som say are but one thing called by different names 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 praiers when wee lay open to God our wants the same praiers are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because by our praiers wee testifie the desires of our hearts to God and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 intercessions because wee do not pray diffidently and fearfully but in an humble familiaritie wee speak to God and do go boldly to the throne of grace Com. in locum The praiers which 1 Tim. 2. are intended Rom. 8. 26. are of that nature that whether they bee directed to God for ourselvs or for others as wee are bound to pray both for our selvs and others are intercessions interpellations or appellations but yet they are not formally as School-men speak the praiers of the holy Ghost but they are his as an efficient cause thereof they are the praiers which the holy Ghost enableth his servants to make both for themselvs and others Touching the many Scriptures which you have unconscionably heaped up together to prove that intercession is alwaies for another I briefly answer by freely yielding that in those places which you have recited The praiers are made or intreated to bee made for other men but will it therefore follow that in all other texts which mention praier the Scripture is to bee so expounded Nothing less And if by virtue of those words in the texts fore-named a Christian had no ground to pray for himself hee must not then follow that maxim and approved rule Charitie begin's at home hee must onely pray for others never for himself for in som texts you have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 15. 30. Colos 4. 12. and in som other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as 2 Corinth 1. 11. Ephes 6. 18. which is such a dotage as never entred into the brains of an advised Christian Advers Albeit say you the Scripture speake's many things after the manner of men yet never what argueth inferioritie and dependencie on another Answ I grant this is a truth when rightly expounded it 's but a begging of the question or but a vain supposition to take for granted that the holy Ghost doth truly pray which is constantly denied Your Conclusion is proved by a false medium although it cannot bee denied but the Lord not out of any power of ours but out of a gracious condescension to us out of his free goodness doth somtimes in the Scripture speak as if wee base and feeble creatures were able to encounter with God yea and to overcom him as Jacob wrastled with God and hee could not prevail over him Gen. 32. Jacob as a Prince had power not onely with men but with God and let mee alone saith the Lord to Moses that I may consume transgressing Israël Exod. 32. The praiers of Moses did as it were binde the hands of the Almightie that hee could not smite his people and that is yet a higher expression Esa 45. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Lord is as it were at the command of the praiers of his servants and many the like gracious expressions might bee named so that neither head nor foot neither Argument nor Inference hath any soundness in it ARGUMENT 10. 10 Argum. of M. Bidle Hee in whom men have not beleeved and yet have been Disciples and Beleevers is not God Men have not beleeved in the holy Spirit and yet have been so Ergò The Major is plain for how can any bee Disciples Beleevers according to the phrase of Scripture and yet not beleeve in him that is God The Minor is proved thus Men have not so much as heard whether there were an holy Spirit and yet have been Disciples and Beleevers Ergò They have not beleeved in the holy Spirit and yet have been Disciples and Beleevers The Antecedent is apparant from Acts 19. 2. The Consequence is grounded on that of the Apostle Rom. 10. 14. How shall they beleeve on him of whom they have not heard Now if any man to decline the dint of this Argument shall say that by holy Spirit in these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is meant not the Person but the Gifts of the holy Spirit Hee besides that hee perverteth the plain and genuine meaning of the words and speaketh without example doth also evacuate the emphasis of the Particles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which imply that these Disciples were so far from having received the Gifts of the holy Spirit whereof wee may grant that the question made mention that they had not so much as heard whether there were an holy Spirit or not Again that the holy Spirit is not God doth further appear by this very instance since the Apostle when there was so ample an occasion offered to declare it if it been so doth quite decline it For it is incredible that hee who was so intent and vigilant in propagating the Truth as that casually seeing an Altar at Athens inscribed to the unknown God hee presently took a hint from thence to preach unto the Heathens the true God yet here being told by Disciples that they had not so much as heard whether there were an holy Spirit or not should not make use of the opportunity to discover unto them and in them to us the Deitie of the holy Spirit but suffer them to remain in ignorance touching a point of such consequence that without the knowledg thereof if wee beleeve many now adaies men cannot bee saved Certainly the Apostle had greater care both of the truth of God and the salvation of men then to do so ANSWER Answ This Argument as the rest is so captiously and ambiguously propounded that I judg it expedient before I do punctually answer it to put down as I take it three undeniable Conclusions the one of them is touching the predicate or later part the other two touching the subject or antecedent of the Proposition Conclus 1 The first Conclusion wee are to consider of God absolutely as hee is plainly revealed in the Word and accordingly acknowledged by all those which are in outward covenant with him that hee is true God the ever-living God the onely wise and powerful God c. Thus in the Chaldean language in Jer. 10. 10 11. both for a caution and instruction to the Jews when they should bee captives there 't is said The gods that
office Saul and the Messengers of Saul prophesied amongst the Prophets 1 Sam. 19. And that hee is yet more fully revealed in the New Testament you cannot denie although you do boldly and wickedly denie his Deitie Well then if these Ephesians never heard of the holy Ghost either it was because they never had sufficient means to instruct them in that profound mysterie and do you think that this is very probable for they had or might have had the writings of the Prophets and if they were baptized by John doth not hee expresly speak of the holy Ghost Christ saith hee should baptize with the holy Ghost Matth. 3. 11. Or might they not have repaired to som Christians in som place or other for a further instruction in the faith Or if they never heard of the holy Ghost it is else because albeit they had som means of knowledg this way yet did they not regard them or sufficiently profit by them Take it which way you will and in neither of the waies is there any strength in the Argument to prove your odious assertion but it argue's clearly that you are given up by the just judgment of God to strong delusions to beleeve lies How could it else have entred into your heart to think that the ignorance of a few untaught Christians should bee a sound proof to overthrow a truth which was unanimously imbraced by sounder Christians Shall God's truths bee no truths because som sinfull and ignorant persons do not know them Nay rather you should thus have reasoned since this was a divine truth preached by John the Baptist and afterward more fully taught by Christ and his Apostles therefore without wavering much more without contradicting them I will submit to their better judgment The Argument by this which is already spoken is fully answered yet I will follow the Adversaries steps and gather up his mistakings for the better satisfaction of the Reader Advers If any shall say by the holy Spirit is meant not the Person but the gifts of the Spirit besides that hee speak's without example hee evacuate's the emphasis wee are so far from receiving the holy Ghost that wee have not heard whether there bee an holy Ghost or not Answ First let the Reader observe how the Adversarie is possessed with the spirit of giddiness in contradicting himself It 's without example saith hee to say the Spirit is taken for the gifts of the Spirit and yet within three lines after hee saith wee may grant that this question Have you received the holy Ghost may bee meant of the gifts of the holy Ghost And with the same breath hee saith strangely forgetting himself that it is without example to take the holy Ghost for the gifts of the holy Ghost I add further that it is clearly prophesied that extraordinarie gifts as of prophesying and tongues are called the holy Ghost Joël 2. 28. Acts 2. 17. and in this Chapter Acts 19. 6. the holy Ghost came upon them How this is to bee understood the words following do expound They spoke with tongues and prophesied Ver. 6. So Acts 2. 4. thus John 7. 39. the holy Ghost was not yet you cannot denie but hee was in Person before that time and that hee was as touching sanctifying graces before How then is it said the holy Ghost was not yet Of necessitie it must bee meant as touching miraculous operations which were not yet bestowed on the Disciples What can bee more plainly spoken Nor doth this overthrow the Ephesians arguing and the emphasis of the words for however the holy Ghost bee taken yet your Argument is not good this onely can bee soundly inferred from their words Wee are so far from receiving the miraculous gifts of the holy Ghost that wee have not so much as heard whether there bee any such miraculous gifts of the holy Ghost or not And if the question moved to them was not touching the Person and sanctifying graces of the holy Ghost but onely touching miraculous gifts as 't is most probable for they being Disciples might bee presumed not to bee ignorant that there was an holy Spirit and that hee was a Sanctifier of his servants then either their answer is impertinent to the question or else they must needs return their answer in effect thus Wee have not heard whether there bee such miraculous gifts of the holy Ghost or not Advers S. Paul would have taken the hint which hee did not to have instructed them in the Deitie of the holy Ghost Answ 1 First to this I say that this your pleading make's as strongly against your self as against the truth for do not you also put a difference betwixt that prime creäted Spirit as you do blaspheme and his gifts What then do you say against us which make's not as much against your self also Secondly how prove you that the holy Apostle did not instruct these Ephesians touching the holy Ghost Is not this your pleading It is not written therefore it was not don this is say I inconsequent All that hee preached is not written and do not you see that by this reasoning you wound your own cause For can you shew that S. Paul taught these Ephesians such a doctrine touching the holy Ghost which you do maintain that hee was a creature Thirdly it is not to bee doubted but that hee opened to them the doctrine of the holy Ghost that hee was God and that hee taught them that holy graces are fruits of the holy Spirit which none but God can give Advers Yet now say you wee are made to beleeve that a man is damned that beleeve's not the Deitie of the holy Ghost And so saying you think to aggravate our error Answ To this I answer you are to know that wee make a great difference of times and persons wee do not despair of their salvation which were in the state of these Ephesians or of others now in the like condition if beleeving in one God and that Jesus Christ is a Savior and seeing their own sins and miseries should relie on him for eternall life And then as the converted thief on the Cross presently die though they never heard of the holy Ghost I would charitably judg of them and conceive that God intended mercie to them by these gracious discoveries of himself to them at this time but if God will graciously wink at such ignorance and have mercie on them this will yield no comfort at all to you who have been bred up in the Church of Christ and in our Schools and have read the word of God for you have wilfully shut your eies against the truth which is as clear touching the holy Ghost as if it had been written with the Sun beams and you have stretched your wits to the uttermost to pervert the plain meaning of the Scripture as appear's by your endeavoring to answer Matth. 28. and Acts 5. I may say to you as S. Cyprian de Sacram. Dom. calicis saith of som which