understanding distinct from and inferiour to that of God inasmuch as he is distitute of such a perfection as the searching of the hearts which is inseparable from the divine majesty These two considerations have I added at the close of my twelfth Argument because they are not so much new Arguments as props and further confirmations of the ninth and eleventh Arguments An Exposition of Mat. 28. 19. GO ye therefore and make all the Nations Disciples so the Original hath it baptizing them into the name so it is also in the Original of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit teaching them to observe whasoever I have commanded you Into the name of the Holy Spirit that is into the holy Spirit by a circumlocution usual in the Scripture see Act. 19. 5. And when they had heard they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus compared with Rom. 6. 3. Know ye not that as many of us as have been baptized into Christ have been baptized into his death And into the Holy Spirit that is into the guidance of the Holy Spirit Thus the Jewes are said to have been all baptized into Moses for so the Greek hath it 1 Cor. 10. 2. So that our Saviour's words amount to thus much Initiating them into the confession and obedience of God the Father and of the Lord Jesus Christ the Son of the Father and of the Holy Spirit the Advocate and Guide of all the Truth Now the Holy Spirit is mentioned together with God and Christ because he is their chief instrument whereby they guide govern sanctifie and endow the Church and to intimate that whereas men before they gave their names to Christ lived according to the Prince of this world the unclean Spirit that worketh in the Children of disobedience they ought henceforth being sequestred from the world and admitted into the Church to resign up themselves to the guidance of the Holy Spirit whom God and Christ appoint and send to order and direct the Church Neither can it be rightly inferned that because the Holy Spirit is here ranked with the Father and the Son therefore he is equal to them by this account when the Apostle 1 Tim. 5. 21. saith I charge thee Gr. I obtest before God and the Lord Jesus Christ and the elect Angels that thou observe these things without prejudice doing nothing by partiality joyning the elect Angels with the Father and the Son in so great a matter as obtestation to excite an Evangelist to do his duty with sincerity this would imply that the elect Angels are equal to the Father and the Son Nor doth it follow that because it is said not into the names but into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit therefore they three have but one Name power or dignity since by the like reasoning I might argue that because Christ Luke 9. 26. saith Whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words of him shall the Son of man be ashamed when he shall come in the glory of himself so it is in the Greek and of the Father and of the Holy Angels therefore the Father the Son and the Holy Angels have but one and the self-same glory For that the Holy Spirit is not ranked with the Father and the Son as being equal to them is evident by other punctual places of the Scripture as 1 Cor. 12. 3 4 5 6. Eph. 4. 4 5 6. where when the mention of him is joyned with that of the Father and of the Son he is expresly and emphatically excluded from being either that one God or that one Lord of Christians by being contradistinguished from both but if he be neither that one God nor that one Lord of Christians as the Apostle not onely in the fore-quoted places but elsewhere also plainly testifieth see 1 Cor. 8. 5 6. Yet to us there is one God the Father of whom are all the things and we for him And one Lord Jesus Christ by whom are all the things and we by him he cannot be equal to the Father and the Son but is onely the chiefe Minister of both peculiarly sent out to Minister on their behalf that shall inherit salvation An Exposition of 1 John 5. 7. For there are three that bear record in Heaven the Father the Word and the Holy Spirit and these three are one It would have been hard if not impossible had not men been precorrupted that it should ever come into any ones head to imagine that this phrase are one did signifie have one Essence since such an exposition is not onely contrary to common sence but also to other places of the Scripture wherein this kinde of speaking perpetually signifieth an union in consent and agreement or the like but never an union in Essence To omit other Sacred Writers this very Apostle in his Gospel chap. 17. verse 11. 21 22 23 useth the same expression six times intimating no other but an union of agreement yea in verse 8. of this very chapter in his Epistle he useth it in the same sence For though the expression variech somewhat in the ordinary Greek Testaments in that the preposition {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} is prefixed although the Complutensian Bible readeth it {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} in both verses yet is the sence the same this latter being spoken after the Hebrew idiome the former according to the ordinary phrase for confirmation whereof see Matth. 19. comparing verse 5. and 6. together in the Original wherefore this expression ought to be rendred alike in both verses as the former Interpreters did it though the latter Interpreters in verse 8. have rendred it agree in one putting the glosse in stead of the Translation So that this place maketh nothing for them that hold the Holy Spirit to have one and the same Essence with the Father unless they can prove that those who are one in agreement must likewise necessarily be one in essence or that two or three cannot be one but it must presently be in essence I omit for the present to speak of the suspectedness of this place how it is not extant in the ancient Greek Copies and namely in that famous one of Tecla here in England nor in the Syriack Translation nor in most ancient Books of the Latine edition and rejected by sundry Interpreters both ancient and modern An Exposition of Act. 5. 3 4. BVt Peter said Ananias why hath Satan filled thy heart to lye to or deceive the Holy Spirit and keep back part of the price of the Farm while it remained remained it not to thee and being sold was it not in thine owne power why fast thou conceived or put or purposed in thy heart this thing Thou hast not lyed to men but to God In this passage the Holy Spirit is neither expresly as every one seeth nor by good consequence called God For admit the ordinary Translation were true as it
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
is not yet would it not presently follow because Ananias by lying to men endued with the Holy Spirit for even Piscator in the words acknowledgeth and the words themselves according to this Interpretation imply a Metonymie of the adjunct the Holy Spirit being put for men endued with the Holy Spirit lyed not to men but to God that there fore the Holy Spirit is God because in lying to them that are endued with the Spirit of God one may lye to God and yet neither they nor the Spirit in them be God but onely the messengers of God for what is done to the messengers redoundeth to him that sends them see 1 Thes. 4. 8. John 13. 20. Luke 10. 16. But if any man look more narrowly into the words he shall finde that the verb {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} is construed in a different manner namely with an accusative verse 3â— and with a dative verse 4. with an accusative it signifieth in Greek Authors to bely pretend or counterfeit thus Lucian in his Pseudomantis {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} nomen quoddam mentitus counterfeiting a certain name This being so the words are to be rendred thus Why hath Satan filled thy heart to bely the Holy Spirit and keep back part of the price that is Why hast thou skffered the unclean Spirit so to prevail with thee as that thou shouldest sell thy Farm and lay down this money at his suggestion as appeareth in that thou hast purloined part of the price and not laid down all and yet to bear us in hand that thou didst it at the motion of the Holy Spirit thou hast not lyed to men but to God that is assure thy self that this dissimulation of thine is not so much to us as to God himself whose Servants we are This Exposition is not onely agreeable to the Greek context and scope of the place but is also seconded by Erasmus Calvin and Aretius But if any man will contend that though {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} be not here rendred to lye unto as I have not yet met with an instance where it is so rendred when an Accusative is put after it yet the other signification set in the Margin of our English Bible is altogether to be admitted and I confess I have in good Greek Authors found the word so used and the place to be rendred Why hath Satan filled thy heart to deceive the Holy Spirit This will overthrow the opinion touching the Godhead of the Holy Spirit For if the Holy Spirit be God then will it be all one as if it had been said Why hath Satan filled thy heart to deceive God Which seemeth to be blasphemy for it importeth either that God may be deceived or else that Satan or at least Ananias thought so otherwise he would not have purposed in his heart to do it But what force or use if this Interpretation of {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} be admitted will those words have And to keep back part of the price and also those While it remained remained it not to thee and being sold was it not in thy power For these expressions argue that Ananias pretended to have received a command from the Holy Spirit to sell his Farm and lay downe the price thereof at the Apostles feet and so did not deceive or lye to but bely the Holy Spirit and consequently was guilty not onely of coverousness in keeping some of the money back but also of Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit in fathering upon the Holy Spirit that which was injected into his heart by the unclean Spirit For he alike Blasphemeth the Holy Spirit who doth with Ananias wilfully father the works of the Devil upon the Holy Spirit as he who with the Pharisees Mat. 12. 24. wilfully ascribeth the works of the Holy Spirit to the Devil An Exposition of 1 Cor. 6. 19 20. What know ye not that your body is the Temple of the holy Spirit that is or dwelleth in you whom ye have from God and ye are not your own for ye have been bought with a price Wherefore glorifie God both with your body and your spirit which are God's Whereas it is objected by some out of this place that the holy Spirit is God in that our body is said to be his Temple I answer that it would follow could it be proved that our body is so the temple of the holy Spirit as to be his by the highest interest and primarily dedicated to his honour for every one will confess our body to be God's in such a manner But these things are so far from being intimated in this passage yea that our body is at all his by interest or dedicated to his honour both which are here affirmed of God contradistinctly from the Spirit as that the contrary may from thence not obscurely be evinced For after the Apostle had hinted in what respect our body is the Temple of the holy Spirit to wit by inhabitation for so much is implied by those words that is or dwelleth in you since descriptions in sacred Writers are not idle and impertinent he addeth that we have the Spirit from God thereby implying that he is disposed of and given by God to us and consequently he is ours by interest not we his and accordingly concludeth from thence that we ought with our body to glorifie not the Spirit but God who is openly distinguished from the Spirit and declared to be the Proprietor of our body An Exposition of Matth. 12. 31. All sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men but the blasphemy against the holy Spirit shall not be forgiven For the Objection drawn from hence that the sin against the holy Spirit is unpardonable I answer that the sin against the holy Spirit is not therefore unpardonable because he is God for this the Scripture nowhere acknowledgeth and besides by the same reason every sin against God would be unpardonable but because he that sinneth against the holy Spirit doth in the same act sin against God for every sin against whomsoever committed is terminated in God with an high hand to wit either by slandering and opposing such works whereof a man is convinced in conscience that God hath wrought them by the holy Spirit as the Pharisees did or by renouncing and opposing such Truths whereof a man is convinced in conscience that God hath revealed them by his holy Spirit as the Renegadoes did who are mentioned by the Author to the Hebrews Chap. 10. 25 26 c. which things are the greatest affronts that can be offered to God who useth the ministery of the Spirit in none but things of the highest importance and maketh the clearest discovery of himself as to his Power and Majestie by him Hence it cometh to pass that a sin against the Father or the Son may be forgiven but not a sin against the holy Spirit inasmuch as it is also against the greatest light For God
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
heard Satan cometh immediately and taketh the word that was sown in their hearts Suppose now that the seed of the Word be sown in ten thousand places at one time as it happeneth on every Lords day How can Satan whom the Adversaries will deny to be omnipresent come and immediately snatch the Word out of the hearts of the greatest part of the hearers The same Resolution that they shall give to this Question will I apply to their own Objection If this be not sufficient take yet more proofs that may seem to evince the omnipresence of the unclean spirit Thus is he said to have been a lying spirit in the mouth of four hundred false prophets 1 King 22. 22 23. and there is the same reason between four hundred and four millions Thus is he said to hold the impenitent who make the greatest part of mankinde in his snare and to take them captive at his will 2 Tim. 2. ult. To blinde the mindes of them that believe not 2 Cor. 4. 4. To dwell in the ungodly Rev. 2. 13. To shew the wicked whatsoever they practise Joh. 8. 38. Yea to deceive the whole world Rev. 12. 9. 20. 2 3. If they dare not for all this to affirm the unclean spirit to be omnipresent Why do they on less ground conclude the omnipresence of the holy Spirit especially when the Scripture so plainly testifieth that he changeth place as Joh. 15. 26. But when the Advocate is come whom I will send you from the Father the Spirit of Truth which proceedeth or goeth out from the Father he shall testifie of me How could the holy Spirit be sent and go out from the Father to the disciples if he were already with them and could not but stay with the Father Gal. 4. 6. Because ye are sons God hath sent out the Spirit of his Son into your hearts crying Abba Father This sheweth that the Spirit was not in their hearts before otherwise he needed not to be sent out into them 1 Pet. 1. 12. The things which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the Gospel unto you with the holy Spirit sent down from heaven Could the holy Spirit be sent down from heaven if he were already upon the earth and continued still in heaven For that the coming of the holy Spirit down from heaven is properly to be taken appeareth by the very sight in that John the Baptist did see the Spirit descending from heaven in a bodily shape like a dove and he abode on Christ Joh. 1. 32. compared with Luke 3. 21 22. where the words of the Scripture are diligently to be heeded for it is not said that the bodily shape did descend but the Spirit in the shape so that the descent did primarily and by it self agree to the holy Spirit but in a secondary way and by accident to the shape which he had assumed Now is it possible to descend out of heaven to the earth and not change place Or is there any thing better then an ocular demonstration to evince a change of place Certainly if notwithstanding all this and much more which may be alleadged it is yet true that the holy Spirit doth not go from place to place what assurance can I have when the Scripture saith of any one whomsoever that he is sent or cometh down or goeth out that he moveth from one place to another and doth not abide where he was before Neither is it rightly done by the Adversaries when against so many evident Scriptures they alleadge one obscure passage Psal. 139. 7 8. Whither shall I go from thy Spirit or whither shall I flee from thy presence If I ascend up into heaven thou art there if I make my bed in hell behold thou art there For to omit that the Psalmist as the precedent and subquent words yea the passage it self cited at large doth shew intendeth onely to prove the omnipresence of God himself and not of his Spirit and that divers of the very Adversaries as namely the Divines of the Assembly in their Annotations on this place do by Spirit here understand the knowledge or power of God and not the holy Spirit should it be granted that thesewords Whither shall I go from thy Spirit are meant of the holy Spirit yet do they import no more then that David could go into no place but the Spirit could be there with him and so sign fie not that he is in all places at one time but can be in them at several times accordingly as David should come into them Again should it be further granted what the Adversaries are not able to evince that Davids meaning is that he could go into no place where the Spirit was not present yet would not this presently argue that he was there present in his person or substance as the Adversaries conceive when they say that he is Omnipresent and therefore God since it is sufficient for the truth hereof that he is in every place by his knowledge so that a man can be in no place whatsoever but the holy Spirit will know where he is This Omnipresence which I verily believe belongeth to the holy Spirit doth not hinder him to go from one place to another Yea whosoever diligently looketh into Davids words shall finde that he intended in this Psalm to assert no other Omnipresence to God himself then that of knowledge and power For he openly speaketh of the knowledge of God in the first six verses saying in the second of them Thou understandest my thoughts afar off Which implyeth that the person or substance of God himself was not upon the earth with David otherwise he would understand David's thought neer at hand and not afar off But in the tenth verse which is an explication of the three preceding ones he speaketh of the hand of God whereby is wont to be understood his power Afterwards vers. 11. and 12. he returneth to the knowledge of God whereof he had before spoken Moreover the main current of the Scripture runneth that way and plainly intimateth that the person or substance or shape of God I speak the language of the Scripture see Job 13. 7. Will ye accept his God's Person will ye contend for God Heb. 1. 3. Who being the brightness of his God's Glory and express Image of his person Gr. substance John 5. 37. And the Father himself which hath sent me hath born witness of me Ye have neither heard this voice at any time nor seen his shape is nowhere else but in Heaven Neither let the Adversaries reply that if I ascribe an universal knowledge of humane affairs to the holy Spirit this very thing will evince him to be God For first I have already excepted the searching of the heart proving in the twelfth Argument that it agreeth not to the holy Spirit Secondly had the holy Spirit an Universal knowledge as of other things so also of the heart yet would not this prove him to be God unless he had this knowledge originally and of himself For it is apparent from the Scripture John 5. 22. that God hath given all judgement unto Christ and consequently all knowledge without which that judgement cannot be managed But if he hath given all knowledge unto Christ he can as well give it to the holy Spirit Wherefore let the Adversaries when they are driven from their opinion by that invincible Argument drawn from the Intercession which the holy Spirit is said to make for the Saints cease to take up the same weapon and contend that the holy Spirit inasmuch as he maketh intercession for the Saints must needs know all their wants and so be God For is not Christ also said to make intercession for the Saints and doth he not intercede with God as a man and so as a man know all their wants But if Christ as a man and so as a Creature maketh intercession unto God for the Saints and knoweth all their wants why not the holy Spirit also though he be a created Spirit and not God As for the dwelling of the holy Spirit in so many persons though I might forbear to shew in what manner this is done untill the Adversaries had answered my Querie yet will I for the satisfaction of such as are studious of the truth here declare it He dwelleth therefore in all the Saints dispersed through the whole world not in his person or substance for then his person or substance would fill the world and dwell in all men a like whereas the indwelling of the holy Spirit is by the Scripture made a peculiar priviledge of the Saints Rom 8. 9. But ye are not in the flesh but in the Spirit if so be or for the Spirit of God dwelleth in you Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ he is none of his Wherefore he dwelleth in them by his Gifts or Effects since no other dwelling can be imagined which is an Expression frequent in the writings of the Adversaries themselves but that they are wont to forget it when they reason about the Godhead of the holy Spirit FINIS * See Heb. 1. 1 14. whence these words are borrowed and compare it with 1 Pet. 1. 12. as also Heb. 1. 7. compared with Act. 2. 2 3 4. and it will easily appear that the holy Spirit is a minister of God as well as others a 1 Pet. 5. 8. b Zech. 13. 2. c 1 Sam. 16. 15 16. d Ibid. verse the last e 1 Kings 22. 21. See the Original a Joh. 16. 7. b Eph. 4. 30. c Neh. 9. 20. d 1 Cor. 7. 40. e Acts 10. 19. m So the word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} in the Original perpetually signifieth amongst Greek Authors and is so rendred by the Translators themselves 1 Joh. 2. 1. and ought to have been so rendred here especially because he saith in the following words that the Holy Spirit shall convince the world for it is proper to an Advocate to convince * By Person I understand as Philosophersdo suppositum intelligens that is an intellectual substance compleat and not a mood or subststence which are fantastical sensless terms brought in to cozen the simple * Abi Ariane ad Jordanem Trinitatem videbis * For when the verb Substantive to be is joyned with the holy Spirit it signifieth his Being or Person not the gifts issuing from him