BEfore I come to answer Mr. B's. Arguments, I shall lay down some Arguments to prove the Deity of the Holy Ghost. I shall not follow his way, in contending more by number and multitude, then strength and force of Arguments, in multiplying words without weight: I shall forbear to bring many Arguments, that might be alleadged, and that upon good grounds; and shall only [...]ull out some chief ones, and vindicate those which B. hath cavill'd against. And thou blessed Spi­rit, the Spirit of Truth, plead thine own cause; s [...]nd out Thy Light, and Thy Truth, that they may guide me in the handling of this controversie, that Thy Divine Majesty may be fully vindicated, Thy people solidly esta­blish'd, and Thine enemies may be either con­ [...]ted or confounded. Amen.

[Page 2]Arg. 1. He whom the Scripture calls the Great and the True God, is God: But the Scripture calls the Holy Ghost the Great and the True God: Ergo the Holy Ghost is God.

I make that addition in the Premisses, the Great and True God, because it is known and confessed that Magistrates are said to be gods, though they are never so called; but there is something added by way of qualification and diminution, I have said, You are gods; but you shall die like men, Psal. 82. 6, 7. So, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh, Exod. 7. 1. A made god, and a god to Pharaoh.

The Major will be confessed: All the doubt will be about the Minor: For the proof, I shall only urge two places of Scripture.

The first place is, Acts 5. v. 3. why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie unto the Holy Ghost, compared with the end of verse 4. Thou hast no [...] l [...]d to men, but to God: That he speaks concerning the great God, is con­fessed by the adversary, and needs no proof. So that in the Apostles judgement, these are equivalent terms, to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to lie to God.

For the confirmation of this Argument (though it is in it self so clear, that he that uns may read it; yet) I shall add four considerations.

[Page 3]1 They are said to lie to the Holy Ghost, because only the Holy Ghost knew their sin, he only searched their hearts and knew their hypocrisie; and therefore, Verse 9. they are said to tempt the Spirit of the Lord, that is, to try whe­ther he could discover their sin, and would p [...]nish it. They lied to him, whom they tempted, for in lying to him, it was, that they tempted him.

2 Peters intent was to aggravate their sin by this expression of lying to the Holy Ghost, that it was committed in a more special and immediate manner against God; Now if the Holy Ghost were only an Angel, as our Adversary asserts, it had been as great a sin to lie to Peter, Gods extraor­dinary Messenger, as to lie to the Holy Ghost; because, as B. himself saith, What is done to any Messenger redounds to him that sends him; whether the Messenger were Angel or Apostle, that varies not the case; For though Ambassadors may differ in their private conditions, yet all of them do equally represent their Lord and Ma­ster.

3 Peter doth make a Dicho [...]omy here, ac­knowledging only two sort [...] of lies, a lying to men, and to God. But according to our Adversaries opinion, here should have been [Page 4] a Trichotomy, Peter should have said, Thou hast not lied to men, nor to the Holy Ghost only, but to God: But now seeing the Apostle hath made only two members of the Division, Thou hast not l [...]ed only to men, but to God also: Chuse which you will, for one of the two you must acknowledge, either that the Holy Ghost is man, or God.

4 Consider that Pet [...]r in the fourth verse, doth explain what he meant by that phrase in the third verse: Thou hast lied to the Ho­ly Ghost; this he explains thus, Thou hast not lied to men, to a creature, but to God, to the Holy Ghost which is God.

By what hath been said, B's first Excepti­on falls to the ground; which is this, That a man may lie to God, and yet lie only to his messenger, because what is done to Gods mes­senger, is done to God.

Answ. It is true, that a sin committed a­gainst Gods messenger, is committed against God; but withall Peter doth here intimate, that this was not only committed against God in that common and general respect (in which indeed all sins and all lies are committed against God) but that it was in a special, immediate, and extraordinary manner committed against God, that is, a­gainst the H. Ghost, as he before expressed it.

But this Exception he himself distrusts, [Page 5] and therefore he flies to another, and that is, he findes fault with the Translation, and tels us, that the Greek word [...] being joyned with an Accusative Case, doth signifie the same with [...] ▪ that is, to belie and counterfeit, and so the words must be rendred, Why didst thou be­lie or counterfeit the Holy Ghost? But nei­ther will this relieve him, for (although it might be instanced that [...] with an Accusative Case signifies to lie, and though the fourth Verse doth interpret the third, [...] being there but with a Dative, and so necessarily signifying to lie, yet) if his Exposition were true, the force of the Argument is not at all abated; still it holds though in other terms, Thou hast in counterfeiting the Holy Ghost, not counter­feited men, but God: Or in counterfeiting the Holy Ghost, thou hast not lied to men, but to God. I might add, that it may be rendred thus, as B. confesseth, and Streso with others render it; Why hath Satan filled thine heart to deceive the Holy Ghost? Why hast thou been perswaded by him that the Holy Ghost might be deceived? as if he did not understand thy thoughts and se­cret practices, as if thou couldst put a cheat upon the Holy Ghost, and make him be­lieve [Page 6] thou art as good a Christian as the best. However to endeavour to deceive the the Holy Ghost, and to lie to the Holy Ghost, are phrases of the same signification.

But there is yet another Objection, that some of our weak Brethren make (which I suppose is a part of B's Cabal) for he is the great Homer, whose vomit the inferiour Poets his Proselytes do lick up. It is this, Exod. 16. v. 7. Moses and Aaron said, What are we that ye murmur against us? And Verse 8. it is said, Your murmurings are not against us, but against the Lord. Hence say our Ad­versaries, it will follow according to your reasoning, that Moses was God.

I confess, it is beyond my Logick to frame an Argument out of it. And it is observable, B. their Schoolmaster was ashamed to men­tion it, yet because I see they pride them­selves much in it, lest they should be wise in their own conceit, I shall answer it.

That text proves the quite contrary, that Moses is not God, because he so fully sepa­rates & distinguisheth himself from God: e­ven as it follows out of Act. 5. that Peter was not God, because he saith, Thou hast not lied to us, but to God. And (observe it) Peter and Moses are Parallels, not Moses and the Ho­ly Ghost, as they absurdly fancy; for them it should have been said, Thou hast not liest [Page 7] to the Holy Ghost, but to God. If you would make that place parallel with this, you must first suppose Moses to speak thus, Why mur­mur you against the Holy Ghost, or holy Spi­rit? and then to add, your murmurings are not against us, but against the Lord. And if so, not onely the seeming fallacy vanisheth, but it will be a strong argument to confirm this instance in Acts 5.

Take another instance. Suppose Davids Ambassadours had said to Hanun, when he was abusing them, 2 Sam. 10. 4. Why do you abuse our Lord and Master? And presently after, This injury is not done to us, but to the King of Israel. Every vulgar eye would see two things. 1 That those Ambassadours were not the King of Israel. 2 That the King of Israel was their Lord and Master: So it is in this case, as any one may easily apply it.

Another place to the same purpose we have, 1 Cor. 6. 19, 20. What, know you not that your body is the Temple of the Holy Ghost?—Therefore glorifie God in your body. The A­postles Argument is this: He, whose temple you are, ought to be glorified, served, &c. But you are the temples of the Holy Ghost: Therefore he is to be glorified; or in the A­postles words, Therefore glorifie God. What a miserable Argument were this? If the [Page 8] Holy Ghost were not God: It were in plain English to argue thus, You are the temples of, you are consecrated to, an Angel, there­fore glorifie God. For the illustration of this Argument, compare it with a parallel place, 2 Cor. 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 [Page 9] 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 t [...]s a [...]ertion, that the Holy Ghost is the intermediate object of worship, and so may be worshipped. But, 1 Worship is an incommunic [...]ble prop [...]rty. God may assoon appoint that a cre [...]t [...]e shall be Omnipotent (which is a contradi­ction) as that a creature shall be worshipped [Page 10] (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 [Page 11] 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 text [...], 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. [...]. 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 [Page 12] 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. 3 [...]. 10, 11. The Lord sware, [Page 13] 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 b [...] un [...]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 [Page 14] 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 [Page 15] 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 [Page 16] 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. [...]9.

The Major will easily be proved. [...] If you consider what it is to be baptized into ones name: it is to be baptized into ones worship, faith and do [...]r [...]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. [...]. One Lord, one Faith, one [Page 15] 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,

[Page 18]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 Church, that they are Ministring spirits to wait upon the heirs of salvation; for so all the Angels are, Heb. 1. 14. And observe it is one argument Paul there brings to prove Christ to be higher then all the Angels, be­cause he is the head and governour of the Church, Verse 8. where as the Angels are but his Ministers, Verse 7. and 14. strongly im­plying that the same person cannot be both a ministring Spirit and head of the Church. [Page 19] Again, It is wholly against the analogy of faith, and indeed that common sense and reason that B. so much cries up, that one of Gods servants should be joint commissioner with him in the appointment or honour of his ordinances; that was the very reason why Paul would not endure the thoughts of it, as we saw even now. But indeed the ve­ry naming of this far fetcht fancy, is enough to confute it.

Arg. 4. He to whom the Properties of God are communicated, must needs be God: But the Properties of God are communicated to the Holy Ghost: Therefore the Holy Ghost is God.

For the Major, it is unquestionable. The Minor I prove by particulars, I shall in­stance only two. 1 The Holy Ghost is Om­niscient. 2 He is Omnipresent.

1 He is Omniscient, 1 Cor. 2. 10. The Spi­rit searcheth all things, yea, even the deep things of God: The very wayes of God are said to be unsearchable, Rom. 11. 33. and his judgements past finding out; that is, by any creature: and yet the Spirit searcheth even the deep, secret things of God. It is ridicu­lo [...]s that B. replies, that this Omniscience will not prove the Holy Ghost to be God, be­cause, if he have it, he hath it not origi­nally and from himself, but communicated [Page 20] from God. For it is impossible (as all that understand any thing in Philosophy know) that God should make a creature Omnisci­ent, or a creature that could search his deep things. No finite being can possibly search or know the depths of an infinite being. And the Argument is confirmed by the rea­son added, Even as the spirit of man: So that as the spirit of man is in man, so the Spirit of God is in God, and so is God; for whatsoever is in God is God. It matters not that that is not expressed in the text, that the Spirit of God is in God, for it is necessa­rily implied, otherwise the Apostles reason were invalid; and it might be replied, Paul, your instance is not to purpose; for the spirit of a man is in him, and so may know his depths; but, the Spirit of God is not in him, and therefore may very well be ignorant of it. The Son of man himself, as he was man, and every other creature was igno­rant of the day of judgement; but the Spirit of God knew it; for that searcheth even the deep things of God: it knew far greater mysteries then that, much more did it know that. If it be said, It searches them, that intimates, that it was ignorant of them; as in a search we look for some­thing we want. I answer; even God him­self is said to search, I search the heart, [Page 21] Jer. 17. 10. God, and so the Spirit are said to search, not in regard of thein for­mer ignorance, but because their knowledge is an intimate and piercing knowledge.

2 The Spirit of God is Omnipresent, Psal. 139. 7. whither shall I go from thy Spirit? &c. The place is clear and full, and will admit of no answer: The Spirit is extended as far as the presence of God; and therefore the Spirit is every where. And it is worthy our observation, how the Propher instances to prove the Omnipresence of Gods Spirit, Verse 8. If I ascend into Heaven, thou art there? whereby it is fully implied, that God and the Spirit have but one essence, otherwise he could not argue from the presence of the one to the presence of the other. But further to confirm it, I lay down two Conclusions.

1 There is one Spirit that dwels in all the people of God wheresoever they live: Ephes. 2. 18. Through Christ both they that are afar off, and they that are near, have access by one Spirit unto the Lord; Ephes. 4. 4. One body, one Spirit.

2 The Spirit dwels in all the Saints: Their very bodies are the temples of the Holy Ghost: as is expresly asserted, 1 Cor. 6. 19. And whereas B. is forced to th [...] shift, that when the Spirit is said to be or dwell in us, it [Page 22] is to be understood of the gifts of the Spirit (there in forsaking his great Master Crellius, meerly to avoid the dint of this argument.) This is false, for the Spirit that is said to dwell in Believers, is contradistinguished from his gifts, John 14. 5, 16.—He will give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever.—H [...] dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. Then go to Verse 26. He shall teach you, &c. Here are the effects of the Spirit dwelling in them, which you see are cleerly distinguished from his es­sence, Rom. [...]. [...].—The love of God is sh [...]d abroad, &c. (th [...]re is the eff [...]ct of the Spi­rit) by the Holy Ghost which is given to us; (there is the Spirit it self.) So, Rom. 8. 15. If it be said, The in-dwelling of the Spirit is the priviledge of Saints, but by its essence it is in all men.

Answ. Therefore that is not all (though it be one thing) that is required to make up this in-dwelling (for so he is present not onely in all men, but in all beasts, all stones, all things, in whom yet no sober man will say he dwels.) But it is further re­quired that he be there not onely by natu­ral necessity, but voluntary consent; not onely by an essential presence, but also by his gracious presence, by his gracious com­munications. And thus he is onely in his [Page 23] people. Well, what answers B. to this? That if the Holy Ghost be Omnipresent, then Satan is Omnipresent, because he is where-e­ver the Word is preach [...]d, Mark 4. And this answer he delivers with as muchconfidence, as if he had made a knot that no man nor Angel could untie; which makes me adore the wisdome of God, that hath so far be­sotted him, as that he pl [...]c [...]th so much con­fidence in that, which any man that hath but a dram of sound reason in him, will ac­knowledge to be the very weakest passage in all his Book, though it is all weak enough: I confess, I fear sometimes (in this especial­ly) he went against the light of his own conscience. The answer in a word is this: There is but one Holy Ghost, which is Om­nipresent, but there are abundance of evil spirits, Mark 5. 2, 8. a legion was in one man: observe, it is called in the singular number an unclean spirit, and yet there was a legion; a legion among the Romanes ordinarily conteined above six thousand.

Arg. 5. He that dictated, or was the Au­thour of the Scripture, is God: But the Ho­ly Ghost was Author of the Scripture: Er­go, The Holy Ghost is God.

For the Major I prove it:

1 Because the Scripture attributes that word that was spoken and written by Pro­phets [Page 24] or Apostles, unto God: Heb. 1. 1. God spake in times past by the Prophets. Here is the principal cause, God; the instrumental cause, the Prophets. To one of these the Holy Ghost must be referred, Luke 1. 7 [...]. And so, 1 Th [...]ss. 2. 13. Paul commends the Th [...]ssalonians for receiving his word, not as the word of man, but, as it is indeed, the Word of God. Hence all the Scripture is said to be [...], of divine inspira­tion, 2 Tim. [...]. 16. or inspired by God; But so it could not be, if it were inspired by any creature, whether Angel or man: and in­deed it cannot be otherwise, but that God should be the inspirer of it, because the Scripture cannot be founded upon the au­thority of a meer creature, for then it would not be infallible, nor would our faith be a divine faith. Let us suppose that the Holy Ghost were an Angel, as B. affirmes: I say, we could not believe him with a di­vine faith, nor look upon his Word as abso­lutely infallible; which if I mistake not, is fully proved from Gal. 1. 8. Though we, or an Angel from Heaven, should preach any other Gospel unto you, then that which we have preached, let him be accursed: Where evident it is, the Apostle puts himself and Angels both into the same rank in that re­spect, and supposeth that neither of then [Page 25] were simply in fallible, and that we could not safely rely upon either of them with a divine faith. But now we may safely rely upon the Word and authority▪ of the Holy Ghost; for that is called a fure Word, yea, more sure then a voice from Heaven, as you may see, 2 Pet. 1. 19. and therefore so sure, because it was spoken by the H. Ghost, V▪. 2 [...].

For the Minor; it is proved, 1 By that place fore-mentioned, Acts 28. 25. The H [...] Ghost spake by I sai [...]h. 2 By 2▪ Pe [...]. 1. 21. Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost: Where the Deity of the Holy Ghost is not obscurely proved; for he tels us, Verse 20. Scripture is not of private interpretation; that is, it is not to be inter­preted according▪ to mens private pre-con­ceived opinions, but according to the minde of the Holy Ghost, who was the Arthour of it. A parallel place you have▪ H [...]b. 9. 8. The Holy Ghost this signifying, &c. where the minde of the Holy Ghost is made the genuine sense of the▪ Scripture▪ now Scrip­ture▪ is to be interpreted▪ according▪ to the minde of none▪ but the Authour of it▪ Ma­ny other places might be added, but I do not desire to multiply places.

Whereas B. saith, the H. Ghost is▪ an An­gel; that cannot be; for the Holy▪ Ghost [...] ▪ you▪ [...] i [...] the Authour of the Scripture▪ and [Page 26] doth fully understand all Scripture-myste­ries, but now the Angels are ignorant of them; they knew not the day of judge­ment, they are ignorant in great pair of Gospel-mysteries, 1 Pet. 1. 12. The Apostles preached the Gospel, [...], with, or by the Holy Ghost,—which things the An­gels desire to look [...]. Observe 1 The An­gels are [...]aly [...]stinguished from the Holy Ghost. 2 The Holy Ghost is the Dictator of Gospel-myst [...]ries, the Angels are Stu­dents, learners in them.

Arg. 6. He who is [...] in natu [...] and essence with the Father, is God: But the Holy Ghost▪ is one with the Father: Therefore the Holy Ghost is God.

The Major will not be denied. The Mi­nor is proved from 1 John 5. 7. There are three that bear record in Heaven, the Father, the word, and the Spirit, and these are one. Consider, 1 If the Spirit were an Angel, there were three thousand witnesses in Hea­ven. 2 Again, there is a clear variation of the phrase in the next Verse: there it is, they agree in one, [...]; but here it is not, they agree in one, but [...], they are one; it is [...], not the personal number [...], but [...] the Neutral, to note, that though there is in the Trinity [...] & [Page 27] [...], a person and a person, yet there is not [...] & [...], a thing and a thing; though there are three Persons, yet there is but one nature, but one Essence: Had the H. G. bin an Angel, John had committed a wilful and gross offence in varying the phrase, where­by just cause of suspition was given, to think that he was one with God, not only by consent, (for so the Water, Spi­rit, and Bloud are one, they consent in their testimony) but also in Essence. 3 [...]ook to Verse 9. If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: He takes no­tice only of two Witnesses, the witness of God, and the witness of men. The witness of the Holy Ghost is not the witness of men; nay the contrary is most clearly im­plied, that it is the witness of God.

But this place is no better then its com­panions, and therefore B. offers violence to it.

1 He saith, This phrase is never taken to signifie one▪ in [...]ss [...]nd [...], but always one in con­sent.

I answer, This is false; the contrary is evident from John 10. 29▪ I and my Father are one: Had Christ meant only one in con­sent, the Jews would never have been ready to stone him▪ Again, he gives this as a rea­son why none could pluck hi [...] sheep▪ out of [Page 28] his hand, because he had one and the same power, and so the same Essence with God. For if he had only been one in consent with the Father, one might assoon have pluckt his sheep out of his hand, as out of the hand of any of his Disciples, for they also were one in consent with God. But here lies the sorce of the argument, My Father is greater then all, and therefore none can pluck them, out of his hand. And I am as great as the Father, for I and he are one, ▪and there­fore it will be as hard a work to pluck them out of mine hand. And it is observable when the J [...]ws charge him with making himself God, he doth not flie to B's refuge, to say he meant onely one in consent (which if true, had been the fairest and best way) but he ar­gues from their own principles, that they al­low Magistrates to be gods, and therefore he may be call'd God, because lie hath a [...]tority from God (as Magistrates have) & was in a more [...]mi [...]nt way sanctified by God, and sent into the World, by the way, holding forth that he had another nature and being, and was a person before he was sont into the World (how could nothing be sanctified & sent into the World?) and therefore had not onely the humane n [...] which he recei­ved from the Virgin, after he was sent into the world) but also a divine nature, by which [Page 29] he was God: But B. faith, That it is contrary to common▪ sense, that three should be [...]. Thus it fares with men, when they will make sense and reason the Judge of Scripture▪ con­troversies. Hath B. never read, that the na­turalman receiveth not the things of God? 1 Co [...]. 2. [...]4▪ that when Pe [...]r said, Christ was the Son of the living God, Christ told him, Fl [...]sh and bloud hath not revealed this to▪ thee, Matth. 16. that The carnal minde is en­mity against God, Rom. 8. 7. The truth is, not▪ only common sense cannot reach these my­steries▪ But a man must have more then com­mon faith to subject his reason to them: not that reason may not clearly discern this my­stery in the Scripture, but that it cannot in­vent o [...] fathom it; not but that the▪ [...] is clear from the Scripture, that there is a Trinity▪ but that reason cannot finde out the [...] ▪ how can these things be? All men are Socinians by nature, they will be­lieve God and the Word of God no farther then they can see reason.

But B. adds, the C [...]m [...]lut, Bible hath this place, otherwise, I answer▪ What then▪ It must be here as it is in▪ many other cas [...]s of the some nature, that must be over-ruled by the consent of other Copies. But B. goes on, & tells u [...], that this place is not to be found in many Copies. I answer, It is certain that an­cient▪ [Page 30] Hereticks have offered violence to many Scriptures, that did most cleerly con­fute them, as might be instanced in many o­ther places, and yet the providence of God hath always countermined their designes by keeping some▪ Copies pure, when others were corrupted by Hereticks; and some per­fect, when others were defective; and for this particular, it is certain, it was extant in the Greek Copy before ever your fore-father▪ Macedonius broached that Heresie that now you have revived. And if in some Copies▪ it▪ be wanting, we may▪ thank those▪ ancient▪ Hereticks, in whose steps you tread, for ta­king it away. Certtain it is, that Cyprian cited this place, (who flourished about 250 years after Christ) his words (as I finde them cited by Vedelius▪) are these; Dicit Dominus, Ego▪ & Pater unum sumus. Et iterum de Patre & Filio, & Spiritu Sancto scriptum est? Et tres unum sunt, &c. Saint Hierome also cites it (as our adversaries acknowledge) and divers others. And if it be wanting in some other Copies, let it be considered that it was the complaint of divers Ancients, that the old Hereticks did corrupt and deprave the Scriptures in several places that were most pregnant against them. And the A [...]titri [...]i­tarians were as guilty in this as any. Socra­tes complained that those that were against [Page 31] the Deity of Christ, blotted out those places▪ that proved his Godhead, and in particu­lar some places out of this first Epistle of John, lib. 7. c. 32. An other names two old Hereticks, that made this their business to alter and corrupt the Scriptures. The truth is, it is rather a wonder that any Scripture is preserved from infection, then that any place is corrupted. Indeed, the fraud of He­reticks about this place is very discernable, they fumbled so unhandsomely about it, that some of them left out one word of this Verse, and some another, and some all; as any one that would further be satisfied, may sufficiently inform himself out of Vedelius, in a discourse upon this place. But that it was there Originally, and that it ought to be there, will evidently appear, if you consider, 1 The end of the sixth Verse, which doth necessarily require that that should follow, for it is given as a reason, why the Spirit is truth, because there are three, &c. that is, it is all one with the God of Truth, and with the Son, who is called Truth; and so this place is parallel to John 16. 13. He will▪ guide you into all truth, for he shall not speak of himself, but from the Father; that is, he shall speak nothing but that wherein the Father and he agrees. 2 From the ninth Verse▪ If we believe the witness of men, the [Page 32] witness of God is greater, for this is the wit­ness of God, which he hath testified of his Son: Now, I beseech you, where is this wit­ness of God here hinted and pointed at, if not in the seventh Verse? Howsoever if there were not such a place as this in the Scrip­ture, there have been several other places alledged beyond all exception.

Arg. 7. He to whom those actions are a­scribed that are proper to God, is God: But those actions which are proper to God, are a­ [...]cribed to the H. Ghost: Ergo, the H. Ghost is God.

For the Major, it will readily be acknow­ledged. The Minor is proved in particulars▪

1 In Creation: The H. Ghost creates, Job 33. 4. The Spirit of God made me. Nor can it be said, God made him by the Spirit as an instrument; for instrumental causes in crea­tion are ridiculous, and rejected by all men that understand any thing in Philosophy. And therefore B. betrays his ignorance in saying, that the Spirit was Gods instrument in creating things. For, 1 It implies a contradiction; for every instrument must work in some subject: and therefore pre­supposeth a subject: but Creation doth not presuppose a subject, but make it. 2 E­very instrument requires some time for its work: But Creation was done in an instant, [Page 33] and that by God himself, as Genes. 1. doth expresly inform us, He said, Let there be light, &c. B. speaks as if he had never read Genesis. And therefore it is a most illiterate exposition that B. gives of that place, Job 35. 10. where is God my Maker? (Heb. Ma­kers) which he is forced to confess: argues that Creation was the work of several per­sons, but the one (forsooth) most learnedly and profoundly he makes the instrumental cause of that Creation, which I dare say, all the Universities in Europe would hisse at. Luke 1. 31▪ the Holy Ghost created the body of Christ, which was neither convenient nor possible for a creature to do. He that spake by the mouth of David, made both heaven and earth, Acts 4. 24. and who that we read Acts 1. 16. The Holy Ghost spake by the mouth of David: To passe by that known and clear place, Genes. 1. 2. The Spirit moved upon the face of the waters; and many others.

2 The Spirit works Miracles▪ Miracles are actions above nature; and none can do acts above nature, but he that is above nature. Christ proved himself to be God by working miracles, Matth. 9. 5. That you may know the Son of man hath power upon earth to forgive sins, he saith to the sick of the Palsie, Aris [...] ▪ None but God can forgive sins: now mira­cles are ascribed to the Holy Ghost, Matth. [Page 34] 12. 28. Christ cast out Devils by the Spirit of God: and that which adds weight to it is that parallel place, Luke 11. 20. I by the fin­ger of God cost out Devils: What Matthew calls the Spirit, Luke calls the finger of God, or the Omnipotency of God, which is the same with God, Exod. 8. 19. The Spirit of God was greater and stronger then Christ as man. Again, Rom. 15. 19. Mighty signes and wonders were wrought by the power of the Spirit. Those Miracles which the Apostles wrought, they professed they did not work by their own power, Acts 4. 12. but by the power and strength of Christ: And doubt­lesse, it had been as sacrilegious to say, they wrought them by the power of an Angel, or any other creature: And therefore whereas sometimes they ascribe them to Christ, Acts 4. 16. sometimes to the Holy Ghost, as in the place now mentioned; sometimes to God the Father, Acts 5. 30. it hence cleerly fol­lows, that every one of these is God; and because the Scripture tels us there is but one God, Deut. 6. 4. therefore we conclude, there are three persons, and these three are one. Again, Rom. 8. 11. The Spirit of God raised up Christ from the dead, and yet he raised himself; I will raise up this temple, John 2. 19. Hence also it follows, that Christ and the Holy Ghost are God, and are one God.

[Page 35]3 It is proper to God to govern the Church, I mean to govern it [...] and to send Ministers, and yet this is attri­buted to the Holy Ghost: Acts 13. 2. The Holy Ghost said, Separate unto me Barnabas and Saul, for the work whereunto I have cal­led them: Was this a comely dialect for a creature to use? far different I am sure it is from the language of created Angels; see Revel. 22. 9. So Acts 20. 28. Take heed to the flock of God, over which the Holy Ghost hath made you Over-seers; and compare this with 1 Cor. 12. 28. and you shall finde, that it was God that sets Officers in the Church; Jesus Christ himself was sent by the Spirit, Luke 4. 18. Again, Acts 1 [...]. [...]8. It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, that is, to the Holy Ghost in us, to decree: You see the Holy Ghost is the Law-giver of the Church, and yet God is the only Law givet, Jam. 4. 12.

4 The Holy Ghost acteth according to his good pleasure, according to the counsel of his own will (which is the property of God, Ephes. 1. 11.) 1 Cor. 12. 11. All these things worketh the Spirit, dividing severally, as he will. All creatures must say, Not my will, but thy will, Lord, be done; Jesus Christ himself, who is far higher then all the Angels, said it, and the Angels in particular are said not to do [Page 36] their own will, but to do Gods Commande­ments, hearkening to the voice of his word, Psal. 103. 20. And again, Paul would have gone and preached in Bithynia, but the Spi­rit suffered him not, Acts 16. 7. Who is this that undertakes, whom he will to save and whom he will to destroy? Non vox hominem sonat: It is not the lan­guage of a Creature, but of the great God. Jesus Christ himself (whom yet the Authour to the Hebrews proves at large to be better then all the Angels, Chap. 1. and so according to B's. supposition, better then the Holy Ghost, yet he) did not dispense the Word according to his own pleasure, as man, but according to the pleasure of his Father, Matth. 15. 24. I am not sent, but un­to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

I might add, that the Holy Ghost sancti­fies us, and it would easily amount to a De­monstration: But I have said enough for the proof of a point, so clearly expressed in the Scripture: I have done with the Cata­skeuastical part; I now come to the An aske [...] ­astical, I mean to detect the fallacies and cavils wherewith the enemy of the Holy Ghost endeavours to dispute him out of his Throne and Deity.

And truly one may rationally expect that he that comes to dispute a truth out of the [Page 37] Church, that hath had so long possession; to throw down a doctrine that hath so firm a foundation in the Scripture; should write like Tertullian, and have as many sentences as words, & as many argnments as sentēces. But contrariwise, I finde in this Pneumato­machist nothing but a heap of words, a Jury of arguments that are neither good nor true, bold dictates imperiously obtruded up­on the World without any proof, ancient Land-marks removed, quia ipse dixit, be­cause the Schoolmaster would have it so, and such things which Non sani esse hominis, non sanus juret Orestes. You will say, Why then do you answer him? Because of that of Solomon, Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit, Prov. 26. 5. Besides, God hath in just judgement sent abroad a spirit of delusion, and there are multitudes that will sooner comply with a new and erroneous opinion upon the ap­pearance of one argument, then embrace a truth, though confirmed by several solid de­monstrations and evident Scriptures; even as one stroke will carry a man further with the tide, then five against it. And therefore that I may cut off an occasion from thē that seek an occasion to fall from the truth, that I may leave those inexcusable that are resol­ved they wil not be convinced, that I may [Page 38] lay up an evidence to justifie God, and to be a witness against them, (who I perceive will not see) against that dreadful day of judge­ment; [...], I come to answer his ar­guments.

This only in the general: There is one consideration, that will utterly enervate all his Arguments: It must needs be acknow­ledged, and B. himself confesseth it, That there are many things that are spoken of God, [...], after the manner of men, and must be understood [...], so as it do not reflect dishonour upon God. And therefore when he tels you. The Spirit speaketh from God, heareth from God, receiveth from God, is sent of God, is the gift of God, changeth place, maketh intercession for us, &c. The answer in a word is this, (and it would suffice to stop the mouth of any sober-minded man) that all these things are spoken of the Holy Ghost improperly, and must be so expounded, as may consist with the divine Majesty of the Holy Ghost, which is so clearly asserted in other Scriptures, as you have heard.

But I shall add one thing more in the ge­neral, That we all confess there is an order, though not an in equality among the divine [Page 39] Persons; and so all that B. objects may be answered, if one do apply it to his several Arguments. But I come to particulars.

Object. 1. His first Argument is this: He that is distinguished from God, is not God: But the Holy Ghost is distinguished from God: Ergo the Holy Ghost is not God.

Answ. To the Major I answer, He that is distinguished from God really and sub­stantially, is not God, so your Major is true, otherwise not; for there is a modal distincti­on among the persons, and then in your sense the Minor is false; for the Holy Ghost is not substantially distinguished 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 [...]s? What a soul is? wiser men [Page 40] 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. [...]. The word was with God, and the word was God▪ wi [...]h God; there God is taken personally, the Son was with the Fa­ther▪ was God, there it is taken essentially▪ [Page 41] 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 [Page 42] 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 r [...], 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, [Page 43] 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.

[Page 44] 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. 1 [...]. Christ had a Name which no [...] 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: [Page 45] 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 [Page 46] 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 [...]ew you. So th [...]t it notes not his manner of sp [...]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, [Page 47] 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 p [...]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, mirro [...]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 [Page 48] so are men; yet I hope not in the same sense. And yet a man might as well urge these e [...]p [...]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 [...] Shall we take it properly, hath the Holy▪ Ghost bodily ears to hear? 2 Or was the▪ [Page 49] 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 self­sufficiency 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 [Page 50] 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 Antithesi [...] 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, a [...] shew it to you: Therefore the Holy Ghost i [...] not God.

Answ. This also is but the same Argu­ment [Page 51] 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 [...]'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. [...]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.

[Page 52] 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. [...]. 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.

[Page 53] Object. [...] Arg. [...]. 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 [...]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. 3 [...]. 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 [Page 54] not a created gift, because he is at his own disposall, as we have proved in the seventh Argument.

Object. [...]. His eighth Argument is this, He that changeth place is not God: But the Holy Ghost changeth place, Luke 3. [...], 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. [...]5. I will go and return to my place: Gen. 1 [...]. 21. The Lord came down to set the City, though elswhere he is said to be Omni­present, 2 Chron. 6. 18. Psal. [...]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 [...]. 30, 35, 3 [...]. 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 [Page 55] spake. 3 God himself is called an Angel, Mal. [...]. 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. 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 fellow­servant, 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 Te [...]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 [Page 56] 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 [Page 57] 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 B [...]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.

[Page 58]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 Whose 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 [Page 59] 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 [Page 60] 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 the Angels, yea Christ himself as man is, Mark 13. 32. 3 God doth venture all his God­head upon a lesse matter, Isa. 41. 22, 23. Let them shew things to come, what shall happen, that we may know ye are gods. And yet some men have been so bold as to dispute whe­ther Angels might know things to come, but no man before B. durst say that they knew the hearts of men. Nor will any man say so, that understands any thing ei­ther in Philosophy or Divinity. But to re­turn.

B. objects, None can intercede for himself. [Page 61] For that I answer, Intercession is taken sometimes more strictly, when the word is [...], and then indeed it is most com­monly understood of one that inrercedes as a Mediator between two parties: but sometimes it is taken more largely, and so is the word [...] oft taken for interpellare, or compellare, to intreat, whe­ther for a mans self, or for another; In Thucydides, Pars adversa adversae parti hostiluer dicitur [...]: So that it notes onely compeltare, whether suppli­cando, or expostuland [...]. So in the eighth Chapter of the wisdome of Solomon, vers. 21. Knowing (saith he) that I could never be wise and good except God gave it, [...], I interceded, or made request to God for it, [...]. A like place is, wisdome 16. 28. where the word is so used. And though these places be Apo­chryphall, yet it matters not, for it shewes how that Greek word [...] is some­times used for a simple praying, though for a mans self, [...], which was the thing to be shewn. For the addition of the word, [...], that may refer either to a person, or a businesse, Oro pro negotio ali­quo, as well as pro persona altera. Nay not [Page 62] onely, [...], but which is more, [...], is applied to God himself in re­ference to man without any third party, Heb. 6. 17. Deus [...], he e­stablished, or confirmed with an oath, but properly it signifies, he mediated to himself or interceded to himself with an oath. And therefore, if the Spirit be said to intercede to God, let not B. infer, therefore it is not God, for we see God intercedes to him­self.

But he addes, To intercede, notes inferio­rity; and though in Scripture some-things are spoken after the manner of men, yet no where is any thing said that argues Gods inferiority to, and dependance upon another.

I answer, 1 This is very false; God saith to Moses, Let me alone, Exod. 32. Doth not this expression argue inferiority and dependance too? Yes surely, B. cannot deny it; but onely he must say, it is impro­perly taken; and must be so interpreted, as may consist with Gods Majesty and Glory: and so he will also enervate all his own Arguments. 2 I observe hence, that B. doth positively conclude, that Christ (be­cause he intercedes) is inferiour to God, though he professed he would not meddle with that▪ But alas! we need not now run [Page 63] to consequences to prove that B. denies the Deity of Christ: for that same wretched hand that lift up it self against the Holy Ghost, hath in the same manner, and with the same weaknesse too endeavoured to de­throne our Lord Iesus, and written many leaves expresly against the divinity of our ever blessed Saviour, who (doubtlesse) will plead his own cause, and will one day shew how ill he takes it at the hands of those men that pretend to be bought by his blood, and yet can quietly suffer every unworthy fellow to preach and write high treason against the King of heaven and earth; and in the mean time, prosecute even to the death those that do any way abet any trea­sonable designe against the State.

Object. 10. His tenth Argument is this, Some have been Disciples and Believers, and yet have not so much as heard whether there be an Holy Ghost, Act. 19. 2. and so they could not believe in him.

Answ. 1. The meaning of the Text is quite mistaken; for they did not doubt whether there was an Holy Ghost or no, they could not be ignorant of this: John doubtlesse having instructed them before [...] did baptize them, and there being so m [...]ny clear testimonies of the Spirits existence in the Old Testament. But the meaning then [Page 64] is this, We have not heard whether the Holy Ghost be come and manifested in so eminent a manner as is promised; for you must consider, that the Iewes after the Ba­bylonish Captivity had lost those glorious discoveries, and the gracious presence of the Holy Ghost, which once they had; this being one of those five things, wherein they used to complain the second Temple came short of the first. And further, they knew that God had promised the manifestation of the Spirit in an extraordinary manner, Joel 2. Now that this is the reall meaning, & not a fancy, I will prove, 1 By a parallel place; you have the very same phrase, Jo. 7. 39. The Spirit was not yet (given, is not in the Origi­nal onely [...]) why? the Spirit was, and had descended upon Christ long before; but this is the meaning, the gifts of the Spirit were not so plentifully shed abroad as af­terwards they were upon the Apostles and others. 2 It appears from the Context, that he speaks of the gifts of the Holy Ghost; see vers. 6. The Holy Ghost came on them, and they spake with congues and prophesied. So th [...] I cannot chuse but laugh at, and pity the [...]old and conceited ignorance of B. who saith▪ It is without example to take the holy Spirit [...] the gifts of the Spirit; whereas you se [...] must needs be so taken in the pla­ces [Page 65] now mentioned, and in many other pla­ces: see, Act. 2. 17. So, Joh. 20. 22. He breathed on them, and said, Receive ye the Holy Ghost. The person of the Holy Ghost they had received before; They were the Temples of the Holy Ghost before: Nay, B. himself (that you may see errour doth not onely oppose the truth, but it self also) doth elswhere contradict this very asser­tion, and tells us, That when the Spirit is said to dwell in us, the meaning is not, that his person or essence dwell in us, but that he dwelleth in us by his gifts or effects. Well, but what if B's. interpretation were true? nothing of moment followes. What an Ar­gument is this? Some were ignorant of the Deity of the Holy Ghost, therefore it is not God: As if a man should argue, B. is a Dis­ciple and a Believer, and he believes not that the Holy Ghost is God; therefore it is not God.

But (saith he) Many now tell us, that without the knowledge of this point (of which they were ignoraat) we cannot be saved. Answ. 1. They were not ignorant of it, as hath been proved. 2 But the times or states of the Churches wherein men live, do much vary the case: according as the means of knowledge are more or lesse, an errour may be damnable or not. To instance, in the [Page 66] first infancy of the Church, Circumcision was an errour winked at, Act. 15. and 16. 3. but afterwards it proved no lesse then dam­nable, Gal. 5. 2. If you be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing: So the Apo­stles word once ignorant of, and did not be­lieve the Death and Resurrection of Christ▪ but if any man now doubt of them, we may upon much better grounds doubt of his salvation: So though God might wink at this errour in former times, let not B. now think that God will hold him guiltlesse in times of so much light and meanes; let him look to it, God is very jealous of his honour, and particularly of the honour of the Holy Ghost, Matth. 12. 32.

Object. 11. Arg. 11. The Spirit of God hath an understanding distinct from the un­derstanding of God, for he heareth from God, Ioh▪ 16. 13, 14, 15.

Answ. This is the self-same Argument with the third and fourth, as you see, and therefore I pray you go back for an answer. Onely one thing he addes, That the Spirit is said to search the things of God, 1 Cor. 2. 10. But to search the depths of one, necessarily supposeth one understanding in him that sear­cheth, and another in him whose depths are searched; then which nothing is more false [...]d foolish: For, 1 By searching there, [Page 67] is meant nothing but knowing, as appears from ver. 11. where instead of searching is put knowing, The things of God knoweth the Spirit of God: and again, God is said to search the heart, Rom. 8. 29. that is, to know it. 2 Doth not God know himself? nay, cannot we search our selves? cannot our understanding reflect upon it self, and search its own nature? are not we com­manded to search, try, and examine our selves?

Object. 12. His last Argument is this, The Spirit of God willeth conformably to the will of God, Rom. 8. 27. He maketh intercession for the Saints according to the will of God. But this Argument is already answered un­der the ninth Objection; the sum of what is there at large proved, is this, That the Spirit is said to pray, intercede, will, be­caus [...] he maketh us so to do, because he maketh us to pray, according to the will of God. And thus I have detected all the fal­lacies wherewith the Adversary laboured to oppose the Deity of the Holy Ghost: and so notwithstanding all that he hath said, i [...] remains a sure truth, and will do so to eter­nity, that the Holy Ghost is God. And therefore Trinuni Deo, Patri, Filio, Spiri­tu [...] Sancto sit Laus, Honor, & Gloria,

Amen.