Twelve Arguments drawn out of the Scripture, wherein the commonly received Opinion touching the Deity of the Holy Spirit, is clearly and fully refuted.
ARGƲMENT 1.
HE that is distinguished from God, is not God; the holy Spirit is distinguished from God. Ergo. The major is evident, for if he should both b [...] God, & be distinguished from God, he would be distinguished from himselfe, which implyeth a contradiction. The minor is confirmed by the whole currant of the Scripture, which calleth him the Spirit of God, and saith that he is sent by God, and searcheth the depths of God &c. Neither let any man see think to fly to that ignorant refuge of making a distinction betweene the Essence and Person of God, saying that the Holy Spirit is distinguished from God, taken personally not Essentially. For this wretched distinction (to omit the mention of the Primitive Fathers) is not only unheard of in the Scripture, and so to be rejected, it being presumption to affirme any thing of the unsearchable nature of God, which he hath not first affirmed of himselfe in the Scripture: but is also disclaimed by Reason For first, it is impossible for any man, if he would but endeavour to conceive the thing, and not delude both himselfe and others with empty termes and words without understanding, to distinguish the person from the Essence of God, and not to frame two beings or things in his minde, and consequently two Gods. Secondly, If the person be distinct from the Essence of God, then it is either something or nothing: if nothing, how can it be distinguished, since nothing hath no accidents? If something, then either some finite or infinite thing; if finite, then there will be something finite in God; and consequently since by the confession of the adversaryes themselves, every thing in God is God himselfe, God will be finite, which the adversaryes themselves will likewise confesse to be absurd. If infinite, then there will be two infinites in God, to wit the Person [Page 5]and Essence of God, and consequently two Gods; which is more absurd then the former. Thirdly, to talk of God taken only Essentially is ridiculous, not only because there is no example thereof in Scripture, but because God is the name of a By person I understand, as Philosophers doe, suppositum intelligens, that is, an intellectual substance compleat and not a moode or subsistence, which are fantasticall and senselesse terms, brought in to couzen the simple. Person, and signifieth him that ruleth over others; and when it is put for the most high God, it denoteth him who with soveraign and absolute authority ruleth over all; but none but a person can rule over others, all actions being proper to persons: wherefore to take God otherwise then personally, is to take him otherwise then he is, and indeed to mistake him.
ARGƲMENT 2.
If he that gave the Holy Spirit to the Israelites to instruct them, be Iehovah alone, then the Holy Spirit is not Iehovah or God; But he that gave the Holy Spirit to the Israelites to instruct them, is Iehovah alone; Ergo. The sequele of the major is plaine, for if he that gave the Holy Spirit be Iehovah alone, and yet the Holy Spirit that was given be Iehovah too, the same will be Iehovah alone, and not Jehovah alone, which implyeth a contradiction. The minor is evidenced by Neh. 9.6.20.
ARGƲMENT 3.
He that speaketh not of himselfe, is not God. The Holy Spirit speaketh not of himselfe; Ergo. The minor is cleare from Ioh 16.13. The major is proved thus: God speaketh of himselfe; therefore if there be any one that speaketh not of himselfe, he is not God. The antecedent is of it selfe apparant, for God is the primary authour of whatsoever he doth, but should hee not speake of himselfe, he must speake from another, and so not be the primary, but secundary authour 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 speake or do any thing not of himselfe, according to the ordinary phrase of Scripture, is to speake or do by the shewing, teaching, commanding, authorising, or enabling of another, and consequently incompatible with the supreame and selfe-sufficient Majesty of God. Vid. Iohn 5.19.20.30. 7.15.16.17.18.28. 8.28.42. 11.50. 51. 12.49.50. 14.10.24. 15.4. 18.34. Luke 12.56.57. 21.30. 2 Cor. 3.5.
ARGƲMENT 4.
He that heareth from another what he shall speake, is not God; The Holy spirit doth so; Ergo. The Minor is plain from the for [...]ited [Page 8]place Iohn 16.13. The major is proved thus; he that is taught, is not God; he that heareth from another what he shall speake, is taught; Ergo. The major is clear by Esay 40.13.14. compared with Rom. 11.34. 1. Cor. 2.16. The Minor is evidenced by Iohn 8. where our Saviour having said in the 26. verse, whatsoever I have heard from him (the Father) these things I speake;] in the 28. verse he expresseth the same sence thus; According as the Father hath taught me, these things I speake. Neither let any man goe about to elude so pregnant an Argument, by saying that this is spoken of the Holy Spirit improperly; For let him turne himselfe every way, and scrue the words as he please, 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 speake, who is the prime Author of his speech, and into whom it is not at a certaine 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 Embassadour to be the Interpreter not of his own, but of anothers will. But it is contradictions to imagine that the most high God can have any thing discovered and committed to him by another.
ARGƲMENT 5.
He that receiveth of another, is not God; The Holy Spirit doth so; Ergo. The Minor is witnessed by the aforesaid place Iohn 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 plaine by Acts 17.25. Rom. 11.35.36. The consequence is undeniable, for if God should give all things to all, and yet receive of anothers, he would both give all things, and not give all things; which implyeth a contradiction. The Major of the Prosyllogisme is otherwise urged thus, He that is dependent, is not God; he that receiveih 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 very notion of dependency.
ARGƲMENT 6.
He that is sent by another, is not God; the Holy Spirit is sent by another; Ergo. The Minor is plaine from the forequoted [Page 9]place Iohn 16.7. The Major is evinced thus; he that ministreth is not God, he that is sent ministreth; Ergo. The Major is undubitable, 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 intimated 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 manifest by Iohn 12.49. The Father that hath sent me, he gave me a Command what I shall speake.] Neither let any man here reply that this very thing is spoken also of Christ, unlesse, having first proved that Christ is supreame 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 clearely proved in this Argument, shewing that it is unsutable to the divine Majesty.
ARGƲMENT 7.
He that is the gist of God, is not God; The Holy Spirit is the gift of God; Ergo. The minor is plain by Acts 11.17. For as much then as God gave them the like gift (meaning the Spirit) as he did unto us, who have believed on the Lord Iesus Christ, was I one that could withstand God? The Major though of it selfe sufficiently cleare, 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 Acts 17.25. God giveth to all, life, breath, and all things. The Minor is proved thus; he that is himselfe given, is not the giver of all things; he that is the gift of God, is himselfe 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 himselfe, a principall thing, is giver, which implyeth a contradiction. The minor needeth no proofe. Moreover, a gift is in the power, and at the disposall of the giver; but it is grosse and absurd to imagine that God can be in the power, or at the disposall of another, [Page]Neither let any man here think to evade by saying, that not the Holy Spirit himselfe, but only his gifts are imparted to men; Since both the more learned adversaryes themselves confesse, that the Person of of the Holy Spirit is given together with his gifts, and the Scripture putteth the matter out of doubt if you consult Neh. 9.20. and Rom. 5.5. In both which places, the Holy Spirit is said to be given contradistinctly from his gifts and operations; in the first, contradistinctly from the instruction flowing from him; in the other, contradistinctly from the love of God diffused in our hearts by him. Whence we may draw this Corollary, that if the Person of the Holy Spirit be out of favour given to certaine men, as the aforesaid places testify, then he was not personally present with them before, and consequently by the concession of the adversaries themselves, cannot be God, since they will not deny that God is alwayes personally present with all alike. But I forestall the following Argument.
ARGƲMENT 8.
He that changeth place, is not God; The Holy Spirit changeth place; Ergo. The major is plaine, for if God should change place, he would cease to be where he was before, and begin to be where he was not before, which everteth his Omnipresence, and consequently, by the confession of the adversaries themselves, his Deity. The minor is ocularly apparant, if following the Abi, Ariane, ad Iordanem, & Trinitatem videbis. advise of the adversaries, you wil but go to Iordan, for there you shal have the Holy Spirit in a bodily shape descending from heaven, which is the terminus à quo, alighting upon Christ, which is the terminus ad quem, Luke 3 21.22. Neither let any man [...]lledge, that as much is spoken of God. Exod 3. & chap. 20. & Gen. 18. For if you compare Acts 7.30.35.38.53. Gal. 3.19. Heb. 2.2.3. & chap. 13.2. with the foresaid places, you shall finde, that it was not God himselfe that came down, but only an Angel, sustaining the Person and Name of God; which hath no place in the history, touching the descent of the Holy Spirit
ARGƲMENT 9.
He that prayeth unto Christ, to come to judgement, is not God; The Holy Spirit doth so; Ergo. The maior is granted. The minor is evident from Rev. 22.17. compared with 12. verse. Neither let any man think to elude this proofe, by saying, that the Spirit is here said to pray, only because he maketh the Bride to pray. For when the Scripture would signify the assistance of the Holy Spirit in causing men to speake, it is wont to affirme, either that the Holy Spirit speaketh in them, as Matth. 10.20. or that they speake by the Holy Spirit, as Rom. 8.15. Wee have received the Spirit of adoption, by whom wee cry Abba Father.] But here it is expressely said, that the Spirit and the Bride say, come; not the Spirit in the Bride, not the Bride by the Spirit.
ARG. 10.
He in whom men have not believed, and yet have been Disciples and Believers, is not God; Men have not believed in the Holy Spirit, and yet have been so; Ergo: The major is plain, for how can any be Disciples and Believers, according to the phrase of Scripture, and not believe in Him that is God? The minor is proved thus, Men have not so much as heard whether there were an Holy Spirit, and yet have been Disciples and Believers; Ergo: They have not believed in the Holy Spirit, and yet have been Disciples and Believers. The Antecedent is apparant from Acts 19.2. The consequence is grounded on that of the Apostle Rom. 10.14. [How shall they believe on Him, of whom they have not heard?] Now if any man to decline the dint of this Argument, shall say, that by Holy Spirit in these words [ [...]] is meant not the Person, but the Gifts of the Holy Spirit, He, besides that hee perverteth the plaine and genuine meaning of the words, and speaketh without example, doth also evacuate the emphasis of the Particles [...], which emply that these Disciple were so far from having received the Gifts of the Holy Spirit, whereof we may grant that the question made mention, that they had not so much as heard whether there were an Holy Spirit or not. Again, that the Holy Spirit is not God, doth further appear by this very instance, since the Apostle, when there was so ample an occasion offered to declare it, (if it had been so) doth quite decline it: For it is incredible that He, who was so intent and vigilant in propagating the Truth, as that casually seeing an Altar at Athens inscribed to the unknown God, he presently took a hint from thence to preach unto the Heathens the true God; yet here being told by Disciples that they had not so much as heard whether there were an Holy Spirit, or not, should not make use of the opportunity to discover unto Them and in Them to Us, the (Deity of the Holy Spirit, but suffer them to remaine in ignorance touching a point of such consequence, that without the knowledge thereof (if we believe many now now adayes) men cannot be saved. Certainly, the Apostle had a greater care both of the Truth of God, and the salvation of men, then to do so.
ARG. 11.
He that hath an understanding distinct from that of God, is [Page 12]not God; The Holy Spirit hath an understanding distinct from God; Ergo: The major is clear; for he that hath an understanding distinct from that of another, must needs likewise have a distinct Essence, wherein that understanding may reside. The minor is proved thus, He that heareth from God, and that at the second hand, what he shall speak, hath an understanding distinct from that of God; The Holy Spirit so heareth from God; Ergo: the minor is evident from Joh. 16.13, 14, 15. The major is confirmed thu [...]; He that is taught of God, hath an understanding distinct from that of God; He that heareth from God, is taught of God; Ergo: The minor is manifest from John 8. where our Saviour Christ having said in the Verse 26. w [...]a [...]soever I have heard from him (the Father) these things I speak:] In Verse 28. he expresseth the same sence thus, [According as the Father hath taught me, these things I speak.] The major is of it selfe clear; for he that is taught, hath an unknowing understanding, since none can be taught what hee knoweth already; and he that teacheth hath a knowing understanding, otherwise he could not teach another something; but it emplyeth a contradiction that the same understanding should at the same time be both knowing and unknowing of the same thing. Besides, that the Holy Spirit hath an understanding distinct from that of God, is easily deducible from the words of the Apostle, 1 Cor. 2.10. where he affirmeth, that the Spirit searcheth the depths of God, (as Rom. 8.27. he intimateth, that God searcheth the heart of the Spirit:) but to search the depths of any one necessarily supposeth one understanding in him that searcheth, and another understanding in him whose depths are searched, as is evident not only by collation of other places of the Scripture, as 1 Pet. 1.11. Rev. 2.13. but even by common sense, dictating to every man so much, that none can without absurdity be said to search the depths of his own understanding. Whence the Apostle going about to illustrate what he had spoken of the Spirit of God, by a similitude drawn from the spirit of a man, doth not say, that the spirit of a man doth search, but know the things of a man, though his former words did seem to lead him thereunto.
ARG. 12.
He that hath a will distinct in number from that of God, is not God; The Holy Spirit hath a will distinct in number from that of God, Ergo. The major is irrefragable: The minor is asserted thus; He that willeth conformably to the will of God, hath a will distinct in number from that of God; The Holy Spirit so w [...]lleth; Ergo: The major is plaine, for conformity must be between two at least, else it will not be conformity, but identity. The minor is confirmed by Rom. 8.26.27. [Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities, for we know not what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himselfe maketh intercession for us with groanes unutterable; But he that searcheth the heart, knoweth what is the minde (or will) of the Spirit, for he maketh intercession for the Saints according to (or conformably to) the will of God.] Which words of the Apostle afford us another impregnable Argument of the Holy Spirit's being inferiour to God, inasmuch as he is said to make intercession unto God (as wee before urged his praying to Christ, Arg. 9.) and that with groanes unutterable; which is not so to be understood as if the Holy Spirit were here said to help our infirmities only by suggesting petitions and groans unto us, and making us to pray, (as is commonly, but falsely affirmed,) for the very words of the context sufficiently refute such a glosse, since they say that the Spirit himself, not we by the Spirit, (as we have it in verse 15. of the same chap.) maketh intercession for us: but to help others infirmities by making intercession for them, is not to instill petitions into them, but to pour out petitions apart in their behalf, as is apparant both from the thing it selfe (since none can intercede for himselfe, all intercession requiring the enterm se of a third person:) and by the collation of verse 34. of the same chapter, and by the 30. ver. of the 15. chap. and by 2 Cor. 1.11. Heb. 7.25. 1 Tim. 2.1. Col. 4.12. Eph. 6.18. Neither let any man think to bafflle off this Argument, which is written with a beame of the Sun, by saying that this is improperly spoken of the Hol [...] Spirit; for, besides that he hath no other ground to say so, but his own preconceived opinion touching the Diety of the of Holy Spirit, he ought to know that the Scripture, though it speaketh many things after the manner of men, yet doth it no where speak [Page 14]any thing that argueth his inferiority to, and dependence on another. But this passage of the Apostle plainly intimateth the Holy Spirit to be inferiour to God, and dependent on him; otherwise what need had he to intercede with God, and that with groanes unutterable, on the behalfe of the Saints?
An Exposition of Matth. 28.19.
[Goe ye therefore, and make Disciples (so it is in the Originall) of all Nations, baptising them into the name (so is it also in the Originall) of the Father, and of the Sonne, and of the Holy Spirit.]
In the name of the Holy Spirit] that is, into the Holy Spirit, by a circumlocution usuall in the Scripture, vid. Acts 19.5. compared with Rom. 6.3. And into the Holy Spirit, that is, into the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Thus the Iewes are said to have been all baptized into Moses, 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 Iesu; Christ, the Son of the Father, and of the Holy Spirit the Advocate and guide of all truth. Now the Holy Spirit is mentioned together with God and Christ, because he is the chiefe 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 uncleane 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 have appointed to order and direct the Church. For that the Holy Spirit is not ranked with the Father and the Son as being equall to them, is evident by other punctuall places of the Scripture, as 1 Cor. 12.3, 4, 5, 6. Ephes. 4.4, 5, 6. where when the mention of him, is joyned with that of the Father and the Son, he is expresly and emphatically excluded from being either God or Lord, by being contra-distinguished from both. But if he be neither God nor Lord, as the Apostle not only in these places, but elsewhere clearly testifies, vid. 1 Cor. 8.5.6. he cannot be equall to the Father and the Son, but is only the chiefe Minister [Page 15]of Both, peculiarly sent our to Minister on their behalfe that shall inherit salvation.
An Exposition of 1 Iohn 5.7.
[For there are three that beare 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 bin 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 only contrary to common sence, but also to other places of the Scripture, wherein this kind of speaking prepetually signifyeth 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. ver. 11.21, 22, 23. useth the same expression six times, intimating no other but an union of agreement; yea, in vers. 8. of this very chapter in his Epistle, he useth it in the same sence. For though the expression varieth somewhat in the ordinary Greek Testaments, in that the preposition [ [...]] is prefixed, (although the Complutensian Bible readeth it [ [...]] 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. & 6. together in the Originall; wherefore this expression ought to be rendred alike in both verses, as the former Interpreters did it, though the Latter Interpreters, in vers. 8. have rendred it [agree in one] putting the glosse instead 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, unlesse they can prove that those who are one in agreement must likewise necessarily be one in Essence; or that two or three cannot bee one, but it must presently be in Essence. I omit for the present to speak of the suspectednesse of this place, how it is not extant in the ancient Greek Coppies, nor in the Syriack Translation, nor in most ancient Books of the Latine Edition, and rejected by sundry Interpreters both Ancient and Mordern.
An Exposition of Acts 5.3.4.
[But Peter said, Ananias, Why hath Satan filled thy heart to lie to, (or deceive) the Holy Spirit, and to keep back part of [Page 16]the price of the Land? while it remained, was it not thine own? And after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? Why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lyed unto men, but unto God.]
In this passage the Holy Spirit is neither expresly, nor by good consequence called God. For admit the ordinary Translation were true, (as it is not) yet will 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, emply a metonymie of the adjunct) lyed not to men, but to God, that therefore the Holy Spirit is God; for in lying to them that are endued with the Spirit of God, one may lie to God, and yet neither they, nor the Spirit in them be God, but only the Messengers of God; for what is done to Messengers redounds to him that sendeth them. see 1 Thess. 4.8. John 13.20. Luk. 10.16. But if any man look more narrowly into the words, he shall perceive that the verbe [ [...]] is construed in a different manner, to wit, with an accusative in verse 3. and with a dative in verse 4. Now [ [...]] with an accusative in Greek Authors is the same with [ [...]] that is, to bely, or counterfeit; thus Lucan in Pseudom. [...], nomen quoddam mentitus, counterfeiting a certaine name. This being so, the words are to be rendred thus, [Why hath Satan filled thy heart to bely or counterfeit the Holy Spirit? (that is, why hast thou suffered the unclean spirit so farre to prevail with thee, as to lay down this mony at his suggestion, as appeareth, in that thou hast proloyned part of the price of thy Possession, and not laid down all: and yet to bear us in hand, that thou, as well as others, didst it at the motion of the Holy Spirit?) Thou hast not lyed to men, but to God: (that is, assure thy selfe that this dessembling of thine is not so much to us, [...]s to God himselfe, whose servants wee are.) This Exposition is not only agreeable to the Greek context, and scope of the place, but is a also seconded by Erasmus, Calvin, and Aretius.
An Exposition of 1 Cor. 6.19, 20.
[What? know ye not, that your Body is the Temple of the Holy Spirit, that is in you, whom you have of God, and that [Page 17]ye are not your own? For ye have been bought with a price: wherefore glorifie God both in your body, and in your Spirit, which are God's.]
Whereas it is objected by some out of this passage, 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 interest, and dedicated to his honour, both which are in the following words affirmed of God contra-distinctly from the Holy Spirit. But these things are so farre from being held forth in this place, that the contrary may thence not obscurely be evinced. For the Apostle, after he had intimated in what respect our body is the Temple of the Holy Spirit, to wit, by inhabitation, (for so much is emplyed by the description, added to the Holy Spirit, since descriptions in Sacred Writers are not idle and impertinent) he addeth that wee have Him from God, thereby not only distinguishing Him from God, but intimating also that He is desposed of by God, and bestowed on Us, and consequently that He is ours by interest, and not we his, as the objection would inferre.
An Exposition of Matth. 12.31.
[All manner of sinne and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men; but the blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven unto men.]
For the Objection drawn 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 sinne 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 his 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, that are mentioned by the Author to the Hebrewes, cha. 10, 25, 26. &c. Which things are the greatest affronts that can be offered to God, who useth the Ministry of the Spirit in none but things of the greatest importance.
An Answer to the grand Objection of the Adversaries touching the supposed Omnipresence of the Holy Spirit.
After I had throughly sifted this Controversy, 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 mear 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 only ask them one question, which if they resolve, I will then tell them how the Holy Spirit though he be not omni-present, may inspire all the faithfull 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 commeth 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 hapneth on every Lords day, how can Satan whom the Adversaries will deny to be omni-present, come and immediatly 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 bee not sufficient, take yet more proofs, that may seem to evince the omni-presence 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 foure Millions.) Thus is he said to hold the impenitent (who make the greatest part of mankinde) in hi [...] snare, and to take them captive at his will, 2 Tim. 2. ult. To blind the minds of them that believe not, 2 Cor. 4.4. To dwell in the ungodly, Revel. 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 uncleane spirit to be omni-present, why do they on lesse ground conclude the omni-presence of the Holy Spirit, especially when the Scripture so plainly testifyeth that He changeth place, as you may see in the eigth Argument above?