Wherein the Deity of the Spirit of God is proved in the demonstrati­on of the Spirit, and vindicated from the Cavils of John Bidle.

By an Admirer and Worshipper of the Trinity in Ʋnity.

London, Printed by T. M. for Joh. Rothwell at the Fountain and Bear in Gold­smiths Row in Cheap-side.

Christian Reader,

ALL Heresies come from Hell; the Apostle calls them the Do­ctrines of Divels, 1 Tim. 4. 1, 2. and the ancient Ig­natius, [...] Ad Tral­lenses. The inventions of the Divel.

All Heresies lead to hell; S. Peter stiles them, [...], Damnable Here­sies. [Page] Epiphani­us, 2 Pet. 2. 1. Haeres. 74 [...], The Gates of Hell; they in­volve (though some men think otherwise) both the Seducers and the Seduced in everlast­ing vengeance, in the Ad Ephes. judgment of Igna­tius.

Amongst all Heresies, none are more dangerous nor infe­ctious then such as assail the Sacred Trinity, God blessed for ever. These are most dangerous, because they rase the whole foundation of Chri­stian Religion, and by reason [Page] of the blindness, curiosity, wantonness, pride, &c. of mans wit, the most infecti­ous.

In all Ages of the Church Satan hath bestirred himself to sow and disperse these He­resies. I intend not a cata­logue of all (see this in Da­neus) but in stead of all, the Story of this one, denying the Deity of the Holy Ghost, in this short Treatise confu­ted.

It was at first taught by Arius, implicitely: Epiphan. Haeres. 74. after him, publickly [Page] maintained by Ma­cedonius, Niceph. Hist. l. 9. c. 42, 47. the fu­rious Bishop of Constantinople: After him propagated far and near by Marathonius, Eleusi­us, and their Associates. It was censured and condem­ned in the second Councel at Haeres. 74. Constantinople, by 180 Bishops, upon this occasion met together; and confuted largely by Epipha­nius; yet it lived obscurely in aftertimes, as is obser­ved by Daneus and Haeres. 42. Prateolus; and in [Page] the last Centurie began again to flie abroad, broached by Servetus, and dispersed by Socinus and his follow­ers.

What endeavors have been used to infect, and prevent the Infection of the Belgick Churches with this Heresie is discovered by the Cloppen­burch ann. 51. Hoorn. bec. praefat. ad Socin. confutat. par. 1. Ma­res. hydra Socinianis. Dr. Chey­nell rise and growth of Socin. Learned Cloppen­burch, in his Compendiolum Socinianismi Cō ­futati, in the Pre­face. What stickling amongst us in these [Page] times of distraction, is most lamentable to rehearse; the whole body of Socinianism, that hydra of Blasphemies, that Racovian Catechisme (which walked only in the dark, and in the Latine tongue in the Bishops times) is now translated into English, for the more speedy corruption of the people; many bold Fa­ctors for these Blasphemies, which in those times durst not appear, do now both publick­ly, and from house to house disseminate their Heresies without fear: amongst these [Page] is Mr. John Bidle, who both in print and private doth deny the God-head of the holy Ghost, and dispute a­gainst it.

David thought it Psal. 119 time for God to work, when men made void his Law; and thou (Reader) canst not but think it seasonable for his ser­vants to watch, and for thy selfe to stand upon thy guard, when the enemy is sowing tares.

Bless God for those watch­men who stand upon the Tow­ers [Page] to give warning of thy approaching danger, and take warning at the sound of the Trumpet, that thou Ezek. 3. Heb. 13. maiest deliver thy soul, and thy blood may not be upon thine own head: This will be grievous to us, and unprofita­ble to thee.

[...], Fly from Atheistical Epist. ad Trall. Heresies, was the last counsel of dying Igna­tius to the Trallenses; a­greeable to the grave advice of Solomon, Proverbs 19. Cease my son; to hear the [Page] instruction that counsels to erre from the words of knowledg. O that this counsel might take with thee. But we have a further re­quest to thee, Reader, La­bour that thou maiest stand fast, rooted, and grounded, and establish­ed in the faith. In Infecti­ous times, it is usual to take Antidotes, and wear Amu­lets: in these times of sedu­ction it is no less necessary to arm our selves against pre­vailing Errors.

[Page] This Book of Mr. Bidle's is not now at first confuted; the Reverend and Learned Mr. Estwicke hath some yeers since answered it in a Just Treatise; and since him Dr. John Cloppenbu [...]ch hath in Answer to it, put forth a Plea for the Deity of the holy Ghost in the Latine tongue, in the yeer 1652. This short, and full Manual, written by a Workman that need not be ashamed, though in modestie he conceal his name, is added for thy advantage. [Page] In it thou shalt find the Ar­guments proving the Deity of the holy Ghost fully asserted, against Mr. Bidles Cavils; the Sophisms which Mr. Bi­dle makes use of to darken truth, and pervert thy faith, clearly refuted, as E­piphanius Haeres. 74. hath it, [...], To the stopping of the mouthes of gainsayers, and the satisfa­ction of the Docible. That the Spirit of Wisdom may be given thee to try all things, dis­cern [Page] the things that differ, and hold fast what is good, is the Prayer,

Of thy Servants for Christs sake,
  • Imprimatur ED. CALAMY.

To the READER.

THere is scarce any Truth contained in the Scriptures that hath not been op­posed by Hereticks in some ages of the Church; and amongst the rest, this Doctrine of the Blessed Trinity, hath not been without exception; nay indeed, it hath found as much resistance as any other, partly from the igno­rance of men, that could not ap­prehend it; partly from the pride of men, that will believe no truth, but what doth fully sute and comply with their (though corrupted) rea­son: It is very observable how the Antitrinitarian Divel hath trans­formed himself into several shapes; [Page] sometimes telling us that there was but one Person, only it was called by three several names, and so they made a Trinity of words, but not of persons: Thus he spake in the mouthes of the Simonians, Mon­tanists, Noetians, &c. sometimes telling us, that the three Persons are three Gods, and so they give us a Trinity of Divine Essences, not of Persons only, so he spake in the Tritheitae: Sometimes tel­ling us, that the three Persons are only three qualities; so he spake in the Aetiani▪ These Hereticks, like Samsons Foxes, though their heads looked diverse waies, yet their tails were tied together, and fire-brands in them, to set the standing Corn of the Church on fire. Particularly, the Deity of the holy Ghost hath been opposed at sundry times, and in divers man­ners: Some Hereticks saying, It [Page] was only a name; some saying, it was a man; many saying, That it was not God but a Crea­ture, Danaeus de haeresibus. as the Arians, Ori­genists, and especially the Macedonians; which last pestilent Error hath been of late revived, and particularly defended by John Bidle, in a Pamphlet intituled, Twelve Arguments, &c. whereby the Deity of the holy Ghost (as he pretends) is clearly refuted; wherein, although I profess, as in the presence of God, I find no­thing but common, trivial, absurd and foolish Arguments; yet I ob­serve the spirit of the man to be extraordinarily lifted up, as if he had said that, which would puzzle all the Universities in Europe to answer. He tells you in his Epistle, That he had waited upon, and contested with sundry Learned men, and could never get a satis­factory [Page] answer: nor I doubt, e­ver will in his own judgment: I fear God hath given him up to a spirit of delusion, to believe lies: To convince an Heretick, is but a lit­tle below a miracle; and therefore it is not that I expect in this Trea­tise, but only the establishment of those that are yet free from this infection, and the reducing of them who have followed this wretched Apostate out of the simplicity of their hearts.

I am sensible that this Treatise of Bidle's is fully answered by learned Mr. Estwick, to which Mr. B. hath never yet made a re­ply, nor ever will be able: But there are many that are unwilling to bestow either pains or cost a­bout books of that nature, and so that error doth yet spread, and diverse (as I am informed) are late­ly infected with it. I was there­fore [Page] importuned to put forth a short and plain confutation of Bi­dle's Treatise, which might re­quire less of the Readers mony and patience, and so might serve as a common Antidote against that Pe­stilential Doctrine. Which mo­tion I did at first utterly reject, be­ing conscious to my self of mine own utter unfitness for such a work. And had I been left to my self, I should sooner have put my finger in the fire, then my pen to paper upon such terms. But being solemnly almost adjured, by the honor of God and good of souls, and being uncessantly urged; I confess, I durst not deny, lest I should prefer mine own credit, (which I thought might be justly blemished by publishing my weak­ness in print, with a Noverint uni­versi, as thousands have done before me) I say, lest I should prefer my [Page] credit to the glory of God (which was here so neerly concerned, and I hoped might be a little promo­ted by mine indeavors). I there­fore consulted not with flesh and bloud, but immediately betook my self to the work. And if such fools as I write, learned men may thank themselves, who suffer so many pestilent books to lie un­answered (as are daily put forth) with what satisfaction to their own consciences, I know not; but I am sure with the great prejudice of the Church, and dissatisfacti­on of pious souls. I wish they would seriously lay this to heart, and take heed they be not found among them that wrap their ta­lents (whether they be preaching or writing talents, all is one) in a napkin. And in this work I con­fess I was helped by the labours of some that went before me, Mr. Est­wick, [Page] Dr. Cheynell, and Cloppen­burgius; though I may safely say, there are some things added of mine own, which, I hope, may not be altogether useless and inconsi­derable. Such as it is, here thou hast it: read, consider, examine, seriously, diligently, reverently, and the Lord open the eyes of thy mind that thou mayest receive this truth in the love of it. So prayeth he

Who passionately labors for thy conviction and conversion, Philopsychus Philal [...]thes.


WHoever thou art, thou and I are both to ap­pear before the Judg­ment Seat of Christ, and there among o­ther things, to give an account of all our words, whether true or false, whether good or evil. Thou and I have each a soul to save, of incre­dible, and inexpressible worth: and if ever thou art saved, it must be by the operation of that holy Spi­rit [Page] which thou hast so wickedly un-Godded. It is like thou hast heard many Discourses, and thou hast read this book of Bidles, and thou hast used all wayes to strengthen thy self in that opinion which thou hast taken up. I do here beseech thee in the name of the great God, and our Lord Jesus Christ, that thou wouldst read this Treatise of mine throughly, consider it impar­tially, and remember thou art in the presence of a God that searcheth thy heart. Take heed lest while thou disputest against the holy Ghost, thou be not found among them that sin a­gainst the holy Ghost; It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. Truth is as cheap as Error, and much more delightful and advanta­geous. What is the Chaffe to the Wheat? Be not ashamed to relin­quish thy opinion: It is no dishonor to yeild to truth; it is much more dis­honourable [Page] to stand out against it. If thou art ashamed of the holy Ghost, be sure he will be ashamed of thee be­fore men and Angels at the last day. Thou art at present in the gall of bitterness, and there is but one way for thee to escape; that is if God would give thee repentance to the acknow­ledging of the Truth, and that thou mayest recover thy self out of the snare of the Divel: which I confess will not be done without great diffi­culty; partly because intellectual distempers are in most incurable; partly because there is that in the Scripture, which if it be pulled in pieces from the analogie of faith, and rigidly insisted upon, as to the letter of it, may easily be wrested by wan­ton wits to their own destruction; partly because where men wilfully blind themselves against the light, God doth judicially shut their eyes, and harden their hearts, that they [Page] may stumble and fall, and rise no more. But though it be difficult, yet it is not impossible: There are ma­ny that can say, Whereas I was blind, now I see: And therefore let me perswade thee, in the fear of God, to remember from whence thou art fallen, and repent, lest God come against thee quickly, and take away all thy remaining light, and leave thee in darkness, thence to depart into utter darkness. To prevent that mi­sery, let it not be grievous to thee to peruse these few leaves candidly and faithfully; only take this Caution with thee, do not expect that I should so clear up this great mystery, that thy reason should be able to fathom it; How then should Divine myste­ries be unsearchable? This is not the first, nor only Truth that hath been rejected because of its non-com­pliance with reason. Thou mayest rememher that the wise Athenians [Page] rejected the Doctrine of the Resur­rection, because they could not recon­cile it with their reason. The preach­ing of the Cross was to the Corinthi­ans foolishness, because it suited not with their reasons. Take heed of stumbling at this stone: Let the boldness of those heathens teach thee sobriety of mind; and let their fol­ly and unbelief teach thee not to be faithless, but believing. If thou wilt be poisoned in the midst of An­tidotes, as thy sin is the greater, so thou wilt certainly purchase to thy selfsorer damnation. I have here done my duty in warning, if thou perish, thy blood wil be upon thine own head. But that better things may befal thee, and such as accompany salva­tion, is the hearty prayer of him,

Who mourns for thine Apostacy, and would rejoice in thy reco­very, P. P.


BEfore I come to an­swer Mr. B's. Ar­guments, I shal 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, [Page 2] then strength and force of Argu­ments, in multiplying words with­out weight: I shall forbear to bring many Arguments, that might be alledged, and that upon good grounds; and shall only cull 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, send 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 converted or confound­ed. Amen.

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 [Page 3] True God: Ergo; The Holy Ghost is God.

I make that addition in the Pro­mises, 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 ver. 4. Thou hast not lied to men, but to God: [Page 4] So that in the Apostles judgment 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 runs may read it; yet) I shall add four conside­rations.

1. They are said to lie to the Holy Ghost, because only the Ho­ly Ghost knew their sin, he only searched their hearts & knew their hypocrisie; and therefore ver. 9. they are said to tempt the Spirit of the Lord, that is, to try whether he could discover their sin, and would punish it.

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; [Page 5] Now if the Holy Ghost were only an Angel, as our Adversarie 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 Ambassdors may dif­fer in their private conditions, yet all of them do equally represent their Lord and Master.

3 Peter doth make a Dichoto­my here, acknowledging only two sorts of lies, a lying to men, and to God. But according to our Adversaries opinion, here should have been a trichotomy, Peter should have said, Thou hast not lied to men, nor to the Holy Ghost only, but to God: But now see­ing [Page 6] the Apostle hath made only two members of the Division, Thou hast not lied only to men, but to God also: Chuse which you will, for one of the two you must acknowledg, either that the Holy is man, or God.

4. Consider that Peter 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, [Page 7] 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 al 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 Holy Ghost, as he before expressed it.

But this Exception he himself distrusts, and therefore he flies to another, and that is, he finds fault with the traslation, and tels us, that the Greek word [...] being joined with an Accusative Case, doth signifie the same with [...], that is, to be-lie and counterfeit, and so the words must be rendred, Why didst thou be-lie or counterfeit the Holy Ghost. But neither will this relieve him, [Page 8] 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 put with a Dative, & so necessarily sig­nifying to lie, yet) if his Exposition were true, the force of the Argu­ment is not at al abated; stil it holds though in other terms, Thou hast in counterfeiting the Holy Ghost, not counterfeited men, but God.

Another place to the same pur­pose we have, 1 Corinth. 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: Ther­fore, He is to be glorified; or in the Apostles words, Therefore glo­rifie [Page 9] God. What a miserable Ar­gument were this? if the 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 what will satisfie a blind mind 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 [Page 10] 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.

Wel said; but who ever did un­derstand any thing else, or how can any thing else be understood, especially by him that pretends so much understanding? What is it for a temple to be erected 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. [Page 11] 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 an swered under his 2d Argument. I might mention 2 Cor. 3. 17. The Lord is that Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is li­berty; and many other places, but I study brevity.

Arg. 2. He to whom Religious Worship is duly and truly exhibited is God: But Divine Worship is duly and truly given to the Holy Ghost: Therefote, the Holy Ghost is God.

For the Major our Adversary will not deny it.

The Minor is to be proved. And I shall prove it▪

[Page 12] 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, ver. 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, and Paul brings it in thus, Well spake the Holy Ghost by Esaias the Prophet; Paul saith, the Holy Ghost spake, and in the sixth of Isaiah, The Lord spake; nor can it be said (which yet is the only refuge) that the Lord spake by the Holy Ghost as being one of those Angels; for he that spoke, is evidently di­stinguished from the Angels, ver. 6, 7. you read, one of the Sera­phims flew and touched the lips of the Prophet; then ver. 8. He pas­seth [Page 13] from the Angels, and tels you, He heard the voice of the Lord.

2 That worship is due to the Holy Ghost, will appear from Psal. 95. 8. It is said ver. 6. O come let us worship and bow down, let us kneel before the Lord our Maker: ver. 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. And observe it, Saint Paul, or who ever was the Author 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 forty years: and so ver. 11. I sware [Page 14] they shall not enter into my rest: Who was it whom they tempted? They tempted the most high God, Psa. 78. 18. Who was it whose works they saw forty 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. 32. 10, 11. The Lord sware saying,—None of them shall see the Land. The word in the Original is Jehovah, a name pecu­liar to God: And 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 but 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 [Page 15] God to witness, and as God alone is able to judg 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 be unto 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 prayes to all the Persons in the Trinity, amongst the rest, the seven Spirits, the Spirit of God is called the seven Spirits, because of its manifold gifts and o­perations: Seven is a note of per­fection, and seven Spirits in relati­on to the seven Churches: The seven Churches were as liberally provided for, as if they had had seven Spirits: These seven Spirits cannot be meant of Angels: for 1 These seven Spirits are put be­fore [Page 16] Christ, whereas the Angels are far below him. 2 The good Angels would never accept of Prayer or worship, Revel. 22. 8, 9. 3. Nor are the Angels the foun­tains of grace and peace: 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 prece­dency in dignity. 2 The Spirit of God is superiour to Christ as Mediator, and so he is spoken of [Page 17] here, as is evident.

Arg. 3. He in whose name baptism is to be administred, is God: But baptism 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, Mat. 28. 19.

The Major will easily be pro­ved. 1 If you consider what it is to be baptised into ones name, it is to be baptised into ones worship, faith and doctrine; and further to be baptised by the authority or at the appointment of one. 2 If you consider what baptism is: It is a Seal of the Covenant of Grace: Now in whose name is baptism 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 [Page 18] 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 bap­tised 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 Eph. 4. 5. One Lord, one faith, one Baptism; where it is not ob­scurely implied, that Baptism 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 Jewes are said to be baptised in­to Moses, 1 Cor. 10. 2.

[Page 19] I answer: 1 There is diffe­rence between being baptised into one, and into his name. Certain­ly there was as much reason why the Corinthians might be baptised 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 baptised 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 wayes: 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 hear 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 [Page 20] and the Prophets: Act. 21. 21. Thou teachest all the Jews to forsake Moses: so the meaning of it may be only this; They were baptised or initiated into the Law and wor­ship of God delivered by Moses; now, what is this to the pur­pose? Or,

3 The Praeposition [...] may be put for [...], as it is in other pla­ces, Acts 7. 35. The Law was gi­ven [...], by the disposition of Angels, according to Gal. 3. 19. It was ordained by An­gels.

Whereas B. saith, We are bap­tised 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 [Page 21] 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. 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 fetch'd fancy, [Page 22] 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 he 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 judgments past finding out; that is, by any creature: and yet the Spirit searcheth even the deep, se­cret things of God. And the Ar­gument is confirmed by the reason added, Even as the spirit of man: [Page 23] So that as the a 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. The Son of man himself, as he was man, and eve­ry other creature was ignorant of the day of Judgment; 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 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, Jer. 17. 10. God, and so the Spirit are said to search, not in regard of their former igno­rance, but because their knowledg is an intimate and piercing know­ledg.

2 The Spirit of God is Omni­present: [Page 24] Psal. 139, 7. Whither shal I go from thy Spirit? &c. The place is clear and full, and will ad­mit of no answer: 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: Eph. 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. 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 preached, Mar. 4. And this answer he delivers with as much confi­dence, [Page 25] as if he had made a knot that no man nor Angel could un­ty; which makes me adore the wisdome of God, that hath so far besotted him, as that he placeth so much confidence in that, which any man, that hath but a dram of sound reason in him, will acknow­ledg 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: Mar. 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 Romans ordinarily contained above six thousand.

[Page 26]Arg. 5. He that dictated or was the Authour of the Scripture, is God: But the Holy Ghost was the 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 & writ­ten by Prophets or Apostles, unto God: Heb. 1. 1. God spake in times past by the Prophets. Luke 1. 70. And so 1 Thes. 2. 13. Paul com­mends the Thessalonians 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. 3. 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, because the Scripture cannot be [Page 27] 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 them were simply infallible, and that we could not safely rely upon either of them with a divine faith. But now we may safely rely upon the [Page 28] word and authority of the Holy Ghost, for that is called a sure 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 Holy Ghost, ver. 21.

For the Minor; it is proved, 1 By that place forementioned, Acts 28. 25. The Holy Ghost spake by Esaias. 2 By 2 Pet. 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, ver. 20. Scripture is not of private interpretation; that is, it is not to be interpreted according to their private preconceived opinions, but according to the mind of the Holy Ghost, who was the Author of it. A parallel place you have Heb. 9. 8. The Holy Ghost this signifying, &c. [Page 29] where the mind of the Holy Ghost is made the genuine sense of the Scripture: now Scripture is to be interpreted according to the mind of none, but the Author of it. Many other places might be added, but I do not desire to multiply pla­ces.

Whereas B. saith, the Holy Ghost is an Angel; that cannot be; for the Holy Ghost (you see) is the Author of the Scripture, and 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 part 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 into: Observe 1, The Angels are clearly distinguished [Page 30] from the Holy Ghost. 2. The Holy Ghost is the dictator of Go­spel mysteries, the Angels are stu­dents, learners in them.

Arg. 6. He who is one in nature 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 Joh. 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. 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 [Page 31] number [...], but [...] the Neutral, to note, that though there is in the Trinity [...] & [...], 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 Holy Ghost been an Angel, John had committed a wilful and gross offence in varying the phrase, whereby just cause of sus­picion 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 Look to ver. 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; [Page 32] nay the contrary is most clearly implyed, 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 Essence, but alwayes one in consent.

I answer, This is false; the contrary is evident from Joh. 10. 29. I and my Father are one: Had Christ meant only one in consent, the Jewes would never have been ready to stone him. Again, he gives this as a reason why none could pluck his sheep out of 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 as soon have pluck'd his sheep out of his hand, [Page 33] as out of the hand of any of his disciples, for they also were one in consent with God.

But B. saith, That it is contrary to common sense that three should be one. Thus it fares with men, when they will make sense and reason the judge of Scripture controversies: Hath B. never read, that the natu­ral man receiveth not the things of God, 1 Cor. 2. 14. that when Peter said, Christ was the Son of the li­ving God; Christ told him, Flesh and bloud hath not revealed this to thee, Mat. 16. That the carnal mind 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 [Page 34] cannot invent or fathom it; not but that the [...] is clear from the Scrip­ture, that there is a Trinity; but that reason cannot find out the [...], how can these things be? All men are Socinians by ntaure, they will believe God and the word of God no farther then they can see reason.

But B. addes, The Complut. Bible hath this place otherwise.

I answer, What then? It must be here as it is in many other cases of the same nature, that must be over-ruled by the consent of other Copies.

But B. goes on, and tells us, that this place is not to be found in many Copies.

I answer, It is certain that anci­ent Hereticks have offered violence to many Scriptures that did most clearly confute them, as might [Page 35] be instanced in many other places and yet the providence of God hath alwayes countermined their designs 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 received. And if in some Copies it be wanting, it is probable we may thank some of the Macedonian Hereticks for ta­king it away. 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 [Page 36] 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 Joh. 16. 13. He will guide you into all truth, for he shall not speak of himself, but from the Father; that is, he shal speak no­thing but that wherein the Father and he agrees. 2 From the ninth verse, If we believe the witness of men, the 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, unless you will confess with us that the Spirit in the sixth verse is God. Howsoever if there were not such a place as this in the Scripture, there have been several other places alledged beyond all exception.

[Page 37]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 ascribed to the Holy Ghost: Ergo, the Holy Ghost is God.

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

1 In Creation: The Holy Ghost creates, Job 33. 4. 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: 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, Act. 4. 24. and who that was we read Acts 1. 16. The Ho­ly [Page 38] Ghost spake by the mouth of Da­vid: To pass by that known and clear place, Gen. 1. 2. The Spirit moved upon the face of the waters.

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, Arise: None but God can for­give sins: now miracles are ascri­bed to the Holy Ghost, Matth. 12. 28. Christ cast out Divels 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 cast out divels: What Matthew calls the Spirit, Luke [Page 39] calls the finger of God, or the Omni­potency of God, which is the same with God, for so the Magicians understood it, Exod. 8. 19. The Spirit of God was greater and stronger then Christ as man. A­gain, Rom. 15. 19. Mighty signs and wonders were [...]rought by the power of the Spirit. Those mi­racles which the Apostles wrought they professed they did not work by their own power, Act. 4. 12. but by the power and strength of Christ: And doubtless 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, Act. 4. 16. sometimes to the Holy Ghost, as in the place now mentioned; sometimes to God the Father, Act. 5. 30. it hence clearly followes, [Page 40] 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, Joh. 2. 19. hence also it followes, that Christ and the Holy Ghost, are God, and are one God.

3 It is proper to God to go­vern the Church, and to send Mi­nisters, and yet this is attributed to the Holy Ghost: Act. 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 Rev. 22. 9. So Act. 20. 28. [Page 41] Take heed to the flock of God over which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers; and compare this with 1 Cor. 12. 28. and you shall find, that it was God that set officers in the Church; Jesus Christ himself was sent by the Spirit, Luke 4. 18. Again, Act. 15. 28. 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 Lawgiver, 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. And if you look into the fifth and sixth verses, you shall find that the same [Page 42] Spirit is called both Lord and God. 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 their own will, but to do Gods commandments, heark­ning 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, Act. 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 Author to the Hebrews proves at large to be bet­ter then all the Angels, chapt. 1. and so according to B. suppositi­on, better then the Holy Ghost, [Page 43] 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 Anaskeu­astical, I mean, to detect the fal­lacies and cavils wherewith the enemy of the Holy Ghost indea­vours 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 Church, that hath had so long possession; [Page 44] to thrown down a doctrine that hath so firm a foundation in the Scripture; he had need write like Tertullian, and have as many sen­tences as words, and as many Ar­guments as sentences. But con­trariwise, I find 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 Landmarks removed, quia ipse dixit, because the School ma­ster 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 judgment sent abroad [Page 45] 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 imbrace a truth upon many good and faithful te­stimonies; 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 them that seek an occasion to fall from the truth, that I may leave those inexcusable that are resolved they wil not be convinced, [...], 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 [Page 46] the manner of men, & 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, is distinguished from God, &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 Per­sons; [Page 47] 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 [Page 48] calls this, an ignorant refuge, A bold censure, for a rustick Paeda­gogue to pass upon so many lear­ned men, whose shooes he will ne­ver be worthy to bear. He adds, That no man can conceive it in his mind. Alas, vain man, dost thou think to conceive these great my­steries, which the very Angels a­dore! But come a little lower, canst thou conceive what the eter­nity of God is? what his infinity or immensity is? All the conceptions of thy mind are finite. Yet a little lower, Canst thou conceive what a Spirit is? what a soul is? wiser men then B. could never yet do it, and therefore they can only describe them by negatives, and tell us what they are not, but cannot tell us what they are. Yet a little lower, Canst thou tell how e­very quantity may be divided into [Page 49] 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 grudg that thou canst not conceive such a mystery as this is in thy mind.

But he saith, It is a distinction unheard of in Scripture.

Answ. That is false: 1 It is clearly, Joh. 1. 1. The word was with God, and the word was God: With God; there God is taken per­sonally, the Son was with the Fa­ther. Was God; there it is taken essentially, the Son was God, had the Essence of God. 2. These three are one. 3. Two things are cleer in the Scripture: 1. That [Page 50] 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 and nothing?) if some­thing, then either finite or infinite: 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 res, a thing properly, nor yet nothing; but modus rei, the manner of a thing: Had B. studied Philo­sophy a little better, before he had [Page 51] 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, by denying the dis­junction: 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 [Page 52] 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.

Obj. 2. His second Argument is this, He that gave the holy Spirit is Jehovah alone, Neh. 9. 6, 20. Ther­fore, The Spirit is not God.

[Page 53] Ans. 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, Mat. 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, Mat. 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 only no man, but) no person; for so the word signifies, but the Spirit of God: Shal any weak or perverse Disputant infer from hence, There­fore the Father knowes them not, or knowledg is not properly attributa­ble to God as Mr. Goodwin tels us? So Rev. 19. 12. Christ had a name [Page 54] which none 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 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.

Obj. 3. His third Argument is this, He that speaketh not of him­self is not God: But the Holy Ghost speaketh not of himself: Therefore The Holy Ghost is not God. The Minor is proved from Joh. 16. 13.

Answ. This is the fruit of Gods condescensions to unthankful men, they take occasion to slight him for them: Thus because Christ was pleased to assume the nature of man, some have rendred him this thanks, to dispute him out of his [Page 55] God-head: 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. Ungrate­ful wretches! assure your selves this wicked unthankfulness 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 [Page 56] that bear record in heaven. 1 Joh. 5. 7. There is not the single testi­mony of the Spirit, but the joint attestation of all the three Persons.

But B. saith, This phrase in Scripture, to do a thing not of him­self, notes to do a thing by the teach­ing, command, authority of another. I answer: There are many phra­ses, which are spoken both of God and man; but B. must know, that things are not attributed to God and man univocally, that is, in one and the same sense. God is said to repent, and man is said to repent; yet I hope B. is not so brutish as to think God repents and grieves properly; how then should he be perfectly happy? God is said to have handsand feet, &c. and so are men; yet I hope not in the same sense. And yet a man might as well urge these ex­pressions [Page 57] 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.

Ob. 4. His fourth Argument is this, The Spirit heareth from another, Joh. 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. foresaw what answer would stop his mouth, and therefore he layes a strict charge upon us, not to say this is spoken improperly. Wel, but 1. Shall we take it properly, hath the holy Ghost bodily ears to hear? 2. Or was the holy [Page 58] Ghost to learn? was he to seek in Gospel mysteries? How can that be imagined of him that dictated the Scripture. and fully under. stood all the meaning of it? Heb. 9. 8. Besides, a Text that B. him­self cites, will not permit this; which is, Isai. 40. 13, 14. compared with Rom. 11. 34. I confess I can­not but admire both the wisdome of God, and the besottedness 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 mind of the Lord, or who hath been his Counsellour: 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? [Page 59] 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, ver. 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.

Obj. 5. His fifth Argument is this, He that receiveth of another, is not God: But the holy Ghost re­ceiveth of another, Joh. 16. 14. He shall receive of mine and shew it to you: Therefore, The holy Ghost is not God.

Answ. This also is but the same Argument over again, repeated only (I suppose) to make up the do­zen. The answer to the third Ar­gument will suffice for this, yet [Page 60] 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 (especi­ally according to B's. supposition, that looks upon Christ but as [...], a meer man:) for contrariwise, Christ as man recei­ved all his fulness from the Spirit, Joh. 3. 34. He received the Spirit without measure, Isai. 61. 1. Again, it is not said, he shall receive of me, but of mine; that is, he shall take my wisdome, righteousness, holiness, &c. and shall apply them to you; for this is the proper work of the Spirit, and so this makes nothing at all for his purpose.

Obj. 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.

Ans. Still the same mistake: the [Page 61] 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 shal fur­ther prove in answer to his eighth Argument: and therefore this must not be so brutishly understood as if the Spirit were sent a long journey from heaven to earth: but only this, I will undertake (saith God) that my Spirit shal 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 wills also, and so the holy Ghost did actually consent to this promise of the Fa­ther; now by consent one equal may send another: Thus Christ [Page 62] who thought it no robbery to be e­qual with God, Phil. 2. 6. yet was sent of God.

Obj. 7. Arg. 7. 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 confess here are new words, animus tamen 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. 38. Let us see whe­ther his Argument will not as well disprove the God-head 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 gives 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 su­table to the premises, but both to [Page 63] be abominated by every pious soul. But B. adds, A gift is in the power and at the disposal of another. I answer, 1. That is false; I may give my daughter to a man to wife, and yet she is not in my power, for this I cannot do without her con­sent: So neither can God give the Spirit without its consent▪ 2 What if I should grant the Holy Ghost were at the disposal of Gods will? remember that the Father and the Spirit have but one will, and so that is no more then to be at its own disposal. 3. This Argument may be strongly retorted, there­fore the Holy Ghost is not a crea­ted gift, because he is at his own disposal, as we have proved in the seventh Argument.

Obj. 8 His eighth Argument is this, He that changeth place is not God. But the holy Ghost changeth place, Luk. 3 21, 22. Therefore, he is not God.

[Page 64] Ans. 1. Certain it is that God is often said in Scripture taken to change place, Ps. 18. 9. God bowed the Heavens and came down: Hos. 5. 15 I will go and return to my place, though elsewhere he is said to be Omnipresent, 2 Chron. 6. 18. Psal. 139. Jer. 23. 24. But he saw the weakness 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 7. 30, 35, 38. 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 [Page 65] hath been proved. 2. Nor doth it follow, because sometime an An­gel came down and spoke, there­fore God never came down nor spoke. 3. God himself is called an Angel, Mal. 3. 1. Christ is cal­led the Angel of the Covenant: The Angel that wrastled 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 spoke in that manner in the first person: I am thy fellow ser­vant, said that Angel, Rev. 22. So the Prophets used to speak of God in the third Person, Thus saith the Lord.

Obj. 9. His ninth Argument is this, He that prayeth unto Christ, [Page 66] is not God: But the Spirit pray­eth to Christ, to come to judgment, Rev. 22. Therefore. it is not God.

Answ. It can never be proved that this Text 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 happiness of the Saints com­pleated. 2. In the very verse be­fore the Text, there is mention made of a created Angel.

Obj. But then it would not have been spirit, in the singular number.

Ans. There is no necessity of that, for why may not one good spirit signifie more good Angels, as well as one unclean spirit signifie a legion, Mar. 5. 2, 9.

But what if it were meant of the Spirit of God? the meaning only is this, the Spirit speaketh in the Spouse, and dictates to the Spouse; though the Adversary doth magi­sterially [Page 67] forbid us this interpretati­on, without giving one real proof against it.

I shall add 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 groans unutterable. The Spi­rit (saith B.) powres out petitions apart in our behalf.

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: thus Christ is said to live in us, Gal. 2. 20. when he maketh us to live: So Mat. 10. 20. The Spirit of your Father speak­eth in you, which is thus expound­ed, Luke 21. 15.—I wil give you [Page 68] a mouth, and wisdome which all your adversaries shall not be able to gain­say: So that the Spirit speaking in them, and they speaking by the Spirit, signifie the same thing. Thus a Scrivener is said to write, when by directing our hands he makes us to write. And it is further to be considered, that there is no action which the creature doth, but there is required a concurrent action of God with it, which many Philo­sophers affirm (and that not with­out reason) to be of the same kind with the action of the creature: And if so, when the Spirit concurs with us in our intercession, he may very well be said to intercede. 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 [Page 69] sutes 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. Ver. 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 find expressed both wayes, by the form­er phrase, Gal. 4. 6. by the latter Rom 8. 15. which if well consider­ed, will fully answer Bidles Argu­ment. But indeed we need to go no further for an antidote against B's poisonous interpretation, then the 26 verse, and we may add the 27 verse to it Thence I argue, 1 Such an interpretation must be understood as helps our infimities in praying: But our infirmities in praying are helped by the Spirits [Page 70] enabling us to pray, and not by I know not what intercession of the Spirit apart.

2 Such an intercession of the Spi­rit must be understood, as teacheth us how to prayas we ought; but it is not a supposed intercession of the Spirit of God without us that doth that: (how the prayer of an An­gel, wch we neither hear, nor know, should teach us to pray, is not ea­sie to conceive) but the Spirit in us enlightning our minds, 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. But the groanings are ours, as ap­pears 1. So they are said to be, ver. 23. 2 They are groanings that cannot be uttered: I suppose B will not say, but the Spirit is a­ble [Page 71] to utter all his mind. 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 lesse happy or more miserable.

4. If the mind 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 mind of the Spi­rit, is meant of our minds, or our desires assisted by the Spirit; be­cause Gods searching the heart, is given as a ground of Gods know­ing the mind of the Spirit. Now there were neither coherence nor consequence between the search­ing of our hearts, and the know­ing the mind of the Spirit; if the mind of the Spirit were to be [Page 72] 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 Angell (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, inlightning, guiding, and teaching us, by helping our infirmities; and therefore so it [Page 73] must here be understood.

But he objects, None can inter­cede for himself. For that, I answer Intercession is taken sometimes more strictly, when the word is [...], and then indeed it must alwaies be understood of one that intercedes 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 hostiliter di­citur [...] : So that it notes only compellare, whether suppli­cando or expostulando.

But he adds, 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 dependence upon another.

[Page 74] 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 only 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 inferior to God, though he pro­fessed he would not meddle with that.

Obj. 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.

Ans. 1. The meaning of the Text is quite mistaken; for they did not [Page 75] doubt whether there was an holy Ghost or no, they could not be ignorant of this: John doubtless having instructed them, before he did baptize them, and there being so many clear testimonies of the Spirits existence in the Old Testa­ment. But the meaning then 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 Jewes 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 real [Page 76] meaning, and not a fancy, I will prove, 1. By a parallel place; you have the very same phrase Joh. 7. 39. The Spirit was not yet (given, is not in the Original, only [...]) 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 ver. 6. The holy Ghost came on them, and they spake with tongues and pro­phesied. So that I cannot chuse but laugh at, and pity the bold and conceited ignorance of B. who saith, It is without example, to take the holy Spirit for the gifts of the Spirit; whereas you see it must needs be so taken in the places now mentioned, and in many other pla­ces: [Page 77] see Act. 2. 17. Well, but what if B's interpretation were true? nothing of moment follows. 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 tel us, that without the knowledg of this point (of which they were ignorant) we cannot be saved. Ans. 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 know­ledg are more or less, an error may be damnable or not. To in­stance, in the first infancy of the Church, Circumcision was an er­ror [Page 78] winked at, Act. 15. & 16. 3. but afterwards it proved no less then damnable; Gal. 5. 2. If you be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing: So the Apostles were 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 error in former times, let not B. now think that God will hold him guiltless in times of so much light and means; let him look to it, God is very jealous of his ho­nour, and particularly of the honor of the Holy Ghost, Mat. 12. 32.

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

Ans. This is the self same Argu­ment with the third and fourth, as [Page 79] you see, and therefore I pray you go back for an answer. Only one thing he adds, 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 and foolish: For [...] By searching there, is meant nothing but knowing, as appears from ver. 11. where in stead 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?

Obj. 12. His last Argument is this. [Page 80] [...] [Page] [...] [Page 80] 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, because he maketh us so to do. 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, it remains a sure truth, and will do so to eter­nity, that the holy Ghost is God. And therefore Trinuni Deo, Patri, Filio, Spiritui Sancto sit Laus, Ho­nor & Gloria. Amen.


This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. Searching, reading, printing, or downloading EEBO-TCP texts is reserved for the authorized users of these project partner institutions. Permission must be granted for subsequent distribution, in print or electronically, of this EEBO-TCP Phase II text, in whole or in part.