Selected quad for the lemma: father_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
father_n	john_n	send_v	son_n	16,040	5	6.2799	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A76702	Twelve arguments drawn out of the Scripture, wherein the commonly received opinion touching the deity of the Holy Spirit, is clearly and fully refuted. To which is prefixed a letter tending to the same purpose, written to a Member of the Honourable House of Commons. And to which is subjoyned an exposition of five principall passages of the Scripture, alleadged by the adversaries to prove the deity of the Holy Spirit; together with an answer to their grand objection touching the supposed omnipresence of the Holy Spirit. / By Iohn Bidle, Master of Arts.	Biddle, John, 1615-1662.; I. H.	1647 (1647)	Wing B2879; Thomason E406_1; ESTC R201902	17,962	25

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 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 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

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 ARGVMENT 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 ARGVMENT 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 ARGVMENT 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 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 ARGVMENT 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 ARGVMENT 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 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 ARGVMENT 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 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 ARGVMENT 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 ARGVMENT 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 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