Page images
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors][ocr errors]

Luske I. 35. Angel, but that) the Holy Ghost Mall come upon thee, and the power of

the highest Mall overshadow thee; therefore also that holy thing which Jhall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. Therefore the Spirit of

God is no created Person ; which is our second Assertion against the ancient, * This express o

cevived Heresie of the * Arians and Macedonians. notion of the Dut newly revived hereile Spirit of God, That he was a Perfon, as a ministring Spirit, and created, was acknowledged the Doctrine of the Arians, as may appear out of the former Testimonies, and is evident by those which followed his Opinions. Which being of two kinds, the Anomeans, or pure Arians (such as were Aetius, Eunomiusand Eudoxius) and the Homoousians or Semi-Arians, (such as Eusebius and Macedonius) they both alike denied the Divinity, and afferted the Creation of the Holy Ghost. The Opinion of the Anomeans is clear out of the Words of Eunomius, who very subtilly delivered it, as if it had been the Opinion of the Ancients, This ñ sylwe á aci Qurbasovlas diddonanícs, tag av rebrov autó áramele xey Tóth ratórles, Testoy divar r T QUCH WET IS ÓÚxape. The Confession of the Ancients was, That the Holy Ghost was the third Person in the Trinity in Order and Dignity; and Eunomius pretending to follow them, added, That he was also third in Nature ; which the Ancients never taught. And what this third in Nature was, he thus declared, Tehtov ter se púch wege σάμαλι και το Πα7ρος, νεργεία και το και θωό μεμον τρίτη χώρα τιμώμεμον, ως πρώτος και μάζων απάντων, και μόνον τοιέτον τε Morogluğs wolniece, Jeórnio ry dmucoelixñs d'uso pee ws ametópspor. And again, Ei un rlíonce ésiv, óx v zfúvance égfontor és jévazza Obos sj cégfórnia. Šte felis gfórnus, nerij Šv xliouce sy wolna a to dvoráceas. Apud S. Bafil. advers. Eunom. 1. 3. So Gregory Nyffen repeats the words of the fame Eunomius, Πισδύο μου ας ή Παράκληλον, δυόμιμον λαό τα Móvx Orõ dice' 78 noyogluổs, and declares that their ordinary Language was cuti cyix Llobupala ulicua xrispala petov ipfo ovoucev. Orat. 1. cont. Eunom. Besides these, the Semi-Arians, and some of those which were orthodox as to the Divinity of the Son, were of the same Heresie as to the Nature of the Holy Ghost, and therefore were called IliounsToucxos, (as Epiphanius derives them in the Description of that Heresie, dio 'Huidcowe ry dro 'Ogbodo žav) and afterward Macedoniani. "Macedoniani funt à Macedonio Constantinopolitanæ Ecclefiæ Episcopo, quos & nobujaloméros Græci dicunt, eò quòd de Spiritu S. litigent. Nam de Patre & Filio rectè sentiunt, quòd unius fint ejusdemque subftantiæ vel effentiæ, fed de Spiritu S. hoc nolunt credere, creaturam eum esse dicentes. S. Aug. Haref. 52. This Herefie was first condemned by the Council of Alexandria, évêu thd Aliov Tly búpiece Jeodorhocerles tñ inscío terádo Cww.evenanévov7o. Socrat. l. 3. 6. 7. Afterward by the Council held in Illyricum, 'Huetis Ž egyõ jelas ais ai Ewiodos vu s te Pauw sa

Γαλλίαν, μίαν ειναι και τ' αυτω οσίαν, τ8 Παρος, και το 48, και το αγία Πνδύμα/G- ώ τελσί προσώποις, τελέσιν ν τρισί τεnesaus twoscósect. Apud Theodoret. Hift. Eccl. l. 4. c.8. The Synod held at Rome with the Gallican Bishops under Damasus, "S25€ À 1cméege sej o ne joy pecăt's órias, pesãs teórnia piãs dzejās, piãs d'uvélews, so evos yaegxrñe a wiseas xente sj i wrins iwosciws xs scias, rj to live ūllab To cylov. Apud Theodoret. I. 2. C.22. Another Synod held under the same Ďamasus at Rome, Ei Tog Tol Ilveõnce to byloy wolniece il doce , vegfuñas, avcédépese 'sw. Apud. Theodor. l. 5. c.io. After, and upon these particular Synods this Heresie was fully condemned in the second general Council held at Conftantinople, in which these words were added to the Nicene Creed, Kas sis Ilveõnce to á yior, tó xúesov, to Cuoroidy, toch is Ilalegs enrogolópefuor, rj Cw nalei jão Cunt Ogrtwórfor, to daañour dia † 1189@ntan. And in the first Canon mentioning the Heresies condemned expresly by the Council, they name idoncs en la compo Evropicevãv, 6t8v 'Avouoiwv, se e Aprevão, brøy Ejdožiceväv, saj len 'Hulaghavõu. %tyy My oupatouéxov. · And thus the Heresie of Macedonius, who made the Holy Ghoff a created Perron, was condemned by the /econd general Council, έτως 3 ν ο ιεροφάντης κορος Μακεδόνιόν τινα ή Κωσαν ισοπόλεως θρόνον άρπα μα πάλαι ποιησάμψον, ότι το πανάΓιον και ζωαρχικόν έδυσφήμες Πνεύμα, αθώας εδικαία δέναι wis gS Agha rõ , šta xj autos xen tavaviy agg74776pfe @ Dybbra , éis 18s ry vangéras T de color tarifa καμψω αυτό ζωέτατε κυριότηλα. Photius, Epif. Ι.

Our third Affertion is that which necessarily followeth from the former two, That the Spirit of God, in whose Name we are baptized, and in whom we profess to believe, is properly and truly God. For if he be a · Person, as we have proved in the declaration of our first Assertion; if he be a Perfon not: created, as we have demonstrated in the corroboration of the second Assertion; then must he of necessity be acknowledged to be God, because there is no unicreated Essence beside the Essence of the one eternal God. And there is this great felicity in the laying of this third Assertion, that it is not proved only by the two precedent Assertions, but also by the Adversaries of them both. He which denies the first, that is the Socinian, affirms that the Spirit of God is in God, and is the eternal and-omnipotent Power of God; he which denies the lecond, that is the Macedon that he is a Person of an intellectual Nature subsisting; but whatsoever is a Person subsisting of eternal and omnipotent Power, must be acknowledged to be God. Whether therefore we look npon the truth of our Assertions, or whether we consider the happiness of their Negations, the conclusion is, That the Holy Ghost is God.

But were there nothing, which is already faid, demonstrated, there is enough written in the Word of God to assure us of the Deity of the Holy Ghost, to

make us undoubtedly believe that the Spirit of God is God. It is written by Exod. 34. 34. Mofes, That when he went in before the Lord to speak with him, he took

the veil off, until he came out. And that Lord with whom Mofes fpake was the one Jehovah, the God of Heaven and Earth. But we are assured that

the

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

the Spirit was and is that Lord to which Mofes spake ; for the Apostle hath taught us so much by his own interpretation, saying, Even unto this day 2 Cor. 2. 15; when Mofes is read, the veil is upon their heart. Nevertheless when it i6, 17: Mall turn to the Lord, the veil shall be taken away. Now the Lord is that Spirit. The Spirit is here so plainly said to be the Lord, that is, tehovah, the one eternal God, that the adversaries of this truth must either deny that the Lord is here to be taken for God, or, that the Spirit is to be taken for the Spirit of God: either of which denials must feem very strange to any person which considereth the force and plainness of the Apostle's discourse. "

But indeed they are so ready to deny any thing, that they will by no means acknowledge either the one or the other : but the Lord must be fomething which is not God, and the Spirit must be lomething which is not the Spirit of God: and then they conclude the argument is of no force, and may as well conclude the Apostle's interpretation hath no sense. The Lord, they say, is Christ, and not God; for Christ, they say, is not God: the Spirit, they say, is the mystery of the law, or the hidden sense of it, and that every one knows is not the Spirit of God. But we are assured that the Apostle did mean by the Spirit, the Spirit of God, not the sense of the law ; for he addeth immediately, Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty; and the sense of the law is never called the Spirit of the Lord. Nay, were it not that the coherence of the discourse did fatisfie us ; yet the objection ought not at all to move us : for the name of Spirit in those places mentioned by them to signifie the sense of the law hath no affinity with this, according to their own way of argumentation : for it is * re- * The places ver so taken with the emphasis of an article, and put in the place either alledged by

" them are of an entire subject or a predicate in a proposition, except by way of op- there, "The esmom pofition; and one of those it must of necessity be, in the words of the Å- uz razdies cis postle, now the Lord is the Spirit, and that without the least intimation of

regireucla. any opposition.

Rom. 2. 29.

"125€ do kouetv minős ás xovórale av óra?o, rj š wanciórne wegéunel, Rom. 7. 6. Ýtis xedezy wydouxlixãs Zádouce rj Aiyun73. Rev. 11. 8. One of these places Speaks only adverbially, the other two have wyevuc in obliquo; and one of those two who have it cum adjuncto, both of them cum oppofito, none of them cum articulo, none of them are in loco fubiecti or prædicati ; and therefore how any of these can fhew, that avsöka in this place by us urged, invested with an Ar, ticle, standing in the place either of a complete Subject, or a complete Predicate, with nothing adjoined, nothing oppored.un. to it, must be taken in the same senfe with them, I cannot imagine. In the sixth verse of this Chapter indeed it is the subject of a proposition, and invested with an Article; but that is an Article of Opposition, To gs yeséueces aroxevs, To merce (woment, and this not. Howsoever, in that sense objected, it neither agrees with the words before it, nor with those which follow it. Again, we are assured that by the Lord the Apostle did understand the e

* The words • ternal God; for he speakech of the fame Lord which he mentioned in the in

E uras. verse before, and that is the Lord God spoken of in the book of Exodus ; were these,34. of which, except the Apostle speaks, his argument hath neither inference nor 34. "Huixa,

dvelostopeo coherence. În vain therefore is this pretended for an answer, that the A-Mavons a postle by the Lord doth always, unless he cite some place out of the old "- Kveix ixcovenant, understand Chrift; for in this particular he * citeth a certain place

ašv aut, mert

3: Ta out of the book of Exodus, and useth the Name of the Lord in the same Kopuz' which notion in which there 'tis used, framing an argument and urging it from are thus made

"uje of by the thence; and if he did not, † that rule is not fo universal and infallible, but "Apoftle, visse that the Lord in the language of the fame Apostle may not signifie the second, 3 ás imiseks,

4 ted; Kóesov aeropery tò xáruppe. Kúera then is here used by S. Paul citing some place out of the old Covenant, and the words which follow, 'oš Kúero signifie the same Kúero, as appeareth by the conjunction : and if so, then according to the DoEtrine of our adversaries, it cannot fignifie Chrift. For that the Lord of whom Moses (pake, was then when Moses wrote; but that Christ of which they interprét it, was not then, as they teach; therefore that the Lord cannot be Christ, in their interpretation, without a contradiction. For though Christ be most frequently called our Lord, yet being God the Father of Christ is our Lord, being Kúerc is often used by S. Paul without any restriction or intimation of appropriating that aft unto the Son, which is attributed to the Lord by him, the rule cannot be certain and universal. For I desire to know by what means they can be assured that the Apostle doth by the Title • Kúera intend Chrift, and not the most high God the Father, in these following places; i Cor. 3. 5. 4. 19. 7. 10, 12. 16.7. Theff. 4. 6.

5.27.

en Theff. 2. I, 5, 16. 2 Tim. 1. 16, 18. 2. 7. And beside, I ask how the pretence of ihis ceneral rule can be properly objected by those who know that they to whom they do object this rule, have contended that this Title is elsewhere attributed to the Holy Ghost. As S. Basil upon that place, 2 Theff. 3. 5. 'O 3 Kúera xalcomar vuão mais

đes e; # sexx T8 98, 9 8 7 Grupoyl 18 Xesỹ, theo di/Putes, Tì, xa7428uu de Ke® 6, 7 8 98 syπω, κ εις το σερ θλίψεων το Χρισ8 σομονω; λεκeνάθωσαν ημίν οι το Πνεύμα καλαδολέμονοι. Είτε δ τα ΠαTreas' sólo, wávious år ciento, ó 2 Kúero inãs maloudmías eis q courð úvárls. cite nei 'Yes, wego éxeslo år, sis t' fară vopuortw. netwoci su ti iso dado 7 gramov ô zij wegenfoeią Tð Kveis tinã at ážcov. And upon the like place, i Theff. 3. 12, 13. nožov Kúerov rõ xogé un egal Ev TŐ Ofð rj Ilalegszipãv cv rý wagocią Kveio não, apéum 785 Tas xosen dias ésnertiskas celiwción ñ á ofas ardovinen wisūv sneiącu, 'Atorenvaat waar ruir os vento B 26/78glexãy wyburta seas Draxovíay aseakoutuw (the newly revived Opinion clearly) to wyküna 710éves ada' ón X876. De Spiritu Sando, cap. 21.

but the first or third Person of the Trinity. If then the Lord be the eternal God, as the Apostle without any question understood him in Mofes ; if the Spirit be the Spirit of the Lord, as the Apostle expounds himself in the words immediately following; then the Spirit of the Lord is the eternal God, and fo termed in the Scriptures.

Again, the fame Scriptures do clearly manifest the same Spirit to be God, and term him plainly and expressly fo. For when Peter said, Ananias, wbr hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost? he repeateth the same question in reference to the fame offence, Why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lyed unto men, but unto God. To lye unto the Holy Ghost, is to lye unto God: To lye unto the Holy Ghort, is not to lye unto men, because the Holy Ghost is not man; and consequently not to lye unto any Angel, because the Holy Ghost is not an Angel; not to lye unto any Creature, because the Holy Ghost is no Creature ; but to lye unto God, because the Holy Ghost is God.

To this plain and evident argument there are so many answers, that the very multitude discovers the weakness of them all; for if any one of them were fufficient to bear down the force of our reason, the rest would be fuper

fluous. First, They answer that it cannot be collected from hence that the * Ex his facile Spirit is God, because the Holy Ghost in the original is * put in one case, apparet haud- and God in another; and the Apostle speaking in one manner of the Spirit, eo loco con- and in another of God, cannot shew that the Spirit is God. To which is cludi poffe easily answered, that the case or manner of the Apostle's Speech can make Spiritum S. no difference, if the sense and fubstance be the same, as here it is; for to effe Deum, 4 cùm alio mo- deceive the Holy Ghost, is nothing else but to lye unto him, or by a Lye dosde Spiritu to endeavour to deceive him. The act objected to Ananias was but one,

6 which act of his the Apostles looked upo injurious, not to themselves, de Deo. Illic but to the Holy Ghoft; and therefore S. Peter Thewed the sin to be not dicit mentiri against men, but against God: as certainly then as the Apostles were men, seu fallere, aga ac ludificari fo certainly was the Holy Ghost, in the esteem of S. Peter, God. spiritum s.As for that sense which they put upon the words, different from that of hîc mentiri 1 Deo." Crellius, lying to God, as if Ananias were accused for counterfeiting the Holy Ghost, De uno Deo ' it is most certain that the words can in this place bear no such Sense, for the Patre, l. 1. fin of Ananias is again expressed in the case of his Wife Sapphira, to whom $. 3. Argum.

S. Peter said, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? But to tempt the Spirit, and to counterfeit the Spirit, are two se. veral things; and it is evident that in this place the tempting of the Spirit was nothing else but lying to him: For S. Peter faid to Sapphira, Tell me whether ye fold the land for so much; and she said yea, for so much. In which answer she lyed. Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord, viz. in saying that ye fold the land for so much. Here is no colour then for that new prerence, that Ananias did bear the Apostles in hand that what was done he did by the motion of the holy Spirit, and so did pretend, counterfeit and belye the Holy Ghost. This is not to expound S. Peter, but to belye Ananias, and make him guilty of that Sin, which he was never yet accused of. It is most certain that helyed, it is also certain that he to whom he lyed was the

ur

Holy

Holy Ghost, and therefore it might be well * translated, that he led to the * Our tranHoly Ghoft.

jilation is here accused with

out reason. For tho' the Original be tsübeca Ti zveïna si úylov, yet fome Copies have it is to move unu. and the Syriac did so read and interpret it, dopo ann) 52707 the vulgar Latin to the sam. purpose, mentiri te Spiritui $. And the Author of the Tractate De teinp. Barbarico, under the name of s. Austin, mentiri te apud Spiritum S. c. 3. Now Bude af risto πνεύμα και the Jame with τω πνόύμαι, ας μη ψεύδεθε ας αλλήλες, Lye not one to another. If we read it πνεύμα, then it is rightly transated. Again, If we read it to theüua, it has in this case the sense of the wról.c76. As Pfal. 66. 2. : TIN T) wund' Lxx. sütovlok Gooi embogi Co, of the same sense with that Psal. i8. 61., 15 und 1977 TRIUN, Lxx. oi ix@egi Kveis i treylo autas. So Deut. 33. 26. 777** Unan, Lxx. Kai foron las cooi in ongi Co. And Ifa. 57. 11. 21On 1 xj if bow pé. 2 Kings 4. 10. *7510Dwa in muni da toon ég hóv Co. if therefore we read it focreat co wyrünce, it is rightly translated to lye unto the Holy Ghoft; and so agreeth wirb that which followeth to tempt the Holy Ghost, as Pfal. 78. 36. r yaman aw twv ét súraylo wt, and verse 41. résee af den vej Trogiron i Ocòx. Therefore whatsoever shifts are laid upon the phrase, or difference of Expression, are either false or frivolous.

Next, Because they may very well be conscious that this verbal or phraseological answer may not seem sufficient, they tell us though both the Phrases were synonymous, yet they did no way prove that the Spirit is God : and the reason which they render to justifie this negation, is, because there are several places of the Scripture, in which the Messengers of God, who are acknowledged not to be God, are mentioned in the same relation unto God as here the Spirit is. To which the answer is most plain and clear, that there is no creature ever mentioned in the same manner as the Holy Ghost is here. As when they alledge those words of the Apostle. He therefore, there that despiseth, despiseth not man but God, who hath also given us his Holy Spirit; I cannot see what similitude can be made unto the Scripture now in question : for if the Spirit be not understood in the first words, be therefore that despiseth, it hạth no relation to the present question ; and if it bé, it were so far from being a confutation, that it would be another confirmation. As for the other, He that heareth you, heareth me; he that despiseth you, Mat. 10.40. de spiseth me ; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that rent me: It is Luke 10. 16. so far from justifying their interpretation, that it hath nothing in it like that which founds our reason, that is, no opposition. For there are three particulars in that Scripture which we produce for our Assertion ; first, that they lyed to the Holy Ghost ; secondly, that in doing so, they lyed not unto Men; and thirdly, that by the same act they lyed unto God. In which the opposition is our foundation. For if the Spirit of God were not God, as we are sure it is not Man, it might as well have been said, you lyed not unto the Holy Ghost, but unto God. And indeed if the Apostle would have aggravated the sin of Ananias with the full propriety and iniquity, in their fense, he must have said, thou hast not lyed unto Men, nor unto the Spirit of God but unto God. But being he first told him plainly his fin, lying to the Holy Ghost ; and then let him know the sinfulness of it, thou hast not lyed unto men, but unto God: it is evident that the Holy Ghost to whom he lyed is God.

Thirdly, That Person whose inhabitation maketh a Temple is God; for if

notion of a Temple be nothing else but to be the houfe of God, if to be the house of any creature is not to be a Temple, as it is not, then nointhabitation of any created Person can make a Temple. But the inhabitation of the Holy Ghost maketh a Temple, as we are inforined by the Apostle, What, 1 Cor.6.19. know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you? therefore the Holy Ghost is God.

To this is replied indifferently according to the diversity of our Adverfaries; as it is not probable that the denyers of so great a truth should agree. The firft tell us, that if we would inforce by this reason, that the Holy Ghost is God, * Si quis ex we must * prove that he is a Person, and that he doth pofsefs our bodies by a co quòd cordivine right. But we have already proved that he is a perfon, and certainly there can be no other right but that which belongs to God, by wisich the Holy Ghost inhabiteth and possesseth us. Nor have they any pretence

pus noftrum Spiritûs S. templum fit, concludere velit eum effe Deum, illi demonstrandum eft ita corpus nostrum Sp. S. templuin dici, ut intelligatur cum effe perfonam cujus honori corpus noftrum fit dedicatum, à quâ corpus nostruiñ eo jure quòd divini numinis proprium eft poffideatur, & principaliter incolatur. Crell. De uno Deo Patre, l. 1. §. 3.

divine

to evince the contrary, but that which more confirmeth our assertions for Cor. 3. 16. they urge only those words of the Apostle, Know ye not that ye are the

temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you. We do certainly know that we are the Temple of God; and we also know that the Spirit of God therefore dwelleth in us; and we therefore know that we are the Temple of God, because we know that the Spirit of God dwelleth in us, and we know no other reason why we are the Temple of Ciod, when the Spirit of God dwelleth in us, but only because we know the Spirit of God is God; for if the Spirit were any other Person not divine, or any thing but a Person though divine, we could not by any means be assured that he did properly inhabit in us ; or if he did, that by his inihabitation he could make a Temple of us. The second hath very little to say, but only this, that being the Holy Ghost who possesserh us is a Person, we must shew that our Bodies are his by the highest interest, and primarily dedicated to his Honour : which he therefore conceives we cannot shew, because he thinks our Body is not at all his by interelt, or dedicated to his Honour. But it were very strange, if we should be baptized in the d'ame.of the Holy Ghost, and that the Holy Ghost should have no interest in us, but that he should be ours 6 erest, and not we his ; that the Spirit of God should call for Men to be separated to himself, and that they which are so separated should be no way dedicated to his Honour. If the Holy Ghost had no interest in us, because he is given unto us, then Christ can have no interest in us, for he is also given unto us. Indeed if the Apostle had said, as our adversary doth, that we ought with our body to glorifie, not the Spirit but God; I should have concluded that the Spirit is not God: but being that the blessed Spirit which dwelleth in us, and spake by the Apostles, never taught us not to glorifie him, I shall rather take leave to fufpect that of blasphemy, than the assertion of his Deity to be false divinity. And whereas it is said, that the Apostle hath hinted in what respect our body is the temple of the holy Spirit, to wit, by inhabitation, that is so far from breeding in me the least thought of diminution, that by this only notion I am fully confirmed in the belief of my assertion. For I know no other way by which God peculiarly inhabiteth in us, but by the inhabitation of the Spi

rit : and I understand no other way by which we can be the Temple of God, 1 Cor. 6. 16. but by the inhabitation of God, as it is written, Te are the temple of the

living God, as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people :· And therefore I conclude that the Holy Ghost, who by his inhabitation maketh our bodies Temples, is that God which dwelleth in us.

Fourthly, He, to whom the divine attributes do belong as certainly as they belong unto God the Father, is truly and properly God; because those are divine attributes which are properties of the divine nature, and confequently none can be indued with them to whom the nature of God belongech not. But the divine attributes, such as are omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, and the like, do belong as certainly unto the Holy Ghost as they do unto God the Father: Therefore we are as much assured that the Holy Ghost is God. The Scriptures to prove these attributes are so well known, that I shall not need to mention them; and they are so many, that to manage them against the exceptions of the adversaries, would take up too much room in this diicourie ; elpecially considering they question some of them in the Father as well as in the Spirit, and fo I should be forced to a double proof.

Fifthly,

« PreviousContinue »