Page images
PDF
EPUB

Luke 1. 35.

Angel, but that) the Holy Ghoft fhall come upon thee, and the power of the highest fhall overshadow thee; therefore alfo that holy thing which Jhall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. Therefore the Spirit of God is no created Perfon; which is our fecond Affertion against the ancient, but newly revived Herefie of the* Arians and Macedonians.

*This express notion of the Spirit of God, That he was a Perfon, as a miniftring Spirit, and created, was acknowledged the Doctrine of the Arians, as may appear out of the former Teftimonies, and is evident by thofe which followed his Opinions. Which being of two kinds, the Anomeans, or pure Arians (fuch as were Actius, Eunomius; and Eudoxius) and the Homooufians or Semi-Arians, (such as Eufebius and Macedonius) they both alike denied the Divinity, and afferted the Creation of the Holy Ghoft. The Opinion of the Anomeans is clear out of the Words of Eunomius, who very fubtilly delivered it, as if it had been the Opinion of the Ancients, T 7 ἁγίων ἐν ἅπασι φυλάσσοντας διδασκαλίαν, παρ ̓ ὧν τρίτον αὐτὸ ἀξιώματι και τάξεις μαθόντες, TRÁTOV Gives ỳ TÃ QUTH WESxapp. The Confeffion of the Ancients was, That the Holy Ghoft was the third Perfon in the Trinity in Order and Dignity; and Eunomius pretending to follow them, added, That he was alfo third in Nature; which the Ancients never taught. And what this third in Nature was, he thus declared, Testov ráže xj Qúcu wegσάγματι μὲ τὸ Παρος, ενεργεία ἢ τὸ μὲ βρόμθμον. τρίτη χώρα τιμώμθυον, ὡς πρῶτον καὶ μείζον απάντων, καὶ μόνον τοιῦτον το μονος χυές ποίημα, θεότητα και δημιος δικῆς διωάμεως Σπολειπόμδρον. And again, Εἰ μὴ κλίσμα ἐσὶν, ἐκῶν Κίνημα ἢ ἀλύπτου εἷς ἢ ἄνας το Θεὸς καὶ ἀγόνητα είτε μεν λύνημα, λείπει ἐν κλίσμα καὶ ποίημα αὐτὸ ὀνομάζεις. Apud S. Bafil. adverf. Eunom. l. 3. So Gregory Nyffen repeats the words of the fame Eunomius, Πισσορθμ εἰς τ Παράκλητον, Αυόρθρον ἀπὸ τὰ μόνο Θεῖ διὰ τὸ μονογυές, and declares that their ordinary Language was ἀντὶ τῇ ἁγία Πνεύματα κλίσμα κλίσματα égľov égľa čvoμázev. Orat. 1. cont. Eunom. Befides thefe, the Semi-Arians, and fome of those which were orthodox as to the Divinity of the Son, were of the fame Herefie as to the Nature of the Holy Ghoft, and therefore were called ПμaTouάxo, (as Epiphanius derives them in the Defcription of that Herefie, & Hμlagrían sy d'Ogbodoğar) and afterward Macedoniani. Macedoniani funt à Macedonio Conftantinopolitanæ Ecclefiæ Epifcopo, quos & μaloμá Græci dicunt, eò quòd de Spiritu S. litigent. Nam de Patre & Filio rectè fentiunt, quòd unius fint ejufdemque fubftantiæ vel effentiæ, fed de Spiritu S. hoc nolunt credere, creaturam eum effe dicentes. S. Aug. Haref. 52. This Herefie was frft condemned by the Council of Alexandria, ἔνθα το Αγιον Πνεύμα θεολογήσαντες τῇ ὀμεσίῳ τριάδι (κανελαμβάνοντο. 50crat. l. 3. c. 7. Afterward by the Council held in Illyricum, Ἡμεῖς ἢ φρονέμθμοι ὡς καὶ αἱ Σκύοδοι να ἡ τε οἱ Ρώμίω καὶ ἡ και Γαλλίαν, μίαν εἶναι καὶ τ' αὐτῷ ἐσίαν, το Πατρὸς, καὶ τὸ δ, καὶ τὸ ἁγία Πνεύμα ο εν τρισὶ προσώποις, τελέσιν εν τρισὶ τι Réaus iwosáseol. Apud Theodoret. Hift. Eccl. l. 4. c. 8. The Synod held at Rome with the Gallican Bishops under Damafus, Ωσε - Πατέρα καὶ τὸν μιᾶς ἐσίας, μιας θεότητΘ- μιᾶς ἀξελῆς, μιας δυνάμεως, καὶ ἑνὸς χαρακτήρα τις σύτως χρη καὶ δι' αὐτῆς ὑποτάσεως καὶ ἐσίας, καὶ τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον. Apud Theodoret. Ι. 2. c. 22. Another Synod held under the fame Damafus at Rome, Εἴ τις εποι τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ποίημα ἢ διὰ τὸ ἡδ, γελυκώς, ανάθεμα ἔσω. Apud. Theodor. l. 5. c.1o. After, and upon thefe particular Synods this Herefie was fully condemned in the fecond general Council held at Conftantinople, in which thefe words were added to the Nicene Creed, Καὶ εἰς τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, τὸ κύριον, τὸ ζωοποιόν, τὸ ἐκ τῶ Παρὸς ἐκπορευόμθμον, και τώ Πατρὶ τῷ συμπροσκεόμθμον, τὸ λαλῆσαν διὰ ἢ Προφητῶν. And in the frfi Canon mentioning the Hereftes condemned exprefly by the Council, they name idixas ↑ ↑ Evvoμiavāv, 8 Avoμolov, xj 7 7 'Aguavāv, εἴταν Εὐδοξιανῶν, καὶ τ - Ἡμιαρειανῶν. ή εν Πνευματομάχων. And thus the Herefie of Macedonius, who made the Holy Ghof a created Perfon, was condemned by the econd general Council, ὅτως ἢ ὧν ὁ ἱεροφάντης χορὸς Μακεδόνιόν τινα τ Κωταντινοπόλεως θρόνον άρπαἷμα πάλαι ποιησάμθμον, ὅτι τὸ πανάξιον καὶ ζωαρχικὸν ἐδυσφήμει Πνεῦμα, οὐθείας ἐδικαίς δέναι· ὡς η Αρειο και το δ, ὅτω καὶ αὐτὸς καὶ παναγίες του αλαττόμπρου Πνεύματος, εἰς δόλος καὶ ὑπηρέτας τ' δεασοτικώ κι ύπερ κειμθύτω αυτό (εέτατε κυριότητα. Photius, Εpiβ. 1.

ως

[ocr errors]

اله

Our third Affertion is that which neceffarily followeth from the former two, That the Spirit of God, in whofe Name we are baptized, and in whom we profefs to believe, is properly and truly God. For if he be a Perfon, as we have proved in the declaration of our first Assertion; if he be a Perfon not created, as we have demonftrated in the corroboration of the second Affertion; then must he of neceffity be acknowledged to be God, because there is no uncreated Effence befide the Effence of the one eternal God. And there is this great felicity in the laying of this third Affertion, that it is not proved only by the two precedent Affertions, but alfo by the Adverfaries 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 fecond, that is the Macedonian, asserts that he is a Person of an intellectual Nature fubfifting; but whatsoever is a Person fubfifting of eternal and omnipotent Power, must be acknowledged to be God. Whether therefore we look npon the truth of our Affertions, or whether we confider the happiness of their Negations, the conclufion is, That the Holy Ghost is God.

But were there nothing, which is already faid, demonftrated, there is enough written in the Word of God to affure 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 affured that

the

Cor. 3. 15,

the Spirit was and is that Lord to which Mofes fpake; for the Apostle hath
taught us fo much by his own interpretation, faying, Even unto this day 2
when Mofes is read, the veil is upon their heart. Nevertheless when it 16, 17.
fball turn to the Lord, the veil fhall be taken away. Now the Lord is
that Spirit. The Spirit is here fo plainly faid to be the Lord, that is, Je-
hovah, the one eternal God, that the adverfaries of this truth muft either de-
ny 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 perfon which confidereth the force and plainnefs of the Apostle's
difcourfe.

But indeed they are fo 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 something 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 fenfe. The Lord, they fay, is Christ, and not God; for Christ, they fay, is not God: the Spirit, they fay, is the mystery of the law, or the hidden fenfe of it, and that every one knows is not the Spirit of God. But we are affured that the Apostle did mean by the Spirit, the Spirit of God, not the fenfe of the law; for he addeth immediately, Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty; and the fenfe of the law is never called the Spirit of the Lord. Nay, were it not that the coherence of the difcourfe did fatisfie us; yet the objection ought not at all to move us for the name of Spirit in thofe places mentioned by them to fignifie the sense of the law hath no affinity with this, according to their own way of argumentation: for it is *ne-*The places ver fo taken with the emphafis of an article, and put in the place either alledged by of an entire fubject or a predicate in a propofition, except by way of op- thefe, Пelopofition; and one of those it must of neceffity be, in the words of the A-un adias postle, now the Lord is the Spirit, and that without the least intimation of regμuals. any oppofition.

them are

Rom. 2. 29.

Ωςε δηλώσεις

ἡμᾶς ἐν καινότητι πνούμαζον, καὶ ἐπαλαιότητι γράμμα], Rom. 7. 6. ἥτις καλεῖς τον συματικῶς Σόδομα και Αίγυπτο. Rev. 11. 8. One of thefe places Speaks only adverbially, the other two have aveva 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 fubjecti or prædicati; and therefore how any of these can shew, that To aveva in this place by us urged, invefted with an Article, ftanding in the place either of a complete Subject, or a complete Predicate, with nothing adjoined, nothing oppofed unto it, must be taken in the fame fenfe with them, I cannot imagine. In the fixth verfe of this Chapter indeed it is the fubject of a propofition, and invested with an Article; but that is an Article of Oppofition, To resiμua Loxlers, To WEDμa (Womole, and this not. Howsoever, in that sense objected, it neither agrees with the words before it, nor with thofe which follow it.

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

Again, we are affured that by the Lord the Apostle did understand the e- *The words ternal God; for he fpeaketh of the fame Lord which he mentioned in the in Exodus verse before, and that is the Lord God fpoken of in the book of Exodus; were thefe,34. of which, except the Apostle speaks, his argument hath neither inference nor 34 x 5 Hvina ἂν εἰσεπορόύε, ο coherence. In vain therefore is this pretended for an answer, that the A- Mancerpostle by the Lord doth always, unless he cite fome place out of the old covenant, understand Chrift; for in this particular he* citeth a certain place out of the book of Exodus, and useth the Name of the Lord in the fame uur which notion in which there 'tis ufed, framing an argument and urging it from are thus made ufe of by the thence; and if he did not, that rule is not fo univerfal and infallible, but Apostle, rivixa that the Lord in the language of the fame Apostle may not fignifie the second, 5 av irisgéin #eg's Kóesov weranges to xáλvμμa. Kue then is here used by S. Paul citing fome place out of the old Covenant, and the words which follow, O Kue fignifie the fame Kies, as appeareth by the conjunction: and if fo, then according to the DoEtrine of our adverfaries, it cannot fignifie Chrift. For that the Lord of whom Mofes pake, was then when Mofes wrote; but that Chrift of which they interpret it, was not then, as they teach; therefore that the Lord cannot be Chrift, in their interpretation, without a contradiction. For though Christ be most frequently called our Lord, yet being God the Father of Chrift is our Lord, being : Kes 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 univerfal. For I defire to know by what means they can be affured that the Apofile doth by the Title : Kier intend Chrift, ar d not the most high God the Father, in these following places, 1 Cor. 3. 5. 4. 19. 7. 10, 12. 16. 7. 4. 6.

I Theff.

5.27.

5. 27. 2 Theff. 3. 1, 5, 16. 2 Tim. 1. 16, 18. 2.7. And befide, I ask how the pretence of this general 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 Ghoft. As S. Bafil upon that place, 2 Theff. 3. 5. 0 5 Kúe na? Luvas iμão Tas καρδίας εἰς τὰ ἀγάπίω το Θεό, καὶ εἰς τὰ ὑπομονώ το Xess, thus difputes, Τὶς ὁ καλουθείων Κύρια εἰς ἢ τῷ Θεῷ ἀγάπίω, καὶ εἰς τὰ ὑπὲς ἢ θλίψεων το Χριστό υπομονω ; Σποκρινάπωσαν ἡμῖν οἱ τὸ Πνεῦμα καταδολάμπροι. Είτε γδ αεὶ τῇ Παπρὸς ὁ Λόγος, πάντως ἂν εἴρητο, ὁ ἢ Κύριο ὑμᾶς καλού θαύαι εἰς 7' ἑαυτῇ ἀγάπω· εἴτε πεὶ το Υιό, προσέκειτο άν, εἰς τ ἑαυτῷ ὑπομονω· ζηλείτωσαν εν τί ἐσιν ἄλλο πρόσωπον ὃ τῇ προσηγορία το Κυρίε τιμᾶς ἄξιον. And upon the like place, i Thef. 3. 12, 13. Ποῖον Κύριον εὔχες ἔμπροσθεν τὸ Θεὸ καὶ Παλεὸς ἡμῶν ἐν τῇ παρεσίᾳ τῷ Κυρίῳ ἡμῶν, ἀμέμπλες τὰς καὶ δίας έσπειρας ἐν ἀδιωσι, τα Θεοσαλλονίκη πισών σηρίξαι, Αποκρινάσωσαν ἡμῖν οἱ μα θα λειτουργικών πνευμάτων ἢ πρὸς διακονίαν αποτελλομθρων (the newly revived Opinion clearly) τὸ πνεῦμα τιθέντες· ἀλλ' ἐκ ἔχεσι. De Spiritu Sancto, cap. 21.

quaquam ex

but the first or third Perfon 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 Apoftle 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 manifeft the fame Spirit to be God, and term him plainly and expreffly fo. For when Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost? he repeateth the fame question in reference to the fame offence, Why haft thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou haft not lyed unto men, but unto God. To lye unto the Holy Ghoft, is to lye unto God: To lye unto the Holy Ghoft, is not to lye unto men, because the Holy Ghoft is not man; and confequently not to lye unto any Angel, becaufe the Holy Ghost is not an Angel; not to lye unto any Creature, because the Holy Ghoft is no Creature ; but to lye unto God, because the Holy Ghost is God.

To this plain and evident argument there are fo many anfwers, 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 reafon, the reft would be fuperfluous. First, They answer that it cannot be collected from hence that the *Ex his facilè Spirit is God, because the Holy Ghost in the original is *put in one cafe, apparet haud- and God in another; and the Apoftle speaking in one manner of the Spirit, eo loco con- and in another of God, cannot fhew that the Spirit is God. To which is cludi poffe eafily answered, that the cafe or manner of the Apoftle's Speech can make Spiritum S. no difference, if the sense and fubftance be the fame, as here it is; for to cùm alio mo- deceive the Holy Ghoft, is nothing else but to lye unto him, or by a Lye do de Spiritu to endeavour to deceive him. The act objected to Ananias was but one, S. loquatur which act of his the Apostles looked upon as injurious, not to themselves, de Deo. Illic but to the Holy Ghoft; and therefore S. Peter fhewed the fin to be not dicit mentiri against men, but against God: as certainly then as the Apostles were men, ac ludificari fo certainly was the Holy Ghost, in the esteem of S. Peter, God.

effe Deum,

Petrus, alio

feu fallere,

Spiritum S. hîc mentiri

De uno Deo Patre, l. I.

1.

As for that sense which they put upon the words, different from that of Deo. Crellius, lying to God, as if Ananias were accused for counterfeiting the Holy Ghoft, it is most certain that the words can in this place bear no fuch Senfe; for the fin of Ananias is again expreffed in the cafe of his Wife Sapphira, to whom $. 3. Argum. S. Peter faid, 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 feveral 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 fo much; and she said yea, for fo much. In which anfwer the lyed. Then Peter faid unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord, viz. in faying that fold the land for fo much. Here is no colour then for that new pretence, that Ananias did bear the Apostles in hand that what was done he did by the motion of the holy Spirit, and fo 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 he lyed, it is alfo certain that he to whom he lyed was the

ye

Holy

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

flation is here accused without reason.

For tho' the Original bear avεuμa to yiov, yet fome Copies have it eis to veupe. and the Syriac did fo read and interpret it, win the vulgar Latin to the fame purpose, mentiri te Spiritui S. And the Author of the Tractate De temp. Barbarico, under the name of S. Austin, mentiri te apud Spiritum S. c. 3. Νου ψούδες εἰς τὸ πνεῦμα is the fame with το πνεύματι, ας μὴ ψεύδεσθε εἰς ἀλλήλες, Lye not one to another. If we read it εἰς πνεῦμα, then it is rightly tranflated. Again, If we read it to aveμa, it has in this cafe the fenfe of wμal. As Pfal. 66. 2. :72 75 105 Lxx. 4úrova's C oi exlogi Co, of the fame fense with that Pfal. 18. 61. 15 iundi nim iniun, Lxx. Oi ixtegi Kveis i rano win. So Deut. 33. 26. 772 177", Lxx. Kai toucovas ( oi igi Co. And Ifa. 57. 11. u. 2 Kings 4. 10. ab un dia don I dyhív (8. If therefore we read it 4cast to wrevμa, it is rightly tranflated to lye unto the Holy Ghost; and fo agreeth with that which followeth to tempt the Holy Gholt, as Pfal. 78. 36. τη γλώσῃ αὐτῶν ἐψεύσαντο αὐτῷ, and verfe 41. ἐπέτρεψαν καὶ ἐπείρασαν τ Θεόν. There fore whatfoever fhifts are laid upon the Phrafe, or difference of Expreffion, are either falfe or frivolous.

Next, Because they may very well be conscious that this verbal or phrafeological anfwer may not feem fufficient, they tell us though both the Phrafes were fynonymous, yet they did no way prove that the Spirit is God: and the reafon which they render to juftifie this negation, is, because there are feveral places of the Scripture, in which the Meffengers of God, who are acknowledged not to be God, are mentioned in the fame 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 fame manner as the Holy Ghost is here. As when they alledge those words of the Apoftle. He therefore Theff. 4.8. that defpifeth, defpifeth not man but God, who hath alfo given us his Holy Spirit; I cannot fee what fimilitude can be made unto the Scripture now in queftion: for if the Spirit be not understood in the first words, he therefore that defpifeth, it hath no relation to the present question; and if it be, it were fo far from being a confutation, that it would be another confirmation. As for the other, He that heareth you, heareth me; he that defpifeth you, Mat. 10. 40. defpifeth me; and he that defpifeth me, defpifeth him that fent me: It is Luke 10. 16. fo far from juftifying their interpretation, that it hath nothing in it like that which founds our reafon, that is, no oppofition. For there are three particulars in that Scripture which we produce for our Affertion; first, that they lyed to the Holy Ghoft; fecondly, that in doing fo, they lyed not unto Men; and thirdly, that by the fame act they lyed unto God. In which the oppofition is our foundation. For if the Spirit of God were not God, as we are fure it is not Man, it might as well have been faid, you lyed not unto the Holy Ghoft, but unto God. And indeed if the Apoffle would have aggravated the fin of Ananias with the full propriety and iniquity, in their fenfe, he must have faid, thou haft not lycd unto Men, nor unto the Spirit of God but unto God. But being he first told him plainly his fin, ying to the Holy Ghoft; and then let him know the finfulness 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 the notion of a Temple be nothing elfe 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 no inhabitation of any created Perfon can make a Temple. But the inhabitation of the Holy Ghost maketh a Temple, as we are informed by the Apostle, What, I 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 diverfity of our Adverfaries; as it is not probable that the denyers of fo great a truth fhould agree. The firft tell us, that if we would inforce by this reafon, that the Holy Ghoft is God, * Si quis ex we must * prove that he is a Person, and that he doth poffefs our bodies by a co quòd corpus noftrum Spiritûs S. templum fit, concludere velit eum effe Deum, illi demonftrandum eft ita corpus noftrum Sp. S. templum dici, ut intelligatur eum effe perfonam cujus honori corpus noftrum fit dedicatum, à quâ corpus noftrum eo jure quòd divini numinis proprium eft poffideatur, & principaliter incolatur. Crell. De uno Deo Patre, l. 1. §. 3. divine

divine 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 which the Holy Ghost inhabiteth and poffeffeth us. Nor have they any pretence to evince the contrary, but that which more confirmeth our affertion, for 1 Cor. 3. 16. they urge only thofe words of the Apoftle, 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 alfo 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 God, 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 Perfon not divine, or any thing but a Person though divine, we could not by any means be affured that he did properly inhabit in us; or if he did, that by his inhabitation he could make a Temple of us. The fecond hath very little to say, but only this, that being the Holy Ghoft who poffeffeth us is a Perfon, we muft fhew that our Bodies are his by the highest interest, and primarily dedicated to his Honour: which he therefore conceives we cannot fhew, because he thinks our Body is not at all his by intereft, or dedicated to his Honour. But it were very strange, if we should be baptized in the name of the Holy Ghost, and that the Holy Ghoft fhould have no interest in us, but that he fhould be ours by intereft, and not we his; that the Spirit of God fhould call for Men to be feparated to himself, and that they which are fo feparated fhould 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 intereft in us, for he is alfo given unto us. Indeed if the Apostle had faid, as our adverfary doth, that we ought with our body to glorifie, not the Spirit but God; I fhould have concluded that the Spirit is not God: but being that the blessed Spirit which dwelleth in us, and fpake by the Apostles, never taught us not to glorifie him, I fhall rather take leave to fufpect that of blafphemy, than the affertion of his Deity to be falfe divinity. And whereas it is faid, 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 leaft thought of diminution, that by this only notion I am fully confirmed in the belief of my affertion. For I know no other way by which God peculiarly inhabiteth in us, but by the inhabitation of the Spirit: 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 faid, 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 Ghoft, who by his inhabitation maketh our bodies Temples, is that God which dwelleth in us.

[ocr errors]

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 belongeth not. But the divine attributes, fuch as are omniscience, omnipotence, omniprefence, and the like, do belong as certainly unto the Holy Ghoft as they do unto God the Father: Therefore we are as much affured that the Holy Ghost is God. The Scriptures to prove these attributes are fo well known, that I fhall not need to mention them; and they are fo many, that to manage them against the exceptions of the adverfaries, would take up too much room in this difcourfe; efpecially confidering they question fome of them in the Father as well as in the Spirit, and fo I fhould be forced to a double proof.

Fifthly,

« PreviousContinue »