Page images

Luke 1. 35. Angel, but that) the Holy Ghost fall come upon thee, and the power of

the highest shall 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 experience but newly revived Heresie of the * Arians and Macedonians. 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, Eunomius; and Eudoxius) and the Homooufians or Semi-Arians, (such as Eusebius and Macedonius) they both alike denied the Divinity, and asserted 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, τω τ αγίων ών άπασι φυλάσσοντας διδασκαλίαν, παρ' ών τρίτον αυτο αξιώματα και τάξει μαθόντες, restoy sivou sy tñ Quch winis obxa pl. 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, Testor rázu rede púch wege σάμαλι και το Πα7ρος, νεργεία 3 τε και βρό μεμον' τρίτη χώρα τιμώ μεμον, ως πρώτος και μείζον απάντων, και μόνον τοιέτον τε μονομές ποίημα, θεότης και δημιος Γικής διμυάμεως λιλιπόμον. And again, Ει μη κλίσμα εσίν, εκέν κύνημα ή αβύησον: es 5 zvezxo Oids nj cifórnia. Śts peles fórmue, aeini) dy xlio vece sy woimpece ce to ovomágoas. Apud S. Bafil. adverf. Eunom. l. 3. So Gregory Nyffen repeats the words of the fame Eunomius, Πισδύο μου εις τ Παράκληλον, γιόμιμον Από τα móvo Oiš did 78 novogfuðs, and declares that their ordinary Language was évti og ávio Dvoupa76 x?icna ulicualq xey dielov igro ovopále. Orat. I. 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 DyourseToucéxon, (as Epiphanius derives them in the Description of that Heresie, de 'Hultcriw rj de 'Ozdodoğwr) and afterward Macedoniani. Macedoniani funt à Macedonio Conftantinopolitanæ Ecclefiæ Episcopo, quos & Dvourealomé y os Græci dicunt, eò quòd de Spiritu S. litigent. Nam de Patre & Filio rectè fentiunt, quòd unius fint ejusdemque substantiæ vel essentiæ, sed de Spiritu S. hoc nolunt credere, creaturam eum esse dicentes. S. Aug. Haref: 52. This Heresie was frt condemned by the Council of Alexandria, ένθα το Αιον Πνεύμα θεολογήσαντες τη ομασία τριάδι (ωανέλαμβάνοντο. Socrat. l. 3. 6.7. Afterward by the Council held in Illyricum, 'Huéis z pegvõuele wis si ai Ewúodos vus TE RE 'Paspele xej και Γαλλίαν, μίαν είναι και τ' αυτών εσίαν, τα Παρος, και το 48, και το αγία Πνόύμα7%- τρισι προσώποις, τελέσιν ν τριοί τεneous twoscósect. Apud Theodoret. Hift

. Eccl. 1. 4.c.8. The Synod held at Rome with the Gallican Bishops under Damafus, "Ωςε τ Πατέρα και τον μιάς εσίας, μιας θεότητα μιας αρετής, μιάς διωάμεως, και ενός χαρακτήρG- πιςεα κεη. rej op wris iwoscoews of scias, as to livsīvce to cysov. Apud Theodoret

. l. 2. c.22. Another Synod held under the same Damasus at Rome, Ei tis eroi sò Ilveõpect to cyboy wolnuce in dood to , yegfoñas, uvées pece osw. Apud. Theodor. l. 5.6.10. After, and upon these particular Synods this Heresie was fully condemned in the second general Council held at Constantinople, in which there words were added to the Nicene Creed, Και εις το Πνεύμα το άγιον, το κύριον, το ζωοποιόν, το α τα Παίρος εκπορόυόμδυον, και ζω Παρλ ώ ζυμπροσκuυέδρον, το λαλήσαν δια τ Προφητών. And in the first Canon mentioning the Heresies condemned exprefly by the Council, they name idixãs Evropiavõv, 678 'Avouoiar, 7 'Agnarav, érgy Evdožicvãv, saj 'Huiagesavãv. [8v Mly dumatoróxw. And thus the Heresie of Macedonius, who made the Holy Ghoff a created Perron, was condemned by the econd general Council, έτως και αν ο ιεροφάντης χoρος Μακεδόνιόν τινα ή Κωσαν7εσοπόλεως θρόνον άρπα μα πάλαι ποιησάμενον, ότι το πανάΓιον και ζωαρχικόν έδυσφήμες Πνεύμα, αθώας εδικαία δέναι : ως "ΑρμG- και το μυ, έτω και αυτός και παναγία ΣαλατιόμορG» Πνεύμα7%», εις δέλες και υπηρέτας 7 δεσογικών και πεςxet utólu 'cu'tő Cuvétarle avesórnia. Photius, Epift. 1.

Our third Assertion 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 uncreated 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 second, that is the Macedonian, asserts that he is a Person of an intellectual Nature subsisting; but whatsoever is a Person fubsisting of eternal and omnipotent Power, must be acknowledged to be God. Whether therefore we look


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


[ocr errors]

the Spirit was and is that Lord to which Mofes fpake ; for the Apostle hath taught us so much by his own interpretation, saying, Even unto this day 2 Cor. 3. 15, when Mofes is read, the veil is upon their heart. Nevertheless when it 16, 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, Jehovah, 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 lomething 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 sense. The Lord, they fay, 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 satisfie 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 affanity 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 of an entire subject or a predicate in a proposition, except by way of op- these, Miesto position ; and one of those it must of necessity be, in the words of the A- w zazdiaş civa postle, now the Lord is the Spirit, and that without the least intimation of Ilobu

pacela o

γραμμαι. any opposition

"Ilse doidism ημάς ώ καινότητα τιμαλ, και παλαιότητα γράμμα7G, Rom. 7. 6. ήτις καλά και πνευματικώς Σόδομα και Αίγυπ73. Rev. 11. 8. One of these 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 lubjecti or prædicati ; and therefore how any of these can shew, that aveõuce in this place by us urged, invesled with an Ars ricle, standing in the place either of a complete Subject, or a complete Predicate, with nothing adjoined, nothing opposed unto it, must be taken in the same fenfe with them, I cannot imagine. In the fixth 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,S meséuur wasom?ávs, to wellneck (wonosti; 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 Exodus 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, 'Hina, coherence. In vain therefore is this pretended for an answer, that the A- Mwürns "travpostle by the Lord doth always, unless he cite some place out of the old . Kveix a.

av , out of the book of Exodus, and useth the Name of the Lord in the fame huruzwhich notion in which there 'tis used, framing an argument and urging it from are thus mace thence; and if he did not, † that rule is not fo universal and infallible, but

Apostle, svíxes that the Lord in the language of the same Apostle may not signifie the second, 3 är inise

un meg; Kóesov aeraugoy to xe avuud. Kúero then is here used by S. Paul citing some place out of the old Covenant, and the words which follow, 'o 3 Kúesa signifie the same Kvera, as appeareth by the conjunction ģ: and if so, then according to the DoEtrine of our adversaries, it cannot signifie Christ. 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 Chrift, 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 Rúer G is often used by S. Paul without any restriction or intimation of appropriating that alt 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 ó Kúere intend Chrift, ár.d not the most high God the Father, in these following places; Cor. 3. 5. 4. 19. 7. 10, 12. 16.7.

i Thell.

4. 6.

Rom. 2. 29.


5. 27. 2 Theff. 3. 1, 5, 16. 2 Tim. 1. 16, 18. 2. 7. And beside, 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. 'O ġ Kúesa xal scoricu juão tee's καρδίας εις τ' αγάπίω τε Θεέ, και εις τ' αιμονών τα Χρισ, thus difputes, Τίς ο καηδυθμώων Κύρι@ας τ' το Θεξ αγάπίω, και εις τίω σις ή θλίψεων τα Χρισε ισομονω; Αποκρινάθωσαν ημίν οι το Πνεύμα καλαδολέμονοι. Είτε γδ αει το Πατρος ο Λό/Φ-, πάντως αν έρηθο, ο 3 ΚύρμG- υμάς καθώαι ας ? εαυτ8 αγάπω· έτι αει το Υι, προσέχει ο άν, εις τ' εαυτό μασομονω· ζηλίτωσαν όν τι εσιν άλλο πρόσωπον και τη προσημερία τ8 Κυρία τιμάω άξιον. And upon the like place, 1 Theft. 3. 12, 13. Ποίον Κύριον εύχιο έμπροσθεν τ8 Θιά και Παΐesς ημών ώ τη σαρσία Κυεία ημών, αμέμπλες τας καρδίας έσηριβείας ώ αΓιωσμώη Θεσαλλονίκη πισών σηρίξαι, Αποκρινάοθωσαν ημίν οι μη λειες Γικών ενδυμάτων και προς διακονίαν λησιλλομψων (the newly revived opinion clearly) το πνεύμα τιθέντες' αλλ' εκ έχεσι. De Spiritu Sanξto, 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 so 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, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost? he repeateth the fame 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 Ghost, 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 veryo 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 super

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, quaquam ex

and in another of God, cannot shew that the Spirit is God. To which is eo loco concludi 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, 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, Seloquation 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 Thewed 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. Spiritum s.

As for that sense which they put upon the words, different from that of Deo. Crellius, lying to God, as

Ananias were accused for counterfeiting the Holy Ghost, it is most certain that the words can in this place bear no such Sense ; for the Patre, l. 1.

sin 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 several 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 pretence, 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


hic mentiri

De uno Deo

[ocr errors]

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

pation is here accused with

out reason. For tho' the Original be tuddet ve DVEĎka te üyov, yet some Copies have it is to sve vra. and the Syriac did so read and interpret it, we anna Saint the vulgar Larin to the same purpose, mentiri te Spiritui S. And the Author of the Tractate De teinp. Barbarico, under the name of S. Austin, mentiri te apud Spiritum S. c. 3. Now I side af ris to sve üzere is the same with to wróürecell, as un sudrats eis arañags, Lye not one to another. If we read it ess wvs ūdecey then it is rightly translated. Again, if we read it to mreüuct, it has in this case the sense of tech tvorce?o. As Psal. 66. 2. : TIN 7 wuni Lxx. 4545007 cod Co oi ég@ogi Co, of the same sense with that Pfal. 18. 61.15 iuni 9177 NIUN, Lxx. oi ixbegi Kver it suvey?! Wits. So Deut. 33. 26. 777 Un>", Lxx. Kan forova Croi in Pologi Co. And Ifa. 57. 11. 2130 13 ss issusw ul. 2 Kings 4. 10. Trnava aron w sen diet con i èx asv Co. if therefore wc read it ocat co wyrõned, it is rightly translated to lye unto the Holy Ghost; and so agreeth with that which followeth to teinpt the Holy Ghost, as Psal. 78. 36. ñ yamang awtwo bat buray70 WTO, and verse 41. émészetev sejérciceroy i Otor. Therefore whatsoever fuifts 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 fufficient, 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 i Thef. 4. 8. that despiseth, despiseth not man but God, who hath also given us his Holy Spirit; I cannot see what fimilitude can be made unto the Scripture now in question : for if the Spirit be not understood in the first words, he therefore that despiseth, it hath no relation to the present question ; and if it be, 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. despiseth me ; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that fent 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 Ghoft; 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 faid, thou hast 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 Ghost ; and then let him know the sinfulness of it, thou haft 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 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 no' ilthabitation of any created Person can make a Temple. But the inhabitation of the Holy Ghost makerh 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 diversity of our Adverfaries; as it is not probable that the denyers of so great a truth should agree. The firft rell 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 possess our bodies by a co quod corSpiritús S. templum fit, concludere velit eum esse Deum, illi demonstrandum eft ita corpus noftrum Sp. S. templuin dici, ut intelligatur cum effe personam cujus honori corpus noftrum fit dedicatum, à quâ corpus noftruin eo jure quòd divini numinis proprium eft poflideatur, & principaliter incolatur. Crell. De uno Deo Patre, l. 1. §. 3.


divine right. But we have already proved that he is a perfon, and certain-
ly there can be no other right but that which belongs to God, by which
the Holy Ghost inhabiteth and possesseth us. Nor have they any pretence

to evince the contrary, but that which more confirmeth our assertions for 1 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 cer-
tainly 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 dwel-
leth 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 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 inha-
bitation he could make a Temple ofus. The second hath very little to say,
but only this, that being the Holy Ghost who possesseth us is a Person,
we must shew that our Bodies are his by the highest interest, and primari-
ly dedicated to his Honour : which he therefore conceives we cannot shew,
because he thinks our Body is not at all his by interest, 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 Ghost should have no inte-
rest in us, but that he should be ours by interest, and not we his ; that the
Spirit of God should call for Men to be separated to himself, and that they
which are fo separated lhould 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 A-
postle had said, as our adversary doth, that we ought with our body to glo-
rifie, 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 su-
fpect 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 bo-
dy 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 con-
clude that the

Holy Ghost, who by his inhabitation maketh our bodies Tem-
ples, 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 discourse; especially considering they question some of them in the Father as well as in the Spirit, and so I thould be forced to a double proof.


[ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »