Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors][ocr errors]

person which

[ocr errors]

God the Father is a person, and doth perforın those personal
actions, attributed to the Holy Ghost, by that virtue, power,
and efficacy in himself, which is the Holy Ghost. As when
we read “the Spirit said unto Peter, Behold three men seek
thee: arise therefore, and get thee down and go with them,
doubting nothing ; for I have sent them :" (Acts x. 19, 20.) we
must understand that God the Father was the
spake those words, and which sent those men; but because
he did so by that virtue which is the Holy Ghost, therefore
the Holy Ghost is said to speak those words, and send those
men. In the same manner when we read, “the Holy Ghost
said”unto those at Antioch,“ Separate me Barnabas and Saul,
for the work whereunto I have called them :" (Acts xiii. 2.)
we must conceive it was God the Father who spake those
words, who had called Barnabas and Saul, and to whom they
were to be separated; but because God did all this by that
power within him, which is his Spirit, therefore those words
and actions are attributed to the Holy Ghost. This is the
sum of their answer; and more than this I conceive cannot
be said in answer to that argument which we urge from those
personal expressions attributed to the Spirit of God, and, as
we believe, as to a person.

But this answer is most apparently insufficient, as giving no satisfaction to the argument. For if all the personal actions, attributed in the Scriptures to the Spirit, might proceed from the person of God the Father, according to the power which is in him, then might this answer seem satisfactory: but if these actions be personal, as they are acknowledged, and cannot be denied ; if the same cannot be attributed to the person of God the Father, whose Spirit it is; if he cannot be said to do that by the power within him, which is said to be done by the Holy Ghost; then is that defence not to be defended, then must the Holy Ghost be acknowledged a person. But I shall clearly prove, that there are several personal attributes given in the sacred Scriptures expressly to the Holy Ghost, which cannot be ascribed to God the Father; which God the Father, by that power which is in him, cannot be said to do; and consequently cannot be any ground why those attributes should be given to the Spirit if it be not a person.

To make intercession is a personal action, and this action is attributed to the Spirit of God, “because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God.” (Rom. viii. 27.) But to make intercession, is not an act which can be attributed to God the Father, neither can he be said to intercede for us according to that power which is in him; and therefore this can be no Prosopopeia; the Holy Ghost cannot be said to exercise the personal action of intercession, for that reason, because it is the Spirit of that person which intercedeth for us.

To come unto men, as being sent unto them, is a

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

personal action; and so the Comforter, or Advocate, who is the Holy Ghost, did come, being sent; " when the Comforter is come whom I will send you from the Father,” (Job xv. 26.) saith Christ : and again, “ If I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him to you.” (Johnxvi. 7.) But to come unto men, as being sent, cannot be ascribed to God the Father, who sendeth, but is never sent; especially in this particular, in which the Father is said expressly to send, and that in the name of the Son (“wbom the Father will send in my name,” saith our Saviour. John xiv. 26.). When therefore the Holy Ghost cometh to the sons of men, as sent by the Father in the name of the Son, and sent by the Son himself, this personal action cannot be attributed to the Father as working by the power within him, and consequently cannot ground a Prosopopoeia, by which the virtue or power of God the Father shall be said to do it. To speak and hear are personal actions, and both together attributed to the Spirit, in such a manner as they cannot be ascribed to God the Father. “When he saith Christ), the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth : for be shall not speak of himself: but whatsoever he shall hear, that he shall speak.” (John xvi. 13.) Now to speak, and not of himself, cannot be attributed to God the Father, who doth all things of himself; to speak what he heareth, and that of the Son; to deliver what he receiveth from another, and to glorify him from whom he receiveth by receiving from bim, as Christ speaketh of the Holy Ghost, “He shall glorify me, for he shall receive of mine, and shew it to you,” (John xvi. 14.) is by no means applicable to the Father; and consequently it cannot be true that the Holy Ghost is therefore said to do these personal actions, because that person whose spirit the Holy Ghost is, doth those actions, by and according to his own power, which is the Holy Ghost. It remaineth: therefore, that the answer given by the adversaries of this truth is apparently insufficient, and consequently that our argument, drawn from the personal actions attributed in the Scriptures to the Spirit, is sound and valid.

I thought this discourse had fully destroyed the Socinian. Prosopopoia; and indeed as they ordinarily propound their answer, it is abundantly refuted. But I find the subtilty of Socinus prepared another explication of the Prosopopoeia,*

* Credo me satis ostendisse, Spi- miæ quidem, si Spiritus S. nomine ritum S. non esse personam, non ipse Deus, cujus est spiritús, quique magis quam aliæ vel proprietates, vel per eum agit, significetur; Prosopoeffecta Dei, sipt personæ, cum nihil poeiæ vero, ut quando Deus per Spisit aliud quam peculiaris quædam ritum S. agit, ipsi Spiritui s. Dei virtus et efficacia Dei; quæ si, ut actio tribuatur: sin autem hæc virtus ipsius Dei proprietas, et vis per quam et efficacia Dei consideråtur, et acagit, consideratur et accipitur, figuræ cipitur, ut res in quibus agit, ab ipsa Metonymiæ aut Prosopopæiæ accom-, afliciuntur, utrique isti figuræ simimodatissimos est locus; et Metony- liter aptissimus est locus; quandoqui.

to supply the room where he foresaw the former would not serve. Which double figure he groundeth upon this distinction: The Spirit, that is, the power of God, saith he, may be considered either as a propriety and power in God, or as the things on which it worketh are affected with it. If it be considered in the first notion, then if any personal attribute be given to the Spirit, the Spirit is there taken for God, and by the Spirit God is signified: if it be considered in the second notion, then if any personal attribute be given to the Spirit, the Spirit is taken for that man in which it worketh; and that man, affected with it, is called the Spirit of God.

So that now we must not only shew that such things which are attributed to the Holy Ghost cannot be spoken of the Father; but we must also prove that they cannot be attributed unto man, in whom the Spirit worketh from the Father: and this also will be very easily and evidently proved. The Holy Ghost is said to come unto the apostles as sent by the Father and the Son, and to come as so sent is a personal action, which we have already shewn cannot be the action of the Father, who sent the Spirit; and it is as certain that it cannot be the action of an apostle who was affected with the Spirit which was sent, except we can say that the Father and the Son did send St. Peter an Advocate to St. Peter; and St. Peter, being sent by the Father and the Son, did come unto St. Peter. Again, our Saviour, speaking of the Holy Ghost saith, “He shall receive of mine:" therefore the Holy Ghost in that place is not taken for the Father; "and shew it unto you,” therefore he is not taken for an apostle: in that he receiveth, the first Socinian Prosopopoeia is improper; in that he sheweth to the apostle, the second is absurd. The Holy Ghost then is described as a person distinct from the person of the Father, whose power he is, and distinct from the person of the apostle in whom he worketh, and consequently neither of the Socinian figures can evacuate or enervate the doctrine of his proper and peculiar personality.

Secondly, For those attributes or expressions used of the Holy Ghost in the sacred Scriptures, and pretended to be repugnant to the nature of a person, either they are not so repugnant, or, if they be, they belong unto the Spirit, as it signifieth not the person, but the gifts or effects of the Spirit. They tell us that the Spirit is given, and that sometimes in measure, sometimes without measure;* that the Spirit is poured out, dem commodissime per Metonymiam Spiritu Dei præditum, quatenus, viz. is qui a Spiritu S. aliquo modo af- ab isto Spiritu afficitur. fectus quidpiam agit, quatenus id Prosopopoeiam ipsi Spiritui S. actioagit, Spiritus S. seu Spiritus Dei me- nem tribui, quæ ipsius Spiritus ope tonymice dici potest : ut factum est ab homine fiat, adeo est proclive ut apud Paulum, cum ait (1 Cor. ii. 10.) nihil magis.' F. Socin. in Resp. ad Spiritum (sub. Dei), omnia scrutari, Wiek. c. 10. etiam profunda Dei : ubi Spiritus Dei Spiritum S. non esse Deitatis nomine sine dubio intellexít hominem Personam hinc discere potes; pri

Jam per

and that men do drink of it, and are filled with it; that it is doubled and distributed, and something is taken from it; and that sometimes it is distinguished: and from thence they gather, that the Holy Ghost is not a person, because these expressions are inconsistent with personality. But a satisfactory answer is easily returned to this objection. It is true, that God is said to have given the Holy Ghost to them that obey him;"(Acts y. 32.) but it is as true that a person may be given: so we read in the prophet Isaiah, “unto us a son is given;" (Isa. ix. 6.) and we are assured that “God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son,” (John iii. 16.) and certainly the Son of God is a person. And if all the rest of the expressions be such as they pretend, that is, not proper to a person; yet do they no way prejudice the truth of our assertion, because we acknowledge the effects and operations of the Spirit to have in the Scriptures the name of the Spirit, who is the cause of those operations. And being to that Spirit, as the cause, we have already shewn those attributes to be given which can agree to nothing but a person; we therefore conclude against the Socinians and the Jews, that the Holy Ghost is not a quality, but a person ;* which is our first assertion.

Our second assertion is, That the Holy Ghost, in whose name we are baptized, and in whom we profess to believe, is not a created, but a divine and uncreated person. And for the proof of this assertion, we shall first make use of that argument which our adversaries have put into our hands. The Spirit of God which is in God is not a created person; but the Holy Ghost is the Spirit of God which is in God, and therefore not a created person. This argument is raised from those words of the apostle, “For what man knoweth the things of a man save the spirit of a man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God." (1 Cor. ii. 11.) That this Spirit mam quod ea quæ Spiritui S. in Scri- ad Demetrianum, Spiritus S. omnino pluris attribuuntur, nulla prorsus ra- negat substantiam; et errore Judaico tione Personæ conveniant, ut sunt, dicit eum vel ad Patrem referri, vel quod detur, quod ex eo detur, idque ad Filium, et sanctificationem utriaut secundum mensuram aut absque usque Personæ sub ejus nomine deomni mensura, quod effundatur ipse monstrari.' S. Hieron. ep. 65, al. 41. et ex ipso effundatur, et quod eo po- Moses Maimonides sufficiently detentur homines, quod augeatur, quod clareth the opinion of the Jews, who in duplo detur, in partes distribuatur, delivering the several significations of tollatur ipse et ex ipso tollatur; et 77%, maketh the fifth and sixth to be similia in Scripturis exstant.' Catech. these: “Quinto significat influentiam Racov. c. 6. Quæst. 12.

illam intellectualem divinam a Deo * The opinion of the Jews was, Prophetis instillatam, cujas virtute that the Holy Ghost was notbing else prophetant. Sexto significat Propobut the afflatus, or energy of God; situm, ct Voluntatem.' And then and therefore they which denied the concludes: 'Vox hæc 117 quando substantiality of the Spirit were look- Deo attribuitur, ubique sumitur pared upon as symbolizing with the tim in quinta, partim in sexta signiJews in this particular. Lactantius ficatione, quatenus voluntatem signiin libris suis, et maxime in Epistolis ficat. More Nerochim. p. 1. e. 40.

of God is the Holy Ghost, I find denied by none: that the same Spirit is in God, appeareth by the apostle's discourse, and is granted by the Socinians :* that it is so the Spirit of God, and so by nature in God that it cannot be a creature, is granted by the same. It followeth therefore undeniably that the Holy Ghost is no created person; inasmuch as that cannot be a created person, which hath not a created nature; and that can neither have nor be a created nature, which by nature is in God. Wherefore although it be replied by others, that it is not said in the text that the Spirit is in God, yet our adversaries' reason overweighs their negative observation; and it availeth little to say that it is not expressed, which must be acknowledged to be understood. The Holy Ghost then is a person (as I have proved), and is not of a nature distinguished from that which is in God (as is confessed, and only denied to be in God, because it is not said so when it is implied); therefore he is no created person.

Secondly, The Holy Ghost is such a one as against whom a sin may be committed, and when it is so, cannot be remitted. But if he were no person, we could not commit that sin against him; and if he were a created person, the sin committed against him could not be irremissible: therefore he is a person, and that uncreated. The argument is grounded upon the words of our Saviour, “All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men, but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him; but

The Socinians, endeavouring to in Deitate personam, et Spiritus S. sit prove from this place that the Holy. Dei virtus, ut verba Christi ad ApoGhost is not a person, lay the foun- stolos indicant, (Luc. xxiv. 49.) efdation of their argument in this, That ficitur Spiritum S. non esse personam he is the Spirit of God, and by nature divinam. Denique si Spiritus S. csset in God, so that those things which persona, essentiam quoque divinam are proper to the Divine nature are eum habere oporteret. Nam ca atattributed and belong to him, and tribuuntur illi quæ propria sunt esbecause there is another person in the sentiæ divinæ : at superius docuimus divine essence, and, as they say, there substantiam divinam unam esse nucan be but one, therefore the Holy mero, nec tribus personis essc posse Ghost is not a person. 'Deinde idem communem. Quamobrem Spiritum (sc. Spiritum S. non esse Personam) non esse Deitatis personam planum ex eo patet, quod non sit extra Deum est.'Catech. Racovian, c.6. Totbesame natura sed in ipso Deo. Nisi cnim purpose doth Socinus argue against natora Deo inesset, non potuisset Wiekus, that the nature of the Spirit Paulus Spiritum Dei cum spiritu is the nature of God, and that the bominis qui bomini inest natura con- Spirit cannot therefore be a person, ferre, idque eo in loco, (1 Cor. ii. 11.) because there can be but one person abi ait, Quis hominum novit quæ sunt in the nature of God. Whereas therehominis nisi spiritus hominis qui est in fore independently from this place we homine? Ita quæ sunt Dei nemo novit have proved, that the Holy Spirit is nisi Spiritus Dei. Quoniam vero a person; and from this place liave Spiritus S. in Deo est, nec tamen in inferred with them, that the same Spirita S. reciproce dici potest esse Spirit is in God, and of the Divino Deum, hinc apparet Spiritum S. non nature, it followcth, that he is no esse Personam. Præterea cum superius created Spirit, inasmuch as nothing demonstratum sit unam tantum csse in the divine nature can be created,

« ZurückWeiter »