whosoever speaketh a word against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come." (Matt. xii. 31, 32.)* By which words it appeareth there is a sin or blasphemy against the Holy Ghost distinct from all other sins and blasphemies committed against God the Father, or the Son of God; that this sin hath an aggravation added unto it, beyond other sins and blasphemies: but if the Holy Spirit were no person, the sin could not be distinct from those sins which are committed against him whose Spirit he is; and if he were a person created, the sin could receive no such aggravation beyond other sins and blasphemies.

To this they answer, that the sin against the Holy Ghost is not therefore unpardonable, because he is God, which is not to our purpose; but they do not, cannot, shew that it can be unpardonable, if he were not God. It is not therefore simply, and for no other reason unpardonable, because that person is God against whom it is committed: for if so, then any sin committed against that person which is God, would be unpardonable; which is false. But that sin, which is particularly called blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, is a sin against God, and in such a manner aggravated, as makes it irremissible; of which aggravation it were incapable, if the Spirit were not God.

Thirdly, Every created person was made by the Son of God as God, and is now put under the feet of the Son of God as man. But the Spirit of God was not made by the Son of God, nor is he now put under the feet of the Son of man. Therefore the Spirit of God can be no created person. "All things were made by the Word, and without him was not any thing made that was made;" (John i. 3.) therefore every created person was made by the Word. God hath put all things under the feet of Christ; and when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted which did put all things under him :" (1 Cor. xv. 27.) and being none is excepted beside God, every created person must be under the feet of the Son of man. But the Spirit of God in the beginning, was not made, yea rather in the beginning made the world, as Job speaks of God, "By his Spirit he hath garnished the heavens:" (Jobxxvi. 13.)†

*"Quomodo audent inter omnia numerare Spiritum S., quando ipse Dominus dixerit, Qui blasphemaverit in Filium hominis, remittetur εἰ; qui autem blasphemaverit in Spiritum S., nec hic nec in futurum remittetur ei. Quomodo igitur inter creaturas audet quisquam Spiritum computare? Aut quis sic se obligat, ut si creaturæ derogaverit, non putet sibi hoc aliqua venia relaxandum.' S. Ambros. de Spiritu S. 1. i. c. 3.

+ Those which anciently did believe the Spirit of God to be a created person, did also teach that he was

made by the Son, as Epiphanius testifieth of the Arians: Παντὶ τοῦτο δῆλόν ἐστιν, ὅτι ὁμολογοῦσι τοὺς ἀγγέλους ὑπὸ τοῦ Υἱοῦ γεγονέναι, καὶ γὰρ καὶ περὶ τοῦ Πνεύματος βλασφημοῦσι καὶ τολμῶσι λέγειν κεκτίσθαι ὑπὸ τοῦ Υἱοῦ. Har. Ixix. §. 52. ‘Ariani ab Ario, in eo sunt notissimi errore, quo Patrem et Filium et Spiritum S. nolunt esse unius ejusdemque naturæ, sed esse Filium creaturam, Spiritum vero S. creaturam creaturæ, hoc est, ab ipso Filio creatum volunt.? S. August. Hær. 49. As Eusebius: Τὸ δὲ παράκλητον Αγιον Πνεῦμα, οὔτε Θεὸς, οὔτε Υἱὸς, ἐπεὶ μὴ

nor is he under the feet of Christ, now set down at the right hand of God, who with supreme authority, together with the Father, sent the prophets; as Isaiah testifieth, saying, “ Now the Lord God and his Spirit hath sent me ;” (xlviii. 16.) and with the same authority, since the exaltation of our Saviour, sent forth such as were separated to himself, as appeareth in the case of Barnabas and Saul, and with the same authority giveth all spiritual gifts,* " dividing to every man severally as he will;" (1 Cor. xii. 11.) so that in the kingdom of Christ all things are done "by the power of the Spirit of God." (Rom. xv. 19.)

Fourthly, He, by whose operation Christ was conceived in the womb of the Virgin, was no created person: for by vir tue of that conception he was called the Son of God; whereas if a creature had been the cause of his conception, he had been in that respect the son of a creature; nay, according to the adversaries' principles, he had taken upon him the nature of angels. But the Holy Ghost it was by whose operation Christ was conceived in the womb of a virgin. For it was an angel that said to Mary (not that an angel, but that) “ the Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee; therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God." (Luke i. 35.) Therefore the Spirit of God is no created person ; which is our second assertion against the ancient, but newly-revived heresy of the Arians and Macedonians.†

66

νοιαν μεθερμηνεύοντες· οὐ γὰρ τὸ θεῖον Εὐαγγέλιον περὶ τοῦ Πνεύματος ἔφη, ἀλ λὰ περὶ πάντων τῶν κεκτισμένων, ὅτι εἴ τι κτιστὸν, διὰ τοῦ Λόγου γεγένηται, καὶ ὑπὸ τοῦ Λόγου· τὰ γὰρ πάντα δι ̓ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν, παρεκτεινομένης τῆς ἀναγνώσεως, ἔχει, ὃ γέγονεν, ἵνα οὕτω γνωσθῇ, ὅτι πάντα δι' αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν. S. Epiphan. Har. xix. §. 56.

ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς ὁμοίως τῷ Υἱῷ καὶ αὐτὸ τὴν γέννησιν εἴληφεν, ἓν δέ τι τῶν διὰ τοῦ Υἱοῦ γενομένων τυγχάνει, ὅτι δὲ πάντα δι' αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν. De Eccl. Theol. I. iii. c. 6. ̔Ο δὲ Υἱὸς μόνος πατρικῇ θεότητι τετιμημένος, ποιητικὸς ἂν εἴη καὶ δημιουργητικὸς τῆς τῶν γεννητῶν ἁπάντων ὁρατῶν τε καὶ ἀοράτων, καὶ δὴ καὶ αὐτῆς τῆς τοῦ παρακλήτου Πνεύματος ὑπάρξεως πάντα γὰρ δι' αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ * Ταῦτα πάντα ἐνεργεῖ τὸ ἓν καὶ τὸ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν. Ibid. Where it is αὐτὸ Πνεῦμα, διαιροῦν ἰδίᾳ ἑκάστῳ και worth our observation, that Eusebius 9ὼς βούλεται. Καθὼς βούλεταί φησιν, citing the place of St. John, to prove οὐ καθὼς προστάττεται· διαιροῦν, οὐ that the Holy Ghost was made by διαιρούμενον· αὐθεντοῦν, οὐκ αὐθεντία the Son, leaves out those words twice ὑποκείμενον· τὴν γὰρ αὐτὴν ἐξουσίαν, together, by which the Catholics used ἥνπερ ἐμαρτύρησε τῷ Πατρὶ, ταύτην καὶ to refute that heresy of the Arians, τῷ ἁγίῳ Πνεύματι ἀνατίθησιν ὁ Παῦλος· υίζ. ὃ γέγονεν. All things which were καὶ ὥσπερ ἐπὶ τοῦ Πατρός φησιν, Ὁ δὲ made, were made by the Son, but the Θεός ἐστιν ὁ ἐνεργῶν τὰ πάντα ἐν πᾶσιν; Holy Ghost was not amongst them, οὕτω καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος, Ταῦἃ γέγονεν, which were made, and there- τα δὲ πάντα, φησὶν, ἐνεργεῖ τὸ ἓν καὶ τὸ fore was not made by the Son. Τὸ αὐτὸ Πνεῦμα, διαιροῦν ἰδίᾳ ἑκάστῳ, και "Αγιον γὰρ Πνεῦμα κτίσμα πάλιν κτί- θὼς βούλεται· εἶδες ἀπηρτισμένην ἐξε σματός φασιν εἶναι, διὰ τὸ, διὰ τοῦ Υἱοῦ ουσίαν; ὧν γὰρ ἡ οὐσία μία, δῆλον καὶ τὰ πάντα γεγενῆσθαι, ὡς εἶπεν ἡ γραφὴ, ὅτι ἡ αὐθεντία μία· καὶ ὧν ἰσότιμος ἡ ἀσυνέτως τινὰς διαρπάζοντες· οὐ καθὼς ἀξία, τούτων καὶ ἡ δύναμις καὶ ἡ ἐξουσία εἴρηται τὸ ῥητὸν ἔχοντες, ἀλλὰ κακῶς μία. S. Chrysost. de Sanct. Pentecost ὑπονοοῦντες, καὶ ἀπὸ ῥητοῦ τὸ καλῶς Hom. ii. t. v. p. 10. εἰρημένον κατὰ τὴν κακὴν αὐτῶν ὑπό

† This

express

notion of the Spirit

Our third assertion is that which necessarily followeth from the former two, that the Spirit of God, in whose name we are

of God, that he was a person, as a niani sunt a Macedonio Constantiministering Spirit, and created, was nopolitanæ Ecclesiæ Episcopo, quos acknowledged the doctrine of the et Πνευματομάχους Græci dicunt, eo Arians, as may appear out of the for- quod de Spiritu S. litigent. Nam mer testimonies, and is evident by de Patre et Filio recte sentiunt, those which followed his opinions. quod unius sint ejusdemque subWhich being of two kinds, the Ano- stantiæ vel essentiæ, sed de Spiritu means, or pure Arians (such as were S. hoc nolunt credere, creaturam eum Aetius, Eunomius, and Eudoxius), esse dicentes.' S. August. Hæres. 52. and the Homoousians or Semi-Arians This heresy was first condemned (such as Eusebius and Macedonius), by the Council of Alexandria: Ενθα they both alike denied the Divinity, τὸ ̔́Αγιον Πνεῦμα Θεολογήσαντες, τῇ and asserted the creation of the Holy ὁμοουσίῳ τριάδι συνανελαμβάνοντο. δοGhost. The opinion of the Ano- crat. l. iii. c. 7. Afterward, by the means is clear out of the words of Council held in Illyricum: ̔Ημεῖς δὲ Eunomius, who very subtilly deliver- φρονοῦμεν ὡς καὶ αἱ Σύνοδοι νῦν ἥ τε ed it, as if it had been the opinion of κατὰ Ῥώμην καὶ ἡ κατὰ Γαλλίαν, μίαν the ancients : Τὴν τῶν ἁγίων ἐν ἅπασι εἶναι καὶ τὴν αὐτὴν οὐσίαν τοῦ Παφυλάσσοντες διδασκαλίαν, παρ ̓ ὧν τρί- τρὸς, καὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ, καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύ τον αὐτὸ ἀξιώματι καὶ τάξει μαθόντες, ματος ἐν τρισὶ προσώποις, τουτέστιν τρίτον εἶναι καὶ τῇ φύσει πεπιστεύκαμεν. ἐν τρισὶ τελείαις ὑποστάσεσι. Apud S. Basil. contra Eunom. l. iii. §. 1. 'The Theodoret. Hist. Eccl. l. iv. c. 8. The confession of the ancients was, that the Synod held at Rome with the GalliHoly Ghost was the third person in can bishops under Damasus: Ὥστε the Trinity in order and dignity ; and τὸν Πατέρα καὶ τὸν Υἱὸν μιᾶς οὐσίας, Eunomius pretending to follow them, μιᾶς Θεότητος, μιᾶς ἀρετῆς, μιᾶς δυνάadded, that he was also third in na- μεως, καὶ ἑνὸς χαρακτῆρος πιστεύεσθαι ture; which the ancients never taught. χρὴ, καὶ τῆς αὐτῆς ὑποστάσεως καὶ οὐAnd what this third in nature was, he σίας καὶ τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον. Apud thus declared: Τρίτον τάξει καὶ φύσει, Theodoret. 1. ii. c. 22. Another Syπροστάγματι μὲν τοῦ Πατρὸς, ἐνεργεία nod held under the same Damasus at δὲ τοῦ Υἱοῦ γενόμενον· τρίτῃ χώρᾳ τιμώ- Rome: Εἴ τις εἴποι τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον μενον, ὡς πρῶτον καὶ μεῖζον ἁπάντων, ποίημα ἢ διὰ τοῦ Υἱοῦ γεγενῆσθαι, ἀνάκαὶ μόνον τοιοῦτον τοῦ μονογενοῦς ποίη- θεμα ἔστω. Apud Theodoret. I. v. c. μα, θεότητος καὶ δημιουργικῆς δυνάμεως 11. After and upon these particular ἀπολειπόμενον. Ibid. §. 5. And again: Synods this heresy was fully_conἘὰν μὴ κτίσμα ἐστὶν, οὐκοῦν γέννημα demned in the second general Counἢ ἀγέννητον· εἷς δὲ ἄναρχος Θεὸς καὶ cil held at Constantinople, in which ἀγέννητος· οὔτε μὴν γέννημα· λείπεται these words were added to the Nicene οὖν κτίσμα καὶ ποίημα αὐτὸ ὀνομάζεσθαι. Creed: Καὶ εἰς τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, τὸ Ibid. §. 6. So Gregory Nyssen re- κύριον, τὸ ζωοποιὸν, τὸ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς peats the words of the same Euno- ἐκπορευόμενον, καὶ σὺν Πατρὶ καὶ Υἱῷ mius: Πιστεύομεν εἰς τὸν Παράκλητον συμπροσκυνούμενον, τὸ λαλῆσαν διὰ γενόμενον ἀπὸ τοῦ μόνου Θεοῦ διὰ τοῦ τῶν προφητῶν. And in the first Canon μονογενούς, and declares that their mentioning the heresy condemned ordinary language was ἀντὶ τοῦ ἁγίου expressly by the Council, they name : Πνεύματος κτίσμα κτίσματος καὶ ἔργον ἰδικῶς τὴν τῶν Εὐνομιανῶν, εἴτουν Ανοἔργου ὀνομάζειν. Orat. 1. cont. Eunom. μοίων, καὶ τὴν τῶν ̓Αρειανῶν, εἴτουν p. 4857. Besides these, the Semi- Εὐδοξιανῶν, καὶ τὴν τῶν Ἡμιαρειανῶν, Arians, and some of those which were ἤγουν Πνευματομάχων. And thus the orthodox as to the Divinity of the Son, heresy of Macedonius, who made the were of the same heresy as to the na- Holy Ghost a created person, was ture of the Holy Ghost, and therefore condemned by the second general were called Πνευματομάχοι (as Epi- Council; Οὗτος δὴ οὖν ὁ ἱεροφάντης phanius derives them in the descrip- χορός Μακεδόνιόν τινα, τὸν Κωνσταντινοtion of that heresy, ἀπὸ Ἡμιαρείων καὶ πόλεως θρόνον ἅρπαγμα πάλαι ποιησάἀπὸ ̓Ορθοδόξων, Har. lxxiv. §. 1.), and μενον, ὅτι τὸ πανάγιον καὶ ζωαρχικὸν afterward Macedoniani. “Macedo- ἐδυσφήμει Πνεῦμα, εὐθύνας ἐδικαίου δοῦ

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 person 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 subsisting of eternal and omnipotent power, must be acknowledged to be God. Whether therefore we look upon 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 said, 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 Moses, that "when he went in before the Lord to speak with him, he took the veil off, until he came out.” (Exod. xxxiv. 34.) And that Lord, with whom Moses spake, was the one Jehovah, the God of heaven and earth. But we are assured that the Spirit was and is that Lord to which Moses spake; for the apostle hath taught us so much by his own interpretation, saying, "Even unto this day, when Moses is read, the veil is upon their heart. Nevertheless, when it shall turn to the Lord, the veil shall be taken away. Now the Lord is that Spirit.” (2 Cor. iii. 15-17.) 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 seem very strange to any person, who 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 something 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 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 Spi

ναι· ὡς καὶ ̓́Αρειος κατὰ τοῦ Υἱοῦ, οὕτω καὶ αὐτὸς κατὰ παναγίου παραταττόμενος Πνεύματος, εἰς δούλους καὶ ὑπηρέ

τας τὴν δεσποτικὴν καὶ ὑπερκειμένην αὐτοῦ συνέταττε κυριότητα. Photius, Epist. i. §. 10.

rit 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 satisfy us; yet the objection ought not at all to move us for the name of Spirit, in those places mentioned by them to signify the sense of the Law, hath no affinity with this, according to their own way of argumentation: for it is never so taken with the emphasis of an article,* and put in the place either of an entire subject or a predicate in a proposition, except by way of opposition; and one of those it must of necessity be, in the words of the apostle, " now the Lord is the Spirit," and that without the least intimation of any opposition."

Again, we are assured that by the Lord the apostle did understand the eternal God; for he speaketh of the same Lord which he mentioned in the verse before, and that is the Lord God spoken of in the Book of Exodus; of which except the apostle speaks, his argument hath neither inference nor coherence. In vain therefore is this pretended for an answer, that the apostle by the Lord doth always, unless he cite some place out of the old Covenant, understand Christ; for in this particular he citeth a certain place out of the Book of Exodus,† and useth the name of the Lord in the same notion in which there it is used, framing an argument and urging it from thence; and if he did not, that rule is not so universal and infallible,+

* The places alleged by them are these: Περιτομὴ καρδίας ἐν Πνεύματι, οὐ γράμματι. Rom. ii. 29. Ὥστε δουλεύειν ἡμᾶς ἐν καινότητι πνεύματος, καὶ οὐ παλαιότητι γράμματος. Rom. vii. 6. Ητις καλεῖται πνευματικῶς Σόδομα καὶ Alyvnros. Rev. xi. 8. One of these places speaks only adverbially, the other two have πνεῦμα in obliquo ; and one of those two have it cum adjuncto, both of them cum opposito, none of them cum articulo, none of them are in loco subjecti, or prædicati; and therefore how any of these can shew, that To Tvεupa in this place by us urged, invested with an article, stand ing in the place eitlier of a complete subject, or a complete predicate, with nothing adjoined, nothing opposed unto it, must be taken in the same sense with them, I cannot imagine. In the sixth verse of this chapter (2 Cor. iii.) indeed it is the subject of a proposition, and invested with an article; but that is an article of opposition: To yao yρáμμа VπOKTEίvel, Tò de mvevμa sworo and this not. Howsoever, in that sense objected, it nei

ther agrees with the words before it, nor with those which follow it.

The words in Exodus were these, xxxiv. 34. Ηνίκα δὲ ἂν εἰσεπορεύετο Μωϋσῆς ἔναντι Κυρίου λαλεῖν αὐτῷ, περιηρεῖτο τὸ κάλυμμα ̇ which are thus made use of by the apostle: ǹvíka dè ἂν ἐπιστρέψῃ πρὸς Κύριον, περιαιρεῖται τὸ κάλυμμα. Κύριος then is here used by St. Paul citing some place out of the old covenant, and the words which follow, 'O dè Kúpus, signify the same Kúpoç, as appeareth by the conjunction dé: and if so, then according to the doctrine of our adversaries, it cannot signify Christ. For that the Lord of whom Moses spake, was then when Moses wrote; but that Christ of which they interpret it, was not then, as they teach; therefore that 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 ò Kúptog is often used by St. Paul without any restriction or inti