« ZurückWeiter »
but that the Lord in the language of the same apostle may not signify the second, 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 Moses; 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 same Scriptures do clearly manifest the same Spirit to be God, and term him plainly and expressly so. For when Peter said, “Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost ?” (Acts v. 3.) he repeateth the same question in reference to the same offence, “Why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.” (Ibid. 4.) To lie unto the Holy Ghost, is to lie unto God: to lie unto the Holy Ghost, is not to lie unto men, because the Holy Ghost is not man: and consequently not to lie unto any angel, because the Holy Ghost is not an angel; not to lie unto any creature, because the Holy Ghost is nocreature; but to lie 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 sufficient to bear down the force of our reason, the rest would be superfluous. First, They answer that it cannot be collected from hence that the Spirit is God, because the Holy Ghost in the original is put in one case,* and God in another; and the apostle speaking in one manner of the Spirit, and in another of God, cannot shew that the Spirit is God. To which is easily answered, mation of appropriating that act unto Είτε γάρ περί του Πατρός ο λόγος, πάνthe Son, which is attributed to the τως αν είρητο, ο δε Κύριος υμάς κατευLord by him, the rule cannot be cer- θύναι εις την εαυτού αγάπης" είτε περί tain and universal. For I desire to του Υιού, προσέκειτο αν, εις την εαυτού know by what means they can be as- υπομονήν ζητείτωσαν ούν τι εστιν άλλο sured that the apostle doth by the πρόσωπον, και τη προσηγορία του Κυρίου title ο Κύριος intend Christ, and not τιμάσθαι άξιον. And upon the like the most high God the Father, in place, 1 Thess. iii. 12, 13. Ilotov Kúthese following places: 1 Cor. iii. 5. plov čűxeralēj te poobɛv tol OkoŨ kai Ilaiv. 19. vii. 10. 12. xvi. 7. 1 Thess. iv. tpos yuūv tv tỹ napovoią toũ Kvplov 6. v. 27, 2 Thess. iji. 1. 5. 16. 2 Tim. vuõv, åpéu TOUS Tàs capdías ļotnpci. 16. 18. ii. 7. And beside, I ask how yuévas _v åywouvy tūv Šv Oecoalothe pretence of this general rule can νίκη πιστών στηρίξαι ;'Αποκρινάσθωσαν be properly objected by those who ημϊν οι μετά των λειτουργικών πνευμάknow that they, to whom they do ob- twv Tūv após diakoviav å tootellousject this rule, have contended that vwv (the newly-revived opinion clearthis title is elsewhere attributed to ly) το άγιον Πνεύμα τιθέντες· αλλ' ουκ the Holy Ghost. As St. Basil upon éxovoi. De Spiritu Sancto, c. 21. that place, 2 Thess. iii. 5. 'O SÈ Kú • Ex bis facile apparet haudquaριος κατευθύναι υμών τας καρδίας εις την quam ex eo Ioco concludi posse Spiàyátny toŨ O80W, kai eis Trv ütropovnu ritum S. esse Deum ; cum alio modo Tóû Xplotoũ, thus disputes: Tis ò kao de Spiritu S. loquatur Petrus, alio de Tevdúvwv Kúpios eis tnv toŨ Okoũ ảyá- Deo. Illic dicit mentiri seu fallere, πην, και εις την υπέρ των θλίψεων του ac luditcari Spiritum S., hic mentiri XPLOTOŬ Otropovýv; árokpiváo woav Deo. Crellius, De "uno Deo Patre, l. ημίν oι το Πνεύμα καταδoυλoύμενοι. 1. 3. 3. Argum. 1.
that the case or manner of the apostle's speech can make no difference, if the sense and substance be the same, as here it is; for to deceive the Holy Ghost, is nothing else but to lie unto him, or by a lie to endeavour to deceive him. The act objected to Ananias was but one, which act of his the apostles looked upon as injurious, not to themselves, but to the Holy Ghost; and therefore St. Peter shewed the sin to be not against men, but against God: as certainly then as the apostles were men, so certainly was the Holy Ghost, in the esteem of St. Peter, God.
As for that sense which they put upon the words, different from that of lying to God, as if 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 sin of Ananias is again expressed in the case of his wife Sapphira, to whom St. Peter said, “How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord ?” (Ibid. 9.) 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 St. Peter said to Sapphira, “ Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? and she said, Yea, for so much.” (Ibid. 8.) In which answer she lied. “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 sold 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 belie the Holy Ghost. This is not to expound St. Peter, but to belie Ananias, and make him guilty of that sin, which he was never yet accused of. It is most certain that he lied; it is also certain that he to whom he lied was the Holy Ghost ; and therefore it might be well translated, that he lied to the Holy Ghost.*
* Our translation is here accused same sense with that Psal. Ixxxi. 16. without reason.
. O ginal be, ψεύσασθαι το πνεύμα το άγιον, εχθροί Κυρίου εψεύσαντο αυτω. So yet some copies have it eis tò aveīna, Deut. xxxiii. 29. 75 graus wunan and the Syriac did so read and inter- LΧΧ. Και ψεύσονται σε οι εχθροί
, . And Isa. Ivii. 11. 139, the Vulgar Latin to the same purpose, kai łyeúow ué. 2 Kings iv. 16. 58 mentiri te Spiritui S. And the au- TONOVI zan uit diabetoy prix thor of the 'Tractate De Temp. Bar- dolny oov. If therefore we read it barico, under the name of St. Augus. yevoaolai TÒ Tvõua, it is rightly tin, mentiri te apud Spiritum S. c. 3. translated to lie unto the Holy Ghost; Now yeúdeoJai eis tò aveõpa is the and so agreeth with that which folsame with tự tveúpatı, as ur yeudeo-9é loweth to tempt the Holy Ghost, as kis årýlovs, lie not one to another. Col. Psal. lxxviii. 36. Tð y booy avtūv iii. 9. If we read it eis zveõua, then čteúoavto avrò, and verse 41. éméit is rightly translated. Again, if we orpeyav kai éteipasav Tòv Ocòv. Thereread it rò Tvæõua, it has in this case fore whatsoever shifts are laid upon the sense of rý mreúuart. As Psal. the phrase, or difference of expresIxv. 2. T'IN 73 Wn' LXX. sion, are either false or frivolous, ψεύσονται σε οι εχθροί σου, of the
LXX . oi משנאי יהוה יכחשו־לו
-For though the ori
IN THE HOLY GHOST. 515 Nest, 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 justify 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 allege those words of the apostle, “ He therefore that despiseth, despiseth not man but God, who hath also given us his Holy Spirit;" (1 Thess. iv. 8.) 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, “ 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, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me:" (Matt. x. 40. Luke x. 16.) it is 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 lied to the Holy Ghost ; secondly, That in doing so, they lied not unto men; and thirdly, That by the same act they lied 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 lied 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 sense, he must have said, Thou bast not lied unto men, nor unto the Spirit of God, but unto God. But being he first told him plainly his sin, lying to the Holy Ghost; and then let him know the sinfulness of it," thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God;" it is evident that the Holy Ghost to whom he lied, 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 house 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 person can make a temple. But the inhabitation of the Holy Ghost maketh a temple, as we are informed by the apostle: “What, know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you ?” (1 Cor. vi. 19.) Therefore the Holy Ghost is God.
To this is replied differently according to the diversity of our adỹersaries; as it is not probable that the deniers of so great a truth should agree. The first tell us, that if we would
enforce by this reason, that the Holy Ghost is God, we must prove that he is a person, * and that he doth possess our bodies by a divine right. But we have already proved that he is a person, and certainly 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 assertion; for 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 ?" (1 Cor. iii. 16.) 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 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 inhabitation he could make a temple of us. 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 primarily 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 interest 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 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 glorify, 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 glorify him, I shall rather take leave to suspect 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
Si quis ex eo, quod corpus no- pus nostrum sit dedicatum, a qua strum Spiritus S. templum sit, con- corpus nostrum eo jure quod divini cludere velit, eum esse Deum ; illi de- numinis proprium est possideatur, et monstrandum est, ita corpus nostrum principaliter incolatur.' Crell. De uno Spiritus S. templum dici,ut intelligatur Deo Patre, 1. 1. §. 3. arg. 1. eum esse personam, cujus honori cor
of my assertion. 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, but by the inhabitation of God; as it is written, “Ye 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 :” (1 Cor. vi. 16.) 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 consequently none can be endued with them, to whom the nature of God belongeth 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 should be forced to a double proof.
Fifthly, He, to whom are attributed those works which are proper unto God, by and for which God doth require of us to acknowledge and worship him as God, is properly and truly God: because the operations of all things flow from that essence by which they are; and therefore if the operations be truly divine, that is, such as can be produced by no other but God, then must the essence of that person which produceth them be truly such. But such works as are proper unto God, by and for which God hath required us to acknowledge him and worship him as God, are attributed often in the Scriptures to the Spirit of God, as the acts of creation and conservation of all things, the miracles wrought upon and by our blessed Saviour, the works of grace and power wrought in the hearts of true believers, and the like. Therefore, without any farther disputation, which cannot be both long and proper for an exposition, I conclude my third assertion, that the Holy Ghost, Spirit of God, is a person truly and properly divine, the true and living God.
Now being we do firmly believe, that the trueand living God can be but one, that the infinity of the divine essence is incapable of multiplicity; being we have already shewn, that the Father is originally that one God, which is denied by none; and have also proved, that the only Son is the same God, receiving by an eternal generation the same divine nature from the Father: it will also be necessary, for the understanding of the nature of the Spirit of God, to shew how that bless