IN ARTICLE VIII. I believe in the Holy Ghoft. N this Article we repeat again the first word of the Creed, I believe; whereas a conjunction. might have been fufficient, but that fo many particulars concerning the Son do intervene. For as we are baptized in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; so we do make confession of our Faith, faying, I believe in the Father, the Son, (g) and the Holy Ghoft; and the Ancients, whofe Creed was fomething fhorter, made no repetition of the act of faith, but only an addition of the object, (b) And in the Holy Ghoft. And as we repeat the act of faith in this Article, fo fome did alfo in the fecond, (i) I believe in Jefus Chrift. Wherefore being this word, I believe, is taken here only by way of refumption or repetition, and confequently must be of the fame fenfe or importance of which it was in the beginning of the Creed, it may well receive the fame explication here which it received there; to that therefore the Reader is referred. For although the (k) ancient Fathers did frequently make use of this language to prove the Divinity of the Spirit, and did thence argue that he is really and truly God, because we believe in the Holy Ghost; yet being that language is not exprefsly read in the Scriptures in relation to the Spirit, as it is in reference to the Son; being to believe in the Holy Ghoft, is only the expreffion of the Church contained in the Creed; being in the fame Creed many of the Ancients, without any reprehenfion, have used the fame phrafe in the following Articles exprefsly, and where the prepofition is not expreffed, it may very well be thought it was understood; therefore I think fit to acquiefce in my former expofition, and lay no greater force in the prepofition. It will therefore be fufficient for the explication of this Article, if we can declare what is the full and proper object of our faith contained in it, what we are obliged to believe concerning the Holy Ghoft. And as to this we fhall discharge our undertaking, and fatisfy whatsoever is required in this expofition, if we can fet forth these two particulars, the Nature and the Office of that bleffed Spirit. For the name of GHOST or GAST in the ancient Saxon language fignifieth a Spirit, and in that appellation of the Spirit of God, his Nature principally is expreffed. The addition of Holinefs, though it denote the intrinfecal fanctity effentially belonging to that Spirit, yet notwithstanding it containeth alfo a derivative notion, as fignifying an emanation of that Holiness, and communication of the effects thereof; and in this communication his Office doth confift. Whatsoever therefore doth concern the Spirit of God, as fuch, and the intrinfecal Sanctity, which belongeth to that Spirit, may be expreffed in the explication of his Nature; whatsoever belongeth to the derivation of that Sanctity, may be described in his Office; and confequently more cannot be neceffary than to declare what is the Nature, what the Office, of the Spirit of God. For the better indagation of the Nature of the Holy Ghoft, I fhall proceed by certain steps and degrees; which as they will render the discourse more clear, fo will they alfo make the reafons more strong, and the arguments more evident. And first, as to the existence of the Spirit of God, it will be unneceffary to endeavour the proof of it; for although Acts xxiii. the Sadducees feemed to deny it, who faid that there is no refurrection, neither Angel, nor Spirit; though it hath (1) been ordinarily concluded from thence that they rejected the Holy Ghoft, yet it cannot be 8. proved from those words that they denied the exiftence of the Spirit of God, any more than that they denied the existence of God who is a Spirit: nor did the notion which the Jews had of the Spirit of God, any way incline the Sadducees, who denied the existence of the Angels and the Souls of men, to reject it. The Refurrection, Angel, and Spirit, which the Sadducees refused to acknowledge, were but two particulars; for it is exprefsly added, that the Pharifees confeffed both; of which two the Refurrection was one, (m) Angels and Spirits were the other; wherefore that which the Sadducees difbe lieved was the existence of fuch created fpiritual natures, as the Angels and the Souls of men are conceived to have. And as for thofe Difciples at Ephefus, who had not fo much as heard whether there be any Acts xix.2. Holy Ghoft; if they were Gentiles, it is no wonder, because they never had that notion in their religion; if they were Jews, as they seem to be, because they were baptized with the Baptifm of John, it fignifieth not that they never heard of the Spirit of God, but only that they had not heard of the giving of it, which the Apostle mentioned: as we read elfewhere, that the Holy Ghoft was not yet; not denying John vii. 39. the existence, but the plentiful effufion of it. For, whatfoever the Nature of the Spirit of God may be thought to be, no man can conceive the Apostle should deny his existence before Chrift's glorification, whofe operation was fo manifeft at his conception. Howfoever, the Apostle asked thofe ignorant Difciples, Unto what then were ye baptized? intimating, that if they were baptized according to the rule of Chrift, they could not be ignorant that there is an Holy Ghoft; because the Apostles were commanded to baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. It is therefore prefumed that every one who profeffeth the Name of Chrift, from the first baptifinal inftitution, acknowledgeth that there is an Holy Ghoft and the only queftion VOL. I. confifts Hh confifts in this, What that Holy Ghoft is, in whofe Name we are baptized, and in whom, according to our Baptifm, we profefs in the Creed to believe? In order to the determination of which question, our firft affertion is, That the Holy Ghost, described to us in the Word of God, and joined with the Father and the Son in the form of Baptifm, is a Perfon. We are all baptized in the name of the three, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; and the public confeffion of our faith hath relation to those three. We all confefs that two of these, the Father and the Son, are Perfons: that which we now affert is only this, that the Holy Ghost, who is of the three the third, is also a Person as the other two. That bleffed Spirit is not only an (n) energy or operation, not a quality or power, but a fpiritual and intellectual Subfiftence. (0) If we conceive it as an operation only, then muft it only be actuated and not act; and when it is not actuated, it must not be at all. If we fay that it is a quality, and not a fubftance; we fay that it is that which we cannot prove to have any being. It feemeth to me strangely unreasonable, that men fhould be fo earnest in endeavouring to prove that the Holy Ghost which fanctifieth them is no fubftance, when they cannot be affured that there is any thing operative in the world befide fubftantial beings; and confequently, if they be not fanctified by that, they can be fufceptible of no holiness. By what reason in nature can they be affured, by what revelation in Scripture can they be confident, that there is a reality deferving the name of quality diftinguished from all fubftance, and yet working real and admirable effects? If there were no other argument but this, that we are affured by the Chriftian Faith, that there is an Holy Ghoft exifting; and we cannot be affured, either by reafon or faith, that there is a quality really and effentially distinguished from all fubftance, it would be fufficient to deter us from from that boldness, to affert the Holy Ghoft, in whofe name we are baptized, to be nothing else but a quality. But we are not left to guefs at the Nature of the Spirit of God; the Word of God which came from that Spirit hath fufficiently delivered him as a Perfon. It is indeed to be observed, that in the Scriptures there are fome things fpoken of the Holy Ghoft which are proper and peculiar to a Perfon, as the adverfaries confefs: others, which are not properly and primarily to be attributed to a Person, as we cannot deny and it might seem to be equally doubtful, in relation to the Scripture expreffions, whether the Holy Ghost were a Perfon or no; and that they which deny his perfonality may pretend as much Scripture as they which affert it. But in this feeming indifference we must also observe a large diverfity; inafmuch as the Holy Ghost, or Spirit of God, is not always taken in the fame propriety of fignification; nor do we fay that the Holy Ghost, which fignifieth a Perfon, always fignifieth fo much. It is therefore eafily conceived how fome things may be attributed to the Spirit in the Scriptures which are not proper to a Perfon, and yet the Spirit be a Perfon, because fometimes the Spirit is taken for that which is not a Perfon, as we acknowledge. Whereas, if ever any thing be attributed to the Holy Ghost as to a Perfon, which cannot be otherwife understood of the Spirit of God than as of a Person, then may we infallibly conclude that the Holy Ghoft is a Perfon. This therefore we fhall endeavour fully and clearly to demonstrate; first, that the Scriptures declare unto us the Holy Ghost as a Perfon, by fuch attributes and expreffions as cannot be understood to be spoken of the Spirit of God any other way than as of a Perfon: fecondly, that whatsoever attributes or expreflions are used in the Scriptures of the Holy Ghost, and are objected as repugnant to the nature of a Perfon, Hh2 either |