34. tion of our firft affertion; if he be a Perfon not But were there nothing, which is already faid, demonftrated, there is enough written in the Word of God to affure us of the Deity of the Holy Ghost, to make us undoubtedly believe that the Spirit of God Ex. xxxiv. is God. It is written by 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 affured that the Spirit was and is that Lord to which Mofes fpake; for the Apostle hath taught us fo much by his own interpretation, 2 Cor. iii. faying, Even unto this day, when Mofes is read, the 15, 16, 17. veil is upon their heart. Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the veil fhall be taken away. Now the Lord is that Spirit. The Spirit is here fo plainly faid to be the Lord, that is, Jehovah, the one eternal God, that the adverfaries of this truth muft 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 I any perfon which confidereth the force and plainnefs of the Apostle's discourse. But indeed they are fo 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 fomething 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 fense. The Lord, they say, is Chrift, and not God; for Chrift, they fay, is not God: the Spirit, they fay, 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 affured 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 difcourfe did fatisfy us ; yet the objection ought not at all to move us: for the name of Spirit in thofe places mentioned by them to fignify the fenfe of the Law hath no affinity with this, according to their own way of argumentation: for it is (c) never fo taken with the emphafis of an article, and put in the place either of an entire subject or a predicate in a propofition, except by way of oppofition; and one of thofe it muft of neceffity be, in the words of the Apostle, now the Lord is that Spirit, and that without the leaft intimation of any oppofition. Again, we are affured that by the Lord the Apoftle did understand the eternal God; for he fpeaketh of the fame Lord which he mentioned in the verse before, and that is the Lord God fpoken of in the book of Exodus; of which except the Apostle fpeaks, 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 fome place out of the old covenant, understand Ver. 4. understand Chrift; for in this particular he (d) citeth a certain place out of the book of Exodus, and useth the name of the Lord in the fame notion in which there it is used, framing an argument and urging it from thence; and if he did not, (e) that rule is not fo univerfal and infallible, but that the Lord in the language of the fame Apoftle may not fignify the fecond, but the first or third Perfon 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 fo termed in the Scriptures. Again, the fame Scriptures do clearly manifeft the fame Spirit to be God, and term him plainly and As iv. 3. exprefsly fo. For when Peter faid, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lye to the Holy Ghost? he repeateth the fame queftion in reference to the fame offence, Why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? Thou haft not lyed unto men, but unto God. To lye unto the Holy Ghoft, is to lye unto God: to lye unto the Holy Ghoft, is not to lye unto Men, * because the Holy Ghost is not Man; and confequently not to lye unto any Angel, because the Holy Ghoft is not an Angel; not to lye unto any Creature, because the Holy Ghoft is no Creature; but to lye unto God, because the Holy Ghoft 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 fufficient to bear down the force of our reason, the reft would be fuperfluous. First, They anfwer that it cannot be collected from hence that the Spirit is God, becaufe the Holy Ghost in the original is (f) put in one cafe, and God in another; and the Apoftle fpeaking in one manner of the Spirit, and in another of God, cannot fhew that the Spirit is God. God. To which it is eafily answered, that the cafe, or manner of the Apoftle's fpeech can make no difference, if the fenfe and fubftance be the fame, as here it is; for to deceive the Holy Ghoft, is nothing elfe but to lye unto him, or by a lye to endeavour to deceive him. The act objected to Ananias was but one, which act of his the Apoftles looked upon as injurious, not to themselves, but to the Holy Ghoft; and therefore St. Peter fhewed the fin to be not against men, but against God: as certainly then as the Apostles were men, fo certainly was the Holy Ghoft, in the esteem of St. Peter, God. As for that fense which they put upon the words, different from that of lying to God, as if Ananias were accufed for counterfeiting the Holy Ghoft, it is moft certain that the words can in this place bear no fuch fenfe; for the fin of Ananias is again expreffed, in the cafe of his wife Sapphira, to whom St. Peter faid, 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 feveral things; and it is evident that in this place the tempting of the Spirit was nothing else but lying to him: for St. Peter faid to Sapphira, Tell me whether ye fold the land for fo much; and fhe faid, Yea, for fo much: in which answer the lyed. Then Peter faid unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? viz. in faying that ye fold the land for fo much. Here is no colour then for that new S pretence, that Ananias did bear the Apostles in hand that what was done he did by the motion of the Holy Spirit, and fo did pretend, counterfeit and belye the Holy Ghoft. This is not to expound St. Peter, but to belye Ananias, and make him guilty of that fin, which he was never yet accused of. It is most certain that he lyed, it is alfo certain that he to whom he lyed was the Holy Ghoft, and therefore it might be well (g) tranflated, that he lyed to the Holy Ghoft. VOL. I. I i Next, Next, Because they may very well be conscious that this verbal or phrafeological anfwer may not feem fufficient, they tell us though both the phrases were fynonymous, yet they did no way prove that the Spirit is God: and the reafon which they render to juftify this negation, is, because there are feveral places of the Scripture, in which the Meffengers of God, who are acknowledged not to be God, are mentioned in the fame relation unto God as here the Spirit is. To which the answer is moft plain and clear, that there is no creature ever mentioned in the fame manner as the Holy Ghoft is here. As I Theff. iv. when they alledge those words of the Apostle, He therefore that defpiseth, despiseth not man, but God, who hath alfo given unto us his Holy Spirit; I cannot fee what fimilitude can be made unto the fcripture now in queftion for if the Spirit be not understood in the firft words, he therefore that defpifeth, it hath no relation to the prefent queftion; and if it be, it were fo far from being a confutation, that it would be Matt. x.40. another confirmation. As for the other, He that danke x. 16 heareth you, heareth me; and he that defpifeth you, defpifeth me; and be that defpifeth me, defpifeth him that fent me; it is fo far from juftifying their interpretation, that it hath nothing in it like that which founds our reafon, that is, no oppofition. For there are three particulars in that fcripture which we produce for our affertion; firft, that they lyed to the Holy Ghoft; fecondly, that in doing fo, they lyed not unto Men; and thirdly, that by the fame act they lyed unto God. In which the oppofition is our foundation. For if the Spirit of God were not God, as we are fure it is not Man, it might as well have been faid, you lyed not unto the Holy Ghost, but unto God. And indeed if the Apostle would have aggravated the fin of Ananias with the full propriety and iniquity, in their fenfe, he must have said, thou haft not lyed unto Men, nor unto the Spirit of God, but unto God. But being he first told him plainly |