come whom I will send you from the Father," (John 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." (John xvi. 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 (" whom 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 he 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 him, 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. Prosopopœia; and indeed as they ordinarily propound their answer, it is abundantly refuted. But I find the subtilty of Socinus prepared another explication of the Prosopopœia,*

Credo me satis ostendisse, Spiritum S. non esse personam, non magis quam aliæ vel proprietates, vel effecta Dei, sint personæ, cum nihil sit aliud quam peculiaris quædam virtus et efficacia Dei; quæ si, ut ipsius Dei proprietas, et vis per quam agit, consideratur et accipitur, figuræ Metonymiæ aut Prosopopaiæ accommodatissimus est locus: et Metonymiæ quidem, si Spiritus S. nomine ipse Deus, cujus est spiritus, quique per eum agit, significetur; Prosopopæiæ vero, ut quando Deus per Spiritum S. agit, ipsi

Spiritui S. Dei actio tribuatur : sin autem hæc virtus et efficacia Dei consideratur, et accipitur, ut res in quibus agit, ab ipsa afficiuntur, utrique isti figuræ similiter aptissimus est locus; quandoquidem commodissime per Metonymiam is qui a Spiritu S. aliquo modo affectus quidpiam agit, quatenus id agit, Spiritus S. seu Spiritus Dei metonymice dici potest: ut factum est apud Paulum, cum ait (1 Cor. ii. 10.) Spiritum (sub. Dei) omnia scrutari, etiam profunda Dei: ubi Spiritus Dei nomine sine dubio intellexit hominem

1

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 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,

Spiritu Dei præditum, quatenus, viz. ab isto Spiritu afficitur. Jam per Prosopopriam ipsi Spiritui S. actionem tribui, quæ ipsius Spiritus ope ab homine fiat, adeo est proclive ut nihil magis.' F. Socin. in Resp. ad Wiek. c. 10.

and

ea quæ Spiritui S. in Scripturis attri buuntur, nulla prorsus ratione Persona conveniant, ut sunt, quod detur, quod ex eo detur, idque aut secundum mensuram aut absque omni mensura, quod effundatur ipse et ex ipso effundatur, et quod eo potentur homines, quod augeatur, quod in duplo detur, in partes distribuatur, tol

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 v. 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 30 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 these 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. Ï1.) That this Spirit 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,

latur ipse et ex ipso tollatur; et similia in Scripturis exstant.' Catech. Racov. c. 6. Quæst. 12.

The opinion of the Jews was, that the Holy Ghost was nothing else but the afflatus, or energy of God; and therefore they which denied the substantiality of the Spirit were looked upon as symbolizing with the Jews in this particular. Lactantius in libris suis, et maxime in Epistolis ad Demetrianum, Spiritus S. omnino negat substantium; et errore Judaico dicit eum vel ad Patrem referri, vel ad Filium, et sanctificationem utriusque Personæ sub ejus nomine demonstrari.' S. Hieron. ep. 65. al. 41. Moses Maimonides sufficiently declareth the opinion

of the Jews, who delivering the several significations of m, maketh the fifth and sixth to be these: Quinto significat influentiam illam intellectualem divinam a Deo Prophetis instillatam, cujus virtute prophetant. Sexto significat Propositum, et Voluntatem.' And then concludes: Vox hæc quando Deo attribuitur, ubique sumitur partim in quinta, partim in sexta significatione, quatenus voluntatem significat.' More Nevochim. p. 1. c. 40.

t The Socinians, endeavouring to prove from this place that the Holy Ghost is not a person, lay the foundation of their argument in this, That he is the Spirit of God, and by nature in God, so that those things which are proper to the Divine na

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 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

ture are attributed and belong to him, and because there is another person in the divine essence, and, as they say, there can be but one, therefore the Holy Ghost is not a person. Deinde idem (sc. Spi

ritum S. non esse Personam) ex eo patet, quod non sit extra Deum natura sed in ipso Deo. Nisi enim natura Deo inesset, non potuisset Paulus Spiritum Dei cum spiritu hominis qui homini inest natura conferre, idque eo in loco, (1 Cor. ii. 11.) ubi ait, Quis hominum novit quæ sunt hominis nisi spiritus hominis qui est in homine? Ita quæ sunt Dei nemo novit nisi Spiritus Dei. Quoniam vero Spiritus S. in Deo est, nec tamen in Spiritu S. reciproce dici potest esse Deum, hinc apparet Spiritum S. non esse Personam. Præterea cum superius demonstratum sit unam tantum esse in Deitate personam, et Spiritus S. sit Dei virtus, ut verba Christi ad Apostolos indicant, (Luc. xxiv. 49.) efficitur Spiritum S. non esse personam divinam. Denique si Spiritus S. esset persona, essentiam quoque divinam eum habere oporteret. Nam ca attribuuntur illi quæ propria sunt essentiæ divinæ : at superius docuimus substantiam divinam unam esse

numero, nec tribus personis esse posse communem. Quamobrem Spiritum non esse Deitatis personam planum est.' Catech. Racovian, c. 6. To the same purpose doth Socinus argue against Wiekus, that the nature of the Spirit is the nature of God, and that the Spirit cannot therefore be a person, because there can be but one person in the nature of God. Whereas therefore independently from this place we have proved, that the Holy Spirit is a person; and from this place have inferred with them, that the same Spirit is in God, and of the Divine nature, it followeth, that he is no created Spirit, inasmuch as nothing in the divine nature can be created.

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:" (Job xxvi. 13.)* nor is he under the feet of Christ, now set down at the

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 δηλόν ἐστιν, ὅτι ὁμολογοῦσι τοὺς ἀγγέλους ὑπὸ τοῦ Υἱοῦ γεγονέναι, καὶ γὰρ καὶ περὶ τοῦ Πνεύματος βλασφημοῦσι καὶ τολμῶσι λέγειν κεκτίσθαι ὑπὸ τοῦ Υἱοῦ. Hær. 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. Har. 49. As Eusebius: Tè dè πapánλntov ̔́Αγιον Πνεῦμα, οὔτε Θεὸς, οὔτε Υἱὸς, ἐπεὶ μὴ

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. 1. iii. c. 6. ‘0 dè riòc Móvoc πατρικῇ θεότητι τετιμημένος, ποιητικὲς ἂν εἴη καὶ δημιουργητικὸς τῆς τῶν γεννητῶν ἁπάν των ὁρατῶν τε καὶ ἀοράτων, καὶ δὴ καὶ αὐτῆς τῆς τοῦ παρακλήτου Πνεύματος ὑπάρξεως· πάντα γὰρ δι' αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν. Ibid. Where it is worth our observation, that Eusebius citing the place of St. John, to prove that the Holy Ghost was made by the Son, leaves out those words twice together, by which the Catholics used to refute that heresy of