phira, "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.* As Next, 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. 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 translation is here accused without reason. For though the original be, ψεύσασθαι τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, yet some copies have it εἰς τὸ πνεῦμα, and the Syriac did so read and interpret it, the Vulgar Latin to the ברוחא דקודשא Now same purpose, mentiri te Spiritui S. And If we 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 hast 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 adversaries; as it is not probable that the deniers of so great a truth should agree. The first tells 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 'Si quis ex eo, quod corpus nostrum Spiritus S. templum sit, concludere velit, eum esse Deum; illi demonstrandum est, ita corpus nostrum Spiritus S. templum dici, ut intelligatur eum esse personam, cujus honori corpus nostrum sit dedicatum, a qua corpus nostrum eo jure quod divini numinis proprium est possideatur, et principaliter incolatur.' Crell. De uno Deo Patre, l. 1. §. 3. arg. 1. 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 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 consider ing 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, or Spirit of God, is a person truly and properly divine, the true and living God. Now being we do firmly believe, that the true and 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 blessed Spirit is God to which purpose, that I may proceed methodically, my fourth assertion is, That the Spirit of God, which is the true and living God, is neither God the Father, nor the Son of God. First, Though the Father be undoubtedly God, though the Holy Ghost be also God, and (because there cannot be two Gods) the same God; yet the Holy Ghost is not the Father: for the Scriptures do as certainly distinguish them in their persons, as they do unite them in their nature. He which proceedeth from the Father is not the Father, because it is impossible any person should proceed from himself: but the Holy Ghost" proceedeth from the Father:" (John xv. 26.) therefore he is not the Father. He which is sent by the Father, and from the Father, is not the Father, by whom and from whom he is sent; for no person can be sent by himself, and by another from himself: but the Holy Ghost is sent by God the Father, and by the Son "from the Father;" (Ibid.) therefore he is not the Father. Secondly, Though we have formerly proved, that the Son of God is properly and truly God; though we now have proved, that the Spirit of God is God, and in reference to both we un derstand the same God; yet the Holy Ghost is not the Son: for he which receiveth of that which is the Son's, and by receiving of it glorifieth the Son, cannot be the Son, because no person can be said to receive from himself that which is his own, and to glorify himself by so receiving; "but the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost," (John xiv. 26.) receiveth of that which is the Son's, and by receiving of it glorifieth the Son; for so our Saviour expressly said, "He shall glorify me, for he shall receive of mine:" (John xvi. 14.) therefore the Holy Ghost is not the Son. Again, he whose coming depended upon the Son's departing, and his sending after his departure, cannot be the Son, who therefore departed that he might send him. But the coming of the Holy Ghost depended upon the Son's departing, and his sending after his departure: as he told the apostles before he departed, "I tell you the truth, it is expedient for you that I go away; for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you :" (Ibid. 7.) therefore the Holy Ghost is not the Son. So 66 Thirdly, Though the Father be God, and the Son be God, and the Holy Ghost be also the same God, yet we are assured that the Holy Ghost is neither the Father nor the Son; because the Scriptures frequently represent him as distinguished both from the Father and the Son. As, when "the Spirit of God descended like a dove, and lo, a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased," (Matt. iii. 16.) he was manifestly distinguished from the person of the Son, upon whom he lighted, and from the person of the Father, who spake from heaven of his Son. The apostle teaches us, that through the Son we have an access by one Spirit unto the Father," (Eph. ii. 18.) and consequently assureth us, that the Spirit by whom, is not the Father to whom, nor the Son through whom, we have that access. God sent forth his Son, that we might receive the adoption of sons:" and "because we are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father." (Gal. iv. 4-6.) Where the Son is distinguished from the Father as first sent by him, and the Spirit of the Son is distinguished both from the Father and the Son, as sent by the Father after he had sent the Son. And this our Saviour hath taught us several times in his word, as, "The Comforter whom the Father will send in my name;' "The Comforter whom I will send unto you from the Father;" (John xiv. 26. xv. 26.) and when that Comforter is come," Go, teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." (Matt. xxviii. 19.) I conclude therefore against the old Sabellian heresy,* that the This heresy was very ancient, even before Sabellius, though those which held it were afterwards all so denominated from Sabellius. For we find it was the opinion of Praxeas, against whom Tertullian wrote; who being urged with that place, where the three persons were distinguished, "The Holy Ghost shall come |