Part 46

To this it may be replied; that this supposes Christ to be no other than a Lawgiver; and that to be a Christian, is nothing else but to be professedly a member of that society, which goes under that denomination; and that to put on Christ is not to consecrate or devote ourselves to him as a divine Person; which is a very low idea of Christianity; and consequently the character of a Christian does not imply in it so much, when assumed by an Anti-trinitarian, as when applied to those who suppose that they are hereby obliged to honour him, as they honour the Father, or to submit to his government, as truly and properly divine. A Christian is not barely one who is of Christ’s party, in the same sense as a Mahometan, who adheres to the laws of Mahomet, is of his; for Christianity contains in it an obligation to perform those religious duties, of trust, universal obedience, and love, that are due to Christ as a divine Person.

3. As to the supposition, that baptism being an ordinance of Proselytism to the Christian faith, therefore a Christian nation is no longer obliged to submit to it, this is directly contrary to what our Saviour says in the words immediately following the institution thereof, in Matt, xxviii. 20. _Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world_, that is, you may expect my presence with you in administering this ordinance, as well as preaching the gospel, not only during the first age of the church, till Christianity shall obtain in the world, but as long as there shall be a society of Christians in it. And, indeed, if Christianity were nothing more than a public declaration of our obligation, to adhere to the laws of Christ; it does not follow, that because we are born in a Christian nation, therefore such a profession is no longer necessary. But since more than this is contained therein, as hath been before observed, namely, our professed subjection to Christ, in a religious way, as a divine Person, this extends the baptismal obligation much farther than to our being called Christians, and argues the necessity of our engaging in this ordinance, as long as Christ is the object of faith, or to be acknowledged to be the Prophet, Priest, and King of his church, and, as such, the object of religious worship, namely, unto the end of the world.

_Object._ 5. There is another objection against the argument in general, relating to Christ’s being the object of divine worship, taken from his having refused to have one of the divine perfections ascribed to him, and directing the Person that gave it, to ascribe it to the Father, in Matt. xix. 17. _He said unto him, Why callest thou me good, there is none good but one, that is God_; _q. d._ there is but one Person who is good, as goodness is properly a divine attribute, and that is the Father: therefore he alone is the object of that worship, which consists in the ascribing the perfections of the divine nature to him, in which sense we have before supposed religious worship to be understood.

_Answ._ 1. As to what our Saviour says, concerning the divine unity, when he asserts, that there is none good but one, that is God; it is, doubtless to be understood in the same sense with all other scriptures, that deny a plurality of gods, in opposition to the principles and practice of idolaters; but it does not follow from hence, that the Father is the only Person who is God, or the object of divine worship. This has been before considered[164], and therefore all that I shall reply to this part of the objection is, that the word God is sometimes taken for the Godhead, without a particular restriction or limitation thereof, either to Father, Son, or Holy Spirit, but may be equally applied to them all. In this sense it is to be taken, when the being of a God is demonstrated by the light of nature; as from the effects of the divine power, we argue, that there is a God, who is the Creator of all things; but this cannot, if we have no other light to guide us herein but that of nature, be applied to the Father, as a distinct Person in the Godhead, for the distinction that there is between the divine Persons is a matter of pure revelation; therefore all that our Saviour intends by this expression is, that no one has a right to have divine perfections ascribed to him, but he that has a divine nature, which whether it be meant of the Father, Son, or Holy Ghost, he is denominated _the one only living and true God_.

It follows from hence, that when such modes of speaking are used in scripture, though the Father be called the one or only God, the Son is not excluded, as a late judicious writer well observes.[165]

2. As to that part of the objection, which concerns our Saviour’s blaming the man for calling him good, there are two senses given of it; one is taken from a different reading of the words, namely, _Why dost thou ask me concerning good_.[166] But it will not be much to our purpose either to defend or disprove this reading, since Mark and Luke read it, _Why callest thou me good_, &c. therefore, passing this over and supposing that it ought to be read, as we generally do; the common answer that is given to this objection, which, I humbly conceive, may be well acquiesced in, is; that our Saviour considers the man, as ascribing a divine perfection to him, whom, at the same time, he concluded to be no more than a creature; and therefore it is as though he should say; either, first, acknowledge me to be a divine Person, or else do not ascribe divine honours to me, for then by consequence, thou mightest as well ascribe them to any other creature. And accordingly, by the same method of reasoning, had he conversed with any Anti-trinitarian, in his day, who had given divine worship to him, and yet denied his proper deity, he would have reproved him for this mistake arising from an erroneous conscience, as much as he does the man, whom he reproves, in the same sense, for styling him _good_.

That Christ does not exclude himself from having a right to this divine perfection, is not only evident, from those several scriptures, which have been before referred to, that ascribe perfections to him that are equally divine, inasmuch as he that has a right to one divine perfection, has a right to all; but he also styles himself, in John x. 14. _The good Shepherd_, which certainly imports as much as _good Master_, which expression was used by the man before-mentioned; and that his being the good Shepherd argues him to be the Fountain of blessedness, which is certainly a divine perfection, is evident, because he speaks of himself, as communicatively good in the highest sense, ver. 28. _I give unto them_, _viz._ my sheep, _eternal life_.[167]

_Secondly_, Having proved the deity of the Son, we proceed to consider that of the Holy Ghost, in which we are obliged to oppose the Socinians and Arians, though in different respects: As for the Socinians, they seem to be divided in their sentiments about this matter, some of them considering the Holy Ghost no otherwise than as a divine power; and therefore they call him _Virtus Dei_, or the divine energy, or power of acting, seeming, by this account of it, to deny his distinct Personality, as the Sabellians do that of the Son and Spirit; though others of them, being convinced that there is sufficient proof of his Personality in scripture, to deny his deity, supposing him to be no other than a created ministering Spirit.[174]

As for the Arians, though this controversy was not brought upon the stage in the council at Nice, which was so much employed in defending the deity of our Saviour, by proving him to have the same essence with the Father, that they had no opportunity to proceed in the defence of the consubstantiality of the Holy Ghost; yet this is universally denied by all who give into the Arian scheme: It is true, that as they do not question his Personality, so they allow that he has many glories ascribed to him, agreeing, in words, with the scripture account thereof; but they are, notwithstanding, far from asserting his proper deity, any more than that of the Son.

We have already proved him to be a distinct Person,[175] and therefore nothing remains, but that we consider him as having a divine nature. And, to make this appear, we shall proceed in the same method, in which we have proved the divinity of the Son, namely, from those divine names, attributes, works, and worship, which are ascribed to him; though we have no occasion here to insist on the proof of that proposition, that he who is thus described is God, as having done that already under each of those distinct heads, in defence of our Saviour’s deity; and therefore we need only consider them as applied to the Holy Ghost. And,

1. It appears that he is God, equal with the Father and Son, inasmuch as the same divine names are given to him that are given to them; particularly,

(1.) He is called _God_, without any thing tending to detract, or diminish, from the proper sense of the word, when applied to the Father or the Son: thus, in Acts v. 3, 4. _Peter said, Ananias, Why hath satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God_, where he is not only called _God_, but put in opposition to the creature; and it is as though the apostle should say, thou hast endeavoured to deceive him, by whom I am inspired, which is a greater crime, than if thou hadst only lied to me.

_Object._ It is objected, that it is not the Holy Ghost who is here called _God_, but the Father; in defence of which sense of the text it is supposed, that though the lie was immediately designed to deceive the apostles, or the Holy Ghost, by whom they were known to be inspired, yet this was interpreted by God the Father, as an attempt to impose upon him, whose Minister the objectors suppose the Holy Spirit to be, as well as the apostles; and accordingly they thus argue; he that does any thing against God’s ministers, to wit, the Father’s, may be said to do the same against him. And here they refer to some scriptures, which, they think, give countenance to this argument namely, Exod. xvi. 8. where Moses tells the Israelites, when they murmured against him, _Your murmurings are not against us, but against the Lord_; and, in 1 Sam. viii. 7. where God says to Samuel, speaking concerning the Israelites, _They have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me_; and also our Saviour’s words to his disciples, in Luke x. 16. _He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me_; and, in 1 Thes. iv. 8. _He that despiseth, despiseth not man, but God, who hath also given unto us his Holy Spirit._[176]

_Answ._ How plausible soever this objection may seem to be, yet, if duly considered, it will not appear sufficient to overthrow the argument we are maintaining; it is true, indeed, that what is done against any one, who acts by a commission, as a servant to another, is interpreted to be done against him that gives him the commission; as he that affronts a judge, or an ambassador, in this respect, affronts the king, whom he represents; or if an inferior servant is ill treated, in delivering a message from his master, this is always supposed to contain a reflection on him who sent him; But, I humbly conceive, this cannot be applied, as it is in the objection, to Ananias’s _not lying unto men, but unto God_. And, to make this appear, let it be considered; that here are two terms of opposition; and these either respect God the Father and the apostles; or God the Father and the Holy Ghost; or else God the Holy Ghost and the apostles.

1. God the Father cannot be said here to be opposed to the apostles, so as to give countenance to this phrase, or mode of speaking used, _Thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God_, because it is said, in the foregoing verse, that _they had lied to the Holy Ghost_: if the Holy Ghost had not been mentioned, indeed, then there might have been more ground to conclude, that Peter opposed himself to God the Father, or intimated hereby, that Ananias, in attempting to deceive him, attempted to deceive God that sent him; but even then it would not have fully corresponded with the sense of those scriptures but now referred to; for though he that despises a servant, despises him that sent him; and, accordingly, he that despises a minister, when he is preaching the gospel, or despises the message that he brings, may be said to despise God, whose message it is; yet it does not follow, that if a person designs to impose upon a minister, in other respects, that he imposes upon God that sent him; for he may not disown the divine authority, or commission, which he has to preach the gospel, and yet may conclude that he may deceive him, though he be sensible that he cannot deceive God, who knoweth all things: But this I need not farther insist on, since it is not supposed, in the objection; but God the Father is therein opposed to the Holy Ghost, or else there would be no appearance of any argument in it; therefore,

2. Let us consider God the Father as being here opposed to the Holy Ghost; and then it is as much as to say, Thou hast lied to the Holy Ghost, wherein thou hast not lied to man, but to God, to wit, the Father; to which we may answer,

That had the apostle designed to oppose the Holy Ghost to the Father, and thereby deny his deity, it ought to have been expressed thus; Thou hast not lied unto the Holy Ghost, but unto God; and this would effectually have determined him not to have been God, and removed any umbrage or suspicion, as though, by the expression, _Thou hast not lied unto men_, we were to understand the apostles; or since it will be objected, that this would have been contrary to matter of fact, for Ananias did lie both to the apostles and to the Holy Ghost; therefore it would have been better understood, had it been said, Thou hast not lied to the Holy Ghost, or to men, that is, not to them only, but thou hast, interpretatively, in lying to them, lied unto God, to wit, the Father. If it had been so expressed, the sense would have been plain and obvious, in favour of the Anti-trinitarians, as well as agreeable to the scriptures before-mentioned, as giving countenance to it; but since it is not so expressed, we must conclude,

3. That in this text there is no other opposition, but of God the Holy Ghost to the apostles; and accordingly the sense is very plain and natural, which is as though the apostle had said, Thou hast endeavoured to deceive me, who am under the immediate inspiration of the Holy Ghost, which is a greater crime than if thou hadst only lied to me, at another time, when this honour was not conferred upon me; for herein thou hast committed a double crime, inasmuch as thou hast not only lied to me, which thou oughtest not to have done, but thou hast lied to the Holy Ghost, and, in so doing, hast not lied unto men, but unto God; or, as it is expressed, in ver. 9. that _Ananias and his wife had agreed together to tempt the Holy Ghost_. Which is called a _lying to him_, in one verse, is styled a _tempting him_ in the other; this therefore seems to be a plain and easy sense of the words, which any unprejudiced reader would be inclined to give into; and since the scripture is written to instruct the most injudicious Christians, as well as others, I cannot conceive that such modes of speaking would have been made use of therein, which have a tendency to lead persons out of the way, by deviating from the common sense of words, (especially in a matter of so great importance as this is) whereby some, at least, would be inclined, as we are, by adhering to the most proper sense thereof, to acknowledge the Holy Ghost to be God, if he were not so.

There is another scripture, in which the Holy Ghost is called _The God and the Rock of Israel_, in 2 Sam. xxiii. 3. Now it seems very evident, that this is applied to him, by comparing it with the foregoing and following words; in which it is said, the Spirit of the Lord spake by me, and his word was in my tongue; and then we have an account of what be said, namely, _He that ruleth over man, must be just_, &c. It cannot, with any colour of reason, be supposed that there is more than one Person here intended, who imparted this to the prophet; and inasmuch as this Person is not only called the God, but also the Rock of Israel, that is a plain intimation that he is the almighty God of Israel, which is the sense of the metaphor, taken from a rock, when applied to God in other scriptures.

Again, it is said, in 1 Cor. iii. 16. _Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you._ Here it must be observed, that their being called the temple of God, who is said to dwell in them, denotes the inhabitant to be a divine Person, since a temple, according to the known acceptation of the word, always connotes a deity; and so it is called the house of God. Now he that dwelt in them, upon which account they are called his temple, is expressly said to be the Spirit of God, which is agreeable to what is said concerning him elsewhere, in chap. vi. 19. _Know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost, which_, or who, _is in you?_

(2.) He is called _Lord_; this seems very evident, from Isa. vi. 8, 9. _And I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then said I, Here am I, send me. And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye, indeed, but understand not_, &c. where we observe, that the person sending speaks both in the singular number and the plural, _Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?_ by the former expression, _Whom shall I send_, he evinces his divinity, as having a right to give a commission to the prophets, to declare his mind and will to man, which, as will be observed under a fol-head, none but a divine Person has a right to do; by the latter, _Who shall go for us_, he includes himself among the Persons in the Godhead, as it has before been observed[177]; _viz._ that when God is represented, as speaking in the plural number, a Trinity of Persons seems to be intended thereby.

But that which we shall principally consider is, that the Holy Ghost is here called _Lord_, which appears from what the apostle says, in Acts xxviii. 25, 26. _Well spake the Holy Ghost, by Esaias the prophet, unto our fathers, saying, Go unto this people, and say, Hearing, ye shall hear, and shall not understand_, &c.

It cannot be reasonably objected to this, that the apostle only refers to the book of Isaiah, and not to this particular part thereof; for though, indeed, these words, _Thus saith the Holy Ghost_, might be used, as a preface to any quotation from scripture, as all scripture is given by his inspiration; yet this message, referred to by the apostle, was not only transmitted by Esaias to the church, but it is distinguished from all those other things, which the Spirit of the Lord spake by him; and therefore it cannot be supposed that the apostle means, when referring to this scripture, any other than the Holy Ghost’s giving him this commission, when he says, _Well spake the Holy Ghost by him_; and consequently he that gave this commission, or spake thus to him, is the Holy Ghost, who is, in the foregoing words, called _the Lord_.

Moreover, there is another scripture, in 2 Cor. iii. 18. where it is said, _We are changed from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord_; or, as it is observed in the margin, _As by the Lord the Spirit_; which reading is certainly as proper as any other, and is preferred, by some, to it; and therefore it contains, at least, a probable argument that the Spirit is expressly called _Lord_.[178]

2. The Holy Ghost appears to be God, from those divine attributes that are ascribed to him. Accordingly,

(1.) He is said to be eternal, in Heb. ix. 24. Christ, _through the eternal Spirit, offered himself without spot to God_. I am sensible, many think this eternal Spirit signifies Christ’s eternal Godhead; which is so called, because of the spirituality of its nature; and that, in this place, it is designed to set forth the infinite value, which the oblation that he made of himself, in his human nature to God, received from the divine nature, to which it was united; which, though it be a very great truth, yet there does not seem to be so great a propriety in the expression, when we suppose the eternal Spirit is taken for the divine nature, as if it be understood of the Holy Ghost: and Christ may be said, by him, to have offered himself, without spot, to God, as implying, that the unction, which he received from the Holy Ghost, was the means to preserve him from all sinful defilement, upon which account his oblation was without blemish; and, indeed, it was no less necessary, in order to its being accepted, that it should be spotless, than that it should be of infinite value; therefore I must conclude, that it is the Holy Ghost who is here called the eternal Spirit.

Moreover, his eternity may be evinced from his having created all things, as he that made the world, and all finite things, wherewith time began, must be before them, and consequently from everlasting; by which the eternity of Christ was proved, under a foregoing head; and that the Holy Ghost made all things, will be proved under our next argument.

(2.) His immensity or omnipresence, is a farther proof of his deity; and this seems to be plainly contained in Psal. cxxxix. 7. _Whither shall I go from thy Spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence?_ _q. d._ there is no place where the Spirit is not; and it is allowed by all, that the divine immensity is here described in a very elegant manner; though, it is true, it is objected, that one part of this verse is exegetical of the other, and therefore the Psalmist, by the _Spirit_, intends nothing else but the presence of God; but it is equally, if not more probable, that the Spirit is distinguished from the presence of God, and consequently that he is a distinct Person in the Godhead; and this does not contain any strain upon the sense of the words, since the Spirit is so often spoken of in scripture as a Person, as has been before observed;[179] and therefore it is not strange that he should be mentioned as such in this text; and, if he be spoken of as a Person, it is beyond dispute that he is there proved to be a divine Person.