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.
(3.) He is said to be omniscient in 1 Cor. ii. 10. _The Spirit searcheth
all things; yea, the deep things of God._ To search, indeed, is a word
used in condescension to our common mode of speaking, as we arrive to
the knowledge of things by searching, or enquiry, though this idea is to
be abstracted from the word, when applied to God; for him to search, is
to know all things; and, in this sense, it is used, in Psal. cxxxix. 23,
24. _Search me, O God, and know my heart; try me, and know my thoughts;
and see if there be any wicked way in me_, &c. It does not imply the
manner of his knowing, but the exquisiteness of his knowledge; and so we
must understand it in this scripture, when applied to the Spirit’s
searching all things, in which we have an account of the objects of his
knowledge, namely, _the deep things of God_: thus he knows all those
things, which were hid in the divine mind from all eternity, and the
infinite perfections of the divine nature, which are incomprehensible to
a creature, and which none can, _by searching, find out to perfection_,
Job xi. 7. in which respect the highest creatures, _viz._ the angels,
are said to _be charged with folly_, whose knowledge is comparatively
imperfect, chap. iv. 18. Moreover, we may observe, that the manner of
the Spirit’s knowing all things, is not like ours, that is by inferring
consequences from premises, in a way of reasoning; for it is said, in
the verse immediately following, that _he knows the things of God_, in
such a way, as _a man knoweth the things of a man_, that is, his own
thoughts, by an internal principle of knowledge, not by revelation, or
any external discovery: thus the Spirit knows the divine nature, as
having it; therefore his omniscience is a plain proof of his Deity.
3. The Deity of the Holy Ghost may be farther evinced, from his
performing those works which are proper to God alone. And,
(1.) He is said to have created all things: thus, in Gen. i. 2. _The
Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters_; where, by the _Spirit
of God_, cannot be meant, as some suppose, the air or the wind; for that
was not created till the second day, when God made the firmament. Again,
it is said, in Job xxvi. 13. _By his Spirit he hath garnished the
heavens_; and, in chap. xxiii. 4. _The Spirit of God hath made me._ Some
of the Arians are so sensible that the Spirit is represented as the
Creator of all things as well as the Son; that they suppose him to be an
instrument to the Son in the creation thereof; which is as much as to
say, he is an instrument of an instrument; and, indeed, to say the Son
created all things, as an instrument, has been considered as an
indefensible notion;[180] but this is much more so.
(2.) Extraordinary or miraculous works, which are equivalent to
creation, have been performed by the Spirit; thus the apostle, speaking
concerning extraordinary gifts, subservient to the propagation of the
gospel, in the first preaching thereof, attributes them to the Spirit,
which he largely insists on, in 1 Cor. xii. and when he says, ver. 4, 5,
6. that _there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there
are differences of administrations, but the same Lord; and there are
diversities of operations, but it is the same God, which worketh all in
all_; which many who defend the doctrine of the Trinity, take for
granted, that it signifies all the Persons in the Godhead, that our
Saviour is called Lord, and the father God, therein; and some of the
Anti-trinitarians, from hence, would argue, that the Spirit is not God,
because he is distinguished from the Father, whom they suppose to be
there called God, I cannot but from hence conclude, that the Holy Spirit
is set forth under all these three names; and the works attributed to
him, notwithstanding the variety of expressions, are the same, and
included in that general term of spiritual gifts. And so I take the
meaning of the text to be this, there are diversities of gifts, or
extraordinary operations, which some were enabled to put forth in the
exercise of their ministry, which are all from the same Spirit, who is
called Lord and God, who has an infinite sovereignty, and bestows these
blessings as he pleases, as becomes a divine Person; and this agrees
very well with what is said, in ver. 11. _All these worketh that one and
the self-same Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will._
(3.) The Spirit of God commissioned and qualified ministers to preach
the gospel, and thereby to gather and build up churches, determining
that their ministry should be exercised in one place, and not in
another; which is a peculiar branch of the divine glory, and no one has
a right to do it, but a divine Person. A creature may as well pretend to
command the sun to shine, or stop its course in the heavens at his
pleasure, as he can commission a minister to preach the gospel, or
restrain the preaching thereof. And here we may observe, that the Holy
Ghost is plainly said to have called and appointed the apostles to
exercise their ministry in the first preaching of the gospel, after he
had, by conferring extraordinary gifts upon them, qualified them for it;
and accordingly he speaks in a style truly divine, in Acts xiii. 2. _The
Holy Ghost said, separate me Barnabas and Saul, for the work whereunto I
have called them_; and, in Acts xx. 28. the apostle tells the elders, or
ministers of the church at Ephesus, that _the Holy Ghost had made them
overseers._ We read also of the Spirit’s determining where they should
exercise their ministry; thus he commanded Philip to go and preach the
gospel to the eunuch, in Acts viii. 29. _Then the Spirit said unto
Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot_; and, at another
time, the Spirit bade Peter to go and preach the gospel to Cornelius,
when he doubted whether it were lawful for him to do it or no, in Acts
x. 19, 20. _The Spirit said unto him, Behold, three men seek thee;
therefore get thee down, and go with them, doubting nothing, for I have
sent them_; and, at another time, it is said, in Acts xvi. 6, 7. _They
were forbidden of the Holy Ghost to preach the word in Asia_; and that
_they assayed to go into Bithynia, but the Spirit suffered them not_;
and, in ver. 9, 10. the apostle Paul was ordered, in a vision, to go to
Macedonia; which command he obeyed, _assuredly gathering that the Lord_,
that is, the Spirit, _had called him to preach the gospel unto them_.
Nothing can be a greater argument of the sovereignty of the Holy Ghost,
in what respects this matter, which was of the highest importance;
therefore it is an evident proof of his divinity. But to this we may
add,
(4.) That his divinity farther appears from the unction, which he
conferred on our Saviour, to perform the work of a Mediator in his human
nature: thus it is said, in Isa. lxi. 1. _The Spirit of the Lord God is
upon me, because the Lord hath anointed me to preach good tidings to the
meek_, &c. And this is particularly referred to, as signifying our
Saviour’s unction by the Holy Ghost, in Luke iv. 18, 19. _The Spirit of
the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me_, &c. And, indeed, it
is not denied that this is spoken of the Holy Ghost, even by those who
do not infer his deity from it; accordingly it is inserted, by a late
writer, among those scriptures that speak particularly of the Holy
Ghost;[181] and it would be a great strain on the sense of the text, to
suppose that _he hath anointed me_, refers to the Father, and not to the
Spirit. As to the meaning of the word _unction_, it is borrowed from the
ceremonial law, under which the prophets, priests, and kings were
publickly anointed with oil, as used to signify the warrant, or
commission, they had received from God, to execute these offices,
together with the qualifications which were to be expected for the
discharge thereof. In this sense our Saviour is said to have been
anointed by the Holy Ghost, to wit, in his human nature, in which he was
obliged to yield obedience and subjection to God, and accordingly he was
authorized and qualified to perform this obedience by the Holy Ghost; so
that, how difficult soever it was, it might be discharged by him,
without the least failure or defect therein, as we observed before, that
it was owing hereunto, that his oblation was without spot: the work was
certainly extraordinary, and consequently the glory redounding to the
Holy Ghost from hence, is such as proves him to be a divine Person.
(5.) He farther appears to be so, inasmuch as the work of grace, both as
to the beginning, progress, and completing of it, in the souls of
believers, is ascribed to him, as well as to the Father and the Son.
That this is a work of God’s almighty power, and consequently too great
to be performed by any creature; and that the Holy Ghost is, in
particular, the author thereof, we shall here take for granted, without
attempting to prove it, which would not be a just method of reasoning,
were we not led to insist on this subject, under some following answers,
in which this will be more particularly proved.[182] And if the work
appears to be the effect of the exceeding greatness of the power of God,
whereby we are regenerate and sanctified, and enabled to overcome all
the opposition which attends it, till we are brought to glory, then he,
who is the author hereof, will evidently appear to be the God of all
grace; and therefore we shall proceed to consider,
4. That the Holy Ghost appears to be God, inasmuch as he has a right to
divine worship. That none but a divine Person has a right hereunto, has
been already proved; and that the Spirit has a right to it, might be
evinced, from his having those divine perfections, which, as has been
before observed, are ascribed to him in scripture; since he has the
perfections of the divine nature, which are the objects of adoration,
then it follows, that he is to be adored; and if he has performed those
works, which argue him to be the proprietor of all things, this must be
acknowledged; and if all that grace, which is necessary to make us meet
for the heavenly blessedness, be his work and gift, it follows from
hence, that he is to be sought to for it, which is a great branch of
religious worship. But this being only an improvement of, or a deduction
from those foregoing arguments, laid down to prove his Deity, we shall
enquire whether we have not something that contains in it the obligation
of a command, or whether there are not some examples, which are
equivalent thereunto, which will farther warrant our giving divine
worship to him. Some suppose, that that prayer is directed to the Holy
Ghost, which is mentioned in Acts i. 24, 25. _Thou, Lord, which knoweth
the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen, that
he may take part of this ministry and apostleship_; and the reason of
this supposition is, because the designation of persons to the exercise
of their ministry, as well as the extraordinary gifts with which they
were furnished, is peculiarly applied to the Holy Ghost in this book;
therefore, it is supposed, they prayed to the Holy Ghost, that he would
signify whom he had chosen to the apostleship, in the room of Judas, of
those two that were nominated by them; but this being, at most, but a
probable argument, I shall lay no stress upon it.
But, I humbly conceive, that we have a more evident example of prayer
made to the Holy Ghost, in 2 Thess. iii. 5. _The Lord direct your hearts
into the love of God, and into the patient waiting for Christ_; it seems
more than probable that the Holy Ghost, who is here called Lord, is
prayed to; for he is distinguished from the Father and Son; and the
apostle prays to him that he would direct them into the love of the
Father, and enable them patiently, to wait for the Son.
Again, there is another instance hereof, in 1 Thess. iii. 12, 13. _The
Lord make you to increase and abound in love one towards another, to the
end, that he may establish your hearts unblameable in holiness before
God our Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ_; where the Holy
Ghost seems to be the person prayed to; and is plainly distinguished
from the Father and Son, inasmuch as what is prayed to him for, is their
being holy before the Father, at the coming of the Son.