« PreviousContinue »
applicable to David, but to God only. Nor eould David have uttered these sacred expressions by an impulse of the Spirit, unless the Holy Spirit were Jehovah. The authority of what is spoken by the prophets is entirely founded on him by whose impulse they speak; and since that authority is Divine, it can be founded upon none but God. Consider by all means the reasoning of the Apostle Peter in his second Epistle, where he founds the whole strength and authority of prophecy, by which we are laid under obligations to faith and obedience, on this consideration, that holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.s
XVIII. Let us go on to another instance. Jehovah, and he alone, conducted the journey of Israel through the wilderness. "JEHOVAH alone did lead him, and "there was no strange God with him." We here speak, it is manifest, of supreme and sovereign leading; and let none object that Moses, as the servant of God, under Him, conducted the people out of Egypt. The Israelites, too, provoked that Jehovah by their rebellion." Now Isaiah ascribes all this to the Holy Spirit: "As a beast goeth down into the valley, the Spirit of "the Lord caused him to rest ;" and again, "They "rebelled and vexed his Holy Spirit." What can we infer from this, but that the Holy Spirit is that very Jehovah to whom the Israelites rendered so ungrateful a return for their deliverance, and to whom, nevertheless, the whole glory of it was due.
XIX. No less conclusive is the observation which we shall now offer. None will deny that he is the
2 Pet. i. 19, 20, 21.
u Ex. xvii. 7.
* Verse 10.
t Deut. xxxii. 12.
v Is. lxiii. 14.
true and supreme God, whom Isaiah beheld sitting on a lofty throne, whilst the seraphim were standing above it ;-whom he calls "the King, Jehovah of "hosts"--and from whose mouth he heard those words, "Go and tell this people, hear ye indeed, but under“stand not, - - - make the heart of this people fat,” &c. If therefore it shall be shown, that the Holy Spirit is the person who spoke these words to Isaiah, nothing further seems to be wanting to establish his Divinity. Now of this we are assured by Paul; "Well SPAKE THE HOLY GHOST by Esaias the pro
phet unto our fathers, saying, Go unto this people “and say, Hearing ye shall hear," &c. Could any thing be spoken more expressly? Yes, say our adversaries; for Paul does not affirm that the Holy Ghost spoke these words to Isaiah, but by Isaiah to the fathers. But he could not have spoken these words by Isaiah, unless he had first spoken them to Isaiah. Nay, the expressions which the Apostle attributes to the Holy Spirit, "Go unto this people and say," &c. were not addressed directly or immediately to the fathers, but to Isaiah. We have another instance of the same sophistry, when they allege, that by this manner of reasoning it is possible to show that the Holy Spirit is Christ, since, according to our interpretation, the same words are elsewhere attributed to him. Truly reason here abandons them entirely. By comparing these passages it may and ought to be shown, that the Holy Spirit is one and the same God with Christ: it cannot be proved, that he is the same person. What is here said, is of such a nature, that it cannot be affirmed of
x Is. vi.
* John xii. 41.
y Acts xxviii. 25, 26.
one that is not God; not such as can apply only to one person. Nay, that these are the words of a plurality of persons, who, nevertheless, are one God, is intimated by the very expression which the Lord uses in Isaiah; "Whom shall I SEND? and who will go for US?"a
xx. It is usual to adduce for the same purpose the last words of David: "The Spirit of Jehovah spake by me, and his word was in my tongue. The God "of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spake to me, &c."b Here, according to the opinion of many, the same person who is first called the Spirit of Jehovah, is styled the God of Israel, and the Rock of Israel. We choose rather to expound this passage, however, in a manner somewhat different; which we may certainly do without offence. We do not think that the God and the Rock of Israel, mentioned in the third verse, are intended to denote the same person who is previously called the Spirit of Jehovah, in the second verse. It seems more proper to understand by the God of Israel, the Father;-by the Rock of Israel, Christ who upholds Israel, and who has undertaken that the Church shall be built on himself as the foundation;-by the Spirit of Jehovah, the third person. Thus we find the whole Trinity here, and something also relative to the Holy Spirit, which irrefragably proves his Deity. When David says, The Spirit of Jehovah spake to me, or in me, or by me, in whichever way you choose to render it, he shows that he has for the foundation of his confidence, not the words of Samuel, or of Nathan, or of Gad, who were employed as instruments, but the words of the Holy Spirit, who had not only spoken to him by
a Is. vi. 6.
2 Sam. xxiii. 2, 3.
them, but had also, with greater and truly divine power, entered into the recesses of his own mind, and caused him to speak to others from the full assurance of faith. Hence arises an argument as follows. He who principally spoke to David, in David, and by David, is the true and the Most High God. But the Holy Spirit so spoke. Therefore, the Holy Spirit is the true and the Most High God. Crellius himself has furnished us with the major proposition. The assumption is proved from David's confessing that himself and his tongue were the instruments of the Spirit; and he whose instruments the prophets are, is himself the chief cause of divine revelations.
XXI. Peter supplies us with a very powerful argument for the Divinity of the Holy Spirit in Acts v. 3, 4; where he uses an expression relating to the Holy Spirit, which served to show that the lie told by Ananias was a most abominable and heinous sin. Now, nothing tends more to aggravate that sin, than to observe, that it was not committed against mere men, such as the Apostles were, but against the Holy Ghost. Nothing, besides, is more adapted to prove that the lie told to the Holy Ghost is a most heinous sin, than this other observation, that he who lies to the Holy Ghost, lies to God himself. This reasoning of the Apostle, however, would not hold, if the Holy Spirit were not God. Adversaries urge two exceptions here. First, they allege "that it is said to Ananias, that "he lied to God; it is not said that he lied to the
Holy Ghost, but that he pretended to the Holy "Ghost."* The words in the Greek,† they add, may
Ananiæ dici quod mentitus sit Deo, non dici quod mentitus sit Spiritui Sancto: sed quod mentitus sit Spiritum Sanctum.
+ ψεύσασθαι σε το πνεῦμα το άγιον.
signify either to pretend to the Holy Spirit, as Erasmus and others render them, or to deceive the Holy Spirit, according to Piscator and others. And the change of the case in the original language, say they, is not accidental but intended, lest any should imagine that he who had just been styled the Holy Ghost, is called God. Their other objection is, that although our interpretation were admitted, it could no more follow from it, that the Holy Spirit is God, than it can be inferred that the Apostles are God, from the parallel reasoning of Paul in the first Epistle to the Thessalonians: "He, therefore, that despiseth, despiseth not man, but God." To these objections we reply, 1st, The Greeks construe the word voαodas with a Dative or an Accusative indiscriminately.* 2dly, The exposition of Erasmus is quite foreign. Ananias, by keeping back part of the price, which is the matter referred to, could not pretend that he had the Holy Ghost. Peter himself, too, gives a different account of the matter, when he says, "How is it that ye "have agreed together, to tempt the Spirit of the "Lord?" To deceive the Holy Ghost, as Piscator chooses to interpret the expression, that is, to attempt to deceive, is either nothing else than to lie to him, or even something more. The scope of the Apostle's argument,
* Of many examples that might be given, let the four following suffice. Is. lvii. 11. Τίνα ἐυλαβηθεῖσα ἐφοβήθης καὶ ἐψεύσω με. Euripid. in Iphigen. Ημας δ ̓ ὁ Φοῖβος, μαντις ἀν, ἐψεύσατο. Joseph. Αntiq. lib. iii. cap. 10. Ψευσαμένη τὸν ἄνδρα ἐπι τοῖς γαμοις, και τὸν Θεόν ἐπι τοῖς ὅρκοις. Herodian, lib. ii. cap. 10. Πρὸς δε των ἔχει στρατιωτῶν, ὃς ἐψεύσατο, ἐκ ἔτι πιστεύεται. In all these quotations, the word in question is construed with the Accusative, and can have no other signification than to lie, or to impose upon.
Chap. iv. 8.
d Verse 9.