22. On the Distinction and Divinity of the Holy Spirit

ON THE DISTINCTION AND DIVINITY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. The same sacred Scriptures, which disclose the unify of God, disclose also certain distinctions, or a plurality m the divine nature. Immediately after it is related that God created the heaven and the earth, it is related that “the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” This difference of phraseology used to express divine operations, affords evidence that there IS m the divine nature ground for certain distinctions.

If the Spirit of God were in no respect different from God, it is hard to conceive why the inspired historian should make so sudden change of the divine name; that he should first use a noun of plural number and then a noun singular, which was embraced in that plurality. When such distinctions are made in the inspired writings they are worthy of notice and investigation. The Spirit, under various names, is a prominent character in the Bible. From his works, his names, his attributes, and his connection with the Father and the Son, may be inferred his nature and character. The works of the Spirit are an evidence of his particular agency, and of his divinity. When the heaven and earth were created, “the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.” At this time, when matter was in a chaotic state, and there was no vitality in the shapeless mass, “The Spirit of God moved upon” (or hovered over ON THE DISTINCTION AND DIVINITY, &C. 301 ilSri^D) “the face of the waters.” At this earlystage of creation, the water was not collected into separate bodies, but covered the whole earth. In the original, the word, which is translated Spirit, also signifies wind. Some have, therefore, supposed that only the wind of God passed over the face of the waters. But there are objections to this construction.

There is no evidence that the subtil fluid, the atmosphere, was then created. If it were created as soon as the grosser matter of the earth, it can hardly be supposed that it was put in motion so as to become wind before the light and heat of the sun existed. It is more natural to suppose that the Spirit of God organized the matter, which was created, and infused into it prolific qualities. If it is the peculiar province of the Spirit to give spiritual life and restore order, it is easy to suppose that part of his work was to give natural life and establish order. If God, without manifested distinctions of Father, Son, and Spirit, created all things, it is not absurd to attribute to each, when these distinctions were disclosed, the whole work, or any of its parts.

^’By his Spirit he hath garnished the heavens; his hand hath formed the crooked serpent;” i. e. a constellation of this name. It cannot reasonably be supposed that this text imports that by wind he hath decorated the sky with stars and planets; neither can it be supposed that in connection with this it would be added that his hand had formed a constellation of a certain name. But let it be admitted, as it is in our translation of the Bible, that the Spirit of God adorned the heavens with stars, and that God’s hand formed the constellation, the crooked serpent, then it follows that the same work, which is attributed to God, is also attributed to his Spirit.

Elihu reasoning with Job said, “The Spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life.” In this passage he connects the operation of the Spirit with the operation of the Almighty;

302 ON THE DISTINCTION AND DIVINITY to one he attributes his life, to the other he attributes his formation. After man was formed of the dust of the ground, “the Lord God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” In this text the word God, in the original is of plural number. Of course, it embraces all that is included in the divine plurality; and if the Spirit of God is any thing, which belongs to God, it embraces him; and consequently the life of the first man may be attributed to him. The Psalmist in his meditation on the majesty of God, the dependence of creatures, and their dissolution, observes, “Thou sendest forth thy Spirit, they are created” (or renewed.) In these passages, creative power is attributed to the Spirit. The sending of teachers to instruct mankind is applied to God; to Christ; and it is also applied to the Holy Ghost. God, by his prophet Jeremiah, said, “I have even sent unto you all my servants the prophets.”

“These twelve Jesus sent forth and commanded them, saying, the kingdom of heaven is at hand. Heal the sick; cleanse the lepers; raise the dead; cast out devils; freely ye have received; freely give.” The Holy Ghost does the same work. The prophet Isaiah says, “The Lord God and his Spirit hath sent me.”

“The Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto / have called them. So they being sent forth by the Holy Ghost, departed into Sileucia. Take heed, therefore, unto yourselves and to all the flock over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers.”

God, Christ and the Holy Spirit communicate knowledge to teachers and people. “They shall be all taught of God. God shall reveal even this unto you.” The apostle Paul speaking of the Gospel says, “Neither was I taught it but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.” The Lord Jesus taught him what to do when he arrested him on his way to Damascus. The Holy Spirit also reveals or teaches. “It was revealed unto him, (Simeon) by the Holy Ghost that OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 303 he should not see death before he had seen the Lord’s Christ.” “The Comforter — he shall teach you all things; and bring all things to your remembranqc, whatsoever I have said unto you.” God spake by those, whom he sent. “God — spake in time past unto the Fathers by the prophets. The Holy Spirit spake by the apostles. Christ cautioned his disciples not to premeditate what they should say when they should be brought before councils; and he adds, whatsoever shall be given you in that hour that speak ye; for it is not ye that speak, but the Holy Ghost.”

God, Christ and the Holy Spirit dwell in believers.

*’Knovv ye not that ye are the temple of God. — If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are. Ye are the temple of the living God, as God hath said, I will dwell in them. Know ye not your ownselves how that Jesus Christ is in you except ye be reprobates? That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith.” The same is said of the Holy Spirit.

“Even the Spirit of truth — dwelleth with you and shall be in you. He that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you. Know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost, which is in you? Know ye not that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you.’*”

Sanctification is attributed to the Father, to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit. Jude addressed his epistle “to them that are sanctified by God the Father.” Of Christ it is said, “both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one; for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren.” The Holy Spirit is the Author of sanctification. “God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit.” The second birth is attributed indiscriminately to God and to the Holy Spirit. “Which were born, not of blood, — but of God. Whosoever is born of God 304 ON THE DISTINCTION AND DIVINlTr^ doth not commit sin. Whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world.” The same work is attributed to the Spirit. ’Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Not by â- works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us by the washing of reireneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost.”

God leadeth his people. “I am the Lord thy God, which leadeth thee by the way thou shouldest go.”

Christ leadeth them. “He calleth his own sheep by name and leadeth them.” The Holy Spirit does the office of leader. “As many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. If ye be led by the Spirit, ye are not under the law.” Not only God and Christ are called life; but the Holy Spirit is called by this name. “The Spirit is ///e.” He is the Author of spiritual life. The dead are raised by the Father, by the Son and by the Spirit. “The Father raiseth up the dead and qulckeneth theoi.” “We should not trust in ourselves, but in God, which raiseth the dead.”

Christ is the resurrection and the life. “The Son qulckeneth whom he will.” “Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up.” The resurrection of Christ’s body is attributed to the Holy Spirit.

“Christ — being put to death in the flesh but quickened by the Spirit^ The Holy Spirit strives with sinners. When the antediluvian world had become exceedingly corrupt, God declared that his Spirit should not always strive with man. The commands, “Quench not the Spirit; grieve not the Spirit of God,” imply that people are the subjects of the operation of the Spirit. The declaration of Stephen in answer to his accusation^

“Ye do always resist the Holy Ghost, as your fathers did, so do ye,” supposes that the Holy Spirit exercises influence upon the human mind. He convinces of sin.

He changes the heart. He sanctifies human nature.

OP THE HOLY SPIRIT. 305 Where he has begun a good work he will carry It on until the day of Jesus Christ. The Spirit also helpeth our infirmities, for we know not what we should pray for as we ought; but the Spirit itself maketh intercession ibr us. The texts, which have just been quoted attribute certain works to the Spirit. It is evident that the name Spirit or Holy Spirit does not signify Father nor Son; for it is used both in connection with them and it is used separately. Why should he be represented as the Author of different works, if there were not some ground of distinction in the divine Nature, by which he could act, in a certain sense, distinctly from the Father and the Son? Some divine works arc performed by the divine Being in plurality. Other works are performed in a particular manner by the Father, or by the Son, or by the Holy Spirit. In the economy of redemption each has his peculiar office and work.

They act so far distinctly that each performs works, peculiar to his office. They act so far unitedly that some of the same works are attributed to each. From the divine works there appears to be as much distinction between the Spirit and the Son, or the Spirit and the Father, as there is between the Son and the Father; and the Spirit appears to have a particular office and work no less than either. The texts, which have been quoted, not only represent the Holy Spirit acting in a distinct office, but they represent him acting in union with the Father and the Son. The same works, which are attributed to them are also attributed to him. The act of creation, of sending teachers, of instructing them, of speaking by them, of dwelling in believers and leading them; of changing the heart and sanctifying it, and of raising the dead arc attributed to him, and to the Father and the Son. If he were not divine he would not be united with them in these divine works. If he were not, in some respect, distinct, they would not be attributed to him. Although there is a distinction in the 39 306 ON THE DISTINCTION AND DIVINITY divine nature; yet there is such a unity that man J things, which are predicated of one are predicated of the others.

It belongs pecuh’arly to the office of the Spirit in the work of salvation to strive with sinners; to convince them of sin; to change their hearts; to carry on the work of sanctrfication; to give light and comfort ta believers. He strove with the old world to reclaim them. He strove with sinners in the apostles’ daySy and he has striven with them in every age. It is hcy Vi^ho changeth the disposition of the heart; guides the mind into all truth, and administers consolation. In the apostolic age, he was the Author of miraculous gifts. At a time when the apostles were together, “There came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues, like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance.” The multitude, which was composed of many nations, heard them speak in their own language.^ These works of the Spirit require divine attributes. To pass over those works, which he performed in common with the Father and the Son, those acts, which are peculiar to his distinct office must be attributed to divine power. If it required divine power to create, it required equal power to repair the defaced works of creation. If it required divine power to form man, it requires the same power to renew his fallen nature. It requires as great etfort to change, as to form a nature. The Spirit, without doing violence to the human will, and without infringing upon moral freedom, changes the disposition of the heart. Power less than divine cannot change nature or its laws. In order to strive with man; to change his heart, and to lead him in the ways of truth and holiness, it is necessary to have a perfect knowledge of the human mind. If the Holy Spirit did not know the disposition of all hearts, he might not know on which to OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 307 feestow his influei)ce, and what degrees of energy to put forth, to elTectuate a change of different hearts.

He needs to know what is in man, in order to remove the evil and set him right. It is not doubted that holy and fallen angels have access to the human mind and have influence upon it. But the sacred scriptures do not attribute a power of changing the heart to either. The apostle Paul, speaking of those great preparations, which are made in the other world for those, who love God, adds, “God hath revealed them to us by his Spirit; for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.” The deep things of God relate to the salvation of man. These things the angels desire to look into; but by reason of their finite powers, it appears, they are unable. But the Spirit searcheth these things, and is perfectly acquainted with them. He as fully knows the things of God, as the Spirit of a man knows the things of a man. The revelation of the divine will by the Spirit, is an argument in favor of his divine knowledge. “God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit.” He did not reveal them to his Spirit; for the Spirit of God knoivcth the things of God. These things the Spirit communicated to the prophets and apostles. “Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the HoJv Ghost.”

Wisdom is also attributed to the Spirit. When it was prophesied that a Branch should grow out of the root of Jesse, it was also prophesied, “the Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him; the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, the Spirit of counsel and might, the Spirit of knowledge.” The communications made by the Spirit to ra,en, afford evidence of his particular agency and divinity.

“There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. To one is given by the Spirit, the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit. To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit; to another the 5 308 O.N THE DISTINCTION AND DIVINITY working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning ot” spirits; to another diverse kinds of tongues. But all these worketh that one and the self same Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he xvilV There is no intimation given that the Spirit derived his power and authority from a superior Being to bestojv these miraculous gifts on the apostles. When the prophets and apostles wrought miracles, they attributed the works ultimately to God. But the Spiirt distributed these gifts as he would. This conveys the idea of his independence. If miraculous operations are an evidence of the existence of God, they are, when attributed absolutely to the Holy Spirit, an equal evidence of his divinity. The sacred scriptures afford evidence that the Spirit is omnipresent. Various texts convey the idea that the Influence of the Spirit is shed abroad in mankind generally. “My Spirit shall not always strive with man. Ye do always resist the Holy Ghost; as your fathers did, so do ye.” The influence of the Spirit upon believers is repeatedly asserted in the word of God. It was a petition of the Psalmist, “Take not thy Holy Spirit from me.” “The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit that we are the children of God.” If operation in the material and intelligent world forms an argument in favor of God’s omnipresence, operation of the same extent in the moral world, forms an equal argument in favor of the omnipresence of the Spirit, and consequently of his divinity. The question of the Psalmist, “Whither shall I go from thy Spirit?” implies that it was impossible to flee from his presence.

Goodness is attributed to the Spirit. The Psalmist saith, “Thy Spirit is good.” Goodness is attributed to the Father and the Son. If it be a divine attribute in them, there is no cause to say, it is not a divine attribute when applied to him. The Spirit is eternal. The apostle Paul to the Hebrews, speaking of the sacrifice of Christ, says. OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 309 “who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God.” The names given to the Spirit are an evidence of his divinity. He is, by way of eminence, caDed the Holy Spirit. This title is equivalent to that given to God, the Holy One. It is with peculiar propriety that he is called the Holy Spirit, or Spirit of Holiness.

He is not only holy himself, but he is the Author of holiness in the human heart. He is called the Spirit of truth. He revealed truth to the prophets and apostles; led them into all truth, and enabled them to communicate it to the world. When he, the Spirit of truth is come, he will guide you into all truth, and will shew you things to come.

He is called the Holy Spirit of promise. The Spirit was promised through the medium of John the Baptist. Christ, just before his ascension into heaven, observed to his disciples, “I send the promise of the Father unto you.” So frequently had the Spirit been promised, that it was with propriety he was called “the Promise,” or the Spirit of promise. He is also called the Spirit of wisdom and knowledge, and the eternal Spirit. Christ styles him the Comforter, Christ said to his disciples, “the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things. If I go not away the Comforter will not come unto you.” He gives comfort to sinners by changing their hearts and giving them an enjoyment, which they never before experienced. He gives comfort to believers by increasing light in their minds; and by leading them forward toward heaven. He witnesscth with their spirits that they are born of God. The fruit of the Spirit is love; love to God and man.

It is joy; joy arising from holy affections and fiom divine service. It is pence: peace ol” mind and peace in society. It is long-suffering; it is a patient beai’ing of injuries. It is gentleness; softness of manners.

310 ON THE DISTINCTION AND DlVINWr

It is goodness; a kind disposition carried into operation. It is faith; confidence in divine promises, and fidelity in trusts and engagements. It is meekness; calmness under provocations. It is temperance; a moderate use of the bounties of providence. These virtues are the fruit of the Spirit. Such holy fruit indicates that the Spirit is holy and divine. The Father and the Son send the Holy Spirit to do the v?orks of his office. John the Baptist, speaking of Christ said, “He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire.” Agreeably to this declaration, Christ after his ascension sent down the Holy Spirit upon his apostles; and cloven tongues like as of fire sat upon each of them, and they were filled with the Holy Ghost. “How much more shall your heavenly Yather give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him.”

“When the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father.” Christ saith, “/ ivill send him unto you.” “The Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him. Because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying. Abba, Father.” Because the Spirit is sent by the Father and the Son, it is probable he is called sometimes the Spirit of the Father, and sometimes the Spirit of Christ.

If the Spirit is sent by the Father and by Christ, it is only an official subjection; it ioaplies no inferiority of nature. The covenant of redemption was made between the Blather and the Son, and the Spirit, and they are employed in the salvation of this fallen world. So intimate is the union between them that one can do nothing without the other; and what is attributed to one is generally attributed to either; and yet they are so distinct that particular names, offices and works are given to each.

Divine honors are given to the Holy Spirit. The ordinance of baptism is administered in the name of fhe Father, and of the Sod, and of the Holy Ghost. OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 311 By this ordinance persons are consecrated to thesaeredi Three. If it be an ascription of honor to the Father to consecrate one’s self or his oflspring to his service, it is an equal honor to the Son to make such consecration to him; and it is the same honor to the Holy Spirit to make the same consecration to him. By making a dedication to the Father, Son and Spirit, it conveys an idea of distinction in the divine nature. When people are baptized in, or into the name (“not names”) of the Father, Son and Spirit, it implies that one name, the name God, is common to them all. It is hard to conceive why these three are unitedly named in the ordinance of baptism, if there be not a union of nature subsisting between them, and the same honor is not conferred on each. The blessing, “which the apostle Paul pronounced upon the Corinthian church, gives the same honor to the Spirit as to the Father, and Son. “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with you all.” Here again the Three are united, and the same honor is given to each.

It is a great sin to oppose or speak against the Holy Spirit. The prophet Isaiah, speaking of the Jews under the blessings of Heaven, says, “They rebelled and vexed his Holy Spirit; therefore he was turned to be their enemy; and he fought against them.” Particular commands are given in the sacred scriptures not to sin against the Spirit. “Grieve not the Holy Spirit of God. Quench not the Spirit.” If there were not something in the divine nature peculiar to him, it is hard to conceive why he should be singled out by name; and his rights be secured by a barrier of divine commands. The martyr Stephen addressed his unbelieving audience as great sinners, because they always resisted the Holy Ghost. So great is the guilt of the sin against the Holy Spirit, that the apostle Paul expressly declares that it is impossible for those, who were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, if they fall away, to renew them again 312 ON THE DISTINCTION AND DIVINITY to repentance. There is a sin unto death. Supplication is not to be made to God for its remission. This is thought by many to be a sin against the Holy Ghost. The apostle Peter charged Ananias and Sapphira with tempting the Spirit of the Lord; with lying to the Holy Ghost. He added, “thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.” It is noticable that, in these passages, lying to the Holy Ghost is lying to God. So great was their sin that their lives were miraculously taken from them.

Christ, in answer to the Pharisees who accused him of casting out devils by Beelzebub, said, “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 that which is to come.” This declaration of the Savior proves the great criminality of sin against the Holy Spirit. Whether it is more criminal in its nature to speak against the Holy Spirit, than it is to speak against the Father or the Son, it is not the province of human reason to decide. It is sufficient that Christ has said, this sin is unpardonable. The decision of divine authority upon this subject proves that it is, at least, as criminal to sin against him, as it is to sin against the Father or Son. This is a forcible evidence in proof of the Spirit’s distinction, of his divinity, and of his claim to divine service. When the sacred scriptures represent the Holy Spirit, possessing certain attributes, and acting in a certain office; when they give him divine names, attribute to him divine properties, and divine works; ascribe to him divine honors, and represent sin against him to be the only one which is unpardonable, there appears to be as much proof of his distinction and divinity, as there is of the distinction and divinity of the Father or Son.

OP THE HOLY SPIRIT. 313 1. It is proper to notice some objeclions, which are brought against the divinity of the Holy Spirit.

It is thought by some that the Hoiy Spirit is the fulness of the Godhead; or the productive, efficient emanations of divine fuhicss; that the Holy Spirit bears the same relation to God as the rays of the sun bear to the sun. This comparison appears to be defective. The rays of the sun are not the fulness of the sun. They are not a source from which light and heat proceed. It is not philosophical to say, light proceeds from light; and heat proceeds from heat. The rays of the sun depend on the sun. If the sun were extinguished, his rays would cease. Subordination, but not dependence, is attributed, in the scriptures, to the Spirit. They attribute to him sovereignty, when they represent him distributing miraculous gifts severally as he will. If the Holy Spirit be but an emanation of the Deity, it appears highly improper that a proper name should be given him; that divine attributes should be attributed to him; and that he should be represented in an official capacity. If he be sometimes represented passively, or as the operation or effect of the Deity, it is when he acts in his office in subordination to the Father and the Son, or when his operations are spoken of.

2. The distinction and divinity of the Holy Spirit is denied, because he is called the Spirit o/* God; as divine power is called the power of God; as a human spirit is called the spirit of a man. Hence it is inferred that the Spirit of God bears the same relationship to God as his attributes bear to him; or as the spirit of a man bears to a man. It is true the Holy Spirit is represented as something belonging to God. So the Father and the Son are represented as something belonging to God, or the divine nature. But this does not deprive them of divinity. The Holy Spirit is sometimes called the Spirit of the Father, and sometimes he is called the Spirit of Christ. If the Holy Matthew 314 ON THE DISTINCTION AND DIVINITY

Spirit bears the same relation to the Father and Son as the spirit of a man bears to a man, and the Father and Son be two entirely distinct beings, it follows that there are two Holy Spirits. It is probable the Holy Spirit is called the Spirit of God or of the Father, because he is sent by him and acts in subordination to him. The spirit of man does not mean the man, so the Holy Spirit of God does not mean the divine nature without its distinctions; but it means one of the divine plurality.

3. ’The breath of the Lord is used as synonymous with the Spirit of the Lord. The hand of the Lord and the Spirit of the Lord are used as synonymous. I’he finger of God and the Spirit of God are synonymous.” From this statement it is inferred that it is not proper or respectful to speak of one self-existent person as the breath, the hand, the finger of another co-equal person. In reply to this objection, it is worthy of notice that the origuial word, which is translated spirit, also signifies breath, or wind. As wind is a powerful, subtle, invisible agent, there is a propriety in giving the same name to the Spirit, whose operations are powerful, subtle and invisible. It is a striking trait in the Hebrew language that one word is used to signify different things, when there is a striking analogy or resemblance between those thinsfs. Because the Spirit is called by a name, which signifies breath or wind, it does not follow that he is this substance. When God is called a Rock, it does not mean that he is a rock, but that there is a striking resemblance between them. It is no more disrespectful to the Spirit to call him by a name signifying breath or wind, than it is to call God a fire, and Christ a fountain. It is not disrespectful to apply pertinently figurative language to the divine nature.

Because people work with their hands or fingers, God is said to work in the same manner. As the Spirit is in his hand to send him where he please! h, OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 315 it is proper to s;iy by a figure of speech, when he worketh by his Spirit, that he worketh with his hand. This mode of speech is adapted to our capacities.

We have not an adequate idea of the operations of pure Spirit.

4. As the sending or giving the Spiiit is represented by pouring out, shedding forth, sprinkhng, washing or baptizing; and the descent of the Spirit is compared to the descent of rain and dew, it is thought to be improper to apply this metaphorical language to the Spirit, if he be one of the Trinity. The propriety of this figurative language, when applied to the Spirit, arises from the nature, the operations, and the eifects of the Spirit. Pouring out, sprinkling, washing, &c. are literally applied to water.

They are figuratively applied to the operations of the Spirit, because the Spirit is, in his nature, like water, pure. In his effects he is, like water, purifying. Like water he invigorates and fructifies. Like the rain and dew he is gentle in his operation. When there is such a striking similarity between the Spirit and water, it is proper to take those phrases, which are literally applied to water and apply them figuratively to the Spirit. Such pertinent figurative allusions do not militate against the divinity of the Spirit. If the Holy Spirit be but an emanation of divine fulness, it would be as uncouth to apply the phrase, pour out, to such an emanation as to apply it to ihe operations of the Holy Spirit. The difficulty arises from confounding figurative, with plain language.

5. God’s giving his Spirit without measure to Christ is thought to militate against the divine nature of the Spirit. The man Christ Jesus received extraordinary communications of the Spirit. He received greater aid from him than the prophets or apostles received.

Because he received such copious effusions of the Spirit, it is said the Spirit was given to him not by measure; i. e. abundantly. It argues no more against the divinity of the Spirit that he was given to Christ 316 ON THE DISTINCTION AND DIVINITY without measure, than that he was given to the prophets and apostles by measure. By measure and without measure denote the different degrees of the gilts or aid of” the Spirit.

6. Because the original word in the New Testament, translated Spirit, and the articles and pronouns, agreeing with it or referring to it, are of neuter gender, it is inferred that the Spirit is not of divine nature. The Hebrew word for Spirit is of masculine termination. But not to insist on this, the Greek word for Spirit in this text, “God is a Spirit;” is of neuter gender. But the use of this gender in this passage does not prove that God is a mere thing, and not a divine Being. The Greek word for the spirit of man, for holy and for fallen spirits is of neuter gender. But this carries no evidence that the spirit of man is not human, or that the spirit of angels is not angelic. The Greek words for babe, and for children, whether they be youth or the children of God, are of neuter gender. But this use of this gender does not prove that they do not belong to the human family, or that they are not of human nature. The Holy Spirit is called the Comforter. The original word, translated Comforter, and the articles and pronouns agreeing with it, or referring to it, are of masculine gender. When Christ calls him another Coiiiforter, he ranks him equal with himself; and at the same time points out his distinction and divinity. The Greek language was formed long before the Gospels and Epistles were committed to writing. The Greek word for spirit was of neuter gender. The Inspired writers were not commissioned to make innovations in language. They took the word as it was, and applied it. to the Holy Spirit. It is probable that they did not suspect it would mislead the human mind In succeeding ages, any more than when it was applied to man or angel.

7. Much Is said in the scriptures of the mutual love between the Father and the Son, and the dispo- OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 3l7 sition of each to honor the other. It is suggested that such reciprocal love between the Spirit and the Father, and between the Spirit and the Son, is not mentioned in the scriptures. This forms another objection to the divinity of the Holy Spirit. The reason, for which the love between the Father and Son is so irequently and fully expressed in the Bible, probably is the near relationship, which subsists between them; the covenant, which was formed and ratified by them and the suiFerings and humiliation of the Son to support the authority of God. If the love between the Spirit, and the Father, and Son, be not so fully expressed in the Bible, the love is naturally inferred from the language of scripture. The Spirit harmonizes with them in the covenant of redemption. He co-operates with them in the work of salvation. In his office he is subordinate to them and submissive to their commands. This harmony and concurrence between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit suppose that reciprocal affection subsists between them. At the baptism of Christ the Holy Spirit descended, rested upon him and performed that act of consecration, which the application of water represented. His continuance with Christ indicated the union and affection, which subsisted between them.

8. Much is said in the scriptures of the love of the Father towards mankind, and also of the love of the Son. It is suggested that there is nothing said of the love of the Holy Spirit toward the human race. On this ground it is objected that the Holy Spirit is not of divine nature.

Much is said in the sacred scriptures which implies the love of the Holy Spirit toward mankind. His works express his love. He strives with sinners for the benevolent purpose of convincing them of their sin and of their danger. He does not relinquish this gracious work till he has been long and obstinately resisted. He changes the human heart. He carries on the work of sanctification till the day of the Lord 318 ON THE DISTINCTION AND DIVINITY

Jesus. He qualifies his subjects foi- the reception of the benefits ol” Christ’s righteousness. To quahfy people to receive the benefits of Ciirist’s sacrifice is a work no less benevolent and gracious than the oiFering of the sacrifice itself. The Holy SjMrit expi’esses an earnest desire that sinners should reform and be saved. “The Holy Ghost saith, to day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts.” God by his apostle commanded saying, “Grieve not the Holy Spirit of God.” This command implies that the Holy Spirit is grieved on account of the hardness of the human heart. The scriptures attribute to the divine Being, human shape, human organs, and human passions. This mode of expression is adopted not to convey the idea that God possesses these human properties, but to represent his actions as if he were influenced by human sensations. When the Holy Spirit is brought to view grieving for the sinful, unhappy state of man, he appears in the exercise of the tenderest love, and desirous to promote the salvation of man. He is called the Comforter. He administers consolation to converted sinners. He gives them peace and quietude of mind and hope of future blessedness. In this view of the Holy Spirit he a[)pear*s not only in the exercise of love to the human race, but he appears in a distinct and official capacity.

9. We are requii-ed to love the Father and the Son; but as we ar^e not commanded expressly and distinctly to love the Spirit, it is inferred that he Is not of divine nature. Where is it expressly commanded in the Bible to love the Father distinctly; or to love the Son distinctly.’^ The divine command is, thou shalt love the Loi’d thy God with all thy heart. The command has no respect to any distinction in the divine nature; but it applies to all that belongs to it. When we are commanded to love God, we are required to love all, which is OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 319 embraced in the term God; and this general name usually embraces the Father, Son, and Spirit.

10. It is objected to the Spirit’s divinity, that there is no express command to render worship to him. When the Spirit is united with the Father and Son in the ordinance oi’ baptism, the same honor is given to him as to them. When it is considered that speaking against the Holy Spirit is the greatest of sins, that it is unpardonable, it is astonishing that any should view him standing in a disrespectful situation; that any should view him not entitled to divine honors, nor claiming the prerogatives of divinity. When God is worshipped, the Spirit, if he belong to God, is also worshipped. The Holy Spirit is represented by many passages of scripture to possess divine properties and to perform divine works Sometimes he is represented in a passive form. It is then he acts in subordination to ihe Father and the Son. It is not a fair construction of the scriptures to turn plain declarations from their most natural meaning into a figurative signification for the purpose of strengthening a particular class of texts, or for the purpose of suj)porting a favorite theory. In the work of salvation there appear to be three offices, three kinds of works, and three characters.

One proposes, another complies. One pays the ransom, another accepts; and the third prepares subjects to receive its benefits. All this is done with perfect harmony; and each is entitled to equal love and veneratidn.

It has been asserted by some that no name, attribute, nor work is attributed exclusively to the Holy Spirit. (See Purvcs^ pp. [}. 15.) From this it is inferred that the Holy Spirit is God the Father, or that it is his energy, influence, or operation. It does not appear to be certain that this position is true. He is called the Holy Spirit; the Spirit of truth. The Father is called holy. God is called a Spirit; and he is called 320 ON THE DISTINCTION AND DIVINITY the true God. But he Is not called in scripture the Holy Spirit; nor the Spirit of truth. Holy Spirit appears tp be as proper and as discriminating a name as the name Jesus Christ. Some things are predicated of 1 the Holy Spirit, which are not predicated of the Father. “The Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape, like a dove upon him,” (i. e. Christ) Luke 3:22.

It appears to be no more incredible that the Holy Spirit should assume a certain similitude, than that the Son of God should do the same before his incarnation. It is believed that the Father never has manifested himself by any likeness. “No man hath seen God at any time,” John 1:18. Christ, speaking of the Father, says, “Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape,’“’ John 5:37. The Holy Spirit is called the Spirit of Christ. “God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts,” Galatians 4:6. The Holy Spirit is called. the Spirit of Christ, either because he rested upon him in his human ne.ture, or because he was sent by him into the world. But the Father is not called the Spirit of Christ. It is through the Spirit, Jews and Gentiles have access to the Father. “We both have an access biy one Spirit unto the Father,” Ephesians 2:18. It was not by the Father they had access to the Father. Nor is it probable that it was by the energy of the Father, they had access to him. The conception of Mary is attributed to the Holy Spirit. “She was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

That, which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost,”

Matthew 1:18,Matthew 1:20. “The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee, therefore also, that holy thing, that shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God,” Luke 1:35. In the two first of these passages, Mary’s conception of the body of Jesus is attributed to the Holy Ghost. In the’latter passage, in which the manner of her conception is described, the Holy Ghost and the power of the Highest are both brought to view. OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 321

If the power of the Highest is any thing different from the Holy Ghost, it imphes the joint operation of the Father and the Holy Spirit. It is believed that no divine work is performed, exclusively by the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit. But the influence in the conception of Mary was so peculiarly the Holy Spirit’s, that the work is attributed to him.

Jesus Christ has authority to send the Holy Spirit into the world. “But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, evfen the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me,” John 15:26. “If I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart I will send him unto you. And when he is come, he Avill reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment. Whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak, and he will shew you things to come.

He shall glorify me; for he shall receive of mine; and shall shew it unto you. All things that the Father hath are mine; therefore said I, he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you,” John 16:7,John 16:8,John 16:13,John 16:14,John 16:15.

Whoever, or whatever the Comforter, the Spirit of truth is, he or it, is evidently subordinate to Jesus Christ. What he hears he speaks. He is sent into the world. He receives of Christ. These passages as decisively express his subordination to the Son, as any passages in the scriptures express the Son’s subordination to the Father. It will not be maintained that the Comforter, the Spirit of truth, is God the Father. Suppose then that it is his energy, influence, or operation. Christ has authority over it. He sends it into the world. Whatever this influence shews unto the world, it receives of Christ. It is an extraordinary economy indeed if the Son is subordinate to the Father, and at the same time has authority over his energy, influence, or operation. To say the least, it is as mysterious as the doctrine of the distinction and divinity of the Holy Spirit. In the passages, which have been quoted, and in many others, the Holy Spirit appears to possess all 41 322 ON THE DISTINCTION AND DIVINITY the qualities of divinity. But we are told that the influences of the Father are personified, and are called the Holy Spirit. It appears evident that we are sometimes to understand the name Holy Spirit, to import only his influences or communications. The figure, personification, is often used in the sacred scriptures. But it is hardly credible, that Christ in his discourse with his disciples respecting the great and important communication, which he would make to them after he had left the world, should adopt such figurative language. In the simple narration of events, which were to take place, we should not naturally expect a train of personifications connected with plain language.

We should hardly expect that the’ form of baptism would be made up of words partly of natural and partly of figurative meaning. To baptize persons in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the influences of the Father, appears to be a striking incongruity. There appears to be just as much ground for asserting that the two first names in the form of baptism are figurative, as that the last is so.

If all the names, attributes, and works, which are attributed to the Holy Spirit, are also attributed to the Father, it does not appear to follow that he is the Father, or his influences. It is believed there is such a union of nature, and such a concurrence of operation between the Father and the Holy Spirit, that what is attributed to one may be attributed to the other. Besides, he appears to be subordinate to the Father and the Son. If, in the performance of the works peculiar to his office, he is commissioned or sent by them, it is agreeable to the common use of language, and to the general apprehensions of people to attribute the same work to either. For example; the chief magistrate of a nation sends an ambassador to a foreign court. The latter negotiates and adjusts some important matters. The former approves what he has done. The negotiation is attributed indiscriminately to each. OF THE HOLY SPIRIT.

323

Some passages in the sacred scriptures, which contain the name of the Spirit, appear to be difficult to be explained, unless we admit that he is, in some sense, distinct from the Father. “Through him, (i. e.

Christ) we both have an access by one Spirit unto the Father,’“ Ephesians 2:18. It will not be maintained that Spirit, in this text, signifies the Father. Nor does it appear evident that this one Spirit signifies the influences of the Father. It appears to be a very unnatural construction to say, we both have an access to the Father, by the one influence of the Father. It appears to be unnatural to suppose that the Father is inaccessible excepting by his own influences. The communication of his influences would imply that he was accessible. Admit the distinct operations of the Spirit, and the construction appears to be natural and easy. Through Christ we both have access by the influences of the Spirit unto the Father.

’ “The Spirit itself maketh intercession for us, with groanings, which cannot be uttered. And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God,” Romans 8:26,Romans 8:27. In these passages the Holy Spirit is represented interceding, groaning and having a mind; and he intercedes according to the will of God. This appears to imply distinct operation. It would be a bold figure to represent the influences of the Father, having a mind and making intercession to him according to his will.

It would be a very unnatural construction to say that the Father, who searcheth the hearts, knoweth the mind of his own operations; and knoweth them on this ground, because their intercessions are agreeable to his will. We believe that the apostle did not thus darken his meaning by an unnatural use of words. In view of the divinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, it is inquired, “Must not three divine Bein<rs be three Gods? — Does reason teach or admit the existence of three Gods, equal, and mnnite in 324 ON THE DISTINCTION AND DIVINITY divine attributes? — Does reason teach or admit the existence of three beings, equal and infinite in divine attributes? — Is it not ditiicult to conceive of, and contemplate three divine persons otherwise than so many separate and distinct beings? — Must not this one God then possess three sets of all divine attributes? — If ail fulness dwelt in Christ by the will or pleasure of the Father, must not this fulness have been a derived fulness? — The fact however is, that the fulness^ which dwells in Christ is the fulness of the Father.’ (See Serious Inquirer, pp. 6,7,30,43,49.)

It is not denied that some Trinitarian writers have given too much occasion for these inquiries. It is not denied that difficulty attends the contemplation of the divinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Whether we contemplate the divine nature existing in plurality, or in unity, there is difficulty. It is not surprising that an infinite subject should be difficult for finite minds.

It is unfortunate that the subject should be made to appear more difficult by ill chosen words and phrases. In treating of the divine Nature, it is not necessary to represent it consisting of three distinct beings, agents, or persons. Nor is it necessary to represent the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, as distinct persons, agents, or beings. It is not necessary to attempt to explain the mode of divine subsistence. It is sufficient to shew from scripture that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are divine. When it is inquired, how can these things be? we do not attempt to answer the question. But if we find evidence from scripture that these things are so, it is sufficient to make them articles of belief? When it is said that the Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God, it is not to be understood that each is God, or possesses all divine attributes distinctly and separately from the other two. If this were the case, there would be three Gods. But it is to be understood that there is such a ground of distinction between them, that some works are peculiarly OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 325 attributed to the Father, some to the Son, and others to the Holy Spirit; and at the same time there is such a ground of union between them, that some works are attributed indiscriminately to each. It is rephed, this distinction and this union in divine nature is unintelligible. Be it so. Let us bring under review a subject, with which we are better acquainted; and about which there is less dispute. Let us take human nature. Let us take man. He exists in duality. He consists of matter and spirit; or of body and soul.

Some actions are attributed to one and some to the other; and some are attributed to both without discrimination. A man walks. The act is attributed specially to his body. But there is a concurrent action of his spirit, or mind. A man reflects, or calculates. The act is attributed specially to his mind. But there is no doubt that his mental exercises are affected, more or less, by his material part. We speak of a wise man, and of a strong man. In the one case we speak peculiarly of his corporeal nature; in the other, of his spiritual nature; and in both cases we include, by the word man, both natures. Could the body, in its individual capacity, speak, it might truly say, of myself I can do nothing. It is the mind, which dwelleth in me, that doeth the works. Does it follow from this that the body was not human, or did not belong to the man.’* Does it follow that the matter and spirit, which compose human nature, make two men? Is it difficult to conceive of, and contemplate on these two natures, body and soul, otherwise than so many distinct beings or men? Must this one man possess two sets of all human qualities? We allow that the distinction between, and the union of, soul and body are unintelligible. But upon evidence it is admitted as matter of fact. We affirm and deny the same thing of human nature. We say, man is mortal; and we say, man is immortal; we say he is material, and we say, he is spiritual; and we are believed. At one time Christ said, “The Father is greater 326 ON THE DISTINCTION AND DlTINIllY than I.” At another time he claimed a relationship to him, by which he was understood to make himself God, or equal with God; and the apostle Paul states that he “thought it not robbery to be equal with God.”

It is not supposed that divine Nature can be adequately explained, or illustrated by arguments drawn from human nature. But the foregoing observations are made to shew that if man exists in duality^ there appears to be no impossibility that God should exist in Trinity; that if this duality in human nature does not involve two sets of all human properties, a Trinity in divine nature does not necessarily involve “three sets of all divine attributes;” that if the body and soul of man do not constitute him two distinct and separate beings, there appears to be no necessity of resolving the divine Nature, designated by the names Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, into three distinct and separate beings. From the mode of existence of human nature we do not infer what is the mode of divine existence. But when we admit the peculiar manner of human existence with all its difficulties, there appears to be no necessity of denying a peculiar manner of divine existence, when similar, and perhaps to our apprehension, not greater difficulties attend it.

It does not appear to be necessary to contend whether the two natures of Jesus Christ constitute one person, or not. The dispute is merely about names. When the name person is applied to Christ in both natures, it signifies something different from what It ^-signifies when applied to any other being. Of course, objections may be raised against this complex personality, (as it is called) which would not lie either against his divinity or humanity. If it be proved by scripture that two natures are united in Jesus Christ, it is unnecessary to contend for the word person. In examining the subject of divine Nature it is found that difficulty is not peculiar to the Trinitarian hypothesis. Those, who vindicate the simple unity of Ood, OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 327 believe his omnipresence. They believe he is present in different parts of the world and in heaven at the same time. They believe he exercises his attributes in different parts of creation at one and the same time; and that he is conscious of all his operations.

He exercises divine power, wisdom and goodness on earth. At the same time he exercises divine power, wisdom and goodness in heaven. At the same time he is conscious of his operations in both places. We ask in our turn, must there not be as many consciousnesses, “as many sets of all divine attributes,” as many distinct beings, or agents, as there are places, in which God is, and acts. God is here; and God is there. If he be wholly here, how can he be there? If he be partly here, and partly there, a part is less than the whole; and of course, must not something less than God be here; and something less than God be there; and must not the supposition imply a division of the divine naturcf^ Let it be shewn how these difficulties may be removed, and it will help Trinitarians to remove the difficulties, which are alleged against their system.

“It pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell,” Colossians 1:19. “In him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily,” Colossians 2:9. “But if all fulness dwelt in Christ by the will or pleasure of the Father,” it is inquired, “must not this fulness have been a derived fulnessV Does it not seem to imply that for all the attributes or excellences, which Christ possessed, he was dependent on his Father? — The fact however is, that the fulness, which dwells in Christ, is the fulness of the Father. But what is this fulness, aside from those “treasures of wisdom and knowledge” imparted to Christ by the Father for the benefit of the church.’* — That the wisdom and power of the Father resided in him. (See Serious Inquirer^ pp. 30,43.)

If the fulness of the Father, i. e. his wisdom, knowledge and power, was derived from him and dwelt in Christ, and he “possessed” them, ii seems that, when 328 ON THE DiyiNTTY OP THE HOLY SPIRIT.

Christ possessed this fulness, the Father did not jpoS” sess it, unless two distinct beings could possess the same numerical properties. As this is impossible, it appears that, if Christ possessed the fulness^ of the Father, the Father suffered a privation of his fulness; and that he retained nothing but his name. But if this be not the consequence, we inquire, would not the fulness of the Father, added to the man Christ Jesus, be greater than the Father himself.^ Is it possible that divine attributes can be transferred.-^ Is it possible that a finite being can be the recipient and possessor of infinite qualities? If the fulness of the Father dwelt in Christ, in no other sense than it dwells in heaven, or on earth, or in christians, might not divine works be attributed, with as much propriety to them, as to him? And how could Christ express that reciprocal union, which subsisted between him and the Father, “/ am in the Father, and the Father in me.”

If the Father retained all his attributes after he had imparted \m fulness to Christ, would there not be an increase of divinity? Would there not be two sets of divine attributes? But where will our inquiries lead us? The fact is, it is easier to raise difficulties, than to remove them. We need to be cautious, lest we condemn that in others, which we approve in ourselves.