« PreviousContinue »
searching God, with whom he was one in essence. Next, as to the eleventh verse, the essence of the Spirit is not the subject in question ; for the consequences would be full of absurdity, if it were to be understood that the Spirit of God was with regard to God, as the spirit of a man is with regard to man. Allusion therefore is made only to the intimate relationship and communion of the Spirit with God, from whom he originally proceeded. That no doubt may remain as to the truth of this interpretation, the following verse is of the same import: “We have received .... the Spirit which is of God.” That which is of God, cannot be actually God, who is unity. The Son himself disallows the omniscience of the Spirit still more plainly. Matt. xi. 27. “no man knoweth the Son, but the Father, neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son willi reveal him.” What then becomes of the Holy Spirit ? for according to this passage, no third person whatever knoweth either the Father or the Son, except through their medium. Mark xiii. 32. “ of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.” If not even the Son himself, who is also in heaven, then certainly not the Spirit of the Son, who receiveth all things from the Son himself; John xvi. 14.
Secondly, Omnipresence, on the ground that the Spirit of God dwelleth in us. But even if it filled with its presence the whole circle of the earth, with all the heavens, that is, the entire fabric of this world, it would not follow that the Spirit is omnipresent. For why should not the Spirit easily fill with the influence of its power, what the Sun fills with its light; though it does not necessarily follow that we are to believe it infinite? If that lying spirit
, 1 Kings xxii. 22. were able to fill four hundred prophets at once, how many thousands Jught we not to think the Holy Spirit capable of pervading, even without the attributes of infinity or immensity ?
Thirdly, divine works. Acts ii. 4. “the Spirit gave them utterance.” xiii. 2. “the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work." Acts xx. 28. “the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers to feed the Church of God." 2 Pet. i. 21. " holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” A single remark will suffice for the solution of all these passages, if it be only remembered what was the
language of Christ respecting the Holy Spirit, the Comforter ; namely, that he was sent by the Son from the Father, that he spake not of himself, nor in his own name, and consequently that he did not act in his own name; therefore that he did not even move others to speak of his own power, but that what he gave he had himself received. Again, 1 Cor. xii. 11. the Spirit is said “to divide to every man severally as he will." In answer to this it may be observed, that the Spirit himself is also said to be divided to each according to the will of God the Father, Heb. ii. 4. and that even wind bloweth where it listeth,” John iii. 8. With regard to the annunciation made to Joseph and Mary, that the Holy Spirit was the author of the miraculous conception, Matt. i. 18, 20. Luke i. 35. it is not to be understood with referenee to his own person alone. For it is certain that, in the Old Testament, under the name of the Spirit of God, or of the Holy Spirit, either God the Father himself, or his divine power was signified ; nor had Joseph and Mary at that time heard anything of any other Holy Spirit, inasmuch as the personality and divinity of the Holy Spirit are not acknowledged by the Jews even to the present day. Accordingly, in both the passages quoted, Tvīda ágrov is without the customary article ; or if this be not considered as sufficiently decisive, the angel speaks in a more circumstantial manner in St. Luke: “the Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee; therefore that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God,”-that is, of the Father: unless we suppose that there are two Fathers,—one Father of the Son of God, another Father of the Son of man.
5 The assertion that the Holy Ghost was unknown to the Jews before the Christian dispensation, is as old as the time of Gregory of Nazianzum, who proves that they had certain means of knowing him by their Scrip
tures, in his treatise De Spiritu Sancto. Glocester Ridley demonstrates * the same thing at some length in his Second Sermon on Acts xix. 1—3,
tracing the Jewish and Pagan opinions, and answering the objection to his conclusions derived from his text. Mr. Whitaker also proves very learnedly that the Jews possessed the same faith respecting the Trinity that we do, deriving it at first from their ancestors, the Patriarchs, and retaining it through all the ages of their history. They have only lost it now, as they have lost their title to the favour of God, and as they have lost other articles in the creed of their fathers.--Oriyin of Arianism Dir. cwNed, p. 7, 240, &c.
Fourthly, divine honours. Matt. xxviï. 19. “baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” Here mention is undoubtedly made of three persons ; but there is not a word that determines the divinity, or unity, or equality of these three. For we read, Matt. x. 41. John xiii. 20. of receiving a prophet in the name of a prophet, and a righteous man in the name of a righteous man, and of giving a cup of cold water in the name of a disciple ; which evidently means nothing more, than because he is a prophet, or a righteous man, or a disciple. Thus too the Israelites
were baptized unto Moses," I Cor. x. that is, unto the law or doctrine of Moses ; and “unto the baptism of John” occurs in the same sense, Acts xix. 3. and “in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins," Acts ï. 38. and “into Jesus Christ” and “into his death, Rom. vi. 3. and “into one body,” i Cor. xii. 13. To be baptized therefore in their name, is to be admitted to those benefits and gifts which we have received through the Son and the Holy Spirit. Hence St. Paul rejoiced that no one could say he had been baptized in his name, 1 Cor. i. 13—15. It was not the imputation of making himself God that he feared, but that of affecting greater authority than was suitable to his character. From all which it is clear that when we are baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, this is not done to impress upon our minds the inherent or relative natures of these three persons, but the benefits conferred by them in baptism on those who believe,-namely, that our eternal salvation is owing to the Father, our redemption to the Son, and ouy sanctification to the Spirit. The power of the Father is in herent in himself, that of the Son and the Spirit is received from the Father ; for it has been already proved on the authority of the Son, that the Son does everything in the name of the Father, and the Spirit every thing in the name of the Father and the Son; and a confirmation of the same truth may be derived from the words immediately preceding the verse under discussion ; v. 18. “all power is given unto me
go ye therefore. ... baptizing in the name,” &c. and still more plainly by 1 Cor. vi. 11. "but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.” Here the say
three are mentioned as in baptism, the Son, the Spirit, and
me our God;
it follows therefore that the Father alone is our God, of whom are both the Son and the Spirit.
But invocation is made to the Spirit. 2 Cor. xiii. 14. "the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all.” This, however, is not so much an invocation as a benediction, in which the Spirit is not addressed as a person, but sought as a gift, from him who alone is there called God, namely, the Father, from whom Christ himself directs us to seek the communication of the Spirit. Luke xi. 13. If the Spirit were ever to be invoked personally, it would be then especially, when we pray for him ; yet we are commanded not to ask him of himself, but only of the Father. Why do we not call upon the Spirit himself, if he be God, to give himself to us? He who is' sought from the Father, and given by him, not by himself, can neither be God, nor an object of invocation. form of benediction occurs Gen. xlviii. 15, 16. “ the God before whom my fathers did walk. .... the angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads :” and Rev. i. 4.
from him which is .... and from the seven spirits.” It is clear that in this passage the seven spirits, of whom more will be said hereafter, are not meant to be invoked. Besides that in this benediction the order or dignity of the things signified should be considered, rather than that of the persons ; for it is by the Son that we come to the Father, from whom finally the Holy Spirit is sent. So 1 Cor. xii. 4–6. “there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit : and here 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.” Here the three are again mentioned in an inverse order ; but it is one God which worketh all in all, even in the Son and the Spirit, as we are taught throughout the whole of Scripture.
6 On this subject Milton is again at variance with himself. He speaks in his Reason of Church Government of some works which he meditated, the accomplishment of which was only to be obtained by devout prayer to the Eternal Spirit, who can enrich with all utterance and knowledge, and sends out his seraphim with the hallowed fire of his altar to touch and purify the lips of whom he pleases.' Prose Works, II. 481. It should be remembered, however, that this treatise was written as early as 16:42, wben Milton was not more than thirty-four.
Hence it, appears that what is said Matt. xii. 31, 32. has no reference to the personality of the Holy Spirit. For if to sin against the Holy Spirit were worse than to sin against the Father and Son, and if that alone were an unpardonable sin, the Spirit truly would be greater than the Father and the Son. The words must therefore apply to that illumination, which, as it is highest in degree, so it is last in order of time, whereby the Father enlightens us through the Spirit, and which if any one resist, no method of salvation remains open to him. inclined to believe, however, that it is the Father himself who is here called the Holy Spirit, by whose Spirit, v. 28. or finger, Luke xi. 20. Christ professed to cast out devils ; when therefore the Pharisees accused him falsely of acting in concert with Beelzebub, they are declared to sin unpardonably, because they said of him who had the Spirit of his father, “he hath an unclean spirit,” Mark ii. 30. Besides, it was to the Pharisees that he spoke thus, who acknowledged no other Spirit than the Father himself. If this be the true interpretation of the passage, which will not be doubted by any one who examines the whole context from v. 24 to v. 32. that dreaded sin against the Holy Spirit will be in reality a sin against the Father, who is the Spirit of holiness ; of which he would be guilty, who should affirm that the Spirit of the Father which was working in Christ was the prince of the devils, or an unclean spirit ;
;-—as Mark clearly shows in the passage quoted above.
But the spirit bestows grace and blessing upon the churches in conjunction with the Father and the Son; Rev. i. 4, 5.
grace be unto you and peace from him which is .... and from the seven spirits which are before his throne, and from Jesus Christ." It is clear, however, that the Holy Spirit is not here meant to be implied; the number of the spirits is inconsistent with such a supposition, as well as the place which they are said to occupy, standing like angels before the throne. See also iv. 5. and v. 6. where the same spirits are called “
seven lamps of fire burning before the throne," and the “ seven horns” and “
seven eyes” of the Lamb. Those who reduce these spirits to one Holy Spirit, and con'ider them as synonymous with his sevenfold grace,' (an opi? So Justin Martyr and St. Austin among the Fathers, according to v, who coincides in the same interpretation.—Judgment of the Jewisho
'h, p. 368, &c.