be found to designate not God as he is in Himself, whom no man knoweth,
but God in communication with the spirit of man. Whether the Deity holds
intercourse with his creatures naturally or supernaturally, the name
applied to Him in scripture, with respect to those felt or manifested
connections, is that of the Holy Spirit. And there is most holy and
beautiful reason for this peculiar usage. God is a spirit; and he is
therefore only spiritually discerned. Through our spirits He speaks to
us. In our spirits He abides with us. Eye hath not seen him; ear hath
not heard him—but through that portion of his spirit which He has given
us, we know Him, and are His. It is not God without us, but God _within_
us that we know and feel. Externally we know Him not; personally we
conceive him not; as He is, in his own essence and perfections we cannot
think of Him—but He has put His own spirit within us, and that, in
proportion as we have it and cherish it, reveals Him unto us—He has
lighted up from Himself a candle of the Lord in our spiritual being, and
if by communion with Him we keep oil in our lamps, and our lamps trimmed
and burning, His spirit which bloweth where it listeth, listeth to blow
upon us and to feed our flame. And how shall the spirit of man prepare
itself for fresh communications from the spirit of God? Only by removing
from his own spirit whatever is at variance with the spirit of God—by
cleansing the temple, that the holy one may be able to come to us and
manifest himself to a nature that has reverently sought to put away all
deadening impurity, and to brighten the spiritual image in which it was
made—by courting the voices of the soul—by listening amid the tumults of
the world to hear God speaking in our conscience—by cherishing through
obedience, and inviting through prayer the intimations, that by His
spirit, from which ours are derived, He gives us of His will. The spirit
of God originally made the spirit of Man: the spirit of God retains its
connections with the spirit of Man so long as man does not by unholiness
and alien sympathies drive out that holy Spirit: and in measures more
abundantly as we prepare ourselves to receive of His, does He hold
communion with us through affections and affinities fitted to apprehend
Him; and He transforms the will that obeys Him from glory to glory as by
the spirit of the Lord. I apprehend that the preparation which was made
by God for the reception of the gospel and spirit of Jesus Christ, shows
the preparation which all men must make who would qualify themselves for
fresh communications from the Holy Spirit of our Father. The baptism of
repentance prepared the way for the baptism of the holy spirit and of
fire. The heart had to be cleansed before the spirit of God could
descend upon it, and hold communication with it. And ever must there be
a Baptist Ministry breaking the dread repose of sin, awakening the dead
heart, and creating the consciousness of want, before the Christ of God
can breathe in his gentle breath upon our souls, saying unto us,
“receive ye the holy spirit.” The holy spirit of God reveals itself to
the spirit of man in proportion as we remove unholiness from us. What
use of language then can be more affectingly elevating and solemn than
that which designates God, when in communication with man, as the Holy
Spirit? A spirit, he is spiritually discerned: and holy, only those that
are holy have affinities with Him.
Such then is the primary signification of the expression Holy Spirit
when used in the Scriptures—the Holy Spirit of God naturally or
supernaturally in communication with the spirit of man, and in fuller
communication in proportion as man by holiness seeks it and prepares
himself for it. From this however there is derived a secondary
signification, and so natural and easy is the derivative meaning, that
it is a strong confirmation of its primary. That portion of his spirit
which God communicates to man, may be regarded as separated from Him. It
has entered into man and become his. It is a gift, an inspiration from
our God. Man has become the possessor of it, but still God is the origin
of it, and therefore though imparted to us it may still be spoken of as
God’s holy spirit. There are therefore in Scripture two significations
of the Holy Spirit—the primary one—God in communication with man—and the
secondary one—that portion of his spirit which God has communicated,
naturally or supernaturally, and which has become ours. We have received
the Holy Spirit, when we have spiritually received what only God can
communicate. These two comprise, I believe, all the meanings of the
expression, Holy Spirit, _first_, God communicating to man, and
_secondly_ that portion of His spirit, which, by communication, man’s
spirit has received.
I shall give some instances of each of these applications of the phrase.
There can be no difficulty in all those cases in which the holy Spirit
signifies God himself in spiritual communication with man.—“And when
they bring you into the synagogues, and unto magistrates, and powers;
take ye no thought how or what thing ye shall answer, or what ye shall
say. For the Holy Ghost shall teach you, in that same hour, what ye
ought to say.”—Luke xii. 11, 12. Now in the parallel passage in St.
Matthew’s Gospel we have the expression, the Holy Ghost, explained to
mean the spirit of God our Father. “But when they deliver you up, take
no thought how or what ye shall speak. For it shall be given you in that
same hour what ye shall speak. For it is not ye that speak, but the
spirit of your Father which speaketh in you.”—Matt. x. 19, 20. “Knowing
this first, that no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private
interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of
man: but holy men spake, as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.” “As
they ministered to the Lord and fasted, the Holy Spirit said, Separate
me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them—so they
being sent forth by the Holy Spirit departed unto Seleucia.”—Acts xiii.
2, 4.
The expression the “Spirit of God” is sometimes used with the same
signification, only with this difference, that “the Spirit of God”
frequently signifies the essence and being of God as He is in Himself,
whilst the expression “the Holy Spirit” is I believe never employed
except to designate our heavenly Father when in living communication
with the spirits of his children. “What man knoweth the things of a man,
save the spirit of a man that is in him? Even so the things of God
knoweth no man [or no one] but the spirit of God.”—1 Cor. ii. 11. Here
if the spirit of man means man, the spirit of God must mean God, and how
in opposition to language so precise and definite, a separate
personality could be introduced into the godhead, called the spirit of
God, it is difficult to imagine. “Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or
whither shall I flee from thy presence?”—Ps. cxxxix. “By his spirit he
has garnished the heavens: his hand has formed the crooked serpent (the
galaxy).”—Job, xxvi. 13.
I shall now adduce some of the more remarkable cases in which the
various expressions, “spirit,” “holy spirit,” and “spirit of God,” are
used to designate that portion of God’s spirit which naturally or
supernaturally has entered into man, and become ours, but which in
reference to Him from whom it was derived, and with whom it retains
blessed connections, is called the spirit of God. God being a Spirit,
and man being a spirit, whatever man knows or feels of God, may, not
figuratively, but with the strictest truth, be called the Holy Spirit
within him. “If ye then being evil, know how to give good gifts unto
your children, how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy
Spirit to them that ask him.”—Luke, xi. 13. Now that the Holy Spirit
signifies here not a third person in the godhead, but our heavenly
Father’s gifts and inspirations to the soul, is clearly shown by the
parallel passage in St. Matthew’s gospel—“If ye then, being evil, know
how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your
Father which is in Heaven give _good things_ to them that ask
Him.”—Matt. vii. 11. “But as it is written, eye hath not seen, nor ear
heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God
hath prepared for them that love him. But God hath revealed them unto us
by his spirit: for the spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things
of God.”—1 Cor. ii. 9, 10. Now here the spirit is used first in its
primary sense of God in communication with man, and immediately after in
its secondary sense of that portion of His spirit communicated to man,
for it is just in proportion as it partakes of His spirit that the
spirit of man searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. God
enlightens and man receives—but the light which has entered into man,
since it came from God, may well continue to be called the Spirit of
God. “Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit
which is of God;—but the natural man receiveth not the things of the
spirit of God: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually
discerned. But we have the mind of Christ.”—1 Cor. ii. 12-16. Here the
Apostle distinctly declares that our portion of the spirit of God is
“the mind of Christ.” In proportion as we have that we know Him, the
only true God, whom to know is life eternal. “Likewise the spirit also
helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we
ought: but the spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings
that cannot be uttered.”—Rom. viii. 26. Now nothing can be more
marvellous in all the marvels of scripture interpretation, than that
this spirit within us which vents itself in groanings that cannot be
uttered should ever have been referred to a third personality in the
godhead. How beautiful is this passage when truly and _spiritually_
considered! We know not what to pray for as we ought; our spiritual
apprehension is feeble and dim; and our vague yearnings after the
heavenly and the perfect are not distinct enough to present
clearly-defined objects to our pursuit and love; yet we have a holy
impulse within us, a divine tendency leading us towards God; God has
given us this Spirit, and partaking of His nature it sighs after the
perfection to which it is akin; it knows not fully its heavenly origin
and end, but still true to the divine instinct it yearns after Him and
tends towards Him; it sighs for a glory and a happiness which it cannot
distinctly conceive or express, but God who gave it understands the
prayer, and hears this intercession of His own spirit—that divine
impulse planted by Himself which now supplicates Him to make bright its
dim longings and to help it forwards unto that glory towards which the
divinity within it tends—and He who searcheth the heart knoweth what is
the mind of that spirit which He himself put there, and that it maketh
intercession with Him, for all holy ones,[529] that He would fulfil the
promise of the heavenly impulse that sighs for good.[530] How has
Trinitarianism destroyed the spiritual power of the Scriptures, by
taking all this beautiful and holy meaning out of the individual heart,
and for the sighings which cannot be uttered after the immortal and the
good, which God, who inspired them, comprehends and blesses,
substituting a third Person in the godhead who intercedes for us to
another Person, with groanings that cannot be uttered!
I believe that these two significations of the expression, “Holy
Spirit,” so closely connected as scarcely to be two, will explain all
the cases of its scriptural occurrence; first, God Himself in
communication with the Soul, and secondly, that portion of His spirit
which He has communicated to man, and which as being His, derived from
Him, and a portion of the true knowledge of His Mind, is called His Holy
Spirit.
I shall now examine the Scriptural evidence which is chiefly relied upon
in this controversy, as proving, not the personality and deity of the
Holy Spirit, for here we agree, but a personality and deity distinct
from those of God our Father.
“Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of
the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”—Matt. xxviii. 19;
or, into the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, the word, “name,”
by an idiom of the Hebrew language, being redundant.
To baptize into a person was a form of expression signifying the
reception of the religious ideas associated with that person. Thus the
Jews were said to be baptized into Moses, because they received the
religious ideas associated with the institutions of that Prophet: and on
the other hand, the Samaritans were said to be baptized into Mount
Gerizim, because they received the religious ideas associated with the
belief that there, and not at Jerusalem, was the appointed place of the
Temple. The formula then of baptizing in the name of the Father, and of
the Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, signified nothing more than the
acceptance of the religious ideas associated with God in this new
manifestation of Himself, revealed through the Christ, and accompanied
by the operations of His Spirit, witnessing, both internally and
externally, to the new light that had come into the world, the promised
reign of the spirit of God. These were the words which most readily were
associated with, and suggested those religious ideas which were looked
upon as constituting the characteristic faith of one who was willing to
enter into the gospel kingdom of Heaven, that is, to adopt the
_Christian_ idea of God and of Religion. The Father, the Christ, the
Spirit of God in us giving us some communion with that Father, by
uniting us through spiritual sympathies with that Christ—is not this of
the very soul of Christianity? God manifested in Jesus, and our souls
accepting the revelation, because the spirit of our Father within us
draws us towards him who had the same spirit without measure—is not this
to express in a few words all the characteristic and peculiar ideas of
Christianity, and therefore most fit to be used as suggesting summarily
to matured converts the new faith into which they were baptized? The
same set of ideas might have been as fully expressed by the shorter form
of being baptized “into Christ,” for this would imply the possession and
acceptance of all the religious ideas associated with his person and
ministry—and accordingly we find that in every recorded case of baptism
or allusion to baptism in the Acts of the Apostles, and in the Epistles,
the expression simply and briefly is to “baptize into Christ,” and never
once is there an allusion to the form of baptism into the Father, and
the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Now this demonstrates two things: first
that the Apostles did not look upon these words as _a form prescribed by
Christ_: and secondly, that they did not regard them as a confession of
faith in a tri-personal God, else would they never have neglected all
mention of the _first_ and _third_ persons, and simply baptized into
Christ, that is, into the religion of the Christ. There is a remarkable
confirmation of this view, if indeed it can be supposed to want
confirmation, in the language of Paul to some disciples at Ephesus, who
had not received the witnessing power and presence of the Holy Spirit.
They declare that they had not so much as heard whether there was any
Holy Spirit. To _what_, then, says the Apostle were you baptized; not
into _whom_, observe, but into _what_ were you baptized,—that is, was
not the manifestation and participation of God’s Spirit one of the
religious ideas and expectations of your faith as converts. And they
answer that they had only been baptized into the baptism of John, who
had _promised_ the Holy Spirit, but had no power to _confer_ it. And
then Paul baptized them into Jesus, and they received the Holy Spirit.
Now can any one read this passage and believe that the Holy Ghost
implies the third person in a Trinity: was it not simply a portion of
God’s spirit received by the first believers as an attestation to the
religion of the Christ?
Nothing can be more arbitrary than to assert that baptism implies the
personality and deity of that into which a person is baptized. The
Apostle Paul says that Christians were baptized into the death of
Christ. Rom. vi. 3. Is the death of Christ therefore a person and a God?
Is it not simply one of the religious ideas which their faith embraced?
The personality and deity of the Holy Spirit we indeed do not deny; but
the methods by which Trinitarians attempt the proof of this self-evident
proposition, are, like all proofs of identical propositions,
unsatisfactory to an extreme. The Lecturer in Christ Church, when
meeting the objection, that baptism into Christ was no proof of his
deity, because we have also the expression, “baptism into Moses,”
dropped out of sight the true bearing of the objection against the
_deity_ of Jesus, and argued that the expression, baptism into Moses,
was so far a proof of the personality of the Holy Spirit, because Moses
was a person. Was the death of Christ, a person? Was Mount Gerizim, a
person? We do not deny the personality of the Holy Spirit—though this is
no way of proving it. We do deny that the deity of Christ is implied in
baptism into his name, and the force of the expression, baptism into
Moses, in this bearing of it, was either not seen or was put aside.
The argument, that because _three words_ follow one another, without any
expressed distinction, they must all refer to subjects of the same
nature, co-equal and co-extensive, and this, too, as the strongest,
indeed the only direct evidence of a Trinity in the Godhead, is really
one of those arguments for a doctrine of revelation, which a mind with
any reverence knows not how properly to discuss. I am glad to be able to
say, that Dr. Tattershall pronounces this to be only a _presumptive_
proof of the separate personality of the Holy Spirit, that is, in fact,
no proof at all, but merely such a hint as might lead to the presumption
that there may be additional evidence, and which, therefore, in the
absence of such additional evidence, amounts to nothing. If any one,
however, advances such an argument, we have only to ask first, is any
one really content to rest such a doctrine on such a proof, and call
this Revelation? and secondly, to advance in our turn, other passages of
Scripture, where this principle of interpretation cannot be maintained.
If the concurrence of the words, Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit,
necessarily implies that each of these refers to a person who is God,
and that when taken together they make up the entire nature of God—then,
I ask, what is the necessary inference from such expressions as
these,—“I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and _the
elect angels_, that thou observe these things?”—1 Tim. v. 21. Now if the
argument is conclusive that infers in the one case the deity of Jesus,
it must be equally conclusive, when it infers, in the other, the deity
of the elect angels. The Trinitarian answer will be,—“We know that the
angels are not God, and in accordance with this knowledge, we interpret
the passage:” and equally do we answer, that when such a passage is
given us as _proof_ of the deity of the Lord Jesus, we know that he was
a man, and in accordance with this knowledge do we interpret the
passage. Other instances might be given of similar modes of
expression:—“And all the people greatly feared the Lord _and Samuel_,” 1
Sam. xii. 18; and more strikingly still, Rev. iii. 12, _where the name
of a place_ is associated as a religious idea, with the names of God and
Christ. “Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my
God, and he shall go no more out; and I will write upon him the name of
my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is New Jerusalem,
which cometh down out of Heaven from my God, and [_I will write upon
him_] my new name.”
There is only one other passage in which these three expressions occur
together; and it must have a precisely similar explanation: “The grace
of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the
Holy Spirit, be with you all.” Now here the expression “_communion_ of
the Holy Spirit,” fixes the meaning of the passage. The word communion
signifies “participation,” “a having in common.” Thus St. Paul speaks of
“the communion of the sufferings of Christ,” Philipp. iii. 10. In this
sense, then, it can have no reference to a person, and must signify
simply a participation of that spiritual presence, comfort, and power of
God, which was the promise and the witness of the religion of the
Christ. In explaining such passages, we have again and again to recal
ourselves to the belief, that we are actually considering the strongest
Scriptural assertions of the doctrine of a Trinity of persons in the
unity of the Godhead. The first Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians
closes thus: “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. My love be
with you all in Christ Jesus.” Who thinks of inferring the equality of
Paul with Jesus? And yet, if such a mode of reasoning is allowable, from
the close of the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, it is impossible to
give any reason for its not being equally conclusive when applied to the
close of the first Epistle of the Corinthians. But such verbal
reasonings are in every way unworthy of the solemn character of
revelation, nor can the mind long dwell upon them without feeling how
painfully they interfere with the sentiment of Reverence, and what a
lowering it is of Christ and Christianity to place them in such lights.
The portion of Scripture, however, which is mainly relied upon to prove
the _distinct_ deity and personality of the Holy Spirit, is that most
solemn and faithful promise of Christ to his disciples, in which the
Spirit of Truth is described as a Comforter which the Father would send
in his name, and who, when he came, would testify of Jesus, and bring to
their remembrance all things that he had said unto them, but which they
had not understood. Now let us connect this promise of a Comforter
previous to his death, with a similar promise after the resurrection,
and then endeavour to ascertain the meaning. In the first chapter of the
Book of Acts, at the eighth verse, it is written, “Ye shall receive
power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be
witnesses unto me, both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria,
and unto the uttermost parts of the earth.” Now we shall find that the
Holy Spirit which came upon them was the Spirit of Truth, a truer
knowledge of Christ, a portion of the Spirit of God, a sympathy with and
an understanding of the Mind of the Father of Jesus, which they did not
possess before;—in the one case comforting them for the loss of their
friend and their master, by giving them a participation of his and of
his Father’s Spirit,—in the other case, qualifying them spiritually to
be witnesses unto him, to be his Apostles and Preachers, an office for
which their previous misconceptions of the true character of the Christ,
their alienation from the true Spirit of God, as manifested in Jesus,
had totally disqualified them. Why it was that Jesus must “go away,” in
order that the Spirit of Truth might come unto them, in order that the
Spirit of the world should be separated from their ideas of the Christ,
and the Spirit of God take its place, we shall fully see. Previous to
the death of Jesus, the views of the Apostles respecting their Messiah
were Jewish and worldly—after the Resurrection and Ascension they became
Christian and Spiritual. How was it that Jesus must personally leave
them, in order that the Spirit of Truth might come unto them? “It is
expedient for you that I go away; for if I go not away, the Comforter
will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.”