the first argument may be drawn from the frequent association, in
Scripture, of a Person under that appellation with two other Persons,
one of whom, the Father, is by all acknowledged to be divine; and the
ascription to each of them, or to the three in union, of the same acts,
titles, and authority, with worship, of the same kind, and, for any
distinction that is made, of an equal degree. The manifestation of the
existence and divinity of the Holy Spirit may be expected in the law and
the prophets, and is, in fact, to be traced there with certainty. The
Spirit is represented as an agent in creation, “moving upon the face of
the waters;” and it forms no objection to the argument, that creation is
ascribed to the Father, and also to the Son, but is a great confirmation
of it. That creation should be effected by all the three Persons of the
Godhead, though acting in different respects, yet so that each should be
a Creator, and, therefore, both a Person and a divine Person, can be
explained only by their unity in one essence. On every other hypothesis
this Scriptural fact is disallowed, and therefore no other hypothesis
can be true. If the Spirit of God be a mere influence, then he is not a
Creator, distinct from the Father and the Son, because he is not a
Person; but this is refuted both by the passage just quoted, and by
Psalm xxxiii, 6: “By the Word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all
the host of them by the breath (Heb. _Spirit_) of his mouth.” This is
farther confirmed by Job xxxiii, 4: “The Spirit of God hath made me, and
the _breath_ of the Almighty hath given me life;” where the second
clause is obviously exegetic of the former: and the whole text proves
that, in the patriarchal age, the followers of the true religion
ascribed creation to the Spirit, as well as to the Father; and that one
of his appellations was, “the _Breath_ of the Almighty.” Did such
passages stand alone, there might, indeed, be some plausibility in the
criticism which resolves them into a personification; but, connected as
they are with the whole body of evidence, as to the concurring doctrine
of both Testaments, they are inexpugnable. Again: If the personality of
the Son and the Spirit be allowed, and yet it is contended that they
were but instruments in creation, through whom the creative power of
another operated, but which creative power was not possessed by them; on
this hypothesis, too, neither the Spirit nor the Son can be said to
create, any more than Moses created the serpent into which his rod was
turned, and the Scriptures are again contradicted. To this association
of the three Persons in creative acts, may be added a like association
in acts of preservation, which has been well called a _continued
creation_, and by that term is expressed in the following passage:
“These wait all upon thee, that thou mayest give them their meat in due
season. Thou hidest thy face, they are troubled; thou takest away their
breath, they die, and return to dust: thou sendest forth thy Spirit,
they are created; and thou renewest the face of the earth,” Psalm civ,
27–30. It is not surely here meant, that the Spirit by which the
generations of animals are perpetuated, is _wind_; and if he be called
an attribute, _wisdom_, _power_, or both united, where do we read of
such attributes being “sent,” “sent forth from God?” The personality of
the Spirit is here as clearly marked as when St. Paul speaks of God
“sending forth the Spirit of his Son,” and when our Lord promises to
“send” the Comforter; and as the upholding and preserving of created
things is ascribed to the Father and the Son, so here they are ascribed,
also, to the Spirit, “sent forth from” God to “create and renew the face
of the earth.”
5. The next association of the three Persons we find in the
_inspiration_ of the prophets: “God spake unto our fathers by the
prophets,” says St. Paul, Heb. i, 1. St. Peter declares that these “holy
men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost,” 2 Peter i, 21;
and also that it was “the Spirit of Christ which was in them,” 1 Peter
i, 11. We may defy any Socinian to interpret these three passages by
making the Spirit an influence or attribute, and thereby reducing the
term Holy Ghost into a figure of speech. “God,” in the first passage,
is, unquestionably, God the Father; and the “holy men of God,” the
prophets, would then, according to this view, be moved by the
_influence_ of the Father; but the influence, according to the third
passage, which was the source of their inspiration, was the Spirit, or
the _influence_ of “Christ.” Thus the passages contradict each other.
Allow the trinity in unity, and you have no difficulty in calling the
Spirit, the Spirit of the Father, and the Spirit of the Son, or the
Spirit of either; but if the Spirit be an influence, that influence
cannot be the influence of two persons,--one of them God, and the other
a creature. Even if they allowed the pre-existence of Christ, with
Arians, these passages are inexplicable by the Socinians; but, denying
his prëexistence, they have no subterfuge but to interpret, “the Spirit
of Christ,” _the spirit which prophesied of Christ_, which is a purely
gratuitous paraphrase; or “the spirit of an anointed one, or prophet;”
that is, the prophet’s own spirit, which is just as gratuitous and as
unsupported by any parallel as the former. If, however, the Holy Ghost
be the Spirit of the Father and of the Son, united in one essence, the
passages are easily harmonized. In conjunction with the Father and the
Son, he is the source of that prophetic inspiration under which the
prophets spoke and acted. So the same Spirit which raised Christ from
the dead, is said by St. Peter to have preached by Noah while the ark
was preparing;--in allusion to the passage, “My Spirit shall not always
strive (contend, debate) with man.” This, we may observe, affords an
eminent proof, that the writers of the New Testament understood the
phrase, “the Spirit of God,” as it occurs in the Old Testament,
_personally_. For, whatever may be the full meaning of that difficult
passage in St. Peter, Christ is clearly declared to have preached by the
Spirit in the days of Noah; that is, he, by the Spirit, inspired Noah to
preach. If, then, the Apostles understood that the Holy Ghost was a
Person, a point which will presently be established, we have, in the
text just quoted from the book of Genesis, a key to the meaning of those
texts in the Old Testament where the phrases, “My Spirit,” “the Spirit
of God,” and “the Spirit of the Lord,” occur; and inspired authority is
thus afforded us to interpret them as of a Person; and if of a Person,
the very effort made by Socinians to deny his personality, itself,
indicates that that Person must, from the lofty titles and works
ascribed to him, be inevitably divine. Such phrases occur in many
passages of the Hebrew Scriptures; but, in the following, the Spirit is
also eminently distinguished from two other Persons: “And now the Lord
God, and his Spirit, hath sent me,” Isaiah xlviii, 16; or, rendered
better, “hath sent me and his Spirit,” both terms being in the
accusative case. “Seek ye out of the book of the Lord, and read: for my
mouth it hath commanded, and his Spirit it hath gathered them,” Isaiah
xxxiv, 16. “I am with you, saith the Lord of Hosts, according to the
word that I covenanted with you when ye came out of Egypt, so my Spirit
remaineth among you: fear ye not. For thus saith the Lord of Hosts, I
will shake all nations, and the Desire of all nations shall come,” Hag.
ii, 4–7. Here, also, the Spirit of the Lord is seen collocated with the
Lord of Hosts and the Desire of all nations, who is the Messiah.
6. Three Persons, and three only, are associated also, both in the Old
and New Testament, as objects of supreme worship; and form the one
“name” in which the religious act of solemn benediction is performed,
and to which men are bound by solemn baptismal covenant. In the plural
form of the name of God, each received equal adoration. This threefold
personality seems to have given rise to the standing form of triple
benediction used by the Jewish high priest. The very important fact,
that, in the vision of Isaiah, the Lord of hosts, who spake unto the
prophet, is, in Acts xxviii, 25, said to be the Holy Ghost, while St.
John declares that the glory which Isaiah saw was the glory of Christ,
proves, indisputably, that each of the three Persons bears this august
appellation; it gives also the reason for the threefold repetition,
“Holy, holy, holy!” and it exhibits the prophet and the very seraphs in
deep and awful adoration before the Triune Lord of hosts. Both the
prophet and the seraphim were, therefore, worshippers of the Holy Ghost
and of the Son, at the very time and by the very acts in which they
worshipped the Father; which proves that, as the three Persons received
equal homage in a case which does not admit of the evasion of pretended
superior and inferior worship, they are equal in majesty, glory, and
essence.
7. As in the tabernacle form of benediction, the Triune Jehovah is
recognised as the source of all grace and peace to his creatures; so
also we have the apostolic formula: “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ,
and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with you
all. Amen.” Here the personality of the three is kept distinct; and the
prayer is, that Christians may have a common participation of the Holy
Spirit, that is, doubtless, as he was promised by our Lord to his
disciples, as a Comforter, as the Source of light and spiritual life, as
the Author of regeneration. Thus the Spirit is acknowledged, equally
with the Father and the Son, to be the Source and the Giver of the
highest spiritual blessings; while this solemn ministerial benediction
is, from its specific character, to be regarded as an act of prayer to
each of the three Persons, and therefore is at once, an acknowledgment
of the divinity and personality of each. The same remark applies to
Revelation i, 4, 5: “Grace be unto you, and peace, from Him which was,
and which is, and which is to come; and from the seven spirits which are
before his throne,” (an emblematical reference, probably to the golden
branch with its seven lamps,) “and from Jesus Christ.” The style of this
book sufficiently accounts for the Holy Spirit being called “the seven
spirits;” but no created spirit or company of created spirits is ever
spoken of under that appellation: and the place assigned to the seven
spirits, between the mention of the Father and the Son, indicates, with
certainty, that one of the sacred Three, so eminent, and so exclusively
eminent in both dispensations, is intended.
8. The form of baptism next presents itself with demonstrative evidence
on the two points before us, the personality and divinity of the Holy
Spirit. It is the form of covenant by which the sacred Three become our
one or only God, and we become his people: “Go ye, therefore, and teach
all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son,
and of the Holy Ghost.” In what manner is this text to be disposed of,
if the personality of the Holy Ghost is denied? Is the form of baptism
to be so understood as to imply that baptism is in the name of one
_God_, one _creature_, and one _attribute_? The grossness of this
absurdity refutes it, and proves that here, at least, there can be no
personification. If all the Three, therefore, are persons, are we to
have baptism in the name of one God and two creatures? This would be too
near an approach to idolatry, or, rather, it would be idolatry itself;
for, considering baptism as an act of dedication to God, the acceptance
of God as our God, on our part, and the renunciation of all other
deities and all other religions, what could a Heathen convert conceive
of the two creatures so distinguished from all other creatures in heaven
and in earth, and so associated with God himself as to form together the
_one name_, to which, by that act, he was devoted, and which he was
henceforward to profess and honour, but that they were equally divine,
unless special care were taken to instruct him that but one of the Three
was God, and the two others but creatures? But of this care, of this
cautionary instruction, though so obviously necessary upon this theory,
no single instance can be given in all the writings of the Apostles.
9. But other arguments are not wanting to prove both the personality and
the divinity of the Holy Spirit. With respect to the former, (1.) The
mode of his subsistence in the sacred Trinity proves his personality. He
proceeds from the Father and the Son, and cannot, therefore, be either.
To say that an attribute proceeds and comes forth, would be a gross
absurdity. (2.) Many passages of Scripture are wholly unintelligible and
even absurd, unless the Holy Ghost is allowed to be a person. For as
those who take the phrase as ascribing no more than a figurative
personality to an attribute, make that attribute to be the _energy_ or
_power of God_, they reduce such passages as the following to utter
unmeaningness: “God anointed Jesus with the Holy Ghost and with power;”
that is, with the power of God and with power. “That ye may abound in
hope through the power of the Holy Ghost;” that is, through the power of
power. “In demonstration of the Spirit and of power;” that is, in
demonstration of power and of power.
(3.) Personification of any kind is, in some passages in which the Holy
Ghost is spoken of, impossible. The reality which this figure of speech
is said to present to us, is either some of the attributes of God, or
else the doctrine of the Gospel. Let this theory, then, be tried upon
the following passages: “He shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever
he shall hear, that shall he speak.” What attribute of God can here be
personified? And if the doctrine of the Gospel be arrayed with personal
attributes, where is there an instance of so monstrous a prosopopœia
as this passage would exhibit?--the doctrine of the Gospel not speaking
“of himself,” but speaking “whatsoever he shall hear!”--“The Spirit
maketh intercession for us.” What attribute is capable of interceding,
or how can the doctrine of the Gospel intercede? Personification, too,
is the language of poetry, and takes place naturally only in excited and
elevated discourse; but if the Holy Spirit be a personification, we find
it in the ordinary and cool strain of mere narration and argumentative
discourse in the New Testament, and in the most incidental
conversations. “Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? We
have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.” How
impossible is it here to extort, by any process whatever, even the
shadow of a personification of either any attribute of God, or of the
doctrine of the Gospel! So again: “The Spirit said unto Philip, Go near,
and join thyself to this chariot.” Could it be any attribute of God
which said this, or could it be the doctrine of the Gospel? Finally,
that the Holy Ghost is a person, and not an attribute, is proved by the
use of masculine pronouns and relatives in the Greek of the New
Testament, in connection with the neuter noun Πνεῦμα, _Spirit_, and also
by many distinct personal acts being ascribed to him, as, “to come,” “to
go,” “to be sent,” “to teach,” “to guide,” “to comfort,” “to make
intercession,” “to bear witness,” “to give gifts,” “dividing them to
every man as he _will_,” “to be vexed,” “grieved,” and “quenched.” These
cannot be applied to the mere fiction of a person, and they therefore
establish the Spirit’s true personality.
10. Some additional arguments to those before given to establish the
divinity of the Holy Ghost may also be adduced. The first is taken from
his being the subject of blasphemy: “The blasphemy against the Holy
Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men,” Matt. xii, 31. This blasphemy
consisted in ascribing his miraculous works to Satan; and that he is
capable of being blasphemed proves him to be as much a person as the
Son; and it proves him to be divine, because it shows that he may be
sinned against, and so sinned against that the blasphemer shall not be
forgiven. A person he must be, or he could not be blasphemed: a divine
person he must be, to constitute this blasphemy a sin against him in the
proper sense, and of so malignant a kind as to place it beyond the reach
of mercy. He is called God: “Why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie
unto the Holy Ghost? Why hast thou conceived this in thine heart? Thou
hast not lied unto men, but unto God,” Acts v, 3, 4. Ananias is said to
have lied particularly “unto the Holy Ghost,” because the Apostles were
under his special direction in establishing the temporary regulation
among Christians that they should have all things in common: the
detection of the crime itself was a demonstration of the divinity of the
Spirit, because it showed his omniscience, his knowledge of the most
secret acts. In addition to the proof of his divinity thus afforded by
this history, he is also called God: “Thou hast not lied unto men, but
unto God.” He is also called the Lord: “Now the Lord is that Spirit,” 2
Cor. iii, 17. He is _eternal_: “The eternal Spirit,” Heb. ix, 14.
_Omnipresence_ is ascribed to him: “Your body is the temple of the Holy
Ghost,” 1 Cor. vi, 19. “As many as are led by the Spirit of God, they
are the sons of God,” Rom. viii, 14. For, as all true Christians are his
temples, and are led by him, he must be present to them at all times and
in all places. He is _omniscient_: “The Spirit searcheth all things,
yea, the deep things of God,” 1 Cor. ii, 10. Here the Spirit is said to
search or know “all things” absolutely; and then, to make this more
emphatic, that he knows even “the deep things of God,” things hidden
from every creature, the depths of his essence, and the secrets of his
counsels; for, that this is intended, appears from the next verse, where
he is said to know “the things of God,” as the spirit of a man knows the
things of a man. _Supreme majesty_ is also attributed to him, so that to
“lie” to him, to “blaspheme” him, to “vex” him, to do him “despite,” are
sins, and as such render the offender liable to divine punishment. How
impracticable then is it to interpret the phrase, “the Holy Ghost,” as a
periphrasis for God himself! A Spirit, which is the Spirit _of_ God,
which is so often distinguished _from_ the Father, which “sees” and
“hears” the Father, which searches “the deep things” of God, which is
“sent” by the Father, which “proceedeth” from him, and who has special
prayer addressed to him at the same time as the Father, cannot, though
“one with him,” be the Father; and that he is not the Son is
acknowledged on both sides. As a divine person, our regards are
therefore justly due to him as the object of worship and trust, of
prayer and blessing.
11. Various are the gracious offices of the Holy Spirit in the work of
our redemption. He it is that first quickens the soul, dead in
trespasses and sins, to spiritual life; it is by him we are “born
again,” and made new creatures; he is the living root of all the
Christian graces, which are therefore called “the fruits” of the Spirit;
and by him all true Christians are aided in the “infirmities” and
afflictions of this present life. Eminently, he is promised to the
disciples as “the Comforter,” which is more fully explained by St. Paul
by the phrase “the Spirit of adoption;” so that it is through him that
we receive a direct inward testimony to our personal forgiveness and
acceptance through Christ, and are filled with peace and consolation.
This doctrine, so essential to the solid and habitual happiness of those
who believe in Christ, is thus clearly explained in a sermon on that
subject by the Rev. John Wesley:--
“(1.) But what is the witness of the Spirit? The original word,
μαρτυρία, may be rendered either, as it is in several places, _the
witness_, or, less ambiguously, _the testimony_, or, _the record_: so it
is rendered in our translation: ‘This is the record,’ the testimony, the
sum of what God testifies in all the inspired writings, ‘that God hath
given unto us eternal life, and this life is in his Son,’ 1 John v, 11.
The testimony now under consideration is given by the Spirit of God to
and with our spirit. He is the person testifying. What he testifies to
us is, ‘that we are the children of God.’ The immediate result of this
testimony is, ‘the fruit of the Spirit;’ namely, ‘love, joy, peace, long
suffering, gentleness, goodness.’ And without these, the testimony
itself cannot continue. For it is inevitably destroyed, not only by the
commission of any outward sin, or the omission of known duty, but by
giving way to any inward sin: in a word, by whatever grieves the Holy
Spirit of God. (2.) I observed many years ago, It is hard to find words
in the language of men to explain the deep things of God. Indeed, there
are none that will adequately express what the Spirit of God works in
his children. But, perhaps, one might say, (desiring any who are taught
of God to correct, soften, or strengthen the expression,) by the
‘testimony of the Spirit,’ I mean, an inward impression on the soul,
whereby the Spirit of God immediately and directly witnesses with my
spirit, that I am a child of God; that ‘Jesus Christ hath loved me, and
given himself for me;’ that all my sins are blotted out, and I, even I,
am reconciled to God. (3.) After twenty years’ farther consideration, I
see no cause to retract any part of this. Neither do I conceive how any
of these expressions may be altered, so as to make them more
intelligible. I can only add, that if any of the children of God will
point out any other expressions which are more clear, or more agreeable
to the word of God, I will readily lay these aside. (4.) Meantime, let
it be observed, I do not mean hereby, that the Spirit of God testifies
this by any outward voice; no, nor always by an inward voice, although
he may do this sometimes. Neither do I suppose, that he always applies
to the heart, though he often may, one or more texts of Scripture. But
he so works upon the soul by his immediate influence, and by a strong,
though inexplicable, operation, that the stormy wind and troubled waves
subside, and there is a sweet calm: the heart resting as in the arms of
Jesus, and the sinner being clearly satisfied that all his ‘iniquities
are forgiven, and his sins covered.’ (5.) Now what is the matter of
dispute concerning this? Not, whether there be a witness or testimony of
the Spirit. Not, whether the Spirit does testify with our spirit, that
we are the children of God. None can deny this, without flatly
contradicting the Scriptures, and charging a lie upon the God of truth.
Therefore, that there is a testimony of the Spirit, is acknowledged by
all parties. (6.) Neither is it questioned, whether there is an indirect
witness or testimony, that we are the children of God. This is nearly,
if not exactly, the same with ‘the testimony of a good conscience toward
God;’ and is the result of reason or reflection on what we feel in our
own souls. Strictly speaking, it is a conclusion drawn partly from the
word of God, and partly from our own experience. The word of God says,
Every one who has the fruit of the Spirit is a child of God. Experience
or inward consciousness tells me, that I have the fruit of the Spirit;
and hence I rationally conclude, Therefore I am a child of God. This is
likewise allowed on all hands, and so is no matter of controversy. (7.)
Nor do we assert, that there can be any real testimony of the Spirit,
without the fruit of the Spirit. We assert, on the contrary, that the
fruit of the Spirit immediately springs from this testimony; not always
indeed in the same degree even when the testimony is first given; and
much less afterward: neither joy nor peace is always at one stay. No,
nor love: as neither is the testimony itself always equally strong and
clear. (8.) But the point in question is, whether there be any direct
testimony of the Spirit at all; whether there be any other testimony of
the Spirit, than that which arises from a consciousness of the fruit. I
believe there is, because that is the plain, natural meaning of the
text, ‘The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are
the children of God.’ It is manifest here are two witnesses mentioned,
who together testify the same thing, the Spirit of God, and our own
spirit. The late bishop of London, in his sermon on this text, seems
astonished that any one can doubt of this, which appears upon the very
face of the words. Now, ‘the testimony of our own spirit,’ says the
bishop, ‘is one which is the consciousness of our own sincerity;’ or, to
express the same thing a little more clearly, the consciousness of the
fruit of the Spirit. When our spirit is conscious of this, of love, joy,
peace, long suffering, gentleness, goodness, it easily infers from these
premises, that we are the children of God. It is true, that great man
supposes the other witness to be ‘the consciousness of our own good
works.’ This, he affirms, is ‘the testimony of God’s Spirit.’ But this
is included in the testimony of our own spirit: yea, and in sincerity,
even according to the common sense of the word. So the Apostle: ‘Our
rejoicing is this, the testimony of our conscience, that in simplicity
and godly sincerity we have our conversation in the world;’ where it is
plain, sincerity refers to our words and actions, at least, as much as
to our inward dispositions. So that this is not another witness, but the
very same that he mentioned before: the consciousness of our good works
being only one branch of the consciousness of our sincerity.
Consequently, here is only one witness still. If therefore, the text
speaks of two witnesses, one of these is not the consciousness of our
good works, neither of our sincerity; all this being manifestly
contained in ‘the testimony of our spirit.’ What, then, is the other
witness? This might easily be learned, if the text itself were not
sufficiently clear, from the verse immediately preceding: ‘Ye have
received, not the spirit of bondage, but the Spirit of adoption, whereby
we cry, Abba, Father.’ It follows, ‘The Spirit itself beareth witness
with our spirit, that we are the children of God.’ This is farther
explained by the parallel text, Gal. iv, 6: ‘Because ye are sons, God
hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba,
Father.’ Is not this something immediate and direct, not the result of
reflection or argumentation? Does not this Spirit cry, ‘Abba, Father,’
in our hearts, the moment it is given? antecedently to any reflection
upon our sincerity, yea, to any reasoning whatsoever? And is not this
the plain, natural sense of the words, which strikes any one as soon as
he hears them? All these texts, then, in their most obvious meaning,
describe a direct testimony of the Spirit. That the testimony of the
Spirit of God, must, in the very nature of things, be antecedent to the
testimony of our own spirit, may appear from this single consideration:
We must be holy in heart and life, before we can be conscious that we
are so. But we must love God before we can be holy at all, this being
the root of all holiness. Now, we cannot love God, till we know he loves
us: ‘We love him, because he first loved us.’ And we cannot know his
love to us, till his Spirit witnesses it to our spirit. Since,
therefore, the testimony of his Spirit must precede the love of God and
all holiness, of consequence it must precede our consciousness thereof.”