Page images

ED, AND THAT BY MEANS OF VARIOUS EXPRESSIONS WHICH DENOTE THE PASSIONS AND AFFECTIONS OF AN INTELLIGENT AGENT. Thus, He is said to be pleused"it seemed good to the Holy Ghost;'"' to be vexed—“they rebelled and vexed his Holy Spirit ;''2 to be grieved—grieve not the Holy Spirit of God;" to be resisted—“ye do always resist the Holy Ghost ;" to be quenched-"quench not the Spirit." Can all these things be predicated of a mere attribute.

5. THERE ARE VARIOUS OFFICES ATTRIBUTED TO THE SPIRIT OF GOD, AND HE IS REPRESENTED AS OPERATING IN THE DISCHARGE OF THE SAME, WHICH ARE THINGS PERFECTLY UNINTELLIGIBLE AND ABSURD ON THE SUPPOSITION OF HIS BEING A PERSONAL AGENT. Thus he is said to teach: "But the anointing which ye have received of Him abideth in you; and ye need not that any man teach you ; but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him." By this anointing every one must admit is meant the very same thing with what is elsewhere called the Spirit of God. John said of Christ that “God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him," but in an illimitable degree, which thing in the poetic style of the Psalms, is represented by an unction from the Holy One, as an Apostle has infallibly declared. “Unto the Son he saith, God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows."9 Whatever the Spirit of God may be, it is the same with the anointing which is

The Spirit also, is said expressly, or by evident implication in other passages, to teach.10 This is a work that is peculiarly attributed to Him, and may there1 Acts, iv. 28.

2 Isaiah, lxiä. 10. 3 Eph. iv, 30.
4 Acts, vii. 51.
5 1 Thess. v. 19.

6 1 John, ii. 27
7 John, jö. 34.
& Proof to the same effect is to be hrad by comparing 2 Cor. i. 21, 22,

Eph. i. 13, 14,–1 John, ii, 20, with 1 Cor. ii. 12, 9 licb. i. 9: Psalro. xlv. 7,

10 Luke, xi. 12: John, xiv. 26:1 Cor. ii. 13.


said to teach.




fore be considered His official business. If the blessed Saviour is represented as teaching, and is thence to be considered as an official teacher, having been sent from God for this purpose, according to the true saying of Nicodemus," so ought the Holy Spirit to be, for He is sent expressly by the Lord Jesus Christ to teach, and thence takes the distinctive and official title of the Comforter. Is the one is a true person, and if it is at all lawful to argue that He is, from the office attributed to Him and His discharge of its duties, so also must be the other. Why must we believe it mere personification in the latter instance, if it be not in the former? Every reader of the scriptures, who has not, by his prejudices or attachment to some favorite theory, been compelled to sacrifice his common sense, sees, at once, how absurd a thing it is to deny the real personality of the Lord Jesus Christ. Yet it is not more so than to deny that of the Spirit. Was the former an attribute of Deity, or some attribute making manifestations of itself? How utterly absurd! No mystery can be half as absurd ; yet this absurdity must be maintained by him that denies the personality of the Spirit of God!

The argument drawn from this souree might be amplified by a reference to another very peculiar class of effects wrought by the Spirit of God, which the sacred scriptures contemplate as pertaining to Him officially—we mean those connected with the sanctification of believers, on account of whose agency and influence in the productiðn of which, they are said to "walk in the Spirit,'to be led by the Spirit,"3 to "live in the Spirit,"4 to be afler the Spirit,''s to be "in the Spirit,' to be filled with the Spirit,to have the fruits of the Spirit,' &c.; but we deem it unnecessary, as every reader can readily do it for himself, What mean such expressions, if there is no such blessed agent as the Spirit of God exerting an influence in and with the believer's efforts to lead a holy life? Why are they especially called "the temple of God,” and is it said that “the Spirit of God dwelleth in” them when their personal holiness is alluded to, if there is no such Being as the Spirit of God, and that holiness is not an effect of His agency and influence? Must the phrase or phrases as above, be understood to mean the influence of human reason and conscience in opposition to the animal appetites? How then without violating an idiom of speech can believers be said to be "sanctified?And how is it that we read of sanctification through the Spirit,as though the personal holiness of the believer is to be attributed to some other than the influence of their own reason? Verily language could not have been more vague, or more calculated to deceive, than that which the sacred scriptures hold with respect to the sanctification of believers, if the influence of human reason is its source, and if there is no such Being as the Spirit of God.

1 John, ii, 2.
4 Gal. y. 25.
7 Eph. v. 18.

2 Gal. y. 16.

3 Gal. v. 18. 5 Rom. viii. 5.

6 Rom. viii, 9. 8 Gal. v. 22: Eph. y. 16.

6. It may yet be added that THERE ARE VARIOUS ATTRIBUTES GIVEN IN THE SACRED SCRIPTURES TO THE SPIRIT of God. Thus, Truth is attributed to Him, "the Spirit of Truth whom the world cannot receive”2' -- Holiness also, whence he is called “the Holy Spirit” and “the Spirit of Holiness" --likewise Goodness-Thy Spirit is Good" "Thy Good Spirit'' --and Grace—“hath done despite to the Spirit of Grace''s --and Glory—“the Spirit of Glory and of God resteth on you’6 –and Eternity—“who through the Eternal Spirit” -and Omnipresence—"whither shall I go from thy Spirit" -and Omniscience—"The Spirit searcheth all things." Can we suppose, without absurdity, that all these things are attributed to a mere attribute? Shall we personify the power of God, and in the

? Cor. iii. 16: vi. 19. 2 John, xiv. 17, &c. &c. 3 1 Cor. iii. 16: Rom i. 4. Psalm, calii. 10: Neh. ix. 20.

61 Peter, iv. 14. Heb.ix. 14. 8 Psalm, cxxxix. 7.

1 Cor. ii, lv,


5 Heb. x. 29.

boldness of losty conception weave arnund it the other perfections of Deity? Then what are we to make of the attribute of power itself, which is given to the Spirit of God, as we read of “many signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God?" Is it at all conceivable that truth, holiness, goodness, grace, glory, eternity, omnipresence and omniscience should be attributed to power,--and power too? Is it not absurd to talk of the power of the power of God? So far from the Spirit of God being identical with the power of God, they are accurately distinguished in the sacred scriptures, "not by might nor by power, but by My Spirit saith the Lord."2

When therefore we survey the different parts of our argument, we confidently challenge any and every man who can divest his mind of prejudice, and who will rationally and coolly consider the import of language, to say, whether there is not the most overwhelming proof of the Spirit's personality, or real personal existence. If He possesses the power of spontaneous action, and actually and voluntarily exerts it ; if Me performs those actions which can be predicated only of a personal intelligent agent--speaking, testifying, searching, shewing, and the like ; if He operates, and is affected in such way as to imply personality--working miracles, conferring gifts, being vexed and grieved, &c.; if He discharges the functions of various offices--teaching and sanctifying; if He is possessed of various attributes of a personal intelligent agenttruth, holiness, goodness, grace, power, &c., ought we, can we for one moment doubt with respect to His real personal existence? If these things do not prove personality what else can? It is just as impossible to prove the personal existence of Jesus Christ, or even of God the Father, as it is of the Holy Spirit, if there is no conclusiveness in the arguments that have been adduced.

1 Rom. xv. 19,

2 Zech. iv, 6.




An attempt to understand the Unitarian doctrine concerning the Spirit

Quotation from Faustus Socinus—Quotation from Dr. Channing-From Leslie—The Unitarian’s alternative--His notion of the spirit examined Put to the test of common-sense interpretation of scripture, John xiv. 24 26—Another supposition with regard to the Spirit examined—Its falsity exposed, when put to the test of scripture, Heb. ii. 4: Acts, xiii. 2: Acts, viii. 28: xi 19, 20: xv. 28: xvi. 6—If Unitarian views are true, the sacred writers liable to a serious charge, Acts, vi. 3: John, i. 33: Acts, v. 3, 4– The Unitarian notion of inspiration examined-Nature of inspiration-An argument thence deduced in favour of the divine personality of the Spirit -Unitarian view of inspiration—Quotation from Priestley and Belsham, 2 Tim, iii. 16: Mark, xiï. 11-Dr. Bancroft's idea, Mat. xii. 31.

Perhaps it will be objected that we have not faithfully and accurately represented the opinion of those against whom we have been directing our arguments:--that we have taken advantage of expressions, and attributed to them sentiments which they disavow:--that they do not mean to intimate any such absurdity as that a mere abstract perfection of Deity, apart and separate from God Himself, should be represented as endowed with the attributes of personality. We confess that it is exceedingly dillicult to tell what they mean, and that we find it much easier to understand the proposition setting forth this great mystery, that the Divine Being—the One God exists in three distinct personal subsistences, than the assertions and explanations they advance relative to God and the Spirit of God. Let them speak for themselves. The Holy Spirit of God, they say, must be understood in the same sense as when

« PreviousContinue »