most important objections of adversaries. That personal characters and operations are often attributed to the Spirit in the sacred volume, is quite undeniable; but the enemies of the doctrine very boldly and speciously allege, that this is done merely by the figure of speech called personification. The futility of this exception is briefly pointed out by Witsius; and those who are desirous to see a more minute refutation of it may consult Dr Owen,* and also Dr Wardlaw's comprehensive Sermon on the Divinity and Personality of the Holy Spirit.+ The learned reader will find an interesting argument for the personality of the Spirit, in Dr Middleton's Note on Mat. i. 18.‡ from which the following is a short extract. "It may here be briefly noticed, that in the passages, which, from their ascribing personal acts to the ayor, are usually adduced to prove the Personality of the Blessed Spirit, the words πνευμα and πνεύμα άγιον invariably have the article. See particularly Mark i. 10. Luke iii. 22. John i. 32. Acts i. 16. and xx. 28. Ephes. iv. 20. Mark xiii. 11. Acts x. 9. and xxviii. 25. 1 Tim. iv, 1. Heb. iii. 7. &c. The reason of this is obvious; for there being but one Holy Spirit, he could not be spoken of indefinitely. In Matt. also xxviii. 19. where the Holy Spirit is associated with the Father and the Son, the reading is тy ayı vuμates." The ingenious writer goes on to show, that, where μ means not the Person of the Spirit, but his influence or operation, "a remarkable difference may be observed with respect to the Article." "Though the Holy Spirit himself be but one, his influences and operations may be many: hence πνευμα and μ ά are in this sense anarthrous,” (i. e. without the article,) " the case of renewed mention or of reference being of course excepted. The expressions of being filled with the Holy Ghost,' 'receiving the Holy Ghost,' the Holy Ghost being upon one,' &c. justify this observation." NOTE LV. Page 311. It is perhaps somewhat difficult to determine the precise meaning of that expression in Acts x. 32, " The word of his grace." Henry and Guyse seem inclined to apply it both to Christ and to the Gospel: Beza and Doddridge understand it to mean simply the Gospel: but Gomar § and our Author are quite decided in referring the expression to our Saviour. This interpretation is supported by Wit ▪ Discourse on the Holy Spirit, Book i, chap. 3. sius, not only here, but also in a separate Dissertation on the Logos. In that Dissertation, his concluding argument is thus expressed : "The succeeding words of the verse cannot be referred to God, without imagining an unnecessary hyperbaton; † and they do not suit the Gospel, which neither builds us up on a foundation, nor gives us an inheritance, but is the instrument by which Christ builds us on himself, and by which the inheritance and the way of obtaining it are revealed. But these expressions are perfectly applicable to Christ; for he builds the church on himself, and preserves it, Matt. xvi. 18. Heb. iii. 3. and also gives us an inheri tance, Col. iii. 24.” Our Author at the same time shows, that, though it were conceded, that not our Saviour, but the Gospel, is intended by "the word of his grace," the passage where this phrase occurs cannot invalidate his argument from Matt. xxviii. 19, in favour of the personality of the Holy Spirit. NOTE LVI. Page $24. To the Author's able illustration and defence of the argument for the DIVINITY of the Spirit, founded on Acts v. 3, 4, the following excellent quotation from a living writer, relative to the same topic, may fitly be subjoined. "The conduct of Ananias was farther aggravated by the dignity of the person against whom it was an offence. Thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God. He had indeed lied unto men, in attempting to deceive the Apostles; but Peter means that he had not lied only to them. It is observable that, whereas he affirms in the preceding verse that Ananias had lied to the Holy Ghost, he now charges him with having lied to God. It follows that the Holy Ghost is not a creature, nor a rhetorical name for a divine operation or influence, but a person possessed of proper Divinity. It is to no purpose to object to this inference, that an equivalent phrase is used where it is manifest that the same conclusion cannot be drawn from it. When the Israelites murmured for want of flesh against Moses and Aaron, they are said to have murmured against God, Exod. xvi. 8. The instances are not parallel. In the latter case, the Israelites were guilty of murmuring against God, because they fretted at Moses and Aaron his ministers; but in the former, Ananias is said not Miscel. Sac. Tom. ii. Exercit. iii. Tig Ty λ078, sect. 39. A Hyperbaton is a figure of speech, by which the words are transposed from the plain grammatical order. T. only to have lied to the Holy Ghost because he lied to the Apostles who were inspired by him, but to have lied to God in lying to the Holy Ghost; a charge which would not have been true, unless both designations had belonged to the same person. In this then consisted the greatness of his sin, that it was an insult offered to the Spirit of truth and holiness, speaking and acting in the ambassadors of Christ. Every lie which is told to men is an offence against God, of whose law it is an express violation; but the proper object of this lie was the Holy Ghost, who was present with the Apostles in a manner totally different from the mode of his presence with any other person." Witsius, with great candour, admits that in Scripture "it is no where said expressly, and in so many words, The Holy Spirit is the Most High God."+ Yet surely, whoever reads with attention Acts v. 3, 4, must acknowledge, it is not without cause that Dr Owen, when proceeding to illustrate the argument which that passage supplies, says of the Spirit, "He is expressly called God-;" nor is it altogether unjustly, that Mr Jones § combats the assertion of Dr Clarke in his Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity," that the Person of the Holy Ghost is no where in Scripture expressly styled God." The Divinity, as well as Personality, of the Spirit is proved at large by Dr Owen in the valuable work already referred to. Both these points, too, are ably treated by Bishop Pearson,|| and by Dr Barrow.¶ NOTE LVII. Page 335. line 18. . The argument for the Divinity of the Spirit, which our Author derives from the representation given in Scripture of the unpardonable sin, is at once cogent in itself, and very judiciously stated. The Personality, also, of the Spirit, is obviously confirmed by the same argument. On this point, Theologians have properly noticed the use of the same expression with reference to the Son and Spirit. "When the sin of blasphemy is said to be committed against the Holy Spirit," says Dr Barrow, "just in the same form of speech as against the Son, it is signified that the Holy Spirit is in the same manner a Person as the Son is a Person; otherwise the comparison would not seem to be well framed."** • Dr Dick's Lectures on the Acts, Vol. i. Lect. vi. p. 129. The subject does not render it necessary to attempt any discussion of the various questions that have been agitated relative to the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.-Many writers, as Gouge,* Pool, and Tillotson, have thought that our Lord, in Matt. xii. and Mark iii. represents the Pharisees as having at that time actually incurred the guilt of this crime, by perversely ascribing his miracles to diabolical agency. But Dr Whitby, in an elaborate Appendix to the 12th Chapter of Matthew, has endeavoured to prove that Christ intimates, this sin could not be committed till after the commencement of that dispensation of the Spirit which was to succeed his ascension, and that he only gave the Pharisees a necessary warning against the commission of it. In these views, Whitby has been followed by Guyset and Doddridge.§ Many have supposed, that it was only during the age of miracles, that men could involve themselves in the guilt of this unpardonable sin against the Spirit. This seems to have been the opinion of Secker. The remarks of Pool, on the other side of the question, are worthy of attention. Yet it is much to be regretted that, owing to bodily disorders or strong temptations, serious persons have often exceedingly distressed their minds by the rash and ill-founded conclusion, that they had themselves committed the sin against the Holy Ghost, and that consequently their condition was utterly desperate. Peace be to the man, whose benevolent and judicious efforts are exerted to convince such unhappy individuals of their error, to dispel the clouds which obstruct their peace, and to administer that consolation which the rich promises and gracious invitations of the Gospel are calculated to impart! The reader who is disposed to study this subject may consult, beside the writers already mentioned, Owen's Exposition of the Hebrews, Ch. vi. 4-6. x. 26-29, and Maestricht's Theology.** NOTE LVIII. Page 335. line 26. In the authorised English Translation, the passage quoted by our Author from Hag. ii. 4, 5, is thus expressed: "I am with you, saith the LORD of Hosts. According to the word that I covenanted with you when you came out of Egypt, so my Spirit remaineth Treatise on the Sin against the Holy Ghost, subjoined to the Whole Armour of God, p. 607. + Vol. i. Ser. 17. Paraph. on Matt. xii. 31, 32. and Mark iii. 29. Fam. Expos. Vol. ii. Sect. 61. Note p. Works, Vol. iv. p. 324. Lib. iv. cap. 8. sect. 16, 17. Annot. on Mat. xii. 32. among you." The version given by Witsius, however, is equally agreeable to the original; and it corresponds with the manner in which the words are rendered by Tremellius and Junius, who translate them thus: "I am with you, saith Jehovah of hosts, with the WORD, by whom I covenanted with you when you came out of Egypt, and with my Spirit remaining among you."* By giving the term Word in capital letters, these Translators, without doubt, intended to intimate that they consider it as meaning the Messiah ; and on this subject, Junius makes the following remarks: "Whoever interpret this passage otherwise, are obliged either to introduce a most unpleasant confusion + into these two verses quite foreign to the scope of the Prophet, or to do violence to the particle which the Prophet here makes use of. For our part, knowing that, with the progress of time, the mysteries of God were more and more clearly discovered to the Frophets and declared to the church, we maintain, agreeably to the obvious meaning of the expression and the scope of the argument, that God the Father promises his presence to the church, with Christ, and with the Holy Spirit."+ Witsius himself particularly vindicates this interpretation elsewhere. "The Son," says he, "is truly the Word in whom God covenanted with the Israelites when they came out of Egypt. The expression wx is capable of being translated two ways; either in whom or of whom he covenanted.§ If we choose the first, it will be signified that he is the Word, by whose mediation God covenanted with the Israelites when they came out of Egypt. This indeed is the Angel who appeared to Moses in the bush, who called himself the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, Exod. iii. 2, 6. and whose good-will is mentioned by Moses as the source of every blessing, Deut. xxxiii. 16. But if we prefer the last explanation, the sense will be, that this is the Word whom God by a sure covenant promised to send to his people. The expression, too, may then be compared with Exod. xxiii. 20, and Deut. xviii. 19, where God promises to send to Israel the Angel, in whom is his name; and to raise up to them a Prophet, in whose mouth he should put his words. Whichever of these two ways of rendering the words be adopted, the expression still refers to the Son of God, by whose mediation, -Sum enim vobiscum, dictum Jehovæ exercituum, Cum VERBO, quo pepigeram vobiscum exeuntibus vobis ex Ægypto, et Spiritu meo stante in vobis. † Σύγχυσιν durissimam. + Pool's Synopsis, in loc. As in John i. 46. ‘Or iyçaye Mwons, "of whom Moses wrote," and sod. xxxiii. 1.—“ Unto the land nyawa ¬wx, of which I sware." |