Imagini ale paginilor

properly translated spirit? What then is the Holy Spirit, but a spirit ? Is not God properly a spirit? What then is the Spirit of God but a spirit? If the Holy Spirit be nei. ther spirit nor matter, it is nothing. If the Spirit of God be not a spirit, there is no spirit in the universe.

But if the Spirit of God be a spirit, what is the reason to be assigned for the supposition that personality is figu. ratively ascribed to him? What can be properly a person, if a spirit be not? This is not the way, however, in which the Socinians reason. They have adopted an idea of the nature of spirit altogether different from that which is suggestsd by the Scriptures. Mr. G. says, “ From this very name (Spirit) I should draw precisely the opposite inference, that because it is a spirit, it is not a substance or person. (Vol. i, p. 125.) If in this confession he have not evinced much understanding, he has given a strong proof of his candour. It is at least an honest confession, and may serve as a beacon to “ warn off” the unwary reader from the rocks of atheism.

Mr. G. acknowledges that “God is a spirit." This is a branch of his natural religion. But “ because it (he) is a spirit, it (he) is not a substance or person." Now, to say nothing of the crudities of Mr. Go's philosophical notions of spirit, who could demonstrate more effectually than he has done, that Socinianism, deism, and atheism are nearly allied? God either is a person, or he is not.

If he be not a per. son, he is not an intelligent and voluntary agent; that is, there is no God. If he be a person, and spirit have no personality, no intellect, or will, then God is not spirit but matter. As the essential property of matter is ex. tension, and extension necessarily implies limits, matter cannot be infinite. A material God cannot be an infinite God; and a finite God is no God at all. Again: all attributes or accidents must have a substance in which to inhere. If “ God is a spirit," and spirit is not a substance, then God is not a substance. If God be not a substance, he can have no accidents or attributes. God therefore is neither substance nor accident; he has neither being nor attributes, i. e., he is nothing. If the “ unskilful” will not take the alarm when Mr. G.'s trumpet gives no uncertain sound,” their case is hopeless. We appeal from the speculative atheism of Mr. G. to the better understand.

ing of plain, unlettered men, who read their Bibles. Let the absurdity, not to say blasphemy, into which his " precisely opposite inference” would lead us, serve, as the best argu. ment that could be produced, to convince us that a spirit is a substance and a person.

So far from it being true that the Spirit of God is a mere attribute of spirit, that the proper attributes of spirit are ascribed to him. Goodness is an attribute of spirit, and is ascribed to him. “ Thou art my God-thy Spirit is good,” Psa. cxliii, 10. Hence that holiness which be. longs only to intelligent and voluntary agents is made pecu. liarly characteristic of him, and is not so often attributed to any other being : he is called emphatically the Holy Spirit. Mr. G. supposes the Spirit of God to be the mere power of God. But power and energy are attributed to the Spirit of God. St. Paul speaks of " the power of the Spirit of God," Rom. xv, 19. Now either the apostle means to speak of the power of a power, the attribute of an attribute, which is an absurdity ; or he must mean to attribute these personal qualities to the Spirit as to a spirit, a substance, and a real person.

To pursue this subject farther. If the Holy Spirit be a spirit, how can it be a mere energy which has no person. ality? Our ideas of a person are those of an intelligent and voluntary agent; and such are the ideas which the Scriptures give us of the Spirit of God.

1. He is an intelligent agent. “ The things which God hath prepared for them that love him," says St. Paul," he hath revealed unto us by his Spirit; for the Spirit search. eth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man but the Spirit of God," 1 Cor. ii, 9–11. have a plain and unequivocal declaration that “the Spirit of God searcheth and knoweth all things, even the deep things of God.” How then will Mr. G. get over it ? No. thing is more easy. He will raise a dust, and escape in the cloud. Let us hear him, and examine his comment at full length. “Here are," says he, " the following positive assertions, that the knowledge they (the apostles) possessed was revealed to them by the Spirit of God himself, (Query, himself!) or by divine inspiration.” Very

Here we

Not so.

true! “That there was nothing too great to be thus made known to them, even the deep counsels of the Almighty."

This “ assestion" is not St. Paul's, but Mr. G.'s. St. Paul asserts that “the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God:” and Mr. G., to get red of this troublesome “ assertion," substitutes one of his own which is not true. Infinite things are “ too great” to be made fully known to finite minds. “ The love of Christ,” with the good leave of the Socinians, “ passeth knowledge;" even the knowledge of those who are strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man," Eph. iii, 10, 19. • And then," Mr. G. adds, “as if for fear he should not be un. derstood, the apostle explains what he meant by the Spirit of God, by saying, it was exactly the same in God, as the spirit of a man is in a human being.” That is, if Mr. G. please, as there is an intelligent spirit in man which knows the things of a man; so the Spirit of God is an intelligent spirit which knoweth the things of God. Q. E. D. Thus has Mr. G. led us, undesignedly and unexpectedly, to the very conclusion which we wished. Fas est, et ab hoste doceri.

2. The Holy Spirit is a voluntary agent: he has a will. “ It seemed good to the Holy Ghost, say the apostles, “and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things,” &c., Acts xv, 28. Again : “ He that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spi. rit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to (the will of) God,” Rom. viii, 27. But Mr. G. is disposed to controvert the meaning of this last passage,

and to deny that it is of the Spirit of God the apostle is speaking. We will examine his paraphrase. “Our spiritual de. sires," says he, “ come in aid of our bodily weakness.” So our “not knowing what we should pray for as we ought," is a bodily weakness, and not a mental "infirmity.” All the absurdity of this comment is only that of substituting body for spirit; an easy thing with one who knows no differ. ence! We proceed : :-- For we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but our inward spiritual desires intercede for us, though we cannot express them in appro. priate language.” So, after all, this “ bodily weakness" is only the want of grammatical knowledge! Our poor weak bodies are not masters of rhetoric: we cannot ex.

press ourselves properly! Nay, that is not the entire sum of our bodily weakness. Our bodies “know not what we should pray for as we ought.” They are ignorant bodies! Hence “our inward spiritual desires intercede for us.” Our spirit takes pity on the weakness of our body; and since the latter cannot know, desire, and ask, as the So. cinians think it ought, the former undertakes its cause, and performs these necessary duties much to the advantage of its dull companion. “ And then,” says Mr. G., “ He that searcheth the heart knoweth the desires of our spirit, that, agreeably to the will of God, it pleadeth in behalf of the holy." (Vol. I, p. 122.) That is, we do not know what we ought to ask, but our spirit, which, though it was but this moment our very selves, is now another thing, knows all about it, hits upon “the will of God” exactly; and by its “ desires,” the only language it can on such an occasion use, pleads successfully the cause of the holy; that is, of our holy body!

The palpable contradictions and gross absurdities of this comment sufficiently separate it from the text. This is another glaring instance of the arbitrary and irrational manner in which Socinians explain the Scriptures. If, after this strong opiate, we can recover the use of our reason, let us examine the text itself.

“ We know not what we should pray for as we ought.” It is but just now we have seen that the spirit of man is that in man which knoweth the things of a man. But this spirit in man knoweth not, of itself, what we ought to pray for. If it knew independently what to pray for as we ought, its own unaided desires would be according to the will of God. This ignorance is, therefore, our infirmity. But “the Spirit helpeth our infirmities.” If the Spirit helpeth our infirmities, and our infirmities are those of ignorance, which is an infirmity of our spirit; it cannot be our own spirit that helpeth itself. The apostle's words are not πνευμα ημων, our spirit; but το πνευμα, the Spirit. The question then is, What spirit is that by which we are thus assisted ? (1.) We know of no spirit by which we can be thus "helped," but the Spirit of Him “ that searcheth the hearts," who alone can perfectly know what we want, and what we may have, and who can “make intercession for the saints according to the will of

[ocr errors]

God.” (2.) To suppose any other spirit which maketh intercession for the saints, is to vindicate the idolatries against which we have all protested. (3.) The apostle is speaking of those who have the first fruits of the Spirit, (viz., of the Spirit of God,) and who groan within them. selves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of their body.” (4.) This is what the apostles teach as be. ing at once the privilege and the duty of all Christians

praying in the Holy Ghost,” Jude 20.

St. Paul, speaking of the “diversity of spiritual gifts," says, “ All these worketh that one and the self-same Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will,” 1 Cor. xii, 11. To evade the force of this clear and positive declaration, Mr. G. compares it with the following passage: “Know ye not that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey, whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness.'

“ Here,says he, “ sin is a person, and the personal pronoun whom applied to it. And not only has it will, but also keeps servants and pays wages. (Vol. i, p. 130.) Who does not see that, at this rate, the proper personality of God and man may easily be disproved? Sin, we know, is only an abstract quality. When, therefore, it is personified, we know that a figure is used, because properties and actions are ascribed to it which do not belong to it. that volition is improperly ascribed to the Spirit of God on the same ground, it is therefore necessary, first, to prove that the Holy Spirit also is a mere abstract quality, and that there is a glaring absurdity in ascribing to it volition. But this Mr. G. has not even attempted to prove. And no wonder: for to attempt to prove that volition is improperly attributed to a spirit, is equivalent to an attempt to prove that volition is improperly attributed to man, to angels, and to God.

To what has been advanced in proof of the personality of the Holy Spirit, it is unnecessary to subjoin those proofs, the validity of which must depend on that of those which precede. The Scriptures attribute to the Holy Spirit the personal affections of grief and vexation; the personal faculties of hearing and speech, and the personal offices of a teacher, a guide, a monitor, a witness, an ambassa. dor, and a comforter. In attempting to set aside these

To prove

« ÎnapoiContinuați »