Hey on Article V: Of the Holy Ghost

treating this Article, we will follow our usual method, and therefore begin with History. The expressions of Scripture concerning the Holy Ghost being of various kinds, and varying, like has concerning the Son of God (Art. II. Sect. xxx I. XXX11.), almost imperceptibly, with the circumstances in which they are used, nothing better could be done at first than to use them in the same manner. This would be done of course, through the mere help of feeling or sense, so long as the circumstances implied were plainly perceived; but, when circumstances began to be seen more faintly, or to be forgotten, then a greater degree of attention would be required. And therefore the inattentive would come to use expressions of Scripture perversely; perhaps too literally, as that arises from neglecting circumstances; so as to re- quire correction; which would give occasion to controversy, ard that to precise and systematical use of terms, though indifferent or opposite senses. — One of the . most obvious faults, in such a case, would be using indefinite, popular, passionate ex-

pressions,

BOOK IV. ART. v. SECT. 1. 423 pressions, as if they had been used originally in a literal, philosophical, /czentifical senseb.

From such wrong interpretation of expressions, must arise wrong notions and doctrines; what those were, which were profefled in very early times of Christianity, it may sometimes be difficult to ascer- tain. In order to approach as near as poshble, let us first consider the forces of information, and next the particular information which they yield, in the matter before us. Orthodox writings ex- prefled the same notions, which we now maintain writings deemed heretical, used to be destroyed.

We have already * mentioned Doxologres ; and the conclusions to be drawn from them. We will now shew, how something may be learned from acts of ancient Councils: an error would not have been condemned, if it had not actually exifed ; not merely because it might exist: this we may at all times take for granted; but a difficulty some- times arises from errors being condemned without any mention of the names of those, by whom they were held: however, circumstances will sometimes solve this difficulty.—One kind of order of Coun- cils should be here mentioned particularly; that is, the order for re-baptizing Heretics, When any _ persons had been baptized in a sect, which was thought to have something radically and essentially wrong in the form of its baptism, if such persons wished to quit that Sect, and come to the main Body of Christians, or the Catholic Church, it was decreed, that they should be baptized atresh. Now, as regular baptism was in the name-of the Father, Son, “and Holy Gliast, re-baptizing must be owing to an omission of something? in this form; which

would

2 Of this before, Art. 1. Sect, 1v. and Art. 12. Sect. xLv. Art. 1. Sect. zv.

—

424 BOOK IV. ART. v. SECT. I,

• would be caused by some heterodox opinion; pro- bably either concerning the Son, or Holy Ghost ; but errors were more frequent and more likely to hap- pen concerning the latter, than the former. The scriptural ground of re-baptizing was what is re- corded Acts xix. 5. of baptizing, in the name of Jesus, those who had before only received © John’s Baptism®.” . It may also be mentioned here, that several per- sons, in different ages of the Church, seem to have run into an analogy between the Son of God and the Holy Ghost, with respe& to the union of 729 na- tures in one Person. So that, as the Word was made Flesi and was © seut, the Holy Ghost became an human Comforter, or Paraclete. Some seem to have said, that, as Christ ated with men as a Man, lo the Comforter, sent by Christ, may be, and pro- bably is to be, a Man. The famous Peter Lombard might have an idea of this fort, when he made « a double Proceeding of the Holy Ghost; one tem- poral, the other eternal.—Here is fine scope for enthusiasm! a man of an heated imagination, who was settled in this notion, that there must be an human Comforter, or Holy Ghost, might find no great difficulty in persuading himself, that he was this human Comforter ;—and this several Fanatics seem to have done. But, when it is said, that they pretended to be the Holy Ghost, the account seems to me rather inaccurate; they probably pretended to be nothing more than men, though each fancied himself the Comforter, or Paraclete. Those, who have been less used to read the Scriptures in the original than in our Translation, may not have ovierved, that the word Tagazanres,

When

© Mentioned in Lord King on the Creed, p. 318. © John 1x. 7. —et passim.

. denten. 1. 14. quoted by Rogers on this Article, p. 25,

BOOK IV. ART. v. SECT. 11. 425

when applied to the Son of God, is rendered Ad- vocate, and when to the Holy Ghost, Comforter. Yet, though thele words are different, the funda- mental ideas are much the same. The Paraclete, who 1s above, pleads with the Father; the Paraclete, who is below, pleads with men: though the happi- ness of mankind is the object of both.

11. Thete things premised in general, we might divide our hi/orical oblervations into three parts: the first taking in the ff four Centuries, or per- haps part of the fifth.—the next relating to the eighth and ninth Centuries: the last regarding the age of the Reformation. _

We mutt not speak of very early times of Chris- tianity without difidence ; but {till it seems as if it

might be useful to mention, in a cursory way, that

Simon Magus has been charged with making the pretensions now described. —Menaider, his follow - er, was thought worthy of notice? on account of his errors, and particularly on account of his say ing, that baptism was valid if administered in the name of Menander. — Montanus is {aid by Augustin * to

have called himself Paraclete, and to have affirmed,

that the promise of the Holy Ghost was fulfilled in him : as Comforter, I suppose. He is allo said to have baptized his foilowers in the name of the Fa- ther, Son, and Montanus; which receives some confirmation from his Followers being ordered, by

| wo f Aug. Her. 1. Simon affirmed © posteà’ (after he had given

the Law as Moses, and appeared on earth as Christ) “ se in

[…]

s What Bingham says, 11. 3. 5. 1 have found confirmed by . writers on Heresies; Aug. Theod. Philaster, &c. Aug calls

Montanus’s Se& Cataphryges, No 26. Avg. makes Cataphrypes different from Petuxiani; but Lardner makes them the same, the latter name from a village in Phrygia, which the Montanifts held sacred; a sort of Jerusalem. Aug. indeed mentions, that fome persons thought them the same, . N

b Har, 20.

— — 5 2 - - ——- — A […] E — & - […] 2 […] yr = I IS - […] - .

POE Kal — —

—

— — ti - = — 3 * ne 3 […] E

—— — 2 — a

[…] 2 4 —

[1 h ” ’ “i It ’ , 4 : * b \ $1 F ; :

426 ’ BOOK Iv. ART. v. SECT. 11.

two Councils’, to be re-baptized. Sometimes he used to put the name of one of his Prophetesses, (Priscilla and Maximilla), instead of his own; (could this be in baptizing females? — Mani has been charged with making the pretensions here spoken of; (to be Paraclete;) but Lardner defends him; and lays, that he pretended to nothing more than communication with the Deity. We have had his Trinity * before: he supposed the residence of the third Person to be in the Air; a thing not unlikely to occur.— His oriental philosophy did not imme- diately suggest this; in that, the Spirits are said to be called Qwre’, or lights; to which St. Johit’s * ule of the word Light may refer.

Christians have been said to judaize, when they have used the word Spiritus in the sense, in which the Jews ut.d MN, for an energy of God, particu- larly that by which the Prophets prophesied. Its sense in Acts“ sometimes seems to approach to this.

The connexion between Paul of Samosata, Mar- cellus, and Photinus, has been shewn * under the tecond Article. Their works not being extant, we may aim at a general idea of them all taken toge- ther. They seem to have held, that the Holy Spirit in Scripture does not mean a Person, but some efficacy of God; some effect of his goodness, some specimen of his divine power, which probably it sometimes does. — Augustin {ays?, that the Pauliani were ordered by the Council of Nice to be re-bap- tized;—but the acts of that Council are not all extant?, nor does it, I think, appear what it was, which vitiated the Paulian Baptism.

Origeu’s

i That of Laodicea, and the first of Constantinople.

• Sect. 111. of Appendix to Book 1.

n Acts xix. 0. o Art. 11. Set. vil, p Her. 44.

BOOK IV. ART. v. SECT. 11. 427

Orige’s works have been so mangled and inter- polated, that I will only recommend it to the Stu- dent not to depend absolutely on any Angle passage of his works, in points which have been much disputed; except he should with to enter fully into

the subject, and then I would refer him to Huet’s Origeniana. The Sabelliaus, of whom we have spoken * before,

were to be re-baptised*; but their particular form

of baptism is not extant: and the Prisci/lianifts have been reckoned a species of Sabellians*.

Lactantius has been mentioned before.

The Ariaus were so much engaged in controversy about the Son of God, that they attended 5 in fixing a doctrine concerning the Holy Ghost : | Augustin says? of them, that hey called Um ce creaturam creaturæ; which, by the way, allows to the Son a creative power. This agrees too with Epiphanius*, and might be taken from him. HowW— ever, only the Eunomiaus, of the Arian sects, seem to have been re-baptized by. the Catholics. They baptized into the Death of Christ only; Fog the following was a form ascribed to some of them; —1n the name of the uncreated God, the created God, and the sanctifying Spirit, created by the created Son. - |

But the Christians most distinguished for their opposition to the Holy Spirit, were the followers of Macedonius; called on that account wveparopayer. Macedonius was a Patriarch of Constantinople, and deposed by a Council there in the year 360 ; his followers were the more noticed tor their hete-

rodoxy

r Art. 1. Se. Iv.

s Seventh Canon of first Council of Constantinople,

t Aug. Hær. 70, end. Also Art. 1. Sect. Iv. u Art, 1. Sect. iv. x Hr. 49.

See Lard. Works, Vol. 4, p. 113. 2 See Bingham, 11. 3. 10, Rom. vi. 3.

423 BOOK IV, ART. v. SECT, 111.

rodoxy in regard to the Holy Ghost, because they Were orthodox with regard to the Son, and la urge, in their own defence, that they received the whole of the Nicene Creed*, What the precise idea of the Macedonians was, we do not seem to know certainly : Augustin reckons them only Semi. arians; and Sozomen * says, that they looked upon the Holy Ghost as a kind of Servant; diane xas b rn- erm: but our Reformatio Legum only says*, illum pro Deo non agnoscentes; speaking of those Chris- tians, who conspire with Macedonius “NH the Holy Ghost. 111. We will now take some notice of the dif- putes of the erg/th and ninth Centuries; Mosheim, a professed Historian, acknowledges®, that the ori- gin of them © 1s covered with perplexity and doubt ;” and the occasion and rise of a dispute ge- nerally influences the whole of it: so that, if the occasion is doubtful, there will be doubts and dif- ferent opinions concerning the rest. What opt- mon I have formed of this part of History, from the materials which have come in my way, I will give you frankly. In the fourth, fifth, and sixth centuries, various disputes took place with the fol- lowers of Macedonins, with respect to the nature and procession of the Holy Ghost: it might be par- ticularly mentioned, with a view to what followed, that, fo soon as the years 430 and 431, in the Councils of Alexandria and Ephesus, it was de- dared, that the Holy Ghost proceeded from the Son as well as from the Father. In order to terminate these disputes, the Church in general made a fort of settlement or determination what should be ac- counted the Catholic doctrine; ; and, to avoid far- ther 2 See Lord King, p. 319, from Epiphanius.

b Lib. 24. Cap. 27. De Harefibus, Cap. 6. ? Mosheim, Vol, 2. Svo. p. 268.

BOOK IV. ART. v. SECT. III. 429

ther adjustings of formularies, agreed, that nothing should from that time be added to those then un- der consideration. It is probable that, at that time, the question, whether the Holy Ghost should be spoken of as proceeding from the Father and

the Son, (Filioque is the famous word) did not

occur to mens minds; Filioque was no? in the Creeds, though it was not new. The Students in the Western Church seem to have ere long contracted an opinion, that it was proper for them to profess in a Creed, that the Holy Ghost proceeded from the Son : they therefore inserted (or one might say, refored*) Filioque, meaning, probably, no harm: —and then the Eastern Church thought as little of complaining, as the Western of offending. At- terwards, however, contentions for worldly grau- deur produced contentions about theological truth, Rome and Constantinople were Rivals; not only for imperial, but for spiritual pre-eminence.—The Patriarch of Constantinople stiled himself Episcoprs Acumenicus: Gregory the Great, Bishop of Rome, was more lowly in the title he assumed; he was Servus servorum*” scilicet Dei; but, in his pre- tensions to authority, he was equally ambitious.

The Patriarch was the head of the Eastern Church;

the Pope of the Western.— This rivalship made

the Churches seek occasions of blaming each other;

and thus the insertion of Filioque came to be com-

plained »of as a breach of Faith. It was defended

by the Western Church, because the word con-

tamed right dofrine; this was enough to make the Eastern Church dispute the doctrine; they did so, and the dispute still subsists, and still c-uses a sepa-

ration

e See Long’s Councils, p. 104.

f Bp. Hallifax’s 0 on Prophecy. — Ser. 11th, p. 347, Note; where he shews, that Vicarius Dei, means the fame with Servus servorum Dei.“

—

o […] _ […] 22 5 8 mw […] oy […] - […] - : 5 […] mn […] - = —— 5 5 — - […] : —— _ […] IS - […] [SD […] : — - - - […] 4 […] - — 7 — — a na - 5 - […] a * 2 […] 2 […] . = - = : — . […] gy — - […] 7 […] F . s — — 2 — = Ep […] . — 5 228 i ——— 2 E — — . […] _ - — — 2 — E ”== * - - — — - _ […] - S — E yore — ——— . es […] - — —— 2 5 B — 3 […] ä — * 8 4 FRAY — N - _ 5 — * 3 yy — = 2 […] . […] 2 ILL 5 […] CES — _ — IR: - In ae ©. ” . —— * : - — A Ro *- 3 Y - ba — — 2 2 a 2 * — . […] bY — - […] 2 — — . […] bs - N — . 2 3 9 — 2 A — pe — .— - […] 2 k 4 — —— WE - = .V — 5 — LEGS — = 5 […] : G r 7 Te * N e — ä — EIT =o 2 : 4 - = 2 2 […] 2 * — - * * 2 — - N ” . — th 2 2 8 - — - * - - — 2 . 8 8 […] 1 […] 4 _ * = —

4 […] 7 […] 1 —˙——— . […] 2 om

N * ä

I

30 BOOK IV. ART. v. SECT. IV.

ration betwixt the Eastern and Western Churches. —One Pope (Leo 3d.) did once, for the sake of peace, order Filiogne to be put out of the Creed, at the same time ratifying the doctrine, which it comprehends;—bur he could only prevail in those Churches, which were under his most immediate inspection; and that only for a time. The obfti- nate resistance of the Greek or Eastern Church to the insertion of Filioque, is the more likely to be owing to some worldly considerations, as several of the Greek Fathers have the doctrine i in their works, cleariy expressed®

iv. The doctrine, which has the best claim to be called Catholic, is that, which our Church pro- fesses: but, in the age of the Reformation, when every one was heated, and eager to distinguish himself, some extravagancies broke forth; some of the old enthusiastic pretensions shewed themselves again, Mosheim does not say, that Servetus® pre- tended to be the Paraclete, but I think others do : and Je says, that Servetus pretended to a divine commission to explain genuine Christianity, which had been long lo/f.—Gentilis’s scheme before men- tioned makes the Holy Spirit distinct from the di- vine essence; he has also been said to deny, that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Son“.

In the Book mentioned in the Introduction to the Articles, called a wecefsary Doctrine, &c. the words made use of seem calculated to express both the personality of the Holy Ghost and his being ® an energy. He is holy and © holinesse 7elfe;”— « full of all goodnefle and benignitie, yea goodnesse ilselse; and so, © charitie itselfe. — In the Refers-

matio See Nicholls on this Article. e Cyril, and Basil.

t Index, Servetus. i Art. 11. Sect. x iv.

k Long’s Councils, p. 104. * Introd, to Book 1 v. Sect. Iv. m See on the Crede.

BOOK IV. ART. v. Ser. S 43

matio * Legum, those were to be subject to all the pains and penalties of Heresy, who denied the Di- vinity of the Holy Ghost.—Yet our present Article was not in those of 1552; perhaps the main sub- stance of it was considered as already in the first Article; but, as that did not then prevent the second from being made separately, so neither need it have prevented the fifth: though there is certainly more ’ tresh matter in the second, than in the fifth. The Socinians, though they changed their lan- guage concerning the Fon of God, seem always to have denied the Personality of the Spirit. Even in their od Catechism, we have Spiritus Sanctus est Virtus Dei.” And the Racoviag catechism says the same’, and denies, that the Holy Spirit is “ in Deitate Personam.” _ Lastly, Mosheim * mentions Paul Maty as hav- ng published at the Hague, in 1729, an hypo- het, that the Holy Ghost has o natures, as before * mentioned; which hypothesis he 1s said to have adopted from Dr. Thomas Burner. | I think, pretensions to being the Paraclete were not uncommon amongst the enthusiastic Arabaprists in the age of the Reformation, but I have no in- stances before me at present. _ v. Having finished our History, we come to the Explanation: which will be confined to the meaning of the ferm Holy Ghost, or Spirit of God.-— The Holy Spirit is the same as the Spirit of God. — * The Holy One” was one of the names of God. Luke i. 49, we have Holy is his Name.”

When

n De Hzresibus, Cap. 6. Cap. 6, p. 167, Edit. 1651.

P Index, Marty. The account 15 rather Maclaine’ s, but from a work of Mosheim’s.

4 Sett. first of this Article.

432 BOOK IV. ART. v. SECT. v.

When we compare tins Article concerning the Holy Ghost with the second concerning the Son, this seems the more dificult as to the principal term made use of; but I much question whether it ought to seem so, Ghost is only (as appears from Skin- ner’s Lexicon) an old word for Spirit; and of spirit we talk continually ; and, though there may be something in it, which is unintelligible, yet there is also something that is clear. Whenever we use any word familiarly, it is to express something, which very frequently comes in our way: and io long as we keep to that, which occasioned its being used, it is 1ntelligible ; though there is nothing so plain but we may perplex ourselves about it, if we endeavour to view it on that hide, which is hid from vs in ordinary life.

Now, as God calls the second Person of the Holy Trinity his Soy, in order to give us some faint idea | ot his Nature, by comparing what we cannot com- prehend with what is familiar to us z—it is highly probable, that, when he calls the third Person his Spirit, he means to answer the fame purpose ; to give us some obscure conception of his nature, by comparing him to something, of which we speak familiarly every day.,—It is our business then to take both the words So and Spirit in that view of them, which is most familiar to us; otherwise we pervert their meaning. Son and Spirit may both be made unintelligible. Though we can talk to the plainest man about his Son, there are inexpli- cable mysteries in Generation; in like manner, though every man knows, that he has Lise to be preserved, and a. Sau to be saved, nothing is easier than to lose ourselves in metaphysical labyrinths

about Spirit; the popular sense and views of Son and Spirit are the only right ones 1n reading the Holy Scriptures.

But

BOOK IV. ART. v. SECT. v. 433

But though we say, that, in getting an idea of the Spirit of God, we ought not to think metaphy- sically, but think, or rather /ee!, popularly; yet we do not fay, that the word Spirit has only one single sense, either in ordinary discourse, or in Scrip- ture. The most familiar terms have often-more meanings than one; especially if they denote things, which are not the objects of our senses. —The way to investigate those different meanings is, with com- mon men, to trust to common sense and common feelings; but, with thinking and philosophical men,

it is to trace out the natural progre/ion of our thoughts and feelings; if we could find out that progression, different meanings would not perplex or embarrass the mind. One proof, that affixing different senses to one word is owing to such pro- gression, is this: that in different languages, the same train of ideas is expressed by a single word in each; —M has the same meanings, or nearly all, with reha, and with spiritus; which could not be, except the mind affixed the meanings by some acts common to all men. If a new idea occurs, which is independent of other ideas, we give it a new name; but, if an idea occurs by means of its connexion with another idea, we more easily make some use of a known word, than invent one quite new; except indeed our two ideas are to be contradistin- guished; in that case, we are sure to use two dif- ferent names, though we may not in other cases.— The connexion of ideas is a curious thing; it is only by experience and observation, that we can judge how one idea introduces another. — Mr. Hume seems to have given this matter due attention: he ob- serves*, that one idea introduces another by re- semblance, contiguity, and causution. Let us see h 2 this

• Inquity— Understanding, Sect. 3. Vor, il. E E

434 Bo iv. ART. v. SECT. vi.

this has place in the different significations of the word Spirit; —remarking first, that, as all our ideas are acquired originally by sensation, the primitive signification of every word must be mn Which is the object of our senses. VI. 1. Then it seems as if the primitive mean- ing of the word Spiritus were a current of air, or a _ wind. In this sense MN, wvevue, spiritus, are used Job. i. 19. John uu. 8. 2. It may be owing to resemblance, that spiritus means breath; that important current of air, which proceeds from the lungs. Spiritus and spiro are related in Latin, like Tvwvps and ww in Greek, — If any one chose to call this the primitive sense, 1 should not contead with him; both this. and the last meaning belong to the /en/es; and the mind might be led by resemblance from either of them to the other: Twve signifying breath, 1 Kings xvii. 17,—Job xvii. 1. &.

When words come to express things uot ob- jefts of sense, they do it by some kind of comparison: and comparison implies resemblance, Here we should oblerve, that, when any words are fir trans- ferred (peraPrporras) to stand for new ideas, by comparison, all men, that write or speak accurately, keep up in their minds a constant reference to the original proper idea. Such an one would not say, a man had sagacity to /ee a thing, but that he had sagacity to smell it out, or find it out: thus the word spirit has always, at least after its first transla- tion (as Cicero would call it), a tacit reference to moving as a current, or proceeding forth as breath*.

In

$ Janius calls this the primitive sense of GAH. And Breath comes before © air, wind,” Ormerod, p. 53, on Priestley. t The Schoolmen used to call proceeding, Siration. (Burnet. ) Acts ii. 2. a rusming mi icht y. wind accompanies it. When a

Being

BOOK Iv. ART. v. SECT. vi. 435 In this way, proceeding may have come to be used, probably, with regard to the Holy Spirit ;—at least, how far proceeding implies this idea, should be attentively considered.

4. Breath is the cause of Life : the causa sine qua non. Hence it becomes natural to use breath for Life, and losing breath, or spirit, for losing Life:

we call it expiring. And in Scripture eemvvce”, and ame ro wvtupuc are used in the same manner. To expire, is the same thing as to give up the Ghost, Breath is used for Life, in many passages of Scrips ture But, when we die, we not only lose life, but all our incorporeal faculties ; understanding, will, affections; these therefore, taken collectively, are sometimes denoted by the fame name. This col- lection of the incorporeal qualities of each man is sometimes called his soul; as making a part of the man: and so spirit, in one sense, becomes synony- mous with Soul, or Mind: though sometimes

there may be occasion to separate Soul into qui and vs, animal and intelligent.

6. The soul, or spirit, being supposed to have quitted the Body, 15 conceived as having a separate

existence, or as being a distinct Person or Agent; h though, for 4 while, It 18 conceived, as well as the

Body,

Being has been called the don, to call his derivation by the term Generation, is only going on, with the /ame idea; it cannot be called any thing eso: so, when a Being has been called Spirit, his derivation will, of course, be called something different from generation, more nearly belonging to a current of air.

Luke xxul. 46. * Matt. xxvii. 50. See also Acts vii. 59, and James ii. 26. Y The end of the Psalms. (mage mon) Eccles. iii. 19.— eva opposed to Jararog—&c. 1 Kings xvii. 17. might Le here as well as before, under the second sense, ( mrvpa.) z 1 Cor. ii. 11. former part of the verse: Rom. viu, 16. AQs vii. 59. may belong to our fifth or sixth observation,

E E 2

436 BOOK IV. ART. v. SECT. VI.

Bady, to belong to the Man. Thus it 1s said, kis body is buried? in peace, but his foul liveth for evermore, Heb. xi. 23. we read of © the spirits of just men made perfect; but Luke xxiv. 37. and 39, Spirit is spoken of as more independent; <« 2 Spirit,” that is a Man’s Spirit, © hath not flesh and bones.”—And in this sense we speak of the Habitations, or receptacles, of our Souls or Spirits.

7. From calling the incorporeal part of Man spirit, we are led, by resemblance, to give the name to any incorporeal agent whatsoever; to make a genus or spectes of Spirits, And thus we say © God is a […] he maketh his Angels Spirits“.“ Nor is it neceslary, that incorporeal beings should have any particular moral character, in order to be called by this name: there are not only good but

vil Spirits.

8. It is not material, but we may as well add, that the Spirit is sometimes * opposed to the Letter. In this case, the Letter is compared to the Body, and the Meaning to the animal Soul, or buyn.— This sense may be conceived therefore to branch off from the fourth sense; and indeed it is only mentioned in order to shew, that, from any of our senses, others may divaricate, which it is not to our e to specify.

And now, from the instances given by the way, it must appear, that the language of the Scripture is accommodated to the natural feelings and opera- tions of the suman mind. But this will appear more fully, if we recollect, that the sacred writers do not only comply with our imperfect conceptions in speaking of things 4uman, but in their descrip- tions of the actions and qualities of the Supreme

Being.

2 Imitated from Ecclesiasticus xliv, 14. d John iv. 24» F PIT. . O66 also 1 Pet. iii. 19. 4 2 Cor, iii. 6.

BOOK IV, ART. v. SECT, VI. 437

Being.— 1. The invisible in/uence exercised by God on the Heart of Man, is illustrated by being com- pared to the Vind: as in John ili. 8, where Tvevpx is first translated © wind,” and then, […] 2. (and 4.) Breath 1s not only very frequently put for Life, (which is sometimes called © the breath of life”) but God himself is said, in giving life, to breathe into © man’s nostrils the breath of life. And the Son of God performs * the ac of breathing, emblematically, when he bids his Disciples to re- ceive the holy weuea the Christian life —3. The Spirit is {aid to proceed, in what way, remains to be considered®.—;, The mind* of the Lord” is sexeral times mentioned in Scripture: the original being sometimes wvevun, and sometimes ves : let any one compare Rom. xi. 34. with the 2d Chap. of 1 Cor. from the roth verse, and he will acknow- ledge the propriety of our present method of investi- _ gating the Divine mind, by a comparison with the human. | 6. The Spirit of God is sometimes spoken of as a distin& Person; but this, having been questioned, must be reserved for the Prof: though we may mention a sense, in which Tvevus is taken by a great number of Christians.—To those, who acknowledge the personality of the Holy Spirit, we may say here, that, when the Spirit of God is spoken of as a dis- . tint Person, It is so as to be consistent with the unity of God; in like manner as we speak of the Spirit of a man, fo as to be consistent with the Unity of a Man. 7. God is a © Spirit. It

© Gen. ii. 7. n Core. f John xx. 22, John xv. 26. n See p. 434, Note.

i Lev. xxiv. 12.— Rom. xi. 34.— 1 Cor. ii. 16. * John iv. 24.

E E 3

438 BOOK IV, ART. v. SECT. VII.

It may be a separate remark, that in Scripture the word Spirit often stands for the efficacy, effects, or, as it is usual to speak, the Gifts of the Spirit. This may easily happen by causation; but, whether we have a sense of /pirit in common life answering to this, will perhaps be doubted. In other. things, the same word, which signifies the cause, is put also to denote the cell. * This is your kindness,” means often © this is the efe# of your kindness ;‘—the Greek word, which signifies the pangs of parturition, is used also for the young brought forth.—Whether | Spirit, in the sense of vivacity or animation, will be reckoned to come under this remark, I do not determine. The gifts of the Spirit mentioned in | Scripture, are either miraculous porwers, or good difpofitions. The gift of 7. __ seems sometimes to take the name of the Holy Spirit or Ghost, by way of eminence, as it was conferred firf in a most firiking manner, and served afterwards almost to distinguish Christians from Heathens, as well as to propagate the Christian Religion. In this sense may be taken the expression, whether there #2 any Holy Ghost; ; —compare Acts xix, 2. with vili. 16. On the whole, hope it appears, that the Au- thor of the Christian Revelation, by calling the third Person in the Holy Trinity his Spirit, or the Holy Spirit, did not intend to increase our per- plexity, but 7/lu/rate to us what we cannot directly comprehend, by a comparisen with that, which we constantly speak of as familiar.—And this is all that J can conceive neceffary to be said, in explanation of our present Article. V1I., I therefore now proceed to the Proof. All

L Qows dee, eg: fee Parkhurst’s Lexicon Gon, sense Ii; or du.

ROOK IV. ART. v. SECT. VIII. IX. 439

All the propositions of this Article may be re- 88 to four.

The Holy Ghost is set forth to us in Scrip- pins as a Per son, or Agent.

2. We are authorized to say, that he proceedeth from the Father..

3. Also, that he proceedeth from the Son.

4. It is the meaning of Scripture, that Chris- tians should treat this Person as Divine. 5

VIII. 1. The Holy Ghost is set forth to us in Scripture as a Person. It must be owned, that this Proposition is not expressly mentioned in our pre- sent Article; but yet it is clearly implied 1 in it, and expressed in the first Article.

The following passages represent the Holy Ghost as a Person. Matt. xit. 32.—xxvi. 19.— John xiv. 16, 26.— Xvi. 8, 13 Rom. viii. 26.—1 Cor. X11, 11,—Eph. iv. 30”,—1 John v. 5*%.—Veneer observes (p. 113), that the J Spirit 15 polen to evil Spirits; who are Persons.

IX. 2. This Person is rightly . in any Christian confession of Faith, to proceed from the Father. This appears by John xiv. 26.—Xv. 26. —and 1 Pet. 1. 12. where the word © Heaven is equivalent to the Lord of Heaven.—lIt appears also by all those passages, in which the Holy Ghost is called the © Spirit of God,” or the “ Spirit of the Lord:” as Matt iii, 16.— Ads v. 9.—1 Cor. ii. 10, 11, 14.—1 Cor. iii. 16.—1 Cor. vi. 19.—For, if the Spirit of God did manifest his influence on earth, he must have proceeded from Gd. If you say, that is not from the Friher; I answer, if it was from God, and not from the Father, it must pe from the Father and the Sou, as the Article

says. n See Dr. Priestley’s Familiar Illustration, p. 36. | „ See Art. 11, Set, XVII. o See Parkhurst, T1evp as

E E 4

440 POOK IV. ART. v. SECT. x. XI.

says. The Holy Ghost, however, is called the Spirit of the Father, Matr. x. 20.—And the same in * Rom. viii. 11.

x. 3. The Holy Ghost ought to be confessed by Christians to have proceeded from the Son. — John xv. 26. is of itself a sufficient call upon Christians to acknowlege this. But we may add the authority of John xvi. 7.—xx. 23.—and Acts 11. 33.—As also of those passages, in which the Holy Spirit is called the Spirit of Chri/?, as Rom. viii. 9.—Gal. iv. 6.—PhIl. i. 19.—1 Pet. i. 11; arguing as about the Spirit of the Father. —These texts seem quite sufficient to justify the Western Church, in point of Doctrine, for inserting Filioque in the Creed: though, with Bishop Burnet, we would judge the Eastern Church with candour.— Two of the texts proving the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son, prove also the proces- sion from the Father; namely John xv. 26. and Rom. viii. 9. Does not this look as if the Holy Spirit 8 be said to proceed from either, or both,

as was most suitable to circumstances ?—and is not that a farther proof of the propriety of our speaking as we do of the Holy Trinity?

XI. 4. It is the meaning of vefiptare, that

Christians should consider the Holy Ghost and treat him as Divine. One single passage of St. Paul seems sufficient to prove this: namely 1 Cor. Ii. 11. since, according to all our notions, which he well knew who was both the Author of our Na- ture and of Revelation, as the Soul or Spirit of Man 1s human, the Spirit of God must be divine.— But we might use the plan, which we used in the second® Article; and prove the Divinity of the ird Person of the Holy Trinity, as we proved that of the /econd, 1. The Holy Ghost is called eternal,

Heb. p Art- 11. Sect. xvi.

Heb. ix. 14.— 2. For creative power, see Gen. i. 2.—3. We have instances of his Power, equivalent to a power of preserving; 1 Pet. iii. 18. he is said to have raised Christ from the dead-—4. His omni- presence 18 frequently mentioned, John xvi. 13. He is to gude us into all zruth.e He is to be a Comforter, not to one Christian, but all.—-5. His Omniscience sufficiently appears from his omnipre- sence; and from his being Guide and Comforter to all Christians, which may be to all men. Andi Cor. vi. 19. we are told, that our Bodies are inha- bited by him as a Temple by its Deity, Besides, He who 1s called the Mind or Spirit of God, an omniscient Being, must be omniscient. 1 Cor. ii. 11.—6. Lastly, He is a proper object of wor/hrp ; so must every one be, who has properly a Temple. Matt. xxviu. 19. implies this; Rom. ix. 1. is a kind of Oath.—2 Cor. x11. 14. a Benediction. HhHesides what proof arises under this plan, we may urge, that Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost _ implies that he is divine.—-Especially as it is an unpardonablèe (in, either absolutely, or comparatively. In Acts v. the 3d verse compared with the 4th, seems a full proof, that we ought to consider the Holy Ghost as God. —As also 1 Cor. 11. 16. © the temple of God” compared with 1 Cor. vi. 19. © the temple of the Holy Ghost.” Supposing it made out in general, that the Holy Ghost is God, there needs not any particular proot, that he © is of one substance, majesty, and glory with the Father and the Son.“ They have been proved divine, and the Unity of God is confessed. What was * before said of infinite intimacy, may be applied here, with great propriety, to him who knows the mind of God; and perhaps received

with |

3 Art. 1. Sect. xv11. and Art. 11. Set. x xi.

442 BOOK IV. ART, v. SECT, XII. xłI II.

with the less difficulty, on account of the freedom of the Holy Ghost from the imperfections of matter. _ x11. Here then I close the direct prof of the truth of our Article. We must next proceed to the indirect proof, or to answering objefions :—not that we need examine every objection; we may con- tent ourselves, as under the second Article, with . armiag ourselves in such a manner, that we may be able to resist any particular attack as occasion may

require. | 3 XIII. I. We will take notice of what our ad- versaries fay, with regard to rhetorical personifica- tion, or Prosopopaia, The Holy Ghost, say they, is no more a Person, than Charity, or Sit; or than the Wind, which © bloweth where it […] suffereth long, and is kind,” &c ; that 15, the charitable man ;—his actions are, by Prose- popæia, ascribed to the virtue,—Szn deceived St. Paul (or some one in whose person he speaks) and flew* him: that is, sinful principles, ascribed rhe- torically to Sin as a Person, In like manner, they urge, that what is said to be done by the Spirit, is really done by an inspired * man :—or else by God himself*, whole energy, or virtus, is personified — We own, that the Spirit does not always mean a Person, in speaking of Deity, any more than Fv6vja%, in what is said of man. We might own farther, that those, who profess the personality of the Spirit, may sometimes take paslages as im-

plying that personality, which really do not; — but that, which chiefly keeps us to our old opinion, fill remains;—1t is, that there are some passages of Scripture, which, supposing them figurative, would neither have rhetorical beauty, nor in truth, com- mon

r John iii. 8. by Cor. Xill, 4. Rom. vi. 11. Acts x. 19.—xiii. 2. x 4. Pet. ü, 18, _

BOOK Iv. ART, v. SECT. XIVo 443

mon sense. In Rom. vii. 26, 27?, the Father must make intercession to himself; or the Saints for themselves: In John xv. 26. Christ must send the Father from the Father; and according to John Xv1. 13. he must speak not of himself, but only what was dictated to him. —Bishop Pearson dwells on John xvi. 14. He hall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.” God, in the Socinian sense of the word, could not receive of Christ’s; nor

could an inspired man shew it unto himself. ===

How then, you will say, fall we know, when a real person is spoken of, and when one merely rhe- torical ?—from particular circumstances; as in the instances now produced. We could sometimes judge from the general stile of the composition or passage, of which any doubtful expression made a part; the whole air or manner of an eloquent passage is very different from that of an argumentative or | historical one. — But, if there were 1 criterion, which would take away all doubt in all cases, no argu- ment would arise against what we have said; we every day allow, that some things are Beautiful and proper, other things deformed and improper; yet no criterion seems yet discovered, by which, in all cases, we can distinguish beauty or propriety be- yond a doubt. Nay, all men are not yet come into one criterion of Virtue; may we not venture to fay, nevertheless, that fome things are right, and others wrong ?

XIV. 2. Again, it may be urged, how can the Holy Spirit proceed from the Son, if, in many places, the Spirit 1s described as superior to the Son? Places of this * fort are Matt. i. 20,—Iv. 1.—xii. 28, 32.—

“John

There is something about this passage in Short Defence of the Atonement; p. 85. | ® Neforius cited some of these passages against the Arians; also 1 Tim. iii. 16. «justified in the Spirit.“ See Cyril’s 4th book against Nestorius, Vol. 6. p. 103.

John i. 33.—AQs i. 2.—But, in such an economy as that Seferibed in the doctrine of the Trinity, it may happen, that any one person, who has an office, may be spoken of sometimes as superior, tometimes as inferior to another: in general, he who gives a commission, is superior to him who receives it: and therefore, if either the Sou or the Holy Ghost take upon him some commission from the Deity, he, in executing that commission, may be considered as inferior to that Being, who appoints to it or, a Person of the Holy Trinity 1 in office, though he be divine, 15, as in that * office, below Divinity. I would not fix upon this solution po- fitively, but I think I dare recommend to the Stu- dent to make trial of it.—And I should hope some advantage, as to the clearing up of . difficulties, might result from the experiment. xv. With regard to other objections, I will only refer to the general precautions mentioned un- der the second * Article: I was so full upon them, that any one would easily apply them to the pre- sent subject; that is, transfer them from the second Person of the Holy Trinity, to the third: =a few biats will now be sufficient. 1. Fallacies are apt to arise from not attending to be fate, in which the Holy Ghost is supposed to be, when any thing is said of him. 2. Or, particularly, from not ob- serving, whether he 1s spoken of in his divine, or his efficzal capacity. 3. If in the latter, it is to be kept in mind, that the Faiher and the Sou may then be {aid to constitute the Dey, while that cafe con- tinues; and therefore that it may be a matter of indifference, whether the Holy Ghost be said to proceed from the Father, or the Son, or both. 4. Partial or zncomplete quotations may mislead on any subject whatsoever. 5. As the word Spirit has so many

2 See Art, 11, Set, xx XIII. d Art. 11. Set. xxx.

BOOK IV. ART, v. SECT. XVI, 445

many senses, that kind of fallacy, which arises from implying, that, because such a word has such a par- ticular sense in one place, it cannot have a differ- ent sense in another place, is one which may occur still more frequently under this Article than under the second. 6. The caution about attending to the vieros of those, who are cited as witnesses, or authorities, seems just of the same force here as before. 7. Substitution of the interpretation for the words interpreted, may be here also equally useful. Indeed, one substitution before © mentioned, did extend to our present subject.— Any one might {ubstitute, either in Matt. xxviii. 19. or 1 John v. 7. for the Holy Ghost, either the Virtus Dei of the Socinian Cutochifns, or emanation, or attivity, or any other word which was exclusive of personality.

Xvi. The proof, direct and indirect, being now concluded, we come to the Application; con- sisting of the same parts as before.

First then we ask, in what sense a thinking man would, at this time, assent to this Article. Con- ceive such an one, in his retirement, informed as we now are, seriously examining, whether he could sincerely subscribe to it or not. Let me consider,” he might say, to what J am about to give a so- lemn assent: of the Holy Ghojt I certainly have not a clear and diftinft idea; but is it possible, that I should have? No; the nature of God muff be above the comprehension of man. Yet, when I am told, that the Being, in whom I am to believe, is to be considered by me as the Mind or Spirit of God, I understand this as an [/lu/ftration of some- thing in the Divine Nature, by a comparison with something kuman. An human mind [ do not un- derstand

That in the form of Baptism, Matt, xxvili. 19. Art. 11. Sect. xxxvii. ”=

4 This Article, Sect. ry.

446 BOOK Iv. ART, v. SECT, XVI. derstand perfectly, nor indeed an human body, nor any thing else; but prafically, I can speak of it with ease and consistency: the notion, in which I so speak of it, is the one which I ought to have in view, when I compare it with the Divine Mind; else it is I, who make my own difhculties:—not that the most popular and practical way of viewing my own mind can make that, which is illustrated, even o clear as chat, by which the illustration is made. When I speak of Spirit with regard to things human, the add has various senses. So may it, when applied to things divine; —sometimes it may denote things, which are effefts of the divine mind: be it so; yet, when I consider a/l the passages of Scripture, in which Spirit occurs, I find some, which seem void of rational meaning, if I do not conceive the Holy Spirit to be a Person. I cannot, without the greatest violence of interpretation, re- ject the personality of the Holy Ghost, and there- fore I do acknowledge it; — my ideas here are cer- tainly inadeguate; but so are they with respect to the Son of God; especially when I conceive him independently of his human nature. © This incorporeal person is said to e from the Deity; or from two Persons, which (according to the Doctrine of the Trinity) may be conceived to constitute the Deity, when ty third Person is _ commissioned to execute any office; or from either of them; here again my ideas are inadequate; but yet, in /ome sense, that the Holy Spirit proceeded, or was tent, or commissioned, 1s declared : and, if it had nor been expressly declared, it would have been implied: as that divine person, who was called the Son of God, must, of course, without any ae idea, be said to be generated; fo He, who is called the Spirit, must, of course, be said to have fone | 7:1 an

BOOK IV. ART. v. SECT. XVII. 445

ether derivation: to proceed, is as well as any thing else. How then might this be? I know not.— Might it be as breath proceeds? or © like a rushing mighty wind?” Might it be as an Ambassador is commissioned? I know not; and it procevly im- ports me not to know.”

Of this Person things are affirmed in Scripture, which are peculiar to the Divinity himself.— Indeed, the ind of Cod must be divine. I therefore, with sacred awe, acknowledge the Divinity of the Holy Ghost; in such a way, that it may be consent with the Divinity of the Father and the Son, and with the Unity of God. —Some more expressions, I see, are contained 1n the Article; but I see not, that they increase my difficulties ; I have no idea of any

difference of sub/ance,” or any inequality of « Majesty and Glory,” amongst those Persons, whom I acknowledge to be divine; when I at the same time profess, that there is but ove God.—I mean well, and therefore, if I err, 1 {hall hope to be for- given.“

xviI. (ad and 3d of the four parts, of which the Application consists.) The next thing to be considered is the nature of any mutual concessions, which might be adopted in order to bring about, amongst those who differ in private opinion, a suf- ficient agreement in doctrine, for the purpose of social worship. But I have enlarged on this head under the first and second Articles, and there is such an affinity between the doctrines of those Ar- tides and the present, that to enlarge again would be useless repetition.

Our doctrine concerning the Holy Ghost seems rather to afford additional motives to Ng conduct, than motives to action, which are opposed to any practical principles of our Adversaries. And this seems to afford a reason why, if we were mutually

candid

448 BOOK IV, ART. v. SECT. XVIII.—XXIL. candid and accommodating, we might coincide in worship tolerably well. —At least, additional motives to virtue in one party, cannot hinder a coincidence fo much, as motives or rules of action in that party, which were contradictory to some held sacred by the opposite party.

XVIII. In the last place, we come to the sub- ject of Improvements, |

xix. The passages of Scripture, from which the Doctrine concerning the Holy Ghost 1s derived, may possibly admit of a more exact and minute attention than has hitherto been paid them, with regard to the circumstances in which they occur. It is from circumstances, that a judgment must be formed as

to personality, and as to any difference, which may arise from his being spoken of as engaged officially.

xx. More may be done in ascertaining, whether expressions relating to the Holy Ghost, are to be considered as indefinite, and in what “RY gree, It is not impossible, that expressions may be (I do not fay they are} more definite about the Holy Ghost, than about the Son; though the 7/- lustration from Sonship is more definite than that from Mind. We find the expression seven * spirits in five or fix places of Scripture; if that expression be

indefinite, (as forgiving seven times, and seventy times seven, seems to be), it may be admitted into expressions about 7he Spirit of God.

XXI. Perhaps a criterion to distinguish rhe- torical from real Persons might. be found out. Or, at least, we might approach towards one, so as to be nearer to one than we are at present,

XXII. It would be an improvement, if Forms could be invented, in which Socinians could join: in which, while we addressed ourselves to the Holy Ghost, they should use the same words and address

themselves © Pee Park. Hebr, Lexicon, under 02.

BOOK IV. ART. v. SECT. XII. 449 themselves * to God, independently of the Holy Trinity. While we took some expressions as plain, implying a real person, they should take them as rhetorical, or as instances of the prosopopæia, or metonymy.—Under the first Article, I gave a short prayer? addressed to the Son, in scriptural terms; and in a manner promised * a similar one ad-

dressed to the Holy Ghost. The difficulty, as before mentioned, is, that those, who did not own the Holy Ghost for a Person, would think they had no object to address, And perhaps there may be few, if any, who own him for a Person, and deny his being divine*, Nevertheless, I will per- form my promise, and exhibit a short specimen, in order that it may be improved upon : it may

be useful as briefly expressing the attributes, &c.

of the Holy Ghost,

O thou Spirit of God! foretold by the Prophet; Thou, by whom our blessed Saviour was conceived, thou, who presidedst at his Baptism ; by whom he

was even raised from the dead; by whom he

wrought his miracles”; in whose name we are ad- mitted into the community of Christians; do thou be ever our Comforter and guide do thou, who art the Spirit of Truth, guide us into all truth :

teach us to acknowledge Jesus for our * Lord -O may we be renewed and born again of thee! may thou enable us to mortify the deeds of the Body ! of those Bodies, which are ennobled by being thy Temples! may we be so led? by thee, that we may

be truly the Sons of God/—then shall we be also

heirs ;

f Art, 1. Sect. xiv, e Ibidem, b Art. 1. Sect. XV. 1 Art. 1. Sect. x1y. * The Macedonians did this, if any, See this Art. Sect. 11, end. I Ezek. xxxvi. 27, m 7 Pet. ili. 18. » Matt, xii. 28. 91 Cor. xii. 3. p Rom, vill. 14. |

VOL. Il. | FA F

— 2 = kat —

450 BOOK IV. ART. v. SECT. xxII I. XXIV.

heirs; heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ! and we shall finally receive “ an inheritance * incor- ruptible and undefiled, and that fadeth not wy, reserved” for us in Heaven.

XxX111, As our affections seem to depend on associations * and sympathies, it might be inquired, whether increasing the number of our Relations to the Deity, would not heighten our devout affeftions ? xXxXIVv. Lastly, it might be considered, whe-

ther our difficulties respecting the Holy Trinity, in

all its parts, do not depend greatly on our not confining ourselves to those views, and those modes of thinking, which are most properly human ?

4 1 Pet. i. 4. r Book 111. Chap. 111. Sect. R.

BOOK 1 v. Ar. l. 8

Notes

• Michaelis, Sect. 100, p. 245, Quarto. m John i. 4, 9.
• The Creed, Syncdical Epistle, and 20 Canons, remain, Lard. Vol. 4. p. 191.