419

LETTER TO MRS. —

ON THE PERSONALITY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT.

MY DEAR MADAM,

I CONCEIVE that as far as the writer of that letter is concerned, you need not regret your declining to hear the objections against the personality of the Holy Spirit. I dare say the writer is perfectly aware of the texts on which that point of faith is founded. Her defect lies, I believe, in her power of apprehending them; and consequently would not be remedied by their being ever so repeatedly brought before her. It is not a hopeful case, when evidence peculiarly distinguished by directness and simplicity, is passed by as inconclusive. It shews that the mind is either perverted by habit, or defective in organisation. Expressions of candour and humility in such cases may be morally sincere, but they would appear, in point of fact, to bespeak settledness of persuasion, much rather than openness to conviction. I believe I have already expressed an opinion to you, that on religious subjects nothing is more sure to bewilder, than the want of subordination of the understanding to the affections. It is not, however, a remark or two, that could throw even a faint light on this profound subject. But, to speak intelligibly in as

few words as I can, I would say, that the terms used in Scripture to convey the most essential truths, are always such as address not the intellect alone, but the whole mind; and they rely, as it were, for interpretation, on those habits of feeling as well as thinking, which are derived from nature and developed in society.

If there be not this full and practical apprehension of Scripture facts and truths, the result will be a matter of chance, or caprice, when the understanding works alone on that which was intended to be grasped by all the united powers of the mind; its most plausible conclusions may be no better than that of the blind man who supposed scarlet like the sound of a trumpet.

I humbly conceive, that these observations are in no instance more applicable than to the great articles of faith which those innovators reject. For example, to the mind furnished with just and natural associations (no one of which could be formed if the wax of the mind had not been softened for the impression by some affection), how full and conclusive are those correlative terms in the last chapter of St. Matthew, "The Father, the Son?" They are left in their simplicity, as if to make the impression inevitable. A reciprocal relation understood by all, felt by all, woven into the very texture of the human heart, is chosen by Him who knew what was in man, to convey a truth at once, in all its fulness, which could not have been so deeply or so justly conThe question is, would

veyed in any other way.

this mode have been adopted, if the natural

impression were not the right impression? Instead, then, of walking by the light thus afforded, shall we first try whether we cannot split this sunbeam on an argumentative prism? Were men thus to forsake common sense in lower concerns, the folly would soon be seen in its consequences.

One single text, apprehended with the entire mind, would be sufficient of itself to prove the personality of the Holy Ghost. "Grieve not the Holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption." Would there be sense in this admonition, if it did not contemplate the Holy Ghost as a person: and if this idea were given without ground, what becomes of the truth and simplicity of Holy Scripture?

I am aware that he who uses intellect alone, will most probably overlook the irresistible force of the words "Grieve not." But let us ask, what corresponding idea do they bespeak in the Apostle's mind? Did he not regard the Divine Spirit as a person, when he exhorted the Ephesians not to grieve him? Shall we thus charge St. Paul with romancing, and that, too, on the gravest subject which could have employed his pen? But the fact is, St. Paul wrote for unspoiled and unsophisticated men; and to such, the form of his admonition will speak volumes. It will instruct them that the "other paraclete" is as really a distinct person, as He in whose name he is sent, otherwise he could not feel either displacency or complacency. It will imply,-that infinitely great as he is in nature, he takes such interest in man,

that he may be grieved by man; that however much beyond human comprehension, there is a peculiar tenderness and delicacy in this condescending innate of the renovated heart, and that we are therefore to be continually on our guard lest, even inadvertently, we should cause pain, the mysterious depth and exquisiteness of which cannot be conceived by mortals.

I know I am saying what some might think strange, but I give myself to the Holy Spirit's own indication of his nature, in the words of the inspired Apostle. If no more were said on the point but what we have here, and in the discourse of our Lord before his crucifixion, together with his enjoined form of baptism, I could no more doubt the personality of the Holy Ghost, than I could doubt his sanctifying influences. There is no wisdom in being wise above what is written. Was St. Paul deceived, or did he mean to deceive others? If neither be conceivable, then the force of his words must be allowed; for without violence to them, insult to him who used them, and strange irreverence to Him who inspired them, they cannot be applied to a mere influence, be that influence ever so divine, but must be understood of a Being possessing the essentials of distinct personality.

I have dwelt on this most interesting and impressive passage, because it proves the point in question a fortiori. To ascribe affection in the manner here exemplified, is to recognise every property which affection presupposes. But if this text were wanting, what could those innovators do with others? For example, "As they minis

tered to the Lord and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them."" It is vain to adduce scriptural evidence, if this matter-of-fact statement be disputed. The personality of an agent could not be more expressly affirmed than in these words; and if they are forcibly divested of their natural, and only rational meaning, a like process might at length leave not one scriptural fact on which to rest our belief.

When afterward the Apostles, and Elders, and Brethren, met at Jerusalem, they sanction their decree by this preface: "It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us." This was right good sense, on the ground of the Holy Ghost being a Divine Person, who presided over their assembly: but how is it to be reconciled with the Holy Ghost being merely an influence? how was such an influence thus distinguishable from those who acted under it? Give the Apostles credit for being honest, intelligent men, and allow the words which they use their plain grammatical meaning; then no subterfuge can evade the conclusion.

I have quoted enough: if these passages do not decide the point, a thousand texts, as strong as language could make them, would speak in vain.

I should be sorry to question the sincere piety of the writer, but I am not sure that it is strictly Christian piety; I mean the piety exemplified in the writings of the Apostles. There was piety before the Christian dispensation existed; there may, by parity of reason, be piety now, where the Christian dispensation is imperfectly apprehended,