take it for granted, that the Spirit was a person when He is represented as speaking-mentioning two individuals by name, and directing that they should be set apart from the rest of their brethren for a specific mission. But how utterly astonished would he be when told, you are altogether mistaken; it was these men's gifts. To personify the power, or skill, or gifts of men in this way is a license of speech which the most stupid and ignorant could not brook. Who ever heard of a quality speaking, appointing its plenipotentiaries, directing as to their commissions, and saying not A B or C D, but E F and G H, are to be set apart to this work? If ever personality is implied or can be, it must in such a case. It is the very manner in which some of the sovereigns of earth would speak when about to appoint their charge d'affaires. Nor is this a singular instance. "The Spirit said unto Philip go near and join thyself to this chariot"-"While Peter thought on the vision the Spirit said unto him, Behold three men seek thee. Arise therefore and get thee down and go with them doubting nothing, for I have sent them"-"It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us to lay on you none other burden" and "take heed therefore to yourselves, and to all the flock, over which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers"-"Now when they had gone throughout Phrygia and the region of Galatia, they were forbidden of the Holy Ghost to preach the words in Asia."4 Now in all these passages the inspired writer, let it be remembered, is reciting historical facts, and if the Holy Ghost is not a person who is represented as giving instructions, as appointing to offices, as naming individuals, and giving direction as to their movements, and expressing his counsels or will, we might, with as much propriety, suppose 1 Acts, viii. 28. 2 Acts, x. 19, 20. 4 Acts, xvi. 6. Peter, and Philip, and Barnabas, and Saul to be qualities too-mere personifications! How ridiculous would be such a speech as this! The power or gift of God said, that is, Philip's and Peter's skill and ability! it seemed good to the gifts and skill of the Apostles. But it cannot be the skill and knowledge or will of the Apostles, for it is added "and unto us," distinguishing their judgment in the case from that of the Holy Ghost. Shall we suppose that it was the skill and ability, the gifts of the Bishops of Ephesus which elevated them to their stations or office? And that after the Apostles had preached in Phrygia and Galatia, they lost their skill and ability to preach in Asia? Yet such absurdities must we believe if our paraphrast is worthy of confidence, who will tell us that the Holy Spirit is not a person-not God Himself, but something different from Him, the skill and ability or power to do this or that, which He imparts to men. But we have not yet done with him. The distinction between the Holy Spirit and human wisdom or skill, is very clearly made by the Apostles when describing the qualifications requisite for their apostolic office. "Wherefore, brethren," said they to the disciples, "look ye out seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom." Were they so stupid and incapable of speaking correctly, as thus to express themselves, if the spirit and skill or ability in men-for that in the present instance is the same with wisdom-were not perfectly distinct? It is saying very little indeed for their "extraordinary gift of power," if they talked in such a confused and unintelligible manner. Our paraphrast must vindicate their reputation, and shew that they were not absolutely unfit to teach, notwithstanding their "extraordinary gift or power," if they could speak at this rate. And he is particularly 1 Acts, vi. 3. concerned with that of Luke, scholar as he was, and accustomed to observe the phenomena of matter and of mind, who declares most positively as an historical fact, that at the baptism of Christ, "the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape, like a dove upon him." We will admit that it is all a mistake, to suppose as many do, that the Spirit's form, assumed on that occasion, was that of a dove, and that the resemblance which Luke notices regards only the manner of descent. But then, the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily SHAPE, whatever shape that was. was some material substance. It is only by the assumption of some material vehicle or substance, that God can render himself visible, and it is said by John that on this occasion "he saw," as it had been before declared he should "see, the spirit descending and remaining on him." It was not, and could not have been an optical illusion, for it was not vivid and rapid like the lightning's 1 Luke, iii. 22. 2 John i. 33. It The following extract is given from Leslie's Socinian controversy, in corroboration of the view which has been given in the above passage in relation to the descent of the Holy Ghost. "It does not appear that there was any shape of a dove at our Saviour's baptism. Though it is I think a vulgar error. For which reason I will speak a little of it here. There was a bodily shape appeared; else the people could not have seen it. But what was the shape or appearance? It was a fire of glory that descended from Heaven and lighted upon the head of our Saviour. But how did it light? Was it like a flash of lightning, quick and transient? No. For then, in so great a multitude the people could not have discerned for what particular person it was meant. Did it come down swift as a bird of prey stoops to its game, like an arrow out of a bow? No. It descended leisurely and hovering as a dove does when it lights upon the ground, that the people might take the more notice, and to express the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit. And it not only lighted upon the head of our Saviour, but it abode and remained upon Him, as it is said, John, i. 32, 33. Now that the expression in the text, like a dove, does refer to this M flash. Its shape was distinctly seen, and its manner of descent was slow and hovering, like a dove before it lights, and it rested and remained on Christ. Was it an attribute of Deity assuming a bodily shape? Absurd! But our paraphrast must be attended to; it was "the extraordinary gift or power" given to Christ, &c. Strange! Ability or skill in man assuming a bodily shape! Who ever heard of such a thing? Who can conceive of such a thing? It was not in him but on him. Monstrous! what absurdity! Our readers will excuse us if we detain these "rational manner of the descent of that glory upon our blessed Saviour, and not the shape of it, appears from the grammatical construction of the words in our text, which is better distinguished in the Greek and Latin than in the English, where the cases of nouns are expressed by particles and not by their termination. Now if these words, like a dove, had referred to the shape, then the word dove must have been in the genitive case, the shape of a dove. But it is not so either in the Greek or Latin. It is said in the Greek, that the Holy Ghost descended μari usu in a bodily appearance, wou (or ws as the Cambridge copy of Beza reads it) gigav, but if it had referred to the shape it must have been a migisiges of a dove. Thus the Latin, descendit corporali specie, sicut columba. That is, sicut columba descendit. As a dove descends. It can bear no other construction. But if it had referred to the shape, it must have been descendit corporali specie, sicut columbæ, the shape of a dove. Which is not in our English. It is not said in our English the shape of a dove. But that the Holy Ghost descended (in a bodily shape) like a dove, that is as a dove descends. If it had referred to the shape, it should have said in a bodily shape, as of a dove, or like as of a dove. Besides, if that glory which appeared had been no bigger than a dove, (which is not to be imagined, when it is said the Heaven was opened. And the people had taken so much notice, if the appearance had been no bigger than a dove, it might have escaped the sight of many; but suppose it,) how should they know it to be a dore, more than any other bird or thing of the like bigness? Especially considering that it uttered no voice, for it is expressly said that the voice came from Heaven, then not from that which abode or remained upon our Saviour. I have said thus much of it because of the too common practice of painting the Holy Ghost like a dove, which gives countenance to the usage in the church of Rome, of painting God the Father like an old man, &c.'' Ieslie's Dialogues, iii. pages 18, 19. divines," these learned commentators on scripture, to examine them a little further as to one or two passages which, on their principles, we find ourselves utterly at a loss to know what they can mean. The Apostle Peter asked, "Ananias why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost?" What! Lie to an attribute, a mere personification! Or was it to Peter and the Apostles, whose skill and discernment, whose ability and power, whose "extraordinary gift" Ananias had called in question by keeping back part of the proceeds on the sale of his property? Peter says "Thou hast not lied unto men but unto God.” It could not have been to the gift itself which Peter and the other Apostle's possessed. We never talk of lying to men's talents, or skill or knowledge. It must be a person or percipient being, whom the liar intends to deceive. But let the Unitarian explain himself. This gift was the inspiration of God (the afflatus) in the Apostles, and therefore was it said that Ananias lied to the Holy Ghost. Not to notice the singularity of the expression lying to an inspiration, or, the identity between the gift and inspiration, we remark, that although the Spirit of God is sometimes put for God Himself, yet it is rather daring to put it for an Apostle. When was Peter before or afterwards called the Holy Ghost? And how comes it to pass that lying to Peter was called lying to God, especially, when Peter says the lie was not to him, but to God. What figure of speech can help him here to say, thou hast lied to the Holy Ghost, that is to us Apostles, who have the Holy Spirit and inspiration of God in us? For the supposition is, that the Spirit of God, call it inspiration of God in the Apostles if you please, is something different from God. If it be different from God, then Peter erred in saying that Ananias lied to God. If it be the influence or 1 Acts, v. 3, 4. |