« Prev Chapter II. The name and titles of the Holy… Next »

Chapter II. The name and titles of the Holy Spirit.

Of the name of the Holy Spirit — Various uses of the words רוּחַ‎ and πνεῦμα רוּחַ‎ for the wind or any thing invisible with a sensible agitation, Amos iv. 13 — Mistakes of the ancients rectified by Hieromרוּחַ‎ metaphorically for vanity, metonymically for the part or quarter of any thing; for our vital breath, the rational soul, the affections, angels good and bad — Ambiguity from the use of the word, how to be removed — Rules concerning the Holy Spirit — The name “Spirit,” how peculiar and appropriate unto him — Why he is called the “Holy Spirit” — Whence called the “Good Spirit,” the “Spirit of God,” the “Spirit of the Son” — Acts ii. 33, 1 Pet. i. 10, 11, explained — 1 John iv. 3, vindicated.

Before we engage into the consideration of the things themselves concerning which we are to treat, it will be necessary to speak something unto the name whereby the third person in the Trinity is commonly known and peculiarly called in the Scripture. This is the “Spirit,” or the “Holy Spirit,” or the “Holy Ghost,” as we usually speak. And this I shall do that we be not deceived with the homonymy of the word, nor be at a loss in the intention of those places of Scripture where it is used unto other purposes: for it is so that the name of the second person, ὁ Λόγος, “the Word,” and of the third τὸ Πνεῦμα, “the Spirit,” are often applied to signify other things; I mean, those words are so. And some make their advantages of the ambiguous use of them. But the Scripture is able of itself to manifest its own intention and meaning unto humble and diligent inquirers into it.

It is, then, acknowledged that the use of the words רוּחַ‎ and πνεῦμα in the Old Testament and New is very various; yet are they the words whereby alone the Holy Spirit of God is denoted. Their peculiar signification, therefore, in particular places is to be collected and determined from the subject-matter treated of in them, and other especial circumstances of them. This was first attempted by the most learned Didymus of Alexandria, whose words, therefore, I have set down at large, and shall cast his observations into a more perspicuous method, with such additions as are needful for the farther clearing 48of the whole matter.1818    “Quia vero Spiritus vocabulum multa significat, enumerandum est breviter quibus rebus nomen ejus aptetur. Vocatur spiritus et ventus, sicut in Ezechiele cap. v.: Tertiam partem disperges in spiritum; hoc est, in ventum. Quod si volueris secundum historiam illud sentire, quod scriptum est, In spiritu violento conteres naves Tharcis, non aliud ibi spiritus quam ventus accipitur. Nec non Salomon inter multa hoc quoque munus a Deo accepit ut sciret violentias spirituum; non aliud in hoc se accepisse demonstrans, quam scire rapidos ventorum flatus, et quibus causis eorum natura subsistat. Vocatur et anima spiritus, ut in Jacobi epistola, Quomodo corpus tuum sine spiritu mortuum est. Manifestissime enim spiritus hic nihil aliud nisi anima nuncupatur. Juxta quam intelligentiam Stephanus animam suam spiritum vocans: Domine, inquit, Jesu, suscipe spiritum meum, Acts vii. Illud quoque quod in Ecclesiaste dicitur, Quis scit an spiritus hominis ascendat sursum, et spiritus jumenti descendat deorsum? Eccl. iii. Considerandum utrumnam et pecudum animæ spiritus appellentur. Dicitur etiam excepta anima, et excepto spiritu nostro, spiritus alius quis esse in homine, de quo Paulus scribit: Quis enim scit hominum ea quæ sunt hominis, nisi spiritus hominis qui in eo est? 1 Cor. ii. 11Sed et in alio loco idem apostolus a nostro spiritu Spiritum Dei secernens ait, Ipse Spiritus testimonium perhibet spiritui nostro, Rom. viii.; hoc significans, quod Spiritus Dei, id est, Spiritus Sanctus, testimonium spiritui nostro præbeat, quem nunc diximus esse spiritum hominis. Ad Thessalonicenses quoque, Integer, inquit, spiritus vester et anima et corpus, 1 Thess. v.:— Appellantur quoque supernæ rationabilesque virtutes, quas solet Scriptura angelos et fortitudines nominare, vocabulo spiritus ut ibi, Qui facis angelos tuos spiritus; et alibi, Nonne omnes sunt administratores spiritus? Heb. i.Rationales quoque aliæ creaturæ, et de bono in malum sponte propria profluentes, spiritus pessimi et spiritus appellantur immundi; sicut ibi, Cum autem spiritus immundus exierit ab homine, Matt. xii., et in consequentibus, assumit septem alios spiritus nequiores se. Spiritus quoque dæmones in Evangeliis appellantur: sed et hoc notandum, nunquam simpliciter spiritum sed cum aliquo additamento spiritum significari contrarium, ut spiritus immundus et spiritus dæmonis; hi vero qui sancti sunt spiritus absque ullo additamento spiritus simpliciter appellantur. Sciendum quoque quod nomen spiritus et voluntatem hominis et animi sententiam sonet. Volens quippe apostolus virginem non solum corpore sed et mente sanctam esse, id est, non tantum corpore, sed et motu cordis interno, ait, Ut sit sancta corpore et spiritu, 1 Cor. vii., voluntatem spiritu, et corpore opera, significans. Considera utrum hoc ipsum in Esaia sonet quod scriptum est, Et scient qui spiritu errant intellectum, Isa. xxix. 24Et super omnia vocabulum spiritus, altiorem et mysticum in Scripturis sanctis significat intellectum; ut ibi, Litera occidit, spiritus autem vivificat, 2 Cor. iii.Hæc juxta possibilitatem nostri ingenii, quot res spiritus significet, attigimus. — Nonnunquam autem spiritus et Dominus noster Jesus Christus, id est, Dei Filius, appellatur: Dominus autem spiritus est, ut ante diximus: ubi etiam illud adjunximus, spiritus Deus est, non juxta nominis communionem, sed juxta naturæ substantiæque consortium. — Porro ad hæc necessario devoluti sumus, ut quia frequenter appellatio spiritus, in Scripturis est respersa divinis, non labamur in nomine sed unumquodque secundum locorum varietates et intelligentias accipiamus. Omni itaque studio ac diligentia vocabulum Spiritus, ubi et quomodo appellatum sit contemplantes, sophismata eorum et fraudulentas decipulas conteramus, qui Spiritum Sanctum asserunt creaturam. Legentes enim in propheta, Ego sum firmans tonitruum, et creans spiritum, Amos iv. 13, ignorantia multiplicis in hac parte sermonis putaverunt Spiritum Sanctum ex hoc vocabulo demonstrari; cum in præsentiarum spiritus nomen ventum sonet … Ergo ut prælocuti sumus, quomodo unumquodque dictum sit, consideremus ne forte per ignorantiam in barathrum decidamus erroris.” — Didym. de Spir. Sanc. lib. iii. First, In general, רוּחַ‎ and πνεῦμα signify a wind or spirit, — that is, any thing which moves and is not seen. So the air in a violent agitation is called רוּחַ‎: Gen. viii. 1, וַיַעֲבֵר אֱלֹהִים רוּחַ עַל־הָאָרֶץ‎; — “And God made a wind,” or “spirit,” that is, a strong and mighty wind, “to pass over the earth,” for the driving and removal of the waters. So πνεῦμα is used, John iii. 8, Τὸ πνεῦμα ὅπου θέλει πνεῖ κ.τ.λ., — “The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, nor whither it goeth;” which is a proper description of this first signification of the word. It is an agitation of the air which is unseen. So Ps. i. 4. And in this sense, sometimes it signifies a “great and strong wind,” — that is, רוּחַ נְּדוֹלָה וְחָזָק‎, 1 Kings xix. 11; and sometimes a cool and soft wind, or a light easy agitation of the air, such as often ariseth in the evenings of the spring or summer. So Gen. iii. 8, “God walked in the garden” לְרוּחַ הַיּוֹם‎, “in the cool of the day;” that is, when the evening air began to breathe gently, and moderate the heat of the day. So in the poet, —

Solis ad occasum, quum frigidus aëra vespe


Virg. Geor.iii. 336.

“At the going down of the sun, when the cold evening tempers the heat of the air.” And some think this to be the sense of that place, Ps. civ. 4, “Who maketh his angels רוּחוֹת‎, spirits,” — swift, agile, powerful as mighty winds. But the reader may consult our Exposition on Heb. i. 7.

49This is one signification of the word רוּחַ‎, or this is one thing denoted by it in the Scripture. So, among many other places, expressly Amos iv. 13, “For, lo,” יוֹצֵר הָרִים וּבֹרֵא רוּחַ‎, he that formeth the mountains, and createth the spirit,” that is, “the wind.” The LXX. render this place, Στερεῶν βροντὴν καὶ κτίζων πνεῦμα· — “Who establisheth the thunder, and createth the spirit;” though some copies read, τὰ ὄρη, “the mountains.” And the next words in the text, וּמַגּיד לְאָדָם מַה־שִּׂיחוֹ‎,1919    So the word is constantly given by Owen. The י‎ is uniformly elided from modern editions of the Hebrew Scriptures, and the word stands thus מַה־שֵּׂחוֹ‎. The origin of the mistake to which Owen refers is more apparent from the way in which the word is printed, but the insertion of the י‎ seems without authority. — Ed. — “And declareth unto man what is his thought,” they render, Καὶ ἀπαγγέλλων εἰς ἀνθρώπους τὸν Χριστὸν αὐτοῦ, — “And declareth unto men his Christ,” or his Anointed, or his Messiah; for they took מַה־שִּׂיחוֹ‎ for מְשִׁיחוֹ‎ by inadvertency, and not for want of points or vowels as some imagine, seeing the mistake consists in the casting out of a letter itself. And thence the old Latin translation renders the words, “Firmans tonitruum, et creans Spiritum, et annuncians in homines Christum suum;” which Hierom rectified into “Formans montes, et creans ventum, et annuntians homini eloquium suum,” discovering in his comment the mistake of the LXX. But it is certain that, from the ambiguity of the word רוּחַ‎ in this place, with the corrupt translations making mention of Christ in the next words, some who of old denied the deity of the Holy Spirit mightily insisted on it to prove him a creature; as may be seen in Didymus, Ambrose, Hierom, Hilary, and the ancients generally. But the context determines the signification of the word beyond all just exceptions. It is the power of God in making and disposing of things 50here below, whether dreadful for their greatness and height, as the mountains; or mighty and effectual in their operations, as the wind; or secret in their conceptions, as the thoughts of men; or stable in their continuance, as the night and day, the evening and morning, without the least respect to Christ or the Spirit, that it treateth of.

And I cannot but observe from hence the great necessity there is of searching the original text in the interpretation of the Scriptures, as it might be evidenced by a thousand other instances; but one we may take from two great and learned men, who were contemporaries in the Latin church, in their thoughts on this place.

The one is Ambrose, who, interpreting these words in his second book, De Spiritu Sancto, lib. ii. cap. 6, being deceived by the corrupt translation mentioned, “Annuncians in homines Christum suum,” is forced to give a very strained exposition of that which, in truth, is not in the text, and to relieve himself also with another corruption in the same place, where “forming the mountains” is rendered by “establishing the thunder;” and yet, when he hath done all, he can scarce free himself of the objection about the creation of the Spirit, which he designs to answer. His words are, “Siquis propheticum dictum, ideo derivandum putet ad interpretationem Spiritus Sancti; quia habet, ‘annuncians in homines Christum suum,’ is ad incarnationis Dominicæ mysteria dictum facilius derivabit. Nam si te movet quia Spiritum dixit, et hoc non putas derivandum ad mysterium assumptionis humanæ; prosequere scripturas et invenies optime congruere de Christo, de quo bene convenit æstimari, quia firmavit tonitrua adventu suo; vim videlicet et sonum cœlestium scripturarum; quarum velut quodam tonitru mentes nostræ redduntur attonitæ, ut timere discamus, et reverntiam cœlestibus deferamus oraculis. Denique, in Evangelio fratres Domini filii tonitru dicebantur. Et cum vox Patris facta esset dicentis ad Filium, ‘Et honorificavi te, et iterum honorificabo,’ Judæi dicebant, ‘Tonitruum factum est illi.’ ” And hereon, with some observations to the same purpose, he adds, “Ergo tonitrua ad sermones Domini retulit, quorum in omnem terram exivit sonus; Spiritum autem hoc loco animam, quam suscepit rationabilem et perfectam intelligimus.” The substance of his discourse is, that treating of Christ (who indeed is neither mentioned nor intended in the text), he speaks of “confirming the thunder” (which nowhere here appears), by which the sound of the Scriptures and preaching of the word is intended; the spirit that was created being the human soul of Jesus Christ. Nor was he alone in this interpretation. Didym. lib. 2 de Spiritu Sancto, Athanas. ad Serapion, Basil. lib. 4. contra Eunom., amongst the Grecians, are in like manner entangled with this corruption of the text; as was also Concil. Sardicen. in Socrat. lib. 2 cap. 20.

51The other person intended is Hierom, who, consulting the original, as he was well able to do, first translated the words, “Quia ecce formans montes, et creans ventum, et annuncians homini eloquium suum,” declares the mistake of the LXX. and the occasion of it:— “Pro montibus qui Hebraicè dicuntur הָריִם‎; soli LXX. βροντήν, id est, tontitruum, verterunt. Cur autem illi Spiritum et nos dixerimus ventum, qui Hebraice רוּחַ vocatur, causa manifesta est: quodque sequitur, ‘Annuncians homini eloquium suum,’ LXX. transtulerunt, Ἀπαγγέλλων εἰς ἀνθρώπους τὸν Χριστὸν αὐτοῦ, verbi similitudine, et ambiguitate decepti.” So he shows that it is not מְשִׁיחוֹ‎ in the text, but מַה־שִּׂיחוֹ‎; — that is, saith he, “juxta Aquilam, ὁμιλίαν αὐτοῦ· Symmachum, τὸ φώνημα αὐτοῦ· juxta Theodotionem, τὸν λόγον αὐτοῦ· juxta quintam editionem, τὴν ἀδολεσχίαν αὐτοῦ.

And as שִׂיחַ‎, whence the word is, signifies both to meditate and to speak, so the word itself intends a conceived thought, to be spoken afterward. And that וֹ‎ here is reciprocal, not relative. And to this purpose is his ensuing exposition, “Qui confirmat montes, ad cujus vocem cœlorum cardines et terræ fundamenta quatiuntur. Ipse qui creat spiritum, quem in hoc loco non Spiritum Sanctum, ut hæretici suspicantur, sed ventum intelligimus, sive spiritum hominis, annuncians homini eloquium ejus, qui cogitationum secreta cognoscit,” Hieron. in loc.

Secondly, Because the wind, on the account of its unaccountable variation, inconstancy, and changes, is esteemed vain, not to be observed or trusted unto, — whence the wise man tells us that “he that observeth the wind shall not sow,” Eccles. xi. 4, — the word is used metaphorically to signify vanity: Eccles. v. 16, “What profit hath he that hath laboured לָרוּחַ‎, for the wind?” So Mic. ii. 11, “If a man walk” וָשֶׁקֶר‎; רוּחַ‎, “with the wind and falsehood;” — that is, in vanity, pretending to a spirit of prophecy; and falsehood, vainly, foolishly, falsely boasting. So Job xv. 2, “Should a wise man utter” דַעַת רוּחַ‎ “knowledge of wind?” vain words, with a pretence of knowledge and wisdom; and he calls them דִבְרֵי רוּחַ‎, “words of wind,” chap. xvi. 3. So also Jer. v. 13, “And the prophets shall become לְרוּחַ‎, wind,” or be vain, foolish, uncertain, and false, in their predictions. But πνεῦμα is not used thus metaphorically in the New Testament.

Thirdly, By a metonymy, also, it signifies any part or quarter, as we say, of the world from whence the wind blows; as also a part of any thing divided into four sides or quarters. So Jer. lii. 23, “There were ninety and six pomegranates רוּחָה‎, towards a wind;” that is, on the one side of the chapiter that was above the pillars in the temple. Ezek. v. 12, “I will scatter a third part” לְכָל רוּחַ‎, “into all the winds,” or all parts of the earth. Hence, the “four quarters” of a thing lying to the four parts of the world are called its four winds,52 אַרְבַּע רוּחוֹת‎, 1 Chron. ix. 24; whence are the τέσσαρες ἄνεμοι, “the four winds,” in the New Testament, Matt. xxiv. 31. This is the use of the word in general with respect unto things natural and inanimate, and every place where it is so used gives it [a] determinate sense.

Again, [Fourthly], These words are used for any thing that cannot be seen or touched, be it in itself martial and corporeal, or absolutely spiritual and immaterial. So the vital breath which we and other living creatures breathe is called: Everything wherein was נִשְׁמַת־רוּחַ חַיִּים‎, “the breath of the spirit of life,” Gen. vii. 22, — that vital breath which our lives are maintained by in respiration. So Ps. cxxxv. 17; Job xix. 17; which is a thing material or corporeal. But most frequently it denotes things purely spiritual and immaterial, as in finite substances it signifies the rational soul of man: Ps. xxxi. 5, “Into thine hand I commit” רוּחִי‎, that is, “my spirit.” They are the words whereby our Saviour committed his departing soul into the hands of his Father, Luke xxiii. 46, τὸ πνεῦμα μου. So Ps. cxlvi. 4, תֵּצֵא רוּחוֹ‎, — “His breath,” say we, “goeth forth; he returneth to his earth.” It is his soul and its departure from the body that is intended. This is רוּחַ בְּנֵי הָאָדָם‎, that “spirit of the sons of man that goeth upward,” when the “spirit of a beast goeth downward to the earth,” or turneth to corruption, Eccles. iii. 21: see chap. viii. 8, xii. 7. Hence, —

Fifthly, By a metonymy also, it is taken for the affections of the mind or soul of man, and that whether they be good or evil: Gen. xlv. 27, “The spirit of Jacob revived;” he began to take heart and be of good courage. Ezek. xiii. 3, “The prophets that walk” אַחַר רוּחָם‎, “after their own spirit” — that is, their own desires and inclinations, — when, indeed, they had no vision, but spake what they had a mind unto. Num. xiv. 24, Caleb is said to have “another spirit” than the murmuring people, — another mind, will, purpose, or resolution. It is taken for prudence, Josh. v. 1; anger, or the irascible faculty, Eccles. vii. 9 fury, Zech. vi. 8. “He shall cut off the spirit of princes” [Ps. lxxvi. 12]; that is, their pride, insolency, and contempt of others. Πνεῦμα in the New Testament frequently intends the intellectual part of the mind or soul, and that as it is active, or in action, Luke i. 47; Rom. i. 9; — and ofttimes is taken for the mind in all its inclinations, in its whole habitual bent and design, 1 Thess. v. 23.

[Sixthly], Angels also are called spirits:— good angels, Ps. civ. 4; (and it may be an angel is intended, 1 Kings xviii. 12;) and evil angels or devils, 1 Kings xxii. 21, 22; for that spirit who appeared before the Lord, and offered himself to be a lying spirit in the mouths of Ahab’s prophets, was no other but he who appeared before God, Job i. 6, who is called “Satan.” These in the New Testament are called “unclean spirits,” Matt. x. 1; and the observation of the ancients, that Satan is not called a spirit absolutely, but with an addition or 53mark of distinction, holds only in the New Testament.2020    “Discant (homines) Scripturæ sanctæ consuetudinem, nunquam spiritum perversum absolute, sed cum additamento aliquo spiritum nuncupari: sicut ibi, Spiritu fornicationis seducti sunt; et in Evangelio, Cum autem spiritus immundus exierit de homine; et cætera his similia.” — Hieron. Comment. in Hab. cap. ii. And because evil spirits are wont to torment the minds and bodies of men, therefore evil thoughts, disorders of mind, wicked purposes, disquieting and vexing the soul, arising from or much furthered by melancholy distempers, are called, it may be, sometimes “an evil spirit.” The case of Saul shall be afterward considered.

In such variety are these words used and applied in the Scripture, because of some very general notions wherein the things intended do agree. For the most part, there is no great difficulty in discovering the especial meaning of them, or what it is they signify in the several places where they occur. Their design and circumstances as to the subject-matter treated of determine the signification. And notwithstanding the ambiguous use of these words in the Old and New Testament, there are two things clear and evident unto our purpose:— First, That there is in the holy Scriptures a full, distinct revelation or declaration of the Spirit, or the Spirit of God,2121    “Qui Spiritum negavit, et Deum Patrem negavit et Filium; quoniam idem est Spiritus Dei, qui Spiritus Christi est,” cap. 3. “Unum autem esse Spiritum nemo dubitaverit; etsi de uno Deo plerique dubitaverunt,” cap. 4. — Ambros. de Spir. Sanc. lib. i. as one singular, and every way distinct from everything else that is occasionally or constantly signified or denoted by that word “Spirit.” And this not only a multitude of particular places gives testimony unto, but also the whole course of the Scripture supposeth, as that without an acknowledgment whereof nothing else contained in it can be understood or is of any use at all; for we shall find this doctrine to be the very life and soul which quickens the whole from first to last. Take away the work and powerful efficacy of the Holy Spirit from the administration of it, and it will prove but a dead letter, of no saving advantage to the souls of men; and take away the doctrine concerning him from the writing of it, and the whole will be unintelligible and useless. Secondly, That whatever is affirmed of this Holy Spirit, the Spirit of God, it all relates either to his person or his operations, and these operations of his being various, are sometimes, by a metonymy, called “spirit;” whereof afterward. I shall not, therefore, need to prove that there is a Holy Spirit distinct from all other spirits whatever, and from everything else that on several occasions is signified by that name; for this is acknowledged by all that acknowledge the Scriptures, yea, it is so by Jews and Mohammedans, as well as all sorts of Christians. And, indeed, all those false apprehensions concerning him which have at this day any countenance given unto them may be referred unto two heads:— 1. That of the modern Jews, who affirm the Holy Ghost to be the influential power 54of God; which conceit is entertained and diligently promoted by the Socinians. 2. That of the Mohammedans, who make him an eminent angel, and sometimes say it is Gabriel; which, being traduced from the Macedonians of old, hath found some defenders and promoters in our days.

This, then, being the name of him concerning whom we treat, some things concerning it and the use of it, as peculiarly applied unto him, are to be premised:2222    Ὄνομα αὐτοῦ πνεῦμα ἅγιον, πνεῦμα ἀληθείας, πνεῦμα τοῦ Θεοῦ, πνεῦμα κυρίου, πνεῦμα τοῦ Πατρὸς, πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ, καὶ οὕτω καλεῖ αὐτὸν ἡ γραφή. Μᾶλλον δὲ αὐτὸ ἑαυτὸ καὶ πνεῦμα Θεοῦ, καὶ πνεῦμα τὸ ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ.Chrysost. de Adorand. Spir. for sometimes he is called the “Spirit” absolutely; sometimes the “Holy Spirit,” or, as we speak, the “Holy Ghost;” sometimes the “Spirit of God,” the “good Spirit of God,” the “Spirit of truth” and “holiness;” sometimes the “Spirit of Christ” or “of the Son.” The first absolutely used denotes his person; the additions express his properties and relation unto the other persons.

In the name Spirit two things are included:— First, His nature or essence, — namely, that he is a pure, spiritual, or immaterial substance; for neither the Hebrews nor the Greeks can express such a being in its subsistence but by רוּחַ‎ and πνεῦμα, a spirit. Nor is this name, firstly, given unto the Holy Spirit in allusion unto the wind in its subtlety, agility, and efficacy;2323    Crell. Prolegom. for these things have respect only unto his operations, wherein, from some general appearances, his works and effects are likened unto the wind and its effects, John iii. 8. But it is his substance or being which is first intended in this name.2424    “Sanctificationis bonitatisque vocabulum, et ad Patrem, et ad Filium, et ad Spiritum Sanctum æquè refertur; sicut ipsa quoque appellatio Spiritus. Nam et Pater Spiritus dicitur ut ibi, Spiritus est Deus, Joan. iv. 24. Et Filius Spiritus, Dominus, inquit, Spiritus ejus, 2 Cor. iii. 17. Spiritus autem Sanctus semper Spiritus Sancti appellatione censetur; non quod ex consortio tantum nominis Spiritus cum Patre ponatur et Filio, sed quod una natura unum possideat et nomen.” — Didym. de Spir. Sanc. lib. iii. So it is said of God, chap. iv. 24, Πνεῦμα ὁ Θεός· — “God is a Spirit;” that is, he is of a pure, spiritual, immaterial nature, not confined unto any place, and so not regarding one more than another in his worship; as is the design of the place to evince. It will therefore be said, that on this account the name of “Spirit” is not peculiar unto the third person, seeing it contains the description of that nature which is the same in them all; for whereas it is said, “God is a Spirit,” it is not spoken of this or that person, but of the nature of God abstractedly. I grant that so it is;2525    “Multa sunt testimonia, quibus hoc evidenter ostenditur, et Patris et Filii ipsum esse Spiritum, qui in Trinitate dicitur Spiritus Sanctus. Nec ob aliud existimo ipsum proprie vocari Spiritum, cum etiam si de singulis interrogemur, non possimus non Patrem et Filium Spiritum dicere; quoniam Spiritus est Deus, id est, non Corpus est Deus sed Spiritus; hoc proprie vocari oportuit eum, qui non est unus eorum, sed in quo communitas apparet amborum.” — August. Tractat. xcix. in Johan. and therefore the name 55“Spirit” is not, in the first place, characteristical of the third person in the Trinity, but denotes that nature whereof each person is partaker. But, moreover, as it is peculiarly and constantly ascribed unto him, it declares his especial manner and order of existence; so that wherever there is mention of the “Holy Spirit,” his relation unto the Father and Son is included therein; for he is the Spirit of God. And herein there is an allusion to somewhat created, — not, as I said, to the wind in general, unto whose agility and invisibility he is compared in his operations, but unto the breath of man; for as the vital breath of a man hath a continual emanation from him, and yet is never separated utterly from his person or forsaketh him, so doth the Spirit of the Father and the Son proceed from them by a continual divine emanation, still abiding one with them: for all those allusions are weak and imperfect wherein substantial things are compared with accidental, infinite things with finite, and those that are eternal with those that are temporary. Hence, their disagreement is infinitely more than their agreement; yet such allusions doth our weakness need instruction from and by. Thus he is called רוּחַ פִּיו‎, Ps. xxxiii. 6, “The Spirit” or “breath of the mouth of the Lord,” or “of his nostrils;” as Ps. xviii. 15, wherein there is an eminent allusion unto the breath of a man. Of the manner of this proceeding and emanation of the Spirit from the Father and the Son, so far as it is revealed, and as we are capable of a useful apprehension of it, I have treated elsewhere. And from hence, or the subsistence of the Holy Spirit in an eternal emanation from the Father and Son, as the breath of God, did our Saviour signify his communication of his gifts unto his disciples by breathing on them: John xx. 22, Ἐνεφύσησε· and because in our first creation it is said of Adam that God יִפַּח בְּאַפָיו נִשְׁמַת חַיִּים‎, “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life,” Gen. ii. 7. He hath the same appellation with respect unto God, Ps. xviii. 15. Thus is he called the “Spirit.” And because, as we observed before, the word πνεῦμα is variously used, Didymus, de Spiritu Sancto, lib. iii., supposeth that the prefixing of the article τὸ doth distinguish the signification, and confine it to the Holy Ghost in the New Testament. Ofttimes no doubt it doth so, but not always, as is manifest from John iii. 8, where τὸ is joined with πνεῦμα, and yet only signifies “the wind.” But the subject treated of, and what is affirmed of him, will sufficiently determine the signification of the word, where he is called absolutely “The Spirit.

Again; He is called, by way of eminency, the Holy Spirit, or the Holy Ghost.2626    Ἄνωθεν παρὰ Θεοῦ κατιοῦσα ἐπὶ τοὺς ἄνδρας ἁγίους δωρεὰ, ἣν πνεῦμα ἅγιον ὀνομάζουσιν οἵ ἱεροὶ προφῆται.Justin Mart. This is the most usual appellation of him in the New Testament; and it is derived from the Old: Ps. li., רוּחַ קָדְשְׁךָ‎, 56“The Spirit of thy Holiness,” or “Thy Holy Spirit” Isa. lxiii. 10, 11, רוּחַ קָדְשׁוֹ‎, “The Spirit of his Holiness,” or “His Holy Spirit.” Hence are רוּחַ הַקָּדוֹשׁ‎ and רוּחַ הַקֹּדֶשׁ‎, “The Holy Spirit,” and “The Spirit of Holiness,” in common use among the Jews. In the New Testament he is τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ Ἅγιον, “That Holy Spirit.” And we must inquire into the special reasons of this adjunct. Some suppose it is only from his peculiar work of sanctifying us, or making us holy: for this effect of sanctification is his peculiar work, and that of what sort soever it be; whether it consist in a separation from things profane and common, unto holy uses and services, or whether it be the real infusion and operation of holiness in men, it is from him in an especial manner. And this also manifesteth him to be God, for it is God alone who sanctifieth his people: Lev. xx. 8, “I am Jehovah which sanctify you.” And God in that work ascribes unto himself the title of Holy in an especial manner, and as such would have us to consider him: chap. xxi. 8, “I the Lord, which sanctify you, am holy.” And this may be one reason of the frequent use of this property with reference unto the Spirit.

But this is not the whole reason of this name and appellation: for where he is first so mentioned, he is called “The Spirit of God’s Holiness,” Ps. li. 11, Isa. lxiii. 10, 11; and in the New Testament absolutely “The Spirit of Holiness,” Rom. i. 4 And this respects his nature, in the first place, and not merely his operations.2727    Λέγεται τοίνυν πνεῦμα ἅγιον. Αὕτη γάρ ἐστιν ἡ κυρία καὶ πρώτη προσηγορία ἡ ἐμφαντικώτεραν ἔχουσα τὴν διάνοιαν, καὶ περιστᾶσα τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος τὴν φύσιν.Chrysost. ub. Sup. As God, then, absolutely is called “Holy,” “The Holy One,” and “The Holy One of Israel,” being therein described by that glorious property of his nature whereby he is “glorious in holiness,” Exod. xv. 11, and whereby he is distinguished from all false gods, (“Who is like unto thee, O Jehovah, among the gods? who is like thee, glorious in holiness?”) so is the Spirit called “Holy” to denote the holiness of his nature. And on this account is the opposition made between him and the unholy or unclean spirit: Mark iii. 29, 30, “He that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness: because they said, He hath an unclean spirit.” And herein first his personality is asserted; for the unclean spirit is a person, and if the Spirit of God were only a quality or accident, as some fancy and dream, there could no comparative opposition be made between him and this unclean spirit, — that is, the devil. So also are they opposed with respect unto their natures. His nature is holy, whereas that of the unclean spirit is evil and perverse. This is the foundation of his being called “Holy,” even the eternal glorious holiness of his nature. And on this account he is so styled also with respect unto all his operations; for it is not only with regard unto the particular work of 57regeneration and sanctification, or making of us holy, but unto all his works and operations, that he is so termed: for he being the immediate operator of all divine works that outwardly are of God, and they being in themselves all holy, be they of what kind soever, he is called the “Holy Spirit.” Yea, he is so called to attest and witness that all his works, all the works of God, are holy, although they may be great and terrible, and such as to corrupt reason may have another appearance; in all which we are to acquiesce in this, that the “Holy One in the midst of us will do no iniquity,” [Hos. xi. 9], Zeph. iii. 5. The Spirit of God, then, is thus frequently and almost constantly called “Holy,” to attest that all the works of God, whereof he is the immediate operator, are holy: for it is the work of the Spirit to harden and blind obstinate sinners, as well as to sanctify the elect; and his acting in the one is no less holy than in the other, although holiness be not the effect of it in the objects. So, when he came to declare his dreadful work of the final hardening and rejection of the Jews, — one of the most tremendous effects of divine Providence, a work which, for the strangeness of it, men “would in no wise believe though it were declared unto them,” Acts xiii. 41, — he was signally proclaimed Holy by the seraphims that attended his throne, Isa. vi. 3, 9–12; John xii. 40; Acts xxviii. 25, 26.

There are, indeed, some actions on men and in the world that are wrought, by God’s permission and in his righteous judgment, by evil spirits; whose persons and actings are placed in opposition to the Spirit of God. So 1 Sam. xvi. 14, 15, “The Spirit of the Lord departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the Lord troubled him. And Saul’s servants said unto him, Behold now, an evil spirit from God troubleth thee.” So also verse 23, “The evil spirit from God was upon Saul.” So chap. xviii. 10, xix. 9. This spirit is called, רוּחַ־אֱלֹהִים רָעָה‎, — an evil spirit of God,” chap. xvi. 15; and absolutely רוּחַ־אֱלֹחִים‎ — “a spirit of God,” verse 23, where we have supplied “evil” in the translation. But these expressions are to be regulated and explained by verse 14, where he is called רוּחַ־רָעָה מֵאֵת יְהוָה‎, — “an evil spirit from the Lord;” that is, appointed and commissioned by him for the punishing and terrifying of Saul: for as the Spirit of the Lord departed from him, by withdrawing his assistance and influential operations, whereby he had wrought in him those gifts and abilities of mind which fitted him unto the discharge of his kingly office, upon the first impressions whereof he was “turned into another man” from what he was in his private condition, chap. x. 6–9; so the evil spirit came upon him to excite out of his own adust melancholy, discontents, fears, a sense of guilt, as also to impress terrifying thoughts and apprehensions on his imagination; for so it is said,” An evil spirit from the Lordבִעֲחַתּוּ‎, chap. xvi. 14, “terrified him,” 58frightened him with dreadful agitations of mind. And, that we may touch a little on this by the way, the foundation of this trouble and distress of Saul lay in himself: for as I do grant that he was sometimes under an immediate agitation of body and mind from the powerful impressions of the devil upon him, — for under them it is said he “prophesied in the midst of the house,” 1 Sam. xviii. 10, which argues an extraordinary and involuntary effect upon him, — yet principally he wrought by the excitation and provocation of his personal distempers, moral and natural; for these have in themselves a great efficacy in cruciating the minds of guilty persons. So Tacitus observes out of Plato, Annal. lib. vi. 6, “Neque frustra præstantissimus sapientiæ firmare solitus est, si recludantur tyrannorum mentes, posse aspici laniatus et ictus; quando, ut corpora verberibus, ita sævitia, libidine, malis consultis, animus dilaceretur;” — “The most eminent wise man was not wont in vain to affirm, that if the minds of tyrants were laid open and discovered, it would be seen how they were cruciated and punished; seeing that as the body is rent and torn by stripes, so is the mind by cruelty, lusts, evil counsels and undertakings.” So he, as I suppose from Plato de Repub. lib. ix., where Socrates disputes sundry things to that purpose. And another Roman historian gives us a signal instance hereof in Jugurtha, after he had contracted the guilt of many horrible wickednesses.2828    “Neque post id locorum Jugurthæ dies aut nox ulla quieta fuere: neque loco, neque mortali cuiquam, aut tempori, satis credere: civis, hostis, juxta metuere: circumspectare omnia, et omni strepitu pavescere: alio atque alio loco, sæpe contra decus regium requiescere: interdum, somno excitus arreptis armis tumultum facere: ita formidine, quasi vecordia, agitari.” — Bell. Jugur. lxxii.

And yet this work in itself is of the same kind with what God sometimes employs holy angels about, because it is the execution of his righteous judgments. So it was a “watcher and an holy one” that in such a case smote Nebuchadnezzar with a sudden madness and frenzy, Dan. iv. 13–17

To return; As he is called the Holy, so he is the Good Spirit of God: Ps. cxliii. 10, רִוּחֲךָ טוֹבָה תַּנְחֵנִי‎; — “Thy Spirit is good; lead me into the land of uprightness;” so ours:— rather, “Thy good Spirit shall lead me;” or, as Junius, “Spiritu tuo bone deduc me,” — “Lead me by thy good Spirit.” The Chaldee here adds קוֹדְשֶׁךָ‎, — “The good Spirit of thy holiness” or “Thy holy good Spirit.” Didymus, lib. ii. de Spir. Sanc., says that some copies here read τὸ ἅγιον, a remembrance whereof is in the ms. of Thecla, and not elsewhere. So Neh. ix. 20, “Thou gavest them” רִוּחֲךָ הַטּוֹבָה‎, “thy good Spirit to instruct them.” And he is called so principally from his nature, which is essentially good, as “there is none good but one, that is, God,” Matt. xix. 17; as also from his operations, which are all 59good as they are holy; and unto them that believe are full of goodness in their effects. Crell. Prolegom., p. 7, distinguisheth between this good Spirit and the Holy Spirit, or the Holy Ghost; for this good Spirit he would confine unto the Old Testament, making it the author or cause of those gifts of wisdom, courage, prudence, and government, that were granted unto many of the people of old. So it is said of Bezaleel, that he was “filled with the Spirit of God, in wisdom, and understanding, and in knowledge,” Exod. xxxi. 3; so xxxv. 31; — “That is,” saith he, “with this ‘good Spirit of God.’” So also, it is pretended, in all those places where the Spirit of God is said to “come on” men to enable them unto some great and extraordinary work, as Judges iii. 10. But this is plainly to contradict the apostle, who tells us that there are, indeed, various operations, but one Spirit; and that the one and self-same Spirit worketh all these things as he pleaseth, 1 Cor. xii. 6, 11. And if from every different or distinct effect of the Spirit of God we must multiply spirits, and assign every one of them to a distinct spirit, no man will know what to make of the Spirit of God at last.2929    “Nemo suspicetur alium Spiritum Sanctum fuisse in Sanctis, nimirum ante adventum Domini, et alium in apostolis cæterisque discipulis, et quasi homonymum in differentibus esse substantiis; possumus quidem testimonia de divinis literis exhibere, quia idem Spiritus et in apostolis et in prophetis fuerit. Paulus in epistola quam ad Hebræos scribit, de Psalmorum volumine testimonium proferens, a Spiritu Sancto id dictum esse commemorat.” — Didym. de Spir. Sanc. lib. i. Probably, we shall have so many feigned spirits as to lose the only true one. As to this particular instance, David prays that God would “lead him by his good Spirit,” Ps. cxliii. 10. Now, certainly, this was no other but that Holy Spirit which he prays in another place that the Lord would not take from him: Ps. li. 11, “Take not thy Holy Spirit from me;” which is confessed to be the Holy Ghost. This he also mentions, 2 Sam. xxiii. 2, “The Spirit of the Lord spake by me, and his word was in my tongue.” And what Spirit this was Peter declares, 2 Epist. i. 21, “Holy men of God spake in old time as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” So vain is this pretence.

Again; He is commonly called the Spirit of God, and the Spirit of the Lord; so, in the first mention of him, Gen. i. 2, רוּחַ אֶלֹהִים‎, “The Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” And I doubt not but that the name אֶלֹהִים‎, “Elohim,” which includes a plurality in the same nature, is used in the creation and the whole description of it to intimate the distinction of the divine persons; for presently upon it the name Jehovah is mentioned also, chap. ii. 4, but so as Elohim is joined with it. But that name is not used in the account given us of the work of creation, because it hath respect only unto the unity of the essence of God. Now, the Spirit is called the “Spirit of God” originally and principally, as the Son is called the “Son of 60God;” for the name of “God” in those enunciations is taken personally for the Father, — that is, God the Father, the Father of Christ, and our Father, John xx. 17. And he is thus termed ὑποστατικῶς, upon the account of the order and nature of personal subsistence and distinction in the holy Trinity. The person of the Father being “fons et origo Trinitatis,” the Son is from him by eternal generation, and is therefore his Son, the Son of God; whose denomination as the Father is originally from hence, even the eternal generation of the Son. So is the person of the Holy Spirit from him by eternal procession or emanation. Hence is that relation of his to God even the Father, whence he is called the “Spirit of God.” And he is not only called Πνεῦμα τοῦ Θεοῦ, the “Spirit of God,” but Πνεῦμα τὸ ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ, “the Spirit that is of God,” which proceedeth from him as a distinct person.3030    Ἵνα μήποτε ἀκούσαντες ἡμεῖς πνεῦμα Θεοῦ, νομίσωμεν δὲ οἰκειότητα λέγεσθαι πνεῦμα Θεοῦ, εἰσάγει ἡ γραφὴ τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, καὶ προστίθησι τοῦ Θεοῦ, τὸ ἐκ Θεου. Ἄλλο δὲ τὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ, καὶ ἄλλο τὸ ἐκ Θεοῦ. Θεοῦ μὲν γὰρ οὐρανὸς καὶ γῆ ὡς πὲρ αὐτῷ πεποιημένα. Ἐκ Θεοῦ δὲ οὐδὲν λέγεται, εὶ μὴ ὃ ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας ἐστί.Chrysost. de Spir. Sanc. This, therefore, arising from and consisting in his proceeding from him, he is called, metaphorically, “The breath of his mouth,” as proceeding from him by an eternal spiration. On this foundation and supposition he is also called, secondly, “The Spirit of God” διακριτικῶς, to difference him from all other spirits whatever; as, thirdly, also, because he is promised, given, and sent of God, for the accomplishment of his whole will and pleasure towards us. The instances hereof will be afterward considered. But these appellations of him have their foundation in his eternal relation unto the Father, before mentioned.

On the same account originally, he is also called the Spirit of the Son: “God hath sent forth the Spirit of the Son into your hearts,” Gal. iv. 6; — and the Spirit of Christ: “What time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify,” 1 Pet. i. 11. So Rom. viii. 9, “But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.”3131   Εἴπερ πνεῦμα Θεοῦ οἰκεῖ ἐν ὑμίν, — ἴδε πνεῦμα Θεοῦ. Εἰ δέ τις πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ οὐκ ἔχει, — καὶ μὲν ἐχρῆν εἰπεῖν, εἰ δέ τις πνεῦμα Θεοῦ οὐκ ἔχει, ἀλλ’ εἷπε πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ. Εἶπε Θεοῦ πνεῦμα καὶ, ἐπήγαγε τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ. Εἰ δέ τις πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ οὐκ ἔχει, οὗτος οὐκ ἔστιν αὐτοῦ, ἀλλὰ τοῦτο εἷπεν, ἵνα δείξῃ ὅτι ἒν πνεῦμα, καὶ ἴσον ἐστὶν εἰπεῖν πνεῦμα Θεοῦ, καὶ πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ. — Ibid. The Spirit, therefore, of God and the Spirit of Christ are one and the same; for that hypothetical proposition, “If any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his,” is an inference taken from the words foregoing, “If so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you.” And this Spirit of Christ, verse 11, is said to be the “Spirit of him that raised up Christ from the dead.” Look, then, in what sense he is said to be the Spirit of God, — that is, of the Father, — in the same he is said to be the Spirit of the Son. And this 61is because he proceedeth from the Son also; and for no other reason can he be so called, at least not without the original and formal reason of that appellation. Secondarily, I confess he is called the “Spirit of Christ” because promised by him, sent by him, and that to make effectual and accomplish his work towards the church. But this he could not be unless he had antecedently been the Spirit of the Son by his proceeding from him also: for the order of the dispensation of the divine persons towards us ariseth from the order of their own subsistence in the same divine essence; and if the Spirit did proceed only from the person of the Father, he could not be promised, sent, or given by the Son. Consider, therefore, the human nature of Christ in itself and abstractedly, and the Spirit cannot be said to be the Spirit of Christ; for it was anointed and endowed with gifts and graces by him, as we shall show. And if from hence he may be said to be the Spirit of Christ, without respect unto his proceeding from him as the Son of God, then he may be also said to be the Spirit of every believer who hath received the unction, of is anointed with his gifts and graces; for although believers are so, as to measure and degree, unspeakably beneath what Christ was, who received not the Spirit by measure, yet as he is the head and they are the members of the same mystical body, their unction by the Spirit is of the same kind. But now the Spirit of God may not be said to be the Spirit of this or that man who hath received of his gifts and graces. David prays, “Take not thy Holy Spirit from me,” — not “my Holy Spirit.” And he is distinguished from our spirits even as they are sanctified by him: Rom. viii. 16, “The Spirit himself beareth witness with our spirit.” No more, then, can he be said to be the Spirit of Christ merely upon the account of his communications unto him, although in a degree above all others inconceivably excellent; for with respect hereunto he is still called the Spirit of God or the Father, who sent him, and anointed the human nature of Christ with him.

It will be said, perhaps, that he is called the “Spirit of Christ” because he is promised, given, and poured out by him. So Peter speaks, Acts ii. 33, “Having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.” But in this regard, namely, as given by Christ the mediator, he is expressly called the Spirit of the Father; he was given as the promise of the Father: for so he is introduced speaking, verse 17, “It shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit on all flesh.” And so our Saviour tells his disciples that he would “pray the Father, and he should give them another Comforter, even the Spirit of truth,” John xiv. 16, 17. Nor is he otherwise the Spirit of Christ, originally and formally, but as he is the Spirit of God, — that is, as Christ is God also. On this supposition I 62grant, as before, that he may consequently be called the “Spirit of Christ,” because promised and sent by him, because doing his work, and communicating his grace, image, and likeness to the elect.

And this is yet more plain, 1 Pet. i. 10, 11, “Of which salvation the prophets have inquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify.” And this Spirit is said absolutely to be the “Holy Ghost,” 2 Pet. i. 21. So, then, the Spirit that was in the prophets of old, in all ages since the world began, before the incarnation of the Son of God, is called the “Spirit of Christ,” — that is, of him who is so. Now, this could not be because he was anointed by that Spirit, or because he gave it afterward to his disciples; for his human nature did not exist in the time of their prophesying. Those, indeed, who receive him after the unction of the human nature of Christ may be said in some sense to receive the Spirit of Christ, because they are made partakers of the same Spirit with him, to the same ends and purposes, according to their measure; but this cannot be so with respect unto them who lived and prophesied by him, and died long before his incarnation. Wherefore, it is pleaded by those who oppose both the deity of Christ and the Spirit, which are undeniably here attested unto, that the Spirit here, whereby they cannot deny the Holy Ghost to be intended, is called the “Spirit of Christ,” because the prophets of old, who spake by him, did principally prophesy concerning Christ and his grace, and delivered great mysteries concerning them. So Christ is made in this place the object of the Spirit’s teaching, and not the author of his sending! So Crell. Prolegom., pp. 13, 14. But why, then, is he not called the “Spirit of God” also on this reason, because the prophets that spake by him treated wholly of God, the things and the will of God? This they will not say, for they acknowledge him to be the “virtue and power of God, inherent in him and proceeding from him.” But, then, whereas God even the Father is a person, and Christ is a person, and the Spirit is said to be the “Spirit of God” and the” Spirit of Christ,” whence doth it appear that the same expression must have different interpretations, and that the Spirit is called the “Spirit of God” because he is so, and proceedeth from him, but the “Spirit of Christ” because he is not so, but only treateth of him? The answer is ready, — namely, “Because the Father is God, but Christ is not, and therefore could not give the Spirit when he was not.” This is an easy answer, — namely, to deny a fundamental truth, and to set up that denial in an opposition unto a clear testimony given unto it. But the truth is, this pretended sense leaves no sense at all in the words: for if the Spirit which was in the prophets be called the “Spirit of Christ” only because he did beforehand declare the things of Christ, 63— that is, his “sufferings and the glory that did follow,” — and that be the sole reason of that denomination, then the sense or importance of the words is this, “Searching what or what manner of time the Spirit — ‘which did signify when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ’ — which was in them did signify when he testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ;” for according to this interpretation, the Spirit of Christ is nothing but the Spirit as testifying beforehand of him, and thence alone is he so called, — the absurdity whereof is apparent unto all.

But countenance is endeavoured unto this wresting of the Scripture from 1 John iv. 3, “Every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world;” — for say some, “The spirit of antichrist is said to be in the world, when antichrist was not as yet come.” But the spirit here intended is not called the spirit of antichrist because it declared and foretold the things of antichrist before his coming; on which account alone they allow the Spirit of God in the prophets of old to be called the “Spirit of Christ:” they have, therefore, no countenance from this place, which fails them in the principal thing they would prove by it. Again, supposing these words, “Whereof ye have heard that it should come, and even now already is it in the world,” are to be interpreted of the spirit mentioned, and not of antichrist himself, yet no more can be intended but that the false teachers and seducers which were then in the world acted with the same spirit as antichrist should do at his coming; and so there is no conformity between these expressions. Besides, the spirit of antichrist was then in the world, as was antichrist himself. So far as his spirit was then in the world, so far was he so also; for antichrist and his spirit cannot be separated. Both he and it were then in the world in their forerunners, who opposed the truth of the gospel about the incarnation of the Son of God and his sufferings. And, indeed, the spirit of antichrist in this place is no more but his doctrine, — antichristian doctrine, which is to be tried and rejected. Neither is any singular person intended by antichrist, but a mysterious opposition unto Christ and the gospel, signally headed by a series of men in the latter days. He, therefore, and his spirit began to be together in the world in the apostles’ days, when the “mystery of iniquity” began to “work,” 2 Thess. ii. 7. There is, therefore, no countenance to be taken from these words unto the perverting and wresting of that other expression concerning the Spirit of Christ in the prophets of old. This, therefore, is the formal reason of this appellation: The Holy Spirit is called the “Spirit of the Son,” and the “Spirit of Christ,” upon the account of his procession or emanation 64from his person also. Without respect hereunto he could not be called properly the “Spirit of Christ;” but on that supposition he may be. He is so denominated from that various relation and respect that he hath unto him in his work and operations. Thus is the Spirit called in the Scripture, these are the names whereby the essence and subsistence of the third person in the Holy Trinity are declared. How he is called on the account of his offices and operations will be manifested in our progress.

« Prev Chapter II. The name and titles of the Holy… Next »
VIEWNAME is workSection