S P I 



S P I 



change. Atlianafius contended ftrenuoudy and efTeftually, 

 not only for the divinity of Chrift, and his confubltantiality 

 with the Father, but alfo in behalf of that of the Holy Spirit, 

 whofe divinity was denied by Macedonius. Being in Egypt 

 when this herefy prevailed, he procured a fynod to be called, 

 at which he attended, and where the Holy Spirit was, for 

 the firft tirne, decreed to be confubllantial with the Fa- 

 ther and the Son. Soon after this, the divinity of the Holy 

 Spirit was more folemnly determined at a council held in 

 Conllantinople, and from that time it was decreed no lefs 

 heretical to deny tlie divinity of the Spirit, than that of the 

 Son. 



At this time the doftrine of the perfedl equality of the 

 Spirit and the Son, as well as that of the Son and the Father, 

 was fully eftabh(hed ; and it was not long before the forms 

 of public worfliip were accommodated to this opinion ; for 

 inftead of the cullomary doxology of " Gloria Patri," Fla- 

 vianus of Antioch made an alteration, for which purpofe he 

 is faid to have atfembled a number of monks, and to have 

 firft chanted out " Glory to the Father, to the Son, and to 

 the Holy Ghoft." Whereas, before his time, fome had faid 

 " Glory to the Father through the Son, in the Holy Spirit," 

 which was the molt cullomary form ; and others, " Glory to 

 .he Father in the Son, and the Holy Spirit." 



The doflrine avowed and maintained by Athanafius, was 

 liipported by the influence of Bafil, the two Gregories, Cln-y- 

 foftom, and Cyril of Alexandria. The latter fays, " the Holy 

 Spirit is the Spirit of the unbegotten God, and comes forth 

 from him, has perfonality and life, and always exilts, being 

 from that which exitts." At this time the doftrine of the 

 inferiority of the Spirit to the Son, and of his having been 

 created by him, was feverely reprobated. Bafil maintained, 

 tliat to deny the divinity of the Holy Spirit, is to be guilty of 

 blafphcmy againll the Holy Spirit ; and Chryfoftom ob- 

 ferves, " it cannot be that he who halts with refpedi to the 

 Spirit, can walk upright with refpefl to the Son." How- 

 ever, though it was admitted, that the Spirit was a divine 

 perfon as well as the Son, and yet, like the Son, not abfo- 

 lutely underived, there was fome difficulty in fettling the 

 mode of his derivation. At length, the term " proceeding" 

 was adopted, as cxprcfTing the manner of the emiffion of 

 the Spirit from the fountain of Deity, and was deemed to 

 be different from tliat of " generation," which had been 

 eppropriuted to the Son : neverthelefs, the difference between 

 the two terms could not be eafily adjufted. Auitin fays that 

 the Holy Spirit, being the Spirit both of the Father and the 

 Son, proceeds from them both ; and this he makes to be the 

 difference between the generation of the Son and the pro- 

 ceflion of the Spirit. Cyril of Alexandria thought that 

 he had fome idea of the nature of the proccffion of the Spirit 

 from the fubllance of God, when he fays, that " Chrift 

 breathed upon his difciplos, to fhew that the Holy Spirit 

 proceeds from tlie divine fubllance, as the breath of man 

 proceeds from him." 



In proof of the divinity of the Holy Spirit it has been 

 alleged, that divme names, title', attributes, works and wor- 

 fhip,are()r feem to be afcribcd,in various paifages of fcripture, 

 to the Holy Spirit. Many plead that tlie Holy Spirit is 

 called Jehovah in the Old Tellament, by comparmg Afts, 

 xxviii. 2J. with Ifaiah, vi. 9 ; and Heb. iii. 7 — 9. with 

 Exod. xvii. 7 J Jer. xxxi. 31 — 34. with Heb. x. 15, 16. 

 In adverting to the firtt of tliefe cited paflages, in which 

 the words fpoktn by God to Ifaiah are by St. Paul faid to 

 be fpoken by the Holy Gholl, it has been concluded, that 

 God and the H'>ly Gholt are one and the fame individual 

 perfon. But in Rey. xi.43, an inferior angel is introduced 

 as fpeaking in the perfon of God, and therefore this mode of 

 Vol. XXX III. 



reafoning has not been allowed by the oppugners of this 

 doftrine. It is alleged further, that the Holy Spirit is, 

 probably, called God v. 4, to which pafTages fome add 

 I Cor. iii. 16. vi. 19. 2 Cor. iii. 17. Moreover, divine per- 

 feftions are faid to be afcribed to the Spirit of God ; par- 

 ticularly omnifcience, i Cor. ii. 10, 11. If. xl. 13, 14; 

 to which fome add i John, ii. 20 ; — omniprefence, 

 Pf. cxxxix. 7. Eph. ii. 17, 18. Rom. viii. 26, 27 ; — om- 

 nipotence, Luke, i. 35. I Cor. xii. 11; — eternity, Heb. 

 ix. 14. Again ; divine works are afcribed to the Spirit, 

 Gen. i. 2. Job, xxvi. 13. xxxiii. 4. Pf. xxxiii. 6. civ. 30, 

 &c. Some perfons likewife add thofe texts in which mi- 

 racles, infpiration, and faving operations upon the heart of 

 man, are afcribed to the Spirit. The chief texts produced 

 to prove that divine worfhip is given to the Spirit are. If. vi. 3, 

 compared with v. 9, and A£ls, xxviii. 25', Sec. Rom. ix. I. 

 Rev. i. 4, 2 Cor. xiii. 14; and above all, Matth. xxviii. 19. 

 Upon the whole it is alleged, that the bleffed Spirit is 

 fpoken of in fuch a manner, as it cannot be imagined would 

 be ufed in fpeaking of a mere creature, and, confequently, 

 mufl be poffeffed of a nature properly divine. On the other 

 hand it is maintained, that the proofs taken from the attri- 

 butes and operations of the Spirit are of no more force than 

 in the cafe of the Son's fupreme deity ; both Son and Spirit, 

 being agents under God at his will, are concerned in his 

 glorious works, and partakers of his power and wifdom ; fo 

 that it is no wonder if moll of thefe be afcribed to the Spirit, 

 but ftill as to one fentof God. Moreover, thefe arguments 

 bear lefs evidence in relation to the Holy Spirit, becaufe of 

 the different ideas which the word Spirit ftands for. The 

 Spirit, and Holy Spirit, very often fignify not a perfonal 

 Spirit, but the attributes and operative efficacious virtus 

 of God, the energy of his power, wifdom, and holinefs, ex- 

 erted in powerful operations, afflatus, and infpiration. The 

 name of God is never once given to the Spirit, nor is direft 

 worfhip or invocation, prayer or praife, glory or dominion, 

 once given to him, in preceptor pradlice, in the New Tella- 

 ment ; though his communications are wifhed and prayed for 

 to Chriftians, 2 Cor. xiii. 14. 



The chief controverfy on this head is, whether the fpirit 

 of God be a perfon in the philofophtcal finfe, or merely a 

 divine power or energy. That he is a perfon, is argued 

 from his being defcribed as having undertlanding, i Cor. 

 ii. 10, II; wilhng, i Cor. xii. 1 1 ; fpeaking and fending 

 mefl'cngere. If. vi. 8, compared with Afts, xxviii. 25. 

 viii. 19. X. 19, 20. xiii. i — 4. i Tim. iv. 1 ; as Dr. 

 Barrow interprets it, fending Chrifl, If. xlviii. 16; as 

 pleading, Rom. viii. 26; as being grieved. If. Ixiii. 10. 

 Eph. iv. 3c; as teaching and reminding, John, xiv. 26; 

 as teilifyiiig, John, xv. 26 ; as reproving, John, xvi. 8, 

 &c. ; as executing a commiluon received from God, Jolui, 

 xvi. 13, 14. 



Among tliofe who grant the Spirit to be a perfon, it is 

 debated whether he be the fame philofophical perfon with 

 the Father, or another diltindt from him ; to fuppofe the 

 latter (fuppofing him at the fame time equal with the 

 Father) is making him another God. Some, therefore, have 

 rcprefentcd liim as a created Spirit, in his own n.iture in- 

 ferior botli to Father and Son ; again fl which the pafl'agea 

 above enumerated have been flrongly urged ; as it has iilfo 

 been, that tlie Spirit is never mentioned as a creature called 

 upon to praife God, when a large enumeration of fiich ii 

 made. Others couiider him as a created Spirit, (called ai 

 one think-f Michael the archangel), fo united to God, and 

 lo aftuated by him, as by virtue of this union to become 

 capable of fuch reprtfentations and regards as the Son is, 

 though adting in fome fubordination to him in the economy 

 4D uf 



