The scriptural argument is thus logically developed by Watson. " 1. The mode of the subsistence of the Holy Spirit in the sacred Trinity proves his personality. He proceeds from the Father and the Son, and cannot, therefore, be either. To say that an attribute proceeds and comes forth would be a gross absurdity. 2. ISIany passages of Scripture would be wholly unintelligible, and even absurd, unless the Holy Ghost is allowed to be a person. For as those who take the phrase as as- cribing no more than a figurative personality to an at- tribute, make that attribute to be the energy or power of God, they reduce such passages as the following to utter unmeaningness : ' God anointed Jesus with the Holy Ghost and with power;' that is, with the jiowcr of God and with power. 'That ye may abound in hope through the power of the Holy Ghost ;' that is, through the power of power. ' In demonstration of the Sjiirit and of power ;' that is, in demonstration of power and of power. 3. Personification of any kind is, in some passages in which the Holy Cihost is spoken of, impos- sible. The reality which this figure of speech is said to present to us is either some of the attributes of God, or else the doctrine of the Gospel. Let this theory, then, be tried upon the following passages: 'He shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that
HOLY GHOST
308
HOLY GHOST
shall he speak.' What attribute of God can here be personified V And if tlie doctrine of the Gospel be ar- rayed with personal attribute!*, where is there an in- stance of so monstrous a prosopopoeia as tliis passage would exhibit ? the doctrine of the Gospel not spealcino; 'of liimseir,' but speaking 'whatsoever he shall hear!' ' Tlie Spirit maketh intercession for us.' What attri- bute is capable of interceding, or how can the doctrine of the Gospel intercede? Personification, too, is the language of poetrj', and takes place naturally only in excited and elevated discourse ; but if the Holj' Spirit be a personification, we find it in the ordinary and cool strain of mere narration and argumentative discourse in the New Testament, and in the most incidental conver- sations. 'Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.' How impossible is it here to extort, by any process whatever, even the shadow of a personification of either any attribute of God, or of the doctrine of the Gospel! So again: 'The Spirit said imto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot.' Could it be any attribute of God which said this, or could it be the doctrine of the Gospel ? Finally, that the Holy (ihost is a person, and not an attribute, is proved by the use of masculine pronouns and relatives in the Greek of the New Testament, in connection with the neuter noun Jlvtvua, Spirit, and also by many dis- tinct personal acts being ascribed to him, as ' to come,' 'to go,' 'to be sent,' 'to teach,' 'to guide,' 'to comfort,' ' to make intercession,' ' to bear witness,' ' to give gilts,' ' dividing t'aem to every man as he u-ill,'' ' to be vexed,' ' grieved,' and ' quenched.' These cannot be applied to the mere fiction of a person, and they therefore estab- lish the Spirit's true personality" (Watson, Theolor/ical Institutes, i, 637 sq.).
HI. DivixiTY nfthe Holy Spirit. — 1. The same argu- ments that prove the personality of the Holy Ghost, go also, to a certain extent, to establish his divinitj'. The direct scriptural argument may be thus summed up : (a.) Names proper only to the INIost High (Jod are ascribed to him ; as Jehovah (Acts xxviii,25,with Isa. vi, 9; and Heb. iii, 7, 9, with Exod. xvii, 7 ; Jer. xxxi, 31 , 34 ; Heb. X, 15, 16), God (Acts V, 3, 4), Lord (2 Cor. iii, 17, 19). '• The Lord, the Spirit," (b.) A ttributes proper only to the ^lost High God are ascribed to him ; as omniscience (1 Cor. ii, 10 11: Tsa. xl. 1,'), 14), omnipresence (Psa. cxxxix, 7; Eph. ii, 17, IS; lloui. viii. 2l'>, 27), omnipo- tence (Luke 1.35), eternity (Ilcb. ix. 14). (c.) Divine works are evidently ascribed to him ((ien. ii, 2; Job xxvi, 13; Psa. xxxii, G; civ, 30). (jl.) U''o>-s/«y), proper only to God, is required and ascribed to him (Isa.vi, 3; Acts xxviii, 25 ; Rom. ix, 1 ; Eev. i, 4 ; 2 Cor. xiii, 14 ; Matt, xxviii, 19).
2. Tlie argument for the personal divinity of the Spir- it is developed by Watson as follows: (1.) "The first argument may be drawn from the frequent association, in Scripture, of a Person under that appellation with tAvo other Persons, one of whom, the Father, is by all acknowledged to be divine ; and the ascription to each of them, or to the three in union, of the same acts, titles, and authority, with worship of the same kind, and, for any lUstiiiction that is made, of an equal degree. The manifestation of the existence and divinity of the Holy Spirit may be expected in the law and the prophets, and is, in fact, to be traced there with certainty. The Spirit is represented as an agent in creation, ' moving upon the face of the waters;' and it forms no objection to the argument that creation is ascribed to the Fatlier, and also to the Son, but is a great confirmation of it. That creation should be effected by all the three Persons of the (iodhead, though acting in diflferent respects, yet so that each should be a Creator, and, therefore, botli a Person and a divine Person, can be explained only by their unity in one essence. Ou every other hypothesis this scriptural fact is disallowed, and therefore no other hypothesis can be true. If the Spirit of God be a mere influence, then he is not a Creator, distinct from the Fa-