03. Chapter II.

Chapter II. The name and titles of the Holy Spirit. Of the name of the Holy Spirit — Various uses of the words ru’ach and pneuma — ru’ach for the wind or anything invisible with a sensible agitation, Amos 4:13 — Mistakes of the ancients rectified by Hierom — ru’ach used metaphorically for vanity, metonymically for the part or quarter of anything; for our vital breath, the rational soul, the affections, angels good and bad — How to remove ambiguity from the use of the word, — Rules concerning the Holy Spirit — The name "Spirit," how unique and appropriate to him — Why he is called the "Holy Spirit" — Why he is called the "Good Spirit," the "Spirit of God," the "Spirit of the Son" — Acts 2:33, 1 Peter 1:10-11, explained — 1 John 4:3, vindicated.

Before we engage the consideration of the things themselves which we are to address, it will be necessary to say something as to the name by which the third person in the Trinity is commonly known and particularly called in the Scripture. This is the "Spirit," or the "Holy Spirit," or the "Holy Ghost," as we usually say. And I will do this so we are not deceived by the homonymy84 of the word, nor be at a loss in the intention of those places of Scripture where it is used for other purposes. For the name of the second person, O Logos, "the Word," and of the third person, to Pneuma, "the Spirit," are often applied to signify other things; I mean, those same words signify other things. And some take advantage of the ambiguous use of them. But the Scripture is able, of itself, to manifest its own intention and meaning to humble and diligent inquirers into it.

It is acknowledged that the use of the words ru’ach (OT:07307) in the Old Testament, and pneuma (NT:4151) in the New, is varied; yet these are the words by which alone the Holy Spirit of God is denoted. Their specific meaning in particular places, therefore, is to be collected and determined from the subject-matter addressed in them, and from their other special circumstances. This was first attempted by the most learned Didymus of Alexandria. I will cast his observations in a more perspicuous method, with such additions as are necessary to further clarify the whole matter.

First, In general, ru’ach and pneuma signify a wind or spirit — that is, anything which moves and is not seen. So the air in a violent agitation is called ru’ach: Genesis 8:1 — "And God made a wind," or "spirit," that is, a strong and mighty wind, "to pass over the earth," for driving and removing the waters. So pneuma is used in John 3:8 — "The wind blows where it will, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from, nor where it goes;" which is a proper designation of this first meaning of the word. It is an agitation of the air which is unseen. So it is in Psa 1.4.85 And in this sense, it sometimes signifies a "great and strong wind," — 1Kng 19.11; and sometimes a cool and soft wind, or a light easy agitation of the air, such as often arises in the evenings of the spring or summer. So it is in Genesis 3:8, "God walked in the garden in the cool of the day;" that is, when the evening air began to breathe gently, and moderate the heat of the day. So the poet Virgil used it, "At the going down of the sun, when the cold evening tempers the heat of the air." — Geor. 3.336. And some think this is the sense in Psalms 104:4, "Who makes his angels spirits," — swift, agile, and powerful as mighty winds. But the reader may consult our Exposition on Hebrews 1:7. This is one meaning of the word ru’ach, or this is one thing denoted by it in the Scripture. Among many other places, Amos 4:13 expressly says, "For, lo, he that forms the mountains, and creates the spirit," that is, "the wind." The LXX renders this text, "Who establishes the thunder, and creates the spirit;" though some copies read, "the mountains." They render the next words of the text ("And declares to man what is his thought") this way: "And declares to men his Christ," or his Anointed, or his Messiah — they mistook one word for another by inadvertency,86 and not for lack of points or vowels as some imagine. The mistake consists in throwing out a letter. Because of this, the old Latin translation rendered the words incorrectly. Hierom rectified it, revealing in his comment the mistake of the LXX. But it is certain that, from the ambiguity of the word in this place, along with the corrupt translations using "Christ" in the next words, some of old who denied the deity of the Holy Spirit mightily insisted on it to prove that he was a creature. This may be seen in Didymus, Ambrose, Hierom, Hilary, and the ancients generally. But the context determines the meaning of the word beyond all just exceptions. It is the power of God in making and disposing of things here below, whether awesome for their greatness and height, such as the mountains; or mighty and effectual in their operations, such as the wind; or secret in their conceptions, such as the thoughts of men; or stable in their continuance, such as night and day, the evening and morning, without the least respect to Christ or the Spirit that it treats.

I can only observe from this, the great necessity to search the original text in the interpretation of the Scriptures, as might be evidenced by a thousand other instances. But we may take one instance from two great and learned men, who were contemporaries in the Latin church, in their thoughts on this passage. The one is Ambrose, who in interpreting these words in his second book, De Spiritu Sancto, lib. ii. cap. 6, being deceived by the corrupt translation mentioned, is forced to give a very strained exposition of something 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 "establishing the thunder." Yet, when he has done all, he can scarcely free himself of the objection about the creation of the Spirit, which he aims to answer. The substance of his discourse is that, in his treatment of Christ (who indeed is neither mentioned nor intended in the text), he speaks of "confirming the thunder" (which nowhere appears here), by which the sound of the Scriptures and the 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.87 The other person is Hierom who — consulting the original as he was well able to do — first translated the words, and declared the mistake of the LXX and its basis. Because the word means both to meditate and to speak, it means a conceived thought to be spoken afterward. It is reciprocal here, not relative.

Secondly, because of its unexplainable variation, inconstancy, and changes, the wind is considered vain: it is not to be observed or trusted. From this the wise man tells us that "he that observes the wind will not sow" Ecclesiastes 11:4 — the word is used metaphorically to signify vanity: "What profit does he have that has labored for the wind?" Ecclesiastes 5:16 "If a man walks with the wind and falsehood;" Micah 2:11 — that is, in vanity, pretending to a spirit of prophecy; and falsehood, vainly, foolishly, falsely boasting. "Should a wise man utter knowledge of the wind?" Job 15:2 They are vain words, with a pretense of knowledge and wisdom; and so he calls them, "words of wind." Job 16:3 "And the prophets will become wind," Jeremiah 5:13 or be vain, foolish, uncertain, and false in their predictions. But pneuma is not used metaphorically in the New Testament.

Thirdly, By a metonymy88 it also signifies any part or quarter, as we say, of the world from which the wind blows; also a part of anything divided into four sides or quarters. "There were ninety-six pomegranates towards a wind;" Jeremiah 52:23 that is, on the one side of the capital89 that was above the pillars in the temple. "I will scatter a third part into all the winds," Ezekiel 5:12 or all the parts of the earth. Hence, the "four quarters" of a thing, lying in the four parts of the world, are called its four winds;1 Chronicles 9:24 and from this we get the "the four winds" in the New Testament.Matthew 24:31 This is the use of the word in general with respect to natural and inanimate things; and every place where it is used this way, has a determinate sense.

Fourthly, These words are used for anything that cannot be seen or touched, whether in itself it is material and corporeal, or absolutely spiritual and immaterial. So the vital breath which we and other living creatures breathe, is called spirit (ru’ach): Everything in which was "the breath90 of the spirit of life," Genesis 7:22 — that vital breath by which our lives are maintained in respiration. So it is in Psalms 135:17; Psalms 91 Job 19.17;92 this "breath" is a material or corporeal thing. But most frequently it denotes things purely spiritual and immaterial, just as in finite substances it signifies the rational soul of man: Psalms 31:5, "Into your hand I commit my spirit." They are the words by which our Savior committed his departing soul into the hands of his Father, Luke 23:46. So too, in Psalms 146:4, "His breath," we say, "departs; he returns to his earth." It is his soul and its departure from the body that is intended. This is, that "spirit of the sons of man that goes upward," when the "spirit of a beast goes downward to the earth," or turns to corruption, Ecclesiastes 3:21 : see chap. 8.8, 12.7.93 Hence,

Fifthly, By a metonymy also, it is taken for the affections of the mind or soul of a man, whether good or evil: Genesis 45:27, "The spirit of Jacob revived;" he began to take heart and be of good courage. Ezekiel 13:3, "The prophets that walk after their own spirit" — that is, their own desires and inclinations — when, indeed, they had no vision, but spoke what they had a mind to speak. In Num 14.24,94 Caleb is said to have "another spirit" than the murmuring people — another mind, will, purpose, or resolution. It is taken for prudence in Joshua 5:1; anger, or the irascible faculty in Ecclesiastes 7:9; fury in Zechariah 6:8. "He will cut off the spirit of princes," Psalms 76:12; that is, their pride, insolence, and contempt for others. Pneuma in the New Testament frequently intends the intellectual part of the mind or soul, as it is active, or in action, Luke 1:47; Romans 1:9; and it is often taken for the mind in all its inclinations, in its whole habitual bent and design, 1 Thessalonians 5:23.

Sixthly, Angels also are called spirits: both good angels, Psalms 104:4 (it may be that an angel is intended in 1Kng 18.12);95 and evil angels or devils, 1Kng 22.21, 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 none other than the one who appeared before God in Job 1:6, who is called "Satan." These angels in the New Testament are called "unclean spirits," Matthew 10:1; and the observation of the ancients, that Satan is not called a spirit absolutely, except with an addition or mark of distinction, holds only in the New Testament.96 And because evil spirits are in the habit of tormenting the minds and bodies of men, any evil thoughts, disorders of mind, wicked purposes, disquieting and vexing of the soul, which arise from or are much furthered by melancholy distempers, are therefore sometimes called "an evil spirit." The case of Saul will be considered afterward.

These words are used and applied in such variety in the Scripture because of some very general notions in which the things intended by them agree. For the most part, there is no great difficulty in discovering their special meaning, or what it is they signify in the several places where they occur. Their design and circumstances as to the subject-matter addressed, determine the meaning. And notwithstanding the ambiguous use of these words in the Old and New Testaments, there are two things that are clear and evident for our purpose:

First, That there is in the holy Scriptures a full, distinct revelation or declaration of the Spirit, or the Spirit of God,97 as one that is singular, and in every way distinct from everything else that is occasionally or constantly signified or denoted by that word "Spirit." And not only do a number of particular places give testimony to this, but also the whole course of the Scripture supposes it. This is such that, without acknowledging it, nothing else contained in Scripture can be understood or is of any use at all. For we will find that this doctrine is 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 Scripture, and it will prove to be but a dead letter, of no saving advantage to the souls of men. And take away the doctrine concerning him from the writing of Scripture, and the whole will be unintelligible and useless.

Secondly, That whatever is affirmed about this Holy Spirit, the Spirit of God, it all relates either to his person or his operations, and these operations of his being various, they are sometimes, by a metonymy, called "spirit." I will say more about this afterward. I will not, therefore, need to prove that there is a Holy Spirit distinct from all other spirits whatsoever, and from everything else that on several occasions is signified by that name — for this is acknowledged by all who acknowledge the Scriptures. Indeed, it is acknowledged by Jews and Mohammedans, as well as all sorts of Christians. And all those false apprehensions concerning him, which have any countenance given to them at this day, may be referred to two heads:

1. That of the modern Jews, who affirm that the Holy Ghost is the influential power of God; this conceit is entertained and diligently promoted by the Socinians.

2. That of the Mohammedans, who make him out to be an eminent angel, and sometimes say it is Gabriel; this, being passed on from the Macedonians of old, has found some defenders and promoters in our own days. This then, being the name of the one we are concerned with, some things are to be premised concerning his name and the use of it, as specially applied to him:98 for sometimes he is called the "Spirit" absolutely; sometimes the "Holy Spirit," or as we say, 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, "Spirit", absolutely used, denotes his person; the additions express his properties and his relation to the other persons of the Godhead.

Two things are included in the name Spirit:

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 except by ru’ach and pneuma, a spirit. Nor is this name given to the Holy Spirit firstly as an allusion to the wind in its subtlety, agility, and efficacy;99 for these things respect only his operations in which, from some general appearances, his works and effects are likened to the wind and its effects, John 3:8. But it is his substance or being which is first intended in this name.100 So it is said about God in John 4:24, that he is Pneuma o Theos — "God is a Spirit;" that is, he is of a pure, spiritual, immaterial nature, not confined to any place; and so it is not regarding one place more than another in his worship, which that passage is designed to evince.101 It will therefore be said that on this account the name of "Spirit" is not unique to the third person, seeing that it contains the description of that nature which is the same in them all; for because 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 this is so;102 and therefore the name "Spirit" is not, in the first place, characteristic only of the third person in the Trinity, but it denotes that nature of which each person is partaker.

Moreover, as it is particularly and constantly ascribed to him, it declares his special manner and order of existence; so that wherever the "Holy Spirit" is mentioned, his relation to the Father and Son is included in this, for he is the Spirit of God. And in this there is an allusion to something created — not, as I said, referring to the wind in general (to whose agility and invisibility he is compared in his operations), but to the breath of man. For it is like the vital breath of a man: it continually emanates from him, and yet it is never utterly separated from his person; nor does it forsake him. In the same way, the Spirit of the Father and the Son proceeds from them by a continual divine emanation, and yet it still abides as one with them. All those allusions are weak and imperfect in which substantial things are compared with incidental things, infinite things with finite, and those that are eternal with those that are temporary. Hence, their disagreement is infinitely more than their agreement; yet our weakness needs instruction from and by such allusions. Thus he is called ru’ach peh, Psalms 33:6, "The Spirit" or "breath of the mouth of the Lord," or "of his nostrils;" as in Psalms 18:15, in which there is an eminent allusion to the breath of a man. I have addressed elsewhere the manner of this proceeding and emanation of the Spirit from the Father and the Son, so far as it is revealed, and so far as we are capable of a useful apprehension of it. And for this reason — the breath of God being the subsistence of the Holy Spirit in an eternal emanation from the Father and Son — our Savior signified his communication of his gifts to his disciples by breathing on them (emphusao): John 20:22; and because in our creation at the beginning, it is said of Adam that God "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life," Genesis 2:7. He uses the same appellation103 with respect to God in Psa 18.15.104 Thus he is called the "Spirit." And because the word pneuma is variously used, as we observed before, Didymus supposes in de Spiritu Sancto, lib. iii., that prefixing the Greek article τὸ, "the" Spirit, distinguishes the meaning, and confines it to the Holy Ghost in the New Testament. No doubt it often does; but not always, as it is manifest from John 3.8,105 where τὸ ("the") is joined with pneuma, and yet it only signifies "the wind." But the subject addressed, and what is affirmed about him, will sufficiently determine the meaning of the word, where he is called absolutely "The Spirit."

Again: He is called the Holy Spirit, or the Holy Ghost by way of eminence.106 This is the most usual appellation of him in the New Testament, and it is derived from the Old: Psalms 51:11, qodesh ru’ach, "The Spirit of your Holiness," or "Your Holy Spirit;" Isaiah 63:10-11, "The Spirit of his Holiness," or "His Holy Spirit." Hence we have "The Holy Spirit," and "The Spirit of Holiness," in common use among the Jews. In the New Testament he is to pneuma to hagion, "That Holy Spirit." And we must inquire into the special reasons for 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 unique work. And of whatever sort it may be — whether it consists in a separation from things that are profane and common, to holy uses and services; or whether it is the real infusion and operation of holiness in men — it comes from him in a special manner. And this also manifests that he is God; for it is God alone who sanctifies his people: Leviticus 20:8, "I am Jehovah who sanctifies you." And God in that work ascribes to himself the title of Holy in a special manner; he would have us consider him as holy: Leviticus 21:8, "I the Lord, who sanctifies you, am holy." And this may be one reason for the frequent use of this property with reference to the Spirit. But this is not the whole reason for this name and appellation: for where he is first so mentioned, he is called "The Spirit of God’s Holiness," Psalms 51:11, Isaiah 63:10-11; and in the New Testament he is called absolutely "The Spirit of Holiness," Romans 1:4. And this respects his nature in the first place, and not merely his operations. God, then, is absolutely called "Holy," "The Holy One," and "The Holy One of Israel;" and in this, he is described by that glorious property of his nature by which he is "glorious in holiness," Exodus 15:11, and by which he is distinguished from all false gods ("Who is like you, O Jehovah, among the gods? Who is like you, glorious in holiness?"). So too the Spirit is called "Holy" to denote the holiness of his nature. And on this account, an opposition is made between him and the unholy or unclean spirit:

Mark 3:29-30, "He that blasphemes against the Holy Ghost never has forgiveness: because they said, He has an unclean spirit." And in this, first, his personality is asserted, for the unclean spirit is a person; and if the Spirit of God were only a quality, or incidental (as some fancy and dream), no comparative opposition could be made between him and this unclean spirit — that is, the devil. So also they are opposed with respect to their natures. His nature is holy, because that of the unclean spirit is evil and perverse. This is the foundation of his being called "Holy": the eternal glorious holiness of his nature. And on this account he is also styled as holy with respect to all his operations — for he is termed holy not only with regard to the particular work of regeneration and sanctification, or of making us holy — but also to all his works and operations. For being the immediate operator of all divine works that outwardly are of God, and those works being in themselves entirely holy (of whatever kind they are), he is called the "Holy Spirit." Indeed, he is so called to attest and witness that all his works, all the works of God, are holy, even though they may be great and terrible, and may have another appearance to a corrupt reason. In all of this, we are to acquiesce that the "Holy One in the midst of us will do no iniquity," Zephaniah 3:5. So then, the Spirit of God is thus frequently and almost constantly called "Holy," to attest to the fact that all the works of God — of which the Spirit 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, even though holiness is not its effect in the objects of his work. So, when he came to declare his dreadful work of the final hardening and rejection of the Jews, he was signally proclaimed Holy by the seraphims that attended his throne, Isaiah 6:3; Isaiah 6:9-12; John 12:40; Acts 28:25-26. This was one of the most tremendous effects of divine Providence — a work which, for its strangeness, men "would in no way believe even if it was declared to them," Acts 13:41.

There are, indeed, some actions on men and in the world that are worked (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 it is in 1 Samuel 16:14-15, "The Spirit of the Lord departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the Lord troubled him. And Saul’s servants said to him, Behold now, an evil spirit from God troubles you." So also verse 23, "The evil spirit from God was upon Saul." So it is in 1 Samuel 18:10; 1 Samuel 19:9. This spirit is called, "an evil spirit of God," chap. 16.15; and absolutely "a spirit of God" in verse 23, where we have "evil" supplied in the translation. But these expressions are to be regulated and explained by verse 14, where he is called "an evil spirit from the Lord;" that is, he was appointed and commissioned by the Lord for punishing and terrifying Saul. The Spirit of the Lord departed from him by withdrawing his assistance and influential operations — those by which he had worked in Saul those gifts and abilities of mind which fitted him for the discharge of his kingly office, and upon the first impressions of which he was "turned into another man" from what he was in his private condition, 1 Samuel 10:6-9. And as that happened, the evil spirit came upon him to excite out of his own parched melancholy, discontents, fears, and a sense of guilt, and also to impress terrifying thoughts and apprehensions on his imagination. For so it is said in 1 Samuel 16:14, "An evil spirit from the Lord terrified him," frightened 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 while I grant that he was sometimes under an immediate agitation of body and mind from the powerful impressions of the devil upon him — for it is said that under them he "prophesied in the midst of the house," 1 Samuel 18:10. This argues for an extraordinary and involuntary effect upon him — yet principally the devil worked by the excitation and provocation of Saul’s personal distempers, both moral and natural. For these have in themselves a great efficacy in cruciating107 the minds of guilty persons. So Tacitus observes out of Plato, Annal. lib. vi. 6,

"The most eminent wise man was not in the habit of affirming in vain, that if the minds of tyrants were laid open and revealed, it would be seen how they were cruciated and punished; seeing that, just as the body is rent and torn by lashes, so the mind is rent and torn by cruelty, lusts, evil counsels and undertakings."

I suppose he took this from Plato’s de Repub. lib. ix., where Socrates argues various things to that purpose. And another Roman historian gives us a signal instance of this in Jugurtha,108 after he contracted the guilt of many horrible wickednesses.

Yet this work, in itself, is the same kind as God sometimes employs holy angels for, because it is the execution of his righteous judgments. So it was a "watcher and a holy one" that in such a case struck Nebuchadnezzar with a sudden madness and frenzy, Dan 4.13-17.109

Now to return, just as he is called the Holy Spirit, so he is the Good Spirit of God: Psalms 143:10, "Your Spirit is good; lead me into the land of uprightness" as our translation reads. Rather it is "Your good Spirit will lead me;" or as Junius 110 put it, "Lead me by your good Spirit." The Chaldee here adds, "The good Spirit of your holiness," or "Your holy good Spirit." Didymus, lib. ii. de Spir. Sanc., says that some copies here read, to hagion, a remembrance of which is in the manuscript of Thecla,111 and not elsewhere. So it is in Nehemiah 9:20, "You gave them Your good Spirit to instruct them." And he is called this principally from his nature, which is essentially good, as "there is none good but one, that is, God," Matthew 19:17; and also from his operations, which are all good as they are holy; and to those who believe, they are full of goodness in their effects.

Crellius’ Prolegomena, p. 7, 112 distinguishes between this good Spirit and the Holy Spirit, or the Holy Ghost. For he would confine this good Spirit to the Old Testament, making it the author or cause of those gifts of wisdom, courage, prudence, and government, that were granted to many of the people of old. So it is said of Bezalel that he was "filled with the Spirit of God in wisdom, and understanding, and in knowledge," Exodus 31:3; so also in 35.31; — "That is," he says, "with this ’good Spirit of God.’" This also applies (it is pretended) in all those places where the Spirit of God is said to "come on" men to enable them to some great and extraordinary work, as in Judges 3.10.113 But this plainly contradicts the apostle, who tells us that there are, indeed, various operations, but one Spirit; and that one and the self-same Spirit works all these things as he pleases, 1 Corinthians 12:6; 1 Corinthians 12:11. And if we must multiply spirits from every different or distinct effect of the Spirit of God, and assign every one of them to a distinct spirit, then no man will know what to make of the Spirit of God in the end. Probably, we will 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," Psalms 143:10. Now, certainly, this was none other than that Holy Spirit which he prays in another place that the Lord would not take from him: Psalms 51:11, "Do not take your Holy Spirit from me;" which is confessed to be the Holy Ghost. This he also mentions in 2 Samuel 23:2, "The Spirit of the Lord spoke by me, and his word was in my tongue." And Peter declares what Spirit this was, in 2 Peter 1:21, "Holy men of God spoke in olden times as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." That is how vain this pretense is.

Again; the Spirit is commonly called the Spirit of God, and the Spirit of the Lord; so it is in the first mention of him, Genesis 1:2, "The Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." And I have no doubt that the name "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 immediately after the name Jehovah is mentioned in Genesis 2:4, Elohim is joined with it.114 But that name is not used in the account given of the work of creation, because it has respect only to 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 God;" 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 20:17. And he is thus termed hupostatikos 115 because of the order and nature of personal subsistence and distinction in the holy Trinity. The person of the Father being "the origin of the Trinity,"116 the Son is from him by eternal generation, and he is therefore his Son, the Son of God — whose designation as the Father is originally from this eternal generation of the Son. So too the person of the Holy Spirit is from God by eternal procession or emanation. Hence, this is that relation to God the Father, for which the Spirit is called the "Spirit of God." And he is not only called the "Spirit of God," but "the Spirit that is of God," which proceeds from him as a distinct person. This, therefore, arising from and consisting in his proceeding from God, he is called, metaphorically, "The breath of his mouth," as proceeding from him by an eternal "spiration", or breathing.

Secondly, on this foundation and supposition, he is also called "The Spirit of God," to differentiate him from all other spirits whatsoever.

Thirdly, this is also because he is promised, given, and sent by God to accomplish his whole will and pleasure towards us. The instances of this will be considered afterward. But these appellations of him have their foundation in his eternal relation to the Father, mentioned before. On the same account originally, he is also called the Spirit of the Son: "God has sent forth the Spirit of the Son into your hearts," Galatians 4:6; — and the Spirit of Christ: "What time the Spirit of Christ which was in them signified," 1 Peter 1:11. So Romans 8:9, "But you are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if any man does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his."117 Therefore, the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ are one and the same; for that hypothetical proposition, "If any man does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his," is an inference taken from the preceding words, "If the Spirit of God dwells in you." And this Spirit of Christ, verse 11, is said to be the "Spirit of him that raised 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 sense that he is said to be the Spirit of the Son. And this is because he proceeds from the Son also; and he can be so called for no other reason, at least not without the original and formal reason for that appellation.

Secondarily, I confess that he is called the "Spirit of Christ" because he was promised by him, sent by him, and that was to make effectual and accomplish his work towards the church. But he could not be this, 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, arises from the order of their own subsistence in the same divine essence. And if the Spirit proceeded only from the person of the Father, he could not be promised, sent, or given by the Son. Therefore, if you consider the human nature of Christ in itself and abstractedly, the Spirit cannot be said to be the Spirit of Christ; for his human nature was anointed and endowed with gifts and graces by the Spirit, as we will show. And if he may be said to be the Spirit of Christ from this, without any respect to his proceeding from him as the Son of God, then he may also be said to be the Spirit of every believer who has received the unction, who is anointed with his gifts and graces. For although believers are, as to measure and degree, so unspeakably beneath what Christ was, who did not receive the Spirit by measure,John 3:34 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 the Spirit of God may not be said to be the Spirit of this or that man who has received of his gifts and graces. David prays, "Do not take your Holy Spirit from me," — not "my Holy Spirit." And he is distinguished from our spirits even as they are sanctified by him: Romans 8:16, "The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit." No more then, can he be said to be the Spirit of Christ merely on account of his communications to him, even though in degree they are inconceivably excellent above all others. For with respect to this, he is still called the Spirit of God or the Father, who sent him, and who 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 says, Acts 2:33, "Having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he has shed forth this, which you 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 in verse 17, "It will come to pass in the last days, says God, that I will pour out of my Spirit on all flesh." And so our Savior tells his disciples that he would "pray the Father, and he would give them another Comforter, even the Spirit of truth," John 14:16-17. Nor is he the Spirit of Christ, originally and formally, except as he is the Spirit of God — that is, as Christ is God also. On this supposition, I will grant as before, that he may consequently be called the "Spirit of Christ," because he was promised and sent by Christ, doing Christ’s work, and communicating Christ’s grace, image, and likeness to the elect. And this is still more plain in 1 Peter 1:10-11,

"Of this salvation the prophets have inquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that would come to you: searching what, or what manner of time, the Spirit of Christ who was in them was signifying." And this Spirit is said absolutely to be the "Holy Ghost," 2 Peter 1:21. 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 Christ. 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 at the time of the prophesying mentioned. 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, and according to their measure. But this cannot be so with respect to those who lived and prophesied by him, and died long before his incarnation. This is why it is pleaded by those who oppose both the deity of Christ and the Spirit (which are undeniably attested to here), that the Spirit here — which they cannot deny intends the Holy Ghost — is called the "Spirit of Christ," only because the prophets of old, who spoke by him, principally prophesied concerning Christ and his grace, and delivered great mysteries concerning these. So in this passage, Christ is made the object of the Spirit’s teaching, and not the author of his sending! So it claims in Crell. Prolegom., pp. 13, 14. But why then is he not called the "Spirit of God" here, based on this reasoning? After all, the prophets that spoke by God spoke entirely of God — of the things and the will of God. But they will not say this, for they acknowledge that the Spirit is the "virtue and power of God, inherent in God and proceeding from him." But then, if God 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" — how can it be that the same expression, "Spirit," must have different interpretations, such that the Spirit is called the "Spirit of God" because he is of God, and proceeds from God, but he is the "Spirit of Christ" because he is not of Christ, but only treats him as Christ? Their answer is ready — namely, "Because the Father is God, but Christ is not, and therefore Christ could not give the Spirit when he was not God." This is an easy answer — namely, to deny a fundamental truth, and set up that denial in opposition to a clear testimony given to 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 is called the "Spirit of Christ" only because he declared the things of Christ beforehand —that is, Christ’s "sufferings and the glory that followed," — and that is the sole reason for that description, then the sense or importance of the words is this:

"Searching what or what manner of time the Spirit — ’not meaning the Spirit of Christ, but only that he testified of Christ and his sufferings’ — who was in them was signifying when he testified beforehand of those sufferings."

According to this interpretation, the Spirit of Christ is nothing but the Spirit as testifying of Christ beforehand, and this alone is the reason he is called "the Spirit of Christ." The absurdity of this is apparent to all. But they endeavor to countenance this wresting118 of the Scripture using 1 John 4:3, "Every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God: and this is the spirit of antichrist, which you have heard was coming; and is even now already in the world;" — for some say, "The spirit of antichrist is said to be in the world, when antichrist had not as yet come." But the spirit intended here is not called "the spirit of antichrist" because it declared and foretold the things of antichrist before his coming — for it is on this account alone that 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 passage, which fails them in the principal thing they would prove by it.

Again, suppose these words — "which you have heard would come, and is even now already in the world" — were interpreted to be about the spirit mentioned, and not of antichrist himself. Yet no more can be intended than this: that the false teachers and seducers which were then in the world acted with the same spirit as antichrist would 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. To the extent that his spirit was then in the world, so was he; 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 passage is no more than his doctrine — antichristian doctrine — which is to be tested and rejected. Nor is any specific person intended by antichrist, but a mysterious opposition to Christ and the gospel, signally headed by a series of men in the latter days. Therefore he and his spirit began to be together in the world in the apostles’ days, when the "mystery of iniquity" began to "work," 2 Thessalonians 2:7.

There is therefore no countenance to be taken from these words to pervert and wrest that other expression concerning the Spirit of Christ in the prophets of old. This is therefore the formal reason for this appellation: The Holy Spirit is called the "Spirit of the Son," and the "Spirit of Christ," on account of his procession or emanation from the person of Christ.

Without respect to this, he could not properly be called the "Spirit of Christ;" it is on that supposition only that he may be. The Spirit is so designated from that various relation and respect that he has to Christ in his work and operations. This is what the Spirit is called in the Scripture — these are the names by which the essence and subsistence of the third person in the Holy Trinity are declared. How he is called on account of his offices and operations, will be manifested as we progress.