Personality and Manifestation
Everywhere in the Bible — which in the meantime is the one field of Christian evidence — the Holy Ghost is described as a person, and never as a mere influence separable from personality. Poetic licence, indeed, allows natural objects, and even objects of human contrivance, to be spoken of in a limited sense as living creatures, as, for example, when personal pronouns of masculine and feminine gender are used in speaking of the sun and moon; but this is wholly different from the varied and precise expressions which are constantly employed by biblical writers in referring, however fully or incidentally, to the ministry of the Holy Ghost. According to the doctrine of those writers, the Holy Spirit “teaches,” “comforts,” “reproves,” “guides,” and “sanctifies” mankind; He “leads into all truth”; He “testifies of Christ”; Hequickens the memory, so that all things taught by Jesus Christ are brought to remembrance; He “searches all things, yea the deep things of God.” It would certainly appear, therefore, that so far as it is possible for language to escape indistinctness lhcn applied to purely spiritual subjects, such terms must be taken as settling decisively the fact that the biblical writers themselves did, rightly or wrongly, believe in the proper personality of the Holy Ghost; and all the more so in the ‘light of the further fact, that precisely the same terms are applied to the Holy Spirit as are applied to the Father, so that the personality of the one stands or falls with the personality of the other.
But how to escape the danger of bodily manifestation and at the same time secure the consciousness and comfort of divine personality? How to have heaven without the risk and pain of earth? Such is the problem which awaits solution. Think of the danger of any form of personality which is comprehensible by bodily vision. First of all that vision is itself imperfect, and must therefore come to erroneous conclusions respecting the objects of its observation. What two men ever saw exactly alike? Vision is affected by critical training, by taste, by skill in delicate comparison, also by physical and atmospherical conditions, so much so that not only do no two men sec alike, but the same man corrects the’ observations of his own vision as he grows in judgment or changes his point of observation. The eye takes note of figure, attitude, colour, magnitude, so that whatever may be inward and spiritual in humanity is
Personality and iMavJjcstafion. 3
necessarily” approached in the first instance through physical appearances; and appearances are proverbially deceptive. Who can say with unquestioning certitude that he ever saw anything as it really is? The eye is probably the least reliable of the senses, though amply sufficient for noting the rough outlines and magnitudes of objects. But the hand is too quick for the eye. The skilled conjuror will make a fool of any man who insists that seeing is believing; yet it is so, only that “seeing” is something other than the ordinary use of the visual organs. Seeing is believing, let us say, but what is seeing? The young look for beauty of form; the mature look for beauty of character. In early life we inquire for outward charms; we say this is lovely and that is grand, our meaning simply being that in our estimation the outline is perfect, the colour is exquisite, or the proportions are noble. By-and-by however, when we are disciplined and mellowed, we know that there is no satisfaction but in moral excellence alone, and, indeed, a reluctant distrust of all ephemeral charms beeins to affect our estimates of life. Out of this experience has come the homely proverb “handsome is that handsome docs,” a proverb full of almost painful meaning when traced to its philosophy, — the outward and the formal having befooled or misled us, and the neglected excellence (without form or comeliness) having only slowly come to recognition and honour. We say of some persons that the more they are known the more they are
4 The Par delete,
beloved, or we var)- the expression by saying that such and such persons will “bear knowing;” and on the other hand we say of certain persons that the more they are known the less do they justify either confidence or esteem. In both cases the risks of merely bodily or physical manifestation are illustrated; thus: in the former case there was perhaps somethino: of uno-ainliness or unattractiveness to be got over before the real quality of the character was ascertained; very little perhaps, yet there it wa?, — a frown, an occasional expression, apparent coldness or even pride, want of ease and frankness, indisposition to speak, and unconcealed objection to confide; — in the latter case there were marked personal advantages, a winning smile, frankness, geniality, beauty of face, elegance of carriage, but farther acquaintance with the life dispelled the charm of mere appearances. Wise men know how much better it is that the difficulty, if any, should present itself in physical appearanc5es rather than in moral features. Yet it is not easy to begin the world successfully without physical attractions, for the world is much given over to the lust of the eyes. The plain man must stand aside until the gainly man has had his full turn; the gold ring first, the mean raiment last, everywhere, — perhaps even in the house of God! In Jesus Christ’s own case the most serious dangers arose from the physical and local aspect of His life and ministry. His contemporaries could not get over the appearances, and they had no lack of various expression of disappointment and disgust. A few of their contemptuous utterances will prove this: “Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?” “Are not His sisters with us?” “Whence hath this man this wisdom?” “Thou art not yet fifty years old.” “Thou art a Samaritan and hast a devil.” “Search and look, for out of Ga’ilee ariseth no prophet.” Clearly, then, the contention turned upon nativity, relationship, locality, — in a word, upon all the accidents of merely bodily manifestation. The acknowledged “wisdom” could not subdue the prejudice arising out of “Nazareth,” “Galilee,” and “Samaritanism.” A great risk, therefore, in a human point of view, was the incarnation of Godhead. Even to apostolic faith it presented itself as the great mystery of godliness.
Why does this difficulty, in all its varying forms and degrees arise, in connection with every presence, and especially every living presence that appeals to the eye? Because of the limitation of such presence. When men can see what they suppose to be the boundaries of a figure, they instinctively compare it with other bodies; its probable force can be calculated, its relative value can be appraised, and the discrepancy between its capacity and its purpose can be exaggerated or decried according to the bias of the observer. The consequence is that before spiritual questions can be approached, the temptation which is always presented by appearances must be encountered, and at that poinl spiritual inquiry may be perverted or arrested.
Where, as in the case of Jesus Christ, the instrument is considered to be evidently weak, there is a temptation to contemn and distrust it; and where to all human appearance it is obviously equal to the task which has to be fulfilled, there is a counter temptation to forget that after all it is but an instrument. On account, therefore, of this limitation, bodily presence is often detrimental to spiritual influence. We know, for example, how perilous it often is to be admitted to familiar intercourse with the men who have stimulated us by their thoughts and thrown upon our intellectual life the spell of their genius. So long as such men stand afar off, clothed with their spiritual house, and working with their spiritual functions, we give them homage; but when they come near us they invite criticism upon points which did not enter into their original mastery of our admiration and confidence; some weakness of the flesh, some conceit of manner. or feebleness of expression, or other more or less trifling peculiarity, may impair their spiritual dominion, and cause us to regret that the god of our early love ever came down from Olympian invisibility.
An argumentative difficulty may be here interposed. If no two men can sec alike, can any two men think alike? If a man has to correct his own observation, has he not also to correct his own thinking? If so, is not mental incompetency as great an objection to spiritual personality as visual i delect is to bodily manifestation? Imaginatively
Personality and JManifcstation. 7
it is, but substantially it is not. Because whilst physical vision cannot be perfected, and is at best but temporary in its uses, spiritual faculties are not only susceptible of the highest refinement, but are the only powers by which men can lay hold upon immortality, — without them there can be no manhood. Whilst, therefore, in the one case the difficulty is inherent, in the other it is a continually decreasing- quantity. We shall always, as a matter of happy necessity, have diversity and conflict of thinking, yet the thinking powers are by this very opposition being trained to the strength and precision out of which will come vital reconciliation and harmony.
From the beorinninor the- dano-er of a visible manifestation of the godhead was foreseen and guarded against: “Ye saw no manner of similitude on the day that the Lord spake unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire, lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image, the similitude of any figure, the likeness of male or female,” Man has always wanted to see God, and God has always refused to be seen. So we have no image of God. Mythological deities we have in galleries of marble cunningly cut, but the God that made the heavens is nowhere to be found amongst all the ambition and darino;” of the most audacious art. And what have we even of the Man Christ Jesus in sculpture or painting ‘^. Much, yet nothing. Do any two heads of His correspond? Docs any head of His satisfy the observer, filling up
8 Ihe Paraclete.
all his dreams and desires, and turning all his holy prayers into visible and enrapturing answers? It would seem, indeed, as if one or two Christs had actually been painted under the direct inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and yet as if the hand of the painter had failed the Inspirer himself. And as if the painter too had reeled just as he was about to add the touch that would have shown divinity. There is a better Christ in every broken heart than can be found amongst the artistic treasures of men, — a Christ full of sympathy, very pitiful and gracious stooping with infinite condescension, and counting no service mean. Who would have only a portrait of Christ when he can have in his heart the Son of God H imself?
This is the point towards which we have been moving throughout these collateral reflections. How needful soever to escape the perils of bodily manifestation (a need whose importance cannot be exaggerated), yet the comfort of divine personality, as distinguished from abstract infinitude, must be secured. In his highest aspirations man requires, and indeed demands, distinct, individual, companionable life, — he must have pathos as well as augustness, or he will- be overpowered and discouraged; his progress will be an advancement into solitude, and loneliness will kill him. We have now to find out, by an honest exposition of scripture and a fair interpretation of human consciousness, how far this necessity Is provided for in the revelation of the Holy Ghost. That is precisely our work in this argument. Is the Holy Ghost a person? Is it true that he can be the Guest of the heart, the Teacher of the understanding, the Revealer of Christ? Is the Holy Ghost a Comforter, and as such will He come to the bruised and achino- heart with solaces not earthly but heavenly? These inquiries are of some consequence to men who already see the coming sunset, having first felt the disappointment and bitterness of life. One word may be a key to our reasoning, viz., God is a spirit — so is man. Man has a body, but he is a spirit.