Page images



light,” Psa. xxxvi, 9. “If he gather unto himself his Spirit and his breath, all flesh shall perish together, and man shall turn again unto dust,” Job xxxiv, 14, 15.

3. Let us next examine the analogy of being, its image and its operation. God is being itself : “I AM” is his

Of that being the Father is the unknown, invisible

“ No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.” Of that unknown Being the Son is the visible image. “ Who is the image of the invisible God,” Col. i, 15; « the χαρακτηρ της υπος ασεως, character of his substance," Heb. i, 3. The Holy Spirit is that Being operating on all created beings.

There are diversities of operations ; but it is the same God which worketh all in all.” 6 All these worketh that one and the self-same Spirit," 1 Cor. xii, 6-11. The Father is God hidden from us; the Son is God revealed to us; the Holy Spirit is God working in us.

4. There is also an allusion to mind, discourse, and breath or wisdom. Mr. G. says, 66 Our most sublime conception of God is as the all-pervading Mind.” (Vol. i, p. 13.) This Mind has its hoyos, word, discourse, or

“ His word is called o hoyos, the Word of God," Rev. xix, 13; John i, 1. As the word, or discourse of man, is conceived by his mind-is originally in his mind—is an image of his mind—when uttered, displays his mind and his mind is displayed only by that dis. course—so the Word of God is conceived by the Father -is originally in the Father-is an image of the Father ; in coming forth from the Father, displays the Fatherand the Father is displayed only by him. Again : discourse is both internal and external. It is ratio vel oratio : rea. son or speech. Considered in the first point of view, wisdom is the support of reason, and the Holy Spirit is the wisdom of God. 6. Therefore also said the wisdom of God, &c.,” Luke xi, 49. Considered in the latter point of view, breath is the support of speech : and the Son spake by the Holy Spirit or breath. “Through the Holy Ghost he gave commandments unto the apostles,” Acts i, 2. Hence when the Father, whom no man hath known, sent the Word to declare him, he sent upon him, for that purpose, the Spirit without measure.

reason :

5. The last analogy which we shall examine, and that which is most generally referred to in Scripture, is that of the Father, the Son, and one who, sent by the Father and the Son is, on account of the offices which he sus. tains, called the Comforter. The allusions by which this distinction is made are very obvious. We have a sufficiently clear idea of the relation of a son to a father. We equally understand what it is for one to be sent by a second, in the name of a third, to execute the purposes of both. Such are the mission, and the circum. stances of the mission, of the Holy Spirit.

Let any one read without prejudice the following passages, and make up his mind as to the nature of the distinction which is there made between the three. 6 I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter.” “But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, ekeivos, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." 6. When the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, EKELVOS, he shall testify of me. “ I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when ekelvos, he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth : for he shall not speak of himself, but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak; and he shall show you thin

to come. Ekelvos he shall glorify me; for he shall receive of mine, and shall show it unto you.

Every one who reads these verses will acknowledge that the distinction here made is the distinction of three persons. Mr. G. himself has granted it. While he uni. formly acknowledges a personal distinction between the Father and the Son, of the Spirit he even says, “ It would have been next to an impossibility not to have repeatedly personified this divine influence.” (Vol. i, p. 173.) This is all that at present we ask. It is enough that the Soci. nians themselves authorize us thus to denominate the ideas which, by these forms of speech, are conveyed. Let it then be clearly understood that precisely in this sense we make use of the word person and its derivatives; viz., to fix an idea which, in the use of the same terms, equally strikes the mind of a Socinian and of a Christian believer. This idea is one of those analogies by which the sacred writers set forth the distinction which exists between the three.

Now since the sacred writers have, in every case, taught us how to view this subject by analogy, we have no proper and precise ideas of it. We have no criterion to which to bring any one of these similitudes but by comparing one with another. To oppose one to another of them, (the common practice,) is not the way to receive instruction; because they all stand upon the same authority, and no. thing but partiality to one's own opinion can assign a reason why this rather than that shall be relinquished. The only plan that can be vindicated is to assign to each of them its proper department, to compare them together for the correction of each other, and to adopt a system which comprehends them all.

In attempting to lay down such a plan, it must be ob. served that of the five analogies which have been examined, every one gives us some idea of the doctrine of the trinity; but one part of that doctrine is more perfectly taught by one of them, and another part by another.

1. Some of them more perfectly elucidate the unity of the three. That unity would never be inferred from the analogy of Father, Son, and Comforter. The idea which we have of three persons, is that of three distinct beings. But matter, form, and motion include only one being. The ideas of fire, light, and vital influence, imply no more than

one sun.

2. Some of them show, much better than the rest, that the distinction is essential, necessary, and eternal. Mat. ter may possibly be without motion; but light and heat are essential to the sun, which cannot be supposed for a mo. ment to exist as the sun without them : and energy is inseparable from a living, spiritual, and perfect being. There is not a perfect agreement between human paternity and filiation, and the doctrine of God and his eternal Word. The generation of Him “whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting," Micah v, 2, is not, like human generation, a process which has a beginning. It is not the generation of an infant, which must be nourished that it may grow up to manhood ; but of one who is “ the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever.” It is not the

[ocr errors]

generation of one being by another being ; for “ the Word was God.” It is not the generation of one who may again be annihilated; for “the Son abideth for ever. In all these points the analogy is lost. But here the Scriptures afford us another source of ideas: an analogy which takes up the subject where the preceding seems only to contradict what the Scriptures have clearly revealed. When the ideas of a Father and his Son no longer serve, the ideas of a Being, and his image conceived by himself, are to be substituted. Here then we have a new order of ideas. We lay aside the relation of paternity and filiation, and consider God as an eternal, ever perfect Mind, always capable of knowing himself; always actually knowing himself; always conceiving an image of himself ; to whom it is never possible that he should be without an image of himself, conceived by himself; whose image of himself, so conceived, must be always perfect as himself, because he always perfectly knows himself and contemplates himself with a capacity to comprehend all his own perfection ; who, because he is perfect, must perfectly conceive his own image; whose image can never vanish, because he cannot forget himself, and because he must love that image which, like himself, is perfect; and lastly, who can, by that image of himself, which he has conceived, discover himself to any intelligent being, in proportion to the capa. city of the recipient. It is equally obvious that an all. perfect and eternal Mind can never have existed without its hoyos reason or discourse, and the wisdom by which that reason is sustained. These comparisons illustrate the essential necessity of the distinctions of the trinity.

3. The nature of the distinction, under the Christian economy, is best illustrated by the personal distinction of Father, Son, and Comforter. In prosecuting the allusion to human paternity and filiation, the sacred writers have taken a scope that could not have been allowed by any other of those comparisons which, on other occasions, they have so much improved. As a son is begotten of his father, the Son of God is called " the only-begotten Son," John iii, 16, &c. As a father conveys to his son perfect humanity, "it pleased the Father that in him (his dear Son) should all fulness dwell;" even “all the fulness of the godhead,” Col. i, 19; ii, 9. As a son has all the members, senses, and faculties, which his father has, “ All that the Father hath (said the Son) is mine,” John xvi, 15. Even Mr. G. ascribes to him the “ divine perfections." (Vol. i, P: 200.) As a father loveth his son, so the Father says, “ This is my beloved Son, in whom I delight,” Matt. xvii, 5. As a father intrusts his affairs with his confiden. tial son, and makes him the heir of his property, so “ the Father loveth the Son,--hath given all things into his hand,” John iii, 35 ; " and hath appointed him heir of all things,” Heb. i, 2. And lastly, As a son obeys, serves, and honours his father, so the Son of God obeys, serves, and honours the Father. How little of this could with propriety be said under any other of those heads of distinction by which the sacred writers have on other occasions illus. trated the subject. In like manner, no other than the personal distinction could have warranted the Holy Spirit's being spoken of as “ searching all things, even the deep things of God,” as “ knowing the things of God,” as “ hearing what he should speak," as “ taking of the things of the Son, and showing them to us," as instructing, witnessing, admonishing, reproving, comforting, willing, calling men to the ministry, commanding, and interceding. And farther : we could not speak with apparent propriety, of the form praying the essence to send the motion : of a vital influence showing to mankind the things of the light which is returned to the sun : of an image which is resorbed by its original, and an energy which is come to supply its place: or of a word, which knows, and loves, and obeys the mind from which it proceeds, which is returned to the bosom from whence it came, and which has left its breath behind to execute its commands, and to com. fort mankind during its absence. These scriptural dis. tinctions, it is evident, are, in such cases, of no use; and to apply them to such doctrines of Scripture, would only be to give to truth the colour of absurdity. The personal distinction is, in such cases, absolutely necessary. And this distinction, the most perfect we have found, applied, as the sacred writers have applied it, makes all these truths plain, natural, and easy.

On the whole, we have learned, 1. That the trinitarian distinction is revealed, and consequently can be known only by analogy; and therefore, as being revealed only by

« PreviousContinue »