Obrazy na stronie
PDF
ePub

No

of the essential properties of human nature had been
wanting, he would not have been man; if, as some of
the preceding notions implied, Divine and human had
been mixed and confounded in him, he would have
been a compounded being, neither God nor man.
thing was deficient in his humanity, nothing in his
Divinity, and yet he is one Christ. This is clearly the
doctrine of the Scripture, and it is admirably expressed
in the creeds above quoted; and, on that account, they
are entitled to great respect. They imbody the senti-
ments of some of the greatest men that ever lived in
the church, in language weighed with the utmost care
and accuracy; and they are venerable records of the
faith of distant ages.

While these errors denied the real existence of the body of Christ, the Apollonarian heresy rejected the existence of a human soul in our Lord, and taught that the Godhead supplied its place. Thus both these views denied to Christ a proper humanity, and both were, accordingly, condemned by the general church. Among those who held the union of two natures in Christ, the Divine and human, which, in theological language, is called the hypostatical or personal union, several distinctions were also made which led to a diversity of opinion. The Nestorians acknowledged two persons in our Lord, mystically and more closely united than any human analogy can explain. The Monophysites contended for one person and one nature, the two being supposed to be, in some mysterious These two circumstances, the completeness of each manner, confounded. The Monothelites acknowledged nature, and the union of both in one person, is the two natures and one will. Various other refinements only key to the language of the New Testament, and were, at different times, propagated; but the true so entirely explains and harmonizes the whole as to sense of Scripture appears to have been very accu- afford the strongest proof, next to its explicit verbal rately expressed by the Council of Chalcedon, in the statements, of the doctrine that our Lord is at once fifth century, that in Christ there is one person; in truly God and truly man. On the other hand, the imthe unity of person, two natures, the Divine and the practicability of giving a consistent explanation of the human; and that there is no change, or mixture, or testimony of God" concerning his Son Jesus Christ" confusion of these two natures, but that each retains on all other hypotheses, entirely confutes them. In its own distinguishing properties. With this agrees one of two ways only will it be found, by every one the Athanasian Creed, whatever be its date.-"Perfect who makes the trial honestly, that ALL the passages of God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul, and hu- holy writ respecting the Person of Christ can be ex man flesh subsisting-Who although he be God and plained; either by referring them, according to the rule man, yet he is not two; but one Christ: One, not by of the ancient fathers, to the Ocoλoyia, by which they conversion of the Godhead into flesh; but by taking meant every thing that related to the Divinity of our the manhood into God; one altogether, not by con- Saviour; or to the Oikovouta, by which they meant fusion of substance, but by unity of person; for as his incarnation, and every thing that he did in the flesh the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and to procure the salvation of mankind. This distinction man is one Christ." The church of England, by is expressed in modern theological language, by conadopting this creed, has adopted its doctrine on the hy-sidering some things which are spoken of Christ, as postatical union, and has farther professed it in her said of his Divine, others of his human nature; and second article. "The Son, which is the Word of the he who takes this principle of interpretation along Father, begotten from everlasting of the Father, the with him will seldom find any difficulty in apprehendvery and eternal God, of one substance with the Fa- ing the sense of the sacred writers, though the subjects ther, took man's nature in the womb of the blessed themselves be often, to human minds, inscrutable. Virgin of her substance; so that the two whole and perfect natures, that is to say, the Godhead and manhood, were joined together in one person, never to be divided, whereof is one Christ, very God and very man." Whatever objections may be raised against these views by the mere reason of man, unable to comprehend mysteries so high, but often bold enough to impugn them, they certainly exhibit the doctrine of the New Testament on these important subjects, though expressed in different terms. Nor are these formularies to be charged with originating such distinctions, and adding them to the simplicity of Scripture, as they often unjustly are by those who, either from lurking errors in their own minds, or from a vain affectation of being independent of human authority, are most prone to question them. Such expositions of faith were rendered necessary by the dangerous speculations and human refinements to which we have above adverted; and were intended to be (what they may be easily proved from Scripture to be in reality) summaries of inspired doctrines; not new distinctions, but declarations of what had been before taught by the Holy Spirit on the subject of the hypostatical union of natures in Christ; and the accordance of these admirable summaries with the Scriptures themselves will be very obvious to all who yield to their plain and unperverted testimony. That Christ is very GoD, has been already proved from the Scriptures, at considerable length; that he was truly a man, no one will be found to doubt; that he is but one person, is sufficiently clear from this, that no distinction into two was ever made by himself, or by his apostles, and from actions peculiar to Godhead being sometimes ascribed to him under his human appellations; and actions and sufferings peculiar to humanity being also predicated of him under Divine titles. That in him there is no confusion of the two natures, is evident from the absolute manner in which both his natures are constantly spoken of in the Scriptures. His Godhead was not deteriorated by uniting itself with a human body, for "he is the true God;" his humanity was not, while on earth, exalted into properties which made it different in kind to the humanity of his creatures; for, "as the children were partakers of flesh and blood, he also took part of the SAME." If the Divine nature in him had been imperfect, it would have lost its essential character, for it is essential to Deity to be perfect and complete; if any

Does any one ask, for instance, if Jesus Christ was truly GoD, how he could be born and die? how he could grow in wisdom and stature? how he could be subject to law? be tempted? stand in need of prayer? how his soul could be "exceeding sorrowful, even unto death?" be "forsaken of his Father?" purchase the church with "his own blood?" have "a joy set before him?" be exalted? have "all power in heaven and earth" given to him? &c. The answer is, that he was also MAN.

If, on the other hand, it be a matter of surprise, that a vISIBLE MAN should heal diseases at his will, and without referring to any higher authority, as he often did; still the winds and the waves; know the thoughts of men's hearts; foresee his own passion in all its circumstances; authoritatively forgive sins; be exalted to absolute dominion over every creature in heaven and earth; be present wherever two or three are gathered in his name; be with his disciples to the end of the world; claim universal homage, and the bowing of the knee of all creatures to his name; be associated with the Father in solemn ascriptions of glory and thanksgiving, and bear even the awful names of God, names of description and revelation, names which express Divine attributes-what is the answer? Can the Socinian scheme, which allows him to be a man only, produce a reply? Can it furnish a reasonable interpretation of texts of Sacred Writ, which affirm all these things? Can it suggest any solution which does not imply that the sacred penmen were not only careless writers, but writers who, if they had studied to be misunderstood, could not more delusively have expressed themselves? The only hypothesis explanatory of all these statements is, that Christ is God as well as MAN, and by this the consistency of the sacred writers is brought out, and a harmonizing train of sentiment is seen compacting the Scriptures into one agreeing and mutually adjusted revelation.

But the union of the two natures in Christ in one hypostasis, or person, is equally essential to the full exposition of the Scriptures, as the existence of two distinctively, the Divine and the human; and without it many passages lose all force, because they lose all meaning. In what possible sense could it be said of THE WORD, that "he was made (or became) FLESH," if no such personal unity existed? The Socinians themselves seem to acknowledge the force of this, and

therefore translate "and the Word was flesh," affirming falsely, as various critics have abundantly shown, that the most usual meaning of yivopai is to be. Without the hypostatical union, how could the argument of our Lord be supported, that the Messiah is both David's SON and David's LORD? If this is asserted of two persons, then the argument is gone; if of one, then two natures, one which had authority as Lord, and the other capable of natural descent, were united in one person. Allowing that we have established it, that the appellative "Son of God" is the designation of a Divine relation, but for this personal union the visible Christ could not be, according to St. Peter's confession, "the Son of the living God." By this doctrine we also learn how it was that "the church of GOD" was "purchased by his own BLOOD." Even if we concede the genuine reading to be "the Lord," this concession yields nothing to the Socinians, unless the term LORD were a human title, which has been already disproved, and unless a mere man could be "LORD both of the dead and the living," could wield universal sovereignty, and be entitled to universal homage. If, then, the title "THE LORD" be an appellation of Christ's superior nature, in no other sense could it be said that the church was purchased by HIS OWN blood, than by supposing the existence of that union which we call personal; a union which alone distinguishes the sufferings of Christ from that of his martyred followers, gave to them a merit which theirs had not, and made "his blood" capable of PURCHASING the salvation of the "church." For, disallow that union, and we can see no possible meaning in calling the blood of Christ "the blood of God," or, if it please better, "of the Lord;" or in what that great peculiarity consisted, which made it capable of purchasing or redeeming.

Dr. Pye Smith, in his very able work on the Person of Christ, has rather inconsiderately blamed the orthodox, for "the very serious offence of sometimes using language which applies to the Divine nature the circumstances and properties which could only attach to his humanity," as giving unhappy occasion to the objections and derisions of their opponents. As he gives no instances, he had his eye probably upon some extreme cases; but if he meant it as a remark of general application, it seems to have arisen from a very mistaken view, and assumes that the objections of opponents lie rather against terms than against the doctrine of Christ's Divinity itself.

This is so far from being the case, that if the orthodox were to attend to the caution given by this writer on this subject, they would not approach one step nearer to the conversion of those who are in this fundamental error, supporting it, as they do, by perversions so manifest and by criticisms so shameless. I am no apologist, however, of real "errors and faults" in theological language; but the practice referred to, so far from being "a serious offence," has the authority of the writers of the New Testament. Argumentatively, the distinction between the Divine and human natures, according to the rule before given, must be maintained; but when speaking cursorily, and on the assumption of the unquestionable truth of the hypostatic union of the Divine and human natures,-a manner of speaking, which, it is hoped, all true Christians adopt, as arising from their settled convictions on this point, those very terms, so common among the orthodox, and so objectionable to those who "deny the Lord that bought them," must be maintained in spite of "derision," or the language of the New Testament must be dropped, or at least be made very select, if this dangerous and, in the result, this betraying courtesy be adopted. For what does Dr. P. Smith gain, when cautioning the believer against the use of the phrase "the blood of God," by reminding him that there is reason to prefer the reading "the church of the Lord, which he hath purchased by his own blood?" The orthodox contend, that the appellation "THE LORD," when applied to our Saviour, is his title as GOD, and the heterodox know, also, that the "blood of the Lord" is a phrase with us entirely equivalent to "the blood of GOD." They know, too, that we neither believe that "GOD" nor "THE LORD" could die; but in using the established phrase, the all-important doctrine of the existence of such a union between the two natures of our Lord as to make the blood which he shed more than the blood of a mere man, more than the blood of his mere humanity itself, is maintained and exhibited;

and while we allow that God could not die, yet that there is a most important sense in which the blood of Christ was "the blood of God."

We do not attempt to explain this mystery, but we find it on record; and, in point of fact, that careful appropriation of the properties of the two natures to each respectively, which Dr. Pye Smith recommends, is not very frequent in the New Testament, and for this obvious reason, that the question of our Lord's Divinity is more generally introduced as an undisputed principle, than argued upon. It is true, that the apostle Paul lays it down, that our Lord was of the seed of David, "according to the FLESH," and "the Son of God according to the SPIRIT OF HOLINESS." Here is an instance of the distinction; but generally this is not observed by the apostles, because the equally fundamental doctrine was always present to them, that the SAME PERSON who was FLESH was also truly Gop. Hence they scruple not to say, that "the Lord of Glory was crucified," that "the Prince of Life was killed," and that He who was "in the form of God," became "obedient unto death, even the death of the cross."

We return from this digression, to notice a few other passages, the meaning of which can only be opened by the doctrine of the personal union of the Divine and human natures in Christ. "For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead BODILY" (Col. ii. 9); not by a type and figure, but, as the word owparikos signifies, really and substantially, and, for the full exposition, we must add, by personal union; for we have no other idea by which to explain an expression never used to signify the inhabitation of good men by God, and which is here applied to Christ in a way of eminence and peculiarity."(6)

Who, being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had BY HIMSELF purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high," Heb. i. 3. To this passage, also, the hyspostatical union is the only key. Of whom does the apostle speak, when he says, "when he had BY HIMSELF purged our sins;" but of Him who is "the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person? HE, by HIMSELF, "purged our sins;" yet this was done by the shedding of his blood. In that higher nature, however, he could not suffer death; and nothing could make the sufferings of his humanity a purification of sins BY JIMSELF but such a union as should constitute one person:

for, unless this be allowed, either the characters of Divinity in the preceding verses are characters of a merely human being; or else that higher nature was capable of suffering death; or if not, the purification was not made by HIMSELF, which yet the text affirms. In fine, all passages which (not to mention many others) come under the following classes have their true interpretation thus laid open, and are generally utterly unmeaning on any other hypothesis.

1. Those which, like some of the foregoing, speak of the efficacy of the sufferings of Christ for the remission of sins. In this class the two following may be given as examples. Heb. ii. 14, "Forasmuch, then, as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death," &c. Here the efficacy of the death of Christ is explicitly stated; but as explicitly is it said to be the death of one who partook of flesh and blood, or who assumed human nature. The power of deliverance is ascribed to him who thus invested himself with a nature below that of his own original nature; but in that lower nature нE dies, and by that DEATH he delivers those who had been all their lifetime subject to bondage. The second is Colossians i. 14, &c. "In whom we have redemption through His blood, even the forgiveness of sins, WHO is the image of the invisible God," &c. In this passage, the lofty description which is given of the Person of Christ stands in immediate connexion with the mention of the efficacy of "his blood," and is to be considered as the reason why, through that blood, redemption and remission of sins became attainable, Thus "without shedding of blood there could be no remission;" but the blood of Jesus only is thus effica

(6) "Zwpatikws, i. e. vere, perfectissime, non typice, et umbraliter, sicut in N. T. Deus se manifestavit. Est autem inhabitatio illa et unio personalis, et singularissima."-GLAS-ICS.

[ocr errors]

cious, who is "the image of the invisible God," the "Creator" of all things. His blood it could not be but for the hypostatical union; and it is equally true, that but for that he could have had no blood to shed: because, as "the image of the invisible God," that is, God's equal, or God himself, his nature was incapable of death. 2. In the second class are all those passages which argue from the compassion which our Lord manifested in his humiliation, and his own experience of sufferings, to the exercise of confidence in him by his people in dangers and afflictive circumstances. Of these the following may be given for the sake of illustration. Heb. iv. 15, 16, "For we have not a high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. Let us, therefore, come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need." Several similar passages occur in the early part of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the argument of them all is precisely the same. The humiliation of our Lord and his acquaintance with human woes may assure us of his sympathy; but sympathy is not help; he is represented, therefore, as the source of "succour," as the "Author of Salvation," "the Captain of our Salvation," in consequence of the sufferings he endured; and to him all his people are directed to fly for aid in prayer, and, by entire trust in his power, grace, and presence, to assure themselves that timely succour and final salvation shall be bestowed upon them by him. Now here, also, it is clear, that the sufferer and the Saviour are the same person. The man might suffer; but sufferings could not enable the man to save; they could give no new qualification to human nature, nor bestow upon that nature any new right. But, besides the nature which suffered, and learned the bitterness of human woes by experience, there is a nature which can know the sufferings of all others, in all places, at all times; which can also ascertain the "time of need" with exactness, and the "grace" suitable to it; which can effectually "help" and sustain the sorrows of the very heart, a power peculiar to Divinity, and, finally, bestow "eternal salvation." This must be Divine; but it is one in personal union with that which suffered and was taught sympathy, and it is this union constitutes that "GREAT HIGH PRIEST" of our profession, that "merciful and faithful High Priest," who is able "to succour us when we are tempted." Thus, as it has been well observed on this subject, "It is by the union of two natures in one person that Christ is qualified to be the Saviour of the world. He became man, that, with the greatest possible advantage to those whom he was sent to instruct, he might teach them the nature and the will of God; that his life might be their example; that by being once compassed with the infirmities of human nature, he might give them assurance of his fellow-feeling; that by suffering on the cross he might make atonement for their sins; and that in his reward they might behold the earnest and the pattern of theirs. "But had Jesus been only man, or had he been one of the spirits that surround the throne of God, he could not have accomplished the work which he undertook for the whole obedience of every creature being due to the Creator, no part of that obedience can be placed to the account of other creatures, so as to supply the defects of their service, or to rescue them from the punishment which they deserve. The Scriptures, therefore, reveal, that he who appeared upon earth as man, is also God, and as God, was mighty to save; and by this revelation they teach us, that the merit of our Lord's obedience, and the efficacy of his interposition, depend upon the hypostatical union.

"All modern sects of Christians agree in admitting that the greatest benefits arise to us from the Saviour of the world being man; but the Arians and Socinians contend earnestly, that his sufferings do not derive any value from his being God; and their reasoning is specious. You say, they argue, that Jesus Christ, who suffered for the sins of men, is both God and man. You must either say that God suffered, or that he did not suffer if you say that God suffered, you do indeed affix an infinite value to the sufferings, but you affirm that the Godhead is capable of suffering, which is both impious and absurd: if you say that God did not suffer, then, although the person that suffered had both a Divine and a human nature, the sufferings were merely those of a man, for, according to your own

system, the two natures are distinct, and the Divine is impassable.

In answer to this method of arguing, we may admit that the Godhead cannot suffer, and we do not pretend to explain the kind of support which the human nature derived, under its sufferings, from the Divine, or the manner in which the two were united. But from the uniform language of Scripture, which magnifies the love of God in giving his only-begotten Son, which speaks in the highest terms of the preciousness of the blood of Christ, which represents him as coming, in the body that was prepared for him, to do that which sacrifice and burnt-offering could not do: from all this we infer, that there was a value, a merit, in the sufferings of this Person, superior to that which belonged to the sufferings of any other: and as the same Scrip tures intimate, in numberless places, the strictest union between the Divine and human nature of Christ, by applying to him promiscuously the actions which belong to each nature, we hold that it is impossible for us to separate, in our imagination, this peculiar value which they affix to his sufferings, from the peculiar dignity of his person.

"The hypostatical union, then, is the corner-stone of our religion. We are too much accustomed, in all our researches, to perceive that things are united, without our being able to investigate the bond which unites them, to feel any degree of surprise that we cannot answer all the questions which ingenious men have proposed upon this subject; but we can clearly discern, in those purposes of the incarnation of the Son of God which the Scriptures declare, the reason why they have dwelt so largely upon his Divinity; and if we are careful to take into our view the whole of that description which they give of the Person by whom the remedy in the Gospel was brought; if, in our speculations concerning him, we neither lose sight of the two parts which are clearly revealed, nor forget, what we cannot comprehend, that union between the two parts which is necessarily implied in the revelation of them, we shall perceive, in the character of the Messiah, a completeness and a suitableness to the design of his coming, which of themselves create a strong presumption that we have rightly interpreted the Scriptures."(7) On this evidence from the Holy Scriptures the doctrine of the Divinity of our blessed Saviour rests. Into the argument from antiquity my limits will not allow ine to enter. If the great "falling away," predicted by St. Paul, had involved, generally, this high doctrine; if both the Latin and Greek churches had wholly departed from the faith, instead of having united, without intermission, to say "Thou art the King of Glory, O Christ," "Thou art the everlasting Son of the Father," the truth of God would not have been made of "none effect." God would still have been true, though every man, from the age of inspiration, had become "a liar." The Socinians have, of late years, shown great anxiety to obtain some suffrages from antiquity in their favour, and have collected every instance possible of early departure from the faith. They might, indeed, have found heretical pravity and its adherents, without travelling out of the New Testament; men, not only near the apostolic age, but in the very days of the apostles, who rejected the resurrection, who consented not "to wholesome doctrine," who made shipwreck of faith," as well as of a good conscience, who denied "the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ, "the Lord that bought them." This kind of antiquity is, in truth, in their favour: and, as human nature is substantially the same in all ages, there is as much reason to expect errors in one age as another; but, that any body of Christians, in any sense entitled to be considered as an acknowledged branch of the church of Christ, can be found, in primitive times, to give any sanction to their opinions and interpretations of Scripture, they have failed to establish. For full information on the subject of the opinions of the primitive churches, and a full re futation of all the pretences which Arians and Socinians, in these later times, have made to be, in part, supported by primitive authority, the works of Bishop Bull, Dr. Waterland, and Bishop Horsley(8) must be

[blocks in formation]

consulted; and the result will show, that, in the interpretation of the Scriptures given above, we are supported by the successive and according testimonies of all that is truly authoritative in those illustrious ages which furnished so many imperishable writings for the edification of the future church, and so many martyrs and confessors of "the truth as it is in Jesus."

opinion; and as to the Arian hypothesis, it falls, with Socinianism, before that series of proofs which has already been adduced from holy writ, to establish the eternity, consubstantiality, coequality, and, consequently, the proper Divinity of our Redeemer; and, perhaps, the true reason why not even the semi-Arianism, argued with so much subtlety by Dr. Samuel Clarke, has been able to retain any influence among us, is less to be attributed to the able and learned writings of Dr. Waterland and others, who chased the error through all its changeful transformations, than to the manifest impossibility of conceiving of a being which is neither truly God nor a creature; and the total absence of all countenance in the Scriptures, however tortured, in favour of this opinion. Socinianism assumes a plausibility in some of its aspects, because Christ was really a man ; but semiArianism is a mere hypothesis, which can scarcely find a text of Scripture to pervert.

CHAPTER XVII.

THE PERSONALITY AND DEITY OF THE HOLY GHOST.

Among the numerous errors, with respect to the Person of our Lord, which formerly sprung up in the Church, and were opposed, with an ever watchful zeal, by its authorities, three only can be said to have much influence in the present day, Arianism, Sabellianism, and Socinianism. In our own country, the two former are almost entirely merged in the last, whose characteristic is the tenet of the simple humanity of Christ. ARIUS, who gave his name to the first, seems to have wrought some of the floating errors of previous times into a kind of system, which, however, underwent various modifications among his followers. The distinguishing tenet of this system was, that Christ was the first and most exalted of creatures; that he was produced in a peculiar manner, and endowed with great perfections; that by him God made the world; that he alone proceeded immediately from GOD, while other things were produced mediately by him, and that all things were put under his administration. The semi-Arians divided from the Arians, but still differed from the orthodox, in refusing to admit that the Son was homoousios, or of the same substance with the Father; but acknowledged him to be homoiousios, of a like sub-ral instances, inevitably follows from that of the Son. stance with the Father. It was only, however, in appearance that they came nearer to the truth than the Arians themselves, for they contended that this likeness to the Father in essence was not by nature, but by peculiar privilege. In their system Christ, therefore, was but a creature. A still farther refinement on this doctrine was, in this country, advocated by Dr. Samuel Clarke, which Dr. Waterland, his great and illustrious opponent, showed, notwithstanding the orthodox terms employed, still implied that Christ was a created being unless an evident absurdity were admitted.(9)

The Sabellian doctrine stands equally opposed to Trinitarianism and to the Arian system. It asserts the Divinity of the Son and the Spirit against the latter, and denies the personality of both, in opposition to the former. Sabellius taught that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are only denominations of one hypostasis; in other words, that there is but one person in the Godhead, and that the Son or Word are virtues, emanations, or functions only: that, under the Old Testament, God delivered the law as Father; under the New, dwelt among men, or was incarnate, as the Son; and descended on the apostles as the Spirit. Because their scheme, by denying a real Sonship, obliged them to acknowledge that it was the Father who suffered for the sins of men, the Sabellians were often, in the early ages, called Patripassians.

On the refutation of these errors it is not necessary to dwell, both because they have now little influence, and chiefly because both are involved in the Socinian question, and are decided by the establishment of the Scriptural doctrine of a Trinity of Divine Persons in the unity of the Godhead. If Jesus Christ be the Divine Son of God; if he were "sent" from God and "returned" to God; if he distinguished himself from the Father both in his Divine and human nature, saying, as to the former, "I and my Father are ONE," and as to the latter, "My Father is GREATER than I;" if there be any meaning at all in his declaration, "that no man knoweth the Son but the Father, and no man knoweth the Father but the Son," words which cannot, by any possibility, be spoken of an official distinction, or of an emanation or operation, then all these passages prove a real personality, and are incapable of being explained by a modal one. This is the answer to the Sabellian

(9) Dr. SAMUEL CLARKE's hypothesis was, that there is one Supreme Being, who is the Father, and two subordinate, derived, and dependent beings. But he objected to call Christ a creature, thinking him something between a created and a self-existent nature. Dr. C. appealed to the fathers; and Petavius, a learned Jesuit, in his Dogmata Theologica, had previously endeavoured to prove that the ante-Nicene fathers leaned to Arianism. Bishop BULL, in his great work on this subject, and Dr. WATERLAND, may be considered as having fully put that question to rest in opposition to both.

THE discussion of this great point of Christian doctrine may be included in much narrower limits than those I have assigned to the Divinity of Christ, so many of the principles on which it rests having been closely considered, and because the Deity of the Spirit, in seveAs the object of this work is to educe the doctrine of the sacred Scriptures on all the leading articles of faith, it will, however, be necessary to show the evidence which is there given to the two propositions in the title of the chapter-that the Holy Ghost (from the Saxon word GAST, a Spirit) is a PERSON; and that he is GOD. As to the manner of his being, the orthodox doctrine is, that as Christ is God, by an eternal FILIATION, So the Spirit is God by procession from the Father and the Son. "And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son, who, with the Father and Son together, is worshipped and glorified."(1) "The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son, neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding."(2) "The Holy Ghost, proceeding from the Father and the Son, is of one sub. stance, majesty, and glory with the Father and the Son, very and eternal Gon."(3) The Latin church introduced the term spiration, from spiro, to breathe, to denote the manner of this procession; on which Dr. Owen remarks, "as the vital breath of a man has a continual emanation from him, and yet is never separated utterly from his person or forsaketh him, so doth the Spirit of the Father and the Son proceed from them by a continual Divine emanation, still abiding one with them." On this refined view little can be said which has obvious Scriptural authority; and yet the very term by which the third Person in the Trinity is designated WIND OF BREATH may, as to the third Person, be designed, like the term Son applied to the second, to convey, though imperfectly, some intimation of that manner of being by which both are distinguished from each other, and from the Father; and it was a remarkable action of our Lord, and one certainly which does not discountenance this idea, that when he imparted the Holy Ghost to his disciples, "he BREATHED on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost," John XX. 22.(4)

But whatever we may think as to the doctrine of "spiration," the PROCESSION of the Holy Ghost rests on direct Scriptural authority, and is thus stated by Bishop Pearson :

"Now this procession of the Spirit, in reference to the Father, is delivered expressly, in relation to the Son, and is contained virtually in the Scriptures. First, it is expressly said, that the Holy Ghost proceedeth from

(1) Nicene Creed. (2) Athanasian Creed. (3) Articles of the English Church. (4) "The Father hath relation to the Son, as the Father of the Son; the Son to the Father, as the Son of the Father; and the Holy Ghost, being the spirit or breath of the Father and the Son, to both."-LAWSON'S Theo. Pol. But though breath or wind is the radical signification of vεvua, as also of spiritus, yet, probably from its sacredness, it is but rarely used in that sense in the New Testament.

and the ascription to each of them, or to the three in union, of the same acts, titles, and authority, with wor ship of the same kind, and, for any distinction that is made, in an equal degree. This argument has already been applied to establish the Divinity of the Son, whose Personality is not questioned; and the terms of the proposition may be as satisfactorily established as to the Holy Spirit, and will prove at the same time both his Personality and his Divinity.

the Father, as our Saviour testifieth, 'When the Com-"the Father," is by all acknowledged to be Divine; forter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me,' John xv. 26. And this is also evident from what hath been already asserted for being the Father and the Spirit are the same God, and being so the same in the unity of the nature of God, are yet distinct in the personality, one of them must have the same nature from the other; and because the Father hath been already shown to have it from none, it followeth that the Spirit hath it from him. "Secondly, though it be not expressly spoken in the Scripture, that the Holy Ghost proceedeth from the Father and Son, yet the substance of the same truth is virtually contained there; because those very expressions which are spoken of the Holy Spirit in relation to the Father, for that reason because he proceedeth from the Father, are also spoken of the same Spirit in relation to the Son; and therefore there must be the same reason presupposed in reference to the Son, which is expressed in reference to the Fat r. Because the Spirit proceedeth from the Father, therefore it is called the Spirit of God and the Spirit of the Father. It is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you,' Matt. x. 20. For by the language of the apostle, the Spirit of God is the Spirit which is of God, saying, 'The things of God knoweth no man but the Spirit of God. And we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is of God,' 1 Cor. ii. 11, 12. Now the same Spirit is also called the Spirit of the Son; for because we are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into our hearts,' Gal. iv. 6 the Spirit of Christ; Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his,' Rom. viii. 9; 'even the Spirit of Christ which was in the prophets,' 1 Peter i. 11; the Spirit of Jesus Christ, as the apostle speaks, 'I know that this shall turn to my salvation through your prayer, and the supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ,' Phil. i. 19. If then the Holy Ghost be called the Spirit of the Father, because he proceedeth from the Father, it followeth that, being called also the Spirit of the Son, he proceedeth also from the Son.

[ocr errors]

Again because the Holy Ghost proceedeth from the Father, he is therefore sent by the Father, as from him who hath, by the original communication, a right of mission; as the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send,' John xiv. 26. But the same Spirit which is sent by the Father, is also sent by the Son, as he saith, 'When the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you.' Therefore the Son hath the same right of mission with the Father, and consequently must be acknowledged to have communicated the same essence. The Father is never sent by the Son, because he received not the Godhead from him; but the Father sendeth the Son, because he communicated the Godhead to him: in the same manner, neither the Father nor the Son is ever sent by the Holy Spirit; because neither of them received the Divine nature from the Spirit: but both the Father and the Son sendeth the Holy Ghost, because the Divine nature, common to both the Father and the Son, was communicated by them both to the Holy Ghost. As therefore the Scriptures declare expressly, that the Spirit proceedeth from the Father; so do they also virtually teach, that he proceedeth from the Son."(5)

In opposition to the Doctrine of the Personality and Deity of the Spirit, stands the Socinian hypothesis, which I state before the evidence from Scripture is adduced, that it may be seen, upon examination of inspired testimony, how far it is supported by that authority. ARIUs regarded the Spirit not only as a creature, but as created by Christ, Kтισμа KтισμATоs, the creature of a creature. Some time afterward, his Personality was wholly denied by the Arians, and he was considered as the exerted energy of God. This appears to have been the notion of Socinus, and with occasional modifications, has been adopted by his followers. They sometimes regard him as an attribute, and at others resolve the passages in which he is spoken of into a periphrasis, or circumlocution for God himself; or, to express both in one, into a figure of speech.

In establishing the proper Personality and Deity of the Holy Ghost, the first argument is drawn from the frequent association, in Scripture, of a Person, under that appellation, with two other Persons, one of whom,

(5) Discourses on the Creed.

With respect to the Son, we have seen that, as so great and fundamental a doctrine as his Deity night naturally be expected to be announced in the Old Testament revelation, though its full manifestation should be reserved to the New; so it was, in fact, not faintly shadowed forth, but displayed with so much clearness as to become an article of faith in the Jewish Church. The manifestation of the existence and Divinity of the Holy Spirit may also be expected in the law and the prophets, and is, in fact, to be traced there with equal 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 Father, and also to the Son, but a great confirmation of it. That creation should be effected by all the three Persons of the Godhead, though acting in different respects, yet so that each should be a Creator, and, therefore, both a Person, and a Divine Person, can be explained only by their unity in one essence. On 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 Father and the Son, because he is not a Person; but this is refuted, both by the passage just quoted and by Psalm xxxiii. 6, "By the WORD OF THE LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the BREATH (Heb. SPIRIT) of his mouth." This is farther confirmed by Job xxxiii. 4, the "SPIRIT OF GOD hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life;" where the second clause is obviously exegetic of the former, and the whole text proves that, in the patriarchal age, the followers of the true religion ascribed creation to the Spirit, as well as to the Father; and that one of his appellations was "the BREATH of the Almighty." Did such passages stand alone, there might, indeed, be some plausibility in the criticism which solves them by a personification; but, connected as they are with that whole body of evidence, which has been and shall be adduced, as to the concurring doctrine of both Testaments, they are inexpugnable. Again: if the Personality of the Son and the Spirit be allowed, and yet it is contended that they were but instruments in creation, through whom the creative power of another operated, but which creative power was not possessed by them: on this hypothesis, too, neither the Spirit nor the Son can be said to create, any more than Moses created the serpent into which his rod was turned, and the Scriptures are again contradicted. To this association of the three Persons in creative acts may be added a like association in acts of PRESERVATION, which has been well called a continued creation, and by that term is expressed in the following passage: Psalm civ. 27-30, "These wait all upon thee, that thou mayest give them their meat in due season. Thou hidest thy face, they are troubled; thou takest away their breath, they die, and return to dust; thou SENDEST FORTH THY SPIRIT, they are created, and thou renewest the face of the earth." It is not surely here meant that the Spirit, by which the generations of animals are perpetuated, is wind; and if he be called an attribute, wisdom, power, or both united, where do we read of such attributes, being "sent," "sent forth from God?" The Personality of the Spirit is here as clearly marked as when St. Paul speaks of God "sending forth the Spirit of his Son," and when our Lord promises to "send" the Comforter; and as the upholding and preserving of created things is ascribed to the Father and the Son, so here they are ascribed also to the Spirit, "sent forth from" God to "create and renew the face of the earth."

The next association of the three Persons we find in

the inspiration of the prophets. "GOD spake unto our fathers by the prophets," says St. Paul, Heb. i. 1. St. Peter declares, that these "holy men of God spake as they were moved by the HOLY GHOST," 2 Pet. i. 21; and also that it was "the Spirit of CHRIST which was in them," 1 Pet. i. 11. We may defy any Socinian to

« PoprzedniaDalej »