we could have otherwise obtained. The Son of God is become our Brother, "bone of our bone, and flesh of our flesh;" and through him we have also access to the Father under new and most endearing relations. "Go to my brethren," said Jesus to Mary, “and say to them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God." On this topic, the profound Edwards has some excellent remarks in his Sermons on the Wisdom of God in Redemption; and it is judiciously illustrated by the Rev. John Robson in a Discourse from Rom. v. 15.* NOTE XXXVI. Page 142. The expressions of our pious Author, as well as those of Ignatius, whom he quotes with approbation, relative to persons who deny the true divinity of the Son and Spirit, may to some readers appear harsh and uncandid. To others, however, they will seem capable of a fair vindication, from the awful rebuke of the Apostle Paul to Elymas, Acts xiii. 10.—from the solemn declarations of the Apostle John in his first Epistle, ii. 22, 23, and second Epistle 9-11.-and from various other passages of Scripture. The late Dr Witherspoon discovers a similar zeal, when he says; "As to Socinians and Pelagians, - - - I never did esteem them to be Christians at all."+ Not merely those whom some would stigmatise as "vulgar Theologians," but Divines who did not embrace the most evangelical sentiments, and who have been amply eulogised for superior gentleness of temper and moderation of conduct, have often, when employed in defending doctrines which they deemed fundamental, adopted a tone of equal severity in reference to those audacious inquirers, by whom they are denied. Bishop Wilkins, for example, a man of excellent temper as well as distinguished erudition, employs the following expressions with regard to those who deny the existence of God :"And it were well if they might not only be reckoned among beasts (as they are by the Psalmist where he styles them brutish) but driven out among them likewise, and banished from all human society, as being public pests and mischiefs to mankind, such as would debase the nobility of our nature to the condition of brute creatures, and therefore are fit only to live among them." If the benevolent and philosophical Bishop, from the impulse of a laudable zeal for the doctrine of the being of a God, expressed himself in such severe Discourses by Ministers of the (late) General Associate Synod, vol. ii. p. 180 et seq. Principles and Duties of Natural Religion, Book ii. ch. i. terms respecting its opposers, is it strange that Ignatius and Witsius, impelled by a similar zeal for the proper Divinity of the Son and Spirit of God, allowed themselves to represent the determined enemies of that important doctrine as blasphemers, and devils, or false accusers? It is indeed with emotions of unfeigned sorrow that the Christian sees men rejecting essential articles of revealed religion; and "the wisdom which cometh from above" will teach him to guard against expressions calculated rather to irritate than to convince or reclaim them. It is much to be wished, that the friends of the Christian doctrines, while "contending earnestly for the faith once delivered unto the saints," were, in every instance, found, at the same time, " in meekness instructing those that oppose themselves, if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth." Indifference to truths of the first importance, however, it is to be regretted, not unfrequently assumes the sacred name of charity, and the fair semblance of meekness; and the decided enemies of the Christian Revelation are sometimes spoken of in such soothing and complacent terms as most unhappily tend to confirm their fatal security in the path of error, and to encourage others to adopt the same pernicious course. How unguarded, for instance, is the following sentence, which occurs in an extensive literary work of distinguished celebrity: "The sound Theist, who worships the same God, and cherishes the same hopes as the Christian, is a character whom no man ought rashly to condemn." No man, it is right to admit, ought to be accused or even suspected of infidelity without sufficient ground; and candour requires us to make a distinction betwixt those unbelievers whose outward morals are correct and who do not outrage society by a preposterous spirit of proselytism, and "the avowed infidel, who insults the public feeling by his views, or shakes the public faith by his outrageous zeal." But to represent the Theist who rejects revelation, whether secretly or avowedly, as "worshipping the same God and cherishing the same hopes with the Christian," is obviously inconsistent with that reverence for the doctrine and authority of Sacred Writ which every "sound" Christian is bound to entertain. Every true Christian is fully aware, that the conceptions of God which the mere Theist entertains, if not totally different, at least come far short of those views of the Divine nature and character which the Scriptures supply; and that the vague, baseless, and self-righteous hopes of immortal felicity which are cherished by the votaries of Theism are quite dissimilar from the expectations of the followers of Jesus, and inexpressibly inferior in value, sweetness, purifying influence, and consoling energy, to that "good hope through grace," which anticipates the blissful presence and everlasting enjoyment of a Three-one God-rests on the sure basis of an infallible testimony-and springs from an humble dependance on that Divine Saviour, who " was dead, and is alive for evermore, and has the keys of hades and of death.” NOTE XXXVII. Page 144. Our Author has no less clearly than concisely shown, that the sublime doctrine of the Trinity is not a point of barren speculation, but of vital importance to the comfort and sanctification of the Christian. Its enemies, indeed, have often boldly affirmed that, although it were true, it could be of no practical utility. But independently of other considerations, are there not certain devout regards and religious services due to the Son and Spirit as Divine Persons, if they are in reality Divine? Our duty consists in conducting ourselves in a manner corresponding to those relations in which we stand to every one, and to the claims which every one has upon us, whether arising from his own dignity and excellence, or from the benefits he has conferred. Supposing, therefore, a man were to acquit himself faithfully of all other obligations, and at the same time habitually and pertinaciously, in spite of inspired instructions and warnings on the subject, to withhold that confidence, reverence, gratitude, and love, and those various acts of religious homage which are due to the Son and Spirit, would not this criminal neglect entitle him to the character, and subject him to the doom, of a wilful transgressor? This is a consideration which merits the particular attention of those who profess indifference to doctrines but zeal for the commandments, and found all their hopes of salvation upon the careful performance of their duty. The importance of the Trinity in a practical light has been amply illustrated by many writers, whose "praise is in the churches." Fuller's masterly performance on the comparative moral tendency of the Calvinistic and Socinian systems is well known. Dr Jamieson's "Vindication of the Doctrine of Scripture and of the primitive Faith concerning the Deity of Christ," contains an able refutation of Dr Priestley's objections to the Trinity as a useless mystery. Suffice it to add, that Dr Owen's treatise on " Communion with God, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost," has long been blessed as a guide to the exercise and a helper of the joy of those, whose supreme concern it is, Vol. i. pp. 551-567. that they may be able to say with the beloved disciple, " Truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ." NOTE XXXVIII. Page 147. * Witsius, in another. Dissertation, applies the words in Heb. ix. 14.-" who through the eternal Spirit offered up himself," to Christ's own Divinity. Yet here, not without some appearance of inconsistency, he observes that the expression," the eternal Spirit," may, without any inconvenience, and even with great propriety, be understood of the Third Person in the godhead. This last interpretation has been adopted by several respectable interpreters, as Bishop Fell, and Dr Doddridge. It seems better, however, with Calvin, Beza, Pool, Fraser of Alness, and others, to consider the expression as referring to the divine nature, as subsisting in the person of the Son. Some ancient manuscripts, it is true, instead of rates are, "the eternal Spirit," have varos ayı, "the Holy Spirit;" and the Vulgate reads per Spiritum Sanctum. But according to Dr Owen, Dr Macknight, the Christian Observer,† and others, "the eternal Spirit" is the reading agreeable to the Syriac translation, and also to the great majority, as well as the most ancient, of the Greek copies. The Holy Ghost, it is readily admitted, is no less an eternal Spirit than the Deity of Christ. Yet it cannot escape attention, that when the Spirit is spoken of with reference to his personal agency, he is usually denominated the Holy Spirit. That it might be said without impropriety, that Christ offered up himself through the Holy Spirit, it were vain to deny. To every admirer of the plan of redemption, it is delightful to contemplate the whole work of the third Person of the Trinity immediately relating to our Lord's humanity; which was not only formed by his power, but enriched above measure with his gifts and graces, and animated by his influence amidst all his labours and sufferings on earth. The faith and patience, love and zeal, which "the man Christ Jesus" so vigorously exercised on the cross, are to be ascribed to the operation of the Holy Spirit resting upon him, according to ancient predictions. The idea, nevertheless, of Christ's offering himself through his own eternal Spirit-" through the divine nature acting in the person of the Son," is at least of equal importance in itself, ⚫ Dis. xv. Sect. 6. See the Number for June 1809. It is suggested in the Observer that "the epithet ʻayı (holy) is so constantly connected with the Spirit, that a scribe might inadvertently write it instead of 'alari (eternal.) Christ my the ris petsxemal though is the hum shame to i Divinity under the tre endered the sacri cary." Christ h Owen, « but cacy of the "A sa www work which The Apostle calls the reconciliaThis view of the other parallel exOr Owen, who illushe Spirit, as well as rews, seems unwilling son of the other; but the expression to ze on: the murteenth be peaks of its communi a te sms; ni a acous theres, he makes use of or suresions. For a se onierei at; for in the serenteenth entury, the same language was in current use among the test Divines of the Protestant Church, not excepting Dr Owen. Ebsequent mes, the same, or similar, phraseology has been explored by writers who might have been expected to avoid 2 Arcatashon Secker, for example, speaking of our Saviour, says, Ja respect of his Divine nature, he derived his being from the Fa • Book II. ch. iv. sect. 8, 9. |