« AnteriorContinuar »
viz. That the Spirit is an agent, a designer, and not a power, or an attribute of the Father, is the fulcrum on which the whole matter now rests, and on which it turns. Why, then, do we conclude that the Holy Spirit is a person, and not a power of another person?
1. “ The Scriptures ascribe to the Holy Ghost the ACTS and attributes of an intelligent being. He is said to guide, (John 16:13,)—to know, (1 Cor. 2:11,)--to move, (Gen. 1:2,)-to give information, (Acts 10:19,—to command, (Acts 13:2,)-to forbid, (Acts 16:6,)-to send forth, (Acts 13:4,)—to reprove, (John 16:8,-and to be sinned against, (Mat. 12:32.)
2. The attributes of God are applied to the Holy Ghost; such as eternity, (Heb. 9:14,)—omnipresence, (Ps. 189:7,)-omniscience, (1 Cor. 2:10, 11,)-Goodness and truth, (Neh. 9:20. John 14: 17.)
3. The works of God are ascribed to the Holy Ghost. Creation, (Job 26:13,)-inspiration, (2 Pet. 1:21,)--giving of life and sanctification, (1 Pet. 3: 18. i Cor. 6:11.)
Now, reader, can you think that the Holy Spirit is a mere attribute or power, or emanation of the Father? Will you not say he is an agent, a designer? If so, this is all we wished to prove, for Unitarians do not contend that the Holy Ghost was ever created. It has been, and can be, as readily proved that the Holy Spirit designs, as that there is a Holy Spirit at all. Now, what folly it would be
to assert that there is design, and yet no designer, or that HE who designs is no agent-no intelligent being, and no person. This, with all its absurdity, is the inevitable and unavoidable result of denying the personality of the Holy Ghost. How our soul recoils at the thought of stripping the Holy Spirit of design, and intention, and personality. Love to the Holy Comforter would prompt us to say:
66 Hail God the FATHER, heavenly light;
Through time and in eternity.”
But if the Holy Ghost is only an 'attribute, how with any degree of propriety could he be said to be sinned against? • Were the Holy Ghost only an attribute of God, this unpardonable sin could not be committed against him. For, though man can sin against an individual, he cannot sin against one of his attributes, abstractly considered."-(Treatise, p. 49.) This distinction in the Godhead, which we wish to make, by use of the terın “per8on," then, is one that never leads us as Trinita. rians to the acknowledgement of more than one God. It is admitted, and positively declared, in the creeds of Trinitarians, that there is, numerically but ONE God. Why, then, should our Unitarian
friends endeavor to force upon our meaning of the term, the unwarranted idea that we do mean by
person” when applied to the divine Being, to convey the idea of more Gods than one?
We repel the assertion. Again. The plurality of persons or hypostases in the Godhead is proved by the use that the pen of inspiration has made of the supreme
-the noun and pronoun. Gen. 1:26. us make man." : Gen. 3:22. 6. The man has become like one of us.” This the “Lord God” says, " And the Lord God said, “ Behold the man is become as ONE OF US." How could this expression of Jehovah have been made, if there is no distinction in the Godhead? Gen. 11:7. “Let US go down, and there confound their language?” Isa. 6:8. “ Also I heard the voice of the Lord saying, Whom shall I send and who will go for US.” Indeed in the very first verse of the Hebrew Bible this plurality in the Godhead is brought to view. Yes, in the first mention that is made of the Supreme Being. “The original word Elohim, , God, is certainly the plural froin el, and has long been supposed by the most eminently learned and pious men, to imply a pluralily of persons in the divine nature. As this plurality appears in so many parts of the sacred writings, to be confined to three persons, hence the doctrine of the TRINITY, which has formed a part of the creed of all those who have been deemed sound in the faith from the earliest ages of Christianity. Nor are the Chrislians singular in receiving this doctrine, and in de
riving it from the first words of Divine Revelation. An eminent Jewish rabbin, Simeon ben Joachi, in his comment on the sixth section of Leviticus, has these remarkable words: “ Come and see the mystery of the word Elohim: there are three degrees and each degree by itself alone, and yet notwithstanding they are all one and joined together in one, and are not divided from each other." He must be strangely prejudiced indeed who cannot see that the doctrine of a Trinity, and of a Trinity in Unity, is clearly expressed in the above words."* The phrase - Bara Elohim," " the God's created,” occurs more than thirty times in the short history of the creation. The phrase JEHOVAH ELOHIM, " the Lord Gods,” occurs at least one hundred and thirty times in the law of Moses.t “ Go ye,” says the blessed Jesus, “teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.” Mat. 28:19. It may be well to remark again, that it is a more literal translation, to read, instead of baptizing them " in the name," " into the name," as the preposition (eis) into is used in the original and not the preposition (en) in. This does, we think, not mean, “ by the authority” but into a recognition of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost as the Supreme God. This it appears was the acknowledgment of those who were baptized.
* See Clarke on Genesis 1:1.
See Tomlin's Theology and Hebrew Bible.
Be this, however, as it may, there was evidently a distinction made between the Father and the Son in this commission, and also between them both and the Holy Ghost. Unitarians will admit the distinction between the Father and Son, but not between the Father and the Holy Ghost. But admitting, as Unitarians say, that the Holy Spirit is only a “power," or "attribute," of the Father, and that the Son is a creature “ neither self-existent nor eternal," and we must read the commission, “Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature," (mark,) baptizing them in the name of the Supreme God, and in the name of a finite creature, and in the name of a power or attribute of the Supreme God. And this last name would be mere tautology, for when an individual is baptized in the name of the Father, this embraces all his attributes, and then to call the name of one of these attributes over the candidate would be only tautology. But to pretend that the Son and Holy Spirit should be associated with the Supreme God in this solemn act, while there did exist such an infinite disparity, one being only a creature, the other an attribute of the Father who had just been named, discovers almost impervious darkness of mind, or a determined obstinacy and self-will. Says the word of inspiration, « The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all.” 2 Cor. 13:14. Will it here be denied that the Father is a person? Will it be contended that the Son is not a person