God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent."* But surely a single passage, instead of being set in opposition to an hundred other passages, should be explained, if possible, in consistency with them. We grant that our Lord would have denied his own Divinity, if he had said that the Father only is God, to the exclusion of himself; but it is quite evident that he merely distinguishes his Father from other pretenders to Divinity. He does not say, "Thou only art the true God," but "Thou art the only true God." When the Scripture calls the Father, "the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and the Lord of lords," the design is obviously to except, not Jesus Christ, but the lords many" of the Gentiles; and accordingly, Jesus Christ receives the same title in other places, being designated "King of kings, and Lord of lords," and the "Prince of the kings of the earth." "The Socinian argues,” says Bishop Middleton," as if in our Saviour's days there had been the same controversy about the nature and essence of the One True God, which arose afterwards; whereas the dispute then was, whether there were a plurality of gods, or only One: The Jews held the latter opinion, and the whole pagan world the former. Our Saviour, therefore, keeping, if I may so call it, this controversy in view, tells his hearers that eternal life is to be obtained only by a knowledge of the One True God, and of Jesus Christ, thus at once directing the mind to the truths both of natural and of revealed religion; and the hearers of our Lord could not possibly have understood him in any other sense. It is, therefore, perfectly frivolous to introduce this passage into the Trinitarian dispute; and the stress which has been laid on it, can be accounted for only from the extreme difficulty of giving to the opposite hypothesis any thing like the sanction of Scripture." Besides, there is a passage in one of the Epistles of John, from which it appears that the words before us are not exclusive of the Son, because what is here affirmed of the Father, is there affirmed also of him. "And we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life." It is certain, that the Father is often called God, and our Saviour is mentioned, at the same time, as distinct from him. The reason is, that, in the economy of redemption, the Father sustains the majesty and maintains the rights of the Godhead, while Christ acts as Mediator. By him we come to the Father, but we do not hold him, personally considered, to be subordinate. We worship the Son also; but the usual order is to draw near to the Father in the name of the Son. Keeping this economy in mind, we can easily understand the passage before us, and others of a similar nature. "To us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him."S It is objected, that our Saviour himself acknowledged his inferiority to the Father, and cannot, therefore, be God in the proper sense of the term. "My Father is greater than I." But there is another passage which we shall do well to take into consideration at the same time. "Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God." The words have undergone much criticism, which it would be tedious to detail; but, whether we translate w przyμov novo, he thought it not robbery, or, he did not seize as a prey, or catch at equality to God, the result is the same, namely, that he was really equal; for, if this had not been the case, there would have been no humility in declining to display his equality for a time; and, as an example of humility, the case is introduced. It would be a strange recommendation of the humility of a creature, to say that he did not aim at equality to God. Now we are sure, that the Scripture does not contradict itself; and hence, when two parts of it appear to be at variance, there can be no doubt that there is a † Middleton on the Greek Article, p. 372. ed. 1808. § 1 Cor. xiii. 6. ¶ Phil. ii. 6. * John xvii. 3. # 1 John v. 20. John xiv. 28. Our mode of reconciling them, which we should endeavour to find out. Saviour is exhibited in two characters, as the Son of God, and as Mediator. In the former, he is described as possessing all the perfections of Deity; but in the latter, as the servant of the Father, acting in obedience to his will. In this latter character the Father was greater than he, not essentially, but economically, as he who sends is in this respect greater than he who is sent; and it is evident from the context, that this was the character in which our Saviour spoke when he declared the superiority of his Father. The subject of conversation was his ascension in human nature, his return to the Father, to receive the promised reward of his labours upon earth; and on this occasion he appeared to be inferior, as the ambassador is to his Sovereign, who confers honour upon him for the wisdom and fidelity with which he has fulfilled his commission. "Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I." This explanation is connected with another objection founded on the assignation of a subordinate character to him, while he is described as the servant of God:-"I came-not to do mine own will, but the will of Him that sent me." It is certain, that although two persons be of equal rank, the one may consent, for a specified time and a particular purpose, to act the part of a servant to the other, without any diminution of his dignity, and, in this case, is inferior only in office. Notwithstanding this subordination, his rights are preserved, because it is entirely voluntary, and is intended to last only for a limited period, after which he will appear in his original equality. The application is obvious to our Lord, who being in the form of God, took upon him the form of a servant, and having emptied himself of his visible glory, was found in fashion as a man. Yet this humiliation, although profound, was not such as entirely to conceal his true character. While he held the place of a servant, he acted as a Lord, exercising sovereign authority over the elements, the bodies and souls of men, and the invisible world. It was evident to all who had eyes to see and minds to reflect, that he was quite different from the other messengers of God. "What manner of man is this, that even the winds and seas obey him?" In connexion with this argument, his own words have been referred to as inconsistent with his Divinity, because they are expressive of subordination and dependence:" Verily, verily, I say unto you, the Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do." But we have already considered them among the proofs of his Divinity, and undoubtedly they furnish a very strong argument for it, because they are an explicit claim of omnipotence, for he immediately adds, "What things soever the Father doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise." On the same general principle, we may reply to the objection, that he called God, his God, that he prayed to him, that he had a different will, saying, "Nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt." The answer is, that, while we believe his Divinity, we hold also that he was a man, and as such stood in the same relation to God, and owed the same duties as other men; and that, having assumed the character, he acted in all things as the servant of the Father. An objection is drawn from his answer to the person who said to him, "Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?"§ The objection is this, God is good, and therefore, he who denies that this epithet ought to be applied to himself, is not God. Griesbach, whom Unitarians consider as infallible authority in settling the text, gives a different reading, "Why dost thou ask me concerning good, or the good?" But unluckily he retains the usual reading in two other gospels, and the result of his + Matt. xxvi. 39. • John vi. 38. † John v. 19. § Matt. xix. 16. critical labours is to introduce a contradiction among the Evangelists. We may presume, that originally they all agreed, although now there is a difference in several manuscripts, particularly as this alteration of the text renders it in a great measure unmeaning. "Why callest thou me good?" Our Lord adapted his answer to the notions which the inquirer entertained of him, plainly looking upon him as merely a human teacher, as a prophet, perhaps, but not greater than a prophet. He would not allow flattering titles to be given to men, not even to himself when he was supposed to be only one of them. What right had a man to be called good, in the full acceptation of the term, since goodness can be predicated of him alone who possessed infinite perfec tions? Jesus does not speak of himself agreeably to what he really is, but according to this person's apprehensions; and nothing is more unfair than to conclude that he denied his own Divinity, because he refused to be addressed in language which should be appropriated to God, by one who believed him to be a creature. 66 It is objected, that Jesus Christ is expressly called a man, and such passages as the following are produced, as containing an unanswerable argument against his Divinity: There is one God, and one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." "Jesus Christ, a man approved of God among you by miracles." "After me cometh a man, which is preferred before me." But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth."* We know all these passages, and if it would serve any purpose, would lend our aid to Unitarians in collecting many others of a similar strain; but they prove only, what we are always ready to acknowledge, that our blessed Saviour was a partaker of our nature, bone of our bone and flesh of our flesh. They do not prove that he was a mere man, unless it be ascertained to be impossible that he, who is man, may at the same time be God. This our adversaries affirm; but we demand demonstration, which they are unable to give. It was foretold, that a virgin should conceive and bear a son,” or that the Messiah should be a man; but it was added, that his name should be Immanuel, which signifies, God with us.t 66 As for the assertion, that if we maintain the Divinity of Christ, we must admit that the Deity was born, was imprisoned in the body of an infant, and suffered pain and death, it is unworthy of a serious refutation. Let Unitarians indulge, if they will, in coarse and vulgar declamation, which can injure only themselves, and is a pitiful attempt to prejudice the minds of men against a cause which their arguments have failed to overthrow. They know well that we disclaim such consequences, and that our doctrine stands clear of them. The Deity was not born, but the man was born who is united to the Deity; the Deity was not imprisoned in the body of an infant, but He was a child in his human nature, who, in his Divine, fills heaven and earth; the Deity did not die, but we have the authority of Scripture for saying, that when Jesus of Nazareth suffered, the Lord of glory was crucified. * 1 Tim. ii. 5. Acts ii. 22. John i. 30. John viii. 40. † Isa, vii. 14. LECTURE XXXIII. ON THE DIVINITY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. Proof of the Personality of the Holy Spirit-Reason of the name, Spirit-His Divinity inferred from the ascription to him of the Names, the Perfections, and Works of God; and from the Worship rendered to him-The Relation of the Holy Spirit to the other two Persons of the Godhead-Difference between the Eastern and Western Churches. HAVING endeavoured to prove, in some preceding lectures, the Deity of our blessed Redeemer, I purpose to lay before you the proofs of the Divinity of the Holy Ghost. I begin with observing, that, although conclusive, they are not so numerous as in the former case; but it is not necessary that they should be equally ample. The great difficulty in admitting the Divinity of any other person but the Father, arises from the doctrine of the Unity, with which a plurality of subsistences in the Godhead seems to be inconsistent. As among men, three distinct persons, although partakers of a common nature, are not numerically one in essence, we are apt to apply this analogy to the Divine nature, and to think nothing clearer than that the supposition of two or more persons infers its division into as many parts. Trinitarians have, on this account, been frequently pronounced to be Tritheists. The only way of removing this difficulty, is to shew from the infallible declarations of Scripture, that however incomprehensible the doctrine is, and whatever repugnance may be imagined in it to the dictates of reason, the Son is God, as well as the Father. We thus oppose positive proof to presumptions, and set aside the bold and ignorant conclusions of our finite minds concerning an infinite essence, by the express testimony of Him to whom that essence belongs. If we succeed in establishing the fact that the Son is God, we prepare the way for the admission of a third person in the Trinity, not without proof, but upon evidence not equally luminous and diversified. The great objection against believing that there is a plurality in the Divine nature, is removed by shewing that it is reconcileable with the Unity, because it actually exists; and, being compelled to acknowledge the Deity of the Son, we are the more easily persuaded to acknowledge that of the Spirit. My meaning will be illustrated by reminding you, that it would require more evidence to convince us of a first fact different from any which we had experienced, and therefore apparently incredible, than it would require to convince us of a second fact of the same kind, although, with respect to the second, we should still demand that the evidence be sufficient. This I consider as the reason why the Scriptures, while they teach the Divinity of the Holy Ghost, do not speak so fully upon it as upon the Divinity of the Son. The point which it is necessary to consider, in the first place, is the personality of the Spirit. In other words we must inquire whether he is a person, intelligent and active, or merely, as some affirm, an influence, virtue, or divine operation. It is admitted, that this is sometimes the meaning of the word, Spirit, in the Scriptures; or that, by a metonomy, the name is used to denote the effect which the Spirit produces upon the soul. Thus, the passages which speak of the "pouring out" of the Spirit, of his being "received," and of being "filled" with him, have been understood to signify nothing more, than that miraculous or sanctifying gifts are bestowed upon men. But, allowing that this view of such passages is just, I observe, that there are many places 66 of Scripture in which he is manifestly spoken of as a person, or properties and actions are ascribed to him, which could be predicated only of a person. Understanding and volition are assigned to him; the first, when he is said to "know the things of God," and to "search all things, yea, even the deep things of God;"* the second, in the following words: "But all these," that is, the gifts enumerated in the preceding verses, "worketh that one and the self-same Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will." Affections are figuratively attributed to him as well as to the Father, when, for example, we are exhorted not to "grieve the Holy Spirit of God." Who ever heard of the grief of a quality? We are informed, that "the Spirit maketh intercession for the saints with groanings which cannot be uttered;"§ and we can understand, it has been remarked, what are interceding persons, but have no appre hension of interceding and groaning qualities. The Comforter," says our Lord, "which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." "When the Comforter is come-he shall testify of me; and ye also shall bear witness."¶ "When 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 will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me; for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.' In this passage, he is represented as performing many personal acts. He teaches the disciples of Christ, and enables them to recollect what they had heard from the lips of their Master; he testifies of Christ as literally as the Apostles testified of him; he guides believers into the truth; he speaks what he has heard; he gives them the knowledge of future events. It is acknowledged by the adversaries of the Divinity of the Holy Ghost, that, in these and other passages, which might have been mentioned, he is spoken of as a person; but they evade their force by alleging that, in the style of the Scriptures, personal properties and actions are sometimes ascribed to things. Hence it is said of charity, that it suffers long and is kind, envies not, vaunts not itself, is not puffed up, seeks not its own, is not easily provoked, thinks no evil, ft &c. These things are attributed to charity, which is a quality, because they are true of the charitable man. In like manner, the Holy Ghost is represented as performing personal acts, although he is not a person, but the power or virtue of the Father, because it is the Father who performs these acts by his own power, which is called the Holy Ghost. But this answer, however plausible, is not satisfactory. It might be worthy of attention, if all the acts which are attributed to the Spirit, might be performed by the power of the Father; but, if some of those acts are such as cannot be predicated of the Father, if he cannot be said to do by his own power all that is done by the Spirit, then it follows, that the Holy Ghost is a person. There is nothing in the account of charity, which is not descriptive of the charitable man; but there are some things affirmed of the Holy Ghost, which are not true of the Father; and hence it appears that he is personally distinct from him. To make intercession, is the act or work of a person, and is attributed to the Spirit, who "makes intercession for the saints according to the will of God." It is plain that he makes intercession for them to the Father, and equally plain that it would be absurd to speak of the Father as making intercession to himself. With this absurdity the hypothesis of our opponents is chargeable, because they maintain that the Spirit is merely the power or operation of the Father; but, upon our supposition, every thing is clear, because it is one person who intercedes with another. To come in consequence of a 1 Cor. ii. 10, 11. ** John xvi. 13, 14. † 1 Cor. xii. 11. John xiv. 26. tt 1 Cor. xiii. 4, &c. Eph. iv. 30. John xv. 26, 27. ## Rom. viii. 27. |