art there," &c."-(Ps. cxxxix: 7-10.) "Why," asks Peter of Ananias, "why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost?" and in the next verse assures him, that "he has not lied unto men, but unto God."-(Acts, v: 3— 4.) "Know ye not," writes Paul to the Corinthians, "that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you ?" (1 Cor. iii: 16.)

These

We have, then, only to establish the distinct personality of the Spirit. In Acts, xiii: 2, we read that "as they ministered unto the Lord and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, separate me (apogioare poi, separate unto me) Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them." must be the words of a personal agent speaking of himself. And that this person is distinct from the Father is evident, we think, from the simple consideration that had He been. the speaker, the "voice from heaven" could hardly have failed to be noticed.

The words in Isaiah, xlviii: 16-"Now the Lord God and his Spirit hath sent me,"-no matter who may be the speaker, indicate a distinction between the "Lord God" and "his Spirit," as personal agents. The words should probably be thus rendered: "Now the Lord God hath sent me, and his Spirit.' Some Unitarians contend that we should read "with his Spirit," as the copulative Vav sometimes may bear that sense. Though this rendering be accepted, the construction of the original still exhibits the Spirit as a co-agent with Jehovah, and, therefore, a person distinct from, as well as one with the Father.

But in the twelfth chapter of Paul's Epistle to the Corinthians, we think there is indisputable proof of the distinct personality of the Holy Ghost. We read there that "there are diversities of gifts but the same Spirit; and there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord; and

66

"If," says Augustine, we were commanded to build a temple of wood and stone to the Holy Ghost, this would be a plain proof of his divinity, because this act of worship is due to God alone; how much plainer then is the proof of it, that we are not to build a temple to him, but to be ourselves his temple ?"—[AP. Pictet, Chap. 12; P. 110, SUB FIN.]

there are diversities of operations, but [it is *] the same God, which worketh all in all."—(vs. 4-6.) This clause might have been cited above, as containing reference to the three persons of the Godhead, but is more suitably discussed here. We need not pause to inquire whether the last clause was intended to apply to each of the others, thus affirming the Spirit and the Lord to be God, or not. Our wish is to show that the Spirit is here spoken of as having a distinct work, the bestowal of gifts.† Now, in the eleventh verse of this same chapter, we find the strongest testimony to his personality, which occurring in such connection, must avail to establish his distinct personality. After more fully displaying the nature of the gifts of the Spirit, Paul concludes by saying: "But all these worketh that one and self-same Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will (Bovλɛrai).” This is a positive assertion of his personality; but Unitarians attempt to break its force by explaining the clause as containing a personification, and refer, in defence of this interpretation, to the words of Jesus to Nicodemus—“ the wind bloweth where it listeth (Sɛλɛɩ),”—where, say they, a similar argument would deduce the personality of the wind. So argues Mr. Wilson, without the slightest reference to the fact that different words are here used, of which Boveda is unquestionably that which has the strongest signification, never in the New Testament, we believe, being used in the weaker sense of "wishing, desiring, being willing," which expresses the proper force of deλew The former has always the sense of our verb "to will," except where it ascends into the stronger derivative signification of "decreeing, determining; whilst sexew is properly translated, in many cases, "to desire, be willing," sometimes reaching the sense "to will." In the passage above, then, which refers to the wind, the translation "bloweth

*This word, sore, is certainly spurious. See Griesbach and others.

+ Which is further specified in the verses following; some of which we quoted supra.

Which must be understood to be one of which St. Paul is fond,-continuing it through this whole chapter, and often reverting to it elsewhere.

where it listeth," or "where it pleaseth," is correct, but can afford no support to the view which finds a personification in the clause from Paul's epistle.

There is another passage that ought to be prominently adduced in this controversy, since it emphatically distinguishes the personality of the Spirit from that of the Father. In Romans, viii: 26, we read: "Likewise the Spirit helpeth our infirmities, for we know not what we should pray for as we ought; but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered." This could not, we think, be said of an influence or emanation. But the apostle continues in the next verse (and it is to this we especially referred) as follows: "And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God." Here are God the Father, and the Spirit spoken of as two distinct existences, and of the latter it is affirmed that he has a "mind," the word for which in the original (pcornua), though not equivalent to that for "intellect" (vous), is yet expressive of a strictly personal attribute, such as "opinion," thought," "desire or will." This passage alone, therefore, establishes all for which we are here contending.

We shall close our remarks upon this portion of the subject, by quoting the words of John Owen, without intending to adopt his sarcastic and somewhat uncharitable delineation of our opponents:

“If a wise and honest man should come and tell you, that in a certain country where he has been, there is an excellent governor, who wisely discharges the duties of his office; who hears causes, discerns right, distributes justice, relieves the poor, and comforts the distressed; would you not believe that he intended by this description, a righteous, wise, diligent, intelligent person? What else could any man living imagine? But now suppose that a stranger, or person of suspicious character and credit, should come and say that the former information which you had received was indeed true, but that no man or person was intended, but the sun, or the wind, which, by their benign influences, rendered the country fruitful and temperate, and disposed the inhabitants to mutual kindness and benignity; and therefore that the whole description of a governor and his actions was merely figurative, though no such intimation had been given you. Must you not conclude, either that the first person was a notorious trifler, and designed your ruin, if your affairs depended on his report, or that your latter informer, whose veracity you had reason to suspect, had endeavored to abuse both him and you? It is exactly thus in

the case before us. The Scripture tells us, that the Holy Ghost governs the Church; appoints overseers of it; discerns and judges all things; comforts the faint; strengthens the weak; is grieved and provoked by sin; and that in these and many other affairs, he works, orders, and disposes all things according to the counsel of his own will. Can any man credit this testimony, and conceive otherwise of the Spirit, than as a holy, wise, intelligent person? Now while we are under the power of these apprehensions, there come to us some men, Socinians or Quakers, whom we have just cause to suspect of deceit and falsehood; and they tell us that what the Scripture says of the Holy Ghost is indeed true, but that no such person is intended by these expressions, but only an accident, a quality, an effect, or influence of the power of God, which doth all these things figuratively; that he has a will figuratively, an understanding figuratively, is sinned against figuratively; and so of all that is said of him. Now what can any man, not bereft of natural reason, as well as spiritual light, conclude, but either that the Scripture designed to draw him into fatal errors, or that those who impose such a sense upon it are corrupt seducers, who would rob him of his faith and comforts?" *

With this extract we close the present argument, conceiving that such are the enunciations of Revelation, as to establish, beyond reasonable dispute, the doctrine of the Trinity,―"three Trinity, "three persons, but one God:"

In the next place we come to make some inquiry into some clauses of Holy Writ, which, on Unitarian exegesis, present themselves as opposed to the doctrine of the Trinity. We shall first examine that passage, which is chiefly relied on by Unitarians, as showing that Christ does not possess an essential attribute of Deity,-occurring in Mark, xiii: 32. "But of that day," says Jesus himself, to his disciples in reference to the time of his coming, "and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels who are in heaven, neither the

*On the Holy Ghost, chap. iv. We append a list of texts, supporting the assertions here made of the Holy Ghost, and being, most probably, those to which the author had special reference :-Acts, xiii: 2, xx: 28, xv: 28, xvi: 6-7; 1 Cor. ii: 10-11; John, xiv: 26, xvi: 7—11; Rom. viii: 26; Eph. iv: 30; Acts, v: 9, vii: 59; Isa. lxiii: 10; &c.

†George Herbert, Mus. Respons.; Works, p. 433.

Son, but the Father." This passage has given rise to much discussion, and no little ingenious criticism on the part of Trinitarians, in order to explain its apparent inconsistency with their belief in the omniscience of the Son of God. We cannot pause even to notice these; but will state at once what we think to be the true exposition of the passage. Christ was Christ was "very man ;" this is admitted by all; -further, we believe him to be truly God. But as man he was regarded by his disciples at the time of the discourse, in which the cited clause occurs. As man he was naturally regarded by the Jews; and in his teachings, always where such a course was not hostile to the elucidation of truth, he accommodated himself to this view of his nature. It would have been subversive of his other aims, to have ever been anxious to warn his hearers of his two-fold nature, where that nature had no necessary bearing upon, or relation to the matter in hand. This consideration furnishes the key to such passages as follow:

"My doctrine is not mine," that is, not the doctrine of a mere man, as ye Jews take me to be, and have just said I am (v. 15),-"but his that sent me." (John, vii: 16.)— "The word which you hear is not mine, but the Father's who sent me." (John, xiv: 24.)—"I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things." (John, viii: 28,-in which verse he speaks of himself as the Son of man.)—“ But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth which I have heard of God."

So, in the clause under consideration, we should understand that Christ is speaking of himself in accommodation to the views of his nature entertained by his disciples. "In those days," are his literal words, "after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars of heaven shall fall, and the powers that are in heaven shall be shaken. And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory. * * * But of that day and hour knoweth no one, not even the angels which are in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father." Here he is clearly speaking of