תמונות בעמוד
[ocr errors]

Ait (Eusibius) Filium ago Xgorby et To TarTWY Owwwv, id est, ante sæcula productum: nam sæcula & tempus omne cum mundo cæpisse, cum multis aliis veteribus, arbitratur: nec vox diwuiov apud Eusebium pro æternitate ante creationem usquam sumitur: nam hujusmodi æternitatem in Filio evidenter negat.-Montfaucon in Eusebium. Apud Jortin.

Almost all the old philosophers, who held the eternity of the world, did not thereby mean, that it was self-existent.Dr. Clarke upon Jostin's Remarks, ii. 52.

“ The notion of the eternity of the Son is not clearly re. vealed in Scripture: but it seems most probable, that God, ο Παντοκράτωρ, did always exercise in some manner or other, his eternal power and will.”Dr. Clark. (Weak ground for such a doctrine.)

It is not pretended, that the doctrine of the Trinity is expressly declared in any passage of Scripture: and the Roman Catholic Doctors deny, that it can be proved from the Sacred Writings: e. g. Cardinal Hosius, Gordonius Huntlæus, Grotserus, Fanrerus, Vega, Possevin, Wickus, and others. “Longe ergo sincerius facerent, si cum Pontificiis faterentur istam distinctionem ex Scriptura non posse probari, sed tantum ex traditione.” Curcellæus.-Sumner's Note on Milton's C. D. p. 80.

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

On the Holy Ghost. When the phrase, the Spirit of God, or the Holy Spirit, occurs in the Old Testament, it sometimes signifies God the Father himself, as Gen. vi. 3: sometimes the power or virtue of the Father, and particularly that Divine breath or influence, by which every thing is created and nourished: sometimes an angel, Isaiah xlviii, 16; Ezek. iii. 12, 14, 24, &c.: sometimes Christ, who, according to the common opinion, was sent by the Father, to lead the Israelites into the land of Canaan, Isaiah lxiii. 10, 11; that is, the angel to whom Jehovah transferred his own name, namely Christ, whom they

tempted, Numb. xxi. 5, and I Cor. x. 9: sometimes the im. pulse or voice by which the Prophets were inspired, Neh. ix. 30: sometimes the light of truth, Numb. xiv. 24; Neh. ix. 20; Ps. li. 11, 12, cliii. 10. Undoubtedly, neither David, nor any other Hebrew, under the Old Covenant, believed in the personality of that good and Holy Spirit, unless perhaps as an angel. More particularly, it implies that light, which was shed on Christ himself, Isaiah xi. 2, xlii. 1; Acts x. 38. It is also used to signify spiritual gifts.

Nothing can be more certain, than that all those passages, and many others of a similar kind in the Old Testament, were understood of the virtue and power of God the Father, inasmuch as the Holy Spirit was not yet given, nor believed in, even by those, who prophesied, that it would be poured forth in the latter times. So, likewise, , under the Gospel, what is called the Holy Spirit, or the Spirit of God, some. times means the Father himself, Matt. i. 18, 20; Luke i. 35. Again, it sometimes means the virtue and power of the Father, Matt. xii. 28; Rom. i. 4. How should it be necessary, that Christ should be filled with the Holy Spirit, of whom he had himself said, (John xv. 16.) “ He shall take of mine?” What could the Spirit confer on Christ, from whom he was himself to be sent, and to receive all things? The descent in the likeness of a dove, seems to have been only a representation of the ineffable affection of the Father. also signifies a divine impulse, or light, or voice, or word, transmitted through Christ, who is the word of God, Mark xii. 36; Acts i. 16; xxviii. 25; Heb. iii. 7; 2 Pet. i. 21; Luke ii. 25, 26. Lastly, it implies, the person itself of the Holy Spirit, or its attendant gifts. He must evidently be considered as inferior to both Father and Son. There is no room here for phistical distinction founded on a two-fold nature. The Holy Spirit, inasmuch as he is a minister of God, and there. fore a creature, was created or produced of the substance of God, not by a natural necessity, but by the free will of the agent, probably before the foundations of the world were

any so.

laid, but later than the Son, and far inferior to him.-Milton's C. D. p. 154, 8c.

Since the Spirit is expressly said to be sent by the Father, and in the name of the Son, he who lieth to the Spirit, (Acts 1. 3, 4,) must lie to God, as he who receives an Apostle receives God who sent him, Matt. X. 20; John xii. 20; 1 Thess. iv. 8.-Ibid. 163.

Clarke gives the same explanation of the passage, (Seripture Doctrine, Part I, Sect. 2, No. 66,) also quoting 1 Thess. iv. 8. He supports his opinion on the Authority of Athanasius. Ωςτε ο ψευσαμενος τω αγιω πνευματι, τω Θεω εψευσατο, τα κατοικουντι εν ανθρωπους δια του πνευματος αυτου οπου γαν εςι το πνευμα του Θεορ, εκει εςιν ο Θεος. εν τούτω γαρ, φησι, γινωσκομεν, οτι ο Θεος, εν ημιν μενει, οτι εκ του πνευματος αυτου δεδωzev nusv. [De Incarnat: Verbi & contra Arianos.-Milton's Ç. D: Translator's Note.

Matt. xii. 31, 32, has no reference to the personality of the Holy Ghost. For if to sin against the Holy Spirit were worse than to sin against the Father and Son, and if that alone were an unpardonable sin, the Spirit truly would be greater than the Father and the Son. The words must, therefore, apply to that illumination, whereby the Father enlighteneth us by his Spirit, and which if any one resist, no method of salvation remains open to him.-Milton's C. D. 168.

Matt. xxviii. 19: here mention is undoubtedly made of three persons; but there is not a word, that determines the Divinity or equality of these three. The Israelites were baptized unto Moses, (1 Cor. x. 2,) that is, unto the law or doctrine of Moses; and “the baptism of John” occurs in the same sense.

2 Cor. xiii. 14: this is not so much an invocation as a bea nediction; in which the Spirit is not addressed as a person, but sought as a gift.-Milton's C. D. p. 167.

The Holy Ghost is neither God nor Son of God; because he hath not his origin from the Father, like the Son, but is of the number of things, which have been made by the Son.Euseb. ap. Dupin, quoted by Jortin, 11, 106.




[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

PHILIPPIANS, ii.-5. Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus ; who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God, but made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men ; and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the Cross. Wherefore God hath highly exalted him, and given him, a name, which is above every name: that at the name of Jesus, every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of the Father."

In this portion of Scripture St. Paul instructs us, First, that before his incarnation, Christ enjoyed a glorious state of existence, “ being in the form of God :" Secondly, that instead of aiming at independence, or considering himself as holding that pre-eminent station for his own benefit merely, he divested himself of the glory, which he had with the Father, took on himself the form of a servant, and“ was made in the likeness of men;" Thirdly, that after he had assumed the outward appearance of a man, he still further humbled himself by submitting to the death of the Cross; Fourthly, that in consequence of this voluntary humiliation, God highly exalted him, and made him an object of reverence to the whole Creation; and, Fifthly, that whatever reverence is paid to him, is only subordinate to the Glory of the Father.

The first principle, which we learn from the Apostle, is, that Christ enjoyed a superior state of being, before he was manifested in the flesh. “ He was in the form of God, before he took upon him the form of a servant, and was found in fashion as a man." This plainly implies 'preexistence.

Our Saviour's Discourses are full of express declarations on this subject, delivered on various occasions, and in different forms of speech... Of these I had lately occasion to remind you. But beside these, he sometimes implies the same doctrine indirectly, both by his words and his silencel Thus he argues with the Pharisees, on a passage in the Psalms, in which David called him Lord, and from which he concludes, that David did

[ocr errors]
« הקודםהמשך »