believe that the Spirit of God is a distinct personal subsistence in the Divine Nature, or, that the Divine Being subsists in a personality distinct from either the Father or the Son, as it is to understand all this jargon. The proposition at least is intelligible, whatever of mystery there may be in the fact. This cannot always be said of those who claim to be' rational divines. Hear Dr. Channing, "The Unitarian believes that there is but one person possessing supreme divinity, even the Father"-"In fact, as the word Trinity is sometimes used, we all believe it""Some suppose that Trinitarianism consists in believing in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. But we all believe in them; we all believe that the Father sent the Son, and gives to those that ask the Holy Spirit." These are taken at random. Reader can you understand them? Many other specimens of discrimination and precision might be furnished from these rational divines, and especially this most popular of American Unitarians. But it is unnecessary to perplex our readers or to crowd our pages. The proposition we stated above, or this other, that there is one God who subsists and acts in three distinct persons has no vagueness in it. If the thing or fact, the mode of this subsistence, is felt to be utterly incomprehensible what then? It is affirmed distinctly and positively that "there are three which bear record in Heaven, and that these three are one. And do we not meet with resemblances to this in nature, and that not a few? Light, heat and electricity are perfectly distinct, and yet, if the philosophical views of some be correct, they all agree in one. We shall find occasion to refer to this subject more at large hereafter, and at present only add that what Virgil from the Platonics says of the Infinite and Divine

1 See Dr. Channing's remarks on Dr. Worcester's letter to him, p. 38, 39. 21 John, v. 7.

J

Mind is strictly and literally true of the human soul and

body.

Spiritus intus alit, totamque infusa per artus

Mens agitat Molem.

"We say,'

e say," observes a profound scholar, "that the soul
is all in all, and all in every part of the body; yet, that
the soul is neither multiplied nor divided among the
several members of the body. It is impossible for us to
explain this or to deny it; for we feel it to be so, though it
is wholly unconceivable to us how it can be. Now if the
soul, which is but an image of God at an infinite distance,
can communicate itself to several members without breach
of its unity, why should it be impossible for the Eternal
and Infinite Mind to communicate itself to several per-
sons without breach of its unity." The Unitarian cannot
but acknowledge that the Father, the Word and the Spirit
are three: but he maintains that God is one-one person.
Now if the Father, the Word and the Spirit are one person
they cannot be three. Yet are they three in some sense.
But in what sense? Let us hear. The Son or the Word
is a manifestation of the Father-"He that hath seen me
hath seen the Father. " "The Spirit is an extraordinary
power or gift of God," uncertain which says one. "He,"
viz., God, "gives to those that ask, the Holy Spirit," says
another, but other than that he is a gift says not.
This is
enough. Now if Christ be the manifestation of the Father
is He the Father? Must He not be a different
person
the Father? And if the Spirit be a GIFT of God, must He
not be different and distinct from God? How then are these
one? Are my image, or representation, and gifts one
with me in any sense? Can they be called such by any
usage of correct speech! Either the Father, and the Word
and the Spirit must all be the one God-the one person

1 Leslie's Soc. Trinity explained, p. 20.
2 John xiv. 9.

from

of the Father, dispensing and acting in different manners, or they are three Beings, or substances, totally distinct and different-the personal Father, the image Christ Jesus, and the gift the Holy Spirit. One or other of these alternatives the Unitarian must adopt. We give him his choice.

If he takes the first, that the Father, the Word and the Spirit are the one personal God, differently acting or manifesting Himself, then is he not three-there can be no di-. vision or distinction of His one person. The thing is a contradiction! If he takes the second, that the Father is one person, and the man Christ Jesus another person or another thing, and the Holy Spirit something different from both, then are they not one. Three different beings cannot be one and the same numerically. It is a contradiction! A person, an image and a gift can, in no sense, be said to be one, except that the person is the image of himself, and is himself his own gift, which, if it be not utterly unintelligible, reduces us to the necessity of believing that the Father and the Son and the Spirit are one and the same person, so that we are driven to the necessity of adopting and maintaining this monstrous absurdity and contradiction, that the Father, the Son and the Spirit are three and one in the self-same respect. Such is the legitimate result of the Unitarian's vague and ill-defined assertions with regard to his Father, Son and Spirit. By attempting to get rid of mystery, he involves himself in mysticism and contradictions. But it is not so with those who maintain the doctrine of one God-one divine nature subsisting in three persons. It is admitted that there are difficulties and mystery not to be unravelled, but these are not contradictions. The Father, the Son and the Spirit are not one and three in the same respect. In respect of their nature or essence, they are one. In respect of their persons they are three. Until we assert them to be one and three, in the self-same respect, we cannot be charged with teaching either absurdity or contradictions.

But to return from this digression: The Unitarian says, the Spirit of God is the power and virtue of God. What, then, we ask, is this power and virtue? Either it is God Himself, or it is different from God-that is, stripping it of all rhetorical drapery, it must be either an attribute, an accident, or quality of God; or, it is a substance or something different from God. When the justice of God, the wisdom of God, and other perfections of the Divine Being are spoken of, we do not deem it necessary to resort to the rules of rhetoric to understand the meaning of such phrases, no one dreams that there is any thing more meant than that such are the perfections or attributes of God. That personification obtains in reference to the most of them, we will not deny, but no one is at a loss to understand the manner in which this figure of speech, in such cases, is employed. When a quality or attribute is personified, that is, when personal actions are ascribed to qualities, the implied idea always is, that it is by, or in accordance with, such particular qualities, that some personal agent performs such particular actions. This is the plain and common understanding among men in this use of prosopopœia. To ascribe personal actions to qualities in any other way, is absolutely unintelligible. Now, to apply these remarks to the subject before us. When we personify the power of God, the virtue of God is too utterly vague an idea for us to grasp we mean, if we mean any thing at all, that God, that is some intelligent personal agent, by or according to His attribute of power, performs the actions spoken of, so that ultimately we identify God and His power. If we do not, then, must we make God and His. power to be different. We here again give the Unitarian his choice, and propose to bring his explanation of the Spirit, as being the power of God personified, to the test of common sense, as the interpreter of some passages of scripture. We shall not consent to his escaping from the

dilemma into which we design to place him, by alleging that the power of God is rather a mode of action, or of manifesting action. A mode of God's actions, is but another phrase for, God acting after a particular manner. The truth is, we cannot, in our coneeptions, separate the power of God from God himself. Are then, the Spirit of God, that is his power and God Himself, identical? What, therefore, can we make of such passages as the following? "Howbeit, when 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.” The Spirit is here represented as speaking, but not speaking of himself, as hearing, and speaking what he hears. On the supposition of the distinct personality of the Spirit, this is all plain and perfectly intelligible, and what man of common sense would not, on the very reading of this passage, most naturally thus suppose? It is stretching personification much too far, to represent a quality or attribute, as speaking and hearing, and not speaking of itself.

But say that the Spirit is the power of God, and substituting this phrase for the other, let us see what we shall have? Surely this is lawful, and we shall find, as the judicious Leslie has remarked, that "there is nothing better to confute a Socinian than plainly to set down his paraphrase and shew how it fills the words of the text." When the power of God is come, the power of God will guide you into all truth, for the power of God will not speak of the power of God, but whatsoever the power of God shall hear, that shall the of God speak. Is not this absolute nonsense? Now

power

this

power of God is either God Himself, or it is not. If it is God himself, as must be the case, if it is the one personal God operating, then have we this absurdity and contradiction, that God does not speak of Himself, but hears what Christ says, and speaks that-thus God the Father is

1 John, xvi. 13.