enough, he does not make any endeavour to obviate the palpable difficulty that. "my Father" means "myself." On the contrary, there is no necessity for any comment of our own on this otherwise significant passage: the Doctor's own words set it in as strong a light as his most determined adversaries can desire.

"Here with all due reverence be it inquired, to what father could JESUS thus allude? Not, most obviously, to his reputed father Joseph, for neither Joseph nor Mary had the least comprehension of the language which our Lord addressed to them; they understood not the saying. In the exercise of candour and a righteous judgment, how plain and satisfactory does it appear to an unprejudiced mind, that the great Redeemer of the world was referrng to JEHOVAH as his Father, and that the vast, the infinite business he had to execute, was the subjugation of hell; the leading captivity captive; and finally working out the redemption and the salvation of the whole human race.

"In language then the most clear and comprehensive, Jehovah is the ' God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." P. 27.

This is an instance of that involuntary homage to Truth which is sometimes tendered by those who least acknowledge her. It reminds us of the descriptions given by Tacitus of the Jewish religion, and by Josephus of the person and character of the Divine Subject of this work.

No. xxxvii. "He that believeth on him that sent me hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."

On this passage Dr. Churchill reasons thus:

"With every allowance for erroneous conclusions deduced from the expressions contained in the first clause of this passage, who, let us briefly inquire, is the sender, and whom [who] the person sent, here alluded to? By universal consent, the sender is the Father, the first supposed person in the Trinity; and the sent, the Son, the second person. Conceding thus much to those who espouse such a doctrine, may very reasonably be asked, if there be no condemnation for those that believe in the Father who sent his Son into the world, how, or for what purpose is it necessary to believe in the Son thus sent, also as necessary to salvation? It is impossible to return a rational answer to such an inquiry, but by acknowledging that the Son so called, is ONE with the Father, GOD; in which view of the subject, both of the passages perfectly harmonize." P. 53.

it

.. Now, in reply to this flimsy argument, how does the Doctor prove these conclusions erroneous? Can any unprejudiced

reader believe that if the Father and Son were one person, this person would speak of sending and being sent, and being sent too, by himself? Is this the language of common reason? And yet this passage is one out of innumerable others where the Son is spoken of as sent by the Father. In one of these (John xii. 49.) we have this remarkable addition, " I have not spoken of MYSELF: but the FATHER which sent me, he gave me a commandment what I should say, and what I should speak." This passage at once negatives the personal identity of the Father and the Son, if any such negative were wanting. The argument from the text immediately before us is capable of an easy reply. To believe in the Father at all, we must believe in the Son; not because the Father and the Son are the same person, but for the reason assigned by St. John: "He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar: because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son."

Several passages equally militating against the Doctor's hypothesis are cited, which it will not be necessary to do more than transcribe, after the satisfactory evidence above adduced, John v. 17, "MY FATHER worketh hitherto, AND I work." Ibid 26. "As the Father hath life in himself, SO HATH HE GIVEN THE SON to have life in himself." John xii. 28. "Father, glorify thy name.' "THEN CAME THERE A VOICE FROM HEAVEN, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again." John xvii. "FATHER, my hour is come; glorify THY SON, that thy Son may glorify thee. And now, O FATHER, glorify thou me with thine own self, with the glory which I had with THEE before the world was." We had, in commencing this article, some intention of placing before our readers, a series of texts, proving the distinct personality of the Father and Son. But this we now think quite unnecessary on revising what Dr. Churchill has himself thrown in our way. In these few passages only, which the Doctor considers as evidences of his hypothesis, we have not only the Son distinguished from the Father, but represented as receiving gifts at his hands, and addressing him in prayer: while the Father is himself described as answering the prayers of his Son. Were not the subject important as it is, it would be unnecessary to enter into a refutation of such inconsistencies.

Our readers will have little difficulty in conceiving that a writer who can bring such texts as these to substantiate the identity of the first two Persons in the Holy Trinity, will have no difficulty in amalgamating the Third. His process in this respect has the merit (we believe) of originality, and nothing

1

can be more ingenious than his mode of accounting for the apposition of the masculine adjective and the neuter veμa: 'Extivos τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς αληθείας. It would have saved him some labour had he happened to recollect here his golden maxim, that "grammatical correctness in the sacred writings is a circumstance little to be relied on."

"Throughout the whole of the sacred pages, particularly those of the New Testament, it will be found clearly to appear, that there is a constant, influent operation, proceeding from the LORD JESUS, by which his humble, teachable disciples, in all ages, should be infallibly led into all necessary truth; but, surely, that man's mind must be most miserably darkened by education or prejudice, who, by any combination of ideas, can for a moment conceive of the Holy Spirit, as a person, out of, and distinct from, both the Father and the Son.

"When, subsequent to his resurrection, our blessed Lord commissioned his disciples to go forth and preach the Gospel to all nations, it is said in the Scripture, that he "breathed" on them, and said, "Receive ye the Holy Ghost." Duly reflecting on this circumstance, will it for a moment be inferred, that a person distinct from himself accompanied such breathing? Rather, will it not appear more consonant with truth and sound reason, that on such occasion, a Divine afflatus, virtue, or operation, was imparted to the disciples, whereby they would be qualified (feeling first, its benign influence on their own hearts) to preach the Gospel, with due effect and acceptance, in the conversion of sinners; by the aid and agency of which, their memories would be perpetually refreshed; their interior faculties invigorated; so as they might in all respects be competent, punctually and faithfully to discharge that high commission, which had been confided to them by their Divine "Master and Lord;" and on which the peace, the safety, the eternal welfare of the whole world stood so intimately connected." P. vii.

If, because the term "Holy Ghost," be sometimes employed to signify the operation of an agent as well as the agent itself, "we must annul the agent altogether," it will follow that Christ himself was only a quality or energy, for the Scripture abounds with such expressions as these: "PUT YE ON THE LORD JESUS CHRIST." (Rom. xiii. 14.) "If any man be IN CHRIST, he is a new creature." (2. Cor. v. 17.) But let us hear our author's method of disposing of the anomalous concord.

"With all this mass of evidence to the contrary, still the Holy Spirit is a person, in the disordered vision of too many, from whom better things might be reasonably expected. One of the strongest arguments advanced in support of this notion, is, that the Holy Spirit is Occasionally designated by the masculine pronoun he; "HE shall lead you into all truth;" HE shall take of the things of Christ, and shew

66

them unto you;" with others of a similar construction. These are supposed to be evidence, which nothing can possibly invalidate; which, with the assistance of articles and homilies, all of them," the work of men's hands," tend most effectually to blind the understanding, and keep it hoodwinked and subservient to a phantom called faith*.

"Let us for a moment endeavour to shew the futility of these arguments, by directing our attention to certain objects, or subjects in nature; in which we shall find the same kind of phraseology daily resorted, even by persons of an opposite opinion, without a possibility thing like personality being inferred from it.

"For example, in speaking of the Solar Orb, nothing is more common than to say, HE rises and sets; that HE is above or below the horizon. So, also, of the Moon, nothing is more familiar to the ear than the remark, that SHE is in such a quarter, as to HER relative position to the earth, of which SHE is the attendant Satellite; but surely, no man in his right mind would ever dream of connecting any idea of personality with either of these luminaries, each distinguished by its peculiar sexuality.” P. xii.

Now there is just this difference between the forms of speech here instanced, and the case which they are intended to illustrate. The former are usual modes of parlance; the latter is perfectly isolated and extraordinary. Were our language susceptible of that nicety of concord which exists in the Greek, we might feel, as well as see, the prodigious anomaly of this construction. Speaking of the Sun and Moon, we may always correctly employ the sexual or neuter pronoun, because these words have not, in reality, a gender: but the word uμ is absolutely, actually, essentially neuter, and therefore cannot be forced into concord with a masculine adjective, without a direct violation of the most elementary principles of grammar. grammar. That this is at all accounted for by what has been just quoted, we cannot bring ourselves to believe: and as little by what follows. "All our ideas (says a modern writer) proceed primarily from the senses," that is, it may be supposed from the impression of external objects on the mind, and yet nothing is, in general more fallacious than such evidence, however highly it may be esteemed, in the developement of truth. Let us then endeavour to elevate our minds into a region more exalted than the senses, namely into heavenly light, and we shall not fail to discover, why, in reference to Divine subjects, a mode of phraseology, similar to that used in natural subjects, is so constantly

Established precedents are maxims sanctioned by law, and as such, have their authority; but, says Bishop Watson, "we do not admit them in philosophy, or theology; for we do not allow that there are infallible interpretations of the Bible, which is our statute book. On the contrary, we maintain, that Fathers, Churches, and Councils have erred in their interpretations of this book, in their decisions concerning particular points of faith. This we must, as Protestants, ever maintain, or we cannot justify our having emancipated ourselves from the bondage of the Church of Rome."

exhibited in the Scriptures. The Holy Spirit, for example, is therein denominated the Spirit of Truth, which Truth having respect, more particularly to the understanding, or the intellectual principle of the human mind is designated as masculine; Truth, in such an aspect, being really and absolutely such; for as the Lord Jesus is the very Divine Truth itself, as 'the Word made flesh,' and his Church in its collective form the recipient of that truth; therefore Jesus is called the bridegroom and husband; and the Church, by the same rule, the Bride, the Lamb's wife.'

"Observing the same consistency of language, the Scriptures, we find, universally preserve the analogy of corresponding ideas, and in so doing not unfrequently apply to truth, the strongly marked epithet of man; whilst the affection, or the love of truth, assumes the appearance of being feminine; no doubt, in reference to that soft, tender susceptibility, and pure affection, which is the peculiar characteristic of the female breast, whilst standing in the pristine order and beauty of its formation.

"To elucidate this position, man, as the most potent and sagacious of all created beings, is represented, and truly so, as most eminently formed for deeds of valour and enterprize, and distinguished for wisdom, discrimination, and contemplation; but the woman for love, beauty, softness of affection, pliability, and sweet attractive grace;' which two principles of the male and female mind, when in Divine order, are evidently intended by the great Creator, to be so reciprocal in their operation, so intimately conjoined and incorporated, as to form and constitute an inseparable one." P. xvi.

Now it happens, unfortunately enough for this theory, that Wisdom, or the Intellectual Principle is feminine in both the languages of Scripture, and is personified as a female in the first chapter of the Proverbs. Therefore the fanciful structure here erected, which, if sound, would be easily levelled, is, in truth, faulty at its very foundation, and, by consequence, falls to the ground.

Our object here is not to prove the generally received Trinity of the Christian Church; that has been done abundantly elsewhere. We shall therefore hardly feel ourselves called on to demonstrate the personality of the Holy Spirit, having, we think, clearly shewn that Dr. Churchill's battery against some outworks of this doctrine has altogether failed to touch them. Dr. Churchill should have overthrown Jones of Nayland; and then he would have had clear ground to build on.

The importance of the subject, rather than the merit of the work, has induced us already to comment at some length; but we cannot conclude our observations without soliciting the attention of the public mind, especially that of persons who are disposed to publish their opinions on abstruse points of ScripG

VOL. HI. No. v.