and in the divine Instructor. The Evangelists and Apostles gave proof that they were true, in what they related concerning circumstances they were competent to ascertain and Christ demonstrated the reality of his divine character; consistently with which, he could not but speak the words of truth, when he delivered doctrines which in his superlative knowledge of heavenly things he was enabled to communicate.

XXXV.

It has been said the expression "Trinity in the Godhead,” Τριας εν Θειότητι, does not occur in Scripture. True. Nor does "Unity in the Godhead,' EVOTNS EY OOTYTI. Nor the term "Sacrament." But the subject matter, which those expressions are designed to indicate, does occur: so that the objection has in it no substantial validity.

XXXVI.

"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing "them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and "of the Holy Ghost," are the words in which our Lord delivered to his Apostles their final commission. (St. Matth. xxviii. 19.) They may be thus paraphrased: "Go and make disciples in all nations, admitting them by baptism into the acknowledg"ment and religious service of the Father, the Son, "and the Holy Spirit."

66

XXXVII.

On the clause, "In the name of the Father, and of "the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," we may observe, there are pointed out three distinct objects, each of which has reference to one and the same act of mind

the religious service or worship: and the expression "into the name," though but once written, is in sense and force applied to each of the three objects. Considering then this parity of reference and application, considering also there is not introduced a single word by which to give us an idea that in the acceptation of either term is intended a change from substance to quality, we have the strongest grounds for maintaining that if Subsistence belongs to the first object, Subsistence belongs also to the second, and to the third. And, if there be any such thing as propriety in writing, and analogy in rendering, consistently with such propriety and such analogy we cannot say, that the terms Father, and Son, imply each of them Subsistence, and then by an abrupt transition unsupported by any word which can indicate mutation, pass at once from real Subsistence to attributable quality. As then to the term

Father," we annex the idea of one who hath real Subsistence; so to the term "Son," and to the term Holy Ghost," we must respectively annex the same idea, and affirm that each has real Subsistence.

XXXVIII.

If the regular, natural, and unforced construction of our Lord's final command will lead us to conclude, that the expression" Holy Spirit" implies real Subsistence; consideration of the solemn occasion when that command was given; of the importance which must necessarily be attached to it; and of the improbability that it should be so delivered as to be ambiguous, will furnish a strong reason for adhering to that conclusion.

XXXIX.

The argument drawn from his final command would certainly be less forcible, if it did not appear that pre

viously to giving that command our Lord himself had spoken of the Holy Spirit as a real Subsistence. He does however so speak. Ο δε Παρακλητος, το Πνευμα το άγιον, ὁ πεμψει ὁ Πατηρ εν τω ονόματι μου, εκείνος ὑμας διδάξει παντα, και ὑπομνήσει ὑμας παντα ά είπον i. (St. John, xiv. 26.)

In these words of the Original is to be remarked the application of εκεινος to Πνευμα; an application which Jortin most properly noticed: "Exevos shows that

66

66

ПIva is a Person, not an Attribute, and the con"struction is like that which the Grammarians call σε κατα το σημαινομενον.” The correctness of his explanation is confirmed by the following considerations, which come immediately to the proof of Personality. In whatever sense we take Пapaxλros, whether as Comforter," or 66 Advocate," or "Intercessor," it implies real Being: for, "teaching and reminding" are properties belonging to real Being. But the Holy Spirit" is that Пlapaxaros; has the properties of teaching and reminding; He has therefore real Being. In this passage it is also to be noticed, that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, are distinctly marked out. Again: "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." (St. John, xvi. 13.) In this passage, "Hearing" is ascribed to the Holy Spirit: but "Hearing" is a property belonging to real Being. The consequence is obvious. The same Spirit is to speak from another, and not from himself only: of course, by the Spirit here mentioned we cannot understand the Father, but some One who should speak what he heard delivered from the Father.

XL.

It is observable, that when our Lord has occasion to speak of the Resurrection, or of the Holy Spirit, his disciples express no wonder, his enemies show no displeasure at the doctrines. The reason might be this. The doctrine of a Resurrection was certainly holden by the Pharisees, and therefore was not novel, nor would appear strange. Probably also some ideas respecting a Holy Spirit were entertained by them; though in both instances there was need of that more full illustration and decisive confirmation, which they received from our Lord's express declaration and positive assurance. Indeed, the more we consider how frequently our Lord speaks of a Divine Spirit, and how familiar the expression appears to have been among his hearers, the more we shall be persuaded, that however much of this must be ascribed to the idiom of Scripture Language, yet in the time of our Lord the Jews certainly retained, what they had received from their Ancestors, traditional notices which impressed their minds with an opinion that there was an uncreated Spirit really subsisting. This opinion, with all their hatred towards Christianity, the Jews continued to hold for some ages after the commencement of the Christian æra. What if the modern Jews deny the doctrine of a Trinity can be deduced from the Old Testament? They deny also, that the sense in which Christians apply the prophetical texts to Christ, is the true sense. Nor that only. But they moreover deny the Facts of the New Testament to have occurred. The result is this. Their denial in the first case is of no more weight than in the second and third. The judgment of modern Jews is to be rejected in each case.

XLI.

If we are required to prove the completion of Christ's promise that the Holy Spirit should "teach and guide,' we shall here use the same kind of proof which we adopt when we demonstrate the real exertion of divine Providence we shall refer to the actual effects, which the Holy Spirit has produced, and still produces. The effects were extraordinary in the Apostles and first Converts; they are also powerful in their influence on the hearts and lives of Thousands at this moment.

XLII.

To effects we refer, when we would demonstrate the divinity of the Holy Spirit. We add also the circumstance of our Lord's command, that we should at our baptism be admitted into the religious service and worship of the Holy Spirit. Religious service and worship, in the opinion both of Jews and Christians, must be offered to nothing created, whether Man or Angel. The Holy Spirit therefore, which is to receive our religious service and worship, must be more than Man, more than Angel; must be divine.

XLIII.

Words, as Words, may be the same. And analogically, in part of their meaning, they may resemble each other. But in their full import they may be widely different. An observation thus trivial should not here have been introduced, if Interpreters of Scripture did not sometimes appear to forget the reality of the fact. Their inadvertence will justify illustrations of the remark.

These passages occur: "Ye are the light of the "world," (St. Matt. v. 14.) "That they, which enter