spiritual blessing-the very thing which we mean. In the ardor of devotion they seem to forget that they are address ing three objects of worship, and imperceptibly run into Unitarianism. When they thank God for sending his Son into the world, they probably mean, by Son, the dependent Son, who could be sanctified and sent; and who came not to do his own will, but the will of God who sent him. They make but little practical use of the doctrine of the Trinity. It seems to be retained and prized chiefly as a theme of controversy, and the test of orthodoxy.

10. If there are three equal persons in the Godhead, their mutual love and affection must be equal. Much is said in the Scriptures of the mutual love of the Father and Son. But there is no intimation that either the Father or the Son loves the Spirit; or that the Spirit loves either the Father or the Son. If they be equal persons, their claims upon our love, service and gratitude, must be equal. But we are not required, in the Scriptures, to love, serve, or honor the Spirit. If they be equal, their love to us must be equal But no Scripture asserts that the Spirit loves us; while ex pressions of the Father's love and of Christ's love, are very numerous. John speaks of the throne of God and the Lamb; and Christ speaks of his Father's throne, and his own; but we have no intimation that there is a throne for the Spirit. St. Paul asserts that in the end of the world, the Son will deliver up the kingdom to God, even the Father; but why not to the Spirit, as well as to the Father, if they be equal persons in the Godhead? Is the Spirit to have no share in the glory of redemption? Where the Spirit is personified, he is represented as subordinate to the will of another. He is sent. He speaks only what he hears. But if he obeys he is entitled to a reward The Son is exalted, crowned and rewarded for his services; but there is no intimation of any reward for the Spirit. All this seems suffi

ciently decisive against the Spirit's personality and equality with the Father.

The phrase Holy Ghost, I believe is not in the Old Testament. The phrase Holy Spirit, occurs but three times; and is represented not as a person, but as the spirit of a person. "Take not thy Holy Spirit from me."-Ps. li. 11. They rebelled, and vexed his Holy Spirit."-Isa. lxiii. 10. - Where is he that put his Holy Spirit within him.”Verse 11.

Isa. i. 14.

"Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth." Isa. xlii. 1. “Mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth." Heb. x. 38. "If any man draw back my soul shall have no pleasure in him." Here is as much

evidence that the soul of God is another person, as we have that the Spirit of God is another person.

and

Job xxvii. 3, 4. "All the while my breath is in me, the Spirit of God is in my nostrils; My lips shall not speak wickedness, nor my tongue utter deceit."

Would the Trinitarian have us believe that the third person in the Trinity was, in some mysterious manner, in the nostrils of Job?

And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore that holy thing that shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God."-Luke i. 35.

In the Apostle's Creed, so called, we read-"who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary," &c. Now according to the Trinitarian hypothesis, the Son, the second person in the Trinity, was conceived by the third person in the Trinity, and yet his Father is the first person in the Trinity.

See Bible News, Part III. The Impersonality of the Holy Ghost, by John Marsom. Bancroft's Sermons, Sermon V.

SECTION XV.

AN INQUIRY AFTER THE SUPPOSED SECOND PERSON

IN THE TRINITY, GOD The son.

The absence of the phrase "God the Son" from the Bible is strong evidence that there is no such person. For if there were, no reason can be assigned why he should not be mentioned as frequently as God the Father, or the Son of God. But as 66 God the Son" is not so much as named in the Bible, I must conclude he is not known there, but is the creature of human creeds.

Jesus is called "the Son," not a Son-" The only Son of God." He says, "Verily, I say unto you, The Son, of himself, can do nothing." Therefore, if there be not another Son, Almighty and Eternal, there is no “God the Son," equal with the Father in eternity, power, and glory. It will not, I think, be pretended that there is any other only Son of God," but he who said, “I can of mine owa self do nothing."

The learned Trinitarian Commentator, Dr. Adam Clark, says, (Luke i. 35.) "We may plainly perceive here, that the angel does not give the appellation of Son of God to the divine nature of Christ; but to that holy person or thing to ayov, which was to be born of the Virgin, by the energy of the Holy Spirit.....Here I trust I may be permitted to say, with all due respect to those who differ from me, that the

doctrine of the eternal Sonship of Christ, is, in my opinion, antiscriptural; and highly dangerous; this doctrine I reject for the following reasons:

"1st. I have not been able to find any express declaration in the scriptures concerning it.

"2dly. If Christ be the Son of God as to his divine nature; then he cannot be eternal: for son implies a father; and father implies the idea of generation; and generation implies a time in which it was effected, and time also antecedent to such generation.

"3dly. If Christ be the Son of God, as to his divine nature, then the Father is of necessity prior, consequently superior to him.

"4thly. Again, if this divine nature were begotten of the Father, then it must be in time; i. e. there was a period in which it did not exist, and a period when it began to exist. This destroys the eternity of our blessed Lord, and robs him at once of his Godhead.

5thly. To say that he was begotten from all eternity, is in my opinion, absurd; and the phrase eternal Son, is a positive self-contradiction. ETERNITY is that which has no beginning, nor stands in any reference to TIME. SON supposes time, generation, and Father: and time also antecedent to such generation. Therefore the conjunction of these two terms, Son and eternity, is absolutely impossible, as they imply essentially different and opposite ideas."

Professor Stewart is of the same opinion with Dr. Clark. He believes neither in eternal Son, nor eternal generation. He says, "The generation of the Son of God as divine, as God, seems to be out of the question: unless it be an express doctrine of revelation: which is so far from being the case, that I conceive the contrary is plainly taught."

*See Leonard on the Unity of God, p 99.

Dr. Watts also perceived the absurdity of "eternal Son." He says "I know no text which gives Christ, considered as God, the title 'the Son.' Son of God is the humanity of Christ."*

Others † go with the ancient Christian Fathers, concerning whom Professor Stewart says, 'They involved themselves in more than a Cretan labyrinth by undertaking to defend the eternal generation of the Son.'

is

The difference between these two opinions of the Son, no less than infinite. According to the one, the Son of God is a finite being; according to the other, an eternal being.

66

66

The doctrine of "God the Son" contradicts the entire history of the miraculous works of Christ. According to the Trinitarian hypothesis, it was "God the Son," (not God the Father) who took human nature, and became incarnate. God the Son" is the divine nature of Christ-that nature which constitutes his equality with the Father; by which he is able to do all that God can do; and by which he did accomplish supernatural works while on earth. All that Jesus ever did as God, he did as God the Son." Such is the Trinitarian hypothesis. But it contradicts the history of all the mighty works Jesus ever performed. The Scriptures refer ALL the superhuman powers with which Christ was invested, to God the Father (not God the Son) as their original source. The man Christ Jesus never acknowledged the receipt of any favor from "God the Son" -he never prayed to him, or recognized him in any way whatever; but constantly asserted that he received ALL from the FATHER. Had Jesus been "God the Son" he would have needed no assistance from the Father. He would not have prayed to the Father. God never prays. But as

See Leonard on the Unity of God, p 101. † See Robbins on the Trinity.