« AnteriorContinuar »
such as his dividing the moon into two parts, and walking in sunshine without casting a shadow. They can assert, too, that several of those witnesses suffered the greatest calamities, and some even death, in defence of that religion; some before the attempts of Mohummud at conquest, others after his commencing such attempts, and others after his death. On mature consideration of all those circumstances, the Compiler hopes he may be allowed to remain still of opinion, that the miraculous relations found in the divine writings would be apt at best to carry little weight with them, when imparted to the Hindoos at large, in the present state of their minds: but as no other religion can produce any thing that may stand in competition with the Precepts of Jesus, much less that can be pretended to be superior to them, the Compiler deemed it incumbent upon him to introduce these among his countrymen as a Guide to Peace and HappiIleSS.
On the Impersonality of the Holy Spirit.
I will, now inquire into the justness of the conclusion drawn by the Editor, in his attempt to prove the Deity of the Holy Ghost, from the circumstance of his name being associated with that of the Father in the rite of Baptism. This subject is incidentally brought forward in the course of the arguments he has adduced respecting the nature of Jesus, where he observes, “It is needless to add that this testimony of Jesus (the associating of his own name and that of the Holy Ghost with the name of the Father) is equally decisive respecting the Deity of the Holy Ghost.” I have hitherto omitted to notice this question among other matters in review, reserving it for the express purpose of a distinct and separate examination. It seems to me, in the first place, rather singular, that the Reverend Editor, after having filled up many pages with numerous arguments in his endeavour to establish the Godhead of Jesus, should have noticed in so short and abrupt a manner, the question of the Deity of the Holy Ghost, although the Editor equally esteems them both as distinct persons of the Deity. I wonder, in the next place, how the learned Editor could suppose a mere association of names in a rite to be sufficient to prove the identity of their subjects. I am indeed sorry I cannot, without overlooking a great many scriptural authorities, and defying reason totally, join the Editor in the opinion, that the association of the name of the Holy Spirit with that of the Father of the Universe, in the rite of Baptism, is “decisive” of, or even allusive to, the separate personality of the Spirit. 2 Chronicles, ch. xx. ver, 20: “Jehoshaphat stood and said, “Hear me, O Judah, and ye inhabitants of Jerusalem; believe in the Lord your God, so shall ye be established; believe his prophets, so shall ye prosper;” wherein the name of the Prophets of God is associated with that of the Deity himself in the profession of belief, which is considered by Christians of all denominations more essential than an external symbol of Christianity. Again, in Jeremiah, ch. xxx. ver. 9, “But they shall serve the Lord their God, and David their King, whom I will raise up unto them,” the Lord joins his name with that of David in the act of religious service, which is in its strictest sense esteemed due to God alone. Would it not therefore be unscriptural to make an attempt to prove the deity of the Prophets, or David, under the plea that their names are associated with that of God in religious observances But we must do so, were we to follow the process of reasoning adopted by the Reverend Editor. The kind of evidence on which the Editor relies in this instance, would besides suit admirably the purposes of those who
might seek in the sacred Scriptures, grounds, for justifying idolatry. Fire worshipers, for instance, insisting on the literal sense of the words, might refer to that text in the 3rd chapter of Matthew, repeated in Luke, ch. iii. ver. 16, in which it is announced, that Jesus Christ will baptize with the Holy Ghost and with fire. If the association in the the rite of Baptism of the names of the Son and Holy Ghost, with that of the Father, proves their divinity: it is clear that fire also being associated with the Holy Ghost in the same rite, must likewise be considered as a part of the Godhead. God is invariably represented in revelation as the main object of belief, receiving worship and prayers that proceed from the heart, through the first-born of every creature, the Messiah, (“No man cometh unto the Father but by me,” John, ch. xiv. ver. 6,) and leading such as worship him in spirit to righteous conduct, and ultimately to salvation, through his guiding influence, which is called the Holy Spirit, (“when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth.” John, ch. xiv. ver. 13). There is, therefore, a moral obligation on those who avow the truth of such revelation to profess their belief in God as the sole object of worship: and in the Son, through whom they, as Christians, should offer divine homage: and also in the holy influence of God, from which they should expect direction in the path of righteousness, as the consequence of their sincere prayer and supplication. For the same reason also in publicly adopting this religion, it is proper that those who receive it should be baptized in the name of the Father, who is the object of worship: of the Son, who is the Mediator; and of that influence by which spiritual blessings are conveyed to mankind, designated in the Scriptures as the Comforter, Spirit of truth, or Holy Spirit. As God is declared through his Holy Spirit to have led to righteousness such as sought heartily his will, so he is equally represented to have through his wrath afflicted rebels against his authority, and to have prospered through his infinite mercy those who manifested obedience to him; as appears from the following passages. 2 Kings, ch. xxiv. ver. 20: “For through the anger of the Lord it came to pass in Jerusalem and Judah, until he had cast them out from his presence.” Psalm x.c. ver. 7: “For we are consumed by thine anger, and by thy wrath are we troubled.” Psalm xxi. ver. 7: “And through the mercy of the Most High he shall not be moved.” Psalm vi. ver. 4: “Return, O Lord, deliver my soul; O save me for thy mercy’s sake.” Nor can we legitimately infer the idea of the self-existence or distinct personality of the Holy Ghost from such metaphorical language as the following: “The Holy Ghost shall teach you.” Luke, ch. xii. ver. 12. “The Holy Ghost is come upon you.” Acts, ch. i. ver. 8. “The Comforter, who is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send.” John, ch. xiv. ver. 26. For we find expressions of a similar nature applied to other attributes of God, personifying them equally with the Holy Spirit. Psalm lvii. ver. 3: “God shall send forth his mercy