the most decisive evidence of our Lord's sovereign Divinity.

The fundamental argument on the Godhead of Christ, therefore, is, that Christ is God's proper Son. The doctrine is not without proof, abundant and irrefragable proof, from other considerations; and it would be irreverent to reject the smallest and least considerable of its evidences. Yet it must not be forgotten that the conclusive and universally intelligible line of argument, that which runs through the entire New Testament, is founded upon the divine filiation:-As a proper son of man is really man, so is the proper Son of God as undeniably God.

Hence it is obvious that no rejecter of our Lord's divine Sonship can do justice to the evidence of his Deity; since he thus casts aside the most powerful defence of which the doctrine will admit. In his reasonings on the subject, he may not be without success: for happily truth has surprising and incalculable energy; and its partial developement often confounds the most vigorous of its opponents. And were our contest for victory alone, it might satisfy us to show by how comparatively inconsiderable putting forth of our strength we could achieve a triumph. But our warfare is not thus carnal; and considering the strong resistance offered to the truth of God, our wisdom and our duty is to array it in all its power, and thus send it forth "conquering and to conquer."

The time will arrive,—so at least it is lawful to hope, -when, upon this subject, all Christians will be of one mind. The multiplied facilities for biblical study; the increasing demands for views of evangelical doctrine, more comprehensive and more harmonious; the advance in severity of exegesis; and the progression of the church in true religion, appear to justify the expectation of better days; when, as one indication of our improved

condition, fundamental truth will no longer be committed to the casual defences of insulated Scriptures. But, be this as it may, we shall not do justice to the Deity of Christ till we resume the impregnable position occupied by the primitive church. Their great and conclusive argument was;-SINCE CHRIST IS THE SON of God, he IS ALSO GOD.

SECTION III.

THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.

THE baptismal commission of our Lord to his Apostles, is in the following terms: "Go ye, therefore, and disciple all nations, baptizing them in the NAME of the FATHER, and of the Son, and of the HOLY GHOST."* The force of this phraseology we may be able the better to appreciate from a form employed in the Jewish church, the appointment of which is thus narrated :-"Jehovah spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto Aaron and unto his sons, saying, On this wise ye shall bless the children of Israel, saying unto them, JEHOVAH bless thee, and keep thee; JEHOVAH make his face to shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee; JEHOVAH lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace. And they shall put MY NAME upon the children of Israel, and I will bless them."† The peculiarity in each of these cases is, that a threefold expression is represented as the divine name. the latter passage, the name is the thrice repeated Jehovah in the baptismal formula, it is Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. The singular noun name according to the scriptural usage, indicates, in both instances, the unity of the divine nature; and whatever it includes must therefore belong to the Deity alone. It follows, that the triplicity expressed in the other parts of these citations is equally and exclusively divine; and hence, that Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, is the three-fold name of God. 'We are not baptized," says one of the most eminent among the Latin fathers, "in the names of the Father,

66

In

*Matt, xxviii. 19.

Num. vi. 22-27.

of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, but in one name, which is to be understood God."*

Here also the purpose of Christian baptism is to be considered. Among the Gentiles, to whom the commission before us originally referred, it was a pledge to abandon the worship and service of false gods, and to adhere faithfully and to the end to the profession and worship of the true God. Being the initiatory sacrament, the inviolable obligation of which the individual baptized thus voluntarily took upon himself, and a dedication exclusively to the honour of Jehovah, it was an act of the most solemn religious homage. The fundamental truth of revealed religion is the unity of God; a truth which Gentiles especially were in the first place called to recognize and confess. It was suitable, therefore, that the form of consecration should supply a distinct acknowledgment of this doctrine, with whatever else in the peculiar mode of the divine essence is essential to evangelical theology. Hence the convert was baptized in the name of the one God; Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. This was the faith to which he was to adhere: this was the Being to whom he was dedicated.

These conclusions, however, can be maintained only by admitting that the two former terms are expressive of a relation exclusively divine, and, of consequence, eternal. For if the title "Son" depends in any way upon the hypostatical union, the paternity and filiation here intimated degenerate into mere figures of speech, obscurely indicative of official arrangement. Hence also is there introduced into the divine unity a complex person, and a nature properly human. The word name in this case is not only without significancy, but is obviously unfaithful to the fact; since here are two distinct natures, and of consequence two names. As, however,

*Hieron in Eph. iv. 5, T. iv., p. 359.

this alternative is inadmissible, it will follow that the title "Son" is truly divine, and is essentially and eternally in the Trinity.

Let us proceed to a second view. The two ideas suggested in the scriptural representations of the Trinity are those of distinction and relation; and it is of great importance that these should be preserved in unimpaired force. But in order to this, the doctrine of our Lord's eternal Sonship is essential. For if in the Deity there is no filiation, neither is there paternity; if there be not a divine and eternal Son, neither can there be a divine and eternal Father.* The description of the first and second Persons in the Godhead, as the Father and the Word, which is sometimes hazarded, presents us with a collocation of terms at once without sanction and without meaning. Except in 1 John v. 7,† it never occurs throughout the New Testament. In this respect the

phraseology of Scripture is uniform; the Logos being invariably connected with the word God, and not with Father. On the other hand, it will be remarked that, as soon as St. John in his Gospel comes to speak of the Logos under the character of the Son, he begins to describe God under the title, Father.‡ Nor do the terms Father and Word convey any intelligible relation; for what is the father of a word? And, from the palpable analogy of the case, it may be safely affirmed that God is the Father of the Logos only in the respect in which the Logos is the Son.

In abandoning the doctrine of our Lord's divine

* See note (S).

Into the controversy on the genuineness of this passage it is not necessary here to enter. The suspicion under which it lies is sufficient to weaken its testimony on any disputed point of Christian doctrine.

John i. 13.