DISSERTATION V. 3I0 tint, and real character of the Spirit, is that of a divine power, or principle of action, and it is only personalized by idioms of speech. Now though there may be two or three examples of such a doxology in the writers of the three first centuries, and though it may beproperly practised in many cases, yet if there be neither precept nor pattern for it in scripture, it ought not to be esteemed so constant, and so necessary a part of worship as modern ages have made it, and as I once thought it to be. For it is the scrip- ture which alone could reveal the Father, Son and Spirit to us, and it is that must be the rule and ground of the particular wor- ship we pay to each of the sacred Three. See a larger discourse on this subject in my " Christian Doctrine of the Trinity," pro- position XX. question ii. Answer II. Since I believe the Spirit of God to be co-eter- nal with God, and essential and necessary to his very being, and in that sense trueGod, and since he is represented in scripture in a personal manner, or tinder the character of a distinct person, therefore forms of praise may be lawfully addressed to him, as well aspeculiar blessings my be said to descend from him. Though the scripture has not taught us distinctly to offer praise and honour to the Holy Spirit, yet it has taught us to hearken to the voice of the Spirit, to obey the Spirit, to hope and wait for the enlightening, the sanctifying,and the comforting influences of the Spirit, and not to resist him ; and since the Holy Spirit is true God, 1 think it follows by evident consequence, that we may offer him the sacrifice of praise for the blessings which lie bestows. There is no more necessity that he should be a real, proper, dis- tinct person, or another conscious mind, in order to receive such addresses than in order to bestow such bléssings. A figurative personality is sufficient for both. Answer III. I add yet further, that if the Holy Spirit bad never been represented in a personal manner in scripture, yet a distinct power of the divine nature may surely be as proper an object of doxology, as a divine attribute or perfection, which does not seem to carry in the idea of it so great a distinction as a divine power. I think there is no impropriety in ascribing 'praise and glory to the wisdom, or the graceof God. May we not proper- ly use such language as this, °" We give thanks to the grace of God ? Let us give praise to the almighty power of God ? Glory be given to God and his mercy ? Let God the Father, and his eternal wisdom, andhis love, be glorified for ever ?" Now if these expressions may be sometimes used on particular occa- sions, with propriety and devotion, though we are not necessari- ly bound to use them,* I see no reason why we may not, upon * I might here take occasion to give a full answer to that objection whicts has been raised by some Trinitariansand Hawaiians, against my proposal.of oc- casional doxologies to the Holy Spirit, as prpdeoce and expedience may requite,
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=