800 TILE ARLAN INVITED TO ORTHODOX FAITH. particular occasions; ascribe glory to God the Father, to his eter= nal word and his almighty Spirit, even though the wOrd, together with the Spirit, considered purely in their divine nature, may be really distinct principles of action in the godhead, and not real, proper, distinct beings. It may be still further argued : Suppose the powers, or even the attributes or agencies of God, were expressed in yet more metaphorical language, yet they might lawfully be doxologized. May we not say, " glory be to God and his victorious arm ? Or to hiswatchful eye ? Or, may we not ascribe glory to the Fa- ther and the Son, and their counsels of mercy ?" and such like ç surely then the blessed Spirit, whatsoever be his philosophical character, or idea in the godhead, may receive ascriptions of . glory with as much propriety. But if all these considerations were not sufficient to make us allow of doxologies to the Holy Spirit, I say, in the last place, Answer IV. As in some scriptures the Spirit of God seems to include in it the whole idea of Godhead, acting by the blessed Spirit, why we may not ascribe glory to the blessed Spirit under this idea ? May we not say, " Glory be given to God who sancti- ties andcomforts us by his blessed Spirit, as well as, glory to him who sustains the supreme dignity of godhead under the idea of a Father ?" Perhaps if this sense be put upon the words, it may please some persons better, who are sincere and zealous be- Revers of the Doctrine of the Trinity, according to the common orthodox explication : For this idea of the Spirit approaches nearer to the orthodox scheme, wherein the whole divine essence is included in each person, together with a distinct modality of that essence which is called'the personality. Upon any of these principles which I have mentioned, there is sufficient ground for a doxology to be given to the blessed Spirit, without supposinghim to be a distinct, intelligent being, or ano- ther mind. Objection IV. If the Spirit of God be properly a power, or principle of agency, in the divine nature, how can it be said, ac- cording to the common doctrine of divines, that he proceeds from the Father and the Son ? Answer I. It was proper in the objection to naine the com- mon doctrine of divines, and not the doctrine of scripture, for the textsfrom which this is derived, John xv. 26. only saith, "that the Spirit cometh forth, or proceedeth from the Father, Se.e -u Christian Doctrine of the Trinity:" We are not necessarily bound to doxologize the divine attribute of grace, goodness, orwisdom, explicitly and.dis tinctly ¡'and yet prudenceand expedience may sometimes direct it. The same may be justlysaid concerning any explicit doxólogies to the Holy Spirit, which t.a power of the godhead,
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=