DISSERTATION VI. 385 As in thecase which concerns Christ as God-man, the word person has its signification enlarged to include two natures in it, which is more than common language admits ; so in this case, which concerns three persons in one divine essence, the word per- son has its signification narrowed, to admit rather less into it than common language generally includes. I think these things have been generally so understood by all learned Trinitarians ; at least in that common explication of the. Trinity which bath been called orthodox for four hundred years, wherein three distinct consciousnesses or spirits, are not supposed to make up the god- head, but one single consciousness, only, or one single spirit. Now, if the complete divinenature, or the infinite spirit, be represented as including in it two distinct powers, which are cal- led theWord and the Spirit, by way of analogy to the human soul, which includes in it the powers of mind and * will, and if we suppose the human soul acting by the mind and will, to repre- sent God the Father as acting by his two divine powers, the Word and Spirit, it is evident that the Father is properly called aperson, an intelligent voluntary agent, with very littleor no. alteration of the common sense of the word in human language ; and this appellation is what all the opponents of our doctrine will allow. But when the Word and Spirit are called persons, which are supposed to be really but divine powers of the Father, whose inwarddistinction we know not, the term person is then used in a figurative or metaphorical sense, and not in so proper and literal a sense as when the Father is called a person. Yet that there is sufficient distinction between them to lay a. foundation for such a distinct personal representation of them in scripture, will appear by the following considerations I. Are not the various faculties of man often represented under personal characters in common discourse ? How frequent- ly is a man represented as conversing with his own mind, com- muning with his own heart, followingthe dictates ofhis own will, or subduing his will and subjecting it to his reason ? Do we not freely say, "My mind has labouredhard -to find out such a diffi- culty, my will is resolutely bent to pursue such a course ; my mind denies her assent to such a doctrine ; or my will resists no more, but yields itself up to the ,conduet of myunderstanding ?" * Though I represent the divine Word and Spirit byway of analogy .. to the mind and will of a human soul, let it be observed, that the chief reason why use the words mind and will is, because they are the two single names generally given to the two chief powers of the soul ; and as the mind denotes the knowing power, on the will is commonly understood tosignify the native power. Rut if there were any single word that did include the intelligent and volitive power, and another single wordthat diddeadte the efficient "oi executive power of moving the body, I would much rather chose two such names to set forth the di- vineWord and divine Spirit, as I have noted elsewhere because I think this would come nearer to the scriptural representation.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=