Origen says, that Matthew, being full of the Holy Ghost, wrote his Gospel. Mark, according to Papias †, being the interpreter of Peter, wrote, though not methodically, what things he mentioned concerning Christ. Clemens, Irenæus, and others, represent Mark as recording the words of Peter. As to St. Luke, he himself shows, that he did not copy from such apostolic documents. He says he wrote from the testimony, not the authorized memoirs, of eye-witnesses and ministers, i. e. vpetai, attendants. Origen pronounces Luke to have been full of the Holy Ghost; and Eusebius states him to have written from conversation and dwelling together, συνεσίας και διατριβης §, with Paul and the other Apostles: not from records. Again, if Matthew and Luke copied these Apomneumata, why do they differ in many things; for instance, in the genealogies? There are other differences respecting the temptation, the sermon on the mount, and the treatment of our Lord after his apprehension. Mark and Luke omit the account of the Magi, which, Justin says, was in the Apomneumata. Matthew and Mark have omitted the command to continue the bread and wine, the election of Matthias, and the promise *Tom. iii. p. 932, ed. Delarue. § Euseb. Ecc. Hist. 1. ii. c. 15. and gift of the Holy Ghost. Matthew omits the ascension. On the whole, we conclude, that these Apomneumata never existed; or, if they did, that Matthew, Mark, and Luke, did not borrow from that or any other written document. The truth is, that it was for the interest of Socinianism to establish the existence of such a record; because the next step would be to adopt the notion of Marcion, that, before the Evangelists borrowed from it, it had been interpolated by heretics. The Trinity being the grand fortress pointed at by the batteries of Socinianism, and the divinity of the Holy Ghost being stated in various passages, too plainly to be refined away, it became necessary to merge that attribute in the divinity of the Father. Hence the Personality of the Eternal Comforter was denied, and he evaporated, in the Socinian creed, into an energy or emanation issuing from the Divine Being. This was originally the heresy of the Pneumatomachi, whose leader, Macedonius Patriarch of Constantinople, believed the Spirit to be an energy attendant upon the Son; an error which produced the clauses in the Nicene creed, "the Lord and giver of life, proceeding from the Father "Spiritum S. non esse personam, non magis quam aliæ proprietates, vel effecta Dei sunt persona: sed nihil aliud quam peculiaris quædam virtus et efficacia Dei." Socinus. and the Son, and with the Father and the Son together, worshipped and glorified; him also who spoke by the prophets." Acts are attributed to the Holy Ghost which destroy the Socinian prosopopoeia. The Spirit maketh intercession for the saints, according to the will of God†; but intercession is a personal action, and cannot be attributed to the Father; for, as it was said respecting Christ, a mediator is not of one, but God is one; so, likewise, an intercessor is not of one; but God, on the Socinian principle, is one, that is, not only one God, but one Person. Again: to be sent unto men, is a personal action. "When the Comforter is come, whom I will send you from the Father+;" and again, "If I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him to you §." Now suppose the Holy Ghost an energy, and mark the dilemma. If the Son and the Father are one, Christ could not say, "If I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you;" for the Paraclete, an energy, was already there. If the Son were inferior to the Father, Christ could not "I will send you the Paraclete, or energy, say, from the Father;" for the inferior could not possess power over the superior. The only key to * Pearson on the Creed, p. 325. + Rom. viii. 26, 27. John, xv. 26. § John, xvi. 7. these passages consists in the doctrine of three distinct Persons in one Godhead. Again, to speak what one hears is a distinct attribute, implying separateness of person. "When the Spirit of God shall come, he shall not speak of himself; but whatever he shall hear, that shall he speak*. If this be applied to the Father, I demand, "Of whom does the Father hear what he speaks?" God the Father WOULD speak of himself. Once more: "He shall glorify me; for he shall receive of mine, and show it to you," could not be spoken by Christ (and, à fortiori, not by the Socinian man, Jesus) concerning the Father, or concerning the energy of the Father. Socinus, however, has devised another subtlety, by which the Spirit is stated to be, by metonymy, the effect of God's energy, the man acted upon by God; but Bishop Pearson has exposed the absurdity of this statement, by asking how St. Peter, receiving of God, could show what he received to St. Peter; and by proving that the attributes of being poured out, or distributed, &c. are not repugnant to the nature of a person, and apply to the gifts and effects of that person. Besides performing personal acts, such as teach John, xvi. 14. * John, xvi. 13. ing, speaking, and witnessing*; besides possessing personal powers of understanding and will †, the Holy Ghost is conjoined with the other two Persons, as the object of worship, and the fountain of benedictions. He appeared under the emblem of a dove, and of cloven tongues of fire§: and in the Greek a masculine article or epithet is joined to his name, the neuter ПIVEυμa: Ὁ δὲ Παράκλητος εκείνος; and το Πνεύμα ὁ, properly translated who; and To IIveμar os eσt, improperly translated which. With respect to the influence of the Holy Ghost upon the soul, we see not upon what principle the Socinians can consistently deny it, except that of clipping out, ad libitum, whatsoever displeases them. How else can they dispose of the following passages:-"Except a man be born of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God;" John, iii. 5. "And because ye are sons, God hath sent the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father;" Gal. iv. 6. "The Spirit, by which we cry, Abba, Father;" Rom. vi. 15. "No man can come unto me, except the Father which hath sent me, draw him;" John, vi. 44. The doctrine of * Mark, xiii. 11; Acts, xx. 23; Rom. viii. 15, 16; 1 Cor. vi. 19; Acts, xv. 28; and Acts, xvi. 6, 7. +1 Cor. ii. 10, 11; and xii. 11. Matt. xxviii. 19; 2 Cor. xiii. 14; and John, v. 7. § Matt. iii. 16; Acts, ii. 4. John, xiv. 26; xv. 26; xvi. 13; and Ephes. i. 13. |