"the subject:-What is meant by having the Spirit of "Christ?'—and, What is the legitimate scriptural evidence "of the possession? "In answer to the first of these inquiries, it may be ob"served, that our having the Spirit of Christ' is obvious 66 ly of equivalent import with his dwelling in us.' The simple comparison of the preceding clause of the verse "with the latter, which forms our text, is sufficient to show "this: But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit; if "so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you: now if any man "have not the Spirit of Christ'-(the same Spirit, observe, "called the Spirit of God in the one clause, and the Spirit of “Christ in the other)- if any man have not the Spirit "of Christ,' (that is, dwelling in him) he is none of his.' "Similar expressions are not uncommon in the New "Testament. Know ye not that ye are the temple of "God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?'* "What! know ye not that your body is the temple of "the Holy Ghost, which is in you, which ye have of "God?' I will pray the Father, and he will give you "another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever: ❝even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot re"ceive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him : "but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall "be in you! ‡ "Such expressions (especially those last quoted, from the "lips of Jesus himself) serve to throw a clear and simple "light on an apostolic phrase, to which I had occasion ❝formerly to refer, in proof of the Divinity and Personality "of the Spirit- the communion of the Holy Ghost.' || * 1 Cor. iii. 16. † 1 Cor. vi. 19. John xiv. 16. 17. || 2 Cor. xiii. 13. "The idea expressed by the word communion,—or fellowship "-accords precisely with that conveyed by our Saviour's "words that he may abide with you,'-'he dwelleth with you,' 66 " he shall be in you.' The apostle wishes, in behalf of the "Corinthian believers, the fulfilment of this gracious promise "of their Lord. It is the same word that is used,* when "Christians are described as having fellowship with the Fa"ther, and with the Son: That which we have seen and "heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellow"ship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, "and with his Son Jesus Christ.' + And in using this lan-* 66 guage, John seems evidently to have had in mind the "words of his Master, as recorded by himself, in the same "Discourse with those formerly quoted in reference to the "Holy Spirit, and in immediate connexion with them :— "Jesus answered, and said unto him, If a man love me, he "will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and "we will come unto him, and make our abode with him."‡ In these various passages, from the gospel and first epistle of John, we have brought before us "the grace of our "Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the com"munion of the Holy Spirit." Jesus himself, although about to leave his disciples, declares that he would still be with them in the intimate fellowship of mutual love. In this he associates himself with his Father, in terms which we cannot suppose a mere created messenger of God to have used, without the most offensive presumption: " He shall "be loved of my Father, and I will love him; and we will "come unto him, and make OUR abode with him." And in language precisely similar, he promises the Holy Spirit, + John xiv. 23. * Κοινωνία. † 1 John i. 3. as another comforter, who was to come to them, to abide with them, to dwell with them, to be in them. "The communion of the Holy Spirit be with you all,' "implies," says Mr. Yates, (p. 156.) "that the Holy Spirit "does not, in this instance, signify God, or any person. "What can possibly be intended by the communion of God? "Is God divided? Can we partake of God, or of any person? "No; but we may partake of powers, energies, and in"fluences; we may enjoy a communion of spiritual gifts.”"We may enjoy a communion or gifts WITH persons: but "a participation of a person is an idea which cannot enter "the mind."-But the Apostle Paul was not so scrupulous. He speaks of Christians as "being made partakers of Christ." Here is participation of a person; and the phrase surely expressed an idea that was in his own mind, and was intended to "enter the minds" of those to whom he wrote. The expression is never imagined to disprove the personality of Jesus Christ: neither therefore does the other expression (however confidently and scornfully Mr. Yates may affirm it) disprove the personality of the Holy Spirit. For, supposing "the communion of the Holy Spirit" to mean a participation of Divine influences, these influences may still be the influences of the Holy Spirit, just as being “ par"takers of Christ" signifies enjoying a participation, not of himself personally, but of the effects of his mediation. 66 With regard to Mr. Yates's parallel passage, which the seems to consider as so incontrovertible a proof that the text in question contains no evidence of the Divinity of Christ and of the Spirit-namely the conclusion of Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians;-he first writes the verses thus-" The "grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all; my love be "with you all in Christ Jesus ;"-and then he thus comments: "Here we find coupled together in the same manner the 66 grace of our Lord Jesus Christ,' and the love of Paul. "If therefore the conclusion of the second epistle, in which "Jesus Christ, God, and the Holy Spirit, are mentioned in "conjunction, proves the Divinity of Jesus Christ and of the "Holy Spirit, the conclusion of the first epistle, in which "Paul is in like manner associated with Jesus Christ, proves "the divinity of Paul."-This is, no doubt, very smart ; and a Socinian may possibly think it very conclusive;-a perfect Q. E. D. But for my own part, I do not feel at all surprised that Mr. Yates should on this occasion have complained of his being "expected to bring a passage of Scripture to refute "every criticism of his opponent, however groundless and "unreasonable," when (to use a courteous expression of his own) he felt himself obliged to have recourse to such " egre66 gious trifling." But what more could he do, than produce the best he could find, and make the best of it? This he certainly has done. By the substitution of a semicolon for a period, he contrives to bring the "grace of the Lord Jesus Christ" and the " love of Paul" into as close contact as possible, thus to give the two passages the nearer resemblance;-and then adds, "Here we see the grace of Christ and the love of Paul 66 coupled together in the same manner." Yes; as nearly in the same manner, as, by this little manoeuvre of the semicolon, could well be managed. But, in spite of all the arts of punctuation" The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with 66 you"- "My love be with you all in Christ Jesus," will remain two distinct sentences, and in this respect can never be parallel with the other. They are pointed a sdistinct sentences by Griesbach, and in every version, I presume, except that of Mr. Yates.-But there is another respect in which the parallel necessarily fails, to the entire prostration of Mr. Yates's confident conclusion.-When Paul says, "My love be with ❝ you all in Christ Jesus," he cannot be considered as uttering a prayer, or even as expressing a wish, or desire. His words relate to feelings of which he was at the moment conscious in his own bosom, and contain a declaration of his affectionate regard and attachment to the believers at Corinth. This discrepancy in the sense renders the separation of the sentences still more complete, and the connecting virtue of the semicolon the more inefficient, in the attempt to unite them.-In the other case, on the contrary, there is evidently the utterance of a wish, a desire, a prayer,—of one prayer, in one sentence, consisting of three distinct yet connected parts.—It may gratify the reader, to hear the comment of Faustus Socinus himself on this alleged parallel; which, after I had written the foregoing remarks, I found in his Disputation with Francis Davidis on the invocation of Christ. His opponent had said, in the same style with Mr. Yates: "Imo et ipsum Paulum nos "invocare oportet, contra mentem et voluntatem ipsius, qui "sibi talem tribui honorem noluit: 1 enim Cor. xvi. inquit, "charitas mea sit cum omnibus vobis." To this Socinus (who, although holding Jesus Christ to be a mere man, most strangely argued, not for the duty indeed, but for the liberty of Christians to invoke or pray to him, on principles which we may hereafter notice)-to this Socinus replies:-" In illis 66 verò, Charitas mea sit cum omnibus vobis in Christo Jesu, reponis ex tuo sensu verbum sit. In textu enim legitur, Cha"ritas mea cum omnibus vobis in Christo Jesu. Veresimilius "verò multum videtur, subaudiendum esse hoc loco verbum "Est, quam Sit; ut sit sensus-Diligo vos omnes in Christo "Jesu; id est, (ut explicat auctor eruditissimarum illarum "litteralium annotationum in Novo Testamento a Roberto 66 Steph. anno 1545 Lutetiæ edito, seu mavis in Bibliis |