Swing's Sermons [pp. 512-532]

SWING'S SERMONS.
ity that moulds human life, but the doctrine of God. It is not
the eternal possession of the Holy Spirit that may shape the
human soul, but the fact of an ever-present Spirit." In our
judgment, the above sounds very like Sabellianism, which affirms only one person in the Godhead, acting by a three-fold
manifestation or office; for, although somewhat confused, if not
contradictory, it asserts, —1. That such three-fold office is all that
is important to be known or recognized in the premises. 2.
That the doctrine of a real Trinity of persons is that of " three
persons being one person," or the" threeness of one and oneness
of thlree" in the same sense, which involves a contradiction that
does not belong to the true doctrine of the Trinity, which means
threeness as to persons and oneness as to substance. Such a
contradiction, Prof. Swing justly says, "man has not the power
to taste, and human experience cananot approach," and, we add,
the human mind cannot believe. But the scriptural church
doctrine of the Trinity mav as readily be believed as that man
is two-fold in his nature, body and spirit, and one as to his personality. But neither Prof. Swing nor his hearers can believe
that caricature of the Trinity which his representations imply,
and all its adversaries employ. 3. The setting up of the "doctrine of God" as in contrast to the Trinity, and of the " divine
omnipresence" in opposition to the "possession of the Holy
Spirit" as moulding human life and shaping the human soul,
could not be done by one who believes in the real Trinity of per sons subsisting in the Godhead, or in the proper personality and
c,ffice-work of the Holy Ghost. 4. He declares that "this doc trine (of the Trinity) belongs to a religion of fact (whatever that
may be) but not of experience." But surely, the Christian re ligion is one of experience. Prof. Swingwe understand to teach
the divinity of Christ. But w.e nowhere find him asserting the
distinct personality of the Holy Spirit. The Trinity is seldom
hatndled in this way by those who do not make equal invasion
on the Atonement and Justification, the true doctrine of Faith
and Works. How is it in the present instance?
Our first remark is that while the Truths of To-Day have
sermons devoted to the specific topics of Righteousness, Good
WAorks, and Faith, we nowhere find Justification defined or re pretsented as being wholly on account of the sufferings, obedi e,.ce, or merits, or righteousness of Christ substituted for those
520
[July,