1850.
Defense of an Essay, &c.
635
in proving that we must render Elohim by a term that is the mere exponent of a relationship. Power is an essential attribute of the Deity, possessed from eternity before the worlds were made; Shangti, “Supreme Ruler," can derive no aid from their etymology.
Dr. L. quotes Calvin as agreeing with him in the character of this word, and seems to have persuaded himself that even Athanasius uses the term God just as a relative term; and his conclusion is, that there are not three beings, who sustain the relation of God, but only one; not three spirits who are each a God, but one Spirit (observe not one God), Jehovah namely, in whose essence there yet exist, "by a natural and eternal necessity, three in- telligent and active subjects, who are made known to us as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit." I have not the works of Athanasius, and never read them; I can not therefore say whether Dr. Legge represents him correctly, when he thus speaks of him as regarding the word God as a relative term, and the Persons of the Blessed Trinity as sustaining "the relation of God." I content myself therefore with merely calling the attention of the learned in Europe and America, who are taking an interest in this controversy, to his statement, who no doubt can vindicate this noble defender of the orthodox faith from the views here erroneously ascribed to him by Dr. Legge.
Some of Calvin's works I have at hand, from which it is very plain that Dr. Legge is mistaken if he supposes that Calvin agrees with him in regarding the word God as a mere relative term. The proof of this I will present below. I shall next offer a few remarks on Dr. Legge's attempt to express the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity, using the Athanasian formula, and regarding the word God as a mere relative term, which does not express anything about essence or nature. According to Dr. L., that which constitutes the Supreme Being God, is not the possession of a Divine nature, but the sustain- ing of a given relationship.
I am most happy to find that Dr. Legge, however, makes the unity of the Godhead to consist in oneness of substance, and not in unity of office or dignity; as from his words, "the view of Elohim as a relative term exhibits the doctrine of the Trinity in its scriptural simplicity," his defining a relative term as the name "of a dignity or office common to many individuals,” and his views generally on the character of the word God, I had feared he did, and as I believe, all have done, who have regarded this word as Dr. L. does, as a mere relative term. On this subject Dr. Legge is happily very explicit. He says, "the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God; does it not seem then that there are three Gods? It seems so, yet the Father, Son, and Spirit are 'one in substance; so that there are not three Gods, but one God." Dr. Legge then gives a statement of his views which shows that one can regard the word God as a mere relative term that does not in- dicate essence, and yet believe that the three Persons of the sacred Trinity are of the same divine nature or substance; but he has not shown us how this orthodox doctrine is expressed in the formula he has quoted, if the word God tells us nothing of the nature of the Being represented.