alone, and not a real person. Nay it is remarkable, that though П be a neuter, yet the historian varies the gender, and gives us a masculine relative, Όταν έλθη εκείνος, Εκείνος εμε δοξάσει. And on what principles can this construction be accounted for, or justified, but by allowing the Holy Spirit to be a person? This I think is an observation of some consequence; and therefore accurate writers should beware of using the word it, and rather choose the pronoun him, when speaking of this divine Being.

The mention of divine Being reminds me of our second subject of inquiry, viz. Whether the Holy Ghost is very God? Here I should be glad to know what kind or degree of evidence will satisfy the inquirers. If we are so far humble and impartial as to prefer the declarations of an unerring word to the preconceptions of our mind, I think there is most sufficient proof afforded by the Scriptures; whereas, if we bring not these dispositions to the search, it will be no wonder if we are bewildered, if we are given up to our own delusions; nay, it will be no incredible, no unprecedented thing, for God to hide these mysteries from such (in their own opinion) wise and prudent ones, while he reveals them to (men endued with the simplicity and teachableness of) babes.

Is that Being truly God, who is possessed of divine attributes? This question, I imagine, every body will answer in the affirmative. So that, if it appears that the Holy Ghost is invested with the incommunicable attributes of the Deity, our assent will be won, and our dispute at an end. Is it not the prerogative of the all-seeing God to search the heart, and try the reins? Jer. xvii. 10. and is not this the undoubted prerogative of the blessed Spirit? 1 Cor. ii. 10. Is eternity an attribute of God, and of God only? Deut. xxxiii. 27. 1 Tim. vi. 16. This is clearly the property of the Holy Ghost, who is styled, by the author of the epistle to the Hebrews, the Eternal Spirit, Heb. ix. 14. Is wisdom, underived, essen

Is

tial wisdom, a character of God, called by the apostle, povos copos Osos, Jude, verse 25.? This is the illustrious character of the Holy Ghost; he is the spirit of wisdom and revelation, Eph. i. 17. In consequence of which sacred excellency, he is able to lead his people into all truth. Is omnipresence a necessary proof of divinity? If so, the Holy Ghost challenges it upon this claim; for thus saith the inspired poet, "Whether shall I go, then, from thy Spirit?" Psalm cxxxix. 7. Omnipotence a sufficient attestation of the Godhead of the Holy Ghost? He that enableth mortals to control the powers, to alter the course, to supersede the fundamental laws of nature, can he be less than the Lord God Almighty? Yet St Paul declares, that his ability to work all manner of astonishing miracles for the confirmation of his ministry was imparted to him by the Spirit, Rom. xv. 19. If any farther proof is demanded, be pleased to consider, with an unprejudiced attention, that very memorable passage, Matth. xii. 31, 32. Surely, from an attentive consideration of this text, we must be constrained to acknowledge, that the Holy Ghost is strictly and properly God. Otherwise, how could the sin against him be of so enormous a nature, so absolutely unpardonable, and the dreadful cause of inevitable ruin? St Paul, in his first epistle to the Corinthians (vi. 19.) addresses his converts with this remarkable piece of instruction," Your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost." The same apostle, writing to the same believers, in his second epistle (vi. 16.) has the following expression, "Ye are the temples of the living God." Who can compare these texts, and yet be so hardy as deliberately to deny, that the Holy Ghost and the living God are one and the same? Besides, if these two scriptures, viewed in conjunction with each other, did not ascertain the divinity of the blessed Spirit, the very purport of the expression, Ye are temples of the Holy Ghost, sufficiently evinces it. It is certain, that the very essence of a temple, or, to speak in the terms of the logician, the differentia con

- stitutiva of a temple, consists in the residence of a Deity. The inhabitation of the highest created Being cannot constitute a temple; nothing but the indwelling of the one infinite almighty Lord God. Since, therefore, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit renders the bodies of Christians temples, it seems to be a clear case, that he is truly God. Another text, a text never omitted when this point is under debate, and a text, in my opinion, singly sufficient to give a final decision to the doubt, is in Acts v. 3, 4. where the person styled Ayov Пve in one verse, is expressly declared to be eos in the next. Now, can we imagine that an evangelist, under the guidance of unerring Wisdom, could write with such unaccountable inaccuracy as the deniers of this article must maintain? Were this supposition admitted, I should almost begin to question the inspiration of the sacred books. At this rate, they would seem calculated to confound the judgment, and elude the common sense of the readers. For, to speak so frequently of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; to speak in such language as we always use in distinguishing various persons; to ascribe to them severally such attributes as, by universal acknowledgment, comport only with the supreme God; nay, to call each person by himself, distinctly, expressly to call each person God and Lord; sure, if, after all these declarations, there be not three persons in the one incomprehensible Godhead; if each of these illustrious persons be not very God; what can we say, but that the Scriptures are inconsistent and self-contradictory pieces? So that, upon the whole, we are reduced to this dilemma, either to admit this absurd and impious charge upon the Scriptures, or else to acknowledge the personality and divinity of the three persons in the adorable Trinity.

But, perhaps, a curious genius, that has been accustomed to enter deep into the rationale of things, that thinks it beneath a sagacious inquirer to credit, unless he can comprehend,-such a genius may ask,

with a kind of amazement, How can these things be? Here I pretend to give no satisfaction. Here I confess myself at a loss. I cannot conceive how the principle of gravitation acts, or what constitutes the power of attraction. If I cannot penetrate the hidden qualities of a thousand common objects that daily present themselves to my senses, no wonder that I should be unable to unravel the awful secrets of the divine nature; no wonder that I should be incapable of finding out to perfection that infinite Majesty who dwells in light inaccessible. Since the To Eva is attested by a multitude of witnesses from Scripture, let us be content to wait for the To Tws, till this gross interposing cloud of flesh and mortality flee away; until that happy hour arrives, that desirable state commence, when we shall no longer see through a glass darkly, but shall know even as we are known.

I should now proceed, according to the ability which the great Source of wisdom may please to bestow, to examine Mr Tomkins's Calm Inquiry; but this is what my time, claimed by a variety of other engagements, will not permit; and what, I presume, you yourself, tired already by a tedious epistle, will very readily excuse. Hereafter, if you insist upon my executing the plan laid down in the beginning of this paper, I will communicate my remarks (such as they are) relating to the forementioned treatise, with all that cheerful compliance and unreserved openness, which may most emphatically bespeak me, dear sir, yours, &c.

LETTER XXV.

Weston-Favell, Feb. 9. 1745-6. THANKS to you, dear sir, for your kind wishes. Blessed be the divine Providence, I am now able to inform you that what you wish is accomplished. I have had one of the most agreeable losses I ever met with; I have lost my indisposition, and am in a manner well.

I send herewith the poem on Christianity. The other books, which you have been pleased to lend me, will follow by the first opportunity. I read Mr Hobson's performance with eagerness and delight. What is wrote by a valuable friend, has a kind of secret unaccountable charm. It may not be preferable to other compositions, yet methinks it pleases

more.

I congratulate you, sir, and my country, on the good news received from the North.-How do you like Stackhouse's History of the Bible? I am sure he has one advantage, superior to all the historians of the world; that the facts which he relates are more venerable for their antiquity, more admirable for their grandeur, and more important on account of their universal usefulness. I have often thought that the Scripture is finely calculated to furnish out the most exquisite entertainment to the imagination, from those three principal sources mentioned by Mr Addison, the great, the beautiful, and the new. what is that compared with that infinitely noble benefit, to impart which is their professed design-the benefit of making us wise to salvation, of making us partakers of a divine nature? I am, &c.

LETTER XXVI.

But

Weston-Favell, Feb. 11. 1745-6. DEAR SIR, I RECEIVED your ticket some time ago, in which you desire me to consider some particular passages of Scripture. After an afflictive indisposition, which confined me to my room several days, I have examined the texts you allege. They relate, I find, to that grand question, which has lately been the subject of our debate, the divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ. I could have wished that the controversy had been brought to a satisfactory and happy issue. Very unwilling to engage in it a second time, I must beg leave to sue for my bene decessit, and resign the management of so important