LETTER XXIV.

Weston-Favell, Jan. 10. 1745-6.

DEAR SIR,-How arduous, and how momentous, is the task you have assigned me! A sense of its difficulty and importance almost deterred me from venturing so much as to attempt it. A cordial friendship instigated, and a consciousness of my own incapacity checked, for some time, my fluctuating mind. At length the bias inclined to the side of the former; my reluctance, urged by the request of a friend, gives way; and now I am fully determined. Determined to what? To enter the lists against the adversaries of the Trinity? more particularly to appear as the champion for the personality and divinity of the Holy Ghost, with a view of resting the grand debate on the dexterity of this pen? No, sir; I form no such romantic schemes; I renounce any such undertaking; I am only determined to lay before you the thoughts which have occurred since I have received your last letter; and this, on the condition of having them returned to the secrecy of my closet after you have passed your judgment, and bestowed your corrections upon them.

In managing this controversy, shall I say? or rather in pursuing this inquiry, it behoves us humbly to apply to the great Father of lights for direction. They shall all be taught of God, says the prophet. This promise we should humbly plead at the throne of grace, and, in cheerful dependence on its accomplishment, proceed to examine, with a modest and reverential awe, the mysterious points before us. Whoever rejects this key, and yet hopes to be admitted into the treasures of heavenly knowledge, acts altogether as imprudent a part, as if he should expect to attain a masterly skill in mathematics, and at the same time neglect to inform himself of the first principles of that admired science. When a divine person is the object of our consideration, then surely it

becomes us, in a more especial manner, not to lean to our own understanding, but, like little children, to rely on the teachings of that all-wise Spirit, whose nature, dignity, and attributes, we would devoutly contemplate. You will perhaps take notice, that I anticipate what is to be proved, and take it for granted, that the Holy Ghost is indeed God. I would only observe from this remark, how naturally we wish, how almost unavoidably we conclude, that person to be really God, who is appointed to lead us into all truth.

Let us now, sir, if you please, address ourselves to the inquiry, whether the Holy Spirit is a real person? whether that person is very God? And these particulars being discussed, it may be proper to examine briefly the most material of Mr Tomkins's objections. But to whom, to what shall we apply, in order to find the satisfaction we seek? To reason, and her naked unassisted dictates? Hardly can reason guess aright with relation to the things that are before our eyes; much less can she determine, with any certainty, concerning the unsearchable depths of the divine nature, those ta Baby 78 O:8. We have, in the word of revelation, an infallible oracle. To this let us direct our search. To the decision of this unerring standard let us inviolably adhere, however it may surpass our comprehension, or run counter to our fond prepossessions.

Here we may possibly ask, Is not the Spirit of God, by a common metonymy, put for God himself? Í own I have sometimes been inclined to hesitate on this question. When it is said, My Spirit shall not always strive with man, and, Grieve not the Holy Spirit of God-I have never thought these passages a sufficient proof of the personality of the blessed Spirit, though (if I mistake not) commonly urged in support of the doctrine. These, I apprehend, might fairly be interpreted of grieving God himself, and resisting the tender, gracious overtures of his mercy: Conformably to that parallel form of speech, where

it is said by the inspired writer, Paul's spirit was grieved; i. e. without all dispute, Paul himself was inwardly afflicted.

Again; Perhaps the Spirit of the Lord may be nothing more than a particular modification or exercise of a divine power resident in the Deity. For instance, when it is said, in the prophetic language, Not by might, nor by force, but by my Spirit, saith the Lord; or by the evangelical historian, The Holy Ghost was upon him. Are not these texts nearly equivalent, in point of signification, to those scriptural expressions, The right hand of the Lord bringeth mighty things to pass: The inspiration of the Almighty giveth understanding? Is not this the meaning of the former passage, Not mortal strength, but God's omnipotent aid giveth victory in the battle, and success in every undertaking; and this the import of the latter, The communications of infinite Wisdom enlightened his mind in an extraordinary manner?

Were there no other Scriptures which concerned themselves in this debate, I should be ready to give up the point. But there are several, which most strongly imply the personality of the Holy Ghost, though they may not assert it in positive terms. It is true we meet with no such term as personality in sacred writ; but if we find the thing signified, it is in effect the same. No one can show me the word resurrection in the whole Pentateuch; but will any one presume to maintain, that this doctrine is not to be proved from the books of Moses? Our Lord's famous reply to the ensnaring interrogatory of the Sadducees must for ever silence such a suggestion. And thus we may further learn from his method of arguing, that it is not only proper, but our duty, to deduce truths by fair consequences, which the text may not explicitly speak.

Be pleased, sir, to consider the apostolical benediction, The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Ghost,

be with you all. If we allow the apostle to understand the true import of language, must it not follow from this passage, that the Holy Spirit is a real person, and distinct from the Father and the Son? Otherwise would not the sacred writer, ought not the sacred writer, to have expressed himself in a different manner; to have said rather, The fellowship of his, or the fellowship of their Spirit? The form of administering baptism is another text of this nature: In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. It is evident, I believe it is allowed by all, that the two first are real distinct persons; and is there not equal reason to conclude, that the last mentioned is a person also? Suppose you should endeavour to distinguish three persons in your discourse, what other language would you use than this? I dare say, sir, you are sensible, that one Scripture proof, if plain in its signification, and incontestable in its evidence, is as valid, as decisive, as one thousand; because one such proof bears the stamp of infallible wisdom and infinite veracity. Therefore, was there no other hint in all the inspired volumes, but these pregnant words which compose the form of baptism, this single proof would be sufficiently satisfactory to my judgment.

I shall take leave to refer you to a few more evidences, and transcribe only the following: There are three that bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Logos, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one. But this, we are told, is a surreptitious text, foisted by the bigotted espousers of a certain favourite set of doctrines. The only resource this of our opposers, when their case becomes desperate, when conviction flashes in their faces: when every other subterfuge fails, then the pretence of spurious and interpolated reading is trumped up. It is not to be found, they cry, in some very ancient copy; perhaps the Alexandrine MS acknowledges no such passage. But this I must be allowed to question; I dare not take our adversaries' bare word, especially since some

of the declared enemies of orthodoxy are not the most exemplary for truth and integrity. However, granting that there may be no such text in the Alexandrine MS, for my part I should not scruple to abide by the universal testimony of all editions, in all countries, much rather than to give up myself implicitly to the authority of a single MS. I should think it much more reasonable to conclude, that the transcriber of that particular copy had, through oversight, dropt some sentence, rather than to charge all the other copies with forgery, and the editions of all ages with a gross mistake. Consider, sir, not only the apparent difficulty, but the moral impossibility of corrupting the sacred books in that palpable manner which this objection would insinuate, at a time when every private Christian valued them more than life, and spent no day without a diligent contemplation of them; at a time when each particular sect read them constantly in their public assemblies, and watched over the genuineness of each text with a most jealous eye. Would it be an easy matter to introduce a suppositious clause into an ordinary will, after it had been solemnly proved at Doctors Commons, and one authentic copy preserved in the archives? If this is scarce possible, how much more unlikely is it, that any one should be able to practise so iniquitously upon the inspired writings, when not one only, but unnumbered copies were deposited in the most vigilant hands, and dispersed throughout the world?

I shall only desire you to consult those other scriptures, Rom. xv. 16. 30; John xvi. 13—15.; which, without heaping together a multitude of other proofs, seem to put the matter beyond all rational doubt. In the last of those places, you will take particular notice that the writer speaks of the Holy Ghost in the masculine gender. How could this consist, with propriety of style, upon any other scheme than ours? The expression should have been it, not he, if the Holy Ghost were a divine energy