using it, special care should be taken to see that the foundation, from which it is drawn, is strong and to be relied on. The facts or positions, from which an inference or presumption is raised, must be well substantiated, proved, or acknowledged. If the inference or presumption is baseless, the evidence will be useless. As for instance, A. is indicted for the murder of B. Presumptive evidence, or evidence of necessary inference is admissible to prove his guilt. But if it appears clearly that B. is still living, if he comes into Court, and is seen by the Court and Jury, all the presumptive evidence in the world could not prove A. guilty; because it is impossible that any man can have been murdered, who is still living, without a miracle; there can be no presumption to support impossibilities. This kind of evidence,

therefore, must always carry with it not only a possibility, but at least a strong probability; and it is never to be received alone, when direct and positive testimony can be obtained.

This kind of evidence, for the want of any of an express and direct kind, is relied on by Trinitarians, to prove their doctrine. And how do they state it? After this manner. They say, there is but one God, one Supreme Being. This is fully proved by the Bible, as well as by nature and reason; and it is acknowledged by all. They then attempt to show and to prove, that the Son of God is God, the supreme God; and that the Holy Spirit is so likewise; and as they say, that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit each is God, and as there is but one God, they

infer that these three must be the one God. This is a presumption or inference directly against possibility. But before we reason philosophically, we will examine the evidence of the Deity of the Son and of the Holy Spirit; for if any part of the foundation of the inference fails, there will be no need of argument on its propriety or impropriety. As I have already said something respecting the Deity of the Son, I will now make some remarks upon that of the Holy Spirit.

CHAPTER XIII.

THE PERSONALITY AND DEITY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT

CONSIDERED.

I WILL first enter my protest against the translation of the word Пveua, Ghost, instead of Spirit. It appears to be, at least, an unhappy, unnatural translation, the common acceptation of the meaning of Ghost being the appearance or spirit of a deceased person. It would be shocking to say, the Ghost of God! It is not always so translated in the New Testament, and in the Old Testament we nowhere find the expression, Holy Ghost, or Ghost of God, but the term used is always "the spirit of God," except in two or three instances, "his holy spirit' is used. I do not know why it should have been so translated, unless to have a certain effect upon children and weak minds, or to give some appearance of personality. For if the term, the spirit of God, had always been used, I cannot conceive that any one would think there could be any personality in it, distinct from God himself. Was it ever thought that the spirit of a man is a distinct person in the man? As well might it be said, his head or his arm is a distict person in him. So the strange idea, that the spirit of God is a distinct person in God, is unwarranted, totally inconsistent both with reason and the Bible. The words, to "ytov veμa should always το ἅγιον πνεῦμα

be translated the Holy Spirit, which, it is agreed, is synonymous with the spirit of God. There is good reason, why the spirit of God should be called the Holy Spirit, or the Spirit of Holiness, because, as God is perfect in holiness, his spirit must be holy in the highest sense, emphatically, "the Holy Spirit." I shall therefore, notwithstanding king James's translation, render these words, the Holy Spirit (not Ghost). But let us look for the evidence to prove that the Holy Spirit is God, and a distinct person in Deity. This being an affirmative proposition, it must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, or it must fail.

The primâ facie evidence is against the personality of the Holy Spirit, because it is, in the original Greek, and in English, of the neuter gender; and if it is a person of any sort, it is the only person in heaven or earth, that is of that gender. Again, it has no proper name; and if it is entitled to personality, it is the only person in the Universe that has no name. The Holy Spirit is not a proper name; it is only the appellation of a thing or power. Proper names do not have the English article before them. We do not say the Jesus, the Peter, the Paul, or the John. Again, according to all we know of spirit, the spirit of a being is the being himself, his whole self, including all his powers and attributes; and not another distinct and different person of that being. The spirit of a man, though a complex being, spiritual and material, is considered to be the whole man, the whole and only person. Spirit or soul is often

used in the Bible for man; as" eight souls were saved by water in the ark: Let every soul be subject to higher powers." And there is a stronger reason why the spirit of a purely, exclusively, spiritual being should be considered as that being, the whole of that being, and not a part or person of him. The true, strict meaning, therefore, of the spirit of God must be God himself, the whole Deity, comprehending all his attributes, powers, and perfections; and not a distinct person or part of him, though it is often used in a figurative sense to denote a single attribute or power of him, as we shall notice hereafter. Such being the primâ facie evidence in the case, there is a stronger reason, why the proof of the affirmative of the allegation of the personality and Deity of the spirit should be clear and positive, But such proof is not to be found anywhere in the Bible, in nature, or reason, or in anything we know. It is nowhere asserted in the Scriptures, that the Holy Spirit is God, or the third person in Deity; and certainly it is not so proclaimed in his works. We are therefore obliged to have recourse to inference, or presumptive evidence, to procure proof to support a presumption. This is the best we can do, until we have a new and different revelation, or unless we take the creeds, catechisms, or confessions of uninspired men, in place of a revelation of God. Now let us examine what there is in the Bible, even of this second sort (in quality) of evidence.

The only evidence even of this nature, found in