love be bestowed. Yet these circumstances are consistent with the nature of God, for he cannot love his own spirit, because his love is not selfish, it is universal benevolence; and they clearly show that the spirit cannot be a person even equal with a righteous man, for "the Lord loveth the righteous," but we have no evidence that he loves the holy spirit. But though the spirit is not, as a person, to be loved, honored, or worshipped, yet as the power, as the gift of God, made by him effectual to the sanctification, consolation, and salvation of men, it is of such inestimable value, as to entitle the Giver (not the gift) to our highest love, gratitude, and praise, forever and ever!

Again, it may be observed, when John, in the Isle of Patmos, had glorious visions of heavenly things he discribes, in glowing, sublime, and rapturous language, the worship, the honors, and glories given to the ever living God, the Father who sat upon the throne; he also represents Christ, "the Lamb, that was slain," as being considered "worthy to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and honor, and glóry, and blessing!" But not one expression of praise, or honor, or glory, or worship is ascribed to the Holy Spirit! It does not appear, (for it could not,) that John ever saw him (or it) "on the throne, or in the midst of the throne, or round about the throne," or anywhere in heaven. And if he were God, or a person of Deity, where was he? And why were not honors and praises ascribed to him, as well as to the Father and Son, who are said to be no more than

his equals? The only answer that can be given is, that the holy spirit is not the adorable God, is not a person at all, but it is the power, the divine gift of God; and all the praise, all the honor, all the glory, are due to the benevolent, glorious Giver, and not to the gift or power given.

It is true John speaks of the seven spirits of God before the throne, and of the seven lamps of fire burning, which are the seven spirits of God, and of the seven horns and seven eyes, which are also the seven spirits of God; but these spirits cannot be considered as the one personal Holy Spirit, the third person of the Trinity. If there is anything personal, in this case, there must be seven persons, and that would be half a dozen too many for even trinitarian purposes. Another circumstance worthy of high consideration is, that the holy spirit is not even mentioned, together, or in connexion, or in company with the Father and Son, more than four times, I believe, in the whole Bible, including 1 John v. 7, which should be excluded, as spurious. Paul never thus mentions it but once in all his epistles; neither does Christ so connect it but once; so likewise Peter. Paul frequently (I have noticed more than thirty times) in his epistles, speaks of the Father and Son together. But he always prayed and gave thanks to God the Father only. Now, if the Holy Spirit were God, or a person equal with the Father, is it morally possible, that Paul could have thus neglected him, could thus by omission have treated him with contempt? And is it not proof beyond a

doubt, that Paul did not so consider the Holy Spirit ? If witnesses of high reputation should testify of two distinguished persons on earth, naming them together, at all times, and as apparently connected and seemingly equal in worth and dignity; but should never speak of another, or third person, as fully equal with, and like either of the two, or as being in connexion or in company with them; could any one, from such testimony, believe that there was any such third person in existence? Surely not. Because no reason could be assigned, why he should not have been mentioned as well and often, and with as much praise, as the other two, if he had been in existence, and with them. And the proof relative to heavenly beings stands upon the same principle, as that relating to earthly. We often judge of unseen things, by those that are seen. "The invisible things of God," Paul said, "are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made." Besides, would it not appear very degrading to the Spirit, if a person of Deity, to be spoken of as it usually is, as an attribute, the property, the hand, finger, breath, or the mouth, or power of God, as a thing entirely under the control and direction of another person, and not considered as a distinct object of love `or honor; and not addressed in prayer, either by the Son of God, or by his apostles?

Furthermore, it may be argued, I think, with irresistible force, that all the acts (and it is said, "actions speak louder than words,") of all professing Christians, of every denomination, from the days of

the Apostles to the present time, show that they never have really and practically believed, that the Holy Spirit is very God, or a person of Deity equal with the Father, or a person that should be worshipped and addressed in prayer, as much, and constantly as the Father. For they never have, so frequently and in like manner, prayed to the Holy Spirit, as they have to the Father. None of the forms of prayer, prepared even by Trinitarians, and used. for public and private worship, commence with an address to the Holy Spirit. I recollect but one instance in all the highly devotional prayers of the Church of England, where the Holy Spirit is addressed at the commencement. It is true they do, in their Litany and other parts of their worship, sometimes introduce the Holy Spirit as a third object of worship, but never as the only one, or first, as they do the Father. And thus Christians of all sects have, and still do, practically deny the Deity and equality of the Holy Spirit; certain strange, inconsistent creeds, catechisms, and ecclesiastical canons to the contrary notwithstanding. What stronger evidence can there be than deeds performed? A certain lord of a vineyard said to his servants, go into the vineyard, &c.; one said to his lord, I go, and went not; and another said, I go not, but went. Was not the actually going better evidence of obedience to his lord's command, than a promise to go, and not going? If a man professes ever so much, that he believes a thing, while all that he does is contradictory thereto, " that man's faith is

vain." Many of the strange creeds, I believe, are creeds of words only, and as Paul said of faith without works, dead. Which, then, shall we rely upon, the dead, uncertain creeds of men, or their living, truth-telling acts?

Lest it might be thought, that I am not disposed to bring forward all the texts that have ever been considered favorable to the personality of the Holy Spirit, I will here notice two, which by some have been thought proof in point, they are Matthew xxviii. 19, and 2 Cor. xiii. 14. Matthew has recorded that, Christ a little before his ascension said to his disiciples, "Go ye, therefore, teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father," &c. This verse is a sequitur from the preceding one, "And Jesus coming spake unto them, saying, all power is given unto me, in heaven and in earth." I have power given me of my Father, to direct your future course, how you are to preach my Gospel, to teach my doctrines, and to administer my ordinances. And in virtue of that power, I direct you, "Go ye therefore, teach all nations," &c. From this connexion it is evident, that the authority to baptize was not given by the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but by Christ himself, as the messenger sent from the Father. The Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit had reference to the end and object of the institution, which was designed as a memorial or pledge of believers, of their faith in God the Father almighty, to whom supreme worship is due; and in his Son, the only Mediator and constituted Saviour; and in the spirit