Holy Ghost." And our Saviour, just before his ascension, makes use of the following expression, "And behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you; but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high. Luke xxiv. 49. I think nothing need be more clearly stated than our Saviour's opinion, upon this subject, is stated in this passage. This Holy Ghost, this Comforter, of whom he had so often spoken to them, to whom he had continually ascribed a personal character and personal offices, he, now, just before his ascension, declares he will send to them, and then states it to be, that they were to be “endued with power from on high." This power, this comforter, this holy spirit, we believe, did descend from on high to dwell with the apostles, and that thus the promises of God and of Jesus Christ were fulfilled. It is for this explanation of the term, given by our Saviour himself, that we contend; and as long as our opinion coincides with our Saviour's, we have abundant reason to be satisfied with our creed.

with the finger of God. In Matt. xii. 27. our Saviour thus reasons with the Pharisees, who ascribed his miracles to an evil principle, instead of the agency of God. "And if I, by Beelzebub, cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out? Therefore they shall be your judges. But if I cast out devils by the spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you." In Luke xi. 19. the same transaction is related, and the same reasoning recorded; but it is thus expressed.—“ And if I, by Beelzebub, cast out devils, by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore they shall be your judges. But if I, with the finger of God, cast out devils, no doubt the kingdom of God is come upon you." Here each of the Evangelists professes to give the very words used by Jesus on this occasion, and yet one of them says, that he stated it to be done by the spirit of God, and the other, by the finger of God. Nothing, I conceive, can be clearer, than that both the evangelists meant the same thing. And do you suppose that the finger of God meant a person distinct from God himself? I really think it proved

to a demonstration, that the expression means the power, energy, or exertion of God the Father.

4th. The expressions of the Holy Spirit being given by the Father, and sent by Jesus Christ, are incompatible with the idea of its being a person, the third in the godhead. I need not here enumerate particular passages; you will readily grant that the expressions of giving and sending are frequently used, and, indeed, you make it an argument for the personality of the Holy Spirit. On the contrary, we contend that it is an argument against its being a distinct person in the godhead. To suppose three equal and co-eternal beings, each almighty and independent, and yet continually to say, that one shall give another, and a second shall send it, without so much as a hint that the other comes voluntarily, is certainly to deprive that other of any will of his own, that is,

of

any deity. What should we think of the Holy Spirit giving the Father, or of Christ sending him. On the other hand, to suppose that God should send to his creatures a superior portion of his energy

or power to that which they already possess; or that Jesus, in whom was vested such an astonishing degree of this power, should give a portion of it to his disciples, is perfectly natural, and the expressions are perfectly correct.

5th. It is said of the Holy Spirit, that it was given to the apostles by measure, but to Jesus Christ without measure. For a moment consider the absurdity of measuring out different degrees of a person! Bụt, that divine powers should be given in different measures and degrees, is perfectly rational and probable.

6th. The Holy Spirit is frequently spoken of, as being poured out, and the disciples were filled with it and baptized with it. Is there any rational human being, who, in any other instance, would think of saying these things of a person? Why in the case of religion alone, should reason, not only, not be consulted, but absolutely discarded and sacrificed?*

* A remarkable passage, shewing that the Jews had not the slightest idea of a third person in a Trinity, and proving what the apostles taught them to understand by the term Holy Spirit, may be found in Acts xix. 1. 6.

7th. The Thessalonians are exhorted by Paul not to quench or extinguish the spirit. 1 Thess. v. 19. "Quench not," or extinguish not, "the spirit." What! did the apostle exhort them not to quench or extinguish a person? And was this person God? Did he exhort them not to extinguish God? The expression almost makes one shudder. But, that miraculous gifts might be suppressed, or supernatu

At the close of the 18th chapter, it is related, that a Jew, having been baptized by John, came to reside at Ephesus, and had convinced many other Jews that Jesus was Christ. When Paul came amongst them, he asked them whether they had received the Holy Ghost since they had believed. To whom they replied, "We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost!!"-Convincing evidence that the Jews had no idea of a Trinity.

When Paul had baptized them into the name of whom?of the LORD JESUS, he laid his hands upon them, and the Holy Ghost came upon them; and they spake with tongues and prophecied!

Dr. Walls' explanation of verse 2 is this. "We have not so much as heard, whether there be any such powers of prophecying, speaking with tongues, &c granted to those that believe."

And, I should think, says Dr. Lardner, it must appear evident to all, that in this paragraph, the Holy Ghost, wherever mentioned,—that is, in Paul's question, in the answer made by these men, and in the apostle's following action, denotes a power, a blessing, a privilege, and not a person.

Lardner's Logos, p. 104, 105.