is willing.'-Matt. xxvi. 41. Paul's spirit was stirred in him, when he saw the city wholly given to idolatry.'—Acts xvii. 16. 'The spirit of Titus was refreshed.'—2 Cor. vii. 13. The Lord Jesus Christ be with thy spirit.'-2 Tim. iv. 22. Now who would infer from such passages that the soul or spirit of a man is another person?

་

But here it is worthy of special remark, that, though the Spirit is spoken of under personal characters in the 14th, 15th, and 16th chapters of John, the personal name in these passages is an assumed name, and not the proper name of the Holy spirit. Iagaxhyros (Comforter) was a name given to the Spirit because it was to supply the place of Christ after he should" go away," and to be an indwelling comforter, and abide with the disciples for ever. But all the personal pronouns in this connection supply the place. of παρακλητος (Comforter) and not πνευμα the proper name of the Spirit. As these pronouns refer only to the assumed name of the Spirit, it furnishes no proof of the personality of the Spirit. But lest any mistake should arise from the use of the masculine word rendered Comforter,' by sup posing it to be a real person, Jesus fully explains himself on the first mention of the Spirit under that character. will pray the Father and he will give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever:" and then he adds, even the Spirit of truth; which the world cannot receive, because it seeth it not, neither knoweth it: but ye know it; for it dwelleth with you, and shall be in you."John xiv. 17. Thus Jesus explains the personal word παρακλητος (comforter) by the impersonal word πνευμα (Spirit,) and by the following pronouns all of the neuter gender; which he would not have done had he believed in the personality of the Spirit. The fulfilment of this promise is a complete confirmation of the argument. Jesus said to his disciples, "These things have I spoken unto

66

'I

you in proverbs:" that is, in figurative or metaphorical language; "but the time cometh when I shall no more speak unto you in proverbs." Hence after his resurrection, and the consequent fulfilment of the promise to send the Spirit, we find the figurative language entirely laid aside; and the Spirit is spoken of plainly, and without metaphor throughout the New Testament. The promise was fulfilled on the day of Pentecost, not by the mission of a person among them, but by such an effusion of the Spirit as invested them with miraculous powers. As the word Aveva (Spirit) means wind, or air in motion,* the promise was fulfilled accordingly, thus:-"Suddenly there came a sound from heaven, as of a rushing, mighty wind; and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues, as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. And they were filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance."-Acts ii. 2-4. Here was a literal fulfilment of the promise to send them another Comforter, even the Spirit of truth, which should be in them and abide with them forever.

As Jesus personified the Spirit only under a borrowed name or character which was merely figurative, and which was never employed in any literal description, that very personification is so far from favoring the real personality of the Spirit, that it is a strong argument against it.

8. The Holy Spirit, with which the Apostles were bap tized on the day of Pentecost, was analogous to the water with which the disciples of John were baptized. John truly baptized WITH water, but ye shall be baptized WITH the Holy Ghost.' The Spirit, with which the Apostles were baptized, answers to the water with which John baptized. But this analogy is totally inconsistent with, and subversive

*See Parkhurst.

of, the personality of the Spirit. For as the water, in John's baptism, was not a person, or agent, so neither was the Holy Ghost a person or agent in the baptism at Pentecost. Water is often used as a metaphorical rep resentation of the Holy Spirit. Hence baptizing with the Holy Spirit is in perfect accordance with that metaphor. Though baptizing with the Holy Spirit is mentioned frequently in the New Testament, yet the Spirit is never represented as an agent in that ordinance. It is uniformly spoken of as that with which the subjects were baptized, as water is that with which the subjects were baptized. Personality has no more connection with the Spirit than with the water.

The Spirit proceedeth from the Father; it is poured out, and shed forth; it is given by measure, and not by measure ; and when given by measure there is a residue with the giver. Its descent is like that of rain and dew; and the impression it makes is compared to that of ink. Now such representations are entirely incompatible with the notion of the personality of the Spirit.

9. Trinitarians themselves furnish a powerful argument against their own hypothesis in the almost total neglect with which they treat the Holy Spirit in their devotional exercises. They generally pray to the Father only, and pay no more deference to the Holy Ghost than if they had "not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost." Does this look as if they believed in its personality and equality with the Father? With the single exception of closing their prayers with an ascription to Father, Son, and Spirit, they are no more Trinitarian in their prayers than we are. When they pray to God to pour out his Spirit, do they mean to ask one self-existent person to pour out another self-existent person? No. They mean to ask God to display his grace in the communication of some

spiritual blessing-the very thing which we mean. In the ardor of devotion they seem to forget that they are address. ing three objects of worship, and imperceptibly run into Unitarianism. When they thank God for sending his Son into the world, they probably mean, by Son, the dependent Son, who could be sanctified and sent; and who came not to do his own will, but the will of God who sent him. They make but little practical use of the doctrine of the Trinity. It seems to be retained and prized chiefly as a theme of controversy, and the test of orthodoxy.

10. If there are three equal persons in the Godhead, their mutual love and affection must be equal. Much is said in the Scriptures of the mutual love of the Father and Son. But there is no intimation that either the Father or the Son loves the Spirit; or that the Spirit loves either the Father or the Son. If they be equal persons, their claims upon our love, service and gratitude, must be equal. But we are not required, in the Seriptures, to love, serve, or honor the Spirit. If they be equal, their love to us must

be equal. But no Scripture asserts that the Spirit loves us; while expressions of the Father's love and of Christ's love, are very numerous. John speaks of the throne of God and the Lamb, and Christ speaks of his Father's throne, and his own; but we have no intimation that there is a throne for the Spirit. St. Paul asserts that in the end of the world, the Son will deliver up the kingdom to God, even the Father; but why not to the Spirit, as well as to the Father, if they be equal persons in the Godhead? Is the Spirit to have no share in the glory of redemption? Where the Spirit is personified, he is represented as subordinate to the will of another. He is sent. He speaks only what he hears. But if he obeys he is entitled to a reward. The Son is exalted, crowned and rewarded for his services; but there is no intimation of any reward for the Spirit. All this seems suffi

ciently decisive against the Spirit's personality and equality with the Father.

The phrase Holy Ghost, I believe is not in the Old Testament. The phrase Holy Spirit, occurs but three times; and is represented not as a person, but as the spirit of a person. "Take not thy Holy Spirit from me."—Ps. li. 11. 'They rebelled, and vexed his Holy Spirit."-Isa. lxiii. 10. "Where is he that put his Holy Spirit within him.”

Verse 11.

Isa. i. 14.

"Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth." Isa. xlii. 1. "Mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth.". Heb. x. 38. "If any man draw back my soul shall have no pleasure in him.” Here is as much evidence that the soul of God is another person, as we have that the Spirit of God is another person.

Job xxvii. 3, 4. "All the while my breath is in me, and the Spirit of God is in my nostrils; My lips shall not speak wickedness, nor my tongue utter deceit."

Would the Trinitarian have us believe that the third person in the Trinity was, in some mysterious manner, in the nostrils of Job?

"And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore that holy thing that shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God."—Luke i. 35.

In the Apostle's Creed, so called, we read “who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary," &c. Now according to the Trinitarian hypothesis, the Son, the second person in the Trinity, was conceived by the third person in the Trinity, and yet his Father is the first person in the Trinity.

See Bible News, Part III. The Impersonality of the Holy Ghost, by John Marsom. Bancroft's Sermons, Sermon V.