have gather'd, that the Spirit is a real perfon, had not the Scripture attributed personal characters to him; fo that in this conclufion our author is right; but that perfonal characters are attributed to him only by a figurative eastern manner of fpeech, is what he should have proved, and should not have contented himself with bare affirming it, over and over, without supporting it with arguments. I do not find the Scripture runs into fuch strong allegories, as he often talks of; what seems to favour his affertion moft, is, the manner in which wifdom is described in the Proverbs, which is a poetical book; but as our author, with almost all writers, allows the defcription of wisdom in the eighth chapter, to belong to the Son of God, I fee not why the wife King Solomon may not be fuppofed to mean the Meffiah, in other places, where wisdom is introduced as a perfon. As Chrift has been proved to be a real perfon, Mr. Watts will gain no fupport to his hypothefis, from the perfonal characters attributed to wisdom. The other examples, fuch as charity's thinking no evil, and the like, which he urges after the Socinians, I believe, every reader will fee not to come up to the point. It is univerfally granted, that the holy Spirit is put frequently, in Scripture, for his gifts and operations; fo that Mr. Watts needed not to have given such a long train of proofs, of what every body allows. The queftion then is, whether the Spirit is a real perfon. This appears from feveral things urged already, and may be farther confirm'd from fome other confiderations.

We have an exprefs proof of the Spirit's divine perfonality, in the prophet Ifaiah's vifion, in relating which, he has given us this account K

of

C

of what he heard. I heard the voice of the Lord faying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? then faid I, here am I, fend me; and he faid, go and tell this people, hear you indeed, but understand not, and fee you indeed, but perceive not." Here is a perfon brought in fpeaking, in as ftrong terms as any one can defire; Whom fhall I send?" If this is not a literal expreffion of perfonality, it would be hard to find out words to exprefs fuch a thing. Now we are told by the apostle Paul, that it was the Spirit who here fpoke to, and by the prophet," Well fpoke the holy Spirit, by Efaias the prophet, to our Fathers, faying, Go to this people, and fay, hearing you fhall hear, and fhall not understand, and feeing you fhall fee, and fhall not perceive." It may be worth taking notice, that the pronouns I, thou, and we are attributed to the Spirit; as I and we, when he speaks, "Whom fhall I fend, who fhall go for us?" thou, in the prophet's answer, "fend me," or, "do thou fend me." So that were Mr. Watts's remark true (as it is not)" that in all the new teftament, there is only the pronoun he attributed to the Spirit, but, as he thinks, neither I, thou, nor we; whereas, I, thou, he, and we are all afcribed to the Father and Son," it would be of little confideration, fince all these pronouns are attributed to the Spirit, in the old Teftament and one fuch plain proof is fufficient to determine any point. If this paffage in Isaiah was put into Mr. Watts's language, it would make but an odd appearance. How would it found if it were thus exprefs'd? Whom fhall I, the intelligent effective power of God, fend? who will

d

Ifaiah vi. 8, 9. Acts xxviii. 25, 26. Page 196.

go

go for the one God, and me his property of efficience? The very putting it in this form makes it uncouth, and without meaning; a fpeaking power, and a fending property, is ftrange fort of language. If the application of the perfonal pronouns, I, thou, and he to any thing, be the diftinctive character of a perfon, as Mr. Watts fays, certainly the Spirit may well be called a real perfon.

e

The perfonal characters of the Spirit are reprefented in strong and plain terms in the new Teftament, whatever our author may fancy to the contrary; as for example, we find it recorded in the acts of the apoftles, that " The Spirit faid to Peter, Behold, three men feek thee; arise therefore, and get thee down, and go with them, nothing doubting, for I have fent them." Here the Spirit is defcribed under a perfonal character; and certainly a real perfon may, with propriety enough, be faid to command any one to go with them whom he fhould fend; but this way of fpeaking is not fo well used of a property, faculty, or power. Whether an allegorical figurative way of speaking was convenient, in fo plain and naked a narration as this, is worth confideration.

Another paffage wherein the Spirit is defcribed under a perfonal character, is the following remarkable one, in the fame book, 8" There were in the church that was at Antioch, certain prophets and teachers; ---- and as they miniftred to the Lord, and fafted, the holy Spirit faid, Separate me, Barnabas and Paul, to the work whereto I have called them; they being fent forth by the holy Spirit, departed." This Scripture

Page 181.

Acts x. 19, 20.

8 Acts xiii. 1, 2. 4.

is fo entirely repugnant to, and fubverfive of Mr. Watts's scheme, that it is no wonder if we find him endeavouring to evade it; and accordingly he tells us, hit is very naturally interpreted as the voice of God by his Spirit; for it was God that called them to the miniftry, and to him they were feparated." In answer to this, it may be obferved, that it is moft natural, whereever it can be done, to ftick to the letter of Scripture. The text exprefly fays, it was the Spirit spoke; and for our author, after the Socinians, to fay it was God fpoke to them by the Spirit, is a mere fhuffle, invented to ferve an hypothefis. As the Spirit was God, God called them to the miniftry, but to pretend it was God, or the Father, called them by the ministry of his intelligent effective power, is only giving an obfcure turn to a plain Scripture.

Whoever will duly confider the two laft quoted Scriptures, may judge what to make of the following affertion of our authork: "in all the new Teftament, there is only the pronoun he attributed to the Spirit; but I think, neither I, nor thou, nor we, are applied once, in all that facred book; whereas, I, thou, he, and we, are all applied both to the Father and the Son." I hope it fufficiently appears that Mr. Watts is entirely mistaken, and fhould hereafter be cau

h Page 131.

1

iDeus eft caufa principalis, Spiritus fanctus & prophetae funt caufae inftrumentales ---- Solet Scriptura figurate, parti & epitheto alicui attribuere quod effet ipfius rei Spiritus fanctus virtus altiffimi, & digitus Dei appellatur, non ut diverfum quid a Deo, fed ejus quafi pars, quae loco totius faepe ufurpari confuevit. Sicut itaque ex digito Dei nemo perfonam fabricat; ita nec de Spiritu fancto debet qui digitus Dei vocatur. Enjedinus p. 258.

k

* Page 196.

Mr. Watts, in his third volume of fermons, p. 426. has

tious how he makes his readers truft his memory. The pronoun I is, in both places, attributed to the Spirit, and is a diftinctive character of a real perfon; but had not that been applied to the Spirit, but only the pronoun he, I cannot fee the proof of the Spirit's real perfonality would have been fuperfeded by it.

There are other actions in Scripture attributed to the holy Spirit, which cannot with propriety of fpeech be faid to be done by a faculty. It is he who renews and fanctifies all the elect people of God; it is he who caufes them to reft here, in faith and obedience, and it is he who conducts them to the rest of heaven hereafter: He dwells in the Saints as in a templem: He makes interceffion for us with groanings that cannot be utter'd"; it would found very strange, to talk of an effective faculty interceding with groanings; but this may very well be faid of a real perfon. It was the Spirit that inspir'd the prophets and apoftles; and it was he that formed the human nature of Chrift in the womb of the bleffed Virgin, and that led and conducted our Lord, in his human capacity, during his ftate of humiliation here on earth. To give a figurative turn to all this, is to render the fenfe of Scripture very precarious and uncertain; for how can we be affured, when the Scripture speaks in a figurative, and when in a literal way? but the real

own'd his mistake, as to this matter, "Here, fays he, I take occasion to correct a mistake of my memory in my laft differtations on the Trinity, p. 196. where I did not remember, that the pronoun I was apply'd to the holy Spirit in the new testa

ment."

m Know you not that your body is the temple of the holy Spirit, that is in you, I Cor. vi. 19. n Romans viii. 26.

cafe