cafe is, the giving a figurative turn to fo many texts, that are better accounted for in a literal way, is nothing but an invention to prop up a fcheme, that is only the product of a working fancy, and is not drawn in the leaft from Scripture.

The holy Spirit is not only described, as to his actions, in a perfonal manner; but perfonal properties are afcribed to him, as understanding and will: the faculty of understanding is attributed to the Spirit by the apostle Paul, "God has reveal'd them to us by his Spirit; for the Spirit fearcheth all things, even the deep things of God: what man knows the things of a man, fave the spirit of a man which is in him; even fo the things of God knows no one, but the Spirit of God." Mr. Watts here observes P, "that the Spirit of God is as much that God, whofe Spirit he is, as the spirit of a man is the man himself." I do not think he would be for pursuing the analogy to the utmost; for then the Spirit of God might be called the foul of God, which would found but crude and harsh. It would likewife follow, that the Spirit is a proper perfon, even the perfon of the Father, whofe Spirit he is; but this is not agreeable to our author's notion of his being a divine property, and not a perfon. The Spirit is here represented as perfonally diftinct from God, or that divine perfon, who reveals all things by him; fearching all things, and knowing all things, even the things of God, can be no proper defcription of God's executive faculty, which wills and effects all things. Since Mr. Watts allows the words to imply, "that the Spirit knows the secrets of the

1 Cor. ii. 10, 11,

P Page 130.

God

Godhead, by a primary and immediate confcioufnefs, inherent in himself, and not derived from another," I think it evidently follows, that he is a real perfon; for certainly consciousness may be exprefs'd of a perfon, but not of a power. The faculty of willing is alfo attributed to the Spirit: "These things worketh the fame Spirit, dividing to every man feverally, as he wills." How a will can be attributed to an effective power, which is diftinguished from a volitive power, is hard to conceive. If the Spirit has a will, he is a real perfon; for this is the most eminently diftinguishing character of a perfon. - Indeed a will is afcribed to the wind; but the nature of the thing difcovers the metaphor at first fight. As to the Spirit of God having a will, there is no need to use a metaphor, because there are no figns of it: a will, and the acts of the will are often afcrib'd to him; but, as far as I can remember, in no one place is there any thing faid with relation to his will, or the acts of his will, that can juftly fo much as make us fufpect that the expreffion is metaphorical. If understanding and will are the faculties of a real perfon, then it follows, that when the Spirit is represented as having these faculties, he is proved to be a real perfon, and not a property or faculty himself.

There are alfo affections, which are really perfonal, attributed to the Spirit in Scripture; the prophet Ifaiah fpeaking of the Ifraelites fays, "They rebelled, and vexed his holy Spirit." Mr. Watts, after the Socinians, fays, "the Spirit may be taken for God himself:" to which it is fufficient to say, it may be otherwise. To

91 Cor. xii. 11.

Ifa. lxiii. 10.

Page 131.

the

the fame purpose the apostle Paul advises us not to grieve the Spirit of God, "Grieve not (fays he) the holy Spirit of God, by whom you are fcaled to the day of redemption." Now, to attribute grief to a faculty or power, is abfurd and repugnant to the common sense of mankind. Befides all this, the holy Spirit is described in "Scriture, as one that can be lied to. It would be odd to talk of lying to a faculty or property. He is alfo w faid to be one against whom blafphemy may be committed; and blafphemy against him, and fpeaking against him, is declared to be irre miffible, when all other blafphemy is faid to be within the poffibility of pardon. Now that blafphemy against God the Father can be pardoned, and blafphemy against God the Father's efficient power must be unpardonable, is very unaccountable; but it is eafy to fuppofe, that blafphemy may be committed against a perfon.

I hope, by this time, it is fufficiently proved from Scripture, that the holy Spirit is a real perfon. If we fuppofe the contrary, many abfurdities will follow: when the Son was to pray to the Father, to fend the Comforter, the Father was to pray to himself, to fend himself; when the Father was to fend the Spirit, in the name of the Son, he was to fend himself, in the name of a created perfon; when the Father was to fend the Spirit to fupply the want of Chrift's prefence, he was to fend himself, to fupply the want of himself. Thefe are fhocking abfurdities, which I doubt not but Mr. Watts defpifes, as well as I. I would therefore with him to con❤ fider seriously, whether they are not the plain refult of the principles he has laid down.

Eph. iii. 30. Acts v. 3, 4. Mat. xi. 31, 32.

I have not thought it neceffary to take notice of Mr. Watts's denying the eternal proceffion of the holy Spirit, from the Father and Son; only I would just remark, that in one place he makes the proceffion of the Spirit to refer to his miffion, rather than to his exiftence; but in another place he fays, "the Word and Spirit may be faid to proceed from the Father, as powers from the Effence." How these things can be made to chime one with another, he beft knows: I am fure, I know not how to reconcile them.

I have been the larger in proving the holy Spirit's real perfonality, because if that be done, the perfonality of the Word may easily be admitted. As the proof of the Deity of Chrift, evidences the Deity of the Spirit, in effect, against the Arian, and Semi-Arian schemes; fo the proof of the Spirit's perfonality evidences, in effect, the Son's perfonality, in oppofition to the Sabellian and Socinian schemes, and to that of Mr. Watts.

I cannot but obferve, fuch is the force of truth, that Mr. Watts is fometimes obliged, feemingly to own, in contradiction to himself, the real perfonality of the Son and Spirit: fome paffages of this nature I fhall produce; but I fhall not bring any out of his Chriftian Doctrine; it being beneath me to bring against a man, from his own books, notions, he has y openly recanted; therefore I fhall take only from the fecond part of his differtations.

After having mentioned the explication of the manner of the Son's generation, and the Spirit's proceffion, which he calls popish and fcholaftic,

z

a

as the most indefenfible part of the common orthodox scheme of the Trinity, he says," he heartily agrees with feveral other parts of it, that God is one infinite Spirit, or conscious Being, that the Divine Effence is but one, and the fame, tho' diftinguished into the three facred perfons." And in another place he says, "the fenfe of the word perfon, in the common language of men, is one fingle intelligent voluntary agent, or a principle of action, that has understanding and will, fo three men, or three Angels, are properly called three perfons." Now fince it has pleafed God in his word, to reprefent to us the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, under the characters of three fuch intelligent a-` gents, they may be called, in human language, three perfons, according to the Scripture reprefentation." He hopes, b" he has reasonable fatisfaction in this general truth, that the Father, Son, and Spirit are reprefented in Scripture, as perfonal agents." I might bring other paffages to the fame purpofe, but I fhall forbear. I hope Mr. Watts's defign in these paffages, was not to amufe his readers: if this was not his intention, it is ftrange he fhould thus contradict himself. However, as he has, in a great number of places, contended for the Son and Spirit being figurative perfons, I fhall not do him fo much wrong as to infinuate, that he acknowledges them to be real perfons. I cannot but just take notice, that if a real perfon be a fingle, intelligent, vo luntary agent, as Mr. Watts fays, that has understanding and will, then if the Son has understanding and will, which he muft have, if he be