When you speak of a great out-pouring of the Spirit of God, do you mean to represent that one selfexistent Person has made a great out-pouring of another co-equal Person? Do you not mean that God has made a great display of his power, wisdom, and goodness, upon the hearts and minds of men? It is presumed you will admit that the latter is your meaning. And it is a comforting thought that my views of the Spirit not only accord with the natural import of Scripture language, but with what appears to be the real views of God's people in their prayers for the Spirit.

4. The Spirit of God is spoken of in the Scriptures as something which may be given by measure, or without measure; and when communicated or displayed by measure, we may speak of a residue.

After John the Baptist had seen the emblem of the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the Son of God, he not only bare record that He is the Son of God, but also that "He whom God hath sent, speaketh the words of God; for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him." In this verse, the Son's having the Spirit without measure, is given as the reason why the words which he speaketh are the words of God.

As the Son of God had the Spirit not by measure, so he had it in a manner that he could communicate it to others; therefore chn further testified, "This. is He, or the same is He, which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost." But while the Son had the Spirit without measure, the apostles and saints had it by

measure.

The prophet Malachi, in bearing testimony against the conduct of the Jews in putting away their wives, Brings into view the wise conduct of God in creation

in making but one woman for one man-“And did not he make one? yet had he the residue of the Spirit.” The idea intended to be communicated appears to be this, that God did not neglect to make more than one woman for one man through any defect of wisdom, power, or goodness. Had it been best, he was allsufficient to have made more, and would have done it. Does not, then, this text plainly suggest, that by the Spirit is intended the fulness or all-sufficiency of God? And do not the phrases, the Spirit by measure, and the residue of the Spirit, naturally oppose the opinion that by the Spirit is intended a distinct and independent Person?

As infinite wisdom saw fit not to place me on a level with you, and most of my brethren in the ministry, in respect to the advantages of a learned education, you may think it improper for me to suggest any argument from the Greek language respecting the Holy Spirit. But not pretending to much knowledge of that language, permit me to ask a few questions. Are not the articles and pronouns in the Greek language, agreeing with the terms Holy Spirit, uniformly of the neuter gender? And are not the articles and pronouns agreeing with the Father and Son, of the masculine gender? And what is the ground of this distinction, if the Spirit be a proper Person ?

In reply to these questions, it has been said, that the noun, Spirit, is of the neuter gender; and the genius of the Greek language requires, of course, that the articles and pronouns should be of the neuter gender. All this is easily believed; nor is it seen that, in this respect, the genius of the Greek language differs from our own. But why, sir, is the noun neuter ? And how did you know that it was neuter, but by the neuter ar

pro

ticles and pronouns ? Had masculine articles and nouns been uniformly used throughout the New Tesment, as agreeing with the noun, Spirit, would you ever have known or thought that the noun was of the neuter gender?

In some instances, the translators gave us the pronouns, agreeing with the Spirit, in the neuter gender, according to the Greek-"The Spirit itself beareth witness with our Spirit."-"The Spirit itself makethr intercession for us."-Instead of itself, they might have said himself, as well as to have given us he, his, him, for it, its, &c. And if they had as uniformly given us the pronouns in the neuter, as they are so in the Greek, the appearance of the Spiri's being a distinct Person would have been nearly excluded from the Bible.

And we should have as much reason to suppose that by "our Spirits" are intended Persons distinct from ourselves, as that by the "Spirit of God” 、is intended a Person distinct from the Father. This probably would have been completely the case, unless we should have had some source of information, by which we should have been able to correct the natural import of inspired language.

This subject of the pronouns is not introduced as having had any influence in forming my opinion of the Holy Spirit. It was formed previous to any information on this particular. Yet, in my view, this circumstance corroborates that opinion, and is worthy of the most serious attention.

No person, in conversation with me, has pretended to deny the fact, that the pronouns in Greek for the Spirit are of the neuter gender; and no one has given me any satisfactory reason why they should be translated as personal pronouns of the masculine gender.

It is, however, possible, that you, or some other pérson, may yet do it; but until it is done, you will allow me to consider the argument in view, as of great weight against the personality of the Holy Spirit.

LETTER II.

Some passages considered, which have been supposed to support the Personality of the Holy Spirit.

REV. SIR,

IT may be proper now to pay some attention to those passages of Scripture, which have been supposed most certainly to imply the distinct personality of the Holy Spirit.

1 Cor. ii. 10. "The Spirit searcheth all things, yea the deep things of God."

This passage has much of the appearance of favoring the personality of the Spirit. But if we candidly attend to the following verse, this appearance may disappear "For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man that is in him? Even so, the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God." It is obvious, that the Spirit of God is here represented as bearing the same relation to God, as the spirit of a man does to the man. But as a man and his spirit are but one person, so God and his Spirit are represented as one Person.

Mr. Jones has quoted the last of these verses, to prove, in opposition to Arians, that the Spirit of God is essentially God, as truly so as the spirit of man is essentially man. This text does indeed afford a con

elusive argument against the Arian hypothesis ; but it also affords an argument equally conclusive against the hypothesis of Mr. Jones. It is on the ground of eht comparison or parallel exhibited in the text, that Mr. Jones shows this text to be opposed to the Arian scheme; and on the same ground it is as clearly opposed to his own, urless he would undertake to say that a man and his spirit are two persons. If he could make this appear to be true, then he might well argue that God and his Spirit are also two Persons.

Acts v. 3. "But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie unto the Holy Ghost ?"

Peter and other apostles had been filled with the Holy Spirit in a remarkable manner; and it was doubtless by the Spirit of God that Peter was enabled to discern the deceit and falsehood of Ananias. His lying, therefore, was really lying to the Holy Spirit. Ananias had been a witness of the wonderful things which God had done, and that the apostles had done, by the Holy Spirit, or in consequence of being "endued with power from on high,” and for him, in the face of those manifestations of Divine goodness, wisdom, and power, to come forward with a lie or deceitful pretence to the apostles, was truly to "tempt the Spirit of the Lord," or to tempt the Lord to display the same power in his destruction, that had been displayed for the salvation of others.

Heb. iii. 7. "Wherefore, as the Holy Ghost saith, To-day if ye will hear his voice."

We have many instances in Scripture, in which it is represented that the Holy Spirit spake, said, &e, The words of Peter will explain the matter-"Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy