ral divine powers extinguished, by improper conduct, and improper uses, may be readily conceived and acknowledged. 8. In several instances the Holy Spirit is spoken of as being divided. "I "I will pour out of my spirit," (Acts ii. 18.) that is, a portion or part of my spirit. "The Lord took away a part of his spirit from Moses, and divided it among seventy elders." (Num. xi. 25.) Can any one seriously think, that the scriptures tell us of a per-, son being divided, from one human being, and distributed in seventy other human beings? Should we ever think of saying of God the Father, or of Jesus Christ, that he was divided and given to seventy different people? But, it is perfectly rational to suppose, that divine powers, or miraculous gifts, were differently divided or distributed to different persons.

I shall merely add, 9th, one or two expressions of Jesus himself, which, I think, of themselves clearly prove, that the Holy Spirit cannot possibly be a person in the Godhead distinct from the Father.

"All things are delivered unto me

*་

of my Father; and no one knoweth the Son but the Father, neither knoweth any one the Father save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him." (Matt. xi. 27.) I ask, Did not the Holy Spirit know the Father, when the Son acknowledges that he knew him? And was it necessary that the Son should reveal it to him? Did not the Holy Spirit even know the Son, though he gave him birth, and continually dwelt in him? Matt. xxiv. 36. "But of that day and that hour, knoweth no one (oudes) no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only." Could the Holy Spirit be a distinct person in the Godhead, omniscient, equal to God the Father in all his attributes, and yet be ignorant of an event which the Father knew, an event which was to take place in that very generation? We have the word of our Saviour himself that no one knew but the Father. Was our great Master guilty of an equivocation? I will vindicate my Saviour's veracity. Let us now take a summary of the arguments and draw to a close. The derivation of the word spirit is breath or

wind; the word holy ascribes it to God. The Holy Spirit is spoken of in the neuter gender, as a thing, which is never done of any other person. No such person ever appeared to the apostles. The apostles never worship it, nor ascribe glory to it, or teach their followers to do so. If the Holy Spirit be a person, he must have been the parent of Jesus Christ. It is said to be the spirit of God, the power of God, the finger of God. It was given by the Father, sent by Jesus Christ, measured out to the apostles, but given without measure to our Saviour. It was poured out upon the disciples, they were filled with it, baptized with it. It was capable of being extinguished; it was divided, and it was ignorant of things known by the Father, and even by Jesus Christ and yet after all, was this spirit a person, the third in the Godhead, co-equal with the Father, co-eternal, omniscient, almighty!!

I am fearful of again exhausting your patience, I will, therefore, detain you only while I make two observations.

1st. In controverting the explanation

which I have given of the term Holy Spirit, there is one sophism in very commòn use, against which I wish to set you on your guard. You remember the idea suggested respecting the Holy Spirit is this, a divine energy or influence communicated to man," or, "the effects of that energy in the performance of miracles." Now apply one or other of these to any passage in which the phrase Holy Spirit occurs, and I am much mistaken if one of them does not elucidate every passage where the term is introduced. What I wish to put you upon your guard against is this, when the expression is used in reference to the miracles performed, the argument is levelled against its meaning God the Father, and vice versa. When it means the effect, the argument is levelled against the cause. Lest I should not yet be understood, I will give you an example. I have before quoted the passage, "The favour (or grace) of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the fellowship (or communion) of the Holy Spirit, be with you all." Upon this passage, Dr. Hawker reasons thus, "On

this presumption it becomes an interesting question, what is meant by the communion of an energy; and how is this communion conveyed by the operation of an energy into the hearts of believers ?"*

You see, Christians, how easy it is to puzzle, by putting together a few highsounding words, without any definition or clear meaning to them, and then to ask, How is all this?

4

Let us just again refer to the apostles expressions, and laying aside these notes of admiration, and this triumphant How, ask a simple question. Is their any thing absurd, any thing unintelligible, in the wish or prayer of the apostle, that they might enjoy-a communion-a fellowship -a participation-a share-(all synonimous) of the miraculous powers, the divine influence, which others possessed.

Finally, let us for a few moments consider the nature of the Christian revelation. I mean not to enter upon the nature, or precise objects, of the mission of Jesus Christ. Whatever was his nature,

Hawker's Sermons, Vol. II. p. 98.