is not to be supposed that any change took place in the Divine Nature at that time, so we are to interpret the language of the New Testament on this subject in accordance with the doctrine of the Old. And we find that as far as our Saviour is concerned, there is an exact coincidence between the new and the old dispensations. Jesus represents the Father as the only agent in all that was miraculous in his ministry. Much more frequent mention, however, is made of the Holy Spirit toward the latter part of his ministry than in the former, and through the Acts and Epistles, than in any other part of the Bible. This arises from the different manner in which the Gospel was set up in the world from the law. The Mosaic dispensation came with outward demonstration. External miracles, but slightly connected with persons, accompanied the Israelites for forty years, and demonstrated to them the divine origin of their law. The Gospel, on the other hand, came not with observation or outward show. It was borne witness to by God, by the miraculous powers conferred on individuals. In the words of the Evangelist, "And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following."

The whole evidence, on which the establishment of Christianity depended, was miraculous powers conferred on individuals. They were so operated upon by divine power, that from timid, obscure, and uneducated men, they became bold, eloquent and unembarrassed; they had a collectedness and a

wisdom on sudden emergencies, to which, in their former lives, they had been strangers. They possessed, likewise, miraculous knowledge and power, could speak languages with which they were before unacquainted. They possessed the power of communicating these divine gifts to their converts, by the imposition of their hands and prayer. The possession of these gifts not only demonstrated to the world the verity of their commission, but likewise was a source of the greatest comfort and encouragement to themselves, as it made them confident in their cause, and certain of the presence and favour of God. These powers continued with the apostles during their lives. From this circumstance it is, that the Holy Spirit is so frequently mentioned in the apostolic writings, in the Acts, and in the Epistles.

But our inquiry is, whether it is represented and considered by the apostles as a person of the Trinity equal to God the Father. It is a dogma of the Church of England, recited in their litany, that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son. But even this dogma is expressly contradicted in Scripture. It does not appear that Christ, even in his glorified condition, after his resurrection from the dead, had the power to send the Spirit; for he promises that he "will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter." In conformity to this, hear what Peter says in his first speech after the ascension. "This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we are all witnesses. Therefore, being by

the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost," or the Holy Spirit, which he had promised, "he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear." Hear him on another occasion. "The God of our Fathers hath raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree. Him hath God exalted with his right. hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins. And we are witnesses of these things and so is the Holy Ghost which" (not whom as our translators have with singular disingenuousness rendered it) "God hath given to those who obey him."

We deem these passages sufficient to show that the apostles considered God the Father to be the only agent in all their miraculous works, and if Christ is at any time represented as sending the Holy Spirit, it is to be understood, according to his own declaration, to be sent by God at his instance, or in confirmation of his mission, and the establishment of his Gospel. So are we to understand his promises of assistance that he would be with and assist them as long as they lived, or till Judaism was done away, and Christianity set up in its stead. God, by sending them a supernatural knowledge of their religion, and memory of what Christ had taught them, with the power of working miracles, supplied his place, enabled them to carry on their work as if he were still with them.

And here comes in the great and sole argument on which the personality of the Holy Spirit is

founded. Jesus personified it in his conversation with his disciples in his last interview with them, when he promised them divine aid. "I will pray the Father, and he shall send you another Comforter," or more literally teacher, "that he may abide with you forever, even the Spirit of Truth." Here it is asked, if the Spirit were not a person, why should Christ in this place have personified it? We reply that this form of speech arose out of the circumstances of the case. He was comforting them in the prospect of leaving them. "You will not be forsaken, for my place as your teacher and comforter will be filled by ample communications of immediate inspiration. You shall not be without a teacher and comforter, for the divine communications of knowledge and power, which God shall give you, to enable you to carry on the work of preaching and establishing the Gospel, shall guide you into all truth."

Now this conversation is the only unequivocal instance throughout the Bible of personification of the Holy Spirit. To my mind it is infinitely more probable to suppose that what is in reality a thing, and is so represented in a vast majority of cases, should be occasionally personified, than that a Person should be almost universally represented as a thing, and in a few cases only spoken of as it really is, as a Person. Exceptions prove a rule, not disprove it. If you consider this as proving the personality of the Spirit, then you make a solitary exception the rule, and the vast majority of cases, more than fifty to

one, the exceptions. On the same principle you might make the Grace of God a person. For Paul says that he has done certain things, "yet not I but the Grace of God which was in me." So has he personified Sin and Death. But it is answered that the general tenor of Scripture represents grace as the favour or assistance of God, and not a person. So we answer that the Scriptures generally represent the Holy Spirit as the essence, power, or influence of God, and not a person.

But it is always safe to interpret language by facts. What Christ promised really came to pass. After his ascension the Holy Spirit came, but how? In a personal form? Let us read the record. "And suddenly there came a sound from heaven, as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. And they were filled with the Holy Ghost." Does this seem like a person, or the miraculous power of God? which Peter, one of the gives of this transaction. spoken by the prophet Joel. pass in the last days (saith God) that I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy; and on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit, and they shall prophesy." Can a person be poured out? "I will pour out of my Spirit." Can a part of a person be poured out,

Hear the interpretation persons on whom it fell, "This is that which was And it shall come to