notes an object of worship exclusive of the Holy Spirit, (as our adversaries are obliged to suppose, or give up the point) then it will follow, that the temple belongs to one being, and the glory and worship to another; which is one of those many strange things you are bound to bẹ. lieve, before you can be of the Arian opinion.t Can you find it any where written in the scripture, that the angels of heaven worshipped the virgin Mary? Read the sixth chapter of the prophet Isaiah, in which the seraphim ascribe glory to that Lord of hosts who spake the following words to the prophet-Go, and tell this people, hear ye indeed, but understand not, &c. Now St. Paul teaches us, in the last chapter of the Acts, that these words were spoken by the Holy Ghost. So that when we say, "glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the HOLY GHOST," we have the example of the seraphim in heaven for this way of worship; a consideration which will make us easy under all the opposition it meets with here below in the world.u

When you have reflected upon these things, then you may ask yourselves the question, whether Christians who are born of God are any where said to be born of the virgin Mary? Whether the apostles, who were called of God to the ministry of the gospel, were called of the virgin Mary? Whether the virgin Mary can be tempted

t You may see the author of the Appeal driven to this absurdity, and endeavouring seriously to uphold it, if you consult his book, p. 61, 62.

u See Cath. Doct. Chap, HI. Art. XIX.

and blasphemed by sinners? Whether she conferred divine inspiration upon the prophets of the Old, or the apostles of the New Testament? Whether we are baptized in the NAME, that is into the religion and worship of the virgin Mary? But all these things and many more, are true of the Holy Spirit; who dwelling in our body as in his own temple, is therein to be served and glorified; and being also worshipped and glorified, together with the Father and the Son, by the angels of heaven, I think we have a better right to worship him here upon earth, than the Papists have to worship the virgin Mary.

Our adversaries would persuade you we have so little to say upon this subject from the scrip. ture, that it is a great favour in them not to triumph over us, and insult us for it.w As if it were no insult upon the church of England to suppose her worship as groundless as the idolatry of the Papists!

The argument drawn from the words of Isaiah with those of St. Paul is very plain, and very close: "The Lord of hosts, whom the seraphim glorified, spake those words which were spoken by the Holy Ghost: therefore the Holy Ghost is the Lord of hosts whom the seraphim glori fied." Yet the author of the Appeal declares, that nothing can be more fallacious than this way of reasoning, and that he could in the same manner conclude that Isaiah is the Lord, because the words of the Lord (I was found of them that sought

w See Appeal, p. 104. note.

me not) are applied to Isaiah, Rom. x. 20. Where the apostle thus introduces them-But Esaias is very bold, and saith, I was found of them that sought me not.x This author, I believe, is the first Christian who did ever suppose, that the apostle applied the words in this verse to the person of Esaias; or those in the preceding to the person of Moses. This, however, is not worth insisting upon, because he has mistaken the nature of the argument. The force of it lies here; that the speaker of the words above mentioned, as they stand in the prophet Isaiah, is called by the name of the Lord of hosts, was glorified by angels, seated upon the throne of heaven, and sent a prophet by his own authority; and this -speaker, as St. Paul informs us, was the Holy Ghost If the scripture doth any where assert that Isaiah spake under the same name, and with the same circumstances, then we shall be ready to allow that the cases are parallel, and will worship him also. Had the objector expressed himself clearly, his meaning would have appeared to be this: that because God speaks by a prophet, and speaks also by his Holy Spirit, as much may be inferred in honor of the one as of the other. But when God speaks by a prophet, he speaks by another; when he speaks by his Spirit, he speaks by himself. He reconciled the world by Jesus Christ, but not as by another; for God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself. So when he speaks by his Spirit, he speaks by himself;

x P. 63

as truly as a man utters his voice by the spirit or breath of his own mouth; or searcheth his own thoughts by the operation of his own mind. I am not afraid to insist upon this comparison, because I borrow it from St. Paul, and it demonstrates such an unity between God and the Spirit of God, as Christians believe, and Arians do not: nor do they attempt to get over it by any solution I have yet seen, which will not also prove that a man and his spirit are two different beings; or that we may correct an apostle's argument till it squares with our own opinion. In this manner reasons the author of the Appeal. The Spirit is represented as a person who searcheth the deep things of God, and consequently he cannot be God.y But if he cannot be God, because he searcheth the things of God; then the spirit of a man. cannot be man,because it knoweth the things of a man. Butobserve how he proceeds: "No man, says hẹ, can know or make, known to others the thoughts of a man, but either the man himself, or he to whomsoever the man will discover them."

In which words the premises are manifestly changed. The apostle saith, what man knoweth the things of a man but the spirit of man which is in him; that is, the man himself: but the author of the Appeal says, either the man himself, or some other. The scripture itself gives us the catholic conclusion; this alteration of the scripture wil admit of the Arian conclusion. From St. Paul's comparison, the Spirit is God himself; from this author's, he is either God himself, or some other.

y P. 66.

X. In a book lately published against the ar ticles of religion, under the title of The Confessional, I have met with a new objection to our way of worship; which, as it can deceive none but common readers, I shall present you with in this place "The Athanasian creed says," as the author of this work observes, "that in ALL THINGS the unity in trinity and the trinity in unity is to be worshipped."z Then he asks, "Is this the case in ALL our forms of worship ? Turn back to the litany" (that is, turn forward, the litany stands after the Athanasian creed) "and you will see three distinct invocations of the three persons, to each of whom the term God is assigned, implying a sufficiency in each, in his personal capacity, to hear and grant the petition." This he assures you, is a remarkable and notorius deviation from the Athanasian maxim ; and that others might be given in great abun dance.

By an Athanasian, he means a Christian maxim; but calls it Athanasian, that your faith may seem to stand in the wisdom of men: and our deviation from this maxim is evident to him, from the three distinct invocations in the beginning of the litany. But if you look into the litany itself, you will discover, that these three invocations are followed by a fourth, addressed to the "holy, blessed, and glorious trinity, three persons and ONE GOD." In the three former petitions, the unity in trinity; in the fourth, the

z Confessional, p. 319.