make us easy under all the opposition it meets with here below in the world."

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 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 scripture, that it is a great favour in them not to triumph over us, and insult us for it. 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,

u See Cath. Doct. Chap. III. Art. XIX. w See Appeal, p. 104. note.

spake those words which were spoken by the Holy Ghost: therefore the Holy Ghost is the Lord of hosts whom the seraphim glorified." 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 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. 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.

x P. 63.

But when God speaks by a prophét, 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; 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. 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. But observe how he proceeds: "No man, says he, 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 y P. 66.

author of the Appeal says, either the man himself, or some other. The scripture itself gives us the catholie conclusion; this alteration of the scripture will 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.

X. In a book lately published against the articles 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 notorious deviation from the Athanasian maxim; and that others might be given in great abundance.

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

z Confessional, p. 319.

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 trinity in unity is worshipped. But of this fourth he takes no notice; and then accuses the church of a remarkable and notorious deviation from her own maxims; whereas he ought to have taken the whole address together, and then have urged his exceptions, if any such could have been reasonably made against it. To take one portion of any form, abstracted from another which completes it, and then charge his brethren with defects and contradictions of his own making, is agreeable neither to sound criticism, nor indeed to common equity. Such a practice as this will convict even the scripture itself of atheism: for if you leave out the words-The fool hath said in his heart, there will remain the naked assertion-There is no God. Or it might be proved from the gospel, as I once heard it attempted by an excommunicated infidel, that the Old Testament is now to be utterly condemned and laid aside, because it is said-Hang all the law and the prophets. But if the sentence be taken in the form in which the scripture hath given it, the sense is entirely altered; and so it happens with the objection lately discovered by the author of the Confessional. His brethren, as you have seen, accuse us of believing in three Gods; and he mocks at our worship, as if it could be reconciled with no other principle.