flowed from the habitudes of persons and things. Or, to represent the point in another light, the perfections of the Godhead are the original, the inviolable obligation to all expressions of homage and devotion; to ratify this obligation, and impart to it all possible solemnity and sanction, scripture has added the broad seal of heaven.-If this be right reason, and if the Holy Ghost be really God, his all-sufficient excellencies, and my state of dependence, are a proper licence, or rather a virtual mandamus, for the applications of prayer, and the ascriptions of praise. Grant this one proposition relating to the Divinity of the blessed Spirit, and admit that his eternal power and Godhead are a sufficient ground for religious worship, and we shall find ourselves unavoidably determined. We must rebel against our reason, must violate the dictates of our conscience, must act in opposition, not to one particular text, but to the main tenor and scope of the whole scripture, if we do not render all service, yield all the reverence, due to a glorious Being, in whom we live, move, and exist.

But still we are told, in various places, again and again we are told, That there is no express warrant.'-Prodigious stress is laid upon this word express, the whole force of the objection seems to terminate on this point. There is no express warrant, therefore it is an unwarrantable practice. For my part, I have not discernment enough to perceive the conclusiveness of this arguing. I must beg leave to deny the consequence of such a syllogism. For if the sense of various scriptures has made it a duty, this is warrant enough, though it be not particularly enjoined, or tolerated in form. This maxim our ingenious author will admit in other cases, and why not in the present? There is no express command to add any prayer at the celebration of baptism. When our Lord instituted the ordinance, he only delivered the form of initiation into the Christian church, without any prescription relating to concomitant prayer. When Philip administered this sacrament to the eunuch, there is no mention of any address to the Almighty, pertinent to the occasion. I cannot recollect, that any of the holy writers either inform the world, that they practised such a method themselves, or so much as intimate, that they would advise others in succeeding ages, to accompany the solemnity with suitable devotions.-But though we have no positive injunction, we have the reasonableness of the thing, for our

plea. Other scriptures, that virtually, though not explicitly, recommend it, are our warrant. In every thing, says St. Paul, let your requests be made known unto God; consequently, in this sacred and important thing.

I must again declare, that I can by no means assent to our author's grand postulatum, That nothing in the way of divine worship is allowable, but what has an express warrant from scripture. Because virtual warrants are warrants; consequential warrants are warrants. Our objector must maintain this in some instances, and why should he disclaim it in others? To be consistent in conduct, is surely essential to the character of an impartial inquirer after truth. Shall such an one sometimes reject an argument as weak and insignificant, because it happens to be illative only, and not direct; and at other times urge it as cogent and irrefragable? I will mention one very memorable particular of this nature: that is, the case of the Lord's day. Why does Mr. Tomkins transfer the sanctification of a particular day from the seventh to the first? Has he any express command in scripture, any express warrant from scripture, for this alteration? If he has, let him produce it. I must own, I have none but consequential warrants; warrants formed upon conclusions, and derived from some remarkable scriptures. But these not near so numerous, nor near so ponderous, as those which concur to establish the Divinity of the Holy Ghost. Now, if an express warrant be not needful in the one, why should it be so rigorously insisted on in the other duty?—If then this leading principle of our author's be false or precarious, what truth, what certainty can there be in any, in all his deductions from it? If the ground-work be unsubstantial, and the foundation fall, what solidity can there be in the superstructure? how can the building stand ?-Possibly Mr. Tomkins may reply, "The example of the primitive church determines this point. We find, it was the custom of the earliest antiquity, to observe the Christian sabbath on the first day of the week; and therefore, have very good reasons to believe, that the usage was established by apostolical authority. And may I not say the same, with regard to the custom of ascribing glory, and rendering adoration to the third person of the Trinity? Justin Martyr, the most ancient and authentick apologist for Christianity, who is next in succession, and next in credit to the patres

apostoloci! he declares expressly, That it was the received custom of the Christian church, in his days, to worship the Holy Ghost. His words are, Π ευμα προφητικόν, ότι μετα λογο τιμωμεν, αποδείξομεν. You perceive, he not only avows the thing, but vindicates its reasonableness and propriety. Perhaps, some captious critick may insinuate, That it is matter of doubt, whether the word--implies divine honours. I wave all attempts to prove this point from the original of the New Testament, because, to obviate such an objection, we have another passage to produce from the same saint, father, and martyr.-live προφητικόν σεβόμεθα και προσκυνώμεν, Apol. 1. Can any expressions be imagined more forcible in their signification, or more apposite to our purpose? They import the highest acts of adoration, and yet they describe the regards which were paid by the purest antiquity to the Holy Ghost.-Will it still be suggested, That Justin makes no mention of offering up prayers, or addressing praises? I answer, This he must certainly mean, because no one can be said σße A πPOCNUEVEIT TOP 50 "To Hveuμa—who withholds praise, or restrains prayer. These particular instances are as necessarily implied in those general terms, as the species is included in the genus.

You will please to observe, that this amounts to a great deal more than Mr. Tompkins (page 17), not very ingenuously, suggests, viz. 'a few hints that learned men have found, in the primitive ages, of the ascription of praise to the Holy Ghost.' It seems also entirely to overthrow what, in another place, he advances (page 26.) not very consistently with truth, viz. That there is so little appearance of the observ'ance of such a custom, for so many ages of the Christian Church.'Few hints and little appearance! Can a clear and determinate declaration, made by a writer of the most unquestionable veracity, concerning the unanimous, the universal practice of the ancient church,-can this evidence, with any fairness of equity, be rated at the diminutive degree of hints and little appearance ?

As to what is remarked relating to the corruption of the early writers, the interpolations, or alterations made by careless transcribers, (page 17.) this seems to be a most empty and jejune insinuation. It is what will serve any side of any debate. It is opposing hypothesis to fact; precarious and unsupported hypothesis, to clear and undeniable fact. This

sure is catching, not at a twig, but at a shadow,-I never could like Dr. Bentley's oscitantia et hallucinatio librariorum, even in his animadversions on Heathen authors: because it was an outcry fitted for any occasion, a charge ever ready at hand, and equally suited to discountenance truth, or deter error: much less can I think it sufficient to overthrow the testimony, or invalidate the authenticity of our ancient writers.Would a bare innuendo (and Mr. Tomkins's is no more) and that from an interested person, without any the least proof: would this be admitted in a court of judicature, to supersede the plain, the solemn deposition of a credible witness? Supersede it? Quite the reverse. It would convince the judge, and teach the jury, that the cause must be extremely wrong, utterly insupportable, since artifices so weak and transparently fallacious were used in its defence.

46

But it is frequently objected, that no mention is made, no warrant is to be found for distinct worship. The aforecited writer, and the whole scripture, is silent upon the article of distinct worship. And the reader is led to suppose, that there is some mighty difference be tween distinct and I know not what other kind of worship. Why does our author harp so incessantly upon this string? whence such irreconcileable aversion to this quality of worship? One would almost suspect, he was conscious that some worship should be paid, but could not digest the doctrine, nor submit to the payment of distinct worship. I must reply once for all, that if any worship be due, distinct worship cannot be improper; much more if all worship (which, I apprehend, is included in Justin's words, and follows from the divinity of the blessed Spirit) be requisite, distinct worship cannot be unwarrantable.

Another grand argument, urged by our inquirer, is, "That the apostles, as far as appears, never practised this worship of the Holy Ghost themselves, nor recommended it to others," (page 2.) He should by all means, have printed as far as appears in italicks, or capitals; because then the reader would have apprehended more easily the uncertain foundation on which the reasoning is built. But though this particular, relating to the practice of the apostles, does not appear, one way or the other; yet our author, in his 4th page, and elsewhere, concludes from it assuredly, as if it stood upon authentick record.

For," says he, " if we admit, that the reason of things is sufficient to

establish this practice, it will prove too much." It will, undoubtedly, if it proves any thing, prove it a duty to pay such worship to the Holy Spirit; and consequently, that the apostles were defective, either in not seeing this reason of things as well as we, or not practising according to it. Does he not here suppose, the apostolical omission an acknowledg ed, an undoubted point, which, a few lines before, he had confessed to be dubious and unapparent

However, not to insist upon this little self-contradicting slip, I would ask, What reason has Mr. Tompkins to conclude, that the apostles omitted this usage, which the Christian churches have adopted? Do they ever declare, or so much as hint that they are determined to omit it? Do they ever caution their converts against it, as a dangerous error? Is there any such memorial preserved, or any such caveat lodged in their sacred writings ?—Now, to argue in our author's strain; if it was so unjustifiable a thing to address praise, or put up prayer to the Holy Ghost, there could not be a more necessary precaution, than that the apostles, those careful instructors, should have warned their people of the mistake; especially since it was so extremely probable, so almost unavoidable, that they would fall into it. For I appeal to the whole world, whether a considerate person would not naturally judge it reasonable,—whether a devout person would not feel a forcible inclination, to worship that venerable name, into which he was baptized; and to praise that beneficent Being, who is the author of so many inestimable blesssings. Yet though this is so apparently natural, such as the apostles could not but foresee was likely to happen, they say not a syllable, by way of prevention; they take no care to guard their converts against such a practice. A pregnant sign, that it is allowed by divine Wisdom, and chargeable with neither superstition nor idolatry.

But our author, to corroborate his argument, adds, "To suppose the apostles directed any explicit worship to the Holy Ghost, though we have no mention of it in scripture, where yet we meet with frequent doxologies of theirs, and addresses by way of prayer and petitions," would be an unreasonable presumption.-I cannot accede to this assertion. The doxologies and prayers of the apostles, recorded in scripture, are only occasional and incidental; inserted as the fervour of a devout spirit suggested, in the body of their doctrinal exhortatory