Chapter 10

♦“οῦ ἓμελλόν λαμβὰνειν ὁι πιστεὺοντες ἐις ἀυτὸν” replaced with “οὗ ἔμελλον λαμβάνειν οἱ πιστεύσαντες εἰς αὐτὸν”6. Your Lordship proceeds: “It occurs in the14thand16thchapters ofSt.John’s gospel; in which he uses these words”——in what verses, my Lord? Why is not this specified?¹Unless to furnish your Lordship with an opportunity of doing the very things whereof you before complained, of “confounding passages of a quite contrary nature, and jumbling together those that relate to the♦extraordinaryoperations of the Spirit, with those that relate to hisordinaryinfluences?”¹I take it for granted, that the citation of texts in the margin, which is totally wrong, is a blunder of the printer’s.♦“extraordinory” replaced with “extraordinary”You cite the words thus;When the Spirit of truth is come he will guide you into all truth, and he will shew you things to come.(These are nearly the words that occur, chapterxvi.verse 13.)“And again,The Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.These words occur in the14thchapter, at the26thverse.”But my Lord, I want the original promise still; the original (I mean) of those made in this very discourse. Indeed your margin tells us, where it is, (chapterxiv.verse 16.) but the words appearnot. Taken together with the context they run thus:If ye love me, keep my commandments.And I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever:Even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knowest him.Chapterxiv.verses 15, 16, 17.My Lord, suffer me to enquire, why you slipt over this text? Was it not (I appeal to the Searcher of your heart!) because you was conscious to yourself, that it would necessarily drive you to that unhappy dilemma, either to assert thatfor ever,εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, meant only sixty or seventy years; or to allow, that the text must be interpreted of theordinaryoperations of the Spirit, in all future ages of the church.And indeed that the promise in this text belongs to all Christians, evidently appears, not only from your Lordship’s own concession, and from the text itself, (for who can deny, that this Comforter or paraclete is now given to all them that believe?) but also from the preceding, as well as following, words. The preceding are,If ye love me, keep my commandments. And I will pray the Father—none surely can doubt, but these belong to all Christians in all ages. The following words are,Even the Spirit of truth, whom theworldcannot receive. True; theworldcannot; butall Christianscan, and will receive himfor ever.6. The second promise of the Comforter, made in this chapter, together with its context, stands thus:Judassaith unto him(notIscariot) Lord,how is it that thou will manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world? Verse 22.Jesusanswered and said unto him, if any man love me, he will keep my word. And my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.Verse 23.He that loveth me not, keepeth not my word: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father’s which sent me.Verse 24.These things have I spoken unto you, being yet with you.Verse 25.But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.Verse 26.Now, How does your Lordship prove that this promise belongs only to the primitive church? Why, 1. You say, “It is very clear from the bare recital of the words.” I apprehend not. But this is the very question, which is not to be begged, but proved. 2. You say, “The Spirit’s bringing all things to their remembrance, whatsoever he had said unto them, cannot possibly be applied to any other persons but the apostles.” “Cannot be applied!” This is a flat begging thequestion again, which I cannot give up without better reasons. 3. “The gifts ofprophecyand of beingguided into all truth, and taught all things, can be applied only to the apostles, and those of that age who were immediately inspired.” Here your Lordship, in order the more plausibly to beg the question again, “Jumbles together theextraordinarywith theordinaryoperations of the Spirit.” The gift ofprophecy, we know, is one of hisextraordinaryoperations; but there is not a word of it in this text: nor, therefore ought it to be “confounded with hisordinaryoperations,” such as the beingguided into all truth, (all that is necessary to salvation) andtaught all(necessary)things, in a due use of themeanshe hath ordained. Verse 26.In the same manner, namely, in a serious and constant use of propermeans, I believe the assistance of the Holy Ghost is given to all Christians, tobring all thingsneedfulto their remembrance, whatsoeverChristhath spoken to themin his word. So that I see no occasion to grant, without some kind of proof, (especially considering the occasion of this, and the scope of the preceding verses) that even “this promise cannot possibly be applied to any other persons but the apostles.”7. In the same discourse of our Lord we have a third promise of the Comforter, the whole clause runs thus:If I go not away, the Comforter will not comeunto you; but if I go, I will send him unto you.Chapterxvi.verse 7.And when he is come, he will reprove(or convince)the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment. Verse 8.Of sin, because they believe not on me;Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more:Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged; verses 9, 10, 11.I have yet many things to say unto you; but ye cannot bear them now: (Verse 12.)but when he shall come, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you into all truth——And he will shew you things to come.Verse 13.There is only one sentence here which has not already been considered,He will shew you things to come.And this, it is granted, relates to the gift ofprophecy, one of theextraordinaryoperations of the Spirit.The general conclusion which your Lordship draws, is exprest in these words. “Consequently all pretensions to the Spirit, in the proper sense of the words of this promise (i. e.of these several texts ofSt.John) are vain and insignificant, as they are claimed by modernEnthusiasts.” And in the end of the same paragraph you add, “None but theordinaryoperations of the Spirit are to be now expected, since those that are of amiraculous(orextraordinary) kind areNOT PRETENDED TO, even by modernEnthusiasts.”My Lord, this is surprizing. I read it over and over, before I could credit my own eyes. I verily believe this one clause, with unprejudiced persons, will be an answer to the whole book. You have been vehemently crying out all along against thoseenthusiasticalpretenders; nay, the very design of your book, as you openly declare, “was to stop the growth of theirEnthusiasm; who have had the assurance (as you positively affirm, page 6,) to claim to themselves theextraordinaryoperations of the Holy Spirit.” And here you as positively affirm, that thoseextraordinaryoperations “are not pretended to by them at all!”8. Yet your Lordship proceeds, “The next passage of scripture, I shall mention as peculiarly belonging to the primitive times, though misapplied to the present state of Christians by modernEnthusiasts, is what relates to thetestimony of the Spirit, andpraying by the Spirit, in the8thchapter of the epistle to theRomans.” Page 16.I believe it incumbent upon me thoroughly to weigh the force of your Lordship’s reasoning on this head. You begin, “AfterSt.Paulhad treated of that spiritual principle in Christians, which enables themto mortify the deeds of the body—he says,if any man have not the Spirit ofChrist, he is none of his. This makes the distinction of a true Christian, particularly in opposition to theJews.” I apprehend it is just here, that♦yourLordship turns out of the way, when you say, “particularly in opposition to theJews.” Such aparticularopposition I cannot allow, till some stronger proof is produced, thanSt.Paul’s occasionally mentioning six verses before, “the imperfection of theJewishlaw.”♦“you” replaced with “your”Yet your Lordship’s mind is so full of this, that after repeating the14thand15thverses (as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God: for ye have not received the Spirit of bondage again to fear: but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father!) you add, “in the former part of this verse, the apostle shews again the imperfection of theJewishlaw.” This also calls for proof: otherwise, it will not be allowed, that he here speaks of theJewishlaw at all: not, tho’ we grant that “theJewswere subject to thefearof death, and lived in consequence of it, in a state ofbondage.” For are not all unbelievers, as♦well as theJews, more or less, in the samefearandbondage?♦“will” replaced with “well”Your Lordship goes on, “In the latter part of the verse he shews the superiority of theChristianlaw to that of theJews.” Page 18. Where is the proof, my Lord? How does it appear, that he is speaking either of theChristianorJewishlaw, in those words,Ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father? However you infer, “Christiansthen are the adopted sons of God, in contradistinction to theJews, as the former had the gifts of the Holy Ghost, whichnone of the latter had at that time: andthe body of the Jewsnever had.” No, northe body of the Christiansneither. So that if this be a♦proof against theJews, it is the very same against theChristians.♦“poof” replaced with “proof”I must observe farther on the preceding words, 1. That your Lordship begins here, to take the wordChristiansin a new and peculiar sense, for the whole body of the then Christian Church: 2. That it is a bad inference, “as, or because they had the gifts of the Holy Ghost, therefore they were the sons of God.” On the one hand, if they were the children of God, it was not, because they had gifts. On the other, a man may have all those gifts, and yet be a child of the devil.9. I conceive, not only that your Lordship hasprovednothing hitherto, not one point that has any relation to the question: but that, strictly speaking, you have notattempted to proveany thing, havingtaken for grantedwhatever came in your way. In the same manner you proceed, “The apostle goes on,The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God. This passage, as it is connected with the preceding one, relates to the general adoption of Christians, or their becoming the sons of God instead of theJews.”—“This passage relates”—How is that proved? By its connexion with the preceding? In no wise, unless it be good arguing to proveIgnotum per ignotius. Ithas not yet been proved, that the preceeding passage itself has any relation to this matter.Your Lordship adds, “But what was the ground of this preference that was given to Christians? It was plainly the (miraculous)gifts of the Spirit, which they had, and which theJewshad not.”This preference given to Christians, was just before exprest by theirbecoming the sons ofGodinstead of theJews. Were the gifts of the Spirit thenthe ground of this preference? The ground of their becoming the sons of God? What an assertion is this! And how little is it mended, though I allow, that “these miraculous gifts of the Spirit, were a testimony that God acknowledged theChristiansto be his people and not theJews: (since theChristianswho worked miracles, did it notby the works of the law, but bythe hearing of faith?”)Your Lordship concludes, “From these passages ofSt.Paul, compared together, it clearly follows, that the fore-mentionedtestimony of the Spirit, was thepublic testimonyof miraculous gifts—and, consequently,the witness of the Spirit that we are the children ofGod, cannot possibly be applied, to theprivate testimonyof the Spirit given to our own consciences, as is pretended by modernenthusiasts.” Page 20.If your conclusion, my Lord, will stand without the premisses it may: but that it has no manner of connection with them, I trust does partly, and will more fully appear, when we view thewhole passage to which you refer. And I believe that passage, with very little comment, will prove, in direct opposition to that conclusion, that the testimony of the Spirit there mentioned, is not thepublic testimonyof miraculous gifts, but must be applied to theprivate testimonyof the Spirit, given to our own consciences.10.St.Paulbegins the8thchapter of his Epistle to theRomans, with the great privilege of every Christian believer, (whetherJeworGentilebefore)There is now no condemnation for them that are inChrist Jesus, engrafted into him by faith,who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. Fornow every one of them may truly say,The law(or power)of the Spirit of life inChrist Jesus(given unto me for his sake)hath made me free from the law(or power)of sin and death. For that which the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh,Godsending his own Son, in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, did; when hecondemned, (crucified, put to death, destroyed)sin in the flesh: that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For they that are after the flesh, mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit, the things of the Spirit.Verse 1–5.Is it not evident, that the apostle is here describing a true Christian, a holy believer? In opposition, not particularly to aJew, much less to theJewish law, but to every unholy man, to all,whetherJewsorGentiles, who walk after the flesh? He goes onFor, to be carnally-minded is death; but to be spiritually-minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity againstGod: for it is not subject to the law ofGod; neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh, cannot pleaseGod.Verses 6, 7, 8.The opposition between a holy and unholy man, is still glaring and undeniable. But can any man discern, the least glimmering of opposition, between theChristianand theJewishLaw.The apostle goes on,But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit ofGoddwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit ofChrist, he is none of his. But ifChristbe in you, the body is dead, because of sin, but the spirit is life because of righteousness. But if the Spirit of him that raised upJesusfrom the dead dwell in you, he that raised upChristfrom the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit which dwelleth in you. Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh. For if ye live after the flesh ye shall die; but if ye, through the Spirit, do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live. For as many as are led by the Spirit ofGod, they are the sons ofGod.Verse 9–14.Is there one word here, is there any the least intimation ofmiraculousgifts, or of theJewish law?It follows,For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again, to fear(such as all sinners have, when they at first stirred up to seek God, and begin to serve him from a slavish fear of punishment)But ye have received the spirit of adoption(of free love)whereby we cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit itself(which Godhath sent forth into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father,) beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children ofGod.Verse 15, 16.I am now willing to leave it, without farther comment, to the judgment of every impartial reader, whether it does not appear from the whole scope and tenor of the text and context taken together, that this passage does not refer to theJewish law, nor to thepublic testimony of miracles: neither of which can be dragged in, without putting the utmost force on the natural meaning of the words. And if so, it will follow, that thiswitness of the Spiritisthe private testimony given to our own consciences: which, consequently, all sober Christians may claim, without any danger ofenthusiasm.11. “But I go on (says your Lordship, page 21.) to the consideration of the other passages in the same chapter, relating to ourpraying by the Spirit, namely at verse 26 and 27, which runs thus,Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought; but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us, with groanings which cannot be uttered. Andhe that searcheth the hearts, knoweth what is the mind of the spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints, according to the will ofGod.”Here is a circumstance highly needful to be observed, before we enter upon this question. Your Lordship undertakes to fix the meaning of an expression used bySt.Paul, in the14thchapter of his first epistle to theCorinthians. And in order thereto, you laboriously explain part of the8thchapter of theRomans. My Lord, how is this? Will it be said, Whythisis often alledged to prove the wrong sense ofthatscripture? I conceive, this will not salve the matter at all. Your Lordship had before laid down a particular method, as the only sure one whereby to distinguish what scriptures belong to all Christians, and what do not. This method is, the considering the occasion and scope of those passages, by comparing the text and context together. You then propose, by the use of this method, to shew, that several texts have been misapplied byEnthusiasts. One of these is the15thverse of the14thchapter of the first epistle to theCorinthians. And to shew, thatEnthusiastshave misapplied this, you comment on the8thchapter to theRomans!However, let us weigh the comment itself. The material part of it begins thus: (page 22.) “Now he adds another proof of the truth of Christianity:Likewise the Spirit helpeth our infirmities(or ourdistresses, for♦ἀσθενείαιςsignifies both.” I doubt that: I require authority for it.)“And then he mentions, in what instances he does so,viz.Inprayersto God about afflictions”—(In nothing else, my Lord? Did hehelp their infirmities, in no other instance than this?) “We know not, says he,what we should pray for as we ought. That is, whether it be best for us to bear afflictions, or to be delivered from them. Butthe Spirit,ORthe gift of the Spirit, instructs us how toprayin a manner agreeable to the will of God.”The Spirit,ORthegiftof the Spirit! What marvellous reasoning is this? If these “are often put for each other,” what then? How is that evinced to be the case here?♦“ἀθενείαις” replaced with “ἀσθενείαις”12. “The apostle goes on,The Spirit itself(page 23)maketh intercession for us, with groanings which cannot be uttered: That is, thespiritualorinspired personprayed in that capacity for the whole assembly.” “That is!” Nay, that is again the very point to be proved, else we get not one step farther.“The apostle goes on thus, verse 27.And he that(page 24)searcheth the hearts, knoweth what is the mind of the spirit, (that is, of thespiritualorinspiredperson)becausehemaketh intercession for the saints, according to the will ofGod. That is, God knows the intention of thespiritualperson, who has thegiftofprayer, which he uses for the benefit of the whole assembly; he, I say, leaves it entirely to God, whether it be best that they should suffer afflictions, or be delivered from them.” Page 25.My Lord, this is more astonishing than all the rest! I was expecting all along in reading the preceding pages (and so I suppose, was every thinking reader) when your Lordship would mention, that the personmiraculously inspiredfor that intent, and prayingκατὰ Θεὸνeither for the support or deliverance of the people, shouldhave the very petition which he asked of him. Whereas you intended no such thing! But shut up the whole with that lame and impotent conclusion, “He leaves it to God, whether it be best they should suffer afflictions, or be delivered from them.”Had he then thatmiraculousgift of God, that he might do what any common Christian might have done without it? Why, any person in the congregation might have prayed thus: nay, could not pray otherwise, if he had theordinarygrace of God: “Leaving it to God, whether he should suffer afflictions still, or be delivered from them.” Was itonlyin the apostolical age, that “the Spirit instructed Christiansthusto pray?” Cannot a man praythus, either for himself or others, unless he has themiraculousgift of prayer!—So, according to your Lordship’s judgment, “To pray in such a manner, as in the event to leave the continuance of our sufferings, or our deliverance from them, with a due submission, to the good pleasure of God,” is one of those “extraordinaryoperations of the Spirit,” which none now pretend to but “modernenthusiasts!”I beseech your Lordship to consider. Can you cooly maintain, that “the praying with a due submission to the will of God,” even in heavy affliction, is amiraculous gift? Anextraordinary operationof the Holy Ghost? Isthispeculiar to the primitive times? Is it whatnonebutenthusiastsnow pretend to? If not, then your Lordship’s own account ofpraying by the Spiritindisputably proves, that this is one of theordinaryprivileges of all Christians, to the end of the world.13. “I go on (your Lordship adds) to another passage of scripture, that has been entirely (page 27.) misapplied by modernenthusiasts. 1 Corinthiansii.4, 5.And my speech and my preaching were not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in the demonstration of the spirit and of power; that your faith should not stand in the wisdom of man, but in the power ofGod.” Page 29.“It is only necessary to evince, that bythe demonstration of the spirit and poweris meant the demonstration of the truth of Christianity, that arises from the prophesies of theOld Testament, and themiraclesofChristand hisapostles.” Yes, it is necessary farther to evince, that these words haveno othermeaning. But first, How will you evince, that they bear this? In order thereto, your Lordship argues thus:“The formerseems to bethe demonstration of the Spirit, with regard to the prophetical testimonies of him.—Andthe demonstration of power,must signifythe power of God, exerted in miracles.” (page 30.) “Must;” Why so? Thatδύναμιςoften signifiesmiraculous power, is allowed—But what follows? That itmust meanso in this place? That still remains to be proved.Indeed your Lordship says, this “appears from the following verse, in which is assigned the reason for using this method of proving Christianity to be true,viz.That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of man, but in the power ofGod. By the power of God therefore must necessarily be understood, the miracles performed by Christ and his apostles.” By the illative particle,therefore, this proposition should be an inference from some other: but what other I cannot yet discern. So that, for the present, I can only look upon it, as a fresh instance of begging the question.“He goes on in the7th,10thand following verses, to explain thisdemonstration of the spirit and of power.” But he does not say one syllable therein, either of theancient prophecies, or ofmiracles. Nor will it be easily proved, that he speaks either of one or the other, from the beginning of the chapter to the end.After transcribing the13thverse,which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth, comparing spiritual things with spiritual, your Lordship adds, “From which last passage it appears, that the words which the Holy Ghost is saidtoteach, must bethe prophetical revelations of theOld Testament, which were discovered to the apostles by the same Spirit.” I cannot apprehend, how this appears. I cannot as yet see any connection at all between the premisses and the conclusion.Upon the whole, I desire any calm and serious man, to read over this whole chapter; and then he will easily judge, what is the natural meaning of the words in question: and whether (although it be allowed, that they werepeculiarlyfulfilled in the apostles, yet) they do not manifestly belong,in a lower sense, to every true minister of Christ? For what can be more undeniable than this, thatourpreaching also is vain, unless it be attended withthe powerof that Spirit, who alone pierceth the heart? And that your hearing is vain, unless the samepower be present to healyour soul, and to give you a faith whichstandeth not in the wisdom of man, but in the power ofGod?14. “Another passage that (your Lordship thinks) has been misapplied byenthusiasts, but was really peculiar to the times of the apostles, is 1 Johnii.20. and 27. (page 35.)Ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things.——But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you: And ye need not that any man teach you, but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie. And even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.”“Here the apostle arms the true Christians♦against seducers, by an argument drawn fromthe unction from the Holy One, that wasinor ratheramongthem: that is, from theimmediate inspirationof some of their teachers.” page 37.♦“again” replaced with “against”Here it rests upon your lordship, to prove (as well as affirm) 1. Thatἐνshould be translatedamong: 2. That thisunction from the Holy Onemeans, “The inspiration of some of their teachers.”The latter your lordship attempts to prove thus: “The inspired teachers of old were set apart for that office, by an extraordinary effusion of the Holy Ghost: Therefore page 38.♦The unction from the Holy Onehere, means such an effusion.” I deny the consequence; so the question is still to be proved.♦Printer incorrectly started a new paragraph here.Your lordship’s second argument is drawn from the26thverse of the14thchapter ofSt.John’s gospel,Proposed in form, it will stand thus:“If those words,He shall teach you all things, relate only to amiraculousgift of the Holy Ghost, then these words,The same anointing teacheth you of all things, relate to themiraculousgift:“But those words relate only to amiraculousgift:“Therefore these relate to the same.”I conceive, it will not be very easy to make good the consequence in the first proposition.But I deny the minor also: the contradictory whereto, I trust, has appeared to be true.I grant indeed, that these words were moreeminentlyfulfilled, in the age of the apostles. But this is altogether consistent with their belongingin a lower sense, to all Christians in all ages: Seeing they have all need ofan unction from the Holy One, a supernatural assistance from the Holy Ghost, that they may know in the due use of all proper means,all thingsneedful for their souls health. Therefore it is noenthusiasm, to teach thatthe unction from the Holy One, belongs to all Christians in all ages.15. There is one topic of your lordship’s yet untouched; that is authority: One you have very frequently made use of, and wherein, probably, the generality of readers suppose your lordship’s great strength lies. And indeed when your lordship first mentioned, (page 11.) “The general sense of the primitive church,” I presumed you would have produced so numerous authorities, that I should not easily be able to consult them all. But I soon found my mistake; your lordship naming onlyChrysostom,Jerome,Origen, andAthanasius.However, though these four can no more be termed the primitive church, than the church universal, yet I consent to abide by their suffrage. Nay, I will go a step farther still. If any two of these affirm, that those seven texts belongonly tothe apostolical age, andnot to the Christians of succeeding times, I will give up the whole cause.But let it be observed: If they should affirm, that theseprimarilybelong to the♦Christians of the apostolicalage, that does not prove the point, because they may in a secondary sense belong toothersnotwithstanding: Nor does any of them speak home to the question, unless he maintain in express terms, that these texts referonlyto themiraculousgifts of the Spirit, andnot at allto the state ofordinaryChristians.♦“Christans” replaced with “Christians”16. Concerning those three texts,Johnxiv.verse 16.and the 26. andJohnxvi.verse 13.“I could easily add (says your lordship,¹) the authorities ofChrysostomand the other antient commentators.”St.Chrysostom’s authority I will consider now, and that of the others, when they are produced.¹Page 15.It is granted, that he interprets not onlyJohnxvi.13.but also both the passages in the14thchapter, as primarily belonging to the apostles. Yet part of his comment on the26thverse, is as follows.“Such is that grace (ofthe Comforter) that if it finds sadness it takes it away; if evil desire, it consumes it. It casts out fear, and suffers him that receives it to be a man no longer, but translates him, as it were, into heaven. Hencenone of them counted any thing his own, butcontinued in prayer, with gladness and singleness of heart.For thischieflyis there need of the Holy Ghost. For the fruit of the Spirit is joy, peace, faith, meekness. Indeed spiritual men often grieve; but that grief is sweeter than joy. For whatever is of the Spirit, is the greatest gain, as whatever is of the world, is the greatest loss. Let us therefore in keeping the commandments” (according to our Lord’s exhortation, verse 15.) “secure the unconquerable assistance of the Spirit, and we shall be nothing inferior to angels.”St.Chrysostomhere, after he had shewn, that the promise of the Comforter primarily belonged to the apostles: And who ever questioned it? undeniably teaches, That in a secondary sense, it belongs to all Christians: To allspiritual men, all whokeep the commandments. I appeal therefore to all mankind, whether his authority, touching the promise of our Lord in those texts, does not overthrow the proposition it was cited to prove?Although your lordship names no other author here, yet page 42. you say, “The assigned sense of these passages was confirmed by the authority ofOrigen.” It is needful therefore to add, what occurs in his works, with regard to the present question.He occasionally mentions this promise of our Lord, in four several places. But it is in one only that he speaks pertinently to the point in hand, (VolumeII.page 403. Edition Benedictine.) where his words are these:When the Spirit of truth is come, he will guide you into all truth, and he will teach you all things.“The sum of all good things consists in this, that a man be found worthy to receive the grace of the Holy Ghost. Otherwise, nothing will be accounted perfect in him, who hath not the Holy Spirit.”Do these words confirm that “sense of those passages that your lordship had assigned?” Rather do they not utterly overturn it? And prove, (as above) that although this promise of our Lord,primarilybelongs to the apostles, yet in thesecondarysense, it belongs (according toOrigen’s judgment) to all Christians in all ages?17. The fourth text mentioned as belonging to the first Christians only, isRomansviii.15, 16:and page 26. it is said, “This interpretation is confirmed by the authority of the most eminent fathers.” The reader is particularly referred toOrigenandJerom in locum. But here seems to be a mistake of the name.Jerom in locumshould mean,Jeromupon the place, uponRomansviii.15, 16.But I cannot perceive that there is one word upon that place, in allSt.Jerom’s works.Nor indeed hasOrigencommented upon it any more thanJerom. But he occasionally mentions it in these words:“He is a babe who is fed with milk—but if he seeks the things that are above—without doubt he will be of the number of those, whoreceive not the Spirit of bondage again unto fear, butthe spirit of adoption, through whom theycry, Abba Father.” VolumeI.page 79.Again, “The fulness of time is come—when they who are willing, receive the adoption, asPaulteaches in these words,Ye have not received the Spirit of bondage again unto fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father!And it is written in the gospel according toSt.John,To as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons ofGod, even to them that believe in his name.” VolumeI.page 231, 232.Yet again, “Every one that is born of God, and doth not commit sin, by his very actions saith, Our Father which art in heaven,the Spirit itself bearing witness with their spirit, that they are the children ofGod.”ibid.According toOrigentherefore, thistestimony of the Spirit, is not anypublicktestimony bymiracles, peculiar to the first times, but aninwardtestimony, belonging in common to all that areborn ofGod. And consequently the authority ofOrigendoes not “confirm that interpretation” neither; but absolutely destroys it.18. The last authority your Lordship appeals to on this text is, “that of the greatJohn Chrysostom, who reckons thetestimony of the spiritof adoption by which we cry Abba, Father! among themiraculousgifts of the Spirit.” “I rather chuse (your Lordship adds, page 26.) to refer you to the words ofSt.Chrysostom, than to transcribethem here, as having almost translated them in the present account of thetestimony of the Spirit.”However, I believe it will not be labour lost to transcribe a few of those words.It is his comment on the14thverse, that he first mentions,St.Paul’s comparison between aJewand aChristian. How fairly your Lordship has represented this, let every reader judge.As many as are led by the Spirit ofGod, they are the sons ofGod.—“Whereas the same title had been given of old to theJewsalso,—he shews in the sequel, how great a difference there is, between that honour and this. For though, says he, the titles are the same, yet the things are not. And he plainly proves it, by comparing both what they had received, and what they looked for. And first he shews what they had received,viz.A Spirit of bondage. Therefore he adds,Ye have not received the Spirit of bondage again unto fear: but ye have received the Spirit of adoption. What meansthe spirit of fear?—*Observe their whole life, and you will know clearly. For punishments were at their heels, and much fear was on every side, and before their face.—But with us it is not so. For our mind and conscience are cleansed, so that we do all things well, not for fear of present punishment, but through our love of God, and an habit of virtue. They therefore, though they were called sons, yet were as slaves; but we, being made free, have receivedthe adoption, and look not for a land of milk and honey, but for heaven.”*“He brings also another proof, thatwe have the Spirit of adoption, by which, says he,we cry, Abba, Father.—This is the first word we utterμετὰ τὰς θαυμαστάς ὠδῖνας ἐκείνας, καὶ τὸν ξένον παράδοξον λοχευμάτων νόμον: after those amazing throes (or birth-pangs) and that strange and wonderful manner of bringing forth.”“He brings yet another proof of the superiority of those who hadthis Spirit of adoption. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit that we are the children ofGod.I prove this, says he, not only from the voice itself, but also from the cause whence that voice proceeds. For the Spirit suggests the words while we thus speak, which he hath elsewhere exprest more plainly, Godhath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father! But what is,The Spirit beareth witness with our spirit? He means, the paraclete by the gift given unto us.” (But that this was anextraordinarygift, we have no intimation at all, neither before nor after) *“And whenthe Spirit beareth witness, what doubt is left? If a man or an angel spake, some might doubt. But when the Most High beareth witness to us, who can doubt any longer?”Now let any reasonable man judge how far your Lordship has “translated the words ofSt.Chrysostom? And whether he reckons the testimony of the Spirit among themiraculousgifts ofthe Holy Ghost?” Or among thoseordinarygifts of the Spirit of Christ, which if a man have not, he is none of his?19. The fifth text your Lordship quotes, as describing amiraculousgift of the Spirit, is1 Corinthiansxiv.15.To prove which, you comment on the8thchapter to theRomans, particularly the26thverse: and here again it is said, “That the interpretation assigned, is confirmed by several of the most eminent fathers, more especially the greatJohn Chrysostom, as well as byOrigenandJerome upon the place.”I cannot findSt.Jerometo have writ one lineupon the place. And it is obvious, thatSt.Chrysostomsupposes, the whole context from the17thto the25thverse, to relate to all Christians in all ages. How this can be said to “confirm the interpretation assigned,” I cannot conjecture. Nay, it is remarkable, that he expounds the former part of the26thverse, as describing theordinaryprivilege of all Christians. Thus far, therefore, he does not confirm, but overthrow “the interpretation before assigned.” But in the middle of the verse he breaks off, and expounds the latter part, as describing one of themiraculousgifts.Yet I must do the justice to this venerable man to observe, he does not suppose that amiraculousgift was given, only that the inspired might do what anyordinaryChristian might have done without it. (This interpretation, even of the latterpart of the verse, he does in no wise confirm.) But that he might ask in every particular circumstance, the determinate thing which it was the will of God to give.20. The third father by whom it is said this interpretation is confirmed isOrigen. The first passage of his, which relates toRomansviii.26.runs thus: (volumeI.page 199.)“Paulperceiving how far he was, after all these things, from knowing to pray for what he ought, as he ought,” says,We know not what we should pray for as we ought. But he adds, whence, what is wanting may be had by one who indeed does not know, but labours to be found worthy of having the defect supplied. For he saysLikewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities.“For we know not what we should pray for as we ought. But the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us, with groanings which cannot be uttered. And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the spirit; because he maketh intercession for the saints, according to the will ofGod.The Spirit which crieth Abba, Father, in the hearts of the saints, knowing well our groanings in this tabernacle,maketh intercession for us toGod, with groanings which cannot be uttered. To the same effect is that scripture,1 Corinthiansxiv.15.I will pray with the Spirit, I will pray with the understanding also.For our understanding (or mind♦ὁ νοῦς) cannot pray, if the Spirit do not praybefore it, and the understanding, as it were, listen to it.”

♦“οῦ ἓμελλόν λαμβὰνειν ὁι πιστεὺοντες ἐις ἀυτὸν” replaced with “οὗ ἔμελλον λαμβάνειν οἱ πιστεύσαντες εἰς αὐτὸν”

♦“οῦ ἓμελλόν λαμβὰνειν ὁι πιστεὺοντες ἐις ἀυτὸν” replaced with “οὗ ἔμελλον λαμβάνειν οἱ πιστεύσαντες εἰς αὐτὸν”

♦“οῦ ἓμελλόν λαμβὰνειν ὁι πιστεὺοντες ἐις ἀυτὸν” replaced with “οὗ ἔμελλον λαμβάνειν οἱ πιστεύσαντες εἰς αὐτὸν”

6. Your Lordship proceeds: “It occurs in the14thand16thchapters ofSt.John’s gospel; in which he uses these words”——in what verses, my Lord? Why is not this specified?¹Unless to furnish your Lordship with an opportunity of doing the very things whereof you before complained, of “confounding passages of a quite contrary nature, and jumbling together those that relate to the♦extraordinaryoperations of the Spirit, with those that relate to hisordinaryinfluences?”

¹I take it for granted, that the citation of texts in the margin, which is totally wrong, is a blunder of the printer’s.♦“extraordinory” replaced with “extraordinary”

¹I take it for granted, that the citation of texts in the margin, which is totally wrong, is a blunder of the printer’s.

¹I take it for granted, that the citation of texts in the margin, which is totally wrong, is a blunder of the printer’s.

♦“extraordinory” replaced with “extraordinary”

♦“extraordinory” replaced with “extraordinary”

You cite the words thus;When the Spirit of truth is come he will guide you into all truth, and he will shew you things to come.(These are nearly the words that occur, chapterxvi.verse 13.)

“And again,The Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.These words occur in the14thchapter, at the26thverse.”

But my Lord, I want the original promise still; the original (I mean) of those made in this very discourse. Indeed your margin tells us, where it is, (chapterxiv.verse 16.) but the words appearnot. Taken together with the context they run thus:

If ye love me, keep my commandments.

And I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever:

Even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knowest him.Chapterxiv.verses 15, 16, 17.

My Lord, suffer me to enquire, why you slipt over this text? Was it not (I appeal to the Searcher of your heart!) because you was conscious to yourself, that it would necessarily drive you to that unhappy dilemma, either to assert thatfor ever,εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, meant only sixty or seventy years; or to allow, that the text must be interpreted of theordinaryoperations of the Spirit, in all future ages of the church.

And indeed that the promise in this text belongs to all Christians, evidently appears, not only from your Lordship’s own concession, and from the text itself, (for who can deny, that this Comforter or paraclete is now given to all them that believe?) but also from the preceding, as well as following, words. The preceding are,If ye love me, keep my commandments. And I will pray the Father—none surely can doubt, but these belong to all Christians in all ages. The following words are,Even the Spirit of truth, whom theworldcannot receive. True; theworldcannot; butall Christianscan, and will receive himfor ever.

6. The second promise of the Comforter, made in this chapter, together with its context, stands thus:

Judassaith unto him(notIscariot) Lord,how is it that thou will manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world? Verse 22.

Jesusanswered and said unto him, if any man love me, he will keep my word. And my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.Verse 23.

He that loveth me not, keepeth not my word: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father’s which sent me.Verse 24.

These things have I spoken unto you, being yet with you.Verse 25.

But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.Verse 26.

Now, How does your Lordship prove that this promise belongs only to the primitive church? Why, 1. You say, “It is very clear from the bare recital of the words.” I apprehend not. But this is the very question, which is not to be begged, but proved. 2. You say, “The Spirit’s bringing all things to their remembrance, whatsoever he had said unto them, cannot possibly be applied to any other persons but the apostles.” “Cannot be applied!” This is a flat begging thequestion again, which I cannot give up without better reasons. 3. “The gifts ofprophecyand of beingguided into all truth, and taught all things, can be applied only to the apostles, and those of that age who were immediately inspired.” Here your Lordship, in order the more plausibly to beg the question again, “Jumbles together theextraordinarywith theordinaryoperations of the Spirit.” The gift ofprophecy, we know, is one of hisextraordinaryoperations; but there is not a word of it in this text: nor, therefore ought it to be “confounded with hisordinaryoperations,” such as the beingguided into all truth, (all that is necessary to salvation) andtaught all(necessary)things, in a due use of themeanshe hath ordained. Verse 26.

In the same manner, namely, in a serious and constant use of propermeans, I believe the assistance of the Holy Ghost is given to all Christians, tobring all thingsneedfulto their remembrance, whatsoeverChristhath spoken to themin his word. So that I see no occasion to grant, without some kind of proof, (especially considering the occasion of this, and the scope of the preceding verses) that even “this promise cannot possibly be applied to any other persons but the apostles.”

7. In the same discourse of our Lord we have a third promise of the Comforter, the whole clause runs thus:

If I go not away, the Comforter will not comeunto you; but if I go, I will send him unto you.Chapterxvi.verse 7.

And when he is come, he will reprove(or convince)the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment. Verse 8.

Of sin, because they believe not on me;

Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more:

Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged; verses 9, 10, 11.

I have yet many things to say unto you; but ye cannot bear them now: (Verse 12.)but when he shall come, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you into all truth——And he will shew you things to come.Verse 13.

There is only one sentence here which has not already been considered,He will shew you things to come.

And this, it is granted, relates to the gift ofprophecy, one of theextraordinaryoperations of the Spirit.

The general conclusion which your Lordship draws, is exprest in these words. “Consequently all pretensions to the Spirit, in the proper sense of the words of this promise (i. e.of these several texts ofSt.John) are vain and insignificant, as they are claimed by modernEnthusiasts.” And in the end of the same paragraph you add, “None but theordinaryoperations of the Spirit are to be now expected, since those that are of amiraculous(orextraordinary) kind areNOT PRETENDED TO, even by modernEnthusiasts.”

My Lord, this is surprizing. I read it over and over, before I could credit my own eyes. I verily believe this one clause, with unprejudiced persons, will be an answer to the whole book. You have been vehemently crying out all along against thoseenthusiasticalpretenders; nay, the very design of your book, as you openly declare, “was to stop the growth of theirEnthusiasm; who have had the assurance (as you positively affirm, page 6,) to claim to themselves theextraordinaryoperations of the Holy Spirit.” And here you as positively affirm, that thoseextraordinaryoperations “are not pretended to by them at all!”

8. Yet your Lordship proceeds, “The next passage of scripture, I shall mention as peculiarly belonging to the primitive times, though misapplied to the present state of Christians by modernEnthusiasts, is what relates to thetestimony of the Spirit, andpraying by the Spirit, in the8thchapter of the epistle to theRomans.” Page 16.

I believe it incumbent upon me thoroughly to weigh the force of your Lordship’s reasoning on this head. You begin, “AfterSt.Paulhad treated of that spiritual principle in Christians, which enables themto mortify the deeds of the body—he says,if any man have not the Spirit ofChrist, he is none of his. This makes the distinction of a true Christian, particularly in opposition to theJews.” I apprehend it is just here, that♦yourLordship turns out of the way, when you say, “particularly in opposition to theJews.” Such aparticularopposition I cannot allow, till some stronger proof is produced, thanSt.Paul’s occasionally mentioning six verses before, “the imperfection of theJewishlaw.”

♦“you” replaced with “your”

♦“you” replaced with “your”

♦“you” replaced with “your”

Yet your Lordship’s mind is so full of this, that after repeating the14thand15thverses (as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God: for ye have not received the Spirit of bondage again to fear: but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father!) you add, “in the former part of this verse, the apostle shews again the imperfection of theJewishlaw.” This also calls for proof: otherwise, it will not be allowed, that he here speaks of theJewishlaw at all: not, tho’ we grant that “theJewswere subject to thefearof death, and lived in consequence of it, in a state ofbondage.” For are not all unbelievers, as♦well as theJews, more or less, in the samefearandbondage?

♦“will” replaced with “well”

♦“will” replaced with “well”

♦“will” replaced with “well”

Your Lordship goes on, “In the latter part of the verse he shews the superiority of theChristianlaw to that of theJews.” Page 18. Where is the proof, my Lord? How does it appear, that he is speaking either of theChristianorJewishlaw, in those words,Ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father? However you infer, “Christiansthen are the adopted sons of God, in contradistinction to theJews, as the former had the gifts of the Holy Ghost, whichnone of the latter had at that time: andthe body of the Jewsnever had.” No, northe body of the Christiansneither. So that if this be a♦proof against theJews, it is the very same against theChristians.

♦“poof” replaced with “proof”

♦“poof” replaced with “proof”

♦“poof” replaced with “proof”

I must observe farther on the preceding words, 1. That your Lordship begins here, to take the wordChristiansin a new and peculiar sense, for the whole body of the then Christian Church: 2. That it is a bad inference, “as, or because they had the gifts of the Holy Ghost, therefore they were the sons of God.” On the one hand, if they were the children of God, it was not, because they had gifts. On the other, a man may have all those gifts, and yet be a child of the devil.

9. I conceive, not only that your Lordship hasprovednothing hitherto, not one point that has any relation to the question: but that, strictly speaking, you have notattempted to proveany thing, havingtaken for grantedwhatever came in your way. In the same manner you proceed, “The apostle goes on,The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God. This passage, as it is connected with the preceding one, relates to the general adoption of Christians, or their becoming the sons of God instead of theJews.”—“This passage relates”—How is that proved? By its connexion with the preceding? In no wise, unless it be good arguing to proveIgnotum per ignotius. Ithas not yet been proved, that the preceeding passage itself has any relation to this matter.

Your Lordship adds, “But what was the ground of this preference that was given to Christians? It was plainly the (miraculous)gifts of the Spirit, which they had, and which theJewshad not.”This preference given to Christians, was just before exprest by theirbecoming the sons ofGodinstead of theJews. Were the gifts of the Spirit thenthe ground of this preference? The ground of their becoming the sons of God? What an assertion is this! And how little is it mended, though I allow, that “these miraculous gifts of the Spirit, were a testimony that God acknowledged theChristiansto be his people and not theJews: (since theChristianswho worked miracles, did it notby the works of the law, but bythe hearing of faith?”)

Your Lordship concludes, “From these passages ofSt.Paul, compared together, it clearly follows, that the fore-mentionedtestimony of the Spirit, was thepublic testimonyof miraculous gifts—and, consequently,the witness of the Spirit that we are the children ofGod, cannot possibly be applied, to theprivate testimonyof the Spirit given to our own consciences, as is pretended by modernenthusiasts.” Page 20.

If your conclusion, my Lord, will stand without the premisses it may: but that it has no manner of connection with them, I trust does partly, and will more fully appear, when we view thewhole passage to which you refer. And I believe that passage, with very little comment, will prove, in direct opposition to that conclusion, that the testimony of the Spirit there mentioned, is not thepublic testimonyof miraculous gifts, but must be applied to theprivate testimonyof the Spirit, given to our own consciences.

10.St.Paulbegins the8thchapter of his Epistle to theRomans, with the great privilege of every Christian believer, (whetherJeworGentilebefore)There is now no condemnation for them that are inChrist Jesus, engrafted into him by faith,who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. Fornow every one of them may truly say,The law(or power)of the Spirit of life inChrist Jesus(given unto me for his sake)hath made me free from the law(or power)of sin and death. For that which the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh,Godsending his own Son, in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, did; when hecondemned, (crucified, put to death, destroyed)sin in the flesh: that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For they that are after the flesh, mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit, the things of the Spirit.Verse 1–5.

Is it not evident, that the apostle is here describing a true Christian, a holy believer? In opposition, not particularly to aJew, much less to theJewish law, but to every unholy man, to all,whetherJewsorGentiles, who walk after the flesh? He goes on

For, to be carnally-minded is death; but to be spiritually-minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity againstGod: for it is not subject to the law ofGod; neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh, cannot pleaseGod.Verses 6, 7, 8.

The opposition between a holy and unholy man, is still glaring and undeniable. But can any man discern, the least glimmering of opposition, between theChristianand theJewishLaw.

The apostle goes on,But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit ofGoddwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit ofChrist, he is none of his. But ifChristbe in you, the body is dead, because of sin, but the spirit is life because of righteousness. But if the Spirit of him that raised upJesusfrom the dead dwell in you, he that raised upChristfrom the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit which dwelleth in you. Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh. For if ye live after the flesh ye shall die; but if ye, through the Spirit, do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live. For as many as are led by the Spirit ofGod, they are the sons ofGod.Verse 9–14.

Is there one word here, is there any the least intimation ofmiraculousgifts, or of theJewish law?

It follows,For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again, to fear(such as all sinners have, when they at first stirred up to seek God, and begin to serve him from a slavish fear of punishment)But ye have received the spirit of adoption(of free love)whereby we cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit itself(which Godhath sent forth into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father,) beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children ofGod.Verse 15, 16.

I am now willing to leave it, without farther comment, to the judgment of every impartial reader, whether it does not appear from the whole scope and tenor of the text and context taken together, that this passage does not refer to theJewish law, nor to thepublic testimony of miracles: neither of which can be dragged in, without putting the utmost force on the natural meaning of the words. And if so, it will follow, that thiswitness of the Spiritisthe private testimony given to our own consciences: which, consequently, all sober Christians may claim, without any danger ofenthusiasm.

11. “But I go on (says your Lordship, page 21.) to the consideration of the other passages in the same chapter, relating to ourpraying by the Spirit, namely at verse 26 and 27, which runs thus,Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought; but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us, with groanings which cannot be uttered. Andhe that searcheth the hearts, knoweth what is the mind of the spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints, according to the will ofGod.”

Here is a circumstance highly needful to be observed, before we enter upon this question. Your Lordship undertakes to fix the meaning of an expression used bySt.Paul, in the14thchapter of his first epistle to theCorinthians. And in order thereto, you laboriously explain part of the8thchapter of theRomans. My Lord, how is this? Will it be said, Whythisis often alledged to prove the wrong sense ofthatscripture? I conceive, this will not salve the matter at all. Your Lordship had before laid down a particular method, as the only sure one whereby to distinguish what scriptures belong to all Christians, and what do not. This method is, the considering the occasion and scope of those passages, by comparing the text and context together. You then propose, by the use of this method, to shew, that several texts have been misapplied byEnthusiasts. One of these is the15thverse of the14thchapter of the first epistle to theCorinthians. And to shew, thatEnthusiastshave misapplied this, you comment on the8thchapter to theRomans!

However, let us weigh the comment itself. The material part of it begins thus: (page 22.) “Now he adds another proof of the truth of Christianity:Likewise the Spirit helpeth our infirmities(or ourdistresses, for♦ἀσθενείαιςsignifies both.” I doubt that: I require authority for it.)“And then he mentions, in what instances he does so,viz.Inprayersto God about afflictions”—(In nothing else, my Lord? Did hehelp their infirmities, in no other instance than this?) “We know not, says he,what we should pray for as we ought. That is, whether it be best for us to bear afflictions, or to be delivered from them. Butthe Spirit,ORthe gift of the Spirit, instructs us how toprayin a manner agreeable to the will of God.”The Spirit,ORthegiftof the Spirit! What marvellous reasoning is this? If these “are often put for each other,” what then? How is that evinced to be the case here?

♦“ἀθενείαις” replaced with “ἀσθενείαις”

♦“ἀθενείαις” replaced with “ἀσθενείαις”

♦“ἀθενείαις” replaced with “ἀσθενείαις”

12. “The apostle goes on,The Spirit itself(page 23)maketh intercession for us, with groanings which cannot be uttered: That is, thespiritualorinspired personprayed in that capacity for the whole assembly.” “That is!” Nay, that is again the very point to be proved, else we get not one step farther.

“The apostle goes on thus, verse 27.And he that(page 24)searcheth the hearts, knoweth what is the mind of the spirit, (that is, of thespiritualorinspiredperson)becausehemaketh intercession for the saints, according to the will ofGod. That is, God knows the intention of thespiritualperson, who has thegiftofprayer, which he uses for the benefit of the whole assembly; he, I say, leaves it entirely to God, whether it be best that they should suffer afflictions, or be delivered from them.” Page 25.

My Lord, this is more astonishing than all the rest! I was expecting all along in reading the preceding pages (and so I suppose, was every thinking reader) when your Lordship would mention, that the personmiraculously inspiredfor that intent, and prayingκατὰ Θεὸνeither for the support or deliverance of the people, shouldhave the very petition which he asked of him. Whereas you intended no such thing! But shut up the whole with that lame and impotent conclusion, “He leaves it to God, whether it be best they should suffer afflictions, or be delivered from them.”

Had he then thatmiraculousgift of God, that he might do what any common Christian might have done without it? Why, any person in the congregation might have prayed thus: nay, could not pray otherwise, if he had theordinarygrace of God: “Leaving it to God, whether he should suffer afflictions still, or be delivered from them.” Was itonlyin the apostolical age, that “the Spirit instructed Christiansthusto pray?” Cannot a man praythus, either for himself or others, unless he has themiraculousgift of prayer!—So, according to your Lordship’s judgment, “To pray in such a manner, as in the event to leave the continuance of our sufferings, or our deliverance from them, with a due submission, to the good pleasure of God,” is one of those “extraordinaryoperations of the Spirit,” which none now pretend to but “modernenthusiasts!”

I beseech your Lordship to consider. Can you cooly maintain, that “the praying with a due submission to the will of God,” even in heavy affliction, is amiraculous gift? Anextraordinary operationof the Holy Ghost? Isthispeculiar to the primitive times? Is it whatnonebutenthusiastsnow pretend to? If not, then your Lordship’s own account ofpraying by the Spiritindisputably proves, that this is one of theordinaryprivileges of all Christians, to the end of the world.

13. “I go on (your Lordship adds) to another passage of scripture, that has been entirely (page 27.) misapplied by modernenthusiasts. 1 Corinthiansii.4, 5.And my speech and my preaching were not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in the demonstration of the spirit and of power; that your faith should not stand in the wisdom of man, but in the power ofGod.” Page 29.

“It is only necessary to evince, that bythe demonstration of the spirit and poweris meant the demonstration of the truth of Christianity, that arises from the prophesies of theOld Testament, and themiraclesofChristand hisapostles.” Yes, it is necessary farther to evince, that these words haveno othermeaning. But first, How will you evince, that they bear this? In order thereto, your Lordship argues thus:

“The formerseems to bethe demonstration of the Spirit, with regard to the prophetical testimonies of him.—Andthe demonstration of power,must signifythe power of God, exerted in miracles.” (page 30.) “Must;” Why so? Thatδύναμιςoften signifiesmiraculous power, is allowed—But what follows? That itmust meanso in this place? That still remains to be proved.

Indeed your Lordship says, this “appears from the following verse, in which is assigned the reason for using this method of proving Christianity to be true,viz.That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of man, but in the power ofGod. By the power of God therefore must necessarily be understood, the miracles performed by Christ and his apostles.” By the illative particle,therefore, this proposition should be an inference from some other: but what other I cannot yet discern. So that, for the present, I can only look upon it, as a fresh instance of begging the question.

“He goes on in the7th,10thand following verses, to explain thisdemonstration of the spirit and of power.” But he does not say one syllable therein, either of theancient prophecies, or ofmiracles. Nor will it be easily proved, that he speaks either of one or the other, from the beginning of the chapter to the end.

After transcribing the13thverse,which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth, comparing spiritual things with spiritual, your Lordship adds, “From which last passage it appears, that the words which the Holy Ghost is saidtoteach, must bethe prophetical revelations of theOld Testament, which were discovered to the apostles by the same Spirit.” I cannot apprehend, how this appears. I cannot as yet see any connection at all between the premisses and the conclusion.

Upon the whole, I desire any calm and serious man, to read over this whole chapter; and then he will easily judge, what is the natural meaning of the words in question: and whether (although it be allowed, that they werepeculiarlyfulfilled in the apostles, yet) they do not manifestly belong,in a lower sense, to every true minister of Christ? For what can be more undeniable than this, thatourpreaching also is vain, unless it be attended withthe powerof that Spirit, who alone pierceth the heart? And that your hearing is vain, unless the samepower be present to healyour soul, and to give you a faith whichstandeth not in the wisdom of man, but in the power ofGod?

14. “Another passage that (your Lordship thinks) has been misapplied byenthusiasts, but was really peculiar to the times of the apostles, is 1 Johnii.20. and 27. (page 35.)Ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things.——But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you: And ye need not that any man teach you, but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie. And even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.”“Here the apostle arms the true Christians♦against seducers, by an argument drawn fromthe unction from the Holy One, that wasinor ratheramongthem: that is, from theimmediate inspirationof some of their teachers.” page 37.

♦“again” replaced with “against”

♦“again” replaced with “against”

♦“again” replaced with “against”

Here it rests upon your lordship, to prove (as well as affirm) 1. Thatἐνshould be translatedamong: 2. That thisunction from the Holy Onemeans, “The inspiration of some of their teachers.”

The latter your lordship attempts to prove thus: “The inspired teachers of old were set apart for that office, by an extraordinary effusion of the Holy Ghost: Therefore page 38.♦The unction from the Holy Onehere, means such an effusion.” I deny the consequence; so the question is still to be proved.

♦Printer incorrectly started a new paragraph here.

♦Printer incorrectly started a new paragraph here.

♦Printer incorrectly started a new paragraph here.

Your lordship’s second argument is drawn from the26thverse of the14thchapter ofSt.John’s gospel,

Proposed in form, it will stand thus:

“If those words,He shall teach you all things, relate only to amiraculousgift of the Holy Ghost, then these words,The same anointing teacheth you of all things, relate to themiraculousgift:

“But those words relate only to amiraculousgift:

“Therefore these relate to the same.”

I conceive, it will not be very easy to make good the consequence in the first proposition.But I deny the minor also: the contradictory whereto, I trust, has appeared to be true.

I grant indeed, that these words were moreeminentlyfulfilled, in the age of the apostles. But this is altogether consistent with their belongingin a lower sense, to all Christians in all ages: Seeing they have all need ofan unction from the Holy One, a supernatural assistance from the Holy Ghost, that they may know in the due use of all proper means,all thingsneedful for their souls health. Therefore it is noenthusiasm, to teach thatthe unction from the Holy One, belongs to all Christians in all ages.

15. There is one topic of your lordship’s yet untouched; that is authority: One you have very frequently made use of, and wherein, probably, the generality of readers suppose your lordship’s great strength lies. And indeed when your lordship first mentioned, (page 11.) “The general sense of the primitive church,” I presumed you would have produced so numerous authorities, that I should not easily be able to consult them all. But I soon found my mistake; your lordship naming onlyChrysostom,Jerome,Origen, andAthanasius.

However, though these four can no more be termed the primitive church, than the church universal, yet I consent to abide by their suffrage. Nay, I will go a step farther still. If any two of these affirm, that those seven texts belongonly tothe apostolical age, andnot to the Christians of succeeding times, I will give up the whole cause.

But let it be observed: If they should affirm, that theseprimarilybelong to the♦Christians of the apostolicalage, that does not prove the point, because they may in a secondary sense belong toothersnotwithstanding: Nor does any of them speak home to the question, unless he maintain in express terms, that these texts referonlyto themiraculousgifts of the Spirit, andnot at allto the state ofordinaryChristians.

♦“Christans” replaced with “Christians”

♦“Christans” replaced with “Christians”

♦“Christans” replaced with “Christians”

16. Concerning those three texts,Johnxiv.verse 16.and the 26. andJohnxvi.verse 13.“I could easily add (says your lordship,¹) the authorities ofChrysostomand the other antient commentators.”St.Chrysostom’s authority I will consider now, and that of the others, when they are produced.

¹Page 15.

¹Page 15.

¹Page 15.

It is granted, that he interprets not onlyJohnxvi.13.but also both the passages in the14thchapter, as primarily belonging to the apostles. Yet part of his comment on the26thverse, is as follows.

“Such is that grace (ofthe Comforter) that if it finds sadness it takes it away; if evil desire, it consumes it. It casts out fear, and suffers him that receives it to be a man no longer, but translates him, as it were, into heaven. Hencenone of them counted any thing his own, butcontinued in prayer, with gladness and singleness of heart.For thischieflyis there need of the Holy Ghost. For the fruit of the Spirit is joy, peace, faith, meekness. Indeed spiritual men often grieve; but that grief is sweeter than joy. For whatever is of the Spirit, is the greatest gain, as whatever is of the world, is the greatest loss. Let us therefore in keeping the commandments” (according to our Lord’s exhortation, verse 15.) “secure the unconquerable assistance of the Spirit, and we shall be nothing inferior to angels.”

St.Chrysostomhere, after he had shewn, that the promise of the Comforter primarily belonged to the apostles: And who ever questioned it? undeniably teaches, That in a secondary sense, it belongs to all Christians: To allspiritual men, all whokeep the commandments. I appeal therefore to all mankind, whether his authority, touching the promise of our Lord in those texts, does not overthrow the proposition it was cited to prove?

Although your lordship names no other author here, yet page 42. you say, “The assigned sense of these passages was confirmed by the authority ofOrigen.” It is needful therefore to add, what occurs in his works, with regard to the present question.

He occasionally mentions this promise of our Lord, in four several places. But it is in one only that he speaks pertinently to the point in hand, (VolumeII.page 403. Edition Benedictine.) where his words are these:

When the Spirit of truth is come, he will guide you into all truth, and he will teach you all things.“The sum of all good things consists in this, that a man be found worthy to receive the grace of the Holy Ghost. Otherwise, nothing will be accounted perfect in him, who hath not the Holy Spirit.”

Do these words confirm that “sense of those passages that your lordship had assigned?” Rather do they not utterly overturn it? And prove, (as above) that although this promise of our Lord,primarilybelongs to the apostles, yet in thesecondarysense, it belongs (according toOrigen’s judgment) to all Christians in all ages?

17. The fourth text mentioned as belonging to the first Christians only, isRomansviii.15, 16:and page 26. it is said, “This interpretation is confirmed by the authority of the most eminent fathers.” The reader is particularly referred toOrigenandJerom in locum. But here seems to be a mistake of the name.Jerom in locumshould mean,Jeromupon the place, uponRomansviii.15, 16.But I cannot perceive that there is one word upon that place, in allSt.Jerom’s works.

Nor indeed hasOrigencommented upon it any more thanJerom. But he occasionally mentions it in these words:

“He is a babe who is fed with milk—but if he seeks the things that are above—without doubt he will be of the number of those, whoreceive not the Spirit of bondage again unto fear, butthe spirit of adoption, through whom theycry, Abba Father.” VolumeI.page 79.

Again, “The fulness of time is come—when they who are willing, receive the adoption, asPaulteaches in these words,Ye have not received the Spirit of bondage again unto fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father!And it is written in the gospel according toSt.John,To as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons ofGod, even to them that believe in his name.” VolumeI.page 231, 232.

Yet again, “Every one that is born of God, and doth not commit sin, by his very actions saith, Our Father which art in heaven,the Spirit itself bearing witness with their spirit, that they are the children ofGod.”ibid.

According toOrigentherefore, thistestimony of the Spirit, is not anypublicktestimony bymiracles, peculiar to the first times, but aninwardtestimony, belonging in common to all that areborn ofGod. And consequently the authority ofOrigendoes not “confirm that interpretation” neither; but absolutely destroys it.

18. The last authority your Lordship appeals to on this text is, “that of the greatJohn Chrysostom, who reckons thetestimony of the spiritof adoption by which we cry Abba, Father! among themiraculousgifts of the Spirit.” “I rather chuse (your Lordship adds, page 26.) to refer you to the words ofSt.Chrysostom, than to transcribethem here, as having almost translated them in the present account of thetestimony of the Spirit.”

However, I believe it will not be labour lost to transcribe a few of those words.

It is his comment on the14thverse, that he first mentions,St.Paul’s comparison between aJewand aChristian. How fairly your Lordship has represented this, let every reader judge.

As many as are led by the Spirit ofGod, they are the sons ofGod.—“Whereas the same title had been given of old to theJewsalso,—he shews in the sequel, how great a difference there is, between that honour and this. For though, says he, the titles are the same, yet the things are not. And he plainly proves it, by comparing both what they had received, and what they looked for. And first he shews what they had received,viz.A Spirit of bondage. Therefore he adds,Ye have not received the Spirit of bondage again unto fear: but ye have received the Spirit of adoption. What meansthe spirit of fear?—*Observe their whole life, and you will know clearly. For punishments were at their heels, and much fear was on every side, and before their face.—But with us it is not so. For our mind and conscience are cleansed, so that we do all things well, not for fear of present punishment, but through our love of God, and an habit of virtue. They therefore, though they were called sons, yet were as slaves; but we, being made free, have receivedthe adoption, and look not for a land of milk and honey, but for heaven.”

*“He brings also another proof, thatwe have the Spirit of adoption, by which, says he,we cry, Abba, Father.—This is the first word we utterμετὰ τὰς θαυμαστάς ὠδῖνας ἐκείνας, καὶ τὸν ξένον παράδοξον λοχευμάτων νόμον: after those amazing throes (or birth-pangs) and that strange and wonderful manner of bringing forth.”

“He brings yet another proof of the superiority of those who hadthis Spirit of adoption. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit that we are the children ofGod.I prove this, says he, not only from the voice itself, but also from the cause whence that voice proceeds. For the Spirit suggests the words while we thus speak, which he hath elsewhere exprest more plainly, Godhath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father! But what is,The Spirit beareth witness with our spirit? He means, the paraclete by the gift given unto us.” (But that this was anextraordinarygift, we have no intimation at all, neither before nor after) *“And whenthe Spirit beareth witness, what doubt is left? If a man or an angel spake, some might doubt. But when the Most High beareth witness to us, who can doubt any longer?”

Now let any reasonable man judge how far your Lordship has “translated the words ofSt.Chrysostom? And whether he reckons the testimony of the Spirit among themiraculousgifts ofthe Holy Ghost?” Or among thoseordinarygifts of the Spirit of Christ, which if a man have not, he is none of his?

19. The fifth text your Lordship quotes, as describing amiraculousgift of the Spirit, is1 Corinthiansxiv.15.To prove which, you comment on the8thchapter to theRomans, particularly the26thverse: and here again it is said, “That the interpretation assigned, is confirmed by several of the most eminent fathers, more especially the greatJohn Chrysostom, as well as byOrigenandJerome upon the place.”

I cannot findSt.Jerometo have writ one lineupon the place. And it is obvious, thatSt.Chrysostomsupposes, the whole context from the17thto the25thverse, to relate to all Christians in all ages. How this can be said to “confirm the interpretation assigned,” I cannot conjecture. Nay, it is remarkable, that he expounds the former part of the26thverse, as describing theordinaryprivilege of all Christians. Thus far, therefore, he does not confirm, but overthrow “the interpretation before assigned.” But in the middle of the verse he breaks off, and expounds the latter part, as describing one of themiraculousgifts.

Yet I must do the justice to this venerable man to observe, he does not suppose that amiraculousgift was given, only that the inspired might do what anyordinaryChristian might have done without it. (This interpretation, even of the latterpart of the verse, he does in no wise confirm.) But that he might ask in every particular circumstance, the determinate thing which it was the will of God to give.

20. The third father by whom it is said this interpretation is confirmed isOrigen. The first passage of his, which relates toRomansviii.26.runs thus: (volumeI.page 199.)

“Paulperceiving how far he was, after all these things, from knowing to pray for what he ought, as he ought,” says,We know not what we should pray for as we ought. But he adds, whence, what is wanting may be had by one who indeed does not know, but labours to be found worthy of having the defect supplied. For he saysLikewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities.“For we know not what we should pray for as we ought. But the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us, with groanings which cannot be uttered. And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the spirit; because he maketh intercession for the saints, according to the will ofGod.The Spirit which crieth Abba, Father, in the hearts of the saints, knowing well our groanings in this tabernacle,maketh intercession for us toGod, with groanings which cannot be uttered. To the same effect is that scripture,1 Corinthiansxiv.15.I will pray with the Spirit, I will pray with the understanding also.For our understanding (or mind♦ὁ νοῦς) cannot pray, if the Spirit do not praybefore it, and the understanding, as it were, listen to it.”

Back to IndexNext