is faith, that is, a sure trust and confidence, that God both hath and
will forgive our sins, that he hath accepted us again into his favour,
for the merits of Christ’s death and passion.” _Second sermon on the
passion._
“But here, we must take heed that we do not halt with God through an
unconstant, wavering faith. _Peter_ coming to Christ upon the water,
because he fainted in faith was in danger of drowning. So we, if
we begin to waver or doubt, it is to be feared lest we should sink
as _Peter_ did: not into the water, but into the bottomless pit of
hell-fire. Therefore I say unto you, that we must apprehend the merits
of Christ’s death by faith, and that with a strong and stedfast faith;
nothing doubting, but that Christ by his own oblation hath taken away
our sins, and hath restored us again to God’s favour.” _ibid._
5. If it be still said, that the church speaks only of men in general,
but not of the confidence of this or that particular person: even this
last, poor subterfuge, is utterly cut off by the following words:
“_Thou_, O man, hast received the body of Christ which was once broken,
and his blood which was shed for the remission of _thy_ sin. Thou
hast received his body to have within _thee_ the Father, the Son, and
the Holy Ghost, for to endow _thee_ with grace, and to comfort _thee_
with their presence. Thou hast received his body, to endow _thee_ with
everlasting righteousness, and _to assure thee_ of everlasting bliss.”
_Sermon on the resurrection._
I shall add but one passage more, from the first part of the sermon on
the sacrament.
“Have a sure and constant faith, not only that the death of Christ
is available for all the world, but that he hath made a full and
sufficient sacrifice for _thee_, a perfect cleansing of _thy_ sins, so
that thou mayst say with the apostle, _he loved_ thee and gave himself
for _thee_. For this is to make Christ _thine own_, and to apply his
merits unto _thyself_.”
Let every reasonable man now judge for himself, what is the sense of
our church as to the _nature_ of _saving faith_. Does it not abundantly
appear, that the church of _England_ supposes every particular
believer, to have a sure confidence, that _his_ sins are forgiven,
and he _himself_ reconciled to God? Yea, and how can the absolute
necessity of this faith, this unwavering confidence, be more strongly
or peremptorily asserted, than it is in those words: “If we begin to
waver or doubt, it is to be feared, lest we sink as _Peter_ did: Not
into the water; but into the bottomless pit of hell-fire?”
6. I would willingly dismiss this writer here. I had said in _the
earnest appeal_ (what I am daily more and more confirmed in) that this
faith is usually given in a moment. This you greatly dislike. Your
argument against it, if put into form, will run thus:
“They who first apprehend the meaning of the words delivered, then gave
their assent to them, then had confidence in the promises to which they
assented, and lastly, loved God, did not receive faith in a moment.”
But the believers mentioned in _the Acts_, first apprehended the
meaning of the words, then gave their assent, then had confidence in
the promises, and lastly, loved God: Therefore
“The believers mentioned in _the Acts_, did not receive faith in a
moment.”
I deny the major. They might first apprehend, then assent, then confide,
then love, and yet receive faith in a moment: In _that_ moment, wherein
their general confidence became particular, so that each could say,
“_My Lord, and my God_.”
One paragraph more I will be at the pains to transcribe. “You insinuate,
that the sacraments are only requisite to the well-being of a visible
church: Whereas the church declares, that the due administration of
them, is an essential _property thereof_. I suppose you hinted this to
gratify your loving disciples the Quakers.”
This is flat and plain. Here is a fact positively averred: and a reason
also assigned for it. Now do you take yourself to be a man of candor, I
had almost said, of common honesty? My very words in the place referred
to, are, “A visible church is a company of faithful people. This is the
essence of it. And the _properties thereof_ are, That the pure word of
God be preached therein, and the sacraments duly administered.”
7. Before I take my leave, I cannot but recommend to you that advice of
a wise and good man,
“Be calm in arguing; for fierceness makes
Error a fault, and truth discourtesy.”
I am grieved at your extreme warmth: You are in a thorough ill-humour
from the very beginning of your book to the end. This cannot hurt _me_.
But it may _yourself_. And it does not at all help your cause. If you
denounce against me all the curses from _Genesis_ to the _Revelation_,
they will not amount to one argument. I am willing (so far as I know
myself) to be reproved either by you or any other. But whatever you do
let it be done in love, in patience, in meekness of wisdom.
V. 1. With regard to the author of faith and salvation, abundance of
objections have been made: It being a current opinion, that “Christians
are not now to receive the Holy Ghost.”
Accordingly, whenever we speak of the Spirit of God, of his operations
on the souls of men, of his _revealing_ unto us the things of God, or
_inspiring_ us with good desires or tempers: whenever we mention the
_feeling_ his mighty power, _working in us_, according to his good
pleasure: The general answer we have to expect is, “This is rank
_enthusiasm_. So it was with the apostles and first christians. But
only _enthusiasts_ pretend to this now.”
Thus all the scriptures, abundance of which might be produced, are
set aside at one stroke. And whoever cites them, as _belonging to all
Christians_, is set down for an _enthusiast_.
The first tract I have seen, wrote expresly on this head, is remarkably
intitled,
“The operations of the Holy Spirit _imperceptible_, and how men may
_know_, when they are under the guidance and influence of the Spirit.”
You begin, “As we have some among us who pretend, to a more than
ordinary guidance by the Spirit――(indeed I do not: I pretend to no
other guidance, than is ordinarily given to all Christians) it may not
be improper to discourse, on the operation of God’s Holy Spirit.”――――
“To this end be thou pleased, O gracious fountain of truth, to assist
me with thy heavenly direction in speaking of thee.”
Alas, Sir, what need have you to speak any more? You have already
granted all I desire, viz. That “we may _all now_ enjoy, and _know_
that we do enjoy, the heavenly direction of God’s Spirit.”
However, you go on, and observe that the _extraordinary gifts_ of
the Holy Ghost, were granted to the first Christians only, but his
_ordinary graces_ to all Christians in all ages: Both which you then
attempt to enumerate: Only suspending your discourse a little, when
“some conceited _enthusiasts_” come in your way.
2. You next enquire, “After what manner these graces are raised in our
souls?” And answer, “How to distinguish these heavenly motions, from
the natural operations of our minds, we have no light to discover.
The scriptures――declaring that the operations of the Holy Spirit,
are not subject to any sensible _feelings_ or perceptions. For what
communication can there be between _feelings_, which are properties
peculiar to matter, and the suggestions of the Spirit?――――All
reasonable Christians believe, that he works his graces in us in an
imperceptible manner; and that there is no sensible difference between
his and the natural operations of our minds.”
I conceive this to be the strength of your cause. To support that
conclusion, that the operations of the Spirit are imperceptible, you
here alledge, 1. “That all reasonable Christians believe this.” So
you say. But I want proof. 2. “That there can be no communications
(I fear, you mistook the word) between the suggestions of the Spirit,
and _feelings_ which are _properties peculiar_ to matter.” How! Are
the _feelings_ now in question, _properties peculiar to matter_? The
_feeling_ of peace, joy, love? Or any _feelings_ at all? I can no
more understand the philosophy than the divinity of this. 3. “That the
scriptures declare, the operations of the Spirit are not subject to
any _sensible feelings_.” You are here disproving, as you suppose, a
proposition of mine. But are you sure you understand it? By _feeling_,
I mean, being inwardly conscious of. By _the operations of the Spirit_,
I do not mean _the manner_ in which he operates, but _the graces_ which
he operates in a Christian. Now be pleased to produce those Scriptures
which declare, “That a Christian cannot _feel_ or _perceive these
operations_.”
3. Are you not convinced, Sir, that you have laid to my charge things
which I know not? I do not gravely tell you (as much an _enthusiast_ as
you over and over affirm me to be) “That I _sensibly feel_ (in _your_
sense) the motions of the Holy Spirit.” Much less do I “make this,
any more than convulsions, agonies, howlings, roarings, and violent
contorsions of the body,” either “Certain signs of mens being in
a state of salvation,” or “necessary in order thereunto.” You might
with equal justice and truth inform the world, and the worshipful the
magistrates of _Newcastle_, that I make _seeing the wind_, or _feeling_
the light, necessary to salvation.
Neither do I “confound the _extraordinary_ with the _ordinary_
operations of the Spirit.” And as to your last enquiry, “What is the
best proof of our being led by the Spirit?” I have no exception to that
just and scriptural answer, which you yourself have given, “A thorough
change and renovation of mind and heart, and the leading a new and holy
life.”
4. “That I confound the _extraordinary_ with the _ordinary_ operations
of the Spirit, and therefore am an _enthusiast_,” is also strongly
urged, in a charge delivered to his clergy, and lately published by the
Lord Bishop of _Litchfield_ and _Coventry_.
An extract of the former part of this, I subjoin, in his Lordship’s
words.
“I cannot think it improper to obviate the contagion, of those
_enthusiastical_ pretensions, that have lately betrayed whole
multitudes, either into presumption or melancholy. _Enthusiasm_ indeed
when detected, is apt to create infidelity; and infidelity is so
shocking a thing, that many rather run into the other extreme, and take
refuge in _enthusiasm_. But infidelity and _enthusiasm_ seem now to
act in concert against our established religion. As infidelity has been
sufficiently opposed, I shall now lay before you the weakness of those
_enthusiastical_ pretensions.” page 1, 2.
Now to confute effectually, and strike at the root of those
_enthusiastical_ pretensions,
“First, I shall shew, that it is necessary to lay down some method for
distinguishing real from pretended inspiration.” page 3, 5.
“Many expressions occur in the _new Testament_, concerning the
operations of the holy Spirit. But men of an _enthusiastical_ temper,
have confounded passages of a quite different nature, and have jumbled
together those that relate to the _extraordinary_ operations of the
Spirit, with those that relate only to his _ordinary_ influences. It is
therefore necessary to use some method for separating those passages,
relating to the operations of the Spirit, that have been so misapplied
to the service of _enthusiastical_ pretenders.” Page 5, 6, 7.
“I proceed therefore to shew,
“Secondly, That a distinction is to be made between those passages
of scripture about the blessed Spirit that peculiarly belong to the
primitive church, and those that relate to Christians in all ages.”
Page 7.
“The exigencies of the apostolical age required the _miraculous_ gifts
of the Spirit. But these soon ceased. When therefore we meet in the
scripture with an account of those _extraordinary_ gifts, and likewise
with an account of his _ordinary_ operations, we must distinguish the
one from the other. And that not only for our own satisfaction, but as
a means to stop the growth of _enthusiasm_.” Page 8, 9, 10.
“And such a distinction ought to be made, by the best methods of
interpreting the scriptures: which most certainly are an attentive
consideration of the occasion and scope of those passages, in
concurrence with the general sense of the primitive church.” page 11.
“I propose, Thirdly, to specify some of the chief passages of scripture,
that are misapplied by modern _Enthusiasts_, and to shew that they are
to be interpreted _chiefly, if not only_, of the apostolical church;
and that they very little, if at all relate, to the present state of
Christians.” page 12.
“I begin, says your Lordship, with the original promise of the Spirit,
as made by our Lord a little before he left the world.”
I must take the liberty to stop your Lordship on the threshold. I deny
this original promise of the Spirit. I expect his assistance, in virtue
of many promises, some hundred years prior to this.
If you say, “However this is _the original_ or first _promise of the
Spirit_, in the new Testament.” No, my Lord; those words were spoken
long before: _he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire_.
Will you reply? “Well, but this is the original promise _made by our_
Lord.” I answer, not so neither, for it was before this, Jesus himself
_stood and cried, If any man thirst, let him come unto me and drink,
he that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly
shall flow rivers of living water. And this he spake of the Spirit,
which they should receive who believed on him_ (♦οὗ ἔμελλον λαμβάνειν
οἱ πιστεύσαντες εἰς αὐτὸν). If I mistake not, this may more justly be
termed, _our_ Lord’s _original promise of the Spirit_. And who will
assert, that this is to be interpreted _chiefly, if not only_ of the
apostolical church?”
♦ “οῦ ἓμελλόν λαμβὰνειν ὁι πιστεὺοντες ἐις ἀυτὸν” replaced
with “οὗ ἔμελλον λαμβάνειν οἱ πιστεύσαντες εἰς αὐτὸν”
6. Your Lordship proceeds: “It occurs in the 14th and 16th chapters of
St. _John_’s gospel; in which he uses these words”――――in what verses,
my Lord? Why is not this specified?¹ Unless 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 ♦_extraordinary_ operations
of the Spirit, with those that relate to his _ordinary_ influences?”
¹ I 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, chapter xvi. 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 the 14th chapter, at the 26th verse.”
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, (chapter xiv. verse 16.) but the words appear not. 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._ Chapter xiv. 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 that _for ever_, εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, meant only sixty or
seventy years; or to allow, that the text must be interpreted of the
_ordinary_ operations 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 the |world| cannot receive_.
True; the _world_ cannot; but _all Christians_ can, and will receive
him _for ever_.
6. The second promise of the Comforter, made in this chapter, together
with its context, stands thus:
Judas _saith unto him_ (_not_ Iscariot) Lord, _how is it that thou will
manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world_? Verse 22.
Jesus _answered 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 the question
again, which I cannot give up without better reasons. 3. “The gifts of
_prophecy_ and of being _guided 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 the _extraordinary_ with
the _ordinary_ operations of the Spirit.” The gift of _prophecy_, we
know, is one of his _extraordinary_ operations; but there is not a word
of it in this text: nor, therefore ought it to be “confounded with his
_ordinary_ operations,” such as the being _guided into all truth_, (all
that is necessary to salvation) and _taught all_ (necessary) _things_,
in a due use of the _means_ he hath ordained. Verse 26.
In the same manner, namely, in a serious and constant use of proper
_means_, I believe the assistance of the Holy Ghost is given to all
Christians, to _bring all things_ needful _to their remembrance,
whatsoever_ Christ _hath spoken to them_ in 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 come unto you; but if I go,
I will send him unto you._ Chapter xvi. 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 of _prophecy_, one of the
_extraordinary_ operations 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 of
St. _John_) are vain and insignificant, as they are claimed by modern
_Enthusiasts_.” And in the end of the same paragraph you add, “None but
the _ordinary_ operations of the Spirit are to be now expected, since
those that are of a _miraculous_ (or _extraordinary_) kind are NOT
PRETENDED TO, even by modern _Enthusiasts_.”
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 those _enthusiastical_ pretenders; nay,
the very design of your book, as you openly declare, “was to stop
the growth of their _Enthusiasm_; who have had the assurance (as you
positively affirm, page 6,) to claim to themselves the _extraordinary_
operations of the Holy Spirit.” And here you as positively affirm, that
those _extraordinary_ operations “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 modern _Enthusiasts_,
is what relates to the _testimony of the Spirit_, and _praying by the
Spirit_, in the 8th chapter of the epistle to the _Romans_.” Page 16.
I believe it incumbent upon me thoroughly to weigh the force of your
Lordship’s reasoning on this head. You begin, “After St. _Paul_ had
treated of that spiritual principle in Christians, which enables them
_to mortify the deeds of the body_――he says, _if any man have not the
Spirit of |Christ|, he is none of his_. This makes the distinction of a
true Christian, particularly in opposition to the _Jews_.” I apprehend
it is just here, that ♦your Lordship turns out of the way, when you
say, “particularly in opposition to the _Jews_.” Such a _particular_
opposition I cannot allow, till some stronger proof is produced,
than St. _Paul_’s occasionally mentioning six verses before, “the
imperfection of the _Jewish_ law.”
♦ “you” replaced with “your”
Yet your Lordship’s mind is so full of this, that after repeating the
14th and 15th verses (_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 the _Jewish_ law.” This also
calls for proof: otherwise, it will not be allowed, that he here speaks
of the _Jewish_ law at all: not, tho’ we grant that “the _Jews_ were
subject to the _fear_ of death, and lived in consequence of it, in
a state of _bondage_.” For are not all unbelievers, as ♦well as the
_Jews_, more or less, in the same _fear_ and _bondage_?
♦ “will” replaced with “well”
Your Lordship goes on, “In the latter part of the verse he shews the
superiority of the _Christian_ law to that of the _Jews_.” Page 18.
Where is the proof, my Lord? How does it appear, that he is speaking
either of the _Christian_ or _Jewish_ law, in those words, _Ye have
received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father_?
However you infer, “_Christians_ then are the adopted sons of God, in
contradistinction to the _Jews_, as the former had the gifts of the
Holy Ghost, which none of the latter had at that time: and _the body
of the Jews_ never had.” No, nor _the body of the Christians_ neither.
So that if this be a ♦proof against the _Jews_, it is the very same
against the _Christians_.
♦ “poof” replaced with “proof”
I must observe farther on the preceding words, 1. That your Lordship
begins here, to take the word _Christians_ in 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 has _proved_ nothing
hitherto, not one point that has any relation to the question: but
that, strictly speaking, you have not _attempted to prove_ any thing,
having _taken for granted_ whatever 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 the _Jews_.”――“This passage relates”――How is that proved? By its
connexion with the preceding? In no wise, unless it be good arguing
to prove _Ignotum per ignotius_. It has 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 the _Jews_ had not.” _This
preference given to Christians_, was just before exprest by their
_becoming the sons of |God| instead of the |Jews|_. Were the gifts of
the Spirit then _the 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 the _Christians_ to be his
people and not the _Jews_: (since the _Christians_ who worked miracles,
did it not _by the works of the law_, but by _the hearing of faith_?”)
Your Lordship concludes, “From these passages of St. _Paul_, compared
together, it clearly follows, that the fore-mentioned _testimony of
the Spirit_, was the _public testimony_ of miraculous gifts――and,
consequently, _the witness of the Spirit that we are the children
of |God|_, cannot possibly be applied, to the _private testimony_ of
the Spirit given to our own consciences, as is pretended by modern
_enthusiasts_.” 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 the whole 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 the _public testimony_ of miraculous
gifts, but must be applied to the _private testimony_ of the Spirit,
given to our own consciences.
10. St. _Paul_ begins the 8th chapter of his Epistle to the _Romans_,
with the great privilege of every Christian believer, (whether _Jew_ or
_Gentile_ before) _There is now no condemnation for them that are in
|Christ Jesus|_, engrafted into him by faith, _who walk not after the
flesh, but after the Spirit. For_ now every one of them may truly say,
_The law_ (or power) _of the Spirit of life in |Christ 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, |God| sending his own Son, in the likeness of sinful
flesh, and for sin_, did; when he _condemned_, (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 a _Jew_, much less
to the _Jewish law_, but to every unholy man, to all, whether _Jews_ or
_Gentiles, 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 against |God|: for it
is not subject to the law of |God|; neither indeed can be. So then they
that are in the flesh, cannot please |God|._ 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 the _Christian_ and the _Jewish_ LAW.
The apostle goes on, _But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit,
if so be that the Spirit of |God| dwell in you. Now if any man have not
the Spirit of |Christ|, he is none of his. But if |Christ| be 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 up |Jesus| from
the dead dwell in you, he that raised up |Christ| from 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 of |God|, they are the sons of
|God|._ Verse 9‒14.
Is there one word here, is there any the least intimation of
_miraculous_ gifts, or of the _Jewish 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 God _hath sent forth into our
hearts, crying, Abba, Father,) beareth witness with our spirit, that we
are the children of |God|._ 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 the _Jewish law_, nor to the _public
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 this _witness of the Spirit_ is _the private
testimony given to our own consciences_: which, consequently, all sober
Christians may claim, without any danger of _enthusiasm_.
11. “But I go on (says your Lordship, page 21.) to the consideration
of the other passages in the same chapter, relating to our _praying 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. 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 of |God|._”
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 by St. _Paul_, in the 14th chapter of his first epistle
to the _Corinthians_. And in order thereto, you laboriously explain
part of the 8th chapter of the _Romans_. My Lord, how is this? Will
it be said, Why _this_ is often alledged to prove the wrong sense
of _that_ scripture? 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 by _Enthusiasts_. One of these
is the 15th verse of the 14th chapter of the first epistle to the
_Corinthians_. And to shew, that _Enthusiasts_ have misapplied this,
you comment on the 8th chapter to the _Romans_!
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 our
_distresses_, for ♦ἀσθενείαις signifies both.” I doubt that: I require
authority for it.) “And then he mentions, in what instances he does so,
viz. In _prayers_ to God about afflictions”――(In nothing else, my Lord?
Did he _help 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. But _the Spirit_, OR the gift of the Spirit, instructs us how to
_pray_ in a manner agreeable to the will of God.” _The Spirit_, OR the
_gift_ of 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,
the _spiritual_ or _inspired person_ prayed 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 the
_spiritual_ or _inspired_ person) _because_ he _maketh intercession
for the saints, according to the will of |God|_. That is, God knows the
intention of the _spiritual_ person, who has the _gift_ of _prayer_,
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 person
_miraculously inspired_ for that intent, and praying κατὰ Θεὸν either
for the support or deliverance of the people, should _have 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 that _miraculous_ gift 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 the _ordinary_ grace of God: “Leaving it to God, whether he
should suffer afflictions still, or be delivered from them.” Was it
_only_ in the apostolical age, that “the Spirit instructed Christians
_thus_ to pray?” Cannot a man pray _thus_, either for himself or others,
unless he has the _miraculous_ gift 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
“_extraordinary_ operations of the Spirit,” which none now pretend to
but “modern _enthusiasts_!”
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 a _miraculous gift_? An _extraordinary operation_ of
the Holy Ghost? Is _this_ peculiar to the primitive times? Is it what
_none_ but _enthusiasts_ now pretend to? If not, then your Lordship’s
own account of _praying by the Spirit_ indisputably proves, that this
is one of the _ordinary_ privileges 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 modern _enthusiasts_.
1 Corinthians ii. 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 of |God|._” Page 29.
“It is only necessary to evince, that by _the demonstration of
the spirit and power_ is meant the demonstration of the truth of
Christianity, that arises from the prophesies of the _Old Testament_,
and the _miracles_ of _Christ_ and his _apostles_.” Yes, it is
necessary farther to evince, that these words have _no other_ meaning.
But first, How will you evince, that they bear this? In order thereto,
your Lordship argues thus:
“The former _seems to be_ the demonstration of the Spirit, with regard
to the prophetical testimonies of him.――And _the demonstration of
power, must signify_ the power of God, exerted in miracles.” (page 30.)
“Must;” Why so? That δύναμις often signifies _miraculous power_, is
allowed――But what follows? That it _must mean_ so 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 of |God|_. 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 the 7th, 10th and following verses, to explain this
_demonstration of the spirit and of power_.” But he does not say one
syllable therein, either of the _ancient prophecies_, or of _miracles_.
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 the 13th verse, _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 said _to teach, must be_ the prophetical revelations of
the _Old 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 were _peculiarly_ fulfilled 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, that _our_ preaching
also is vain, unless it be attended with _the power_ of that Spirit,
who alone pierceth the heart? And that your hearing is vain, unless
the same _power be present to heal_ your soul, and to give you a faith
which _standeth not in the wisdom of man, but in the power of |God|_?
14. “Another passage that (your Lordship thinks) has been misapplied
by _enthusiasts_, but was really peculiar to the times of the apostles,
is 1 John ii. 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 from _the unction from the Holy One_, that was _in_ or
rather _among_ them: that is, from the _immediate inspiration_ of some
of their teachers.” page 37.
♦ “again” replaced with “against”
Here it rests upon your lordship, to prove (as well as affirm) 1. That
ἐν should be translated _among_: 2. That this _unction from the Holy
One_ means, “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 One_
here, 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 the 26th verse of the
14th chapter of St. _John_’s gospel,
Proposed in form, it will stand thus:
“If those words, _He shall teach you all things_, relate only to
a _miraculous_ gift of the Holy Ghost, then these words, _The same
anointing teacheth you of all things_, relate to the _miraculous_ gift:
“But those words relate only to a _miraculous_ gift:
“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 more _eminently_ fulfilled, in
the age of the apostles. But this is altogether consistent with their
belonging _in a lower sense_, to all Christians in all ages: Seeing
they have all need of _an 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 things_ needful for their souls health.
Therefore it is no _enthusiasm_, to teach that _the 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
only _Chrysostom_, _Jerome_, _Origen_, and _Athanasius_.
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 belong _only to the apostolical age_, and _not to the
Christians of succeeding times_, I will give up the whole cause.
But let it be observed: If they should affirm, that these _primarily_
belong to the _♦Christians of the apostolical_ age, that does not prove
the point, because they may in a secondary sense belong to _others_
notwithstanding: Nor does any of them speak home to the question,
unless he maintain in express terms, that these texts refer _only_ to
the _miraculous_ gifts of the Spirit, and _not at all_ to the state of
_ordinary_ Christians.
♦ “Christans” replaced with “Christians”
16. Concerning those three texts, _John xiv. verse 16._ and the 26. and
_John xvi. verse 13._ “I could easily add (says your lordship,¹) the
authorities of _Chrysostom_ and the other antient commentators.” St.
_Chrysostom_’s authority I will consider now, and that of the others,
when they are produced.
¹ Page 15.
It is granted, that he interprets not only _John xvi. 13._ but also
both the passages in the 14th chapter, as primarily belonging to the
apostles. Yet part of his comment on the 26th verse, is as follows.
“Such is that grace (of _the 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. Hence _none of them counted any thing his
own_, but _continued in prayer, with gladness and singleness of heart_.
For this _chiefly_ is 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. _Chrysostom_ here, 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 all _spiritual men_, all who _keep 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
of _Origen_.” 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, (Volume II. 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, _primarily_ belongs to
the apostles, yet in the _secondary_ sense, it belongs (according to
_Origen_’s judgment) to all Christians in all ages?
17. The fourth text mentioned as belonging to the first Christians
only, is _Romans viii. 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 to _Origen_ and _Jerom
in locum_. But here seems to be a mistake of the name. _Jerom in locum_
should mean, _Jerom_ upon the place, upon _Romans viii. 15, 16._ But
I cannot perceive that there is one word upon that place, in all St.
_Jerom_’s works.
Nor indeed has _Origen_ commented upon it any more than _Jerom_. 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, who _receive
not the Spirit of bondage again unto fear, but the spirit of adoption_,
through whom they _cry, Abba Father_.” Volume I. page 79.
Again, “The fulness of time is come――when they who are willing, receive
the adoption, as _Paul_ teaches 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 to St. _John_, _To as many as received him, to them
gave he power to become the sons of |God|, even to them that believe in
his name._” Volume I. 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 of
|God|._” ibid.
According to _Origen_ therefore, this _testimony of the Spirit_, is not
any _publick_ testimony by _miracles_, peculiar to the first times, but
an _inward_ testimony, belonging in common to all that are _born of_
God. And consequently the authority of _Origen_ does not “confirm that
interpretation” neither; but absolutely destroys it.
18. The last authority your Lordship appeals to on this text is,
“that of the great _John Chrysostom_, who reckons the _testimony
of the spirit_ of adoption by which we cry Abba, Father! among the
_miraculous_ gifts of the Spirit.” “I rather chuse (your Lordship
adds, page 26.) to refer you to the words of St. _Chrysostom_, than to
transcribe them here, as having almost translated them in the present
account of the _testimony of the Spirit_.”
However, I believe it will not be labour lost to transcribe a few of
those words.
It is his comment on the 14th verse, that he first mentions, St.
_Paul_’s comparison between a _Jew_ and a _Christian_. How fairly your
Lordship has represented this, let every reader judge.
_As many as are led by the Spirit of |God|, they are the sons of
|God|._――“Whereas the same title had been given of old to the _Jews_
also,――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 means _the 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 received the adoption, and look not for a
land of milk and honey, but for heaven.”
*“He brings also another proof, that _we have the Spirit of adoption,
by which_, says he, _we cry, Abba, Father_.――This is the first word
we utter μετὰ 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 had
_this Spirit of adoption. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our
spirit that we are the children of |God|._ 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, God _hath 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 an _extraordinary_ gift,
we have no intimation at all, neither before nor after) *“And when _the
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 of St. _Chrysostom_? And whether he reckons the testimony of
the Spirit among the _miraculous_ gifts of the Holy Ghost?” Or among
those _ordinary_ gifts 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 a _miraculous_
gift of the Spirit, is _1 Corinthians xiv. 15._ To prove which, you
comment on the 8th chapter to the _Romans_, particularly the 26th
verse: and here again it is said, “That the interpretation assigned,
is confirmed by several of the most eminent fathers, more especially
the great _John Chrysostom_, as well as by _Origen_ and _Jerome upon
the place_.”
I cannot find St. _Jerome_ to have writ one line _upon the place_.
And it is obvious, that St. _Chrysostom_ supposes, the whole context
from the 17th to the 25th verse, 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 the 26th verse, as describing the _ordinary_ privilege 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 the
_miraculous_ gifts.
Yet I must do the justice to this venerable man to observe, he does
not suppose that a _miraculous_ gift was given, only that the inspired
might do what any _ordinary_ Christian might have done without
it. (This interpretation, even of the latter part 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 is _Origen_. The first passage of his, which relates to
_Romans viii. 26._ runs thus: (volume I. page 199.)
“_Paul_ perceiving 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 says _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. 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 of |God|._ The Spirit which
crieth Abba, Father, in the hearts of the saints, knowing well our
groanings in this tabernacle, _maketh intercession for us to |God|,
with groanings which cannot be uttered_. To the same effect is that
scripture, _1 Corinthians xiv. 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 pray before it, and
the understanding, as it were, listen to it.”
♦ “ὀ νοῦς” replaced with “ὁ νοῦς”
*Again (Volume II. page 146.) “I would know, how the saints cry to God
without a voice. The apostle shews, God _hath sent forth the Spirit
of his son into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father_! And he adds, _the
Spirit itself maketh intercession for us, with groanings which cannot
be uttered_. And again, _he that searcheth the hearts, knoweth what is
the mind of the spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints,
according to the will of |God|._ Thus therefore, the Spirit making
intercession for us with God, the cry of the saints is heard without
a voice.”
Once more in his Homily on _Joshua_, (volume II. page 419.)
“Jesus, our Lord, doth not forsake us; but although when we would pray,
_we know not what to pray for as we ought_, yet _the Spirit itself
maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered_.
Now the Lord is that Spirit: The Spirit assists our prayers, and offers
them to God with groanings which we cannot express in words.”
I believe all rational men will observe from hence, that _Origen_
is so far from confirming, that he quite overturns your Lordship’s
interpretation of the 16th as well as the 26th verse of this chapter:
seeing, in his judgment, both _that testimony of the spirit and this
prayer_ belong to all Christians in all ages.
21. The sixth scripture which your Lordship has undertaken to shew,
“relates only to the apostolical times,” is _1 Corinthians ii. 4, 5._
And “this interpretation also, (it is said) is confirmed by the
authority of _Chrysostom_, _Origen_, and other ancient writers.”
(page 33) With those other “antient writers” I have no concern yet.
St. _Chrysostom_ so far confirms this interpretation, as to explain
that whole phrase _the demonstration of the spirit and of power_, of
“the power of the Spirit shewn by miracles.” But he says not one word,
of any “proof of the Christian religion, arising from the types and
prophecies of the old Testament.”
_Origen_ has these words (Volume I. page 321.)
“Our word has a certain peculiar demonstration, more divine than
the Grecian, logical demonstration. This the apostle terms, _The
demonstration of the Spirit and of power_: of the Spirit because of
the prophecies, sufficient to convince any one, especially of the
things that relate to Christ; of power, because of the miraculous
powers, some footsteps of which still remain.”
Hence we may doubtless infer, ♦that _Origen_ judged this text to
relate, in its _primary_ sense to the apostles: but can we thence infer,
that he did not judge it to belong, _in a lower sense_, to all true
ministers of Christ?
♦ “thas” replaced with “that”
Let us hear him speaking for himself in the same treatise (page 377.)
“_And my speech and my preaching were not with enticing words of
man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: that
your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of
|God|._ *Those who hear the word preached _with power_, are themselves
filled _with power_,” (_N. B._ Not the power of working miracles) which
they _demonstrate_ both in their disposition, and in their life, and
in their striving for the truth unto death. But some although they
profess to believe, have not this _power_ of God in them, but are empty
thereof.”
(Did _Origen_ then believe, that _the power_ mentioned in this text,
belonged _only_ to the apostolical age?)
“See the force of the word, conquering believers by a persuasiveness
attended with the power of God! I speak this to shew the meaning of him
that said, _And my speech and my preaching were not with the enticing
words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of
power; that your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in
the power of |God|._ This divine saying means, that what is spoken is
not sufficient of itself (although it be true and most worthy to be
believed) to pierce a man’s soul, if there be not also a certain _power
from_ God given to the speaker, and grace bloom upon what is spoken,
and this grace cannot be but from God.”
After observing, that this is the very passage which your Lordship
mentions at the close of the other (but does not cite) I desire
every unprejudiced person to judge, whether _Origen_ does not clearly
determine, that _the power_, spoken of in this text, is in some measure
given to all true ministers in all ages?
22. The last scripture which your Lordship affirms “to be peculiar to
the times of the apostles,” is that in the first epistle of St. _John_,
concerning _the unction of the Holy One_.
To confirm this interpretation, we are referred to the authority of
_Origen_ and _Chrysostom_, on the parallel passages in St. _John_’s
gospel,” (page 42.)
But it has appeared, that both these fathers suppose those passages to
belong to all Christians. And consequently their authority (if these
are parallel passages) stands full against this interpretation.
Your Lordship subjoins, “I shall here only add that of the great
_Athanasius_, who (in his epistle to _Serapion_) interprets _The
unction from the Holy One_, not _merely_ of divine grace, but of the
_extraordinary_ gifts of the Holy Spirit.”
Nay, it is enough, if he interprets it _at all_ of _ordinary grace_,
such as is common to all Christians.
And this your Lordship allows he does. But I cannot allow that he
interprets it of any thing else. I cannot perceive, that he interprets
it _at all_, “of the _extraordinary_ gifts of the Holy Spirit.”
His words are, “The Holy Spirit is called, and is, the unction and the
seal. For _John_ writes, _The anointing which ye have received of him,
abideth in you; and ye need not that any man should teach you, but as
his anointing_, his Spirit, _teacheth you of all things_. Again, it is
written in the prophet _Isaiah_, _The Spirit of the |Lord| is upon me,
because he hath anointed me_. And _Paul_ writes thus; _In whom also ye
were sealed_. And again, _Grieve not the Holy Spirit of |God|, whereby
ye are sealed unto the day of redemption_. This anointing is the
breath of the Son, so that he who hath the Spirit may say, _We are the
sweet-smelling savour of |Christ|_. Because we are partakers of the
Holy Spirit, we have the Son: And having the Son, we have _the |Spirit|,
crying in our hearts, Abba, Father_.”
And so, in his oration against the _Arians_.
*“_He sendeth the |Spirit| of his |Son| into our hearts, crying, Abba,
Father._ His Son in us, invoking the Father, makes him to be called our
Father. Certainly God cannot be called their Father, who have not the
Son in their hearts.”
Is it not easy to be observed here, 1. That _Athanasius_ makes _that
testimony of the_ Spirit common to all the children of God: 2. That
he joins _the anointing of the Holy One_, with that seal of the Spirit
wherewith all that _persevere_ are _sealed to the day of redemption_:
And 3. That he does not, throughout this passage, speak of the
_extraordinary gifts_ at all?
Therefore, upon the whole, the sense of the primitive church, so far
as it can be gathered from the authors above cited, is, That “although
some of the scriptures _primarily_ refer, to those _extraordinary_
gifts of the Spirit, which were given to the apostles, and a few other
persons in the apostolical age: yet they refer also, in a _secondary_
sense, to those _ordinary_ operations of the Holy Spirit, which all the
children of God do and will experience, even to the end of the world.”
23. What I mean by _The ordinary operations of the Holy Ghost_, I sum
up in the words of a modern writer:
“Sanctification being opposed to our corruption, and answering fully
to the latitude thereof, whatsoever of holiness and perfection is
wanting in our nature, must be supplied by the Spirit of God. Wherefore
being by nature we are totally void of all saving truth, and under an
impossibility of knowing the will of God; this _Spirit searcheth all
things, yea, even the deep things of |God|_, and _revealeth_ them unto
the sons of men, so that thereby the darkness of their understanding is
expelled, and they are enlightened with the knowledge of God. The same
Spirit which _revealeth_ the object of faith generally to the universal
church, doth also illuminate the understanding of such as believe,
that they may receive the truth. For _faith is the gift of |God|_,
not only in the object, but also in the act. And this gift is a gift
of the Holy Ghost working within us――And as the increase of perfection,
so the original of faith is from the Spirit of God, by an internal
illumination of the soul.”
“The second part of the office of the Holy Ghost is, the renewing
of man in all the parts and faculties of his soul. For our natural
corruption consisting in an aversion of our wills, and a depravation of
our affections, and inclination of them to the will of God, is wrought
within us by the Spirit of God.”
“The third part of this office is, To lead, direct and govern us in our
actions and conversations. _If we live in the Spirit_, quickened by his
renovation, we must also _walk in the Spirit_, following his direction,
led by his manuduction. We are also animated and acted by the Spirit
of God, who giveth _both to will and to do_: And _as many as are_ thus
_led by the Spirit of |God|, are the sons of |God|_.¹ Moreover, that
this direction may prove more effectual, we are guided in our prayers
by the same Spirit: according to the promise, _I will pour upon the
house of |David|, and upon the inhabitants of |Jerusalem|, the spirit
of grace and supplication_. (Zechariah xii. 10.) Whereas then _this is
the confidence which we have in him, that if we ask any thing according
to his will, he heareth us_: and whereas _we know not what we should
pray for as we ought_, _the |Spirit| itself maketh intercession for
us with groanings which cannot be uttered_²: 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 of |God|_.³ From
which intercession” (made for all true Christians) “he hath the name of
the _Paraclete_ given him by Christ, who said, _I will pray the Father,
and he will give you another Paraclete_.⁴ For _if any man sin, we have
a Paraclete with the Father, |Jesus Christ| the righteous_, saith St.
_John_: _Who maketh intercession for us_, saith St. _Paul_, (Romans
viii. 34.) And we have _another Paraclete_⁵, saith our Saviour: _Which
also maketh intercession for us_⁶, saith St. _Paul_. A _Paraclete_ then,
in the notion of the scriptures, is an intercessor.”
¹ Romans viii. 14.
² Verse 26.
³ Verse 26.
⁴ John xiv. 16, 26.
⁵ John xiv. 16.
⁶ Romans viii. 27.
“It is also the office of the Holy Ghost, to _assure us of the adoption
of sons_, to create in us a sense of the paternal love of God towards
us, to give us an earnest of our everlasting inheritance. _The love
of |God| shed abroad in our hearts, by the Holy Ghost which is given
unto us_. For _as many as are led by the |Spirit| of |God|, they are
the sons of |God|. And because we are sons, |God| hath sent forth the
Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father. For we have
not received the spirit of bondage again to fear, but we have received
the spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father: the Spirit itself
bearing witness with our spirit, that we are the children of |God|._¹”
¹ Verses 15, 16.
“As therefore we are born again by the Spirit, and receive from him
our regeneration, so we are also by the same Spirit _assured of our
adoption_. Because being _sons we are also heirs, heirs of |God|, and
joint-heirs with |Christ|_, by the same Spirit we have the _pledge_,
or rather the _earnest of our inheritance. For he which establisheth
us in |Christ|, and hath anointed us is |God|; who hath also sealed us,
and hath given us the earnest of his Spirit in our hearts_: So that
_we are sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise, which is the earnest
of our inheritance_. The Spirit of God, as given unto us in this life,
is to be looked upon as an earnest, being part of that reward which
is promised, and, upon performance of the covenant which God hath made
with us, certainly to be received.”
Your Lordship observed, that “the interpretation of those passages,
which relate to the _Unction from the Holy One_, depends on the sense
of those other passages of holy scripture, particularly, those in
St. _John_’s gospel.” Now if so, then these words fix the sense of
six out of the seven texts in question: and every one of them, in the
judgment of this writer, describes the _ordinary gifts_ bestowed on
all Christians.
It now rests with your Lordship, to take your choice; either to condemn
or to acquit both. Either your Lordship must condemn Bishop _Pearson_
for an _enthusiast_, (a man no ways inferior to Bishop _Chrysostom_:)
or you must acquit me: for I have his express authority on my side,
concerning every text which I affirm to belong to all Christians.
24. But I have greater authority than his, and such as I reverence,
only less than that of the oracles of God. I mean, that of our own
church. I shall close this head, by setting down what occurs in her
authentic records, concerning either our _receiving the Holy Ghost_,
or his _ordinary_ operations in all true Christians.
In her daily service, she teaches us all to _beseech_ God, _to grant us
his Holy Spirit, that those things may please him which we do at this
present, and that the rest of our life may be pure and holy_: To pray
for _our Sovereign Lord the King_, that God would _replenish him with
the grace of his Holy Spirit_; for _all the Royal Family_, that they
may be _endued with his Holy Spirit_, and _enriched with his heavenly
grace_: for all the clergy and people, that he would _send down upon
them the healthful Spirit of his grace_: for _the Catholick Church_,
that _it may be guided and governed by his good Spirit_: and for all
therein who at any time _make_ their _common supplication unto_ him,
that _the fellowship_ or communication _of the Holy Ghost may be with
them all evermore_.
Her collects are full of petitions to the same effect: “Grant that
we may daily be renewed by thy Holy Spirit.¹――――Grant that in all our
sufferings here, for the testimony of thy truth, we may by faith behold
the glory that shall be revealed, and _being filled with the Holy
Ghost_, may love and bless our persecutors.² Send thy Holy Ghost and
pour into our hearts that most excellent gift of charity.³ O Lord, from
whom all good things do come, grant to us thy humble servants, that
by thy _holy inspiration_ we may think those things that are good, and
by thy merciful guidance may perform the same.⁴ Grant us by the same
Spirit to have a right judgment in all things, and evermore to rejoice
in his holy comfort.⁵ (_N. B._ The church here teaches all Christians
to claim _the Comforter_, in virtue of the promise made _John xiv._)
Grant us, Lord, we beseech thee, the Spirit, to think and do always
such things as be rightful.⁶ O God, forasmuch as without thee, we are
not able to please thee, merciful grant that thy Holy Spirit, may in
all things direct and rule our hearts.⁷ Cleanse the thoughts of our
hearts by _the inspiration of thy Holy Spirit_, that we may perfectly
love thee, and worthily magnify thy holy name.⁸”
¹ _Collect for Christmas-Day._
² _St. Stephen’s Day._
³ _Quinquagesima Sunday._
⁴ _5th Sunday after Easter._
⁵ _Sunday after Ascension Day._
⁶ _9th Sunday after Trinity._
⁷ _19th Sunday after Trinity._
⁸ _Communion Office._
“Give thy Holy Spirit to this infant (or this person) that he may be
born again.――Give thy Holy Spirit to these persons (_N. B._ already
baptized) that they may continue thy servants.”
“Almighty God, who hast vouchsafed to regenerate these persons by water
and the Holy Ghost――Strengthen them with the Holy Ghost the Comforter,
and daily increase in them the manifold gifts of thy grace.” _Office of
Confirmation._
From these passages it may sufficiently appear, for what purposes every
Christian, according to the doctrine of the church of _England_, does
now _receive the Holy Ghost_. But this will be still more clear from
those that follow: wherein the reader may likewise observe, a plain,
rational sense of God’s _revealing_ himself to us, of the _inspiration_
of the Holy Ghost, and of a believer’s _feeling_ in himself _the mighty
working_ of the Spirit of Christ.
25. “God gave them of old grace to be his children, as he doth us now.
But now, by the coming of our Saviour Christ, _we have received_ more
abundantly _the_ Spirit _of_ God in our hearts.” _Homily on Faith._