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?”
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.”
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”