Chapter VIII: Part I (2)

“They persuade (you say) multitudes of people, that they cannot be true Christians, but by adhering to their doctrines.” Why, who says they can? Whosoever he be, I will prove him to be an infidel. Do _you_ say, that any man can be a true Christian, without loving God and his neighbour? Surely you have not so learned Christ! It is _your_ doctrine, as well as _mine_, and St. _Paul_’s, _Though I speak with the tongue of men and angels, though I have all knowledge, and all faith; though I give all my goods to feed the poor, yea, my body to be burned, and have not love, I am nothing_.

Whatever public worship, therefore, people may have attended, or whatever ministry they have lived under from their infancy, they must, at all hazards, be convinced of this, or they perish for ever: yea, though that conviction at first _unhinge_ them ever so much; though it should in a manner, _distract_ them for a season. For it is better they should be _perplexed_ and _terrified_ now, than that they should sleep on and awake in hell.

9. In the 10, 12, and 13th _queries_ I am not concerned. But you include me also, when you say in the 11th, “They absolutely deny, that recreations of any kind, considered as such, are, or can be innocent.”

I cannot find any such assertion of mine, either in the place you refer to, or any other. But what kinds of recreation are innocent, it is easy to determine by that plain rule, _Whether ye eat or drink, or whatever ye do, do all to the glory of God_.

I am now to take my leave of you for the present. But first I would earnestly intreat you, to acquaint yourself what our doctrines are, before you make any farther _observations_ upon them. Surely, touching the _nature_ of salvation we agree, That _pure religion and undefiled is this, to visit the fatherless and widow in their affliction_, to do all possible good, from a principle of love to God and man: _and to keep ourselves unspotted from the world_, inwardly and outwardly to abstain from all evil.

*10. With regard to the _condition_ of salvation, it may be remembered, that I allow, not only faith, but likewise holiness or universal obedience, to be the ordinary condition of _final_ salvation: and that when I say, faith alone is the condition of _present_ salvation, what I would assert is this; 1. That without faith no man can be saved from his sins, can be either inwardly or outwardly holy. And 2. That at what time soever faith is given, holiness commences in the soul. For that instant, _the love of God_, (which is the source of holiness) _is shed abroad in the heart_.

But it is objected by the author of “_The Notions of the Methodists disproved_,” “St. _James_ says, _Can faith save him_?” I answer, such a faith as is without works cannot _bring a man to heaven_. But this is quite beside the present question.

You object, 2. “St. _Paul_ says, that _faith made perfect by love_, St. _James_, that _faith made perfect by works_, is the condition of salvation.” You mean final salvation. I say so too: but this also is beside the question.

You object, 3. _That the belief of the gospel_, is called the _obedience of faith_, Romans i. 5. And 4. That what _Isaiah_ terms _believing_, St. _Paul_ terms _obeying_. Suppose I grant you both the one and the other, what will you infer?

You object, 5. That in one scripture our Lord is stiled _The Saviour of them that believe_: and in another, _The author of eternal salvation to all them that obey him_. 6. That to the _Galatians_ St. _Paul_ writes, _Neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but faith which worketh by love_: and to the _Corinthians_, _circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping the commandments of_ God. And hence you conclude, “There are several texts of scripture, wherein unbelief and disobedience are equivalently used.” Very true: but can you conclude from thence, that we are not _saved by faith alone_?

11. You proceed to answer some texts which I had quoted. The first is _Ephesians ii. 8._ _By grace ye are saved, through faith._ “But (say you) faith does not mean here, that grace especially so called, but includes also obedience.” But how do you prove this? That circumstance you had forgot: and so run off with a comment upon the context; to which I have no other objection, than that it is nothing at all to the question.

Indeed some time after you add, “It is plain then that good works are always, in St. _Paul_’s judgment, joined with faith.” (So undoubtedly they are, that is, as an effect is always joined with its cause) “And _therefore_ we are not saved by faith alone.” I cannot possibly allow the consequence.

You afterwards cite two more texts, and add, “You see mere faith cannot be a condition of justification.” You are out of your way. We are no more talking now of justification than of final salvation.

In considering _Acts xvi. 31._ _Believe in the |Lord Jesus| and thou shalt be saved._ You say again, “Here the word _believe_ does not signify faith only.――Faith necessarily produces charity and repentance; _therefore_, these are expressed by the word _believe_.” i. e. Faith necessarily produces holiness. Therefore holiness is a condition of holiness. I want farther proof. That _Paul_ and _Silas spake unto him the word of the Lord_; and that his faith did _in the same hour_ work by love, I take to be no proof at all.

You then undertake to shew, that confessing our sins, is a condition of justification, and that a confidence in the love of God, is not a condition. Some of your words are, “This, good Sir, give me leave to say, is the greatest nonsense and contradiction possible. It ♦is impossible you can understand this jargon yourself, and therefore you labour in vain to make it intelligible to others. You soar aloft on eagle’s wings, and leave the poor people to gape and stare after you.”

♦ “it” replaced with “is”

This is very pretty, and very lively. But it is nothing to the purpose. For we are not now speaking of justification: neither have I said one word of “the condition of justification” in the whole tract to which you here refer.

“In the next place (say you) if we are saved (finally you mean) only by a confidence in the love of God.”――Here I must stop you again; you are now running beside the question, on the other hand. The sole position which I here advance is this: true believers are saved from inward and outward sin by faith. By faith alone the love of God and all mankind is shed abroad in their hearts, bringing with it the mind that was in _Christ_, and producing all holiness of conversation.

IV. 1. I am now to consider, what has been lately objected, with regard to the _nature_ of saving _faith_.

The author last mentioned “cannot understand how those texts of St. _John_ are at all to the purpose.” _1 John iii. 1._ _Behold what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of |God|._ And chapter iv. 19. _We love him, because he first loved us._ I answer 1. These texts were not produced in _the appeal_, by way of proof, but of illustration only. But 2. I apprehend they may be produced as a proof, both that Christian faith implies a confidence in the love of God, and that such a confidence has a direct tendency to salvation, to holiness both of heart and life.

_Behold what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of |God|!_ Are not these words an expression of Christian faith? As direct an one as can well be conceived? And I appeal to every man, whether they do not express the strongest confidence of the love of God? Your own comment puts this beyond dispute. “Let us consider attentively and with grateful hearts, the great love and mercy of God, in calling us to be his sons, and bestowing on us the privileges belonging to such.” Do you not perceive, that you have given up the cause? You have yourself taught us, that these words imply “a sense of the great love and mercy of God, in bestowing upon us the privileges belonging to his sons.”

The apostle adds, _Beloved, now are we the sons of |God|; and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is._

I suppose no one will say, either that these words are not expressive of Christian faith; or, that they do not imply the strongest confidence in the love of God. It follows, _And every man that hath this hope in him, purifieth himself even as he is pure_.

Hence it appears, that this faith is a saving faith, that there is the closest connexion between this faith and holiness. This text therefore is directly to the purpose, in respect of both the propositions to be proved.

The other is, _We love him, because he first loved us_. And here also, for fear I should fail in the proof, you have drawn it up ready to my hands.

“God sent his only son――to redeem us from sin, by purchasing for us grace and salvation. By which grace we――thro’ faith and repentance have our sins pardoned――and therefore we are bound to return the tribute of our love and gratitude, and to obey him faithfully as long as we live.”

Now, that _we have our sins pardoned_, if we _do not know_ they are pardoned, cannot bind us either to love or obedience. But if we do know it, and by that very knowledge, or confidence in the pardoning love of God, are both bound and enabled to love and obey him, this is the whole of what I contend for.

2. You afterwards object against some other text which I had cited, to illustrate the nature of saving faith. My words were, “Hear believing _Job_, declaring his faith, _I know that |my| Redeemer liveth_.” I here affirm two things, 1. That _Job_ was then a believer. 2. That he declared his faith in these words. And all I affirm, you allow. Your own words are, “God was pleased to bestow upon him a strong assurance of his favour――to inspire him with a prophecy of the resurrection, and that he should have a share in it.”

I went on, “Hear _Thomas_, when having seen he believed, crying out my Lord and my God.” Hereon you comment thus, “The meaning of which is that St. _Thomas_ makes a confession, both of his faith and repentance.” I agree with you. But you add, “in St. _Thomas_’s confession there is not implied an assurance of pardon,” you cannot agree with yourself in this; but immediately subjoin, “If it did imply such an assurance, he might well have it, since he had an immediate revelation of it from God himself.”

Yet a little before you endeavoured to prove that one who was not a whit behind the very chief apostles had not such an assurance: where, in order to shew that faith does not imply this, you said, St. _Paul_ methinks has fully determined this point (_1 Corinthians iv. 4._) _I know nothing by myself_, says he, _yet am I not hereby justified_.――“And if an apostle so illuminated, don’t think himself justified”――Then I grant, he has fully determined the point. But before you absolutely fix upon that conclusion, be pleased to remember your own comment that follows, on those other words of St. _Paul_, _the life I now live, I live by faith in the Son of |God|, who loved me and gave himself for me_. Your words are, “And no question a person indowed with such extraordinary gifts, might arrive at a very eminent degree of assurance.”――So he _did arrive at a very eminent degree of assurance_, tho’ _he did not think himself justified_!

I can scarce think you have read over that chapter to the _Colossians_: else surely you would not assert, that those words on which the stress lies, (_viz._ _Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: In whom we have redemption thro’ his blood, even the forgiveness of sins_) do not relate to _Paul_ and _Timothy_ who wrote the epistle, but to the _Colossians_, to whom they wrote, I need be at no pains to answer this; for presently after your own words are, “he hath made us, meaning the _Colossians_, as well as himself, meet to be inheritors.”――――

3. You may easily observe, that I quoted the council of _Trent_ by memory, not having the book then by me. I own, and thank you for correcting my mistake: but in correcting one, you make another. For the decrees of the sixth session were not “published on the 13th of _January_:” but the session itself began on that day.

I cannot help reciting your next words, although they are not exactly to the present question.

“The words of the 12th canon of the council of _Trent_ are,”

“If any man shall say that justifying faith is nothing else but a confidence in the divine mercy, remitting sins for Christ’s sake, and that this confidence is that alone by which we are justified, let him be accursed.” You add,

“This Sir, I am sure is true doctrine, and perfectly agreeable to the doctrine of our church. And so you are not only anathematized by the council of _Trent_, but also condemned by our own church.”

“Our church holds no such scandalous and disgraceful opinion.” ――According to our church, no man can have “the true faith, who has not a loving heart.”――_Therefore_ faith is not a confidence that any man’s sins are actually forgiven, and he reconciled to God.” (What have the premisses to do with the conclusion!)

4. To decide this, let our church speak for herself. Whether she does not suppose and teach, that every particular believer knows that his sins are forgiven, and he himself is reconciled to God.

First then, our church supposes and teaches every particular believer, to say concerning himself, “In my baptism _I was made a member of Christ, a child of God, and an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven. And I thank God who hath called me to that state of salvation. And I pray to God that I may continue in the same to my life’s end._”

Now does this person _know_ what he says to be true? If not, it is the grossest hypocrisy. But if he does, then he knows, that _he in particular_ is reconciled to God.

The next words I shall quote may be a comment on these: May God write them in our hearts!

“A true christian man is not afraid to die, who is the very member of Christ, the temple of the Holy Ghost, the Son of God, and the very inheritor of the everlasting kingdom of heaven. But plainly contrary, he not only puts away the fear of death, but wishes, desires and longs heartily for it. _Sermon against the fear of death._” I. part.

Can this be, unless he has a sure confidence that he, in particular, is reconciled to God?

“Men commonly fear death, first because of leaving their worldly goods and pleasures. 2. For fear of the pains of death; and 3. For fear of perpetual damnation. But none of these causes trouble good men, because they stay themselves by true faith, perfect charity, and sure hope of endless joy and bliss everlasting.” _ibid._ II. part.

“All these therefore have great cause to be full of joy, and not to fear death nor everlasting damnation. For death cannot deprive them of Jesus Christ, death cannot take him from us, nor us from him. Death not only cannot harm us, but also shall profit us and join us to God more perfectly. And thereof a christian heart may be surely certified. _It is God_, saith St. _Paul_, _which hath given us an earnest of his Spirit_. As long as we be in the body, we are in a strange country. But we have a desire rather to be at home with God.” _ibid._

He that runneth may read in all these words, the confidence which our church supposes, every particular believer to have, that he himself is reconciled to God.

To proceed, “The only instrument of salvation required on our parts 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.”