Reverend Brethren,
AS you profess to know the scriptures, I need not inform you, that the character of young Elihu shines in the 32d chapter of the book of Job with a superior lustre, above that of his other three friends who came to converse with him. The humility and modesty wherewith he first addresses himself to them is peculiarly amiable. “I am young, says he, and ye are very old, wherefore I was afraid, and durst not shew you my opinion. I said, Days should speak, and multitude of years should teach wisdom.” But knowing by experience, that “great men are not always wise, neither do the aged understand judgment, he said, Hearken unto me, and I also will shew my opinion.” And that they might not censure him for rashness in speaking, he assures them, verses 11, and 12. that he had well weighed the matter before he broke silence. “Behold, I waited for your words; I gave ear to your reasons, whilst you searched out what to say. Yea, I attended unto you; and behold there was none of you that convinced Job, or that answered his words.” And that they might not be offended at his plain speaking, or expect that he would be over-awed from delivering his soul, by their superiority in age, learning, or circumstances of life, in the two last verses of the chapter, he boldly, but honestly tells them what they were to expect from him. “Let me not, I pray you, accept any man’s person, neither let me give flattering titles unto man, for I know not to give flattering titles: In so doing my Maker would soon take me away.” And it is very remarkable, that though we are told this young man’s wrath was kindled against Job and his three friends, verses 2 and 3. and though (as it appears from the ensuing chapters) he spoke very close and cutting things, yet at the end of the book, we find no blame laid on him by the great heart-searching God; whereas the other three are severely reproved, and commanded to apply to Job for the benefit of his prayers.
Animated by, and willing to copy after so bright an example, I now sit down to write you this letter; in which I would beg leave to make some remarks on your Right Reverend Diocesan’s late charge against enthusiasm. Had I continued in my native country, I should have taken the freedom to have written to his Lordship himself; but as I heard that he was very aged, and probably before this could reach England, might be called to give up his account to the great Shepherd and Bishop of souls, I thought it most advisable to direct this letter to you, at whose request, as appears by the title-page, this charge was printed.
It is not my design to enter upon a critical examination of every paragraph. I would observe in general, that his Lordship’s main design, from the beginning to the end of it, is, to prove “that the indwelling and inward witnessing of the Spirit in believers hearts (if there were ever any such things at all) as also praying and preaching by the Spirit, are all the extraordinary gifts and operations of the Holy Ghost, belonging only to the apostolical and primitive times, and consequently all pretensions to such favours in these last days are vain and enthusiastical.” In order to evince this, his Lordship selects several passages of holy writ, which, in his opinion, are misapplied by those whom his Lordship is pleased to stile modern enthusiasts, and undertakes to shew, page 11th, “that they are to be interpreted chiefly, if not only, of the state of the apostolical and primitive church, and that they very little, if at all, relate to the present state of christians.” Whether or not his Lordship hath succeeded in his undertaking, will best appear by a candid and impartial review thereof.
The first attempt of this nature which we meet with in his Lordship’s charge, is page the 12th. His words are these: “That I may proceed in a regular manner, with regard to those passages of scripture that I shall select on this occasion, I chuse to begin with the original promise of the Spirit, as made by our Lord, a little before he left the world. It occurs in the 14th and 16th chapters of St. John’s gospel; in which he uses these words: ‘When the Spirit of truth is come, (whom Christ had just before promised to send from the Father, chapter 14th, verse 16th) he will guide you into all truth, and he will shew you things to come.’ 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.’ It is very clear (proceeds his Lordship) from the bare recital of these words, that as they were spoken to the apostles, so they peculiarly belong to the apostles themselves, or to the inspired persons in the primitive church.”
But granting that these words do belong peculiarly to the apostles, does it therefore follow, that they do not at all belong to their successors, or in common to all believers upon whom the ends of the world are come? Were not the apostles then representatives of the whole church? And may not what was spoken to them, in a proper degree be said to be spoken to us and to our children, and to as many as the Lord our God shall call? Does not his Lordship confess, page 13th, “that in one of these passages it is added, that the Father will give you another comforter, that he may abide with you for ever?” And does not his Lordship allow, page 14th, “that in the largest sense in which this may be understood, it is synonymous with Christ’s promise to his disciples at his ascension, that he would be with them always, even to the end of the world;” that is, as himself explains it, “by the perpetual presence of the Holy Spirit, as the guardian of his church ’till the end of the world?” But how can Christ be with his church by the perpetual presence of his Spirit, or how can the Holy Spirit “be the guardian of his church ’till the end of the world,” unless it is by opening and bringing all things to our remembrance, whatsoever Jesus hath said to us in his revealed will, guiding us thereby into all truth, and teaching us all things necessary to eternal salvation?
This promise, it is true, as his Lordship observes, page the 15th, “was fulfilled in a most solemn manner by the descent of the Holy Spirit on the Apostles, and others with them, at the feast of Pentecost, that is recorded so particularly in the second chapter of the Acts of the Apostles.” And it is as true, (as his Lordship intimates page 16th) “that St. Peter makes an application of the prophecy of Joel, to the miraculous effusion of the Spirit on that memorable occasion.
But does not his Lordship by intimating, that this promise of our Lord was wholly compleated on the day of Pentecost, prove too much? for does it not then follow, that no one after the day of Pentecost was to expect the Holy Ghost to bring all things to their remembrance, to teach them all things, and shew them things to come? How then could this promise be fulfilled in the apostle Paul, who was converted some time after? or how could this remain in the primitive church in the inspired persons, or abide with the church for ever to the end of the world? And supposing the apostle Peter does make an application of the prophecy of Joel to the miraculous effusion of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost, Acts the 2d, verses 16th, 17th, &c. does it therefore follow, that this promise of our Saviour extends no farther than that day? Does he any where intimate any such thing through his whole discourse? Or is it any new thing for prophecies to have several fulfilments? Is not that prophecy, “Out of Egypt have I called my son,” which was originally spoken concerning God’s Israel, applied by the evangelist Matthew, chapter 2d. verse 15th, to the Son of God himself? And therefore granting that this promise was in an extraordinary degree fulfilled in the day of Pentecost, how does it follow, that it is not now, and will be in an ordinary way, fulfilling to the end of the world? And consequently, may not this promise of our Lord be pleaded by all his disciples, for the indwelling of his blessed Spirit, and his inward teaching, by the instrumentality of his revealed will, now as well as formerly (especially since his Lordship, page 15th, clears us from pretending to the operations of the miraculous kind) without being censured for so doing as modern enthusiasts.
But this inward teaching and indwelling of the Spirit, his Lordship will by no means allow even the primitive christians to have had in common, and therefore, page 35th (which I come to next, for method’s sake) he comments upon another remarkable scripture, that, in his Lordship’s opinion, ‘has been misapplied to later ages, and indeed to the present times, by several enthusiasts, but was really peculiar to the times of the apostles.’ It occurs, says his Lordship, page ibid. in the first epistle of St. John, chapter ii. verse 20th, 27th. “But 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: but as the same anointing teacheth you all things, and is truth, and is no lie; and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.”
This unction from the Holy One, and this anointing, his Lordship, in five or six pages, labours to prove was some extraordinary gift residing in some particular inspired persons, and not in the believers in general to whom the apostle wrote. But with what shadow of argument does his Lordship reason thus? For though it be certain (as his Lordship intimates page 37th) “that there were several such inspired teachers among the first christians, who were endowed with various gifts of the Spirit, and among them with the gift of prayer, and preaching, and revelation of the true sense of the prophetical parts of the Old Testament;” yet how does it appear, that these inspired teachers are the particular persons referred to by the Apostle in this passage? If that was the case, would not the epistle itself more properly have been directed to them, as having the oversight of the flock? Or is it not probable at least, that the Apostle would have had something to say to them, as well as to the “little children, young men, and fathers,” verses 12th, 13th, to whom he writes so particularly? And is it not evident from the whole context, that this unction from the Holy One was not an extraordinary gift residing in any particular inspired person, but the indwelling of the Spirit, believers in general, whereby they had an experimental proof, that Jesus was indeed the Christ, and therefore needed not that any man should teach them, that is, further teach them, for the Apostle writes unto them as knowing persons, verse 12th, &c. Is not this interpretation quite consistent with the whole scope of the Apostle in this epistle, which was to comfort himself, and believers in general, now so many antichrists were abroad, that (since Jesus Christ had declared, Matthew xxiv. 24. that the elect could not be finally deceived) they having a proof of their election by receiving this unction from above, this indwelling of the Holy Ghost in their hearts, were now enabled, in a way far superior to, though not entirely exclusive of human teaching, to guard against the seducers of the day? And consequently, may not the indwelling of the Spirit be insisted upon now, as the privilege of all real christians, without their being justly stiled for so doing, modern enthusiasts.