Again, is not his Lordship greatly mistaken in his explanation of the 16th verse of the 8th of Romans, “The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God.” “This passage, says his Lordship, page 18th, 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, who were then rejected by God, and had lost that title. But what was the ground of this preference that was given to christians? It was plainly the gifts of the Spirit, which they had, and which the Jews had not. That Spirit then, which by its gifts enabled the Apostles and other christians to work miracles of various kinds, was a demonstration, that God was in them of a truth, and that their religion was owned by him in opposition to that of the Jews, whom he had deserted in a judicial manner.” The conclusion his Lordship draws from these premises, we have page the 20th. “That the fore-mentioned testimony of the Spirit, attended with the testimony of our own spirit, i. e. the consciousness of the sincerity and good lives of private christians, was the public testimony of the miraculous gifts of the Spirit which God had conferred on the Apostles, and many of the first christians; and which shewed that they and their brethren were the true church of God, and not the Jews. And this was a plain criterion in the first great controversy, namely, to which of those two churches men were obliged to adhere in communion. And consequently, this witness of the Spirit, which shews that we christians are the sons of God, cannot possibly be applied to the mere private testimony of the Spirit given to our own consciences, to prove that we, or private christians, are the sons of God and heirs of salvation, as is pretended by modern enthusiasts.”
But does not his Lordship here argue from a mistaken supposition, that the Apostle, in the 8th of the Romans, is speaking of the miraculous power our Lord gave to his first Apostles to work miracles, in confirmation that their doctrine was of God? Is there any such thing so much as hinted at through the whole chapter? Is not the whole scope of it to shew the privileges of those, who “being justified by faith” alone, chapter 5th, “have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ?” Does not the Apostle therefore at the first verse say, “That there is no condemnation to them who are in Christ Jesus?” Does he not say, verse the 9th, that “the Spirit of God dwelt in them?” Does not his Lordship allow, page 16, &c. That the Apostle in this and the preceding verses treats of that “spiritual principle in christians which enables them to mortify the deeds of the body, and overcome carnal inclinations?” And what shadow of a reason can be given to prove that the same spiritual principle is not spoken of in verse 16th, as bearing witness with believer’s spirits that they were the children of God? Is it not said, verse 15th, to be something that they had received? “But ye have received the spirit of adoption, whereby ye cry Abba, Father.” And is not the obvious sense of these verses put together plainly this, “That true believers, those who are christians indeed, have the Spirit of God dwelling in them, verse 9th; are led by this Spirit, verse 14th; have gotten an inward witness from this same Spirit, that they are God’s children, and therefore need not be brought into bondage, and fear, lest God would reject them, but may have free access, and with a full assurance of faith, and a holy child-like simplicity, draw near unto him, crying Abba, Father?”
His Lordship, to prove that this is not the sense of this passage, but that the testimony of the Spirit here spoken of, is a public gift of working miracles, refers, page 19th, to Galatians iii. 2. where the Apostle puts this question to them: “Received ye the Spirit, (i. e. according to his Lordship, the power of working miracles) by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?” which (says his Lordship) the same Apostle presently after explains, when he says at verse 5th, “He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?” But is not here a plain antithesis between administring the Spirit and working miracles? Do they not evidently imply two distinct things? And can it be supposed, that the Spirit which the Apostle asks, verse 2d, “Whether they had received by the works of the law, or the hearing of faith,” was a power to perform such miracles, at least that only? Would it not then follow, since he declares in the 8th of the Romans, “that if any man have not the Spirit of Christ he is none of his,” that either all believers did receive his Spirit in his miraculous gifts, or that no one is a believer that has them not? And doth not the Apostle in this very epistle make it appear, that the Spirit here spoken of is not this miraculous outward testimony? For what says he, Galatians iv. 6. “And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts (whereby it is plain the Spirit was received into the heart) crying, Abba, Father?” And does not this quite clear up that passage of Romans, chapter viii. verse 15. about the witnessing Spirit and the Spirit of adoption, viz. that believers (besides seeing the miracles which the Apostles wrought) had an inward testimony of the Holy Ghost, he making an inward application of the merits of Christ to their souls, and giving them an inward testimony that they were indeed the adopted sons of God, and therefore in a holy confidence they might cry, Abba, Father? Is there any thing forced in this interpretation? And consequently (notwithstanding what appears to the contrary from his Lordship’s explanation) may not persons assert, that there is such a thing as a witness or testimony of the Spirit given to our own consciences, to prove that private christians are the Sons of God and heirs of salvation, without being censured for so doing as modern enthusiasts?
May I not likewise venture to affirm, that his Lordship is equally mistaken in his interpretation of the 26th and 27th verses of the same chapter, 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 heart, knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God?”
The Spirit here spoken of, according to his Lordship, was the Spirit acting in the inspired person, who in the apostolical age, says his Lordship, page 24th, “had the gift of prayer, and interceded for the whole congregation; so that what is here said of the Spirit, is [♦]by an easy figure transferred to the spiritual or inspired person, who prayed in that capacity, for the whole christian assembly. It is he that maketh intercession with God for private christians, with vehement and inexpressible groanings or sighs.” But however easy it may be to find out a figure to transfer what is here said of the Spirit, to the spiritual or inspired person, yet how will it be easy to find a figure to interpret this of the spiritual or inspired person at all? For has it not already been shewn, that this whole chapter is no where speaking of any such spiritual inspired person, but of the Spirit of God dwelling in all believers?
[♦] “hy” replaced with “by”
His Lordship goes on, page ibid. to comment upon the 27th verse: “And he that searcheth the hearts, knoweth what is the mind of the spirit, (i. e. of the spiritual or inspired person) because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God.” That is, says his Lordship, “God knows the intentions of the spiritual person, and judges of the vehemence of his desires in prayer for the whole assembly, for whom he makes intercession, with regard to the immediate subject of affliction; literally indeed, according to God (kata Theon) or relatively to him, but by construction, conformably to the will of God; namely, that in a most fervent manner, the person that has the inspired 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 christians should suffer afflictions for the gospel, or be delivered from them. And such an intention of his prayer cannot but be highly acceptable to God, who searches his heart, and approves of such an act of profound resignation to his will.”
Thus far his Lordship. But where is there through the whole chapter any mention made of an assembly, or of any spiritual inspired person praying in its behalf? Does it not require a very profound understanding to search it out? Is it not more agreeable to the whole scope of the apostle in this chapter, to believe, that this spirit here mentioned as helping infirmities, or distresses, and assisting in prayer, is the common privilege of all believers? Is he not said to make intercession for the saints in general? And does not his Lordship, page 22d, in effect own this? For what says his Lordship? “Now on this occasion, he, the apostle, adds another proof of the truth of christianity, and that christians are the adopted sons of God, and more especially with regard to their sufferings at that time, for the sake of their religion, says he, verse 26th. Likewise the Spirit also, (or rather even, kai) helpeth our infirmities (or our distresses, for the word Astheneiais signifies both.) And then he mentions in what instances he does so, viz. in prayers to God about bearing afflictions, or being delivered from them; and which of these two is most profitable for us, the Spirit knows better than we ourselves, and therefore instructs christians how to pray with regard to their sufferings. 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 according to our natural inclinations.” And after writing thus, how inconsistent is it in his Lordship to say, that this is done by the Spirit acting in the inspired person only, who made intercession for the whole assembly? Is not the quite contrary, I could almost say, self-evident? And how then can those who, from this passage of the 8th of the Romans, humbly claim the gift and grace of prayer now, as well as formerly, for so doing, be justly termed modern enthusiasts.
May we not further enquire, whether his Lordship’s interpretation of the 4th and 5th verses of the 2d chapter of the first epistle to the Corinthians be sound and consistent? The words are these, page 27th. “And my speech and my preaching were not with the enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, that your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God,” As to the former part of these words, “My speech and my preaching were not with the enticing words of man’s wisdom,” his Lordship seems to agree with the interpretation put upon them by those whom he is pleased to term enthusiasts; but the latter, “The demonstration of the Spirit and of power,” his Lordship, in pages 29th, 30th, 31st, and 32d, would fain shew, means no more, than that the Apostle proved Jesus to be the Messiah by proofs out of the prophecies of the Old Testament, and evinced the truth of christianity by performing miracles.
And supposing this may be one sense of the words, yet if this be the sole meaning of the Apostle’s expression, would it not have better become such a scholar as Paul was, to have said, “He came to them in the demonstration of the scriptures, rather than of the Spirit?” Can any parallel passage be produced, where the word Spirit is thus put for the scriptures? And therefore, by the demonstration of the Spirit, may we not understand, that the Spirit of God himself, whilst the Apostle was preaching, wrought a demonstrative conviction in the souls of his hearers, not only that what he spake was of God, but also that he was assisted in speaking by the Spirit of God? Does not this agree with what he says, 2d epistle Corinthians iii. 2, 3. “Ye are our epistle, written in our hearts, known and read of all men: forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God, not in tables of stone, but in fleshly tables of the heart.” And though it should be allowed that the word Dunamis (as his Lordship observes, page 30th) “in its ordinary sense in the New Testament, must signify the power exerted in miraculous operations:” yet how is it foreign to the Apostle’s purpose to interpret it also of a divine power or energy, which ordinarily attended the word preached by him; I mean such a power as accompanied the word when the Lord opened the heart of Lydia, and when so many were pricked to the heart, and made to cry out, “Men and brethren, what shall we do to be saved?” Does not the word Dunamis seem to carry this sense with it, 2 Corinthians iv. 7.? “But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power (Dunameos) may be of God, and not of men.” And is not Apollos said to be (Dunatos engraphais) mighty, or powerful, in the scriptures, though we do not hear that he performed any miracles at all? And though his Lordship is pleased to say, page ibid. “For by this power of God here spoken of, that it is a power to work miracles appears expresly,” from the immediately following verse, in which is assigned the reason for using this method of proving christianity to be true, “that your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God:” yet will it not equally hold good, that their faith stood not in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God? If by the power we understand a divine power attending the word preached in convincing the conscience, and changing the hearts of men, exclusive or besides a power of working miracles.