His Lordship in the same page proceeds thus. “By the power of God therefore must necessarily be understood the miraculous operations performed by Jesus Christ and his Apostles, as a divine testimony of their authority.” He goes on in the 7th, 10th, and following verses, to explain this “demonstration of the Spirit and of power;” and tells us, “That this wisdom of God is a mystery, or wisdom formerly hidden from the world, which was couched in the types and prophecies of the Messiah in the Old Testament, under the title of the Law of Moses, the Psalms, and all the prophets that were actually fulfilled in Jesus Christ. For, says he, ‘the Spirit searcheth all things, even the deep things of God. Now we have not received the spirit of the world, (viz. of oratory and philosophy) but the spirit which is of God, that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.’ That is, that we might learn of the Spirit the true meaning of those writings which he dictated himself, and which none but the Spirit of God could know, since the gospel is the contrivance of God alone for man’s salvation; and the benefits of it are freely and of his mere grace conferred upon us.”
But in all these passages, where is there a shadow of a proof, that by the word power, the Apostle meant only that he worked miracles among them? Is there any such thing so much as hinted at in those verses? Or what greater reason is there to infer from hence, that the demonstration of the Spirit means no more than proving Christ to be the Messiah, from the books of the Old Testament?
His Lordship goes on, page 31st, to comment upon the 13th verse of the 1st Corinthians 2d. thus: “The apostle adds, ‘Which things also we speak not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, (viz. as before by oratory and philosophy) but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.’ From which last passage it appears that the words which the Holy Ghost is said to teach, must be prophetical revelations made of Jesus Christ in the Old Testament, which were clearly discovered to the Apostles, and explained by them to the world by the same Holy Spirit, that perfectly knew those deep or mysterious things of God in the holy scriptures, which related to and were fulfilled in Jesus Christ; and whose expositions of his doctrine were authorized by the miracles they wrought in confirmation of it.”
But supposing this be in part true, have not the words a further meaning? And by “Words which the Holy Ghost teacheth,” may we not understand, words which the Holy Ghost did immediately put into this and other Apostles minds whilst they were preaching, speaking, or writing? Was there not such assistance promised to the Apostles? Did they not speak as the Spirit gave them utterance? And since Jesus Christ has promised in an especial manner to be with his ministers, even to the end of the world, may they not humbly claim the divine influence to assist them in a degree in preaching now, as well as formerly, by bringing to their remembrance the words and things he had taught them in the holy scriptures before, and so opening a door of utterance to them, without being, for so doing, justly stiled modern enthusiasts.
His Lordship, in order to give a sanction to these his several interpretations, quotes Chrysostom, Origen, and Athanasius: but does his Lordship deal candidly or simply in this matter? For though they may in some respects agree with his Lordship’s literal interpretation, do they not give a spiritual one also? Does not his Lordship himself, page 42d, citing the authority of Athanasius, that great light of the christian church, in effect confess this? Does he not say, that he interprets the unction of the Holy One not merely of divine grace? But does it therefore follow that he did not interpret it at all of divine grace? Nay, does it not follow, that he did interpret it of the divine grace of the Spirit of God dwelling in all believers, as well at least as of the miraculous gifts of the Spirit? Does not Ignatius, one of the most early writers, stile himself Theophoros, and the people to whom he writes Theophoroi? And can it be supposed, that Origen in particular, (who his Lordship professes again and again, in his treatises against Woolston, to be such a spiritual interpreter of scripture,) has in these passages so tenaciously cleaved to the literal interpretation, as utterly to deny the indwelling and inward witness of the Spirit? Is not this entirely opposite to the whole tenor of his writings, as well as the writings of the most ancient fathers? And has not his Lordship, out of his great zeal against enthusiasm, by writing thus, unwarily run into an extreme? And as he justly charged the infamous Woolston with sticking too close to the spirit, and not minding the letter, has he not in this performance so closely adhered to the letter, and so sadly neglected the spirit, as almost totally (if his interpretations be true) to exclude the Holy Ghost in his operations, since the primitive times, out of the christian world?
Is not this matter of fact? Are not these words of truth and soberness? Be not angry therefore, but bear with me a little, if like Elihu, “I speak that I may refresh myself. For behold my belly is as wine which hath no vent, it is ready to burst like new bottles.” Let his Lordship write what he pleases to the contrary, “there is a Spirit in man, and a holy Spirit in believers, and an ordinary inspiration of the Almighty, which now, as well as formerly, giveth them spiritual understanding.” But supposing it was not so, and all his Lordship’s glosses upon the forementioned passages, were as right as in my opinion they are wrong, could you, Reverend Brethren, (I appeal to your consciences) in your own hearts even wish that they were so? If you should answer, Yes, (as your requesting his Lordship to print this charge, gives me too great reason to think you would,) “Tell in it not in Gath, publish it not in the streets of Ascalon, lest the daughters of the Philistines rejoice, lest the daughters of the uncircumcised triumph.” For if this be the case, in what a poor benighted condition has the Lord Jesus left his church in these last days? And what avails it to have his doctrines and divine mission evinced formerly by gifts and miracles, if we are deprived of the inward teachings and indwelling of the Holy Spirit? It is true, his Lordship does talk here and there of the Blessed Spirit, and of his ordinary influences: but what are his ordinary operations, if he is neither to dwell in us, nor to give us an inward testimony in our hearts, that we are born of God? What signifies talking of his assistances, and at the same time declare, that they can neither be inwardly felt, or perceived, nor believers be supernaturally assured thereby of their salvation? Or if we are to expect no operations of the Spirit that are supernatural, as his Lordship again and again intimates, what are the natural operations that we are to look for? Or can there possibly be any operation of the Holy Spirit which is not supernatural? What can deists and the whole tribe of unbelievers wish for more than such doctrine? Does not his Lordship, by writing thus, greatly hurt the cause he would defend; and out of a zeal to prove christianity no enthusiasm, unwittingly run into that fault which he would throw upon these against whom his charge is levelled, page 2d; I mean, “does he not act in concert with infidelity against our established religion, our great common salvation?” How must the church of Rome also glory in such a charge? Is it not after their own heart? Is not the denying the witness of the Spirit in believers hearts, one of the main pillars of Popery? Are not papists kept in slavery, and taught to trust to the absolution of their priest; because it was one of the determinations of the council of Trent, that none can here below attain from the Spirit a certainty of their being finally saved? His Lordship has done well in signalizing himself by writing against the papists and infidels. But what will it avail, or how can his Lordship flatter himself that the efforts of the latter, page 2d, “have been sufficiently opposed:” since by writing against the witness of the Spirit, he so nearly symbolizes with the one, and by crying down all supernatural operations of the Holy Ghost, joins hands with the other? Besides, “If there are no proofs of the truth of our religion by the inward testimony of the Spirit, as his Lordship affirms, page 52d. or even by the infallible application of the several marks of truth in it by the Holy Spirit, to the minds of men, and his making so strong and violent an impression on them, as to form (horresco referens) a new unintelligible sort of divine faith, page 53.” how shall we distinguish true and divine faith, from that which is false and barely historical? Are not the devils capable of such a faith? Nay, have they not as real faith as christians themselves, if there be no other faith but what is wrought by external revelation and outward miracles? Do they not thus believe and tremble? And can it be supposed, that all the miracles that the Apostles wrought, and the glorious sermons that they were enabled to preach, were only to shew people what communion they were to be of? Is not this bringing the gospel down to a mere history, which one may read of the exploits of an Alexander; and making faith to be a bare assent of the understanding, which a person may have, and yet be no more benefited by the death of Christ, than Simon Magus was in believing that he was crucified?
But further; supposing his Lordship had shewn, that every one of those passages he has commented upon, had been misapplied by modern enthusiasts; yet are there not besides a great cloud of witnesses to be fetched from the lively oracles, to prove that the indwelling, and inward witness of the Spirit, are the privileges of all believers? Will you permit me to instance only in a few? What think you of that passage in St. John’s gospel, chapter vii. 37, 38, 39. “In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood up and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me and drink. He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath spoken, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living waters. But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive?” How, I pray you, are we to understand that petition of our Lord for his disciples, just before his passion, in the same evangelist, chapter xvii. 20, 21. “Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word: that they all may be one, as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one:” And again, verses 22, 23. “That they all may be one, even as we are one, I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one?” How would you explain that question of the Apostle’s to the Corinthians, (a church famous for its gifts above any church under heaven) “Know ye not that Christ is in you, unless you be reprobates?” How do you explain that assertion of the evangelist John, in his 1st epistle v. 10. “He that believeth hath the witness in himself?” Or that of the Apostle Paul to the Ephesians, chapter i. 13, 19. And again, chapter iv. 30? How do you interpret that passage, 2 Corinthians xvi. 16? Or what say you to that exhortation of St. Jude, verse 20. “But ye, beloved, building up yourselves in your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost, keep yourselves in the love of God?” Can any of these passages, with any manner of consistency, be interpreted of the miraculous gifts of the Holy Ghost, or be confined to the primitive church? Do they not speak of an indwelling witnessing spirit, which all believers in all ages have a right to expect, till time shall be no more?
And now, my Reverend Brethren, if these things be so, may not that question be very justly put to you, which our Lord on a like occasion asked Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews: “Are ye masters of Israel? Are ye ministers of the Church of England, and know not these things?” What has his Lordship been doing so many years, in professing to confer the Holy Ghost by imposition of hands on so many ministers, saying unto them, “Receive the Holy Ghost by imposition of our hands,” if there are none of those assistances from the Blessed Spirit to be expected now, which were conferred when our Saviour first spoke these words to his disciples? How can his Lordship in conscience make use of the ordination office? Or how could you, before many witnesses, publicly confess that you were inwardly moved by the Holy Ghost to take upon you the administration of the church? when you openly deny him in his most powerful, and as to believers, in his common operations. Should you not tremble to think, how much this looks like belying the Holy Ghost, and acting the dreadful crime of Ananias and Sapphira over again, or lying not only unto man, but unto God? And why are you so zealous for the church, and continually crying out, “The temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord,” and yet trample her offices, collects and articles in effect under your feet? With what consistency can you use the baptismal office, and [♦]solemnly say unto God, “We yield thee hearty thanks, most merciful Father, that it hath pleased thee to regenerate this infant with thy Holy Spirit,” and yet agree with his Lordship, page 61, in asserting, “to that [♠]federal rite of baptism is annexed the preventing or preparatory grace of God, as is likewise (on a due improvement) that of the assisting kind?” Is this all that is implied in the baptismal office? And is regeneration no more than this? What a miserable condition then are those in, who have only their baptismal regeneration to depend on? For who is there that has improved, nay who is there that has not sinned away this preparatory grace? Is not this directly contrary to the whole baptismal office? And are not those to be reckoned friends to mankind, who bid them look for a better regeneration than this amounts to? Again, with what propriety can his Lordship, in the office of confirmation, pray unto God to give the persons to be confirmed “the Spirit of wisdom and [♣]understanding, the Spirit of counsel and ghostly strength?” Or how can ministers in general, in the collect for Whit-sunday, say, “Grant us by the same Spirit to have a right judgment in all things, and evermore to rejoice in his holy comforts?” Why are the passages, wherein these blessings are promised to the first Apostles, appointed to be read at this festival, if we are not in our degree to expect the same mercies? And if these things are not to be inwardly felt, and we are not to be supernaturally assured of our salvation, wherefore do you make use of those words in the visitation of the sick? “The Almighty Lord, who is a most strong tower to all them that put their trust in him, to whom all things in heaven, in earth, and under the earth, do bow and obey, be now and evermore thy defence, and make thee know and feel, that there is none other name under heaven given to man, in whom and through whom thou mayest receive health and salvation, but only the name of our Lord Jesus Christ:” Or with what propriety can you subscribe to the 17th article, wherein we are told, “That the godly consideration of predestination, and our election in Christ, is full of sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable comfort to godly persons, and such as feel in themselves the working of the Spirit of Christ?” And if there be no such thing as inspiration at all, how can you, consistent with your principles, use the church collect before the communion office, and pray “Almighty God to cleanse the thoughts of our hearts by the inspiration of his Holy Spirit?” Or how can you agree with the 13th article, which affirms, “That works done before the grace of Christ, and the inspiration of the Spirit, are not pleasant to God?” Are not all these things against you? Do they not all concur to prove, that you are the betrayers of that church which you would pretend to defend? Alas, what strangers must you be to a life hid with Christ in God, and the blessed fruits of the Spirit, such as love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance; when you know of no other first-fruits of the Spirit, than the miraculous gifts of the Holy Ghost conferred on some particular persons in the primitive church, which a man might have, so as to prophesy and cast out devils in the name of Christ, and yet be commanded to depart from him in the last day? How miserable must the congregations be, of which you are made overseers? And how little of the divine presence must you have felt in your administrations, that utterly deny the spirit of prayer, and the Spirit’s helping you to preach with power, and consider them as things that have long since ceased? Is not this the reason why you preach as did the scribes, and not with any divine pathos and authority, and see so little good effect of your sermons? Have not your principles a direct tendency to lull poor souls asleep? For if they are not to look for the supernatural operations of the Spirit of God, or any inward feeling or perceptions of this Spirit, may not all that are baptized, and not notoriously wicked, flatter themselves that they are christians indeed? But is not this the very quintessence of Pharisaism? Is not this the dark, benighted state the great Apostle of the Gentiles confesses he was in, before he was experimentally acquainted with Christ, or knew or felt the power of his resurrection? Is not this a prophesying falsely, to say unto people, “Peace, peace,” when there is no true solid scriptural ground for peace? And are not you then properly the persons his Lordship speaks of, page 1st, as “betraying whole multitudes into an unreasonable presumption of their salvation?” For is it not the highest presumption, for any to hope to be saved without the indwelling of the Spirit, since the Apostle declares, in the most awful manner, “If any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his?” Is it not high time for somebody to rouze the sleepy world out of this state, though it should cost them some melancholy thoughts? May they not justly despond and despair too of being saved in such a condition? For how can they possibly be good christians, or indeed christians at all, unless they some time or other feel the Spirit of God in their hearts? Or how can any justly be stiled enthusiastical pretenders to immediate inspiration and new revelation, page 3d, who only claim what is promised in the will of God already revealed, and exhort all to add diligence to make their calling and election sure? And why should that great man of God, Dr. Owen, be so particularly mentioned by his Lordship, page 15th? Has there a more solid critical learned divine appeared for many ages in the christian world? Being dead, doth he not yet speak? Do not his works praise him? Or supposing he was an enthusiast, as his Lordship calls him, how can he be a modern one? Has he not been dead now above fifty years? And why is he mentioned with an &c.? Would his Lordship have us understand Dr. Goodwin, Mr. Baxter, and writers of the Puritan stamp? But in reproaching them, does not his Lordship equally brand Archbishop Usher, Bishop Hall, Bishop Davenant, Bishop Hopkins, and others, nay all the godly reformers and martyrs, and the compilers of our articles, homilies, and liturgy also? Were they not equally enthusiastical with those, which his Lordship in this charge would condemn; and may I not therefore say, if they were enthusiasts, would to God you were not only almost, but altogether such as they were? Has not his Lordship undesignedly put an honour upon the Methodists, by joining them in such company? Might not his Lordship easily foresee, that such a procedure as this, would rather increase than diminish the progress of Methodism, which his Lordship seems to have unwittingly prophesied of three years ago, when this charge was first delivered? See margin of page 60. For what in an human way can have a more natural tendency to strengthen the Methodists hands, than their having a public occasion to shew, that they preach up the great doctrines of the reformation, and are thrust out of the synagogues for no other reason, than because they preach articles of faith, to which they have subscribed, as the expression is in the literal and grammatical sense?
[♦] “solemny” replaced with “solemnly”
[♠] “fedral” replaced with “federal”