The Spirit and the Word

“Then opened he their understanding that they might understand the Scriptures.” — LuKE xxiv, 49. “When He the Spirit of truth is come, he will guide you into all truth.’ — Joun xvi. 13.

My pear FRrRienp,

You hear it often said by the holders of the new theology, — ‘‘ we do not deny the Spirit’s work, but we maintain that he works only through the word, nay, that he is 7m the word, so that whenever the word is read or preached, there is the Spirit.” Let us examine this statement.

1. If the Spirit is the word, how is it that we are never told so in Scripture? ‘There is not one passage in which this is stated, or even hinted at. ‘The language used throughout the whole Bible is such as continually to impress upon us the idea of his direct, personal, and special agency. It is to Scripture that I appeal; let our opponents produce their proofs from the word of God. Mere human inferences are not enough. It is vain to say, it must be so. It is worse than vain to rest upon the reasonings of man. Jn a matter like this, it is to God alone that we can listen. He always speaks of his work in the new creation as being equally direct and special with his work in the old. If there be nothing but indirect agency in the former, then we must maintain that there was the same in the latter, which is precisely the conclusion at which modern infidelity has arrived.

2. If the Spirit is in the word, how is he said to be in the hand of Christ, and at his disposal? If he is in the word, then he is out of the hands of Christ, and it will not be true that he gives eternal life to as many as the Father hath given him; it will not be true that ‘‘the Son quickeneth whom he will.” The Spirit will then be at our disposal, and wherever we choose to send the Bible or the gospel, thither we send the Spirit. Christ is not at liberty to * quicken whom he will,” for the Spirit is to be dispensed according to our pleasure! If he is so in the word, then wherever the word is, there is the Spirit in all his energy and power. How is this consistent with his being given to Christ, in order that He may pour him out according to his will?

3. If He is in the word, it is unnecessary to pray that he may be given to us. All that we ought to do is to give thanks to God for having given him: but no man, whether saint or sinner, should pray for the Spirit at all. I should never think of praying to God for a Bible, if I already possessed one: and how can I pray for the Spirit if he be already given me in the word? Nor can I ask God to give his Spirit to any friend, either converted or unconverted, for if he has his Bible, he has all of the Spirit that he ever can have. What good would my praying for him do? And hence some we know are strictly carrying out their principles, and refusing to pray for the conversion of their friends or children. ‘They feel that to pray for their conversion is to ask God to do something directly, for their souls, which their theory forbids them to do.

4, If He is in the word, it is needless to pray that He would teach us to understand that word. If God has already put all of the Spirit into the word that he means us to have, it is sinful in us to ask, and foolish to expect more. Yet has not God put into our lips more than a thousand prayers for the understanding of his holy word? When, therefore, we pray to be instructed therein, we ask God to do something for us inwardly, in addition to what he has already done for us outwardly, to the end that we may learn his truth. We may have read the word times beyond number, but still we know that when God touches the springs of the soul, renewing it and imparting relish for the truth in place of our natural disrelish, every word seems full of new sweetness and beauty. Outwardly it is the same word; but the inward touch of the divine finger upon the soul operates with such wondrous efficacy, that all seems fresh and new. This is utterly inconceivable upon a scheme which admits of nothing but mere outward influence. If the same verse of the Bible appear sweeter at one time than another, the cause of this difference must be a change in the state of the soul. If the soul remains unchanged, the verse will appear the same. But if the soul undergo any alteration, the verse will be felt quite different. And if, in order to relish the things of Christ, which by nature I abhor, my soul must undergo a change, how can this be accomplished but by the Holy Spirit working in me and upon me, ‘to will and to do, of his good pleasure?” When I sit down in my closet alone, with my Bible in my hand, I lift up my soul to God, and ask him to bless the word I am to read, Of what use is this if there be no inworking

Spirit? If he has no access at all to me save through the outward word, then what can he do for me which the word alone cannot do? If he be precluded from direct contact with my soul, then he can afford me no better help than any human friend. Nay, not so much. For the friend can converse with me, reason with me, place the matter before me in different aspects; but the Spirit has no living voice to reach the external ear. What He has written, He has written; and there it remains. He has no means, therefore, of explaining it to me if he has no direct access to my soul. If he were on earth, embodied in a visible form, then he might speak to me, and address me outwardly; then he might explain and interpret according as I needed his aid, though even this operation from without would not change a heart of stone into one of flesh. But seeing he is not so, then how can he reach me? He has given me the Bible; if I can understand it myself, I have no need of him. If I cannot, then how can he make me understand it if he cannot lay his finger directly upon my inner man? If I hate the truth, then how can he change hatred into love? How can he make me cease to hate it, if he can only deal with me through outward means, if he can only ap-THE SPIRIT AND THE WorRD. ‘211

proach me through that very thing which I hate and repel? If my heart be by nature enmity to God, then how foolish to speak of removing that enmity by merely teaching me more regarding that very thing which I hate.*

5. His being in the word, and thus working equally on all that hear the word, is given as the reason why sinners are so responsible for believing, and so guilty in not believing. Our opponents take credit for holding the necessity of the Spirit’s work in conversion, but maintain that he works equally in every man, and that were it not for this they could not call on sinners to believe the gospel. Now, is not-this an admission that there is in sinners an inability which it requires the power of another to

* It is plain that if these views of the Spirit’s work be correct, He does no more for souls than the minister who preaches. And this is in part admitted by some. Dr. Porter of America remarks that a popular preacher in that country made use of the following language. “In renewing men, the Spirit employs means; he does not come and take right hold of the heart and perform an operation upon it; but he presents motives; he persuades by means of truth, and the heart is overcome.... to change men’s hearts requires only the presentation of truth by the Spirit of God. His influence differs not at all from that of the preacher, except in degree.” — Letters on Revivals, p. 84. Finney also has the following remark in his twelfth Lecture on Revivals: “In speaking of this change, it is perfectly proper to say that the Spirit turned him, just,as you would say of a man who had persuaded another to change his mind on the subject of politics, that he had converted him and brought him over.”

remove? It does not matter in what way power operates, they are obliged to confess that there is an inability which the sinner cannot remove of himself — an inability which needs the Spirit’s power to overcome. But further, it is just saying that man is not responsible iz himself, — that it is this universal gift of the Spirit, that constitutes his responsibility, and that, but for this, it would be unjust in God to call on him to believe. This of course is just the old Arminian theory of universal grace. In it all obligation and responsibility are founded on this grace which is said to be given to every man. So that if there was no grace, there could be no duty. Thus man’s cuilt was denied, and thrown over upon God. His accountability was represented not as arising out of the nature which God had originally given him, but out of this universal grace which God had superadded since the fall, without which God could not in common justice call on the sinner either to keep his law or to believe his gospel. Thus, man is not only in himself helpless, which they are thus obliged to admit, but his helplessness is not sinful! It is a helplessness which God is either bound to remove by some universal operation of the Spirit, or else to treat as innocent! It is confessed that his depravity is such as to need the Spirit’s power for its removal; but it is maintained that, were that not given, he would not be accountable for it, nor called on to abandon it. It is this universal gift of the Spirit that is the: origin, the ground, the measure of man’s re-

- sponsibility!

A favorite and frequent illustration of these

views is taken from the eleventh chapter of

Matthew, in which they say that the Lord declares that an influence was exerted upon Chorazin and Bethsaida, sufficient to have converted Tyre and Sidon.” From this they infer two things : — that God is using with all sinners an influence sufficient to convert them, and that this influence is merely outward, not inward; the words and deeds of Jesus being all the influence made use of.

Now, arguing in their own way, it would appear from this passage, that Jesus says, that an influence was at work, sufficient to have converted Tyre, but not sufficient to have converted Chorazin. How can this prove that God is using with all sinners an influence sufficient to convert them? One would naturally suppose that it proved precisely the reverse. The influence, it is said, would have converted Tyre. But Chorazin was far worse than

Tyre, more hardened, more unbelieving. It would require then a much greater influence than that which the Lord was putting forth; for what he was putting forth was only enough to have converted Tyre!

Again, we ask, who made the difference between ‘l’yre and Chorazin? Was it not Jehovah in his sovereignty? Who dispensed to Tyre the lesser blessing and to Chorazin the greater? A sovereign Jehovah. Who withheld from Tyre the influence that would have converted it? Jehovah in his sovereignty. Why did he withhold it? It seemed good in his sight. )

We know of no passage which more distinctly and more solemnly declares God’s absolute sovereignty. He did far more for Chorazin than for Tyre, yet we are told by some that ‘he has done the utmost that he ean do for every sinner.” Had he done for Chorazin what he did for Tyre, repentance would have followed; yet he did not do it. “What would have converted Tyre, was withheld from Tyre. What would have converted Sodom was not given to Sodom. What would have converted Chorazin, was not given to Chorazin. Is not all this manifest sovereignty?

These remarks will obviate the difficulty that has been raised, without imposing on us the necessity of entering at length into the meaning of the passage.

6. If the Spirit work only through the word, how can we have access to the souls of infants? They cannot understand the word, yet we know that he works in them, else all who die in infancy must be lost. He wrought in the soul of John the Baptist, and as we have reason to believe in many others, from the womb. In such cases it must have been a direct operation of his hand upon the soul before it was possible that the truth could take effect, or be employed by him as an instrument. Here then is a large class of cases in which the Spirit works directly, by the immediate touch of his hand upon the soul. And this shows us that he can and does act oftentimes without any outward means.*

Well, but does this prove anything with regard to those of riper years? We think it does. First of all, it shows that the Spirit can operate upon the soul directly, without any outward means at all. And secondly it gives us an insight into the way in which he works

* Perhaps I may be allowed to refer here to two tracts of the Kelso Series upon the Holy Spirit, in which you will find this momentous subject treated more at length than can be done here. Nos, 9 and 13.; through means. ‘Take the case of one of these children in whom he has been working from infancy; trace the progress of his work onwards to maturer years. During the time in which the child could not know the truth, he was working upon the soul; and when the moment came that it did understand the truth, did he stay his hand, did he withdraw his touch, did he cease working in the way in which he had hitherto been doing? Did he not continue his direct working just as before? The only difference was, that now, the mind in which he was operating, began to take on the shape and mould of the truth externally applied to it. Previously he had been’working upon the clay alone; but now the clay and the mould are brought into contact, and henceforth all his operations are in connection with both. With the one hand he continues to operate upon the clay, and with the other he applies the mould. These are two distinct processes, one direct, 7. e., upon the clay; the other indirect, 2. €., upon the mould.

Let us take another instance. The word is likened by our Lord to seed. ‘ The good seed of the word,” is that which is sown. But this is sown in various soils; and however good the seed may be, if the soil be bad, it will bear no fruit. Until the soil be made good, the seed will not spring up. The seed may be the very best; it may be sown by the most skilful sower, and in the most skilful way; it may be shone upon by a genial sun; it may be watered with refreshing showers; but all this will not make it grow. Why? Because the soil is bad; it is sown in sand. No skill in the sower, no excellence in the seed, will convert sand into good soil. No showers nor sunshine will make sand fertile. There must be a direct process altering the character of the soz/, before the seed will spring up. To make the soil fruitful through means of the seed is an impossibility. What husbandman would speak in such a way? Would he speak about putting power into the seed to fertilize the soul? Would he speak of getting at the soil through the seed alone? Would he think of rectifying the soil through means of the seed alone? ‘Would he not at once set about the direct process of manuring in order to change the soil and make it fruitful? And what would you think of a man who would say to you, ‘‘ Oh, Ido not deny the necessity of a power being put forth to change the soil; all I say is, that it must be put forth through the seed alone; the soil must not be touched directly, that would be an interference with the laws of nature; the power is in the seed; let the seed be well lodged in the ground, and it will soon show its power to change the soil.” Would you not say that, whatever his professions might be, he did not really believe in any external or separate power at all, but that the soil and the seed contained all the power that was needed, and that the idea of a power operating independent of both was equally unnatural and absurd? In like manner, when men say, “‘Oh, we do not deny the Spirit’s work and power, we merely say, that his power is in the word,” I must say that I find it hard to understand how these men believe in a Holy Spirit at all.

The only way of getting over this difficulty is, by supposing some small remaining goodness about the soil, into which the seed may strike its roots. If this be admitted, then I understand the matter. But if the soil be totally and utterly barren, then nothing can be more unintelligible than to speak of a power in the seed, by which it is able to spring up, without any direct process being applied to the soil.

Or let me take another example. Dayvid’s prayer was, ‘‘ open thou mine eyes that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law.” These are plain words. David asks God to open his eyes, in order that, being opened, he may behold these wondrous things. He knew something about the law; he knew that there were wondrous things in it. These he longed to see, but his eyes were closed and dim. What was his remedy? In God alone. In God directly, not through the medium of anything else. God’s touch alone, direct and immedtate, could open David’s eyes. Had he lived in our day, and complained of dim and closed eyes, he would have been told, “‘ Now you must not pray, you must not go to God to tell him your disease, and say, open mine eyes; you must just set the object before you; there is power in the object to open your eye; but to go to God himself and seek the direct forthputting of his power upon your eye, is nothing but unbelief of his word.” But David knew better than these miserable comforters. He knew himself and his disease better than they did; he knew the real seat of the disease, and the real nature of the cure required, better than they; he knew his gracious God, his healer, his enlightener, better than they; and therefore he went directly to him, imploring the direct touch of his hand.

He felt exactly as blind Bartimeus felt. He knew that he was blind, and he wanted to see. Jesus of Nazareth was passing by. He was said to be able to open the eyes of the blind by his touch. Accordingly he went and was cured. And how? Did Jesus say, — ‘‘ Don’t come to me and cry for the opening of your eyes, but just look before you at these objects of light; they have power in them to make you see; I only work through them; I do not put forth my power directly upon the eye; I only put it forth indirectly through these objects, and in no other way?” No, he touched his eyes, and said, Receive thy sight. ‘Thus the eye of the body was cured; and thus the eye of the soul is also cured.

But is it not said, ‘‘ The commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes?” (Ps. xix.8.) Yes, it is. But whatof this? Does this contradict the other? No. In the first place, it is not said here, that the word opens, but merely that it enlightens the eyes. In the second place, I admit most fully the efficacy of the word: “It isa lamp to our feet, and a light to our path.” I do not in the very least depreciate the word of the living God. I wish merely to assign to it the place which God does. I see men superseding the Spirit, and setting aside his work, under pretence of honoring the word. And it is this that I refuse to do. I admit the blessed efficacy of the word; but I maintain also the direct agency of the Holy Spirit upon the soul in order to the reception of that word. ‘The word is our light, but there must be an “opening of the eye” by the Spirit, ere there can be a “beholding of the wondrous things out of the law.”*

I confess I do not see of what use the Holy Spirit is in such a system. Man has all the requisite power; he needs no foreign aid; the truth is presented to him, with all suitable motives and persuasives, — what more is needed? In such a case it would be but mocking him to tell him of the Holy Spirit. There is no need of any help in the matter, far less of Divine help. For omnipotence to interpose when no strength is needed beyond what the man possesses, is a superfluous expenditure of power, a mere mockery of help. If the new theorists be correct, there is no necessity for the work of the Spirit in any sense. If man can do all, why call in the aid of the Spirit? To say that man needs the Spirit, is just to say that, without that Spirit, he could not perform what

* On this point see Owen on the Spirit, B, ITI. Chap. v. § 18; also Fuller’s works in numerous places; also Edwards on the Affections, Part ILI. § 4.

he is called on to do. If, however, he be really able to do all himself, it is absurd to speak of any work of the Spirit in him.

We believe that this point is often stated in the following manner — man is equally and in the same sense able to believe God’s truth — as the devil’s lie.” ‘This I think is the strongest as well as the simplest way in which the matter can be,put. Well. It will be admitted that, in no sense whatever, is the Spirit’s aid needed or given in order to believe the lie; therefore, in no sense whatever and tn no way whatever, either in the word or with the word, is the Spirit needed or given to enable man to believe the truth. Surely this is the honest and -the plain conclusion from a statement which, from the triumphant way in which it is generally put, seems to be reckoned irresistible. ‘Tio speak of any work of the Spirit whatsvever, either in or out of the word, is to say that man is zo? equally and in the same sense able to believe the truth of God, as he is to believe the lie of the devil. Therefore, we infer that either this noted proverb must be abandoned, or else the Holy Spirit and his work, in every sense and in every way, must be denied. If a man no more needs the Spirit in order to his believing a lie, than in order to

his believing the truth, it is plain that he needs no Holy Spirit at all. Why then is the Spirit and his work not totally denied? Men are not yet prepared for that. The name must in the mean time be retained. In a short time this may be unnecessary.

It has been sometimes said, ‘‘Is it not just as easy to believe as not to believe, as easy to turn to God as to turn away from God?” If this merely meant that the same faculties are required for both, there would be no harm in the expression. But if it mean that our souls are so well balanced, so entirely free, so little injured by the fall, that they can move with the same facility towards God as from God, we deny and condemn the statement. On account of our bondage to sin and bias to evil, it is mot as easy for us to be holy as to be unholy. The corrupt state of our souls has made the difference. But then, ‘‘ we are not free ‘agents,” it will be said. What, is God not free because he ‘‘ cannot lie?”* Must we not say that the angels are free agents, unless we can say it is as easy for them to blaspheme as to praise, to rebel as to obey? Their perfect

* The actings of Christ’s human soul were all necessarily

holy, yet were they not entirely voluntary and free? See Edwards’ remarks on this. Freedom of the Will, Part IIL

8 2, holiness has made disobedience as impossible to them as our corruption has made obedience impossible to us. Is it not their highest glory as well as their completest liberty that they cannot disobey? And is it not our deepest shame and guilt and bondage that sin has such dominion over us, that even when to will is present with us, how to perform that which is good, we find not?

And as to this “power in the word,” of which so much is spoken, I confess it is a mystery to me. ‘That there is power in the word — that the word of God is a powerful word, I cordially admit. In no other words is there such a power and majesty. There are no words like the words of God for excelleney and strength. Words so weighty, so fit, so full, so big with meaning, are nowhere else to be found. ‘Though in themselves they be but the language of the creature, the poor speech of man, yet it is the Almighty voice that speaks through them; it is the thoughts of God himself which they contain. If this is all that is meant by power being in the word, then no one will dispute the matter. But this is not ali. Nay, this is not the point at all. No one denies that the words are the words of God, and that they contain the thoughts of

God. But the question is, Do these words contain some mysterious power of making these thoughts to be known and felt by the sinner? Do they contain a power, ¢ndependent of their meaning, to make the sinner feel these thoughts which they contain? If it is said, ‘“*Oh, no, they contain no such power apart from their meaning; but these thoughts, conveyed by means of the word, have the power:” then we must say, that this is hardly intelligible, or, at least, does not touch the point. For thoughts, and words, and ideas, are passive things; whereas, according to this idea, they are active things, a living agency capable of operating upon the mind by means of a mysterious power with which they are impregnated. But even granting that they did possess some such active power, still the difficulty is not explained. For the state of the sinner’s soul is such as to repel and resist that power. And how is this repelling and resisting attitude of the sinner to be removed? ‘Take an illustration. Suppose the window of my house is darkened by a wall which excludes the sun. The sunbeams beat upon the wall, but still it remains, nay, it grows harder and more impenetrable under their influence. Had it been a wall of ice, it would have melted away, but its nature is such as to harden, not to soften, under these beams. And how then is the evil to be remedied? By putting greater power into the sunbeams? That is an absurdity. Besides, it is the nature of the wall to resist the sunbeam, and to harden under it; and to put additional power into the sunbeam would only be to call forth additional resistance, and produce more induration. The remedy is plainly the removing of the wall by a power fitted for that purpose — a power (if you like) going along with the sunbeams, and operating simultaneously, but still a direct power put forth upon the fabric for its overthrow.

I know that this illustration is a very imperfect one. It fails in many points of resemblance. But still it does not make the case of the sinner worse than it really is. Nay, it does not bring out the worst feature of the case. It does not show the active and positive resistance to the light which the sinner puts forth, and which is far worse and far harder to be overcome than the resistance of mere inanimate matter. If, then, it be said, that I have misrepresented and misstated the case, all I shall say is, that I have understated the case; but I have not mds-stated it. The difhculty is far greater than such an illustration can give us the least idea of.

I do hold, then, power along with the word, and in connection with the word; but to say, that that power is 7m the word, is either a mere figure of speech, or it is an absurdity. When God said, ‘‘ Let there be light,” there went out a power along with the word, and the light came into being. Who would say that the power was im the word? When Jesus stood at the grave of Lazarus, and said, “Lazarus come forth,” there went out a power along with the word; yet how absurd to say that it was 7m the word.

It is most needful to maintain the instrumentality of the word in conviction, conversion, and sanctification.* The whole process from first to last, which the Spirit accomplishes, is in connection with the word. The reverse of this might be shown to be scripturally untrue, and philosophically absurd. ‘his is the principle on which God is acting in giving us his Bible. It is the principle on which ministers act in proclaiming the gospel. We cannot

* See Greenhill on Ezckiel, p. 73, who, while strongly pressing man’s helplessness, and the direct work of the Spirit, does not scruple to speak of the word as the “chariot of the Spirit;” “it is the word that carries the Spirit to men.” See also Turrettine de vocatione et fide. Quest. iv.

hold this too strenuously; for the denial of it would land us in darkness and mysticism; nay, it would be grieving the Spirit of truth. But this is totally diverse from saying that the Spirit is the word, or that there is a mystic power in the word apart from its meaning, or that the Spirit only works through the truth. There is no question as to its being truth by which the soul is impressed; the only question, — is whether it is possible for a depraved being (the very essence of whose depravity consists in his being ‘ past feeling,” or wnimpressible by the truth) to be impressed by it until a power has been at work making him ¢mpresstble. In his fallen state he utterly repels the. truth, — he is not susceptible of its influence, and the question is, how can that, of whose influence he is not susceptible, ever act upon him until he is made susceptible of receiving its influence.

The truth is, that the sinner is most reluctant to admit that he is entirely in the hands and at the disposal of God, in regard to salvation. He wants to have salvation completely at his own disposal. He sees, that if he can succeed in proving that there is no power apart from the word, nothing but what is contained in the word, he becomes the disposer of his own destiny. But if he admit a power not in the word, a power coming direct from God, then he is at the disposal of God. This is the secret of the modern idea of the Spirit being tn the word. Man wants to be his own Saviour, and, therefore, he tries to prove that God has made him so by giving him the word, and putting enough of power into it to save him. ‘This shows us clearly man’s dislike to the sovereign will of God, and his reluctance to admit that he is entirely at the mercy of God. But it reveals something more. It shows us that, after all, he does not feel himself safe in God’s hands, and, therefore, he wishes to take salvation into his own. ‘And what is this but a clear proof that these very men who speak so loudly of a free gospel, and of the love of God, do not believe that gospe and do not give credit to that love. If they did, they would not be so anxious to take salvation ont of God’s hands. They would feel far safer in his hands than in their own. And these ideas of theirs, instead of clearing up and enforcing the gospel, plainly prove that the gospel of the grace of God is not understood at all. These men have yet to learn what the gospel is. It is from the dark suspicions of their own hearts as to the character of God that this attempt to wrest salvation out of his hands, and to place it in their own, proceeds.

Let me illustrate the point before us a little farther. I shall state the following case. It is no mere imaginary one. A dull, stupid scholar once sat beside an intelligent teacher, who sought to instruct him in the things of God. The Bible lay upon the knees of both. But it was in vain. The boy could not be got even to understand the truth regarding the way of life. The teacher explained, and simplified, and illustrated, but with no effect, Often did he wish that he had direct access to the boy’s soul, that he might touch its secret springs, and rectify his understanding. He felt that nothing save this could be of any avail. But he could only dwell upon the “ruth, endeavor to open it up more fully, and press it clearly home. Thus, day after day, sat the teacher in his helplessness, and the scholar in his dulness. Meanwhile the former failed not to commend the boy to God, asking Him who had access to its hidden springs to touch them; asking that Spirit, who alone could renew, and enlighten, and enable to comprehend, to do his work upon the soul, that the truth might at length find entrance. Thus he prayed, and the teaching was given:

up as hopeless. One day his pupil came eagerly to him, exclaiming, ‘‘ Now I understand it all.” ‘Who taught you?” ‘No one.” “How did you come to see it?” “Oh! ina moment I saw it; and it is just the very thing you have been telling me so long, but I never saw it till now: God has opened my eyes.” And so it was. That Holy Spirit, who alone has access to the soul of man, had put forth his power, and the boy’s dulness had given way. But the work had not been through the truth upon his soul; it had been directly upon his soul, in order to his understanding the truth. It had been exactly what David sought for in his own case, “Give me understanding that I may learn thy commandments,” (Psalm exix. 73.)* is

* It is remarkable how David, throughout this psalm, prays in this strain; and yet, at the same time, he says, “Through thy precepts I get’ understanding.” Both ‘of these things are true. And to deny either of them would contradict the plain word of God. I admit, most readily, the one truth, that through God’s precepts we get understanding; and all I ask is, that the other truth be admitted also, that it is the Holy Spirit who opens our eyes, and “makes us to understand.” The two things are quite consistent with each other, and we gain nothing by denying either. Each of these agencies operates in its own way, and according to its own nature: the word in one way according to its nature, and the Spirit in another according to his nature. The only question is, which is first? Certainly the Spirit. He brings the soul into contact with the word. He Softens the heart, that the word may be felt. “Hé opens the

Let me take another instance. There was a poor idiot who could be made to understand nothing. All his life he had been an idiot, and as an idiot, he lay down to die. Beside his bed there stood a man calling himself a minister of Christ, who came to make mirth with the dying idiot. ‘That man had read his Bible, knew well about it, and had often preached from it. Yet his ‘“‘ understanding was darkened.” As he stood at the bedside, all of a sudden the idiot broke forth with the following

eyes that the word may be seen. He makes tender the conscience that the word may penetrate. He was first in the old creation. He is first in the new. The following paragraph from Fuller is so appropriate, that I must be allowed to quote it here : — *“It is owing to Divine agency, and to that alone, that one sinner rather than another believes in Christ. If God does the same for one man as for another, how does he yet make men to differ? If God works effectually on some, that is more than any man will pretend he does upon all; and this will perfectly account for a difference between one sinner and another..... God has so constituted the human mind, that words, whether spoken or written, shall have an effect upon it. The Holy Spirit speaks to men in his word. It would be strange if God’s word had not some effect upon people’s mind. The influence of the word upon the mind, seeing that the word is indited by the Holy Spirit, may be called, in an indirect and figurative sense, the influence of the Holy Spirit. It was by this kind of influence that he strove with the antediluvians, (Gen. vi. 8.) This influence ought to sutlice to bring us to repent of sin, and believe in Christ, and were it not for the resistance that is made to it, would have such an effect. But through the perverseness of the human heart, it never has. From the depravity or perverseness of the human heart arises the necessity of a special and effectual influence of the Holy Spirit.

‘confession of his faith” before the astounded hearers : —

“Three in one, and one in three, And the middle’s the one that has saved me.”

Then he died. No onehad heard the like from him before. It was strange and new. Who taught him? God. Who opened his understanding? God. Who put these words into his tongue? God. Who made the poor idiot, who could not read a Bible, to differ from the scoffing minister that had read it a thousand times? God. And was it through the truth, that he gave understanding to hate who had none? No one in his right mind would speak thus. No. In this case it was the direct touch of the Spirit’s hand upon the soul that did the work. It was from within, and not from without, that the renewing power care. He who made the soul, put forth his power and made it new. It seemed like a broken harp. The mere frame-work was there; but everything else had been torn away. Not one note could be struck. But God needed that harp to swell the new song in heaven. And ere it was “vilely cast away,” he took it into his own Almighty hand, re-placed the strings, re-tuned them all, and then, ere he removed it from earth, struck one dying note of thrilling power and beauty, to let men know what a goodly instrument he could make out of that broken harp, from which no music had ever come before.

Let me take another case. Look at the prophets in the Old, and the apostles in the New Testament! Who taught them to speak and write? It is said, ““Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” In teaching them, then, he must have had access directly to their souls. He entered at once into their understandings, and taught them. In their case, certainly, there must have been a direct operation upon the soul. Now I know that there is no such kind of inspiration now. ‘This miraculous utterance of new truth has ceased. But I cite this example, in order to disprove the assertion of those who maintain that the Spirit has no direct access to the soul, no way of instructing us, save through the truth. And I also adduce it, because I believe that the method which God took to show the prophets truths absolutely new and unheard of, bears a strong resemblance to the way in which he still shows the sinner truth which is new to him — truth of which he understood as little as did the prophets before God had spoken. And T specially adduce it to prove, that even when the

Holy Spirit is thus moving and actuating the whole soul by an internal energy, man is still a free agent and a responsible being — responsible for receiving or resisting the Spirit. The prophets were not mere machines, through which God wrote and spoke, while they themselves felt nothing, having no real sympathy with what they uttered, but merely uttering it because compelled. On the contrary, we see in their case a soul acted on in strict accordance with all the natural laws of its being — nay, each soul acted on in accordance with its own peculiar temperament and gifts of mind. The Spirit of God fills him, but does not force him: He pours himself into all his faculties, feelings, sympathies, &c., as into so many human vessels which he wishes to employ in conveying his thoughts to man; but he does violence to none of these. When, for instance, he speaks through Jeremiah, he casts himself entirely into the tender mould of that prophet’s mournful spirit, using his gentle voice, weeping with his eyes, sighing in his complaint, giving divine expression and utterance to every feeling, nay, to every shade of feeling working in that human heart. Was Jeremiah less free, less himself, in such a case? Nay, he never was so free before.

He never was so much himself before, as when he who made his spirit took it into his hands, and drew out of it depths of feeling, richness of melody, beauty of perception, gentleness of sympathy, utterance of infinite thought, which showed of what that soul was capable, when made entirely free by the indwelling Spirit, and touched by the master hand of the ‘chief musician,” who alone knew, and who only could call forth its secrets of full melody, — the whole diapason of the harp which he himself had made and strung.

In confirmation of the preceding remarks let me proceed to quote and examine a few passages of Scripture.

I. Luke xi. 12, “When they bring you unto the synagogues and unto magistrates and powers, take no thought how or what things ye shall answer, for the Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same hour what ye ought to say.” Here, then, we have the direct and immediate operation of the Spirit upon the soul, suggesting suitable truth for the occasion. And any one reading the chapter will see that this promise is to all believers, not to the apostles alone. It refers not to what we would call miraculous inspiration, but to the ordinary operation of the Spirit.

Oh, it will be said, but he does this by means of the truth. Now what does this mean, but that he suggests truth through the truth; that is, I suppose, he suggests one truth by means of another; in other words, one truth suggests another without his interference at all. But even granting that he suggests one truth by means of another, granting that this is all that is meant by the Spirit’s teaching, the question naturally occurs, who or what suggested the jirst of the series? If I stand upon the margin of some lake, and find all of a sudden ripple after ripple beating upon the grass that skirts it, I look round to see the cause of this, — what began the rippling. How absurd to say, Oh! it is merely one ripple raising another, and forcing it forward to the shore. I am sure it was either the wind that suddenly rose or some stone that had been cast into the waters. Some such cause must have begun the series. And so with truth, in the case I have referred to. Even granting that the Spirit did suggest one truth by means of another, how will this account for the suggestion of the first? This must have been done in some more direct way, and by some more immediate touch. So that the difficulty stall remains; only in the one case it is removed a little further back, and placed a little more out of sight, as if there was a reluctance to admit the idea of God working directly, as if such an idea were only fitted to alarm and discourage the sinner.

With the daily consciousness of having within me a heart of sin, a hard and ever-rebelling heart, I know not for myself a more blessed, more precious truth, than that I am the clay and God is the potter, — that it is A7s hand that grasps me, compassing me about, and coming into close, direct, warm contact with my naked soul. The thought of nothing but indirect dealing and communication between him and me, is desolate and cold to me beyond conception. And instead of feeling relieved and comforted by being told that the Spirit never works directly upon the soul, but only through the truth, I am cast down indeed, as if bereaved of that which was my chiefest hope, my most precious consolation in the hours of infirmity and conflict, when the flesh within, and principalities and powers without, assail me till I faint upon the field, and all that bears me up is the felt grasp of an infinite hand, the circling pressure of the everlasting arm.

II. Rom. viii. 26, “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 groansings which cannot be uttered.” ‘This is something very distinct in regard to the working of the Holy Spirit. He helpeth our infirmities, or, as it literally implies, he takes hold of our burden, puts his shoulder under it, and sustains the weight so as to prevent it crushing us. How he can do all this, simply and only through the truth, it is hard to discover. What words can more strongly express his direct operation upon the soul? If they do not express this, I know not where words can be found to do so. But the case is far stronger when we consider the expression, ‘‘ groanings that cannot be uttered.” How does he awaken those groanings within, which cannot be clothed in words? By suggesting truth to the soul? This is absurd. If the spirit presented truth to the soul, and in that way created these longings, then surely the soul could express these longings. ‘They had been distinctly and definitely presented to him, and surely he could distinctly and definitely speak of them. If this had been said merely of the poor unlettered saints, this objection of mine might not be altogether applicable, for I know that oftentimes they cannot find words whereby to express their thoughts; but it is of all saints equally that the apostle is speaking. If in answer to all this it is said that we frequently get glimpses of truth, natural truth, which awaken in us longings which we cannot express, I admit that such is the case; but if this be all that is affirmed by the apostle here, there was no necessity for introducing the Spirit at all. His statement in that case is most incorrect, and fitted to mislead; for he speaks of the Spirit actually making intercession for us (or in us) with those groanings that cannot be uttered. He is represented as one who has come into us, and taken up his abode in us, as one who thus carries on a work from within by means of a direct, though hidden agency; as one who is so identified with us, that the apostle speaks of his prayers and ours, his voice and ours, as if they were one. He is represented here as dwelling in us, filling us, using our faculties and organs as instruments for expressing himself, till, as his operations upon the soul becume more close and powerful, faculties, words, voice, give way, and nothing comes forth but the unutterable groan. This, surely, is something very direct. It conveys most plainly the idea that there is no intervention of anything (be it the truth or aught else,) between the touch of the Almighty hand and the soul in which he is dwelling. It shows us a workman within, carrying on his operations there, quickening, fashioning, moulding all things to his will, — bringing every part of the soul into contact with the truth that is without, by means of the pressure of his own hand from within.*

Ill. 1 Cor. xii. 3, “No man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.” This expression corresponds to many others in the New Testament, such as these: ‘ Flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven,” (Matt. xvi. 17;) ‘‘God who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ,” (2 Cor. iv. 6;) ‘When it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb, and called me by his grace, to reveal his Son in me,” (Gal. i. 15.) These passages all suggest the same idea, — that it is

* It seems to be maintained that resisting the Spirit signifies only resisting him as working through means; as if we did not resist him directly at all. Now, we admit that to resist the means, is in a certain sense to resist the Spirit. But is this all that is meant by resisting, grieving. vexing the Holy Spirit? No. All the expressions used employ something far more direct and personal than this, especially that exhortation — “Quencu not the Spirit.”

“a
242 LETTER IX.

directly through the agency of the Spirit that we are enabled to call Jesus Lord, and that but for this agency we should have remained his enemies. I merely, however, take the first of them, (1 Cor. xii. 3,) as being the most suitable to the object I have in view. It occurs in a chapter where the miraculous gifts of the Spirit are discoursed of, and this enables us to fix its meaning with more distinctness. Let me cite a verse or two: ‘There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit; there are diversities of operation, but it is the same God which worketh all in all; to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; to another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit; all these worketh that one and the self-same Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.” Such is a brief enumeration of the operations of the Spirit. In these, his mode of working is, to a certain extent, plainly enough declared. It is direct and immediate. How otherwise is it possible that he can confer the gifts of tongues, of prophecy, of healing, &c.* * Each grace or gift here spoken of was an express manifestation of the Spirit, 3 gavepwors rdv Tvesparos — something

through which the Holy Spirit gave utterance to his own voice, through which he showed forth his own nature.

No one in his right mind would say that these were conferred through the truth. It must have been the direct and immediate touch of his hand upon the soul. Nothing else could have made them prophesy or speak with tongues. Well, it is just in the midst of this statement of his works, or rather as the introduction to them, that it is said, ‘no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.” And what are we to infer from this, but that he teaches the soul to own Jesus as his Lord, in the same way as he teaches to prophesy. If it is said, but the passage refers to the inspired teaching of the apostles in proclaiming Jesus to others; I answer, that this only confirms my argument, for if the direct agency of the Spirit was needed to enable them to declare what they knew, much more is that same agency needed to show us the things of Christ. Hence the apostle says in another place, ‘‘now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is of God, that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God,” 1 Cor. ii. 12.

IV. Phil. ii. 13. “J¢cs God that worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.” ‘This is one of the plainest statements we could possibly have had. We are told that it is God who worketh im us. It is an inward operation that is spoken of, — an operation which none could perform, but he who has access to the inmost recesses of the soul. But this is not all. We are told more particularly in what way he operates upon us, “both to will and to do.” ‘The springs of willing and of doing must both be operated upon. The hand of the physician must be laid upon the diseased organ, else there can be no cure. Hence David prayed, ‘“Incline my heart unto thy testimonies,” Ps. cxix. 36.

V. Ezek. xxxvi. 26. ‘ A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you, and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh: and I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes.” If this does not denote a direct inward operation upon the soul, removing what is old, and imparting what is new, we know not how language can describe it. To twist such expressions, and say that they merely refer to the outward means which God uses, is to do the most reckless violence to Scripture that can be conceived.

VI. Eph. i. 17. “The God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, give unto you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, in (or, in order to) the knowledge of him, the eyes of your understanding being enlightened, that ye may know what ts the hope of his calling.” Here the apostle prays that the Holy Spirit may be given to the Ephesians. And he speaks of him as the Spirit that imparts wisdom, the Spirit that reveals truth. This Spirit is given for the purpose ‘of enlightening the eyes of the understanding.” Can anything be more explicit than this? Surely the enlightening the eyes of the understanding must be an inward process, — a thing accomplished, not through the truth, but in order to their understanding the truth. The truth could not be known and felt without this inward enlightenening work of the Spirit. I know that in another sense the truth does enlighten. And I would not on any account undervalue the truth. I would rejoice in it as “a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.” But when I find this kind of enlightenment declared to be all that the Spirit does, — when I find his direct work upon the soul denied, then it is time to declare most broadly the whole truth of God. And here I would offer a single remark upon those passages which speak of the Spirit being given “to them that obey him” (Acts vy. ola

32), and of his being “received through faith.” In these our opponents triumph.* ‘They need not. J am quite willing to take Scripture plainly and naturally, just as I find it. I admit at’ once that these passages all refer to those blessings which we receive after believing, and im consequence of tt. I have no doubt about that. It is quite plain that we do receive far more abundantly of the Spirit after believing. But this has nothing at all to do with the question. Admitting that we receive the Spirit ‘after believing, does that prove that we do not receive him also before believing, and im order to believing? ‘The truth is, that there is one class of passages which speak of what God does in us, and for us, before believing; and another which speak of what he does in us, and for us, after believing. And both of these declarations must be held fast. Our opponents admit the one, but deny the other.

* It is remarkable that the Socinians and Neologians are quite at one with them on this point. Doederlein, in his Institutions of Theology, states at length, and defends the views of the latter party, coinciding entirely with the modern doctrines. The Racovian Catechism shows us what the former (the Socinians) held. In it the question is put — * Do we need an internal gift of the Spirit in order to believing the gospel?” The answer is, “By no means: we read in

Scripture that he is only given to those who have believed the Gospel.”

VIL. Eph. ii. 16. ‘ Strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man, that Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith.” Here is another testimony equally explicit to the inward operation of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit is said to “strengthen;” and he is said to do this in order ‘‘ that Christ may dwell in our hearts by faith.” What meaning has this language, if there be no working of the Spirit, but the outward and the indirect, through the medium of the truth alone? I might refer to other passages in this Epistle — i. 19; in. 20. In these we read of the “exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power;” and ‘the power who worketh in us.” Surely no simple-minded reader can fail to see in these expressions, the assertion of a power working in us, different from that which the word possesses. It is along with the word, but it is not ¢v the word, but directly in us. In what stronger or more explicit language could this direct power have been stated?

VII. John xx.22. ‘ He breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost.” ‘This is surely a direct communication of the Holy Spirit to the soul. And it shows us the way in which the Lord gives the

Spirit. There was nothing indirect here. It was not through the truth that this was done. It was the direct impartation of the Spirit by Christ himself. Not another word was spoken through which the Spirit might be said to come in. It was just, ‘‘ Receive ye the Holy Ghost,” and straightway he was imparted.

IX. Rom. xv. 18. ‘ That ye may abound in hope through the power of the Holy Ghost.” It is here stated that it is the power of the Holy Ghost that causes us to abound in hope. And does this not refer us to a power distinct from the word, and distinct from any outward influence? Not, indeed, unconnected with the word, for doubtless the ‘ hope” rested on the sure word of promise; but still distinct from it,

X. John xvi.8. ‘ When he is come he will convince the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of gudgment.” ‘This conviction of sin can only be effected by working directly upon the sinner’s conscience. ‘That conscience is seared; it is in love with sin; and never will it be convinced of sin, never will it hate it, until the Spirit operate upon it to remove its searedness and insensibility, to soften and make it tender. This must be a direct work. The natural conscience repels and resists the truth, nay, becomes more hardened under it,

And to say that it is through the application of the truth alone that the conscience is affected, is just to say that it is softened by that which is hardening it.

XI. 1 John ii. 20. “Ve have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things.” This unction or anointing of the Holy Spirit is that by which we are made to know all things. Now an anointing is something which comes directly in contact with us. Just as the anointing came down on the High Priest, so does the Spirit come down on us. Surely this is something direct. How can the Spirit anoint us through means of the truth? This is an absurdity. He anoints us in order to our knowing the truth.

XI. 2Tim.i.14. “That good thing which was committed unto thee, keep, by the Holy Ghost which dwelleth in us.” It was the Gospel, or the truth of God, that was committed to Timothy; and this he was to keep, and hold fast by means of the Holy Spirit dwelling in him. This is manifestly a direct, inward influence, — an influence operating upon the soul, and enabling it to keep hold of the Gospel. What could be more absurd than to suppose that the apostle meant to say, ‘ Hold fast the truth by means of the truth?” Yet this is all that some in modern times will allow us to say.*

Let these references suffice. I could quote many more equally strong and satisfactory, but there is no need. No simple-minded student of the word of God can read such passages, without being convinced that the Holy Spirit works by a direct, inward operation upon the soul.

But, perhaps, some may here object to much of what has been now adduced in favor of the direct inworking of the Spirit, by saying that they do not deny that He works thus in the souls of believers, but that there is no proof that he works thus in the soul of the sinner before he believes, and in order to his believing. With regard to this, I submit the following remarks :- —

1. It is an objection that can come only

* I would here briefly ask how our opponents believe in anything like Satanic influence? I do not hold that Satan has access to the soul in the same way, and to the same extent, to which the Spirit has. But the following passages show us, that he has more direct access to it, than by merely presenting a lie to us. Luke xxii. 8, “Then entered Satan into Judas.” John xiii. 2, “The devil now put into the heart of Judas to betray him.” Acts v. 2, “Why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost?” The demoniacal possessions prove this point. All these must be held, actoV hing to the new theory, strange interferences with man’s free agency — interferences far more difficult to solve than those of the Holy Spirit.

lll alia from a few of the new sect, for most of them maintain that the Spirit never works directly in any, but always indirectly, whether upon believer or unbeliever.

2. ‘There is no Scriptural reason for suppos+ ing that there is one kind of operation in the believer, and another in the unbeliever, — that in the case of the one it is direct, and in the case of the other, indirect.

3. If the direct work of the Spirit be needful to carry on the work, much more to begin it. The first step is the most difficult; and if an unbeliever can take that first step without the direct operation of the Spirit, a believer may easily take all the rest. On the other hand, if a believer needs the direct power of the Spirit to carry on the work, much more does the sinner need that power to begin it.

4. There are passages which imply the direct work of the Spirit before believing.

Ezek. xxxvii. 14. “J will put my Spirit within you, and ye shall live’’ — where the living is the effect of God’s putting his Spirit within them.

Zech. xii. 10. ‘I will pour upon the house of David, §c., and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and mourn? — where the looking to Christ is the effect of God’s oa 252 LETTER IX.

Spirit being poured out, and where the persons spoken of were evidently unconverted, who had never looked before.

John xvi. 8. ‘* He will convince the world of sin, because they believe not on me” — where it is plain that the Spirit’s work must be before and in order to believing, for it is to show men the sin of which they are guilty by remaining in unbelief. That is, he comes up to an unbelieving soul, and shows it its awful guilt, and then convinces it of righteousness, 1. e., leads it to Christ the righteous one.

Acts v. 31. “Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.” Here repentance is said to be the gilt of the risen Jesus. It is he who gives repentance; and he gives it just as directly and decidedly as he gives pardon. It will be said, Yes, Christ gives repentance, by sending — his messenger to proclaim that truth through which repentance is produced. Now, I have no doubt that he does this; but is this all that he does? Is this all that the above passage implies? Surely to give repentance is something very different from merely sending men to proclaim the truth which has the tendency to produce repentance. To give a man an estate is something very different from sending instructions to a man as to how he may contrive to procure it for himself. To give repentance, has reference to something far more efficacious, as well as far more gracious and loving, than merely to preach to men the truth, by which repentance may be wrought in them. Acts xi. 21. “The hand of the Lord was with them, and a great number believed, and turned unto the Lord.” Tn this statement, it is plainly implied, that it was the hand or power of the Lord that was the cause of the believing of this great number. Had it not been for this, none would have believed or turned. The first act of believing and turn- ‘ing, is thus plainly ascribed to the hand of ‘God, — to that mighty power, which is here ‘said to have accompanied the preaching of the word. It is not said the hand of the Lord was in the word; but “¢ with them,” that. is, with the disciples, for they were men full of the Holy Ghost. ‘The words of praying men are blessed for the conversion of sinners. Why? Because their prayers and faith draw down a peculiar blessing which might not otherwise have accompanied the gospel. This could not be the case if the power were in the word alone. Acts xvi. 14. ‘ Whose heart the Lord

- opened, that she attended to the things which were spoken of Paul.” ‘This is very clear. Lydia’s heart was shut before, but the Lord opened it. It was so shut that she did not even attend to what was spoken, far less believe them. God opened her closed heart. Then she began to attend to the truth; and after having attended to it, she believed it.

In one of a series of Lectures upon the leading tenets of the new sect, we have the following comment upon this passage : — ‘‘ He was speaking heart-searching and heart-opening truth; and by this truth which she heard He opened her mind so to attend to what was spoken as to believe it. ... This gives us no idea of any other opening of the heart than that which takes place by means of the inspired testimony of the apostles.’* Where were the faculties of the lecturer wandering to when he penned the above statement? It is singularly absurd and contradictory. Lydia’s heart is closed against the truth; and how is this removed? By letting in the truth, says the lecturer! Lydia does not even attend to the truth. How is this to be overcome? By the truth moving her attention to itself! But how can the truth make her attentive, if she

* Lecture ii. p. 15.

will not attend to it? Suppose I wish to enter a house which has been shut against me, and secured by two gates, an outer and an inner. I come up to the outer gate, for it is only through it that I can pass to the inner. I knock, but no attention is given to my summons; the dweller is within, but he declines to admit me even to a conversation at the door. T ask a friend who is nigh what I can do. He very simply tells me that I must go into the house and converse with the inmate, and persuade him to open the door to me! In vain I tell him that the doors are closed, and that I cannot get in even at the outer. He just repeats his advice, that in order to get them opened, I must go in and persuade the owner to unbar them; adding, perhaps, the remark, that any other way than this would be an encroachment upon human responsibility. Is it not clear, then, that God’s opening of Lydia’s heart was in order that she might attend to and receive that truth which otherwise she never would have allowed to enter? Paul preached the same “heart-searching and heartopening truth” to many others in the same place; and how, let me ask, is it said of Lydia alone that the Lord opened her heart? Surely he did something for her-which he did not do for the others, and yet we are told by some that he works equally in all! Why then is it not said he opened the hearts of all, if he bad done the same in regard to all? We are told that he did no more for Lydia than for any other! Yet the passage says he opened her heart, and does not say that he opened the hearts of others. Oh! but it will be said, Lydia yielded, while the rest persisted in unbelief. And what does this amount to but just this, that the expression ‘“‘ the Lord opened the heart of Lydia,” means that Lydia opened her own heart, and attended and believed!

1 John v.20. ‘ We know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding that we may know him that is true.” Here the word translated ‘“understanding” is very explicit. It does not mean knowledge, but the power by which we receive knowledge, the understanding. It is the same word in the original as in Matt. xxii. 37, ‘ with all thy soul, and with all thy ménzd:” Eph. i. 18, ‘The eyes of your understanding being enlightened:” iv. 18, “Having the wnderstanding darkened:” Heb. vii. 10, “I will put my Jaws into their mind.” These passages show us the true sense of the term. And taking all these together, how very strong and decided is the apostle’s statement, ‘ He hath given us an understanding that we may know him that is true.”

At the same time, while I maintain all this, I am quite aware of the many passages in which the truth is spoken of as the instrument or channel through which the Spirit works. I am far from wishing to deny this, or to depreciate the value of the word. All I wish is, to preserve you from running into the most fatal error of the present day, that the Spirit is ‘in the word,” and that he only operates through the word, and tn no other way. This I consider to be not only unscriptural, but thoroughly poisonous to the soul. It is one of Satan’s devices in these last days, for producing a religion so like the real shape and form of godliness, that multitudes will be deceived by it; cheating themselves into the belief that they are sure of heaven, when they have never been born again. Such a religion has no depth. It is meagre, lean, and shallow. It is self- taught, self-produced religion. For where is the indwelling, inworking Spirit in all this? Where is the living Saviour himself? Ah! he has been superseded by an abstract something that men call truth; and as Israel made their God-given law a substitute for the living Father, so men are now making the Christ-given Gospel a substitute for the living Son! I shall conclude this long letter with one observation, on which I should gladly have dwelt, had there been space. It is this. ‘The expression, ‘‘ 7nfluences of the Spirit,” is not a Scriptural one, and ought to be avoided. The Bible always speaks of the working of the Spirit, or the indwelling of the Spirit, — not of his mere influences.* And there is a most important difference between these two things. In the former case, everything connected with the Spirit’s operations would be direct and personal; in the latter, there is nothing but a certain vagueness which may mean anything, ‘or nothing at all. The ¢nflwence of a person is a very different thing from his personal presence and operation. And we ought to be upon our guard against this form of expression, which I am sorry to think extends far beyond the holders of the new theology. It is of an ’ indwelling Spirit that the Bible speaks. It is an indwelling Spirit that Christ promises. ‘¢ He dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.” John xiv. 17. We are not certain objects acted upon by some distant influence, as the sea is by the moon; we are vessels which the * See Greenhill on Ezekiel, pp. 71 and 724.

Spirit fills; we are temples in which the Spirit dwells, ‘* Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?” J Cor. iii. 16. — I am yours, &e.

THUS SAITH THE LORD:

“The hand of God was to give them one heart to do the commandment.’ — 2 Chron. xxx. 12.

“Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me.” — Psalm li. 10.

“Quicken us, and we will call on thy name.’ — Psalm lxxx. 18. ‘

“Thou sendest forth thy Spirit; they are created.” — Psalm civ. 30.

“Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law.” — -Psalin exix. 18.

“Incline my heart unto thy testimonies.” — — Ps, cxix. 36.

“Give me understanding, raat I may LEARN THY COMMAND-MENTS.” — — Psalin cxix. 73.

“Quicken me after thy loving-kindness, so shall I keep the testimony of thy mouth.” — — Psalm exix. 88,

“Give me understanding, raar I May KNOW THY TESTIMOniES.” — Psalm exix. 125.

“Incline not mine heart to any evil thing.” — — Ps. exli. 4.

“Where is he that put his Holy Spirit within him ? — Isaiah yxiii, 11.

“I will put a new Spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them an heart of flesh.” — -Ezek. xi. 19.

“TI will put my Spirit in you, and ye shall live.”” — -Ezek. xxxvil. 14,

“He dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.” — John Xavi: 17,

“As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself except it abide in the vine, no more can ye except ye abide in me.’ — John xv. 4.

“Without me ye can do nothing.’” — John xy. 5.

“When he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment.’ — John xvi. 8 i

“When he the Spirit of truth is come, he will guide you into all truth.’ — John xvi. 13.

“The love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.’ — Kom. v. 5.

“Stephen, a man full of the Holy Ghost.’ — Acts vi. 5.

“Whose heart the Lord opened, that ‘she attended to the things that were spoken of Paul.’ — Acts xvi, 14.

“Be filled with the Spirit.,- — Eph. v. 18,

“The Holy Ghost who dwelleth in us.’ — 2 Tim. i. 24.

NOTE.

I subjoin a paragraph from one of the letters in “the Correspondence of the Congregational Churches.” It contains a statement of the error, and a refutation of it.

“You distinguish the influence of the Spirit for which you plead as an influence By means, and that for which we plead as an influence ACCOMPANYING means. ‘The latter you disown. Now, we have simply to ask you, if there be no influence accompanying the means, what else is there but the means $. — ‘I’he engineer may ‘turn on’ the steam; but it is not the engineer, it is the steam, and the steam alone, that propels the vessel. Suppose you were to say, that the engineer ‘works by’ the steam, would you add anything to the idea# We think not. ‘he steam is still the only power. And whe would speak of the wind or the tide resisting the engineer working by the steam? The resistance is to the one power — that of the steam alone. If there be no converting influence accompanying the word, what is there besides the word to produce the conversion? If there be no convincing and saving influence accompanying the miracles, what is there besides the miracles to effect the conviction and the salvation? We confess ourselves, therefore, still unable to discern the difference between resisting the Spirit working by means, in your sense of the phrase, and resisuung the means themselves: your denial of any accompanying influence of the Spirit, evidently amounting to a denial of any influence of the Spirit at all; there being no other conceivable or possible.

“That, of the external influence, considered by you as the ai influence of the Spirit, more is used with some than with others, — and more even with some that are lost than with others that are saved, will be found, when analyzed, to amount to no more than this — that men are placed by Providence in different circumstances, and enjoy various kinds and degrees of privilege. Some have better Opportunities than others of observing the works of nature; some of reading and hearing the inspired word; and some of receiving impressions from Divine dispensations. What is there more 4 you deny all inward operation of the Spirit accompanying such means of information, impression, and conviction, In denying this, you clearly ascribe the efficiency to the means themselves. And it is in this that we are constrained to regard you as denying the reality of the Holy Spirit’s converting agency altogether. If the influence of the Spirit is merely the influence of the word, of evidence, and of circumstances, operating on the human mind independently of any efficacious, inward, illuminating, spiritualizing energy, then is there nothing supernatural in the case, — nothing beyond, or different from, the ordinary phenomena of the mind, as affected by information with its attendant proofs, or whatever else may contribute to excite attention and command assent. When you speak of the Spirit as bringing the means to bear upon the mind, and working by them, you do no more than put the Spirit in the place of Providence, or of the human agent through whose instrumentality Providence acts; the means are left to their own natural operation, there being no other influence accompanying or superadded.” — Pp. 59, 60.

I may also add a very clear statement upon the point from Pearson on the Creed. “The same Spirit which revealeth the object of faith generally to the universal church of God, which object is propounded externally by the church to every particular believer, doth also illuminate the understanding of such as believe, that they may receive the truth; for faith is the gift of God, not only in the object but in the act. Christ is not only given unto us, in whom we believe, but it is also “given us, in the behalf of Christ to believe on Him: and this gift isa gift of the Holy Ghost, working within us an assent unto that which by the word is propounded to us. By this the Lord opened the heart of Lydia; by this the word preached profiteth. As the increase and perfection, so the original or initiation of faith is from the Spirit of God, not only by an external proposal in the word, but by an internal illumination in the soul; by which we are inclined to the obedience of faith, in assenting to these truths, which unto a natural and carnal man are foolishness. And thus we affirm not only the revelation of the will of God, but also the illumination of the soul of man to be part of the office of the Spirit of God, against the old and new Pelagians.” — Art, vill