But this inward teaching and indwelling of the Spirit, his Lordship will by no means allow even the primitive christians to have had in common, and therefore, page 35th (which I come to next, for method’s sake) he comments upon another remarkable scripture, that, in his Lordship’s opinion, ‘has been misapplied to later ages, and indeed to the present times, by several enthusiasts, but was really peculiar to the times of the apostles.’ It occurs, says his Lordship, page _ibid._ in the first epistle of St. _John_, chapter ii. verse 20th, 27th. “But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things. But the anointing which ye have received of him, abideth in you: but as the same anointing teacheth you all things, and is truth, and is no lie; and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.”
This _unction_ from the Holy One, and this _anointing_, his Lordship, in five or six pages, labours to prove was some extraordinary gift residing in some particular inspired persons, and not in the believers in general to whom the apostle wrote. But with what shadow of argument does his Lordship reason thus? For though it be certain (as his Lordship intimates page 37th) “that there were several such inspired teachers among the first christians, who were endowed with various gifts of the Spirit, and among them with the gift of prayer, and preaching, and revelation of the true sense of the prophetical parts of the Old Testament;” yet how does it appear, that these inspired teachers are the particular persons referred to by the Apostle in this passage? If that was the case, would not the epistle itself more properly have been directed to them, as having the oversight of the flock? Or is it not probable at least, that the Apostle would have had something to say to them, as well as to the “little children, young men, and fathers,” verses 12th, 13th, to whom he writes so particularly? And is it not evident from the whole context, that this unction from the Holy One was not an extraordinary gift residing in any particular inspired person, but the indwelling of the Spirit, believers in general, whereby they had an experimental proof, that JESUS was indeed the CHRIST, and therefore needed not that any man should teach them, that is, further teach them, for the Apostle writes unto them as knowing persons, verse 12th, &c. Is not this interpretation quite consistent with the whole scope of the Apostle in this epistle, which was to comfort himself, and believers in general, now so many antichrists were abroad, that (since JESUS CHRIST had declared, _Matthew_ xxiv. 24. that the elect could not be finally deceived) they having a proof of their election by receiving this unction from above, this indwelling of the Holy Ghost in their hearts, were now enabled, in a way far superior to, though not entirely exclusive of human teaching, to guard against the seducers of the day? And consequently, may not the indwelling of the Spirit be insisted upon now, as the privilege of all real christians, without their being justly stiled for so doing, modern enthusiasts.
Again, is not his Lordship greatly mistaken in his explanation of the 16th verse of the 8th of _Romans_, “The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of GOD.” “This passage, says his Lordship, page 18th, as it is connected with the preceding one, relates to the general adoption of christians, or their becoming the sons of GOD, instead of the _Jews_, who were then rejected by GOD, and had lost that title. But what was the ground of this preference that was given to christians? It was plainly the gifts of the Spirit, which they had, and which the _Jews_ had not. That Spirit then, which by its gifts enabled the Apostles and other christians to work miracles of various kinds, was a demonstration, that GOD was in them of a truth, and that their religion was owned by him in opposition to that of the _Jews_, whom he had deserted in a judicial manner.” The conclusion his Lordship draws from these premises, we have page the 20th. “That the fore-mentioned _testimony of the Spirit_, attended with the testimony of our own spirit, _i. e._ the consciousness of the sincerity and good lives of private christians, was the public testimony of the miraculous gifts of the Spirit which GOD had conferred on the Apostles, and many of the first christians; and which shewed that they and their brethren were the true church of GOD, and not the _Jews_. And this was a plain criterion in the first great controversy, namely, to which of those two churches men were obliged to adhere in communion. And consequently, this witness of the Spirit, which shews that we christians are the sons of GOD, cannot possibly be applied to the mere private testimony of the Spirit given to our own consciences, to prove that we, or private christians, are the sons of GOD and heirs of salvation, as is pretended by modern enthusiasts.”