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?