Part 99

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?