13. “I go on (your Lordship adds) to another passage of scripture, that has been entirely (page 27.) misapplied by modern _enthusiasts_. 1 Corinthians ii. 4, 5. _And my speech and my preaching were not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in the demonstration of the spirit and of power; that your faith should not stand in the wisdom of man, but in the power of |God|._” Page 29.
“It is only necessary to evince, that by _the demonstration of the spirit and power_ is meant the demonstration of the truth of Christianity, that arises from the prophesies of the _Old Testament_, and the _miracles_ of _Christ_ and his _apostles_.” Yes, it is necessary farther to evince, that these words have _no other_ meaning. But first, How will you evince, that they bear this? In order thereto, your Lordship argues thus:
“The former _seems to be_ the demonstration of the Spirit, with regard to the prophetical testimonies of him.――And _the demonstration of power, must signify_ the power of God, exerted in miracles.” (page 30.) “Must;” Why so? That δύναμις often signifies _miraculous power_, is allowed――But what follows? That it _must mean_ so in this place? That still remains to be proved.
Indeed your Lordship says, this “appears from the following verse, in which is assigned the reason for using this method of proving Christianity to be true, viz. _That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of man, but in the power of |God|_. By the power of God therefore must necessarily be understood, the miracles performed by Christ and his apostles.” By the illative particle, _therefore_, this proposition should be an inference from some other: but what other I cannot yet discern. So that, for the present, I can only look upon it, as a fresh instance of begging the question.
“He goes on in the 7th, 10th and following verses, to explain this _demonstration of the spirit and of power_.” But he does not say one syllable therein, either of the _ancient prophecies_, or of _miracles_. Nor will it be easily proved, that he speaks either of one or the other, from the beginning of the chapter to the end.
After transcribing the 13th verse, _which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth, comparing spiritual things with spiritual_, your Lordship adds, “From which last passage it appears, that the words which the Holy Ghost is said _to teach, must be_ the prophetical revelations of the _Old Testament_, which were discovered to the apostles by the same Spirit.” I cannot apprehend, how this appears. I cannot as yet see any connection at all between the premisses and the conclusion.
Upon the whole, I desire any calm and serious man, to read over this whole chapter; and then he will easily judge, what is the natural meaning of the words in question: and whether (although it be allowed, that they were _peculiarly_ fulfilled in the apostles, yet) they do not manifestly belong, _in a lower sense_, to every true minister of Christ? For what can be more undeniable than this, that _our_ preaching also is vain, unless it be attended with _the power_ of that Spirit, who alone pierceth the heart? And that your hearing is vain, unless the same _power be present to heal_ your soul, and to give you a faith which _standeth not in the wisdom of man, but in the power of |God|_?
14. “Another passage that (your Lordship thinks) has been misapplied by _enthusiasts_, but was really peculiar to the times of the apostles, is 1 John ii. 20. and 27. (page 35.) _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: And ye need not that any man teach you, but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie. And even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him._” “Here the apostle arms the true Christians ♦against seducers, by an argument drawn from _the unction from the Holy One_, that was _in_ or rather _among_ them: that is, from the _immediate inspiration_ of some of their teachers.” page 37.
♦ “again” replaced with “against”
Here it rests upon your lordship, to prove (as well as affirm) 1. That ἐν should be translated _among_: 2. That this _unction from the Holy One_ means, “The inspiration of some of their teachers.”
The latter your lordship attempts to prove thus: “The inspired teachers of old were set apart for that office, by an extraordinary effusion of the Holy Ghost: Therefore page 38. ♦_The unction from the Holy One_ here, means such an effusion.” I deny the consequence; so the question is still to be proved.
♦ Printer incorrectly started a new paragraph here.
Your lordship’s second argument is drawn from the 26th verse of the 14th chapter of St. _John_’s gospel,
Proposed in form, it will stand thus: