Gifts of the Spirit.

THE SPIRIT OF GOD:– ITS – OFFICES AND MANIFESTATIONS, TO THE END OF THE CHRISTIAN AGE.

BY ELD. J. H. WAGGONER.  1877

Continued…

CHAPTER IV.

THE UNITY OF THE FAITH

“Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.” 1 Cor. 1:10.

Christian union has always been considered desirable; but lately, seeing that confusion and diversity are increasing, and knowing of no means whereby to correct the evil, the churches have resigned themselves to the apparent necessities of the case, and, to solace themselves, have devised what they call “unity in diversity.” But we are sure no such unity as that was ever learned from the word of God.

The gospel inculcates union and has made provision to effect it. The apostle, concerning the benefits and privileges conferred on the church by Christ, wrote as follows:—

“When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.…. And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ; till we all come into the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ.” Eph. 4:8-13.

Here we have definite information concerning the object for which these gifts were given unto

38

men, and the time of their continuance. The reader will bear in mind that the absence, or the apparent absence, of the gifts of the Spirit at any time or in any age of the church, is no argument against their perpetuity. The apostle says, “Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts.” Now if charity should not be found with a certain body of professed Christians, or in a certain age of the professed church, it would not prove that it was not duty to exercise it; but it would prove that there was a serious declension from the divine standard of piety. In like manner, if the gifts of the Spirit were entirely wanting in a given time, yes, if the church had ceased to “desire” them, that fact would by no means prove that God had withdrawn the gifts. But it would prove that the church had forgotten the injunction of the apostle, and had lost sight of the standard of Christianity as it was at first erected. We do not learn what is truth or what is duty by the position or practice of professed Christians at any specified time, but by the teachings of the divine word; and the position and practice of all are to be judged by the word.

Those who plead that God has withdrawn the gifts from the church usually affirm that they were given to the apostles for the especial purpose of completing the canon of revelation, or a system of divinity, and when they had completed their writings the gifts were removed as being no longer necessary. But it is worthy of particular notice that when the apostle specifies the objects or uses for which the gifts were conferred, the above mentioned reason is not given at all. It would be very strange indeed if the apostle,

39

in recounting the uses of the gifts, should mention several but entirely omit the real use, or the chief one!

It is to be noticed also that all the gifts were given with the same end in view, and for the same length of time. If they were withdrawn there are now in the church no evangelists, pastors, nor teachers, for these are among the gifts of the Spirit.

Or, if God saw fit, in his wisdom, to withdraw them from the church, it is daring presumption to try to re-instate them. It is allowable, and may be expedient, to devise methods of operation on points concerning which there has been no revelation, when such methods do not conflict with revelation. But, when God has ordained a plan and adopted a means, and afterward reversed or abolished it, to endeavor to re-instate it is an effort to impeach divine wisdom. Had it been wise and right to retain it, he would have retained it. If it be proved that he has abrogated a certain order, that is sufficient proof that he did not consider it wise or expedient to have it continued. What, then, must we think of that class of professed Christians who teach that God “set in the church” certain gifts, as evangelists, pastors, and teachers; that he afterward withdrew them and left the church without them; and they themselves proceed to re-instate or supply them to the church, according to their own will and pleasure? Such proceedings toward any earthly government would be considered no less than treason,—an entire subversion of the authority of the government by erecting offices contrary to the known will and action of the governor.

40

The gifts were at first conferred on the apostles to qualify them to preach the word, and so says Paul in Eph. 4:12, they were given “for the work of the ministry.” Jesus would not suffer the apostles to preach even a single sermon until they were “endued with power from on high,” though they had been under his personal direction and instruction more than three years; and we have no warrant to believe that he intended the work of the ministry to be carried on at any time without the direct aid of the gifts of the Spirit.

And it is expressly declared that they were given for their several offices “till we all come into the unity of the faith,” a position unto which the church has not attained. It will not do to say that the church did arrive at such a state in the days of the apostles, and that it has fallen from it, for the admonitions and reproofs given in their writings disprove that. Or if it were true that the saints at first were so united in faith, but fell from that state in the great apostasy, then is proved the necessity of a revival of the gifts to accomplish their destined work. But it is not necessary to argue that point. The church has not yet been so perfected. Nor is it true that such a state of things is found in any one church of the present age; for in most of them, and in all large bodies of them, there is found almost endless diversity of faith on many Bible doctrines.

There are many who, instead of confessing their shortcomings and trying to remedy their defects, frame excuses and scout every grace they themselves do not possess. Destitute of the gifts of the Spirit, they deny that they were designed to

41

be perpetuated. Having among them such a diversity of faith, they deny the New Testament doctrine of unity, and urge that it is impossible for all to see and believe alike. They think such a state of things as is now found in the different churches is not only allowable but providential, and a right development of the gospel plan. We admit that men of different education, prejudices, and prepossessions, will not see and think alike, unless their prejudices and prepossessions are overcome. But this is the very end contemplated in the gospel. If this is not so—if each one is to gratify his prejudices and act according to his own prepossessions, then the gospel is a nullity; for then cross-bearing and self-denial are not required, and humility is not even a Christian grace.

But what then means the text already quoted, that we are designed to come into the unity of the faith? That it means all that the words can imply is proved by other texts, as the following:—

“Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; that they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us.” John 17:20, 21.

Here surely is described a more perfect unity, a more complete oneness, than is found among professed Christians of the present time. But verse 11 is equally explicit:—“Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one as we are.”

If the Christians of this day who plead so much for “union,” even those styled evangelical, think their union truly represents the union or oneness of the Father and Son, then

42

their ideas of a “trinity in unity” are not very exalted. It must be evident to every thoughtful observer that, either there is no very close union between the Father and the Son, or else this prayer is not fulfilled in the churches of the present age. That it was designed to be fulfilled is proved by the apostle’s words in 1 Cor. 1:10, as follows:—

“Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together, in the same mind and in the same judgment.”

And again in Phil. 2:2, as follows:—

“Fulfill ye my joy, that ye be like-minded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind.”

And that last excuse for discord and disunion among Christians, namely, that the various churches with their diversity of faiths, are recognized as so many “branches” of the body of Christ, is removed by our Saviour’s words to his disciples:—

“I am the vine, ye are the branches.” John 15:5.

This language was not addressed to different churches, but to individuals, before any contention or departure from truth had separated believers into different factions of diverse creeds. Every excuse or reason offered to justify the present state of discord, or any diversity of faith and judgment among Christians, is founded in selfishness, and is an evidence of carnality according to the words of Paul in 1 Cor. 3:3:—

“For ye are yet carnal; for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?”

43

Or, “walk according to man,” as the margin reads; according to carnal, selfish feelings, and not according to the teachings and spirit of Christ.

The scene of confusion he there pictures has its exact counterpart in the present position of the churches:— “For while one saith, I am of Paul, and another, I of Apollos, are ye not carnal?” Verse 4.

It must, surely, be as allowable to bear the name of Paul or of Apollos, as of Luther, of Calvin, or of Wesley.

To such he asks:—

“Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?” 1 Cor. 1:13.

So we may ask now: Is Christ divided? was Calvin crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Wesley? If not, why bear his name as Christians? If ever there was a time when the gospel means for unity was required in the church, it is the present.

Some imagine that a gift of the Spirit cannot be manifested “for the work of the ministry” without interfering with the canon of revelation. But this is a very narrow view of the subject. An evangelist may “make full proof of his ministry,” and yet conform to the word already given. And so of any other gift. Paul was directed by the Spirit to go to Macedonia. Peter, by direct revelation, was sent to Cornelius. Paul and Barnabas were separated to a certain work by order of the Spirit. By the same power Elymas the sorcerer was discovered and rebuked. In these and other instances, nothing was added to the body of the Scriptures. And so, since the days of the apostles, in the time of

44

the Reformers, of Wesley, and in later times as will be shown, instruction, reproof, and comfort have been given by the Spirit. Words of comfort, warnings of danger, personal reproofs, directions to duty, all come under the heads of the perfecting of the saints, the work of the ministry, and the edifying of the body of Christ, while none of them are additions to the Scriptures. The objection arises from prejudice, and must at once be rejected by all who recognize the truth that the ministry is not sufficient, without being “endued with power from on high,” to so instruct and lead the church as to bring them to the unity of the faith and spirit. Human strength and human wisdom cannot accomplish it.

“And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healing, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.” 1 Cor. 12:28.

As God set these in the church we have a right to ask, By what authority and by what power have they been removed from the church? Did God ever make known his intention to deprive the church of their aid? They should remain where God has set them, unless he has removed them; but of their removal we have no intimations in his word. The Bible foretells a falling away; the arising of false teachers in the church; the entering in of grievous wolves, not sparing the flock; and the bringing in of damnable heresies. But all these indicate, not the withdrawing of the gifts from the church, but the necessity of their retention; for surely they must be needed most for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, and for the edifying of the body

45

of Christ, when such a sad state of things exists. There is no reason to dispute that the instruction of the apostle to “covet earnestly the best gifts,” and to “follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts,” was given to the church for the entire dispensation.

The intention of the apostle’s argument in 1 Cor. 12 is not generally appreciated because its connection is not regarded. After enumerating the manifestations of the Spirit, saying the gifts are divided to every man as the Lord will, he says, “By one Spirit are we all baptized into one body.” This is a most important declaration, as it gives us to understand that if we are not baptized by that Spirit into that body we are not of that body.

When the Saviour left the disciples he said:—

“Ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.” Acts 1:5.

That baptism they received on the day of Pentecost, according to “the promise of the Father” to the Son. And this promise they held out to all to whom they preached, “even as many as the Lord our God shall call.” With this baptism of the Spirit are all the saints baptized into one body, yet “having gifts differing,” as it pleases God to bestow. This can have reference to nothing but the immediate operation of the Spirit. Then follows the argument for their necessity in the church. He says:—

“For the body is not one member, but many. If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? If the whole body were

46

an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling? But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him.” 1 Cor. 12:14-18.

God hath set the members in the body so that it is perfect and complete in every part. If any part is lacking, there is schism or division. The hand cannot supply the place of the foot, nor can the ear fill the place of the eye. A perfect body, complete in all respects, has every member in its place; each fulfilling its office; each aiding and strengthening the others; as it is written:—

“And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee; nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you.” Verse 21.

Let it be remembered that this argument is concerning the gifts in the church, and here is a rebuke to that spiritual pride which asserts that Christians are now so wise and strong that they have no need of some of the members which God set in the church; which virtually boasts that we have outgrown the bounds of God’s original arrangement. This is actually taking common ground with that class of infidels who kindly admit that the Bible was good enough for the time when it was given, but that we have outgrown its narrow confines and find it unsuited to our present wants. Neither the revelation nor the arrangement for the church was local and temporary, unless the gospel itself is temporary or confined to a part of the age.

The apostle has affirmed that no part of the body, as God originally constituted it, can boast against any other part. And yet this is exactly what the professed “body of Christ” is doing in

47

this age. Some of the most important gifts which God set in the church are ignored, despised, and boasted against, as if they were hindrances instead of helps; as if they marred the body instead of being necessary to its perfection. Of this same subject the apostle further says:—

“The members should have the same care one for another. And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honored, all the members rejoice with it.” Verses 25, 26.

The error commonly entertained in regard to this chapter is this: it is supposed that “the members” referred to are individuals in the church without any reference to the gifts. But such, certainly, is not the idea conveyed by the language; nor can any gather that idea from the entire chapter in its connection. It relates to the gifts as divided to the several individuals composing the entire church, as God was pleased that they should exist, that no part be lacking, or weak, or defective, but that the whole body may be perfect according to the divine plan. For they were all given

“For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying [building up] of the body of Christ; till we all come into the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ.” Eph. 4:12, 13.

Happy state! blessed privilege! May we all have grace to obtain it, and humility to accept the means whereby it is obtained.

To be continued…

Circumcision of the Heart

Continued…

THE SPIRIT OF GOD:– ITS – OFFICES AND MANIFESTATIONS, TO THE END OF THE CHRISTIAN AGE.

BY ELD. J. H. WAGGONER.  1877

CHAPTER III.

CIRCUMCISION OF THE HEART

“Circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.” Rom. 2:29.

Though the promise of the Spirit is to all, its manifestations are various, and it will not be dictated to in its operations. It serves no private purpose; it gratifies no one’s curiosity. It asks faith, and chooses its own method of trying our faith. He who divided the sea before his people, who overthrew their proud masters in the same sea, who brought water from the rock, and who fed a multitude in a barren desert, would not go with Israel to battle when they murmured against him, or when a covetous man was in the camp, or when their fears overcame their faith because their enemies had chariots of iron. And it has seemed strange to many a caviler that Paul, who had so great gifts conferred on him that the sick were healed by merely touching handkerchiefs which came from him, Acts 19:11, 12, yet left a companion behind because he was sick. 2 Tim. 4:20.

To test the question of the extent of the promise of the Spirit to all believers, it was once asked a minister, who strenuously insisted that the extraordinary operations of the Spirit were designed only for a few, and not to be perpetuated through all time: “Do you believe that Christians now have or may have the same measure of the Spirit that the apostles instructed the churches of their day to pray for?” Although he denied the charge that his position was a denial of the promise of the Spirit in its scriptural sense, he would give no answer to the question, though he was strongly pressed to do so. Let this be considered in the light of Scripture facts.

In regard to the diversity of churches which now exist, no one will deny this rule, that we must accept as the true church that one which bears the characteristics of the true church. We must take the church in its first stage, as planted by Christ and his apostles, for our model. To them we look for genuine and “primitive Christianity.” We are often referred to the day of Pentecost as furnishing evidence that the early churches were built up with the doctrine of “baptism for the remission of sins.” But that is only part of the truth; and, separate from its relative truth, it becomes an immaterial part. The churches in the days of the apostles accepted both in theory and fulfillment the doctrine of the gifts of the Spirit. Not a single church was planted without this. The modem doctrine of a church repudiating the gifts of the Spirit was not known in that age. And therefore any church which rejects these gifts is not after the primitive model; it lacks a characteristic, an essential element of the church of Christ.

The Saviour said to those whom he sent out to preach the gospel, “These signs shall follow them that believe,” not them alone that preach. Facts in the fulfillment of the work of the gospel prove that we are correct in our interpretation of the promise. In Acts 11:27, 28, are mentioned several prophets who are not of the twelve apostles. That the word prophet has here its usual and obvious meaning of a foreteller of events, one endowed with a gift of the Spirit, is proved by the circumstance of one of them, Agabus, foretelling a great dearth, which came to pass in the days of Claudius Cæsar. The same, essentially, is found in chap. 13:1. In chap. 21:8, 9, we are told that Philip the evangelist “had four daughters which did prophesy.” There is nothing in the context to indicate that prophesy has here any other than its primary or usual signification, while, on the other hand, verses 10, 11, speak of the prophet Agabus, and relate that he foretold what should befall Paul at Jerusalem, showing conclusively that the word, in that text, has reference to the gift of the Spirit of prophecy, and that in the case of the daughters of Philip it was a fulfillment of the promise quoted on the day of Pentecost, that the Spirit should be poured out on the daughters and handmaidens, and they should prophesy.

The acknowledgment of this fact is necessary to a reception of the truth of the word in reference to the witness of the Spirit, or the seal of the new covenant. While the “circumcision of the heart” has often been insisted on, it has not been sufficiently examined, as the seal of the covenant, to open it in its great importance to the understanding of the reader.

When circumcision was given to Abraham he was told that it was “a token of the covenant” made with him, and that every man-child of his seed who was uncircumcised should “be cut off from among his people,” because he had not the appointed token, and therefore he had no part in the covenant. Gen. 17.

29

In Rom. 4:11, this token is also called a sign and seal. Hence Paul says:—

“After that ye believed, ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise, which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession.” Eph. 1:13, 14.

In the above cited texts we have four terms applied to circumcision; viz., token, sign, seal, earnest. That we are not mistaken in designating the operation of the Spirit of God in the heart as the circumcision of the new covenant is shown by the following texts:—

“He is not a Jew, who is one outwardly, neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh. But he is a Jew, who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, and not in the letter, whose praise is not of men, but of God.” Rom. 2:28, 29.

“Now he which stablisheth us with you in Christ, and hath anointed us, is God; who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts.” 2 Cor. 1:21, 22.

“In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ.” Col. 2:11.

All these prove that the token, earnest, or seal of the new covenant, the circumcision of this dispensation, is not an outward ordinance administered with hands, but is of the Spirit, internal, of the heart. Some, on account of their peculiar views of the relations of the covenants, have held that baptism is the circumcision of the new covenant. This is not only an error, being a direct contradiction of the Scriptures, but it is the corner-stone of other errors held by many in regard

30

to the baptism of infants. Baptism is an outward ordinance, administered with hands, even as typical circumcision was. But the circumcision of the gospel is in the heart, in the Spirit, not made with hands. The distinction is so very plain that an error here is inexcusable.

Another marked difference between the seals of the two covenants is this: in the first covenant outward circumcision, the token, was confined to the male children of Abraham and of his natural descendants. In the new covenant circumcision of the Spirit is given to all the believers in Christ, who is the “one seed,” without regard to sex or nationality. In view of this truth Paul said:—

“There is neither Jew nor Greek [Gentile], there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female; for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” Gal. 3:28, 29.

These scriptures cast light upon the apostle’s words in another place, concerning which there has been much vain speculation:—

“But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.” Rom. 8:9.

Two errors have obtained in regard to this text. First, that the Spirit of Christ and the Spirit of God are not the same. This is corrected by comparing 1 Pet. 1:10, 11, which says the Spirit of Christ was in the holy prophets testifying, with 2 Pet. 1:21, which says the prophets spake as they were moved of the Holy Ghost, or Holy Spirit, which is the same as the

31

Spirit of God. The second error is that the “Spirit of Christ” in this text does not mean the Holy Spirit, but only the temper or disposition of Christ.

It is indeed an important truth that he who has not the disposition of Christ is none of his; and it is a truth which will cut off the vain hopes of many proud, worldly, selfish professors of religion. But it is not the truth taught by this passage. This text is really a reiteration of the rule laid down to Abraham, that he who was not circumcised, who had not the seal or token of the covenant, had no part in the covenant. We have seen that the Spirit of God, called also the Spirit of Christ, is the seal of the new covenant. And if any man have not the Spirit he has not the token or seal of the covenant, and therefore he cannot be a partaker of the privileges of the covenant—he is none of Christ’s.

And this again casts light on verse 16 of the same chapter:—

“The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God.”

The “witness of the Spirit” is an important subject, and one that has received the attention of the eminently pious of all ages. The internal evidence of the Spirit has been uniformly neglected, and eventually by many denied whenever coldness, worldliness, and pride creep into the church. But alas! that it must be said, that even in this doctrine the Saviour often receives the deepest wounds “in the house of his friends.” Many whose lives in no way correspond to the “great example,” are often loudest in their profession of possessing the Spirit’s “power.” They seem to think that profession or feeling can atone for the

32

lack of graces. These are they “by reason of whom the way of truth is evil spoken of.” By reason of these the Bible doctrine of sanctification through the truth is rejected and brought into contempt. Feeling, indeed, will not be lacking where the witness of the Spirit is given; but our Christian experience must have a stronger and deeper foundation than this. Our feelings are often controlled by circumstances, and these are so varied that our feelings cannot always be the same. But the hope of the Christian is “as an anchor to the soul, sure and steadfast,” and we may have

 “A faith that shines more bright and clear

 When tempests rage without; 

That when in danger knows no fear, 

In darkness feels no doubt.”

But the question is asked, To whom does the Spirit witness? to the believer, or to the world? We answer, To both; but not to both in the same manner. When the disciples received “the Holy Spirit of promise,” or “the earnest of the Spirit in their hearts,” it assuredly witnessed to their own consciousness as it could not witness to the world, otherwise it could not have been an earnest to them. But when it moved them to speak with other tongues, and to bear the cross, and “to perfect holiness in the fear of God,” then in their lives evidence was presented to the world. These classes of evidence always go together—they will not be separated. So we conclude that the presence of the Spirit in the heart, inclining us to conform to the will and word of God, is the witness to ourselves; while the graces

33 of the Spirit in our lives, are the witness to the world.

We will illustrate this by applying it to a personal experience which all may appreciate. Thus: no one but myself can be conscious that I love my brother; there is an internal evidence of that fact which belongs to me exclusively, and if I never show that love in my actions, no one will have any evidence that I possess it in my heart. If I show an utter indifference to his welfare, and where our interests seem to conflict I care only for myself, every one will readily decide that I do not possess that love; that I am deceived, or my profession is hypocritical, which is, practically, the same thing. And this decision must be correct.

So it is with the witness of the Spirit. There is liability to self-deception; the Scriptures recognize this, and warn us to “believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God.” We have a double guard on this point.

As the word of God was given by inspiration, men writing it “as they were moved by the Holy Ghost,” of course there must be perfect harmony between the word of God and the Spirit of God. To suppose otherwise were to suppose that God is not in harmony with himself. Therefore any spirit which leads us not in harmony with the word—which calms our spirits and soothes our feelings while we are walking contrary to the word—cannot be of God. The Spirit of God, according to our Saviour’s words, is given to guide into truth. And again, he said to his Father, “Thy word is truth.” Hence they who have the Spirit of God as their guide, will in all things accept the word of God as their rule;

34

and thus they are enabled to worship God “in spirit and in truth.”

The Saviour gave another infallible test, namely, “By their fruits ye shall know them.” Though these two rules lead directly to the same result, they are not the same. We may perceive duties in the word of God of which our neighbors are not aware. Unknown to all others a cross may be presented to us which we are unwilling to bear; a truth be made known to which our feelings are opposed. In these things and in such cases the word is a test, to our own consciousness, of the spirit which influences us. A feeling of opposition to the truth of God; a disposition to neglect it; an unwillingness to hear or learn any truth which will bring a cross to us; all this is direct evidence to ourselves, providing we are willing to examine ourselves, that we are not led of the Spirit of God. Of these feelings or actuating motives the world cannot take cognizance; therefore the world cannot judge of them. But if these feelings are submitted to or cultivated, our lives will soon show the effect of such an insult to the authority of God; the Spirit of God will be altogether grieved away, and we be left in darkness to follow the leadings of the carnal mind. Then our lives will be evidence to the world that we are not led by the Spirit of God. Only by our fruits shall the world know that we are the children of God.

There is an error on this subject, largely prevalent, which well deserves a notice. It is generally taught by those who deny the direct power of the Spirit as a witness, or an instrument of conversion, that the only evidence we can have of our reception of the Spirit as a Comforter is

35

this: the Spirit was promised on condition of baptism for the remission of sins, and if we have been baptized we have the Spirit in fulfillment, of the promise, though we are not conscious of its presence. This position is specious, and may become, and often is, the foundation of a very sad delusion. Baptism has its order, or relation to other things, and if this be disregarded, it is not valid, not being in the order of the Scriptures. It must be apparent to all that if the institution be so changed as not to meet the requirements of the Scriptures it becomes, in that changed condition, the institution of the one so changing it, and is no longer the original ordinance. This truth is very often urged in regard to the form of administering the rite; but it is equally true in regard to the order or relation of baptism.

In all cases where baptism is taken as the evidence of the gift of the Spirit, the professing penitent is lulled into carnal security, trusting solely to his baptism as the evidence of his favor with God. Baptism, not the Spirit in the heart, becomes his earnest or witness. The Spirit being thus rejected, the graces do not appear in the life, and there are no fruits of the Spirit to give evidence to the world of a genuine conversion. Such a doctrine is well calculated to multiply carnal professors or nominal Christians; and that these should be multiplied under its teaching is not strange, considering that it calls for no self-abasement, leads to no deep, pungent convictions of sin, and under it there is felt no necessity for the aid of the Spirit in the work of conversion. That “the Spirit makes intercession for us with groanings that cannot be uttered,” is, to those embracing such a theory, a mystery. To

36

pray for the Spirit to convict and to convert sinners is, to them, only folly.

The view here called in question is unscriptural, according to the expressed faith and practice of the apostles and early believers. The doctrine of the gift of the Holy Spirit was never so understood in that age. In Acts 8:14-16 we read:—

“Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John; who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost. (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them, only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)” This action was directly contrary to that view which takes the reception of the Comforter for granted, because of our being baptized. Again in Acts 19:5, 6, we read:—

“When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them.”

In this case the Spirit was given in answer to prayer, after baptism. In the case of Cornelius and his household, the Spirit came on them before baptism. Whether received before or after baptism it is shown that the gift of the Spirit was not then considered a matter of course because of baptism; but was a matter of personal conscious experience. And so it is proved that that view of the gift of the Spirit, now held by many, which makes baptism their evidence, is modern, unscriptural, and no part of “primitive Christianity.”

To be continued….

The Promise of the Holy Spirit.

THE SPIRIT OF GOD:– ITS – OFFICES AND MANIFESTATIONS, TO THE END OF THE CHRISTIAN AGE.

BY ELD. J. H. WAGGONER.  1877

CHAPTER II.

THE POWER FROM ON HIGH

“And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you; but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.” Luke 24:49.

The time spoken of by our Saviour in his promise in John 14:16, soon arrived. He had returned to his Father, leaving his disciples alone with their enemies. We can but faintly imagine how tedious were the hours of their tarrying at Jerusalem, and how many were the scoffs at their faith which they were compelled to hear. About ten days after his ascension came one of the Jewish solemnities—the feast of Pentecost. At this feast were gathered, according to the custom, Jews from every nation; for at their feasts they were all to “appear before the Lord.”

The disciples were in one place. Circumstances as well as choice separated them from the vast multitude then assembled. Their hearts were stricken; they were a despised people, and they could find but little to interest them outside of their own company. The chief priests and the rulers, the Scribes and Pharisees, the first officers of the nation, and all the influence of the great city, were united against them. To these great men all looked for counsel, and the hosts of Israel could but be ready to echo their sentiments. The teachings and miracles of Jesus had been heard of by all; and the crucifixion, with the accompanying convulsions of nature, followed by the report of his resurrection,

17

with the well-known truth that Jesus was not found in the sepulcher, though it had been surrounded by a trusty Roman guard, all together had created an intense interest and excitement. It was only to be expected that they who had led in the persecution of Jesus would endeavor to shield themselves by casting reproach upon his followers. It was unpleasant, if not even unsafe, for them to appear in the streets of Jerusalem.

But the declaration that that which is highly esteemed among men is not regarded of God, was true in this case. God was bringing confusion upon the great and the proud, and preparing to lift up the heads of those who were stricken and bowed down. This little company, frowned upon by the world, were watched over and guarded by Heaven.

“And suddenly there came a sound from Heaven, as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.” Acts 2:2-4.

The report of this phenomenon soon brought together a wondering crowd, who were confounded or perplexed.

“They were all amazed and marveled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galileans? And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?” Verses 7, 8.

God had chosen this time to manifest this power; for it was well known that these were unlearned

18

men, chosen from the humbler walks of life, and now they were speaking the various tongues spoken by the Jews who had come to Jerusalem “out of every nation under heaven.” To those who were thus gathered from the nations it was a wonder. But others, resident in Jerusalem and the country surrounding, were also gathered there, who did not understand the various tongues spoken. To them the scene presented a different appearance. They well knew that these humble Galileans had never been schooled in letters. To them it was but an unmeaning jargon of sounds, and it was but natural that, to all the follies which they had ascribed to the followers of Jesus, they should add the charge of drunkenness. But Peter repelled the charge, and thereupon opened the Scriptures to them as follows:—

“Ye men of Judea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words; for these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day. But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel: And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams; and on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy: and I will show wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapor of smoke. The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come.” Acts 2:14-20.

19

There is much of interest in these words; some of the points introduced we will notice.

The promise was that the Spirit should be poured out upon “all flesh.” This cannot be restricted to less than all the church. It certainly cannot be confined to the apostles. The effort made by many to find a complete fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy on the day of Pentecost is without even a show of reason. That Joel’s prophecy as here quoted by Peter covers the gospel dispensation, is evident from his reference to daughters and handmaidens, of whom there were none among the apostles, as well as to the signs and wonders, which reach down to the coming of “that great and notable day of the Lord.” If the reader will examine the following scriptures, Matt. 24:27-31; Rev. 6:12-17; 1 Thess. 4:13-18; 5:1-3; Isa. 2:10-21; 13:6-13, he will plainly see that that great and notable day of the Lord comes at the close of the gospel age, ushering in the terrible judgments of God and the second advent of the blessed Saviour.

But we have chiefly to do with Peter’s application of the prophecy. He takes up the history of Jesus, in his life and miracles, his death, burial, and resurrection, proving this last by the words of David, and then refers to his exaltation as follows:—

“Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.” Acts 2:33.

Peter here speaks of the promise of the Holy Ghost, which Jesus had received of the Father, and accordingly the Spirit is called the “Holy

20

Spirit of promise.” Eph. 1:13. And its gift is called “the promise of the Father.” Acts 1:4.

When the people were assured that this was indeed the power of God upon the disciples, and thus became convinced that that same Jesus whom they had crucified was the Messiah, they were convicted of their sins and of their danger, and cried out,” Men and brethren, what shall we do?” Peter’s answer was in every respect applicable to the occasion; it answered their question, and gave them definite information concerning the promise of the gift of the Spirit, to which he had referred, and which they had seen illustrated in the wonderful events of that day. He said:—

“Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For THE PROMISE is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.” Acts 2:38, 39.

It is not possible to mistake “the promise” to which reference is here made. It was “the promise of the Spirit,” as in verse 33; that is to say, that which was fulfilled to the apostles should also be fulfilled to them if they would accept, and follow, the crucified and risen Jesus of Nazareth. The words, “all that are afar off,” have reference to the Gentiles, as Paul shows in Eph. 2:11-18, in distinction from the Jews, who are addressed as “you and your children.” Thus the same promise of the Spirit is extended to the church at large, “even as many as the Lord our God shall call.”

This whole instruction as regards both duty

21

and promise is neutralized between two classes in the present age. The Friends (known as Quakers) reject baptism as being only an external ordinance. As this subject is quite foreign to the subject of the present argument I pass over the error of the Friends without examination. On the other hand the Disciples, and those holding with them, ignore the promise, making baptism the only point of interest in the text. When I say they ignore the promise, I mean they do not accept it according to the evident meaning of the text; for there is no real difference between the utter rejection of a text and the denial of its evident meaning. The Jews did not deny the Scriptures, directly; but they denied their plain and evident fulfillment, and thus they made them “of none effect.” That the promise of Acts 2:39 is identical with that of verse 33 is so clear that Disciple authors have been constrained to admit it, however strenuously they deny the conclusion logically deduced therefrom. Thus Alexander Campbell says:—

“The promise is expressly said by Peter to be ‘the promise of the Holy Spirit,’ which is extended to all that are near, and ‘afar off.’…. The gift of the Holy Ghost is the immediate antecedent to the promise, as any one may see from the slightest attention to the passage.”—Baptism, p. 383, ed. 1853.

And McGarvey, in his Commentary on Acts, says of chap. 2:39:—

“That we are right in referring the word promise in this sentence to the promise of the Holy Ghost just made by Peter, is evident from the

22

fact, that this is the only promise made in the immediate context.”

This is indeed evident, though it has been most strenuously denied by others of that body. Thus, Eld. Treat, associate editor of the Record, of Bedford, Ind., and highly recommended as an expounder and defender of their peculiar faith, persistently denied this fact in Gosport, Ind., in Nov. 1871, when the subject of “the promise” was under consideration.

But Mr. McGarvey, while he admits the truth of the statement, robs it of all its force by making a distinction between “the gift of the Holy Spirit,” and “the Holy Spirit’s gifts,” and affirming that the former, but not the latter, is the subject of the promise. If we allow that that distinction is just, the inquiry then arises, Which did the apostles receive on the day of Pentecost? Any answer which includes either to the exclusion of the other, is only partial; it does not contain the whole truth. While all will acknowledge that they received the gift of the Holy Spirit, none can deny that they received the Holy Spirit’s gifts.

And then another inquiry may properly be raised: Were not all included under one and the same promise? Or, were there two distinct promises of the Spirit? Only one. The promise which Peter held out to his hearers, in verse 39, is identical with that of verse 33, as both Campbell and McGarvey admit. But Peter said that that which they saw and heard, even the mighty power of the Spirit of God upon the apostles, was given by virtue of that promise. There is but one “Holy Spirit of promise,” and concerning it Jesus received but one “promise

23

of the Father.” And by virtue of that, but “one Spirit” was given. The facts here presented show that the pouring out of the Spirit upon the disciples was the cause of the wondering of the assembled multitude, and that drew out Peter’s discourse, which was aimed to correct their impression, and to teach them in regard to the promise and gift of the Spirit. He said the Spirit was poured out, as they then saw and heard, according to the promise which Jesus received of the Father, and that they also might receive it, for the promise was to them and to their children, and to as many as the Lord shall call.

Now if any can distinguish between the promise under which the disciples received the Holy Ghost on that day, and the promise under which the same Spirit was offered to the multitude, it will be by an exercise of ingenuity which we cannot comprehend. Nothing appears more evident than that all the gifts and manifestations of the Spirit of God are under one and the same promise; they are different parts of that promise; and to reject the parts is to reject the whole, and thus to annul the promise.

In regard to the distinction referred to above, it is asserted that the Spirit’s gifts include only the miraculous, or power conferred specially on a few, in distinction from the general gift of the Spirit to all the churches. But this is not satisfactory. Says Webster: “Miraculous, of the nature of a miracle; performed supernaturally; effected by the direct agency of Almighty power, and not by natural causes.” It needs but little consideration to make it apparent to all that there is no such distinction as natural and supernatural

24

gifts and operations of the Spirit in the church. Each and every one who receives the Spirit, in any manner or to any extent, receives it by the direct power of God. There is no natural reception nor operation of the Spirit of God in any case. Hence the distinction is claimed without regard to the proper use of the words.

A more obvious distinction, apparently, is claimed between the ordinary and extraordinary manifestations of the Spirit. But again we ask, are there two distinct promises for these methods or operations? Or, does not the promise include both? One promise includes all. There is no “promise of the Spirit” in the Bible which does not include the gifts or manifestations of divine power. This we shall claim as an established truth unless a separate and distinct promise is produced for a peculiar or distinct manifestation.

The remark of Olshausen on 1 Thess. 5, relating to this subject, is worthy of notice. He says:—

“But the question whether pneuma is to be taken here as an ethico-religious principle, or as the source of the Charismata [gifts], is to be altogether declined, because the two cannot be separated, or at least did not appear separately in the apostolical times. Where the Spirit was, he showed himself in moral and religious relations, and in the extraordinary gifts.”

In confirmation of the view here taken we notice that the apostles, who received the gifts and power of the Spirit, did not all possess like power; the Spirit did not manifest itself through all alike. Therefore Paul says:—

25

“Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles? have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?” 1 Cor. 12:29, 30.

These questions are asked concerning the church at large, as well as the apostles, which is an evidence that the same gifts were in the church at large, as we shall hereafter show, but not in all alike. Each has his own peculiar office; or, to use the language of inspiration concerning these manifestations,” Dividing to every man severally as he will.” Yet all were received under one promise; all were parts of one whole.

What a blessing, a gracious privilege, is thus held out to us as members of the body of Christ—as called of God. When we consider that blessings and duties are ever closely allied, and that when blessings are offered to us it is our duty to labor for their reception, we may realize our responsibility to pray for the Spirit, so graciously promised by our Saviour. God never offers the blessings of his grace for our mere gratification, nor to satisfy curiosity, nor in any way to minister to our selfish feelings, but because they are necessary to our highest good and to his glory. That which concerns our good we need, and should embrace. That which concerns the glory of God it is our first duty to respect. And what a responsibility is thus placed upon us. May the Lord guide us that we never more quench the Spirit, “but covet earnestly the best gifts,” and so humble ourselves before God that we may be “endued with power from on high.”

To be continued….

The Holy Spirit Given to Those Who Ask.

THE SPIRIT OF GOD:– ITS – OFFICES AND MANIFESTATIONS, TO THE END OF THE CHRISTIAN AGE.

BY ELD. J. H. WAGGONER.  1877

CHAPTER I.

THE HOLY SPIRIT OF PROMISE

“And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you forever.” John 14:16.

There is not a subject presented in all the Scriptures which is of greater interest and importance than that of the gospel gifts and manifestations of the Spirit of God. In the words of the above text, the Spirit is the Comforter to the pilgrim who finds his life one of warfare, and who is told that in the world he shall have tribulation. It is the Guide to lead us “into all truth;” to aid us to escape from the darkness of this wicked world and to find the light of life. It is the Sanctifier, in connection with “belief of the truth,” to impress that truth upon our hearts, and to soften our hearts that we may appreciate, and with humble reverence receive, the word of truth. And its influence extends to “the world,” to whom it is a Reprover of sin.

The subject is a very solemn one; it is not to be approached in a light and irreverent manner. Jesus, the holy Son of God, who claimed divine honors, who said that “all should honor the Son even as they honor the Father,” also said:—

“Whosoever speaketh a word against the Son

8

of man, it shall be forgiven him; but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.” Matt. 12:32.

The solemn importance of these words is increased by the consideration that they were uttered as a rebuke to the Pharisees, who ascribed the works of Christ to the power of Satan instead of to the Spirit of God. They did not speak of the Spirit at all directly; they even may have felt the most becoming reverence for that Spirit in name. But their condemnation rested in this, that they rejected that which proceeded from the Spirit of God, without a patient, careful, submissive, and prayerful consideration of its nature and its claims. How careful, then, should we be in our investigations of this subject, and in our actions in reference to it. For, to ascribe the works of Satan to the Spirit of God, is to debase the Spirit, and to exalt the power of the adversary to divine honor. And to ascribe the gifts and works of the Spirit of God to Satan, is to blaspheme so as to have no forgiveness forever. May the Spirit itself guide us into all truth, and save us from both deception and presumption.

There is one question, which has been much controverted in the theological world upon which we have never presumed to enter. It is that of the personality of the Spirit of God. Prevailing ideas of person are very diverse, often crude, and the word is differently understood; so that unity of opinion on this point cannot be expected until all shall be able to define precisely what they mean by the word, or until all shall agree upon one particular sense in which the word shall be used. But as this agreement does not exist, it

9

 seems that a discussion of the subject cannot be profitable, especially as it is not a question of direct revelation. We have a right to be positive in our faith and our statements only when the words of Scripture are so direct as to bring the subject within the range of positive proof.

We are not only willing but anxious to leave it just where the word of God leaves it. From it we learn that the Spirit of God is that awful and mysterious power which proceeds from the throne of the universe, and which is the efficient actor of the work of creation and of redemption.

When the earth was just spoken into existence, while yet all was desolate and void,— “The Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” Gen. 1:2.

The original word for moved has the sense of hovering or brooding, and does not mean moving, merely. It evidently refers to a process of formation, by the power of the Spirit of God, which immediately followed the act of creation.

That the same power is active in the work of redemption is largely shown in that the incarnation of the Saviour, his teachings, miracles, and resurrection; the reproving and conviction of sinners; the enlightening, comforting, and sanctifying of believers; and, finally, the resurrection of the just, are all ascribed to the Spirit of God. No tongue can tell—no heart can conceive, how greatly we are indebted for its operations in our behalf.

It is the Representative of the Saviour during his absence from the church. When Jesus told the disciples he was going to leave them, their hearts were sad. But he gave them a two-fold consolation; 1. He promised to come again and

10

receive them unto himself. And from that hour to the day of their death they longed and prayed for his second advent to the earth. As pilgrims yet “in an enemy’s land,” we pray with them, “Even so, come, Lord Jesus.”

2. He said he would not leave them as orphans, or comfortless, in this world of tribulation; he would pray the Father, and he would send them another Comforter. And as Christ came in the name of the Father, John 5:43, and therefore represented the Father, insomuch that they who had seen him had seen the Father, because the Father was in him and did the works which he did, John 14:9, 10, so the Spirit is come in the name of Jesus; verse 26. It is to us as truly a representative of Christ, as he was of the Father. He that received not Christ received not the Father; 1 John 2:23. Even so, he that hath not the Spirit hath rejected the Son— “he is none of his.” Rom. 8:9. And because the Father sends the Spirit in the name of the Son, and the Son purchased the gift for us, it proceeds from both to us, and is called both the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ. Compare 1 Pet. 1:10, 11, and 2 Pet. 1:21.

The Spirit is to abide with the disciples of Christ till his return, for the word forever has this extent in the promise. The Saviour lived but a few years upon the earth; his ministry covered a period of only three and a half years. But the presence of the Spirit as a Guide and Comforter shall be during the entire dispensation—the gospel age.

A most important truth is taught in Luke 11. Though the Spirit is to “reprove the world,” it does not act as a Comforter and Sanctifier to any

11

unless they voluntarily receive it. Jesus was in the world, and was “the light of the world,” but the world rejected the light. But, “as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God” John 1:12. And, though the Spirit is sent into the world to abide in the world to fulfill its various offices, Jesus taught us that we should pray for it. The teaching of many in this degenerate age is contrary to this; but to this refers directly the oft quoted injunction:—

“Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.”

After giving illustrations of the readiness of parents to give needed things to their children, he continued:—

“If ye, then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him.” Luke 11:9-13.

Therefore we conclude that if we do not believe the Spirit should be prayed for, or if, for any cause, we neglect to ask for it, we cannot expect to receive it.

But an objection is raised against this truth. It is said, There is danger of being deceived; there are “seducing spirits” in the world; 1 Tim. 4:1; and men are liable to be led by these, while they think they are led by the Spirit of God; and the danger is very great, as Satan transforms himself to an angel of light.

There is much truth in this objection; not only is there danger of being deceived, but thousands are deceived, and led on, by the deception, to their destruction. And therefore we should be all the more careful in our walk and in our

12

prayers. But let us examine our Saviour’s illustrations.

“If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? Or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent? Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion?” Luke 11:12.

Now if a son is so blinded, or his senses so benumbed, that he cannot tell the difference between bread and a stone, or a fish and a serpent, or an egg and a scorpion, then is his case, indeed, deplorable. And if he is so far from his father, and so little acquainted with him, that, when he asks for bread, a deceiver steps in, and, pretending to be his father, gives him a stone instead, and he does not know the difference, his case may be regarded as desperate.

But what would the objector think or say, should he see a son refuse to take bread from the willing hand of a kind father because stones were so numerous in the land? Should such a course be pursued by any one we could only expect that death by starvation would be the result.

The apostle James gives important instruction on this point. If we “ask amiss,” either in lack of faith or to gratify our selfishness, we shall not receive. God’s will and glory must be kept in view. Self must be denied and crucified. Our consecration to God must be complete. Our submission to his will and pleasure must be perfect, so that we are ready to bear any cross, to accept any truth, or to take any advance step in the work of faith; in short, we must abide in him and have his word abiding in us, and then we

13

may ask what we will and it shall be done. John 15:7.

Many fail to receive the gracious influence of the Spirit, or receiving it, abuse it, and so shut up the way of further blessings, by receiving it as the end of Christian effort instead of as a means. When such are blessed of Heaven they consider that the object of religious effort has been accomplished; and they sit down to enjoy themselves, or to congratulate themselves over their gifts and graces. A greater mistake could not be made. So does the gormandizer take his food as the means of self-gratification, and this is the end of his efforts. But the man who realizes the responsibilities of life, and who has a true interest in the faithful discharge of life’s duties, accepts his food as the means of gathering strength for future labor and usefulness. The Spirit will be given to all who ask for it as a means of renewing their strength that they may engage more successfully in the Christian warfare, and gain new victories to the glory of the Captain of our salvation.

Paul speaks of “those who, by reason of use, have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.” Heb. 5:14. It is unfortunate that so many lack this discernment; they have never so used their senses as to have them available to any practical benefit. In gifts of the Spirit they discern only evil. Every object is to them a stone, a serpent, or a scorpion. Humility, self-denying, cross-bearing, and earnest prayer would enable them to see unnumbered blessings, great and precious, clustering along their pathway, where all is now dark, dreary, and forbidding.

The objections which these offer against accepting

14

the manifestations of the Spirit will hold equally good against uniting with any church; because, while the church of Christ is a unit (for “there is one body”), there are many and diverse churches in the world, and therefore the chances are that we shall unite with a wrong one, and so be led astray. But the objector readily replies, We must choose that one which bears the divine impress; which presents the characteristics of the true church according to the New Testament. That is right. And so also with regard to the Holy Spirit and its manifestations. We must compare all with the divine standard, and receive that which will bear all the tests of the word of God, and reject all which are condemned by that infallible rule. It is to be regretted that so little attention is paid to this important subject; that so little is known in general, concerning the promises, the operations, and the gifts of the Spirit of God. It is that of here is one office of the Spirit which is not only ignored, but denied by many at the present time.

It is that of Reprover. Jesus said:—

“And when he is come he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment.” John 16:8.

They who deny the exercise of this office to the Spirit say that the promise of the direct presence of the Spirit is only to the church, as a Comforter; that they only who are members of the church can receive the influence of the Spirit in any manner; and that they who receive it do so, not as an evidence of that membership, but because of that membership. The world is reproved, they say, only by the word which the Spirit has indited; and the threatenings of the

15

word are the only method of reproof, the Spirit itself not being present at all.

But this does not accord with the words of the Saviour, that the Spirit comes into the world to reprove the world. It plainly appears that the Spirit of God was striving with man in the days of Noah. Gen. 6:3. Stephen accused the Jews of resisting it. Acts 7:51. And if it is allowable to assume that the Spirit strives with and reproves men only by means of the threatenings and reproofs of the word, we may with equal propriety assume that it comforts the saints only by the promises of the word. And then we have the Spirit banished entirely, as far as actual presence is concerned, and the promise of the Saviour is destroyed. We claim, and we think with good reason, that to deny its presence in comforting the saints is doing no greater violence to the Scriptures than to deny its presence in reproving sinners. And if there be no real presence of the Spirit in these works we may in vain ask the Father to give us the Spirit, notwithstanding the Saviour’s instructions in Luke 11:9-13. Nor can it then be true, as promised in our text, John 14:16, that the Spirit will abide with us forever, no, nor even visit us at all.

We ought to consider ourselves responsible for every conclusion which may logically be drawn from our position. Therefore men ought to fear greatly when they take such a position as that which we now call in question, because it really removes the Spirit from the work of the gospel, as a Comforter as well as a Reprover. We fear that such positions are taken because men are too easily satisfied with a nominal religion, destitute of the Spirit’s power.

To be continued…..God willing.