6

case there is a most painful divergence from the outset to the end. For instance, the apostle's main argument is stated in the first clause of the 9th verse. Ye are not in the flesh, but in the spirit.' Upon this, therefore, all your sequences should have hinged, instead of upon the two last clauses, which have only an adjective or qualifying force. Misled, as I think, by this false issue, you make emphatical, words which are not emphatical in the text. It is well known that the Greek article is not found at all in this ninth verse; and that 'spirit of God,' or, as there is no indefinite article in the Greek language, a spirit of God' would express literally the signification of the original words. These words you make the corner-stone of your reply, by giving them a weight of emphasis which seldom appertains to any but the double use of the Greek article. On a matter so important as you say the apostle was enforcing, we cannot conceive of him speaking with undue emphasis; but the indefinite form suited his purpose much better than your theory. He was manifestly making known to the believer the secret of his strength in being able now to overcome the power of sin in his members. This new spiritual life, this power within, whence was it derived? from Adam? no, it was not of man; it was a spirit of God' dwelling in him, if he was no longer living to the flesh, but to the spirit, it was 'the new man created by God unto good works,' and hence overcoming the flesh, and the world. It was a spirit rising through the sin-offering of Christ to a crucifixion of the flesh (see 13th ver.) and called a spirit of Christ' (9th ver.) And what of the 11th verse, you will ask me, if it has no article? It has, undoubtedly, but if what I have announced already be true, it must be used in relation to the preceding idea. The crucified body is in question: what is to become of it, contemplated as dead because of sin? Is it to lie slain as a useless thing? Nay, verily. The spirit ye have received is of God, of him who raised up Christ from the dead, and shall not your mortal bodies be quickened even here, to the performance of new duties, compatable with, and in subservience to, this spiritual, this divine life in you? Well then, brethren, he concludes, we are, not debtors to the flesh, to live after the flesh (his great argument), for if, &c.' to the end of 14th verse, which please to compare with Gal. v. 16-18, and then, I think, you must admit that the indwelling of the Holy Spirit personally in the believer, is not what the apostle is insisting upon; but the indwelling of a renewed spirit, as accounting for the liberty and power the believer now enjoyed. Does it not occur to you that the words, 'The spirit itself,' in the 16th verse, denote the introduction of the Holy Spirit into the arena of argument for the first time? In conclusion, my dear brother, allow me to say, that I wish to keep my mind open to the reception of evidence in proof of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. I have given my reasons for believing that the doctrine is not taught in the passages you have adduced. Direct me, if you please, to a Scripture fulfilling these two conditions, and I will bow to it :-First, that the bestowment is not in connection with miraculous operations; and, secondly, that it is clearly and emphatically stated according to the usage of the original language, to be the Holy Spirit of God.' At the same time, I do not say that I would not set a higher store by those more perfect moral influences of the Spirit by which the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are each and all enthroned in the heart's most elevated

and devoted love, and which I conceive reaches into a far more glorious region of power than the mere physical element could attain unto. The gospel needed the gifts of miracles, &c., to complete its moral machinery; thus completed, it is the power of God unto salvation, and by it the nations are to be judged. Let us not retard its progress, nor mar its heavenly simplicity. There is one Spirit,' shall we add, There is one indwelling,' or forbear? Let us love one another, for love is of God. Yours affectionately.

G. Y. TICKLE.

1. We never required that brethren holding views differing from ours should be cut off, nor did we demand this on our interpretation of a passage. We submitted that the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in those who believe, is the doctrine of Rom. viii. 9, &c., and that the apostle, at the close of his letter, enjoins avoidance of those who cause divisions contrary to the doctrine delivered, not by us, but by him, and therefore that those who deny this apostolically affirmed indwelling should not be received. We have not so learned Christ as to dare to set forth our views or interpretations as any reason for separation. If our argument be faulty, it is for brethren to correct it, and that brother G. Y. T. kindly attempts this, is proof, to him at least, that we never contemplated setting forth our conclusions as warrant for withdrawal from any brother.

2. Brother M.'s query is plainly equal to an affirmation, that the Holy Spirit, is still given to those characters who at first received the gift; but it does not imply anything as to manner or extent of the bestowment. To have contained this much it must have contained the words or some such as brother G. Y. T. adds to the proposition, as it was then,' and' to the extent of.'

·

' direct

3. Brother T. not only thus overstates the case, but by a phraseology quite barbarous to the apostolic style of speech, renders a satisfactory conclusion on his part most unlikely. Why say contact' rather than indwelling.' What means he by the plenitude of divine influences proceeding from the Holy Spirit, which surround and possess him? If they are influences, inflowings, he should surround and possess them, not they him. We have often asked for an explanation of this modern phraseology, but have not yet got it. We find nothing like it in Scripture.

4. We can admit, without slightest prejudice to our argument, that so far as the first eight verses of the chapter are concerned, the apostle's leading thought is, that under the law of the Spirit of life the inner man acquires a pre-eminence over the flesh. In these verses he argues his case abstractly, concluding his abstract argument in the eighth verse, in the words, 'So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.' But, in the ninth verse, he begins the application of his argument to those whom he addressed, saying, But ye are not in the flesh, but in the spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you.' There has therefore been no misapprehension of the apostle's aim on our part in regarding his proposition of the ninth verse as primary. It is, in fact, the starting proposition of the concrete part of his subject, and as such is supported, not weakened, by what goes before on the abstract.

5. But brother T. takes in hand to shew a painful divergence between us and Paul. First, He says, Paul's main argument is stated

་

·

เ

in the first clause of the ninth verse (forgetting that he had already insisted that the apostle's leading thought commences with the chapter), and that all our sequences should have hinged on it instead of the two latter clauses. But why should we have hinged on the first clause of the ninth verse, if we made a mistake in not commencing from the first verse? Because, says he, the two other clauses are only qualifying. But this is not correct, for the last clause is a universal proposition, affirming that if any man have not the spirit in question, he is none of Christ's, and, therefore, as the greater includes the less, implies, and is indeed given, to sustain the previous clauses. To call our taking the larger clause." a false issue' is therefore simply ridiculous. But, second, we make emphatical words which are not so in the text-the article is not in the ninth verse, and we argue as though it were 'a spirit of God,' says our brother, would express literally the signification of the original words. But he is wrong here again, for if there is no article, how is the indefinite a more literal than the definite the ? The literal is simply Spirit of God," Spirit of Christ.' The want of the article in Greek does not shut us up to the indefinite, but as often to the generic. Here it is the generic, not the indefinite; it is not a or any spirit, but expressly that which is of God,' of Christ. The genitive of the Greek equal to the English possessive, is always qualifying, and sufficiently supplies in such a case as this the force of the article. Our brother closes his paper with this same apostle's words, There is one Spirit.' Why then argue for more than one? Third, Brother T., complaining of the emphasis we place on the passage, says, we cannot conceive of the apostle speaking with undue emphasis on a matter so important.' Neither do we suppose the apostle would use undue emphasis, but certainly we should expect him to be emphatic on a subject so important; yet brother T., admitting the importance of the theme, will have no emphasis, will have the least emphatic form possible! Fourth, he admits it was a Spirit of God dwelling in the disciples; he quotes Paul to the effect that there is but one Spirit, therefore that Spirit was unquestionably the Spirit of God. Having admitted the fact of in-dwelling, yet seeking to make it that of another than the one Spirit, but cognisant of the fact that the article is found in the 11th verse, he is driven after all to employ the definite the of the English, with respect to the very spirit admitted to be dwelling in the believer. Mark this; the spirit of the eleventh verse is admitted to be the spirit of the ninth ; that of the eleventh has the article which marks it to be literally the Spirit of God; therefore the spirit of the ninth is by our brother's own argument and shewing emphatically the Spirit of God. He admits that the article makes the case specific; he admits that the article is in the eleventh verse; he admits that the spirit of that verse is that of the ninth, and therefore he must allow that the spirit thus specified is specifically the Spirit of God. But, fifth, he begs us to admit that the words of the sixteenth verse, the Spirit itself,' denote the introduction of the Holy Spirit for the first time. This we cannot do, for in the second verse we find, at the very outset of the argument,' the Spirit of life' introduced; and this being the fact, we see reason why in the ninth verse the apostle should be satisfied with the restrictive power of the genitive or possessive case in repeating his mention of the Spirit already introduced.

9

6. Our brother asks us to name a Scripture fulfilling these two conditions; first, that the bestowment is not in connection with miraculous operations; and, secondly, that it is clearly and emphatically stated according to the usage of the original language, to be the Holy Spirit of God. Such a passage is the one now reviewed. There is not a breath in it as to miraculous operations, and it has the conditions of usage demanded. But we submit the following, assured that our esteemed brother will not overlook them,-Rom. v. 5; 1 Cor. ii. 12, vi, 19; 2 Cor. i. 22, v. 5, xiii. 14; Gal. iv. 6; Eph. i. 13, 14, ii. 18-22, iii. 16, iv. 30;.1 John iii. 24, and iv. 2, 13. We have suggested only such passages as have the article, though, we doubt not, many in which it does not occur, are equally determinative. For example, Luke iv. 18 wants it. Would brother T. argue hence that it was not the Spirit of the Lord, but only a spirit from God that was upon the Messiah?

Finally, why does our brother speak of 'perfect moral influences by which Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are each and all enthroned in the heart's most elevated and devoted love?' How comes he to admit that the Spirit is enthroned by His influences (inflowings) in the heart's love, and deny a dwelling in the heart? Where is the love of the heart but in the heart? How is the Spirit enthroned in that love, but by a dwelling in the heart that loves? Why adopt a round-about, foreign phraseology which, if it means aught, implies all that we contend for? Why use this language in preference to the simple style of the apostle when he says-the Spirit that dwells in you? ED.

Entelligence.

A GOODLY BABYLONISH GARMENT.-The Rev. R. Waterstone, Forfar, was lately presented by the ladies of his congregation with a very handsome pulpit gown and cassock as a token of their esteem for him as their newly ordained minister. So says Mr Middlemass, of South Bridge, Edinburgh, in his advertisement, with the laudable object of enticing the ladies of other congregations to habilitate their ministers-no, their lords spiritual'-in like goodly Babylonish garments.

COMING EVENTS CAST THEIR SHADOWS BEFORE.-Among the plans submitted for the Trinity College Chapel, Church of Scotland, Edinburgh, is one containing rooms, in case of baptism by immersion! RELIGIOUS ENTERTAINMENT.-A successful London speculator in theatres, etc., has fitted up a place of amusement at great expense, which he calls the Alhambra Palace. His object is to carry out to its full extent the principle of making religion not only easy, but entertaining to the flesh, so far entered upon by those congregations that hope to fill their pews, their exchequers, and heaven at the same time, by means of organs, choirs, etc. These entertaining services were commenced last month, when the 'powerful sermon' was followed by the much more powerful concert, for which rather than for the former the people had paid their shillings, as was evident by the coughing under the one, and the applause under the other. Mr Smith hopes to add to the entertainment greatly by obtaining the spirit licence, and so to emulate the sects whose example he

follows, in demonstrating the fallacy of the apostle's idea, that the flesh lusts against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh.

A NON-APOSTOLIC CALL.-The U. P. Church, James' Place, Edinburgh, having called the minister of its sister church in Carlisle, sent commissioners to sustain the call. They argued its unanimity as indicating the voice of God; they urged that Paul went to Rome, the monetary ability of the church, and its need being only that of a main-spring. To which the Carlisle men replied, that if the voice of the people be the voice of God, God had spoken differently in Carlisle from what he had done in Edinburgh, as the one congregation was as unanimous that Mr Drummond should stay as the other was that he should move; that though one did need a mainspring for his watch, he had no right to take the one that kept his neighbour's chronometer going, and that if Mr D. were removed, the church in Carlisle would go back, perhaps to the winds; and, lastly, that though Paul went to Rome, it was not for a larger salary. Reviewing the business, the Whitehaven News says-'Except that in a worldly point of view we cannot see any difference between a minister of the gospel leaving his congregation and accepting the pastorate of another that offers him a higher salary, and a layman throwing up his situation to obtain employment elsewhere on terms more advantageous to himself, we should suspect the minister, in his migration, of acting a part equally as worldly as the layman. As it is, however, the peculiarity by which we are enabled to ditinguish the one from the other is not less striking. Religiously, the case of the layman and that of the minister, as laid down, are not, we are sorry to say, a correct parallel. We regret that they are not, especially as the party who prevents them being so is supposed to be a corner-stone of the "household of faith.' When a minister permits silver and gold to decide for him in which sphere he shall magnify the praises of God, when he allows Mammon to outstretch her arms until the church he has gathered around him feels them gently "transplanting" him from her bosom, he must not be surprised if men regard his conduct with suspicion.'

BAPTISMS.-Pathhead, Fife. Two persons, one the wife of a brother lately baptised, and the other a male, were baptised into Jesus last month, and added to the church here.-Merthyr Tydvil, South Wales. Three persons received Jesus as the Lord Messiah, and were baptised into his name on Lord's day, Feb. 14.-Swansea, Ibid. During the past few weeks 6 persons have joined the infant community in this important town, making in all 14.-Edinburgh, Nicolson Street Hall. Four converts made the good confession last

month.

OBITUARY.—An aged sister, Mrs Harrow, entered into rest this morning. She suffered very great pain-confined to her bed the last nine months, but never repined. Her confidence was firmly fixed on her Saviour, and she has now gone to be ever with him where there is neither sorrow nor pain. May we all live the life of the righteous, that our last end may be like his.

Pathhead, Fife, 14th Feb.

Printed by J. Taylor, Edinburgh.

R. M.