independent of his own understanding, and capability of making himself understood. He was edified, enriched, blessed, in his spirit, by the action of the Holy Ghost upon him. And his understanding was only called in, to enable him to convey to others that edification, enrichment, and blessing, which, in the privacy of his spirit, he enjoyed. But as all that was to take place in the church,-in the public assembly of believers, should be, not for private, but for public edification, St. Paul desired for himself, (and for the imitation of the Corinthians,) that in whatever way he was enriched, by praying in the Spirit, or singing in the Spirit, he might then, on those public occasions, be enabled to make use of his understanding, to convey to the members of the church, what he so blessedly enjoyed in his spirit. 16. Else, when thou shalt bless with the Spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say, Amen, at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?' 17. 18. For thou verily givest thanks, well; but the other is not edified.' I give thanks to (or offer praise to) my God, speaking with tongues more than ye all.' 19. " Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in a tongue.'" Now, if an unprejudiced person, one who had no system to uphold, was to read these verses, we conceive he could not interpret them in any other way, than as enjoining that men should speak in the church what they understood themselves of course; but, further, what their hearers also understood. How a man can be said to pray with the Spirit, or his spirit to pray, if he did not understand what he was saying; if he was not conscious whether the sounds he was uttering contained a prayer or not, we cannot conceive. Still further, how he could be said to "give thanks well," if he attached no meaning to his words, we cannot conceive. But indeed, until the present day, no class of expositors that we know of, ever preached the notion of Christians speaking by the Spirit, words which neither speaker nor hearer understood, except the Roman Catholics. They, to justify the use of Latin prayers by persons knowing no Latin, gave this interpretation to the words; they, as well as our author, have spoken of the Spirit being edified, by pouring forth sounds to which the man attached no meaning, and declares that a poor peasant of this country can receive spiritual good by reciting Latin prayers, of which he does not understand one word. We refer to the notes on this chapter in the first edition of the Rhemish Testament. But our author further speaks of "a power within the person distinct from himself, and making use of his organs of speech without his thought or control." How can this be, when the Apostle gives directions according to which the gifted person is to control the exercise of the gift? What was the man in whom was a spirit over whom he had no control, to control that spirit? Could he con trol the spirit of God? and yet we read the following directions: 27. If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at most by three, and let one interpret.' 28. "But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church, and let him speak to himself, and to God.' 29. 30. " his peace.' 31. Let the prophets speak two, or three, and let the other judge.' For ye may all prophesy, one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted.' 32. And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets."" Our author says, the prophets have no control over the spirit speaking in them in a tongue; the Apostle here says, the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. They cannot both be right, we must say our author is evidently wrong. Indeed, to our plain common-sense notion of things, this assertion of our author's appears full of the most palpable absurdity, of which we are surprised that he should not be sensible, that a spirit within a man should make use of his organs of speech without his thought or control, and yet that man should be said to speak to God, to pray with the spirit, and to give thanks well!! This is really monstrous. We cannot understand how the man himself can, with his heart, say, Amen, to his own giving of thanks, offered without his thought, any more than the unlearned private man who understandeth not what he sayeth. Our author, in his introduction, requests his readers "to forget whilst they are engaged in the examination of his pages, that pretensions are made to the possession of the gifts which are treated of in the chapters under consideration, by any persons in the present day." But we feel assured he has not forgotten them, he has been unconsciously warped in his judgment by his knowledge of the facts that certain persons of whom he desires to think favourably, profess to speak by the Spirit a language which neither they nor any other persons understand. We believe that no persons have ever given this interpretation of these passages a priori; no persons who had not an interest in defending those who professed to speak by the Spirit what they did not understand, that is, none but either Roman Catholic commentators who were interested to defend Latin prayers by uneducated people, or defenders of the professed possessors of gifts of the present day. It is not unworthy of remark, that, whilst the fact of men uneducated speaking at once some foreign known language, would be a palpable manifestation of the presence of the Spirit of God, just as was the case on the day of Pentecost, the professing to speak by a spirit making use of the man's organs of speech without his thought or control, and therefore uttering things which neither speaker nor hearer could understand, is exactly what an impostor could and would do safely, without danger of detection. He says he is speaking by the Spirit of God. No one knows but himself by what spirit he speaks; he does what any impostor could do; there is, in the manifestation itself, no evidence in favour of his assertion: the hearer never could be led to say, "No man could do the miracles which thou doest, except God were with him." We must now return back to the exposition of the xiiith chapter, beginning with the introduction to the chapter as it is in the last verse of the xii :- 31. But covet earnestly the best gifts, and yet show I unto you a more excellent way.' Zealously desire "The literal translation of this verse is as follows: the gifts the better; and yet, (or now) as to the hyperbole, (of the gifts) I show unto you the way.' As if he had said, The gifts already spoken of, are gifts of power from the Holy Ghost. But His very best gift-His gift par excellence, (xað' væigßoàǹ) is that which I will now direct you to, namely, LOVE;' not what we would call the ordinary love of Christians; but, love, the first, and best, of the gifts." We beg to dissent entirely from the "literal translation," as our author calls it. It appears to us a most unscholarlike perversion of the meaning, which is much better given by our own version. There is no ground for separating kай νжерßоλην from odov. It is never used in the New Testament, as he would suppose it used in this place, by itself. It is used five times, always connected with a verb or a noun, as, Rom. vii. 13, translated "exceeding sinful;" 2 Cor. i. 8, "we were pressed above measure;" 2 Cor. iv. 17, "a far more exceeding weight of glory." It is in unison with these examples, that we have, in the present instance, "a more excellent way," which we venture to assert is the more excellent translation and the more literal. The object here, and throughout the comment on chapter xiii, is to make it appear that love is not a gracious influence from the Spirit of God upon all believers, and, therefore, shed in its degree upon the believers of the present day, but the best of the gifts in the most strict sense of gifts, so that those who are without the miraculous gifts, must, according to him, be without the gift of love, as he says:— "Those persons who inquire why the gifts' should be desired in the present day, are referred, in answer, to the Apostle's description of that love which is the best of the gifts, and which follows: 4. " Love suffereth long, and is kind; love envieth not; love vaunteth not itself; is not puffed up.' 5. "Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil :' 6, "Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth.' 7. "Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things." To point out the gross error which our author has fallen into in identifying love with the possession of gifts, we need only refer to what our author himself has said as to the essential nature of gifts, in his comment on chapter xii. verse 7 :— 7. But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to each person to profit withal.' "This word, manifestation,' leads us to the root of the subject of the spiritual gifts. We learn from it, that in every one who was baptized with the Holy Ghost, there was a power, manifested, so evidently the power of God, that it could not be concealed, nor mistaken for natural power. To possess the gift of the Holy Ghost, was not to have made a certain measure of personal religious attainment; but to be so possessed by the Holy Ghost, that a manifestation of his in-dwelling presence should be palpable, by some outward demonstration of power. We freely admit that the most excellent and most high exercise of divine power is to produce love in the cold, selfish heart of fallen man; but we deny that wherever there is love, the in-dwelling presence is palpable, by an outward demonstration of power. Love fails of an agreement with the definition which our author himself has given of that manifestation which is essential to a "gift." Love is, according to the Apostle to the Galatians, "the fruit of the Spirit," but is no more a "gift," than "joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance." We would call attention to the 8th. 9th, and 10th verses of this chapter, and to our author's remarks on them; and then we would point out some particulars in the language of the original, which our author has entirely overlooked, and which will lead to a very different conclusion from that to which he would conduct his reader :- 8. " "Love never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. 9. "For we know in part, and we prophecy in part. 10. " But when that which is perfect is come, THEN that which is in part shall be done away.' "The Apostle here states the comparative duration of the gifts, and of love. The gifts are only adapted to a state of imperfection; and can only be exercised where there is ignorance to be removed, or sickness to be healed. They must cease, accordingly, when that which is perfect is come.' But has that which is perfect yet come? Is there no ignorance to be removed, nor sickness to be healed? Assuredly there is. Then, should the gifts not be considered as useless. They are intended for the church, till that which is perfect comes; and what these words mean, is explained in verse 12, to be-till we see Jesus face to face,' and 'know, even as we are They are the who was to But though known.' Then, and not till then, should the gifts cease. effects of the in-dwelling of the Comforter-the Holy Ghost, take the place of Christ, in the church, during his absence. the gifts of prophecy, of tongues, of knowledge, &c. were to cease when Christ returned to the church, because the church would then be in her perfection, not so was the constraining principle by which they were exercised. Love is adapted to a state of perfection, as well as of imperfection; it must therefore survive the imperfect state; and is thus proved to be of more value than any, or all, the other endowments combined. It is the best of all ;-confers its impetus to all ;—and shall survive all." There is an accuracy of expression in the original departed from in our translation of these verses, and a confusion is introduced by using the same words in the translation in places where different words are used in the original, and different words in the translation, in places where the same words are used in the original. To be accurate, we would translate the verses thus: 8. "Love never falleth out (of the church); but whether there be prophecies, they shall be abolished; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall be abolished (xaragynénosta..) 9. "For we know in part, and we prophecy in part. 10. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be abolished (καταργηθησεται.) Now, it is to be remarked, that a different thing is said of the ending of "tongues," from what is said of the ending of prophecy and knowledge: tongues shall cease, but prophecy and knowledge shall be abolished or rendered useless-as the original literally means, by the introduction of that which is perfect; from which it appears that there always will be in the church a partial prophesying or opening, through the Spirit of God, of the Scriptures to edification; and a partial knowledge of mysteries, through the light of the same Spirit, till that partial light gives way to the bright light that shall accompany the appearing of Christ, called, 2d Thess. ii. 8, "the brightness of his coming." But it is not said of tongues, that they shall be brought to an end by the introduction of that which is perfect; but simply, they shall cease-when, is not declared. For any thing said here, it may be they were intended to "cease" in the early ages of the church, which we know to be the fact. We have thus briefly noticed the principal points in this pamphlet, the publication of which we do exceedingly lament. In drawing our remarks to a conclusion, we cannot but notice the conclusion arrived at by our author :— "From all that has been adduced, we draw this conclusion, that being able to form no other idea of an apostolic church, than as the model of such a church is presented in Scripture, and knowing no one church at present which is not as different from such model, as twilight is from meridian day, |
