Letter on Receiving the Spirit

MR. EDITOR,
Will you kindly allow me to give some reply to the paper of C. E. S. upon my tract?
I agree with him that the question of which it treats is a great one, and hope that my brethren in Christ will study it. Having found difficulties in getting a London house to sell my tract, I here offer to send to any one willing candidly to study the subject during the next three weeks, a copy of the tract by post.
I would first observe, that the paper of C. E. S., only touches here and there upon the tract, omitting often to answer the proofs from scripture which I give.
I next observe, that he has once or twice singularly misunderstood me. He says, that I deny the present possession of the Spirit of sonship. It is not true. I assert its present possession. (p. 17.) What then do you say with regard to your words, cited by him from page 17 of your tract? I was there arguing against Mr. Kelly's views. He affirms that 'the gift of the Spirit' means settled rest and liberty in the Savior. This I deny. The laying on of an apostle's hands produced not the Spirit of sonship, but supernatural energies. But if the laying on of hands produced the Spirit of sonship, then we of this day need apostles to lay on hands.
He supposes me to affirm that believers now cannot attain edification. This is a part of the same mistake. I was showing that Mr. Kelly's theory led to these consequences, which seem to me absurd.
I now address myself to the main question:—What is receiving the Spirit?
To think of any man with his Bible open before him denying that Christians of our day have received the Spirit! What a strangely blind man that Mr. Govett must be!
Well, friends, the key to this mystery is banging before the door. I had said, “In the sense which 'brethren' put on the words 'receiving the Spirit,' he is now received, but not in the scripture sense.” (p. 22.)
What then is the sense which ‘brethren' put on the phrase?
It is the same sense which is put upon it by C. E. S.
"Now to receive the Holy Ghost is to be indwelt by Him (Rom. 8:9), and hence such are no longer in the flesh, but in the Spirit, and their bodies become His temples.” (1 Cor. 6:19.) (p. 102.)
“Believers received nothing less than the Holy Ghost which was the gift of God. (Acts 8:20); 11:17.) Hence they received all that the Spirit could be to them.” (An unscriptural inference.)
“A believer could not have the earnest without the unction also, for the Holy Ghost is both: so having the Spirit, he had both.” (This is the point to he proved.)
Now I had granted from the first that believers of our day have in this sense received the Holy Ghost. He has wrought on them to regenerate them, to make them sons of God, to dwell within them, and to make them members of Christ and make their bodies His temples.
But I affirmed and do still affirm, that this is not the scripture sense of the phrase ‘receiving the Holy Ghost.'
The path of C. E. S. then was plain enough. He had to show that the ‘brethren's' sense of ‘receiving the Holy Ghost' is the scripture sense. It was for him to cite passages in which the phrase, ‘receiving the Holy Ghost' occurs, and to show that it refers to the regeneration, indwelling, and sanctification of the Spirit.
This he has not done! If we have received the Spirit in one sense, we have received Him in all! That is his theory and yours. And now will you prove it? It cannot be done as C. E. S. has attempted, by citing without distinction scriptures which speak of blessings enjoyed by believers then as the ‘work of the Holy Ghost.' Are these all ours now in possession? is the question. All those which were the consequences of simple faith, are ours now, as they were theirs then. But was there not an operation of the Spirit subsequent to faith, imparting gift and power, which we have not?
My object is to present to brethren this great truth: that
There are two operations of the Spirit quite distinct from one another. The one is now possessed; the other is not. [They are distinct, but both included in the gift of the Spirit.—En.]
The one is internal and sanctifying.
The other is external, and communicates power. (Acts 1:8.) [The difference between II. and III. is falsely stated.—En.]
The one is begun to be wrought when a man believes. [The Spirit of sonship is as much after one has believed as any other form of the Spirit's power. See dal. iv. 4; Eph. 1:13.—En.]
The other was wrought only by illapse of the Spirit, or by imposition of hands after faith. [No doubt it was after the Spirit was given that the believer received Him; but imposition was only in special cases, and in no way the rule. Acts 10 proves the contrary, not to speak of Acts 2—En.]
Let us then look at the scriptures which contain the phrase in question, and see whether this view is borne out, or whether the ‘brethren's' sense is the scriptural one.
John 7:37-39. This receiving of the Spirit was to be bestowed after faith, and after Pentecost. It is not then the first operation of the Spirit, but the second. [Quite true that it is after faith, perfectly absurd that it is “external.” “Out of his belly,” &c. Is this external? It is false that this is lost now.—En.]
John 20:22. Jesus breathes on the ten, and says, “Receive ye the Holy Ghost.” This was not the operation of the Spirit which communicates faith, but one coming after it. [It is false that this is “external” or gone now.—En.]
The Holy Spirit descends at Pentecost. Peter says, “Repent, and be baptized, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise [of Joel] is to you,” &c. (Acts 2:38.) Here the reception of the Spirit is the promise to be realized after faith and baptism. And the apostle had already spoken of it as described by Joel. It is gift and not grace, but gift after grace received. [It is false that it was not grace as well as gift. —Ed.]
We come to the critical case, that of Samaria. (Acts 8) Philip preaches Christ, with miracles in proof of his doctrine. Many believe and are baptized. (Ver. 12.) Is not that enough No! The apostles at Jerusalem send to them Peter and John, who pray for them that they may receive the Holy Ghost. For as yet he has fallen on none. They have had the baptism of water only: not that of the Spirit. “Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.” “When Simon saw that through laying on of the apostle's hand the Holy Ghost is given,” he offers money, saying, “Give me also this power that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost."
Now is not this passage decisive? In the ‘brethren's' sense these Samaritans had already received the Spirit. In the scripture sense they had not. They were baptized believers; men and women whose 'hearts were right with God.' The Holy Spirit was dwelling in them as His temples. C. E. S. says, ‘If I have the indwelling Spirit, I have the Holy Ghost in every sense.' That is proved [?] to be erroneous by this example. Apostles prayed for them, that they might 'receive the Holy Ghost.' Philip the evangelist was unable to impart the gifts of the Spirit. Therefore apostles are sent. Till the laying on of apostles' hands, they had not 'received the Holy Ghost.'
If C. E. S.'s argument be good, and these believers had not yet received the indwelling of the sanctifying Spirit, but needed the prayer and laying on of apostles' hands, then we who are at the best only baptized believers whose hearts are right with God, have not yet the indwelling of the Holy Ghost, for we have no apostles, and none have received the Spirit save they on whom He has fallen, or who have received the imposition of apostles' hands. [What reasoning!—ED.]
It is evident that something which was communicated was visible even to the eye of unconverted Simon. He could not see the inward communication of the Spirit of holiness, nor could Peter impart it. Nor did Simon desire to impart sanctification to whom he would. But he did desire to impart gift of miracle; and offered money to purchase the power.
Let me put the point as a dilemma.
The Samaritans received the Spirit by imposition of hands, either as the Spirit of sanctification, or as the Spirit of power. If they had not received the Holy Ghost as the Spirit of holiness before apostles laid on hands, then neither have we. But they had the Spirit's indwelling, for they were men of faith [1], whose hearts were right with God. Then they received through the apostles' hands the Spirit of power, and my case is proved. [11] There are two operations of the Holy Ghost; one of which we possess, and the other we do not; because the Holy Ghost has never fallen on us, nor have apostles laid hands on us. Apostles before Pentecost were renewed, but had to wait for the Spirit of power. (Acts 1:8.)
5. We come next to the preaching to Cornelius and his friends. Peter preaches to them Christ. At once “the Holy Ghost fell on all that heard the word.” (Acts 10:44.) It was “the pouring out of the gift of the Holy Ghost.” (Ver. 45.) It brought the power to speak with tongues.
It was the baptism of the Spirit. It emboldened Peter to say, “Can any one forbid the water that these should not be immersed, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we?” As they had received the baptism of the Spirit at God's hands, how could man refuse them the baptism of water, which it was in his power to bestow? But it is not called the baptism of the Spirit. Not in Acts 10 but it is in the next chapter. Peter, defending his entering into persons uncircumcised, says, “The Holy Spirit fell on them as on us at the beginning.” (Ver. 51.) Then he remembered the Savior's promise of the baptism of the Spirit, and saw that the baptism of water received in this its true completion. John the Baptist testified the incompleteness of the immersion in water ministered by him, and pointed all believers onward to the better immersion in the Spirit and in power. This Peter saw was the fulfillment of that word.
Here then is another reception of the Spirit. Is it such as we who believe now experience? Nay! It was external, the bathing of believers in the Spirit; their being anointed, clothed upon, and gifted. It was something which appealed to the senses of Peter and the six brethren of Joppa who accompanied him. Yet in one respect it was an exception. Ordinarily the Spirit was received after faith. Here both operations of the Spirit, the indwelling of the Spirit and the other reception of the Spirit, took place at once. [This is not correct. The operations might follow ever so closely, but they are never at once. It is unbelievers who need to be born of the Spirit. Believers receive the Spirit. The gift of the Spirit in “brethren's' sense” as well as in that of scripture, is always after faith. Luke 11:13; John 4:10; 7:32; 10:16, 17; 15 xvi.; Acts 5:32, &c., &c.—En.] To these Gentiles “was granted repentance unto life.” (Acts
18.) It was God who knew the faith of their hearts, bearing witness to them as His by the outward sign. They occupied the same level with the apostles and the saints of Judaea. They had the indwelling of the Spirit; they had also the anointing of the Spirit, bestowed through direct illapse of the Holy Ghost.
C. E. S. says,.” The last illapse of the Holy Ghost by which believers were baptized with the Holy Ghost, took place, our author tells us (m. 1.) at Cesarea."
Can C. E. S. inform us of any illapse of the Spirit after this? Does he mean that in consequence? I suppose there was no baptism of the Spirit after this? I do not. By laying on of hands the baptism of the Spirit was received, where there was no illapse. (1 Cor. 13.) [It is merely begging the question, and in fact false, that the baptism of the Spirit necessarily required the imposition of hands. In Acts 2 not a word implies it; in Acts 10 what is said disproves it; and these were the two principal occasions, for Jew and Gentile. Mr. Govett's basis is unsound.—Ed.]
We proceed to Acts 19. At Ephesus Paul finds certain disciples. He says to them, “Have ye received the Holy Spirit since ye believed?” They replied, that they had not heard of the existence Of any Holy Spirit. His next question is of much import, “Into what then were ye baptized?” This supposes that the baptism of the Spirit by the laying on of apostles' hands followed as a usual and proper thing, upon the baptism of water. Their answer that they had received only John's baptism at once explained the matter, Paul then instructs them, that John was only sent to lead Israel to faith in Christ. Thereupon the twelve at Ephesus were immerged into the name of the Lord Jesus. “And when Paul had laid his hand on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spake with tongues, and prophesied."
What is the sense of 'receiving the Spirit' here? It is not any receiving upon believing, but after it, and as the consequence of faith, as Paul's question shows, “Have ye received the Holy Spirit since ye believed?” He dwelt in them already, for they were believers.[?] Wherever any reception of the Spirit after faith is spoken of, it is always the reception of the Spirit of power, as here. This passage explains therefore to us Paul's word to Ephesian believers, “In whom also after that ye believed ye were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise.” (Eph. 1:13.) The Holy Ghost's coming on them left an abiding mark, the seal of God. [It is always of power end of love and sound mind, that is sanctifying power, but not at all necessarily of miraculous power. It is absurd to deny this to any Christian,—End
The next occurrence of the expression, ‘receiving the Spirit,' occurs in 1 Cor. 2:12, 13. “Now we received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth."
There is no difficulty with regard to its meaning in this place. It has the same sense as in previous ones. The apostle is speaking of the Spirit as the inspirer of believers, and revealer of secrets. This epistle at some length discovers to us the manifestation of the Spirit in the various forms of gift. [It is no difficulty to “brethren,” but insuperable to Mr. Govett, unless he go so far as to deny to the Christian the mind of Christ, which hangs on receiving the Spirit. His dismal theory would deprive us of this.—En.]
The next occurrence of the expression is found in 2 Cor. 11:4. “For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him."
This passage exhibits the same signification. Paul was troubled by false apostles. They infested the church of Corinth. He says then, ‘If these coming apostles can preach to you as good news as I have preached, and can bestow on you such gifts of miracle and inspiration as I did, you may well listen; but not otherwise.'
The ninth occurrence of the phrase is in Gal. 3:2, 3: “This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh? Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain. He therefore that is imparting to you the Spirit (see Greek) and working miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?"
Here is the same signification. Paul inquired of the misled Galatians believers on what ground they received the miraculous gifts. Was it because they had become disciples of Moses, or because they were believers in Christ Law cannot impart gift to those under it: the gospel did.
Herein then is a decisive ground of superiority to the law, on which Paul was ready to rest the whole question between him and them. There was some one even in Paul's absence who was both working miracles and bestowing the gifts of the Spirit on believers. Let them inquire of him, on what ground he was so doing? Was it as a disciple of Moses, or as a believer in Jesus?
This reception of the Spirit then is not the indwelling of the Holy Ghost which belongs to faith, but a something imparted after faith and by imposition of hands. No human agent can impart converting and sanctifying grace. Here then we are on the same ground as in Acts 19 “Have ye received the Holy Spirit since ye believed?” These had received Him, and from the hands of the same apostle that uttered the question at Ephesus. [It is manifest that Mr. Govett errs altogether in imagining that the indwelling of the Spirit belongs to faith; instead of being included in the gift of the Spirit to the believer. No one denies apostolic impartation. The apostle himself shows that it was not invariably needful.—En.]
This passage gives an answer to another question, “Could any but Jesus baptize in the Holy Ghost?” Directly and meritoriously, none but Christ could; but instrumentally, apostles both could and did. (Acts 8:18; Gal. 3:5.)
I have now gone over all the passages, as far as I know, in which the naked expression 'receiving the Spirit' occurs in the New Testament. And I suppose I have proved that not one of them takes the sense which the ‘brethren' give. [Every case on the contrary is in the sense of ‘brethren' as opposed to Mr. Govett, whose delusion is not only to hold himself the indwelling without the gift of the Spirit, but to misread every known brother's writings, and to impute a sense which they all reject. This is strange in a man of any ability.—En.] In no instance as yet does 'receiving the Spirit' mean, that indwelling of the Holy Ghost as the Spirit of holiness, which believers of our day possess. They all refer to the communication of the Spirit of power after faith by the illapse of the Holy Ghost, or by the laying on of apostles' hands which we have not. In the scripture sense then we have not received the Holy Ghost. [Quite untrue.—En]
But here is one passage which may be alleged as an exception, which I now proceed to adduce.
“For ye have not received the Spirit of bondage again to fear, but ye have received the Spirit of adoption whereby we cry, ‘Abba, Father:' (Rom. 8:15.) Now I gladly admit, that believers now have the Spirit of sonship. But, be it observed, here we have not the absolute phrase 'receiving the Spirit,' but a qualification is added to it by way of distinguishing it from the other reception. This was said to a church not yet visited by an apostle; and to that church Paul says not, that since believers had the indwelling of the Holy Ghost, therefore they had all that the Spirit could bestow; or that this Spirit of adoption would develop into the Spirit of power. But he tells those who had received the Holy Ghost as the Spirit of sonship, that they lacked yet the Spirit as the Spirit of power, and that he hoped to visit them, and to communicate this distinct operation of the Holy Ghost. “I long to see you that I may impart to you some spiritual gift, to the end ye may be established.” (Rom. 1:11.) [See the disproof in Rom. 12:4-8.—En.]
Two distinct givings of the Spirit are then mentioned in the New Testament. The one is ours by faith; the other is a giving which we of this day have not, communicated after faith.
Let me cite the passages; and first those relating to that communication which we possess.
“The love of God is shed abroad in our hearts, by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.” Romans
v. 5.
“But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. Now if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead, dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead, shall give life to even your mortal bodies because of his Spirit that dwelleth in you.” (Rom. 8:9, 11, Greek.) “God hath put into us his Holy Spirit,” says Paul to the Thessalonians. (1 Thess. 4:8, Greek.)
In the passages which follow is something given which we have not now. “God bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost.” (Heb. 2:4.)
And after naming baptism and the laying on of hands we find, “It is impossible for those who were once enlightened [by faith], and have tasted of the heavenly gift [after faith], and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted the good word of God [by faith], and powers of the ago to come” [after faith.] (Heb. 6:4, 5.) [All agree as to this.—En.]
There is a passage which may perhaps be said to include both forms of giving the Spirit. “Wherefore I put thee in remembrance, that thou stir up the gift of God, which is in thee by the putting on of my hands. For God hath not given us a spirit of fear, but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.” (2 Tim. 1:6, 7.) [Clearly against Mr. G. who feels it.—En.]
But what say you to such passages as these? C. E. S. may say.
“He that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.” (1 John 3:24.)
“Hereby we know that we dwell (abide) in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit.” (1 John 4:18.)
These passages refer to the miraculous gifts; for the gift here is made the proof of something invisible. Now the medium of proof must be clearer than the point to be proved. The visible possession then of these divine gifts proved the invisible indwelling of God, to the conviction both of friend and foe. How do we know that the Spirit of God dwells in us? Not in the way they of old did; but by the testimony of the scripture. When her Majesty is residing at Windsor Castle, a flag is hoisted. The flag is the proof of her unseen residence. We have lost the flag, though the Spirit of God dwells in us, the world does not perceive it, and it does not believe the scripture testimony.
Believers in John's day had, as he tells them, the Spirit's anointing which rendered them independent of the written word. We are not. John gave them too tests whereby to discriminate between persons inspired by the Holy Ghost, and those who spake by evil spirits and so were “false prophets.” (1 John 4:1-6.) These do not apply now, for we have no inspired men.
How was the Spirit of power received? Only in two ways. 1. Either by direct illapse of the Holy Ghost as at Pentecost and Cesarea. Or 2. By imposition of hands. How did Paul receive the Spirit? By imposition of hands. (Acts 9:17.) Ordinarily, it was by the laying on of apostles' hands. This is the one exception, and here it was due to a direct commission from Christ Himself. “The Lord even, Jesus.... hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost.” We can see a very sufficient reason for this exception. It was that Paul might be able truly to assert his independence of those that were apostles before him.
Of the proofs given in my tract on this point, Heb. 6:2 has alone been met. That the rendering “baptisms of instruction, and of laying on of hands” is the true, is to my mind certain. There are two substantives joined together, both in the genitive case. Which of them is to come first can be learned only by their position, as first and second. Nothing but impossibility of making sense could excuse a deviation from this order. But taken in their present order they make excellent sense.
But granting that C. E. S. says, that “the word of the beginning of the Christ” means ‘truths common to Jews and to Christians,' does not C. E. S. know when the burden of proof lies on him? I deny that these words have any such meaning, and denial is enough. But I will advance beyond what I am called to prove. The phrase (της αρχης) is used as an adjective, ‘the word of the beginning,' means ‘the commencing doctrine.' The addition “of the Christ” presents the object of which these first principles treat, the elementary principles relating to Christ, that is, the first elements of Christianity.
The scope of the argument proves the same. The writer is urging onward to deeper views of Christian truth those who had already for years received and professed it. They ought to be able to be teachers: they were needing in reality to be taught the first principles of the faith of Christ. (Heb. 5:11-14.) He then specifies some of those elements.
That the expression means 'the first principles of Christianity' has been held and taught by a majority, I suppose, of critics.
But βαπτισμος in other cases is not the word used for 'baptism,' or the Christian rite. Βαπτισμα is the word used.
The reason why βαπτοισμοι is here used is, I suppose, because two different immersions are intended. It is the word employed where different immersions are spoken of. (Heb. 9:10.) 'But those there spoken of were fleshly ordinances.' But these are spiritual. Whether the ordinances are of the law or of the gospel cannot be learned from the word immersion, but only from the context.
My other proofs are called “illustrations,” and are bowed out of court.
But the Holy Spirit came upon holy men of the old covenant: while the receiving of the Spirit was something not enjoyed till after Pentecost.'
It is true. As the result of the Spirit's coming upon them, they had miracle and inspiration. (1) But they had not the Spirit as a gift abiding, capable of being used at their will. There were prophets in Israel, but they were few and far between. (2) Here every one of the family of Christ might become a prophet, and those who were possessed of some supernatural gift (3) are directed to ask for more, and to abound, in order to edify the church. Under the old covenant there was no visible source whence these gifts of power might be derived to all. (4) Under the gospel, as long as there were apostles there was an open door at which to apply for and receive gift. Then we cannot in the present state of things obtain the Spirit in power. We may I we are commanded to desire and pray for it, and God is able to give. (1 Cor. 12:31; 14:1-12.)
Will there be apostles again?'
I had quoted in proof four texts, Luke 11:49, 50; Matt. 23:34-36. These first two are set aside, because Jesus is in them 'speaking to Jews, not to the church.' And what then? Are apostles no apostles, if Jesus tells the Jews that apostles shall be sent to them? Was Peter no apostle because he was sent to the circumcision? Was Paul no apostle because Christ sent him both to Jew and Gentile? (Acts 26:17.) But I quoted also Matt. 24:45-51; Luke 12:42-46. Here our Lord is speaking to His disciples. These are set aside, because they treat of the Lord's servants, and not of any company of apostles as such.'
They are addressed to “disciples,” who afterward constituted the church. By the name “disciples” the constituents of the church are called even in the Acts. (Acts 11:26, 29; 13:52.) The parable included between verses 42-46 of Luke 12 refers to apostles, as our Lord's reply to Peter's question shows. Jesus had spoken of His coming in reference to His servants generally. Peter therein inquires whether His previous words were to be taken generally, or in regard of apostles alone? The Savior then gives a parable relating to apostles specially, describing them as the “steward set over the household to rule and feed them.” (Ver. 42.) Can this refusal of texts be called subjection to God's word? [Again, what reasoning? —En.]
A few words on the Hymn Question.
Do books of pre-arranged and printed hymns and hymn-tunes grieve the Spirit? or do they not?
C. E. S. answers, as his predecessors ‘No they do not!' Thereon we say, ‘Then preparation for worship and ministry does not grieve the Spirit.' ‘Then the Spirit is not grieved by using prayer-books and reading sermons out of a book!’ ‘Ah, but,' C. E. S. replies, ‘what different exercises praying and preaching are in their nature from singing!’ Very true, but nothing to the point. We are inquiring whether preconception, preparation and use of books in ministry and worship grieve the Spirit or not. If in one arm of ministry and worship they do not grieve Him, show cause why they should in another! [It is enough to show scripture. Hymns and psalms were in use among early saints, and recognized in the New Testament; not so, for the church, written prayers and sermons.—En.]
We inquire next, Are these hymn and tune-books scriptural? We get as answer, ‘They are quite necessary, if we are to have congregational singing at all.' And I reply, ‘Very true,' but that does not show that they are scriptural. To prove scripturalness, you must point out not hypothetical necessity, but some passage of the New Testament. [This has been done from 1 Cor. 14 for the assembly, and from other scriptures in a general way, as Mr. Govett well knew, if not convinced.—En.]
Then comes another question, 'Is congregational singing scriptural?'
I cannot find that it is. C. E. S. says, that in order to congregational singing there must be the knowledge before we utter it of what is to be sung. And in our assemblies some one gives out a hymn marked with a certain number, so that all may turn to it in their books. This is quite necessary, it is true, in order to the exercise as in use now among us. But was it so then Had they books of hymns and hymn-tunes? Will any assert it? I suppose not! What becomes then of congregational singing in apostles' times?
The only singing I read of in the assembly was individual, extempore, unwritten, both the music and words given of the Holy Ghost, and generally in a foreign tongue. (1 Cor. 14:26.) Hence none could join in it. There was also responsive singing, which must in like manner have been individual. (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16.) [Mere imagination! not a word supposes extempore hymns; and a foreign tongue is blamed unless under special circumstances.En.]
Thus then an answer is furnished to C. E. S.' question. ‘What have the songs of Zacharias, Mary, and Elizabeth to do with congregational singing?' What indeed? But then Mr. Govett was not advocating congregational singing, but only showing how we of this day have fallen from inspired songs given of the Holy Ghost to uninspired and oft erroneous hymns written by men. Had they inspired hymns under the law? And is the church which occupies so much loftier a standing to have none?
Mr. Kelly had said that the church, unlike the Jew, has within her the ever springing fountain. Yet, strange to say, she is confined to a selection of so many hundred printed hymns. As I said, this is the well, not the fountain.'
But it seems, I have assumed more than I ought. I have assumed that ‘the assembly is restricted to the hymn-book.' Herein it appears, I was in error. “Does this necessitate an assembly being restricted to a certain selection of hymns? By no means If any one was led to give out words to be sung not in the collection—and such a thing has been done—there is nothing to hinder it, provided the scripture rule is observed, Let all things be done unto edifying."
Now is not this evasion very far-fetched? The ‘brethren' have existed as a denomination about 45 years, and during that time recourse has been had, suppose five times, to a hymn out of another than a chosen selection. It is so rare a thing that, I suppose, most of the ‘brethren' never heard of it, and it was quite needful to assure us that it has been done.
This shows, that there is a good deal to hinder it; and if any one not very well known and accepted among ‘brethren' were to attempt it, he would soon find plenty of hindrances. ‘Why cannot he be content with the many hymns we have? we must get new books if this is to go on.'
But let us accept the correction. And then the matter stands thus The Spirit is not grieved with printed hymn-books, and printed tune-books, provided that once in 100,000 times a good hymn out of another selection be given out. Then still we say if the Spirit be not grieved by the use of printed books in singing, neither is He grieved by printed prayers and sermons read out of a book [No real analogy.—En.]
Has God failed that we have not the gifts of old? says C. E. S. Man certainly has through evident unbelief. “A brother guilty of such folly [as to pretend to be inspired] would be put out forthwith, as led of Satan."
In conclusion, has not evidence been adduced sufficient to prove that there are two receptions of the Spirit: the one internal, producing holiness, which we believers of this day possess; the other which we have not, external, sensible communicating power, received through the Holy Spirit falling on a man, or by the imposition of apostolic hands after faith, and usually after baptism? Have we received the Spirit of adoption on believing? Yes! Have we received the Spirit since we believed? No! (Acts 1:8.) [Mr. G.'s fundamental fallacy lies in separating the indwelling from the gift of the Spirit. This gift was not always, nor on the chief occasions, by apostolic imposition of hands; and wisely and graciously was it so ordered; for otherwise we could not have received the Spirit, nor consequently be Christians or members of the one body. “For by one Spirit were we all baptized into one body.” Why does Mr. Govett pretend to be a Christian if he takes the ground of not having its distinctive mark and power, the gift of the Spirit? How be a member of the body without His baptism? The claim of the relationship is vain without the power and seal; but the troth is that the hypothesis is a mere blunder and the reasoning no better, however pretentious. If we have not received the Spirit since we believed we have not the Spirit of adoption at all, any more than the Ephesian disciples before they were baptized to the name of the Lord Jesus. At Pentecost the Spirit was given, and not merely powers. The powers in many respects may be withdrawn, but not the gift of the Spirit who was to abide for ever.—Ed.]
Believe me, Yours truly in Christ,
R. GOVETT.
Letter on Receiving the Spirit
Dear Mr. Editor,
Just a few remarks on Mr. Govett's letter in your periodical. And first, as to the term, receiving the Holy Ghost; for in any discussion to be productive of beneficial results, we must be clear and precise in our use of a term, the meaning of which forms the subject of our inquiry.
Now it will surely be granted, that, since scripture, and scripture only, can teach us authoritatively about 'receiving the Holy Ghost,' to that book we must go for all our instruction regarding it. Hence the only admissible sense in which we can use the term in question must be that in which scripture uses it. But when we peruse Mr. Govett's pamphlet, and his letter, written to correct wrong thoughts about it, as he thinks they are, we learn that he writes of souls receiving the Holy Ghost in a sense unknown to the word. These are his words, “Now I had granted from the first that believers in our day have in this sense 'received the Holy Ghost.' He has wrought on them to regenerate them, to make them sons of God, to dwell within them, and to make them members of Christ, and make their bodies His temples. But I affirmed, and do still affirm, that this is not the scripture sense of the phrase receiving the Holy Ghost.'“ Mr. Govett then evidently for himself is willing to declare, that souls do receive the Holy Ghost in a sense not warranted by the word. On what ground, it might be asked, is he authorized to make such a statement? Again, he writes, “In the sense which ‘Brethren' put on the words 'receiving the Spirit,' He is now received, but not in the scripture sense.” Where are we to learn what receiving the Spirit means but from the written word? We must refuse therefore to admit any such elasticity in the phrase in question.
Next, Mr. Govett does “not leave his readers in the dark, as to what he conceives your correspondent ought to have written. “The path of C. E. S. then was plain enough. He had to show that the Brethren's sense of receiving the Holy Ghost is the scripture sense. It was for him to cite passages in which the phrase ‘receiving the Holy Ghost' occurs, and to show that it refers to the regeneration, indwelling, and sanctification of the Spirit. This he has not done.” With these five last words we cordially agree. To have gone on the line thus traced out would have been wrong, and, if scripture is really our guide, impossible. One could not class together regeneration, indwelling, and sanctification of the Spirit, as results of receiving the Holy Ghost. You must eliminate from the present discussion the first and the last of these three important subjects, which he has bracketed together. Regeneration, by which one concludes Mr. Lovett means being born again, and the sanctification of the Spirit, in the only passages where I believe it occurs, 2 Thess. 2:13 Peter 1:2, are operations of the Spirit antecedent to the bestowal by God on believers of the gift of the Holy Ghost. For by believers it is, scripture teaches us, that the gift of the Spirit is received. (John 7:39; Eph. 1:13.) It is because we are sons, that God hath sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts crying, Abba, Father. (Gal. 4:6.) If Mr. Govett is so clear as to what I ought to have done, it would have been considerate to his readers to have pointed them to the scriptures on which he bases his statement. This he has not done.
For it is evident, though one regrets to have to say it, that Mr. Govett has frequently in his letter out stepped the bounds of scripture, and affirmed things for which he has no authority in the word. He tells us that the Holy Ghost was dwelling in the believers at Samaria before the visit of Peter and John. The sacred historian takes pains to inform us that the two apostles prayed for them after their arrival that they might receive the Holy Ghost, which, after they had laid upon them their hands, they then and there received. (Acts 8:15-17.) How, it may he asked, could Mr. Govett make such a startling statement? His pamphlet explains the phenomenon, in which he refers us (p. 7) to the last clause of Rom. 8:9, “If any man have not the Spirit of Christ he is none of his (or, he is not of him),” οὖτος οὐκ ἔστιν αὐτοῦ. The words of the apostle have reference to one who is not a Christian in reality, and the indwelling of the Spirit is brought up as evidence, that those addressed were not in the flesh but in the Spirit. The apostle is proving what their condition was from what they had received. Mr. Govett's application of the passage is just the opposite of this, seeking to establish from the fact of their being believers, that the Spirit dwelt in them, a conclusion which scripture teaches us we are not authorized to draw. For to believers only is the Spirit given. Of one who has received the Spirit, one could of course say that he is a believer. But to state as truth the converse is not whet scripture warrants. Again, he asserts that by laying on of hands the baptism of the Spirit was received, where there was no illapse. (1 Cor. 12:13.) The scripture to which he refers us is entirely silent about any imposition of hands. Further, he tells us, but, for reasons which all may understand withholds any authority for the statement that Paul, by his language in 2 Cor. 11:4, told the Corinthians that he had bestowed on them the gift of inspiration; and that the same apostle inquired of the misled Galatians, on what grounds they had received the miraculous gifts. The apostle really wrote to them, “Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?” Again after quoting 1 John 3:24; 4:13, he thus comments on them, “These passages refer to the miraculous gifts; for the gift here is made the proof of something invisible. Now the medium of proof must be clearer than the point to be proved. The visible possession, then, of these divine gifts, proved the invisible indwelling of God to the conviction of friend and foe.” Sorely he might have spared himself and your readers all this comment, and more which I do not reproduce, for one word in the original upsets it all. “We know,” γινώσκομεν, John wrote in both these verses. He did not write of something visible, but of what believers themselves knew.
Such statements are evidence that the writer of them is not subject to the teaching of the written word. Proofs of this abound in the letter from which I quote. Mr. Govett makes the astounding announcement that “believers in John's day had, as John tells them, the Spirit's anointing, which rendered them independent of the written word.” Why then did John write to them? But this is all a mistake. John never made such a statement in any epistle of his, which forms part of the canon of scripture. Mr. Govett, however, tells us, that we are not independent of the written word. Here we are at one with him, but on that very account must refuse to assent to his teaching about the reception of the Holy Ghost. And what shall we say of his method of interpreting, or rather interpolating, as applied to Heb. 6:4, 5, “It is impossible for those who were once enlightened (by faith), and have tasted of the heavenly gift (after faith), and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted the good word of God (by faith), and powers of the age to come (after, faith).” One might ask, Is this sober interpretation? Is this sound doctrine?
Let us now turn to what Mr. Govett calls the critical case, that of Samaria, which in his eyes is decisive. “In the 'brethren's sense,'“ he writes, “these Samaritans had already received the Spirit.” Indeed! Not content with putting his own sense on scripture, Mr. Govett would take upon himself to be the exponent of what he calls the 'brethren's sense of “receiving the Spirit.” With what success one may leave others to see. But to proceed. “They were baptized believers,” men and women, “whose hearts were right with God.” The Holy Spirit was dwelling in them as His temples. C. E. S. says, If I have the indwelling Spirit, I have the Holy Ghost in every sense. That is proved to be erroneous by this example.” Letting pass the inaccurate way in which he quotes what I wrote, I would observe that his whole case rests on a gratuitous and unscriptural assumption, namely, that the Holy Ghost, was dwelling in them as His temples before the visit of Peter and John to Samaria. What proof has he of this? None. The word tells us they had not yet received the Holy Ghost.
Again he writes, “If C. E. S.'s argument be good, and these believers had not yet received the indwelling of the sanctifying Spirit, but needed the prayer, and the laying on of apostles' hands, then we who are at best only baptized believers, whose hearts are right with God, have not yet the indwelling of the Holy Ghost, for we have no apostles, and none have received the Spirit, save they on whom He has fallen, or who have received the imposition of apostles' hands.” This is assuming what has to be proved, and then arguing from it. Again he writes, “The Samaritans received the Spirit by imposition of hands, either as the Spirit of sanctification, or as the Spirit of power. If they had not received the Holy Ghost as the Spirit of holiness before apostles laid on hands, then neither have we. But they had the Spirit's indwelling, for they were men of faith, whose hearts were right with God. Then they received through the apostles' hands the Spirit of power, and my case is proved."
Now not only does Mr. Govett assume what has to be proved, but he has allowed himself to do that which, judging from his remarks on Rom. 8:15, in his letter, he would readily object to in the statements of an opponent. He introduces qualifying words when treating of Acts 8, for which he has no authority, and of which, one would have supposed, his critical and decisive case could have no need. He writes of the Spirit as ‘the Spirit of holiness,’ ‘of sanctification,' ‘of power.' Scripture throughout that passage speaks only of the Holy Ghost. Is this, it may well be asked, fair dealing with God's word? This critical case, then, must be in itself far from a decisive one, if, in order to present it to his readers, he has to assume what ought to be proved, and to modify the language of scripture to make it, as he thinks, bear out his teaching. And further, what the historian does not tell us, Mr. Govett boldly asserts: “Simon,” he says, “desired to impart the gift of miracles, and offered money to purchase that power.” The historian relates that he asked for power to give the Holy Ghost by imposition of hands. But why assume that he desired to impart the gift of miracle? Is that the only manifestation of the Spirit? In none of the accounts in Acts of the bestowal of the Holy Ghost, is the gift of miracles even mentioned. On this occasion we are quite in the dark as to any particular manifestation of the Spirit. What then Luke does not mention Mr. Govett boldly asserts. What the historian does state Mr. Govett qualifies, and really alters. And then, after indulging in what he must pardon one calling pure imagination, he triumphantly exclaims, “My ease is proved.” It may be to his satisfaction, it is not to that of your correspondent.
Scripture however is clear. Receiving the Holy Ghost means what it says: nothing more, nothing less. The written word too distinguishes between the gift δερεά of the Holy Ghost which is bestowed of God, and the gifts χαρίσματα which He the Spirit divides to each believer severally as He will. And in the list appended of gifts so bestowed, that of working miracles is distinguished from both prophesying, and the speaking with tongues. If then the reader keeps in, mind the difference between the gift and the gifts of the Spirit, he will see that Mr. Govett's ground is untenable. Little wonder is it, if one who thus deals with scripture misunderstands the statements of those who have really set forth scriptural teaching on the subject. Nor will a bare denial as to the meaning of Heb. 6:1, 2, avail with any who would draw from the word what that passage really means. Distinctive Christian teaching is not Lobe found in it. Truth common to Jews and Christians known and acknowledged when the Lord was upon earth, is found in it. Any reader, if he has not understood it before, may be helped, if he remarks, that it is faith in God which is spoken of, not faith in Christ.
A few words in conclusion on what may be called more personal matters.
Mr. Govett remarks that I had only touched here and there upon his tract. This is so far true. For my purpose was to draw from scripture an answer to his question, “What is receiving the Holy Ghost?” That, if done, makes plain the correctness or otherwise of his teaching. And having gone somewhat at length into scripture about it so recently in your periodical, that must be accepted as a reason for not traveling at present over the same ground. He further observes that I have singularly misunderstood the purport of his remarks in pages 18, 19, of his pamphlet. I would wish to express my regret if I have misunderstood what he there wrote. On the subject of congregational singing little need now be said. He tells us he was not advocating it. He was however writing about it. It was therefore quite within the bounds of criticism to point out the irrelevancy of the instances of singing in the New Testament to which he sought to turn the attention of his readers. Mr. Govett tells us that the only singing he reads of in the assembly “was individual, extempore, and unwritten, both music and words given of the Holy Ghost, and generally in a foreign tongue (1 Cor. 14:26): hence none could join in it.” I, sir, fail to perceive all this in the verse to which he refers. Others may have more penetrating powers of vision.
C. E. STUART.