CHAPTER V.

IN the last chapter I stated, according to Scriptural authority, what I understood by the terms “the true knowledge of God,". his holy law"

66

and "the Gospel of life and salvation, through Jesus Christ." And in that sense alone, as there expressed, I use them throughout these pages.

I

I also showed, according to Scripture evidence, as well as by the practice of common discourse, that no incongruity is involved in speaking of the Holy Spirit as a rule; and although I might have adduced many more texts of Scripture than I did, to fortify my views, yet, as I should probably have occasion, in the progress of this little work, to bring those passages before us, thought that I had advanced a sufficient number to establish my position, without the introduction of any more. I shall now come more closely to examine the grounds upon which Isaac Crewdson asserts, that "it is clear to demonstration, that there can be no higher RULE than the Scriptures." The way in which Isaac Crewdson demonstrates it is this-"There can be no higher rule than that which is given by inspiration of God."" All Scripture is given by inspiration of God." 2 Tim. chap. 3, ver. 16.—“Therefore there can be no higher rule than the Holy Scriptures." Upon which the Reviewer remarks--" In our anticipations of benefit

་

from the distinct admission and extending prevalence of this primary principle," i. e. ("that there can be no higher appeal than the Holy Scriptures,") we are influenced by a deep conviction of what the writer says elsewhere, page 149—“That in proportion as SCRIPTURAL TRUTH is embraced, the Church will be brought to the unity of the faith and the knowledge of the Son of God." I most unhesitatingly agree with the conclusion of the Reviewer in this latter quotation from the " Beacon,' 'that in proportion as SCRIPTURAL TRUTH is embraced, the Church will be brought to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God.' But then comes the very question at issue-are the Scriptures, and Scriptural truth one and the same thing? The Reviewers, and Isaac Crewdson, according to their views and principles, say they ARE; I, on the contrary, according to my views and principles, say they are NOT. They say, according to their views, that the Scriptures, ARE the truth TESTIFIED OF, by, or in the Scriptures; -I say, that the SCRIPTURES are ONE thing, and the TRUTH they TESTIFY of is ANOTHER. Now, what do the Scriptures say themselves upon this point? What do they say is the truth? This is the question remember that Pilate put to our Saviour,- What is truth?" And if, for inscrutable reasons, he saw fit not to reply to the interrogation of this wicked governor, who, at the very time that he put the query, was prepared to act in opposition to the very dictates of THE TRUTH in his conscience, and who shortly after called for water “and washed his hands, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person," thereby confessing that he was trampling

"the truth" under his feet, and needed no Scriptures, or outward declaration, to tell him what it was; nevertheless, the Scriptures elsewhere declare, that "the truth" is no other than Christ himself. "I am

the way,

the truth, and the life," said our Saviour to his disciples. And in that beautiful prayer to the Father, just before he was delivered up into the hands of sinners, which is preserved by John, he prays for his disciples thus, "Sanctify them through thy truth, THY WORD is TRUTH." Now, the histories of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, the Epistles of Paul, and the rest of the Apostles who wrote, could not at that time have been committed to writing, for a number of the events therein treated of had not transpired; therefore

66

sanctify them through THY WORD," could not mean the Scriptures which we possess. If it meant Scriptures at all, it must have meant such Scripture as was then in existence, and not that which was to come; for if it had meant that which was to come, then could not all those for whom Jesus prayed, have been sanctified; for Paul declares, when writing his FIRST Epistle to the Corinthians, that "some brethren had fallen asleep." But, is it necessary thus to reason? Is it not written, so that "he who runs, may read" if he will, what the Word of God is?

Does not our Saviour say, thy Word is TRUTH?" And if we make a further inquiry, do we not find that our Saviour declares himself to be "the truth." Then, according to Scripture testimony, how does it stand? Why thus-" THY Word," says Jesus, in prayer to the Father, "is TRUTH," and again "I am the truth," &c. And further, "the Word was with God, and," (not only with Him, but) was

K

God." If, therefore, the Word of God is Truth, and if Jesus is The Truth also, then is Jesus one with the Word; and if the Word is God-then is Jesus and the Word one with God-" Sanctify them," says Jesus, "through thy WORD." If then the Word means the Scripture, Jesus was supplicating of the Father for sanctification, through the writings of holy men who had not yet been inspired for the purpose. And do Isaac Crewdson and the Reviewers mean to say, that the Word" here spoken of by Jesus, means the Scripture, and that the heart of man can be sanctified by the writings of the Evangelists and Apostles? Can any facts they relate, however important, or any truths they reveal, however glorious and sublime, have any effect by virtue of themselves alone, to cleanse the heart of man and purify his soul from the pollutions of sin? Are we not " sanctified," are we not justified through Him, and by Him who "wrought deliverance for us," by his death upon the cross?

that 66

Why Isaac Crewdson, as I have showed before, is obliged to acknowledge to the inadequacy of the Scriptures to this end, and is compelled to resort in the LAST place, to the same Almighty Power, that we acknowledge both FIRST and LAST. He expressly says, it is indeed by the power of the HOLY SPIRIT, that the heart is softened and opened to receive the truth, and also that the truth when received, is applied with SAVING EFFICACY to the heart," &c. But, yet he denies the exercise of this power-disputes the capacity of the heart to receive the truth-and when received, contends it cannot be savingly applied, but in conjunction with the Scriptures,-thus rendering the Holy

ever

Spirit powerless without them. If this is not the result of their doctrine, it has no result at all. If it means not this, it means nothing. For further on, the question is asked, and to about as much purpose, and for as substantial reasons as the question was asked by Pilate, "what is truth ?"-it is asked, "what is the amount of evidence that this is," (that is "the work of conversion by the power of the Holy Spirit,") done wholly without the instrumentality of the outward word, either immediately or indirectly applied?" To be sure, Isaac Crewdson puts it by way of interrogation here; he does not say in direct and positive terms that there is NOT any evidence, but the whole fabric of his reasoning, stands upon the assumption that there is not any; and, therefore if he knew that there was, or believed that there was, it is both unjust and uncandid, to ask, if that is true which he either believes to be true, or knows to be so, and then to build his argument upon the assumption of a contrary position. Really this comes with a very ill grace from men who charge others with mysticism,-following their own impressions and suggestions of "setting up lights," and being "wise above that which is written." Where is it written, let me ask, but in books of fallible men like themselves, that the Holy Spirit does NOT effect the work of conversion in the heart, "without the instrumentality of the outward word, either immediately or directly applied?" But stop,-Isaac Crewdson asks if it is ever done WHOLLY," implying that it may be done in PART, "without the instrumentality of the outward word." If this is not believed, why employ the word "wholly," which creates the inference? If it is believed, it is a