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. 2:1313But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: (2 Thessalonians 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 7:3939(But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.) (John 7:39); Eph. 1:1313In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, (Ephesians 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. 4:66And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. (Galatians 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 8:15-1715Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: 16(For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) 17Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost. (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. 8:99But 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. (Romans 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. 12:1313For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. (1 Corinthians 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. 11:44For 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. (2 Corinthians 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; 4:1324And 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)
13Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit. (1 John 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, 54For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, 5And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, (Hebrews 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. 8:1515For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. (Romans 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, 21Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, 2Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. (Hebrews 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. 14:2626How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying. (1 Corinthians 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.