Few questions can compare in importance with those which relate to the nature, calling, privileges, responsibilities, and destiny of “the Church of God.” There are indeed questions of foundation-truth, as to God Himself, as to the person and sacrifice of His beloved Son, and as to the application of His saving benefits by the Spirit through faith, which take precedence of all others. But where these, through the mercy of God, are settled questions, and the soul by faith knows God in Christ, through the quickening operation of the Holy Ghost, it finds itself associated with many others in the blessedness to which it is thus introduced; and there can scarcely then be a more important inquiry than this, What has God revealed touching the corporate standing of those who are thus linked together by their enjoyment of the common salvation? In what relation do they stand to God? to Christ? to the Holy Spirit? to one another? and to the world '? If these mutual and corporate relations do form a subject of inspired instruction, how much must depend on our reception of it, as to intelligent communion, enlightened obedience, faithful testimony, and fruitfulness in every way to the glory of God.
We hesitate not to avow our conviction, that God has fully revealed His mind on these subjects; and we believe spiritual acquaintance therewith, to be one of the most pressing wants of Christians generally in the present day. With this conviction, we hail the appearance of the papers before us. Hostile as they are, to what we deem the scripture doctrine of “the Church,” their publication indicates the hold which that doctrine has gained on many minds; and it tends, at the same time, to promote still further inquiry. Total silence as to this doctrine has, for years, been observed by some, who have viewed its propagation with no friendly eye; and that now they should deem it needful openly to resist it, only shows the extent to which, through the mercy of God, it has forced itself on the attention of His people. Nor do we intend anything unkind to the writer (or writers) of these articles, when we add, that the character of their opposition in no degree abates our confidence in the doctrine they assail. For what mode of discussion have they chosen to adopt? Do they meet the whole question fairly in the face, and examine, and test by scripture, the definition of “the Church,” given by those whose views they controvert? Do they consider in detail the array of New Testament evidence, by which that definition is sustained? Do they demolish thus the position they assail, and afterward proceed to give their own definition of the principal term in question, demonstrating, by scripture quotations, that such is its universal or even its ordinary signification and use, in God's holy word? To have discussed the question thus, would have brought it fairly to the test of scripture, and would evidently, on the whole, have best promoted the interests of truth. But we see no want of charity in supposing, that this (or some similar mode of discussion) would have been the course adopted, had it afforded any prospect of success. So far from this, is the line actually pursued in these articles, that, evading the primary question as to what “the Church” is, and silently passing over what has been advanced on this subject, they rest their whole case on objections, having reference to the Old Testament saints, and their place in the scene of future glory. This is little more than a collateral, and certainly a very subordinate question. It derives its importance from the bearing it is represented as having on the general subject. Had more direct and weighty arguments been at command, we may be sure, from the animus of these papers, especially the last, that they would have been employed. But as the inferential reasoning on subordinate points which is used, might lead some to prejudge the whole question, and settle down in conclusions unwarranted by scripture, contrary to its scope, and subversive of some of its plainest teachings on the primary and specific subject of what “the Church” really is, we are ready to examine all that these papers contain. But as truth and edification, not controversy and triumph, are the objects we desire to keep in view, the editor of the Quarterly Journal and his contributor (or contributors) must excuse us, if we seek to keep in relief what they have sought to put in the shade, the doctrine of the New Testament as to what constitutes “the Church of God.”
1. We believe that what scripture terms “the Church,” did not exist in Old Testament times. If it did, where are the passages which prove it? Where in the Old Testament does the phrase occur? Or where is the subject treated of under any other terms? If there be passages in the ancient scriptures which recognize “the Church” as then existing, what could be easier than to produce them? or what so decisive of the question which these articles discuss? But no such passages are produced; and for the best of reasons, that none such can be found. Indeed these articles themselves do not contend that “the Church” existed on earth in Old Testament times. One of them, the second, admits that “Abraham and the Old Testament saints had not the same fullness of light, nor the same dispensational privileges, as were possessed by Peter, and Paul, and John. Neither the Old Testament saints, nor even John the Baptist, who came between the Old Testament and the New, were dispensationally in the kingdom of heaven as an economy on the earth.” (pp. 9S, 99.) Now we are far from accepting the quiet assumption of the writer, that “the Church” and “the kingdom of heaven” are equivalent terms; but this affects not his admission, that there are dispensational differences between Old Testament saints and such as are under the “economy” at present existing on “earth.” His estimate of these differences may be, that they are of little importance; and he may contend that “heaven is not made a transcript of the dispensational differences of earth;” but the question is, In what light does scripture present these differences? They would certainly not seem unimportant, from such words as the following; words, be it remembered, not addressed to “the Church,” but to the disciples during the life-time of our Lord on earth. Even at that time we are told, “he turned him unto his disciples, and said privately, Blessed are the eyes which see the things that ye see: for I tell you, that many prophets and kings have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which you hear, and have not heard them.” (Luke 10:23, 2423And he turned him unto his disciples, and said privately, Blessed are the eyes which see the things that ye see: 24For I tell you, that many prophets and kings have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them. (Luke 10:23‑24).) And the disciples were far from having at that time heard or seen the whole of what was intended for them. It was long after this, and just on the eve of their Lord's departure, that He said, “I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth.” (John 16; 12:1313Took branches of palm trees, and went forth to meet him, and cried, Hosanna: Blessed is the King of Israel that cometh in the name of the Lord. (John 12:13)) Surely, if what they saw and heard, in the earlier stage of their tuition by our Lord Himself, had been the object of longing, but unsatisfied, desire to the saints of former ages, there must be a still greater chasm between all that those Old Testament saints enjoyed, and the blessedness of the disciples, when the Comforter, the Spirit of truth, had come. Dispensational differences there were, as the articles under review admit: but they were of a character such as these articles would never suggest. This will become more apparent as we proceed. Meanwhile, it is well to remember, that it is not even contended in these articles, that “the Church” existed on earth in Old Testament times.
2. There did exist in those ancient days, and that as recognized of God, a state of things quite incompatible with the scriptural conditions of the existence of “the Church.” In “the Church” there is neither Jew nor Gentile; while in Old Testament times these words expressed a distinction divinely instituted, and which might on no account be set aside. To neglect the appointed feasts and holy days was, in the last dispensation, a sin so grievous, that Israel's captivity and dispersion are said to be, that the land might “enjoy her sabbaths; as long as it lieth desolate, and ye be in your enemies' land, even then shall the land rest, and enjoy her sabbaths. As long as it lieth desolate, it shall rest because it did not rest in your sabbaths, when ye dwelt upon it.” (Lev. 26:34, 3534Then shall the land enjoy her sabbaths, as long as it lieth desolate, and ye be in your enemies' land; even then shall the land rest, and enjoy her sabbaths. 35As long as it lieth desolate it shall rest; because it did not rest in your sabbaths, when ye dwelt upon it. (Leviticus 26:34‑35).) Now, to “observe days, and months, and times, and years,” is enough to make an apostle stand in doubt of those who do so. (Gal. 4:1010Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. (Galatians 4:10).) Then, there was one place, where the Lord had chosen to place His name, and there alone might He be approached and worshipped. Now, no special sanctity attaches to one place rather than another, but “where two or three are gathered,” says our Lord, “in my name, there am I in the midst of them.” “The uncircumcised” was then an appellation resting upon all but the favored, separated race: now we read, “I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.” This may surely serve to show, that the differences we are contemplating are not mere variations of circumstance or detail, but radical, fundamental differences. Let it not be forgotten, either, that there were true saints at that time—pardoned, no doubt, and made heirs of ultimate, everlasting felicity, through the retrospective efficacy of Christ's precious blood. But the grace by which such chosen ones were saved, so far from placing them outside the frame-work of the dispensation under which they lived, inclined their hearts to observe, with a faithfulness peculiar to themselves, both the principles and institutions of that economy. With them it was obedience and faithfulness to observe, what it is faithfulness in “the Church” to disregard. How evident that “the Church” not only did not, but could not then exist.
3. It was not even by the incarnation, or the personal ministry of our Lord upon earth, that “the Church” was formed. No doubt the incarnation was an essential pre-requisite to the formation of “the Church,” just as it was to the accomplishment of redemption. But redemption was accomplished, not by incarnation, but by the cross. And while the wondrous Person, confessed by Peter as “the Christ, the Son of the living God,” was beyond all question “the Rock,” on which not “the Church” only, but all who shall be saved everlastingly are built, we have the authority of that Blessed One Himself for the assurance, that but for His death He must have continued “alone.” He was the foundation; but it was in his death on the cross that He was laid as such; and in His very reply to Peter, in which He speaks of Himself as the “Rock” on which “the Church” was to be built, He speaks of the building of it, as a then future work. He does not say “upon this rock I have built,” or “am building,” but “upon this rock I will build my church.” And, as though to intimate at once how He was to be laid as the foundation of this edifice, “from that time forth, began Jesus to show unto his disciples, how that He must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders, and chief priests, and scribes, and he killed, and be raised again the third day.” (Matt. 16:2121From that time forth began Jesus to show unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day. (Matthew 16:21).)
“The Church” is again mentioned in Matt. 18 “tell it to the Church.” But here also, our Lord evidently speaks anticipatively of His own departure, and of the time when His name should replace His bodily presence, as the center around which His disciples should be gathered. John 16:23, 24,23And in that day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you. 24Hitherto have ye asked nothing in my name: ask, and ye shall receive, that your joy may be full. (John 16:23‑24) shows, that while He continued with them, they did not ask in His name, but that they were to do so, when His bodily presence had been withdrawn. One thing is undeniable: that where Christ Himself mentions “the Church” He speaks of its formation as a then future event. The above are the only two instances in which we read of the word being used by Him; and further investigation will show, that where without the use of this term, the subject is contemplated in His discourses, He speaks of the existence of “the Church,” as well as of that by which it exists, as dependent on His own departure.
4. It was not till after His ascension, that our Lord baptized with the Holy Ghost, and it is by this baptism, that “the Church” exists. If there be one function or prerogative of Christ more insisted on in the gospels than any other, as essentially distinctive of His person and office, it is that of baptizing with the Holy Ghost. It is omitted by none of the evangelists. Their histories of our Lord's forerunner vary in length and in minuteness; but each records his testimony, that the greater, the mightier than he, should “baptize with the Holy Ghost.” Each records also, in connection therewith, the descent of the Holy Ghost upon our Lord Himself. But on this point, John the Baptist's testimony, as recorded by the beloved disciple, is of deep and special interest. “And I knew him not: but He that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.” (John 1:3333And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. (John 1:33).) What function could be more essentially divine than this? Who but a divine person could dispense, as of His own bounty, heaven's richest treasure? Who else could baptize with the Holy Ghost? And yet He to whom this distinctive glory belonged, was Himself a man, undistinguishable from others even by His own forerunner, till marked out to Him by His reception of that which He was afterward to bestow. How deep and real was the humiliation of the One who had thus “descended” low enough to receive, as man, that gift of the Holy Ghost, which He alone, as God, could bestow! Surely it behooves us, with unshod feet, and in the spirit of lowliest worship, to tread such holy ground, as that on which these wonders unfold themselves.
But when was this Blessed One to baptize with the Holy Ghost? Was this among the miracles of love and mercy with which His service on earth was replete? Or was it reserved as the crowning miracle, which was to signalize His ascension to heaven, when He had been rejected and crucified on earth? With any one familiar with the New Testament, to ask this question is to answer it. It was after His resurrection that our Lord, “being assembled together with” His disciples, “commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, said He, ye have heard of Me: for John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence” (Acts 1:5, 65For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence. 6When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? (Acts 1:5‑6)). On this passage we would remark, 1. How the Lord refers to the baptism of John; literally quoting his words, as though to place beyond dispute, that the event of which He Himself now spake as imminent, was to be the definite accomplishment of John's well known prediction concerning Him. The prophecy, and its imminent fulfillment, are placed by our Lord in juxta-position, that their relation to each other may be perceived by all. 2. This passage demonstrates, that when these words were spoken by the risen Savior, the baptism with the Holy Ghost had not yet taken place. If the disciples had not received it, on whom could it have been conferred? 3. It is equally clear, that this baptism was none other than the descent of the Holy Ghost, ten days after these words were uttered. The disciples were not to depart from Jerusalem but wait, for they should be baptized with the Holy Ghost “not many days hence.” 4. Our Lord identifies this baptism with “the promise of the Father, which, said he, ye have heard of me.” Can there be a doubt that He here refers to His closing discourse to His disciples, in John 14 – 16? There, it is admitted by all, the promise of the Spirit is to be understood of the descent of the Holy Ghost at Pentecost. And when to all this is added the fact, that the first mention of “the Church” historically, as actually existing, is immediately after the record of this event, it may well be asked how demonstration could be more complete, than that which is thus afforded, that “the Church” began to exist on the day of Pentecost?
“And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.” This first historical mention of “the Church,” so soon after the descent of the Spirit, is no mere incidental, fortuitous connection of events. It is by the baptism of the Holy Ghost, that “the Church” exists; and there could be no mention of the effect, save anticipatively, before the cause which produces it was in operation. In the chapter in which Paul treats expressly of these subjects—in which he says, “Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular,” —in which he speaks of God having set apostles, prophets, &c., “in the church,” —in that very chapter he says, “For by one Spirit we are 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 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)). Could there be a more express declaration, that it is by the baptism of the Holy Ghost, that “the Church” — “the body of Christ” —exists?
5. What is this baptism of the Holy Ghost? A most momentous question, and of the deepest importance to the correct apprehension of the subject before us. The second of the two articles under review, referring to such as hold the views we are propounding, says, “Abraham and the Old Testament saints, say they, are to be excluded, because they did not receive, whilst on earth, the Holy Spirit, in the same manner as we have received it, who have lived since Pentecost.” Let us see whether Christ and His apostles so speak of the baptism of the Holy Ghost, as to warrant observations tending, as these do (however unconsciously to the writer), to depreciate its importance. Let us see whether they treat it as a mere receiving of the Spirit in a different manner from the Old Testament saints. What is the baptism with the Holy Ghost?
First, as to the expression “received” — “because they (the Old Testament saints) did not receive, while on earth, the Holy Spirit, in the same manner as we.” The writer's view evidently is, that the Old Testament saints, and we who have lived since Pentecost, have all received the Holy Ghost, only in a different manner. Turn then, dear reader, to John 7:37, 3837In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. 38He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. (John 7:37‑38). “In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me and drink. He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.” What means this wondrous announcement? was it of a blessedness to be at once, during the Savior's lifetime on earth, experienced by thirsty souls who came to Him to drink, that He thus spake? was it then, at that very time, that such were not only to be themselves refreshed by the living water, but also to be channels through which rivers of it should flow to others? The largeness and graciousness of the Savior's words might seem to have left them open to this construction. But to prevent this—to prevent all misapprehension as to what those rivers of living were, or as to when they were to flow, the beloved disciple is inspired of God to add, “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.” If then, our Lord's own words, authoritatively expounded by the Holy Ghost, are to decide the question, the difference between saints before, and saints after Pentecost, is not a mere difference in the manner of receiving the Spirit. What scripture calls receiving the Spirit had no existence, and could not have, till Jesus was glorified. “The Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive.” And as though to preclude the possibility of a question, we are told, “for the Holy Ghost was not yet [given],” —surely then not yet received— “because that Jesus was not yet glorified.”
Do we then deny that there were “saints” in Old Testament times? or maintain that before Pentecost, people became saints without the operation of the Spirit? Far be the thought! We have never for a moment questioned the “saintship” of Abraham, the italics are thus printed in the article itself.
Moses, and others: nor have we ever imagined that any man, in any age, could become a saint, save by the agency and work of God the Holy Ghost. But scripture distinguishes what our brethren unwittingly confound. It distinguishes “the baptism with the Holy Ghost” — “the gift of the Holy Ghost” — “the receiving of the Holy Ghost” —from those operations of the Spirit by which, equally before and after Pentecost, souls are quickened and renewed. Because the faith that saves, as well as every gracious temper, and holy act resulting therefrom, are, and always have been wrought in fallen man by the Holy Spirit, the inference is drawn, that all saints of all ages have received the Spirit, and that any change since Pentecost has only been in the manner of receiving it. But had not Peter, James, and John, been as surely regenerated by the Spirit, as Abraham, David, or Isaiah? Had not Jesus said to them, “Now ye are clean, through the word which I have spoken to you!” Had He not said of them, “I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me: and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me?” And yet, according to John 7:39,39(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) they had not “received” the Spirit; “for the Holy Ghost was not yet [given]; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.” It was after all this that their risen Lord assured them, “ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.”
What is this baptism with the Holy Ghost? May we not receive some instruction as to it from the descent of the Spirit on our Lord Himself? He is never said, indeed, to have been baptized with the Holy Ghost, but He is said to have been “anointed with the Holy Ghost and with power” (Acts 10:3838How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him. (Acts 10:38)). Again, “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me,” &c. (Luke 4:1818The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, (Luke 4:18)). So characteristic is this anointing of the place which Jesus had been ordained to fill, that this is what the very name “Christ” denotes. “The anointed,” “Messiah,” and “Christ,” are but one and the same title of this blessed One, to whom all glory belongs. Evidently it was as man that He received this anointing. But as man He was already perfect; as to His nature He was so from the first; “conceived of the Holy Ghost,” His nature, as man, was essentially holy. The meat-offering under the law—emblem of Christ in the perfectness of His life on earth—was compounded with oil, as well as anointed therewith. He did not need the anointing to make Him what He already was, pure, holy, perfect; but He received it as the broad seal, visibly set upon Him, of the ineffable satisfaction with which God His Father viewed Him in the place He had stooped to occupy. “Him hath God the Father sealed” (John 6:2727Labor not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed. (John 6:27)) And seeing that the place to which He had thus stooped was none other than the subject, dependent, creature-place, it behooved Him that all He did, and said, and suffered, should be manifestly not by any power inherent in Him as man, perfectly holy as He was, but by the power of the Holy Ghost. “God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil: for God was with him.” Accordingly, from the moment the Spirit descended like a dove lighting upon Him, we find everything attributed to the Spirit, as the power in which Christ fulfilled His mission. He was “led of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil” (Matt. 4:11Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil. (Matthew 4:1)). “He returned in the power of the Spirit into Galilee,” (Luke 4:1414And Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit into Galilee: and there went out a fame of him through all the region round about. (Luke 4:14)). “if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God,” said He, “then the kingdom of God is come unto you” (Matt. 12:2828But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you. (Matthew 12:28)). “Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God” (Heb. 9:1414How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? (Hebrews 9:14)). Even after His resurrection it is said of Him, “until the day in which He was taken up, after that He through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom He had chosen” (Acts 1:22Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen: (Acts 1:2)). Not only was this blessed One “God over all,” — “God manifest in the flesh;” not only was He perfect man, holy and without spot; but because He was so, He was the vessel of the full power of the Holy Ghost, with which He was anointed, and in the power of which His whole work was accomplished. But, until His ascension, He was the alone vessel in which the Spirit thus dwelt and wrought. The disciples were, no doubt, quickened by His divine power as the Son, and the subjects thus, as all saints had ever been, of the regenerating operation of the Spirit. From their Master they had received power also to heal the sick and cast out devils, just as prophets of former days had received such power from God for special ends to be answered by their ministry. For such ends there had been individuals even “filled with the Holy Ghost;” as, for instance, Elizabeth (Luke 1:4141And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: (Luke 1:41)), Zacharias (verse 67), and John the Baptist (ver. 15). The two former seem to have been so filled for the particular occasion, the latter habitually. But all this is distinct from that of which Jesus was the first and the only perfect example; we mean, the being sealed or anointed with the Holy Ghost, in such sort as to become the temple of His presence, the vessel of his power, so that everything said and done was the expression of His holiness, and by the working of His power. “The Church,” by being baptized with the Holy Ghost, is brought, derivatively and subordinately, into a similarly blessed place. In Christ there was no opposing will or power; while in us alas! there is. He received the anointing, moreover, as the seal of what He was intrinsically, while it is only “in Him,” by virtue of His person and work and of our union with Him, that we are “anointed,” or “sealed.” But, giving full place to these and all other essential differences between the saints and Him who “in all things” must “have the pre-eminence,” it still remains true, that by the baptism with the Holy Ghost, saints are now so incorporated with Christ, so one with Him, as to form the vessel of the presence and power of the Holy Ghost. A passage, one verse of which has been already quoted, declares this in the most emphatic terms. Both verses are as follows: “For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body being many are one body, SO ALSO IS CHRIST. For 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 Cor. 12:12, 1312For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. 13For 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 12:12‑13)). So absolutely one are the Head and members by the one Spirit, which has baptized all into one body, that to the whole—Head and members together—the name Christ (the anointed) is given— “SO ALSO IS CHRIST.” The whole chapter treats of the operations of the Spirit in this body, in which He dwells. All serve as “the manifestation of the Spirit,” (verse 7), to demonstrate that “it is the same God which worketh all in all” (verse 6). But whatever variety there may be of gifts, services, or operations, “all these worketh that one and the self-same Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will” (ver. 11). Did anything like this exist in Old Testament times, or at any time prior to the day of Pentecost? Is it not here directly attributed to the baptism with the Holy Ghost? and have we not seen, by the concurrent testimony of several witnesses, that never till Pentecost did this take place? Jesus Himself was anointed with the Holy Ghost on earth. But in that He was alone. To share this holy unction with His people, He had to receive it afresh on high, as the seal of His Father's infinite delight with the whole work He had perfected below. It was to be in answer, also, to His own intercession on high. “I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter” (John 14:1616And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; (John 14:16)). Himself anointed “with the oil of gladness, above his fellows” (Heb. 1:99Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. (Hebrews 1:9)), it was to communicate it to them that He thus received it. “Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear” (Acts 2:2323Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: (Acts 2:23)). “The Church” is the result.
(To be continued.)