056. CHAPTER 25 - THE INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT.
CHAPTER 25 - THE INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT.
HAVING considered, in the preceding chapters, the great and leading doctrines of theology, so far as they relate more directly to the character of the Divine Being, the history of the creation, and of the fall of man, and of the dreadful consequences of that fall, together with the glorious provision made for his recovery in the atonement of Christ, we now enter upon the examination of some of those doctrines of revelation in which the benefits of redemption are more directly connected with man, as a fallen, but accountable, moral agent. As a subject appropriate to be discussed at this stage of our general investigation, we propose the influence of the Holy Spirit. The doctrine of divine influence is clearly revealed in the sacred Scriptures, and stands connected with every dispensation and every leading topic of religion. Against this great Bible truth infidelity has hurled her keenest shafts of ridicule, and manifested a most irreconcilable enmity. It is a subject upon which there has been a diversity of sentiment among the confessedly orthodox, while pseudo-Christians have exercised their ingenuity to explain it away. Yet we think it will appear in the sequel, that a renunciation of this doctrine is a renunciation of all vital religion, and that any modification or abatement of its full scriptural import is a proportionate surrender of the essentials of godliness. The importance of this doctrine, considered in its connection with the scheme of human salvation, as well as the great extent of controversy which it has elicited in almost every age of the Church, should deeply impress our minds with the necessity of the most implicit and devout reliance on the teachings of inspiration, that we may, upon this radical doctrine, be delivered from all dangerous error, and guided into the knowledge of all essential truth. The influence of the Holy Spirit is a doctrine so repeatedly and explicitly recognized in the Bible, that a formal renunciation of it would amount to a rejection of revelation. Hence all who have acknowledged the truth of the Scriptures have admitted under some modification, the doctrine now proposed for discussion. But when the subject is closely scrutinized, and critical inquiry made concerning what is understood by the influence of the Spirit, it is manifest that the phrase is far from being of the same import in the lips of all who use it. Hence it is very important that we inquire carefully concerning the sense in which this doctrine is presented in Scripture.
I. THE DOCTRINE DEFINED.
1.The Scriptures were inspired and confirmed by the miraculous agency of the Holy Spirit. On this point, we refer to the following passages of the holy word: - 2 Peter 1:21 : “For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man; but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.”Acts 28:25 : “Well spake the Holy Ghost by Esaias the prophet unto our fathers.” Acts 1:16 : “This Scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas.” So far as the inspiration of the prophets is concerned, the above texts are conclusive. In reference to the inspiration of the apostles, the following passages may be consulted: - Matthew 10:19-20 : “When they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak; for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak. For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you.”John 14:26 : “But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.”1 Corinthians 2:10; 1 Corinthians 2:12-13 : “But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit; for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.” “Now we have not received 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 we also speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.” From the foregoing passages, it is evident that the apostles were immediately inspired, by the Holy Ghost, to make known the truths of the gospel as recorded in the New Testament. To qualify them for the great work assigned them, of publishing, and confirming by “signs and wonders, and divers miracles,” the truths of the gospel, they were supernaturally endued with the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost. Thus commissioned and prepared, they went forth, and spoke,” as the Spirit gave them utterance,” the wonderful things of God, and were enabled to heal the sick, raise the dead, and perform many notable miracles, by the power of the Holy Ghost, and “in the name of Jesus of Nazareth.”
2. The Scriptures teach, that the Holy Spirit operates on the minds and hearts of men, in convicting, regenerating, and converting the sinner, and in comforting, guiding, and sanctifying the Christian.
Perhaps all professed Christians will admit the truth of this proposition; but all do not construe it in the same way. Therefore much care is requisite that we may perceive clearly the sense in which this subject is understood by different persons.
(1) The first theory that we shall notice upon this subject is that which denies the personality of the Holy Spirit altogether, and explains the phrase to imply nothing but the manifestation of a divine attribute. The abettors of this theory reject the doctrine of the Trinity; and when they speak of the Holy Spirit, they do not mean a personal intelligence, but merely the manifestation or exercise of some of the divine attributes. Thus, by the indwelling of the Spirit in the heart of the Christian, they mean no more than this: that a disposition or quality somewhat resembling the divine attributes exists in the heart of the believer. Their view may be fairly illustrated by reference to a common figure of speech, by which, when an individual is possessed in an eminent degree of any quality for which another has been peculiarly celebrated, he is not only said to resemble him, but to possess his spirit. Thus the brave are said to possess the spirit of Cesar; the cruel, the spirit of Herod or of Nero; while the patient, faithful, affectionate, or zealous Christian, is said to possess the spirit of Job, of Abraham, of John, or of Paul. In the same sense, say the advocates of this theory, he who is meek, humble, harmless, compassionate, and benevolent, is said to possess “the Spirit of Christ” - that is, he possesses qualities resembling those which shone so illustriously in the character of our Lord. So, when the Spirit of God is said to “dwell in the hearts” of Christians, it is merely to be understood that they partake, to a limited extent, of that disposition of love, goodness, holiness, etc., which, in infinite perfection, belongs to the divine character, Or, when the Christian is said to be influenced, operated upon, or “led by the Spirit of God,” we are taught that he is merely actuated, in a limited degree, by those principles of righteousness and holiness which pertain to the perfections of the Godhead. In reference to this theory, we remark, that it appears to us to be nothing better than infidelity in disguise. While it acknowledges, in words, the doctrine of divine influence, it in reality denies it; and while it professedly bows to the majesty of inspiration, it in reality contradicts, or perverts, the plainest declarations of the Bible. So far from this theory acknowledging the real influence of the Holy Spirit, it denies his real existence; and would represent all that is said of the important offices, influences, and personal acts of the Holy Ghost - all that is said of his dwelling in the Father and in the Son - of his proceeding from them - of his abiding with, instructing, comforting, leading, and sanctifying the Christian, as mere rhetorical figures, by which actions, never really performed, are attributed to a being having only an imaginary existence. As this theory is based upon the denial of the personality of the Holy Ghost, and as that notion has, we trust, been clearly refuted in a former chapter, we think it needless to dwell upon this point. Suffice it to say that, when a person is now said to be moved by the spirit of Nero, it is not implied that the ghost of that departed tyrant has literally entered the heart of the man, and exercises a real agency in instigating his cruel actions: when John the Baptist was said to have come in the “spirit and power of Elijah,” we do not understand that there was a literal transmigration of spirit from the one to the other; it as most palpable that no real influence of the spirit of Nero or of Elijah is supposed in the above cases. And hence, according to this theory, the real influence of the Holy Spirit is positively discarded. And if the existence of the agent and his influence are both imaginary, it necessarily follows that the effect attributed to that influence, in convicting, regenerating, comforting, and sanctifying the soul, must also be imaginary. Thus it appears that this theory, in explaining away the personality and operations of the Holy Spirit, has really denied the actual existence of the change attributed to that agency, and explained experimental and practical godliness out of the world!
(2) A second theory upon this subject is that which contends that all the influence of the Holy Spirit, since the age of miracles, is mediate and indirect through the written word.
This, and the preceding view, are properly modifications of the same theory. The only distinction in the sentiments of the advocates of these theories is, that some deny, while others admit, the personality of the Holy Spirit; but they all agree in rejecting any direct divine influence on the hearts of men, and in confining the operation of the Spirit to the medium of the written word. We think nothing is needed but a clear conception of the nature of this theory, in order to see that it amounts to a real denial of all divine influence, in the proper sense of the term. We will endeavor to ascertain the real import of this theory.
There is some ambiguity in the term medium, when it is said that “the Spirit operates through the medium of the written word.” A medium may either be instrumental and passive, or efficient and active. In the former case, that which operates through the medium is a real agent, and performs a real operation; in the latter case, that which operates through the medium is no agent in the case, and performs no real operation, but is only said to operate by a figure of speech. For an illustration of these two acceptations of the term medium, we would suppose a soldier to slay his enemy with his sword, and then to command his servant, and he buries the dead man. In this case, there are two different acts which may be properly attributed to the soldier - the slaying of the enemy, and his burial; each act is performed through a different medium - the sword is the medium through which the man is slain, but the servant is the medium through which he is buried. In the case of the sword, the medium is merely instrumental and passive; it only moves as it is wielded by the hand of the soldier, who is the real agent, and performs the real operation. In the case of the servant, the medium is an efficient and active one; it moves and acts of itself, independent of any direct assistance from the soldier; and although, in an accommodated or figurative sense, the burial of the man may be attributed to the soldier, it is obvious that the real agent is the servant; and the operation of burial is properly not performed by the soldier, but by his servant. Now, if it be understood that the “written word” is the medium through which the Holy Spirit operates, in the same sense in which the sword is the medium through which the soldier operates to the destruction of his foe, it is clear that there must be a real operation or exercise of the divine influence at the time. And such is, unquestionably, the scriptural view; but it is not the sense in which the abettors of this theory understand the subject. They admit no direct exertion of the divine influence at the time. They understand the word to be an efficient and active medium, acting as an agent in producing conviction, conversion sanctification, etc., without any immediate exercise of divine influence at the time. The sense in which they also understand the subject may be illustrated by reference to the influence of uninspired writings - such, for instance, as the writings of Baxter, or of Fletcher, which still exert an influence on the minds of thousands who read them, long after the authors have become silent in death. Here, in an accommodated sense, Baxter and Fletcher are still said to be operating through their writings on the minds of men; but is it not clear that all the real operation performed by them ceased when they “ceased at once to work and live?” They put forth no direct energy at any subsequent time.
Just so, the advocates of this theory tell us, the Spirit of God inspired the Scriptures - wrought miracles for the establishment of the gospel - but that the direct influence of the Holy Ghost then ceased; and that the Spirit only operates through the word in the same sense in which the spirit of Baxter operates through the volume entitled, “The Saint’s Rest.” Now we think it must be clear that this is no real operation of the Holy Spirit at all. It is only understood in such sense as that in which a master workman may be said to be the builder of a house which was reared by his under-workmen, when he, perhaps, was hundreds of miles distant from the spot; or in such sense as an uninspired author, long since dead, may be said to operate through his writings, which he produced while living; or as the ingenious artisan may be said to operate through the machinery which he formed, while it may continue to move after it has passed from his hand. In such, and only such, sense as this, we are told, the Spirit of God now operates on the minds and hearts of men. Against this theory we enter our solemn protest.
(3) The third theory upon this subject is that which we believe to be the true scriptural view of the doctrine. It admits the indirect influence of the Spirit through the “written word,” as contended for in the scheme above explained; and maintains that there is likewise a direct and immediate divine influence, not only accompanying the written word, but also operating through the divine providence and all the various means of grace. That the real point of controversy on this subject may be clearly seen, we remark -
1. That the advocates of this last theory freely admit that the Holy Spirit does operate on the minds and hearts of men through the medium of the written word - they do not deny that the arguments and motives of the gospel are designed as means, or instrumentalities, leading to salvation.
2. It is admitted, farther, that the direct influence of the Spirit contended for is not designed to reveal new truths, but merely to arouse, quicken, or renew, the unregenerate heart; or to impress, apply, or give, efficiency to truths already revealed, and thus to exert an efficient agency in the great work of convicting, regenerating, and converting sinners, and illuminating, comforting, and sanctifying believers.
3. It is admitted also, that the word of truth is the ordinary instrumentality by which the Spirit operates on those to whom the gospel is addressed.
Therefore the real point of dispute is, whether there is any direct influence of the Spirit, distinct from the indirect or mediate influence through the truths, arguments, and motives of the gospel.
II. THE DOCTRINE PROVED. That there is a direct influence of the Spirit, as contended for by the advocates of this theory, we will now proceed to show.
1. The Scriptures in numerous places speak of a divine influence being exercised over the minds of persons, which, from the circumstances of the case, must have been distinct from arguments and motives presented in words to the eye or the ear.
Proverbs 21:1 : “The king’s heart is in the hand of the Lord: as the rivers of water, he turneth it whithersoever he will.” Ezra 6:22 : “For the Lord had made them joyful, and turned the heart of the king of Assyria unto them, to strengthen their hands in the work of the house of God, the God of Israel.” In these passages the Lord is represented as operating on the hearts of kings, when, according to the context, the influence must have been direct and distinct from written or spoken language.
Luke 24:45 : “Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the Scriptures.” Acts 16:14 : “Whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul.”
Here the understanding and the heart are said to be opened by the Lord - not by the Scriptures, but that they “might understand the Scriptures,” and “attend unto the things which were spoken.” Consequently there must have been a divine influence, distinct from the mere word uttered or heard.
2. Prayer is presented in Scripture as efficacious in securing the influence of the Spirit.
Psalms 119:18 : “Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law.” Psalms 51:10 : “Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me.” Romans 10:1 : “Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is that they might be saved.” From these scriptures it is clear that both the prophet and the apostle offered prayer to God as though they expected a direct answer to their petitions. Now, upon the supposition that there is no influence of the Holy Spirit except through the word, it is wholly inconceivable how prayer can be of any avail in securing the blessings desired.
Again, in Luke 11:13, we read: “If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him.” Here is a general promise, restricted to no class of persons, or age, of the world. Upon the hypothesis that there is no direct influence of the Spirit, how can such language be consistently understood? Are we to expect the written word to be miraculously bestowed in answer to prayer? No one, surely, can so understand this promise; and yet, if we deny the direct influence of the Spirit, how else can it be interpreted?
3. Again: if the Spirit of God operates only through the word, all idiots, infants, and pagans, who die without hearing that word, must perish everlastingly. We proved in a former chapter that all mankind are by nature totally depraved, and that a radical change of heart is essential to their admission into heaven. If, then, this change can only be effected through the medium of the word, or truth, of God, those who are incapable of hearing that word never can realize the change, and consequently must be doomed to inevitable destruction. From this consequence of the doctrine we oppose, there is no possible escape.
III. OBJECTIONS ANSWERED.
We will now notice some objections which have been urged against the direct influence of the Spirit for which we have contended:
1. It has been argued that, from the constitution of the human mind, it is impossible that it can be influenced except by words, arguments, or motives, which can only be communicated in language addressed to the eye or the ear. To this objection we reply, that the premises here assumed are not true. It cannot be proved that there is such a constitution of our nature. Indeed, it is most evident that there can be no such thing. Is the power of the Holy One thus to be limited by us, where he himself has placed no limit? As man was originally created holy, independently of arguments, or motives, addressed to his understanding, why should we suppose it impossible that the same Almighty Power should “create him anew,” and restore him to his pristine purity, by a similar direct energy?
Again: it is admitted that Satan can tempt, seduce, and influence the minds of men to evil, in a thousand different ways. We ask, has the prince of darkness a Bible - has he a written revelation, by which, through the eye or the ear, he addresses the human race? Or is it so that he possesses greater power over man than God himself? Can Satan reach the human mind, so as to instil his deadly poison, and exert his soul-destroying influence, separate and distinct from a direct revelation, but must God himself be restricted to words, argument, or motives? The position is too monstrous to be entertained.
2. It is objected that if God can, and does, operate on the minds of men, separate and distinct from his word, then his word is rendered useless. To this we reply, that the objection is good for nothing, because the conclusion does not follow from the premises. It is what logicians call a non sequitur. The word of God is the ordinary instrument with those to whom it is addressed; but the Holy Spirit is the efficient agent by whom the instrument is wielded. Now, is it logical to argue that because the instrument cannot accomplish the appropriate work of the agent, therefore it can be of no use in reference to the work for which it is assigned? As well might we argue that because the hand cannot perform the office of the eye, it is therefore useless, and should be cast away. Because God can work, and, where means are not appropriate does work without means, shall we therefore conclude that he shall be precluded from the use of means in all cases?
3. It is objected that regeneration, conversion, etc., are said in Scripture to be through, or by, the word of truth. To this we reply, that they are in no place said to be through, or by, the word alone. That the word is the ordinary instrumental cause, with those to whom the gospel is addressed, is admitted; but it is in no case the efficient cause of either regeneration or sanctification. “It is the Spirit which quickeneth.” We “must be born of the Spirit.” And it is “through sanctification of the Spirit” that we must be prepared for heaven. When the apostles received their grand commission to “go into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature,” it was connected with the promise, “Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.” On this promise they relied in faith, and prayer to God for success.
IV. We will now consider more particularly the direct influence of the Spirit in the conviction and regeneration of sinners. The Bible clearly teaches that, through the successive ages of the world the minds of men have been quickened and illuminated by the agency of the Holy Spirit. It has, however, been denied by some, that sinners have a right to pray or look to God for any influence of the Spirit, till they first believe, repent, and submit to baptism. What is quite singular is, that these same persons who tell us that baptized believers are entitled to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and that such only are authorized to pray for the influence of the Spirit, contend also, most strenuously, that there is no divine influence except that which is mediate, through the written word. Now to us it seems manifestly inconsistent, for such as deny the direct influence of the Spirit, to say that “the Holy Spirit dwells in all the faithful,” and is only promised to baptized believers, and that for any others to pray for it is unauthorized and preposterous. What! is it so that none but baptized believers can read or hear the word of God? Or is there a veil upon every man’s understanding till removed by baptism, which so obscures his intellect, and indurates his moral faculties, that he can neither perceive the evidence nor feel the force of truth? To contend that the Spirit operates only through the word of truth, and then to speak of an indwelling influence of the Spirit as being restricted to baptized believers, is perfectly puerile. For if a mediate influence, through the written word, be the only sense in which the operation of the Spirit is to be understood, surely it is alike accessible to all who read or hear the word, whether baptized or unbaptized. But we think the Scriptures themselves will settle this point.
1. The direct influence of the Spirit, by promise, extends to sinners.
God, by the mouth of his prophet, (Joel 2:28,) declares, “And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh.” Here observe -
(1) This influence of the Spirit is promised to sinners; for the terms are of the widest possible import - “all flesh.” Now, to pretend that sinners are not included in that phrase, is not to expound the sacred word, but most unceremoniously to push it aside.
(2) The influence of the Spirit was intended to convict, and lead to salvation; for the prophet directly adds, “Whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be delivered.” It will not avail to appeal to the words of Peter on the day of Pentecost, to prove a restriction in the application of the universal phrase, “all flesh.” It is true Peter says, “This is that which was spoken by the Prophet Joel” - but does he say that the prophet spoke in reference to the day of Pentecost alone? Does he say that the words of the prophet were to have no farther fulfillment? He makes no such statement. Indeed, we have the most conclusive evidence that he had no such meaning. For, in the fifteenth chapter of The Acts, he speaks of the “gift of the Holy Ghost” having been afterward granted to the Gentiles, even as it had been conferred on the Jews; and in the eleventh chapter of The Acts, the apostle says, respecting the Gentiles, The Holy Ghost fell on them as on us at the beginning.”
Here, then, is positive proof that if the affusion of the Spirit at Pentecost was a fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy, so was the affusion of the Spirit on the Gentiles. The argument of the apostle is, that the Gentiles have received the same spiritual blessing; therefore they are entitled to the same Church privileges - the same reasoning would demonstrate that, as the blessings were similar, if one was a fulfillment of the words of the prophet, so was the other. Hence we perceive the plea for restricting the application of the prophet’s words cannot be sustained. He uses language of universal application; the apostle has not attempted, nor dare we attempt, to limit the application. The words still stand, and will continue to be fulfilled, as long as the gospel shall endure. As all additional proof that they are intended for universal application, throughout the entire dispensation of the gospel, we remark, that St. Paul quotes, in Romans 10:1-21., a part of the same prophecy of Joel, and uses it as a stereotyped truth, of universal application, “Whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.” But suppose us to admit, for the sake of argument, that Joel’s prophecy had its entire fulfillment on the day of Pentecost, will it then appear that the influence of the Spirit was not, in that prophecy, promised to sinners? The very reverse will be clearly apparent. To whom was Peter preaching on that occasion? Was it not to a congregation of wicked sinners, whom he directly charges with the crucifixion of the Lord? To this very congregation of sinners, Peter declares, “The promise is unto you and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.” What promise is this? Most evidently it at least includes the promise of the outpouring of the Spirit, which he had quoted from Joel. This argument cannot be evaded by saying that Peter only promised them the Holy Ghost on the condition of repentance and baptism; for it is admitted that the promise of the Holy Ghost as a Comforter cannot be claimed by the sinner, as such. Yet, that sinners had the promise of the Spirit’s influence, even before their repentance, in the prophecy of Joel, we have already proved; and that these very sinners were so affected by the operation of the Spirit as to be convicted of sin, and made to cry out, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” the context most plainly evinces.
Again, in the sixteenth chapter of John, our Saviour declares that when the Comforter is come, “he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: of sin, because they believed not on me,” etc. On this passage we remark that our Saviour uses terms of universality - “ the world,” without any limitation; and (as if to show that he means especially the world of sinners) he adds, “of sin, because they believe not on me.” Here, then, the unbelieving world has the promise of the Holy Spirit, in his reproving or convicting influences.
2.The Scriptures furnish instances in which the Spirit has operated directly on the minds of sinners. In Genesis 6:3. we read: “And the Lord said, My Spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh; yet his days shall be a hundred and twenty years.” Connect with this the language of Peter, in the third chapter of his first Epistle: “For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust; that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but quickened by the Spirit; by which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; which sometime were disobedient, when once the long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing.” Here it appears that for “one hundred and twenty years” the Spirit of God strove with that wicked people to lead them to repentance; but, as they resisted its influence, they were swept off by the flood.
Christ is said to have “preached” to the antediluvians “by the Spirit.” Now, unless we admit that the Spirit directly operated on the minds of that ungodly race, how can these words be interpreted? To say that nothing is meant, but simply the preaching of Noah, is perfectly gratuitous. That Noah was a “preacher of righteousness,” and warned the people of the approaching deluge, and that he was inspired to do this by the Holy Spirit, is freely admitted; but here Christ is said to have preached to them, not through Noah, but “by the Spirit.” That Noah, while busily employed in the preparation of the ark, preached to every individual of the race then upon earth, cannot be proved, nor is it reasonable to be inferred. But to those “spirits” now “in prison,” without exception, “Christ preached by the Spirit.”
Again, in reference to this, God said, “My Spirit shall not always strive with man” - that is, with the entire race then existing. Those who can explain these passages by reference merely to the personal ministry of Noah, without admitting the direct influence of the Spirit in addition to the mere words and arguments of Noah, may well be considered persons of easy faith. So far from founding their belief on a “Thus saith the Lord,” they shape it according to their own fancy, in direct contradiction to the written word.
Again: that the Holy Spirit operated on the minds and hearts of the Jewish nation, through the successive ages of the Mosaic dispensation, is evident from Acts 7:51 : “Ye stiff-necked, and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost; as your fathers did, so do ye.”
Here the first martyr, in his last sermon to his incensed and wicked persecutors, charges them with “resisting the Holy Ghost,” which they could not have done had he not first operated upon them. As an evidence of the wickedness of the Jews of former times, in thus “resisting the Holy Ghost,” they are directly charged with having “persecuted and slain the prophets;” showing a malignant and rebellious disposition, such as actuated the betrayers and murderers of our Lord. Now, to understand this as only implying that they had resisted the words of the prophets, who were inspired by the Holy Ghost, is not to expound the sacred word, but most presumptuously to shape it according to our own notion. The Jews are charged with “resisting,” not the words of the prophets, but “the Holy Ghost.” The language, in its plainest import signifies a direct resistance of the real agency of the Holy Spirit. Before we venture the assertion that the divine influence in question was only indirect, through the written or spoken word, we should have explicit authority for such a departure from the most obvious sense of the language.
3. That the Holy Spirit operates directly on the hearts of sinners, may be very conclusively argued from the fact that conviction, regeneration, and the entire change of moral character produced by the influence of religion, is in Scripture attributed to the Spirit’s agency. The Spirit is said to “convict;” it is declared that we “must be born of the Spirit;” and all the graces constituting the Christian character, such as “love, joy, peace long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance,” etc., are said to be “the fruit of the Spirit.” From all this it is clear that, as conviction, the new birth, and all the graces of the Christian, are attributed to the influence of the Spirit, there must be an operation of the Spirit on the heart previous to their existence, in order to produce them; and if so, the Spirit must operate on the hearts of sinners.