Page images
PDF
EPUB

M'NEILE ON SPIRITUAL GIFTS.

Miracles and Spiritual Gifts; by the Rev. Hugh M‘Neile,A.M. WITH a grateful sense of the services of this able minister in the cause of truth generally, we place his publication thus early in the notices it will be our duty to give to some of the many works on the present interesting and important controversy; though, from the unsatisfactory treatment of its subject, and from the unsettled sentiments of its author, we are at a loss whether to class the production before us with friends or opponents, inquirers or denouncers.

The first word of the title-page, "Miracles," and the quotation to strengthen it, are of doubtful application. The question of "Spiritual Gifts," even as Mr. M'Neile treats it, is sufficiently copious, and enough controverted, to be worthy of separate investigation; and we deem his introduction of the distinct subject of "miracles" a deviation from the points immediately at issue, which are spiritual gifts in general, and, if any in particular, unknown tongues and prophesying.

-we

Without questioning the orthodoxy of the quotation, as it occurs in Horne's Introduction-"Distinguish between the doctrines which we prove by miracles, and the doctrines by which we try miracles: for they are not the same doctrines should have recommended the following, as more appropriate and definite mottoes, for Mr. M'Neile's selection:- Miracles are to be judged by the doctrine, and not the doctrine by the miracles" (John Locke: Journal, 18th September, 1681);Or, "Miracles are not proofs of doctrine. The Romanists argue preposterously, while they would prove the truth of their church by miracles; whereas they should prove their miracles by the truth" (Bishop Hall, vol. vii. p. 135).

The vagueness of the title-page runs through the work; but as the publication is a correction and revision of the sermon preached a few weeks before, we trust to find the Rev. Gentleman (as we have so often found him on other important matters) right at last. This is, we believe, the third revision of the author's opinions; and from the many instances of present wavering, if not contradiction, we select the following:"Remember that evil and

adulterous is the description of such a generation (which needeth a sign), and be not ye partakers with them." (p. 26.)

66

Oh, let nothing mar the straight-forward simplicity of your prayers that God would revive his work in the midst of the days, and stretch forth his hand in this scoffing age, to grant that signs and wonders may be wrought in the name of his holy child Jesus." (p. 68.)

"In the Apostles' prayers for the highest advancement of the churches in holiness, there is no mention of the gifts." (p. 41, note.)

"They tell us that the baptism of the Holy Ghost is not regeneration, nor yet union with Christ; but a special gift of miraculous power, or set of powers from on high, which was not until the day of Pentecost. To the definitions so given, I do not object; but, together with these definitions, they inform us, that the baptism of the Holy Ghost was the great and chief work for which Christ came forth from the Father; that no subject can be more precious, if any so precious, to the believer; that it is the brightest jewel in Christ's crown, and the peculiar inheritance of his church; and, finally, that the baptism of the Holy Ghost is the most perfect among the diverse forms of Divine opera、 tions." (p. 71.)

"It is as unreasonable as it is unscriptural, to claim the Spirit's presence in the church for the production of fruits of holiness, and deny his presence for the performance of works of power." (Prelim. Obs. 11.)

"I answer; who can define the intercourse which the Spirit of God holds with the spirit of a man who believes in God? No man can form the slightest idea of it, but by the penetrating experience of his heart. It is a peace which passeth all understanding. It is a communion which baffles all intelligent utterance. It is the brightest species of edification, the nearest approach to God, which the human spirit knows, or can know, during this mortal life. Such might have been the heavenly blessedness, the substantial edification, of the man who spoke by the Spirit, while his natural understanding was left behind. My spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.'" (p. 37.)

[ocr errors]

As a supplement to the above waverings, we present the following concessions in favour of the doctrine of the promised and permanent gifts, &c.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

The promise (Mark xvi. 15-18) is that such wonderful works shall "follow them that believe"-the church in the aggregate. He intimates no specific period during which this should be; and we have no scriptural authority for limiting the time to any period short of the dispensation.' (Prelim. Obs. 9).

'There are some who assert a total discontinuance designed by 'God himself. They say that the miraculous gifts of the Holy 'Ghost were bestowed upon the primitive church, whose infant 'state and successful growth, exposed to the persecutions of Pagan Rome, required all this extraordinary assistance; but as the church grew up, and gained comparative security among men, Almighty God, like a wise nurse, weaned her by degrees from those miraculous aids; till at last he left her, as parents

'leave their children when grown to be men, to subsist with' out such extraordinary helps and supplies. There are some 'who deny that there is any scriptural authority for such a state'ment. They maintain that the manifestations of the Spirit, ⚫ enumerated in 1 Cor. xii., are as truly the inheritance of the 'church as the characteristics of the Spirit described in 1 Cor. 'xiii., or Gal. v. . . . And by all the value I set upon the second 'opinion, &c.' (Prelim. Obs. 10, 11.)

[ocr errors]

...

as

The operations of the Holy Spirit in the body of Christ are ' various, but it is one and the same Spirit which worketh all in 'all. To admit, then, that the Holy Spirit is in the church, every one must admit who believes that there is a church at all; and to deny concerning any one of his operations that it can be in the church; is, in my judgment, absurd. He is the living Agent; and where the agent is, there the acts may be, unless the agent be bound down and hindered; but the Spirit of the 'Lord cannot be bound. . . . . My dear brethren, there is nothing 'which the Holy Ghost ever did, in any member of Christ, which 'he cannot now do, in any one of us. Whether it be holy love, wrought in the spiritual part of our nature, in gentleness, and 'patience, and meekness, and every other fruit; or whether it be 'visible power, wrought in the physical part of our nature, in 'miracles, healings, tongues, and every other gift. The Agent ' of all is among us. Oh what a companion to dwell with! What reverence what holy, trembling reverence becomes us!' (pp. 54, 55.)

[ocr errors]

And that Mr. M'Neile believes that he himself, even when speaking from a platform to a promiscuous assembly, speaks by the Holy Ghost, the following extract proves, if there is any meaning in words. It is taken from the report in the Record newspaper of his speech at the Irish Education Society:-"The Rev. Hugh M'Neile seconded the Resolution. If, he said, he depended merely on any human effort or influence whatsoever for the producing of any effect in seconding the resolution which had been proposed, he should certainly have been discouraged both by circumstances and by the time of the day. But under any circumstances, and at any time, he could expect no good but from that Help without which all else, talent and eloquence, was nothing, and worse than nothing. That influence he had been earnestly imploring on his own soul: he had been looking for, and now expected, on what he might be permitted to utter, the immediate energy of the Spirit of the holy and living God."

The foregoing waverings and concessions, with the evidence we have of haste in the preacher, and self-correction by the author, encourage the hope, already expressed, of finding the Rev. Hugh M'Neile "right at last;" and yet, when we look at some of his objections, we waver in feeling as to the future, as much

as he does in opinion at present. The most prominently treated objection is that respecting "women prophesying in the church;" setting at nought, as an "inference" and "supposition" (pp. 47 -50) the evidence for their doing so, founded on the fact of Pentecost, the prediction of Joel, the statement of Peter, the rule of St. Paul (1 Cor. xi. 5). Perhaps, when Mr. M'Neile has considered the opinions of some of our best commentators--by no means excepting Grotius, John Locke, John Wesley, which we know have been laid before him-he will abandon this and other newspaper and magazine objections: though, to make use of the author's words on another point, here the student 'who is most thoroughly acquainted with his Bible will be the 'most competent judge, supposing him to have imbibed no in'fidel principles or party prejudices'—or, we may take the liberty of adding, to have substituted no opinions and customs of formal and fruitless professors, for the faith and practice of Apostolical and primitive churches.

A reference to the primitive church the Reverend Gentleman "passes over" in p. 52. Our readers, however, will respect the following testimony, adduced from the ancients by the present Bishop of Lincoln, in his Epistles of the Apostolical Fathers:-"We have the express testimony of Justin Martyr to assure us that the extraordinary gifts still continued in the church, and were communicated not only to men, but women; and that we may be sure he spake nothing in this matter but what he could undeniably have made out, we find him boasting of it against Trypho the Jew, and urging it then as an unanswerable argument in behalf of Christianity, and against the Jews, from whom the Spirit of prophecy had a long time been departed."

"Tertullian (A. D. 230), in his tract On the Soul (cap. ix.), says, 'There is a sister at this day living among us who is partaker of the gift of revelations, which she receives under ecstasy in the Spirit, in the public congregation. And whilst the Scriptures are read, or Psalms are singing, or they are preaching, or prayers are offered up, subjects from thence are ministered in her visions.'

The whole foundation of Mr. M'Neile's argument rests upon the Apostolic injunction, "Let the women keep silence in the churches." This he chooses to take strictly and literally, in arguing against the present manifestations; and, positively insisting on absolute, unconditional silence, he will listen to no argument, either from the prediction of Joel or of our Lord, that women should prophesy; nor from the practice of Miriam, Deborah, Huldah, and Hannah, in old times; of Anna, Elizabeth, Mary, &c., in the time of our Lord; nor from the Apostolic directions to keep their heads covered when so doing. No, says Mr.

M'Neile, these arguments are only inferences; and my word, "keep silence," is positive, without limitation of any sort or kind, even of the supernatural power of the Holy Ghost. But if he will insist upon silence in this unlimited sense, we should be glad to ask Mr. M'Neile how he can possibly continue to minister in a church whose practices are directly in the teeth of his own interpretation of an Apostolic prohibition, which he says must in no wise be infringed: for he not only permits, but requires, all the women in his church to speak, and would reprove any of them whom he observed to keep silence. They are all required to read aloud half the Psalms; to say aloud many of the prayers; to repeat all the responses, and the Creeds, in an audible voice; and to sing the Psalms or Hymns which may be used in his church. What becomes of his oyarw here? All his arguments in defence of these practises can only be inferences, like those which he himself has discarded; while the Apostolic oyarw is positive, and without limitation! But this is only a fair specimen of the qualities of Mr. M'Neile's mind for just and comprehensive reasoning he fastens upon a shred of a subject, the whole of which he cannot embrace; turns this fragment of an argument into a bad syllogism; and then boasts of his logic.

66

Another objection is to the tongues as "unknown;"-a very awkward one to those who have adopted Mr. Pilkington's discovery, which has "proved," he says, that the said tongues are English, Spanish, and Latin !*" Moreover, Mr. Baxter was said to have spoken, in the Spirit, Latin, Spanish, Portuguese, and Italian, by some of those who are now most strenuous in maintaining that he was under delusion at that time. We lament the undue stress laid upon this objection, which holds so much of outward circumstance and external evidence, and which says so little of the person and work of the "Spirit giving utterance;" postponing as secondary, if not despising as unnecessary, the two special gifts of discernment, and of interpretation, by the Spirit. Some objectors would, it is evident, have "spoken against the Spirit which gave utterance" in other tongues on the day of Pentecost, had they been present when such tongues were first spoken, which was, of course (the precise period not revealed), some time before" this was noised abroad"—some time before "the multitude of Parthians, Medes," &c., came "together

* This contemptible publication is actually in its third edition, and is quoted as authority by the greater part of the ministers, even the Gospel ministers, who have written on the subject! There is a curious request in the Evangelical Magazine-a formal invitation to Mr. Pilkington for an "interview," or 66 communication!" How does it happen that none of the editors of the magazines, nor any of the ministers who espouse their opinions, ever express the same willingness to inquire on the other side?

« PreviousContinue »