Home » A Reply to the REV. Isaac Nelson, of Belfast, and REV. William Dobbin, of Anaghlone, Or, Revivalism, Assurance, the Witness of the Spirit Defended, by William Dool Killen
A Reply to the REV. Isaac Nelson, of Belfast, and REV. William Dobbin, of Anaghlone, Or, Revivalism, Assurance, the Witness of the Spirit Defended, William Dool Killen

A Reply to the REV. Isaac Nelson, of Belfast, and REV. William Dobbin, of Anaghlone, Or, Revivalism, Assurance, the Witness of the Spirit Defended,

William Dool Killen

Published
ISBN : 9781230432892
Paperback
32 pages
Enter the sum

 About the Book 

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1866 edition. Excerpt: ...itself, beareth witness,MoreThis historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1866 edition. Excerpt: ...itself, beareth witness, Ac. The term itself, expresses the independence of the testimony ascribed to the Spirit. The obvious intention, therefore, is to distinguish the testimony which he proceeds to describe, from the evidence already adduced. This new testimony, therefore, whatever the nature of it is, must be distinct from that furnished by our own filial affections of which the Holy Spirit is the author. 3. This view is confirmed by the manifest distinction between the Spirit itself and our spirit, in this verse. By the former is meant the Holy Spirit, and by the latter, the soul of the believer as the subject of the filial affections previously described. The inference, therefore, seems to be clear, that the Spirit, in the following testimony and act of testifying, is to be distinguished from our own spirits as the subject of these affections. His testimony is to be l, egarded as distinct from that furnished by our own affections as sons. 4. The conclusion to which we are led by all these considerations, is confirmed by the term employed to express the method in which the Spirit itself renders this testimony. It is the term summarturei. The proper force of this term, as distinguished from the simple form of the verb, is to express the idea of a concurrent testimony. It is to give testimony which agrees with that given by some other witness. In the trial of our Saviour, the lack of this concurrence, rendered a verdict based on the testimony of the suborned witnesses impracticable, as the Jewish law required the concurrent testimony of at least two witnesses. In regard to the sonship of the believer, however, there is a concurrent testimony. Not only does his own filial affections towards God prove that he is His child, but the Holy..