alledgeth there is little or no resemblance betwixt Noah's temporal saving by Water and the saving by the inward or Spiritual Baptism But who is so blind or weak that doth not see the falsehood of this his Assertion Is there not the greatest and most near and infallible resemblance betwixt that temporal Salvation of Noah by Water and the spiritual and eternal Salvation by the spiritual Baptism which doth universally and infallibly save all Souls that are partakers of the said spiritual Baptism whereas many thousands get the Water-baptism who are not saved thereby and therefore it doth much more naturally follow that not Water-baptism but the Baptism of the Spirit that doth infallibly purifie the Soul is here meant even as the inward Circumcision of the Spirit is the Anti-type or thing signified by outward Circumcision Lastly As to his seventh Argument whereas he laboureth to prove That Water-baptism is meant Matth. 28. 19 20. whereof he is so confident that he entreats his Reader Not to believe him henceforth if he do not prove it so to be I shall briefly take his proof into consideration 〈◊〉 He says The Greek Word which is Translated Teach signifies to make Disciples and therefore they were to be made Disciples before they were to be Baptized but they could not be made Disciples before Conversion nor does Conversion pre-require Discipleship or else no man might endeavour the Conversion of an Heathen or of any man who is not before Hand a Disciple To which I Answer That granting the Greek word may signifie to make Disciples yet all this reasoning of I. A. doth not inferr that by Baptizing here cannot be meant the Spiritual Baptizing by the effusion of the Spiritual Water upon them which as is already said signifies not barely the first or lowest degree of Conversion but an high or eminent degree thereof even as the outward Plunging or Dipping into Water iâ— more than a small Sprinkling Now as true Faith is before this eminent degree of Conversion or Purification so is also true Discipleship Nor doth it follow that else no man might endeavour the Conversion of an Heathen for they were to endeavour the full and perfect Conversion of Heathens in the highest degree that was possible but so as to do it in Gods way and order to wit first by Teaching and Discipling them into the true Faith and then their full and perfect Conversion or Purification and Spiritual Cleansing was to follow one degree after another His other reason is That the Baptism of Conversion or the Spiritual cleansing of the Soul is but only improper and Metaphorical and we must 〈◊〉 throw about the words of any Text of Scripture from a proper to an improper meaning without some necessity constrain us so to do To this I Answer First That we ought not to go from the proper signification of any word to an improper without some urgent necessity I already acknowledge But then why doth I. A. and his Brethren frequently transgress this Rule in expounding other places of Scripture as to instance when the Scripture saith Christ died for all men I. A. expoundeth this all not of all individuals of mankind but only some and these the far less number and yet he must needs acknowledge that the proper signification of the word all is all individual Again when the Scripture saith Thâ— Kingdom of God is within you I. A. turneth it to among you contrary to the proper sigâ—ification and also to the common Translâ—tion Also when the Scripture speaketh frequently of Christ and the Holy Spirit being in the Saints they commonly say This is not to be meant properly but figuratively understanding by Christ and the Spirit the effects and operations or Graces of the Spirit and not Christ or the Spirit himself And many instances of that nature can be given to shew how I. A. and his Brethren go from the proper signification of Scripture words to an improper without any necessity unless that of their own devising But Secondly I. A. doth but barely take it for granted without any shadow of proof that it is an improper meaning to mean by the Baptism of Christ the spiritual Baptism For the proper meaning of any place or sentence of Scripture is certainly that meaning which the Spirit of God doth intend whether there be a Metaphor used in that place or not Nor doth the Metaphorical use of the word hinder the meaning of it to be properwhen it is so intended And seeing the Scripture doth almost every whereabound with Metaphors and metaphorical expressions we are not so much to consider what is the bare Grammatical sense of any word in common Speech as what is the most common and usual sense of it in Scripture for what is the most common sense of it in Scripture I judge is the most proper meaning of it whether the word be otherwise metaphorical or not for who will deny but according to Scripture sense by the word Christ is properly understood the true Christ of God to wit His only begotten Son and yet Grammatically it is but metaphorical at least as much as the word Baptize for Christ signifieth Anointed even as Baptized signifieth Wasâ—ed or Dipped and if I. A. or any will contend That Christ is properly called Christ or Anointed because the spiritual Anointing is as real and proper in its kind as the outward and natural is in its kind I shall not contend against them but rather go along with them therein but then I say also that the spiritual Baptism is as real and proper in its kind as the spiritual Anointing is in its kind and thus also when Christ is called Bread in Scripture in the Scripture sense he is truly and properly called so yea why doth he call himself The true Bread and why said he that the Manna which Moses gave to the People in the Wilderness was not the true Bread from Heaven Doth not this signifie that whatever vertue or excellency outward Bread hath to feed the Body Christ who is the inward and spiritual Bread hath it much more to feed the Soul yea and the Body also when he pleaseth so to do and in this respect it is that some do affirm That those names of Bread Water Light Oyl and the likâ— are more properly applyed to the spiritual than to the natural so that the Water Oyl Light and Bread that is but outward and natural is rather metaphorically so called and the inward and spiritual more truly and properly deseâ—ving those names And thus the spiritual Baptism shall be the most proper in that sense also But now let the Scripture be searched and we shall find that the word to Baptize doth no less commonly signifie the spiritual Baptism than the outward and Elementary and therefore whoever would perswade us to believe that the spiritual Baptism is not meant here in Matth. 28. 19 20. must shew some invinsible necessity why it ought not the which I. A. hath not as
or Thanksgiving nor any use of the Word of God but that which is Vocal and External Do we not Read of the Prayer of the Heart in Scripture and also of Singing and making Melody in the heart unto the Lord as well as with the Mouth Or doth I. A. think that brutes can do this as well as we that he compares our Eating and Drinking altogether to that of Brutes However for the satisfaction of those that are sober I futher declare that we hold it our duty and I hope we can say it is our aim and endeavour in all our Eating and Drinking and in the receiving all the Mercies of God both Spiritual and Temporal to reeeive them with Prayer and Thanksgiving either both Mental and Vocal or at least Mental which we know is aceepted of God if in sincerity when the Vocal is not used And they who Pray or seem to Pray with their Lips and Voices when their Hearts are far away as it is too much the general manner and custom of people their Eating and Drinking is worse than that of Brutes which sin not when they Eat as all wicked persons do But I ask I. A. doth he use Vocal and External Prayer and Thanksgiving always when he receives any of the Creatures of God as in the use of Tobacco or Tasting a little Wine or Ale occasionally in a Tavern or when walking in an Orchard is his Conscience so scrupulous that he cannot Taste an Aple but he must use Vocal Prayer I suppose he is not so scrupulous And doth not I. A. know that there is not one moment of our Life but we are still receiving the Creatures of God seeing every breathing or receiving in of the Air is a renewed Mercy and Bleâ—ing of God with many others continually added unto us And yet the Lord doth not continually require Vocal Prayer in the continual use of tâ—ose Mercies And here I shall propose a few plain Questions for I. A. to Answer upon this whole matter 1. Whether one that sincerely useth Prayer and Thanksgiving in his â—â—art before he Eateth and Drinketh and in his Eating and Drinking and at aâ—â— other times laboureth to have his heart exercised in the â—ear of God although at times he use not Vocal Prayer before and after Meat is not more unlike to a Brute and more indeed a true Christian than he who knoweth not what it is to fear God or Pray to God sincerely in his heart at any time yet always at Meal-times useth a form of dead and lifeless words before and after Meat 2. Whether to Pray without the Spirit and without sincerity of heart be not a transgressing of the first second and third Commandments 3. Whether that Doctrine which teacheth men to Pray spiritless and hypocritical Prayers doth not oppose these three Commandments Further I. A. doth alledge that we do openly impugne the fourth Commandment in one of the following Queries unto which place he referreth the Controversy To 〈◊〉 I Answer and so he might all the rest without prepossessing his Reader with prejudice against us until he had heard the whole matter more amply discussed Our opposing the fifth Commandment he instanceth in not taking off our Hats and bowing the body in Salutations But seeing the fifth Commandment mentioneth no such form of Honour nor doth he deduce it by any just consequence therefrom It is as easily denyed by us as affirmed by him Nor doth it follow as he alledgeth that because we are to obey ehe fifth Commandment with our Bodies as well as with our Souls that therefore we are to take off our Hats in giving that honour to Parents for the Iews to whom that command was particularly given used no such form of honor or respect And as for bowing the Body although it was practised under the Law yet we find it forbidden under the Gospel as in the case of Cornelius bowing to Peter And in the New Testament we read of no bowing that is lawful but that which is at the Name of Jesus and of God Almighty Again whereas he alledgeth that from the words of Christ Iohn 5. 44. We Impugne the very letter of the fifth Commandment and declare that no manner of Civil Reverence or regard is to be given to any man I Answer this is a false Charge like unto the rest for we deny not that there is a civil regard and honour that is due unto all men in their respective degrees which is also to be signified and practised with a suitable outward behaviour of the body and may very well be without either uncovering the Head or bowing the Knee such as to rise up before the Hoary-Head or those that are our Superiours also to stand before them to speak humbly or be silent unless when required or liberty is given also to havean humble Aspect or regard of the Eye and Face towards them to give the Hand if required to be ready at a beck to Answer their Call and to walk and run to serve them in what is requisite these and many such instances of External Honour and respect may Children lawfully practice to their Parents and Inferiors to their Superiors without either bowing the Knee or taking off the Hat But certainly these words of Christ Ioh. 5. 44. Condemn all false honour which the spirit of the World hath invented And such we have good cause to hold the uncovering of the Head to men until I. A. can produce a better Original for it Lastly His instances of our opposing the sixth and ninth Commandments seeing they are but Allegations I pass them And thus I have gone through all that I saw requisite in his Preface to answer which may occasion me to be the more brief in the things that follow where most of the same things do again occurr CHAP. II. ANd here I give the Reader to know that this pretended Examination of I. A. is in Answer to 17 Queries which he saith came to him subscribed by I. S. But I believe I. S. never did Subscribe those Queries nor was he Author of them but some of our Friends in England however it is possible that through a mistake some had put the said Letters unto them And though I. A. seemeth not a little offended that these Queries should be directed for one or all of the Ministers in Scotland to Answer as if such a direction did argue both the Arrogance and weakness of the Authors yet I do not believe that they all can Answer them sufficiently holding to Scripture without renouncing their former Principles in great part Far less is this pretended Examination of I. A. any sufficient Answer unto them as the sequel I hope shall make appear In his Survey or Examination of the first Query he alledgeth That the Questionist doth pervert the whole state of the Question For saith he who ever heard that the Church of Scotland or any other Church made humane Arts and Sciences an Infallible Rule to make a
Doctrine and Word of God but he who speaketh it by the Spirit of God and none Heareth the Word of God but he who Heareth it and into the Heart and inward Ears of his inward man receiveth it by the Spirit of God To these only I say the Doctrine is known and by these it is only received as it is indeed the Word of God and in this respect it was that Paul commended such as received the Truth by the same Spirit by which it was Preached unto them through him That they received it not as the word of Man but as the Word of God c. Now this commâ—ndation can be given to no unbeliever that what he receiveth in the Ministry of the true Servants of God he receiveth it as the Word of God for only the true Believers do so receive it according to Paul's Testimony as it is indeed the Word of God Moreover I would have the Reader to know that when we say by the Word is understood Christ we mean not Christ abstractly or seperately considered from the Divine Doctrine and Testimony of Life whether in the heart or Mouth that immediately proceedeth from him nor yet as divided or seperated from any Divine operation of his Spirit Power and Life in any of his Servants but we take both these conjoyned together to be the Word of God even as the Soul and Body is one Man and sometimes the Soul is called the man and sometimes the Body and both properly enough when the Soul is in the Body and united therewith but the Body alone without the Soul is not properly called the man and thus much I hope shall suffice to satisfie the sober Reader as concerning the Word of God how we understand it Now whereas I. A. citeth divers places of Scripture to prove That by the Word of God is not understood Christ but the outward Testimony or Writing of the Scriptures It is very evident and may plainly appear so to be unto any having the least measure of Spiritual understanding that by the Word of God in these Scriptures is not understood the Letter but Christ together with the Divine operation and Testimony of his Life in the Hearts and Mouthes of his Servants And among these places by him alledged I shall cite these following for it is needless to cite them all viz. Heb. 4. 12. Eph. 6. 17. Rev. 1. 16. Rev. 2. 12 16. Rev. 19. 15. And also he citeth divers Scriptures which mention the Word of Christ and the Word which he hath spoken And seeing that cannot be Christ himself it must needs ac-according to him be the Letter Now as to that Scripture Heb. 4. 12. For the Word of God is quick and powerful c. There are divers Protestants that expound it of Christ and not of the Letter and indeed the words themselves do plainly enough evince it seeing it is said in the next verse concerning the same Word That all things are bare and manifest to his sight and therefore that Word hath an Omniâ—cience which I suppose I. A. when he considers will not affirm of the Letter of the Scripture As for Eph. 6. 17. his reason is weak that by it cannot be understood Christ seeing it is called The Sword of the Spirit as to say an Instrument in the hand of the Spirit But this is only I. A. his gloss and not Paul's words For the Sword of the Spirit may very well be understood to be the Spirit it self As the shield of Faith is Faith that shield The Helmet of Hope is Hope that Helmet so the City of Rome is Rome that City and why not also the Sword of the Spirit that Spirit it self And this is further confirmed out of the Greek Article Englished by which that is in the Neuter Gender and therefore rendring this Sense The Sword of the Spirit which Spirit is the Word of God so that the Article which being in the Neuter Gender is Relative to Spirit which in the Greek Language is in the same gender Again as to those three places in the Revelation which mention the Word of God it s being the Sword of his Mouth and proceeding out of the Mouth of Christ Doth I. A. think that this only is the Letter of the Scripture Doth nothing but the Letter come out of his Mouth Doth not Spirit and Life and living vertue come out of his Mouth And did not Christ say The Words that I speak unto you they are Spirit and Life John 6. And is not this somewhat more than the Letter But lastly The Word of Christ and the Word that Christ speaks hath of the Life and Spirit of Christ in it and therefore it is still somewhat beside the External Writing or Letter and is not divided or seperated from Christ. And I have told I. A. already that not only Christ abstractly considered but the immediate Testimony and influence of his Life which can never be seperated from him no more than the Sun Beams can be seperated from the Son is also acknowledged by us to be the Word of God and to be Light and Life Bâ—t saith I. A. The whole Doctrine of the Prophets is the Word of the Lord To which I Answer I have granted and do still grant it so to be but as is already said that Doctrine is not the bare Letter nor hath every one that doctrine who hath the Letter for to have the true doctrine and sence of the Spirâ—t is not only to have the Letter but to have the Spirit by which only the true doctrine can be conveyed unto us although the true service and use of the Letter in subordination to the Spirit is not denied And whereas I. A. accuseth the Quakers That they call the Scriptures a dead Letter I no where remember that ever I read or heard any of them simply calling it so But only in so far as it is eventually such unto them who are spiritually dead themselves and are not turned to the quickning Spirit but alienated therefrom to such only the Scripture is a dead and killing Letter and this much divers Protestants have acknowledged as well as we and particularly Iohn Owen in his Treatise on the Scriptures That it is so to the Iews and other Vnbelievers But unto all those who are spiritually alive the Scripture is no dead nor killing Letter but a living Testimony as also unto all such whom it pleased God to quicken by his Spirit in the reading or hearing or meditating in the Scriptures Again that he saith A part of the Scripture to wit the Law considered as strictly legal is in respect of guilty sinners called a killing Letter but never the whole Scripture I Answer That not only the Old Testament but even the Writings or Letter of the New Testament may be called a killing Letter to those that remain alienated from the Spirit that quickens Lven as Origen hath formerly taught in his Commentary on Leviticus Not only saith he in the Old
men are infallible that therefore the Dictate and Light of Gods Spirit in men is fallible also Was not Peter fallible in some Cases Yea did he not fail sorely when he denyed his Master Doth it therefore follow that the Dictate or Light of Gods Spirit in him was fallible Indeed if I had said that when we follow the Dictate and Light of God within we are fallible he might have inferred such a consequence but I never said nor thought any such thing but on the contrary that the Dictates and Leadings of Gods Spirit in us are infallible and have a direct tendency to lead guide and move us infallibly as they are purely kept unto the which is possible for us to do Another Argument he bringeth against the Dictate 〈◊〉 Iâ—s being the rule to try Spirits because then it would be both Superior and Inferior which is Repugnant Superior when it tryes and examines and Inferior when it is tryed and examined To which I Answer 1. It is no Repugnancy that one and the same thing be Superior and Inferior in different respects and as it respecteth different Subjects But 2. There is no necessity to understand the Dictate and Light of Gods Spirit in divers men to be Superior and Inferior when it examines and is examined for one equal may be a measure or rule to another yea one thing may be said to be a rule unto it self according unto that common Maxim or principle Lineâ— recta est norma sui obliqui i. e. A right line is the rule of it self and also of that which is crooked Otherwise let I. A. Answer me How did Adam know the voice of God in his Heart and the Prophets before the Scriptures were writ how did they know it And in the close of his first Section he concludeth with a manifest Untruth That the Quakers are for a new Dispensation not only in manner but matter contrary to the Doctrine formerly Dictated by the Holy Ghost This I say is false which he neither doth nor can prove and the Dispensation we plead for is the same both for matter and manner which belonged to all true and good Christians in all Ages And as to what he saith Of our extream Infatuation and Brain-sickness and retaining the proportion and features of humane bodies having quite enervated our Rational Essence These and the like scoffing and disdainful expressions are no more to be regarded by us nor have any more weight than when some Epicureans at Athens called Paul a Babler We know it hath been the Lot of Gods people in former Generations to be reputed by Adversaries both Fools and Mad-men However we hope the sober Readers of our Books and Treatises and these also who have any Converse with us will find that we have neither abandoned nor lost the use of our Rational Faculties which we acknowledge to be good Gifts of God and for which he is to be praised nor doth our principle and belief of Divine Inspiration as being a more noble and excellent Gift of God than the highest Natural Faculty of Reason either weaken or render useless to us our Reason but both indeed both strengthen it and make it the more useful and comfortable whereof to Gods praise we are bold to say we have true experience notwithstanding of what I. A. or any of his insulting humour do or can say to the contrary There yet remains two other things in this first Section of I. A. which I think fit to notice One is That he alledgeth some of us understand by the more sure word of Prophecy the Scripture which is only to be taken heed unto until the day dawn and the day Star arise in the heart that is until the Holy Ghost be given and that consequently the Scriptures serve for nothing to belivers who are born with the Spirit and sealed therewith But seeing he has produced no Names of any among us understanding that more sure word of Prophecy to be the Scripture we are not concerned to Answer him It is possible that some in Discourse has only so argued with him ad hominem as they use to say and not as being their own judgment And as for the Scriptures we judge that they are profitable and ought to be Read by true Believers and renewed persons as well as others But when doth I. A. think that the day dawneth and the day Star ariseth in the hearts of believers Whether in this mortal State Yea or Nay and then whether the shining of Gods day and the day Star thereof be not a true immediate Revelation in the hearts of those who have it and whether it doth not more assure them who have it than the Letter of Scripture can do And seeing the Light of God in them when it shines in the heart but as in a dark place is a more sure Word than an audible voice from Heaven or than the Letter of the Scripture as to us what shall be said of that Light when it becometh not only as the day Star but as the day itself for clearness in the Soul Or can there be any greater or more principal rule than this The other thing I notice is That he inferreth the Scriptures to be a rule because Christ said to the Sadduces Ye erre not knowing the Scriptures Now if this Argument hold good seeing Christ said also Ye erre not knowing the Scriptures nor the Power of God It will as well follow That the Power of God is the Rule and that the rather because it was their being ignorant of the Power of God which quickens both Soul and Body that made them ignorant of the Scriptures for none know truly the Scriptures but they who know the Power of God and therefore that Power which is Life Light and Spirit is the more principal and original rule But I. A. in citing these words of Christ omitted the following words which are exceeding weighty viz. no the Power of God whether this was purposely done of him to ensuare his unwary Reader or not I shall not determine but leave to his consideration CHAP. V. J. A. in the beginning of his second Section concerning the Rule is pleased to call me an Arch-Quaker the which Title I no wise acknowledge and a man too Learned as I employ it To which I Answer That as to my Learning that is but very ordinary and a thing I neither can nor ought to glory in However in this I rejoyce that the Testimony of my Conscience beareth me Witness in the Holy Spirit that any small measure I have of that called Learning it hath been my sincere aim and endeavour to employ it to Gods Honour and serve the Truth therewith and not in the least to use it against the Truth so far as it was or is made manifest unto me Next he blames me that I affirm The Scriptures are only but a secondory Rule of Faith and Manners but that the Spirit or his Dictate within is the Principal
Rule and like Proteus turning my self into all shapes sometimes I design Christ himself oftner the Spirit himself but oftnest the Dictate of the Spirit within to be that Rule But he might at that raâ—e have no less blamed the Apostle Paul that he turned himself into all shapes while he affirmeth sometimes That Christ spoke in him and sometimes that the Spirit spoke in him and certainly what Christ or the Spirit spoke in him was by a certain Word or dictate But to Answer directly when I say Christ is the Rule And again when I say the Spirit is the Rule there is no absurdness therein for if we mean by the Spirit the Holy Ghost Christ and the Holy Ghost are never separated or divided in what they Speak or Witness in the souls of men but their speech and Testimony is one and the same alwaies and also Christ himself in Scripture is called the second Adam the quickening Spirit and the Lord that Spirit and said Christ I am the way the Truth and the Life and certainly that Life is Spirit and also the Words or dictate of it is Spirit and Life as Christ said The words that I speak unto you are Spirit and Life So the Reader may see that my words are sound and according to Scripture and therefore whether I say Christ or the Spirit or the internal dictate and Word of the Spirit is the Rule it is to the same purpose And to say the dictate of the Spirit is the Rule is no other than to say the Spirit dictating or speaking is that Rule and do not some of your selves use a variety of Speech when ye speak of the Rule one time saying The Scripture is the Rule another time The Word of God contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament is the only Rule c. as the Westminster Confession of Faith expresly hath it Another time The Spirit of God speaking in the Scriptures c. Now according to I. A. I may blame him and his Brethren in this case that Proteus like he and his Brethren turn themselves into all shapes when they speak of the Rule And whether these phrases used by them be not more unscriptural I leave unto sober men for to judge In the next place he argueth That Christ cannot be the Rule nor the Spirit because the Rule of Faith must be some complex Proposition Direction or Precept and the like To this I Answer First That the Rule of Faith must be a complex Proposition Direction or Precept formally understood in words formally conceived I altogether deny and I. A. hath not offered to prove it And although the Spâ—rit of Christ may and often doth speak express words in the souls of his people yet he doth not alwaies so do when yet he clearly enough signifieth his mind and will unto them for if among men a King may signifie his mind to his Subjects or a Master to his servants without any formal Proposition or direction of words but only by some motion of his hand or face How much more may the Lord God who is the King of Kings signifie his mind unto his servants by the motion of his Spirit without any formal or express words Again I ask I. A. if he hath not learned in the Schools that the reasonable nature of God is the first rule of Manners And certainly the reasonable Nature of God is not a complex Proposition consisting of many words And hath he not read in Boetius that excellent saying Quis legem det amantibus major lex amor est ipse sibi which the Author of a late Book called The Life of God in the soul of man doth use to prove that somewhat more than words is a Law or Rule to Christians and Englisheth thus For who shall give a Law to them that Love Love 's a more powerful Law that doth such persons move And I further Query I. A. seeing the Scripture saith God is Love he that knoweth God to be Love and hath the Love of God shed abroad in his Heart by the holy Spirit which in Scripture is called The Spirit of Love shall not this man be tyed to love God and his Brethren yea and all mankind even his very enemies Suppose it be not said to him in formal express words do so and so Again whether he that only readeth or heareth these outwardly Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy Heart c. and thy Neighbour as thy self but his Heart is utterly void of the love of God or he that hath the love of God in his heart and feelleth the powerful constraint of it is under the most powerful Law Whether the words without or the Spirit and Nature of Divine Love within is the most powerful Law and Rule There may therefore be a Law or Rule which is not a complex Proposition of words either inward or outward to wit the Divine Love it self which hath a Voice and Language to the souls of men in the silence of all words many times and can be understood as well without words as with them And therefore when I say the dictate of the Spirit is the Rule I mean not that there is alwaies a dictate of express words but that which is either such a formal express dictate or equivalent thereunto which those who are acquainted with the experiences of the Saints do well understand although it may seem to I. A. a strange Riddle or Paradox And thus by what I have said in this particular the intelligent Reader I hope shall perceive that in saying The Spirit is the Rule I am not beside my self as I. A. doth alledge but speak the words of Truth and soberness And I further ask Whether I. A. thinks that Ignatius the Martyr was beside himself when he writ in one of his Epistles to the People 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Vsing the Holy Ghost for a Rule or Whether Paul was beside himself when he said The Law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Iesus had made him free from the law of Sin and Death And whether that Law was not the Spirit of Life even as the Law of sin was sin and the Law of death was death And whether the Law of the Mind mentioned by Paul was not a Divine Principle of Grace in his mind even as the Law of his Members was a principle of sin and corruption that sometime had place in him and not any complex Proposition of words And whether the Law that God writeth in the hearts of his people in the new Covenant be simply a form of words consisting of so many letters syllables and sentences or rather to speak properly is not that Law a new and Divine Nature or substantial Life of Holiness and Righteousness and Wisdom by which the Children of God are led and taught under the new Covenant naturally as it were to love God and all men even as the Law that God hath put in all