THE LATIN SERVICE. 463
ccpted from his dispensations of light and grace. S. To wliom, and for whose instruction, were those epistles of Paul written? Were they not to the churches of those days : " to all that were at Rome, called to be saints," Rom. i. 7; and " to the church of God that was at Corinth, sanctified in Christ Jesus, with all that everywhere call on his name?" 1 Cor. i. 2. And why, I pray, may not the churches of these days be concerned to know the things that the Spirit of God thought meet to instruct the former churches in? Are believers now grown unconcerned in the doctrine of the law and gospel, of sin and gi'ace, of justification, sanctification, adoption, the obedience of faith, and duties of holiness, which St Paul reveals and declares in his epistles? What would you make of them? or what would you make of the apostle, to write things for the standing use of the church, wherein so few were like to be concerned? or do you think that there are but few things in the Scripture wherein the souls of the peojDle are concerned, and that all the rest are left for learned men to dispute and wrangle about? But you say there are " particular cases in them, that ])elonged, it may be, only to them unto whom their resolution was directed." But are you such a stranger in the Israel of the church as not to know that in the same cases, or others of a very near alliance unto them, determin- able by the apostolical rules delivered in them, the consciences of your vulgar people are still concerned? 4. Those epistles of Paul wherein you instance were written by divine inspiration, and given out, by the direction of the Holy Ghost, for the use of the church of God iu all ages. This, I suppose, you will not deny. If so, why do 5^ou set up your wisdom, built on frivolous cavils, against the will, wisdom, love, and care of God ? I fear you are a stranger unto that benefit, strength, supportment, light, knowledge, grace, wisdom, and consolation, which true believers, the disciples of Christ, do every day receive by reading, studying, and meditating on Paul's e2:>istles. I wish you would mind some of old Chrysostom's exhortations unto all sorts of persons to the reading and study of them ; they are so interwoven in all his expositions and sermons on them, that it were lost labour to direct you unto any j^lace in particular. 5. The lat- ter part of your discourse would make me suspect that your con- verse with the Quakers, that you talked of in your " Fiat," had a little tainted your judgment, but that I can ascribe the rise of it unto another cause. Your preferring " the conceived substance of God's will before the letter of the Scripture " is their very opinion. But what do you mean by " the conceived substance of God's will ?" Is it the doctrine concerning the will of God delivered in the Scripture, or is it somewhat else ? If some other thing, why do you not declare \i ? If it be no other, why do you distinguish it from itself, and
464 A VINDICATION OF THE ANIMADVERSIONS ON FIAT LUX.
prefer it above itself ? or do you conceive there is a " conceived sub- stance of God's will " that is taught, or may be, by men, better than by God himself? (6.) Somewhat you intimate, it may be to this purpose, in the close of this discourse, p. 96, where you say, " The question between us is not, whether the people are to have God's word or no? but, whether that word consist in the letter left to the people's disposal, or in the substance urgently imposed upon the people for their practice? And this because you understand not, but mistake the whole business, all your talk in this your seventeenth chapter vades into nothing." Truly, sir, I never heard before that this was the state of the controversy between us, nor do I now believe it so to be. For, — (1.) We say not that the letter of the Scripture is to be left unto the 2'>eoples disposal; but that the Scripture is to be commended unto their reverent use and meditation : which we think cannot be ingenuously denied by any man that hath read the Scripture, or knows aught of the duty of the disciples of Christ. (2.) The " conceived substance of the word of God," as by any man conceived and proposed, is no otherwise the word of God but as it answers what is written in the Scripture, and by virtue of its analogy therewith. (3.) If by " urging the substance of the word of God " on the people, you understand their instruction in their duty out of the word of God, by catechising, preaching, admonitions, and exhor- tations, as you must if you speak intelligibly, why do you oppose these things as inconsistent ? May not the people have the use of the Scripture, and yet have the word preached unto them by their teachers? Did not Paul preach the substance of the word unto the Bereans? and yet they are commended that they tried what he delivered unto them by the Scripture itself, which they enjoyed. And, (4.) Why do you appropriate this " urging of the substance of the word of God" unto your usage and practice, giving out as ours the leaving of the letter of the Scripture to " the people's disposal," when we know the former to be done far more effectually among Protestants than among you, and yourself cannot deny it to be done more frequently? (5.) You reproach the Scripture, by calling it " the letter," in opposition to your " conceived substance of the word of God:" for though the literal sense of metaphorical expressions (by you yet adhered unto) be sometimes called " the flesh," John vi. 63, and the carnal sense of the institutions of the Old Testament be termed " the letter," 2 Cor. iii. 6, Rom. ii. 27, yet the covenant of God is, that his Spirit and word shall ever accompany one another, Isa. lix. 21 ; and our Saviour tells us that " his words are spirit and life," John vi. 63, and the apostle, " that the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword," Heb. iv. 12. There is in the written word a living and life-giving power and