Writers have one Lip and Tongue of interpreting, never contradicting the Ground of a real Regeneration which proceeds from the Gift of a new Seed from Chrift, or as an (c) excellent Writer expreffes it, " The re

implanted Image of God is only a Seed fown which muft grow up to Maturity and Perfection by Stages, until it arrive at *the full Stature of a Man in Chrift." This is the one only Root, and good Works are the Fruit of this Seed incorruptible, and begotten into Man by the fecret Power of Chrift.---True Reason then is true Dipinity; and true Divinity is true Philofophy. For both the Law and the Gofpel, have a phyfical and moral Part: The phylical one is the Power of Regeneration by a (d) new Seed engrafted, or breathed into us by Ghrift: The moral Ground is the gradual Purification of the Will and Affections. Yet, certainly the Tree may as well grow without

any Roat, as Man can be renewed after the moral Image of God and Chrift, unless the Seed of the Word, that is, Jefus Chrift,

be

(c) The Hon. Archibald Campbell in his Effay on the Eucharift, at the End of his (d) James i. 21. I. Pet. i. 23.

middle State, p. 315. John iii. 6.

be re-implanted into our earthen Veffels ---The rational Divines then are at most only moral Writers; the Spiritual Divines are better Moralifts and Philofophers at the fame Time, and claim a juft Title to Rationalifts, because they explain the inner Ground and Rea Jon of Redemption by the Blood of Chrift, and by his Spirit. Now, the Objections to the Doctrine will arise from these following Heads. First, from the few Witnesses and Teachers of the Spiritual Senfe, and the Rarity of its being preached.---There have been (c) Witnesses fufficient in every Age, but like the Prophets under the Law, they have been out-Voiced by the Multitude of falfe Ones. It is, however, a mean Pretence to meafure Truth of any Kind by Number. Popery would then excel Proteftantifm: "The Doctrines of Mahomet and Heathen

1

ifm would be fuperior to both the ather: For, (f) a great Faction is many Perfons, yet but one Party; and that is but

" one

(e) See a long Catalogue of thefe Writers in La Theologie Germanique, the Book fo much admired by that great Man, Luther. (f) Dr. Whichcot's Aphorifm, 504. Vid, Irhovii Palingenefia Veterum, p. 507.

one Opinion: Such a Faction is but one
Man in Point of Judgment. One free
Spirited Man is in this Particular, equal
"to a whole Faction." Would not this be
allowed against the Voices and Votes of Mil-
lions of Papifts and Mahometans, though
their Doctrines had been univerfally main-
tained for Ages? Was not the fingle Tefti-
mony of that great Servant of God, Luther,
fuperior to Myriads of Opponents? And
would not one plain, unlearned Man or Wo-
man fpeaking for the Gospel, be preferable to
innumerable Mouths proclaiming it a Falfe-
bood. Secondly, the Difficulty of under-
ftanding the Spiritual Senfe is another Ob-
jection. There is none in the Understanding,
but there is a great one to bring the Heart to
believe it. Let the Difficulty be ever fo
great, we must answer in the Words of
Chrift, and of his Apoftles, at least to the
Preachers of the Gospel, (g)
66 are ye
"Mafters in Irael, and know ye not thefe
"Things?" Again, does not the Apostle say,
(h) He that ufeth Milk, is uníkilful in
"the Word of Righteousness, for he is a
Babe;

(g) John iii. 10. (h) I. Cor. iii. 2.

"Babe; but strong Meat belongeth to them "that are of full Age." And Speaks he not of Melchizedek; (i) “ Of whom we "bave many Things to fay, and hard to be

understood, because ye are dull of hearing.” Are they commended for this? Or doth he jay, that Things hard are never to be Spoken ? For what were they then written by the Wisdom of God, if at no Time, or by no Perfon, they are to be explained? He repeats this Point as a Matter of Rebuke and Reproof: "I, Brethren, could not speak

4

I

unto you as unto Spiritual, but unto Carnal, even as unto Babes in Chrift. "have fed you with Milk, and not with "Meat, for hitherto ye were not able to "bear it, neither yet now are ye able."

Is it a Commendation or a Reprehenfion for their Ignorance? Let it be remembered, that the Apoftle did not speak to Perfons of Learning, for few wife Men of this World were of his Church. Is it not then a Truth, that ftrong Meat is as much a Part of the Gofpel, as Milk? Muft it then never be given? And if few only are able to underStand,

(i) Heb. v. 13.

Stand, thefe are not to be neglected; a fewer will thefe be, if Doctrines of a Spiritual Nature are never to be taught at all. To prevent Repetition, the Reader is defired to turn to what has been said to this Objection in a Note at Page 144, where it has been more fully answered.---Now, all Divines confefs a (k) spiritual Senfe, called Myftical, because it is in a fhadowy Way veiled under the written Letter. The Queftion in Difpute is, which is the true Spiritual Senfe. And on this Point it may be justly affirmed, that which preferves the Letter for the Ground and Foundation of interpreting, which is fo much adhered unto by the myfiical Writers, and fo clofely pursued in this Work.---It is certain also, that there is a Mode of Prophefying which keeps only the Letter, and deftroys the Spirit. And this is often confounded with the true and fcriptural one, just as the Doctrine of Regeneration or the Birth from above, (which is the one Foundation of all the Gospel,) propagated by the Methodists and others like them, be mistaken for that which is taught by

may

(k) Vid. Gia Philol. Sac, de Myftico Senfr

the