To this I only say: 1. That such holy dispositions as they are not God, so nor are they, in strictness of speech, our selves. And how absurd were it, to call every thing our selves that is in us! And how self-contradicting then were the very objection! for that would make delighting in God and in ⟨p. 99⟩our selves directly all one; and so the fault which it causelessly pretends to find, it would really commit. 'Tis true, that improperly holy dispositions are said to make up another self in us, a new man, according as corrupt and sinful principles and dispositions do make also a self, the old man. But then it is also to be remembered, that with no greater impropriety they are capable of bearing the name of God; as the image of any thing frequently doth the name of the thing which it represents, or the work of its Author: And they are expressly called, Christ formed in us; and is not the God? They are called the Spirit; for when we are cautioned not to quench the Spirit, how can that be understood of the eternal uncreated Spirit himself? And the very thing produced (not merely the productive influence) in the work of Regeneration is expressly called by that name (as it is no such strange thing for the effect to carry the name of its cause);1 That which is born of the Spirit is Spirit. There is Spirit begetting, and Spirit begotten. And the Spirit begotten, as it must be distinguished from its cause, the Spirit of God; so it must from the subject wherein the effect is wrought, our own Spirits; For they sure are not produced by the regenerating work. Yea, and when God is said to dwell in them that dwell in love, and that are humble and contrite; somewhat else is thereby signified to be indwelling there, than the mere being of God; for otherwise the privilege of such were no ⟨p. 100⟩greater than of all other men and things. And what else is it, but somewhat communicated and imparted immediately from God to such? (else how by dwelling in love, do they dwell in God?) which because dwelling imports permanency, cannot be a transient influence only, but some settled abiding effect, a consistent frame and temper of Spirit, maintained by his continually renewed influence; and therefore it would be very unreasonably said, that the representing this as delectable is a calling us off from God to delight in our selves.
To this I only say: 1. That such holy dispositions as they are not God, so nor are they, in strictness of speech, our selves. And how absurd were it, to call every thing our selves that is in us! And how self-contradicting then were the very objection! for that would make delighting in God and in ⟨p. 99⟩our selves directly all one; and so the fault which it causlesly pretends to find, it would really commit. 'Tis true, that improperly holy dispositions are said to make up another self in us, a new man, according as corrupt and sinful principles and dispositions do make also a self, the old man. But then it is also to be remembered, that with no greater impropriety they are capable of bearing the name of God; as the image of any thing frequently doth the name of the thing which it represents, or the work of its Author: And they are expresly called, Christ formed in us; and is not the God? They are called the Spirit; for when we are caution'd not to quench the Spirit, how can that be understood of the eternal uncreated Spirit himself? And the very thing produced (not meerly the productive influence) in the work of Regeneration is expresly called by that name (as it is no such strange thing for the effect to carry the name of its cause);1 That which is born of the Spirit is Spirit. There is Spirit begetting, and Spirit begotten. And the Spirit begotten, as it must be distinguished from its cause, the Spirit of God; so it must from the subject wherein the effect is wrought, our own Spirits; For they sure are not produc't by the regenerating work. Yea, and when God is said to dwell in them that dwell in love, and that are humble and contrite; somewhat else is thereby signify'd to be indwelling there, than the meer being of God; for otherwise the priviledg of such were no ⟨p. 100⟩greater than of all other men and things. And what else is it, but somewhat communicated and imparted immediately from God to such? (else how by dwelling in love, do they dwell in God?) which because dwelling imports permanency, cannot be a transient influence only, but some settled abiding effect, a consistent frame and temper of Spirit, maintained by his continually renewed influence; and therefore it would be very unreasonably said, that the representing this as delectable is a calling us off from God to delight in our selves.
