overflow in the deeds, and the rewards are but a continuance and continued increase of the free grace in the state of the soul and in the growth and gradual perfecting of that state, which are themselves gifts of the same free grace, and one with the rewards; for in the kingdom of Christ which is the realm of love and inter-community, the joy and grace of each regenerated spirit becomes double, and thereby augments the joys and the graces of the others, and the joys and graces of all unite in each;—­Christ, the head, and by his Spirit the bond, or unitive ‘copula’ of all, being the spiritual sun whose entire image is reflected in every individual of the myriads of dew-drops.  While under the Law, the all was but an aggregate of subjects, each striving after a reward for himself, —­not as included in and resulting from the state,—­but as the stipulated wages of the task-work, as a loaf of bread may be the pay or bounty promised for the hewing of wood or the breaking of stones!

Ib.

  He (said Luther), that will dispute with the Devil, &c.

Queries.

I. Abstractedly from, and independently of, all sensible substances, and
    the bodies, wills, faculties, and affections of men, has the Devil,
    or would the Devil have, a personal self-subsistence?  Does he, or
    can he, exist as a conscious individual agent or person?  Should the
    answer to this query be in the negative:  then—­

II.  Do there exist finite and personal beings, whether with composite
    and decomponible bodies, that is, embodied, or with simple and
    indecomponible bodies, (which is all that can be meant by
    disembodied as applied to finite creatures), so eminently wicked, or
    wicked and mischievous in so peculiar a kind, as to constitute a
    distinct ‘genus’ of beings under the name of devils?

III.  Is this second ‘hypothesis’ compatible with the acts and functions
    attributed to the Devil in Scripture?  O! to have had these three
    questions put by Melancthon to Luther, and to have heard his reply!

Ib. p. 200.

If (said Luther) God should give unto us a strong and an unwavering faith, then we should he proud, yea also, we should at last contemn Him.  Again, if he should give us the right knowledge of the law, then we should be dismayed and fainthearted, we should not know which way to wind ourselves.

The main reason is, because in this instance, the change in the relation constitutes the difference of the things.  A. considered as acting ’ab extra’ on the selfish fears and desires of men is the Law:  the same A:  acting ‘ab intra’ as a new nature infused by grace, as the mind of Christ prompting to all obedience, is the Gospel.  Yet what Luther says is likewise very true.  Could we reduce the great spiritual truths or ideas of our faith to comprehensible conceptions, or (for the thing itself is impossible) fancy we had done so, we should inevitably be ‘proud vain asses.’