The Power of the Word:

The spoken or preached Word is the instrument and means of the Holy Spirit in our conversion, but not its author nor its efficient cause.

The written or preached Word is a created thing; it is not the formal object of our faith and trust, nor the objectum quod but the objectum quo, that is, the intervening means or medium of our faith.

The Word, like all instruments, must be elevated above its natural function; it is more than merely a literal representation of Christ in whom we believe.

The writing, speaking, and conveyance of Christ to the soul in the preached Word may be human and literal, but the thing signified by the Word—Christ, faith, and the image of the second Adam—is divine and supernatural. The way it is conveyed to the soul, considering the higher operation of the Spirit beyond the actings and motion of the written letter, is divine, heavenly, and supernatural.

The action of the Holy Spirit in begetting faith may be said to be immediate in two ways. (1) If the Word only prepares and informs the external man in a literal sense, but the Spirit later comes in another distinct action to infuse faith, this we cannot deny. However, in such a case, the Spirit of regeneration is not said to work with the Word, but there is instead a more general operation of God which begets literal knowledge or a higher illumination. (2) The Spirit works with the Word in such a way that, in one and the same act, He opens the heart to hear and receive what is conveyed in the letter of the Word. Thus, the Spirit works mediately, not immediately.

In the infusion of the new heart and the habit of the grace of God, we are purely passive and contribute no cooperation with God—no more than the dead can quicken themselves (Ephesians 2:1-2) or dry ground can make itself fertile to receive the rain (Isaiah 44:3-4). Although the Word may go before, and may be preached at the time, yet the act of infusing the new heart is not a moral action of God, but a physical, real action. It is received by us not through a subordinate literal action, a moral apprehension of the mind, or an act of the will. Therefore, in this formal act of infusion, I must confess my ignorance as to what the Word does, except by way of disposition or preparation. Nevertheless, it remains true that "faith comes by hearing" (Romans 10:17), and indeed, while Peter was still speaking, "the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the Word" (Acts 10:44).

• The external Word was heard from the apostles.
• It is an instrument of the Spirit.
• It is not the internal Word, for it was not received by all who heard it. Verses 14–16 indicate that the Jews who heard it did not receive it.

The law does not belong to a believer but only to civil courts. This was the view of Islbius.

The Word of God places no obligation on the inner man—to know God, believe in Christ, love God, seek His glory, or long for heaven and Christ’s return. If the law is given only to the flesh and the outward man, then the letter of the Gospel has no binding power over the heart for true Gospel obedience. This is absurd.

There would be no sin in the spirit, soul, or inner man, because there would be no law, and thus no disobedience. This is most absurd.

The ministry and Scripture would not exist to create inward spiritual conformity between the soul and the Gospel—to make us lowly and meek in spirit, as Christ is—but only to impose an outward conformity between the flesh and the law. But if this were true, how could the law be called spiritual?

I would argue instead that the spiritual law and the commandments of the Gospel were given first and foremost to govern our spirits, thoughts, and intentions, and only secondarily to the body and outward man—inasmuch as the outward acts of man fall under the rule of the will and the faculties of the inner man.

The spirit without the Word would be the law itself—the only rule regulating man in his most inward and spiritual actions, rather than the Scriptures. This would mean that the more spiritual a person becomes, the more lawless, loose, and carnal they would be.

The Gospel would not require any outward duties or external worship.

All external matters would be left indifferent, allowing people to choose whether to bow to idols or not, whether to murder or not—an accusation falsely made against us by the Council of Trent. This is one of the greatest calumnies the devil can devise: that in the Gospel, apart from faith, all other matters are indifferent and neither commanded nor forbidden.

The Apostles and Elders in Acts 15 would not have been engaged in Gospel reformation.

In forbidding fornication and uncleanness, they were concerned with holiness in both the inner and outward life—contrary to Del’s claims.

David’s and Peter’s sins would be of no concern, as long as their hearts were right.

David’s heart was right with God before he committed adultery and murder (1 Samuel 13:14), and Peter was called "blessed" before he denied Christ (Matthew 16:17). If only the heart matters, then their outward actions—adultery, murder, and denial of Christ—would not have been wrong. This would justify the old Anabaptist sect known as Fratres Liberi and the Nicodemites, who claimed that as long as the heart was pure, one could break all ten commandments. According to Mr. Del’s logic, false worship, lying, fornication, deceit, and oppression would not be sins.

There would be no need for external worship under the Gospel.

Mr. Del argues that if Christ does not explicitly mention something in John 4, then it has nothing to do with Gospel reformation. By this logic, because Christ does not explicitly mention faith, love, fear, hope, preaching, hearing, praying, or praising in John 4, then none of these are part of Gospel worship. Furthermore, since Christ does not mention obedience to the second table of the Law—love, mercy, righteousness, sobriety, avoiding murder, adultery, and oppression—then Gospel reformation would supposedly not concern itself with these either. This is the logic of Antinomians.

The power, wisdom, and righteousness of men would have no place in Gospel reformation.

Mr. Del argues that human pride and loftiness must be laid in the dust in the day of reformation (Sermon, pp. 12–13). However, the power of preaching the Gospel, the keys of the Kingdom (to bind and loose sins), and the ministerial proclamation of forgiveness and judgment are the very means by which the Church is reformed. Preaching is the chief means by which the Church is built up. These are not "pride and loftiness," for Christ Himself gave them to men (Matthew 16:18–19; John 20:21; 2 Corinthians 5:18–19; 2 Corinthians 10:5; 2 Corinthians 4:7; Ephesians 4:11–12; 1 Corinthians 12:28). Pride and arrogance are from Satan, not from Christ.

Mr. Del claims that the Word alone reforms, but distorts its true meaning.

He states that reformation is achieved by the Word, not by the power of the world or the sword. However, he knows that we do not argue for using the sword to convert souls. The sword was never ordained by God to turn a soul to Christ. However, when an Elymas perverts souls and corrupts the Gospel (Acts 13:8–11), we hold that the civil magistrate has the duty to restrain him so that he does not continue perverting others.

Yet Mr. Del follows the Enthusiasts and Swenckfeldians, for he claims (Sermon, p. 17) that this Word is not the Law but the Gospel—just as all Enthusiasts claim. If by this, they mean that we consider only the Law as a means of conversion while excluding the Gospel, then their own conscience should convict them that this is a false charge. The Law alone makes no one perfect, converts no one, and speaks not a word of Christ.

However, if they mean that the Law has no role at all in conversion, as they teach, then the following conclusions must follow:

1. The Law should not be taught in the Church.
   
   But Christ and His Apostles taught both the Law and the Gospel.

2. There would be no use in teaching something that has no influence on conversion.
   
   Yet the Law is that which reveals sin and our spiritual sickness, leading us to Christ as our physician (Romans 3:20; Galatians 3:23–24).

That which shows us our condemnation, that reveals our grounds for despairing in ourselves, and that silences our mouths as guilty before God—that which exposes our debts and shows us that we are ruined and broken, so that we may flee to Christ, our rich surety—that which shuts us up under sin so that God may show mercy—is a means of our conversion. But such is the Law (Romans 3:19; Romans 8:2–3; Romans 11:32; Galatians 3:22).

Del and his fellow Antinomians mean nothing different by "the Word" than what Swenckfeld means—that is, the internal and substantial Word. Hear Del speak in the very language of Swenckfeld (Sermon, p. 18):

"So that the Word by which Christ reforms is not the Word outside us, as the word of the Law is, but the Word within us, as it is written, 'The word is nigh thee' &c. If you live under the Word many years, yet if it does not reach your heart, it will never change or reform you."

He further adds (p. 19) that in the Gospel, the Word and the Spirit are always joined. He therefore claims that when Christ says, "The words that I speak are spirit and life," this means that they come from the Spirit and carry the Spirit with them.

From this, the following erroneous conclusions must be drawn:

1. The externally preached Gospel, according to Del and the Antinomians, is not the Word by which Christ converts souls. Faith, they argue, does not come from outward hearing as an instrument of conversion—contrary to what we have already proven. Instead, they claim that faith comes from the inward Word in the heart, which they define as faith itself.

2. The argument of both Swenckfeld and Del is baseless. They reason as follows:

   • The outwardly preached Word, unless it enters the heart, cannot convert the soul, for it is merely a sound (says Swenckfeld), or merely a letter (say the Antinomians).
   • Therefore, the external Word is not an instrument of conversion, but only the internal Word.

   I utterly deny this conclusion. It is like saying:

   • If a pen, well-inked, is laid on paper a thousand times, it will never write unless the hand of the writer moves it—therefore, the pen is no instrument of writing. This does not follow.
   • Or, if bread, without God’s blessing, is never turned into flesh and blood, then the baker’s bread is no instrument of nourishment. This is an unjust conclusion that destroys all natural and spiritual ordinances.

   The only valid conclusion is this: the Word outside of us is not an efficacious cause of conversion, nor is it the principal cause; it can do nothing except when the Spirit enlivens and works with it. This we fully affirm as a Gospel truth.

Some say, "The Word is but a sound and a letter." I answer:

It is not an ordinary sound, like the odes of Horace or the epistles of Seneca. Rather, it is a sound filled with majesty, power, and heaven itself, so that every Word is pregnant with grace and life. Even when considered apart from the Spirit, its style, conveyance, and method exhibit so much divinity, majesty, holiness, and authority that it bears the marks of heaven and reflects its Author—God Himself. Therefore, it is more than a mere sound.

To a deaf soul, in an actual state of hardness, it may indeed be but a sound. And when the Antinomians claim it is "just a dead letter," they speak only of the paper, ink, and printed characters. But we do not take it this way. Instead, we understand the words to signify and involve the things promised—the precious promises of God. As the Lord says in Hosea 8:12: "I have written to him the great things of my law, but they were counted as a strange thing."

Therefore, the Word is not a dead letter, but the instrument, the chariot, and the means by which Christ and the Spirit are conveyed to the heart. True, without the Spirit, the Word does not work—just as no instrument, tool, hammer, or axe can build a house unless the mason or carpenter uses it. Yet, does it follow that they are not instruments at all?

Del and the Antinomians, together with Swenckfeld, claim that the Gospel should only be preached to those who already have the internal Word and Spirit in their hearts. This would mean that:

• When Christ and the Apostles (Matthew 13; Acts 28; Acts 13) preached Christ and the Gospel externally, as something distinct from the Law, they were not preaching the Word of God or the Gospel—because, according to Del, it lacked the Spirit and could never change or reform anyone (Sermon, p. 18).
• Swenckfeld further argues that the preached Word produces only a "literal and feigned faith," and that "the Word and the Spirit are always joined" (Sermon, p. 19).
• Therefore, according to Del, the written, read, and externally preached Gospel is not truly the Gospel.

But this is a deception, for they mean the "internal Word," not the verbum vocale (the spoken Word).

Saltmarsh, in Free Grace (p. 146), claims that the "preaching of faith" is not the Scripture or the preached Word. Del argues for the same when he claims (Sermon, p. 19) that only the Word always joined with the Spirit is the true Gospel. However:

• The Scripture and the external vocal Word are not always accompanied by the Spirit.
• When preached to the reprobate and to hardened, malicious souls who stumble at Christ, it is not joined with the Spirit (1 Peter 2:7; Matthew 13:14–15; John 12:37–39; John 9:39).

The Antinomians and Enthusiasts speak of a Word that always converts, and claim that this distinguishes the Gospel from the Law, which they say is merely a "dead letter" and "cannot minister the Spirit" (Sermon, pp. 18–19). Saltmarsh argues the same (Free Grace, pp. 146–147), as does Swenckfeld.

Therefore, when the Antinomians and Swenckfeldians claim that they do not reject the Word, the ministry, ordinances, or preaching, they are deceiving us.

By "the Word of God that begets faith," they mean the internal Word, not the Scriptures, nor the written and preached Word. They therefore fail to refute the charge justly laid against them—namely, that under their teaching, the Gospel requires neither Scripture, preaching, sacraments, hearing, nor any duty toward others, nor even abstinence from murder, fornication, or theft. They treat all external matters as indifferent.

You see how false it is to claim that the Gospel should only be preached to those who are already converted, on the basis that it cannot be received by faith by anyone else. This is directly contrary to Christ’s express command to His Apostles in Matthew 28:19–20: "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations." Likewise, Paul preached to the obstinate Jews (Acts 13) and to the scoffing Athenians (Acts 17). If the Gospel were only to be preached to those already converted, then what was it that Paul preached to them?

It is an improper argument of the Swenckfeldians and Antinomians to say:

"The Word is a literal, carnal, and sensible thing; therefore, God does not work faith, which is a spiritual grace, through it."

The only valid conclusion is that God does not work faith through the vocal Word alone, unless He also applies the omnipotent power of His grace.

Furthermore, their assumption is false. The preached Word, although in its sound it is carnal, literal, and bodily, yet in its power, majesty, and the divine truth it signifies—which is the new birth brought forth in the womb of the Word—it is spiritual, living, and heavenly.

Nor does it follow that justification originates from man simply because the vocal Word is an instrument of it—unless they argue that hearing and preaching necessarily and effectually produce justification and conversion. But this is false, for neither hearing nor preaching are parts, members, or efficient causes of conversion or justification in themselves.

Justifying faith and salvation are, by nature, spiritual realities, and yet they originate from the preached Word as an instrument—even from what the world calls the foolishness of preaching (1 Corinthians 1:21).

The Word is not wholly bodily simply because it reaches us through the sense of hearing. Rather, when the preached Word is considered in terms of the great things of God that it declares—and not merely as letters and sounds—it is not carnal but spiritual (2 Corinthians 10:5).

• It is sharper than a two-edged sword, bringing both salvation and judgment (Hebrews 4:12).
• Even when it is rejected, it remains the savour of death unto death for those who perish (2 Corinthians 2:16–17).
• It is the everlasting Gospel (Revelation 14:6), remaining the power of God whether received in faith or rejected in unbelief.

It does not follow that justifying faith is a work of man simply because frail men, who are but earthen vessels, bear this heavenly treasure. Nor does it mean that we believe in the Word as if it were God Himself, as though the principal author were the instrument, or the Master and Lord were the servant. For it is the Word of God that is the instrument of conversion, not the Word, God. The substantial Word, God, is the author and the only finisher of our faith.

We do not trust, hope in, or believe the Word in any way other than as a means or instrument sanctified by God for so blessed an end. God alone is the formal object of our faith and reliance. Yet, in His condescension, He clothes Himself in His own Word and ordinances for our capacity.

Nor does it follow that because a sinful man preaches the Word, he is the one laying the first stone of the new creation. Faith and conversion do not have their first cause and origin in man or in the free will of the preacher, as the Swenckfeldians imagine. For faith, as faith, has no beginning or part derived from the mere act of preaching, nor from the letter or the bare sound of words—no more than Lazarus had his soul restored to his body by the created and vocal sound of Christ’s words: "Lazarus, come forth."

Faith comes by the preached Word tali modo, in such a way, as the breath of the Holy Ghost moves along with the vocal and literal sound of the words spoken by a sinful man. The soul of Lazarus was restored to his body by Christ’s words, but those words were empowered and enlivened by the omnipotence of the Godhead, which indeed raised the dead man.

The only difference is that Christ’s spoken words were not, in themselves, an active instrument in the resurrection of Lazarus, just as the blowing of the rams’ horns was not, in itself, an active instrument in causing the walls of Jericho to fall. Rather, at the mere presence of these acts, the dead man was quickened, and the walls fell.

However, I hold that the preached Word—because of what it signifies, as a divine sign, and indeed as the Word of God (as Scripture everywhere calls it)—does contribute an instrumental, organic, and active influence in the begetting of faith. But this is only as it is elevated above itself, beyond the mere nature and sphere of a vocal and audible sound, and as it is empowered by the Spirit.