evil az sin agenst God, the Lord wil implant gud afekshonz whair the evil inklinashonz hav been. We mŭst ferst obay the Divein lawz from a sens ov diuti befoar we kan obay them from lŭv. Bŭt if we obay them az a diuti we o tu God, lŭv wil folo ov koars, simpli bekauz obediens bringz the diseipel intu sŭch a relashon tu God az that the Divein lŭv kan be shed abraud ŭpon hiz yeelding hart. Ther iz indeed an obediens that springz from lŭv; bŭt thís iz the spontaniŭs wŭrk ov the perfekted Christian, hu haz akweird thát lŭv which iz "the fulfilment ov the law."
(b) Bŭt ther ar tú rong and irrékonseilabel propozishonz on the sŭbjekt ov chariti. "Chariti konsísts in living wel. Chariti konsísts in wiling whot iz gud." We konfés tu be·ing ŭnabel tu see either eror or kontradikshon heer. If we regard chariti in its tru sens ov brŭtherli or naborli lŭv, chariti must shiurli konsíst in gud-wil toerdz anŭther, and in sho·ing thát gud-wil in gud deedz; or, in wiling and duing him gud. This iz the au'thor'z konseis definishon: "Chariti konsísts in gud-wil, and in gud deedz thens dereivd." Or, moar fuli: "Chariti itself rezeidz in the internal man, whair it iz a prinsipel ov gud-wil, and iz thens dereivd intu the eksternal man, whair it manifests itself in gud deedz." Iz ther eni kontradikshon in wiling gud and duing gud?
(c) Anŭther eror iz this: Swedenborg sez, "Ther kan be no fai'th in an invizibel God." Mr. Wesley obzervz, "This iz bold indeed! Woz it intended tu konfiút St. Paul, maiking yus ov the veri ekspreshon in deskreibing the fai'th ov Moses, 'He endiúrd az seeing Him that woz invizibel?'" The fai'th ov Moses woz fai'th in Christ, and Christ woz the then invizibel wŭn hum he saw in the fiutiur with the ei ov fai'th. This iz evident from the kontekst. The fai'th which the au'thor ov the Episel tu the Hebrews iz magnifeiing, az thát bei which the
