Thinks he that we beleeve not that there is one faith But what reasoning is this There is one faith Therefore faith hath but one Object what object meâ—neth he Formal or Material Oâ—ject if the first we grant thâ—t alwayes in all ages the formal Object of faith divine was the Truth and Veracity of God as to things beleeved and hâ—s Supream Legislative Authority as to acts of Obedience If he mean the Material Object he speaketh nothing to the purpose because he must here speak of the Object he spoke of in the foregoing Proposition and of none other And yet the man as ignorantly as a childe talketh in the following words of the Material Object for to prove that the Fathers had the same object of faith that we have he adduceth Abraham's faith and the Fathers drinking of the same rock which was Christ 1 Cor. 10. and yet all that drank of that water had not saving faith in Christ whereby he can meane nothing but the same Material Object which we grant to have been the same as to the substance But I would know what he would say of the Material Object of Adam's faith before the fall Was Christ thaâ— Object No certanely and yet Adam had a divine Faith And after this discourse of the Material Object he concludeth rarely and profoundly that the Object of their faith and ours is the same viz. Inward and Immediat Revelation which before he called the formal Object of faith Is this man fit enough to boast all the learned men of Europe who cannot distinguish betwixt the Formal and Meterial Object of Faith who would not pity such an Ignoramus that yet is so confident as if all the wit and learning of Europe were nothing to this rare undâ—rstanding Thinketh he that none of his Readâ—rs were able to observe this master piece of Ignorance and Confusion The same line of Confusion is drawne over the rest of that paragraph for he citeth Gal 1 16. which he may apply to both then he citeth Heb. 13 7. which only speaketh of the Material Object and then he tels us that the diversity of administrations alters not the object what object He addeth a reason that would seem to plead for the same formal object for otherwise saith he God should be knowne some other way than by the Spirit But his next reason is most rare all actions are specified from their Objects saith he These things need no further examination to rehearse them is more than enough so exotick and non-sensical are they 26. But at length he would seem to speak some thing more to the purpose when he saith That such as deny this Proposition of his make use of a distinction granting that God cannot be known but by the Spirit but withal denying that this knowledge is Immediat and Inward because it is by the Scriptures But the same Confusion is continued for we know not whether he speaketh of the Formal Object of faith or of the Material If he mean the Formal I know no man that saith that the Scriptures are the formal Object of Faith but that they containe the material object and express the veracity and authority of God which is the formal object and so are at most but a part of the formal Object If he mean the Material object who granteth that the Spirit is that That the Spirit is what the Scriptures say he is and doth what the Scriptures say he doth is I grant a part of the Material Object of our Faith It may be that through ignorance he falleth upon another question here than his Proposition gived clear ground for and would discuss this question whether the Scriptures containe all that is necessary for us to believe unto salvation or must we have new Revelations making known to us what we ought to believe or what we ought to do in reference to salvation together with this and so still there shall be confusion whetheâ— the Lord doth now Instruct us Inwardly and Immediatly as of old he manifested his minde to the Patriarchs Prophets and Apostles or doth he it Mediatly by the Word Ordinances Publick private which he hath appointed for this end But the man walketh in the dark all alongs either through ignorance or worse Waving what he here denyeth concerning Scriptures till we come to examine his next Thesis let us here see what he undertaketh to prove we are here to prove sayes he That the Christians now a dayes no less than of old are led inwardly and immediatly by the Spirit after the same manner though it may be not all together in the same measure Here still nothing but confusion and darkness For 1 How all the People of God of old were led by the Spirit he hath not shewed or what way they were led Inwardly and Immediatly was the privilege of a few Patriarchs and Prophets common to them all were none of them led by the Spirit in an Ordinary way by the Teachings and Information of others the Spirit by his grace and efficacious Operation inwardly concurring were none of them Taught and Instructed by the Ordinances of God established among them and blessed by the Spirit 2 We know not what he meaneth by this Inward and Immediat Leading whether that which is Ordinary and Common to all saints whereby the Spirit dâ—th Efficiently and Powerfully draw determine the soul to a compliance in Faith and Obedience with the will of God revealed in his law and to a right Improvement of his Ordinances which He hath established in his House and Church for building up of his People in their most holy faith or that which is Extraordinary and peculiar to a few whereby for the good of others and their further instruction he was pleased in a singular manner to Communicate his minde and to Reveal Immediatly what others were to beleeve and to do If he meanâ— this last we shall attend his proofs If he first he beateth the winde and fighteth against his own shadow 3. We know not what he meaneth by the same measure of which he speaketh so doubtingly Sure as to the light of saving Knowledge and as to the Object of faith there is much more clear discovery thereof under the New Testament than was in the time of the Old Testament as Paul proveth 2 Cor. 3 concluding vers 18. But we all with open face beholding as in a glasse the glory of the Lord are changed into the same image from glory to glory even as by the Spirit of the Lord And as the whole Gospel evinceth See Ephes 3 9. 1 Pet. 1 10 11 12. Act. 2 14-20 Luk. 7 28. From all which it is manifest that we cannot understand what it is which he would prove and what his Arguments must conclude 27. Yet let us see what his reasons are He adduceth § 10. these promises of Christ Ioh. 14 16 17 20. and 16 13. and hence would clear to us three particulars First That the Comforter and the Spirit
perceiving the truth of the most clear Mathematick demonstrations can he do the like as to his sensations 35. The parting argument which he seteth down in the last paragraph is sufficient so he thinketh to end the whole debate Thus he frameth it That unto which all Professors of Christianity of whatsoever kinde do at last recurre and because of which all other grounds are commended and accounted worthy to be beleeved must of necessity be the only most certane and immovable ground of all Christian faith But the Inward Immediat objective revelation of the Spirit is that Therefore c. Now not to carpe at the eccentrickness of this conclusion for many such things must be passed over This confirmation of the Minor as to Protestants with whom he very charitablie joyneth Socinians whom I cannot account Christians notwihstanding of all the agreement betwixt him and them destroyeth the whole Argument and rendereth it Useless as to his purpose and so concludeth only his folly and ignorance If we enquire say he at them why they take the Scripture for a Rule they answere Because in them is declared the will of God which was revealed Immediatly and objectively by the Spirit unto holy men Can any man of common sense inferre hence that Protestants are for the Uncertanty of all Objective and Immediat Revelation even of that which holy men of God had when acted by the Infallible Spirit to penne Scripture as he insinuateth in the following words or can any man of common judgment see what this concession and necessary foundation of Protestants can make for the falsly pretended Immediat and Objective Revelations which Quakers boast off Nay doth not Protestants their owneing of this solide and immovable foundation sufficiently warrand their rejecting of his Delusions yea and necessitate them thereunto if they would be true to their principles 36. As for his monitory conclusion in the end of his vindication of this his Second Thesis wherein he giveth us a full foretaste of his Pelagianisme because we will have occasion sufficient to speak to this matter afterward we need only tell the Reader what he saith here His discourse in short is this If any man will assent to what he hath said of Divine Revelations though at present he be a stranger to them himself yet he must know that this is the common Privilege of all Christians and at length shall come to know this secret light enlighting his heart c. and when by relinquishing of sin this divine Voice in the heart shall become more known then shall he feel that as the Old Naturall Man is put off the New Man and spiritual birth shall arise and this new birth having Spiritual senses can discerne the things of the Spirit and understand the Mysteries of the kingdom of God And therefore let every man attend to this Spirit in the Little Revelation of that pure light which at first revealeth things more notoure and afterward as he is fitted he shall receive more and more and be in case at length by quick Experience to refute them who shall enquire what way he knoweth that he is led by the Spirit That is in short If one will firmly beleeve that Natures dimme Light is the Spirit of God and the Holy Ghost in him and in the faith of this give up himself to the Teachings thereof and thereby shun outward acts of sin and put on a forme of Godliness and more and more give up himself to this Delusion he shall at length arive at this Perfection that he may burne the Bible and with confidence assert that he is acted by the Holy Ghost let Scriptures and Common Sense say to the contrary what they will What an extract of Pelagianisme Enthusiasme and dreadful Delusion is here every knowing person may see CHAP. IV. Of the Scriptures 1. HIs third Thesis which I finde in some things altered and more clearly expressed in the second edition set down in the Apology than was in the single sheet containing his judgment of the Scriptures cometh now to be examined The Scriptures being owned by us as a sure Rule whereby we should try the Spirits and they giving such clear and manifest Testimony against the Delusions and bold Assertions of the Quakers and affording us full and sufficient Ground whereupon to reject their Doctrine and to look upon them as Impostors it is little wonder that we heare them speak so basely of these Scriptures of Truth as we do Mr Stalham in his Reviler rebuked Pag. 1. tels us that a Quaker denied to his face the Scriptures to be the word of truth or at least not to all not to wicked men and unbelievers no not condemningly He tels us also Pag. 4. that some said to him That the Scripture is not the word of truth but the witness of Gods power as if that could be the true witness of Gods Power which were not true nor the word of truth He tels us also Pag. 18. sect 2. that Francis Howgil said The Scripture is other mens words that spoke them freely and Pag. 20. that Richard Farnworth called them in a way of disparagment a printed bible So Pag. 23. sect 3. that Iohn Lawson said we had nothing to try men by but the letter the Bible or written word which is natural and carnal So Pag. 244. he tels us that some of them in a book called a paper sent into the world Pag 2. have these words They are such teachers as tell people that Matthew Mark Luk and John is the Gospel which are but the letter we therefore do dâ—ny them And Pag. 250. he citeth these words out of Tho. Lawsons book called an untaught teacher Pag. 2. To say that the word of truth is called the Scripture or that the Scripture is called the word of truth that is a lie If this man do not approve of these and the like Expressions of those called Quakers he is concerned to give testimony against them and that directly that the world may bear witness of his honesty But we know what account the Old N. England Libertines David George and the Familists with whom this man and the rest agree too well made of the Scripturs 2. It is commonly affirmed by the Quakers that the Scriptures are not the word of God or ought not to be so called So Fox and Hubberthorn cited by Mr Hicks in his first dialogue Pag. 17. where he tels us also that Nailor in his Answere to the jewes P. 22. said That it is the devil that contends for the Scriptures to be the word of God And that this is their common Assertion and that mainly upon this ground that Christ is called the word of God D. Owen also witnesseth this in his Exercit Apol. Pro. S. Scriptâ—r Adv Fanaticos Exerc. 1. Sect. 3. which is no new thing for Phanaticks to alledge for I finde that it was one of Swenckfeldius's heterodoxies de Sacris Libris P. 27 28. and that upon the same
the new covenant 13. Universal proper Fruits and Effects of this death whereby all the outward favours that Heathens enjoy are said to be purchased for them by Christ and why not also what Devils enjoy 47. Finally 36. This assertion of Universal Redemption laith the ground of and maketh way to a new frame of the Covenant of Grace quite overturning its Nature and transforming it into a new covenant of works making it one and the same with that as to kinde and only to differ as to the change of conditions to be performed by man for as in the first covenant Adam was to obtaine right to and possession of life promised in by for through and upon the account of his fulfilling the condition of perfect obedience imposed by the Lord so in the New covenant man is to obtaine and acquire to himself a right to and possession of the Life promised in by for through and upon the account of his performance of the Condition of Faith and new obedience now imposed in the Gospel and all the difference is that instead of perfect obedience to the which was the condition of the first covenant now Faith and sincere Gospel Obedience is made the condition And thus we can no less be said to be justified by works of the Law or which we do then Adam should have been said to have been so justified had he stood and this justification giveth as great ground of boasting unto man and of making the reward of debt and not of grace as justification by the first covenant would have done for though it be said that Christ hath made satisfaction to justice for the breach of the first Law and thereby purchased to all upon Condition Iustification Salvation yet this removeth not the difficulty for what is purchased by Christ's death is made Universal Common to all and so can be nothing according to our Adversaries but a putting of all men in statu quo prius in case to run obtaine the prize for themselves as God's absolute free love put Adam in that condition at first Christ's death though thereby as they say he purchased the New Covenant which with them is the chiefe if not the only effect and fruit of his Death Merites can be no more than a very remote ground of Right to Life and Salvation unto any person for it is made Universal Common to all so that all have equal share therein and advantage thereby man himself by performing the new conditions only making the difference so that the immediat ground of the Right to life which any have is their own Faith and Obedience or performance of the New Covenant-conditions Whereby it is manifest that as to our Particular and Immediat Right to Happiness we are to plead our own works lean to them as our ground whereupon we may stand and appear before God's Tribunal and upon the account thereof plead for the crown as our due debt having now run for it performed the condition agreed upon and so sing praises to ourselves instead of singing praises to our Redeemer Hence the righteousness wherein we must appear before God is not the Righteousness of Christ but our own for the Righteousness of Christ say they is only imputed in regaird of its effects whereof the new Covenant is the All or the Chiefe and so that doth not become the Righteousness of any man nor can be said to be imputed to any man properly which also they assert but his own Faith is only imputed properly which also they plead for as his Righteousness not as a Way Medium or Methode of Gospel-Righteousness especially when Gospel-Obedience is adjoyned The Righteousness of Christ beinâ— hereby only accounted to be imputed in that it hath procured that our own Gospel Righteousness Faith and new Obedience shall be imputed to us as our Immediat Righteousness the ground of our Right to Glory What accord is betwixt this frame of the Covenant of Grace and that way of justification held forth by Socinians Arminians Papists the learned will easily see and how contrary it is to the Covenant of Grace held forth in the Gospel hitherto professed maintained by the orthodox every one acquanâ—ed therewith cannot be ignorant it is obvious how opposite this is unto wâ—at the Apostle saith Phil. 3 8 9. yea doubtless and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Iesus my Lord for whom I have suffered the loss of all things and do count them but dung that I may win Christ and be found iâ— him not having mine own Righteousness which is of the Law but that which is through the faith of Christ the Righteousness which is of God by faith And Tit. 3 5 6 7. Not by works of Righteousness which we have done but according to his mercy he saved us by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost which he shed on us abundantly through Iesus Christ our Saviour that being justified by his grace we should be made heires according to the hope of eternal life And Rom. 3 20 21 22 24. Therefâ—re by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified but now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Iesus Christ unto all and upon all them that beleeve being justified freely by his grace through the Redemption that is in Iesus Christ. And many other places It is no less clear how hereby the true nature of justifying faith and Gospel obedience is perverted and with all how dangerous this is if put into practice or if men act ilve accordingly every serious exercised Christian knoweth 48. Having thus briefly laid down our grounds for a Particular and against an Universal Redemption we come to see what our Quaker sayeth for Universal Redemption which he supposeth to be so clearly asserted in Scripture that hardly any other article of Christian Religion can compare with it as to this but the confidence of a Quaker acted and led by a Spirit of delusion is no convincing argument to me Let us see his grounds He citeth Luk. 2 10. addeth He sayeth not to a few of the people but if the comeing of Christ had not brought a Possibility of Salvation unto all it might rather have bin called tideings of great griefe to the mâ—st part of the people Answ. If Christ had only brought a Possibility of salvation with him the Gospel had bin the tideings of joy to no flesh for Salvation upon a Condition Impossible is no salvation 2. Did Christ bring a Possibility with him to the damned if not where is his Universal Redemption 3 It is said here to be to all people because the Offer and Meanes thereof were not now to be limited to one Nation of the Jewes as formerly but the Lord was to have a people out of all Kinreds Nations Tongues Languages yet
light for this effect which consideration moderateth our astonishment at the Boldness and Confidence of the Qâ—akers and particularly of this their Patron in this matter 4. When he cometh to explaine this proposition Pag. 82. § 12. he tels us what he meaneth by this day and time of visitation that God hath granted unto all men And negatively he sayes he doth not mean every man's tearme of life though as to some as for example the penitent thiefe it may extend so far But wherein consisteth this visitation This was the chiefe thing that was here to be explained we must it seems waite for his meaning till a fitter season afterward A day of gracious visitation and invitation in the Gospel offer we acknowledge But what it is which is granted to the Heathens that can go under this name I am yet to learne knowing no dispensation of God that can be called a day of Visitation in reference to Salvation but what it is in and through the preaching of the Gospel which bringeth life and immortality to light and which therefore cannot be said to be granted to such as never heard of it 5. Then he tels us positively that it is only such a time in which God is sufficiently exonered of the condemnation of every man which may be longer to some and shorter to others as it seemeth good unto God according to his wisdom That no flesh shall have any ground of quarrelling with God I am past all doubt But if this man think that in some cases God is in hazard to be impanneled by man it concernes him to make this matter more plaine to us who see no such hazard and can apprehend no such danger If he learne any thing of this out of the Scriptures he would do well to acquaint us therewith if he have it only by Revelation I am not like to bottome my faith upon his said or supposed Revelations Sure I think he should have given us some other ground for all this difference that God maketh among men granting to some a longer day and to others a shorter day of Visitation than is the good pleasure of God for he cannot but know that we lay this down for a ground why some get no such day of Visitation I mean as to the preaching of the Gospel and yet this will not satisfy him and others of his kinde who take upon them with no small boldness to tell us of Rules of Justice of their owne imagining which God must not transgress What if some say That God is not Iust and Righteous enough if he grant not to all an equally long day of Visitation Will he think to satisfy them with saying So it seemeth good to God according to his Wisdom If so he must be very partial who will not accept of this answere out of our mouth when sure it may sufficiently serve to stop his mouth seing it can not helpe him to say that in the other case God should be less Unjust for in no degree how small so ever can God be Unjust But all this is but what some Papists say who will not have this sufficient grace alwayes at hand but say that some sinne it away as may be seen in Bellarmin Lib. 2. de Grat. Lib. Arb. 6. What becometh of them after this day He saith they may live after it but there is no Possibility of salvation for them and God suffereth them to be obdured as a just judgment for their infidelity and then he raiseth up such as instruments of his wrath and maketh them his rod against others But 1. May it not come to passe that such after that day may heare the Gospel preached no doubt he will say yea is not then the Lord mocking them when he inviteth them to Repentance Salvation after it is Impossible for them to Repent be saved If not why objected he this against our doctrine of Reprobation 2. Why is there no Possibility of Salvation Is it impossible for God to give them grace or hath their Free will gote such a crake or such a byasse as that it is impossible for them to run right Then they have in that case lost all Free will for his masters the Iesuites Arminians tell us that it is not Free will which cannot either will or nill as it pleaseâ—h even all things requisite being present And if there be not Free will there can be nothing as they say but Necessity necessity taketh away all sin all conscience of sin 3. He saith God suffereth them to be obdured And is this all The Scripture speaketh more actively of the matter telling us that frequently too that Goâ— hardened the heart of Pharaoh See Exod. 7. 8. 9. 10. that he hardeneth whom he will Rom. 9 18. 4. But whether are they obdured before the day of Visitation be at an end or after if before then while they are Obdured salvation is possible If after then their day of Visitation ended before they were abdured then I would ask if sin procure this finishing of the day of their visitation or not and what sin it is seing it is not Hardness of heart Is it the sin of Infidelity but then seing persons are guilty of that at the first hearing of the Gospel not obeying beleeving eitâ—er this day endeth with the first proclamation of peace in the Gospel which is false seing many are and may be long Unbeleevers under the drop of the Gospel and after many yeers get grace to beleeve or not and then we would faine know when 5. By his mentioning of Infidelityâ—ere â—ere as the sin procureing God's permission of Obduration he seemeth to import that the day of Visitation calleth for faith anâ— I wish he had explained to us what he understandeth by faith and what is the Object and what are the Acts of this faith for hithertil I could observe nothing said by him that might informe me 6. But how can Infidelity be charged upon such as never heard the Gospel Doth the Scripture any where charge Infidelity upon such as lived without the pale of the Câ—urch 7. When the Lord gave up the Gentiles to uncleanness to vile affections and to a reprobat minde Rom. 1 24 26 28. Which I suppose he will think to be equivalent unto the Lords suffering them to be Obdured as he speaketh we hear that it is for other sins than want of Faith or for not improving the day of Visitation 8. what the last clause can import or for what end it is adduced I cannot well imagine Only I gather out of it and the preceding words That he cannot but say that God punisheth sin with sin and useth sinful men acting sin as his instruments as a rode in his hand and so must will that sin be in the world by his permission which is what our Divines say though on all occasions and without occasion offered he falleth soule upon them upon this
obtaine Reconciliation with God for all sinners whatsomever without any difference before that God would open againe the door of salvation and enter into a new Covenant of grace with sinners But this Reconciliation hath no more force or import but that God might enter againe into a Covenant with sinners and so there is no Actual Reconciliation of sinners unto God And all that is obtained is for God and nothing for man save a Possibility of Salvation by a new Covenant nor are we told whether Christ hath satisfied for the breach of the First Covenant so that sin is fully pardoned unto all or not until the condition of the second Covenant be performed nor are we told upon what account the sins against the second Covenant are pardoned Or if they be unpardonable 6. Others explaine the matter thus Christ died for all and every man not only that God might without any violation of Justice enter into a new Covenant with sinners upon what condition he pleased but that it should be upon this Condition that man should be united with Christ the Cautioner and not only that Redemption and Salvation should be possible to all but that really most certanly Salvation should be bestowed on such as Christ thought good But seing Christ knew that his death would profite none but these few whom he had designed to what purpose should he have laid downe his life for the rest And how can his death be a price of Redemption for the rest How can Christ he said to satisfie for the rest Did he purchase Faith to these few and would he not purchase Faith to the rest and yet lay downe the great price for them What was the end obtained for the rest was it only a Possible Call of all Iustice being satisfied But of what import could that Possible Call be if Salvation was not also possible unto them And whereunto is that Call They will not say it is unto Salvation but to Faith But did not Christ know that this call would not be obeyed by them Did He procure Grace unto them to obey it then he procured Faith and if he procured Faith than he procured Salvation Againe if Iustice be satisfied for these others why are they not liberat If they say the new condition is not fulfilled Then it cannot be simply said that Christ satisfied Iustice on their behalfe for he knew before hand that these would not performe the new Condition how can he then be supposed to die for them notwithstanding 7. Thus we see what Difference is among men that hold Universal Redemption about the Proper and Immediat End and Aime of the purpose of God in sending Christ to die and of Christ in comeing to die and how for the most part it cometh all to little or nothing for it was saith Arminius That God might save sinners what way it pleased Him his Iustice which stood in the way being satisfied or as Corvinus That God might will to save sinners and That Christ intended by his death to make such satisfaction to justice as that he might obtaine to himself power of saving upon what conditions the Father pleased And thus Christ is said to have obtained Reconciliation and Redemption to all not that they should actually be partakers thereof but that God his justice now being satisfied might prescribe a condition which when they had preformed he might and would actually make them partakers thereof Some say that all men are put into a new Covenant in which Adam was a common person as well as in the old by vertue whereof none shall be damned that do not sin actually against the condition and fall thereby from that new state whereunto they are borne And this opinion differeth not much from that of Iacobus Andreae at the conference at Mâ—mpelgard which afterward Huberus maintained as Kimedoncius sheweth in his refutation of the same which was this in short That Christ suffered anâ— died for all none excepted Effectually and obtained for all a Reconciliation without any respect to Faith or Unbeleefe so that all who receive this Reconciliation and continue in it shall be saved but as to those who refuse it by unbeleef it is made null and they perish Others say That Christ by his satisfaction removed Original sin in all so that all Infants dying in infancy are undoubtedly saved Others that He died for all sinnes alike but conditionally Some say that after the price was payed it was absolutely undetermined what condition should be prescribed so as God might have re-established the Covenant of works Others that the procuring of a new way was part of the fruit of Christ's death As for this condition some say that man can performe it with the help of such meanes as God affordeth to all and thus establish the Diana of Freewill But others assert the necessity of grace flowing from election hereunto and so destroy Universal Redemption which yet they assert So that some say Christ died for all Conditionally if they beleeve making the Act the cause of its own Object for Faith with them is a beleeving that Christ died for them Some say that he died for all Absolutely Yet so as they partake not of the benefite until they performe the condition which was to be prescribed and thus they affirme that Christ did no more sustaine the persons of the Elect than of the Reprobat but of all alike If we enquire therefore what was the Immediat Result and Product of the death of Christ they agree not to tell us whether it was a Power or a Will or a Right to God to save any he pleased 8. However all the Arminians and Camero with them agree in this That Christ did not purchase faith for any and that as to all say some or as to the most part say others Christ hath only procured a Possibility of salvation And what is this Possibility Some call it an Exemption from that necessity of perishing under which they came by the violation of the former Covenant if a satisfaction had not interveened and by this Exemption the say it coâ—â—th to passe that Christ if he will justice being now satisfied may bring all to life And hereby also say they all may be saved if they will But wâ—at is this else then a meer Possibility What efficaâ—y hath it seing notwithstanding thereof all may perish againe They say it is really Efficacious as to this Possibility which was not before Justice was satisfied But yet notwithstanding of this Efficacious Possibility it might come to passe that not one should have been saved for how can salvation be possible without faith So that if faith be not hereby purchased it would seem that Salvation is not possible And further it doth hereby appear that all which is procured is but some power to God and to Christ But what is mans advantage They say That a way to life is opened unto man that so he may now come to God by Faith and
We reply That it must be proven that what is promised to be given is of a different nature and not of the same nature with what the man hath Both these parables to which this is annexed cleare that the more promised is but of the same kinde with what was had and improved To say then that one that improveth nature shall obtaine grace is as much as to say that one improving health shall obtaine wealth or honour or one by improving wealth and honour shall obtaine health But the meaning of the saying is that such as improve gifts and talents given of God shall get more of the same kinde as he that improveth wealth getteth more wealth 2. What meaneth that by which all ought to beleeve doth Spiritual Grace and Light bestowed only lay on an obligation to beleeve Then it doth nothing for the obligation lay upon the man before to believe 3. Is every thing that layeth on an obligation to beleeve Supernatural and Saving Then the law is supernatural and saving But our Quaker talks he knoweth not what 4 we do not exclude supernatural saving Light as appeareth from what we said But let us hear why this man would have nothing else here understood 32. His first reason is because we are not said to receive what is common and peculiar to our nature from Christ and the Evangelist is here declaring Christ's office as Mediator and the benefites which we get from him as such Answ. If we receive not what is natural and common from Christ we have neither our Being nor Conservation of him contrare to Heb. 1 3. Col. 1 16 17. And that the Euangelist is here chiefly clearing and confirming the Deity of Christ none but Socinians will deny His Second reason is because the light is said to shine in darkness and yet not to be comprehended by darkness but this darkness is nothing but the natural state of man and yet in his natural state man can comprehend what is common and peculiar to him as such Ans. Not to take notice of his calling something both Common and Peculiar which is a sort of repugnancy here we grant that mans natural state is a state of darkness and therefore inferre that while in that state he is voide of all spiritual and supernatural Light for when this cometh the man becometh light in the Lord And though man in his natural state can comprehend that which is natural yet he cannot comprehend the God of Nature who is here called Light This Light may shine by natural effects of Reason and a Natural Conscience in a natural man and yet the man nor comprehend or understand this Light Our Quaker whose light of reason is darkness taketh the light here to be meant of the effect and not of the efficient so practically confuteth himself His third reason is but a repetition of what he said before was answered § 30. He adeâ—h more That in which we are commanded to beleeve that we may become the children of light is supernatural sufficient and saving But we are commanded to beleeve in the light Iohn 12 36. Ans. That we are commanded to beleeve in the light which is God is most true But that we are commanded to beleeve in the light which is but a meer Creature and a work in us as he imagineth is not true Iohn who came to bear witness of the light said unto the people that they should beleeve on him which should come after him that is on Christ Iesus Act 19 4 And told them that he that beleeveth on the Son hath everlasting life and he that beleeveth not the Son shall not see life but the wrath of God abideth on him Ioh. 3 36. To him gave all the prophets witness that through his name whoever beleeveth in him shall receive remission of sinnes Act. 10 43. But why do we cite particular places seing the whole Bible confirmeth it Here his Quakerisme setteth up its head while he will have that Light mentioned Ioh 12 36. not to be meaned of Christ himself but of some created thing in every man that is but meer Nature contrare to the very obvious import of the words as connected with the preceeding verse 34. where Christ and the Son of man is mentioned whom the Iewes thought should abide for ever and not be lifted up but he tels them that he was not to stay alwayes and that therefore they should be wise unto salvation and lay hold on him now by Faith and walk in him for darkness would come when he and his dispensations of the Gospel should be removed conforme to that Ioh. 8 12. I am the light of the world he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness but shall have the light of life See also Iohn 9 5. But sayes he Pag. 100. they could beleeve in his person although he was removed And himself addeth an Answere when he mentioneth afterward a day of visitation so that if they did not lay hold on the faire opportunity they had the day would come when Christ himself and also in his Dispensations and Offers of mercy in the Gospel administration should goe away and then they should walk in darkness His conclusion being so ill founded and destructive of true Christianity substituting some Natural and consequently now corrupt thing common to all men both within and without the Church both barbarous and more moralized in the roome of Christ is to be rejected with all detestation and deserveth not to be once more repeated What he citeth at large out of Cyrillus if it be considered alone without this mans corrupt glosse which we are not to regaird speaketh nothing against the Truth which we owne as might easily be made to appear if we judged it worth so much paines as to clear it 33. The Second ground of his Universal Grace set down Pag. 101. § 22. is taken from the parable of the sower Mat. 13 Mark 4. Luk. 8. and this he saith is the word of faith Rom. 10. and the engrafted word Jam. 1 21. But is any so blinde as not to see that this is utterly impertinent to his purpose seing it is so manifest that our Lord is here speaking of the ordinary fruite of a preached Gospel and that among those that seem to be most docile and are not of the prophane and flagitious mockers opposers and persecuters of the truth Is he not speaking of that word which is heard with the eare And doth not Paul speak of such an outward word Rom. 10. which is preached by such whose feet are beautiful And that word whereof James speaketh is the same which should be received with meekness that it may become an ingrafted word and prove saving Is this word a substantial thing lying in every mans heart Is this word communicated to all the world to all and every man in the world since the very day that Adam fell What uncouth phansies must these Quakers have that are carryed away
Iustification is an act of Gods free grace unto sinners Rom. 3 23 24 25 and â— 5. in which he pardoneth all their sins accepteth and accounteth their persons righteous in his sight 2 Cor. 5 19 21. Rom. 3 22 24 25 27 28. not for any thing wrought in them or done by them Tit. 3.5 Ephes. 1 7. but only for the perfect obedience and full satisfaction of Christ by God imputed to them Rom. 5 17 18 19. 4 vers 6 7.8 and received by faith alone Act. 10 53. Gal. 2 16. Phil. â— 7. Adde to this Q. 72. What is justifying faith A. justifying faith is a saving grace Heb. 10 39. wrought in the heart of a sinner by the Spirit 2 Cor. 4 13 Ephes. 1 17 18 19. and the word of God Rom. 10 â—4 17 whereby he being convinced of his sin and misery and of the disability in himself and all other creatures to recover him out of his lost condition Act. 2 â—7 and 16 30. Ioh. 16 8 9. Rom. 5 6 Ephes. 2 1. Act. 4 12. not only assenteth to the truth of the promise of the Gospel Ephes. 1 13. but receiveth and resteth upon Christ and his righteousness therein held forth for pardon of sin Iâ—h 1 12. Act. 16 31. 10 53. and for the accepting and accounting of his person righteous in the sight of God for Salvation Phil. 3 9. Act. 15 11 And Q. 73. How doth faith Iustifie a sinner in the sight of God Answ. Faith justifieth a sinner in the sight of God not because of these other graces which do alwayes accompany it or of good works that are the fruits of it Gal. 3 11. Rom. 3 28. Nor as if the grace of faith or any act thereof were imputed to him for his justification Rom. 4 5. with Rom. â—0 10. but only as it is an instrument by which he receiveth and applyeth Christ his righteousness Ioh. 1 1â— Phil. 3 19. Gal 2 16. With all we will be hâ—lped to understand the orthodox truth in this matter by considering two other questions to wit Q 75. What is Sanctification A. Sanctification is a work of Gods grace whereby they whom God hath before the foundation of the world chosen to be holy are in time through the powerful operation of his Spirit Heb. 1 4. 1 Cor. 6.11 2 Thes. 1 13. applying the death and resurrection of Christ unto them Rom. 6 4 5.6 renewed in their whole man after the image of God Ephes. 4 23 24. having the seeds of repentance unto life and of all other saving graces put into their hearts Act. 11 18. 1 Ioh. 3 9 and those graces so stirred up increased and strengthened Iud. vers 20. Heb. 6 11 12. Ephes. 3 16 17 18 19. Col. 1 10 11. as that they more and more die unto sin and rise unto newness of life Rom 6 to 14. Gal. 5 24 with Q. 77. Wherein do Iustification and Sanctification differ Answere Although Sanctification be inseparably joyned with Iustification 1 Cor. 6 11. and 1 30. Yet they differ in that God in Iustification imputeth the righteousness of Christ Rom. 4 6 8. in Sanctification his Spirit infuseth grace and inableth to the exercise thereof Ezech. 36 27. In the former sin is pardoned Rom. 3 23 25. in the other it is subdued Rom. 6 6 14. the one doth equally free all believers from the revenging wrath of God and that perfectly in this life that they never fall into condemnation Rom. 8 33 34. the other is neither equal in all 1 Ioh. 2 v. 12 13 14. Heb. 5 12 13 14. Nor in this life perfect in any 1 Ioh. 1 8 10. but groweth up to perfection 2 Cor. 7 1. Phil. 3 12 13 14. â—hus we have the orthodox doctrine in this point fully cleared and confirmed 3. Let us next see whâ—t is the opinion of the Qâ—akers in this matter And before we examine particularly what this Man with whom we deal saith we shall shortly see what other Quakers have maintained before Mr Clapham in his book against the Quakers Sect. 5. tels us that I. Nayler in his Love to the lost P. 3. joyneth with the Papists and pleads for our being made righteous by Gods putting in righteousness in us and by righteousness wrought in the creature And P. 50. with Papists he confounds Justification Sanctification and Mortification and argueth for it as they do So Mr Stalham in his book against them Part. 1 Sect. 22. sheweth out of their owne words what friends they are unto the man of sin by laying the bottome of a believers justification not upon Christs obedience but upon sanctification And Sect. 25. he tels us that I. Nailer said that the man of sin is discovered in them who say beleevers are pure and spoteless too by reason of imputation and in his Love to the lost p. 51. that men are so justified as they are sanctified and mortified and no further And that F. Howgil in The inheritance of Iacob Pag. 29. hath these words Christ fulfilled the Law and he fulfils it in them who know him and his work and herein man becomes to be justified in Gods sight by Christ who works all our works in us and for us Mr Hicks in his 2 Dialogue Pag. 4. tels us that Isaak Pennington asks this question Can outward blood cleanse And saith Therefore we must enquire whether it was the blood of the vail that is of the humane nature or the blood within the vail viz. of that spiritual man consisting of flesh bloud and bones which took on him the vail or humane nature It is not the bloud of the vail that is but outward and can outward blood cleanse And that Edward Billing most wickedly said that the mystery of iniquity lyes in the bloud of Christ. And that these words frequently drop from their mouthes dost thou look at Christs death afar off What will that bloud avail Didst ever see any of it That carnal bloud cleanse If thou hadst a great deal of it would it do thee any good If such as speak thus of the precious bloud of Christ can have right thoughts of Justification the sober may easily judge And what intimation Edward Burroughs giveth about this may be seen there P. 18 22 c. I love not to transcribe the words only that which he hath Pag. 26. seemeth to be plaine Thou beast who would have another righteousness than that which Christ works in the saints and by them He tels us likewise ib. Pag. 31. that Will Pen Sandy foundation Pag. 29.30 hath these words Obedience to justification ought to be as personally extensive as was mans disobedience to condemnation In which real not imputative sense those various termes of Sanctification Righteousness Resurrection Life Redemption Iustification c. are most infallibly understood for impute or imputing signifies no more in Scriptures but to express men really and personally to be that which is imputed to them whether as guilty or remitted For any to
3 5 6. any way confirme his fancy but rather establish the contrary truth to wit that all the favours which God conferreth upon us in order to salvation are of free grace and not by works of righteousness or works which are done in righteousness and righteously as the words in the original bear which we have done Grace and Mercy here are set in opposition to all our works yea to our best works and therefore if Iustification be an act of God's grace as the Scripture saith it is it is not nor can it be because or upon the account of our works of righteousness And if in and through or by Iustification there is pardon of iniquity as there is Rom. 4 5 6 7. And if pardon of iniquity be a merciful and gracious act in God being an act of his free grace and mercy Ephes. 1 vers 7 8. it is manifest that Iustification is not upon thâ— account of our works Therâ—fore we are said to be Iustified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Iesus Christ Rom. 3 24. Moreover the judgment of God is alwayes as in condemning of sinners so in justifying of beleevers according to truth Rom. 2 2. And in the matter of justifying of the ungodly the righteousness of God is declared and it is all so contrived that he might be just and the justifier of him which beleeveth in Iesus Rom. 3 25 26. Therefore cannot Iustification passe upon the account of any thing framed and done in us or by us because that is not nor can it be that which will passe for a Righteousness in the eyes of God and a Righteousness answerable to the Law in all points it being when it is at its best but imperfect nor can it have any merite or deserving in it to compensat for former transgressions being alwayes that only which we are obliged unto so that when we have done all we must say that we are but unprofitable servants Luk. 17 vers 10. we have done but what was our duty to do 7. Having thus briefly dispatched his Thesis wherein we see his opposition to Iustification by and upon the account of the Righteousness of Christ imputed and therein his harmony and agreement with Papists Socinians and Arminians we come now to consider what he sayes more largly in his Apology Pag. 122. c. In the beginning he tels us that the handling of this doth well follow his treating of universal Redemption and universal grace And I shall not quarrel with his Method were his doctrine orthodox but seing few who plead for the universality of the death of Christ and who contend for the universality of grace are found sound and orthodox in the point of Iustification we mighâ—â—pon this ground though we had gote no taste of his judgment in the Thesis suspect his doctrine of Iustification But after tryal we will be better able to judge He saith truely that there are many controversies moved already about this point and the more blame worthy is he who doth not diminish but increase these rather as to some things though in the principal he liketh the Popish way better than ours He promiseth first to state the controversie so far as concerneth them and to explaine their judgment and then he saith he will confirme it by Scripture testimony and the certain experience of all that are really justified we must see how he performeth what is promised 8. What he saith § 2. of the Papists depraving of this truth we heare but are ready to suppose that howbeit he do not with them stand up for the merite ex condigno as it is called and yet many Papists reject this and are satisfied with meritum ex congruo in the mater of Iustification and some reject both as may be seen in Stapleton Prol. ad lib. 5. de justific of good works nor approve of the vulgar Papists placeing their Justification in things that are neither good nor evil or in things that are rather evil as good as he thinketh to be evident from their doctrine of the Sacraments and Indulgences c. but commend our Reformers for opposeing these Abominations Yet as to the maine controversie handled betwixt our Reformers and the Papists viz. what is Iustification and what is the formal reason Objective or the formal cause as some speak or Material cause as others speak or that because and upon the account of which men are Justified in the sight of God this Quaker joyneth with the Papists The Councel of Trent Sess. 6. Chap. 7. tels us That Iustification is not only remission of sins but also Sanctification and renovation of the inner man by a voluntary susception of grace and gifts whereby man of unjust becometh just of an enemy becometh a friend that he may be an heire according to the hope of eternal life Why doth our Quaker embrance this upon the matter and give a worse Justification even a Justification wherein there is no mention made of remission of sinnes Why doth he with this Synagogue of Satan confound Justifiâ—ation and Sanctification He knoweth how Bellarmine de Iustif. lib. 2. Cap. 2. briefly stateth the question betwixt us and them in these words Whether the formal cause of absolute Iustification be a righteousness inherent in us or not If this Quaker be no Papist why doth he conspire with them in this cardinal point of difference Why doth he and the rest rise up so much against the Imputed righteousness as do the Papist following the Councel of Trent as we see Pag. 125. he doth shewing his teeth against our Confession of faith And there also I cannot but take notice of a base falshood and deceit when he would make his Readers beleeve that the Papists do not place Justification in any real inward renovation of soul more then the Protestants while as we have seen the contrary out of the Councel of Trent and Bellarm. and multitudes moe might be cited But what needs more when we have the words of that Councel which all Papists must stand to and in that forecited Chapt. the same Councel saith The only formal cause is the righteousness of God not that by which he himself is righteous but whereby he maketh us righteous to wit by which we are renewed in the Spirit of our minde and are not only repute but truely are called and are righteous or just It is true that they say that this grace and charity that is infused in Iustification is through the merite of the most holy suffering of Christ And in this they are more orthodox and less Socinian than are the Quakers to this Mans shame be it spoken Yet still they make Justification to consist in the Infusion of grace and Renovation of the soul. 9. He beginneth his explication of their judgment Pag. 126. § 3. And telleth us first That as it appeareth from the explication of the former thesis they renunce all natural power in themselves for delivering of themselves out
must be when he saith we are not Justified by the Law that we are indeed justified by Inherent Holiness or Conformity to the law What more The meaning of these words we are Iustified by faith sayes he may by we are made just by faith purifieing the heart Ans. Then the Apostles should contradict himself for if we be thus made just by faith we are made just by works and further purifying of the heart cannot otherwise be understood but of renewing the heart but Iustifying signifieth not making just Againe sayes he When we are said to be Iustified by grace by Christ by the Spirit what absurdity to understand this of making just Ans. Of being Justified by the Spirit we read â—ot for these words by the Spirit mentioned 1 Cor. 6 11. are to be referred to washing and sanctification When we are said to be Justified by grace it is by the gracious and free favour of God as our Divines make good against the Papists and that with the circumstances of the places are against such a Justification Nor must we any where so interpret any passage as to make it crosse or contradict other passages When we are said to be Justified by Christ the meaning is clear against his sense 31. He citeth againe 1 Cor. 6 11. not 11 6. and then tels us that Thysius thinketh that Iustification here includeth sanctification as its consequent and that Zanchius in Ephes. 2 4. thinketh it is the same with sanctification And that Bullinger on the place sayes the Apostle in diverse words expresseth the same thing Ans. 1. None of these Divines confound them and make them one as this Quaker doth but distinctly and orthodoxly explaine the nature both of Justiâ—â—cation and Sanctification 2. As I said above though this were granted that the word Iustify should import the same with sanctify in this or that place Yet unlesse he made it manifest that it alwayes so importeth and can never be taken in another sense he could not make good his Assertion and Opinion So that in all this work he is but beating the winde 3. Thysius had no ground to speak so seing sanctiâ—â—cation is as well expressed as Justification but ye are sanctified but ye are justified 4. Bullinger saith no more than what Calvin saith yet Calvin distinguisheth them in his Comment on the place Zanchius saith no such thâ—ng in the place cited 32. In the next place Pag. 138. he citeth with Bellarm. Rom. 8 30. And saith that either Sanctification must be excluded or Iustification must be taken in its proper sense Ans. 1. There is no necessity for either for Sanctification is comprehended under Vocation which is saving and effectual otherwise the linkes of this chaine could be broken for a common and ineffectual call is not attended with Justification and Glorification And effectual Vocation is by infusion of grace and the Spirit of holiness and a real change 2. Sanctification might be comprehended under the word Iustified it being a necessary and inseparable consequent and that without any prejudice to the native usual and constant import of the word Iustified 3. Thereafter vers 33.34 the Apostle cleareth in what sense he took Iuâ—tified when he opposeth it unto condemned a forensical terme and to accused another His citing of some Protestants so saying I passe finding no argument alleiged by them to enforce this acceptation Melanthon's saying that to be Iustified by faith doth not only signify to be pronunced just but to be made just May admit of a saife interpretation for he saith not to be made just by inherent righteousness And it is certain that all that are Justified are first made just not by inherent righteousness but by the Imputed righteousness of Christ. What he citeth out of one Martinus Boraeus I cannot examine having never seen the book Bucer's words cited make nothing for him B. Forbes's words I will not justify but judge that Cardinal Contarenus spoke more orthodoxly then he The Fathers so taking the word sometimes moveth not me more nor it did Calvin Chemnitius and Zanchius cited by himself And further if to justify signifie to make righteous to accuse and to condemne which are opposite terms must signifie to make unrighteous or unjust 33. After this § Pag. 140. he bringeth in his conclusion from what he hath said and it is a bold one Having now sufficiently saith he proved that by Iustification must be understood to be made really just This is concluded like a Quaker with unparalleled falshood impudency and boldness He undertook only to prove that the word might without absurdity be so understood and how weakly he hath done this we have seen But now he wonderfully concludeth a must be from a may be and that too no wayes satisfyingly proved But I have said already that the beleever who is Justified may be said to be really made just but not in his sense nor because of the import of the word as he alleigeth but because the judgment of God is according to truth and God will not justifie an unjust man The Justified person therefore is first made just not by Inherent Holiness and Righteousness but by the Righteousness of Christ Imputed to him and Received by faith What saith he next I do confidently affirme from real and sensible experience but the delusory sensations or impressions of an erroneous Spirit on the mindes of persons given up to strong delusion is no demonstration to us of the verity of what they boldly affirme that the immediat next and formal cause whereby a man is Iustified in the sight of God is the revelation of Christ in the soul who converteth and reneweth the minde and he who is the Author of this work being so formed and revealed we are truely Iustified and accepted in the sight of God Ans. 1. Who seeth not that these things as here expressed are not such as can fall under the inward sensations of the soul Can the soul feel what is the Immediat Nearest or Formal Cause of God's acts What needs more proof of a desperat delusion 2. If the revelation of Jesus Christ be such a cause of Justification Justification cannot be a making just for it is not as he sayes the revelation that converteth and reneweth but Christ revealed and if Christ revealed maketh the change â—ustification doth it not nor can Justification be a declareing of one righteous because of inherent righteousness for here the man is Justified upon the revelation and yet the man is not renewed for he is not renewed by the revelation but by Christ revealed and the Revelation of Christ is before this Operation of Christ. 3. If the man be not justified till Christ be formed in him as his last words seem to say then the revelation of Christ cannot be the Immediat cause of Justification because that is before this forming of Christ in the man for it is before the work of Christ reforming and renewing the minde 4. I see all this
otherwise the inward should be excluded Answ. Both may consist for by the inward they become all one body really and spiritually and by the outward they became one body in profession and open declaration And what inconsistency is here He next tels us that he can see no ground or occasion in the Scripture for this figment of Sacramental union And what remedie seing Institutions of Christ must be figments with him it is no wonder he cannot see what others see But some are so far master of their sight that what they desire not to see their eyes can not see But it may be it is worse with him He cannot but see and yet the light within will not let him see We have mentioned lately some passages to this purpose both in the Old and New Testament and that may satisfie such as will see 14. He findeth the Apostles discourse 1 Cor. 11. A great mountaine in his way therefore Pag. 299 he laboureth all he can to blow it away He must grant that the Corinthians were in use of celebrating this Sacrament and that Paul rectifieth the abuses that were committed in their manner of going about it Yet he saith that the express and special use hereof in the Apostles judgment was to declare Christs death but this is far different from partaking of Christ's flesh and blood Ans. One use doth not destroy another the Apostle had in the preceeding Chapter mentioned the other use and needed not here againe repeat it expresly and we have showne already that this was a comprehensive use and could not but take in their eating of Christs body and drinking of his blood and this is clear in that the Apostle saith that whosoever did eat and drink unworthily were guilty of the body and blood of the Lord and did not discerne the Lord's body Nay himself granteth in the following words that to such as use this it hath an immediat relation to the outward body and death of Christ. And so there is a Sacramental union But he addeth It hath not a necessary relation to the participation of the Spiritual body and blood of Christ. Answ. We grant it as to that which he taketh the spiritual body and blood of Christ to be For there is no relation of the world there But that true beleevers partaking of these elements by faith are really and spiritually made partakers also of Christ and his benefites we assert and he dar not disprove it He addeth That these words of Paul vers 27. say only That seing the Corinthians would needs performe this ceremony as an act of religion they should do it worthily otherwise bring condemnation on themselves Answ. 1. If the Corinthians performed this ceremony as an act of Religion without a divine warrant they were guilty of will worshipe And shall he make us beleeve that Paul or the Spirit of the Lord rather in Paul would not discharge this superstition Nay not only not so but denunce such judgments on them for doing of it but amisse 2. Shall he make us beleeve that Paul would have taught and delivered to them modes of will-worshipe and prescribed the exercise of Superstion Yet Paul sayes vers 23. that he delivered this unto them 3. Shall he make us believe that the Lord would give Paul commission to establish among the Corinthians will worshipe and Superstition Yet he sayes vers 23. For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you 4. What way can people go worthily about an act of will-worshipe 5. Would God have punished them with sickness weakness and death for an escape in the manner of will-worshipe and not for the will-worshipe it self What wilde and bold conceits are these He needeth not tell us that from their practice it will not follow that this was a religious act incumbent to others also for we lay not down their practice as our ground but what was their ground is ours the Institution of Christ which he delivered unto Paul and Paul received to deliver unto the Corinthians And therefore it is not a thing indifferent and so not to be compared with that Rom. 14 5. as he dreameth and the practice of things indifferent as such is no act of Religion or of worshipe such as this is And therefore what he addeth Paâ— 300. is but a laying of a further imputation of unfaithfulness on the Apostle for fomenting the Corinthians in their errour and mistake and never once rectifying or informing their erroneous consciences What wonder is it that these proud Quakers account our Ministers unfaithful and what not when this Man dar lay such a foule imputation in Print upon the Apostle Paul Nay blasphemously impute this to the Spirit of God that acted Paul 15. In the next place he thinks he will prove that this Ordinance is not a lasting ordinance § 6 Pag. 300. c. Passing what is but a repetition let us hear his arguments Matthew and Mark sayes he expresseth this as done while they were eating And this was usual among the Iewes as Paulus Riccius observeth for at their eating of the passeover the master of the family took bread and brake it and did distribute it and so did he with wine So Christ who would fulfil all righteousness and would observe the Iewish feasts used this ceremony for his disciples only and took occasion thereby to raise up their mindes to higher things Answ. 1. To this last we have spoken before and why did not Christ take occasion to give this Christian document before this time while they were eating 2. It is true Christ instituted this Supper before they rose from table and what then 3. As for what is reported of the Jewish practice not only by this Paulus Riccius but by several others I doubt if all that is said shall demonstrate that the Jewes had this custome before Christ's dayes seing the eldest of the Jewish writters out of whom they have it wrote not till a considerable time after the Temple was brunt And what credite is to be given to what they wrote when their purpose and designe was to deface and annull Christianity let sober men judge 4. Sure I am there was no divine command for this practice at the eating of the Paschal Lamb and how our Quaker can say that Christ would do this because he would fulfil all righteousness I know not seing righteousness stands in obeying the command of God 5. Though Christ did observe the feasts prescribed to the Jewes by the Lord Yet he would not observe their sinful additions and traditions No he condemned these Mat. 15. 6. That which we are to look to is Christ's practice and we are sure that that should oblige us more then the Jewish practice could oblige Christ. 7. We not only have Christ's practice but a command mentioned by Luk do this in remembrance of me This evinceth no more saith he but that seing that was to be the last occasion of his eaâ—ing with
17 12 16 17 Neh. 13 15 17 21 22 25 30 2 King 23 5 6 9 20 21. 2 Chron. 34 31. 15 12 13 16. Dan. 3 29. 1 Tim 2 2. Esai 49 v. 2. Zech. 13 23. 3. Our Quaker premitteth some things for clearing of the question and first he tels us that by Conscience as he said before he understandeth that perswasion of soul which ariseth from the Intellect with the truth or falshood of a thing Anâ—w 1. How this description can agree to a scrupulous or to a doubting Conscience I see not for neither of these have attained to any perswasion though I know a blinded conscience or an erroneous conscience can have a sort of perswasion 2. Before to wit Pag. 89. he told us that some of the Quakers did fitly compare the Conscience unto a lanterne and the light of Christ to a candle burning in it And compareing this with what is here said we may see that in the Quakers judgment the light of Christ whereof they talk so much is nothing but the light of the understanding for it is this light of the understanding that causeth the perswasion which he calleth Conscience here and it is that which shineth in the dark lanterne of conscience as they speak there But 3. How can Conscience be compared to a lanterne seing a lanterne is a dark thing having no light in it self only it hath an aptitude to transmit the light that shineth in it but Conscience is a lump of light and is either an act of the practical understanding as some or rather as others a power of the practical understanding is not a distinct faculty from the understanding but the very understanding judging of and giving sentence upon the mans State Wayes and Actions And the very name Conscience importeth a knowing power and faculty con scientia or co-knowledge to it belongeth the Synteresis the intellectual store-house and magazine of truthes the Register of common notions left in us by nature whether as to things concerning God or as to things concerning Ourselves and our Nieghbour in respect of which the conscience is said to be a Law or Light and this belike is all the Light of Christ which our Quakers understand And the judgment of Conscience being discursive to it belongeth also the knowledge of all the mans actions in which respect it is called a Book or Witness or an Indiâ—ement as it bringeth forth these actions to light and compareth them with the Law To it also belongeth the judgment or sentence passed upon the actions as conforme or disconforme to the Law of God 4. Conscience then cannot properly be called a perswasion for this resulteth from the clear apprehensions dictats witnessing and judgment of the Conscience and so is but a consequent of Conscience acting that not of every conscience either as not of a doubâ—ing nor of a scrupling conscience but of a clear and sound conscience or of a deluded one 4. What saith he further which to wit the thing presented by the intellect thâ—ugh it be false and evil in it self yet as long as the man is perswaded to wit that it is true and â—ood he should sin if he did contrary to that perswasion for saith the Apostle whatever is not of faith is sin and he that doubteth is damned if he eat And Ames saith a conscience erring tyeth c Answ. It is true whatever the Conscience dictateth or enjoyneth it doth it in the name and authority of God whose Deputy and vicegerent it is yet it is but an underjudge and is not the supream Law but regula regulata so that though its dictats even when erroneous and contrary to the Law of God do so binde as that the man who doth contrary cannot but sin for though upon the maâ—er he doth nothing contrary to the Law of God yet formally and interpretatively he transgresseth that which is represented to him by Conscience as the Law of God and he knoweth no better but it is in very deed the Law of God which he transgresseth Yet for all this the erroneous conscience layeth on no formal obligation as the same D. Ames telleth us for it cannot oblige us to do that which is a transgression of the Law of God our supream Lawgiver It is true which the Apostle saith Rom. 14. last that whatever is not of faith is sin c. because when we do any thing not knowing certainly but in so doing we sin against God we shake off the awe and fâ—ar of God and have not a sufficient abhorrence at sin 5. He proposeth the question thus Whether the Civil Magistrat hath power to compel men against their conscience in maters of Religion And if they will not obey to punish them in their goods liberty and lives And he holdeth the negative I Answere This is a most perverse stateing of the question For 1. He distinguisheth not the Elicite and Imperat acts of the Conscience but confoundeth them As if the Magistrates power were said equally to reach both whereas we do not say that the Magistrate can compel men as to the inward liberty of the soul and conscience that is to Thiâ—k Judge Understand and Conclude in their mindes as he will as if he could force and compell any to Believe and Assent unto this or that opinion in the matters of God We say no such thing the Conscience as to these inward acts is far beyond the reach of his Sword But the question is concerning Outward and Imperated acts such as Speaking Preaching Writing Printing Open Profession and Perswading of others which are visible and audible dishonourable to God and noxious to men to wit Whether the Magistrate may punish such by the Sword who in maters of Religion Teach Speak and Printe blasphemies against God doctrines overturning Religion perverting souls c. And other things of that nature that men can pretend conscience for or not If he hold the Negative here as he must if he speak to the point we shall consider his arguments 2. Upon the other hand Though the Magistrate cannot enforce a Religion upon men Yet he may force them to the use of publick meanes whereby they may be brought to the knowledge and conviction of the truth As to hear sound Instruction and Information and to attend the meanes whereby light is usually conveyed into the soul and this is no force upon conscience but a putting of people to duty 3. So then the question is not whether the sword be a meanes of conversion of men to the true faith nor whether heathens are to be compelled by the magistrates sword to embrace the truth Nor yet whether the Inward Opinions of the minde can be punished by the Magistrate But the only question lyeth here Whether the Magistrate can by his power punish and restraine Open Idolaters false Worshipers false Teachers Perverters of the right wayes of the Lord Seducers of souls Corrupters or Deniers of the true worship of God open