living Creatures or Animals to love and cherish their Off-spring which is a shadow or figure of that more Divine Law in God's people is not any complex Proposition of words but an innate principle of love and affection which he hath planted in them Moreover the said I. A. digresseth here from his matter to seek an occasion against us and to load us with down-right Blasphemy because we do not say that there are three Persons in the God-head But to this Charge I have answered already to one of I. A. his Champions in my book called The Way Cast Vp the which hath given content to divers-sober people and I hope may give content to all who reads it in that particular where I show that it is only the unscriptural terms of a Trinity of Persons or of three Persons in the Godhead that we deny and not the mysterie or thing it self of Father Son and Holy Ghost being three that bear Record in Heaven which according to the Scripture we both believe and confess And indeed Augustine in his Fifth and Seventh Books of the Trinity not only saith the words three Persons are improper but disputeth against them and I suppose I. A. for all his School-Logick and Philosophy shall hardly be able to Answer his Argument the substance of which to my best remembrance is this The word Person either it signifieth somewhat absolute and simple or somewhat relative to say the first is absurd otherwise there should be three 〈◊〉 Beings or Essences in God which is absurd if somewhat relative which is the second then seeing every relative is referred or is relative to another as Father is relative to Son and therefore Father is the Father of another and no man is his own Father in this sense to say the Father is a Person is to say the Father is the Person of some other and so of the rest which is absurd The which Argument not as mine but really Augustines I leave I. A. to Answer and Ierome another ancient Doctor and Father so called doth find fault with the words Three Hypostasis saying expresly in the words Three Hypostaâ—is Latet aliquid veneni There lieth hid some poyson And Laâ—rentius Valla a man well esteemed among the learned findeth fault with the words Three Persons why then should we be so uncharitably charged by I. A. or such hot-headed men with Blasphemy only for keeping close to Scripture words in so great a Mysterie while the thing it self so far as the Scripture declareth it is owned by us And whereas he urgeth us to tell what Three are they to be called if neither Three Gods nor Three Persons I Answer It sufficeth us to call them what the Spirit of God in Christ and the Apostles hath called them and to enquire no further nor to be curiously wise above what they have dâ—â—lared Hath not I. A. heard That there is a Docta Ignorantia or Learned Ignorance which is more safe and to be preferred to an uncertain Knowledge or Science falsly so called And if I. A. his definition of Person be received viz. That it is an intelligent Being subsisting incommunicably or distinctly one from another I see not for my part but that Three Persons at this rate shall infer three intelligent Beings subsisting incommunicably and consequently Three Gods Lastly That he saith Some Quakers have called them three Manifesâ—ations viz. of Moses of Christ and of the Spirit he ought to have produced their names or then we are not bound to believe him that any have said so for at this rate Moses should be the Father of Christ which I do not believe any called a Quaker ever thought perhaps some have said there have been three Dispensations or Manifestations of God one through Moses and one through Christ in the Flesh and one through the Spirit or Christ in Spirit and that these may after some sort have such a reference as that the first may be called relative to the Father yet not excluding the Son and the second may be relative to the Son not excluding the Father c. which yet doth not argue that we understand the Dispensation or Administration of the Father to be the Father himself far less Moses to be the Father as I. A. I believe very rashly and unwarrantably doth alledge Now that there are or have been diversity of Administrations the Scripture is plain and Protestants as well as Papists do acknowledge it Yea what saith I. A. to the common Catechism that saith The Father hath Created us the Son hath Redeemed us and the Holy Ghost hath Sanctified us which is to be understood not exclusively nor yet without some order in the manner of working But who will be so foollish or ignorant for all this to say That the Father is our Creation the Son our Redemption strictly or literally and without a Figure so understood and the Holy Ghost our Sanctification Nor doth it follow that because Christ bringeth in his Father and himself as two Witnesses to prove that he was the true Messiah that therefore there are either two or three Persons in the Godhead for Christ speaketh these words not simply as God but as man Now as Man we acknowledge that Christ is a distinct Nature or Being from God although not divided or separated therefrom And lastly that he argueth That Christ is called the express Image of the Fathers Hypostasis and that Hypostasis should be and is truly Translated Person and not Substance and otherwise it would infer Arianism I Answer That Hypostasis should be Translated Person he doth meerly affirm without any proof from approved Authors and sure I am the Etymologie of the word hath no affinity to person but properly signifieth Substance being compounded of the Preposition and Substantive Verb which as near as possible is in Latin substantia and in English substance and is so Translated Heb. 11. 1. Now that to Translate it substance would infer Arrianism I. A. doth but meerly say it without any proof and so is not to be believed And beside Christ in Scripture is called The Image of the Invisible God and certainly God is a substance and yet this I hope will not infer Arrianism and may we not well understand how Christ as man is the Character or Image of God's substance without Arrianism seeing Christ said viz. in respect of his Manhood My Father is greater than I and it is clear that the aforesaid place Heb. 1. 2 3. is to be understood of Christ not simply as God but as man who certainly as man is the most bright and glorious Image of God and above all Angels or Men or whatever can be named besides the Godhead it self CHAP. VI. HAving thus traced I. A. in his unnecessary and impertinent digression I shall now reply unto his Arguments whereby he laboureth to prove that the Scriptures are the principal rule of Faith and manners And to the first that in Isaiah 8. 10. they were sent
Teaching of God's own Spirit of Peoples Instruction in all Nations according to Rom. 16. 26. and those Nations that want the Scriptures are no doubt for most part in great darkness But why some Nations want the blessing of the Scriptures belongeth to the secret Judgments of God and as for us who have them let us be thankful to God and earnestly seek the holy Spirit that gave them forth without which they will be a Sealed Book unto us whether learned or unlearned as it is at this day unto the unbelieving Jews and also unto many thousands of unfaithful Professors of Christ who in works deny him And thus by what is said how and in what manner we own the Word of God in our Hearts immediately Speaking and Teaching as our principal Rule I. A. his Cavils and false Charges are sufficiently Answered which may serve to all his Third Section Yet to Answer to some things more particularly whereas I. A. alledgeth That the Word mentioned Deut. 30. 14. is not Christ but the Books or Writings of Moses To this I Answer But whether shall we rather believe I. A. or the Apostle Paul who Rom. 10. doth plainly expound it of Christ see Verse 4. compared with Verse 5 6 7 8. when he distinguisheth betwixt the Law and Christ as preferring Christ to the Law and he saith Christ is the end of the Law which he proveth out of Moses's words Deut. 30. 14. and therefore these words of Moses are to be understood of Christ and so did Clements Alexandrinus and others of the Fathers understand them But saith I. A. Moses tyes them straitly to the external written Word of the Scriptures But what then doth he so tye them as that they were not to regard God or Christ or the Holy Spirit in their Hearts How wild and unreasonable is this consequence Could the people understand the true Spiritual intent and signification of the Law without Christ and his Spirit and inward Teaching Was it not the fault of the people that they stuck so close to the bare outward performances of the Law and neglected Christ and his Spirit which could alone give the understanding of it And therefore when he came in the flesh they rejected him Secondly as to Ieremiah 31. v. 31 32. we do not bring this place to overthrow the external Rule of the Scripture or true outward Teaching as I. A. falsly doth alleadge but only to prove that God himself doth Teach his people under the New Covenant so that they hear God himself and learn of him which yet doth not hinder yet they both also may and ought to hear all those whom God sendeth And certainly that Scripture expression to be Taught of God is more or a further thing then to be Taught by the Letter of the Scripture or by Moses and the Prophets Writings otherwise it might be said that the people simply by the Old Covenant was as much Taught of God as under the New Thirdly Nor do we bring Luke 17. 20 21. where Christ saith The Kingdom of God is within you to exclude all External helps and means as I. A. doth again no less falsely alleadge But only to prove that there is an inward Principle of Christs Light Life and Grace in men whereby he ruleth in those that are obedient unto the same and even in them who are disobedient it hath its Rule and Kingdom so far as to judge and condemn them which yet it could not do without some inward Dictate or witness Fourthly As to Iohn 16. 13. where Christ Promises to send his Spirit to guide us into all Truth Nor do we bring this to oppose all outward Teaching Reading Learning c. But still we say seeing it was a promise made to the Apostles as well as unto us it implyeth a real inward Teaching of God and the Spirit that is somewhat further then the outward Teaching whatsomever which if it may and ought to be called immediate in the Apostles may and ought also to be called immediate in Gods people now and always to the end of the World seeing the promise is the same to both and therefore hath the same performance at least in kind if not in degree Fifthly The same false and absurd charge he is guilty of as to 1 Ioh. 2. 20 27. which mentioneth The Anointing which taught them all things so that they needed not any man to Teach them For we bring not this place to oppose all outward Preaching or Teaching of men of God truly sent and called by him But only the bare dead and dry Teaching of men who run and God hath not sent them And also the words may be understood in respect of an absolute necessity so as they who are come to that inward Anointing and that it abide in them they have not an absolute necessity of outward true Teachers so as they must need perish for want of them if so be at any time they could not be had as doth at times come to pass And thus also that of Ieremiah 31. 31 32 33 34. is to be understood importing likewise that all True Believers should have that experimental knowledge of God and acquaintance with him by the inward Teachings of his Spirit so as none should be wholly ignorant of God but all should know him in measure and therefore it should not be needful to say unto any of them know the Lord as if they were utterly ignorant of him in respect of Spiritual and experimental knowledge as indeed many or most of the people under the Law were Which yet hinders not but that still there will be both need and great use of True Teachers in the Church to the Worlds end though not to say know the Lord as if they did not in any measure know him yet to promote and advance them who know him already in more knowledge of him and of the great and deep Mysteries of his Kingdom Sixthly He saith That engrafted word mentioned Jam. 1. 21. which we are bid receive is the Scripture and not Christ or his Light For he saith We cannot in proper Speech be said to receive or hear a Dictate within which we have already and is not audible properly But how weak is this Argument Could not the Prophets and Apostles both hear and receive Christ whom they had already were they not still more and more to receive him And have we not the Scripture already and consequently according to I. A. we cannot receive it And that he saith A Dictate within is not audible properly But why not as properly as a Dictate without Seeing the Spiritual Hearing and Seeing are as proper in their kind as the Natural are in their kind And according to this reasoning of I. A. none of the Prophets nor Apostles were to hear God or the Spirit in them seeing nothing within is audible properly And as for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Englished Engrafted it doth most properly signifie innate and is
appearing and do still at this day load them with such kind of Charges and to none is it more familiar to blame others for Heresie than those who are greatest Hereticks themselves 4. He saith In Doctrine we trample generally upon the whole Moral Law but more especially upon the first Table And here very falsly he Charges our Doctrine to be contrary to the first second fourth fifth sixth and ninth Commandments but let us see how he maketh good his Charge in each of them He alledgeth our Doctrine transgresseth the first Commandment because we say All Prayer and Worship that is performed without the Spirit of God is Will-worship and Superstition and consequently no wicked or unregenerate persons are bound to Worship God or indeed in any respect to obey God And from thence he concludes They are not under any Law of God and therefore lastly let them do what they will they cannot sin against God such men in the Quakers Principles as he saith may deny disown reject hate and contemn God worship the Devil and debauch at their pleasure they may lawfully dishonour and defame all men Murder commit Adultery Steal bear false Witness and yet they cannot sin because they are under no Law Hence also he infers That Reprobates are most unjustly condemned for their sinning against God seeing they not having received the Spirit are not under Law to God and so cannot be guilty of sinning against him Now what Sober Impartial and indifferent person that is not byassed with deep prejudice against us seeth not that these absurd consequences have not the least shadow of any Rational inference For although we say indeed that there is no true Worship but that which is in Spirit according to the express words of Christ and that none are true Worshippers of God but such as Worship him n the Spirit and that God requireth no Lifeless or Spiritless Worship yet we still affirm that all mankind ought to Worship God and Call upon him even all the wicked and unrenewed persons as well as the renewed so that in the thing of Worship it self we have no Controversy whether it be due unto God by all mankind but the state of the Question lyeth here betwixt us and those that dissent from us what the Worship of God is and what kind or sort of Worship it is that God requires of all men And in Answer thereunto we say the true Worship of God is a Spiritual Worship requiring the sincerity of the heart not as a circumstance or accidental thing but as the essential part thereof which cannot be done without the Spirit of God How much therefore more True and Rational consequence is it to argue thus God commands all men to Worship him therefore he hath given some measure more or less of the help of his Spirit unto all men whereby they may so do which doth continue with them so long as it pleaseth God who taketh away this help from none but such as mightily provoke him and sin out the day of their Visitation And even those whom the Lord in his Justice hath withdrawn that help or grace of his Spirit are still bound by the Law of God to Worship him as much as ever even when they neither do or can Worship him truly because they have brought this unpotency or inability upon themselves by their own unfaithfulness Even as a Servant or Steward that hath received a sum of Money to pay his Master and the said Servant spendeth the Money upon his Lusts and hath not one Penny wherewith to pay the debt yet he is still lyable for the whole sum Hence what I. A. saith in page 11. of his Preface is true that the inability of unrenewed men to perform acceptable Worship neither does nor can take away their Obligation to perform it But we differ from I. A. in the cause or reason why those who want that ability are still under the said Obligation which reason he will have only and alone mens losing it in Adam in whom they all once had it and the losing of it is their fault citing Rom. 5. 12 19. But to this I Answer First Whatever loss or inability is come upon Adam's posterity by the primitive disobedience yet now by vertue of the second Adam his obedience a new ability is conferred upon all men So that as broad as the Sore did spread by the first sin even as broad is the Plaister that God hath provided to the Lame and Diseased Souls of all mankind And this is most clear and plain from Rom. 5. 18. as also from Ioh. 3. 19. And this is the condemnation said Christ that Light is come into the world and men loved darkness rather than Light because their deeds were evil So we see that Christ layeth not the ground of wicked mens condemnation upon Adams sin but upon their hating the Light that did come unto them as a new and fresh discovery and visitation of Gods love But secondly Whether this Inability is come upon the wicked by reason of Adam's sin or by their own actual disobedience since that time yet we affirm no less than I. A. that the most wicked and ungodly are still under the obligation to the whole Law of God and their inability can be no ground of excuse unto them But the true state of the Queston is this Whether wicked men not simply as men or creatures but as wicked and remaining still in their wickedness should or are required to offer up unto God hypocritical and lifeless performances of that which men commonly call Prayer and Worship but is no more so in the sight of God than a dead Picture of Stone or Clay is a true living man and so whether God did ever require any to draw near to him with their Mouths and remove their Hearts far away as the manner of all wicked persons while so remaining always is Now we say God never required such sort of Prayers but refused and forbad them to be offered unto him even under the Law see Isaiah 1. 13. Bring no more vain Oblations and v. 12. When ye come to appear before me who hath required this at your hand to tread my Courts Again Psal. 50. 16 17. But unto the wicked God saith what hast thou to do to declare my Statutes or that thou shouldest take my Covenant in thy mouth seeing thou hatest instruction c. And whereas I. A. citeth some words of our Friends That wicked men should not Pray let the Impartial and Indifferent Reader understand these words in the Sense of those Scriptures just now mentioned which are as positive and full as any that can be cited out of our Friends Books and all occasion of mistake shall be removed For neither the Sense of the Scripture nor of our Friends is That wicked men are bâ—und in no respect to Worâ—ip God for the contrary is manifest from the words cited by I. A. out of the Book called The Principles of Truthâ—
Testament is found the killing Letter there is also in the New Testament the Letter which killeth him who doth not spiritually attend unto the things which are spoken And why was the Law called a killing Letter only because it did curse and condemn guilty sinners Nay that is not the only or main reason but rather that its Ministration could not give life whereas the Ministration of the Gospel being accompanied with the Spirit doth quicken and give life and in that respect Paul said The Law was weak and could no make perfect and therefore calls it The Law of a carnal Commandment Now if any go from the Spirit that only makes the true Gospel Administration and set up the Letter or Writings of the Apostles in the room of the same These Writings of the Apostles do eventually become a killing Letter no less than that of the Law and can no more give life or make perfect than the outward Law could And here upon this Head I do readily take notice what I. A. acknowledgeth concerning the Scriptures in page 16. of his Book towards the middle part viz That the Scriptures as to the external Form and Mode which they have from the Writers Pen they are not the Word of God but that as to their ennutiate doctrine and sentence they are the Word of God And why then doth I. A. make all this loud clamour and noise against the Quakers seeing upon the matter he confesseth what they say viz. That the letter or external form of the Writing is not properly the Word of God And I suppose I may add with I. A his allowance that the external Form and Mode of the Preachers mouth when he formeth a sound in speaking Scripture Words is not properly the Word of God any more than the bare writing â—seeing there is no more in the one than in the other simply as such Let not I. A. therefore blame us for that hereafter which he confesseth himself and we do as readily acknowledge as he either doth or can do That the ennutiate and expressed Doctrine and sense of the Spirit is indeed truly and properly the Word of God But then is there no difference betwixt him and us I Answer as to the naming the Scriptures the Word it seemeth there is none But yet another great Controversie ariseth which I doubt will not be so soon ended betwixt us viz. Whether any man can reach unto that Ennutiâ—te Doctrine and sense of the Scriptures without the Spiritual Illumination and Assistance of that Spirit that gave them forth we say Not and if he say Yea we still differ but not as it seemeth to me by his Confession in naming the Scriptures The Word of God But there is yet another great Charge wherewith he loadeth us in this his Survey of the Third Query Some Quakers saith he are upon this Head so grosly Atheistical as to say That the Scriptures are but the Saints Words and Testimony from their own particular experiences And again he alledgeth That according to the Quakers they are but the meer bare Word of a Creature Hence he inferreth That the Pen-men of the Scripturs of all men in the World must have been the greatest Cheats and archest Impostors c. But seeing he produceth no express Testimonies out of the Writings of that People for such Assertions he is not to be believed Nor doth it follow that because the Scriptures are the Saints Words that therefore they are not also the Words of God even unto all who hear or read them at least mediately and remotely although none but such as believe do receive them as such which yet is only and alone the â—ault of those unbelieving persons because they reject the Spirit of God that doth certifie or assure unto us That the Scriptures are proceeded from God by Divine Inspiration And what if some have said That the Scriptures are Testimonies of the Saints from their experience May not this receive a fair and charitable construction and not presently be judged to be gross Atheism for although the Scriptures give a narration of divers Histories as also of Precepts Prohibitions and mysteries of Faith As Christ His coming in the Flesh His being born of a Virgin His being Crucified and Buried His Resurrection and Ascension the which Histories and things aforementioned albeit they cannot properly be called the Saints Experiences yet the Divine Inspiration and Revelation which the Prophets and Apostles had immediately of those things was truly their Experience and let us see if I. A. will deny it or if he do may it not be more justly retorted upon him That he and not the Quakers deny that the Scriptures are from Divine Inspiration or can he say that although the Prophets and Apostles had Divine Inspiration and Immediate Revelation yet they had no Experience of the same And that we call the Scriptures sometimes the Saints Words yet not denying them in a true sense to be the Words of God I. A. can no more justly blame us than Paul and Iohn who called their own Preaching and Writing and that of their Brethren the Witness and Teaching of men so that Paul and the Apostles Words were both the words of men and yet also the Words of God to wit mediately declared unto them by the Apostles Now they whose Faith stood in the Power of God received them as the Words of God but who came not to that power to believe in it they were but unto such as the words of men which as is alâ—eady said was only and alone the fault of such unbelieving Persons There yet remains two parts or branches of the third Query to which I. A. for all his pretended Survey hath given no more satisfaction than to any of the former The first is Whether all that is written in the Scriptures from Genesis to Revelation be a Rule of Faith and Manners To this he only answereth in general That we are bound to believe all Sâ—ripture Enunciation from the beginning to the eâ—d which we do readily grant and that therefore it may well be called an Historical Rule of Faith and that the Moral Law with whatsoever is of common equity or whatever enjoyning any peice of Religious Worship under the New Testament doth belong to Christians of our Calling and Condition but that the obligation of the Ceremonial and Iudicial Law is totally abrogated And saith he the Quakers must be content with these generals To which I Answer When the Nature of the Question requireth a particular Answer to Answer in general neither can nor ought to satisfie for notwithstanding of all he hath said the great Question yet remains unanswered What parts of the Scripture belong to the Moral Law and what â—o the Ceremonial and Judicial so called Also seeing there are divers things that were commanded and practised by the Apostles and Primitive Christians under the New Testament whether all these do oblige us now yea or nay as for example the Washing one
this immediateness doth not hinder or make void the use of means but make them the more profitable and useful even so nor the iâ—mediate objective illumination doth in the least made void the means as is already said in the case of the Prophets and Apostles and Paul said the Scriptutes were writ for his and his Brethrens Learning even his fellow Apostles as well as other Christians And to say or think the contrary is as absurd and unreasonable as who would say a Scholar that is taught of his Master immediately is not to read upon any Book nor to hearken to any of his fellow Scholars that may be as well or better learned than himself and on the other hand to set up the means in opposition to the Lords immediate Teachings is equally unreasonable as to conclude such a man has Books whereon to learn and therefore it can profit him nothing to be taught immediately or viva voce and by word of mouth by a lâ—ving Teacher Now both these extreams our Principle and the Scripture and also our good experience have taught us to shun And the immediateness of the Spirits illuminations both effectively and objectively to work and operate in us in the use of all the means appointed of God sometimes in the use of one means and sometimes in the use of another as now in Reading then in Hearing now in Preaching then in Praying now in Meditating then in Singing or Praising God now in giving Alms then in visiting the Sick or thosâ— that are in Prison and sometimes as the mind is retired in pure silence to wait upon the Lord which may be as well and as truly called a mean as any of the former I say the immediateness of the Spirits Communications and Illuminations in the use of those and the like means aforesaid do as well consist with the means and the means with them as the immediate Sun-shine and influence of the heat and comfortable warmth of the Sun which worketh both effectively and objectively upon us consist with the means when we walk or travel on the Road at noon day or labour in the Field Plough Digg Sow Reap and use any other manual operation the which means are so far from hindring or making void the necessity of the Suns immediate influence and concurrence that none of these things can be well or comfortably performed without it And in this large and general sense of the word means which also is true it may be warrantably enough said without any prejudice to our principle of Immediate Revelation that we have no ground to expect any Immediate Manifestation or Revelation of God but in the use of some one means or another that God requireth us to be found in For there is not one hour or moment of our Life but there is something of Duty or Obedience that we ought to be found in either inwardly or outwardly if we have the use of our understandings as men and every act of Obedience may and ought truly to be called a means of our receiving somewhat immediately of God to wit our Faith our Love our Hope our Holy Fear our Care our Watchfulness our Praying Meditating and silent Waiting and in one word our whole Obedience all these are as truly and properly means as Preaâ—â—ing or reading in the Scriptures And thus every one that is most diligently exercised in the true means has greatest access unto God and doth most abundantly partake of the immediate Revelations and Communications of God's Holy Spirit Light Life Love Vertue Power and Wisdom And if it be said Why are they called then Immediate I Answer Because we feel or perceive them most near unto us even as near or rather more near unto us as the things or actions wherein we are exercised giving Spiritual Vigour Life and lustre unto them without which they are but as dead or lifeless And thus even as when the soul liveth in the Body it is said to be immediately united with it and act immediately therein or therewith although it useth the Body as its Instrument Even so the Spirit of God and of Christ livingly indwelling in the Saints and united with them and they with him is said to act immediately in them and with them although the Lord useth them as means or instruments to work with him And as for the word Immediate Revelation seeing it is not any express Scripture phrase no not in the case of the Prophets and Apostles so far as I can remember if the thing it self were granted to wit That God doth inwardly reveal and speak his mind or shew his Glory and glorious â—ower and Presence in his Children as he did in and to his Saints of Old so that the Saints do Hear See and perceive also Taste and Savour and feel after God Himself as he reveals himself in his Son by the Holy Spirit the Controversy about the Name or Phrase should soon be at an end for it did satisfie the Prophets and Apostles who had it in great measure to call it simply Revelation and Vision or the like without adding the word Immediate for in those daies it seemeth that deceitful distinction of Mediate and Immediate Revelation was not found out in the World I call it deceitful and false because to speak properly all Revelation is Immediate even as all Vision is Immediate and so is all Hearing for I can neither see nor hear a man unless I see and hear him immediately And as for the Scripture when it is called a Revelation it should be figuratively understood as when it is called a Vision for none will say that Isaiah his Book is really the Vision it self which he sâ—w but only a declaration of it And as 〈◊〉 could not write the intellectual Vision that he saw to speak properly so nor could he write the intellectual Voice Word or Words that he did only intellectually hear but only a Report or Declaration of them the which doth far come short of what he saw or heard and in this respect Paul saith that he heard verba ineffabilia unspeakable words that could not be uttered or expressed and so did all the Prophets and Apostles for indeed the words of the mouth as they can be spoken and writ fall short many times to express the depth of what we inwardly think or receive in natural things and how much more to express what God doth inwardly speak or reveal which yet is no derogation from the words of Scripture for it is acknowledged by us to be a blessed instrument in the hand of the Spirit for our Instruction And though we cannot be so bold as to say That the true God is not Worshipped nor known savingly where the Scripture is wanting as I. A. doth alledge more daringly I suppose than many of his Brethren that that are more sober will allow yet we do believe and freely acknowledge that the Scriptures are ordinary means but yet not without the inward Direction Revelation and
Rule and like Proteus turning my self into all shapes sometimes I design Christ himself oftner the Spirit himself but oftnest the Dictate of the Spirit within to be that Rule But he might at that raâ—e have no less blamed the Apostle Paul that he turned himself into all shapes while he affirmeth sometimes That Christ spoke in him and sometimes that the Spirit spoke in him and certainly what Christ or the Spirit spoke in him was by a certain Word or dictate But to Answer directly when I say Christ is the Rule And again when I say the Spirit is the Rule there is no absurdness therein for if we mean by the Spirit the Holy Ghost Christ and the Holy Ghost are never separated or divided in what they Speak or Witness in the souls of men but their speech and Testimony is one and the same alwaies and also Christ himself in Scripture is called the second Adam the quickening Spirit and the Lord that Spirit and said Christ I am the way the Truth and the Life and certainly that Life is Spirit and also the Words or dictate of it is Spirit and Life as Christ said The words that I speak unto you are Spirit and Life So the Reader may see that my words are sound and according to Scripture and therefore whether I say Christ or the Spirit or the internal dictate and Word of the Spirit is the Rule it is to the same purpose And to say the dictate of the Spirit is the Rule is no other than to say the Spirit dictating or speaking is that Rule and do not some of your selves use a variety of Speech when ye speak of the Rule one time saying The Scripture is the Rule another time The Word of God contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament is the only Rule c. as the Westminster Confession of Faith expresly hath it Another time The Spirit of God speaking in the Scriptures c. Now according to I. A. I may blame him and his Brethren in this case that Proteus like he and his Brethren turn themselves into all shapes when they speak of the Rule And whether these phrases used by them be not more unscriptural I leave unto sober men for to judge In the next place he argueth That Christ cannot be the Rule nor the Spirit because the Rule of Faith must be some complex Proposition Direction or Precept and the like To this I Answer First That the Rule of Faith must be a complex Proposition Direction or Precept formally understood in words formally conceived I altogether deny and I. A. hath not offered to prove it And although the Spâ—rit of Christ may and often doth speak express words in the souls of his people yet he doth not alwaies so do when yet he clearly enough signifieth his mind and will unto them for if among men a King may signifie his mind to his Subjects or a Master to his servants without any formal Proposition or direction of words but only by some motion of his hand or face How much more may the Lord God who is the King of Kings signifie his mind unto his servants by the motion of his Spirit without any formal or express words Again I ask I. A. if he hath not learned in the Schools that the reasonable nature of God is the first rule of Manners And certainly the reasonable Nature of God is not a complex Proposition consisting of many words And hath he not read in Boetius that excellent saying Quis legem det amantibus major lex amor est ipse sibi which the Author of a late Book called The Life of God in the soul of man doth use to prove that somewhat more than words is a Law or Rule to Christians and Englisheth thus For who shall give a Law to them that Love Love 's a more powerful Law that doth such persons move And I further Query I. A. seeing the Scripture saith God is Love he that knoweth God to be Love and hath the Love of God shed abroad in his Heart by the holy Spirit which in Scripture is called The Spirit of Love shall not this man be tyed to love God and his Brethren yea and all mankind even his very enemies Suppose it be not said to him in formal express words do so and so Again whether he that only readeth or heareth these outwardly Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy Heart c. and thy Neighbour as thy self but his Heart is utterly void of the love of God or he that hath the love of God in his heart and feelleth the powerful constraint of it is under the most powerful Law Whether the words without or the Spirit and Nature of Divine Love within is the most powerful Law and Rule There may therefore be a Law or Rule which is not a complex Proposition of words either inward or outward to wit the Divine Love it self which hath a Voice and Language to the souls of men in the silence of all words many times and can be understood as well without words as with them And therefore when I say the dictate of the Spirit is the Rule I mean not that there is alwaies a dictate of express words but that which is either such a formal express dictate or equivalent thereunto which those who are acquainted with the experiences of the Saints do well understand although it may seem to I. A. a strange Riddle or Paradox And thus by what I have said in this particular the intelligent Reader I hope shall perceive that in saying The Spirit is the Rule I am not beside my self as I. A. doth alledge but speak the words of Truth and soberness And I further ask Whether I. A. thinks that Ignatius the Martyr was beside himself when he writ in one of his Epistles to the People 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Vsing the Holy Ghost for a Rule or Whether Paul was beside himself when he said The Law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Iesus had made him free from the law of Sin and Death And whether that Law was not the Spirit of Life even as the Law of sin was sin and the Law of death was death And whether the Law of the Mind mentioned by Paul was not a Divine Principle of Grace in his mind even as the Law of his Members was a principle of sin and corruption that sometime had place in him and not any complex Proposition of words And whether the Law that God writeth in the hearts of his people in the new Covenant be simply a form of words consisting of so many letters syllables and sentences or rather to speak properly is not that Law a new and Divine Nature or substantial Life of Holiness and Righteousness and Wisdom by which the Children of God are led and taught under the new Covenant naturally as it were to love God and all men even as the Law that God hath put in all
commonly understood of that which originally is Grafted or Implanted in us and in this sense is used generally both by Christian and Heathen Writers as it is contradistinguished from that which is outwardly received Hence the natural love or affection that is in mankind is said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the which is not a thing outwardly received and consequently the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot be the Letter of the Scripture but a Divine principle immediately grafted into our Souls when God Created them and in respect of which men are said to be made in the Image of God Seventhly He alledgeth that we bring Heb. 6. 1 2. To oppose and reject all External Ordinances out of the Church citing Principles of Truth pag. 63 68 77 80. And here he insulteth not a little as if by the same Argument The Quakers were obliged to reject the very Principles of the Doctrine of Christ and the foundation of Repentance and Faith as well as Water-Baptism But to this I Answer having examined these pages cited by him I do not find that they mention or intend any thing of rejecting the Principles of the Doctrine of Christ or External Ordinances And let but the Reader examine the words and he shall find that nothing further is intended than this that people should not sit down or build their Faith upon a form of words though never so sound but should come further than all words so that leaving them behind as in respect of a foundation they were to come unto Christ the true foundation and grow up in him unto perfection And as for Water-baptism that place of the Heb. 6. 1 2. doth not mention it among the principles of the Doctrine of Christ but only the Doctrine of Baptisms which is another thing than Water-Baptism For although we have not Water-Baptism among us yet we have the Doctrine of Baptisms that is set down with other principles of our Faith as in divers other of our Book so in that mentioned by him called The Principles of Truth Now to leave a form of Words or Articles and Propositions concerning Faith which commonly are called Principles so as not to set them up for the principal and only foundation of our Faith which people are but too ready to do This is not to reject them no more than when a man leaves his Affairs he hath been conversant in and goeth to his Bed to rest him with moderate sleep is to reject his Affairs for he returneth unto them again Eighthly He saith We object that Enoch Noah Abraham c. Had not the Scripture to be their Rule and therefore nor are we to have it to be our Rule And this he makes as ridiculous a consequence as to say the Scriptures were not written in the primitive World therefore neither afterwards But I Answer that to argue from thence that the Scripture is not to be our only and principal Rule is both safe and pertinent For it Enoch Noah Abraham had the Spirit to be a Rule unto them it is no less a rule unto all now who have the same Faith which they had seeing the same Spirit is given to Believers now which they had which Spirit is one as Paul hath declared and it is most Rational that as the Faith is one in all Ages of the World and the Spirit one so the Principal rule of Faith should be one also Ninthly He saith I object Quakerâ—sm no Popery pag. 9. 13. That the Testâ—mony of the Spirit within is greater than the External Testimony of the Scripture and therefore the said Testimony of the Spirit is the Principal Rule To which he roundly Answereth by denying that there is any such Testimony of the Spirit within Believers and because I say there is he alledgeth I drive the Plough before the Oxen. But I Answer that I have proved it sufficiently already and now also I have Answered I hope sufficiently all his objections against it And here I desire the Reader to take notice how that notwithstanding I. A. saith elsewhere as Pag. 44. That he and his Brethren never denyed the Spirits Teaching Yet how inconsistent that is with denying any Testimony of the Spirit or Dictate thereof in mens hearts Is the Teaching of the Spirit only an outward thing Is it nothing else but to Hear or Read the Letter of the Scripture And are they all Taught of the Spirit who are but only and meerly Taught by the Letter But if it be granted that there is an inward Teaching of the Spirit distinct from the outward Teaching of the Scripture although not separated therefrom or without the outward as I know some of the more sober doth acknowledge then I say is not that inward Teaching a Testimony of the Spirit For to affirm it to be a Teaching and no Testimony seemeth to me to be a great contradiction And as for us althogh we cannot say that the inward Teaching or Testimony of the Spirit is never in any case without the outward yet we grant it is oft accompanied with the outward and in that case it is no less truly immediate than if it were without it as I have already shewed And supposing but not at all granting that the inward Teaching of the Spirit were never without the outward of the Letter yet seeing the outward Teaching of the Letter is oft without the inward for many are Taught by the Letter who are not Spiritually Taught all that the Letter hath outwardly Taught them it followeth evidently that the inward Teaching of the Spirit and outward Teaching of the Letter are distinct things as is manifest from that sure maxime that when two things can be seperate so as the one to be without the other they are really distinct This Argument I used in my Book called Quakerism no Popery but I. A. hath made no reply to it And still I say if the inward Teaching of the Spirit be denyed it doth follow that in respect of any inward Speaking or Teaching God doth no more intelligibly or perceptibly speak to the Saints than he speaketh to the Earth to bring forth Grass the which consequence I. A. seemeth to allow but how absurdly I leave to sober men to judge And whereas I. A. saith That God doth not always make use of the greater Witnesses for testifying his will to us I Answer In respect of men and Angels it is true But notwithstanding God hath given himself and his own Holy Spirit which is one with him to be unto us a witness of his will and this is the greatest witness that can be given See Rom. 8. 16. 1 Ioh. 5. 8 9. CHAP. VIII IN his pretended Survey of the Fifth Query he begins with two false Charges against us the First That we deny all Scripture Interpretation the Second That we deny all Scripture Consequences And to refute these idle Suppositions which are none of our Assertions he spendeth many Pages of his Book to no purpose and wherein we are
accusing us as being against all external Ordinances because the Query insinuates That such who are come into Death with Christ need not Bread and Wine to put them into remembrance of his Death from whence he most unjustly inferreth his consequence that we reject all outward helps and means whatsoever But doth not I. A. know that his own brethren acknowledge there is no absolute necessity of using that called the Supper so as none can be saved but such as paâ—take of it and the like may be said of any outward helps when people cannot have them But yet we say still whatever outward thing God hath Commanded us to use be it never so small or mean is in that respect both necessary and profitable unto us for there is none of God's Commands but they bring along with them a real advantage to mens Souls but I. A. hath not as yet proved it that using Bread and Wine as aforesaid is any Gospel Command Another abuse of his is that he alledgeth We reject the said practise of taking the Bread and Wine from a conceited perfection which is false for as we do not boast of our perfections so we do not reject that customâ— because of any perfection that some of us may become unto beyond others but because we cannot find it to be any Gospel Precept and therefore we cannot acknowledge it either to be necessary or profitable to the weakest Another thing he quarrelleth in the Query is That it makes to dye with Christ and to come to the Death with him all one And here he insults not a little in his knowledge of Philosophy above the Quakers for a meer Grammaticism of saying to for into which perhaps was only a fault in the Transcriber and yet we find commonly that to and into are indifferently used to signifie one thing as to come to Town is all one as to come into it and to come to Christ is all one as to come into him and when Christ said Come unto me he did certainly mean that they were to come into him Hence we read of the Saints being in Christ. And if this be I. A. his Philosophy so to quarrel at words proper enough and according to Scripture let the judicious and sober Reader judge whether some of our Friends that called his Philosophy Foolosophy had not ground so to do And whether he has not discovered more folly than true Philosophy from first to last in his Book against us In his Answer to the reason hinted in the Query from Paul's words to seek the things that are above and the things that are seen are temporal he still beggeth the Question That the outward observation of Bread and Wine is a mean which God hath appointed for the attaining the things above And in Opposition to his Assertion let him read what Paul saith Col. 2. 17. where he putteth meaâ— and drink in together with the new Moons and other legal Observations which he calleth A shadow of things to come but the body is of Christ. And seeing I. A. acknowledgeth that the Bread and Wine are but external signs and not the real body of Christ I ask him wherein then differ they from Shadows And if they be Shadows they are no part of the Gospel Dispensation according to Paul's Doctrine In the close of his pretended Survey to this Sixth Query he chargeth us most rashly and uncharitably as being related to the accuser of the Brethren as if the writer of the Queries had positively charged all the Ministers of Scotland that they never intended their Hearers should come any nearer to Christs Death than a bare Historical remembrance thereof But doth not I. A. know that to Query a thing is one and positively to conclude it far another And the Enquirer had ground so to Query because he understands that if it were the care of Preachers to bring people into the Death with Christ so as to be Crucified with him they would not plead so much for upholding a Figure or Shadow of Christ's Death to put them in remembrance of it when to suffer and die with Christ is much more effectual to remember them Nor Secondly would they plead so much for carrying a body of sin about with them while they live and that all must be under a necessity of sinning daily in Thought Word and Deed yea in whatever thay think speak or do for such a state is not consistent with a being Dead and Crucified with Christ. And Thirdly If it were their work to bring people to dye with Christ they would turn them to the Light of Christ in their Hearts and Preach it to be unto them of a saving Nature and an effectual mean to obtain the said Death with Christ which yet they do not but on the contrary deny it as meerly natural insufficient And is it not too apparent that the far greatest number of your Church Members know nothing more of Christ's Death than the History of it And whether the fault of this lye not in a very great part upon the Preachers is no small nor impertinent Question And seeing I. A. pretends so much to Scripture Rule I shall ask him a few Queries more upon the former Head First What Scripture hath he and his Brethren to call that eating of Bread and drinking of Wine once or twice in a year in the Pubâ—â—ck Assembly the Sacrament 2. What Scripture have they to instruct them how oft they should use it as once twice or four times in every year And if they have none was it not then left to people according to the Query at least as to the time 3. What Scripture have they for consecrating it or when did Christ say Before ye eat it consecrate it 4. When did Christ give only the power to a Priest or Presbyter or Ordamed Minister to Consecrate it so as without the said Consecration by some Priest or Ordained Minister it is no Sacrament And seeing every Christian may eat it as well as the Minister why may he not also consecrate it as well as he seeing every true Chrisâ—ian is a Priest 5. Where did Christ appoint that these words Take Eat this is my body should be the words of consecration and have ye not received all this from the Papists and not from Christ 6. Seeing ye commonly say that this Sacraâ—â—â—â— of the Supper is come in the room of the Passoâ—er and under the Law every Family had power without a Priest to celebrate the Passover why hath not also every Family under the Gospel 〈◊〉 much power without any Ordained Priest or Minister to celebrate that called the Supper 7. Seeing every true Christian feeds daily by Faith upon the body of Christ according to the Protestant Doctrine and ought daily to remember the Death of Christ in all their eating and drinking which is also sanctified unto them by the Word of God and Prayer what peculiar vertue or efficacy hath your sacramental eating more than ordinary eating
Spirit which we plead for as the common priviledge of all true Christians And was not the Spirit which the Apostles had the Infallible Spirit And if I. A. thinks he has the same Spirit either he must needs acknowledge that he has the Infallible Spirit and is so far infallible or then he must say that the Spirit of God is changed so that whereas it was Infallible in the Apostles and Primitive Christians it is become Fallâ—ble in I. A. and his Brethren And if he have the same Spirit which the Apostles had but in the least measure how is it â—hat he hath said above that the Dictate of the Spirit within is worthy of a thousand Deaths Let I. A. extricate himself of these contradictions if he can And further I ask I. A. whether the Psalms he and his Brethren Sing in their Meetings be these Spiritual Songs which the Primitive Christians did Sing and such as we Read of particularly in the Church of Corinth where Psalms are reckoned among the other peculiar Gifts of the Spirit such as Revelations and Interpretations where it is manifest that the whole Assembly did not all Sing the same words with their voice but every one did Sing as they received it from the Lord and as he did put it into their Hearts and such were the Songs of Zachariah Mary and Elizabeth who Sung and Blessed the Lord by the Holy Ghost And seeing I. A. saith That they cannot Sing unless what they Sing be turned into Meeter I ask him whether the Songs of Zachariah Mary and Elizabeth were Sung by them in Meeter or Rhyme and with Musical Dittyes and Tunes Artificially Composed or whether they had a Precentor or any that went before them And whether such kind of Officers were in the Church in the time of the Apostles as Precentors that went before the people And whom they were all to follow accordingly as he Sang after â—his or that Tune of Musick Artificially Composed Or rather have ye not Learned all this from the Papists And was it not Guido Aretinus â— Popish Monk that invented the Scale of Musick commonly called the Gamut according to which the Precentors are Learned to Raise the Psalms All which is but the bare Act of Man and such who plead for Vocal Musick in the Church from the example of David and the Law they may also on the same account plead for the use of Musical Instruments in the Church not only as lawful but as necessary which yet the Episcopal Church here wanteth and not only so but Dancing also as a part of Divine Worship which was used in time of the Law and especially by David And thus by I. A. his Argument both Instrumental Musick and Dancing shall be necessary parts of Gospel Worship And as concerning wicked mens Singing it is most clear that as they are not to Pray while remaining wicked so nor are they to Sing because all true Singing is a real part of Divine Worship which is to be done in Spirit and Truth but no wicked nor unrenewed person can so do And seeing all wicked persons professing Christianity are Captives in Spiritual Babylon how can they Sing any of the Songs of Zion in a strange Land Can they Sing that new Song which the Redeemed from the Earth Sing Rev. 14. was not the Lord displeased with their Singing even under the Law when the people did degenerate and become perverse And did he not threaten that he would turn the Songs of their Temple into Howlings And yet according to I. A. the most perverse and abominable corrupted persons may and ought to Sing Psalms But what Harmony can such Singing make in the Ears of the Lord while the Heart is so discordant to the Law of God And although I. A. hath his best and greatest Patrons for his Musical Singing with Artificial Dittyes and Tunes and Rhymes out of the Popish Church as also for his pleading that wicked persons may Sing David's words without making a Lye I shall here Cite a very fair acknowledgement out of a late Popish Writer to the Truth of what we alledge against I. A. The which Writer is Iohannes Bona in his Book called The Principles of the Christian Life Part 1. Sect. 44. They are â—yes saith he and empty words when any comâ—â—tteth wickedness and singeth in a Psalm unto God I have hated iniquity and abominated it Psal. 118. He that is altogether in his Dishes and saith I have forgot to Eat my Bread Psal. 101. 1. He Laugheth the whole day and exceedeth in vain joy and saith my Tears were my Bread day and night he obeyeth not the Commandments and he Singeth They are Cursed who decline from thy Commandments Psal. 118. Such Prayers saith he are Accursed provoking the wrath of God toward such and they deserve to be punished with severe Pains Now albeit this Testimony is from a Papist I hope no Sober person will call it a Popish Doctrine but rather a Christian Truth which the Evidence of Truth hath extorted from him And it is a shame that I. A. should be more blind who pretends to more knowledge CHAP. XII J. A. in his pretended Survey of the 9th 10 th and 11 th Queries doth ground his Discourse so much partly upon mistakes and partly upon barely supposed alledged principles which he doth not prove that I shall need to say very little directly in Answer to the whole from his pag. 119 to pag. 131. only some of his most considerable mistakes and bare Suppositions I shall take notice of the which being denyed and removed his whole Superstructure falls of it self First He blames the Queriest or Writer of the Queries For falsly accusing the or slâ—ndering the Church in Brittain as he calleth it as if they did hold their Ecclesiastical Constitutions formally as such for an Infallible Rule and their Catechisms and Confessions of Faith equal to the Scriptures But I Answer the Query maketh no mention of those terms formally as such But simply whether they hold their Directory Confession of Faith and Catechism to be an Infallible Rule and equal to the Scripture Again Secondly what is proposed in the Query is not positively concluded one way or another as the Nature of a Query doth plainly demonstrate And yet Thirdly he plainly affirmeth pag. 129. That the whole Articles and Difinitions contained in the Catechism and Confession of Faith materially considered are very Gospel Rule and Scripture Sentence either expresly and formally or materially implicitely and by good consequence taught therein How then can he have any face to accuse the Inquirer for asking such a thing which he doth openly acknowledge And here let the Reader take notice that the Catechism and Confession of Faith whereof I. A. giveth so great a Commendation is not that of the Episcopal Church but the Presbyterian viz. that made by the Assembly at Westminster which is expresly cited by him cap. 31. art 4. it is not then as seemeth the
any bond or tye of Christian fellowship for if such consequential Doctrine be false it is most unreasonable to impose it and therefore in that Case a Dissenter should have his liberty to differ in judgment without any breach of Brotherly Unity and Society and if it be true yet not being opened or revealed to another it cannot be in justice pressed or urged upon him where God has not given him the true freedom and clearness of mind to receive it and to do otherwise is to transgress that Golden Rule delivered by Paul viz. To walk by the same Rule according to what we have attained and if any be otherwise minded said he God will reveal it unto him And if this Advice could find place it would bring the differences among those called Christians in point of judgment into a very small and narrow compass and they would understand one another far better than now they do But again seeing I. A. is so absolute and peremptory that the Presbyterian Confession of Faith and Catechism and whâ— not the Presbyterian Directory also materially considered is infallible and yet is but a Book of their making and the consequential part of it the alone Fruit and product of their humane Spirit since they deny all pretence to an inward Dictate or Direction of Gods Spirit in the Case why should the said I. A. so oft Taunt and upbraid us with an Infallible Spirit and Infallible Speaking and Writing and Inspiration for now it seems a meer humane Spirit hath inspired those that gave forth the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechism to write every Article and Sentence of it Infallibly according to I. A. his high estimation of them But whereas I. A. dareth us To give any instances of any Articles and Definitions contained in the said Confession and Catechism that are not Scripture Sentence materially or formally considered This hath been done many times over and over again by our Friends in England and by some of us here in Scotland particularly by R. B. in his Catechism and Apology and by me in my Book of Immediate Revelation And there was in the year 1651. an intire examination of that Confession of Faith published in Print by one W. Parker who was not called a Quaker and whose words in all things we do not own and to the said Examination I. A. or any of his Fraternity is referred where I am abundantly perswaded he hath said more against it and many Articles contained therein viz. in the said Confession then ever I. A. or any of his Presbyterian half Brethren shall be able to Answer which whole Book lyeth at their door to this day so far as I can understand unanswered Another gross mistake or rather abuse of I. A. is that he alledgeth The Quakers are against all Confessions of Faith and Catâ—chisms whatsoever and yet they have Confessions and Catechisms of their own I say this is a gross abuse for we do own that there may and ought to be Confessions of Faith given by True Christians and also we own that there may be Catechisms and that they are useful in the Church and accordingly we have such And though the Writers of those Confessions and Catechisms be not absolutely or universally Infallible yet we hold that none should publish any Confession of Faith or Catecâ—ism but in such things whereof they are Infallibly perswaded by the Spirit of the Lord and as to other things that may be uncertaâ—n or unclear unto them they should forbear and so every one should Speak or Write as they have received the â—pirit of Faith as the Apostle Paul said We haâ—ing reâ—eâ—ved the same â—pirit of Faith we believe and therefore we have spoken buâ— I. A. thinks he may Speak and Confess his Faith without the same Spirit of Faith which David and Paul had And as for our Catechisms and Confessions of Faith if we cannot prove them and all the Articles and Sentences in them to be according to express Scripture words then let them not be received For we profess to urge nothing nor to press any thing to be received as a common Article of Faith but what is expresly delivered and Recorded in the Scriptures And if any should be so unbelieving and obstinate as not to believe the express Scripture words we may not urge them or press them thereunto by any Humane or Carnal Force and Compulsion but only to labour to perswade them according to that evidence and demonstration of the Spirit and Power as God shall be pleased to furnish us withal Another great mistake or abuse of I. A. is that he alledgeth the Tenth Query is void of Sense as if it did import That their Iustification and Sanctification Faith and Grace were the Gifts of their Directory Catechism and Confession of Faith and thus because the Query saith The Gifts of these whereas it is plain to any Sober and Rational Person that by the Gifts of these the Inquirer meaneth the Gifts of Justification Sanctification Faith and Grace and this is a form of Speech allowed by the Grammar it self and practised by Learned Authors I suppose far beyond I. A. who say not only the Town London or Rome or Edinburgh but also the Town or City of London the City of Rome the City of Edinburgh and therefore why may it not be as well said the Gift of Faith of Justification of Sanctification and speaking of these in general why may it not be said the Gifts of these which is equivalent to these Gifts And beside perhaps all this Quible is only raised upon a mistake of the Transcriber wriâ—ing the Gifts of these for these Gifts but it seems I. A. is barren of matter when he maketh a mountain of so small a matter if so be it were an impropriety of Speech But to deal in earnest with I. A. seeing he is so declared an Enemy to Divine Inspiration in our days we cannot think that he indeed oweth his pretended Justification Sanctification and Faith unto God but rather unto those Confessions and Catechisms for what Evidence or probable ground can he give us that he hath any Divine Faith or that which is more than barely Historical and Traditional Another gross abuse of his is That because we call the Gospel the Power of God as we are warranted by the express words of Paul Rom. 1. 16. therefore he alledgeth That we fain to our selves a sort of dumb Gospel without any Words or Doctrine But to remove this abuse let the Reader know that by the Gospel we mean not the Power of God abstractly considered without the Doctrine and suitable words inwardly or outwardly Preached nor yet the Doctrine and Worâ—â— without the Power and Life and 〈◊〉 God but both conjunctly And although we do readily acknowledge that the Doctrine when it is outwardly Preached by the Spirit of God and so hath the Power of God accompanying it is and may be called Gospel yet we cannot simply or absolutely
require as also that he alledgeth divers Arguments as used by us in the Case which I know not if indeed used by any of us Nor is it my work at present to bring Arguments for our Doctrine that being already done by others and partly also by me but to Answer I. A. in what he hath against the same He alledgeth that Paul must needs have been in that very condition which he there describes Rom. 3. 14 15 18 23. and consequently there can be no place for the figure called Metaschematismus as I did alledge except I will say that Paul then did not with his mind serve the Law of God But how weak and frivolous is his â—cason here Could not Paul in the same discourse speak of something that was truly his present conditions and of some other thing that was not Is it not clear that Iames doth so in his Epistle when he saith of the Tongue Herewith Bless we God and herewith Curse we men My Brethren these things ought not to be so Now according to I. A. his highly admired Logick Iames behoved to be both a Blesser of God and Curser of men at the same time seeing he useth the first person to express both and the like Impertinency I. A. is guilty of in saying the word cleanseth 1 Ioh. 1. 7. Being in the present Tense imports the Sanctification of Believers to be imperfect in this Life for the word is also used in the present time And second by I. A. his reason the word justifieth Rom. 8. 33. importeth an imperfect Justification contrary to I. A. his express assertion Again he alledgeth that the words in Ecclesiast 7. 20. There is not a just man upon the Earth that doth good and sinneth not Have the Verb in the indicative Mood and not in the Potential signified frequently by the second future as I did affirm But this is a bareevasion and no direct Answer to my Assertion And I say again the second future even that of the indicative may be turned into the Potential Mood as it is often at other times because the Hebrew Language hath no Potential Mood distinct by it self Again whereas he urgeth That Solomon must needs understand Actual Sinning and not a bare possibility of mens sinning for who would be ignorant of that To this I Answer that Solomon did not mean a bare possibility but such a possibility as did infer the great danger and hazard that men were under to sin if they were not duely watchful And although all men did know this yet they did need to be admonished of it for some parts of the Scripture are for admonition and putting us in remembrance and not barely for Information How oft doth the Scripture tell us that all men are Mortal and must die which yet none are ignorant of although they oft forget that it is so and therefore need often to be remembred But by I. A. his Logick either men are ignorant that they shall die or the Scripture saith so in vain Who seeth not here the weakness of I. A. his Reasons which I am already weary to repeat or spend my time and pains on such stuff and therefore shall hast to an end of the whole Only I cannot but take notice with what confidence I. A. doth conclude That the Apostles and Prophets their Writing the Scriptures was an Action surely defective and iâ—perfect as to the exact and compleat degree of Love to God and men c. But where doth he read any such assertion in Scripture Or by what consequence doth he prove it Suppose they did not what they did in the highest degree that men could attain to this doth not prove any sinful defect in what they did For it did sufficiently Answer to the exactness of the Law if what they did was with all that degree of Love to God and men that was possible for them at that time to perform CHAP. XVII J. A. in his pretended Answer to the 16 th Query first of all beginneth to accuse the Inquirer As guilty of a leud Calumny in charging his Brethren for holding Salvation by Self-works and Self-Righteousness whereas they disclaim Salvation by the best works of the Saints But I. A. in this as in other things doth grosly abuse his Reader and falsly accuse the Inquirer For doth not I. A. know that to Query a thing is no positive conclusion either for or against it And albeit the Inquirer did know that in words ye cry down all self-works and self-righteousness yet he had but too much ground to question you about them seeing ye are generally found so much practising them and if they be not so much as useful means or helps of Salvation why do ye both so much practice them and plead for them as I. A. hath done at great length for Preaching and Praying and Singing without the Spirit all which are nothing but Self-righteousness Another fault that I. A. committeth here is that he confoundeth the meritorious cause of Salvation with the subordinate and instrumental means thereof For although those called Protestants deny the Saints good Works that are wrought by the Spirit to be strickly the meritorious cause of Salvation yet generally or for the most part they deny not that they are means of Salvation and necessary in order thereunto which yet I. A. seemeth here altogether to deny And as to that place of Scripture cited by I. A. to prove that the Saints are not saved by any work of righteousness even wrought by the Holy Spirit in their hearts viz. Tit. 3. 5. He could not have brought a more convincing Testimony against his false Doctrine than that very place For after that Paul said Not by works of Righteousness which we had done viz. by any power of our own he immediately addeth That God saveth us according to his Mercy by the washing of Regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost Which Regeneration and â—enewing of the Holy Ghost comprehendeth the whole work of Sanctification in the Saints And here I. A. goâ—th on at his old rate of multiplying false accusations and perversions and perversions against us Some of the chiefest whereof I shall briefly mention 1. That we hold a Popish Iustification 2. That in one of our Books called A Confession of Faith p. 21. We deny to be justified by Righteousness received of us by Faith and also by a Righteousness imputed unto us All which are most gross Forgeries and Slanders for the words in that page 21. say expresly That acceptance with the Father is only in Christ and by his Righteousness made ours or imputed unto us And the said Book denyeth not that the Righteousness of Christ is received by Faith that is the Gift of God but both that Faith and imputation which is only and alone the Creatures act or work without the Spirit of Christ we do justly deny to have any place in our Justification 3. Whereas in the said Book our Friends alledge it is not Acts
of Righteousness as done by us nor as inherent in us as Acts by which we are accepted of God and justified before him but by Christ the Author and worker of those Acts in us and for us c. He most grosly perverteth the sober and honest intent of those words as if by them they understood only that they hold not themselves justified by all Acts as Blasphemy or any other gross sin But who seeth not that this is a most gross perversion for certainly all Righteous Arts of all sorts they exclude when they say not by Acts of Righteousness and therefore when they say it is not Righteous Acts as Acts whereby we are justified their meaning is most plain and obvious as Acts being understood to be only even as Acts of Righteousness and not simply and barely as Acts though upon this meer Grammatical Quibble I. A. buildeth all his loud clamour against them But I. A. should know better that when the Sense is obvious a word may be understood that is not expressed in the Sentence as so it is in this present Case A fourth gross Perversion of his that he saith of me in my Book called Quakerism no Popery I affirm That we are justified by our inward Graces immediately I. A. doth understand that I mean without all respect to Christ which is a most gross perversion for the express words of my Book are these following The Righteousness of God and Christ by which we are most immediately and nearly justified is Christ himself and then I add and his work of Righteousness in us by his Spirit So that I am so far from excluding Christ that I say in the first place Christ himself is our Righteousness A fifth gross Perversion of I. A. is that in my defunction of Justification I give no other material cause of our Righteousness before God but only our Inward Graces whereas in the said definition I mention expresly Jesus Christ as being the ground and foundation of our Justification both in what he hath done and suffered for us without us and as really and truly indwelling in us A sixth perversion of his is that I confound Justification and Sanctification together making no imaginable distinction betwixt them and that because I say we are justified by inward Righteousnes and sanctified by the very same But this proveth not that I do not distinguish them for one and the same thing may have a respect to different operations as well as to different Causes But this reasoning of I. A. is as one would argue that when a Malefactor is both Condemned and punished for his Crime that his Sentence of Condemnation and his punishment are one and the same without any imaginable distinction betwixt them As also that his Condemnation and guiltiness are the same seeing by his Crime he is both guilty and condemned But as to Justification and Sanctification that they are distinguished although sometimes in Scripture one and the same word doth signifie both I willingly grant and do expresly mention them as distinct in my Book which I need not here repeat And whereas I. A. doth not only accuse me in particular as holding a Popish Justification but saith further That Bellarmine himself was never more Popish on that Head Surely this his assertion proceeds either from great ignorance or something worse For Bellarmine de justif lib. 5. cap. 17. holdeth That good works do merit Eternal Life condignly not only by reason of Gods Covenant and acceptation but also by reason of the work it self so that in a good works proceeding from Grace there may be a certain proportion and equality unto the reward of Eternal Salvation and to the same purpose writeth Gabriel Vasâ—uez a Papist But no such thing is affirmed by any of us nor by me but on the contrary in my Book called Quakerism no Popery I altogether deny the merit of the best works as it signifieth an equality of worth to the reward of Eternal Life Nor do I in any other case or sense allow the word merit with a respect to the best works of the Saints but in that sober and qualified sense used by divers of greatest note among those called Reformers among the Protestants as Melanction and Bucer and also by the Fathers so called and which is agreeable to Scripture which calleth Eternal Life the reward of good works now reward and 〈◊〉 are relative â—â—rms as Richarâ— Baxter highly commended by I. A. elsewhere doth acknowledge And not only the said Richard Baxter a great English Presbyterian but divers of the best account in the Episcopal way as particularly H. Hammond do hold that the Saints are justified not by Faith only but by Repentance Love and New Obedience as well as by Faith as Instruments of Justification and necessary conditions requisite thereunto and that Sanctification in the order of Causes is prior to Justification And Iames Durham a great Scots Presbyterian in his Commentary on the Revelation Digress 11. saith That such who rest upon Christ for Iustification and acknowledge his satisfaction ought not to be blamed as guilty of Popery although they hold that Repentance Love and other Spiritual Vertues and Graces are necessary to Iustification as Faith is Seeing then we have some of the greatest note both among those called Presbyterians and Episcopalians who agree with us in the Doctrine of Justification it must needs proceed from great prejudice and untowardliness in I. A. to charge us as being guilty of Papery in that for which we have not only the Scriptures abundantly to warrant us but divers also both Episcopal and Presbyterian of the best account to vindicate us And as for Henry Hammond a man of singular esteem in the Episcopal Church in Brittain whereof I. A. is a proâ—â—sâ—ed Member he doth not only agree with us on this Head of Justification but also on many other very great and weighty Heads of Doctrine so fiercely opposed by I. A. as particularly in those following 1. That Christ hath died for men 2. That there is no absolute decree of Reprobation 3. That Gods Grace is Vniversal 4. That beginnings of Regeneration may be fallen from 5. That these words of Paul Rom. 7. 14 15. concerning his being Sold under sin are a Metaâ—chematismus and not the present State that Paul was in And I. A. is extreamly ignorant if he know not that an exceeding great number if not the greatest of the most judicious persons of the Episcopal Church both in Britain and Ireland are of the same mind with the said H. Hammond in these things who therefore are so far from esteeming I. A. a Patron or Advocate of their Church that they cannot but judge him in so far at best their Adversary Moreover the great prejudice of I. A. against us appears in this that because I deny all merit strictly considered he inferreth most absurdly that if Justice will not exact the very rigid rigour of the Law from us and take the very
willingly and sincerely acknowledge that the Righteousness of Christ in what he did and suffered for us outwardly in his own person is imputed unto us for Justification and so much I did acknowledge in my Book already mentioned But we further say that all to whom that is imputed which Christ did and suffered for us outwardly must witness a real and true Conformity both to the Death of Christ and also to his Holy Life and walk without which all mens imputing it unto themselves is but an airy Dream and Imagination There is yet another gross perversion used by I. A. in his pretended Survey or Answer of the sixteenth Question as if the Quakers so called Seem to deny that there was any Spiritual Worship in the time of the Old Testament And thus because it is said in the Query that Christ set up the True Worship in Spirit and in Truth above 1600 years ago but nothing but great Ignorance or prejudice can from this inferr that there was not any degree of it in the World in former times And I. A. might as well argue against the Scriptures that because God saith in the last days He would make a New Covenant with the House of Israel and Write his Law in their Hearts That therefore nothing of this sort was formerly in the World And thus I have done with I. A. his long and tedious pretended Survey of this Question having omitted nothing that seemed unto me Material and having found in his whole Discourse consisting of about 19 pages scarce any thing but gross mistakes and perversions CHAP. XVIII HEre again I. A. in his pretended Survey to the 17th and last Question beginneth with a most gross perversion As if the Quakers because they would have men to cease from all their own works meerly acted in the strength of mans Will and natural Power without the supernatural and Spiritual aid and assistance of the Spirit of God would have men to be as senseless Trunks doing nothing the bare Rehearsal of which is sufficient Refutation Another charge little less gross is That the Quakers hold only Babylon to be within in mens hearts for which he citeth the aforesaid Book called The Principles of Truth in several pages To which I Answer Although the said Book saith That Babylon c. is â—ithin yet it doth not say it is only within but on the contrary it plainly affirmeth that all who are in outward Worships without the leading and enabling of the Spirit of God painted over with glorious Words but inwardly full of Abominations belong to the Kingdom of Babylon And well may that unclean and deceitful Spirit that acteth all such persons who are levened and governed therewith and thereby be called Babylon by a Figurative Speech even as the Soul of a man is commonly called the man which hinders not that the people in whatsoever Profession they may be who are acted by that evil and Antichristian Spirit are Babylon And as for the Pope and Popish Church as we do cordially joyn with the best and most sincere Proantests against them as being the great and principal Members of that Scarlet Whore Mystery Babylon in whom Antichrist or that Antichristian Spirit hath its chiefest or most principal residence and therefore in no respect can be said to favour the Pope or Popish Church on that or any consideration although we with the Salvation of the worst so we most freely declare that wherever we find any degree or measure of the same Spirit of Antichrist and Babylon as too much of it is to be found in I. A. and too many of his Brethren we cannot acquit them from being Members of the same Antichristian body although in this our upright and honest Testimony we expect neither the kindness of the Pope nor yet of I. A. far less the Popes Wages or reward for being so kind to him as I. A. doth most falsly and grosly alledge And divers of our Friends have suffered deeply under the Popish Power for bearing a Testimony against him and them which neither I. A. nor his Brethren have ever done but sit warmly at home without exposing themselves to any suffering on that account Having thus as briefly as I could given an Answer to I. A. his Book against us omitting nothing that seemed to be material I shall neither trouble the Readers nor my self with his two Postscripts to Answer them in particular The substance of the first Postscript against me being already Answered in the foregoing Sheets as to what is any wise material Or if he suppose any thing is omitted let him mind me of it in his next and withall Write an intire and thorough Answer to what is already said both here and in the Treatise called Quakerism no Popery which he hath only but here and there nibled at And I may possibly if God give me freedom and convenience return him a â—urther Answer 〈◊〉 at present I suppose he hath work enough to lye on his hand and needs no more As for his Postscript against or for Doctor Everards Ghost as he calleth it I find not my self concerned to Answer him therein nor defend every word or Opinion of his seeing he never went under that Name or Designation with us Albeit I must needs acknowledge both my Friends and I such of them I mean as have read his Book have a great love and respect to his memory which all I. A. his bitter Revilings against him shall never be able to defame And we believe the said Everard hath indeed had rare and singular gifts of Understanding and Openings of Scripture from God and withal a good measure of Integrity and zeal for the Truth according to the time and Dispensation he was in and in that respect doth truly deserve to be accounted among the Witnesses of Truth in his day whatever imperfections attended him otherwise or suppose some mistakes of Judgment in some things or not so warily cautioning some of his words as could have been wished Although I judge that I. A. doth seek to fix or fasten upon him divers errors of Judgment of which he is not guilty by reason of deep prejudice against him Partly whiles he takes the said Iohn Evrard's words too Literally and Superficially which are to be understood more Mystically and Figuratively and partly while he takes that as spoken absolutely which is but spoken comparative and by way of some Similitude and but in some respect But before I make a full close I shall only take notice of two gross and absurd Assertions waving others to another opportunity in his Postscript to me The one is that the Pope and his Clergy had the true Power and Authority of Ordination and calling Ministers before the Reformation neither as Christian nor as Antichristian Not as Christian or else all Christians would have it nor as Antichristian seeing these two terms are not contradictory but contrary for many things and persons too are neither Christian nor Antichristian To which
where he alledgeth their words saying All men ought first to wait until they receive the Spirit in Truth then in the same Truth to Worship God in Spirit who is a Spirit So we see by I. A. his own Confession the Quakers teach that all men ought to Worship God in the Spirit and that they may indeed Worship him they would have all men follow the Lords order which is to wait or watch unto Prayer and they would have men in the first place cease or depart from their wickedness and then by the help of the Spirit which is never wanting in the proper season of it to come and Pray unto God And that this is no new or invented way of the Quakers so called Read Isaiah 1. 16 17 18. where the Lord by the Prophet bids first That they wash and be clean and put away the evil of their doings c. And then said he Come now let us reason together Also Peter commanded Simon Magus to joyn Repentance with Prayer Repent said he and Pray that the Thoughts of thy heart may be forgiven thee And for the more clear understanding of this whole matter we are to consider that Prayer is either simply Mental and with the heart only or both Mental and Vocal to wit both with heart and Mouth Now as for Mental Prayer at least in respect of the bent or frame and inclination of the Heart God requireth it always of all men and it is possible for all men if they but receive that help of his Spirit which he giveth or offereth unto men always to perform it But as for Vocal Prayer he neither doth require it at all times nor doth he give the help at all times nor the utterance whereby to perform it And it is observable that under the Gospel no particular set or limited time is appointed for Vocal Prayer But every one is to wait to know the times of the Spirits call and moving thereunto which will be seasonably and frequently afforded to such as wait singly therefore especially when the people of God Assemble together for then it is that Vocal Prayer is of greatest use and service though it hath also its use and service in private or when one is apart But whereas I. A. alledgeth further That if wicked men are not to Pray viz. their Hypocritical Prayers because they sin when they Pray No man on earth should offer to Pray or Worship God seeing as he saith There is somewhat of sin â—leaving to the best Actions of the Saints here away To this I answer That there is somewhat of sin cleaving to the best Actions of the Saints here away is denyed seeing it is asserted by him without proof for the Scriptures cited by him viz. Prov. 20. 9. Gal. 5. 17. say no such thing and by consequence he hath not evinced it and for a proof to the contrary see Iob 16. 17. Malach. 1. 11. But secondly nor doth it follow that men who are not yet come to a perfect state but labour sincerely under the burden of their sins to be delivered from them may not Pray unto God because their Prayer as they put it up unto God by the help of his Spirit is pure and without all sin proceeding from the pure or renewed part of their hearts for it is only the pure or renewed part of the heart from which indeed the true Prayer doth proceed even as on the contrary the evil desires and affections arise and spring only from the impure and unrenewed part Therefore he that hath this unrenewed part in him ought to watch against it while he prayeth that he give it no liberty to move or stir as indeed he ought to watch against it at all other times And though he that prayeth sincerely being not attained to a sinless state pray not with that degree or measure of fervency wherewith another more perfect doth or can pray yet God regarding that mans sincerity he accepteth his Prayer in Christ and for Christs sake pardoneth him when at any time he committeth a weakness in his Prayer in not keeping purely to the Spirit Again Lastly Whereas I. A. objecteth That the Plowing Eating Sleeping c. of the wicked is sin Shall the wicked then do nothing at all because whatever they do they go about it in a sinful manner I answer This consequence doth no wise follow because there is a great difference betwixt a wicked mans Plowing Eating Drinking c. and his Praying as remaining wicked and alienated from the Spirit of God for his Plowing Eating Drinking or any other Corporal or Natural actions are really these actions and they are profitable and necessary in the Creation and when he performeth these actions he faileth not in the substance or matter of the action required but only in the manner for the substance or matter of a wicked mans Plowing Eating Travelling is not sin but the manner of it viz. That it is not in Faith but a wicked mans Prayer as he is a wicked man is no true Prayer at all it hath nothing of the true substance of true and real Prayer it is a meer picture or dead resemblance of Prayer and is rather a mocking God than praying unto him for it wants the life of true Prayer which alone the Spirit of God doth give and thus a plain difference is demonstrated betwixt the two cases and the Unvalidity of I. A. his consequences in this whole matter is evinced And if the Reader desire further satisfaction in this particular let him Read our Answer to the Students and R. B. his Apology where these Objections of I. A. are largely Answered for he has brought no new matter against us and it had been better he had both spared his own pains and not troubled the world with his repeating other mens Arguments long since answered As for his instance of our opposing the second Commandment by our rejecting wresting and abusing the Word of God and avowing of Error and Blasphemy seeing it is but a bare alledging without any shadow of proof it is enough as simply to deny it as he doth simply affirm it But another instance he giveth of our opposing the second Commandment By swallowing down our Meat and Drink as so many Beasts without any Prayer and Thansgiving without which if they will believe the Apostle 1 Tim. 4. 3 4 5. they are not sanctied But how unjustly he chargeth this upon us I can freely leave to the Judgment of all sober and true Christians For how doth he prove that we Eat or Drink or receive any Creatures of God without Prayer and Thanksgivings Because we do not always use Vocal and External Prayer when we Eat and Drink although at other times we use it as God is pleased to give utterance and are most glad either to do it or joyn with these who do it by the help of Gods Spirit But is I. A. so ignorant and unreasonable to think that theirs is no Prayer