show according to that Latine Verse Fabula narratur mutato Nomine de te i.e. Change the Name and the Tale is told truly of thy thy self CHAP. III. IN his first Argument he accuseth me to be guilty of a Lye in matter of Fact and that I pretend to an assurance for it from the Spirit of God and the Lye he alledgeth in matter of Fact is That I charge their Confession of Faith for holding that the Scriptures ought to be believed for their own outward Evidence and Testimony and not for the inward Evidence and Testimony of the holy Spirit in mens Hearts And to prove this to be a Lye he citeth some words of that Confession which saith Our full perswasion and assurance of the infallible Truth and divine Authority of the holy Scriptures is from the Inward Work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our Hearts And for a further Confirmation he alledgeth John Owen saying That the Scripture be received as the Word of God there is a twofold Efficacy of the Spirit c. withal affirming That I cover Lye with Lye To which I Answer Cotton Mather and not I is guilty of two gross Lyes or Falshoods in this Charge first That I pretend to an assurance from the Spirit in matter of Fact concerning what they hold is a manifest Perversion for I bring my assurance in matter of Fact not from the Spirit but from their Confession of Faith which I have diligently examined but the knowledge I have that their Doctrine in that particular is false I bring from the Spirit of God that hath given me the understanding thereof and is Truth and no Lye 2 dly That he saith Their Confession doth grant that the Scriptures are to be believed for the inward Evidence and Testimony of the holy Spirit in mens hearts but this it doth not say nor can it be gathered by any just consequence to be their sence seeing they deny with C.M. and his Brethren all inward objective immediate Testimony and Revelation of the Spirit And whereas the Confession mentioneth the inward Work of the holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word viz. the Scripture in our Hearts This doth sufficiently prove That their Confession doth not mean or intend any inward Testimony of the Spirit reallâ— and properly so called as having a standing Evidence of its own bâ—â— only borrowed from the Scripture and therefore is no true and proper Evidence at all but only and altogether improper yea as improper as if I should say when I hear but one man give Evidence to the Truth of a thing and that I read it also in wâ—it from his hand that three Evidences or Witnesses have given their Evidence to that Truth as 1 st the Maâ— â— dly my Ear that heard him 3 dly my Eye that hath reâ—d his writ But what sober Man will say these are three Witnesses or Evidences And would it not be a great Cheat to say That whereas the Law requireth two Witnesses and there is but one man that giveth witness to Cotton Mathers hearing that C.M. should alledge his Ears are other two Witnesses because they have heard him and so they are three in all And as great a Cheat and Fallacy is it to call the witness of the Scripture the inward Witness of the Spirit when they confess the inward Work of the Spirit is only Effective to open the Ear to hear the outward Witness of the Scripture but not to speak by any distinct Witness to the inward Ear And it is like that other Fallacy as if James being required to give his Witness he giveth it not by himself but by John and John being required to give his Witness he giveth it by James but neither of them by himself or at least the one not by himself for when they are asked By what do they know the Scriptures to be the Word of God they answer By the Spirit And again By what do they know the Spirit they answer By the Scripture And thus the Fallacy and Falshood both of the Confession and of C.M. is detected and G.K. is cleared from being no wise guilty of any Lye in the case And what I said of John Owen is true for the Title and design of his Book is concerning The Self-Evidencing Authority of the holy Scriptures only he confesseth the Spirits inward Work is necessary to let men see or know it but that is no proper Witness more than a mans hearing is one Witness and the thing heard is another I do therefore Appeal to all sober impartial and judicious Readers Whether not I but Cotton Mather be not convicted of gross Lying or Falshood and whether the Society he belongs unto ought not to bring him to Repentance for such Crimes to use some of his own words His Second Argument is That I am guilty of having committed most horrible Blasphemy against the holy Spirit of God which is the unpardonable Sin And though he doth charge this one while positively yet another while If I have not the certain yet fearful Marks of it and my Sin is very like that Sin and yet again charging it positively on me That I have taken part with the Pharisees in dorg that impardonable Injury to the Eternal Spirit of God But how doth he prove any thing of this to have the lest show or shadow of truth Why because as he alledgeth I called his and his Brethrens Prayers more than once a Conjuring of the Devil and do put on them the stile of Charms and Spells by which Prayers he alledgeth he and his Brethren did cast out the Devil that did Bodily possess some Young People and that therefore their Prayers were the special Operations of the holy Ghost which I blaspheme and that therefore I have committed the Vnpardonable Sin But I Answer 1 st As I said in my Book called A Refutation c. I am little concerned whether or not these Young People were bewitched or had a Diabolical Possession further than to take notice That C.M. will have it to be so to make the simple believe that his and his Brethrens Prayers did conjure the Devil and cast him out by which it is most clearly apparent to every one of common sence that I did not mean that his or his Brethrens Prayers were done by any Diabolical Art or Craft of Conjuration for I do not think them to be Conjurers but that they would have People believe that by some divine Power of Exorcism as was frequent in the primitive Church they did conjure the Devil which is as widely different from his Perversion as East from West Now I cannot believe that they had this divine Gift of Exorcism which was a Miraculous Gift in those primitive Times that Popish Priests do also pretend to have and many strongly affirm they have cured many by their Prayers because they commonly say That Immediate Revelaiion with the Gifts of Miracles are ceased How then can
Capacities I shall let pass only minding the Reader That the nature of a Contradiction is difficult many times to understand even in Natural things so that it is reckoned the subtâ—lest part in Logick or Metaphyâ—â—â—â—â— to understand throughly what are alwayes Contradictions and 〈…〉 and therefore much more hard it is to understand in 〈…〉 that contain many seeming Contradictions for tho' 〈…〉 â—cripture containeth no real Contradiâ—â—ons coming from 〈…〉 Spirit of Truth yet it containeth 〈…〉 seeming which 〈…〉 and Scoffers use to object His comparing me to Julian the Apostate favoureth of the like Spirit of Envy as formerly when with no more ground he accused me of being guilty of the Vnpardonable Sin It is a part of my Blessing that being reviled and fully accused I can patiently bear it by the Grace of Christ in whom I believe and to whom I confess even to the Crucified Jesus that was nailed to the Cross for my Sins whom my Soul loveth and whom Julian openly denyed But Cotton Mather will gain no credit nor esteem either to himself or his Cause by 〈…〉 and Extraordinary Revilings rarely to be parallelled among the greatest Readers His Fourth Argument hath as weak and sandy Foundation as any of the rest as namely as he saith That I renounce both the Religion and the Saviour which the Saints have hitherto ventured their Souls upon c. to wit Christ Jesus And this he undertaketh to prove Sathan like by wresting my words and omitting some of them in the very Sentence he citeth that were altogether essential to make up the intire period and sence for I said in my Book Your Visible Churches 〈◊〉 true Churches of Christ for the Religion ye profess is not the true Religion of Christ Jesus yea in Fundamentals and in the very Foundation it self which is Christ Jesus on which the true Church is 〈◊〉 and every Member thereof but ye who say note my following words p. 137. all inward divine Revelation is ceased ye to wit your visible Church build not on Christ but on a meer Hear-say and Historical Report of him for how can ye build on him when ye have no belief that Christ is nearer unto you than in some remote place beyond the Skyes Where the Impartial Reader may see first That my words expresly mention their visible Church that doth not build really on Christ but on a Profession of him even by Cotton Mather's Confession 〈◊〉 nothing is required to make up the Members of a visible Church but a Profession of him and of the true Religion But every judicious leâ—son will say it is one thing to profess Christ in words or show and another thing really to build on Christ that everlasting Rock for by Christs Doctrine none buildeth on the Rock which is Christ 〈…〉 that heareth Christ's Sayings and doth them and that is much 〈◊〉 than barely to profess him But yet I did not question nor â—o but that according to my Christian Câ—arity moving me so to believe divers among all sorts Societies call'd Christian in Christendom that hold the Fundamentals as many do do really build on Châ—ist thâ—â—â—â—e Foundation and because they so do in due time the Wood Hay and Stubble of their Errors in other things while they build on the true Foundation will be burnt up by the divine Fire of the living Word and living Spirit of God in them and their Lord Jesus Christ iâ— mine and mine is theirs and I could be glad that I could entertain that Charity to C.M. but however I have not that uncharitable judgment of him as bad as he is that he hath committed that unpardonable Sin for though he hath reproached the precious workings and operations of the holy Spirit both in my faithful Brethren and me calling them Delâ—sions of Satan yet because I judge he doth it ignorantly therefore his sin is pardonable upon Repentance which I pray God may be given him for that and all his haâ—d Speechâ—â— and all other sins before it be too late But because he cannot fix his â—â—â—se Charge upon me of denying Christ he essayeth 〈◊〉 but with 〈…〉 success to fix it upon my Brethren as dear Isaac Pennington whom I well knew to be a true Believer in the Lord Jesuâ— Christ and a sincere Lover of him even the crucified Jesus and whose Souâ— I believe is in test in Christ in heavenly Glory And as to his words We can never eat the Bodily Garment Christ but that wâ—ich appeaâ—ed and dwelt in â—he Body it is easie to put a fair and charitable construction on it as wâ—â—l as on Christs words when he said He that 〈…〉 seen 〈◊〉 hath seeâ— the Father and yet many saw Christ's body of Flesh that never saw the Father But to clear the thing I 〈◊〉 speaâ—eâ—h â—hâ—s in opposition to Socinians and oâ—hers tincturâ—d with 〈…〉 as if â—he Manhood of Christ that was born of the Viâ—gin exâ—â—ndâ—â—g the 〈◊〉 Word was the only and whole Christ whereas 〈◊〉 was 〈…〉 his Body of Flesh therefore he is said to have come in the Flesh and to have taken Flesh And if we consider Christ as he was before the World was by whom all things were created and in respect of his Godhead the Body was not that but the Garment of it when he assumed it But when we consider Christ as Man as every other man 〈◊〉 both Soul body belonging to his essential Constitution as Man 〈◊〉 and Christ and still hath a moâ—â— gâ—orious Soul and Body and we 〈◊〉 not but according to Scripture 〈◊〉 Christ Manhood yea and his Body iâ— called Christ as when the Scripture saith that he was buried nailed to the Cross buâ—â—ited and even his Body was and is a part of his Manhood and his Soul the other and more Noble part most wonderfully and incomparably united with the Godhead and most incomparably filled with all fullness of the Godhead and of Grace and Truth out of whose fullness we all receive and Grace foâ— Grace and yet we do not judge that the Godhead is circumscribed within the Body of Christ for the Godhead is Omnipresent as well as Omnipotent and Omniscient And whereas he querieth saying Let Keith tell us honestly whether he does not count his own Body to be the Body of Christ in the same sence that the visible tangible Flesh which hung upon the Cross was the Body of our Lord I Answer honestly Nay by no means as I have sufficiently formerly declared in my printed Books and Testimonies on all occasions for as the Body of the Head is of far more Dignity than the Body of the inferiour Members and hath the Soul or Spirit and Life of man otherwise dwelling in it than the inferiour Members so much more the Soul and Body of Christ hath the eternal Word living and dwelling in the same than any other and that incomparably as Augustine well demonstrateth lib. de agonâ— Christianâ— cap. 20. thus concluding And therefoâ—e tâ—e Word doth not
to give any one instance wherein I have not faithfully quoted the Antient Writers named by me whether in my former Book called The pretended Antidote c. or in this in each particular And were I so minded and saw a service in it to the People of New-England I could easily produce sufficient plain Testimonies from Antient Fathers so called and Writers both Greek and Latine to confirm the Doctrine of the People call'd Quakers in all the principal and most material things wherein they differ from C.M. and his Brethren but the Scripture Authority being that of greatest weight in respect of any outward Testimony I have chosen rather to make use of that Nor will it serve to justifie C. Matâ—er his Exclamations against me that seeing the Quakers hold all these Doctrines which Baxter and some other Protestant Writers hold to be Fundamental that therefore I should not have so charged them as I have done in my first Book called The Presbyterian and Independent visible Churches brought to the Test for if they and we agree in Fundamentals then why are we so uncharitable to them as not to judge them a true Church To which I Answer Although we hold all their Fundamentals according to what Baxter has delivered as I have above showed yet they hold not all our Fundamentals so it is a Fundamental Doctrine and Principle held by us to wit The inward Revelation of Christ in all true Believers and That God teacheth all true Believers by his inward Voice Word and Teachings or inward divine Inspiration and Revelation properly so called that is as well Objective as Effective and by way of Object working sensibly and infallibly upon the inward and spiritual Senses of their Souls and which their Souls and Minds if onely and fitly disposed and qualified do infallibly apprehend but yet this Fundamental held by us is plainly denyed by C.M. and his Brethren and it is a Fundamental Error in them who hold it as the generality of their visible Church Members do That all sâ—ch divine inward Objective Revelation and Inspiration is ceased and from this Fundamental Error divers other very great Errors flow as so many unclean streams from an unclean Fountain for if all true and saving Knowledge of God and Christ and all saving Faith require true divine inward Revelation and inspiration properly so called and the true and real inspeaking of God and his internal Word and Voice that doth as sensibly and perceptibly operate by way of Object upon the inward and spiritual heaâ—ing or discerning Faculty of the Soul as any outward Voice or Woâ—d of a man doth upon the outward Hearing then if that be ceasâ—d all true and saving Knowledge and Faith are ceased and all true Love Hope and Repentance and all other Fruits and Virtues of the Spirit because all these have a necessary connexion with the true saving Knowledge and Faith also all true Preaching Praying and Worship and all true Obedience and Service unto God and all real and true Religion all depending upon the inward Principle of inward divine Revelation and Inspiration properly so called and yet we do readily acknowledge a distinction betwixt these extraordinary divine Revelations and Inspirations that the Apostles and Prophets had 〈◊〉 they were Apostles and Prophets and these other that they had common â—o them and ordinary with all Christians and for the latter we contend that were and are ordinary and common to all Saints in all Ages of the World but not for the former that were extraordinary whereby they not only wrought Miracles and spoke with Tongues but had Doctrinal things of Faith revealed to them without all outward teaching of Men or Books whereas we do not say any peculiar Doctrine of the Christian Faith is made known to us without all outward Teaching but by it Instrumentally and by the immediate Revelation and Inspiration of the Spirit Principally and we are sufficiently charitable that we judge there are true Believers among them though we cannot own their visible Church that either hold not these Errors with them or if some hold them in words or Notion and Theory yet as in respect of their Experience and inward sence and feeling hold them not but the contrary and such have better Hearts than Notions and though they err in holding an unsound form of Words through too much relying upon their Teachers yet their inward sence and experience doth contradict them And in all these twelve Particulars I first charged upon them I still affirm they do grosly err and they are such great matters of Difference betwixt them and us although they are not all Fundamentals that no Society holding such Errors deserve to be esteemed the visible Church of Christ restored to that purity of Doctrine that the visible Church ought to have and had in the primitive Times and yet will have as she cometh to be fully restored to her primitive Purity And though it seem a strange and new Doctrine to C.M. and his Brethren to distinguish betwixt the Scripture called by some the external or outward Word and the inward living Word of God that proceedeth from the Mouth of God immediately as every mans word that proceedeth from his Mouth and goeth into the Ears of the Hearers is his immediate Word yet not only antient Writers and Fathers so called did so distinguish but even these called the Reformed who began the Reformation from gross Propâ—ry And for the antient Writers I shall give but one though I could give divers besides to wit Augustine of great esteem and fame with Protestants and particularly with Calvin whose Authority he more useth in his Institutions than any of all the Antients In his 5th Book de Trinitate cap. 11. Augustine saith expresly Proinde Verbum quod foras sonat signum est verbi quod intus lucet cuj magis verbi competit nomen nam illud quod prosertur caruis ore vox verbi est verbumq et ipsum dicitar propter illud a quo ut foris appareret assamptum est In English thus Therefore the Word that soundeth outwardly is a sign of the Word that shineth inwardly to which the Name of the Word doth more agree for that which is pronounced with the fleshly Moâ—th is the Voice of the Word and it is called the Word because of that from which it is taken that it might outwardly appear Where I desire the Reader to Note these two things 1 st That Augustine doth acknowledge the Word within or internal Word 2 dly That the Name of the Word doth more belong to the internal Word than to that which outwardly soundeth in our fleshly Ears in both which he doth contradict C.M. and his Brethren who do not acknowledge any inward Word in the Saints since the Apostles dayes and hold That the Scripture is the only Word that is the Object and Rule of our Faith And that famous Reformer Zuinglius whom 〈◊〉 the rather cite because C.M. maketh him his
c. are qualified Members of your Church I said it according to what I found in your Confession that requireth no more than an outward Profession of Religion and that such scandalous Persons may have for if no scandalous Persons could make a Profession but that the very Profession it self did exclude all scandalous Walking then there could be no scandalous Profession nor Professors that are scandalous but if ye deny that Baxter will better inform him in the Treatise above mentioned beside that I have proved C. Mather a notorious Lyar and yet he is a Member of their Church and it is but too well known how many scandalous Persons of all sorts belong to the Presbyterian Church as much at least in some places as to the Episcopal and as when the Presbyterian Church was National in Scotland and is now lately again become National in Scotland can it be imagined or was it ever known that any Church in Christendom that was National or did take in the whole Nation â—ut had many scandalous Persons in it His last instance of my Ignorance is That I denyed that Baptizing of Infants was the Practiâ—e of the Church during the first Century But all that he saith here against me is a bewraying his own Ignorance and withal his Perversion For to prove that Baptizing of Infants was the Practice of the Church in the first Century he citeth Origine and Cyprian none of which lived in the first Century and Agustine that lived not till about the end of the fourth Century and Calvin that lived not till at least fourteen hundred Years after the first Century and they might be mistaken in their thinking that baptizing of Infants was practised in the first Century as well as in other things they did too much take upon trust and suppose some small matteâ—s to be found in Origine concerning Infant Baptism yet that is not Church History and so contradicts not my Assertion for Origine had some private Opinions that were not generally received in â—hâ— Church beside that wiser men that C.M. have thought that Ruâ—â—â—â—us Origine's Interpreter hath incerted that of Infants Baptism as well as some other things into Origine's Works that were not really his and did not agâ—eâ— to his Time and Erasmus much better versed in Antiquity than either C.M. or all his Brethren hath plainly acknowledged that Râ—â—â—â—nus did take too much liberty in addiâ—g things of his own as could be easily proved and according to the best Chronology Origine and Cyprian lived together to wit about the middle of the third Century as Aâ—stâ—dius showeth in 〈…〉 Câ—ronologiae And as for Tertulians Authority whom he citeth for infants Baptism while their innocent Age was yet upon them it is a manifest Falshood if not a willfull Perversion if ever C.M. hath read Tertullian upon the place and proveth him eiâ—her Ignorant or Forgerer and to show this I shall faithfully recite Tertullians words from my own reading I having well read in Tertullian Cyprian and Origine and divers others I suppose befoâ—e Cot. Mather could well read in his Accidence or Grammer in his Book De Baptâ—sâ—o adversus Qâ—â—tutiâ—â—am cap. 18. he saith Ait quidem Dominus notâ—◠〈◊〉 prohibere ad me venire â—enâ—â—ut ergo dum adolescunt c. In English thus Indeed the Lord saith forbid them not to come unto me let them therefore come when they grow up to Youth let them come when they learn when they are taught whither they come let them be Christians when they can know Christ why doth â—â—nocent Age hasten to the Remission oâ— Sins â—â—â—n will be more wary in secular things that to whom Eartâ—ly Substance is not trusted that which is divine should be trusted let them know to ask Salvation that thou mayest seem to give to him that asketh Than which nothing can be more clear that Tertullian was not for but against Infants Baptism But perhaps he thinks to excuse himself that he brings Tertullian's Authority by way of Query And for his citing Ireneus's saying Infantes renascuntur i.e. Infants are born again either it is to be understood of Water-Baptism or it is against C.M. who doth not believe that Water-Baptism is our Regeneration as the Papists commonly call it and seeing nothing oâ— Wateâ— is mentioned it is no clear Testimony But seeing he hath mentioned nothing of Church History he hath not proved me guilty of Ignorance for saying They can giâ—e no Evidence in Church History for Infant Baptism For his citation of Church History concerning Hyginus to prove Infant Baptism he should have named who the Writer of that Church History is and whether approved by true Protestants seeing many fabulous things are alledged by Papists concerning Antiquity That calâ—ed 〈…〉 is generally denyed to â—e Justine's by all judicious Protestants and that Justine saith in his Dialogue with Tryph. That all alike might then receive Baptism which is the spiritual Circumcision As it saith nothing of Infants so it is plainly against C.M. and his Brethren if he mean Water-Baptism who do not think that all who receive Water-Baptism are spiritally circumcised which is a Popish Opinion and a manifest Error contradicted by daily experience And his charging me with Hypocrisie for commending the dead Saints but condemning the living Ones classing W. P with me he showeth his Folly and Rashness in that as in other things let him tell us what living Saints do we condemn we do believe that God hath his living Saints now in the World as he hath had in all Ages of the World even in all Professions in Christendom that hold the true Foundation though upon it too many build Straw and Stubble which God will in due time burn up as I have abovesaid Moreover that Infants Baptism was not practised until the third Age or Century and was not brought in by the Commandment of Christ there are many men of great Note for Learning and Skill in Antiquity far more famous for Learning than Cotton Mather is like ever to be that assert the same as well as I and contradict Calvin's mistaken Judgment in that particular for Curcellaeus saith in his Dissertations of Orig. Sin That the Custom of Baptizing Infants was brought in without the Commandment of Christ and did not begin before the third Age after Christ was born In the two former Ages saith he no sign of it doth appear And thâ—t the Antients were of opinion That only the Adult are capable of Baptism Valefridus Strabo that lived in the ninth Century Ludovicus Vives and Erasmus in the Church of Rome and Grotius and Salmasius great Protestant Authors do plainly acknowledge and Berengarius and the Albigenses were of the same mind as that learned judicious Protestant Writer C.M. Du Veil in his Explanation of the Acts of the Apostles doth show see his Explanat on cap. 2. v. 14. and cap. 8. v. 12 31. and cap. 18. v. 8. And notwithstanding of his Insinuations to the contrary I challenge C.M.