Selected quad for the lemma: ground_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
ground_n	apostle_n	doctrine_n	faith_n	1,496	5	5.4771	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A84760	A sober answer to an angry epistle, directed to all the publick teachers in this nation, and prefixed to a book, called (by an antiphrasis) Christs innocency pleaded against the cry of the chief priests. Written in hast by Thomas Speed, once a publick teacher himself, and since revolted from that calling to merchandize, and of late grown a merchant of soules, trading subtilly for the Quakers in Bristoll. Wherein the jesuiticall equivocations and subtle insinuations, whereby he endeavours secretly to infuse the whole venome of Quaking doctrines, into undiscerning readers, are discovered; a catlogue of the true and genuine doctrines of the Quakers is presented, and certaine questions depending between us and them, candidly disputed, / by [brace] Christopher Fowler & Simon Ford, [brace] ministers of the Gospel in Reding,	Fowler, Christopher, 1610?-1678.; Ford, Simon, 1619?-1699.	1656 (1656)	Wing F1694; Thomason E883_1; ESTC R207293	63,879	81

word as written to have been a rule before it was written Although we shall not doubt to prove that those Patriarchs had the same foundation to build on and the same Law or Rule to walk by though they were not then committed to writing The Apostle tells us Gal. 3. 8. that the Scripture preached the Gospel to Abraham where it is observable that Abrahams light was Scripture light before the Scriptures were written 2. The question between us is not whether the Scriptures be the personall or reall ground of faith but whether as Mr. Thomas well distinguisheth it be the Doctrinall or declarative ground or foundation of faith This distinction whether you will admit or no we must premise because we would not be engaged to fight with a meer shadow If you will own the Scriptures to be a doctrinall foundation or ground of faith i. e. to hold forth from God those Doctrines which and which onely we are bound to beleive our dispute is at an end for we are of a mind we owne Christ alone to be the foundation or ground of faith personall or reall that is to be the person or thing that our faith is built on and the Scriptures to be the onely ground and foundation by way of Doctrine or declaration what we are to beleive concerning Christ and how to beleive on him We hope you will understand us we speak as plaine as we can to avoid cavills about termes All therefore that we are to prove in this question is that all things which vve beleive and do as necessary in order to salvation are to be such as are contained in the Scripture and to be judged by it whether they be so or no. We say All things which we beleive and do as necessary in order Sect. 62 to the salvation of our Soules are to be such as are contained in Scripture If not because to please you we must not argue from Scripture we desire you to satisfie us Q. 1. What thing necessary to be beleived or done in order to salvation there is which we may or must receive from any other Rule or build on any other foundation and what is that Rule or foundation We suppose you are bound either to allow our rule or shew us a bettor Or Q. 2. Whether what the Scriptures containe be sufficient to guide us to salvation or no If you affirme it then we shall think our selves well enough with our old Rule seeing vve may be saved and yet admit no other If you deny it you must out-stare these plaine Texts 2 Tim. 3. 15 16 17. From a Child thou hast knowne the holy Scriptures which are able to make thee wise unto salvation And all Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for Doctrine for reproof for correction for instruction in righteousnesse That the man of God may be perfect throughly furnished unto every good work And that of John wherewith he closeth his twentieth Chapter These speaking of the signes which Christ did are written that yee might beleive that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God and that beleiving yee might have life through his name Say not that this concernes onely the Gospel of John or if more onely the Histories of the Evangelists For then we shall make bold to conclude our Position à fortiori If there be enough in one or at most four Bookes to work faith and thereby bring us to salvation much more in all the Scriptures Q. 3. Whether the Scriptures of the old and new Testament be the word of God or no or do you owne no word of God but Christ We suppose here you will answer us as your brethren here do We dare not deny it for feare of the Law we dare not affirm it for then we deny our own principles We know not how you will answer it But we must tell you if you deny it we are sure the Scriptures affirme it of themselves else we desire to know what it is that is called the Word of God in the places following Mar. 7. 13. 2 Cor. 2. 17. 4. 2. What it is that David so often calls by the name of thy word Ps 119. whether Christ spake himselfe or the declarative word of God Lu. 5. 1. If you affirme it We ask further Q. 4. Whether it be not the duty of the Creature to beleive and be guided by the declared word of God rather then by any others word whatsoever Q. 5. Whether there be any such thing in the World as Heresie or Errour If there be not to vvhat purpose are all those Prophesies that foretell and Cautions that forewarne Gods people against them in the Scripture If there be may they be discovered or no If they may not how can it be a duty incumbent upon Saints to avoid them is there any avoiding of an undiscoverable evill If they may by vvhat rule but the written Word Q. 6. Whether there be any duty or sin in the World or no The affinity your Sect hath vvith the Ranters in Principles vvhich G. Fox acknowledgeth makes us beleive that some of you vvould they speak out must answer No but what a man thinkes to be so We vvill not judge the thoughts But if you be more sober vve onely ask you Q. 7. What rule vve have to judge of vvhat is Duty or Sin but the vvritten Law of God Is it the light of every mans private bosome This is the forementioned Ranting Principle Is it immediate Revelation For to this your brethren incline as may be seen in the Quaeries sent to Mr. Baxter of Kiderminster one of vvhich vvas Whether he owned Revelations or no And Naylers Answer to his Quakers Catechisme and that very strongly yea they pretend to the same mission from God to this or that place to do this or that errand which the Prophets had of old and to be limited in their stay in and departure from such places by the immediate commands of God * See Deusberies discovery and his owne confession therein That at Derby he answered the Major that he would stay there till the Lord ordered him to go out of Towne and when he was put out returned and staid till he was free in his spirit to depart p. 8 9. If you be of their mind vve further enquire Q. 8. What certaine token you have to know the commands of God from the commands of Satan seeing he can easily insinuate his suggestions by inward voices as commands of God According to the old Law of God to his people the Jewes Pretenders to a Spirit of Prophesie though they gave evidence of their pretended mission from God by signes and wonders and those coming to passe too yet were to be discovered and judged by the written word Deut. 13. 1 2 3. c. And in the new Testament the Doctrine of an Angell from Heaven is submitted under a curse to the Doctrine preached by the Apostles Gal. 1. 8. And we desire to know

whether you vvill submit your Revelations to this Touchstone or no If so you yeild the question If not then whatever Commands or Prohibitions you receive in the way of revelation you must obey vvhether agreeing or disagreeing to the written Law of God And then how far the examples of Abraham offering up his Son and Phinehas executing vengeance yea and vvhen time serves Ehuds message from God to Eglon may be witnessed in you as you speak we know Judg. 3. 19 not and shall pray vve never may by experience Q. 9. Whether the Scriptures do not establish it selfe as the rule of Faith in referring all pretenders to new light to the Law and the Testimony and telling us expresly That if they speak not according to this word it is because there is no light in Isa 20. 8. them And whether the light in you and in your companions be not darknesse that will not undergo this tryall Q. 10. Whether the phrases of walking in the Law of the Lord keeping Gods Testimonies taking heed to a mans way according to Gods word not wandering from Gods Commandements Ps 119 1 2. 9 10. 21. 30. 35. 51. 102. 110. 133. 157. laying Gods Jugdments before him going in the path of Gods Commandements not declining from Gods Law not departing from Gods Judgments not erring from his Precepts ordering his steps in Gods word not declining from his testimonies Are not cleare evidences that David made the written word that then was his Rule And you owne Davids Rule for yours p. 8. Q. 11. Whether you think in your conscience that Deut. 5. 32 33. doth not convincingly prove the Scripture to be the Saints rule The words are Yee shall observe to do therfore as the Lord your God hath commanded you and before vve have the repitition of the written Law You shall not turn aside to the right hand or to the left c. Your answer in your book is in summe P. 7. that all the Scripture was not then written But did not Moses therein establish as much as was then written for the rule the Saints of those times were to walk by Besides these words immediatly refer to the Morall Law before repeated in the same Chapter And will you exclude that from being the Saints rule as well as other Scriptures Then indeed there vvill be no duty or sin but as a man thinks Q. 12. Whether you deale honestly with Calvin in that P. 20. Scripture Eph. 2. 20. whilest you tell your Readers that he saith in Terminis That the Apostle doth in that Scripture intend Jesus Christ to whom the Prophets and Apostles did beare witnesse Whereas Calvin saith expresly It is without doubt that the foundation in this place is taken for the Doctrine of the Prophets and Apostles And therefore Paul teacheth that the Quin fundamentum hic pro doctrina sumatur minime dubium est Et itaque docet Paulus fidem ecclesiae in hac doctrina debere esse fundatam Calv. in l. Churches faith ought to be founded on this Doctrine And there is not any mention at all of those vvords in Calvin vvhich you quote from him To say the truth vve much vvonder how you could have the brazen face to father a saying upon Calvin vvhich he never said till vve looked upon Marlorate whose mis-quotation or rather the fault of his Printer it seemes deceived you for there vve find among other things there ascribed to Calvin this passage you mention But it concerned a man of your acutenesse not to have taken up a report from another vvhen Calvins vvorks are so common in every Shop and Study that vvith a little paines more you might have conversed vvith the Originall Author whence Marlorate makes his collections But it seemes you vvere vvilling to snatch at any thing that seemed to support your cause vvhere ever you found it And yet you shewed no part of ingenuity in your usage of Marlorate himself vvho together vvith that passage vvhich you quote and under the same note by which he distinguisheth Calvins vvords cites Calvin point blank against you saying that the Apostle shewes in that place how the Ephesians vvere made fellow Citizens vvith the Saints Nempe si fundati sint in Prophetarum Apostolorum Doctrinâ to wit If they be founded on the Doctrine of the Prophets and Apostles These words and others to the same purpose immediatly precede your owne quotation vvhich renders your dis-ingenuity the more culpable as shewing a vvilfull designe of abusing so reverend a name to delude your Readers Q. 13. In a vvord tell us ingenuously Whether we must or must not beleive the Doctrines which the Scriptures lay downe upon their owne authority If vve must vvhy do you quarrell at those that call them the rule ground foundation of faith seeing every intelligent man will tell you that it is the same thing to beleive the Doctrines of the Scripture upon the Scriptures authority and to make the Scriptures the ground rule foundation of faith If vve must not then tell us what superadded to the Scriptures owne Authority renders their Doctrines more credible We observe the Papists state this question as you do But they vvill answer us ingenuously That they beleive the Scriptures because the Church hath confirmed them And the Socinians are of your mind also but they deale fairely too and speak out That they will beleive the Scriptures as far as reason votes with them Would you speak out vve doubt you must confesse you are very neer these last in your judgment Why do you not tell us plainly that you beleive the Doctrines laid down in the Scripture as far as the light within you concurs with them And then vve shall know vvhat you mean in denying the Scriptures to be the rule and ground of faith Viz. That as much as pleaseth you you vvill beleive and vvhat dislikes you shall be cashiered as an old Declarative or an Almanack out of date as some of your Cater-cosins the Familists have blasphemously called the Bible Q. 14. Lastly Whether God vvill not judge every man vvho lives within the sound of the Gospell by the written word If not what meanes the Apostle Paul when he saith that as many as have sinned in the Law shall be judged by the Law in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my Gospel Rom. 2. 12. 16. And seeing we are upon this subject give us leave to enquire yet a little further what are those Books out of which the dead shall be judged and whence one day God will draw the rule of his proceedings in the day of Judgment as you may find Apoc. 2. 12. If God vvill judge us out of the written word after death surely we are not to be blamed if we study that Statute-Law and labour to conforme our beleif and practise thereunto whilest we live which must judge us when we dye Or else we pray you

tell us whether we must live by one rule here and be judged hereafter by another In your answer to these Quaeries we must desire you not to play Childs play with us and endeavour to put us off with trifling fallacies which every Sophister can discerne as you do frequently in your particular contests with Mr. Thomas which we doubt not you will here of with both eares when he is at leasure to reply upon you but deale candidly and positively as becomes a Scholar and a Christian with those who assure you they will with all possible fairenesse examine whatsoever of that nature you shall think necessary to rejoyne hereunto And here we shall put a period to our first debate with you Sect. 63 concerning the Rule ground or foundation of faith Which we say is the Scriptures you that we can find yet say not what it is but say roundly it is not they Our next friendly collation is about the way of drawing those Doctrines from the Scripture which are to be beleived and practised Concerning which your declared judgment is as P. 5 6. 19. c. well as vve can gather it from your own expressions That it is unlawfull to interpret or give any meaning of Scripture or to draw any deductions and conclusions from it but that we must rest satisfied with the bare words of Scripture insomuch that nothing according to you is proved from the Scripture but what is there in so many words Concerning vvhich Tenet vve have a little knockt Shins with you before at armes end but vve shall now wrestle a faire fall and come as close as we can to give you a down-right Cornish hugg First therefore we must informe you that your Generation Sect. 64 are not the first that have started the question or so held it We know not vvhether you understand French or no but if you do vve refer you to a discourse of Mr. Daillé as learned a French man as any this latter age hath bred who in a Book Lafoy fondee sur les S. Escritures par Jean Daille printed about sixteen yeares since hath a large dispute vvith certaine Popish Methodists vvho undertook to teach their deluded Proselites the same way of confuting the French Protestants which you now principle your Disciples withall to gravell those of this Nation They deem saith he that there needs no more ado to baffle us but to demand of us an expresse formall Text for every Article of our confession This facile way saith he further hath produced a rabble of Disputants among them and whereas at first they fled and declined all conferences of Religion and permitted none but their Clergy to speak of it now all sorts of people will adventure to engage with us even Seamsters and Carters Boyes being created Doctors in an instant by this handsome Method The same Author derives the rise of it higher then that age too But from such a Family as neither they nor you have much cause to boast of Eutiches the Heretick that confounded the Natures of God and man in the Lord Jesus Christ * Act Concil chalcedon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Athanas Ep. de Synod Arim. Seleuc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Et Dialog cont Arianum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Aug. Ep. 174. 178. Id. Contra maxim T. 6. fol. 144. G. required an expresse Scripture to affirm that in Christ there are two Natures The Arians in Athanasius his time and after denied the consubstantiality of the Son of God Viz. That he was of the same substance with the Father asserted by the Councill of Nice to express the Eternall Deity of the Son as you do the word Sacrament because it is not in so many Letters found in the Scripture And concerning the very Godhead of Jesus Christ in a Dialogue between Athanasius and an Arian Let alone Syllogismes saith the Arian and shew it us written that the Son is the true God So Pascentius an Arian requires of Augustine to shew him the word consubstantiall in Scripture without Argument And in a like dispute between him and Maximinus concerning the Godhead of the H. Ghost when the Father proved it from the Scripture that tels us He hath a Temple the proper adjunct of Divinity the Heretick replies Truth is not concluded by Argument but proved by certaine Testimonies These things we have the more largely transcribed out of that learned Author to let you know out of what Forge that Weapon is hammered wherwith you encounter us Follow you now if you please the ancient Hereticks and moderne Papists For our parts we are glad that we insist upon the same way and method of disputing which the sounder part of the Church hath ever used to encounter them withall Surely our Saviour Christ better knew the way of proving Sect. 65 conclusions from Scripture then you or we And yet he never thought it necessary to tye himself up to expresse Texts but allowed himself the liberty of the interpretations and deductions When Satan tempted him to turn stones into bread he thought it sufficient to repell the Tentation by that Text of Moses Man liveth not by bread alone but by every word that Mat. 4. 4. Deut. 8. 3. proceedeth out of the mouth of God The force of which Answer lies in this Syllogisme If God be able to supply the want of ordinary food that a mans life shall be sustained without it whilest God hath work for him to do then should I do ill if in distrust of him I should command these stones to be made bread But God is thus able for man lives not c. Therefore I should do ill if I should command these stones to be made bread Had one of your Brethren been at the Devills elbow he would have taught him more wit then to take such an answer and have turned him to put our Saviour upon the producing of an expresse Text of Scripture that forbad Jesus the Son of Mary to command stones to be made bread So in the second Tentation both our Saviour and the Devill Sect. 66 also if no meanings or deductions be allowable in urging of Scripture might have gone to School to you The Devill urgeth Scripture to our Saviour to conclude the lawfulness of his casting himself down from the Pinnacle For saith he it is written He shall give his Angels charge concerning thee c. We do not find our Saviour so well versed in your way of disputing as to deny his proof because it was not expresly God shall give his Angels charge over Jesus the Son of Mary and in their hands shall they beare him up c. But answers by another Scripture to shew that that Text was not to be understood of protection in waies of tempting God by running our selves upon unnecessary dangers Nay when our Saviour had answered him with that place Deut. 6. 16. Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God Satan also was to seek of that plea which you could

for Priests which Law differs from that of Tythes very much However that Scripture vvill not stead you vvithout interpretation and that you renounce But to gratifie you vve vvill suppose your meaning and interpretation Sect. 24 for once though that be more favour then you vvill shevv us and upon your ovvn supposition try one Argument with you and that is this If the abolition of the Law of Tithes depend upon the abolition of the Priesthood to which they were due then vve hope you vvill allow us that if the Priesthood to which Tithes were once due and that before the Leviticall Priesthood be not abolished the Law of Tithes to that Priesthood is not abolished But we shall prove that the Priesthood to which Tithes were once due and that long before the Leviticall Priesthood was in being is not abolished vvhich if vve do vve hope vve may be allowed to conclude Therefore there is no abolishment of the Law of Tithes but it is still in force That the Priesthood to vvhich Tithes vvere originally due is not abolished vve prove thus from the same Chapter The Priesthood to which Tithes were before the Leviticall Priesthood due was the Melchizedekian Priesthood But the Melchizedekian Priesthood or Priesthood after the order of Melchizedek is not abolished For it is Christs Priesthood Heb. 16 17 verses Therefore the Priesthood to which Tithes were originally due is not abolished All that we suppose herein is to be proved is that Tithes were due to Melchizedeks order of Priesthood and so still remaine Sect. 25 due to Christ vvho is a Priest for ever after that order Now for proofe of this vve refer you higher in the same Chapter viz. to v. 4. and thence down to the 10. And vve desire you to consider vvith us these three reasons from the Text to prove that Abraham paid Tithes to Melchizedek as a due 1. You pretend to skill in the Originall Tongue and therefore you vvill not be offended if vve argue from it as you do more then once or twice Abraham in the Apostles phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 9 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 5. is said to be Tithed by Melchizedek and Melchizedek to tithe him v. 6. 9. vvhich is the very same vvord Originally vvith that vvhich is vsed in the Sons of Levi's tithing of the people by commandment v. 5. Now if the word as applied to the Levites signifie to require Tithes as it doth it seems unlikely it was used vvith relation to Melchizedek to denote a receiving of Tithes by way of gratuity only 2. We desire you to consider the scope of the Apostle in that place vvhich is to advance Melchizedeks Priesthood as an Order superiour to Levi's This the Apostle proves because Levi himself in Abrahams loynes paid Tithes to Melchizedek v. 9. Now had Melchizedek received Tithes from Levi in Abrahams loynes as of courtesie only and not of debt it would have been a poore argument to prove Melchizedek a greater Priest vvhich vvill as vvell prove a Beggar a greater man then a Prince because the Beggar receives from him it may be a summ of money out of his courtesie 3. We desire you to consider that Abraham paid the Tithe to Melchizedek with relation to his blessing of him which was an act of his Priestly Office and shewed Melchizedek to be Abrahams and so Levi's superiour v. 6 7. So that Melchizedek as a Priest received tithes of Abraham and Christ in Melchizedek received them from both Abraham and Levi which possibly may be the reason why God reserved even under the Law the tenth of the Tithes as an acknowledgment or high rent to Christ the Priest after the order of Melchizedek to shew that Levi held them of him Numb 18. 26 27 28. which tenth therefore was to be given to Aaron the high Priest who was a Type of Christ Possibly you may according to the garb of your Generation Sect. 26 reject these things as our dark reasonings But seeing your owne Assertions and Quaeres lead us hereunto we hope you will take them into your consideration at least so far as to shew us the darknesse of them In a word you may here gather our Answer to your three Quaeres before mentioned viz. to the First That we grant an end of the Leviticall Priesthood in Christ To the second That in upholding Tithes we uphold not that which was to have an end in Christ Tithes being no necessary appendant to that Priesthood but Christs To the third That we receive not Tithes upon that account but as Ministers of Christ live upon Christs portion which till our former arguments be answered we suppose Tithes to be and therefore are not by receiving them obliged to Leviticall service but Gospell-administrations These things we have a little enlarged upon to let you know Sect. 27 that we are not altogether so destitute of Scripture-warrant for receiving yea requiring Tythes even in kind as you insultingly enough insinuate us to be Whether these arguments conclude the divine right of Tythes or no deserves the consideration of abler men then you or we to vvhom vve humbly submit our conceptions herein However supposing the Law of Tythes be as you say Leviticall and meerly so in its originall and rise yet how you will prove that Law repealed so that it becomes unlawfull for any Proprietor of Land since that administration ceased to set apart the same proportion of the incomes and profits thereof for the maintenance of a Gospell Ministry vve know not vve are sure the Apostle Paul did not think the maintenance of the Leviticall Priesthood so Jewish as you do vvhen he makes it one of the grounds of that Gospel-ordinance for Ministers maintenance 1 Cor. 9. 13 14. Do you not know that they which Minister about holy things live of the things of the Temple c. Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the Gospel should live of the Gospell and that is neither by working nor begging But then say you this maintenance should not be compulsive Sect. 28 to be recovered by Law especially from the poore and needy c. For the true Prophets and Ministers of Christ mentioned in Scripture did not so live on forced substance but ate and drank what the people gave We answer 1. That any of us should force maintenance from the poore and needy by Law we confesse it in matter of fact blameworthy because in cases of indigency and necessity it is every mans duty to relax and remit a just debt but in matter of right no mans legall Title falls because of any such inability So that you must first prove that Ministers have no legall right to their Tenth and then to force it from any were sinfull till which vve shall conceive it in it self as lawfull for a Minister to sue for his Tenth as for another man to put in suit a just Bond. 2. That the Ministers

of our bodies meet with no other entertainment then an Who hath required these things at your hands And we desire you particularly to consider what the Apostle Paul tells you that if a man give up his very body to be burned and have not charity 1 Cor. 13. 3. it profits him nothing And surely if your generation be sufferers you are the most uncharitable sufferers that ever were and Martyrs that have been in the World from Christs time till the starting up of your new Apostles within these 3. or 4. years are so far from that charity wch other sufferers in Scripture have had to their bloodiest Persecutors that your mouthes are full of rayling reviling cursing and bitternesse to those that do not meddle with you further then it concernes them in their places to preserve others under their charge from the infection of such abominations as those fore-mentioned However We have not so learned Christ as to render evill for evill but desire to suffer under the sharp Arrowes of your tongues as he gave us an example not reviling againe when we are reviled by you but committing our Cause Callings and Maintenance to him that judgeth uprightly And to instruct even the worst of Opposers in meeknesse trying if God will at any time give them repentance to 2 Tim. 2. 25. 26. the acknowledgment of the Truth and that they may recover them out of the snare of the Devill who are taken captive by him at his will which we yet with pity towards and prayer for you are assured to be the condition of your selfe and your Clients in this Cause ANd now Sir after a tedious pursuit of you through all Sect. 57 the windings and turnings of your subtle insinuating Epistle it may be expected we should proceed to your Book it selfe But we shall wave it as we before told you for these reasons First Because a great part of it hath been once served up in the Epistle and because we found it not seasoned with salt by us already discovered and rejected as unsavoury So that we shall not cloy the Reader with a second course of it Secondly Because that we find that it is wholly made up of personall contests with Mr Thomas and insolent reflexions and reproaches upon him into whose harvest we desire not to thrust in our Sicle besides that we are advertised that he intends to take that task in hand himselfe and we are assured that he will not need any assistance from us or any other to answer it as it deserves Onely because you so often call the Scriptures in scorne our Rule in your Epistle and therein expresly reject all Interpretations and deductions which we draw from them in preaching or dispute we will here subjoyne these two questions Q. 1. Whether the holy Scriptures be the Saints ground and rule of faith and practise Q. 2. Whether it be lawfull without an infallible spirit to interpret Scripture or draw consequences and deductions thence In both these you defend the Negative we the Affirmative As to the first of them in your Book you stand only upon Sect. 58 your defence against some Texts quoted by Mr. Thomas concerning which we leave you to his second charge wherein we doubt not but he will fetch them off without losse Mean while we cannot but take notice of the Artifices of your selfe and others of the generation you close withall 1. We observe that in most or all matters of difference betwixt us you put us upon the proof of our Principles and practises and offer none for your owne which is a slye way of hiding your owne weaknesse and discovering our strength that so you may make your advantages of it Which is as if a man should sue another at Law to produce his evidences by which he holds his Land to be canvassed by his owne Counsell without exhibiting any thing in his owne behalfe to justifie his claime to it 2. We observe also that you reserve to your selves a liberty of excepting against the Jurisdiction of the Court in which the cause is depending not allowing it a power to decide the case if you see you selves likely to be cast in Judgment although you will owne it so far as you suppose it may serve your turne against us For you call us forth to a tryall by the Scriptures and yet will not allow them to be the rule to decide the controversie 3. We observe thirdly that you will have the choice of the Weapons in this encounter not only for your selfe but us also setting up a Star-chamber Court of your own first to damne our Evidences and then forsooth you will fight with us when you have disarmed us You will dispute with us from the Scripture and yet will allow us no Arguments to dispute withall A valiant undertaking and worthy peice of Chivalry for which you deserve to be recorded among the chiefe Champions of the Quaking Knight Errantry But we hope upon second thoughts you may be perswaded Sect. 59 not to disparage your owne atchievements upon us by keeping your selfe within the security of an Irish bogg where it is harder to come at you then conquer you and come forth into the plain field where we may encounter you upon even termes If otherwise we shall take it as an Argument of your Cowardize and yet rather swallow any inconvenience then not dislodge you and set up the Banners of Truth upon your owne ground And first we will try you with a few Quaeries which seeing Sect. 60 they are your owne familiar way of arguing we hope you will admit into your consideration Q. 1. Whether you will receive the Scriptures Testimony concerning it selfe or no If you will then Q. 2. Is it not the rule of faith by your owne confession For it is that to which you submit your saith in this question If you will not then Q. 3. To what purpose do you require of Mr. Thomas to produce a Scripture P. 4. that saith in Terminis it is the rule when if he do the question is as far from being decided as before In the next place we will state the question between us that Sect. 61 we may understand one another First therefore the question betwen us is not Whether the Scriptures or written word have been the ground and rule of faith and practise in all ages of the World but whether in every age of the World since any part of them was written so much as was written in any age were not the rule by which those of that age were to be regulated and consequently whether to the ages that have been and shall be since the whole was compleated the whole be not so and to continue so to the Worlds end So that you are quite besides the Cushion and the Question in the instances of Abel Enoch and Ahraham and all the Patriarchs before Moses who wrote the first Scripture We are not so silly as to affirme the

to conceit the case altered in their own concernments from what they rigorously pronounce concerning others We have not yet quite done with you and therefore we must Sect. 84 crave your patience a little longer whilest we ask you a few plaine Questions upon this subject now at hand Q. 1. Sir you will admit of no interpretations of Scripture we entreat you therefore to tell us Christ saith he is the true Vine and his Father an Husbandman Jo. 15. 1. Are they properly so or Metaphorically If you say metaphorically or improperly you interpret for the Texts expresse words are not I am a metaphoricall Vine and my Father a metaphoricall Husbandman If you say properly you blaspheme Q. 2. Christ saith I am the door Jo. 10. 9. You beleive you Epistle p. 7. say that Christ meanes as he speakes and therefore you deny our meanings and interpretations as needlesse Is Christ then that which we in propriety of speech call a door If you say he is in a spirituall sence a door who interprets now Do we offend if we interpret this Text of a spirituall door to a mysticall building and you though you give the same sense not so Q. 3. Nay what say you further to those two places of Paul and James which in words flatly contradict one another Yee see saith James that by workes a man is justified and not by faith onely Ja. 2. 24. But we know saith Paul That a man is not justified by the workes of the Law but by the faith of Jesus Christ Gal. 2. 16. You will allow vve hope that the Scriptures are truth though they be not the word of God Now truth and truth contradict not each other so that vve must find a different sense from the contexts of both places wherein the one affirmes that works justifie not and the other that they do This reconciliation is usually made by our Divines thus St. Paul denies works to constitute any person just before God and James affirmes that workes declare a person just How you without interpretation vvill reconcile them we know not especially when vve consider that you are a greater friend to constitutive justification by workes if you be of the mind of your fellow Quakers then vve believe James was and so are more concerned to study how to come off fairely with Paul then vve Q. 4. And now vve are upon the point of reconciling Scriptures vve shall make you a little more work in this kind Christ saith The Father is greater then I and yet he saith againe I and the Father are one And Paul saith of him That he accounted it no Robbery to be equall with God Phil. 2. 9. The Apostle John saith There are three that heare record in Heaven the Father the Word and the H. Ghost and these three are one Shew us without interpretation how Christ can be equall with the Father without robbery and one with him and yet the Father greater then he how the Father the word and the H. Ghost can be three and yet one And we might here also put you the question that our Saviour put to the Pharisees Mat. 22. 41. How Christ is Davids Son and yet Davids Lord and we suppose with the same successe that you will never be able to Answer us a word if you hold your Principle of denying all interpretations but that your forehead possibly may be harder then the Pharisees Q. 5. What will you say to a Papist but that you owne not the Scripture as a rule of Doctrine which indeed is a quick way of Answering all difficult Texts when he tells you that he finds Transubstantiation in this is my body Is the expression proper or figurative was the bread his body indeed or a Signe of it if you say his body indeed you are a Papist if not you interprete Sir to be short we shall take leave to mind you of these particulars and we have done 1. As to that un-christian passage of yours viz. a righteousnesse beyond the Stars a Righteousnesse far above us as you call the Righteousnesse of Christ in a slighting manner and we have just ground to feare some of those you plead for speake to that purpose in a spighting way we heartily advise you to take heed what you doe that you may not be found in the number of those who by wicked hands labour to pull the Crowne from the Head of Jesus and destroy the very being of Holynesse amongst men for all the workes of such Persons at the best are but beautifull deformities and although they may be highly esteemed amongst men yet they are abomination before the Holy God for our parts we are not ashamed of the Gospell of Christ and have through mercy determined not to know any thing amongst our People but Jesus Christ and him crucified and we judge it a speciall duty in this season the Lord helpe us in it that the more you and your complices doe either wretchedly reflect upon or downe right Blaspheme and speake against that Glorious Righteousnesse the more to exalt and make mention of that Righteousnesse even that only 2. Whereas you say could the Scripture be a rule before it was Scripture We answer the word now written even the selfe same word was the very same and had the same Office viz. to be a Divine ground of faith and rule of life before it was written as for instance Enochs Prophecie quoted by Jude 14. 15 concerning the judge the attendants the Persons to be judged the judgement it selfe the deeds and words for which they are judged is the very same with the written word and Gods word to Abraham Gen 17. 1. I am God al-sufficient waelke before me and be upright is the same with nay is the summe of the written word yet this was spoken foure hundred yeares before a word was committed to writing it being generally agreed upon that Moses was the first holy man that did write by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost Pray Sir tell us what difference was there between the Law as spoken by the mouth of God and afterwards written by the finger of God When Moses being provoked in the businesse of the Golden Calfe had broken the two Tables God commanded him to make two Tables of Stone more and the Text tells us that God did write the very selfe same words that he had written before in the first Tables Exod. 34. 1. the Truth is you doe but trifle in your Quaerie yet we feare you border not far from Blasphemy you nusle up your quaking freinds in their horrid rejecting of the Scriptures to be the rule and so make them listen after inspirations you would make void the word of God through your pretended Revelations and pull that pure and perfect clear Light out of the Firmament of Assembleis that men might follow the ignis fatuus of their darkned minds and deceitfull hearts 3. You quaere Whether our Sermons are infallible and if so why they