Father but by the Son because I take notice as a first instance of God's creating all things by Jesus Christ adding Was this so difficult a point to be proved that I was constrained to go back to the first Creation for an argument Answ. No but I judged it not improper however he may to shew first as prepatory God's more general way of working by his Son Jesus Christ ere I come to that which is more particular and this was the reason as wel of my putting these Propositions into that order as of my using of that instance by which that pretended abomination which he pretends lurks under words evanisheth For the man is very good at drawing inferences from other mens words which they that spake and wrot them never thought of as I for one can very wel witness since the least can be allowed me is to know my own thoughts and purpose which how he should come to assure himself he knows better than I is more than I can fathom For the same reason above mentioned I used the instance of God's moving in his manifesting himself in his creaturs and of the Spirit of the Lord 's moving upon the face of the waters which pag. 26. he flouts at but doth not answer and it is strange that he of all men should be offended with such preparatory considerations where the matter is in a few pages after closely come to who has used so many remote arguments and several not pages only but sheets yea quires of paper in order to prove the first day of the Week to be the Christian Sabbath He objects pag. 26. against my affirming that God's communion with man was by immediat manifestation of the Spirit from Adam to Moses because so few are mentioned and he supposeth the rest not mentioned had it only by their instruction But since these few that are mentioned are said to have had immediat revelation and that the rest had no written Rule as I. B. will confess it seems there was more of God's immediat revelation in those dark times even by his confession than now under the Gospel where the chief Pastors of the Church according to him are to expect no such thing neither is it proved that others not mentioned had no immediat revelations albeit they might have been instructed by these Patriarchs which I have shewn before to be very consistent And thus may be easily answered seting-aside his railings what he saith pag. 27. against my urging the frequent revelations that men had during all the time of the Law betwixt Moses and Malachy by which himself confesseth the Scripturs of the Old and New Testament to have been written that that doth not prove that every one had such revelations What then I lay not the stress of the proof of every one's having immediat revelations upon this but this is clearly proved from it that since immediat inward and objective revelations were so frequent during all the time of the Law which was the less glorious administration and that of the Letter it is grossly absurd to say as I. B. and his Brethren do that they are now ceased under the Gospel which is said to be more glorious and the pouring-forth of the Spirit more abundant and Universal and that not only for a little time to wit to the Apostles with restriction to them and their times for which he never produc'd the least proof from Scriptur but to the end of the world And if so that immediat Revelation be not ceased there is a great deal of the point gained albeit I. B. confidently affirm that there can be proved nothing by these reasonings but what no body will deny since the Divines of Westminster have denyed and I. B. no doubt with them will deny that immediat revelation now is since they positively say that it is ceased and Iames Durham whom I. B. applauds as a reverend Brother and Pastor of the Church hath most absurdly affirmed in his Treatise upon the Revelation that when John finished that book God spake his last words to his Church ¶ 7. When he cometh pag. 28. to my Proposition asserting that these revelations were of old the Formal Object of Faith he beginneth to inquire and conjectur what I mean by the formal object and upon that he bestows the following page For answering then his scruples in that matter I say In a Divine revelation two things are to be considered 1. the thing revealed and 2. the revelation the thing revealed is indeed the Material Object the revelation is the Formal Object In which may be considered not only the manner of the Revelation that is the voyce or speech of God unto the Soul or his imprinting in the soul by a Divine manifestation the things revealed but also God himself so operating both which to wit Deus loquens id est God speaking is the formal object of Faith He himself his Veracity is the original ground of our Faith his voyce holy Influence and manifestation by which he expresseth himself gives us the certainty and assurance that it is He and is very distinguishable by those of a Spiritual discerning from the most subtile appearance and transformations of the Devil since Christ saith My sheep hear my voyce and will not hear that of a stranger even as the voyce and appearance of two men of the most contrary and different humors staturs and complexions are different and distinguishable by a man of sharp sight to whom those men are wel known but of this I wrot more largely in my Letter to a certain Ambassadour printed the last year at Rotterdam at the end of the Letter writen to the Ambassadours of Nimwegen whereto I referr him for further satisfaction But I wholly deny the consequence deduced by him that if God's Veracity because it is God that speaketh and commandeth be the formal object of faith Therefore it is all one whether it be mediat or immediat since albeit that be the original ground yet the immediat revelation is necessary that we may certainly know that it is he For what avails it me to believe that all that God commands is true and ought to be obeyed if I do not certainly know the things I believe as truth do come from him And the question is Whether certain knowledge can be had without immediat revelation and therefore to this his question in the following page 30 What was the formal object of the faith of the People to whom the Patriarchs and Prophets said Thus saith the LORD I answer The inward Testimony of the Spirit in their heart assuring them that the things spoken were from the Lord and not the Divinations of the mens brains that spake them and therefore inclining their hearts to receive and acknowledge these things as the commands of God unto them since as I. B. confesseth they were not to believe them because spoken by those men but because of the Authority of God it must be that which wrought this
he accuses me as an Ignoramus writing non-sense and confusion pag. 39. More of that kind in pag. 31. while yet to his own confusion pag. 40 41 he saith he knows not what I mean nor what I would prove nor what my arguments must conclude wherein if he speak true he declares himself uncapable to judge of and far less to answer my arguments a large disquisition of his impertinency in which things I willingly omitt and will consider this his chapter as wel where he misses as where he truely in any measur urges the matter And first to dispatch what is superfluous all that is said by him against false revelations and delusions of the Devil against which he speaks sometimes more largely sometimes more overly in pag. 21. 22. 34. 35. 36. 47. no judicious Reader will think is any thing to the purpose since I never did plead for False revelations but for the necessity of the true Revelation of the Spirit to all real Christians And though it could be proved that either I or any other Quaker so called were deluded by a false revelation yet it will not thence follow that our asserting the necessity of true revelation to the building up of true faith is erroneous more than in I. B's own sense the Arminians or Socinians asserting false doctrins pretending to have for them the authority of Scriptur will make him judge that their asserting the Scriptur to be the onely and adequat rule of faith is false in his judgment since he therein agrees with them And therefore his disingenuity as wel as weakness doth notably appear pag. 46 47 48. where coming to take notice of what I have said in shewing how the same may be returned upon such as own the Scriptur Reason and Tradition to be the Rule of their faith he gives it no answer and most effrontedly comes up with his oft reiterated story of Iohn à Leyden and Munster with which we are less concerned than himself notwithstanding that I shew that even men pretending to the Scriptur and to be led by it and in particular his ow Brethren had don no less vile actions than those of Munster and yet he would not think it wel argued to inferr thence that it were dangerous to follow the Scriptur as the Rule To all this he returns no answer which taketh up 6 pages in my Apology Lat. ed. pag. 26 27 28 29 30 31. unless it be a sufficient answer to say he needs not take notice of my trifling answers and that it is a meer rapsody But the truth is to use his own expression it was too hot for his fingers and therefore he judged best to shuffle it by so easily but his unfairness in this is so much the more considerable where the pinch of the question lay and his own and his Brethrens reputation was so highly concerned as being charged as guilty of no less abominations than the Monsters of Munster in that he boasts in his epistle to the Reader that he hath examin'd every thing asserted by me particularly which he gives as the reason of troubling him with so prolix a Treatise ¶ 2. Now albeit I might in reason pass his new inforced objection till he have satisfied to this so shamefull an omission yet lest he should fancy any strength in it and to shew him the sillyness of it I will here consider and remove it it runnes thus pag. 46. If since the Apostles and other extraordinary Officers fell asleep and after the canon of the Scripturs was compleated All that have pretended to immediat Revelation have been led by a spirit of Error Then that is not the Way of Christ. But the former is true Therefore so is the other Such an objection is not like to signify much where in both Propositions the question is most miserably begged and the thing in debate taken for granted for albeit the connexion of the Major should be granted yet the question is there in a great part of it begged to wit that such Officers in the Church as were the Apostles are not now neither as to the natur of their Office nor manner of their being led by the Spirit Next that the canon of the Scripturs is compleated that is to say No writings are ever hereafter to be expected or believed to be written by the Spirit both which I deny and he has not so much as offer'd to prove and therefore his argument if I should go no further can conclude nothing Next his Minor to wit that all pretending to Immediat revelation have been led by a spirit of error is not at all proved by him for albeit it might be said of all those old Scots named by him and of the German Enthusiasts yet that is not sufficient proof unless he can make it appear that there was never any other but were so also which yet remains for him to prove and will trouble him to effect For to affirm there were never any because he has never heard nor read of them were an argument a great deal more ridiculous than rational And for his challenging me to shew them albeit the instance of the Quakers be enough to spoil all his argument as will after appear yet by his good leave I am not bound Affirmanti incumbit probatio and that this answer is sufficient I have the testimony of his learned Brother John Menzies Professor of Divinity at Aberdeen in his book intituled Papismus Lucifugus where he answers the Jesuit's Minor the same way and proveth it to be sufficient And surely he has not taken notice that by this he has condemned as led by a spirit of error all the primitive Protestant Martyrs that prophesied at any time such as John Hus and George Wishart our Countrey-man and many others by reason of whose prophecying I. B. and his Brethren have valued their cause since these Prophecys were said by them to proceed from inward and immediat Revelation and so they pretended to it albeit not as the ground of their faith and obedience in all matters of Doctrin and Worship yet as the ground of that Faith by which they believed these Revelations to proceed from God and not from the Devil and of that Obedience by which they published and declared these things Moreover he overturns all by the last instance which he gives to prove it to wit that the Quakers who pretend to immediat Revelations are led by a spirit of Error for proof of which we have only his bare affirmation and yet till this be proved his objection is naught For indeed this is a rare way of debating with an adversary to make use of an argument by which he must be concluded already as erroneous in order to convince him that he is such if this be not as they say to put the plough before the Oxen I know not what can be said to be so for I. B's argument to make it plain amounts to this If the Quakers be
a part of the material object of his Faith which is none of ours now And so for as much as he desires to know of me what was the material object of Adam's faith before the fall a question not to the purpose he must first tell me why he so magisterially and positivly denys Christ to have been the object of his faith and then he may have an answer And whereas he flouts at that reason that actions are specified from their objects as non-sensical he should have proved and shewn wherein and then I might have answer'd him he might have wit enough to know that no man of reason will be moved by his bare railing assertions pag. 40. besides a deal of railing wherein he accuseth me of confusion and darkness he accounts my arguing for immediat revelation from the revelations the Patriarchs and Prophets had impertinent to which I answered before the sum of which is that since these immediat revelations were so frequent under the Law it must be very absurd to say they are ceased under the Gospel He himself proveth pag. 41 that under the New there is a more clear discovery according to that of Paul 2 Cor. 3 18. But we all with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord c. which being brought by him albeit against himself I leave him to answer In this page and the next 42 he allegeth the sayings of Christ and his Apostles brought by me and my arguments thence do prove no more than he confesseth but whether they prove not all I plead for from thence is left to the Readers judgment Here according to his custom though I condemn the Socinians he will be insinuating that I agree with them to whose notions of the Spirit albeit I assent not yet I desire to know of him in what Scriptur he finds these words that the Spirit is a distinct Person of the Trinity for I freely acknowledge according to the Scriptur that the Spirit of God proceedeth from the Father and the Son and is God and by what authority he seeks to obtrude upon others expressions of the chief articles of faith not to be found in Scriptur or to accuse such as will not accept of them and assent to them or whether any has reason to think he truely makes the Scriptur the Rule of his faith notwithstanding his pretence when he either will not or can not find words in it to express the chief articles of his Creed ¶ 10. Pag. 43. By a strange mistake he would have me prove that since I make use of these promises of Christ relating to the Spirit I would prove that all have warrand to write Scriptur as if no man could have immediat revelation without he write Scriptur whereas himself confesseth that many of the Patriarchs had it before Moses who yet wrot no Scriptur yea and Cain whom I suppose he judgeth to have been no writer of Scriptur And by the like mistake pag. 45. he confesseth all I plead for and contradicts all he has been fighting for in affirming that Believers now have free access to Christ the great Teacher of his People always to get his mind known and writen in their hearts but not to get prophetik revelations But where doth he find me plead for prophetik revelations as common to all And whether the former words do not grant immediat objective revelation in the largest sense I plead for it I leave the Reader to judge Here he accuses me of speaking basely of the Scriptur but neither tels me where nor what I say which is indeed a base way of reviling though familiar to him To my last argument pag. 49. § 35. he answers little but railing The minor to wit that whereas Protestants call the Scripturs their Rule yet if asked why they believe them do say because in them is delivered the Will of God which was revealed objectively and immediately to holy men he saith destroyeth the whole argument but why I know not since surely that proves they at last recurr to the immediat testimony of the Spirit as the certain and infallible ground of Faith which is my conclusion That I thence inferr that Protestants are for the uncertainty of immediat objective revelation is most falsly and disingenuously asserted by him for I seek not to inferr any such thing from the medium of that argument but having shewn thereby how they are forc'd to recurr to this revelation as the primary ground of their Faith I add that it 's strange then they should seek to represent that as dangerous or uncertain which they are thus forced to recurr to And whether he doth not so ever and anon repeating the story of Delusions to nauseating through this chapter any that reads it may see and easily perceive his base disingenuity in that part as also in the following lines where he saith their concession makes nothing for the falsly pretended immediat and objective revelations which Quakers boast of for where doth he find me pleading for any such Neither is it the question Whether the Quakers do falsly pretend to immediat revelation yea or nay but Whether Quakers do wel and are sound in believing that immediat Divine inward revelation is necessary to every Believer for the building up of true faith But it is usual with him where he can not answer to turn-by the question and fill-up the paper with railing and reviling Section IV. Wherein his Fourth Chapter of the Scripturs is considered ¶ 1. WE may judge of this chapter of the Scripturs by the first sentence which contains a lye saying he finds the third Thesis in somethings altered and more clearly set down in the Apology than in the single sheet whereas there is not one word of difference but the misplaçing of a word by the Printer but it is become so familiar with him to speak untruth that he can not forbear it Indeed this whole chapter is a complex of railing calumnys and malitious groundless insinuations and indeed the man is so troubled that he can not find any thing in what I write which he ought according to his title and undertaking only to examin and confute that in stead of that he bestows several pages out of Stalham and Hicks and his considerations upon them whose lyes and calumnys are long ago answered and unreplyed to by them So that the Partys concerned having already vindicated themselvs it is not my place to medle in it and if I. B. would do any thing in this to the purpose he should take up this debate where his friend Mr Stalham and his brother Mr Hicks the Anabaptist whose authority he useth so often and to whom he gives so much credit have given it over by a reply to these answers Having solaced himself in the repetitions of these mens calumnys for that appears to be his delight he digresseth to prove the Scripturs to be the Word of God But if they be granted to be the words of God
led by a spirit of error Then the Quakers err in affirming inward and immediat Revelation to be the ground and foundation of true faith But the Quakers are led by a spirit of Error Therefore c. Which is just as if I should argue thus If I. B. be a Knave a manifest Lyar and Calumniator Then he is not a true Minister of Christ nor fit to write in Religious matters But I. B. is such Therefore c. Is not this a notable way of arguing and a quick way to dispatch controversies What saith Rob. Macquair Doth not this wel become his singularly acute solidly learned and truely gracious Author Postscript pag. 559. ¶ 3. The next thing to be considered is his stating the controversy where according to his custom he all along beggs the question for having writ down his opinion and taken it for granted without offering to prove it he goes on and builds thereon without more difficulty as if it were not to be further questioned This appears in pag. 20. 28. 29. 30. 34. 35. 36. 37. 40. 43. 44. in which places he states his opinion of the Immediat Revelation of the Spirit as not being such as presents any Truths to be believed objectively but only in removing the Vail of the Eye of the Understanding and spiritually Illuminating the Mind and Working effectually upon the Heart to embrace and receive the Truth already revealed and proposed in the Scripturs Now for not using this distinction and holding revelation in this his sense he greatly blames me as jumbling things together and darkning and prejudging the Reader and bestows upon me ever and anon many railing words with the repetition of which I will not trouble the Reader And yet notwithstanding this accusation in contradiction of himself he cites me pag. 42 28 taking notice of this very distinction as used by some and also refuting it Surely the man must have miserably forgot himself and will verifie the Proverb Lyars should have good memorys Next since he judges I err in not holding this manner of Revelation and that he builds all his superstructur upon it as the Truth he should have offer'd to prove it to be such for since he saith they willingly grant to these Scripturs noted by me as many as are led by the Spirit of God c. Rom. 8 9-14 together with 1 Joh. 2 27. Joh. 6 45. Joh. 14 16 17. By which Scripturs he can not deny but the manner of the Apostles being led as wel as of all Christians is included since some of them were directed to the Apostles particularly in all which there is no ground for his distinction and assertion It is not said The Comforter that I will send shall lead you the Apostles immediatly by proposing Truth to be believed objectively to you and this shall be accounted extraordinary but after you it shall only lead other Christians by illuminating their Understandings and that shall be the ordinary leading And since then it is a rule granted by all that we must hold to the plain words of Scriptur unless an urgent necessity force us to the contrary he should shew us where this necessity lies and prove his assertion to be the true and genuin meaning of the words and that we ought not to take them as we do according to their plain and naked signification and import For I would willingly hear any ground from Scriptur of this natur of Extraordinary and Ordinary Revelations as pertinent to this debate for albeit things extraordinary may be reveal'd to some and not to others that only respects the things revealed not the manner of Revelation For a man telling me extraordinary things and ordinary albeit the things may differ in their natur yet neither my manner of hearing nor his of speaking do thence necessarily differ ¶ But perhaps the man doth apprehend that what he saith pag. 20. 30. 31. 40. 44. 45. is some proof of his assertion which if he do the Reader may easily observe his mistake where he would insinuat as if the manner of Immediat Revelation by the Spirit asserted by me rendred all other means even those of Teaching and Exhorting which are appoynted by God useless and took away all obligations of obeying the commands of God conveighed by others And yet he taketh notice pag. 23. that I acknowledge other means of Knowledge as profitable neither has he ever heard me deny but men are obliged to obey the commands of God through one another as wel as in themselves as the children of Israel were those of Moses and the Prophets and the Christians those of Christ and his Apostles But I suppose he will affirm with me that no man's Obedience to any command will avail him any thing unless upon inward belief and conviction that the thing commanded is of God since Whatsoever is not of Faith is sin If he say that albeit I do not deny such an obligation yet it necessarily follows from my Principle That this is untruely alleged will easily appear since I suppose he will not deny but the rest of the Apostles who were alive when Paul's Epistls were writen were obliged to receive them and obey them as the dictats of the Spirit yea and were benefited by them and so the Apostle Paul by others albeit on both sides he will acknowledge them to have had such revelations as he accounts Immediat and Extraordinary And so we see that to have such revelations and yet to be mediatly instructed are not inconsistent nor do they render one another useless and indeed to affirm they do so is rather a presumptuous accusing of God who has appynted both in their order for the edification of his Church than a refuting of such as assert them Such are his reasonings pag. 45. Besides that this objection may be easily refuted for since I. B. affirms as particularly pag. 42. that the Scriptur is a compleat Rule in all things concerning Faith and manners in reference to Salvation might it not be said that this takes away the use of all Commentarys and expositions and other books especially since he and his Brethren do with all affirm that it is clear and intelligible to all in things essential to Salvation let him shew how this is weaker as to him than the other as to me With the like presumption he blasphemously asserteth that even these revelations which he himself calleth and acknowledgeth to be inward immediat and extraordinary are uncertain for this reason because many men have been deluded by the Devil on which he also insists in the following page And pag. 34. 48. where he sums up his matter in this question How comes that others pretending to Revelation as much as I have been deceived But as I said before How comes that others pretending to be led by the Scriptur as the Rule as much as I. B. have been deceived since the Scriptur declares nothing but Truth But how silly this is I have above shewn and
more largely in my Apology in those paragraphs which I observed he most foully omitted And indeed this is a fine argument he has provided for Atheists and Sceptiks for it renders all Faith even that of the Patriarchs uncertain for since the ground and warrand of their writing the Scripturs was in his own account inward immediat and extraordinary revelations and if such be as he affirms uncertain then the truth of the Scripturs which depends upon such must necessarily be uncertain since the stream can not be more pure than the fountain nor the superstructur more sure than the foundation And therefore most weak is his reasoning pag. 46. where he pleadeth that such Revelations can not be more sure than the Scripturs which are the objective revelations of the Apostles writen down since the certainty of these writings depends upon the certainty of these revelations by which they were written and certainly if in any case that maxim of the Schools do hold it must in this Propter quod unum quod que est tale illud ipsum est magis tale ¶ 5. It will not be amiss here in the third place to take notice of his most uncharitable and unchristian insinuations contrary to all Christian and fair rules of debate as first pag. 24. where he will needs inferr our denying of the Trinity albeit he can not deny but he finds it owned by me groundlesly coupling us with the Socinians and to help him in this he brings-in the testimony of one Mr Stalham as he terms him an open Opposer of ours which Witness to receive against us is most unjust But I desire here in the entry that it be observed that I intend to take little or no notice of his many citations to prove what we hold out of the writings of our open Opposers and shall give such a sufficient reason for my so doing ere I make an end as I am hopefull shall satisfie all judicious Readers as wel of our innocency as his unjustice therein but by this the man's temper may be seen and that his design is not so much to refute what we truely hold as to make the world believe that we hold what we doth not to render us the more odious And thus he proceedeth also basely to insinuat that I deny Jesus of Nazareth to be the Son of God albeit he doth not so much as pretend to any color for it from my words only he finds some Quakers give an indistinct answer in this matter but who they are or what their answer is he tels not In pursuance of this in the following page he insinuats as if I mean'd not the first but the second Creation and so joyned with Socinus which is a gross calumny like the former as also is what he saith pag. 31. num 18. where he raileth against me as writing things contrary to the Scripturs and as one whose revelations are not from God but from Satan For all this the only proof is I. B. saith so which I must plainly tell him is with me of no weight at all Of the same natur is what is asserted by him pag. 33. nu 20. wherein he insinuats that we contemn the Scripturs telling a lying story from his Author Mr Hicks of one Nicolas Lucas which I desire him to prove the next time not by Hicks for he is accuser but by some more indifferent Witness else to be justly held as a Calumniator And whereas he saith We should not obtrude any thing upon them without Scriptures this is another lying insinuation for where do we obtrude any doctrins without offering to confirm them by Scriptur as much as he and his Brethren For if he say that our confirmations are not valid that is not to the purpose we can easily say so of his and do as truely believe it but the question is Whether we obtrude any doctrins upon any to be believed telling them they ought to believe it albeit we either will not or can not confirm them by the Scriptur Now he knoweth in his Conscience this to be a lye since I affirm of the Scripturs Apol. Lat. ed. p. 47. n. 60. that they are the most fit outward judge of controversies of which himself also taketh notice in that place And lastly of the natur of these malitious insinuations is what he saith pag. 48 49 and last paragraph of this chapter where after he has repeated what he terms my monitory conclusion he infers that I mean that a man should believe that Natur 's dim light is the Spirit of God and the Holy Ghost and that he may burn the Bible and with confidence assert he is led by the Holy Ghost whatever Scriptur or common sense say to the contrary This is all affirmed by him without the least proof which as it is the height of injustice so it is with respect not only to my words but belief and intention God the Searcher of hearts knows a most horrid falshood and calumny ¶ 6. Now albeit what is said may seem sufficient for a reply to this chapter and is indeed enough to give any sober man a disgust of it yet that he may not have reason to complain that any thing wherein he may judge there is weight and is directly to the purposs is omitted I will now in the last place consider and answer what he saith against the validity of my Arguments to which an answer hath not been included in what is already said To begin then like himself which to be sure is with some calumny or other he saith pag. 14. I stigmatize with the black mark of being carnal and natural Christians all that assent not to what I say but he takes no time to prove it and indeed can not for albeit I say that it is like many natural and carnal Christians will condemn what I say yet it will not follow I account them all such who will not fully agree with me in this matter Of the same kind is his calumny p. 22. n. 5. where he allegeth the citations of the Fathers so called prove no more than his sense of Revelation above expressed but whether he speaks true here or not the Reader may judge by seriously reading over these citations and then let him see if they do not hold out an inward and immediat teaching of the Spirit of God in the Soul as the firm ground of Knowledge without which all outward teaching is in vain but to inserr this he tels they writ against such as being Impostors and led by the spirit of the Devil pretended to Revelations What then Can not men write against false revelations without they deny the necessity of true ones That is an odd conclusion If I. B. were wel acquainted with the writings of the Quakers so called he would find them as much against false Pretenders as any other But pag. 24 25 he findeth fault with my argument deduced from these words that there is no knowledge of the
paragraph where he saith I say the Scriptur only beareth Testimony to some of them to wit of the Chief Heads of Christianity which I dare him to prove ever to have been said or written by me And of the like natur are his lying conjecturs and his malitious insinuations from my words in the two following paragraphs which I utterly renounce and return upon him as his own false and fictitious apprehensions for do not I declare the Authority of the Scriptur when I testifie they are from the Spirit and that such commands require obedience as has been above shewn But what he urgeth of this further p. 57 59 from the saying of some Quakers affirming that is not a Command to them which is given to another albeit I might justly reject it as impertinent till he prove it for the reasons upon this occasion above declared yet because he mentions Benjamin Furly in Rotterdam having some knowledge of that matter I answer Whether will he say all the Commands in Scriptur to every person there mentioned are binding upon every individual now If he dare not say they are as I know he dare not how must I then distinguish betwixt what binds me and binds me not Must it not be by the Spirit suppose it were only subjectively as he will confess inlightening the Understanding To make this distinction then it seems it is the operation of the Spirit that makes them know their duty and sure they can not obey before they know But if he say that though they should want that operation of the Spirit did not know nor acknowledge them to be their duty yet they are binding upon them neither B. F. nor any Quaker will deny but even the Commands of God's Spirit the Precepts of the Scriptur which now concern all are binding upon all so that they shall be justly condemned for not obeying albeit that by the perversness of their hearts and wills they either refuse to obey or will not acknowledge them So that his urging of that p 60 61. n. 13. and his pleading for it is unnecessary and needs no answer yet who would say they could obey to any advantage of their Souls without this operation of the Spirit since what soever is not of Faith is sin But as to these words said to be writen by B. F. he is here challenged to prove they are his without adding or diminishing and it 's wel known the adding or diminishing of two or three words in a few lines will quite alter the sense and before he has answered this challenge and free'd himself from the just censur of a Calumniator albeit he take the help of his Author Hicks he will find his folly in accusing men at second hand proofs and upon the testimony of their adversarys What follows in this paragraph and p. 60. is meer railing and perversions comparing us with Papists as is before observed and indeed all of it is overturned by that one assertion of mine that what revelations are contrary to the Scriptur are to be rejected ¶ 5. Pag. 57. n. 10. he faith I come nearer to the core of my designe which is to set up Enthusiasmes in affirming that the Scripturs are not the Fountain but a declaration of the Fountain and yet the man within 3 or 4 lines confesseth it himself ascribing it to my folly to dream any man thinks so thus he goes backward and forward which he illustrats by the example of Laws But if it be so are not they to be blam'd that account them the principal Original of all Truth and knowledge Whether the other branch of my deduction follow from this that they are not to be accounted the primary Rule of Faith and manners will appear when the arguments and objections relating to that come particularly to be mentioned And whereas he thinks this is absurd and not making for my designe because God himself is the Fountain and yet not the Rule he mistakes the matter as urged by me for I argue that the Scripturs are not the original ground of knowledge but GOD not simply considered but as manifesting himself in Divine immediat revelations in the hearts of his Children which being the New Covenant's dispensation as in the last section is proven is the primary and adequat Rule of Christians For I was never so absurd as to call God simply considered or the Spirit of God in abstracto not as imprinting Truths to be believed and obeyed in mens hearts not contrary but according to Scriptur for he can not contradict himself the Rule of Christians and this may serve to answer all his cavills upon this Theam And whereas he wondereth in the following page 58. why any revelations even from the Spirit should be more primary than the Scripturs since they are confessed to come from the inspiration of the Spirit for why he useth the Latine word afflatus and doth not interpret it I know not unless to fright ignorant folk that they may think it 's a piece of the witch-craft of the Quakers whom he accuseth it is strange he should have so little sense as to make it a matter of admiration as if that were not more primary to a man which cometh immediatly from the Spirit of God in his heart than that which albeit it come from the Spirit yet is through another and so must needs be but secondary albeit it be confessed they writ them not for themselvs but for others which I deny not Of the same natur is and the same way is answered what he saith p. 65. n. 19. to wit that I confound the Principal Leader with the Original Rule because I say the Spirit is the Prime and Principal Leader but I deny his consequence neither doth his example of the Wind and Compass prove it the Spirit is the Principal Leader as imprinting upon man's Soul the Rules he should walk by but indeed he would prove a very uncertain Pilot that had no compass but only a description of it and a journal how other men had steered that course and such Pilots is he and his Brethren according to their own confession But he thinks I drive at something more intolerable to wit that the Revelations the Quakers pretend to or the Light within is to be preferred as the more primary and principal Rule to the Scripturs If the Quakers did affirm any revelations they speak of as coming from that Light either were or could be contrary to the Scripturs he would say something otherwise it will amount to no more but that commands as they are imprinted upon the Soul that is the Law writen in the heart by the Spirit is more primarily and principally the Rule than the same things writen and received only from another as to which I will only ask him Whether those things which the Apostles received immediatly from the Spirit commanding them to go here or there to preach the Gospel or the like were as to these ends more
angry that I should condemne the Socinians and Pelagians but the reason is manifest because he would so willingly have it believed that I am one with them and albeit I could not in reason be obliged to say any thing more to these pages yet that none of these fictitious and false conjecturs may catch any unwary Reader I do freely affirm that I believe man fell and was degenerated both as to Soul and body and I understand the first Adam or earthly man to comprehend both but that there was something in Adam which was no part of his Soul and body nor yet constitutive of his being a man in my judgment which could not degenerate and which was in Adam by the fall reduced to a seed and could never have been raised in him again to his comfort but by a new visitation of Life which from Christ by the promise was administred unto him and is to all men in a day for to say the affirming such a Seed remained in Adam when he fell doth infer his understanding was not hurt and as he doth p. 94. is a consequence I deny and remains for him to prove That to believe there was such a thing in Adam which the Scriptur calleth spiraculum vitarum the breath of Lives is no new coin'd doctrin these may see that will read Athanasius de definitionibus and his third dialogue de Trinitate 4 oration against the Arians and Cyrillus Alexandrinus in his Treatise upon John lib. 2. 3. lib. 8. 47. and in his Thesaurus lib. 4. and others that might be mentioned As for his arguing p. 96. that because I affirm the Seed of God is a Substance therefore according to me the seed of sin must be a substance also which consequence I deny and therefore what he builds against me upon this supposition falls to the ground What he saith here and there scattered in these pages of the Light will in its proper place come more fully to be considered ¶ 2. Pag. 98. n. 17. after he has saluted me with the titles of effronted and impudent he will have me one with Socinians and Pelagians because I deny outward death to be a consequence of the fall but where he proves I do so I see not It 's true I say the death threatned Gen. 2 17. was not outward death for Adam did not so dye the day he did eat and I do still believe so neither offereth he me any thing to give me ground to alter my mind but to conclude thence I deny outward death to be a consequence of the fall was too hastily inferred But what if I were undetermined in this matter and that it remained a mystery to me for I believe not the being positive therein essential to my Salvation which if I were truly what he saith seems not to me sufficient to proselyt me to his opinion for albeit I willingly confess with him that sickness and all the other miseries attending this life yea and death it self considering the anguishes wherewith it is now generally accompanyed are the consequence of the fall and of sin yet I see not how it would thence follow that Adam should not have dyed seing death to him if he had not faln would have been freed of all these miseries and rather a pleasur than a pain which has been known to have befaln many Saints As for his n. 19. he confesseth the matter of it is left to the next chapter where I may meet him ¶ 3. Pag. 100. n. 20. he goes on at an high rate of perverting for after he has said Who would suspect but I mean honestly he applieth to me the saying of Solomon he that hateth dissembleth with his lips we must not believe him for there are seven abominations in his heart But why am I with him guilty of this great charge Because albeit I affirm that man is wholly degenerat yet I say Whatever good man doth in his natur that doth not proceed from him but from the Divine Seed in him Answ. These words are none of mine but a forgery of his own so incident it is for the man to lye and pervert and therefore all his vaporing and absurd inferences drawn from this throughout this Paragraph fall to the ground My words are that the natur by which the Apostle saith the Gentiles did the things contained in the Law cannot be understood of the proper corrupt natur of man but of a Spiritual natur which proceedeth from the Seed of God as he receiveth a new visitation of the Divine Love Where it is very plain I consider man as visited anew and that in the strength of that Grace thereby received not of his degenerat natur he doth that which is good Nor do I any where say as he falsly insinuats That this Spiritual Natur is in all men though I do say That all men are visited by God in order to beget this spiritual Natur in them as will after come in its place to be spoken of Now all his battering of this my assertion in the three following pages depends upon this supposition That the good acts done by the Gentiles are not done by vertue of any such visitation but only by a Light of corrupt natur which remained in them after the fall so that it is but a meer begging of the question untill that be first debated But he thinks he has brought me under a great dilemma p. 103. urging That since I say all their imaginations are evil I must say every Heathen has this Spiritual natur in him yea and the Devils must be partakers of it because they believe there is a God which is a good thought Answ. He is too hasty in his reasonings for that the knowledge a man may receive from the Divine Seed makes him instantly to partake of the Divine Natur is not proved by him and he knows I believe all men to be visited by this Divine Seed which may give them an head-knowledg which they may retain as some men do the Truth in unrighteousness and yet not receive it in the love of it so though they have it from a Divine Seed yet it will not follow they must necessarily so receive it as to become partakers of the Divine Natur. And as for the Devils he wil confess that once they had this knowledge from a Spiritual Natur and though they have faln yet they may retain the memory of it for that their fall and Man's is every way alike he will not affirm He saith p. 102. That to believe good done by Heathens that is by such as have not the benefit of the outward knowledge of Christ is done in vertue of a Divine Seed overturns the Gospel but he leavs the confirmation of it to the sequel where I shall attend him N. 25. he tels me very fairly the Apostle doth not contradict himself as if I had ever imagined he did but the question is whether the meaning he gives the Apostl's words implys not