and the Assistance of the Spirit of God are not these in my Book all made necessary to render the Scriptures such a Rule and Determiner Rejoyn But why such a trivial Rant for a Reply and why such hard words from a Man of his Circumstances one on many Accounts so near what he represents me to be Is it not true that if something be more firm then Writing that which is more firm and not the Writing is the Judge and Determiner Suppose a Scripture for every Case that ever did or may happen which we know there is not and therefore not THE RULE yet if such Scripture need an Exposition who is most truly the Judge and Determiner the obscure Text or the clear Expositor Certainly where the Stress lies the Power of Determination must be and there the Judgeship rests but that is alwayes in the Interpretation since the Difficulty is not about believing the Text but the Exposition given of it therefore the Expositor is both Judge and Rule and not the Text exposited And since J. Faldo has granted to us the Assistance of the Spirit for knowing the Scriptures the Spirit then which gives us how to understand and believe and enables us to fulfil them must needs be the Rule and Judge and no Writing whatever I shall conclude this Point with my Rejoynder to this following Passage in his Reply Rep. But W. P. hath not done triffling yet neither is the Law the Judge but there is a Judgâ— who interprets and speaks from the fresh Discoveries of his own Reason the Meaning and â—â—â—tendment of those written Laws But Mr. Penâ— The Judge is the Mouth of the Law and subject to thâ— Law and prescribed in his Judgment to that sense 〈◊〉 the Law which is expressed by the Letter of it If soâ—â— of the Judges had the handling of you for imposing yoâ— canting fresh Discoveries of his Reason upon them thâ— would tell you they give Judgment from a Deep Stuâ— and Weighty Consideration of the Letter of the Lâ—â— and moreover give you some hard Names or worse for youâ— canting Law added to your canting Gospel and yet the LIGHT IN THEIR CONSCIENCES NOT GIVE THEM THE LEAST REBUKE FOR SO DOING Rejoyn I perceive he measures the Judges Displeasure by his own Indeed they would be very Vnfit Persons to sit for our Judges that should be like him Men that would call hard Names and do worse to any Man for allowing them to be guided by a Living Reason would greatly evidence they had little or none and therein indeed that we mischaractered them But who most dishonours them I that suppose them to judge and explain Written Reason by the Living Principle of Reason in themselves or he that renders them so many Posts or Pillars that are to be moved by incens't Letters without relation to any Reason inherent to themselves and not otherwise But hear my forme Answer before I further rejoyn His Instance about the Law is same For the good Laws of any Land are but Reason written or rather declar'd by Writing which is oblieging against the Corruption of a Judge but not the Reason of the Judge neither is the Law the Judge but there is a Judge who interprets and speaks from the fresh Discoveries of his own Reason the Meaning Intendment of those written Laws If the Laws be sufficient without a Judge why is there a Judge If then they are Dark Obscure and Doubtful in many Cases so as to need a Judge and Interpreter which I call living and immediate Reason since the Scriptures are Writings in which are many things difficult to be understood it follows that there must be an Immediate Living Judge which must be therefore the Spirit of Truth that gave them forth because none knows the things of God save the Spirit of God And that those who are the Makers of Laws are the only Persons who are fit to judge and determine in Case of Difficulty by a Declaration of their Mind and Intenâ—ion in any such obscure Passage In short Either the Scriptures are not obscure a thing we daily see or if so yet sufficient which is impossible or they must have a Judge which is most true and necessary and what Judge but the Spirit of Truth which leads into all Truth p. 61 62. Now one would have thought that an Answer so sober and reasonable might have deserved a Reply more civil and pertinent then my Adversary gave me But I do the less wonder at it since he makes it his Practice to give hard Words instead of solid Answers But to his Reply as it is Rejoyn He tells me the Judge is the Mouth of the Law and Subject to the Law But I would have him consider two things First that the Scriptures of Truth were never given forth after that formal regular course that the Laws of England were but to particular Persons or Churches on particular Cases though together with hearty respect I acknowledge and enjoy the Benefit of them Secondly The Question is not about things obvious but obscure and herein the Judge is not only the Mouth but Interpreter of the hidden Meaning of the Law This our Adversary's own words import For if the Law were so plain as only to need a Mouth what need would there be of deep Study and Weighty Consideration which he makes necessary to a Judge the bare reading of the Law would be sufficient to determine all Cases Nay it would end all going to Law But inasmuch as the Laws are both numerous and intricate as the Vexatious Cases and Disputes of our Times fully prove 't is manifest that some other Judge and Determiner must be found out one that understands compares and rightly applies Law whose Judgment must decide and determine the Controversie Now though every such Judge may be said to determine according to the Mind of the Law yet his Interpretation and not the bare Letter is recorded for the Determination of the Case depending from whence come our Book-Cases Nor indeed is this only referrable to any certain Person explaining the obscure Passages of Law but the Application of the Law to the Fact in which not only the whole living Reason of the Judge is deeply and circumspectly exercised but the Understanding and Conscience of the Jury respecting the Nature of the Law the Evidence of the Witness the Heinousness of the Fact and Variety of Circumstances wherein the obnoxiousness to Error lies according to the Greâ—k Proverb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. Error is about the Circumstances all in order to a definitive Sentence or Determination about the Point handled Now for any Man to call the written Law the Judge and not Synteresis or living sound Reason and Conscience in the Judge and Jury to me seems very absurd Besides Let it be considered First that the Law is added because of Transgression and such as live to that noble Principle from whence all good Laws come have
a higher Judge and Rule then any of those written Laws or any Interpretations of men upon them so that if J. Faldo compares the Scripture to the written Laws they who are led by the Spirit have an higher Rule then the Scripture and as he that lives up according to written Laws by the Rule of his Synteresis or Law of Laws the just Principle in himself does not destroy but fulfil those written Laws so they that live according to the Rule of the Spirit do not invalidate but fulfil the Scriptures There is no need of Swearing for a Remedy against that Man's Falseness who is come to the Truth-speaking of Christ's Righteousness he that is come up to the greater does not sleight but answer the lesser Secondly I beseech the Reader to observe that these written Laws had once a beginning and that those that made them were not without a Rule and Judge in themselves both before and in the making of those Laws neither is that peculiar to them the Law-makers I still mean Synteresis of which many Lawyers speak great things particularly a good old Law-Book called Doctor and Student which is not lessened by those Laws nor ought any Law to be made or take hold on any Person further then he acts contrary to that just Principle in himself which is called the Law of Laws the Immutable Law by Chief Justice Hobart in his Reports pag. 87. So that both the Law was made according to this Synteresis and is to be understood and judged according to this Synteresis which Synteresis or Law of Righteousness has not left us with a meer Declaration of its Mind subject to many Casuallities and Difficulties but remains in the Heart of Man to inform his Understanding and correct his Life consequently the Judge of Controversie respecting the written Law about which and the Application of it many times arises the Controversie must not be the written but this Immutable Law in Judge and Jury from whence all good Laws proceed It is a very depraved State indeed that knows no further Obligation then a Written Law whereas a great part of Mankind is free from those Enormities the Law forbids and punishes who yet know not the Letter of the Law like unto the Gentiles of old who having not the Law became a Law unto themselves shewing the Work of the Law written in their Hearts which Law Cicero in his Books of the Commonwealth cited by Lactant. 6. Institut 8. calls Right Reason agreeable to Nature given to all constant and eternal which calls to Duty by commanding and by Disswasion deters from Deceit No other Law may be put instead of this neither is it lawful to derogate any thing from it neither can it be wholely abrogated neither can we be loosed from this Law by Senate or People There is no other Explainer or Interpreter of it to be sought neither will there be one Law at Rome another at Athens one now another hereafter but being one Law Everlasting and Immortal shall hold all Nations at every time And there will be one as it were Master and Commander of all God that Inventor Disputer and Maker of this Law to whom he that will not be obedient must fly himself and even in this thing must suffer very great Penalty though he should escape other Punishments An excellent Place which clearly explains the Nature and Vertue of this innate Light sayes Rob. Sanderson late Bishop of Lincoln in his Oxford Lectures concerning the adaequate Rule of Conscience prol 4. where he also calls it from Calvin A Spark of the Light of God that he might have Preachers of his Will in our very Bosoms and that all other Laws are but subservient to this in the Synteresis the very thing that we assert concerning the Scriptures being a Rule Thirdly I would entreat the Reader to consider that cessante ratione legis cessat lex i. the Reason of the Law ceasing the Law ceases is an old Law-Maxim Now who shall be Judge of that the written Law By no means Yet that preposterous Answer only can suit our Adversary's Principle Wâ— say Living Reason must be the Judge In like manner did the Spirit of God give his Servants an Understanding in past Ages how to behave themselves with respect to those Laws which were but Temporary for whose Abrogation there was no express Scripture which the Scribes and Pharisees â—y neglecting and grieving that Spiritual Leader and sticking in the Letter of the Scripture only continued and maintained against Christ himself who fulfilled them To conclude That which makes Law That which explains Law That contrary unto which no Law ought to be made or obeyed That which gives to know what is contrary or according to just Laws That which gives to apply and execute Law rightly must be the Judge and Superior Rule But that is this Synteresis Law of Laws sayes Chief Justice Hobart Right Reson sayes M. T. Cicero Innate Light sayes B. Sanderson The Law of God writ in the Heart sayes Doct. and Stud. Spark of God's Light sayes Calvin A Living Rule and Everlasting Foundation of Vertue planted in all Reasonable Souls sayes Plutarch God within sayes Seneca and Epictetus Consequently not any meer written Law can be the Judge and Determiner of Controversies in Law This Reader holds almost all along the same with the Scriptures That the Law is not Judge of the Doubts that arise about it self but another is already prov'd and that the Scriptures can no more determine Cases of Difficulty within themselves is as evident by the same Argument and that Judge must either be some Man endued with the Spirit of God as in Law Cases some Judge with Right Reason or else thâ— Eternal Spirit as he is universally manifested in Men. The first I suppose our Adversary will think too fair a Pretence for Popery to be allowed and the last he can never avoid unless Man without the Spirit of God be able to determine of the things of God which were to deny the Scriptures of Truth the Faith of the Antients the Doctrine of the Reformers and Right Reason Thus Reader I conclude this Point and could have been willing to have done so long before had not the great Necessity of People's better Information drawn me into a more free and large Discourse then my Adversary's very empty Replyes could have deserved at my hands CHAP. VI. Of our dehorting People from Reading the Scriptures c. as charged by this Adversary THough I have said enough to perswade all sober Persons of our reverend Esteem of the Scriptures yet am I willing to remove any the least Ground of Scruple by a brief Consideration of his Four following Chapters in which he would fain maintain his former False and Vnadvised Charges of our holding in great Contempt those Holy Writings He begins thus Rep. My Charge in my Sixth Chapter was That the Quakers take Men off from reading the Scriptures
for them to have come to the true Sense and Knowledge of him and escaped that Wicked Murder and the Deplorable Consequences of it had not been to have waited upon God for the Convictions Discoveries and Guidance of his Holy Spirit since Flesh and Blood and the utmost VVit of Man with the Exactness of the meer Letter of the Scriptures could never give the certain Discerning Knowledge and Savour of him unto that Generation whose very VVords themselves were Spirit and Life It was by a Divine Touch Sense and Knowledge given from above that he was truly diâ—cern'd own'd and follow'd of those that believ'd in him and cleav'd to him therefore said Christ No man cometh to me but whom my Father draweth Where was that Drawing but within Again Simon Peter Flesh and Blood hath not revealed what who I am but my Father that is in Heaven So that at last Men must come to this Spiritual Sense in themselves to understand and apply the very Commands of Scripture otherwise not Justice but detestable Murder may under the Name of it be confidently perpetrated Wherefore we Exhort all To have Recourse unto God's Spirit that illuminates certainly and gives to act unblamably by which the Scriptures are only understood as they should be and People brought into the Possession of that Life of Righteousness they plentifully declare of Had it not been for this inward Discerning there had been no Ground for the Abolishment of the whole Jewish Service which follow'd some years after Christ's Ascension And it is the same Eternal Spirit that is the great Rule and Judge now which God promised more particularly to shed abroad in the latter Dayes and is the great inseparable Priviledge from the New and Everlasting Covenant But to conclude Why should it seem so Heterâ—dox in J. Faldo's Judgment since if Men believe the Scripture upon the Testimony of the Spirit they practise it by the Knowledge and Power of the same How else could Paul have decry'd Jewish Ceremonies or we know what to take and what to leave Or why do we omit any Command therein mention'd They Cicumcised therefore must I Circumcise They Baptized must I therefore Baptize with forty more particular Cases wherein nothing can secure any from the Imitation of them set Conviction or Spiritual Disâ—erning aside I will offer two or three Testimonies from approved Men in our Defence William Tindal that ancient faithful Protestant Martyr whom J. Fox that writ the Books of Martyrs calls the English Apostle speaks thus That it is impossible to understand in the Scripture more then a Turk for whosoever or any that hath not the Law of God writ in his Heart to fulfil it Again Without the Spirit it is impossible to understand them John Jewel Bishop of Salisbury in his excellent Book against the Papists writ above One Hundred Years ago sayes thus to our purpose The Spirit of God is bound neither to Sharpness of Wit nor to abundance of Learning Oftentimes the Unlearned see that thing that the Learned cannot see Christ saith I thank thee O Father Lord of Heaven and Earth that thou hast hid these things from the Wise and the Politick and hast revealed them unto the Little Ones Therefore Epiphanius saith Only to the Children of the Holy Ghost all the Holy Scriptures are plain and clear Again Flesh and Blood is not able to understand the Holy Will of God without SPECIAL Revelation Therefore Christ gave Thanks unto his Father and likewise opened the Hearts of his Disciples that they might understand the Scriptures Without this special Help and PROMPTING of God's Holy Spirit the Word of God is unto the Reader be he never so wise or well learned as the Vision of a Sealed Book Now unless Men are bound to do what they do not understand how to do then only are they to do them where they are Revealed or Discovered to them which being by the Spirit only according to their Doctrine the Testimony and Discoveries of the Spirit are requisite to our understanding of the Scriptures which implies and comprehends a Discriminating Knowledge or Certain Discerning of what we should practise from what is not oblieging upon us to practise and consequently that we ought not to run head-long without such knowledge T. Collier an Ancient and Eminent Man among the Western-Separatists of our Nation writeth thus For me to speak of God because another speaks of him and to be able to talk much of God as I read of him in Scripture NOT BEING MADE ONE IN THE SAME TRUTH I see and speak BUT WHAT ANOTHER HATH SPOKEN and so may speak truly sometimes of God but it is by Hear-say ANOTHER MAN's TRUTH BUT NOT MINE So I doubt many a Soul BOASTS IN ANOTHER MAN's LIGHT Again I see that external Actings according to a Rule without is nothing if not flowing from a Principle of Life and Love within Which is more then E. B. said of whom J. Faldo with unworthy Reflection and base Wrestings hath said so much Thus much of sober Rejoynder and much more then my Adversary's scurrilous Reply deserves but the ConCernment I have for the Information of others drew this from me I shall pass by his Ranting Strain against us at the top of his 36th page desiring to keep close to the Business and where I may without breaking his Matter avoid troubling the World with a Transcript of them I am very careful to do it But this next particular as many more being little else and since he suggests thereby an Untruth with great Confidence against me I should wrong both the Truth and my self in omitting it He charged us with Denying the Scriptures to be any Means to know God Christ or our selves for which he quoted W. Smith's Primmer pag. 2. because he there tells the Questioner that Christ is the Only Way to which J. Faldo answered That though Christ said No Man can come to the Father but by me yet he did not say that there is no coming to the Knowledge of God but by Christ thereby making as I observed in my Return to him a Difference between coming to the Father by the Son and to God by Christ though no other Name be given under Heaven then the Name of Jeâ—us Christ c. That we never deny'd the Scriptures to be a Means in God's Hand to convince instruct or confirm nor could this be W. Smith's Meaning since he would thereby have cut off all Benefit from accruing to People by his Books and also that Ministry he had receiv'd of God In short From our Denying that there is any other Way to the Father but Christ he concludes that we exclude the Scriptures and consequently our own Books and Ministry with them from being any way Instrumental of Good however if I err'd it was in good Company and that J. F. must acknowledge for worthy W. Tindal p. 80. of his Works and H. Bullenger a learned and famous Reformer in Switzerland
nay the Evangelist is not yet come so much as to mention any Thing of his Manifestation in Flesh and if we will believe J. Faldo the Verse concerns the Word Creator and not Redeemer which he stints to his Coming in the Flesh see pag. 89. But by his Interpretation THAT is not relative to his Appearance in the Flesh but to the Word which was with God and was God as p. 84. and so the Spanish Translation hath it That WORD was the true Light c. so that either the Word was not before that Appearance or if it were being that true Light that true Light was before that Appearance Therefore Man-kind may very well be said to have alwayes been enlightned by that Light or that the Word should be before that Appearance and that true Light which is the very Life of the Word or Word it self should be stinted to that Appearance is as absurd as any thing well can be Now Reader comes that part which he cited but more regularly That we should take That was the true Light c. to deny Christ now to be true Light that enlightens all because he was so is a strange Impertinency and gross Falshood In Reply to all which next to what I have already transcribed he sayes no more then this Reply p. 82. W. P. should have undertaken to prove that Christ was before that time and is now God manifest in Flesh as he was then and to those Ends. Rejoynder I did abundantly prove it in our Sence and nothing solid hath been offered to invalidate what I alledged but let it suffice that he hath granted my Charge First In denying Christ to have been either Christ or the true Light before that Time a manifest Contradiction to himself p. 84 85 86 87 88 89. of his first Book second Part. Next He therefore denyes that Christ is now the true Light because he is not at this Day God manifested in Flesh in the same Manner as he was then and thus much further that he was the true Light before that Appearance Socinianism in the abstract I do not say so in Disgrace but because he pretends to disown it For his saying I should have undertaken to prove them is absurd unless he had denyed them This with me is matter enough to impeach my Adversary of blackest Sacriledge I need add no more nor no more will I add then this The Question was not whether we affirm Christ to be that Light by his visible and bodily Appearance Life Doctrine Miracles Death Resurrection c. in this Day which he was in that But whether these Words that was the true Light did not relate to the Life of the Word which was with God and was God and consequently if he did not enlighten Men before he took Flesh in the Flesh and after his Resurrection and Ascension by his Eternal Power and God-head as the great Sun of Righteousness and spiritual Luminary of the Invisible and Intelligible World Unto which his Words bear no Relation unless it be any to deny the Question In short I told him the very next Words to those he cited That should we grant the Evangelist to refer to that Appearance Joh. 1. 9. yet it would conclude no Denyal of Christ's being the true Light that enlightens every Man that cometh into the World both before and since that Appearance because it was the most eminent breaking forth of the divine Light which doubtless had been enough to satisfie any moderate or modest Man but not satisfying him I must infer as before that his Displeasure is against our believing Christ to have enlightned before and since that visible Coming which if I understand any thing is in so many Words to deny his Divinity The next Scripture by him exposited and by me rescued was Rom. 10. 3. The Word is nigh thee c. he doth but touch upon it and gives so little of my Answer that there is scarce Head or Tail to be made of his Paragraph I will contract my Answer and give his Reply He made the Word to be the written Laws Statutes and Commandments given by Moses his first Book p. 94. I answer'd It could not be so understood for the Question was not about them but about the Commandment of Commandments and Word of Words which he resolves thus Let none say who shall ascend descend or go beyond the Seas to fetch the great Word and Conmandment but the Word is very nigh thee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies the innermost Parts of Men whereinto the outward Commandments could never come Besides without the Word nigh in the Heart there could be no Conviction upon the Conscience c. Reply p. 82 83. W. P. puâ—s to fetch the great Word and Commandment in the Letter of the Text as the very Words of Moses A Crime to be abhorred yet frequent with him that pretends a sacred Esteem of the Scriptures In few Words to answer all Moses said of this Word verse 12. It is not in Heaven which may be said of the Book of the Law or written Word but not of Christ the Word also as I cold him before 't is such a Word as uses to be in the Mouth which is the Organ and Instrument of speaking the Greek Word for the Word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is never to be understood of Christ not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is sometimes intended of Christ the Word Rejoynder This looks more like a Reply then any thing we have had a great while yet that it only looks so will ly on our Part to show First He charges me with Forgery Let 's see what it was I said to fetch the great VVord or Commandment and the Scripture sayes to bring the VVord or Commandment Now I know no Difference betwixt fetching and bringing 't is true I added Great which of God's VVord or Commandment be not I did amiss If it be he is an idle Caviller fitter to kill Flies all day with the foolish Emperour then to write Books of Religious Controversie It is called Commandment Deutr. 30. 11. and Word ver 14. But it is not in Heaven therefore it is not Christ sayes our Adversary I believe J. Faldo knew in his own Conscience that those VVords were spoken on purpose to prevent the Excuse of being without a Commandment and that so nigh as their own Hearts or innermost Parts and not to exclude the VVord Heaven but rather thus The Word is not so in Heaven as that it is excluded your Consciences or that ye need to say who shall go up to fetch it down for it is in your Hearts to instruct you that you may do it and reprove you if you do it not God was never the less in Heaven for being nigh unto the Consciences of the Athenians which was Paul's Doctrine Acts 17. 27 28. for sayes he in the Name of their own Prophets In him we live move and
have our Being for we are also of his Off-Spring Erasmus in Deut. saith non supra â—e sed intrate est Sermo valde i. The VVord is not above thee but very within thee The Samaritan Coppy hath it not the Word but the Thing is in thee according to the Hebrew Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is often so translated Fagius upon the Place in Deuter. thus In Corde dicit quia Legem cordibus Judaeorum inscripserat Dominus priusquam in Tabulis illis lapâ—deis Decologum insculpsisset i. e. In the Heart saith he because the Lord haâ—â— written the Law in the Hearts of the Jews before he had graven the Decalogue in the Tables of Stones For its being such a Word as useth to be in the Mouth I must tell him that is such a Word as useth to be in the Heart too which he takes no Notice of in my Answer and I am sure it is not so impossible for the Eternal Word to express it self by the Mouth of a Man and so may be said to be in the Mouth as it is for the Book of written Laws and Statutes to be in the Heart Besides the Commandments are mentioned verse 10. but this Commandment or Word verse 11. 14. which cannot in good Sense be called the same but rather that Law Word or Commandment mentioned by the Apostle Rom. 2. 14 15. which he acknowledgd the good Gentiles both to have had written in their Hearts and to have lived up to in good Measure unless we can suppose that God hath been less propitious to the Jews then to the Gentiles I mean that God gave the Gentiles an inward and the Jews only an outward Law But suppose what our Adversary sayes of the Word in Deuteronomy to be true he hath confounded himself in this That he makes the Word Rom. 10. 8. the same with the Word mentioned Deut. 13 14. The one is as sayes J. F. the Word of Jewish Statutes among whom is the Hand wring of Ordinances the ceremonial and judicial as well as morral Law The other is the Word of Faith which blots out the Hand-writing of Ordinances and ends the Ceremonial and Judicial Law But because these two Laws or Words cannot be one and the same and yet that the Apostle alludes to the Words in Deuteronomy it follows that it cannot be the Book of written Laws but the Word that begets Love to and Faith in God for that was the Word the Apostle preached Nay we may go further yet and assert the Word mentioned in Deuteronomy to be Christ himself for if that be one with the Word of Faith the Apostle writes of to the Romans then because the Word of Faith Rom. 10. 8. is Christ the Word mentioned in Deuteronomy must also be Christ that are one and the same Word the Apostle's Allusion proves and J. F. confesseth and that the Word of Faith Rom. 10. 8. is Christ let the two fore-going Verses of the Text be consulted But the Righteousness of Faith speaketh on this wise Say not in thine Heart who shall ascend into Heaven that is to bring Christ down from above or who shall descend into the deep that is to bring up Christ again from the Dead but what saith it The Word is nigh thee even in thy Mouth and in thy Heart that is the Word of Faith which we preach verse 6 7 8. where nothing is more clear then that the Word nigh in the Heart is Christ the Word for the Question here is how they shall get Christ as it was in Deuteronomy how they should get the Word The Apostle answers it though not under the Name of Christ yet under a Name attributed to Christ If our Adversary count Christ and the Word of Faith two differing things by the same Reason may we say that the Word in Deuteronomy concerning which none needeth to ask who shall go up in Heaven to bring it down and the Word nigh are two Words but if that Question be needless Who shall go up into Heaven to fetch it down unto us ver 12. be answered in ver 14. viz. but the Word is very nigh unto thee and consequently that it is but one Word or Commandment that is understood in the Question and the Answer then may we with good Reason conclude that Christ in the 6th and 7th Verses and the Word of Faith in the 8th Verse are one and the same thing under two Names else there can be no Sence or Coherence in the Apostle's Words for what Answer is this But what sayes it The Word is nigh thee in thy Mouth and in thy Heart that is the Word of Faith which we preach to this Question Who shall ascend to bring Christ down Who shall descend to bring Christ up If Christ and Word of Faith are not Synonimous or equivalent Terms The Question the Apostle makes the Righteousness of Faith to forbid is about Christ's Absence or Remoteness from the Heart Say not in thy Heart and it is answered and resolved with the Nearness of the Word in the Heart which could be no answer or Solution in case that Word was not Christ or Christ that Word for the Reason why the Righteousness of Faith saith on this wise Say not in thy Heart who shall ascend to fetch Christ down implies that he is not shut up in some remote place but that he is nigh and needs no fetching and if nigh then not another from the Word nigh which is the Answer to the Question To make it yet plainer and detect my Adversary I will parrallel the Case Jacob being ancient desired to see Josâ—ph before he died suppose him to have askt how shall I do to see Joseph and that some body answered Do not ask how â—hou shalt see Joseph for thou seest Reuben Tell me if this would be thought a fit Answer to Jacob's Question yet this must be the Cause of those who deny Christ and the Word to be one in this Place But if some body should have said to him Do not ask who shall show thee thy SON JOSEPH for the RVLER of all Egypt standeth nigh thee Would not every Body think the Person meant Joseph that was so This is so plain to our Pupose that every common Understanding may discern the Reasonableness of our Interpreration For the Greek being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it makes nothing against us in that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath the same Significaiton with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Scapula informs us out of Plato Clemens Alexandrinus Admon ad Gent. on 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 calls it the Word of the Lord 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. the HEAVENLY WORD the true Contender for Mastery crowned in the Theater of the whole World and in his Strom l. 2. speaking of the same Place Rom. 10. saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The DIVINE WORD cryes calling all Men without Distinction which must needs be Christ the