thus the one doth not exclude but include the other Seventhly That Adam in the state of innocency was not under the Covenant of Works Because that some Priests in and about Newcastle said and wrot that Adam in his innocent state was under the Covenant of Works Therefore Nayler checks them Giving this as a reason Because saith he the Law wherein is the Covenant of Works was added after because of the transgression Ans to Perf. Phar. pag. 10. But they poor creatures as all of them are being as ignorant or rather more then he in propounding the thing loosely give him much advantage in the matter But to vindicate the truth I shall offer this distinction It can not be said that Adam in the state of innocency was under the Covenant of Works as being under a Law For where no Law is there is no transgression Rom. 4.15 Yea and the Law is not for the righteous but for the rebellious 1 Tim. 1.9 And so in this sense it is true as Nayler hath minded that the Law was added because of transgression Gal. 3.10 Notwithstanding Adam was under a Law from within i. e. he was subject to the Law within him he himself being a Law to himself For God having made him perfect Eccl. 7.29 put the Law in its eminency and perfection in him which in the relicts and tincture thereof is in all men by nature Rom. 2.14 15. being a Law to themselves do the things contâ—â—â—â—d in the Law And the Lord to make him the more sensible of this Law within him did not altogether leave him void of a Law from without in commanding him to eat of all the trees in the Garden excepting that of the tree of the knowledge of good and evill Which through covetousnesse the root of all evill a breach of the 10 th Command he brake in coveting the fruit of the Tree and being desirous to be like God In doing of which he lived and transgressing of which he died Whence it is evident that in a right sense Adam was under the Covenant of Works Eightly That the Scripture is not the Word of God So saith Nailer Now if the Scriptures be the Word which had their beginning since all were made and did not become flesh then there are two Words of God Now prove that in Scripture Or that the letter is called the Word in plain words and the Apostle cals what he wrote a Declaration 1 Joh. 1.3 Ans to Perf. Phar. pa. 15. where he also saith that Christ is the Word In answer to which I shall desire this man with me to observe that the Scripture doth no where call Christ the Word though it be so translated The Scriptures that speak of this are in Joh. 1.1 1 Joh. 5.7 Rev. 19.13 Where Christ as it is in the Greek is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Which ought to be rendered The Reason for I have not only found it so accented in the correctest Greek Copie that to my knowledge is extant in these times as it imports such a signification but likewise it is more then evident that Christ very pertinently and justly may be called the Reason And that because he is the very cause ground and reason of all Gods actings and manifestations toward the creature If it should be asked What is the reason of Gods electing us The answer is Christ is the reason thereof Eph. 1.4 Or what is the reason why we are redeemed Ans Christ is the reason thereof Eph. 1.7 Or what is the reason why all things are created conserved and kept in being enemies yea and all things are reconciled to God Ans Christ is the reason thereof Col. 1.13 to 21. Rom. 5.10 In a word he is to us all in all And therefore the Cause the Ground the Reason of all things to us Moreover is it not more agreeable to the nature of Christ I say to the nature of Christ to be called the Reason than the Word Reason is a substantiall thing having words as its fruits Look seriously upon the words as they are in themselves and you will find thâ—… 〈…〉 more pertinent and significant to expresse the natuâ—… 〈…〉 other Yea John having called Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈…〉 things were made through him and without him wâ—… 〈…〉 made that was made Joh. 1.4 Clearly implying him 〈…〉 of all things why they are created and kept in being 〈…〉 that God is well pleased in him Matth. 3.17 as find 〈…〉 him why God is well pleased in him And thus it is that 〈…〉 enough of reason in him why all things should be for him and 〈…〉 him for in him is all fulnesse and in him dwelleth the fulnesse 〈◊〉 God-head bodily Col. 1.19 ch 2.9 And thus as Christ is the â—…son we may therein clearly see what God in Christ is And wheâ—… 〈◊〉 Nailer saith at least avoucheth that from plain Scripture it canâ—… be proved that the Scripture is the Word of God Give me leave tâ—… say he is mistaken for saith Peter The Word of the Lord endureth for ever and that is the Word which by the Gospel is preached unto you 1 Pet. 1.25 I deny not but Christ is preached by the Gospel neverthelesse Christ is preached by words in the preaching of the Gospel for holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost 2 Pet. 1.21 Which words are the prophecy of the Scripture v. 19 20. And so this Prophecy of the Scripture being that which was preached by the Apostles to the Saints of old it must needs be the Word of God seeing that is called the Word of God which the Apostles preached to them Again I may say truely that those poor creatures do erre not knowing the Scriptures for through their ignorance they doe confound things that differ Their conceit is that in this place by the Word is understood Christ because elsewhere he is called the Word according to our common Translations Give me leave to tell them that there is a great difference bewixt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it is in this of Peter and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it is in the places above-cited For as the one doth properly signifie the Reason so the other doth properly signifie the Word Neither can they produce me one Scripture where Christ is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as I can produce concerning the words of the Gospel namely Joh. 6.63 It may be they will call this Colledge stuffeâ— But truly I must needs say that in this I do speak pure Scripture as it was written by the Apostles whereas they implicitely speak no more but other mens translations But I admire why they say that the Scripture 〈…〉 â—…f God seeing it is not only given by Divine 〈…〉 16. of no private interpretation the holy men 〈…〉 â—…â—…en it as it was spoken in them by God 2 Pet. 1. 〈…〉 it is called the foundation of the Prophets and Aâ—… 〈…〉 20. as being the ground of our faith
Which made 〈…〉 â—…at he hoped and trusted in the Word of the Lord Psal 〈…〉 130.5 Thus it is plain in the Scripture that the Scriâ—… 〈…〉 only a Declaration of the will of God but also the Word 〈…〉 〈◊〉 â—…hly That it is not lawfull to call any single person any thing but 〈…〉 or Thee 〈◊〉 â—…his is known by all to be one of their principles as is evident from 〈◊〉 their deportments And for this they say that all the Saints in Scripture did write and speak so in all their writings and speakings to single persons and no otherwayes But I may say that they need not put such a stresse upon this as if it were some absolute distinguishing character of Saints to speak and write so For this is also most sure that all carnall men we read of in the Scriptures in speaking and in writing whether to Saints or to one another did speak and write so to single persons as any man may observe in reading the Scriptures The reason of it is at hand Because the Hebrew and the Greek in which the Scriptures were first written are regular Languages observing the propriety and rigour of construction And therefore to have spoken or written to single persons but in the Singular Number it had been barbarous and non-sensicall Hence it is that all Epistles in Latine among very Heathens to single persons of whatsover rank is so Whereas the propriety of our Language is of a larger latitude So that those words which are translated Thou or Thee might very well have been rendered You. And had it been done so I question much if any of those poor creatures should have had the wit to put any difference in the matter Besides do they not know that Mary called Christ Sir or Lord not knowing but he had been the Gardiner Joh 20.15 She was one of Christs Disciples at this time and they themselves pretend to no more Yea it is said that she loved much because much was forgiven her A greater testimony and approbation then is either seen or read of them Moreover John in writing to and of one calls her the Elect Lady which may be also translated the Elect Mistresse Whence I observe that it is lawfull to call a man Sir 〈…〉 Lady or Mistresse How often do we read 〈…〉 great men call them Lord King and such like 〈…〉 most excellent Theophilus and Paul most powerfuâ—… 〈…〉 â—…slated most noble Festus And therefore I may jusâ—… 〈…〉 lawfull to speak otherwise to single persons then as is 〈…〉 â—…stome of the Quakers in saying thou or thee As for their quaking and trembling I shall only speâ—… 〈…〉 by the way owning quaking and trembling in a Scripture 〈…〉 is Psal 119.120 Isa 66.2 Hab. 3.16 Phil. 2.12 and 〈…〉 other Scriptures beside of which possibly I could speak as mâ—… 〈…〉 more then they in my experience though I cannot endure to 〈…〉 publick theatre thereof as they do Tenthly That it is not lawfull to salute any by lifting the Cap 〈◊〉 bowing the Body This likewise is publickly known to be one of their principles which is not only against Scripture practice but also Scripture precept That it is commanded See 1 Pet. 3 8. Be courteous which is not courtesie by way of charity properly so taken as one of themselves did once insinuate to me but courtesie by way of humanitie and civilitie For the word in the Greek doth import no lesse then courtesie as it is commonly taken and given among men Beside the same Apostle exhorts them to charity in a command distinct from this 1 Pet. 4.8 9. But will nothing please them unlesse both commands be one Besides the Lord Christ exhorts and commands his Disciples in sending them forth to Preach to salute every house they came into Matth. 10.12 The word in the Greek doth import such a salutation as is commonly used among men And therefore heathen Writers do make use of the same word to expresse the same thing And consequently this salutation must needs speak something else then their speaking of peace to any house they entered into though Nayler will have it otherwise Yea the Lord Christ will have his Disciples not only to salute their brethren but their enemies also Matth. 5.47 where the word in the Greek is one and the same with that of Matth. 10.12 Whereby Jesus Christ not only cautions his Disciples of partiality in their salutations as Nailer himself saith but likewise will have them to salute both friends and foes For in the foregoing verses he exhorts them to love their 〈…〉 toward them as in blessing them praying 〈…〉 good and so among the rest in saluting them 〈…〉 could they have manifested their love in this matâ—… 〈…〉 their friends more then their enemies Again if 〈…〉 â—…d Nailer doth that Christ only forbids partiality 〈…〉 â—…nd doth not allow the ordinary salutation among men 〈…〉 as justly say that the meaning of these words in the foreâ—… 〈…〉 ye love them who love you what reward have ye is 〈◊〉 Christs cautioning his Disciples of partiality in their love 〈◊〉 allowing them to love whether those that hated them or 〈◊〉 at loved them I leave it with any rationall man to consider 〈◊〉 â—…ner the one doth not follow as well as the other And as for 〈◊〉 â—…ture practice it is most frequent in the Scriptures So Abraham â—…wed twice on end to the Children of Heth Gen. 23.7 12. Of the â—…owing and obeisance of others we read also as of Jacob Gen. 23.3 Moses Exod. 18.7 David 1 Sam. 20.41 Abigael 1 Sam. 25.41 and severall others that might be named O! but saith Nailer this was their sin even as Josephs swearing by the life of Pharaoh and Davids faining himself mad before Achish For it crosseth a command of God which inhibites a bowing down to the creature Exod. 34.7 Deut. 5.9 But truely he is very far mistaken For these Scriptures do only forbid a bowing down to the creature to worship it as God as is most clear in the Text. And so it rests upon him to prove that bowing to the creature by way of courtesie and civill respect is a worshipping of the creature as God And whereas he alledgeth it to have been the sin of these Saints abovewritten and of others to have done so it is sooner said thou proved I desire him to let me see in all the Scripture one sin so frequently acted by Saints as this is if it may be called a sin Not Josephs swearing by the life of Pharaoh nor Davids faining himself mad before Achish He cannot show me that either the one or the other is acted again and again by Saints in the Scripture as bowing to the creature is So that not only their practice but also the frequently thereof doth aboundantly plead for the lawfulnesse of it Now to conclude the whole matter in few words having but little time to spend in the businesse being confined to a few lines I do conclude them to be the Man of Sin of which the Scripture speaâ—â—â—
A SERIOUS REVIEW OF SOME PRINCIPLES OF THE QUAKERS Wherein ERROR is Discovered and TRUTH Defended By P. E. VERITAS VINCET TANDEM Printed in the Year 1655. A SERIOUS REVIEW OF SOME PRINCIPLES OF THE QUAKERS I Do not at this time write because I would maintain Truth in maintaining any Sect knowing that there be many in this age who do owne in their judgement many parts of Truth or severall sound Principles of Religion as it were by piese-meal who notwithstanding in many more things if not in the most do erre And therefore as one having ceased from man being dead to all Sects I do I say I do at this time only vindicate Truth for it self without all relation to the upholding of any Sect whatsoever but in so far as they do owne any part of the Truth Having premised these few lines I shall lay down severall Principles of the Quakers and as I propound them shall refute them yet shall I speak of none of them but of such as be most known that they may not have it to say that I do wrest their words and do belye them I. That man as a creature is not equall with God but as he is joyned to the Lord being one Spirit with him This is the Doctrine of Geo. Fox as witnesseth Ja. Nailer in answer to the Book called The Perfect Pharisee pag. 4. whose words be these viz. I was in the hearing of four Justices of the Peace where he was asked meaning Geo. Fox whether he spake this of G. Fox as he was a creature i.e. that G. Fox was equall with God To which he answered I deny G. Fox he is dust and must to dust but I and my Father are one and he that is joined to the Lord is one Spirit At which the Justices were satisfied that he spake of the Spirit of Christ in him and thereupon did acquit him A subtile Answ to an ill stated Question for I do observe in it much of the depths of Sathan whereby the Justices were outwitted No wonder for in stating the Question they gave him a great deal of advantage It doth necessarly imply that there was something in Geo. Fox which was increated not a creature but a Creator Otherwise to what purpose did they propound the Question thus Whether or not in saying that he was equall with God did he speak this of Geo. Fox as he was a creature even as if G. Fox had been any other thing then a creature In this I desire that these things may be observed First that neither Fox nor Nailer do deny absolutely that Geo. Fox should say that he was equall with God they deny not these words only Geo. Fox shifts the Justices with his sense thereof as is abovewritten Secondly I desire any serious sober man whatsoever to consider and I leave it with him to judge take it in the best sense if any man can call these the words of truth and sobernesse for Geo. Fox to say that he was equall with God I appeal him if ever any Scripture-Saint said so excepting Jesus Christ who was both God and Man Thirdly I desire George Fox to tell me what he meaneth by that viz. I and my Father are one and he that is joined to the Lord is one Spirit Either he understandeth it concerning a substantiall or a mysticall onenesse betwixt God and man If a substantiall then it is as much as if George had said that the very substance and essence of God is in him and one with him Which being so then without dispute there is something increated in him and so equall with God Howsoever the Scriptures which he alledgeth will not bear him out therein Not the former for it only speaketh of CHRIST I and my Father are one John 10.30 In which Chapter the Lord Christ laboureth to prove his equality with God But will Geo. Fox make application of that Scripture to himself he doth so by comparing it with Joh. 17.21 23. Now take notice how he confounds Christs onenes with God and Saints onenes with him And seeing he puts no difference betwixt them but makes application of that same very Scripture to himself whereby Christ assents his equality with God It follows by inevitable consequence that the man understands Saints to be equall with God Which is also evident from his own confession For though he denieth G. Fox as a creature to be equall with God yet he doth not deny it in respect of the Spirit of Christ in him Whereupon he evaded the Justices of the Peace as is above-written Notwithstanding that yet is it clear that Saints onenes with God is nothing else but like the Husbands onenes with the Wife or the Wifes with the Husband as is most evident from that other Scripture 1 Cor. 6.17 he maketh use of He that is joined to the Lord is one spirit Would George compare this with the latter part of v. 16. For two saith he shall be one flesh He would needs alter his mind for the Apostle in these words alludes to that onenes which is betwixt man and wife spoken of Gen. 2.24 Mat. 19.5 6. Mar. 10.7 8. Eph. 5.26 And so compares the onens of the Saints with God in respect of one Spirit with that onenes which is betwixt Man and Wife But who can say that the onenes betwixt Man and Wife is substantiall and not mysticall Will any say that because the Scripture doth call them one even one flesh they do make up but one substance Is it not evident notwithstanding this onenes that they be different and distinct substances So then seeing the Scripture likeneth the onenes of Saints with God thereto may not I justly say that as God and Saints are one I say as they are one so they are really and substantially distinct one from another And that the substance and essence of God is not united to the creature But if at last George shall say that the oneness with God is only mysticall and vertuall i. e. in respect of Gods acting and working in Saints by the power of that same spirit that is in himself bringing them into a comformity to it self then hath he nothing for himself to say but must needs in every respect without all exception deny himself to be equall with God whether he consider himself as G. Fox or as sanctified by the Spirit of Christ in him For so even his Sanctification and the Spirit of Christ in him are nothing else but created things And I desire George not to think this strange Doctrine For doth not the Scripture comprehend all that is of God in Saints under the notion of the New Creature 2 Cor. 5.17 Gal. 6.15 And if it be a creature then is it not increated but created But if George be tenacious I desire him to tell me What of God What of the Spirit of Christ did ever be experience beside that which is the New-Creature in him Or rather I desire him to shew me where