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
that will not meet this case Those 1 Tim. 1 19. who are said to make shipwrack of a good Conscience are such who believed the true doctrin of faith in Christ as himself before acknowledgeth Now albeit a man may be said to live in good Conscience to other principles while ignorant of this yet he should prove how a man can be said to have a good Conscience with respect to the true faith of Christ held by him and yet without saving or true grace With railing he tels me pag. 358. n. 18. that Phil. 1 6. 1 Pet. 1 5. God's beginning and perfecting the condition And what then yet God doth not this against our wills it is with a respect to our performing the conditions on our part which yet we can not do without him Then he goes about to prove that Paul could not fall in answer to my saying from 1 Cor. 9 27. that Paul supposeth a possibility that he might become a reprobat but if the Reader consider how I bring that in my Apology he will find he had no reason for this cavill for I alledged it only to reprove those that are too too secure shewing where sin was there was always a ground of jealousy since the Apostle did reckon it needfull to keep under his body to subdue sin that he might not become a reprobat which since the Apostle did but upon this supposition if he did not keep under his body suppose possible others had no reason to presume Section Eleventh Wherein his XVI Chapter Of the Church his XVII Of the Ministerial Call his XVIII XIX and XXI Of their Qualifications Office and Maintenance and his XX Of VVomens Preaching is considered ¶ 1. HIs chapter of the Church is soon dispatched for it contains scarce any thing but perversions and railing for after he has given a large citation out of their Confession of Faith and then added some enlargements of his own and some little nibling cavils to what I say of no Salvation being without the Church pag. 361. he goes on with his old reiterated calumny that I suppose men may be made members of the Catholik Church by the Light of Nature which is utterly false And upon this false supposition is built his n. 5. pag. 362. as also what he saith pag. 364. But n. 4. he screws this to a greater pitch of falshood affirming that what I say of a Particular Church gathered together in the faith of the true Principles and Doctrins of Christ by the Spirit of God and testimony of some of his Ministers is that these are persons only taught by the Light of Nature and by such Ministers as preach nothing of the Gospel Against a man thus desperatly resolved and determined to lye and calumniat there can be no guard but sure all sober Readers will abhorr such dealing What I speak of a Church in this respect is only of such as have the advantage of the outward knowledge of Christ as my words afterwards shew where I say such were the Churches gathered by the Apostles of which the Scriptur makes mention And therefore what he objects that can not be don by Pagans is wholly impertinent and doth but verify the grossness of his calumny which he endeavours to inculcat as a truth to his Reader pag. 363. as if what I say further of the things requisit to be a member of this Particular Church were a third sort and not a more particular description of the former which the Reader may easily observe by looking to the place to be a meer fetch of his to afford himself some matter of cavill which imagining he has got he fills-up the paragraph with gross lyes and railing saying That the Quakers believe not the holy Truths set down in the Scripturs because they oppose and contradict them That they believe not in nor maké profession of Jesus Christ revealed in the New Testament because they oppose him and all his Institutions That faith according to them is not wrought by the Spirit of God but that Nature can sweetly and naturally incline yea compell thereunto All which are gross calumnys And then he concludeth saying And thus we have run round and are again where we began which is very true for he began with calumnys and having run round the same way his work resolvs in them Pag. 364. he affirmeth Men may be Members of the visible Church and consequently ought to be reputed such who are ungodly and without holiness and offereth to make it good if I will form a dispute upon it but I leave him as to this to disput with his learned Dr. Owen whose works he has applauded in this Treatise and whom his Postscript-Brother R. M. has in his preface to this B.'s book highly commended as a gratious man As for his silly argument that from the Apostle's saying Act. 2 39. the promise is unto you and to your children and 1 Cor. 7 14. it follows men become members of the Church by birth I leave him to debate it with his great Author Thomas Hicks who will tell him if he be consonant to his own principles it is a Babylonish invention But I. B. hath here unawares contradicted himself for if these Scripturs prove men become members of the Church by birth then the sprinkling them with water sometime after they are born or their Baby-Baptism is not necessary to make them members of the Church and they are to be accounted such without it He saith I am mistaken when I say Antichrist built his structure upon this foundation to wit that men without holiness may be members of the true Church because he applieth all the priviledges of the invisible Church unto his visible synagogue of Sathan where as this sheweth that I am not mistaken but that my affirmation is true for if he to wit Antichrist did believe holiness to be necessary to make a member of the true Church he could not apply the privileges of the invisible Church unto his visible members most of which he wel knows as often-times himself are not only void of but enemies to holiness It is false that I agree with him in his not distinguishing betwixt the Visible and Invisible Church and yet much more in unchurching all who are not of his combination in which albeit I. B. most impudently insinuats I approach to him yet himself can not but know it to be a most manifest falshood since I suppose some of all sects of Christians may be members of the catholik Church and he knows and has observed here how contrary the Pope is to this doctrin At last he concludes this chapter with a fit of Railing of which the last words must not pass without observation to wit that in stead of true holyness I press upon them a natural dead and anti-Evangelical Morality Now this Morality as pressed by me he himself confessed before to be such as the Law of Nature taught albeit in truth I pressed none but what
plead so tenaciously for the other Let him give a reason for this next and by the same we shall answer what he urges from this but he must remember it is not enough for him barely to say these were extraordinary and are ceased and the other ordinary and remain but he must prove it by plain Scriptur or else be justly rejected as but begging the question as he doth pag. 394. where he supposeth there were only 13 Apostles or perhaps 14 if Barnabas be accounted one since he confesseth the word signifies one sent and therefore whoever is sent is properly an Apostle Thus also will his other argument return upon his own head for since such as he saith were settled and ordained in the Church by Christ and his Apostles how come they to walk so contrary to Christ's Order as to want yea and to judge such unnecessary in their Church And as for all the Scripturs cited by him to shew the distinction of such Church Officers from other Members they are not to the purpose against me who deny not but Members were to be distinguished but yet that proves not that any Member was barred from these exercises when called by the Spirit thereto which is the thing in question As for his saying that the Apostle is speaking of the Church 1 Cor. 12. as an Organical body if he means the Apostle is comparing the Church to a Body to which it answers in many respects I deny not but if he say that it answers in all I leave him to prove it however then if we make application of it as the Apostle illustrateth it their Church will prove a very lame one for in this Body as I. B. himself observs the Apostle names Apostles and Prophets and if we may suppose that these as being the most eminent are the chiefest Members as the eyes and ears of the Body their Church that wanteth these must be blind and deaf And whereas he would make my saying that the Apostle meaned here different operations ridiculous he but sheweth his own folly for if the Apostle point at different Offices they will not only want Apostles Prophets and Evangelists but a great many more for the Apostle nameth also verse 28. miracles gifts of healing helps governments diversitys of tongues c. these then must all be distinct Offices also how come they to want them in their Church or how can they plead for these they have more than for such as are placed nothing less by way of distinct Officers than they Yea all the several titles enumerated by him pag. 390. will prove the same way distinct Officers and how came they to cashier all these and reduce them to so few a number By what authority and Scriptur warrant do they this But I would enquire at him what an Office is if it be not an operation of the Spirit more particularly working in some persons under such a designation And this is proved by the coincidency of these Offices in one person which he confesseth that some are thence more particularly called to the work of the Ministery I acknowledge and he observs it That God will move none to violat the Order established in his house I deny not but that to move some at times to speak is a violation of that Order I deny since the Apostle saith the contrary 1 Cor. 14 31. we may all prophesy In answer to which he supposeth this is restricted to Prophets but the Text saith all not all Prophets albeit it were no absurdity to suppose all the Lord's People to be Prophets in this sense as wel as they are said to be Kings and Priests and the words following shew it that all may learn and all may be comforted for it were non-sense to understand this with a restriction And therefore his bare asserting that this contradicts the plain scop of the place is no argument for men of reason who resolve not to build their faith upon his meer say so pag. 395. he thinketh my acknowledging that some are more particularly called to the work of the Ministery than others is not enough because they are not to exhort but when moved by the Spirit and others when moved may as wel as they so there is no difference That Ministers ought not to preach or exhort without the Spirit 's motion or assistance will come afterwards to be proved and to suppose God can not or will not move any but Ministers by his Spirit to exhort were to limit him which is presumptuous in us to do but in this appeareth the difference that we confess many may and know thousands among us whom we acknowledge to be good men and sufficiently endued with the Spirit towards the work of regeneration in themselvs and brotherly love and care to their brethren who never find themselvs moved to speak a word in publike and there are others whom God calleth to make teaching and the oversight of the Church so their constant business that they are less engaged in worldly affairs than the generality of those called Clergy-men even among I. B's Brethren and therefore are owned and honoured and so far as need requires maintained by the Church But to say that no man ought without he be thus particularly called at any time speak in a publik assembly since we say that they ought not but when moved by the Spirit is not only to accuse us but imperiously bind up God from moving with his Spirit whom and when he pleaseth and this being applied will answer his querys pag. 369. where n. 14. he affirms that to suppose Ministers may use an honest trade is to account the work of the Ministery a light business But this is to account it no more a light business than the Apostle did who recommended working with their hands for a livelyhood to the Elders of the Church of Ephesus Act. 20 34 35. giving them his own example in so doing But they indeed must have small experience of a true Ministery who do not know a man may be better qualified to discharge it by being inwardly exercised in the Spirit and instructed thereby than by all the labour and study they can derive from their books and perhaps it may be true which he after affirms that such who bring their preaching always out of books will find little time to follow another trade but it seems such Preachers are uncapable to follow the Apostle's exhortation above mentioned and therefore we will justly conclude them to be no true Gospel-Ministers ¶ 5. That he may be like himself he begins his 20 chapter of Woman-Peachers with railing saying the Quakers are against all the appointments and ordinances of Christ then he goeth-on at a high rate enveighing against the liberty of Womens speaking from Paul's words 1 Cor. 14 34. as being against the Law as being contrary to modesty and shamefacedness urging pag. 398. the Apostle's authority in writing that epistle which we deny not and then he urgeth against us
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
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
which no Quaker that ever I knew of did or will deny wherein are they derogated from since they are many words and not one But if he will plead they are the Word of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or per eminentiam to say so seing the Word of God is ascribed to Christ must either equal them with him or speak non-sense seing that one epithet can not be predicated of two things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without a gross contradiction That the Word of the Lord came to the Prophets and that what they spake was the words that came from that Word is granted nor was it ever denyed by us who are against all false revelations and lying fancys of mens imaginations as much as he which he here in this chapter repeats over and over again to nauseating but it will not thence follow that the Word spoken of by the Apostle 2 Pet. 1 19. is the Scriptur which he has not yet proven and I have shewn the contrary in the former Section ¶ 2. At last pag. 54. n. 5. he comes to treat of of the Divine authority of the Scripturs and reckons it confusion and self-contradiction in me to assert that the authority of the Scripturs doth not depend upon any efficacy or vertue placed in these writings but is wholly to be ascribed to that Spirit from whence they came and yet within half a dozen of lines he confesseth the same saying we stoop unto the authority of the Scripturs of Truth because delivered by the Inspiration of God so the confusion and contradiction is his own Yea the exampls he brings of the Acts and Statutes of Parliament do very wel prove what I say for we do not submit to these status because of the matter in them or things commanded but because of the Authority commanding for when the Parliament by an Act appoynts a tax of so much money to be levyed from the Subjects it is not the matter or substance of this Act that makes us obey it but because of the Magistrats Authority But he saith they are Divine revelations and therefore must have the stamp of Divine authority Answ. The stamp of Divine Authority lies not in the things revealed but in the manner of the revelation as being the voyce and manifestation of God else great absurdity would follow as I shall briefly shew being to pursue him in this poynt as he has it lieing up and down in his rambling discourse whose way is not to follow one matter to a period but to touch it here and there intermixing other things that so his nauseating repetitions and oft reiterated railings may be the more covered And therefore I intend not to tie my self to follow him page after page immediatly lest I should embark my self in the like disorder and make such a confused hodg-podg as he has done but to follow every matter as he has it scatter'd up and down And of this I thought fit to acquaint the Reader in this place once for all as being the method I purpose to use throughout this treatise So from this 55 page we have him not upon this matter untill page 61 where he takes notice of my citations out of several Protestant Confessions and Calvin and will not have them to favour me giving most disingenuously as one reason because they expressly say that the work of the Spirit is by and with the Word and not an inspiration distinct and separated from it thereby he would make his Reader believe as if this were said by all of them whereas it is only said by the Westminster Divines of whom I particularly observed that they spake not so clearly as the other The French confession saith it is by the inward perswasion of the Holy Spirit and the Belgik that it is by the testimony of the Spirit in our hearts and Calvin saith the Spirit of God must inwardly teach us that Moses and the Prophets spake from God But that testimony of the Spirit which is in our hearts and by which the Spirit teacheth us there albeit it be not different from and contrary to the things it teacheth us of yet it is certainly distinct and separat albeit all the things taught were the very same which here is not Els because a man may be taught that by a Jesuit at Rome which I. B. may teach another man in Holland therefore that Jesuit and I. B. are not distinct and separat Are these good reasonings But let us now see whether these be any better by which in the two following pages 62 63 he prosecutes the same matter the sum whereof amounts to this that there are such evident characters of Divinity in the Scripturs which do as manifestly prove them to be of God as the Sun doth its shining to a man whose eyes are opened and that the work of the Spirit is only to take the vail from offmens eyes that they may see these Characters of Divinity and not that the Spirit by any inward immediat revelation doth signifie to the Soul by way of object that these Books proceeded from the Dictats of the Spirit of God in which he places the difference betwixt himself and the Quakers Now whether these aforesaid Testimonys of Calvin and the rest do not confirm this last rather than the other I leave the Reader to judge But further it 's like the man has not been aware into what inextricable Difficulty he has run himself by his reasoning here for if this opening of the eyes by the Spirit be needful to perceive these Divine Characters as the opening of the natural eyes is needful to see the outward Sun then the Characters can not be seen but by those whose eyes are thus opened that is to say who have a wel disposed intellect And thus recurr upon himself all the difficultys and absurditys he would urge upon me in his former chapter for saying that Divine Revelations are evident to a wel disposed Intellect For it may be query'd Whether all have this wel disposed Intellect their eyes thus opened If yea then all men have subjective revelation yet at other times he accounts this a privilege of the Saints and thence denies it in confessing pag. 63 that some are blind and see it not and then again the question recurrs How a man knows he has it so that he may not think he sees it and has it when he has it not This can not be decided by the Scripturs for they are the matter under debate and that were to run in a Circle And since as he saith the Devil is God's Ape and that there are so many Delusions of the Devil and false imaginations of the phansy which men are subject unto as he has told over and over again how is he sure that he is not thus deluded by the Devil and abused by his phancy in imagining he seeth when indeed he is blind And to give him his own argument and query since some and even Protestants
primarily and principally the Rule to them than any thing that was recorded in the Scriptur where they could not learn their duty as to those particulars And that I make not the Scripturs and the Spirit all one I have above shewn and therefore his malitious insinuations of Socinianisme fall to the ground but he thinks he has found-out a mighty dilemma in the end of this paragraph p. 66. Or will I say that the Light within me is really the Increated Spirit This saith he must be blasphemy with a witness to be heard with horror and therefore needing no other confutation Poor man how apt is he to make a noise about nothing If there be any blasphemy it is his own For what if I should say Is not GOD a LIGHT and is not he in every man and is not this Light within the Increated Spirit The Reader may judge how easily these windy boasts of his are blown away how the Spirit ruleth us and yet is not confounded with the Rule I have above shewn so that what he saith to that in the rest of this page where he vapers and rails is but superfluous Next after he has a little plaid the Pedant upon the words magis originaliter he concludes his 22 paragraph with asking me why the revelations I pretend to should be accounted more One with the Spirit himself than those revelations by which the Scripturs were dictated but this is his allegeance none of my affirmation Next I never said that the Revelations by which the Scripturs were dictat were less primary than any other whatsoever albeit no revelation which is writen and transmitted to a man only by the report of another can be so primary and immediat to him as that which he receives in himself he confesseth here with me p. 67. that the Spirit is the Prime and Principal Leader whether that makes for my cause as also what follows will after in its place be examined ¶ 6. But because he foundeth his assertion of my detracting from the perfection of the Scripturs because I deny them to be the primary and original Rule for he acknowledgeth that I confess them to be a secondary one I will examin the ground by which he goes about to prove it as also his answers to my arguments proving the contrary His first is from the parable Luke 16 31. where it is said They have Moses and the Prophets whom if they hear not neither will they be perswaded if one be raised from the dead but this proves only that one raised from the dead is not able to convince those that will not hear Moses and the Prophets not that the Scriptur is a more primary and principal Rule than what the Spirit immediatly reveals in the Soul for that consequence will not nor doth follow nor is in the least proven by him neither can be unless he first prove that albeit the testimony of one from the dead be less powerfull to perswade than the Scripturs yet it is more than the immediat testimony of the Spirit in the heart which I deny and rests for him to prove before he conclude any thing from this place Next this Parable was used by Christ to the Jews to shew them their hypocrisy who albeit they deceitfully pretended so much to reverence and follow Moses and the Prophets as many now adays do the Scripturs yet they did not really hear them els they would have acknowledged him of whom Moses and the Prophets did so clearly write since he also did as great and convincing miracls before them as if they had the testimony of one raised from the dead And this leads me to take notice of what he saith p 68. n. 24. in answer to my argument drawn from the difference betwixt the Law that is writen without and the Gospel that is writen within where he accuseth me of contradiction because of my argument drawn from the revelations that were under the Law and the same-ness of the object but I have answered this cavill in the former section Yet since the strength of this resolves in his supposing I affirm there is no writen Rule under the Gospel which he after concludes the whole falleth to the ground for I never denied the Scriptur to be a secondary Rule and that is some Rule for to say I affirm there is no writen Rule because the writen is not the primary is a wild conclusion And therefore all the rest of his talk to prove that Christ inspired the Apostles to write things to be a Rule to Christians is meerly superfluous since that that is a Rule though not the primary was never denied by me and it may be here observed that all his arguments to prove the Scriptur to be a Rule unless they prove them to be the primary and principal one conclude nothing and are against me to no purpose ¶ 7. His second argument is deduc'd from 2 Tim. 3 16. where he cites the Apostle saying of the Scripturs they are able to make wise unto Salvation and to make the man of God perfect Where is first to be observed his perverting of the Apostl's words by an addition of his own and therefore no wonder that he so frequently pervert mine for the Apostle saith not they are able to make the man of God perfect but All Scriptur given by inspiration is that the man of God may be perfect that is contributeth in its kind and order towards the perfection of the Saints but it follows not thence that they are the Primary Rule no more than though I. B. will affirm that his book is writen that the man of God may be perfect that is to help him to perfection that thence it is to be esteemed the primary and chief Rule Thus is answered that of John 20 31. But these are written that ye may believe c. cited by him p 74. For his book is also written for that end yet the consequence will not follow that they are able to make wise unto Salvation is not denied in so far as they declare of the grace that brings Salvation and directs to the Light which leads to it but how he thence inferreth they are the primary Rule he must inform us the next time since he has forgotten to do it now And this may serve to answer those places where he according to his custom repeats it over and over again as p. 74. 77 82. where he hath again the fore-mentioned perversion and enumerated the particular uses applied to the Scriptur he concludeth its perfection as wanting nothing Now I deny not that every book as wel as chapter and verse of Scriptur is perfect as to its end that is so far to express the mind of God as he was pleased at that time and also with a respect to its Author as being written by the dictats of the Spirit but that place will not conclude its perfection either as the primary only or adequat that is entire Rule els
all the other Scripturs which were written after that Epistle of Paul as he will not deny but there were some so written must be denied being any part of the Rule so to be any way necessary for that end The like absurditys follow upon his using 2 Cor. 3 14. where the Apostle speaks of a Testament since he dare not deny a great part of that Testament was written afterwards And thus is also answered what he urges from Psal. 19 7. pag. 74 79 The Law of the Lord is perfect c and from other Scripturs of like import for if he understand perfection in the first sense it is not denied if in the second which indeed is the question it concludeth nothing without rendring all the Scriptur written afterwards no part of the Rule or Canon to use his own term As for that of Peter which he insists upon in the end of his paragraph p. 70. I deny it to be understood of the Scriptur and gave my reasons before and yet the man takes that for granted and thence argues from it which is a most silly manner albeit very familiar to him to beg the question ¶ 8. Next he comes to consider my answer to their objections but how he removes them may be judged by the first he observs p. 71. where in stead of proving that these words of Isa 8 20. usually brought by them To the Law and to the Testimony c. are meant of the Scriptur which I desired ere any thing could be inferred for it he answers As if any that ever read the Bible could be ignorant what is all along meaned by these words Is not this a goodly proof Reader I am one that have read the Bible and know by the Law is sometimes meant the outward sometimes the inward and thousands more are yet to be convinced that that place speaks only of the outward and will need some better argument than this of his ere we change our judgment But to proceed he thinks my saying that the Law was in a more special manner given to the Jewes and more principally than to us to be a railing and roaving and a contradicting what I said in the former These but this cavill often repeated before I did answer above The like he judgeth my arguing therefrom that as they were to try all things by the outward Law so we are to try all in the first place by the Word within but here his base disingenuity appears for he has left-out these words in the first place that he might introduce the better the difficulty he phancyeth to himself to have brought me to afterwards for by this argument saith he I prove more than I ought to wit that the Scripturs shall not be so much as a less principal Rule Who will be so foolish as to conclude that the saying things ought in the first place to be tried by the Word within excludes things in the second place to be tried by the Scripturs and is not that still to own it as a secondary and subordinat Rule And so he may see my feet here are easily rid and that he held them not so fast as he phancyed And as for the other part of his alternative the consequence is of the like natur that what was a principal Rule then is now only subordinat for albeit I said it was more principal to them than now to us yet I said not it was the most principal to them or then more principal than what came immediatly from the Spirit which he confesseth to have been frequent under the Law yea more frequent than now according to his Principle and my saying so could only inferr that consequence He rejects what I urge from the version of the Septuagint as spurious but for that we must take his word els want a proof And then because he can not come off better according to his custom he concludes with a gross perversion and falshood saying it is my opinion that the Law id est the outward Law was given the Jews for a Rule even above the Spirit 's revelations which if it be mine as I utterly renounce it I desire to know where I have asserted it he might have been at the pains to mark it but he knew it 's like it was not convenient Next he comes to prove that these words Search the Scripturs c. Joh. 5 39. do evince the Scripturs to be the primary and adequat Rule because if Christ's doctrins should be tried by them much more privat Euthusiasmes but who denies that Yet he doth not thence prove that the Scripturs are the primary Rule by which all things must be tried in the first place which is the thing in question Secondly I would ask him Whether the words Christ spake to the Jewes which are recorded in Scriptur were less a Rule to them or less binding and obliging upon them than the sayings of Moses and the Prophets If he say they were less then he overturns all his own tedious reasonings by which he labours to prove the obligation of what Christ and the Apostles delivered p. 84. at the end as wel as what Moses and the Prophets without the need of a new obligation and likewise he must shew us how these sayings come to be as binding upon us now as Moses and the Prophets or how they acquired greater authority after Christ spake them than they had then or why they wanted then that authority If he say they were binding and obliging to the Jews because spoken by Christ then his proof falleth to the ground He is angry that I say the words may be interpreted Ye search the Scripturs as wel as Search the Scripturs albeit the Greek word signify the one as wel as the other and for answer very magisterially tels it is quite contrary to the very words of Command Search the Scripturs but the question is whether that be the words and that was what he should have proven but he makes no bounds of begging the question telling Tolet and Maldonat say it is so taken by all the Fathers except Cyrill And what then Did I undertake to subscribe to all these Authors writings He must give me a reason why ere I do it and let him deny it if he dare that the Greek word fignifies Ye search the Scripturs as wel as Search the Scripturs and if it do before I conclude the one more than the other I must have some better argument than his bare affirmation But to finish this he will conclude all by the words of the Apostle James c. 1 v. 25. where he saith the Apostle calleth the Scripturs the perfect Law of Liberty but that doth not prove them to be the primary Rule Suppose it were granted the Apostle meant the Scripturs which remains yet by him to be proven and is not done by what he citeth chap. 2 8. by his desiring them to fulfill the Royal Law according to Scripture Thou shalt love thy neighbour
as thy self which proves it not at all yea to understand it of the Scripturs were to make the Apostle's words scarce good sense as if he had said fulfill the Scripturs according to the Scripturs whereas it sutes the place much better that the Apostle meaned they should fulfill the Royal Law in their hearts which was one with the Scripturs that also command the same thing that the Apostle means the outward Law and not that written in the heart chap. 4 12. he hath affirmed but not proven Next he comes to the Bereans being commended for searching the scripturs Act. 17 11. But this is the same way answered as the former for if the Bereans were obliged to believe and receive Paul's testimony because he preached the Truth to them by authority from God then their using or his commending them for using the Scriptur will not prove the Scriptur to be the Primary Rule yea more a Rule than the doctrin they tried by it In the rest of what he saith in this n. 28. he but sights with his shaddow for I never said they excluded the Law of Natur in affirming the Scriptur to be the Rule or did I ever deny but that the Sriptur reveals things which Natur could never have discovered But the question is whether that truth that Man is the Off spring of God from which the Apostle argues with the Athenians was discovered to any by meer Natur or by a Divine Principle and this is that he should have proven and therefore yet remaines for him to do but to be like himself he concludes this also with a gross lye saying I affirm the Scriptur to be no more our Rule than the Heathen Poets which no ways follows from my words neither hath or can he ever prove it ¶ 9. He thinks the Scriptures not determining of many things nor having any Rule for them which he seems to acknowledge is no argument against their being the primary and adequat or only Rule for that he apprehends no rational man will think needfull to a compleat Rule Why because general Rules are enough and thence he thinks it would follow that the Quakers must have a new particular revelation for every act and word such as eating drinking walking c. But I deny this consequence these acts as simply considered are natural and it will not follow because to spiritual acts relating to Faith and my immediat service towards God I need a spiritual motion and influence of the Spirit that therefore I need such a thing to natural acts If he say these natural acts under some circumstances may be sin or duty I confess then the revelation of the Spirit is needfull for if I be sitting sleeping or eating in one place when it is the mind of God I should be preaching and praying in another I do sin but how can the Scriptur give me a Rule here All that he answers to this p. 76 77. resolves into this that all such doubts may be solved applying the general rules of Scriptur by Christian Wisdom Prudence and Discretion c. But how shall I know that I truly make this application And to give him his own often repeated argument in the case of Revelation have not some thought they have made this application by Christian prudence when they did not And not to go further than I. B's own Brethren the Presbyterians yea the chief and most eminent Teachers among them did not some of them judge it Christian prudence according to the Scriptur Rule to draw near adhere to the Remonstrance which others called publik Resolution men denied Do not some of them think it Christian prudence to go hear the Bishops Curats which others deny Did not those chief men among them as George Hutcheson and others think it Christian prudence to acçept of the Indulgence Anno 1668 in entring according to the limitations proposed by the Council to their Places which others especially of the banished Brethren and perhaps himself was highly offended at whence these men were termed Council-Curats Other instances among them I could give But how shall all this be decided What Scriptur-Rules can he assign that clearly do it Let him answer this distinctly and not pass it over lest he be suspected to leap where he can not step He confesseth to my alledging 1 Cor. 12. Rom. 12. and after a little railing he tels p. 78. that he that is to rule is to do it with diligence c. but that the Scriptur saith not that James or Peter should take-on this or that Office by which confession he destroys all since the question is How James and Peter knew they should take upon them to rule This he saith he has shewn above but how insufficiently my reply will evidence He thinks no less impertinent p. 78. for me to argue against their being a Rule as to all things because they do not tell a man that he has the marks of true Faith upon which knowledge the assurance of Salvation is founded as if I must think the Laws of the Land must prove that R. B. is a Quaker or that if R. B. had murther'd a man it is a sufficient defence to say the Law doth not name R. B. But such examples are poor arguments and do miserably halt R. B. confessing himself to be a Quaker acknowledging every one of their doctrins is enough to prove him one in the sense of the Law of the Land and the Judge is to condemn him a murtherer if convict by Witnesses that he really did the deed And both these relate to outward things which can be proven by outward restimonys for without the certainy of the evidence the Judge can not pronounce his sentence But is a man 's own confessing or affirming he hath the true marks of faith enough to prove he has them And what are the Witnesses to apply the example of committing the murther by which a man shall know he has these marks and who must examin the Witnesses and judge of the certainty or clearness of their evidences Must it be the man that is accused who useth that method Doth not the man see how miserably his pittyfull example claudicats ¶ 10. To my objection against the Scripturs being the Only and Adequat Rule the example of deaf persons idiots infants such as can not read and are ignorant of the Original Tongues so called all which in some measur less or more are deprived of the benefit of the Scripturs so as to apply them to themselvs immediatly and effectually for a Rule he asketh Whether if any such person in a land should kill a man or do any thing contrary to the Law would it not punish them And this he repeats n. 35. in other words which urgeth nothing but upon supposition that the will of God can not be known otherwise than by the Scriptur which supposition is false and therefore his argument concludes nothing yea himself confesseth that some things and
if his citation from him be true and therefore finding this to pinch him he brings it up again p. 126. where bringing me in saying Infants are under no Law he answers but the Apostle saith the contrary He would have done charitably to have told me where that I might have observed it What he saith in this as wel as the former page in answer to my affirmation that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may relate to death and that it 's understood upon which occasion man sinned urging absurditys by the like application of Christ's Righteousness is solved by a serious observation of the comparison as stated by me betwixt Christ and Adam His arguing from Childrens dying doth not conclude untill he prove Death simply considered necessarily to infer guilt in the Party dying of which I have spoken before p. 126. n. 20. to my answer to Psal. 51 5. alledged by them wherein I shew that David saith not my Mother conceived me sinning and therefore it proves not his assertion His reply is after he has given a scoff it quite crosseth David's designe But why so because in that Psalm he expresseth his sorrow and humiliation for his sins and what then might not David lament upon that occasion that he was not only a sinner himself but also came of such as were so But when I urge this place further shewing their interpretation would make Infants guilty of the sin of their immediat Parents since there is no mention here of Adam his answer to this is a repetition of his own doctrin A rare method of debate very usual to him And then taking it for granted he asks me whether this originated Sin of which he supposed David spake for he never offers to prove it though it be the matter in debate came from another Original than Adam What he affirmed here of my insinuating Marriage-Dutys to be Sin is but a false conjectur but as to the hurt and loss that Man got by Adam which I ascribe to no other Original as being no Manichee I spake before but he should first prove before he obtrude such things upon others and I desire yet to be informed of him in what Scriptur he reads of Original Sin and whether if the Scriptur be the only Rule he can not find words in it fit enough to express his faith or must he shift for them elsewhere ¶ 8. Pag. 127. n. 21. He urges Paul's saying the wages of sin is death and to my saying This may be a consequence of the fall but that thence it can not at all be inferred that iniquity is in all those that are subject to death he saith it is in plain terms but my modesty dare not speak it out to say the Apostle speaketh not truth Answ. Is not this to take upon him to judge of another man's heart which elsewhere he accounts a great presumption why takes he no notice or gives he no answer to the absurdity I shew followed from thence since the whole Creation received a decay by Adam's fall and yet we say not Herbs and Trees are Sinners and while he would make-out this great charge of my contradicting the Apostle he forgets the half of his business which is to prove the Apostle meaned in that place Natural death and not Eternal since the Apostle opposeth it there to Eternal Life and eternal death he will confess is the wages of Sin which the Apostle shews they shun by Jesus Christ's obtaining Eternal Life whereas Natural death they do not avoid Likewise he should have proved that all the Scripturs mentioned by him p. 128. are meant of natural death which he will find not very easy As for his citing Death as mentioned by the Apostle 1 Cor. 15. the Apostle's words ver 56. confirm what I say That death is only a punishment to the wicked not to the Saints for the words are The sting of death is Sin so where sin is taken away there death has no sting and that is the Saints Victory Now he can not apply this to Infants without supposing that they have sin which were to begg the question And whereas he asks Whether Death be NO punishment for Sin I answer that I said not so neither is that needfull for me to affirm seing it is sufficient if it be not always a punishment of sin which if it be not it can not be concluded that because infants dye therefore they must be guilty of sin Since then the absurditys he after urges follow from his supposition that death is No punishment for sin which I say not they do not touch me He judgeth p. 128. n. 22. that I run wilder than Papists in saying we will rather admitt the supposed absurdity of saying all Infants are saved to follow from our doctrin than with them say that innumerable Infants perish eternally not for their own but only for Adam's fault This he reckons a contradicting of my doctrin of Christ's dying for all saying I here grant that all Infants will be saved without Christ. What horrible lye is this Where say I that all Infants will be saved without Christ If he say it is by consequence that I say so which he must needs do or els be an impudent unparallel'd lyar then he infers it either from my saying Christ dyed for all Therefore if all Infants are saved it must be without Christ or that If all Infants be saved Christ can not have dyed for all for one of these two must be if I contradict my self But such consequences are only fit for such an Author as seems to have abandoned all sense of honesty and Christian reputation and resolvs per fas aut nefas and without rime or reason as the proverb is to bespatter his adversary As for his adding they that have no sin have no need of a Saviour to save them from sin he overturns it all by asking me in which also lies the pinch of his matter since I affirm they have a seed of Sin in them wich is called Death and the Old man how can they put-off this and sing the Song of the Redeemed which all that enter into Glory must do Does not this then shew I believe they have need of Christ as a Saviour who dyed for them to deliver them from this and is not the contradiction his own in urging this question which I thus answer How are those he accounts elect Infants saved whom he affirms to be really guilty of Adam's sin and so in a worse condition than I affirm Infants to be for he will not say with Papists and Lutherans that the adminstiring of that they call the Sacrament of Baptism does it When he answers this he will solve his own argument To insinuat that some Infants are damned he asketh me what I think of those of Sodom Jude v. 7. the words are these Even as Sodom and Gomorrah and the Citys about them in like manner giving themselves over to fornication and going after strange
testimony as to build my faith upon it or to reject their doctrin meerly for its dissent from them which he insinuats and yet to his own self-contradiction confesseth I say I would not much regard all that if it had any ground in Scriptur and he denies not his union with the Dominicaus and that he may shew how little he cares for good company he willingly rejecteth the chief and first Reformers to wit the Lutherans whom according to his charity he denieth so much as the name of Reformed Protestants ¶ 3. Pag. 146. n. 16. He cometh to prove that this their doctrin maketh not God the author of sin but he laboureth here like a man in a sweat and giveth so little of a direct answer as scarce deservs any reply such as amounts to this being by way of retortion that if I acknowledge God fore-saw sin permitted it and might have hindred it I will make God the author of sin too but I deny the parity and he has forgoten to prove it His other answer is from the authority of Cicero and Plautus who oppose author to dissuasor and then he asketh whether they say God perswadeth any man to sin But Zanchius one of their Doctors saith he moves the thief to kill and that he sinneth God putting him yea forcing him to it and sure that 's more than perswading But the poor man must be at a low ebb when he is forced to go to the Heathens of whom he has expressed he has so mean thoughts for a shelter to his doctrin At last to come off with some seeming credit he desires me to confute the Apostle Rom. 9 11 12 13. because that he thinks from that as much as from their doctrin this charge may be inferred but here he doth only begg the question he and I do both agree that the Apostle makes not God the author of sin but it doth not thence follow that their doctrin doth not infer it since from the positive saying of their Doctors and the doctrin itself it is manifest as is more largely shewn in my Apology and this remains yet by him to be removed For his desiring me to refute the Apostle is no more answer than if to all his arguments in his book I should only say Confute the Scriptur which contains our Doctrin and therefore dispute no more against us untill thou first do that Would he reckon this suffieient As for their misapprehensions of Rom. 9. he may find them refuted in many Authors that have written upon that subject particularly in the examination of West Confess of Faith chap. 3. to which I refer him To the citations I give him of their Authors making God the author of Sin he saith If they give more ground than the very expressions of Scriptur he will not own them And what then the consequence is but very small whether he will or not It is enough for me that I have shewn the absurdity of their doctrin which even by the testimony of their chief Doctors makes God the author of Sin unless he will reply all this is nothing because I I. B. will not own them and if to say he that forceth another to do a thing is the cause author of it who without contradicting their own Reason can deny they make God the author of sin As for the many testimonies of Scriptur brought by him I own them and both agree they make not God the author of sin but that the saying of their Divines doth it what is above said doth evince Pag. 149. He cometh but as may be observed unwillingly to vindicat the twofold will they ascribe to God the one revealed by which he commands men to repent and the other secret and quite contrary how he is pained here the Reader may observe by his IFs and AN Ds thinking to turn it by without any direct answer The sum of what he saith resolvs in this That the Purpose of God is not of the same natur with his Command but what if that should be granted The question is Whether they be quite contrary and that in respect to one and the same subject so that when a man is commanded by God to do a thing by his secret Purpose he is forced to do the quite contrary Pag. 150. n. 19. He comes to answer my saying that their affirming Man sinneth willingly will not avail because according to them his propensity of Inclination to sin is necessarily imposed upon them by God To this in stead of answer he refers me to Rom. 9. of which before and for want of reason he falles a railing calles me a proud Quaker saying I agent the Devil's cause but whether that be to remove my objection or vindicat their doctrin the Reader may judge Pag. 151. n. 20. In answer to my shewing their doctrin is injurious to God because it maketh him delight in the death of a sinner contrary to Ezech. 33 11. 1 Tim. 2 3. 2 Pet. 3 9. he saith nothing directly but would be retorting that if I prove any thing from this then I must say That God did absolutely Decree that all men should be saved But I deny this consequence albeit it is injurious to God to say he decreeth that which he declareth to take no delight in it will not follow that it is injurious to him to say he permitteth what he delighteth not in For on all hands it is confessed he permitteth sin and yet on no hand that he delighteth in sin so that this injuriousness of their doctrin to God is no ways removed by him albeit he would fain be mincing and covering it saying they do not say that God purposes to punish any not for their sins but meerely to satisfie his own Pleasur but such silly shifts must only satisfie blind men Do not they say God purposed to damn Many to eternal torment and that Sin is no ways the cause of this purpose And will he say to be eternally tormented is no punishment And was not this a purpose to punish men and not for their sin His alledging in this page that this is not injurious to Christ's Mediation is upon the supposition that Christ dyed not for all which comes after to be examined ¶ 4. Pag. 152. n. 22. He comes to prove their doctrin makes not the Gospel a meer mock as I shew it did by proposing the offer of Salvation to many who yet by an irrevocable Decree are excluded from receiving any benefit by it and to this he gives the instance of Moses being sent to Pharaoh whose heart was hardned and Esai to the People of Israel to make their ears heavy and shut their eyes with others of like import But this is easily answered considering I grant many men out-live the day of God's Visitation to their Soul and are justly hardned and yet the offers of Mercy and Peace is no illusion because they were once in a capacity to have by it received it But he thinks here
I answer This reasoning would inferr those to be saved by the death of Christ who never repent especially with those who judge men may sin yea must sin all their life-time and yet be saved neither doth the absurdity reach those who affirm Christ to have dyed for all as to obtain remission of sins that are past and Grace sufficient to work faith and repentance yea and restore those that may fall into sin after their conversion if not resisted and this is sufficient to infer that Christ dyed for all neither can that absurdity more reach them than the Apostle who speaks of such as denied the Lord that bought them And since the Evangelist placeth the benefit upon the reception saying but unto as many as received him he gave power to become the sons of God all these Scripturs afterwards cited by him signifiing the efficacy of Christ's Blood is not denied they themselvs confess it was sufficient and of value enough to have redeemed every man but that doth not hinder it from proving ineffectual to such as will not receive it as is above shewn And therefore his question p. 172. If Christ dyed for the sins of all persons how cometh it that they are not all actually pardoned is easily answered Because of their non-reception of the Grace by which his Death should be made effectual to them and albeit this maketh Free-will author of condemnation as himself will acknowledge yet not of Salvation as shall after appear His next argument p. 174. is that If Christ had dyed for all men all men should be saved because he hath purchased Faith and Salvation for all for whom he has dyed and this he supposeth he has shewn before but his confidence in his own arguments doth not influence other men I am yet to see where he has proved any such thing The Scripturs he brings such as Rom. 8 32-39 c. to prove this speak of those who had really received the Grace and in whom regeneration was working by it and do indeed very wel prove that Christ dyed for them yea what if I should say hath purchased them Grace prevalent to Salvation Yet they will not prove that he has not dyed for others also that may miss of Salvation Pag. 175. N. 25. he saith It is considerable That no where in Scriptur we find it expressly affirmed That Christ dyed for all Men. Why then is all this trouble made But is it not expressly said Heb. 2 9. that we see Jesus that he by the Grace of God should tast death for every man Let him tell us what less that importeth yea if it be not more emphatik to say Christ tasted death for Every man than to say Christ dyed for all Men. It is much the man would so proclaime his ignorance ¶ 6. After more of his tedious and superfluous reasonings against this meer possibility as he calls it he comes p. 195. n. 48. to overturn my grounds for Universal Redemption and first in answer to the Angels song Luk. 2 10. urged by me wherein they hold-forth the coming of Christ as tideings of great joy to all People This he saith is to shew the Offer was to be made now to all Kindreds Nations Tongues and Languages And what then It is not said only so excluding all Particulars of these since the word ALL in the common acceptation comprehends every Particular as wel as all sorts and he should have given some reason from Scriptur why he restricts it here but in stead of that he contradicts himself in the very following words saying for he was to reign over the house of Iacob Luk. 1. v. 13. for this if it urge any thing it will exclude his former concession if it be not exclusive he can prove nothing from it Neither doth he more pertinently alledge Matth. 1 21. that he was to save his People from their sins for that Scriptur doth not say that he purchased not a capacity for some to be his People who by their resisting lost the benefit oftered them How often would I have gathered you and ye would not saith Christ Mat. 23 37. Luk 13 34. He saith further this would not have been glade tideings if it had been a meer possibility But I affirm no such thing To my urging Christ's commission Mark 16 15. to preach the Gospel to every creatur and that of Paul Col. 1 28. he saith it will no more prove that Christ dyed for all men than for Devils and Beasts for they are creatures But how silly and perverse this answer is is easily apparent for is it lawfull to preach the Gospel to Beasts and Devils or is it as unlawfull to preach the Gospel to any men as it is to do it to Beasts and Devils But on the contrary since he will not deny but it is a duty to preach the Gospel to all men indefinitly yea in this place he acknowledges it they being the proper subjects of it so that of them must be understood every creature here mentioned Pag. 196. N. 50. To my arguing the Gospel inviteth all and that it would be a mocking of men if Christ dyed not for all to command them all to believe that Christ dyed for them he saith This is built upon an untruth that the Gospel doth not command all to whom it is preached to believe that Christ dyed for them but only to flee to an all-sufficient Saviour But what 's the preaching of the Gospel especially in his sense even as a little before acknowledged by him but a declaring and offering of Salvation to all to whom it is preached Mercy and Good-will through the merits of Christ who dyed for them Next the argument still holdeth good if the Gospel commands as he saith to flee unto an all-sufficient Saviour for unless it be possible for such who are so commanded to do it the preaching of it to them is a mocking of them and that to purpose if this impossibility be imposed upon them by him by whose command the Gospel is thus preached The example of Moses to Pharaoh and Esaias to the Iews has been before answered He ends this paragraph begging the question as if the Gospel could be said no where to be but where there is an outward dispensation of it by the ministery of men ¶ 7. Pag. 197. N. 51. He confesseth there is no Scriptur that saith Christ has not dyed for all men and there is that saith he has tasted death for every man which is rather more and not a probation by consequence only as I have already shewn then he cometh to consider my argument from 1 Tim. 2 13 4-6 shewing that Salvation can not be impossible for all since we are commanded to pray for all and that since Christ gave himself a Price of Redemption for all it can not be impossible that all should be saved as is more largely illustrated in my Apology Now how he is pained in answer to this and in his nibblings about
was not the Power of God which the Gospel is albeit it declared of it no more than a recept of Physik is the ingredients Next he asserts that if the Gospel be in them it needs no Preacher but this he proves not A man may have good herbs in his garden and yet need another to tell him the right use of them yea and discover them unto him And what if I would say as he desires that it was preached from the beginning of the world in a measur that it wrought in mens hearts in order to save them albeit the full plain and manifest discovery and pretious effects thereof was reserved to the ministration of Christ and his Apostles And therefore his assertion in the next page 260. is false that according to the Quakers principle the Gospel was alike manifest in all ages Was not the promised Seed a preaching of the Gospel to Adam How poorly he has shewn the restriction of the particle all albeit the words here be every creatur which is more pathetik in his 8 chapter is before evinced And whereas he desires to know where the Gospel is taken properly for that inward strength that is common to all men I have shewn him the Gospel is called the Power of God expressly Rom. 1. and that is an inward Power and strength and then again I have shewn him that this Gospel is preached to or in every creatur which is plain words what is preached to every creatur is common to all men and therefore untill he answer this his calling me a babler and a Pagan-preacher as he doth in this place with such like stuff will have little weight with men of reason The rest of this page and the following 261 262. is a complex of railing that the Quakers Gospel is meer heathenism worse than Pelagianism Socinianism Arminianism and Jesuitism because they say that what is manifest from God in man is by the Gospel and that which revealeth justice and equity is the Gospel which this man supposeth only to be the light of Nature and thereupon concludeth the Quakers Gospel is but Nature's dimme and corrupt light All which is but to beg the question as he doth where he supposes that man naturally can perceive the eternal Power of the Godhead in the outward Creation without any supernatural light which he should prove and not mock at my being otherwise minded for this savours more of Pelagianisme than any thing asserted by me He asks me by what authority I make 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is what is to be known of God for it seems he was fear'd to speak plain Scots of it lest every one should have seen his impertinency and the knowledge of God one and the same For to see this he saith he wants the Quakers spectacls But indeed he must be as dark-lighted inwardly as these are outwardly that need spectacls if he deny that the knowledge of God is somewhat of what is to be known of him and then what is to be known of God indefinitly must comprehend the knowledge of God He addeth that if by inward revelation the Heathens know the will of God then the Apostle was quite out here but this follows no more than that a Master teacheth not his scholar navigation because he makes use of the compass and outward observations to demonstrat it to him Pag. 262. n. 38. as also n. 40. In answer to what I urge from Rom. 10. of the Word being near in the heart and in the mouth he returneth railing and meer assertions for his saying that this word is not in every man is but to affirm strongly not to prove As for his asserting that the Apostle speaks of outward preaching I deny not and that by an outward testimony the mystery that had been hid and even sparingly revealed in the visible Church was openly declared by Christ and his Apostles I acquiesce to but from all that it will no ways follow that the Apostle spake only of outward preachers and that it was not in the hearts of all men though they had not a distinct knowledge of it He confesses the mystery of Adam's fall was not known to the Gentiles but by the Scriptur yet that hindered not but they were hurt yea and according to him all of them defiled by it His saying that I confirm here my desperat designe and overturn the foundations of the Christian Religion with his exclamations O desperat Souls O wretched error with much more of this kind of stuff uttered by him for want of better arguments may fright fools but will not move men of reason At last to conclude this chapter he alledgeth the testimonies of the Fathers brought by me do not expressly prove my assertions yet he tacitly and indirectly acknowledges such testimonies may be found among the most ancient of them while albeit to their disadvantage he saith it is observable that some of them had so put-on Christ as not fully to have put-off Plato ¶ 7. Pag. 267. Cometh his XI chapter entituled Of the necessity of this Light to Salvation where according to his custom he beginneth with proofless affirmations and railing saying the Universal Gospel pointed at by me is no Gospel not the Gospel revealed in the word making the whole Gospel and Grace of God null and void as that by which the outward administration thereof by the Apostles is unnecessary to which is answered before And then after an enumeration of many Scripturs wherein the Apostle Paul glorieth in his being an instrument of the preaching of it with which he hath not shewn our doctrin inconsistent he concludeth O what wretched desperado's must these Quakers be who thus undervalue and trample upon the riches of the wisdom and grace of God and instead of the true Gospel give us pure Paganisme This is a fit introduction for such a chapter wherein there is much of the same sort of stuff which I shall willingly pass and which that he may end as he begins has the like railing conclusion p. 281. Then when he enters upon the matter n. 5. and p. 269. and comes to examin what I say to shew wherein we differ from some other assertors of Universal Redemption and for that end to shew why one is saved and not another seing all have sufficient Grace among others he mentions these my words Moreover we believe that in that special time of every man's visitation as man of himself is wholly impotent for working with grace so neither can he make the least progress out of his natural state till grace lay hold on him So that it is possible for him to suffer and not resist as it is also possible for many to resist By these words of mine cited by him the Reader may easily observe how falsly he charged me in the fore-going chapter with asserting that men could be saved by meer Nature without the operation of the grace of God and yet he is not ashamed to re-iterat the
exhortation to the Elders of Ephesus Act. 20 33. and therefore at last after some ado he agrees to it but to make it have the less weight he tels how Paul took from other Churches which is not denied but it is manifest Paul preferred the not taking but working with their hands to supply their necessitys as that which was rather to be done else to what purpose desires he them to remember the words of the Lord Jesus that it is more blessed to give than to receive But it seems 1. B. and his Brethren think it the most blessed thing to be getting large augmentations My speaking of their complaining of the hardness of Christians indefinitly doth not hinder exceptions and therefore his carping at it pag. 409. is frivolous And albeit Paul did not plead for a carnal Ministery in reasoning for Maintainance as he saith pag. 410. yet it very wel follows that such are but a carnal Ministery that will not preach without they get money yea himself confesseth in the former page that true Minister must speak whether they get aliment or not and commendeth some for so doing But he hath given in this page 410. a notable example of his sottishness and malice both together for in answering what I say that a carnal Ministery wanteth the Life and Power and therefore needs a fixed maintainance but a Spiritual Ministery can confide in God who will provide for them to this he tels that the Priests in the days of Iezabel were richly provided for and the servants of God put to great straits shall we therefore saith he say that these Priests of Baal were the only called of God sent-forth in his Power and Authority and that the Servants of the Lord were but a carnal Ministery This were to argue carnally with belly arguments as our Quakers do The sober Reader may judge of the sottishness and malitious perversness of this answer sottish it is because no ways to the purpose for I never made the being richly provided a token of a Spiritual Ministery as the whole I say of this matter evinceth but on the contrary with Christ and the Apostle I think they are most blessed who receive least And will he say that my saying that Spiritual Ministers can depend upon God who will provide for them so as not to need a fixed maintainance infers any such thing it is malitious because he would insinuat to the Reader that this gross assertion were mine affirming we argue with belly arguments which is a base but bare calumny how much more his arguments savour of that the Reader may judge and that his extream keenness in this matter shews how near of kin he is to those whose God is their belly who preach for hire and divine for money and look for their gain from their quarter What he saith of the Quakers riches is both false and frivolous for they are none of the richest People and their Preachers especially such as receive maintainance are usually the poorest among them for such as have of their own and are called to the Ministery do not use to receive but following the Apostle labour to make the Gospel without charge He turns-by what I say in the conclusion of my explication of my 10 These where I shew by many Scripturs the distinction betwixt a true and false Ministery shewing how we plead for the true and deny the false this he calls false groundless and impertinent but he passed it so hastily because it was too hot for his fingers and having given it this passing sentence he concludes with his old calumny of our being Pagan-Preachers and designing Paganish Antichristianisme Section Twelfth Wherein his 22th Chapter Of the Quakers Silent Worship his 23th of Preaching his 24th of Praying and 25th of Singing Psalmes are considered NOw followeth his 22th chapter entituled of the Quakers silent worship wherein if I should return him no answer but that of Michaël to Lucifer the father of lyes I should do him no injustice it being a heap either of manifest calumnies gross perversions or abusive railing wherein as if he were constituted Judge by GOD over the Quakers he concludes them over and over again to be acted and deluded by the Devil and to be such as wholly lay themselvs open to him to possess them and work in them at his pleasur with much more of this stuff for which I need not particularly note pages for the Reader will scarce look seriously unto any one of this chapter from 412. to 419. but he will find it very thick and for a sufficient refutation of it I recommend to any sober and unprejudicat Reader seriously to compare and read with this chapter that to which it relates to wit the explication of the 11th These in my Apology which I judge may suffice to give a sufficient disgust of this chapter But lest he should think this were too slightly a passing-over his matter and for the Readers more full direction and satisfaction I will propose to him to be considered these things following ¶ 1. And first his calumnies as pag. 411. where he saith I would have them understand Christ's Spiritual Resurrection was never till now whereas I speak only with reference to the time since the Apostasy and not to the primitive times before And pag. 412. he saith We acknowledge no Motion or inward Breathing of the Spirit but what is Extraordinary and meerly Enthusiastik as also that we abstract from all means This is false But as for his supposing that studied sermons are a mean appointed of God and that not to do it is a sure way of tempting God and inviteing the Devil to deceive and delude which he affirms he has shewn I have not seen it and will expect that next time he will make it more manifest His 413 page containeth a mass of calumnies to wit That there is no word in our Assemblys of the Scriptur That we apply them not for instruction reproof and edification of the People That the Scriptur is no Rule to us in our walk nor has any place in our Worship That there is to be found in all our solemn service neither preaching nor prayer nor praise And pag. 414. he has his old reïterated calumny that the power and life the Quakers speak of proceedeth not from the Grace of God but is the meer operation of Nature To this purpose he hath over and over again pag. 415 416 417 418. 421 422. He supposeth p. 414. that it is affirmed by me that at all times the Quakers meet all of them are truely gathered unto the sense of the Power and whatever any sayes comes from it and is not to be questioned which is wholly false I shew their manner of meeting and their duty when met according to their principles and the consequence thereof when they truely perform it but it doth not thence follow that none of them ever miss in the performance no more than if he should relate their
manner of Worship and the good effects he may suppose it sometimes has it would follow that whoever set about it and got up to the pulpit and read his Text could not preach false doctrin nor speak impertinently and therefore what he builds upon this here as also pag. 416. n. 7. pag. 517 429. falls to the ground But he seeketh to uphold this with another calumny as if all that frequent the Quakers meetings and are accounted of their number were supposed by us to be perfect asking how can the power of darkness work if they be made free from sinning which is false How we affirm this absolute perfection even of such as we account our Brethren I have shewn in my section of Perfection A sixth calumny is pag. 415. which he also hath pag. 424. where he supposeth it to be our doctrin that there is no setting about Prayer or other dutys without a previous motion of the Spirit and upon this he insists as an absurdity But we speak not of a previous motion in order of time as absolutely necessary it is enough if it be in order of nature which he knows may be without any priority of time and so his absurdity upon this pag. 424. evanisheth which I also answer speaking of Prayer in my Apology A seventh calumny is p. 426. where he concludeth because I say Gospel-Worship is not to be in outward observations gon-about by man in his own will and proper strength that I affirm Gospel worship putteth-away all external actions which how false it is and inconsequential any ordinary Reader may easily judg and yet upon this false inference he thinketh to bind upon me a contradiction in owning afterwards external acts of Worship for to say worship may be performed without these acts and that worship can not be performed in these acts is very different the last I deny but own the first An eighth calumny is pag. 418. where because I say that it sometimes falleth out that one come into a meeting upon a sinistrous account may by the Power raised in the Meeting be reached if the day of his Visitation be not expired he concludes if any such come in and be not thus changed his day is gon and it is impossible to him to be saved which is a gross abuse for albeit the not expiring of his day must be presupposed to a capacity of Salvation yet his not presently yea after divers times not being converted doth not suppose his day to be over since it was never our principle to say God affords men no opportunity but one Besides these there are many other perversions scatter'd up and down such as pag. 421. his saying that the waiting we plead for is such as putteth away Prayer that we plead for it to shut out the ordinances of Iesus Christ and to give God no more for all his solemn worship but a dumb mumry which word pleaseth him so wel that he hath it several times over ¶ 2. His great and mighty charge in this chapter is indeed great enough if he could make it out and that is that the Quakers are guilty of Devilry and are certainly acted by the Devil in their assemblys But this he only strongly affirms without proof unless one which whether it be valid or not comes now to be examined and that is pag. 418. from my saying that there will be sometimes an inward struggling yea so as the body will be strangely moved to this he adds a story of one Gilpin long ago answered and describeth these motions of the Quakers to be foam swell and froath at the mouth which is false and returned upon him as a calumny however he compares these motions of the body as asserted by me to the work of the Devil and the old Phythoniks But it seems malice hath wonderfully blinded the man here else he would not have given his own cause which he esteems the great Cause of God so deep a wound for in the book called The Fulfilling of the Scripturs a treatise much applauded by them whose author is said to be Robert Fleeming one of their non-conforming Brethren he relates as a convincing proof of the Power of God how some were so choaked and taken by the heart that they were made to fall over and so carryed out of the Church and as a convincing appearance of God and down-pouring of the Spirit that there was a strange and unusual motion on the hearers which by the profane was called the Stewarton Sickness from the name of the Parish Now what difference is betwixt this and my speaking of mens being strangely moved by the Power of God Will not this prove as much that all this was Devilry and the passions of the old Phythoniks Since these motions are made the great argument why the Quakers are said to be acted by the Devil let him the next time assign clear reasons according to Scriptur why these motions upon the Presbyterian bodys are a convincing sign of the working of the Power of God among them but that the motions on the Quakers bodys are enough to confirm they are acted by the Devil and if he do this effectually he may be in some hopes of gaining a proselyt Next to this I come to consider what he urges as a great absurdity to wit that the Quakers turning their minds inward which he will needs term introverting and not interpret the word that he may make ignorant folks believe it is a piece of the Quakers Devilry and laying-aside all their own thoughts and imaginations were a laying-aside both Christianity and humanity a becoming no men but brutes and worse and most capable to be deluded by the Devil Upon this he insists pag. 414. 422. and else where as if for men to abstain from their own thoughts and imaginations were the way to unman them yet if he will understand it of the Old Man the Man of sin that is corrupted we will say with the Apostle that ought to dye and be crucified and are so far from thinking this is against Christianity that we believe according to Scriptur it is the way to become a Christian and to overcome the Devil not to lay our selvs open to him And therefore his railing against man's silence from his own thoughts that God may speak and work in him doth evidence his great ignorance in the work of a true Christian for this is so far from descending from humanity to brutism that it is rather an ascending from humanity to Divinity so that albeit in one sense we are said to dye or be emptied as to our selvs yet we do more truely live and exist And if he think this a contradiction let him consider that of the Apostle Gal. 2 20. I am crucified with Christ nevertheless I live yet not I but Christ liveth in me and this if rightly considered will answer his questions pag. 422. by answering of which he would have me clear my way of Devilry As
the putting-on of Christ there mentioned by the Apostle may be understood of putting-on Christ by profession though not in truth and reality which he also hath pag. 438. for which exposition I shall expect his proof next time if he have any ¶ Pag. 474. He proceedeth upon the same unproved supposition that Water-Baptisme was instituted by Christ and here he denies that Iohn's baptisme was a figure But since Iohn's baptisme was a washing with water and that the Apostle ascribeth the putting-on Christ to the baptism of Christ as washing with water typifieth or signifies the washing of Regeneration so doth Iohn's baptisme that of Christ. He concludeth this paragraph with a silly quibble where in answer to my urging Iohn's words saying I must decrease and he must encrcase he adds as if John and Baptisme with Water were all one and Christ one and the same with the Baptisme of the Holy Ghost Poor man he has been sore pinched when he betook himself to this silly shift Will he say this is to be understood of Iohn's and Christ's Persons and not of their Ministery Then we must suppose Iohn grew less and decrepit as to his person ever after this and Christ grew bigger and taler let him remember to prove this when he writes next He goes on pag. 475. upon his old mistake supposing that Water-baptism was instituted by Christ and that he gave command to his Disciples so to baptize and that Mat. 28 19. is to be understood of water-baptisme all which is meerly to beg the question He saith that to say John's baptisme is not pure and Spiritual or that it is a Legal rite is to condemn John Christ and his Apostles because God gave John an express command for it And what then God commanded the Legal rites also that did not hinder them from being such to say he needed not such a command If it had of the nature of the Legal rites is but a presumptuous quarrelling with God seing on all hands it is granted he commanded it and a meer affirming it is not such in stead of proving of it As for the Apostle his making honorable mention of Baptisme in his Epistles and of its ends which he points in several Scripturs all which is granted but it doth not thence follow that all this is to be understood of Water-baptisme and while that still remaineth the thing in debate he can prove nothing from these Scripturs But it is no wonder he thus forgets himself here as to me since in the following words he quareleth with the Apostle Paul saying in answer to his words 1 Cor. 1 v. 17. that he was not sent to baptize if Paul had not been sent to baptize why would he have done it I think it needless to me to answer the absurdity he would here fix upon the Apostle since it sufficeth me and I hope will other good Christians that the Apostle saith positively that he was not sent to baptize and for his baptizing of some we will suppose he had a reason though not from his commission which he expressly denies whatever Iohn Brown may brawle to the contrary As for his saying that it seemeth then the other Apostles had another commission than Paul had it is built upon the supposition that they had a commission to baptize with water which remains for him yet to prove And not to contend with him for brevity's sake about that of Hosea 6 6. whether not there be only to be understood of less principally yet though it were it would not follow it should be so understod here also I shew him by an example 1 Cor. 2 5. what wild work such an interpretation would make if ordinarily applied but he it seems judged it most convenient not to take notice of it in this his Examen albeit in reason he should have done it if he would give a compleat answer for he must either prove not always to be understood of less principally or otherwise he must bring particular reasons why it should be so here and not that it sometimes is so understood for such a Particular will not infer the consequence ¶ 3. The reason he giveth of Christ's submitting to water-baptisme to prove it now to continue is his saying for thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness But may not that be applied also to Circumcision and yet its continuance will not thence follow John's receiving a Divine command to baptize sheweth there was a Divine institution for it under the Law because the Law was not as yet abrogated nor the Legal ministration accomplished till Christ was offered up As for Christ his consecrating it in his own person the like may be also said of Circumcision I come now to see what he saith n. 14. to prove Matth. 28 19. to be understood of Water-baptisme and first after a little railing he saith This was but an enlargement of their former Commission as to the Object And before this we heard of their baptizing with Water with Christ's warrand and authority c. Answ. We have heard him say so indeed but must wait untill he prove ere we be so forward as to believe it And next what if it were all granted we heard before of the Disciples preparing and eating the Passover with Christ's warrand and authority will it thence follow that that practice is still to continue in the Church 2. Because it is joyned here with Discipling and baptizing was the way of making Disciples among the Jews So was Circumcision and that no less constantly and necessary will it therefore follow that circumcision is to continue 3. He saith Their constant after-practice declareth this to be the meaning of the Command But the Apostle Paul's practice and testimony declareth this to be false 4. He saith This is the proper import of the word But I deny it is so in Scriptur since we see no necessity in most of the places of Scriptur to understand the word of Water-baptisme and when he shews the necessity he may be answered and the Scripturs so frequently using it where Water upon all hands is confessed not to be understood prove this to be true And as for his saying that it can not be understood here of Baptisme with the Spirit it falleth to the ground because only built upon the supposition that that is only understood of extraordinary gifts He urgeth Christ's saying Luk 12 50. I have a baptisme to be baptized with and how am I straitned till it be accomplished as if this were to be called Christ's own baptisme and so I shall grant it with a respect to his Personal Sufferings but when I speak of Christ's own baptisme I speak of that which is his as being instituted by him for others and that contradistinct from John's Pag. 479. He saith the words of baptizing into the Name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is only to be understood of a dedicating to God and not a being baptized into the Power and Vertue But this is
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