Selected quad for the lemma: scripture_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
scripture_n day_n keep_v sabbath_n 3,822 5 10.2486 5 true
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A47191 Truths defence, or, The pretended examination by John Alexander of Leith of the principles of those (called Quakers) falsly termed by him Jesuitico-Quakerism, re-examined and confuted : together with some animadversions on the dedication of his book to Sir Robert Clayton, then Mayor of London / by G.K. Keith, George, 1639?-1716. 1682 (1682) Wing K225; ESTC R22871 109,893 242

There are 8 snippets containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

Argument is That because Christ rose on that day and honoured it with his most frequent appearings after his Resurrection on that day that therefore he appointed it to be kept for a Sabbath But this inference is without any proof and is therefore returned to him And it is manifest that at a certain time when Christ did appear some of the Disciples were Fishing with their Nets Ioh. 21. And if that was the first day of the Week and appointed by Christ for a Sabbath how was it that the Disciples did so openly transgress it and yet were not reproved by Christ but were bidden cast out the Net by himself Nor is his other Argument of any greater weight That because the Primitive Christians in the Apostles times and downwards did constantly meet on that day and had their Collections for the poor that therefore it was appointed to be strickly observed as a Sabbath This consequence is also returned upon him as barely alledged without proof And both we and many other Protestants in France and Holland constantly meet on that day and yet it doth not follow that we or they hold it for a Sabbath for many of them do not any more than we Another Argument of his is Because it is called the Lords day Rev. 1. 10. To which I Answer I. A. hath not as yet proved it evidently that by the Lords day there is meant the first day of the Week but giving it that Iohn meant the first day as I find generally that Iustine Martyn and others about his time did call the first day of the Week the Lords day yet it doth not follow that therefore the Lord appointed it to be kept as a Sabbath for it might well enough he called the Lords day because he arose upon it for many day● have received Names for much less reason according to the Ancient Tradition in Old times which not being in Scripture is not so certain to us as that other viz. Of Christ his Resurrection day Another Argument of his is Because that Christ Taught the Disciples to Pray that their flight might not be on the Winter nor on the Sabbath day when he Prophecied of the Destruction of Jerusalem Math. 24. 20. But to this I Answer That the Name of Sabbath doth not infer that any outward day is to be kept for a Sabbath under the New Testament more than the Name of Circumcision doth infer that there is now to be any outward Circumcision and what Christ spoke to the Disciples it was not to them alone but to all the Iews who as he did well know would still be Zealous for the Iewish Sabbath after his Resurrection As indeed they were and also for Circumcision and therefore he knew what great an Affliction it would be to them to be put to flee on that day and accordingly we find that not only them but long after the Iews even many of them that believed and also our Christians did observe the Iewish Sabbath and some observed both that and also the first day until Constantine's time What Christ therefore spoke of the Sabbath was not to confirm them to keep either that or the first day of the Week for a Sabbath but to express the great Affliction they would be in if they should flee on that day which they so much did regard And beside some understand the Sabbath here also by way of Allegory which I. A. hath not re●u●ed And whereas the said I. A. alledgeth that Rom. 14. 5 6. Is not to be understood of the first day of the Week but only of other Jewish days This is meerly alledged without any shadow of proof for no where doth Paul or any other Pen-man of the Scripture make an exception of the first day And therefore seeing Rom. 14. speaks of days indefinitely the first day is understood as well as the rest CHAP. XI IN the pretended Survey of the eighth Query which is concerning Singing of Psalms I. A. is at much pains to prove a thing which we do not deny viz. That Singing of Psalms is allowed and commanded under the New Testament For this we willingly acknowledge and those who can Sing with the Spirit and undestanding they may use either David's words or words of any other Holy-men recorded in Scripture or any other sound words as the Lord shall move them But all this is no Answer to the Question which is not concerning Singing only or simply but that way of Singing used by I. A. and his Brethren without any pretence to an immediate direction or motion of the Spirit Infallibly Teaching or assisting them what and how to Sing Now the Query is where doth he find such Singing Warranted in Scripture viz. without the Spirit infallibly directing them 2. Their Singing with Meeter or Tooting Rhymes Artificially composed by meer Natural Art and Industry where is such Singing commanded or practised in Scripture And 3. it is Queried since the Apostles did not turn them into Meeter why have others since them done so as if they were more wise than the Apostles or saw further what God required of them And whereas I. A. alledgeth That Psalms cannot be Sung except they be Meetered If he mean by Meetering putting them in Tooting Rhymes or Rhymes ending with the like Cadencies and Sounds he sheweth his great ignorance in Poetry and Musick for the best Poesies are without any such Cadencies Nor have David's Psalms any such Cadencies of like sounds at the end of the Lines as they are written in Hebrew And although Davids Psalms are Penned with certain measures of Words and Sentences yet that was by some Divine Skill which the Spirit of the Lord Taught him and not by bare humane Art as I suppose I. A. will not deny But another great abuse in I. A. is that he excuseth wicked and proud mens Singing such words of David as these I am not puft up in mind I water my Couch with my Tears c. alledging they may be Sung as well as Read by such men But who cannot see the absurdity of this inference for to Read and to Pray and also to Sing are very differing and one may Read the Devils words and the words of the wickedest men Recorded in Scripture but when one Prayeth or Praiseth he expresseth somewhat of his own condition And men may read the Creed or Ten Commands but yet they are not proper for a Prayer and the most of the Psalms are Prayers But lastly whereas I. A. saith He and his Brethren have the same Spirit the Apostles had though not the same measure We may not unfitly Query them how he can prove or demonstrate this to us seeing some of his Brethren have asked a proof from us that we had the same Spirit And if I. A. be in good earnest and doth indeed believe that he has the same Spirit which the Apos●les had how is it that he doth so very frequently mock and scoff at the Infallible Inspiration of the
when done with godly Fear Prayer and Thansgiving and remembring the Lords Death 8. Seeing it is clear from Luke 22. 17 18 19 20. that Christ did take the cup twice once before he gave them the bread and once after bidding them do the same why take ye the cup but once was this only a bare circumstance 9. Is not the Apostle Paul 1 Cor. 10. 15 16 17. to be understood of quite another Bread and Cup than that which is visible and outward when he saith I speak as to wise men judge ye what I say did he not say this because he was to speak of the Bread and Cup in the mysterie as it was altogether a spiritual and invisible thing to wit the real body and blood of Christ spiritually received which none but the spiritually wise could understand The cup of blessing which we bless is it not the communi●n of the blood of Christ The bread which we Break is it not the Communion of the body of Christ For we being many are one Bread for we a●e all pa●taker● of that one Bread Is it not clear from all this that Paul speaks not of any visible and corruptible Bread but of Christ himself as he is spiritually and invisibly received by Faith whom he calls the same spiritual meat and drink which the Father 's received of old see the same Chapter Verse 3 4. 10. Do any receive the Supper of the Lord or Sup with the Lord but such as open to him and hear his voice according to Rev. 3. 20. And is not this Supper or Supping with the Lord altogether inward spiritual and invisible Now whereas I. A. doth alledge that the Querist hath mistaken the second Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians for the first because h● citeth these words in the second Epistle For the things that are seen are but temporal but the things which are not seen are eternal I Answer that the Apostle Paul writeth to the same purpose in the first Epistle and that much more clearly calling Christ the spiritual Meat and Drink as he is spiritually and invisibly received by Faith CHAP. X. J. A. in his pretended Survey of the seventh Query which is concerning the Sabbath-day alledgeth That the fourth Commandment requireth to keep Holy unto God one day of seven and seeing that fourth Commandment is Moral it extends to all Ages of the World But in Answer to this as that the fourth Commandment required one day in seven so it expresly mentions that day to be the seventh and not any one other of the seven for the said fourth Commandment did plainly bind the Iews to the seventh day which was not lawful for them to change to the first And whereas I. A. alledgeth That the Accomodation to the particular time or Diet to the last day of the Week is indeed Abrogated but not the substance of the Command By this he quite overturneth his former Assertion That the fourth Commandment was simply Moral for if it was simply Moral nothing of the least Circumstance of it could be Abrogated But some of I. A. his Brethrem●are more wary and considerate who say The fourth Commandment was partly Moral and partly Ceremonial The Ceremonial part of it was that it tyed to the seventh day the Moral part of it was and is partly that it requires some competent time to be appointed for the Worship of God both private and publick laying aside all Worldly occasions for that time as well out of our Minds as hands without tying to any limited day of seventh or sixth And partly again in respect of its Spiritual signification for the outward Sabbath of the Iews was a Type or Shadow of Christ in whom all True Believers find rest to their Souls from all their heavy Labours and Toils and that Christ is the thing signified by the Sabbath is clear from Coloss. 2. 16 17. Again that neither I. A. nor his Brethren hold the first day of the Week in that strickness of a Sabbath as the fourth Commandment required is clear because the said fourth Commandment required That in it they should not do any work which elsewhere in Scripture is more particularly set down That they were not to kindle a Fire on the Sabbath and he that gathered sticks on the Sabbath-day was to be stoned to Death All which proveth that the Sabbath of the Iews was Typical and consequently that the Morallity of it was principally its Spiritual signification as it did hold forth Christ no less than the other Types and Figures But I. A. alloweth people to kindle a Fire on that day and to Boil and Roast Meat as plentifully as on other days if he be of his Brethrens mind who commonly Feast on that day and have a larger Table than at other times And although I. A. undertake the Vindication of the Church in Brittain yet he cannot be ignorant that the greatest part of his Episcopal Brethren were and are of another mind viz. That the keeping of the First day of the Week is no Moral Command else they would never have allowed Playes and Markets to be kept on that day And Calvin whose Opinions I. A. followeth but too much in other things did not hold That the keeping of the first day was any Command of God but simply that the Church had agreed to it to meet on that day And he saith plainly They might have chused another day as well as that Now the Query saith That the Saints did meet together this is Scripture so we acknowledge that the Saints did meet together on the first day of the Week and so we do according to their example and also we acknowledge that some considerable part of our life time is to be set apart for the solemn Worship and Service of God and this not only the Scripture Testimony but the Law of God in our hearts doth require And we further judge that rather more of our time is to be given to the Service of God solemnly se● apart from all worldly occasions now under the New Testament and that Servants and Beasts may have rest for God requireth that mercy be shewn to them also than was formerly under the Law by vertue of the fourth Commandment And therefore we have Meetings and other times of Retirement at other times of the Week than on the first day As also we do generally abstain from Bodyly Labour on the first day of the Week although we cannot call it the Christian Sabbath for that were to put it in the room of Christ But what abuse and profanity is it to pretend to set apart a day only for the Service of God and yet to spend it worse than any other day of the Week for most part to wit in Idle Communications Playes and Drinking as too many of I. A. his Brethren openly do And now let us see further what I. A. doth alledge for the first day of the Week its being appointed to be kept for a Sabbath One
Minister of Christ then they should never have required more of any man in order to his admission to that Office but his alone sufficient skill in Grammar and Logick which the Adversaries themselves know to be most false To this I Answer That not the Questionist but I. A. doth pervert the state of the Question for the Question was not Whether Grammar and Logick and the many Tongues c. was the only infallible Rule to make a Minister of Christ but whether it was an infallible Rule c. Now that may be conceived to be an Infallible Ru●e which is not the Infallible Rule Nor doth I. A. his consequence follow that then they should never have required more of any man in order to his admission to that Office but his alone sufficient skill in Grammar and Logick an example in other cases will show the weakness of this Consequence It is reported that Plato made it an Infallible Rule to receive none into his School but he who had some skill in Geometry doth it therefore follow that he required no more of any man in order to his admission to be his Scholar but that he had some skill in that Science Another Instance may be this in divers Incorporations and Cities it is an Infallible Rule That none may be admitted to be a Magistrate in the said City or Incorporation but he that is a Freeman therein doth it therefore follow that nothing is more required of any man in order to his being a Magistrate but that he be a Freeman in that City Now suppose the Church of Scotland make it not the one only Rule to make a Minister of Christ that he hath Grammar Logick and the Languages yet it may be very fairly Queried I hope whether she makes it not an Infallible Rule Seeing for many years by-gone she hath made no Ministers but some as at least pretend to have Grammar and Logick and Languages and are called Masters of those Arts howbeit many of them have but a very small scantling of them for all the stress that seems to be laid on them And I Query whether it be not one of the Canons of the Church that none be admitted into the Office of the Ministry but who have those aforesaid Arts And if there be no infallible or absolute Rule or Canon in the case then why do they not frequently allow men wanting those Arts who possibly may have all the other Qualifications required to enter into the Ministry And it is further Queried Whether I. A. or the Church that he doth own doth establish and avow that Doctrine of Iames Durhame positively asserted in his Commentary on the Revelation that Grammar Logick or the like acquired Arts are necessary to the esse or being of a Minister of Christ and consequently much more necessary than true Piety and Godliness which he maketh only but necessary to his bene esse or better being and only accidental to his being a Minister of Christ. And this Question which is indeed the main design of the first Question as is obvious to any ordinary understanding I. A. for all his glorious pretence hath not in the least Answered which is therefore returned upon him to be further considered And whereas I. A. saith That Grammar and Logick are ordinary means of Knowledge exceedingly requisite in a Minister If by Grammar and Logick he mean not those innate gift● which may be well called natural as common to all men having the ordinary use of understanding and which I acknowledge to be in some degree necessary unto all but the Systems of those Arts as they are artificially composed of a great many Rules and Precepts and commonly taught in the Schools I ask I. A. Why are they more requisite in a Minister than in the rest of the Church Ought not all the Church to have the knowledge of God and of the Principles of Christian Religion as well as the Minister And may not some of the people come to have as much true knowledge of God as their Teachers yea may they not become wiser than their Teachers as David said concerning himself and whereby did David become wiser than his Teachers was it by the humane Arts of Grammar and Logick I trow not but by the Law of God wherein he did meditate both day and night May not therefore people come to have as much knowledge of God at this day without those aforesaid Arts only by meditating in the said Law or Word and praying to the Lord as also waiting upon the Lord to have their understandings more and more opened to understand the Scriptures as I. A. hath with all the help of his Arts And if I. A. think that those Arts are necessary to attain Divine Knowledge so as he who wants them may not know as much of Divine things as he who has them I am not of his mind nor ● hope are many others in his Church who believe they may both know the Lord and daily grow in the knowledge of Him till they have as much and perhaps more of true Divine Knowledge than I. A. ever had without all I. A. his Arts which he doth so highly magnifie But I. A. saith The Infallible rule to make a Minister of Christ is set down in 1 Tim. 3. and Tit. 1. Answ. It is very well But I cannot find in these places or any where else in all the Scripture that Artificial Grammar and Logick are made any one part of that Infallible Rule or that God hath any where appointed them as ordinary means of attaining Divine knowledge And if they be the ordinary means of Divine knowledge then it must needs follow that all who have the least measure of true Divine knowledge have also humane Arts or else they are extraordinarily taught none of which I judge I. A. will readily grant Now the Infallible rule set down by the Apostle in these places already cited requireth That Bishops and Deacons and consequently Ministers should be blameless sober just holy temperate And I Query I A. if this one only qualification viz. To be Holy be as much made an Infallible rule to make a Minister of Christ in the Church he owneth as to have Grammar and Logick and Tongues And how is this consistent with the foresaid Doctrine that real Holiness is not necessary to the esse or being of a Minister of Christ For is not that which is the infallible rule to make a Minister of Christ necessary to his very esse or being In the following part of his Examination of this first Query I. A. doth further wrong the people called Quakers As if they did hold that Grammar Logick and Languages were unlawful among Christians And upon this idle and false Supposition he disputeth for the lawfulness of those Arts which none of these people so far as I know deny And for a proof to the contrary that people have Schools wherein Grammar and the Languages viz. Hebrew Greek and Latin are
men are infallible that therefore the Dictate and Light of Gods Spirit in men is fallible also Was not Peter fallible in some Cases Yea did he not fail sorely when he denyed his Master Doth it therefore follow that the Dictate or Light of Gods Spirit in him was fallible Indeed if I had said that when we follow the Dictate and Light of God within we are fallible he might have inferred such a consequence but I never said nor thought any such thing but on the contrary that the Dictates and Leadings of Gods Spirit in us are infallible and have a direct tendency to lead guide and move us infallibly as they are purely kept unto the which is possible for us to do Another Argument he bringeth against the Dictate 〈◊〉 I●s being the rule to try Spirits because then it would be both Superior and Inferior which is Repugnant Superior when it tryes and examines and Inferior when it is tryed and examined To which I Answer 1. It is no Repugnancy that one and the same thing be Superior and Inferior in different respects and as it respecteth different Subjects But 2. There is no necessity to understand the Dictate and Light of Gods Spirit in divers men to be Superior and Inferior when it examines and is examined for one equal may be a measure or rule to another yea one thing may be said to be a rule unto it self according unto that common Maxim or principle Line● recta est norma sui obliqui i. e. A right line is the rule of it self and also of that which is crooked Otherwise let I. A. Answer me How did Adam know the voice of God in his Heart and the Prophets before the Scriptures were writ how did they know it And in the close of his first Section he concludeth with a manifest Untruth That the Quakers are for a new Dispensation not only in manner but matter contrary to the Doctrine formerly Dictated by the Holy Ghost This I say is false which he neither doth nor can prove and the Dispensation we plead for is the same both for matter and manner which belonged to all true and good Christians in all Ages And as to what he saith Of our extream Infatuation and Brain-sickness and retaining the proportion and features of humane bodies having quite enervated our Rational Essence These and the like scoffing and disdainful expressions are no more to be regarded by us nor have any more weight than when some Epicureans at Athens called Paul a Babler We know it hath been the Lot of Gods people in former Generations to be reputed by Adversaries both Fools and Mad-men However we hope the sober Readers of our Books and Treatises and these also who have any Converse with us will find that we have neither abandoned nor lost the use of our Rational Faculties which we acknowledge to be good Gifts of God and for which he is to be praised nor doth our principle and belief of Divine Inspiration as being a more noble and excellent Gift of God than the highest Natural Faculty of Reason either weaken or render useless to us our Reason but both indeed both strengthen it and make it the more useful and comfortable whereof to Gods praise we are bold to say we have true experience notwithstanding of what I. A. or any of his insulting humour do or can say to the contrary There yet remains two other things in this first Section of I. A. which I think fit to notice One is That he alledgeth some of us understand by the more sure word of Prophecy the Scripture which is only to be taken heed unto until the day dawn and the day Star arise in the heart that is until the Holy Ghost be given and that consequently the Scriptures serve for nothing to belivers who are born with the Spirit and sealed therewith But seeing he has produced no Names of any among us understanding that more sure word of Prophecy to be the Scripture we are not concerned to Answer him It is possible that some in Discourse has only so argued with him ad hominem as they use to say and not as being their own judgment And as for the Scriptures we judge that they are profitable and ought to be Read by true Believers and renewed persons as well as others But when doth I. A. think that the day dawneth and the day Star ariseth in the hearts of believers Whether in this mortal State Yea or Nay and then whether the shining of Gods day and the day Star thereof be not a true immediate Revelation in the hearts of those who have it and whether it doth not more assure them who have it than the Letter of Scripture can do And seeing the Light of God in them when it shines in the heart but as in a dark place is a more sure Word than an audible voice from Heaven or than the Letter of the Scripture as to us what shall be said of that Light when it becometh not only as the day Star but as the day itself for clearness in the Soul Or can there be any greater or more principal rule than this The other thing I notice is That he inferreth the Scriptures to be a rule because Christ said to the Sadduces Ye erre not knowing the Scriptures Now if this Argument hold good seeing Christ said also Ye erre not knowing the Scriptures nor the Power of God It will as well follow That the Power of God is the Rule and that the rather because it was their being ignorant of the Power of God which quickens both Soul and Body that made them ignorant of the Scriptures for none know truly the Scriptures but they who know the Power of God and therefore that Power which is Life Light and Spirit is the more principal and original rule But I. A. in citing these words of Christ omitted the following words which are exceeding weighty viz. no the Power of God whether this was purposely done of him to ensuare his unwary Reader or not I shall not determine but leave to his consideration CHAP. V. J. A. in the beginning of his second Section concerning the Rule is pleased to call me an Arch-Quaker the which Title I no wise acknowledge and a man too Learned as I employ it To which I Answer That as to my Learning that is but very ordinary and a thing I neither can nor ought to glory in However in this I rejoyce that the Testimony of my Conscience beareth me Witness in the Holy Spirit that any small measure I have of that called Learning it hath been my sincere aim and endeavour to employ it to Gods Honour and serve the Truth therewith and not in the least to use it against the Truth so far as it was or is made manifest unto me Next he blames me that I affirm The Scriptures are only but a secondory Rule of Faith and Manners but that the Spirit or his Dictate within is the Principal
unto the Law and Testimony supposing that were the Scripture it followeth not that therefore it is the principal rule especially in Gospel times when God writeth his Law in the heart and the Testimony of Jesus is the Spirit of Prophecy and he that believeth hath the Testimony or Witness in himself But that people are not sent to any dictate Word or Light within as I. A. doth alledge is false and contrary to 2 Pet. 1. 19. Deut. 30. 14. Rom. 10. 8. Ioh. 3. 20 21. Ioh. 12. 36. And doth not God and Christ and the Holy Ghost dwell in the Hearts of believers and must not they go to God and Christ where they are and doth not God and Christ speak in his people Are they not his Temple and as God spoke immediately in the outward Temple under the Old Covenant the which Temple was a Figure of Christ and the Church shall he not speak now immediately in his true Temple as well as he did in former times Or are we wholly to neglect God and Christ in us and their Inward Teaching and only to mind the Letter of the Scripture without us according to I. A. And when Paul said to Timothy Neglect not the Gift that is in thee Hath this command no regard unto us And when Christ saith Behold I stand at the door and knock if any man will hear my voice Is this door only an outward door or is not rather the door of the Heart which is inward and therefore is not that voice inward And whence is it that seeing Christ is so near to his people as to be in them that he doth not speak one word to them by himself as a man doth to his Friend that he is present with Is it want of power or unkindness that he doth so refrain Doth not I. A. and those of his Principle make God over all Blessed for ever more like unto the dumb Idols mentioned in the Scripture Who have a Mouth but speak not being always dumb or silent Oh! what an Indignity is this to the Lord of Glory and let I. A. take heed lest he who is so ready to charge us with Blasphemy be not found among the Blasphemers himself who would limit the Lord from speaking and revealing himself in his Living Temples To his second Argument I Answer Though the Scriptures are Infallible and cannot deceive us yet they cannot sufficiently demonstrate unto us their Infallibility nor yet their true Sense without the evidence of the Spirit as is clear by Paul's Testimony 1 Cor. 2. 4. where he telleth That his Speech and Preaching was in Demonstration of the Spirit and Power And therefore without that demonstration of the Spirit his words could not prevail nor perswade them that they were of God And certainly if Paul's Preaching needed the demonstration of the Spirit his Writing doth as much need it at this day To the third I say It is no derogating from the Scripture that they derive their Authority from the Spirit of God which gave them their being even as it is no derogation from the words of a King long ago spoken by him That he confirmeth them a new by a new immediate Testimony To the fourth Although we may not receive any Dictate within that agrees not with the Scripture it doth not follow that therefore the Scripture is above the Spirit of God or his Dictate for as the Spirit can never contradict the Scripture so nor can the Scripture ever contradict the Spirit of God and neither can the Spirit or Scripture ever contradict pure and sound Reason yet it doth not follow that Reason is either greater or equal to the Spirit or to Scripture And because that Dictate which is contrary to Scripture is to be rejected as being none of Gods Spirit it doth only well follow that the Scripture is a Rule that is to be set over all false Dictates to judge and condemn them which we most willingly grant Now I. A. perceiving that I could retort one of his Arguments labours to guard against it As seeing the Word of God is the principal Rule and the Dictate or Speech of Gods Spirit within men is the word of God therefore that Dictate is the principal Rule And this Argument I did use in my Book called Quakerism no Pepery To which he Answers by denying That there is any such Dictate of God or the spirit in any men whomsoever whether believers or unbelievers But to this I Answer 1. He will not deny but that the Apostles had such an inward or immediate Dictate and also the Prophets and therefore he must allow that the Scripture as to the Prophets and Apostles was but a secondary Rule or at least no greater Rule than that Dictate within which they had And yet by I. A. his Logick the Apostles did vilifie and despise the Scriptures and it was a needless or unuseful thing unto them seeing they had an inward Dictate which was greater or at least equa unto the Scripture Or let I. A. shew how their having the Inward Dictate for their Rule did not make them undervalue the Scriptures whereas our having such a Dictate as he alledgeth or pretending to such a Dictate makes us so to undervalue them But secondly he only supposeth it without any proof that such an Inward Dictate which was once in the Church of God as is confessed is discontinued or ceased And this indeed is the general manner of our opposers who lay it down as a Principle as needing no proof that Immediate Revelation and Teaching of Gods Spirit is ceased But let I. A. know that we can receive no such Doctrine as a Principle from hims but return it as a meer idle and false supposition which yet is the foundation of a great many of his consequences against us Thirdly that he saith I should first prove that there is such a D●ctate in every man I Answer that I have done already in my Book called Immediate Revelation published many years ago by many Arguments and he should first have Answered to these before he had sought any more Also in my Book called Qua●erism no Popery to which he has given no sufficient reply and some of the most weighty he hath not so much as once Named And whereas he objecteth the Americans and others that cannot tell how many Gods there are I ask him by what shall the Americans be judged at the last day shall it not be by the Law of God writ in their Hearts And do not these Americans sin against God and those also who are most ignorant and yet want the Scripture now where no Law is there is no transgression This I hope is enough to prove that even the Americans and consequently all men have a Divine Law in their Hearts for if it were not Divine and as really the Law of God as any that we have to transgress it were not a sin against God Hence I thus argue a Divine Law in all men is
are Grace so an evil principle is sin I Answer there is a Principle of Grace in the Souls of Bad men which is Grace in it self and Truth and Righteousness yet it is not their Righteousness nor Grace because they joyn not with it and even so an evil Principle in a good man though evil and sin is not his sin when he doth not joyn with it 5. He Argueth That which inclineth men to sin must be sin But if this Argument hold then the Devil must be sin still because he inclines men to sin Again as to what he alledges that Paul said Sin did dwell in him from Rom. 7. I Answer I. A. hath not proved that Paul was at that time in that condition whereof he makes mention and although he speaks of the dwelling of sin in him viz. in respect of his former condition yet he telleth that not his mind but his flesh was the Subject where it did indwell And therefore when I. A. so insultingly inquireth at me What is the Subject of that evil thing or motion for seeing it is an accident it must have some subject without which it cannot exist I Answer him from the Apostle the Subject of it in good men is not the mind or more noble part which is immortal but the flesh And seeing it is not lodged in the mind of any righteous man it cannot defile it when it is not in any wise consented unto Nor doth it follow that because an evil motion may be in the flesh or mortal part the Devil is also lodged there too this is nothing but a foolish inference of I. A. his making and therefore let him take home his silly Jest to himself where he saith It is better to lodge s●n alone than it and the Devil too for two such Devi●s are worse together than any of them it self I say nothing of this can be inferred from our Principle but let I. A. take heed lest sin and the Devil too have not too great place in him which so leads him forth to foolish Jesting and reproaching the Blessed Spirit of Truth in its Holy Inspirations in the Hearts of Gods People But why is I. A. so offended with the Inquirer for asking if Sin be the Devil seeing he calleth sin Devil saying Sin and the Devil are two worse Devils than one alone To conclude this matter I. A. doth plainly acknowledge That by Christ his destroying the Devil is meant the destroying his Power and Kingdom in the World pag. 137. And not the Annihilating the Devils entity and being Is it not then clear that I. A. his own Confession the Devils Power and Kingdom is called Devil in Scripture and what is that but sin and thus we see h●w at last he is forced at least indirectly to acknowledge what he hath so earnestly opposed CHAP. XIV IN the pretended Survey of the thirteenth Query I. A. accuseth the Spirit in the Inquirer As being either an ignerant Blockhead or else a Captious Sophister and withal alledging That the Question as it is propounded cannot be Answered and that therefore it must be purged from a plurality of Interrogations But all this Accusation proceeds upon a wrong Supposition viz. That Christ hath not died for all men And therefore although I. A. cannot Answer the Question according to his own false Principle yet according to Scripture it can be well Answered viz. That Christ hath died for all the ungodly and sinners that they should live unto him In the next place he offereth to give some clear demonstrations from the Scriptures That Christ did not die for all men But in his whole Survey of this Question consisting of above 13 Pages he bringeth not one place of Scripture which saith expresly That Christ died not for all men And for my part I have Read the Scriptures all over several times but to this day I could never find any such place But on th● contrary I have found divers places of Scripture expresly affirming That Christ hath died for all as Isaiah 53. 6. 2 Cor. 5. 14 15. Heb. 2. 9. and 1 Tim. 2. 6. and 1 Ioh. 2. 2. And therefore his clear demonstrations are but his own consequences gathered not from Scripture but from his own mistakes and his absurd Interpretations of Scripture the which we are not bound to receive seeing he has renounced all claim to the Inspiration of that Spirit that gave forth the Scripture And because it would be too tedious and to little purpose to Answer particularly to every frivolous Objection he maketh against the Doctrine of the Scripture Concerning Christs dying for all men I shall lay down some general Heads or Propositions according to Scripture by which all his Objections shall be sufficiently Answered PROP. I. ALthough Christ died for all men and thereby gave a Testimony of Gods great Love and also of his own to all mankind according to 1 Ioh. 4. 9 10. and 1 Ioh. 3. 16. and Rom. 5. 8. Yet it doth not follow that Christ or God hath equally conferred upon all the Spiritual Blessings procured by his Death for the Love of God being free he might extend it in different measures or degrees to men as it pleased him according to his own infinite Counsel which we cannot comprehend And whereas Ioh. 15. 13. it is said Greater Love hath no man than this that a man lay down his Life for his Friends This doth not import as I. A. doth alledge That Christ died only for his Friends but it expresseth the superabundant Love of Christ above the Love of all other men in that whereas it is the greatest Testimony of the love among men a man to die for his Friend yet Christ hath given a far greater in that he died for his Enemies Rom. 5. 10. PROP. II. CHrist died in so far even for these who perish that by vertue of his Death all such have a day of Visitation wherein it is possible for them to be saved during which day Christ Jesus doth Enlighten them with his true Light to shew them their way unto God and also he breaths upon them in some measure sufficient unto their Conversion with his Spirit of Grace to draw and gather them whereby it is possible for them within the day of their Visitation to believe and so to be saved And this Grace of Illumination which hath a Sanctifying and renewing vertue in it comes upon them as the real effect and consequence of what Christ hath done and suffered for them God having so ordered it in his infinite Love and Wisdom that this Grace whereby he converteth Souls should flow and run forth unto us in that way and as it were through the Conduit of Christ his Blood so that the Sufferings of Christ were as the opening of a great Fountain out of which the abundant Grace of God that formerly as it were but droped on mankind is in the Latter days poured forth upon them as it was promised so to be for which
read and compare these following Scriptures Isaiah 44. 3. Ioel 2. 28. Ieremiah 31. 31. Psal. 68. 18. Eph. 4. 7 8. and Ioh. 1. 16 17. Rom. 5. 18. PROP. III. WHen once the day of mens Gracious Visitation is at an end which is possible to come to pass on many and doth no doubt come to pass on many even when living in the World after they have finally rejected the Call of God in their Souls and ●●ully resisted and hardned themselves against his tender dealings by his Spirit of Grace gently working on their hearts I do not say that Christ hath died for the sins of all or any one of those after the said day of their Visitation is at an end For although we read in Scripture That Christ hath died for the re●ission of all sins past in the time of ignorance when God winked and for the redemption of the transgressions under the first Covenant according to Rom. 3. 25. and Heb. 9. 15. Yet we find not that Christ hath died for all sins of men that were to come after they were Enlightned And although no doubt all sins as well to come as past are pardoned upon Repentance and that Christ hath died for such sins as are repented of by any men at any time when they truly repent yet seeing many sins are committed by many that are never repented of and wherein they die finally Impenitent and hardned against Gods tender Call and Visitation of Grace in their Souls Also seeing some sin wilfully and fall away after they have received the knowledge of the Truth and die in that state the Scripture is plain That there remaineth no more Sacrifice for them Also Iohn speaketh Of a s●n that is unto death of which he Writes I do not say that such a one is to be Prayed for And what is such a sin but a final impenitence even until the day of Visitation be over and God be provoked to give them up even as many at this day because they received not the Truth in Love are given up to the strong delusions of Antichrist to believe Lies and die in that state PROP. IV. MEn are not according to Scripture called Reprobates within that time that God dwelleth with them by his Grace in order to convert them and renew them by Repentance far less doth the Scripture speak of mens being Reprobated from all Eternity or before the foundation of the World as some alledge although we read of an Election in Christ before the foundation of the World And to say that God doth simply Reprobate men while he is calling them to Repentance and graciously inviting them in true Love to be reconciled with him is an absolute inconsistency The time therefore of any mans final Reprobation is after this day of Grace is over and God hath wholly left striving with him in order to his Conversion We must therefore distinguish betwixt persons and their sins and sinful state for also ●in and state of sin is always rejected and reprobated yet not the persons until their day be over For the Scripture speaketh aboundantly of a day of Grace that all men have or are to have wherein the Lord not only visits them but even endures with much long suffering the Vessels of wrath fitted for destruction These only therefore are properly Reprobates who are finally given over to a Reprobate mind after their day of Grace is over and Gods fore-knowledge and preordination respecteth them only as such PROP. V. ACcording to what is formerly said it may be further concluded that although Christ hath died for all men in a day so that within that day of Grace all their sins past and to come as well as present are pardonable for Christs sake no man being absolutely reprobated and finally given over within this day of Grace yet that day being at an end Christs death is no more a Sacrifice for them nor for their sins and because of their rejecting so great Salvation offered them by Christ all their former sins which formerly were not imputed unto them so as to hinder Pardon are newly charged upon them and that in the just Judgement of God seeing they deny the Lord that bought them and account his Blood as an unholy or common thing And in this respect Christ hath Died for no Reprobates to wit as such And he hath neither died nor Prayed for the World in that sense to wit as it signifieth them who die in the final unbelief and impenitency and so perish for so I find the term World sometimes to signify in Scripture And if I. A. think that this is a contradiction as implying that Christ hath died for all men and yet hath not died for Reprobates who are a great part or the greatest part of mankind I shall mind him of a Rule in his School-Logick that he doth so highly magnifie to wit that Propositions are not contradictory although the one be Affirmative and the other Negative unless they be in ordtne ad idem in order to the same and in regard of the same Circumstances of time place condition c. PROP. VI. THe Sacrifice of Christs death did truely extend for the remission of sins past from the beginning of the world hence all the Believers that lived under the Law and Prophets and before the Law were saved by Faith in Christ and had their sins pardoned not by the Offering of the Blood of Bulls and Rams but by the Blood of Christ who was to die for them and in whom they believed and died in Faith as is clear out of many places of Scripture and especially the Epistle to the Hebrews And by vertue of Christ's death and offering once for all men have had or have or shall have a day of Visitation and offer of Grace through Christ even these who lived before Christ came in the flesh in that prepared body as well as others And therefore all who finally perish and are lost in whatever Age or time of the World they lived they must be accountable to Christ who is judge both of quick and dead and Lord of both and they shall be punished with Fire of Hell for neglecting and despising the Salvation offered by him And although this is a great Mistery and hard to be uttered how this Gospel Invitation and Visitation cometh unto all and how all shall be accountable unto the man Christ Jesus on the score or account of his dying for them yet seeing the Scripture is so plain and clear for it it is better to believe it than curiously to dispute how or after what manner it comes so to be And the opening of this and other great Misteries of the Christian Religion is approaching to many who as yet do not see them and when men are prepared to receive them God will no doubt give that and all other Good things to those that Love and Fear him PROP. VII ANd whereas I. A. and others do urge That either Christ
I Answer Every true Minister or Pastor hath his Anthority to Execute his Function as Christian as nor being a strict and formal reduplication but taken specifically seeing to be a Christian is as necessary to every true Minister of Christ as to be a living Creature is necessary to be a man or to be a man is necessary to be a Souldier or Magistrate or Lawyer And whereas I. A. saith That Christian and Antichristian are not contradictory terms seeing many persons are neither Christian nor Antichristian I Answer again as they are taken indefinitely they are not contradictory but as restricted to such as bear the Name and Profession of Christianity they are perfectly contradictory so that every one that professeth himself to be a Christian such as the Pope doth is most certainly either Christian or Antichristian The other gross Assertion of his is That the Church of Rome was still a True Church and not Babylon until the time of Reformation viz. about the time of the Council of Trent or Luther's arising with some others to witness against her notwithstanding she did hold many fundamental errors and thus because her errors were not so discovered and demonstrated unto her before as since that time But what a miserable shift and evasion this is and how contrary to Scripture and the Judgment of the most sound of all Protestant Writers I leave the Sober Reader to judge For doth not the Scripture plainly declare That Mystery Babylon was to rule over the Nations and deceive them and Drink the Blood of the Martyrs and Witnesses of Iesus for many Hundreds of years And when was it that she deceived all Nations Was it only since the Reformation or rather was not her chiefest tim● before the Reformation for since the Reformation many Nations are come to see her Abomina●ions more than formerly And when was 〈◊〉 That the Kings of the Earth hath committed Fornication with her Hath it not been for many hundreds of years bygone rather than since the Reformation when they have begun to hate her and burn her flesh with Fire in some sense And when began she to drink the Blood of the Saints Only since Luther's days or the Council of Trent Surely none who hath the least knowledge of Church History but will say the contrary and acknowledge that she has been a Bloody Murtheress for divers hundreds of years long before the Reformation and consequently was no true Church of Christ. For not only her unsound and corrupt Doctrines but her wicked Life and especially her slaying the Witnesses of Christ And exalting her self over the Kings and Emperors of the Earth above six hundred years ago at least with many other things to be charged against her utterly inconsistent with a true Church doth altogether make her to be no true Church for many hundred of years before Luther And the Lord wanted not Witnesses sufficient to demonstrate her Errors unto her many hundreds of years before Luther for in every Century God raised up his Witnesses against her as the Church History doth plainly and fully relate Moreover she had both the Scriptures of Truth to Witness against her and also Gods Holy Checks and Reproofs of his Spirit in her Conscience that was instead of a thousand so she wanted not demonstration of her Errors sufficient to render without excuse for many hundreds of years before Luther's time And now let all sober Protestants judge who doth most favour the Harlot Babylon I. A. or we for by I. A. his Doctrine she is but a Young Woman as yet and ●carse ●ad time in the World to bring up her Daughters of Fornication to that Age and Stature the Scripture declareth How much more true is the Testimony of those Protestants who date her rising above a Thousand years agoe her whole time being numbred in Scripture to contain 1260 or 1290. days at most signifying according to the Pro●hetick Stile of Scripture so many years the period or end of which time sincere Protest●ants are looking for as near approaching when she shall fall as a Millstone cast into the Sea and never rise again But by I. A. his account she began not to rise till little more then a hundred years agoe and consequently before her fall more then a thousand years are yet to expire which is too glad tydings unto her but they are false and too sad tydings to the people of God if that they were true THE END 1 Cor. 11 32. Act. 10. 42. Act. 17. 31.