Rules of that called Philosophy but remain at great uncertainty in the very foundations of it as is acknowledged by the most ingenuous Professors thereof Now to make a thing so uncertain as their Philosophy is in many or most things to wit a fallible thing an infallible Rule to make a Minister of the Infallible Truth is a very absurd and unreasonable matter But I. A. giveth us a number of Thirteen or Fourteen Positions which his School-Philosophy doth teach the truth whereof is evident as that there is a God who is Infinite Eternal Omnisciâ—nt Omnipotent Unchangeable that every man is a Rational Creature that the Soul of man is Immortal that no Brute is a Man that no Action can be without some Subject nor without some effect nor any Union without some extremes But I suppose there are few men if any that have but the right use of their understanding as men that do not or may not know all this without School-Philosophy as well as I. A. doth with it And then what advantage giveth his Philosophy unto him But toere are other great matters which his Philosophy teacheth and as he particularly describeth them they are these following That every thing either is or is not that nothing can â—oth be and not be at once that of every contradiction the one part is true and the other false that every whole is more than 〈◊〉 part that every Cause is prior in nature to its effect that nothing can work before it exist But I must tell I. A. that these last mentioned Positions are not taught by Philosophy and are not any part of Philosophy as is generally acknowledged by the Professors of it because they are first Principles which Philosophy doth not undertake to teach but presupposeth them as already known and understood by the common dictates of understanding that is in all men and are called by them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 common Sentiments or Principles and therefore we still desiderate what peculiar Misteries I. A. his Philosophy doth teach that men of ordinary understanding doth not already know or at least may know very easily by a simple reflection without his Philosophy or School-Craft Not that I deny but that there are divers things which the true genuine Philosophy may teach that are not obvious to common understanding but I find nothing asserted by I. A. in all these positions which he giveth as instances of what Philosophy teacheth but every ordinary Tradesman knoweth as well to be true as I. A. And therefore he might have spared his Pains in that idle and unnecessary work CHAP. III. J. A. in his Survey or Examination of the third Query doth earnestly contend That the Words of the Scripture are and ought to be called the Word of God For which he useth divers Arguments and Citations of Scripture but the true state of the Question here is not whether the Scriptures figuratively as by a Synecdoche or Metonymie may not be called the Word for which I shall not contend finding that the Greek Word Logoâ— Translated into English the Word is used sometimes in Scripture to signifie either Words or Writings as Acts 1. 1. the Treatise Writ by Luke he calleth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is to say in English the first Word or Speech Also where Paul saith Our Gospel came unto you not in Word only but in Power c. 1 Thess 1. 5. And some other places may be found both in the Old and New Testament to that effect which yet doth in nothing give to I. A. nor to any of our Adversaries the least advantage against us For the Question is what is properly the Word God or the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That which is most properly and eminently that Word of God so much mentioned in the Scripture with its wonderful effects and that the Letter is not properly the Word of God is as evidently apparent as that the Writing or Written Letter of a mans Speech is not properly the words of a mans Mouth for we commonly distinguish betwixt a mans Word and his Write How much more ought we to distinguish betwixt the outward Letter and Writing and the Word of God in the proper sense seeing God is an invisible Spirit and so is his Word And what he hath spoke by his Prophets or Apostles he spoke it first in their Hearts and Mouths before there was any Declaration of it in Writ and consequently it was the Word of God before the Writing And therefore the Writing is not the Word properly but only figuratively as when a part is put for the whole by a Synecdoche or when the sign is put for the thing signified as a Map of England and Scotland is commonly called England and Scotland and yet none will say that that Map is really England or Scotland or when we hear that England and Scotland produceth such and such Fruits who is so ignorant as to think that the Map or Card produceth these Fruits and not the Land it self Let I. A. know therefore that in all the places where the Word is mentioned he must prove that the Letter of the Scripture is meant or he doth nothing against us the which I am sure he shall never be able to perform seeing he grants himself That sometimes at least by the Word is meant Christ and not the Letter Moreover I ask I. A. when he saith The Scripture is the Word of God what he meaneth by the term Scripture Doth he mean the only bare Writing or Characters consisting of Ink and Paper and will he say that is properly the Word of God Or doth he mean the Doctrine expressed and signified by the said Writing and Characters and the true sense and meaning of the Spirit of God held forth in the same which Metonymically may be called the Scripture putting the thing signified for the sign and thus the Doctrine may be called the Scripture and the Scripture the Doctrine to wit by a twofold Metonymie one where the thing signified is put for the sign the other where the sign is put for the thing â—igniâ—ied Now we do most willingly grant that the Doctrine and true sense or mind of the Spirit declared of or expressed in the Scripture is and may properly be called the Word of God But then we further affirm that the said Doctrine or true sense of the mind or Spirit cannot be reached or attained unto by the meer Reading or Hearing the Letter o the bare meditating in the Letter and thereâ—fore not every one that hath the Letter Preacheth the Letter and Heareth the Letter hath also the true Doctrine and mind of the Spirit and consequently nor hath he the Word of God But he only that receiveth the Spirit of Christ or Christ the Lord who is that Spirit receiveth the true Doctrine when he Readeth or Heareth the Scriptures or meditateth in them and consequently he only receiveth the Word of God And thus also none can Preach the true
Rule and like Proteus turning my self into all shapes sometimes I design Christ himself oftner the Spirit himself but oftnest the Dictate of the Spirit within to be that Rule But he might at that raâ—e have no less blamed the Apostle Paul that he turned himself into all shapes while he affirmeth sometimes That Christ spoke in him and sometimes that the Spirit spoke in him and certainly what Christ or the Spirit spoke in him was by a certain Word or dictate But to Answer directly when I say Christ is the Rule And again when I say the Spirit is the Rule there is no absurdness therein for if we mean by the Spirit the Holy Ghost Christ and the Holy Ghost are never separated or divided in what they Speak or Witness in the souls of men but their speech and Testimony is one and the same alwaies and also Christ himself in Scripture is called the second Adam the quickening Spirit and the Lord that Spirit and said Christ I am the way the Truth and the Life and certainly that Life is Spirit and also the Words or dictate of it is Spirit and Life as Christ said The words that I speak unto you are Spirit and Life So the Reader may see that my words are sound and according to Scripture and therefore whether I say Christ or the Spirit or the internal dictate and Word of the Spirit is the Rule it is to the same purpose And to say the dictate of the Spirit is the Rule is no other than to say the Spirit dictating or speaking is that Rule and do not some of your selves use a variety of Speech when ye speak of the Rule one time saying The Scripture is the Rule another time The Word of God contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament is the only Rule c. as the Westminster Confession of Faith expresly hath it Another time The Spirit of God speaking in the Scriptures c. Now according to I. A. I may blame him and his Brethren in this case that Proteus like he and his Brethren turn themselves into all shapes when they speak of the Rule And whether these phrases used by them be not more unscriptural I leave unto sober men for to judge In the next place he argueth That Christ cannot be the Rule nor the Spirit because the Rule of Faith must be some complex Proposition Direction or Precept and the like To this I Answer First That the Rule of Faith must be a complex Proposition Direction or Precept formally understood in words formally conceived I altogether deny and I. A. hath not offered to prove it And although the Spâ—rit of Christ may and often doth speak express words in the souls of his people yet he doth not alwaies so do when yet he clearly enough signifieth his mind and will unto them for if among men a King may signifie his mind to his Subjects or a Master to his servants without any formal Proposition or direction of words but only by some motion of his hand or face How much more may the Lord God who is the King of Kings signifie his mind unto his servants by the motion of his Spirit without any formal or express words Again I ask I. A. if he hath not learned in the Schools that the reasonable nature of God is the first rule of Manners And certainly the reasonable Nature of God is not a complex Proposition consisting of many words And hath he not read in Boetius that excellent saying Quis legem det amantibus major lex amor est ipse sibi which the Author of a late Book called The Life of God in the soul of man doth use to prove that somewhat more than words is a Law or Rule to Christians and Englisheth thus For who shall give a Law to them that Love Love 's a more powerful Law that doth such persons move And I further Query I. A. seeing the Scripture saith God is Love he that knoweth God to be Love and hath the Love of God shed abroad in his Heart by the holy Spirit which in Scripture is called The Spirit of Love shall not this man be tyed to love God and his Brethren yea and all mankind even his very enemies Suppose it be not said to him in formal express words do so and so Again whether he that only readeth or heareth these outwardly Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy Heart c. and thy Neighbour as thy self but his Heart is utterly void of the love of God or he that hath the love of God in his heart and feelleth the powerful constraint of it is under the most powerful Law Whether the words without or the Spirit and Nature of Divine Love within is the most powerful Law and Rule There may therefore be a Law or Rule which is not a complex Proposition of words either inward or outward to wit the Divine Love it self which hath a Voice and Language to the souls of men in the silence of all words many times and can be understood as well without words as with them And therefore when I say the dictate of the Spirit is the Rule I mean not that there is alwaies a dictate of express words but that which is either such a formal express dictate or equivalent thereunto which those who are acquainted with the experiences of the Saints do well understand although it may seem to I. A. a strange Riddle or Paradox And thus by what I have said in this particular the intelligent Reader I hope shall perceive that in saying The Spirit is the Rule I am not beside my self as I. A. doth alledge but speak the words of Truth and soberness And I further ask Whether I. A. thinks that Ignatius the Martyr was beside himself when he writ in one of his Epistles to the People 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Vsing the Holy Ghost for a Rule or Whether Paul was beside himself when he said The Law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Iesus had made him free from the law of Sin and Death And whether that Law was not the Spirit of Life even as the Law of sin was sin and the Law of death was death And whether the Law of the Mind mentioned by Paul was not a Divine Principle of Grace in his mind even as the Law of his Members was a principle of sin and corruption that sometime had place in him and not any complex Proposition of words And whether the Law that God writeth in the hearts of his people in the new Covenant be simply a form of words consisting of so many letters syllables and sentences or rather to speak properly is not that Law a new and Divine Nature or substantial Life of Holiness and Righteousness and Wisdom by which the Children of God are led and taught under the new Covenant naturally as it were to love God and all men even as the Law that God hath put in all
an Inward immediate Dictate but there is a Divine Law in all men and therefore c. And in this respect it is that the substance of the Moral Law is generally acknowledged to be Imprinted in the Hearts of all men even those who want the Scriptures And I well remember that Bishop Sanderson saith in one of his Sermons That the said Law in the Hearts of all men is as really the Word of God as that Printed in our Bibles And thus I hope I have sufficiently evinced that there is a Dictate in all men that is a Divine Law and Rule at least in many or most things belonging both to Piety Justice and Sobriety Although I do not plead that there is a Law or Rule in them who have not had the History of the Gospel revealed unto them to believe the same Nor do I say that the History of the Gospel is revealed to us immediately without the Scripture but that having Heard or Read the said History and all other Historical parts of the Scripture the Spirit of God by some Inward Dictate formal or virtual or that which is equivalent doth move and incline us to believe the same And that I. A. doth plead That Believers only have the Spirit I Answer They have it only so as to possess and enjoy the indwelling of it and union with it but that Unbelievers have it so far at least as to reprove them and call them to repentance is clear from many Scriptures especially Iohn 16. 8. Prov. 1. 23 24. In Answer to one Argument of mine he saith A Believer needs not any immediate Dictate to assure him that he is a Child of God seeing by the aâ—â—istance of the Spirit effectively he may draw a conclusion from Scripture Premisses in applying the Scripture marks But to this I Answer that the Scripture only telleth him one of the Premisses of that they call the practical Syllogism but no Scripture in all the Bible telleth I. A. or me that he or I have these marks and seeing a true Believer may attain to a Faith of assurance as I. A. doth not deny and Faith must have the Word of God for its object seeing there is not a word in all the Scripture that saith he or I have those marks we must seek that word somewhere else then in the Scripture and where shall we seek it else but in our Hearts where the Spirit himself witnesseth with our Spirits that we are the Children of God if so be that we have that witness even as it did witness in Paul And if the illumination of the Spirit discover the Graces of God in our Souls certainly that is an Immediate Revelation for Scripture doth not discover in us those Graces but the Spirit and he that discovers the Graces discovereth also himself to be the true Spirit of God and doth not hide himself from us or else we might doubt whether the discovery were true or not not knowing infallibly the Author thereof Lastly That he saith I spurn at the distinction of objective and subjective Illumination as Anti-christian and deceitful I Answer I do not blame the distinction simply as in it self but as it is illused and applyed Whereas they say The influence and illumination of the Spirit in Believers is meerly effective or subjective and not at all objective But I say it is both effective and objective effective to help us to See or Hear and objective or by way of â—bject for the Sight and Hearing or any other perception of our Souls to stay and rest upon but this object can no more be the Letter of Scripture alone than a report of Meat and Drink can be the object to satisfie a mans Taste or Appetite when he is Hungry or Thirsty And thus I do not confound the distinct considerations of objective and effective only I affirm that the same thing may be both and so indeed is as when the Sun enlightens us its Ray or Beam helps us to see and also it is the object of our sight And the Heat of the Fire is both the object of our Feeling and also when it is moderate helpeth us to feel and effectively doth strengthen our Feeling But when the Fire heateth a stone it worketh in it only effectively and not objectively or as an object but Believers receive not the Heavenly Light and warmth of the Spirit as dead and insensible stones but as living Souls that have a real sense and perception of that which doth influence them and therefore that influence is the proper immediate object of their perception And if there be no inward Spiritual object that the Spirit presents to Gods Children then there is no inward Spiritual Eye nor Ear nor inward Spiritual Taste or Savour nor inward Spiritual Feeling all which is most contrary both to Scripture which mentions all these Spiritual Senses as I have proved at large in my Book of Immediate Revelation and also to the Saints experiences And doth not God promise that his Children shall see him under the New Covenant and certainly all sight that is proper is immediate And to say that the Saints only see God by the Scriptures is but as much as to say that we only see our Father by a report of him or that we only see the outward Sun by ones telling us that it shines who hath indeed seen it or that we only see our Native Country in which we live and dwell by looking at the Map of it But certainly such a remote and improper seeing doâ—s no wise answer to the Glory of the New Covenant but rather falleth short of the Old And if that be all to see God in the Scriptures then all those that lived under the Old Covenant saw God as clearly as Believers under the New Covenant seeing they had the Scriptures in great part But I remember a good saying of S. R. in one of his Epistles that I hope may have some weight with I. A. That is little saith he to see Christ in a Book which yet the Scripture is and certainly if I. A. has seen no more of God or Christ but what he has had a report of from the Letter of the Scripture I must needs say he is a great stranger to the New Covenant Dispensation and is still like so to remain while he disputes in unbelief against so great a Blessing that if he did believe he might attain unto But I wish the Lord may open his Eyes and then he will no more contend against such a thing I. A. proceedeth further to dispute against the Dictate or Witness of the Spirit within although he saith He hath sufficiently affronted it yet because it is worthy of a thousand deaths for its proud usurpation as he saith he will reach it some few blowes more To this I Answer that these exceeding bold and daring words against the Blessed Dictates or Words of Gods Holy Spirit in the Hearts of his people hath not a little moved me
this immediateness doth not hinder or make void the use of means but make them the more profitable and useful even so nor the iâ—mediate objective illumination doth in the least made void the means as is already said in the case of the Prophets and Apostles and Paul said the Scriptutes were writ for his and his Brethrens Learning even his fellow Apostles as well as other Christians And to say or think the contrary is as absurd and unreasonable as who would say a Scholar that is taught of his Master immediately is not to read upon any Book nor to hearken to any of his fellow Scholars that may be as well or better learned than himself and on the other hand to set up the means in opposition to the Lords immediate Teachings is equally unreasonable as to conclude such a man has Books whereon to learn and therefore it can profit him nothing to be taught immediately or viva voce and by word of mouth by a lâ—ving Teacher Now both these extreams our Principle and the Scripture and also our good experience have taught us to shun And the immediateness of the Spirits illuminations both effectively and objectively to work and operate in us in the use of all the means appointed of God sometimes in the use of one means and sometimes in the use of another as now in Reading then in Hearing now in Preaching then in Praying now in Meditating then in Singing or Praising God now in giving Alms then in visiting the Sick or thosâ— that are in Prison and sometimes as the mind is retired in pure silence to wait upon the Lord which may be as well and as truly called a mean as any of the former I say the immediateness of the Spirits Communications and Illuminations in the use of those and the like means aforesaid do as well consist with the means and the means with them as the immediate Sun-shine and influence of the heat and comfortable warmth of the Sun which worketh both effectively and objectively upon us consist with the means when we walk or travel on the Road at noon day or labour in the Field Plough Digg Sow Reap and use any other manual operation the which means are so far from hindring or making void the necessity of the Suns immediate influence and concurrence that none of these things can be well or comfortably performed without it And in this large and general sense of the word means which also is true it may be warrantably enough said without any prejudice to our principle of Immediate Revelation that we have no ground to expect any Immediate Manifestation or Revelation of God but in the use of some one means or another that God requireth us to be found in For there is not one hour or moment of our Life but there is something of Duty or Obedience that we ought to be found in either inwardly or outwardly if we have the use of our understandings as men and every act of Obedience may and ought truly to be called a means of our receiving somewhat immediately of God to wit our Faith our Love our Hope our Holy Fear our Care our Watchfulness our Praying Meditating and silent Waiting and in one word our whole Obedience all these are as truly and properly means as Preaâ—â—ing or reading in the Scriptures And thus every one that is most diligently exercised in the true means has greatest access unto God and doth most abundantly partake of the immediate Revelations and Communications of God's Holy Spirit Light Life Love Vertue Power and Wisdom And if it be said Why are they called then Immediate I Answer Because we feel or perceive them most near unto us even as near or rather more near unto us as the things or actions wherein we are exercised giving Spiritual Vigour Life and lustre unto them without which they are but as dead or lifeless And thus even as when the soul liveth in the Body it is said to be immediately united with it and act immediately therein or therewith although it useth the Body as its Instrument Even so the Spirit of God and of Christ livingly indwelling in the Saints and united with them and they with him is said to act immediately in them and with them although the Lord useth them as means or instruments to work with him And as for the word Immediate Revelation seeing it is not any express Scripture phrase no not in the case of the Prophets and Apostles so far as I can remember if the thing it self were granted to wit That God doth inwardly reveal and speak his mind or shew his Glory and glorious â—ower and Presence in his Children as he did in and to his Saints of Old so that the Saints do Hear See and perceive also Taste and Savour and feel after God Himself as he reveals himself in his Son by the Holy Spirit the Controversy about the Name or Phrase should soon be at an end for it did satisfie the Prophets and Apostles who had it in great measure to call it simply Revelation and Vision or the like without adding the word Immediate for in those daies it seemeth that deceitful distinction of Mediate and Immediate Revelation was not found out in the World I call it deceitful and false because to speak properly all Revelation is Immediate even as all Vision is Immediate and so is all Hearing for I can neither see nor hear a man unless I see and hear him immediately And as for the Scripture when it is called a Revelation it should be figuratively understood as when it is called a Vision for none will say that Isaiah his Book is really the Vision it self which he sâ—w but only a declaration of it And as 〈◊〉 could not write the intellectual Vision that he saw to speak properly so nor could he write the intellectual Voice Word or Words that he did only intellectually hear but only a Report or Declaration of them the which doth far come short of what he saw or heard and in this respect Paul saith that he heard verba ineffabilia unspeakable words that could not be uttered or expressed and so did all the Prophets and Apostles for indeed the words of the mouth as they can be spoken and writ fall short many times to express the depth of what we inwardly think or receive in natural things and how much more to express what God doth inwardly speak or reveal which yet is no derogation from the words of Scripture for it is acknowledged by us to be a blessed instrument in the hand of the Spirit for our Instruction And though we cannot be so bold as to say That the true God is not Worshipped nor known savingly where the Scripture is wanting as I. A. doth alledge more daringly I suppose than many of his Brethren that that are more sober will allow yet we do believe and freely acknowledge that the Scriptures are ordinary means but yet not without the inward Direction Revelation and
alledgeth there is little or no resemblance betwixt Noah's temporal saving by Water and the saving by the inward or Spiritual Baptism But who is so blind or weak that doth not see the falsehood of this his Assertion Is there not the greatest and most near and infallible resemblance betwixt that temporal Salvation of Noah by Water and the spiritual and eternal Salvation by the spiritual Baptism which doth universally and infallibly save all Souls that are partakers of the said spiritual Baptism whereas many thousands get the Water-baptism who are not saved thereby and therefore it doth much more naturally follow that not Water-baptism but the Baptism of the Spirit that doth infallibly purifie the Soul is here meant even as the inward Circumcision of the Spirit is the Anti-type or thing signified by outward Circumcision Lastly As to his seventh Argument whereas he laboureth to prove That Water-baptism is meant Matth. 28. 19 20. whereof he is so confident that he entreats his Reader Not to believe him henceforth if he do not prove it so to be I shall briefly take his proof into consideration 〈◊〉 He says The Greek Word which is Translated Teach signifies to make Disciples and therefore they were to be made Disciples before they were to be Baptized but they could not be made Disciples before Conversion nor does Conversion pre-require Discipleship or else no man might endeavour the Conversion of an Heathen or of any man who is not before Hand a Disciple To which I Answer That granting the Greek word may signifie to make Disciples yet all this reasoning of I. A. doth not inferr that by Baptizing here cannot be meant the Spiritual Baptizing by the effusion of the Spiritual Water upon them which as is already said signifies not barely the first or lowest degree of Conversion but an high or eminent degree thereof even as the outward Plunging or Dipping into Water iâ— more than a small Sprinkling Now as true Faith is before this eminent degree of Conversion or Purification so is also true Discipleship Nor doth it follow that else no man might endeavour the Conversion of an Heathen for they were to endeavour the full and perfect Conversion of Heathens in the highest degree that was possible but so as to do it in Gods way and order to wit first by Teaching and Discipling them into the true Faith and then their full and perfect Conversion or Purification and Spiritual Cleansing was to follow one degree after another His other reason is That the Baptism of Conversion or the Spiritual cleansing of the Soul is but only improper and Metaphorical and we must 〈◊〉 throw about the words of any Text of Scripture from a proper to an improper meaning without some necessity constrain us so to do To this I Answer First That we ought not to go from the proper signification of any word to an improper without some urgent necessity I already acknowledge But then why doth I. A. and his Brethren frequently transgress this Rule in expounding other places of Scripture as to instance when the Scripture saith Christ died for all men I. A. expoundeth this all not of all individuals of mankind but only some and these the far less number and yet he must needs acknowledge that the proper signification of the word all is all individual Again when the Scripture saith Thâ— Kingdom of God is within you I. A. turneth it to among you contrary to the proper sigâ—ification and also to the common Translâ—tion Also when the Scripture speaketh frequently of Christ and the Holy Spirit being in the Saints they commonly say This is not to be meant properly but figuratively understanding by Christ and the Spirit the effects and operations or Graces of the Spirit and not Christ or the Spirit himself And many instances of that nature can be given to shew how I. A. and his Brethren go from the proper signification of Scripture words to an improper without any necessity unless that of their own devising But Secondly I. A. doth but barely take it for granted without any shadow of proof that it is an improper meaning to mean by the Baptism of Christ the spiritual Baptism For the proper meaning of any place or sentence of Scripture is certainly that meaning which the Spirit of God doth intend whether there be a Metaphor used in that place or not Nor doth the Metaphorical use of the word hinder the meaning of it to be properwhen it is so intended And seeing the Scripture doth almost every whereabound with Metaphors and metaphorical expressions we are not so much to consider what is the bare Grammatical sense of any word in common Speech as what is the most common and usual sense of it in Scripture for what is the most common sense of it in Scripture I judge is the most proper meaning of it whether the word be otherwise metaphorical or not for who will deny but according to Scripture sense by the word Christ is properly understood the true Christ of God to wit His only begotten Son and yet Grammatically it is but metaphorical at least as much as the word Baptize for Christ signifieth Anointed even as Baptized signifieth Wasâ—ed or Dipped and if I. A. or any will contend That Christ is properly called Christ or Anointed because the spiritual Anointing is as real and proper in its kind as the outward and natural is in its kind I shall not contend against them but rather go along with them therein but then I say also that the spiritual Baptism is as real and proper in its kind as the spiritual Anointing is in its kind and thus also when Christ is called Bread in Scripture in the Scripture sense he is truly and properly called so yea why doth he call himself The true Bread and why said he that the Manna which Moses gave to the People in the Wilderness was not the true Bread from Heaven Doth not this signifie that whatever vertue or excellency outward Bread hath to feed the Body Christ who is the inward and spiritual Bread hath it much more to feed the Soul yea and the Body also when he pleaseth so to do and in this respect it is that some do affirm That those names of Bread Water Light Oyl and the likâ— are more properly applyed to the spiritual than to the natural so that the Water Oyl Light and Bread that is but outward and natural is rather metaphorically so called and the inward and spiritual more truly and properly deseâ—ving those names And thus the spiritual Baptism shall be the most proper in that sense also But now let the Scripture be searched and we shall find that the word to Baptize doth no less commonly signifie the spiritual Baptism than the outward and Elementary and therefore whoever would perswade us to believe that the spiritual Baptism is not meant here in Matth. 28. 19 20. must shew some invinsible necessity why it ought not the which I. A. hath not as
Defence of the Episcopal Church and Faith that Ioh. Alexander undertaketh but the Presbyterian and yet I. A. is a Member of the Episcopal Church and Officiates therein under Iohn Hamilton an Episcopal Preacher who hath recommended his Book at the Order of the Bishop of Edenburgh But I suppose the Episcopal Church in Brittain will give Iohn Alexander or his Patriot Iohn Hamilton little Thanks for his Service seeing many Episcopal Teachers in Brittain differ widely in Doctrin from the said Westminster Confession And had I. A. no other Confession of Faith or Catechism to commend but that of the Presbyterians whom his Episcopal Brethren commonly call Fanaticks and is it turned to that that they commend their Confession of Faith as the only Confession of the Church in Brittain But I can find no mention in the said Confession that Episcopacy is Iure Divino However since I. A. has undertaken the defence of the Presbyterian Church and Faith in all its Articles and Definitions as very Gospel Rule and Scripture Sentence he must then acknowledge that all these Definitions and Articles of his Presbyterian Brethren are at left materially considered infallible Oracles â—nd seeing he confesseth they are not all expresly contained in Scripture but many of them only deduced by consequence therefrom by what infallible consequence can he convince any rational man that his and their consequences are just and right since he laies no claim to the least measure of that kind of direction of the Holy Spirit teaching him and his Brethren to draw those consequences which Christ and the Apostles had whereby they argued and did draw consequences from places of Scripture formerly writ And seeing not only Papists and Protestants but the Episcopal and Presbyterian draw contrary consequences from the Scriptures what evidence can I. A. give us why we should receive the consequences of the one more than the other Or can we think the Lord hath left his people so in the dark as to give no other knowledge of his Will in a great many things whiâ—h are Articles of Faith but what can be searched out by long and tedious consequences of the bare natural understanding of man as it is left to it self to fish and hunt in the dark after such consequences without any such special direction and conduct of the Holy Spirit in the least measure which Christ and the Prophets and Apostles had Nay I do not find that I. A. doth acknowledge so much as the least absolute necessity of any sort of operation or illumination of the Spirit so â—uch as that they call effective or subjective order to draw their consequences from the â—cripture But if this way of drawing consequences without the help of the Holy Spirit were so safe and sure how is it then that so many of all sorts draw contrary consequences from the same Scriptures Is not the great reason of all this because men are departed from that holy Spirit which gave forth the Scriptures and can only give the true understanding of them And therefore is it not plain and manifest as the Light at Noon-day that man's natural Spirit and Reason and Wisdom in its highest perfection is altogether unable to meddle with Divine Truths or to search after them as it remains alone hunting in the dark And certainly this is no small part of that cursed self-conceit and exaltation of mind that Rules in the degenerated nature of man that they think they can be wise enough without God's Spirit they need no direction or assistance or illumination to help them to search into the Scriptures they can do that well enough with their natural reason and a little School-craft of Artificial Logick and Grammar and Natural Philosophy but that blessed man David was of another mind when he prayed unto the Lord saying Open my Eyes that I may see the wonderful things of thy Law And as for consequences which men draw as they are directed and taught by the Spirit of God as Christ and the Apostles were when they drew any consequence from what was formerly writ we do own them and receive them and none else But yet as to the most weighty and necessary things to wit such as are the general principles of the Christian Faith and Doctrine and which as such are generally to be received by all Christians as well these of the meanest capacity as others of the greatest we see the Lord hath not left it to mans industry to search after them by consequences long or short but hath delivered them to us in plain express words and terms and that many times over and over again as in respect of many of them in the Holy Scriptures And why is it that the Scriptures are so full and large in their Testimony to the Doctrines and Principles of Religion but to let us understand that all the Principles and Doctrines of the Christian Faith which God requireth in common of all Christians are expresly their delivered and recorded and put as it were in a puplick Register And therefore for my part what I cannot find expresly delivered in Scripture I see no reason why I should receive or believe it as any common Article or principle of the Christian Faith or Life and for such to whom God hath given that Divine skill to â—ive or dip into the depth of the Scriptures 〈◊〉 out of the reach of other men who may â—e true Christians so as to collect or gather by just and true consequences other things that lie out of the view of their weaker Brethren they ought not to obtrude them upon any to be received as principles of Faith but in that case to have Faith to themselves and receive them as peculiar discoveries or Revelations of the Spirit to them and such others as God hath so enlightened the which by the Apostle Paul is called The Word of Wisdom to wit such a peculiar degree of Wisdom or Understanding in the depth of the Scriptures as others who yet were true Christians did not reach unto and concerning such a peculiar gift of Divine Wisdom he said We speak Wisdom among the perfect this certainly could be no common Article of Faith else he should have Preached it to all And this by the same Apostle is elsewhere called The knowledge of Mysteries as distinguished from the common Faith and knowledge of the whole Church Now if this were but received among those called Christians that nothing should be required by one sort from another as an Article of Faith or Doctrine or principle of the Christian Religion in common to be believed but what is expresly delivered in the Scriptures in plain express Scripture terms of how great an advantage might it be to bring a true reconcilement among them and beget true Christian Unity Peace Love and Concord And as for the consequential part of peculiar Doctrines whether true or false to leave every one a freedom or latitude without imposing upon them the affirmative or negative as
any bond or tye of Christian fellowship for if such consequential Doctrine be false it is most unreasonable to impose it and therefore in that Case a Dissenter should have his liberty to differ in judgment without any breach of Brotherly Unity and Society and if it be true yet not being opened or revealed to another it cannot be in justice pressed or urged upon him where God has not given him the true freedom and clearness of mind to receive it and to do otherwise is to transgress that Golden Rule delivered by Paul viz. To walk by the same Rule according to what we have attained and if any be otherwise minded said he God will reveal it unto him And if this Advice could find place it would bring the differences among those called Christians in point of judgment into a very small and narrow compass and they would understand one another far better than now they do But again seeing I. A. is so absolute and peremptory that the Presbyterian Confession of Faith and Catechism and whâ— not the Presbyterian Directory also materially considered is infallible and yet is but a Book of their making and the consequential part of it the alone Fruit and product of their humane Spirit since they deny all pretence to an inward Dictate or Direction of Gods Spirit in the Case why should the said I. A. so oft Taunt and upbraid us with an Infallible Spirit and Infallible Speaking and Writing and Inspiration for now it seems a meer humane Spirit hath inspired those that gave forth the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechism to write every Article and Sentence of it Infallibly according to I. A. his high estimation of them But whereas I. A. dareth us To give any instances of any Articles and Definitions contained in the said Confession and Catechism that are not Scripture Sentence materially or formally considered This hath been done many times over and over again by our Friends in England and by some of us here in Scotland particularly by R. B. in his Catechism and Apology and by me in my Book of Immediate Revelation And there was in the year 1651. an intire examination of that Confession of Faith published in Print by one W. Parker who was not called a Quaker and whose words in all things we do not own and to the said Examination I. A. or any of his Fraternity is referred where I am abundantly perswaded he hath said more against it and many Articles contained therein viz. in the said Confession then ever I. A. or any of his Presbyterian half Brethren shall be able to Answer which whole Book lyeth at their door to this day so far as I can understand unanswered Another gross mistake or rather abuse of I. A. is that he alledgeth The Quakers are against all Confessions of Faith and Catâ—chisms whatsoever and yet they have Confessions and Catechisms of their own I say this is a gross abuse for we do own that there may and ought to be Confessions of Faith given by True Christians and also we own that there may be Catechisms and that they are useful in the Church and accordingly we have such And though the Writers of those Confessions and Catechisms be not absolutely or universally Infallible yet we hold that none should publish any Confession of Faith or Catecâ—ism but in such things whereof they are Infallibly perswaded by the Spirit of the Lord and as to other things that may be uncertaâ—n or unclear unto them they should forbear and so every one should Speak or Write as they have received the â—pirit of Faith as the Apostle Paul said We haâ—ing reâ—eâ—ved the same â—pirit of Faith we believe and therefore we have spoken buâ— I. A. thinks he may Speak and Confess his Faith without the same Spirit of Faith which David and Paul had And as for our Catechisms and Confessions of Faith if we cannot prove them and all the Articles and Sentences in them to be according to express Scripture words then let them not be received For we profess to urge nothing nor to press any thing to be received as a common Article of Faith but what is expresly delivered and Recorded in the Scriptures And if any should be so unbelieving and obstinate as not to believe the express Scripture words we may not urge them or press them thereunto by any Humane or Carnal Force and Compulsion but only to labour to perswade them according to that evidence and demonstration of the Spirit and Power as God shall be pleased to furnish us withal Another great mistake or abuse of I. A. is that he alledgeth the Tenth Query is void of Sense as if it did import That their Iustification and Sanctification Faith and Grace were the Gifts of their Directory Catechism and Confession of Faith and thus because the Query saith The Gifts of these whereas it is plain to any Sober and Rational Person that by the Gifts of these the Inquirer meaneth the Gifts of Justification Sanctification Faith and Grace and this is a form of Speech allowed by the Grammar it self and practised by Learned Authors I suppose far beyond I. A. who say not only the Town London or Rome or Edinburgh but also the Town or City of London the City of Rome the City of Edinburgh and therefore why may it not be as well said the Gift of Faith of Justification of Sanctification and speaking of these in general why may it not be said the Gifts of these which is equivalent to these Gifts And beside perhaps all this Quible is only raised upon a mistake of the Transcriber wriâ—ing the Gifts of these for these Gifts but it seems I. A. is barren of matter when he maketh a mountain of so small a matter if so be it were an impropriety of Speech But to deal in earnest with I. A. seeing he is so declared an Enemy to Divine Inspiration in our days we cannot think that he indeed oweth his pretended Justification Sanctification and Faith unto God but rather unto those Confessions and Catechisms for what Evidence or probable ground can he give us that he hath any Divine Faith or that which is more than barely Historical and Traditional Another gross abuse of his is That because we call the Gospel the Power of God as we are warranted by the express words of Paul Rom. 1. 16. therefore he alledgeth That we fain to our selves a sort of dumb Gospel without any Words or Doctrine But to remove this abuse let the Reader know that by the Gospel we mean not the Power of God abstractly considered without the Doctrine and suitable words inwardly or outwardly Preached nor yet the Doctrine and Worâ—â— without the Power and Life and 〈◊〉 God but both conjunctly And although we do readily acknowledge that the Doctrine when it is outwardly Preached by the Spirit of God and so hath the Power of God accompanying it is and may be called Gospel yet we cannot simply or absolutely
in Brittain as by us And I judge that I. A. should hold himself a Member of thâ—s Episcopal Church seeing he himself Officiates as Reader and Presentor at at Leith under Iohn Hamilton an Episcopal Preacher who hath also recommended his Book And therefore seeing I. A. hath undertaken the Vindication of the Church of God in Brittain as he alledgeth against the Quakers he must either acknowledge that the Episcopal Church in Brittain is not the Church of God whereof he is a professed Member or else have proved out of the the Episcopal Church now in Brittain that she avoweth and owneth such principles all and every one as he asserteth and that those Eminent and Noted persons both in England and Scotland who dissent from him and agree with us in those principles already mentioned are Hereticks and renouncers of true principles of Religion stifling the faculties of reason such as among others in England R. Cudworth and H. More accounted great Doctors also William Sharlock and I. A. his Reverend and much admired Rich Baxter whom he particularly opposeth in the matter of Justification And in Scotland Bishop William Forbes in his Treatise called Considerationes modestae pacificae Controvers As also divers other persons of Note yet living whose Names I need not to mention all which I suppose and thousands more in the Episcopal Church in Brittain of all Qualities and Ranks will be loath to acknowledge I. A. for a Patron or Defender of their Faith but rather find â—ault with him in those things as an Enemy of their Faith and in other things a bewrayer and betrayer of it rather then a Defender In his Preface to the Reader he excuseth himself that he hath not Cited any humane Testimonies meaning Authorities of Ancient and Modern Writers against us Seeing these saith he they do not value except when they think they make for them especially ad hominem And with this slender pretext I suppose he thinketh to evade the many Testimonies I brought to confirm the Truth of our principles in my Book called Quakerism no Popery even out of Writters both Ancient and late of great esteem among them none of which he hath once so much as touched But to Answer to his Charge I say we value the Testimonies of all Writers whether Ancient or late which are true and agree with the Scriptures as much as any Protestants do or more than he doth And seeing he imputeth it as a fault to us that we will not own the Testimonies of others against us I ask him if he would own or value any Testimonies of Authors that make against him or his Judgment If he say nay then his excuse is removed and he hath nought to say for this omission But the matter seemeth to be in effect that those Testimonies adduced by me in the foresaid Treatise he knew not how to Answer unless by saying that those persons erred in those principles as much as we which he was loath to acknowledge lest he should seem to weaken the Charge of his Title against us and acknowledge his own party and those that are more worth of Credit than himself equally guilty of Iesuitism with the people called Quakers wherewith he doth falsly accuse them And here I shall give a List or Catalogue of divers gross Perversions and Calumnies whereby he seeketh to abuse his Reader in the very Preface of his book against us As 1. That we reject all manner of External Ordinances Which is notoriously false as all who have the least knowledge of us can witness that we are for Meeting together and that frequently and when we meet to Preach Exhort Pray and give Thanks to God in Audible words as the Spirit of the Lord doth help us And can I. A. say that none of these are External Ordinances or Appointments and we challenge him to instance any one External Ordinance or Appointment of God that is truly so which we are against For it is but only humane Institutions and Abolished shadows set up as Divine Ordinances which we oppose as in the Sequel of this Treatise doth appear 2. He saith We do directly strike at the Foundation of all with one blow overturning so far as we can the whole rule of Faith and Duty setting a new one of our own Invention in the room thereof But why doth he charge us so highly in this matter because we cannot own the Letter or External Testimony of the Scriptures as the primary Rule or Foundation of Faith but only Christ Jesus the first and last concerning whom Paul hath writ That another foundation no man can lay then that which is laid already which is Christ Iesus And said the Lord behold I lay in Zion an Elect precious Corner stone a sure foundation Which to be sure is not the Letter but Christ and his Spirit Light and Life revealed in the heart And I Query this Accuser I. A. whether if to acknowledge Christ in his immediate Teachings by his Spirit in mens hearts is to set up a false Foundation or overturn the true one the Apostles are guilty of this Charge as to their own particulars seeing I. A. will not deny but that the Apostles had Christ immediatly to Teach them and speak in them And was it not the Apostle Paul his labour to build the Churches upon Christ that their Faith might not stand in men though sent and moved of God but in the power of God And though I. A. blame us for setting up the Light within for the Rule yet Christ taught people to believe in the Light and that this Light was not the Scripture which he bid them believe in is clear that he said While ye have the Light believe in the Light that ye may be the Children of it This clearly Imports that this Light should not long remain with them if they did not believe in it as he said in the foregoing Verse Yet a little while is the Light with you walk while ye have the Light lest darkness come upon you see Iohn 12. 35 36. And indeed the gracious Visitation of Light did not long after remain with them who did reject it although the Scriptures did remain with them And therefore the Light which he bid them believe in was not the Letter of the Scripture but Christ himself who said I am the Light of the World 3. He saith This Heresie so he calleth our Faith is a very Sink or an Vniversal System of almost all the gross Errors which hitherto have annoyed the Church of God And herein he doth imitate I. Brown and the Author of the Postcript to S. R. his Epistles who have so charged us but how unjustly we hope our Answers do sufficiently evince And surely this I. A. in the Art of Slandering and false Accusing may pass muster for a Lieutenant to those aforesaid Champions who have led the way before him in this enterprise It is not unknown how the Papists loaded the Protestants at their
Testament is found the killing Letter there is also in the New Testament the Letter which killeth him who doth not spiritually attend unto the things which are spoken And why was the Law called a killing Letter only because it did curse and condemn guilty sinners Nay that is not the only or main reason but rather that its Ministration could not give life whereas the Ministration of the Gospel being accompanied with the Spirit doth quicken and give life and in that respect Paul said The Law was weak and could no make perfect and therefore calls it The Law of a carnal Commandment Now if any go from the Spirit that only makes the true Gospel Administration and set up the Letter or Writings of the Apostles in the room of the same These Writings of the Apostles do eventually become a killing Letter no less than that of the Law and can no more give life or make perfect than the outward Law could And here upon this Head I do readily take notice what I. A. acknowledgeth concerning the Scriptures in page 16. of his Book towards the middle part viz That the Scriptures as to the external Form and Mode which they have from the Writers Pen they are not the Word of God but that as to their ennutiate doctrine and sentence they are the Word of God And why then doth I. A. make all this loud clamour and noise against the Quakers seeing upon the matter he confesseth what they say viz. That the letter or external form of the Writing is not properly the Word of God And I suppose I may add with I. A his allowance that the external Form and Mode of the Preachers mouth when he formeth a sound in speaking Scripture Words is not properly the Word of God any more than the bare writing â—seeing there is no more in the one than in the other simply as such Let not I. A. therefore blame us for that hereafter which he confesseth himself and we do as readily acknowledge as he either doth or can do That the ennutiate and expressed Doctrine and sense of the Spirit is indeed truly and properly the Word of God But then is there no difference betwixt him and us I Answer as to the naming the Scriptures the Word it seemeth there is none But yet another great Controversie ariseth which I doubt will not be so soon ended betwixt us viz. Whether any man can reach unto that Ennutiâ—te Doctrine and sense of the Scriptures without the Spiritual Illumination and Assistance of that Spirit that gave them forth we say Not and if he say Yea we still differ but not as it seemeth to me by his Confession in naming the Scriptures The Word of God But there is yet another great Charge wherewith he loadeth us in this his Survey of the Third Query Some Quakers saith he are upon this Head so grosly Atheistical as to say That the Scriptures are but the Saints Words and Testimony from their own particular experiences And again he alledgeth That according to the Quakers they are but the meer bare Word of a Creature Hence he inferreth That the Pen-men of the Scripturs of all men in the World must have been the greatest Cheats and archest Impostors c. But seeing he produceth no express Testimonies out of the Writings of that People for such Assertions he is not to be believed Nor doth it follow that because the Scriptures are the Saints Words that therefore they are not also the Words of God even unto all who hear or read them at least mediately and remotely although none but such as believe do receive them as such which yet is only and alone the â—ault of those unbelieving persons because they reject the Spirit of God that doth certifie or assure unto us That the Scriptures are proceeded from God by Divine Inspiration And what if some have said That the Scriptures are Testimonies of the Saints from their experience May not this receive a fair and charitable construction and not presently be judged to be gross Atheism for although the Scriptures give a narration of divers Histories as also of Precepts Prohibitions and mysteries of Faith As Christ His coming in the Flesh His being born of a Virgin His being Crucified and Buried His Resurrection and Ascension the which Histories and things aforementioned albeit they cannot properly be called the Saints Experiences yet the Divine Inspiration and Revelation which the Prophets and Apostles had immediately of those things was truly their Experience and let us see if I. A. will deny it or if he do may it not be more justly retorted upon him That he and not the Quakers deny that the Scriptures are from Divine Inspiration or can he say that although the Prophets and Apostles had Divine Inspiration and Immediate Revelation yet they had no Experience of the same And that we call the Scriptures sometimes the Saints Words yet not denying them in a true sense to be the Words of God I. A. can no more justly blame us than Paul and Iohn who called their own Preaching and Writing and that of their Brethren the Witness and Teaching of men so that Paul and the Apostles Words were both the words of men and yet also the Words of God to wit mediately declared unto them by the Apostles Now they whose Faith stood in the Power of God received them as the Words of God but who came not to that power to believe in it they were but unto such as the words of men which as is alâ—eady said was only and alone the fault of such unbelieving Persons There yet remains two parts or branches of the third Query to which I. A. for all his pretended Survey hath given no more satisfaction than to any of the former The first is Whether all that is written in the Scriptures from Genesis to Revelation be a Rule of Faith and Manners To this he only answereth in general That we are bound to believe all Sâ—ripture Enunciation from the beginning to the eâ—d which we do readily grant and that therefore it may well be called an Historical Rule of Faith and that the Moral Law with whatsoever is of common equity or whatever enjoyning any peice of Religious Worship under the New Testament doth belong to Christians of our Calling and Condition but that the obligation of the Ceremonial and Iudicial Law is totally abrogated And saith he the Quakers must be content with these generals To which I Answer When the Nature of the Question requireth a particular Answer to Answer in general neither can nor ought to satisfie for notwithstanding of all he hath said the great Question yet remains unanswered What parts of the Scripture belong to the Moral Law and what â—o the Ceremonial and Judicial so called Also seeing there are divers things that were commanded and practised by the Apostles and Primitive Christians under the New Testament whether all these do oblige us now yea or nay as for example the Washing one
anotheâ—s Feet and Anointing the Sick with Oyl and whether these actions were commanded by any part of the Ceremonial or Judicial Law or whether they belong to any piece of Religious Worship under the New Testament The other branch of the Question is Whether every Title from 〈◊〉 to the Revelation be the Word or Words of God To this he Answereth affirmatively and seemeth to be so offended with the Question as if it did conclude That the Quakers judge that the Scriptures are interpolated and corrupted with the additions of men But in Answer I. A. ought to know that to Query a thing will not conclude that the Questionist doth positively affim or deny what is Queried Again I hope it may without offence not only be Queried but also concluded that the Translations of the Scripture the which Translations are commonly calâ—ed Scripture have divers additions which men have added without any pretence to Divine Inspiration The which Additions are commonly Printed in our English Bibles in another Character than the other words Now is it any Crime to ask if these Addititions be the words of God or only the words of man and if such Additions be any part of the Rule of Faith and Manners And yet those very Additions are of such consequence that they may occasion the Reader to take up another sense of the Sentences then otherwise he would or perhaps the Spirit of God did really intend Nor are there wanting divers both Judicious and Learned men so accounted and of good repute even among Protestants who do acknowledge that some particular words have dropt in into the Greek and Hebrew Texts since their first Writing and what are these various Lections of many places of Scripture especially when they contradict in one and the same place Are not some of them at least only the words of men All which being granted yet do not hinder but that the purity of the Scriptures is sufficiently preâ—erved viz. in respect of the main and necessary things for which we have cause to bless God and acknowledge his great care and Providence as in many other things And thus I. A. may see how much of the weightiest part of his task in giving a sufficient Answer to those Queries he hath still left undone for all his windy Braggings against the people called Quakers CHAP. IV. IN his pretended Survey of the fourth Query he divides it into three Sections In the first he laboureth by many Arguments to prove a thing which we do not deny to wit That the Scriptures are a Rule of Faith and Manners And so he might have spared himself and others all that pains for the state of the Question is not whether the Scriptures are not and may not be called a secondary Rule nor whether they may not in respect of all the Historical part be called an Historical Rule But the true Question is whether the words of the Scripture as they are only written and spoken outwardly be the Principal or only Rule of Faith and Manners Now seeing I. A. hath been at such needless pains to prove a thing against us which we do not deny I need not give a particular Answer to any of his Arguments But because there are divers of his Arguments which have some false premisses although the conclusion be granted therefore I shall a little take notice of one or two of them In his seventh Argument he maketh it one of the Premisses That the more sure word of Prophecy mentioned 2 Pet. 1. 19 20. is the Scripture But this is denyed by us for we believe it to be that Word of God in the heart by which all the true Prophets did Prophecy and without which we cannot understand their Prophecies nor any other part of the Scripture Now the reasons of his Assertion are 1. Because of the coherence of 19 and 20 Verses But this is no sufficient reason for the coherence is as good and better to understand it of the word in the heart as to understand Peter saying thus Take heed to the Word of God in your hearts by which the Prophets gave forth the Scriptures for it is that same word which maketh us sure that the Scriptures are Divinely Inspired and also doth give unto us the true Interpretation of them This is a good coherence and much better then that imagined by I. A. as if Peter had said Take heed unto the Scripture as the more sure Word for no Scripture is of any private interpretation The which violent and strained coherence I for my part cannot understand seeing Peter aimeth at something that is not the Scripture as being necessary to give us its Interpretation And what can that be But that Word of â—od which spake in the Prophets His second reason is That he cannot understand how the Dictate or Light within is more sure than Gods immediate voice from Heaven as that was at the Transfiguration To which I Answer that the inward Voice or Word of God immediately in the heart can very well be understood to be more sure as to us than any outward Voice of God from Heaven 1. Because that which is immediate in the Heart is more near and immediate than that which is outward in the Air which cometh to the Heart and Soul but mediately through the outward Hearing however immediate may be understood otherwise 2. It was by the immediate Word of God in the Heart by which the Prophets when at any time they heard an outward Voice or Word from God did assuredly know that it came from God and that it was no delusion of Satan And they believed the Word of God in their Hearts simply from its own self Evidence and not from any borrowed Evidence of an outward Voice For they oft believed and received the Word of God in their Hearts immediately when they heard no outward voice at all as is generally acknowledged And this inward or intellectual kind of speaking by the Lord unto the Prophets is acknowledged by Thomas Aquinas and Suarez and other Schoolmen to be the most noble kind of Divine Revelation and consequently the most sure at least unto us His 3. Reason Is the Testimony of other Scriptures produced and to be produced But he has neither produced nor can produce any Scripture that proveth that Word of Prophecy or Prophetical Word to be only the Letter of the Scripture and not the Word or Light of God and of Christ in the Heart Again in his eighth Argument he alledgeth That it cannot be the Dictate or Light within by which Spirits are to be tryed because the Dictate or Light within is â—allible And this he undertakes to prove from some words of mine in Quakerism no Popery where I acknowledge That it is possible for us to mistake and erre in Speaking and Writing and consequently in Examining and Iudging if we be not duely watchful But how unreasonable this consequence is I leave unto sober men to judge as to conclude because
commonly understood of that which originally is Grafted or Implanted in us and in this sense is used generally both by Christian and Heathen Writers as it is contradistinguished from that which is outwardly received Hence the natural love or affection that is in mankind is said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the which is not a thing outwardly received and consequently the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot be the Letter of the Scripture but a Divine principle immediately grafted into our Souls when God Created them and in respect of which men are said to be made in the Image of God Seventhly He alledgeth that we bring Heb. 6. 1 2. To oppose and reject all External Ordinances out of the Church citing Principles of Truth pag. 63 68 77 80. And here he insulteth not a little as if by the same Argument The Quakers were obliged to reject the very Principles of the Doctrine of Christ and the foundation of Repentance and Faith as well as Water-Baptism But to this I Answer having examined these pages cited by him I do not find that they mention or intend any thing of rejecting the Principles of the Doctrine of Christ or External Ordinances And let but the Reader examine the words and he shall find that nothing further is intended than this that people should not sit down or build their Faith upon a form of words though never so sound but should come further than all words so that leaving them behind as in respect of a foundation they were to come unto Christ the true foundation and grow up in him unto perfection And as for Water-baptism that place of the Heb. 6. 1 2. doth not mention it among the principles of the Doctrine of Christ but only the Doctrine of Baptisms which is another thing than Water-Baptism For although we have not Water-Baptism among us yet we have the Doctrine of Baptisms that is set down with other principles of our Faith as in divers other of our Book so in that mentioned by him called The Principles of Truth Now to leave a form of Words or Articles and Propositions concerning Faith which commonly are called Principles so as not to set them up for the principal and only foundation of our Faith which people are but too ready to do This is not to reject them no more than when a man leaves his Affairs he hath been conversant in and goeth to his Bed to rest him with moderate sleep is to reject his Affairs for he returneth unto them again Eighthly He saith We object that Enoch Noah Abraham c. Had not the Scripture to be their Rule and therefore nor are we to have it to be our Rule And this he makes as ridiculous a consequence as to say the Scriptures were not written in the primitive World therefore neither afterwards But I Answer that to argue from thence that the Scripture is not to be our only and principal Rule is both safe and pertinent For it Enoch Noah Abraham had the Spirit to be a Rule unto them it is no less a rule unto all now who have the same Faith which they had seeing the same Spirit is given to Believers now which they had which Spirit is one as Paul hath declared and it is most Rational that as the Faith is one in all Ages of the World and the Spirit one so the Principal rule of Faith should be one also Ninthly He saith I object Quakerâ—sm no Popery pag. 9. 13. That the Testâ—mony of the Spirit within is greater than the External Testimony of the Scripture and therefore the said Testimony of the Spirit is the Principal Rule To which he roundly Answereth by denying that there is any such Testimony of the Spirit within Believers and because I say there is he alledgeth I drive the Plough before the Oxen. But I Answer that I have proved it sufficiently already and now also I have Answered I hope sufficiently all his objections against it And here I desire the Reader to take notice how that notwithstanding I. A. saith elsewhere as Pag. 44. That he and his Brethren never denyed the Spirits Teaching Yet how inconsistent that is with denying any Testimony of the Spirit or Dictate thereof in mens hearts Is the Teaching of the Spirit only an outward thing Is it nothing else but to Hear or Read the Letter of the Scripture And are they all Taught of the Spirit who are but only and meerly Taught by the Letter But if it be granted that there is an inward Teaching of the Spirit distinct from the outward Teaching of the Scripture although not separated therefrom or without the outward as I know some of the more sober doth acknowledge then I say is not that inward Teaching a Testimony of the Spirit For to affirm it to be a Teaching and no Testimony seemeth to me to be a great contradiction And as for us althogh we cannot say that the inward Teaching or Testimony of the Spirit is never in any case without the outward yet we grant it is oft accompanied with the outward and in that case it is no less truly immediate than if it were without it as I have already shewed And supposing but not at all granting that the inward Teaching of the Spirit were never without the outward of the Letter yet seeing the outward Teaching of the Letter is oft without the inward for many are Taught by the Letter who are not Spiritually Taught all that the Letter hath outwardly Taught them it followeth evidently that the inward Teaching of the Spirit and outward Teaching of the Letter are distinct things as is manifest from that sure maxime that when two things can be seperate so as the one to be without the other they are really distinct This Argument I used in my Book called Quakerism no Popery but I. A. hath made no reply to it And still I say if the inward Teaching of the Spirit be denyed it doth follow that in respect of any inward Speaking or Teaching God doth no more intelligibly or perceptibly speak to the Saints than he speaketh to the Earth to bring forth Grass the which consequence I. A. seemeth to allow but how absurdly I leave to sober men to judge And whereas I. A. saith That God doth not always make use of the greater Witnesses for testifying his will to us I Answer In respect of men and Angels it is true But notwithstanding God hath given himself and his own Holy Spirit which is one with him to be unto us a witness of his will and this is the greatest witness that can be given See Rom. 8. 16. 1 Ioh. 5. 8 9. CHAP. VIII IN his pretended Survey of the Fifth Query he begins with two false Charges against us the First That we deny all Scripture Interpretation the Second That we deny all Scripture Consequences And to refute these idle Suppositions which are none of our Assertions he spendeth many Pages of his Book to no purpose and wherein we are
Spirit which we plead for as the common priviledge of all true Christians And was not the Spirit which the Apostles had the Infallible Spirit And if I. A. thinks he has the same Spirit either he must needs acknowledge that he has the Infallible Spirit and is so far infallible or then he must say that the Spirit of God is changed so that whereas it was Infallible in the Apostles and Primitive Christians it is become Fallâ—ble in I. A. and his Brethren And if he have the same Spirit which the Apostles had but in the least measure how is it â—hat he hath said above that the Dictate of the Spirit within is worthy of a thousand Deaths Let I. A. extricate himself of these contradictions if he can And further I ask I. A. whether the Psalms he and his Brethren Sing in their Meetings be these Spiritual Songs which the Primitive Christians did Sing and such as we Read of particularly in the Church of Corinth where Psalms are reckoned among the other peculiar Gifts of the Spirit such as Revelations and Interpretations where it is manifest that the whole Assembly did not all Sing the same words with their voice but every one did Sing as they received it from the Lord and as he did put it into their Hearts and such were the Songs of Zachariah Mary and Elizabeth who Sung and Blessed the Lord by the Holy Ghost And seeing I. A. saith That they cannot Sing unless what they Sing be turned into Meeter I ask him whether the Songs of Zachariah Mary and Elizabeth were Sung by them in Meeter or Rhyme and with Musical Dittyes and Tunes Artificially Composed or whether they had a Precentor or any that went before them And whether such kind of Officers were in the Church in the time of the Apostles as Precentors that went before the people And whom they were all to follow accordingly as he Sang after â—his or that Tune of Musick Artificially Composed Or rather have ye not Learned all this from the Papists And was it not Guido Aretinus â— Popish Monk that invented the Scale of Musick commonly called the Gamut according to which the Precentors are Learned to Raise the Psalms All which is but the bare Act of Man and such who plead for Vocal Musick in the Church from the example of David and the Law they may also on the same account plead for the use of Musical Instruments in the Church not only as lawful but as necessary which yet the Episcopal Church here wanteth and not only so but Dancing also as a part of Divine Worship which was used in time of the Law and especially by David And thus by I. A. his Argument both Instrumental Musick and Dancing shall be necessary parts of Gospel Worship And as concerning wicked mens Singing it is most clear that as they are not to Pray while remaining wicked so nor are they to Sing because all true Singing is a real part of Divine Worship which is to be done in Spirit and Truth but no wicked nor unrenewed person can so do And seeing all wicked persons professing Christianity are Captives in Spiritual Babylon how can they Sing any of the Songs of Zion in a strange Land Can they Sing that new Song which the Redeemed from the Earth Sing Rev. 14. was not the Lord displeased with their Singing even under the Law when the people did degenerate and become perverse And did he not threaten that he would turn the Songs of their Temple into Howlings And yet according to I. A. the most perverse and abominable corrupted persons may and ought to Sing Psalms But what Harmony can such Singing make in the Ears of the Lord while the Heart is so discordant to the Law of God And although I. A. hath his best and greatest Patrons for his Musical Singing with Artificial Dittyes and Tunes and Rhymes out of the Popish Church as also for his pleading that wicked persons may Sing David's words without making a Lye I shall here Cite a very fair acknowledgement out of a late Popish Writer to the Truth of what we alledge against I. A. The which Writer is Iohannes Bona in his Book called The Principles of the Christian Life Part 1. Sect. 44. They are â—yes saith he and empty words when any comâ—â—tteth wickedness and singeth in a Psalm unto God I have hated iniquity and abominated it Psal. 118. He that is altogether in his Dishes and saith I have forgot to Eat my Bread Psal. 101. 1. He Laugheth the whole day and exceedeth in vain joy and saith my Tears were my Bread day and night he obeyeth not the Commandments and he Singeth They are Cursed who decline from thy Commandments Psal. 118. Such Prayers saith he are Accursed provoking the wrath of God toward such and they deserve to be punished with severe Pains Now albeit this Testimony is from a Papist I hope no Sober person will call it a Popish Doctrine but rather a Christian Truth which the Evidence of Truth hath extorted from him And it is a shame that I. A. should be more blind who pretends to more knowledge CHAP. XII J. A. in his pretended Survey of the 9th 10 th and 11 th Queries doth ground his Discourse so much partly upon mistakes and partly upon barely supposed alledged principles which he doth not prove that I shall need to say very little directly in Answer to the whole from his pag. 119 to pag. 131. only some of his most considerable mistakes and bare Suppositions I shall take notice of the which being denyed and removed his whole Superstructure falls of it self First He blames the Queriest or Writer of the Queries For falsly accusing the or slâ—ndering the Church in Brittain as he calleth it as if they did hold their Ecclesiastical Constitutions formally as such for an Infallible Rule and their Catechisms and Confessions of Faith equal to the Scriptures But I Answer the Query maketh no mention of those terms formally as such But simply whether they hold their Directory Confession of Faith and Catechism to be an Infallible Rule and equal to the Scripture Again Secondly what is proposed in the Query is not positively concluded one way or another as the Nature of a Query doth plainly demonstrate And yet Thirdly he plainly affirmeth pag. 129. That the whole Articles and Difinitions contained in the Catechism and Confession of Faith materially considered are very Gospel Rule and Scripture Sentence either expresly and formally or materially implicitely and by good consequence taught therein How then can he have any face to accuse the Inquirer for asking such a thing which he doth openly acknowledge And here let the Reader take notice that the Catechism and Confession of Faith whereof I. A. giveth so great a Commendation is not that of the Episcopal Church but the Presbyterian viz. that made by the Assembly at Westminster which is expresly cited by him cap. 31. art 4. it is not then as seemeth the
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 â—â—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 reâ—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 sâ—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 â—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
of Salvation not only to many thousands among those called the Heathens but to many intire Nations of them make it appear that they are utterly and finally excluded from all sufficient means of Salvation Have they been in Gods secret Counsel to know this or who hath revealed it to them And if the outward Testimony of the Scriptures be not as yet come to divers Nations of the Earth this doth not hinder but that the Gospel doth belong unto them as well as unto others to whom they are already come Seeing God hath commanded that the mistery which was kept secret since the World began should now be declared or made known unto all Nations for the obedience of Faith and that by the Scriptures of the Prophets according to Rom. 16. 25 26. And seeing Christ hath commanded That the Gospel should be Preached to all Nations Dare I. A. or any of his party give us the Instance of any one Nation now under Heaven to whom the Gospel ought not or may not be Preached suppose they altogether at present want the outward Testimony of Scripure and knowledge of the History of the coming of Christ in the flesh But if the Gospel may be Preached to any Nation now under Heaven then certainly it belongeth unto them I mean the Gospel Dispensation for because it belongeth unto them and is the free Gift of God unto them And because Christ Jesus hath procured or obtained that priviledge unto the Gentiles by vertue of his death and blood-shed for them Having broken down the middle wall of partition betwixt the Jews and Gentiles therefore iâ— is to be Preached unto them Even as because the King hath given some great favour unto his Subjects it is to be published or declared unto them and it is therefore published unto them because it is given them and is not given them because it is published and therefore the Gentiles have some title or claim to the Gospel even before it be published and consequently before the outward publication of it unto them they are not utterly excluded from the Dispensation of Gods Grace towards men And if any shall say The Gospel is to be Preached to all Nations indeed seeing Christ hath commanded it and not one Nation is excepted because that God hath some scattered up and down all the Nations who are to be saved as belonging to Gods Election To this I Answer that according to I. A. his way of reasoning God hath none belonging to his Election in many Nations of the World because they are excluded from all possibility of Salvation for want of the Scriptures PROP. 2. Whereas I. A. objects against the universal sufficient Light and Grace of God because it is said 1 Cor. 2. 14. The Natural man does not discern neither can he know the things of the Spirit of God I Answer By the Natural man is to be understood the Soul or Mind of man as it â—â—boureth to understand Divine things meerly by its Natural faculties of Natural wisdom and understanding without any Divine illumination But when it pleaseth God to shine upon man in his Natural state by his Divine illuminaon then he may know something belonging to his Souls Salvation so far as his weakness can permit by vertue of the said illumination For how are men converted from Natural to Spiritual God dealeth not with men in Conversion as with Stocks and Stones but as with Reasonable Creatures having some capacity of understanding PROP. 3. That some in Scripture are said to have neither Ears to hear nor Eyes to see nor Hearts to understand And that because God hath not given it unto them which is another objection of J. A. This doth not prove that at no time God hath given to those people any measure of sufficient Grace for this great and extraordinary darkness and blindness may be upon them either because the day of their Visitation is expired altogether or because of some intermission that is only to continue for some time after which they are again to have a new Visitation so that they may both see and hear and also understand if they will not wilfully shut their Eyes PROP. 4. These who are said in Scripture as 2 Thess. 2. 11 12. To be given up to strong Delusions to believe Lies Are such who when the Truth was made known unto them received it not in love that they might be saved as is clear from v. 10. And therefore it doth not follow as I. A. would have it That these who are so fearfully blinded by Antichrists delusions never had a day of Visitation before they were so blinded But on the contrary it is manifest they had because their blindness is a Judgement inflicted upon them for their wilful opposing the Light that God gave them sometime formerly PROP. 5. Whereas I. A. saith That the Father draweth not all men to Christ I Answer As this is no where said in Scripture so it is contrary to Christ his Doctrine who said After I am lifted up I will draw all men unto me And certainly all whom Christ draweth the Father also draweth for said Christ My Father hitherto worketh and I work Nor do the words of Christ cited by I. A. prove the contrary Ioh. 6. 45. Every man that hath heard and learned of the Father comes to him For Christ doth not simply say every one that hath heard of the Father comes to him but every one that hath learned as well as heard now we do not say that every one hath Learned of the Father although they have heard in some sort also there is a right and wrong hearing some hear willingly and this is only the right hearing but although all hear one time or another while their day of Grace last yet few hear willingly so as to obey and therefore they come not unto Christ. PROP. 6. Whereas I. A. Argueth again That wicked men have not the powers principles or habits of Grace and therefore they have not sufficient Grace and he laboureth to prove They have not the powers and habits or principles of Grace because otherwise they would be Converts and Gracious men To this I Answer Although wicked men have not these powers and habits as some call them actually yet they have them hiddenly to wit in a Seed or principle of Grace which virtually containeth all these powers and faculties even as the Seed of a Tree doth virtually contain the Fruit and tree it self But it doth not follow that because a wicked man hath a good Seed in him that therefore he is a good man no more than because good Seed is sown in barren ground that therefore it is fruitful PROP. 7. Whereas I. A. doth further allâ—dge That the Gentiles did the things of the Law mentioned Rom. 2. 14. By the meer nature of man without the Grace of God and this because it is not said They did the things contained in the Law by Grace but by Nature To this I Answer nor
living Creatures or Animals to love and cherish their Off-spring which is a shadow or figure of that more Divine Law in God's people is not any complex Proposition of words but an innate principle of love and affection which he hath planted in them Moreover the said I. A. digresseth here from his matter to seek an occasion against us and to load us with down-right Blasphemy because we do not say that there are three Persons in the God-head But to this Charge I have answered already to one of I. A. his Champions in my book called The Way Cast Vp the which hath given content to divers-sober people and I hope may give content to all who reads it in that particular where I show that it is only the unscriptural terms of a Trinity of Persons or of three Persons in the Godhead that we deny and not the mysterie or thing it self of Father Son and Holy Ghost being three that bear Record in Heaven which according to the Scripture we both believe and confess And indeed Augustine in his Fifth and Seventh Books of the Trinity not only saith the words three Persons are improper but disputeth against them and I suppose I. A. for all his School-Logick and Philosophy shall hardly be able to Answer his Argument the substance of which to my best remembrance is this The word Person either it signifieth somewhat absolute and simple or somewhat relative to say the first is absurd otherwise there should be three 〈◊〉 Beings or Essences in God which is absurd if somewhat relative which is the second then seeing every relative is referred or is relative to another as Father is relative to Son and therefore Father is the Father of another and no man is his own Father in this sense to say the Father is a Person is to say the Father is the Person of some other and so of the rest which is absurd The which Argument not as mine but really Augustines I leave I. A. to Answer and Ierome another ancient Doctor and Father so called doth find fault with the words Three Hypostasis saying expresly in the words Three Hypostaâ—is Latet aliquid veneni There lieth hid some poyson And Laâ—rentius Valla a man well esteemed among the learned findeth fault with the words Three Persons why then should we be so uncharitably charged by I. A. or such hot-headed men with Blasphemy only for keeping close to Scripture words in so great a Mysterie while the thing it self so far as the Scripture declareth it is owned by us And whereas he urgeth us to tell what Three are they to be called if neither Three Gods nor Three Persons I Answer It sufficeth us to call them what the Spirit of God in Christ and the Apostles hath called them and to enquire no further nor to be curiously wise above what they have dâ—â—lared Hath not I. A. heard That there is a Docta Ignorantia or Learned Ignorance which is more safe and to be preferred to an uncertain Knowledge or Science falsly so called And if I. A. his definition of Person be received viz. That it is an intelligent Being subsisting incommunicably or distinctly one from another I see not for my part but that Three Persons at this rate shall infer three intelligent Beings subsisting incommunicably and consequently Three Gods Lastly That he saith Some Quakers have called them three Manifesâ—ations viz. of Moses of Christ and of the Spirit he ought to have produced their names or then we are not bound to believe him that any have said so for at this rate Moses should be the Father of Christ which I do not believe any called a Quaker ever thought perhaps some have said there have been three Dispensations or Manifestations of God one through Moses and one through Christ in the Flesh and one through the Spirit or Christ in Spirit and that these may after some sort have such a reference as that the first may be called relative to the Father yet not excluding the Son and the second may be relative to the Son not excluding the Father c. which yet doth not argue that we understand the Dispensation or Administration of the Father to be the Father himself far less Moses to be the Father as I. A. I believe very rashly and unwarrantably doth alledge Now that there are or have been diversity of Administrations the Scripture is plain and Protestants as well as Papists do acknowledge it Yea what saith I. A. to the common Catechism that saith The Father hath Created us the Son hath Redeemed us and the Holy Ghost hath Sanctified us which is to be understood not exclusively nor yet without some order in the manner of working But who will be so foollish or ignorant for all this to say That the Father is our Creation the Son our Redemption strictly or literally and without a Figure so understood and the Holy Ghost our Sanctification Nor doth it follow that because Christ bringeth in his Father and himself as two Witnesses to prove that he was the true Messiah that therefore there are either two or three Persons in the Godhead for Christ speaketh these words not simply as God but as man Now as Man we acknowledge that Christ is a distinct Nature or Being from God although not divided or separated therefrom And lastly that he argueth That Christ is called the express Image of the Fathers Hypostasis and that Hypostasis should be and is truly Translated Person and not Substance and otherwise it would infer Arianism I Answer That Hypostasis should be Translated Person he doth meerly affirm without any proof from approved Authors and sure I am the Etymologie of the word hath no affinity to person but properly signifieth Substance being compounded of the Preposition and Substantive Verb which as near as possible is in Latin substantia and in English substance and is so Translated Heb. 11. 1. Now that to Translate it substance would infer Arrianism I. A. doth but meerly say it without any proof and so is not to be believed And beside Christ in Scripture is called The Image of the Invisible God and certainly God is a substance and yet this I hope will not infer Arrianism and may we not well understand how Christ as man is the Character or Image of God's substance without Arrianism seeing Christ said viz. in respect of his Manhood My Father is greater than I and it is clear that the aforesaid place Heb. 1. 2 3. is to be understood of Christ not simply as God but as man who certainly as man is the most bright and glorious Image of God and above all Angels or Men or whatever can be named besides the Godhead it self CHAP. VI. HAving thus traced I. A. in his unnecessary and impertinent digression I shall now reply unto his Arguments whereby he laboureth to prove that the Scriptures are the principal rule of Faith and manners And to the first that in Isaiah 8. 10. they were sent
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 Dâ—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 Quaâ—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