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
Teaching of God's own Spirit of Peoples Instruction in all Nations according to Rom. 16. 26. and those Nations that want the Scriptures are no doubt for most part in great darkness But why some Nations want the blessing of the Scriptures belongeth to the secret Judgments of God and as for us who have them let us be thankful to God and earnestly seek the holy Spirit that gave them forth without which they will be a Sealed Book unto us whether learned or unlearned as it is at this day unto the unbelieving Jews and also unto many thousands of unfaithful Professors of Christ who in works deny him And thus by what is said how and in what manner we own the Word of God in our Hearts immediately Speaking and Teaching as our principal Rule I. A. his Cavils and false Charges are sufficiently Answered which may serve to all his Third Section Yet to Answer to some things more particularly whereas I. A. alledgeth That the Word mentioned Deut. 30. 14. is not Christ but the Books or Writings of Moses To this I Answer But whether shall we rather believe I. A. or the Apostle Paul who Rom. 10. doth plainly expound it of Christ see Verse 4. compared with Verse 5 6 7 8. when he distinguisheth betwixt the Law and Christ as preferring Christ to the Law and he saith Christ is the end of the Law which he proveth out of Moses's words Deut. 30. 14. and therefore these words of Moses are to be understood of Christ and so did Clements Alexandrinus and others of the Fathers understand them But saith I. A. Moses tyes them straitly to the external written Word of the Scriptures But what then doth he so tye them as that they were not to regard God or Christ or the Holy Spirit in their Hearts How wild and unreasonable is this consequence Could the people understand the true Spiritual intent and signification of the Law without Christ and his Spirit and inward Teaching Was it not the fault of the people that they stuck so close to the bare outward performances of the Law and neglected Christ and his Spirit which could alone give the understanding of it And therefore when he came in the flesh they rejected him Secondly as to Ieremiah 31. v. 31 32. we do not bring this place to overthrow the external Rule of the Scripture or true outward Teaching as I. A. falsly doth alleadge but only to prove that God himself doth Teach his people under the New Covenant so that they hear God himself and learn of him which yet doth not hinder yet they both also may and ought to hear all those whom God sendeth And certainly that Scripture expression to be Taught of God is more or a further thing then to be Taught by the Letter of the Scripture or by Moses and the Prophets Writings otherwise it might be said that the people simply by the Old Covenant was as much Taught of God as under the New Thirdly Nor do we bring Luke 17. 20 21. where Christ saith The Kingdom of God is within you to exclude all External helps and means as I. A. doth again no less falsely alleadge But only to prove that there is an inward Principle of Christs Light Life and Grace in men whereby he ruleth in those that are obedient unto the same and even in them who are disobedient it hath its Rule and Kingdom so far as to judge and condemn them which yet it could not do without some inward Dictate or witness Fourthly As to Iohn 16. 13. where Christ Promises to send his Spirit to guide us into all Truth Nor do we bring this to oppose all outward Teaching Reading Learning c. But still we say seeing it was a promise made to the Apostles as well as unto us it implyeth a real inward Teaching of God and the Spirit that is somewhat further then the outward Teaching whatsomever which if it may and ought to be called immediate in the Apostles may and ought also to be called immediate in Gods people now and always to the end of the World seeing the promise is the same to both and therefore hath the same performance at least in kind if not in degree Fifthly The same false and absurd charge he is guilty of as to 1 Ioh. 2. 20 27. which mentioneth The Anointing which taught them all things so that they needed not any man to Teach them For we bring not this place to oppose all outward Preaching or Teaching of men of God truly sent and called by him But only the bare dead and dry Teaching of men who run and God hath not sent them And also the words may be understood in respect of an absolute necessity so as they who are come to that inward Anointing and that it abide in them they have not an absolute necessity of outward true Teachers so as they must need perish for want of them if so be at any time they could not be had as doth at times come to pass And thus also that of Ieremiah 31. 31 32 33 34. is to be understood importing likewise that all True Believers should have that experimental knowledge of God and acquaintance with him by the inward Teachings of his Spirit so as none should be wholly ignorant of God but all should know him in measure and therefore it should not be needful to say unto any of them know the Lord as if they were utterly ignorant of him in respect of Spiritual and experimental knowledge as indeed many or most of the people under the Law were Which yet hinders not but that still there will be both need and great use of True Teachers in the Church to the Worlds end though not to say know the Lord as if they did not in any measure know him yet to promote and advance them who know him already in more knowledge of him and of the great and deep Mysteries of his Kingdom Sixthly He saith That engrafted word mentioned Jam. 1. 21. which we are bid receive is the Scripture and not Christ or his Light For he saith We cannot in proper Speech be said to receive or hear a Dictate within which we have already and is not audible properly But how weak is this Argument Could not the Prophets and Apostles both hear and receive Christ whom they had already were they not still more and more to receive him And have we not the Scripture already and consequently according to I. A. we cannot receive it And that he saith A Dictate within is not audible properly But why not as properly as a Dictate without Seeing the Spiritual Hearing and Seeing are as proper in their kind as the Natural are in their kind And according to this reasoning of I. A. none of the Prophets nor Apostles were to hear God or the Spirit in them seeing nothing within is audible properly And as for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Englished Engrafted it doth most properly signifie innate and is
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
of Righteousness as done by us nor as inherent in us as Acts by which we are accepted of God and justified before him but by Christ the Author and worker of those Acts in us and for us c. He most grosly perverteth the sober and honest intent of those words as if by them they understood only that they hold not themselves justified by all Acts as Blasphemy or any other gross sin But who seeth not that this is a most gross perversion for certainly all Righteous Arts of all sorts they exclude when they say not by Acts of Righteousness and therefore when they say it is not Righteous Acts as Acts whereby we are justified their meaning is most plain and obvious as Acts being understood to be only even as Acts of Righteousness and not simply and barely as Acts though upon this meer Grammatical Quibble I. A. buildeth all his loud clamour against them But I. A. should know better that when the Sense is obvious a word may be understood that is not expressed in the Sentence as so it is in this present Case A fourth gross Perversion of his that he saith of me in my Book called Quakerism no Popery I affirm That we are justified by our inward Graces immediately I. A. doth understand that I mean without all respect to Christ which is a most gross perversion for the express words of my Book are these following The Righteousness of God and Christ by which we are most immediately and nearly justified is Christ himself and then I add and his work of Righteousness in us by his Spirit So that I am so far from excluding Christ that I say in the first place Christ himself is our Righteousness A fifth gross Perversion of I. A. is that in my defunction of Justification I give no other material cause of our Righteousness before God but only our Inward Graces whereas in the said definition I mention expresly Jesus Christ as being the ground and foundation of our Justification both in what he hath done and suffered for us without us and as really and truly indwelling in us A sixth perversion of his is that I confound Justification and Sanctification together making no imaginable distinction betwixt them and that because I say we are justified by inward Righteousnes and sanctified by the very same But this proveth not that I do not distinguish them for one and the same thing may have a respect to different operations as well as to different Causes But this reasoning of I. A. is as one would argue that when a Malefactor is both Condemned and punished for his Crime that his Sentence of Condemnation and his punishment are one and the same without any imaginable distinction betwixt them As also that his Condemnation and guiltiness are the same seeing by his Crime he is both guilty and condemned But as to Justification and Sanctification that they are distinguished although sometimes in Scripture one and the same word doth signifie both I willingly grant and do expresly mention them as distinct in my Book which I need not here repeat And whereas I. A. doth not only accuse me in particular as holding a Popish Justification but saith further That Bellarmine himself was never more Popish on that Head Surely this his assertion proceeds either from great ignorance or something worse For Bellarmine de justif lib. 5. cap. 17. holdeth That good works do merit Eternal Life condignly not only by reason of Gods Covenant and acceptation but also by reason of the work it self so that in a good works proceeding from Grace there may be a certain proportion and equality unto the reward of Eternal Salvation and to the same purpose writeth Gabriel Vasâ—uez a Papist But no such thing is affirmed by any of us nor by me but on the contrary in my Book called Quakerism no Popery I altogether deny the merit of the best works as it signifieth an equality of worth to the reward of Eternal Life Nor do I in any other case or sense allow the word merit with a respect to the best works of the Saints but in that sober and qualified sense used by divers of greatest note among those called Reformers among the Protestants as Melanction and Bucer and also by the Fathers so called and which is agreeable to Scripture which calleth Eternal Life the reward of good works now reward and 〈◊〉 are relative â—â—rms as Richarâ— Baxter highly commended by I. A. elsewhere doth acknowledge And not only the said Richard Baxter a great English Presbyterian but divers of the best account in the Episcopal way as particularly H. Hammond do hold that the Saints are justified not by Faith only but by Repentance Love and New Obedience as well as by Faith as Instruments of Justification and necessary conditions requisite thereunto and that Sanctification in the order of Causes is prior to Justification And Iames Durham a great Scots Presbyterian in his Commentary on the Revelation Digress 11. saith That such who rest upon Christ for Iustification and acknowledge his satisfaction ought not to be blamed as guilty of Popery although they hold that Repentance Love and other Spiritual Vertues and Graces are necessary to Iustification as Faith is Seeing then we have some of the greatest note both among those called Presbyterians and Episcopalians who agree with us in the Doctrine of Justification it must needs proceed from great prejudice and untowardliness in I. A. to charge us as being guilty of Papery in that for which we have not only the Scriptures abundantly to warrant us but divers also both Episcopal and Presbyterian of the best account to vindicate us And as for Henry Hammond a man of singular esteem in the Episcopal Church in Brittain whereof I. A. is a proâ—â—sâ—ed Member he doth not only agree with us on this Head of Justification but also on many other very great and weighty Heads of Doctrine so fiercely opposed by I. A. as particularly in those following 1. That Christ hath died for men 2. That there is no absolute decree of Reprobation 3. That Gods Grace is Vniversal 4. That beginnings of Regeneration may be fallen from 5. That these words of Paul Rom. 7. 14 15. concerning his being Sold under sin are a Metaâ—chematismus and not the present State that Paul was in And I. A. is extreamly ignorant if he know not that an exceeding great number if not the greatest of the most judicious persons of the Episcopal Church both in Britain and Ireland are of the same mind with the said H. Hammond in these things who therefore are so far from esteeming I. A. a Patron or Advocate of their Church that they cannot but judge him in so far at best their Adversary Moreover the great prejudice of I. A. against us appears in this that because I deny all merit strictly considered he inferreth most absurdly that if Justice will not exact the very rigid rigour of the Law from us and take the very