week The Queen of dayes doth not prove that Lords day spoken of by John to be the first day so if Ignatius had been of this mind and had esteemed of it above other dayes that makes nothing against us we know this Superstition was creeping into the Church before Ignatius's time therefore the Apostle Paul warned the Galatians Gal. 4. 10 11. To prove this day spoken of by John to be the first day of the week he saith Christ appeared to his Disciples declared himself to be the Son of God upon the first day of the week That it is supposed that was the day the Spirit was poured forth And that Beza in an ancient Greek Manuscript did find the first day of the week called the Lords day But all this doth not in the least prove the matter in question except this may suffice for proof W. M. thinks this will infer the day of the Lord spoken of by John to be the first day of the week therefore it is so There may be Superstition-enough found in old Greek Manuseripts It is near fourteen hundred years since the Eastern and Western Churches were like to split about the observation of Easter and yet Protestants with good reason look upon that Controversie as both Superstitious and frivolous Now giving but not granting this day spoken of by John were the first day of the week How doth he prove from this that the first day of the week is come to Christians in place of the Jewish Sabbath or that it stands as an obligation upon them as a part of the moral Law whereunto we are bound by the forth Command which though it be the cheif thing in debate remaines yet unproved seeing then he has had very few proofs for these his supposed Ordinances but such as are onely bottomed upon his own affirmations the Juditious Reader may judge it is with out ground he concludes here that we deny the Ordinances of Christ and not the inventions of men His fourteenth Head Pag. 109 Is concerning Original sin so called which the Reader by comparing with Pag. 62 63 64 and 65. of mine will see that he makes no reall but a meer counterfeit shew of answer and I desire the Reader first to observe That neither here nor in his Dialogue he doth not so much as offer to prove that this phrase Original sin is to be found in Scripture and for all his pretences to make the Scripture his rule he hath no ground from this but from Popish Tradi ion Secondly That we grant a reall Seed of sin derived from Sathan which Adams Posterity is liable to But we say none become guilty of this before God nutill they close with this evill Seed and in them who close with it it becomes an Origine or Fountain of evill thoughts desires words and actions And as by granting all capeable of receiving this real Seed of sin we differ from the Socinians and Pelagians So by saying it is not the Childrens sin until they do close with it We agree with Zuinglius a famous Protestant who for this very Doctrine was condemned by the Council of Trent in the Art of the Fifth Ses. Cons. Trent lib. 2. Pag. 208. The acts of which Council not onely against us but against this famous founder of the Protestant Churches in Zuitserland is that which W. M. is here vindicating Thirdly I desire the Reader may observe That the thing he pleads for is that Infants are really guilty before God that Infants are guilty before God simply for Adams sin And that some of them who die in their Infancy and never actually sin in their own Persons do for this sin of Adam Eternally perish Now whither this Doctrine be sutable either to the Justice or Mercy of God I leave the Christian Reader to judge I shall examine the reasons he brings for it his cheif argument for this in his Dialogue Pag. 47. was That because Children die citing Rom. 23. The wages of sin is death now I shew him Pag 64. of mine how that made nothing because natural Death of the Saints is not the wages of sin for their sins are forgiven them c. this he hath not so much as mentioned far less answered And whereas he might as well argue that the Earth Trees and Herbs were sinners because they received great decay by Adams sin He slightly passes it over aledging It will not therefore follow that all mankind who suffer Death are not Sinners Now this is no answer but a meer shift and the thing I intended against his assertion doth very naturally follow from my argument thus If as W. M. sayes Infants be guilty of Adams Sin because they are subject to diseases and Death then the Beasts who are subject to the like and the Earth Herbs and Trees who have received their decay are sinners before God but this is absurd therefore the other let him answer this the next time more effectually The first proof he brings here is 1 Joh. 3. 6. That which is born of the flesh is flesh adding This intimates man by his natural Birth to be Corrupt and Fleshly But for this his gloss he bringeth no proof though That which is born of the flesh be flesh he showeth us not how it followeth thence that Infants are guilty of Adams Sin after the like manner he concludes this his doctrine from Job 14. 4. Psal. 5. 5. But as the words in these places do not plainly express any such thing so he brings no reason to make his consequences deduceable from them after the like proof-less manner he aledgeth Rom. 5. 14. By one mans disobedience many were made sinners Now though the matter in question be Whether these many were made sinners before they actually sinned in their own Persons He doth not so much as offer to prove it in the like manner though David said his Mother conceived him in sin he sheweth us not how it followeth from thence that David was guilty of sin before he actually sinned and here I observe how he asserts That men are guilty of the sin of their immoderate Parents contrary to the plain Testimony of the Scripture Ezek. 18. 20. The Son shall not bare the iniquity of the Father To prove Infants thus guilty he further addeth Rom. 5. 12. aledging these words For that all have sinned includes Infants but I shew him this includes not Infants because the Apostle clears it in the next verse saying Sin is not imputed where there is no law and that there being no Law to Infants they cannot be guilty of sin To this he replies There was a Law to Adam and that he represented mankind and stood as a publik Person Therefore Children had a Law in him But for this signification of his own he produceth no proof and it cannot be received as being direct contrary to the Scripture above mentioned The Son shall not bare the Fathers iniquity He aledgeth That those the Apostle speaks of who sinned
is onely taken away and the filth remaineth as W. M. falsly supposes they could not be said to be cleansed from all unrighteousness for it is an improper speech to say we are cleansed from Guilt it is from the filth we are cleansed and the Guilt is forgiven us Therefore saith the Apostle vers 9. first He is faithful to forgive us and next he adds To cleanse us from all unrighteousness nor will Johns saying If we say we have no sin import John himself to be of that number more then the Apostle James spaking of the Tongue Jam. 3. 9. saying There-with curse we men who are made after the similitude of God will prove James to have been of these cursers Now in answer to me showing that Scripture 1 Job 1. 8. is conditional else it would contradict what followes vers 9. chap. 24. and chap. 3 9. He returneth no answer but his own assertions He saith The 9. vers speaketh of forgiveness but it also adds cleansing as is above observed He saith That 1 Joh. 2 4. Is understood of a sincere not absolute keeping of the Commands of God but for this he brings no proof at all He saith That Joh. 3. 9. Whosoever is born of God sinneth not is meant of sinning unto death from which the child of God is secured The reason he gives of this gloss is because the Apostle ch 5. v. 16. speaketh of a sin unto death which Sin W. M. supposeth to be that the Apostle means He that 's born of God cannot commit but to prove this supposition we have nothing but his own meer assertion Reader These are the best and strongest arguments he hath to prove his Doctrines His Seventeenth Head Pag. 128. Is to shew his Doctrines not to be acceptable to the wicked and his Eighteenth Head Pag. 131. Is to prove ours to be so But he is so pittifully ridiculous in this matter that such as have the least measure of understanding and are unprejudiced cannot but see his weakness Yet that he may be left altogether without a cover I shall answer his objections and leave the unbiassed Reader as he desires to judge which Principles in their nature have most tendency to strike at or foster wickedness To prove that it is not acceptable to the wicked to hear they must alwayes sin He sayes Some are so conceited of their honesty that they cannot be convineed of their sins And that Mortification of sin is distastful to them But how he makes this to answer the other is not tould us if hypocrites love not to hear of their sins it doth not therefore follow that pleading for a constant continuance in sin is not acceptable to the wicked they may be the easier induced to acknowledg their sins that they hear it tould them for sound and solid Doctrine that they may be reputed good Saints and Christians though they alwayes remain in them to prove that their Doctrine of imputative Righteousness and of Election and Reprobation is not pleasing to the wicked He sayes Some wicked men scof at them what then so some wicked men scof at the folly of Machumetanism will it therefore follow their Doctrine is good The question is Whether their Doctrine of mens being altogether reputed Righteous in the sight of God by a Righteousness altogether without them and mens being elected to Life from all Eternity without any respect to their deeds be not more acceptable to the wicked then to tell them they must seek to be Justified by the Righteousness of God wrought in them And as they are joyned to the elect Seed Christ Jesus born again and brought forth in them which worketh out all iniquity and unrighteousness in them Now this he hath not in the least offered to answer After the like manner Whereas I shew it is more acceptable to the wicked to hear that the outward Letter is the Rule which they can bend and twin then the inward which cannot be so twisted He sayes Some wicked men could wish there were no such outward rule and that some understand not what is intended by Gods immediate speaking but hate the Ministery of the word both which answers make nothing to the purpose What though wicked men hate the Scripture and the Ministry doth it therefore follow that it is not more acceptable to them to hear this is their only rule which they can twin as they please then the inward which cannot be twined as the Scriptures may nor bribed as the Ministry of men He confesses They allow of Laces Ribbons Gold Rings c. and other superfluities And therefore cannot deny but that their Doctrine therein is acceptable to the wicked His shift is here That People ought not to exceed their rank and quallity aledging The Apostle onely condems this 1 Tim. 2. 9. But that his detestable wresting of the Scripture may be manifest I shall cite the Apostles words In like manner also that women adorn themselves in modest apparel with shamfastness and sobriety not with broydred hair or gold or pearls or costly aray is there any word here that they should only not exceed their rank who cannot but abeminate his abusing of Scripture And whereas he says He thinks they should be sparing of lawful games and recreations it seemes their deeds sute not their thoughts in this matter or else it must be accounted a sparingness with him not onely to spend much of the day in Field sports but even largely of the night in Carding c. For so to my certain knowledg some of his Brethren in the Priesthood of the Synod of Aberd en are found doing and justifying themselves in it As to the Sabbath he offereth not in the least to answer That wherein I shew it was acceptable to the wicked according to the same rate In answer to my assertion That the wicked love well to hear that they may be members of the Church without having infallible evidence of Holyness He asketh If all the Members of the Quakers Church have so adding That our raw conceited proselytes are so ignorant and yet so confident That sober men suspect them to be in a fools Paradice First as this is a meer shift and no reply to disprove the Principle aforesaid to be acceptable to the wicked so likewise if his Spirit had not been in a raw conceited posture filled both with ignorance and confidence he had not suffered himself so far to fall in a fools Paradice as to imagine this his meer proofeless Calumny with many more his groundless assertions would have any weight with sober men not being backed with any argument He addeth Their Doctrine once in Grace and ever in Grace hath no tendency to please the wicked because such never had Grace and therefore have no ground to think that belongeth unto them But seeing he himself confesseth That such as had true Grace may fall both unto detestable practices and Blasphemous or Erronious Principles may not such then foster themselves in
heed to the Light of Christ where it is how hath Darkness Blinded him in this Matter Page 14. He repeats my words falsly Alledging I say The Light is Darkness to them that Reject it instead of is as Darkness For I said plainly the Light of Christ is not nor cannot be Darkness otherwayes then as the Day of the Lord in Scripture is called Darkness this he hath Omitted Page 15. Having sought but Ineffectually to overturn my Assertion where I say some may have Saving Light and Grace who after a certain manner may be said not to have the Spirit Viz. as not bringing forth the Fruits of it Averring That unless I can Prove that the Spirit calls upon all in Order to Conversion I cannot conclude that all have the Spirit Ans. As the one is easily proved so is the other safely concluded these are the plain words of the Apostle 1 Cor. 12. 7. A manifestation of the spirit is given to every man to profit withall Now it were not profitable unto them if it did not strive with them in Order to Convert them That other Scripture Joh. 16. 8. he passes over Alledging I should Prove the World there to be understood of all and every one though in Reason it might suffice for answer that there is nothing brought by him to shew why the word World here is not taken in its Geunine and Common Acceptation yet the Apostle solves this Scruple in the following verse of sin because they believe not in me Then if there all unbelievers be included is not that all and every one in the World for of the Saints there is not here any question In his Second Section Page 16. he beginneth with Omitting my Concession of the Benefit and Advantages that accrue to those that Believe by the outward Knowledg of Christ and mentioneth nothing of the State of the Question which was Whether any might be Saved without this outward Knowledg and to shew that some might I gave him the Instance of Deaf People and Children to which he returneth nothing but takes up the Paper to Prove That the Greek Preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is somtimes Translated among which is not denied yet I shall find him twenty to one where it is rendered in and can no wayes be said to be among the Question is whether in this place 1 Cor. 2. 2. it be In or Among the Reason Alledged by him proves it no wayes to be Among to wit that it would have been the Apostles Grief not his Joy to know that the Light of Truth was born down among them This was the Apostles Joy that the Corrinthians come to be sensible how they had Crucified Christ in them that so looking upon and takeing heed to Him whom they had Peirced they might come to be Healed by Him Page 17. He slightly passes over that expression of Paul 2 Cor. 5. 16. where he sayth Henceforth know we Christ no more after the flesh but after the spirit adduced by me to show that Paul prefered a Spiritual Knowledg of Christ to all other as if the Apostle were here onely condemning earthly thoughts of Christ as if as King of Isarael he should begin a Temporal Kingdom but for this Exposition we have onely the bare Authority of his own naked Assertion Page 18. For want of a true Spiritual Understanding Concerning what I mean by the Inward Blood of Christ he bringeth forth his own malitious guessings The first is That I seem to Incline to Justifie that which hath been charged upon some of my Brethren to wit That we are not such Fools as to hope to be Saved by that Jesus that died at Jerusalem As he hath no ground to Suspect such a thing from my words so there was never any ground for such a charge against any owned of that People The 2d is That Perhaps I Intend that Christ as man dwells in us there can none truly charge us with such grosness as to Assert the Manhood or Weshel that walked at Jerusalem is in us but if any of us have said that Christ as man dwells in us they have said no more then the express words of Scripture 1 Pet. 3. 3 4. Let your adorning be the hidden man of the heart Eph. 4. 24. That ye put on the new man now what is this new man but Christ Jesus and therfore saith the Scripture Rom. 13. 14. Put on the Lord Jesus Christ. Gal. 3. 27. As many as are baptized into Christ have put on Christ and this is Christ which the Apostle travelled that He might be formed in the Galatians Gal. 4. 19. And whereof he Admonnisheth the Corinthians that they should know Him in them else they were reprobates 2 Cor. 13. 5. If it be hard for W. M. to take up the meaning of these things let him acknowledge his Ignorance in the Holy Scriptures whose Language this is In his 3 Section Page 19. He begins by offering to Prove our Principles have a tendancy to Introduce Paganism and to Contradict him he reckons an Impertinency but his Ridiculous Vanity herein will appear by looking unto Page 24. of my last neither bringeth he any Arguments to Prove this but such whereby he might conclude the same against the Apostle Paul The Quakers saith he Spakes of a Light within to which who take heed need no Teacher and the Apostle speaks of a Knowledg or Light under the new Covenant where there is no need of a Teacher Heb. 8. 10 11. so if the tendency of the Apostles words be not to Introduce Paganisme neither are ours and because that W. M. finds that notwithstanding of this we dispise not Teaching but are led even by that Light to hear and to recieve the Ministry of them whom God sends he concludes that herein we are Inconsistent adding That some of us have been heard to say That we only Taught to bring People off from other Thachers to mind the Light within that then they will need none which he concludes would quickly make them like such among whom the name of Christ is not in Remembrance but he might as well seek to Infer the like hazard and Contradiction from the plain words of the Apostle 1 Joh. 2. 27. Ye have an anoynting and ye need not that any man teach you but as the same anoynting teacheth you of all things and yet in the mean time was Teaching them As for that Story mentioned by him Of a certain Dying Man in Aberdeen whom two Quakers pressed so much to mind Christ within It inferreth nothing for his Purpose for that Dying Person had Abundance of the outward Knowledg of Christ and they needed not Preach that to him which he knew therefore was he sensible of the seasonableness of their Advice saying as I am certainly Informed by one of the two how good a thing would it be for an old dying man like me to know that Christ within which ye speak of He bringeth not any thing of weight in
then he saith That they are a special Ornament to the Soul making it in Beauty to resemble God And again to get ground he sayth That as so Imperfection cleaveth to the very Grace of God here absolute blasphemy Can there be any thing more confused and contradictory then to say That which is defiled as filthy rags is a special Ornament to the Soul or makes it in Beauty to resemble God In Answer to Pag. 40. 41. He replies nothing only grants That the Saints in heaven are cleansed but not on earth which instead of reply is a meer begging the thing in question He closeth up this Section to prove The Righteousness of the Saints is defiled with his old instance of clean water passing thorow an unclean pipe alledging it By me not to be weakned though I do no wayes answer what I said against it Page 41. to wit That Spiritual Water is not like outward Water which an unclean pipe can defile but is like the Fire and Light which though it touch unclean things cannot be defiled because every thing of the Spirit is undefilable as is the Spirit And whereas he desires me To instruct him of an outward Water which is not capable of defilement I refer him to a more diligent study in his Physicks of which it seemes he is very ignorant and that he may not have reason to think this a shift let him read the Essayes of the Virtuosi in France And those termed the Royal Society at London and he will find such a thing both practicable and practiced He begins his fourth Section Pag. 70. with a gross piece of dis-ingenuity in mentioning a part of my words where I say Justification is taken for making a man righteous and then it is all one with Sanctification thereupon alledging I confound Justification and Sanctification whereas he omits the very former sentence wherein I say Justification is also taken as Gods Judging men unto Eternal Life but this deceit the Reader may at more length observe by looking to Page 41. of my last And in that he adds Men are not made Righteous by an inward Righteousness he doth greatly declare his ignorance for if men can really be made Righteous without Righteousness be really in them by that which is wholly in another then they might as well be really made holy without any inward holyness and this were rather to confound that which God distingisheth and to alter the Scripture sence of the word Justifie He alledgeth That Phil. 3. 8. disclaimes the Righteousness of Christ but brings no proof for it and as to his Comentaries he must advert he is not in the Pulpit and must bring nothing here without probation And whereas I shew That this argument from the 2 Cor. 5. 12. is most absurd and impious because accordingly it would follow that as Christ was made sin for us who of himself knew no sin no not in the least so we may be made righteous before God though we have no Holiness no Faith no good thing wrought in us he terms this an impudent wresting of his words alledging That the strength of of his argument lieth in that As our sins are inherent in us and imputed to Christ so his Righteousness is inherent in him and imputed to us but he doth not show me how this in the least solves the consequence above deduced which followeth as before And as for that excellent gloss which he sayes A certaine one put on these words it would appear the more such that it had some shadow of proof for it it is with a fools consequence that he calleth This which I shew was deduceable from his words my Inference charging me with it as if I were Impious and absurd to imagin that God should except one as Righteous in his sight and yet his Person remain abhored as an unholy sinner did I ever assert any such thing or can there be any thing more ridiculous then for him to dream I imagine that to be true which I reprove in him as false absurd and impious in the like manner he condemns me as impious for insinuateing that they are against inward holiness seeing as he sayes They profess that without holiness none can see God it is true they say so sometimes and therein often contradict themselves as is above remarked yet seeing they look not upon it as any wayes necessary to Justification and terms the best of it but as filthy rags their seeming to plead for it doth but bewray their ignorance and confusion Now whereas to prove that works of the pure Spirit of God are not all as filthy rags I did inquire of him if the Apostles did sin in writing the Scriptures He Answers First That it was a singular extraordinary thing and so supposeth they might have been preserved Secondly He demands What were the hazard to aver that they were wanting in that which they ought to have had As to the First it is but an evasion without proof what singular and extraordinary thing is in some of Pauls Epistles which are concerning his outward occasions and if the last be admitted as I find he fears I find he will be forced to do it overturns his example of clean water passing through an unclean pipe or else he must acknowledg the Scriptures are defiled because they come through the Apostles whom his Principles obliges him to believe not to have been perfect In his Seventh Head Pag. 74. He summarily passes over and that by large omissions what is contained in the 44 45 46 and 47 Pages of my last which if the Reader do but review he may easily discover that silly shift which he useth To wit that he means to be thrifty of his Paper in answering the Quakers self-advancing words seeing he is such a good manager of his Paper he might have bestowed some of that he has lavished in the large Capital Titles of his many Heads and Sections to show the Impertinency or vanity of my words and then he might have been the better credited after he has omited my answer wherein I clear the Quakers from that calumny of exalting themselves showing they do therein no more then all other professions have done and do do He adds with a great exclamation Oh it is intollerable Pride to villifie all the Saints and Servants of God in the World and to shut them out from being of Christs stock a strange inference according to which we must conclude that because Luke called Theopilus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or most good that therefore there was none good but he W. M. will do well to go back to the Grammer Schoole and there learn the natures of degrees of Comparison and when he has instructed himself there he may next look over his Logicks and there he will find that Majus minus non variat speciem i. e. less or more of a thing changeth not its nature or kind I suppose he will not deny but there are several sorts
not after the similitude of Adams Transgression are Infants but after his usual manner bringeth not the least proof for it the 1 Cor. 15. 22. cited by him is so far from makeing any thing for his purpose that it maketh directly against him which any that have the least grain of true understanding may perceive the words are As in Adam all died even so in Christ all are made alive for here all are said to die in Adam even as all are said to be made alive in Christ now as none are made alive in Christ until they actually receive and joyne with his Righteousness so none die in Adam until they actually receive and joyn with his unrighteousness c. He maketh a deal a do Pag. 110 111. about the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wherein though it were easie to refute him were it not needless to fill up paper with Gramatical Criticismes for giving but not granting the words might be Translated in Adam all have sinned it will not from thence follow that Infants are guilty before they actually sin seeing all are said to die or have sinned in Adam even as all are said to be made alive in Christ and yet none are said to be so until they actually receive his Righteousness as is above demonstrated Pag. 113. He aledgeth Though it be said that the Kingdom of God is of little Children yet some Infants are not saved because they are not of the Kingdome of Grace But for this he bringeth no proof at all And I here take notice That he acknowledges that God Sanctifies and Regenerats some Infants and thereby he notably conradicts his second Sect. concerning the Light And Pag. 29. of his Dialogue where he condems it as a dangerous errour in us to say any can be saved without the outward knowledg of Christ of which Infants are not capable to prove That some Infants perish even eternally He aledgeth The burning of Sodom and Gomorrah citing Jude 7. But his wresting this Scripture is very manifest for the reason Jude gives of their suffering vengance was because they gave themselves up to Fornication and went after strange flesh Now of this Infants were not capable of whom therefore Jude speaks not one word He terms Impudent or else Ignorant for bringing Mat. 1. 22. against them aledging It is an uniust charge to say they plead for a Salvation in their sins and yet he has the Impudence immediatly to aver it himself saying They are but in part delivered or saved in this Life do they not then dream of Salvation while in part they remain in their sins Compare Math. 1. 21. with 1 Joh. 1. 7. Christ is said to cleanse us from all iniquity not a part of it It is a bad inference drawn from my assertion that Children are not guilty of sin to say that therefore they need not a Saviour I told him in my last Christ was truely a Saviour unto them in that he kept them from sinning as one that 's kept from faling in a ditch is as truely saved as he that 's taken out of one It is altogether Inconsequential to infer from this That Christ died to save the holy Angels from sin because they are not suffered to fall into it for Christ is said onely to have died for Adams Posterity of which number Infants are but not Angels It is likewise without reason that he compares us to Pelagians as if we took from Christ the name Jesus seeing it has been shown we own him to be Jesus or Saviour to all even to Infants He beginneth his fifteenth Head Concerning the perseverance of the Saints Pag. 115. Aledging That in saying the Quakers hold not a falling away from Regeneration I seek to hide my self Because G. Keith sayes That Saints may fall away from saving Grace asking if Saints be Regenerate Answ. Though all that be fully Regenerate are Saints yet some may be called Saints who are not fully Regenerate Pag. 116. He aledgeth It is in vain to assert this falling away because it is said Some who believed afterwards fell away and some make shipwrack of the Faith and some who tasted of the good word of God and the powers of the life to come c. Because they use to distingish betwixt seeming counterfeit Grace and sound saving Grace Answ. Can there be any more palpable wresting of Scripture For if so be that Faith which they had were not real they were not to be blamed for falling away from it it were their mercy to make shipwrack of that which was counterfeit The Apostle speaks positively Heb. 6. 4. of the capacity of such to fall away who were once enlightned who have tasted of the heavenly gift yea who were partakers of the holy ghost and have tasted of the good word of God and the powers of the world to come he sayeth not they seemed to be so Nay the very context sheweth the contrary saying It is imposible to renew such again to repentance Now had this been all in appearance the Apostle needed not to speak of renewing them again to repentance or say they crucifie the Son of God afresh seeing if so they had never been penitent and been allways Crucifiers of Christ whereas in answer to Phil. 1. 6. I tould him it might be supposed that Paul was as confident that God would perfect the work in himself as in any other and yet he supposes the contrary where he sayes Least preaching the gospel to others I my self become a castaway to this he replieth nothing but citeth another Scripture Jer. 32. 29. I will give them one heart that they may fear me for ever though God give them this that they may fear him yet such may abuse the gift of God and so run out of his fear he gives to all his Grace and yet it is said that some turn it unto wantonness Jud. 4. He jeereth at my answer to Peter saying A goodly reply forsooth as if he had said if the Saints fall from Faith they must fall but he might spare his insulting until he had found some way to answer my words which are That those that abide not in the Power of God through Faith must fall away for he might as well Scoff at all the conditional Promises of the Gospel such as He that continueth stedfast to the end shall obtain the crown To say that Faith and the Power of God concurs to prevent the Saints faling away answers nothing for so long as these concur we do not deny it and though they be allways willing to concur yet it is clear that some who have believed not counterfetily but really have departed from the power and so fallen away as is above shown Pag. 117. Upon the words of Jer. 32. 40. He sayes It proves the perseverance or impossibillity of faling away because it is said God put his fear in their hearts for this end That they might not depart from him what then that doth not prove that they
the Spirits assistance whereby instead of advancing in Grace and Righteousness they do but reiterate Abominations and so aggrevate their own guilt And whereas here he is forced to acknowledg that motives of the Spirit will not be wanting to the Saints to Pray when they are at the gates of Death or in danger of present Drownding He asks me What shall the wicked do in this case Shall they not follow the advice which Peter gave to Simon Magus Act. 8. 22. pray God if perhaps the thoughts of thy heart may be forgiven thee but here he minceth the Apostles words which are Repent therefore of thy wickedness and pray c. here the Apostle puts repentance before Prayer it shall not be denied but when the wicked have repented of their wickedness the Spirit will not be wanting to assist them to Pray It is therefore to little purpose That Pag. 120. and 121. He pleads For craving a Blessing when we use the creatures of God calling the neglect of it a phrophane custome for we do not deny it and condemn a prophane neglect of it as much as themselves And as Christ had the Spirit without and above measure having all wayes a ready access to the Father so we are glad and willing at such occasions to express words if we find the Spirit assisting us so to do yea we reckon that we ought not to use the creatures without our hearts be in some measure retired to the sence of Gods presence and stayed in his fear whereby we may secretly breath for a Blessing for to speak audible words is not essential and therefore it is apparently malitious for him to say That when we are not stayed in Gods fear we have liberty and freedom to full to mâ—at my words had no such Importance though he seeks 〈◊〉 them and yet can wholly omit much of Pag. 67. of mine where I shew their abuses in this matter how they mock God in it and provoke him to withdraw his Blessing And whereas he sayes One of us confessed That he had not called together nor Prayed in his family for a twelve-month past He should have produced the persons name that we might have inquired concerning it and therefore until he so do we can lay no stress upon it but reject it as false especially considering that W. M. being particularly challenged upon this refuseth absolutly to do it nor durst he aver he had any better ground for it then hear-say Upon this ocasion he asks If Abraham must not keep up Religion in his family because an Ishmael is in it but this maketh nothing against us for none of us that are Masters of Families have forborn to keep up the worship of God though enemies of Truth have been in it whom we have not barred from being present And for whom we have not been wanting to Pray though we cannot joyn with them in their Prayers as W. M. adviseth us until first they repent of their wickedness This was the method of Peters advice to Simon Magus first to repent and then to Pray as is above shewed Sect. Pag. 125. He sayes Quakerisme tend to make Mortification of sin useless and to me asking Whether Mortification be useless where the end of it which is Perfection is atained He answereth That Perfection is toofold comparative and absolute and seeing we are for an absolute Perfection there is no use for Mortification Answ. There can none come to this absolute Perfection as he terms it but by Mortification of sin and even such as are so Perfect while on earth do constantly use Mortification to keep down sin least it rise again and to resist the Temptations of the enemy wherewith even such as be Perfect are daily assaulted He aledgeth I Triumph before the Victory in quarreling him for saying That a sinless Perfection wounds the very vitals of Religion But his silly subterfuge in this place may easily be discovered I asked him in my last that seeing he sayes so Whether the vitals of Religion consisted in sinning or not sinning Adding That if it consist in sinning they that sin most are most Religious but if it consist in not sinning then to plead for such a thing as attainable hurts not the vitals of Religion to this he answereth That the vitals of Religion consist in the means appointed of God Who seeth not this to be a meer evasion Why did he not give a direct answer But that he could not without either denying his former Antichristian expression or else faling into palpable groseness And whereas he adds That these means are Repentance Mortification Believing application of the Blood of Christ though it be no answer to my question I deny not but that Religion consists in these things but I suppose he will not say that they are sinning It is not in the least absurd that one who hath attained to Perfection may practice these duties Man though he have attained to Perfection cannot too much repent of his former wickedness and therefore it is without ground that he aledgeth That I shift and cannot deny but the forbearance of these duties flow as a consequence from our Principle nor is my saying that they who come to Perfection witness the true use of these things any shift at all though he be pleased to term it so without any proof after his wonted manner according to which he addeth That under the pretence of Perfection we take men off from the practice of these duties and so strike at Christianity in the vitals of it which though it fall of it self as being a meer assertion yet the contrary is above abundantly shown He saith He doth not contradict himself in inferring a sinless man to be sinful He affirmed onely the Quakers conceitedly sinless men to be sinful who discover much sin in their pride passion bitterness railing accusations adding If such say they have no sin they are but liars and the truth is not in them Answ. There was no such addition in his Dialogue as conceitedly sinless but absolutly He said Bring me to the man that is sinless and therefore his contradiction remains Moreover let him name that Quaker if he can that tould him he was Perfectly free from all sin and yet was guilty of those crimes he speaks of else he can deduce nothing from his own false supposition Pag. 127. To prove the Saints continuance allwayes in sin he desires to remark that 1 Joh. 18 It is even such who have heard seen and handled of the word of God c. Who sayeth If we have no sin we are liars And here indeed is to be observed his detestable Impudence in adding to the Scripture words citing vers 7. which he repeats thus We who are cleansed from the guilt of sin whereas there is no such word as Guilt in that place but onely We are cleansed from all sin which imports a cleansing from the filth Mark these words vers 9. From all unrighteousness now when the Guilt