yet done and on the contrary we have good ground to believe that the spiritual only is meant because it is the spiritual Baptism only which is called the Baptism of Christ in Scripture and is expresly distinguished from the Baptism of Iohn with Water and certainly the Baptism which Christ commanded was his own Baptism whereof he gave the Apostles charge to administer it as servants and instruments under him who made them Ministers of the Spirit and Power that was in him by whose Ministry others were partakers of the same But if I. A. his Argument hold good the spiritual Baptism is altogether excluded and the Apostles received no Authority to Administer the Baptism of the Spirit but only of Water and consequently they were no Minister of the Spirit for how could they Minister of the Spirit or the spiritual Baptism unless they received Authority so to do and where received they this Authority or Command if not when Christ said these words unto them Again if Christ had sent the Apostles to Baptize with Water then certainly he had sent Paul a Chief Apostle but Paul said Christ sent him not to Baptize to wit with Water But whereas I. A. doth alledge that Paul meaneth That Christ sent him not principally to Baptize I ask him Why doth he transgress his own Rule to go from the proper to the improper and unusual signification of the word not which is absolutely Negative and not Comparative and that without any urgeâ—t necessity but that of his own meer devising and that he saith Doubtless the Apostles did not Baptize without a Commission I Answer this is barely asserted without proof why might not Paul and others Baptize without a Commission to wit by a permission as well as he did Circumcise and did other things of the Law and that without any impuâ—â—tion of Will-worship Having thus Answered I. A. his Arguments I shall not need to answer his Objections or pretended refutation of our Arguments and that especially because some â— of them which he bringeth as our Arguments are not really ours and none of them he bringeth doth he fairly propose and therefore I shall refer the Reader to our other Treatises wherein our Arguments are more duly and fairly proposed without repâ—ating them here because of Brevity Only whereas he alledgeth we argue that Water-baptism is not meant Matth. 28. 19 20. because not expressed I say that Baptism with Water is not expressed nor by any true and just consequence is proved to be meant in Matth. 28. 19. and therefore we are not bound to believe that Water-baptism is there understood And I hope the intelligent and impartial Reader may see that I. A. hath not proved it to be so meant by all his endeavours and therefore not of his own mouth henceforth he is not to be believed As concerning I. A. his Fourth Section which is altogether concerning Infant-Baptism I might wave it because it proceeds upon a bare Supposition that is not proved viz. That Water-Baptism is a Gospel Precept And seeing the Controversie is most proper betwixt him and these called Anabaptists wherein we are little concerned I shall not insist to Answer every thing only I cannot but take notice of some of his most gross and impertinent Assertions and Proofs He alledgeth Baptism under the New Testament is succeeded in the room of Circumcision to this I may reply in his own language elsewhere He putteth the Plough â—before the Oxen because he supposeth still a thing without proof that Water-baptism is any New Testament Precept Again he alledgeth That Boptism with Water is come â—n the room of Circumcision because Paul saith Col. 2. 11 12. Our burial with Christ in Baptism is our Circumcision But he hath not proved that the Baptism there mentioned is Water-baptism where is his consequence for this And why doth he expound the Circumcision to be spiritual in that place and the Baptism outward and visible Is it not more proper to take them both spiritually and then his Argument doth wholly vanish And I find ask him Are all buried with Christ who are Bâ—ptized with Water if he say Not as he ought then surely the Water-baptism is not the Baptism there understood Another Argument of his is That because the Infants of Believers are probably partakers of Regeneration which is the thing sealed or signified that therefore they ought to be baptized with Water But this Argument proves as much that Infants should also have that called the Supper because Christ who was signified thereby doth as probably belong to Infants as Regeneration seeing none can have Regeneration without Christ and I would know what I. A. doth say to this or let him shew a reason why his Argument prove the one rather than the other And it seems that for that or the like reason Augustine and others of those called the Fathers were for giving that called the Supper to Infants as well as Water-baptism and in that respect was long ago really administred to them But seeing I. A. hath spent so much Paper on Water-baptism why saith he nothing to sprinkling of Infants why doth he not so much as attempt to prove that sprinkling with Water is or ever was the true form of Baptism with Water although the Question doth expresly mention it Thus we see how all along hitherto I. A. hath left the substance of the Queries unanswered CHAP. IX BEfore my Answer to I. A. his pretended Survey of the Sixth Query which is concerning that called the Sacrament of the Supper I shall premise these few particulars 1. That we do not deny but own and believe that all true Christians and Believers do eat of Christ's body and drink of his blood and that beyond or what is more than a figure or figurative Commemoration thereof to wit really and substantially yet so as spiritually and by Faith and not outwardly and with the outward or bodily mouth 2. Nor do we deny but that in all our Eatings and Drinkings we are to remember the Lords Death and so Eat with Holy Fear and Reverence and Thankfulness 3. And we deny not but that the night wherein he was betrayed he took Bread and brake it after Supper and having given Thanks he gave it unto his Apostles saying Take Eat this is my Body and likewise the Cup saying Drink ye all of it for as oft as ye Eate this Bread and Drink this Cup ye shew forth the Lords Death until he come So we grant he gave them a Commandment to do the like for sometime to come But that which is Queried is this Where is it called a Gospel Ordinance or standing Command of Christ unto the Worlds end to Eat Bread and Drink Wine after Supper in a peculiar and solemn way of Commemoration over and besides that which may and ought to be done every day And whereas Christ said Do this in remembrance of his Death till he come again It is Queried Was this coming to the end of
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
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
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
in I. A. else he would not run into such needless and idle Tautologies But he thinks I have yeilded the cause to him because I grant all Doctrines that agree not with the Scriptures are to be rejected therefore the Scripture is a superior rule to all such false Doctrines I grant Therefore the Scripture is Superior to the Spirit of God and his Dictate in our Hearts I deny it And though we are to examine the inward Dictates of Gods Spirit by the Scriptures yet that proves not that the Scriptures are superior no more than that it proves that the words of the Prophets were superior to the words of Christ and the Apostles because the people examined the latter by the former His fourth Argument is built upon a Supposition that the Scriptures are the principal rule and consequently not the Spirit inwardly Dictating in our hearts But he hath not proved that the Scripture is a more principal rule then the Spirit Although in respect of all outward rules that can be named or conceived the Scripture is the most principal rule Nor is it any repugnancy to say the Scripâ—ure is the principal external rule by which all Doctrines and Principles of Religion are to be examined and what is contrary to Scripture is to be rejected and yet to say also that the Spirit himself perswading or assuring us of the Truth of the Scripture is the principal inward rule seeing these two principles are in differing kinds the one external or without us the other internal and within us which are very well consistent and mutually bear witness one of another even as Iohn bare witness to Christ and Christ bare witness to Iohn Although Christ needed not the Testimony of Iohn as for himself His fourth Argument concludeth only against a thing which we do no wise deny viz. That every Dictate within is not the Rule And I. A. might have spared his pains to dispute against that which no man holdeth For who is so absurd to think that every Dictate suppose it be of a mans own vain and foolish mind or of the Devil is to be received as his rule The Question is not concerning every Dictate nor indeed concerning any other then that alone Dictate of the Spirit of God and of Christ in men which hath a self evidence unto him who hath it as I. A. must needs acknowledge it had to the Prophets and Apostles But he objects That the Devil may present an Imposture unto a man with so much seeming evidence as with the concurrence of a deceitful heart will make it be received for a Divine Truth especially by that man that for the present time has no Divine Dictate To this I Answer That the person supposed by I. A. is either one that the Lord hath in his just judgment for some great unfaithfulness and abuse of Light formerly given delivered up to Satan's delusions such as these mentioned 2 Thess. 2. 11. And as for him and the like sort the Scripture cannot help him For certainly he that is given up by the Lord to the delusion of Satan as a punishment of his sinning against the Light he once had will misunderstand the Scripture and cannot otherwise do even as the Iews and Sadducees did of old But as for others that are not so given up by the Lord it ought not to be supposed that they can altogether want some Divine Dictate or witness of Gods Spirit to testifie against the strongest delusion of Satan And therefore he to whom Satan presents such a delusion if he hath a sincere love to the Truth by comparing the delusion with the true Dictate or Light of Christ that witnesseth against it may readily discover it to be a delusion and if the said delusion be contrary to any Doctrine expresly declared in the Scripture the Scripture will also be a secondary confirmation to him that what is so presented to him is but a delusion But many times Satan presents delusions to men to do or act things that are not simply in themselves unlawful or contrary to Scripture And then I Query by what rule shall these delusions be discovered But I confess I. A. hath a very short way but yet very false and unsound to resolve this question viz. Positively to conclude that all inward Dictates and suggestions whatsoever that any man finds in himself are utterlâ— to be rejected as being any Command of God or any Divine Testimony seeing there are none such in the hearts of men They are all according to him either a mans own thoughts or suggestions of Satan And therefore nothing that a man hath in him is to be relyed upon But it is strange Doctrine that Satan shall be so near always to Dictate evil even unto the Children of God immediately but God and Christ shall be at such a distance as not once in a mans whole life time to Dictate in him immediately that which is good The which Doctrine of I. A. is so favourable to the Devil and so advantagious to advance and uphold his Kingdom among men that this one consideration is enough to render it suspected that it is not of God but of the adversary CHAP. VII IN the Third Section of his Survey upon the Fourth Query I. A. pretends to Answer our Objections or Reasons That there is a Word or Dictate of God in our Hearts or Christ himself that doth Dictate or Teach in us and who is the principal Rule of Faith and Life All which Objections he brings them not either in matter or form as used by us but miserably perverts the most of them to a contrary sense and intent as if we did use those Reasons to oppose an outward Ministry or the use of outward Preaching Hearing Reading Praying none of which we oppose but on the contrary we own all these things as both needful to be done seeing they are commanded of God and as profitable to men yea to the most advanced and experienced Saints when duly practised And it is an exceeding great mistake in our Adversaries generally to suppose That our Principle of Immediate Revelation or the Immediate Teachings of the Spirit doth destroy or make null and void the use of the Scriptures or any other means For by Immediate we mean not Immediate in opposition to those things that are means truly appointed of God as Reading the Scriptures Preaching Praying Meditating Singing Waiting But on the contrary we say It is only by the help of the Spirits immediate Teachings and Leadings that those and the like means are made effectual and profitable to the People of God For if the Prophets and Apostles their having Immediate Revelation did not make void the use of the Scriptures unto them nor the use of Preaching Praying Reading Meditating Waiting and Watching no more doth our having it Again our Adversaries grant that God doth operate or work immediately by an immediate effective illumination of his Spirit in the hearts of all his People and that
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
nothing concerned to Answer For we own both Scripture interpretation and just and necessary consequences of Scripture but then we say that these interpretations and consequences ought to be by the help and direction of the same Spirit that gave forth the Scriptures immediately teaching them to interpret and to draw such consequences therefrom to which I. A. doth not pretend nor any of his Brethren For all the Interpretations and consequences which Christ or the Apostles used were by the same Spirit that was in the Prophets and Peter saith expresly that no Prophecy of Scripture is of private Interpretation and it is said of Christ that he opened the understandings of the Disciples that they might understand the Scriptures which opening was by his Spirit that he gave unto them and seeing the Scripture cannot be understood without the opening of the Spirit that gave it forth it cannot be interpreted without the same nor can consequences be lawfully deduced from Scriptures without it for how can a man interpret what he doth not understand or how can he deduce a consequence from that whereof he is ignorant And there is yet another fault that we find in I. A. and his Brethrens interpretations of Scripture and consequences therefrom that they keep not closely to Scripture it self when they interpret or draw consequences but for most part mingle with the Scripture words many of their false principles and Axioms of that they call their Philosophy For as I have already said the most part of that they call their Philosophy is utterly false or uncertain nor are the Teachers of it agreed among themselves in their Principles and Axioms And yet their Consequences are commonly from one or other of these false or uncertain Maxims or Principles which they joyn with the Scripture in which case the consequences are not purely Scriptural For seeing in Argumentation the Conclusion or Consequence is drawn from two Propositions or Premisses one of which may be true the other false Again the one may be true and certain the other although true yet may be to us uncertain and doubtful in which cases the consequence or conclusion is always of the nature of the weaker premise hence if but one of the premisses be false the conclusion is false although the other Premise be true And if one of the Premisses be unclear or uncertain the conclusion is also uncertain And again if one of the Premisses be Scripture and the other be but some principle or maxime of Natural Philosophy so called the conclusion in that case is not Scriptural but Natural And thus much is generally acknowledged by all the Schoolmen so called And hence it is that the School-Divinity as it is so termed is rejected by many as a dubious and uncertain thing because the conclusions thereof for most part depend not on Scripture Propositions but uncertain and doubtful principles and maxims of that called Natural Philosophy But again suppose one should draw a consequence from Premisses that are both Scriptural yet seeing the terms in those Premisses may have different significations as the words Flesh Spirit Life Light Man and many others that have one signification in one place of Scripture and quite another in another part of Scripture the conclusion in that case doth not follow for not only the Art of Logick but Common Reason it self Teacheth us that in all Arguments the word or term that is used in both Premisses must have the same sense and signification in both Now he who has not the direction of the same Spirit that did Dictate the Scripture hath not this discerning so as to know the true sense or signification of Scripture words as they signify Spiritual Misteries and things For the Natural man understands not the Things of God as saith the Scripture and therefore he is utterly unfit to reason about them By which natural man I understand any man considered as never so well furnished with all Natural helps of his Parts and Arts but wanting the Spirit of God or at least not making use of the help of it but puting another thing in its room And thus much shall suffice at present to the Intelligent Reader how and after what manner we own both Scripture Interpretations and Consequences and yet may very well deny I. A. his Interpretations and Consequences and all such as he is who declare themselves Enemies to that Spirit that gave forth the Scriptures as necessary to help them in interpreting and drawing Consequences from Scripture And albeit I. A. use many Arguments to prove that Interpretations of Scripture are lawful and Consequences therefrom as that Christ and the Apostles did interprâ—â— the Scriptures and draw Consequences therefrom yet all this proves not that I. A. his Interpretations and Consequences without the same Spirit which they had are as good which is all one as to say Christ and the Apostles did Interpret the Scriptures and argue from them by the Spirit And therefore I. A. and his Brethren may as well do it without the Spirit but who having common Sense doth not see the unreasonableness of this Consequence Again as for the Levites their Expounding the Scripture which is another Argument of I. A. it remaineth for him to prove that these Levites who did rightly Interpret the Scripture did it without the Spirit of God and meerly by their own Natural Understanding And what if these Levites were not in all respects Infallible it doth not therefore follow that they had no Infallible direction of Gods Spirit when they did rightly Interpret the Scripture And indeed this is a third false Charge of I. A. against us as if we did hold that none is to Intepret the Scripture but he who is simply and absolutely or in all respects Infallible which we affirm not Nor is that the true state of the Question but this Whether any should give an Interpretation of Scripture without he be Infallibly perswaded by the Spirit of God that he hath received it from the Loâ—d We say Nay otherwise he Preacheth not the Word of God to the people but his own Fallible conjecture Now it is one thing to be simply or universally Infallible and another thing to be Infallibly directed in some particular cases of Interpreting some particular places of Scripture as God giveth to a man the help of his Spirit so to do And thus I. A. his two first Sections wherein he spendeth 18 Pages are sufficiently Answered In the beginning of his third Section concerning Baptism with Water he alledgeth falsly upon us That wherever Baptâ—sm is mentioned in the New Testament and the word Water is not expresly added that we always deny Baptism with Water there to be meant This is false for we grant that though Water be not expressed yet in some places Baptism with Water is understood as where Paul said Christ sent me not to Baptize here we affirm that to Baptize signifieth to Baptize with Water But we say further That the words
Baptism and Baptize when Water is not mentioned do sometimes signifie Water-baptism and at other times not but some other thing as the Baptism of the Spirit or the Baptism of Sufferings as where Christ said to two of his Disciples Can ye be Baptized with my Baptism this was not Water-baptism but the Baptism of his Sufferings whereof they were to be partakers And here in my Answer to I. A. his Arguments for Water-baptism its being a Gospel Ordinance it shall suffice to take notice what is the principal defect of every one of them and wherein he comes short in his proof as being meerly asserted which therefore are to be returned unto him to be proved In his first Argument he alledgeth That John the Baptist was the first Minister of the New Testament way of Dispensation for which he citeth Mat. 11 12 13. Luk. 16. But these places prove no such thing for they do not call him the first and the words viz. The Law and the Prophets was unto John here Iohn is the term inclusive in respect of the Law and Prophets as if I should say England reaches from I ands end in Cornwall to Berwick upon I weed here Berwick is the term inclusive and therefore it doth not follow that it is any part of Scotland again to say Scotland reacheth from Berwick to Orknay here again Berwick is exclusive in respect of Scotland and therefore when it is said From John the Gospel of the Kingdom is Pâ—eached It doth not inferr that the Gospel began at Iohn inclusively but exclusively even as Scotland begins at Berwick exclusively for Iohn was but a fore-runner of Christ who himself began the Gospel Disâ—ensation in a peculiar way and yet Christ also was subject to the Law for he was Circumcised and did Eat the Passover both which were but Legal Administrations And here again in the Prosecution of the first Argument I. A. abuseth us saying That we agree with Papists in affirming that Christs Baptism was substantially differing from the Baptism of John But his fallacy lyeth in this that he doth not express what the Papists mean by Christs Baptism for they mean Water-Baptism even as I. A. doth but we say the Baptism of Christ is not with Water but with the Holy Ghost Now we do not say as the Papiâ—ts That there were two Baptisms with Water one of John another of Christ but only that Iohn's Baptism with Water and Christs Baptism with the Holy Ghost were distinct even as Iohn and Christ have expresly distinguished them And therefore the seeond Objection he instanceth pag. 69. doth not concern us As to his second Argument he taketh great pains to prove a thing which we no wise deny viz. That the Disciples did Baptize divers with Water after Christ his Ascention and his giving the Holy Ghost But it is the consequence that is denâ—ed by us viz. That therefore Water-Baptism is a Gospel precept for the Disciples practised divers things after Christ his Ascension which were not Gospel Precepts for Paul Circumcised Timothy long after Christ his Ascention also he purified himself after the manner of the Law none of which were Gospel Precepts And the Disciples did not only abstain from Blood and things Strangled but enjoyned it unto others the which Abstinance continued in the Church even in Tertullian's days as is clear from his words and I. A. doth not hold that to be a Gospel Precept nor yet the Anointing with Oyl the Sick nor the Washing one anothers Feet both which were commanded and practised in the Primitive times And this doth also sufficiently Answer his third Argument from Peter his saying Repent and be Baptised if it were granted him that Baptism with Water is there to be understood for Peter might see it convenient at that time for a help to their weakness who were much used with outward Signs to require it of them which yet proveth not that it is a Gospel Precept For all Gospel Precepts reach further than unto Figures and Signs which are but the shadows of Gospel Mysteries And his fourth Argument hath the same defect with the former that because Peter commanded Cornelius and others with him to be Baptized that therefore it was a Gospel Precept which doth no more follow than that abstaining from Blood was commanded by the Apostles that therefore it is a Gospel Precept or because Anointing the Sick with Oyl was commanded by Iames that therefore it is a Gospel Precept And to his Fifth Argument from Eph. 4. 5. that the one Baptism must be Water-Baptism because that is the only proper Baptism according to the signification of the word whereas there is not one but mány improper or Metaphorical Baptisms But according to this reason of I. A. when in the same place Paul saith There is one Body Body doth not signifie the Church for to call the Church Body is but improper and metaphorical and there are many such metaphorical Bodies Also when Paul saith There is one Spirit I. A. I suppose doth know that Spirit or as it is in the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not improperly and metaphorically signifie God as much as Baptize signifieth inward Baptism for the Grammatical signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â— is Wind and therefore if I. A. his consequence hold good when the Apostle saith There is one Spirit that Spirit must be in the Grammatical sense Wind that is a material thing and not the Spirit of God even as the Baptism must be a material or outward Baptism And thus we may see whether I. A. his blind way of drawing consequences doth lead him even to the greatest impertinencies imaginable His sixth Argument from Mark 16. 16. hath this defect that seeing the word Baptised cannot be meant of Conversion or any other metaphorical Baptism it must therefore be meant of Water-baptism And it cannot be meant of Conversion because of the order of the words which requireth Faith to go before Baptism whereas Faith cannot go before Conversion because Faith is Conversion it self I say his Argument hath this defect that it confounds the part with the whole for granting that Faith is Conversion in part or in some degree it doth not follow that therefore it is the whole or furthest degree of Conversion for the work of Conversion or Sanctification hath its several degrees and that high or eminent degree of the Souls purification which may be called its Bapâ—ism or through plunging is really posterior to the Souls first believing and is the effect or consequence of it Hence we read of purifying the heart by Faith so as the purification is the effect and consequent of Faith Again whereas he laboureth to prove that the Baptism that saveth which is mentioned 1. Pet. 3. 21. must be Water-baptism because it is called the Anti-type or thing signified in respect of Noah's temporal saving by Water and there must be some near resemblance betwixt a Type and its Anti-type but he
Argument is That because Christ rose on that day and honoured it with his most frequent appearings after his Resurrection on that day that therefore he appointed it to be kept for a Sabbath But this inference is without any proof and is therefore returned to him And it is manifest that at a certain time when Christ did appear some of the Disciples were Fishing with their Nets Ioh. 21. And if that was the first day of the Week and appointed by Christ for a Sabbath how was it that the Disciples did so openly transgress it and yet were not reproved by Christ but were bidden cast out the Net by himself Nor is his other Argument of any greater weight That because the Primitive Christians in the Apostles times and downwards did constantly meet on that day and had their Collections for the poor that therefore it was appointed to be strickly observed as a Sabbath This consequence is also returned upon him as barely alledged without proof And both we and many other Protestants in France and Holland constantly meet on that day and yet it doth not follow that we or they hold it for a Sabbath for many of them do not any more than we Another Argument of his is Because it is called the Lords day Rev. 1. 10. To which I Answer I. A. hath not as yet proved it evidently that by the Lords day there is meant the first day of the Week but giving it that Iohn meant the first day as I find generally that Iustine Martyn and others about his time did call the first day of the Week the Lords day yet it doth not follow that therefore the Lord appointed it to be kept as a Sabbath for it might well enough he called the Lords day because he arose upon it for many dayâ— have received Names for much less reason according to the Ancient Tradition in Old times which not being in Scripture is not so certain to us as that other viz. Of Christ his Resurrection day Another Argument of his is Because that Christ Taught the Disciples to Pray that their flight might not be on the Winter nor on the Sabbath day when he Prophecied of the Destruction of Jerusalem Math. 24. 20. But to this I Answer That the Name of Sabbath doth not infer that any outward day is to be kept for a Sabbath under the New Testament more than the Name of Circumcision doth infer that there is now to be any outward Circumcision and what Christ spoke to the Disciples it was not to them alone but to all the Iews who as he did well know would still be Zealous for the Iewish Sabbath after his Resurrection As indeed they were and also for Circumcision and therefore he knew what great an Affliction it would be to them to be put to flee on that day and accordingly we find that not only them but long after the Iews even many of them that believed and also our Christians did observe the Iewish Sabbath and some observed both that and also the first day until Constantine's time What Christ therefore spoke of the Sabbath was not to confirm them to keep either that or the first day of the Week for a Sabbath but to express the great Affliction they would be in if they should flee on that day which they so much did regard And beside some understand the Sabbath here also by way of Allegory which I. A. hath not reâ—uâ—ed And whereas the said I. A. alledgeth that Rom. 14. 5 6. Is not to be understood of the first day of the Week but only of other Jewish days This is meerly alledged without any shadow of proof for no where doth Paul or any other Pen-man of the Scripture make an exception of the first day And therefore seeing Rom. 14. speaks of days indefinitely the first day is understood as well as the rest CHAP. XI IN the pretended Survey of the eighth Query which is concerning Singing of Psalms I. A. is at much pains to prove a thing which we do not deny viz. That Singing of Psalms is allowed and commanded under the New Testament For this we willingly acknowledge and those who can Sing with the Spirit and undestanding they may use either David's words or words of any other Holy-men recorded in Scripture or any other sound words as the Lord shall move them But all this is no Answer to the Question which is not concerning Singing only or simply but that way of Singing used by I. A. and his Brethren without any pretence to an immediate direction or motion of the Spirit Infallibly Teaching or assisting them what and how to Sing Now the Query is where doth he find such Singing Warranted in Scripture viz. without the Spirit infallibly directing them 2. Their Singing with Meeter or Tooting Rhymes Artificially composed by meer Natural Art and Industry where is such Singing commanded or practised in Scripture And 3. it is Queried since the Apostles did not turn them into Meeter why have others since them done so as if they were more wise than the Apostles or saw further what God required of them And whereas I. A. alledgeth That Psalms cannot be Sung except they be Meetered If he mean by Meetering putting them in Tooting Rhymes or Rhymes ending with the like Cadencies and Sounds he sheweth his great ignorance in Poetry and Musick for the best Poesies are without any such Cadencies Nor have David's Psalms any such Cadencies of like sounds at the end of the Lines as they are written in Hebrew And although Davids Psalms are Penned with certain measures of Words and Sentences yet that was by some Divine Skill which the Spirit of the Lord Taught him and not by bare humane Art as I suppose I. A. will not deny But another great abuse in I. A. is that he excuseth wicked and proud mens Singing such words of David as these I am not puft up in mind I water my Couch with my Tears c. alledging they may be Sung as well as Read by such men But who cannot see the absurdity of this inference for to Read and to Pray and also to Sing are very differing and one may Read the Devils words and the words of the wickedest men Recorded in Scripture but when one Prayeth or Praiseth he expresseth somewhat of his own condition And men may read the Creed or Ten Commands but yet they are not proper for a Prayer and the most of the Psalms are Prayers But lastly whereas I. A. saith He and his Brethren have the same Spirit the Apostles had though not the same measure We may not unfitly Query them how he can prove or demonstrate this to us seeing some of his Brethren have asked a proof from us that we had the same Spirit And if I. A. be in good earnest and doth indeed believe that he has the same Spirit which the Aposâ—les had how is it that he doth so very frequently mock and scoff at the Infallible Inspiration of the
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