mayst observe he answers nothing and thereby see the spirit of those men that doe stop their eyes against the plainest light but he that hardeneth his heart shall not prosper Position 13. That the Scriptures are not the Word of God but a Declaration of the conditions of them that spoke them forth He answers nothing according to his custome to our arguments nor excepts against our proofes but labours to confirme the Position Excep 1 Christ is the Word now if the Scriptures be the Word then there is two Words of God now prove that in Scripture or that the Letter is â—aked the Word in plaine words Reply 1. That Christ is the Word is plaine Iohn 1. and who knoweth it not The essentiall and declarative Word not all one 2. That the will of God contained in the Scripture is the Word of God is as plaine besides the Scriptures we named â—n the Perfect Pharisee pag. 24. Marke 7.13 Luke 11 28. Rom. 10.17 Iohn 12.48 we shall adde these Luke 8.11 the Seed is the Word of God ver 12. then commeth the Devill and taketh the word out of their heart least they should beleeve and be saved can the Devill take Christ out of their hearts 1 Thes 2.13 When yee receaved the Word of God which you heard of us yee received it not as the Word of Men but as it is in truth the Word of God c. This was the Word which the Apostles spake yea received it which cannot be meâ—nt of Christ he should have said yee received him not as the word of men but as it is in truth the word of God This is so plaine a case we shall not trouble thee further And here thâ—u mayst observe there are two words of God the essentiall and 〈◊〉 declarative and wonder the man should be so weake as to bid 〈◊〉 produce Scripture to prove this when the Scripture is so full of it to any that doth but reade it Excep 2 The Apostle calls what he wrote a Declaration 1 â—ohn 1.2.3 Reply How doth this prove the Scriptures are noâ— the word of God nay doth it not fully prove the contrary for that which he declares was what he had heard of the Lord Iesus Scriptures not onely a declaration of the conditions of Saints Againe we doe owne the Scriptures to be the declarative Word of God or a declaration of the minde of God but we say the Quakers doe destroy the Scriptures Divinity and authority when they call them onely a declaration of the conditions of them that spoke them forth For as we prâ—ved before 1 They shall be then no foundation for the Faith of Saints for one mans condition is not the foundation of another mans Faith 2. The Scripture shall have no authority over the soule of any but he that is in the same condition and hath experienced it contrary to Iohn 2.4 8. this is the reason why Nayler sayes they are not commanded to forbear to weare shâ—oes in his Book p. 21. if they were they should as well as they are commanded not to sâ—lute whereas that command if it be in any part binding Luke 10.4 requires both but this will tell thee what is meant by their calling Scripture a speaking forth of the Saints condition viz. it shall have no authority over them further then they list or have an impulse on their spirits or they practice for both the commands are of equall authâ—rity yet he denyes they are commanded one of them nay they are both in the same verse Luke 10.4 Yea 3. This destroyes the divine authority of all Historicall and Propheticall Scripture which could not be the Saints conditions when thâ—y spoke them as also threatnings and promises c But see this at large Perfect Pharisee pag. 24.25 We sha l say but this 1 Iohn 5.16 There is a sinne unto death I doe not say that you should pray for it was this Iohns condâ—â—ion when he spake it did he exper ence in his heart that he had sinned to death 2 Pet. 2.22 The Dog is returned to his vomit c. was this the condition of Peter that spoke it but we are ashamed of this wickednesse and folly of these men Excep 3 VVhereas you say it cannot be understood to be the word Christ that came to the Prophets Samuel Ieremy c it seems your understanding is not with the Apostle who saith It was the Spirit of Ch i st that was in them 1 Peter 1 11 and you say what Christ and his Apostles Preached c. was not Christ the Father or Spirit when as the Scripture saith Holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the holy Ghost 2 Pet. cap. 1 ver 21. Reply The Quakers grossâ— confounding of Christ with the written VVord 1 Consider Reader how grossely he abuseth and perverts the Scripture to prove that the words that they spoke were Christ and the spirit because it is said These holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the holy Ghost What a grosse and blasphemous conâ—ounding is here of the word that those men spoke and the holy Ghost that moved them to speake making the word spoken by a finite creature to be the everlasting spirit the holy Ghost The words were committed to Paper and Inke Rev. 1. Heb. 2.2 engraven in Tables 2 Cor. 3.7 Isay 30 8. write it before them in a Booke note it in a Booke c. can this be Christ or the Spirit of God and yet these are the things which they were moved of the holy Ghost to write Who knoweth not that it was the spirit of God that moved them to write that revealed the things they were to publish to the world but were those things that the holy Ghost moved them to write were those things Christ were those things the spirit What a miserable ignorance or judiciall blindnesse is this which certainely the righteous judgement of God hath given up this Generation of people to because they received not the truth in the love thereof that they might be saved Position 14. That the Spirits are not to be tryed by the Scriptures c. This Position is not denyed by Nayler we proved it from three testimonies and Nayler in his answer addes his owne defence thereof without exception against any of our proofes VVe shall take his arguments for defence thereof in order Excep 1 The infallible spirit which is the originall of all Scriptures is the tryall of all spirits and that spirituall man judgeth all things and by that spirit the Saints was to judge of all spirits and gave those up to Sathan that was for that end as is plaine 1 Cor. 5 4. Reply 1 The spirit not to be set in opposition to Scripture The force of this argument by which he would prove that spirits are not to be tryed by Scripture lyeth thus The infallible spirit is the tryall of all spirits therefore spirits are not to â—e tryed by Scriptures To
which we reply That this is no consequence at all and shall demonstrately prove it from these severall arguments 1. To set the minde and will of the spirit in opposition to the spirit it selfe can be no Gospel argument For the Scriptures are the infallible will of the spirit layd downe as the rule of Saints beleeving judging and walking What a reproach had it been when the spirit of God sent the Prophets to reveale his will or when Jesus Christ sent the Iewes to search the Scriptures what a reproach had it been to the living God for them to have answered We will not be judged not will we judge of spirits or doctrines by that Word or Scripture we will stand to the judgement of the spirit it selfe opposing the spirit it selfe to its owne will How wicked a thing had it been in them and how ridiculous an answer is this in Nayler 2. How is this to undervalue the wisedome of the holy Ghost himselfe Bereans commended for trying spirits by Scriptures Acts 17.11 who judgeth and pronounceth the Bereans more Noble then those of Thessaloniea in that they searched the Scriptures dayly whether those things that were spoken by Paul and Silas were so or no in that they searched the Scriptures the Spirit prizeth them for trying the Doctrines of Paul and Silas by the Scripâ—uâ—es the written Word And how wicked a thing is this in the Quakers to cry downe this trying of spirits and Doctrines of Scriptures which the spirit expressely ownes with such a signall testimony as speaking out in the soule such a spirituall noblenesse 3. It is confessed on all hands that the eternall Spirit is the originall of Scriptures and the tryer of Spirits who ever questioned that But our question is what the Saints are to try the spirits by not whether the spirit can try the Doctrines No. But we affirme that this eternall Spirit hath left the written Word as that which shall be the discovery touchstone and tryall of spirits and Doctrines by authority and divine warrant from himselfe See 2 Pet. 1.21 Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the holy Ghost 2 Tim. 3 16. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God c. John 5.99 Search the Scriptures Isay 8.20 c. So that our asserting the Scriptuâ—es to be tryall of spirits is but setting up the spirit in his owne authority and throne over the spirits and consciences of men and pleading with men that the spirit may rule in his owne way and that they will try Doctrines by that Scripture which the holy Ghost commands them to try the Doctrines by And he that refuseth that touchstone which the spirit hath layd dâ—wne for tryall doth destroy the authority of the holy Ghos â—et hâ—m speake fantastically of trying by the spirit what he will But this reasoning of Naylers is as if when the Loâ—d Protector should declare what is treason by Law in publique Proclâ—mations a Justice of Peace should when a Person were proved before him guilty of treason according to that Law yet should say he is not to judge what is treason according to that Law but he would appeale from the Law to himselfe for what is treason though the Law had determined it before But in this case to exclude the Scriptures because the holy Ghost is the originall of them is to destroy that plaine truth Subordinate non pugnant things that act in a subordination though about the same thing doe not destroy one anothers usefulnesse or causality Nay the spirits being the Originall of all Scripture this being confessed doth necessarily confesse their divine authority for that trying of spirits for which they were given forth by the inspiration of God 2. As to that expression the spirituall man judgeth all things we have fully spoken before in pag. 79. We know there is a spirit of discerning which Beleevers have of Gospel mysteries but what absurdity is this to inferre therefore spirits are not to be tryed by Scriptures For that light which a spirituall man hath is a Scripture light 1 Cor. 5.4 opened 3. How ignorantly is that 1 Cor. 5.4 produced to prove this assertion when Paul sayes In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ when you are gathered together and my spirit to deliver such an one to Sathan c. Paul is not trying of spirits or judging of Doctrines but exhorting the Church to excommunicate the incestuous Person and tells them That his Apostolicall power shall goe along with them in that sentence The verse going before tells you what is the meaning of his spirit where he sayes I as absent in body but present in spirit have judged already as though I were present concerning him that hath done this deed that is I in this Epistle doe send you my mind and my judgement what you ought to doe with this man that hath committed Incest as fully as if I were present with you and so you may goe on at your meeting to excommunicate him having for so doing not onely the authority of the Lord Jesus but also the conseâ—t and iudgement of me his Apostle This is that in those words In the name of the Lord Jesus and my Spirit How doth this man heape up quotations without any understanding of the minde of the spirit in them and with what exceeding ignorance doth he apply such Texts to his absurdities as neither prove them nor speake a tittle concerning them Excep 2 By this spirits were the spirits tryed before the letter was therefore spirits are not to be tryed by Scriptures Reply What a miserable non sequitur is here There was a time when the spirit had not given forth the Written Word therefore when the spirit doth give forth a written Word it is not to be regarded There was a time when the Law was not engraven in Tables of Stone therefore when it was engraven the Israelites must not looke upon it as a rule of life or judgement There was a time when the will of God was not written was not Scripture therefore when Christ bids you search the Scriptures you need not heed them at all But we leave the Reader to laugh at this absurd consequence The Bereans judged by another light then James Nayler doth who though they knew there was a time when Scripture was not written yet they tryed the spirits and doctrines of Paul and Salas by the Scriptures And the Spirit it selfe inspired and moved holy men of God to write the Scriptures to leave them as a tryall and touchstone of spirits though once there was a time when there was no written word But oh how doth God infatuate men when they will not submit to the authority of his Word Excep 3 He falls a rayling exceedingly and sayes We have no guide but the letter because we assert the authority of Scripture and addes how many minds how many formes how many gods doe ye worship and all pretend Scripture If it be possible to
he know them for they are discerned spiritually There the Apostle gives the reason why no light implanted in our natures in the creation can discerne the things of the spirit of God because they are spiritually discerned where he makes an opposition betwixt naturall and spirituall light and puts an impossibility upon discovering Christ by the light of Nature We may adde that ver 9.10 Eye hath not seene Eare hath not heard neither hath it entred into the heart of man to conceive c. but God hath revealed them unto us by his spirit 3. That that light which by Christ in the creating of the world is implanted in the soule is not a knowledge of Christ as a Mediator will appeare by undenyable examples for there are multitudes of men and women without contradiction never knew the Lord Iesus as a Mediator though it must be confessed they had a rationall or naturall light Those thousands of Saints that went over into new England fully experienced it that there is not the least hint of a Christ implanted in those Indians one of us having often conversed amongst them can also fully witnesse it as is more fully also evident by the confessions of many of them in Print who have been converted by the Ministry of Mr. Eliot of which we spake in the Perfect Pharisee pag. 19. But may not these Scriptures fully confound these mens pervertings of that Scripture Reade Psal 143.19 He shewd his Word unto Iacob his statutes and judgements unto Israel he hath not dealt so with any people and as for his judgements they have not knowne them Psal 79.6 Powre out thy wrath vpon the Heathen that have not knowne thee Col. 1.26 the disponsation of God is given to fulfill the Word of God even that mystery which hath been hid from ages and generations But let Paul determine the contrary to whose judgement we shall desire to stand 2 Thes 3.2 All men have not Faith Light in all not sufficient to save 3. That this light which by Christ in creating of the world is implanted in man is not sufficient to bring to a Gospel salvation is also plaine from what we have convincingly proved that this naturall light may be in thousands that never knew the Lord Iesus as a Mediator and Iohn 17.3 this is life eternall to know thee the very God and Iesus Christ whom thou hast sent So that there is an utter insufficiency and incapacity in this light to bring to salvation So that though A. P. hath lately expressed his abhorring the distinction betwixt naturall and spirituall light yet our Lord Iesus and the Apostles are so full in it that they are of more authority with us then the novell opinion of A. P. Thus you see this Scripture fully vindicated from their wrestings for hence it is apparent that though Iesus Christ by whom the Father made the world Heb. 1.2 in his creation of man did enlighten and create a principle of light and naturall reason and understanding in the soule which we have proved is eminently there understood yet this proves nothing for the Quakers that either therefore every man that hath a reasonable soule Christ dwells in him or that he knowes Christ or that his naturall light can possibly suffice to bring to Gospel salvation Excep 4 Naylers next defence is this ridiculous argument If Christ be not in the most vile in the world c how shall he judge every one according to their thoughts as well as according to what they doe must he proceed as carnall Iudges doe by proofe or confession and no further Reply We need say no more to shew the simplicity of this argument then to aske them these questions Doth the Scripture say that Christ is in the Devills and yet he sees and knowes and judgeth them Or doth the Scripture say that the damned in Hell Christ is in them Nay but doth not Scripture speake in this language Christ in you the hope of glory Col 1 27. so that Scripture speaking of Christ in you speaks of him as being the hope of glory where he dwells And is Christ in Devils and damned soules the hope of glory For geâ—â—â—er the Quakers nor we are in this controversie at all disposinâ— concerning the abiquity of the Divine Nature by reason of which he is above all and through all and 〈◊〉 all But of Christ in us in that sense the Gospel useth the expression viz. as a saving light and principle the hope of glory 2. How ridiculous is it from Christs knowing all things to inferre that he dwells in all can he not know things unlesse he dwell in them Doth he not know the inward motions of Brutes Horses Fishes c. and is it Scripture Language from thence to inferre his dwelling in them Oh! the vainenesse and frothinesse of such a spirit and how are these men given up to blasphemy We shall conclude with that of David Psal 11.4 The Lord is in his holy temple the Lords throne is in Heaven his eyes behold his eye-lids try the children of men He hath another argument that Christ dwells in the Saints which we know in its Gospel sense but not in Naylers that Christ as man dwells in them but how absurdly and un-scripturally doth this conclusion follow therefore Christ doth dwell in all Thus you see our proofes fully confirmed his lyes confuted his perverted Scriptures cleared and answered and the folly of his arguments fully opened though he hath not answered one of our arguments and many Scriptures against that Doctrine Position 5. That Christ in the Flesh with all he did and suffered therein was but a Figure and nothing but an Example Excep 1 O deceitfull spirits c. are those words expressely found in Sauls Errand to Damascus as you say they are let that Booke be witnesse against you and your lying slanders to all that reade it Reply Surely this man pretends neither to conscience nor modesty that doth challenge us here for a lye for saying that Doctrine was expressely found in Sauls Errand He that shalâ— but looke upon that Booke pag. 2. pag 8. pag. 14. shall begin to know the impudence of Iames Nayler pag. 2. 9. line last in the schedule annaxed to the Lancashire Petition to the Councell of State you have this charge Richard Hubbethorn wrote that Christs comming in the Flesh was but a Figure Now are we lyars in affirming those words are expressely found there Nay further in pag. 8. where Hubbethorne answers to that charge we will give you his owne words Christ in his people is the substance of all figures types and shadowes fulfilling them in them but as he is held forth in the Scripture-letter without them and in the flesh without them he is their example or figure which is both one that the same things might be fulfilled in them that was in Christ Iesus Could a man have spoken more plainely to affirme what we asserted of him And doe we adde our
denied truely he could not in so few words have spoken more untruely to prepossesse the Reader but we beg the Reader as to that to suspend his judgement till he have fully read the ensuing Discourse wherein whether any thing have been charged on them that is false and whether Nayler have done faithfully in owning what is truth will appeare at large In the Preface of James Nayler to his answer he tells you The Man of sin and his â—orkings in the last times Revealed That Christ now appearing in his Saints to discover the man of sinne with all his deceits and deceiveable workings now all the powers of darkenesse are gathered against him Gog and Magog As for those deceits and deceiveable workings truely these blasphemous Doctrines of these men with their Diabolicall delusions and quakings will make it appeare where the man of sin is now working To open this we shall stay the Reader a little Agreement betwixt Papists and Quakers 1. It is as claere as the noone day 2 Thes 2. chapter Rev. 12.3 Rev. 13. Rev. 17.4.5.9.10 that the Papall Apostacy and state is The Antichrist so often Prophesied of in Scripture Now it is as plainâ— that the very distinguishing Doctrines and practises of these men are such as are the maine principles of that man of sinne in opposition to Jesus Christ Papist Bell. l. 2. de justif cap. 7. 1. The Papists deny the imputed righteousnesse of Christ for justification and in scorne and derision call it A putative Righteousnesse Quak. These also from the same spirit deny the imputed Righteousnesse of Christ for justification And Nayler himselfe before the whole Court at Appleby discoursing with W. C. about justification by righteousnesse of Christ imputed not onely denyed it but in a sleighting way ended his discourse thereabout with this language That which is without is without So George Fox affirmed That he that is borne of God is justified by Christ alone without imputation Sauls Errand pag. 12. Papist Bell. l. 2. de justif cap. 3. 2. The Papists in their controversies with us doe positively affirme that justification is by inherent Righteousnesse Hence Bellermine Stapleton c. with the rest doe positively affirme that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is onely justum facere per inherentem justitiam that to justifie is onely to make righteous by inherent righteousnesse Quak. So these men doe as confidently affirme that they are onely justified by inherent righteousnesse or that righteousnesse within which Christ within them enableth them to performe See our proofe Perfect Pharisee pag. 10. Papist Bell. de juâ—tif l. 4. c. 11. 12. 13. 14 3. The Papists againe doe confidently conclude that a man may perfectly keep the whole Law Hence their neglect of the righteousnesse of Christ their workes of supererogation and the like Quak So the Quakers their great assertion as a challenge to all is that eâ—ery Saint is perfect that it is pâ—ssible to be perfectly holy and without sinne Perfect obedience to the Law of God is their great Principle which they confidently cry up more then any Papist Bell. l. 3. de verbo Dei c 4. 4. The Papists affirme that the Scriptures or the Written Word of God are not the supreame Iudge of sp rits Quak So these people that the spirits are not to be câ—yed by Scripture So A. P. in the Booke he but forth called Severall Papers p 19. The Woâ—lds touchstone is without them and they try the spirit by the letter c. but the Saints touchstone is within So that though they agree not what shall be yet both of them consent in denying the Scripture to be the judge of spirits Papist 5 The Papists call the Scripture aâ—â— ad letter a nose of wax a scâ—bbard without a sword Coâ—erus in Euchir pag. 44 Pighius lib. 1. cap. 4. So Melchior Canus sayes It is most certaine the Written Word is onely for Babes and is no way necessary for those that are growâ—e as is more fu l Melchior Canus defens each fid contra confess Worâ—berg cap. 36. Quak. So these men also not onely câ—y downe the necessity of the written word see the perfect Pharisee pag. 20. but also call it a dead letter a carnall letter that they are but a declaration of them that spake it So Melchior Canus againe saith the Gospel is not the Scripture as Farnworth in his Booke Discovery of Faith scoffes at our saying the foure Bookes of Matthew Marke Luke and John are the Gospel pag. 1â— Papist 6. The great argument by which the Papists doe goe about to establish the truth of their way is Immediate revelations and pretended miracles the want of which they upbrayd the Protestant Ministers and charge us to be no Church Quak So the Quakers doe in their pretence to an immediate call and their supposed miracle of quaking So A. P. the Word of the Lord came to me saying So Audland the Word of the Lord came to me but of that more hereafter Papist 7. The Papists doe place much of their holinesse in their Eastings beggerly apparell and forsaking the World as they call it as their lâ—â—ing mewed up in convents and cloysters their wandring up and downe as Hermits and begging Fryers c. Quak. So these men is knowne to place abundance of their holinesse in Fasting beggarly apparell wandring up and downe the World c. we might adde much more but here you may see how the man of sinne in these men in their compliance with the principles and practises of the Romish way breaks out in his deceit and deceiveâ—ble workings 2. He is a stâ—anger in the Booke of God as to the discovery of Antichrist The spirit of errour the spirit of Anti-Christ who doth not observe the spirit of God mightily unvailing Antichrist by the revealing of the spirit of errour in him for 1 Iohn 2.18 there it plainly appeares that horrid errors are of that affinity with the Antichrist that when he would describe that man of sinne in the last time he calls the Heretiques by that very name Now are there many Antichrists whereby we know it is the last time c. Now besides those which we have named the Reader will easily observe such a masse and heape of Arminian Socinian Familisticall errors in their Doctrines layd downe in the Perfect Pharisee that he may câ—earely observe where the spirit of Antichrist works in all deceiveablenesse in this last time 3. Lastly It is the Saints bulwarke against the Papists while they call for our miracles that the spirit of God clearely holds forth that the comming of the man of sinne is after the working of Satan with all power and signes and lying wonders 2 Thes 2.9 So Rev. 16.13 the three uncleane spirits ver 14. are the spirits of Devils working miracles to gather together c. Now this further evidenceth the spirit of the man of sinne
Iesus Christ these things of the Kingdome of God are not knowne to the man or Princes of this VVorld but what is this to prove this therefore it is lawfull for George Fox to say he is the Iudge of the World Did ever Paul or any of the Apostles conclude from their spirit of discerning that they were the â—udges of the World Will a discerning of the mysteries of the Gospel rayse up men to sit in Christs Throne and to judge and condemne and pronounce irrevocable sentence against others as the practice of some of the Quakers is That spirit of discerning is there onely attributed to the spirituall man as to the mysteries of the Gospel Will a discerning of Gospel mysteries prove a power to discerne the fiâ—al state and condition of soules what iâ— shall be to all eternity Is there not a large ignorance of their owne hearts even in such as have a large measure in Knowledge of Gospel Doctrines And is not this the Prerogative of God to search the hearts Ier. 17.10 Ioh. 1.25 And is discerning judging all one 1 Tim. 5.24 Some mens sins are open before hand yea God doth now fully discerne and know the states of soules yet the judging of the world speaks more then a bare act of Knowledge and discerning For there is a time when that God that knoweth the thoughts of mens hearts yet doth not execute this sentence of judgement upon their soules Eccles 8.11 Rev. 6.10 How long O Lord c. dost thou not judge c. but God hath the day of his wrath and of the revelation of his righteous judgement Rom. 2.5 So that he that shall consider how farre short discerning doth fall of this sort of judging how farre short discerning of Doctrines doth fall of either judging or discerning the future and finall state of soules how evidently this Scripture is wrested to lift up sinfull creatures into a blasphemous arrogancy of the very Attributes and Office of Christ will easily see how sinfully Nayler hath done to serve the Antichristian pride of Fox who as God 2 Thes 2.4 will needs fit in the Temple of God and shew himselfe that he is God Excep 4 To our Proofe further That George Fox was called by one of those Quakers the Sonne of God Nayler sayes You that are offended that one shall witnesse the Sonne of God shew that you are ignorant of the new birth c. 1 Iohn 3.1.2 Behold c. that we should be called the Sons of God Now blush for shâ—me that you should be Ministers of the Letter and are ignorant â—f it Thus farre he Reply How Christ the Sonne of God how the Saints are Sonnes That Iesus Christ is onely the Sonne of God essentially and according to Scripture expression emphatically and distinguishingly called the Sonne of God is very cleare Mat. 16.16 Simon Peter answered and said thou art Chrâ—st the Sonne of the living God This is that â—amous confession of Peter which Christ said Flâ—sh and blood had not revealed to him which is in that expressâ—on raysed up to such a pitch that it is impossible it should be meant in the oâ—dinary notion of the Sons of God as when applyed to regeneraâ—e persons as is plaine by these two eminent exprâ—ssions of flesh and Blood hath not revealed this unto thee and upon this confession not upon Peters person ver 18. Vpon this Rocke I will build my Church and the gates of Helâ— shall not prevaile against it Consonant to this is that upon the miracle wrought by Christ Mat. 14.33 they in the Ship worshipped and said of a truth thou art the Sonne of God Can George Fox testifie his beâ—ng the Sonne of God by such a miracle Nay Heb. 1.5 you have a challenge for the distinguishâ—ng Sonne-ship of Châ—ist Vnto which of the Angels said he at any time thou art my Sonne this day have I begotten thee ver 8 But unto the Sonne he saith Thy throne O God is for ever and ever Here you have his Sonne ship vindicated from being communicâ—bâ—e even to the very Angels though in other places called the Sonnes of God Iob 1.6 Iob. 38.7 when the Sonnes of God shouted for joy Thus we have proved the essentiall Sonne-ship of Chrâ—st and how that expression the Sonne of God is emphatically and distinguishingly given to him so as not to be communicable to the best of creatures For the creatures of God when any of them are called the Sonnes of God it is upon one of these two accounts 1. Either of Creation Luke 3.38 Adam iâ— called the Sonne of God 2. Or of Adoption Gal. 4.5 to redeeme them that were under the Law that they might receive the adoption of Sonnes We know what the adoption of Sonne-ship of Beleevers is and doe blesse God that this manner of love is given us that we should be called the Sonnes of God 1 John 3.1 But first Either hence to appropriate Christ his incommunicable title of being by eternall generation the Sonne of God Or secondly from that adoption to assert an equality with God we can account no lesse then blasphemy Now let the Reader know that the reason why we produced that expression of George Fox being called the Sonne of God by one of that way was to prove their conceipts of an equality with God Had Nayler confessed that his looking upon Fox c. as son by adoption doth not carry him up to lâ—oâ—e upon them as equall with God we should nâ—t haâ—e troubled the Reader further as to this particular but in stead of confessing he goes about to prove what the other had asserted so that we havâ— reason still to see â—hat name of Sonne but made a clâ—ake to usher in Foxes his in ruding into being distinguiâ—hingly and emphatically called the Sonâ—e of God and being â—ccâ—â—ding to his owne wo ds equall with the Father But if they will sti l play with the Phrase of the Sonne of God yet the understanding Reader will obâ—erve that that exprâ—ssion was but one of the six Proofes we gave that thâ—y had asserted an equality with God three of which are already evident bâ—yond exâ—eption There are two more deep and pertinent proâ—fes against them as to this One is That their usuall expression is th t hey can see mens hearts questionlesse this is Gods in ommunicable Attribute Jer. 17.10 I the Lord seâ—rch â—he hearts The other is an expression usâ—d by Nayler himselfe to oâ—e of us to this purpose How God should reve le any thing to him â—â—â—l e viz. Nayler not know it As if God knew nothing but Nayler knew it Oh the h rriblenesse of such expâ—essioâ—â— the Reader may wonder with what patience we can wrâ—te such thinâ—s Yet these two so fully speaking to prove that they assert an equality with God Nayler wholly passeth over though himseâ—fe wâ—s the aâ—â—ertor of one of them So that it still stands fully evident against them that they doe assert an eqâ—ality with God
owne imaginations to make them odious when we say according to their principle those things that are held forth of Christ without us as Hubbethorn sayes must be acted over againe within us and so Christ must be borne of the Virgin in us and Iudas and Herod and Pilate must be in us to betray and crucifie him Is not this the plaine assertion of Hubbethorn the same thiâ—gs must be fulfilled in us that was in Christ Iesus as he was held forth in the Scripture-letter and in the flesh without us And this we also proved by an assertion of George Bateman pag. 29. to which Nayler answers nothing But further it shall yet appeare that its cleare in Sauls Errand to Damâ—scus pag. 14. where George Fox expressâ—â—y sayes Christ his flesh is a figure for every one passeth thrâ—ugh the same way that Christ did who comes to know Christ in the flesh What a seared conscience must this man needâ— have that when this Doctrine is expressely found in those evidâ—nt plâ—ces in that Booke yet hath the impudence against the light of conscience to say Let that Booke he wiâ—nesse agaiâ—st yâ—u and your lying slanders herein to all that reade it But both you and we shall both learne what thâ—s man and his way iâ— Excep 2 You say this was written in a Letter which Nâ—yler wâ—ote to one in Lancashire viz. That â—e that expects to be saved by him that dyed at Ierusalem should be deceived which â—s a mâ—st 〈◊〉 by untruth c and so he goes on â—aâ—ling Reply 1. It is acknowledged thaâ— that Letter which had this Doctrine in it that Chriâ—t was but a figure was not Naylers Letter in which that other passage is we mistooke Nâ—yleâ— for Hubbethorne and that it was in a Letter from Huâ—bethoâ—â—e written to one in Lancashire Take this ensuing Testimony of Mr. Moore a godly Minister in Lancashire RIchard Hubbethorne wrotâ— that the câ—mmiâ—g of Châ—â—st iâ— the flâ—sh is but a figure or an â—olâ—ing 〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉 and actions amongst men those things that he will truely spiritually and really doe in the spirits of his people at his second comming This but being objected against him as denying the Lord that bought us He replyed in another Letter Thou dost not understand what I meant by that expression c. These words being often objected to the Quakers and particularly to George Fox though some of them made an answer to the but yet none of them deny it in these parts that I can heare of These Letters were sent to Henry Holme and are now in my hands Kellet in Lancash Jan. 16. 1653. William Moore Thus you have our confession of our mistake onely of the Name you see the truth of the thing convincingly evidenced But that it is a filthy untruth that Nayler wrote such a Letter in which were those words He that expects to be saved by him that dyed at Ierusalem should be deceived we answer First Nayler may know that we doe onely affirme that Doctor Marshall did object this against him at Applehy and Master Iaques Minister of Bolton in Lancashire sent his promise that he would make it appeare Had Nayler denyed that either of these two were true he might have charged us with a falsehood but this he doth not he dare not doe 2. Though Nayler doe so cry out against this as a slander yet he that considers this their Principle that Christ with all he did in the flesh is but a figure which is proved to be their principle beyond exception will wonder why Nayler should looke upon this as a slander when it is the necessary consequence of that wicked Doctrine for if Christ were but a Figure I should no more expect to be saved by him then by the figures and types of thâ— Law But because the man so loudly cryes out against this as being a filthy untruth that ever he wrote such a Letter though he deny not what we say that this was objected against him by D. Marshall and that M. Iaques engaged to justifie it yet we have affixed M. Iaques Testimony to satisfie the world of our clearenesse from the scandals and wicked reproaches of Nayler and this sent is under his Hand and Scale JAmes Nayler in a Lettor which he writ to Henry Holme gave out this expression If thou expect to be saved by him that dyed at Ierusalem thou art deceived Hoc unum test John Jaques Excep 3 There is but one thing more in Naylers answer whereby he shuffles this Position and that evasion is this We doe owne and confesse that Iesus Christ in the flesh is a figure or example as if figure and example were all one To which we answer Reply Iesus Christ not a Figure 1. We challenge Iames Nayler to shew one tittle of Scripture wherein Iesus Christ is called a Figure The first Adam is called a Figure Rom. 5.14 the Tabernacle called a Figure Heb. 9.9 but Iesus Christ is never called a Figure and therefore it is a sinfull shuffle of Iames Nayler thus to confound an Example and Figure 2. If he be a Figure we againe affirme he must typifie some thing but we referre you to our Booke as to Christ not being a Figure or onely an example where we have layd downe many Scriptures and arguments to which he answers nothing Perfect Pharisee pag. 8. 9. Position 6. That men are not justified by that righteousnesse of Christ which he in his owne Person did fulfill without us Reader thou wilt see in our Booke we had foure proofes for this three of which Nayler denyeth not and for the fourth we referre thee to Mr. Iaqueâ— testimony so that as to the truth of the assertion we must take it for granted especially considering what George Fox saith in Sauls Errand to Damascus pag. 12. He that is borne of God is iustified by Christ alone without imputation This gives us to understand the meaning of Naylers answer to that Position thus Except That righteousnesse Christ hath performed without me was not my justification c. untill Christ appeared in me c. and appeared in me my righteousnesse sanctification justification and redemption c. Reply Fox denying imputed righteousnesse in plaine tearmes 1. Let but the Reader compare this of Iames Nayler with that expressiâ—n of George Fox viz. he is justified by that alone without imputation and that of Authory Hodgson viz I beleeve to be saved not by the righteousnesse of Christ imputed to me but by the righteousnesse of Christ inherent in me which he doth not deny he wâ—ll learne the meaning of Naylers worâ—s to be clearly this that Christ in a man is the matter of his just fication so that though he labour to colour over the businesse in this answer by saying Christ was not his justification till he appeared in him yet comparing his answer with these testimonies it will appeare to be downe-right equivocation and shuffling Question betwixt Quakers uâ—concerning the
Christs being made manifest which are not voyd because they are not fulfilled in this world such as the putting of the Saints into the possession of his fulnesse of glory the putting of all his enemies under his feet c. so that perfection in holinesse being one of these things that are reserved for a state of glory we doe not destroy the end of Christs comming when we pleade he shall attaine this end in his owne appointed time and though the most holy here are full of many infirmities yet the day shall be when the workes of Satan shall be destroyed in them altogether in the time appointed by the Father the Quakers may as well say because the Saints are not now in glory therefore Christ hath lost his end in dying What we have said to this both in Christs satisfying for soules whereby he presents them perfect as to justification as also his destroying at death the whole body of sinne when they enter into a perfect state of glory will shew the vanity of his second plea for though we be not perfectly holy in our selves in this life yet we are perfect as to justification and compleat in him Col. 2.10 and though the Saints be not compleatly holy at present yet the day is comming when they shall even the time appointed by him that dyed for it and purposeth to present us spotlesse at his comming so that Christ loseth not the end of his comming Mat. 5.28 opened As to his third that Mat. 5.18 not one jâ—t or tittle of the Law shall passe till all be fulfilled which he brings to prove perfection in the Saints thus First It is evident that he that is there spoken of in v. 17. as fulfilling the Law is the Lord Iesus I came to fulfill it and that was solely and alone the worke of Christ both as he was the accomplishment of Prophesies in the Law or Booke of Scripture as he was the substance of all shaddowes in the Law ceremoniall and as he in Person did exactly as Mediator performe all the duties of the Law Morall that so by his obedience many might be made righteous What is this to prove perfection in the Saints because Christ fulfilled all righteousnesse 2. But the naturall and proper sense of this Text is clearely another businesse Christ is speaking here that the Law or the word of command and prophesies shall stand good and sure the word here is interpreted in the repetition of them Luke 16.17 not one jot shall fall so here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not one tittle shall passe from the Law it shall stand good and entire in it selfe Christ is not speaking as if the Law should be compleatly fulfilled and obeyed by us it shall stand in its force and authority notwithstanding that I am come yet I came not to destroy it but to continue it in its truth entirenesse and authority like that Rom. 3.31 Doe we then make voyd the Law through Faith nay we establish it And that Isay 40.48 repeated 1 Peter 1.25 the grasse withereth and the flower thereof fadeth but the Word of the Lord abideth for ever And what a non sensicall reason is this to prove that the Saints are perfect here and doe perfectly fulfill the Law because the Law shall not lose a tittle of its authority and entirenesse Rom. 8.4 opened 3. His third plea to prove the perfection of holinesse in this life is Rom. 8.4 that the righteousnesse of the Law might be fulfilled in us To which we answer First The Apostle here ver 1. is speaking of justification there is now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Iesus Ver. 3. he layes downe whence that freedome from condemnation flowes and tells you that what the Law could not doe in that it was weake through the flesh God sending his owne Sonne in the likenesse of sinfull flesh for sin viz. by a sacrifice for sinne or to satisfie for sinne condemned sinne in the flesh that is when man could not be justified by reason that sinfull flesh could not satisfie the Law God sent his Sonne to satisfie for sinne that so the righteousnesse of the Law might be fulfilled in us So that though we personally cannot and could not performe it yet through our union with Christ being dead with Christ Col. 2.20 quickned with him Ephes 2.5 we have his righteousnesse fulfilled in us Thou wilt fullier understand that this place is meant of the righteousnesse of Christ satisfying and fulfilling the righteousnesse of the Law and so made ours by our union with him if thou consider these observations 1. It is no where said in all the Booke of God that the righteousnesse of the Law is fulfilled in this life in any Saint as to inherent holinesse nay the contrary is here asserted ver 3. the Law was weake through Faith As also Rom. 3.20 that a man is not justified by the workes of the Law c. 2. It is Beza's note that the righteousnesse of the Law might be fulfilled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in us not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not of us or by us 3. Is not this to goe about to confirme justification by inherent holinesse against which you have had such undenyable proofe 4. What is this but to build up the old Popish notion of justification by inherent holinesse 5. If any shall thinke that latter expression who walkes not after the flesh but after the spirit shall tye this fulfilling of the Law in us to sanctification we referre him to the first verse where the same words are used and yet they are onely layd downe as a description of the Persons to whom there is no condemnation as they are layd downe also as a description of these persons that enjoy the fruite of that glorious worke of Christ fulfilling the Law and satisfying it So that this Text onely holds forth the satisfaction of the Law by Iesus Christ to be made really ours by our union with him as fully as if it had been performed in our owne persons But as to justification by inherent holinesse or perfection of it in this life we have fully proved the contrary Lastly He tells us we looked upon it as a strange thing that Farnesworth should say No uncleane thing can enter into the Kingdome of Heaven When as that which we say is no such thing but a challenging of Farnsworth his ignorance of the Gospel that he can see no consistency with these two A Saint cannot be perfect here And no uncleane thing can enter into the Kingdome of God Is this to count the Scripture a strange thing or is it not Farnsworths grosse ignorance that he knows no way of entring into glory unlesse he be perfect before he dye Is he not grossely ignorant of the maine mistery of justification by the blood of Christ May not a man be in part uncleane by reason of the imperfection of his present holines and yet pure and spotlesse too as to
there needs no outward discovery wish the Reader to observe That it is not onely the Publishing of the Gospel by the Ministry that Nayler cryes downe in this as uselesse but also the very Scriptures the written word it selfe being an outward discovery must by the same reason be asserted needlesse Here is the Religion of these men that pretend so much to perfection and yet will not heare God in his Word Position 12. That there is no need of any outward teaching by Reading or Hearing the Scriptures opened or applyed c. The Reader by his answer may observe there is nothing said against our many proofes onely one shuffle about the expressions of Iohn Audland who we said affirmed No need of outward teaching which Nayler sayes is false for the words were He needed no man to teach him What a shufflle is this or doth this deny what we say doth he not say no need of outward teaching to himselfe But Nayler hath this but by report and the words were spoken in our hearing Nayler also we observed in the last Position asserts the same fully in these words Where this light of Christ is there needs no outward light or discovery c. the rest of his answer is the grossest heape of rayling and lying as we have seen His rayling will appeare to all that reades it and his lying is as full For he saith These promises you give to them that are in the first birth sow pillowes under every arme-hole you Preach them up all Beleevers except some that refuse to give you hire and them you prepare warre against you say men must commit sinne while they live c. who knowes not that knoweth us the falsenesse of these lyes which he speakes out so freely as if they were as true as could be But as their wickednesse is fully knowne so the Lord will in due time discover what shall be given to a false tongue Except There is onely produced by him these Scriptures Ier. 31.31.32.33 Heb. 8 10.11 they are both the same They shall teach no more every man his neighbour or saying Know the Lord c. Reply 1 We answer That this promise doth only concerne the children of God as Nayler himselfe confesseth also it concernes them onely That great promise in Jer. 31.31 opened at large 1. The children of God onely are in everlasting covenant in the new covenant 2. They that shall be thus taught are such as have their sinnes pardoned Will Nayler say that every man hath his sinne pardoned he may as well affirme that all have their sins pardoned as affirme that this promise belongs to all So that as in the point of pardon all flesh must signifie not every man so it must be restrained also in the point of teaching to those all that are the people of God and are interessed in the mercy of this everlasting covenant 2. Though these people of God be thus taught of God yet this excludes not the use of outward â—eaching Reader besides the evidences of this we gave thee in foure arguments under our reply to his answer to the eleventh Position If thou wouldst take the paines to reade what we have Written in the Perfect Pharisee pag 21. 22. in which we have convinced the needlesnesse of outward teaching even to the best of Saints by plentifull arguments and above thirty undenyable plaine evident Scriptures thou wilt be fully satisfied and therefore we shall not trouble thee to repeate what we have said onely in a few words to open the meaning of the expression we shall adde 1. Know this promise was made good when the Saints were under outward teachings when the Apostles preached when Elders were set over the Churches when Faith came by hearing Rom. 10. For in those times the spirit was abundantly powred forth yea then was the time when their Sons and Daughters Prophesied so that it is a promise consisting with outward reaching 2. With how much willingnesse did the Saints when enjoying this promise attend the Apostle Doctrine Acts 2.42 3. Why doth the Apostle write to the Hebrewes to teach them if that were the meaning that no man should teach his neighbour 4. Nay doth he not say Heb. 5.12 Yeâ— have need that one teach you againe which be the first Principles of the Oraecles of God 5. Paul blames them for their forsaking their Church-assemblies Heb. 10.25 Yea 6. Commandâ— these Hebrews Remember them that have the rule over you wâ—eâ— have spoken to you the Word of God Heb. 13.7 And 7. Iud. ver 3. It was needfull for me to Write unto you and exhort you 8. Paul speaking of himselfe as to his Ministry sayes Phil. 1.24 to continue in the flesh is more needfull for you and what was it for but as to their instruction So that it plainely appeares this is not spoken to exclude outward Preachings but are to shew the abundance of spirituall Knowledge and light in Gospel-times comparatively with the dispensation the Iewes were under before the comming of the Lord Iesus But we have abundantly proved the sense is not cannot be to take away the needfulnesse of outward teaching VVarrant for division of Scripture into chapter and verse To excuse George Fox his jugling in a Concordance he fall to abuse the division of Scriptures into Chapters and Verses It seems he hath a minde to cast all the dirt he can upon any outward light though it be the Scriptures and though for nothing but this and he saith the Hireling Priests have done it to trade withall thus doth he ignorantly rayle though the Old Testament was so divided and distinguished long before the comming of Christ by the Masorites into chapter and verse about two hundred yeares before the comming of our Saviou and the most Learned say that they were that Ecclesiasticall Senate held by Ezra Haggai Zachariah and Malachy with divers others who amongst others their eminent services distinguished the Scriptures into sections and verses And as we finde none of the Apostles nor Christ himselfe disalowing that division so the Saints of God in our dayes have â—ound pretious advantage by thus methodizing Scripture though this man revile it under the name of the worke of Hirelings How he shuâ—fles in the rest about the Apostles Preaching and ordaining Eâ—ders will infoâ—â—e thee fully how the man was puzzled in that businesse and his last expressions of saying we tell men they must commit sinne will informe thee of his maliciousnesse He would insinuate to the Reader as if we pressed men to sinne We have said so much of this that we shall adde no more having fully cleared our pressing to all yea to the best to strive after grea er degrees of holinesse dayly and that they must struggle after that perfection which yet they doe not enjoy but we see the man is vexed and so we leave him to calme his spirits We have been very full also as to proâ—e the necessity of teaching to which thou
rake up a reason out of a heape of rayling this it is Those that doe uphold the Scriptures to be the tryall of Doctrines doe yet differ amongst themselves therefore the Spirits or Doctrines are not to be tryed in Scriptures Reply Quakers Popish argument This as many other of their answers is a knowne thread-bare Popish argument they say You Protestants cannot agree in your Discipline and therefore the Scriptures are not to be the judge of Doctrines but the infallible spirit of the Pope We hope God will discover them ere lonâ— to be men meerely acted by the spirit of Anti-christ but we shall give you a full answer under these two considerations Difference in non-fundamentals no prejudice to the Scriptures being judge of spirits 1. First as it reflects upon our selves We say to differ in discipline is not to worship severall gods as Nayler rayles while it is knowne we hold the head the Lord Jesus but this we looke upon as the spitting of his venome When Peter was for Circumcision and Paul was against Circumcision Gal. 2.13.14 did they worship severall gods So those Acts 15. that contested in different judgements did they worship severall gods But this man cares not what he sayes so be may throw his dirt upon us though he bewray his excessive ignorance in it before the world 2. As it fights against the Scriptures being the judge and tryall of spirits we shall shew there is no strength in this exception at all For the Scripture loseth not its authority for the tryall of spirits by reason of the darkenesse and different apprehensions of spirits How darke were the Apostles in the Prophesies of Christs Resurrection Luke 24 25. Fooles and flow of heart to beleeve all that the Prophets have spoken c. yet the Scriptures lost not their touchstone authority upon the account of their darkenesse though Christ saw thâ—t truth of the Resurrection in the Scriptures spoken of which they could not apprehend ought not Christ ver 26. to have sâ—ffoâ—ed these things and to enter into his glory Doth not Peter say plainely that in the writings of Paul there are 2 Pet 3.10 difficult things and hard to be understood and such as the unstable and unlearned rest and yet those Writings and Epist es doe not lose their authority because of the diversities and darkenesse of Beleevers thoughts Scripture rightly understood will clearely discover every spirit and every Doctrine though the best of men knowing but in part 1 Cor. 13.9 and so not fully taking in the genuine sense of Scripture may have through their darkenesse difference of judgement in things lesse fundamentall But we may be weary in following such triviall arguments onely we would not have the saints entrapped in any of Satans snares nor the blessed word that 's sweeter then hony and the hony combe subjected to the delusions of evill men Thus we have given thee the strength of his answer onely he addes his false glosse upon that of Isay 8.20 Isay 8.20 vindicated by us objected against them in the Perfect Pharisee the glosse is this Whereas you quote that place To the Law and to the testimony it is true the Law of the new Covenant is written in the heart by God and the testimody of Jesus is the spirit of Prophesie and if any be not guided by and speake according to these it is because they have no light in them but without them But we answer As he plainly by this overturnes all Scripture and leaves no rule but the Law written upon mens hearts which we have confuted in the Perfect Pharisee pag. 25. so it is a grosse perverting of the text and truth for it is clearely spoken of the Written Word and the very next words expresseth it clearely If they speake not according to this Word the Hebrew is full beyond exception cedabar hazzeh according to this Word so that that text is no reference that God makes to the Law written upon mens hearts but to the Law written in Tables of stone which tables were called the testimony and the Arke thereof called the Arke of the testimony Exod. 25.22 because the Tables of stone in which the Law was written called Exod. 31.18 the tables of the testimony were layd up there We have fully showne in the Booke called the Perfect Pharisee pag. 26. the sad fruits of this Doctrine of denying the Scripture to be the rule of trying doctrines and spirits that it is to open a gap to all the delusions of Satan and we instanced sin the knowne case of Iohn Gilpin who was sometimes a Quaker to which Nayler replyes onely thus It is no more then if the chiefe priests should have cited Iudas to confute Christ c. as he consulted with the priests to betray the truth so Iohn Gilpin hath done now who shall receive his reward and you priests also as Nayler sayes To which rayling we thus answer Shaking off the Sâ—ripture tâ—e â—â—ler to Satans delusions 1. That Iohn Gilpin was thus acted by the Devill is a known truth beyond questioning 2. That he did verily beleeve he was acted by Christ when yet the Devill acted him is very apparant Nay Atkinson the boy that pretends to answer that reâ—ation of Gilpin doth all along confesse that he was acted by the Devill is plaine to any that reades that his childish â—nd non-sensicall piece of rayling 3. Iohn Gilpin himselfe â—â—ee the Lord hath delivered him in mercy out of the snares of Satan hath fully confest that it was the spirit of Satan and not the Lord Iesus that then acted him 4 And that all this grew â—ut of his casting off the Scriptures searching to a light within Take his owne words pag. 15. of a Booke called The Quakers shaken It was most just with God to give me over to strong delusions to beleeve lyes c. as for other provocations sâ— especially for rejecting the revealed will of God in his Word and heaâ—kning onely to a Voyce within me nay not onely to l sten to the Devils suggestions but to embrace his Voyce for the Voyce of Christ Thou seest now Reader what reason we had to say this rejecting the Scriptures from being the tryer of Doctrines doth open an unavoydable gap to Satans delusions 2. But what reason hath the man to say in this both Iohn Gilpin and we have consulted against Christ Nay have we not been pleading for Christ against Iudas the desperate betrayen of his truth and Gospel while we have been discovering â—he subtilties of Satan in those that are acted by him and pleading for the authority of Christ in his word against all the delusions of the Devill And as we can thankefully and comfortably looke upon it that God hath engaged us in so good a work so we can looke for our reward not what Nayler we beleeve could wish us but how can he defie when God hath not defied but what Christ hath promised to them that can
forsake their names and comforts c. for his testimony It is no small slandâ—â— to say we have consulted with John Gilpin whose face none of us ever saw to our knowledge till after the Printing of his confession but there is a day wherein God will call every idâ—e word to an account and then Naylers conceit of his perfection will not take off the guilt of such apparant lyes Position 15. That there ought to be no sense meaning or exposition given or studying of the Scriptures We had many proofes for this that it was a Position of thâ— Quakers which he denyes not we could adde more but ' tiâ— needlesse because Nayler in his answer goes about to justifie it 〈◊〉 the summe of which lyes in these two exceptions Excep 1 The Scriptures are either perfect or not perfect if perfect lâ—â— them alone and doe not darken them by your invented wisedome Reply 1 Though Scripture be perfect in it selfe yet needs expounding through the darknet of soules To which we answer The Scriptures were given out perfect by the Prophets and Apostles yet they gave them out iâ— some places more darkely and in some places more clearely as Peter plainely confesseth 2 Pet. 3.16 that some things iâ— Pauls Epistles were hard to be understood and layd downe 〈◊〉 darkly as that those that were unlearned that is not well aâ—quainted with the mind of the holy Ghost in them did wrâ— them to their owne destruction which shewes the necessity opening and expounding Scriptures unlesse we will suffer mâ— through their ignorance to runne upon their owne ruine 2. Were the Scriptures imperfect or did Ezra adde to them because he gave the sense and caused them to understand the Reading Neh. 3.8 3. Doth not Christ speake the necessity of expounding Scripture though it be perfect when he said to the Pharisees Goe learne what that meaneth I will have mercy and not sacrifice Mat. 9.13 Nay doth not Christ clearly assert the necessity of expounding when he saith Marke 12.24 Doe yee not therefore erre not knowing the Scriptures Ver. 26 Have ye not Read in the Booke of Moses how God spake unto him in the Bush saying I am the God of Abraham c. he is not the God of the dead but the God of the living where he opâ—n the Scripture and proves the Resurrection from thence wh ch lay but darkely hid in those words had not he that had the Key of David opened and expounded them 4. The necessiâ—y of expounding doth not arise from the imperfection of Scriptures but from that darkenesse that lyes upon the spirits of the saints For now we see through a glasse darkely 1 Cor. 13. so that though the Scriptures be perfect in them elves yet thou seest the necessity of the opening of them through the imperfectiâ—n that is in us This Christ and the Apostles knew when they made it a great part of their businesse in the teaching of soules to expound the Scriptures Excep 2 You that have not that infallible spirit that gave them forth what will you judge and open and expound them with c. Reply This is but an old straine of his railing but we can let prayses be to free grace say with the Apostle God hath revealed them unto us by the spirit by the light of which spirit we are taught to compare spirituall things with spirituall 1 Cor 2.13 and so to open the Scriptures for though we are the least of saints and Nayler thus revile us yet we can blesse God for the in dwellingâ— of the infallible spirit in us which communicates light to our soules in that measure that pleaseth him dividing to every man severally as he will The rest of that answer is a heape of bitter rayling which is no more to us then the chaffe before the wind or the Viper upâ—n Pauls hand which comes forth from the flaming of their contention James 3.6 and we can shake off as into the fire from whence it came Position 16. They cry downe Baptisme with Water and the Lords Supper as being but types and shadowes ceasing upon the appearance of Christ within them Excep 1 Though the generall charge lie and our many proofes which he doth not deny make it cleare that they cry downe all Baptisme with Water yet Nayler in his answer shuffles from that charge and falls to except against Infant Bapâ—isme Reply Reader we should willingly cleare up that Ordinance of Christ to thee but it hath bin so fully cleared in the learned writings of Mr. Marshall Mr. Baxter Mr. Blakâ— Mr. Siâ—enham c. 〈◊〉 are loath to fill up our Booke with the discussing and clearing 〈◊〉 that point it being already growne up to a bulke beyond 〈◊〉 thoughts and shall referre thee for satisfaction in thâ—se 〈◊〉 discourses But let the Reader observe that this is but a 〈◊〉 evasion of Nayler for our proofes doe evidently satisfie 〈◊〉 they cry downe all manner of Baptisme with Water no◠〈◊〉 the Baptizing of Infants but of all and its further appâ—â—â—â— by their practice Excep 2 But at last he speaks his mind and reasons against all â—â—â—tisme and quotes that of Paul 1 Cor. 4.14 Paul knew whaâ— he spake when he thanked God he had Baptized no more for Christ saith he sent me not to Baptize but to Preach Reply 1 1 Cor. 1 14 opened By these expressions Nayler seems to make Paul looke upon his Baptizing others as a sinne and so to thanke God that he Baptized no more How is this to heape sinne upon Peter and the rest of the Apostles who Baptized three thousand at one time Acts 2.41 Ierusalem and all Iudea went forth to John to be Baptized of him and yet Iesus himselfe made and Baptized more Disciples then Iohn See Iohn 4.1 though Iesus himselfe Baptized none but his Disciples what is this but to make â—â—ul condemne the practice of those saints and oppose the câ—â—mand of the Lord Iesus Goe and Baptize Mat. 28.19 2. But to give thee the full meaning of Pauls expression then shalt finde 1 Cor. 1.12 he is charging them for factions Ouâ— said I am of Paul another I am of Apollo c. and argues thus Were you Baptized in the name of Paul and thence takes occasion to blesse God for not having Baptized many lest any should from thence have growne into a Faction as himselfe gives the reason ver 15. lest any should say I have Baptized in my owne name and from thence have made a Faction so that he blesseth God that sith the Corinthians were growne of such Factions and dividing spirits that providence had so ordered it that they had by his Baptizing so few of them so little advantage to cry him or his name up in opposition to Apollos Christ or Cephâ—â— Yet by the history of the Acts of the Apostles thou mayst observe that when ever any were converted by Paul they were Baptized Acts 16.15 ver 33. Acts 18.8 many of the Corinthians
the nature of quaking owning it where there was any reall appearance of God to the Prophets and shewing a clear difference betwixt these divâ—ne repâ—ures and the Satanicall quakings of these men he answers nothing at all but onely cavils at a word Excep 2 That we say They call their Quaking their great perfection which he sayes is false c. Reply To which we answer We cannot but look upon that as the great perfection in the eyes of these men which they doe so much cry up and so much desire as such a pretious attainement W. C. One of us doth know that Cap Ward and Will. Cartmell did expresse their desires of it and their hopes to come under that condition Henry Houseman said speaking concerning quaking he was not come up to that perfection yet We might adde more but Iohn Gilpin tells you in Quakers Shaken p. 5 that he did earnestly desire that he might fall into quaking and trembling apprehending that he should thereby attaine to the immediate discoveries of God unto him And is not that perfection Why doth Nayler still charge us with slanders Practice 2. Rayling Except He would endeavour from Scripture to lay downe a warrant for his rayling and his reason is because Christ called the Iewes the children of the Devil c. The Apostle cals men dogs wolves c. Reply 1 We charged them with rayling at those persons they had never seen before telling them they were Devils damned they saw the Devil in their faces so that this appeares to be perfect rayling because not knowing the persons or actions of any such men nor any particular sinne by them yet they let fly their dreadfull censures at randome Thus we instanced in our Perfect Pharisee p. 46. in their rayling at Mr. H. T. Merchant of Newcastle calling him a Priest c. and Gorge Fox rayling at Mr. Nichols in Carlile p. 48. telling him he was an hypocrite though he had never seen his face nor knew his name Now how is this bottom'd upon Christs example or the Apostles who gave such expressions to none but such as they had particular knowledge of as to their sinne giving a reason for such titles 2. Those titles were given to wicked Herod and to the teachers of false Doctrines Phil. 3. 2 Pet. 2. and we have fully cleared it we hope to every mans conscience who is not filled with errour and prejudice that we are neither reproachers of Christ or his Doctrine but according to our talent have found mercy of the Lord to be faithfull in carrying on the interest of the Lord Iesus and therefore we cannot but looke upon it as their sinfull practice in powring out such language upon us 3. He that doth but reade the Scriptures shall finde that this is not the ordinary language of Christ and his Apostles it was very seldome and very solemne and he that doth but compare this with the practice of quakers shall see a vast difference for it is their common practice and such words are as familiar as any they use as thou art damned and I see the Devill in thy face nay they are their usuall first salute to all they meet withall Was this the Apostles way take but any of their Books and compare them with any of Pauls Epistles and as thou wilt see a spirit of sweetnesse and meeknesse in his so thou wilt observe such a continuall froathing out of passion and bitternes in these men as will lay them naked to be acted by a spirit vastly different from that of Paul or any of the Apostles of the Lord Iesus 4. But shall the holy zeale of Christ and his Apostles be wrested to be made a patronage to their malitious raylings Doe they not by this means labour to take away the sinfulnesse of that rayling which the Apostle tells you is the fruit of the flesh and of which they that are guilty shall never enter into the Kingdome of God 1 Cor. 6.9 But we referr thee for further information in this to the Perfect Pharisee pag 44. 45. Pract. 3. Their pretending upon all occasions to be sent by sheâ—iall Commission from God 1. Here we having related by severall passages of the quakers pretending to a Commission from God the ridiculousnesse of their Messages and that pretence he plainely tells us he will not justifie them and when he cannot shuffle it off he tell us he can say nothing to it because he knows not the things in particular though the persons Reader thou mayst observe that are there mentioned are of his familiar company and converse and so thou wilt easily think had they been lyes we should have heard from him with open mouth yet the man will needs take the boldnesse to call them lyes though he confesse he knows not the particulars Now Reader judge of Nayler and his conscience 2. He sayes that they who were before the Magistrates were invited to any of our houses is false Oh! the confidence of this man and how boldly dare he rush upon a lye or any thing to make us odious All we say is that some of them that came to Newcastle were invited to come to our houses by some of us If Iames Nayler will aske M. Tayler if he were not invited by W. C. to his house when he was at that time at Newcastle and did not come he will see the debauchednesse of his conscience for W. C. doth beleeve M. Tayler hath so much honesty left as not to deny it Quakers justifie their cursing because such vvords are in Scripture and make the Scripture a vvarrant for cursing As to George Foxes cursing M. Fetherston which we quoted p. 48. Perf. Phar. all that Nayler replyes is that M. Fetherston confessed all that Geo. Fox spoke was Scripture What a ridiculous evasion is this of so great a sin Because there are such words in Scripture therefore he may apply them as he will There are these words in Scripture I am the Lord and change not he sits upon the circle of the Heavens c. In the beginning was the Word and the Word was God these expressions because they are in Scripture is it therefore lawfull to give them to any creature Nay dare Geo. Fox challenge them to himself because they are in Scripture Or because such words the Lord smite thee thou painted wall thou hast lyed against the holy Ghost for whom is reserved the blacknesse of darknesse for ever Are these true of G. Fox or may we therefore lawfully apply them to G. Fox because they are such words as are found in Scripture Oh! what a ridiculous evasion is this He may also plead that he and his followers may lawfully swear because the words sweare and oaths are to be found in Scripture and then this generation will perfectly come up to the necessary and experienced fruit of these principles viz. Ranting to a great degree wherof they are already attained in their most impudent obscene and shamelesse