an Inward immediate Dictate but there is a Divine Law in all men and therefore c. And in this respect it is that the substance of the Moral Law is generally acknowledged to be Imprinted in the Hearts of all men even those who want the Scriptures And I well remember that Bishop Sanderson saith in one of his Sermons That the said Law in the Hearts of all men is as really the Word of God as that Printed in our Bibles And thus I hope I have sufficiently evinced that there is a Dictate in all men that is a Divine Law and Rule at least in many or most things belonging both to Piety Justice and Sobriety Although I do not plead that there is a Law or Rule in them who have not had the History of the Gospel revealed unto them to believe the same Nor do I say that the History of the Gospel is revealed to us immediately without the Scripture but that having Heard or Read the said History and all other Historical parts of the Scripture the Spirit of God by some Inward Dictate formal or virtual or that which is equivalent doth move and incline us to believe the same And that I. A. doth plead That Believers only have the Spirit I Answer They have it only so as to possess and enjoy the indwelling of it and union with it but that Unbelievers have it so far at least as to reprove them and call them to repentance is clear from many Scriptures especially Iohn 16. 8. Prov. 1. 23 24. In Answer to one Argument of mine he saith A Believer needs not any immediate Dictate to assure him that he is a Child of God seeing by the aâ—â—istance of the Spirit effectively he may draw a conclusion from Scripture Premisses in applying the Scripture marks But to this I Answer that the Scripture only telleth him one of the Premisses of that they call the practical Syllogism but no Scripture in all the Bible telleth I. A. or me that he or I have these marks and seeing a true Believer may attain to a Faith of assurance as I. A. doth not deny and Faith must have the Word of God for its object seeing there is not a word in all the Scripture that saith he or I have those marks we must seek that word somewhere else then in the Scripture and where shall we seek it else but in our Hearts where the Spirit himself witnesseth with our Spirits that we are the Children of God if so be that we have that witness even as it did witness in Paul And if the illumination of the Spirit discover the Graces of God in our Souls certainly that is an Immediate Revelation for Scripture doth not discover in us those Graces but the Spirit and he that discovers the Graces discovereth also himself to be the true Spirit of God and doth not hide himself from us or else we might doubt whether the discovery were true or not not knowing infallibly the Author thereof Lastly That he saith I spurn at the distinction of objective and subjective Illumination as Anti-christian and deceitful I Answer I do not blame the distinction simply as in it self but as it is illused and applyed Whereas they say The influence and illumination of the Spirit in Believers is meerly effective or subjective and not at all objective But I say it is both effective and objective effective to help us to See or Hear and objective or by way of â—bject for the Sight and Hearing or any other perception of our Souls to stay and rest upon but this object can no more be the Letter of Scripture alone than a report of Meat and Drink can be the object to satisfie a mans Taste or Appetite when he is Hungry or Thirsty And thus I do not confound the distinct considerations of objective and effective only I affirm that the same thing may be both and so indeed is as when the Sun enlightens us its Ray or Beam helps us to see and also it is the object of our sight And the Heat of the Fire is both the object of our Feeling and also when it is moderate helpeth us to feel and effectively doth strengthen our Feeling But when the Fire heateth a stone it worketh in it only effectively and not objectively or as an object but Believers receive not the Heavenly Light and warmth of the Spirit as dead and insensible stones but as living Souls that have a real sense and perception of that which doth influence them and therefore that influence is the proper immediate object of their perception And if there be no inward Spiritual object that the Spirit presents to Gods Children then there is no inward Spiritual Eye nor Ear nor inward Spiritual Taste or Savour nor inward Spiritual Feeling all which is most contrary both to Scripture which mentions all these Spiritual Senses as I have proved at large in my Book of Immediate Revelation and also to the Saints experiences And doth not God promise that his Children shall see him under the New Covenant and certainly all sight that is proper is immediate And to say that the Saints only see God by the Scriptures is but as much as to say that we only see our Father by a report of him or that we only see the outward Sun by ones telling us that it shines who hath indeed seen it or that we only see our Native Country in which we live and dwell by looking at the Map of it But certainly such a remote and improper seeing doâ—s no wise answer to the Glory of the New Covenant but rather falleth short of the Old And if that be all to see God in the Scriptures then all those that lived under the Old Covenant saw God as clearly as Believers under the New Covenant seeing they had the Scriptures in great part But I remember a good saying of S. R. in one of his Epistles that I hope may have some weight with I. A. That is little saith he to see Christ in a Book which yet the Scripture is and certainly if I. A. has seen no more of God or Christ but what he has had a report of from the Letter of the Scripture I must needs say he is a great stranger to the New Covenant Dispensation and is still like so to remain while he disputes in unbelief against so great a Blessing that if he did believe he might attain unto But I wish the Lord may open his Eyes and then he will no more contend against such a thing I. A. proceedeth further to dispute against the Dictate or Witness of the Spirit within although he saith He hath sufficiently affronted it yet because it is worthy of a thousand deaths for its proud usurpation as he saith he will reach it some few blowes more To this I Answer that these exceeding bold and daring words against the Blessed Dictates or Words of Gods Holy Spirit in the Hearts of his people hath not a little moved me
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
has died for those that perish absolutely or conditionally I Answer partly both first he hath so far died absolutely even for those as by his death and righteousness Grace is come upon them sufficient both to Faith and Salvation within their day of Grace which Grace is given them absolutely for that time and doth continue with them until the day of their Visitation be at an end and then it is taken away from them the Lord ceasing to strive with them any more for their Recovery Secondly I say Christ hath died conditionally even for those that perish that they might have been saved within their day upon the condition of their believing And whereas I. A. doth object That seeing the condition it self to wit Faith is the Gift of God then he either bestowes it upon them absolutely or conditionally if absolutely then Reprobates shall thereby be made Believers and so be saved if conditionally then the sense will be that God bestowes Faith in Christ upon Reprobates upon condition that they firâ—â— have Faith in him To which I Answer that Faith is indeed the Gift of God and God is willing to bestow it upon them and work it in them not upon the condition of their first believing before he give them to believe which I confess would imply a contradiction but the condition on which God is willing to work Faith in them is if they do not finally resist his Spirit of Grace having offered Faith unto all men which moveth and draweth or inclineth them to believe for to every one that doth not resist the motion of Gods Spirit of Grace he giveth Faith and worketh it in them And though men cannot actually do any thing that is good or acceptable unto God before they believe yet when the Visitation of God's Grace is upon them by the help thereof they may cease from resisting the Spirit of God and whereas I have heard it again urged by others Either God willeth that men should not resist the Spirit of Grace absolutely or conditionally if absolutely then say they men shall not resist it for what God willeth absolutely must certainly come to pass if conditionally then the Argument may be renewed concerning that condition and so without end To this also I Answer that God willeth absolutely that men should nâ—t or dâ— not resist his Spirit of Grace for seeing God commandeth that men do not resist it is evident that it is the absolute or positive will of God that they do not for whatever God commandeth is according to his wiâ—l But it doth not follow that whatever God willeth men to do that must certainly be done for how often do men act contrary to the Will of God in some sense although when they do so act it is not without his permissive will whereby he suffers them so to do Indeed I gâ—ant that whatever God willeth that he do himself that must certainly be done and it cannot be resisted and therefore when God punisheth the disobedient it being his own act of Justice and proceeding from his own holy and just will it cannot be resisted in that respect I have the more largely Answered this Objection because it is judged by many of the Adversary side to be unanswerable But I hope by what is said the Impartial Reader who loveth Truth may perceive that there is indeed no strength in it and it is so far from being a clear demonstration that it is nothing else but a Captious Sophism and Fallacy Moreover whereas I. A. classeth us with the Arminians and Iesuits for holding this Doctrine That Christ Died for all men I Answer seeing both Arminians and Iesuits profess to hold many other Doctrines which I. A. doth also profess as that there is one God and one Lord Jesus Christ it is no just ground of reproach to us to own that Doctrine which the Scripture doth own although Arminians and Iesuits profess to own that also But it is the greater shame to I. A. and his party who profess to be more Orthodox to be guilty in denying that which Adversaries confess we find that not only wicked men but the Devils also confessed unto Christ which yet is no reproach unto Christ nor to the true Confessors of him And lastly whereas I. A. pretendeth to Answer our Arguments For Christ his dying for all men Some of them he doth not fairly represent and others being some places of Scriptures he doth only Answer by giving us his private meanings of his own private Spirit without any convincing reason of those places of Scripture which we are no wise bound to receive And at best all his Answers proceed upon a bare Supposition that his own Principle is true which is a common Fallacy called in the Schools Petitio Principii which is to say A begging of the Question CHAP. XV. IN my Answer to I. A. his pretended Survey of the 14 th Query I purpose to use the same way as in the former viz. To lay down some Propositions which may sufficiently Answer to any thing he objects against the Universality of the saving Light and Grace of God unto all men and in so doing I shall both save my self and the Reader the pains â—o follow him in every Trivial thing that is objected PROP. 1. In the Question concerning the Universality of Gods Grace sufficient to Salvation it were altogether wisdom in our Adversaries to forbear pressing so hard in that point and so positively conclude against us and not us only but the Scripture it self That many Nations or Kingdoms of the World are utterly excluded from all sufficiency of Saving Grace and possibility of Salvation and that upon the account of wanting the Gospel outwardly preached unto them and benefit of the Scriptures Do we not read in Scripture That God hath given the Heathens to his Son for his Inheritance and the uttermost ends of the Earth for his possession And doth not Christ invite the most remote and desolate places of the Earth to come unto him saying Look unto me all ye ends of the Earth and be ye saved Mark it is not said some ends of the Earth but all ye ends of the Earth even as well those to whom the outward Testimony of Christ by the Scriptures is not come as those to whom it is come And did not Christ command That the Gospel should be preached to all Nations even those that wanted the Scriptures Testimony and therefore the Gospel did belong unto them even so to speak before it was outwardly Preached uâ—to them for because it did belong unto them therefore was it to be Preached unto them and consequently for the same reason the Gospel doth belong to many at this day to whom it is not as yet outwardly Preached and did not Paul say Rom. 1. 14. That he was a Debter both to the Greeks and to the Barbarians as concerning the Gospel And how can I. A. or any of his party who dispute so fiercely against all possibility
in Brittain as by us And I judge that I. A. should hold himself a Member of thâ—s Episcopal Church seeing he himself Officiates as Reader and Presentor at at Leith under Iohn Hamilton an Episcopal Preacher who hath also recommended his Book And therefore seeing I. A. hath undertaken the Vindication of the Church of God in Brittain as he alledgeth against the Quakers he must either acknowledge that the Episcopal Church in Brittain is not the Church of God whereof he is a professed Member or else have proved out of the the Episcopal Church now in Brittain that she avoweth and owneth such principles all and every one as he asserteth and that those Eminent and Noted persons both in England and Scotland who dissent from him and agree with us in those principles already mentioned are Hereticks and renouncers of true principles of Religion stifling the faculties of reason such as among others in England R. Cudworth and H. More accounted great Doctors also William Sharlock and I. A. his Reverend and much admired Rich Baxter whom he particularly opposeth in the matter of Justification And in Scotland Bishop William Forbes in his Treatise called Considerationes modestae pacificae Controvers As also divers other persons of Note yet living whose Names I need not to mention all which I suppose and thousands more in the Episcopal Church in Brittain of all Qualities and Ranks will be loath to acknowledge I. A. for a Patron or Defender of their Faith but rather find â—ault with him in those things as an Enemy of their Faith and in other things a bewrayer and betrayer of it rather then a Defender In his Preface to the Reader he excuseth himself that he hath not Cited any humane Testimonies meaning Authorities of Ancient and Modern Writers against us Seeing these saith he they do not value except when they think they make for them especially ad hominem And with this slender pretext I suppose he thinketh to evade the many Testimonies I brought to confirm the Truth of our principles in my Book called Quakerism no Popery even out of Writters both Ancient and late of great esteem among them none of which he hath once so much as touched But to Answer to his Charge I say we value the Testimonies of all Writers whether Ancient or late which are true and agree with the Scriptures as much as any Protestants do or more than he doth And seeing he imputeth it as a fault to us that we will not own the Testimonies of others against us I ask him if he would own or value any Testimonies of Authors that make against him or his Judgment If he say nay then his excuse is removed and he hath nought to say for this omission But the matter seemeth to be in effect that those Testimonies adduced by me in the foresaid Treatise he knew not how to Answer unless by saying that those persons erred in those principles as much as we which he was loath to acknowledge lest he should seem to weaken the Charge of his Title against us and acknowledge his own party and those that are more worth of Credit than himself equally guilty of Iesuitism with the people called Quakers wherewith he doth falsly accuse them And here I shall give a List or Catalogue of divers gross Perversions and Calumnies whereby he seeketh to abuse his Reader in the very Preface of his book against us As 1. That we reject all manner of External Ordinances Which is notoriously false as all who have the least knowledge of us can witness that we are for Meeting together and that frequently and when we meet to Preach Exhort Pray and give Thanks to God in Audible words as the Spirit of the Lord doth help us And can I. A. say that none of these are External Ordinances or Appointments and we challenge him to instance any one External Ordinance or Appointment of God that is truly so which we are against For it is but only humane Institutions and Abolished shadows set up as Divine Ordinances which we oppose as in the Sequel of this Treatise doth appear 2. He saith We do directly strike at the Foundation of all with one blow overturning so far as we can the whole rule of Faith and Duty setting a new one of our own Invention in the room thereof But why doth he charge us so highly in this matter because we cannot own the Letter or External Testimony of the Scriptures as the primary Rule or Foundation of Faith but only Christ Jesus the first and last concerning whom Paul hath writ That another foundation no man can lay then that which is laid already which is Christ Iesus And said the Lord behold I lay in Zion an Elect precious Corner stone a sure foundation Which to be sure is not the Letter but Christ and his Spirit Light and Life revealed in the heart And I Query this Accuser I. A. whether if to acknowledge Christ in his immediate Teachings by his Spirit in mens hearts is to set up a false Foundation or overturn the true one the Apostles are guilty of this Charge as to their own particulars seeing I. A. will not deny but that the Apostles had Christ immediatly to Teach them and speak in them And was it not the Apostle Paul his labour to build the Churches upon Christ that their Faith might not stand in men though sent and moved of God but in the power of God And though I. A. blame us for setting up the Light within for the Rule yet Christ taught people to believe in the Light and that this Light was not the Scripture which he bid them believe in is clear that he said While ye have the Light believe in the Light that ye may be the Children of it This clearly Imports that this Light should not long remain with them if they did not believe in it as he said in the foregoing Verse Yet a little while is the Light with you walk while ye have the Light lest darkness come upon you see Iohn 12. 35 36. And indeed the gracious Visitation of Light did not long after remain with them who did reject it although the Scriptures did remain with them And therefore the Light which he bid them believe in was not the Letter of the Scripture but Christ himself who said I am the Light of the World 3. He saith This Heresie so he calleth our Faith is a very Sink or an Vniversal System of almost all the gross Errors which hitherto have annoyed the Church of God And herein he doth imitate I. Brown and the Author of the Postcript to S. R. his Epistles who have so charged us but how unjustly we hope our Answers do sufficiently evince And surely this I. A. in the Art of Slandering and false Accusing may pass muster for a Lieutenant to those aforesaid Champions who have led the way before him in this enterprise It is not unknown how the Papists loaded the Protestants at their
where he alledgeth their words saying All men ought first to wait until they receive the Spirit in Truth then in the same Truth to Worship God in Spirit who is a Spirit So we see by I. A. his own Confession the Quakers teach that all men ought to Worship God in the Spirit and that they may indeed Worship him they would have all men follow the Lords order which is to wait or watch unto Prayer and they would have men in the first place cease or depart from their wickedness and then by the help of the Spirit which is never wanting in the proper season of it to come and Pray unto God And that this is no new or invented way of the Quakers so called Read Isaiah 1. 16 17 18. where the Lord by the Prophet bids first That they wash and be clean and put away the evil of their doings c. And then said he Come now let us reason together Also Peter commanded Simon Magus to joyn Repentance with Prayer Repent said he and Pray that the Thoughts of thy heart may be forgiven thee And for the more clear understanding of this whole matter we are to consider that Prayer is either simply Mental and with the heart only or both Mental and Vocal to wit both with heart and Mouth Now as for Mental Prayer at least in respect of the bent or frame and inclination of the Heart God requireth it always of all men and it is possible for all men if they but receive that help of his Spirit which he giveth or offereth unto men always to perform it But as for Vocal Prayer he neither doth require it at all times nor doth he give the help at all times nor the utterance whereby to perform it And it is observable that under the Gospel no particular set or limited time is appointed for Vocal Prayer But every one is to wait to know the times of the Spirits call and moving thereunto which will be seasonably and frequently afforded to such as wait singly therefore especially when the people of God Assemble together for then it is that Vocal Prayer is of greatest use and service though it hath also its use and service in private or when one is apart But whereas I. A. alledgeth further That if wicked men are not to Pray viz. their Hypocritical Prayers because they sin when they Pray No man on earth should offer to Pray or Worship God seeing as he saith There is somewhat of sin â—leaving to the best Actions of the Saints here away To this I answer That there is somewhat of sin cleaving to the best Actions of the Saints here away is denyed seeing it is asserted by him without proof for the Scriptures cited by him viz. Prov. 20. 9. Gal. 5. 17. say no such thing and by consequence he hath not evinced it and for a proof to the contrary see Iob 16. 17. Malach. 1. 11. But secondly nor doth it follow that men who are not yet come to a perfect state but labour sincerely under the burden of their sins to be delivered from them may not Pray unto God because their Prayer as they put it up unto God by the help of his Spirit is pure and without all sin proceeding from the pure or renewed part of their hearts for it is only the pure or renewed part of the heart from which indeed the true Prayer doth proceed even as on the contrary the evil desires and affections arise and spring only from the impure and unrenewed part Therefore he that hath this unrenewed part in him ought to watch against it while he prayeth that he give it no liberty to move or stir as indeed he ought to watch against it at all other times And though he that prayeth sincerely being not attained to a sinless state pray not with that degree or measure of fervency wherewith another more perfect doth or can pray yet God regarding that mans sincerity he accepteth his Prayer in Christ and for Christs sake pardoneth him when at any time he committeth a weakness in his Prayer in not keeping purely to the Spirit Again Lastly Whereas I. A. objecteth That the Plowing Eating Sleeping c. of the wicked is sin Shall the wicked then do nothing at all because whatever they do they go about it in a sinful manner I answer This consequence doth no wise follow because there is a great difference betwixt a wicked mans Plowing Eating Drinking c. and his Praying as remaining wicked and alienated from the Spirit of God for his Plowing Eating Drinking or any other Corporal or Natural actions are really these actions and they are profitable and necessary in the Creation and when he performeth these actions he faileth not in the substance or matter of the action required but only in the manner for the substance or matter of a wicked mans Plowing Eating Travelling is not sin but the manner of it viz. That it is not in Faith but a wicked mans Prayer as he is a wicked man is no true Prayer at all it hath nothing of the true substance of true and real Prayer it is a meer picture or dead resemblance of Prayer and is rather a mocking God than praying unto him for it wants the life of true Prayer which alone the Spirit of God doth give and thus a plain difference is demonstrated betwixt the two cases and the Unvalidity of I. A. his consequences in this whole matter is evinced And if the Reader desire further satisfaction in this particular let him Read our Answer to the Students and R. B. his Apology where these Objections of I. A. are largely Answered for he has brought no new matter against us and it had been better he had both spared his own pains and not troubled the world with his repeating other mens Arguments long since answered As for his instance of our opposing the second Commandment by our rejecting wresting and abusing the Word of God and avowing of Error and Blasphemy seeing it is but a bare alledging without any shadow of proof it is enough as simply to deny it as he doth simply affirm it But another instance he giveth of our opposing the second Commandment By swallowing down our Meat and Drink as so many Beasts without any Prayer and Thansgiving without which if they will believe the Apostle 1 Tim. 4. 3 4 5. they are not sanctied But how unjustly he chargeth this upon us I can freely leave to the Judgment of all sober and true Christians For how doth he prove that we Eat or Drink or receive any Creatures of God without Prayer and Thanksgivings Because we do not always use Vocal and External Prayer when we Eat and Drink although at other times we use it as God is pleased to give utterance and are most glad either to do it or joyn with these who do it by the help of Gods Spirit But is I. A. so ignorant and unreasonable to think that theirs is no Prayer
or Thanksgiving nor any use of the Word of God but that which is Vocal and External Do we not Read of the Prayer of the Heart in Scripture and also of Singing and making Melody in the heart unto the Lord as well as with the Mouth Or doth I. A. think that brutes can do this as well as we that he compares our Eating and Drinking altogether to that of Brutes However for the satisfaction of those that are sober I futher declare that we hold it our duty and I hope we can say it is our aim and endeavour in all our Eating and Drinking and in the receiving all the Mercies of God both Spiritual and Temporal to reeeive them with Prayer and Thanksgiving either both Mental and Vocal or at least Mental which we know is aceepted of God if in sincerity when the Vocal is not used And they who Pray or seem to Pray with their Lips and Voices when their Hearts are far away as it is too much the general manner and custom of people their Eating and Drinking is worse than that of Brutes which sin not when they Eat as all wicked persons do But I ask I. A. doth he use Vocal and External Prayer and Thanksgiving always when he receives any of the Creatures of God as in the use of Tobacco or Tasting a little Wine or Ale occasionally in a Tavern or when walking in an Orchard is his Conscience so scrupulous that he cannot Taste an Aple but he must use Vocal Prayer I suppose he is not so scrupulous And doth not I. A. know that there is not one moment of our Life but we are still receiving the Creatures of God seeing every breathing or receiving in of the Air is a renewed Mercy and Bleâ—ing of God with many others continually added unto us And yet the Lord doth not continually require Vocal Prayer in the continual use of tâ—ose Mercies And here I shall propose a few plain Questions for I. A. to Answer upon this whole matter 1. Whether one that sincerely useth Prayer and Thanksgiving in his â—â—art before he Eateth and Drinketh and in his Eating and Drinking and at aâ—â— other times laboureth to have his heart exercised in the â—ear of God although at times he use not Vocal Prayer before and after Meat is not more unlike to a Brute and more indeed a true Christian than he who knoweth not what it is to fear God or Pray to God sincerely in his heart at any time yet always at Meal-times useth a form of dead and lifeless words before and after Meat 2. Whether to Pray without the Spirit and without sincerity of heart be not a transgressing of the first second and third Commandments 3. Whether that Doctrine which teacheth men to Pray spiritless and hypocritical Prayers doth not oppose these three Commandments Further I. A. doth alledge that we do openly impugne the fourth Commandment in one of the following Queries unto which place he referreth the Controversy To 〈◊〉 I Answer and so he might all the rest without prepossessing his Reader with prejudice against us until he had heard the whole matter more amply discussed Our opposing the fifth Commandment he instanceth in not taking off our Hats and bowing the body in Salutations But seeing the fifth Commandment mentioneth no such form of Honour nor doth he deduce it by any just consequence therefrom It is as easily denyed by us as affirmed by him Nor doth it follow as he alledgeth that because we are to obey ehe fifth Commandment with our Bodies as well as with our Souls that therefore we are to take off our Hats in giving that honour to Parents for the Iews to whom that command was particularly given used no such form of honor or respect And as for bowing the Body although it was practised under the Law yet we find it forbidden under the Gospel as in the case of Cornelius bowing to Peter And in the New Testament we read of no bowing that is lawful but that which is at the Name of Jesus and of God Almighty Again whereas he alledgeth that from the words of Christ Iohn 5. 44. We Impugne the very letter of the fifth Commandment and declare that no manner of Civil Reverence or regard is to be given to any man I Answer this is a false Charge like unto the rest for we deny not that there is a civil regard and honour that is due unto all men in their respective degrees which is also to be signified and practised with a suitable outward behaviour of the body and may very well be without either uncovering the Head or bowing the Knee such as to rise up before the Hoary-Head or those that are our Superiours also to stand before them to speak humbly or be silent unless when required or liberty is given also to havean humble Aspect or regard of the Eye and Face towards them to give the Hand if required to be ready at a beck to Answer their Call and to walk and run to serve them in what is requisite these and many such instances of External Honour and respect may Children lawfully practice to their Parents and Inferiors to their Superiors without either bowing the Knee or taking off the Hat But certainly these words of Christ Ioh. 5. 44. Condemn all false honour which the spirit of the World hath invented And such we have good cause to hold the uncovering of the Head to men until I. A. can produce a better Original for it Lastly His instances of our opposing the sixth and ninth Commandments seeing they are but Allegations I pass them And thus I have gone through all that I saw requisite in his Preface to answer which may occasion me to be the more brief in the things that follow where most of the same things do again occurr CHAP. II. ANd here I give the Reader to know that this pretended Examination of I. A. is in Answer to 17 Queries which he saith came to him subscribed by I. S. But I believe I. S. never did Subscribe those Queries nor was he Author of them but some of our Friends in England however it is possible that through a mistake some had put the said Letters unto them And though I. A. seemeth not a little offended that these Queries should be directed for one or all of the Ministers in Scotland to Answer as if such a direction did argue both the Arrogance and weakness of the Authors yet I do not believe that they all can Answer them sufficiently holding to Scripture without renouncing their former Principles in great part Far less is this pretended Examination of I. A. any sufficient Answer unto them as the sequel I hope shall make appear In his Survey or Examination of the first Query he alledgeth That the Questionist doth pervert the whole state of the Question For saith he who ever heard that the Church of Scotland or any other Church made humane Arts and Sciences an Infallible Rule to make a
Scriptures and principles of Religion and not of School-Logick which men may either have or want and yet be truly Devout And for all this scorn of I. A. I shall mind him of what Augustine observed above 12 hundred years ago Surgunt indocti indoctae rapiunt coelum a nobis doctis The unlearned men and women arise and take the Kingdom from us who are the Learned Which may well at least be applyed against them who glory in their Artificial Learning and set it up higher than it doth deserve And said Paul to the Corinthians as well to the Preachers among them as others For ye see your Calling Brethren how that not many wise men after the flesh c. are called And what is a man with all his School-Logick and other Natural Sciences and Arts but a wise man after the flesh And yet according to Paul's Doctrine God had not chosen many such either to be Christians or Ministers Moreover whereas I. A. pleadeth for the great commendation of Humane Arts and Sciences of Grammar Logick c. from Isaiah 50. 4. and 2 Pet. 3. 16. It remaineth for him to prove that these places are to be understood of such kind of Learning which I deny and on the contrary affirm it is Divine and Supernatural Learning which is there to be understood As to Isaiah 29. v. 12. 14. I grant that it is meant of humanly Learned but it maketh clearly against him seeing the Vision was a Sealed Book as well to the Learned as to the Unlearâ—ed And therefore none of I. A. his Arts of Grammar and Logick could open the Seals here of Again whereas he saith The Quakers have often Objected to him against the lawfulness of Logick among Christians because it was first used among Heathens and then he scoffingly doth inquire But what shall we do with the Isle of Brittain which was first used by Heathens I Anwer that I suppose it is I. A. his mistake or failure of memory that the Quakers have ever Objected against the lawfulness of true Logick which I know none to be against only I judge it may be well argued that seeing it was a thing used among the Heathens and yet did not bring them to the true knowledge of God nor can it bring any Christians thereunto now And it seemeth unreasonable that any Art found or used among the Heathens should be made an Infallible Rule to make a Minister of Christ. Or perhaps if any of those called Quakers have Disputed against Logick it hath been only against that falsly so called viz. a Sophistical way of contending about any thing for or against which is too much used in Schools at this day and wherein too many glory and are puffed up But I. A. his comparison betwixt the Isle of Brittain and School Logick is very unequal else let him prove that his School-Logick is as necessary and profitable to the life of man as the Land of Brittain is Again whereas in Answer to the Instances of Elisha Amos Peter and Iohn who were not bred up in Grammar and Logick and yet were true Minâ—sters he alledgeth It is no good consequence to argue from an extraordinary fact to an ordinary fixed Rule I Answer he hath not as yet proved that it is any ordinary fixed Rule by the Lord that all must have those Arts of School-Logick and Grammar who are Ministers of Christ. He but here beggeth the Question as it 's ordinary for him to do in other cases And as for us we judge it no tempting of God nor looking for extraordinaries to believe that we may receive true knowledge and grow up in the same so far as is requisite for a true Preacher to have by our diligent reading and meditating on the Scriptures by the help of God's Spirit assisting us to understand them and withal using fervent Prayer unto God to obtain the said help of His Spirit although we neither use the Art of Grammar or Logick and we find not that Paul recommended Timothy to give attendance to those Arts but only to Reading viz. the Scriptures and not to neglect the gift that was in him which I suppose I. A. will not be so raâ—h as to say was either Grammar or Logick And now after diverse abuses and perversions of I. A. in his examination of this first Question he concludeth with another great calumny and false charge in saying The Quakers alledge that Peter and John had no Grammar and Languages whereas the Question doth only alledge That Peter and John were not bred up in Grammar and Languages which doth not hinder it to be true that God afterwards did immediately inspire them with the gift of Tongues And yet even before they were inspired with these Tongues they were Ministers In his Survey or Examination of the second Query he continueth to play his old Game of perverting the state of the Question which is not as the Reader may see whether Grammar Logick and Philosophy c. were extant in the World before Christ his coming in the Flesh for that we readily acknowledge but the Question is How long it was after Christ that those Arts were set up to make Ministers of Christ To this he gives no Reply but only goeth on to prove the lawfulness of Philosophy and to tell what it teacheth Now as for true and genuine Philosophy the Quakers deny it not to be lawful even that commonly called Natural Philosophy which is a knowledge of natural things and the operations thereof with their effects but that which they oppose is to make such a natural knowledge so â—ar as it is only an Art taught in the Schools absolutely necessary to make a Minister of Christ. Again Secondly We Question much Whether that which is commonly taught in Schools among those called Christians under the name of Philosophy be indeed the true and genuine Natural Philosophy seeing the far greatest part of it is exploded and rejected by not a few of the more knowing among your selves and if any of us have called Philosophy Foolosophy and Witchcraft as I. A. alledgeth they did not mean it of any true Natural Knowledge but in the Apostlessence when he saith Beware lest any spoil you through Philosophy and vain deceit which I. A. confesseth is Sophisticate and corrupt Philosophy And dare he say there is none of that sophisticate and corrupt Philosophy taught in the Schools and Universities in Brittain And may not sophisticate and corrupt Philosophy be called Witchcraft in that sence used by Paul Gal. 3. O foolish Galatians who hath bewitched you And I Query what Philosophy doth I. A. mean by the true and genuine Philosophy which he maketh so necessary to every Minister of Christ whether Aristotle's Philosophy or the Cartesian or any other seeing there are many kinds of that called Philosophy in the World whose principles and rules directly contradict one another And the Schools in Christendâ—m to this day have not agreed in the common principles and
Rules of that called Philosophy but remain at great uncertainty in the very foundations of it as is acknowledged by the most ingenuous Professors thereof Now to make a thing so uncertain as their Philosophy is in many or most things to wit a fallible thing an infallible Rule to make a Minister of the Infallible Truth is a very absurd and unreasonable matter But I. A. giveth us a number of Thirteen or Fourteen Positions which his School-Philosophy doth teach the truth whereof is evident as that there is a God who is Infinite Eternal Omnisciâ—nt Omnipotent Unchangeable that every man is a Rational Creature that the Soul of man is Immortal that no Brute is a Man that no Action can be without some Subject nor without some effect nor any Union without some extremes But I suppose there are few men if any that have but the right use of their understanding as men that do not or may not know all this without School-Philosophy as well as I. A. doth with it And then what advantage giveth his Philosophy unto him But toere are other great matters which his Philosophy teacheth and as he particularly describeth them they are these following That every thing either is or is not that nothing can â—oth be and not be at once that of every contradiction the one part is true and the other false that every whole is more than 〈◊〉 part that every Cause is prior in nature to its effect that nothing can work before it exist But I must tell I. A. that these last mentioned Positions are not taught by Philosophy and are not any part of Philosophy as is generally acknowledged by the Professors of it because they are first Principles which Philosophy doth not undertake to teach but presupposeth them as already known and understood by the common dictates of understanding that is in all men and are called by them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 common Sentiments or Principles and therefore we still desiderate what peculiar Misteries I. A. his Philosophy doth teach that men of ordinary understanding doth not already know or at least may know very easily by a simple reflection without his Philosophy or School-Craft Not that I deny but that there are divers things which the true genuine Philosophy may teach that are not obvious to common understanding but I find nothing asserted by I. A. in all these positions which he giveth as instances of what Philosophy teacheth but every ordinary Tradesman knoweth as well to be true as I. A. And therefore he might have spared his Pains in that idle and unnecessary work CHAP. III. J. A. in his Survey or Examination of the third Query doth earnestly contend That the Words of the Scripture are and ought to be called the Word of God For which he useth divers Arguments and Citations of Scripture but the true state of the Question here is not whether the Scriptures figuratively as by a Synecdoche or Metonymie may not be called the Word for which I shall not contend finding that the Greek Word Logoâ— Translated into English the Word is used sometimes in Scripture to signifie either Words or Writings as Acts 1. 1. the Treatise Writ by Luke he calleth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is to say in English the first Word or Speech Also where Paul saith Our Gospel came unto you not in Word only but in Power c. 1 Thess 1. 5. And some other places may be found both in the Old and New Testament to that effect which yet doth in nothing give to I. A. nor to any of our Adversaries the least advantage against us For the Question is what is properly the Word God or the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That which is most properly and eminently that Word of God so much mentioned in the Scripture with its wonderful effects and that the Letter is not properly the Word of God is as evidently apparent as that the Writing or Written Letter of a mans Speech is not properly the words of a mans Mouth for we commonly distinguish betwixt a mans Word and his Write How much more ought we to distinguish betwixt the outward Letter and Writing and the Word of God in the proper sense seeing God is an invisible Spirit and so is his Word And what he hath spoke by his Prophets or Apostles he spoke it first in their Hearts and Mouths before there was any Declaration of it in Writ and consequently it was the Word of God before the Writing And therefore the Writing is not the Word properly but only figuratively as when a part is put for the whole by a Synecdoche or when the sign is put for the thing signified as a Map of England and Scotland is commonly called England and Scotland and yet none will say that that Map is really England or Scotland or when we hear that England and Scotland produceth such and such Fruits who is so ignorant as to think that the Map or Card produceth these Fruits and not the Land it self Let I. A. know therefore that in all the places where the Word is mentioned he must prove that the Letter of the Scripture is meant or he doth nothing against us the which I am sure he shall never be able to perform seeing he grants himself That sometimes at least by the Word is meant Christ and not the Letter Moreover I ask I. A. when he saith The Scripture is the Word of God what he meaneth by the term Scripture Doth he mean the only bare Writing or Characters consisting of Ink and Paper and will he say that is properly the Word of God Or doth he mean the Doctrine expressed and signified by the said Writing and Characters and the true sense and meaning of the Spirit of God held forth in the same which Metonymically may be called the Scripture putting the thing signified for the sign and thus the Doctrine may be called the Scripture and the Scripture the Doctrine to wit by a twofold Metonymie one where the thing signified is put for the sign the other where the sign is put for the thing â—igniâ—ied Now we do most willingly grant that the Doctrine and true sense or mind of the Spirit declared of or expressed in the Scripture is and may properly be called the Word of God But then we further affirm that the said Doctrine or true sense of the mind or Spirit cannot be reached or attained unto by the meer Reading or Hearing the Letter o the bare meditating in the Letter and thereâ—fore not every one that hath the Letter Preacheth the Letter and Heareth the Letter hath also the true Doctrine and mind of the Spirit and consequently nor hath he the Word of God But he only that receiveth the Spirit of Christ or Christ the Lord who is that Spirit receiveth the true Doctrine when he Readeth or Heareth the Scriptures or meditateth in them and consequently he only receiveth the Word of God And thus also none can Preach the true
Doctrine and Word of God but he who speaketh it by the Spirit of God and none Heareth the Word of God but he who Heareth it and into the Heart and inward Ears of his inward man receiveth it by the Spirit of God To these only I say the Doctrine is known and by these it is only received as it is indeed the Word of God and in this respect it was that Paul commended such as received the Truth by the same Spirit by which it was Preached unto them through him That they received it not as the word of Man but as the Word of God c. Now this commâ—ndation can be given to no unbeliever that what he receiveth in the Ministry of the true Servants of God he receiveth it as the Word of God for only the true Believers do so receive it according to Paul's Testimony as it is indeed the Word of God Moreover I would have the Reader to know that when we say by the Word is understood Christ we mean not Christ abstractly or seperately considered from the Divine Doctrine and Testimony of Life whether in the heart or Mouth that immediately proceedeth from him nor yet as divided or seperated from any Divine operation of his Spirit Power and Life in any of his Servants but we take both these conjoyned together to be the Word of God even as the Soul and Body is one Man and sometimes the Soul is called the man and sometimes the Body and both properly enough when the Soul is in the Body and united therewith but the Body alone without the Soul is not properly called the man and thus much I hope shall suffice to satisfie the sober Reader as concerning the Word of God how we understand it Now whereas I. A. citeth divers places of Scripture to prove That by the Word of God is not understood Christ but the outward Testimony or Writing of the Scriptures It is very evident and may plainly appear so to be unto any having the least measure of Spiritual understanding that by the Word of God in these Scriptures is not understood the Letter but Christ together with the Divine operation and Testimony of his Life in the Hearts and Mouthes of his Servants And among these places by him alledged I shall cite these following for it is needless to cite them all viz. Heb. 4. 12. Eph. 6. 17. Rev. 1. 16. Rev. 2. 12 16. Rev. 19. 15. And also he citeth divers Scriptures which mention the Word of Christ and the Word which he hath spoken And seeing that cannot be Christ himself it must needs ac-according to him be the Letter Now as to that Scripture Heb. 4. 12. For the Word of God is quick and powerful c. There are divers Protestants that expound it of Christ and not of the Letter and indeed the words themselves do plainly enough evince it seeing it is said in the next verse concerning the same Word That all things are bare and manifest to his sight and therefore that Word hath an Omniâ—cience which I suppose I. A. when he considers will not affirm of the Letter of the Scripture As for Eph. 6. 17. his reason is weak that by it cannot be understood Christ seeing it is called The Sword of the Spirit as to say an Instrument in the hand of the Spirit But this is only I. A. his gloss and not Paul's words For the Sword of the Spirit may very well be understood to be the Spirit it self As the shield of Faith is Faith that shield The Helmet of Hope is Hope that Helmet so the City of Rome is Rome that City and why not also the Sword of the Spirit that Spirit it self And this is further confirmed out of the Greek Article Englished by which that is in the Neuter Gender and therefore rendring this Sense The Sword of the Spirit which Spirit is the Word of God so that the Article which being in the Neuter Gender is Relative to Spirit which in the Greek Language is in the same gender Again as to those three places in the Revelation which mention the Word of God it s being the Sword of his Mouth and proceeding out of the Mouth of Christ Doth I. A. think that this only is the Letter of the Scripture Doth nothing but the Letter come out of his Mouth Doth not Spirit and Life and living vertue come out of his Mouth And did not Christ say The Words that I speak unto you they are Spirit and Life John 6. And is not this somewhat more than the Letter But lastly The Word of Christ and the Word that Christ speaks hath of the Life and Spirit of Christ in it and therefore it is still somewhat beside the External Writing or Letter and is not divided or seperated from Christ. And I have told I. A. already that not only Christ abstractly considered but the immediate Testimony and influence of his Life which can never be seperated from him no more than the Sun Beams can be seperated from the Son is also acknowledged by us to be the Word of God and to be Light and Life Bâ—t saith I. A. The whole Doctrine of the Prophets is the Word of the Lord To which I Answer I have granted and do still grant it so to be but as is already said that Doctrine is not the bare Letter nor hath every one that doctrine who hath the Letter for to have the true doctrine and sence of the Spirâ—t is not only to have the Letter but to have the Spirit by which only the true doctrine can be conveyed unto us although the true service and use of the Letter in subordination to the Spirit is not denied And whereas I. A. accuseth the Quakers That they call the Scriptures a dead Letter I no where remember that ever I read or heard any of them simply calling it so But only in so far as it is eventually such unto them who are spiritually dead themselves and are not turned to the quickning Spirit but alienated therefrom to such only the Scripture is a dead and killing Letter and this much divers Protestants have acknowledged as well as we and particularly Iohn Owen in his Treatise on the Scriptures That it is so to the Iews and other Vnbelievers But unto all those who are spiritually alive the Scripture is no dead nor killing Letter but a living Testimony as also unto all such whom it pleased God to quicken by his Spirit in the reading or hearing or meditating in the Scriptures Again that he saith A part of the Scripture to wit the Law considered as strictly legal is in respect of guilty sinners called a killing Letter but never the whole Scripture I Answer That not only the Old Testament but even the Writings or Letter of the New Testament may be called a killing Letter to those that remain alienated from the Spirit that quickens Lven as Origen hath formerly taught in his Commentary on Leviticus Not only saith he in the Old
Testament is found the killing Letter there is also in the New Testament the Letter which killeth him who doth not spiritually attend unto the things which are spoken And why was the Law called a killing Letter only because it did curse and condemn guilty sinners Nay that is not the only or main reason but rather that its Ministration could not give life whereas the Ministration of the Gospel being accompanied with the Spirit doth quicken and give life and in that respect Paul said The Law was weak and could no make perfect and therefore calls it The Law of a carnal Commandment Now if any go from the Spirit that only makes the true Gospel Administration and set up the Letter or Writings of the Apostles in the room of the same These Writings of the Apostles do eventually become a killing Letter no less than that of the Law and can no more give life or make perfect than the outward Law could And here upon this Head I do readily take notice what I. A. acknowledgeth concerning the Scriptures in page 16. of his Book towards the middle part viz That the Scriptures as to the external Form and Mode which they have from the Writers Pen they are not the Word of God but that as to their ennutiate doctrine and sentence they are the Word of God And why then doth I. A. make all this loud clamour and noise against the Quakers seeing upon the matter he confesseth what they say viz. That the letter or external form of the Writing is not properly the Word of God And I suppose I may add with I. A his allowance that the external Form and Mode of the Preachers mouth when he formeth a sound in speaking Scripture Words is not properly the Word of God any more than the bare writing â—seeing there is no more in the one than in the other simply as such Let not I. A. therefore blame us for that hereafter which he confesseth himself and we do as readily acknowledge as he either doth or can do That the ennutiate and expressed Doctrine and sense of the Spirit is indeed truly and properly the Word of God But then is there no difference betwixt him and us I Answer as to the naming the Scriptures the Word it seemeth there is none But yet another great Controversie ariseth which I doubt will not be so soon ended betwixt us viz. Whether any man can reach unto that Ennutiâ—te Doctrine and sense of the Scriptures without the Spiritual Illumination and Assistance of that Spirit that gave them forth we say Not and if he say Yea we still differ but not as it seemeth to me by his Confession in naming the Scriptures The Word of God But there is yet another great Charge wherewith he loadeth us in this his Survey of the Third Query Some Quakers saith he are upon this Head so grosly Atheistical as to say That the Scriptures are but the Saints Words and Testimony from their own particular experiences And again he alledgeth That according to the Quakers they are but the meer bare Word of a Creature Hence he inferreth That the Pen-men of the Scripturs of all men in the World must have been the greatest Cheats and archest Impostors c. But seeing he produceth no express Testimonies out of the Writings of that People for such Assertions he is not to be believed Nor doth it follow that because the Scriptures are the Saints Words that therefore they are not also the Words of God even unto all who hear or read them at least mediately and remotely although none but such as believe do receive them as such which yet is only and alone the â—ault of those unbelieving persons because they reject the Spirit of God that doth certifie or assure unto us That the Scriptures are proceeded from God by Divine Inspiration And what if some have said That the Scriptures are Testimonies of the Saints from their experience May not this receive a fair and charitable construction and not presently be judged to be gross Atheism for although the Scriptures give a narration of divers Histories as also of Precepts Prohibitions and mysteries of Faith As Christ His coming in the Flesh His being born of a Virgin His being Crucified and Buried His Resurrection and Ascension the which Histories and things aforementioned albeit they cannot properly be called the Saints Experiences yet the Divine Inspiration and Revelation which the Prophets and Apostles had immediately of those things was truly their Experience and let us see if I. A. will deny it or if he do may it not be more justly retorted upon him That he and not the Quakers deny that the Scriptures are from Divine Inspiration or can he say that although the Prophets and Apostles had Divine Inspiration and Immediate Revelation yet they had no Experience of the same And that we call the Scriptures sometimes the Saints Words yet not denying them in a true sense to be the Words of God I. A. can no more justly blame us than Paul and Iohn who called their own Preaching and Writing and that of their Brethren the Witness and Teaching of men so that Paul and the Apostles Words were both the words of men and yet also the Words of God to wit mediately declared unto them by the Apostles Now they whose Faith stood in the Power of God received them as the Words of God but who came not to that power to believe in it they were but unto such as the words of men which as is alâ—eady said was only and alone the fault of such unbelieving Persons There yet remains two parts or branches of the third Query to which I. A. for all his pretended Survey hath given no more satisfaction than to any of the former The first is Whether all that is written in the Scriptures from Genesis to Revelation be a Rule of Faith and Manners To this he only answereth in general That we are bound to believe all Sâ—ripture Enunciation from the beginning to the eâ—d which we do readily grant and that therefore it may well be called an Historical Rule of Faith and that the Moral Law with whatsoever is of common equity or whatever enjoyning any peice of Religious Worship under the New Testament doth belong to Christians of our Calling and Condition but that the obligation of the Ceremonial and Iudicial Law is totally abrogated And saith he the Quakers must be content with these generals To which I Answer When the Nature of the Question requireth a particular Answer to Answer in general neither can nor ought to satisfie for notwithstanding of all he hath said the great Question yet remains unanswered What parts of the Scripture belong to the Moral Law and what â—o the Ceremonial and Judicial so called Also seeing there are divers things that were commanded and practised by the Apostles and Primitive Christians under the New Testament whether all these do oblige us now yea or nay as for example the Washing one
living Creatures or Animals to love and cherish their Off-spring which is a shadow or figure of that more Divine Law in God's people is not any complex Proposition of words but an innate principle of love and affection which he hath planted in them Moreover the said I. A. digresseth here from his matter to seek an occasion against us and to load us with down-right Blasphemy because we do not say that there are three Persons in the God-head But to this Charge I have answered already to one of I. A. his Champions in my book called The Way Cast Vp the which hath given content to divers-sober people and I hope may give content to all who reads it in that particular where I show that it is only the unscriptural terms of a Trinity of Persons or of three Persons in the Godhead that we deny and not the mysterie or thing it self of Father Son and Holy Ghost being three that bear Record in Heaven which according to the Scripture we both believe and confess And indeed Augustine in his Fifth and Seventh Books of the Trinity not only saith the words three Persons are improper but disputeth against them and I suppose I. A. for all his School-Logick and Philosophy shall hardly be able to Answer his Argument the substance of which to my best remembrance is this The word Person either it signifieth somewhat absolute and simple or somewhat relative to say the first is absurd otherwise there should be three 〈◊〉 Beings or Essences in God which is absurd if somewhat relative which is the second then seeing every relative is referred or is relative to another as Father is relative to Son and therefore Father is the Father of another and no man is his own Father in this sense to say the Father is a Person is to say the Father is the Person of some other and so of the rest which is absurd The which Argument not as mine but really Augustines I leave I. A. to Answer and Ierome another ancient Doctor and Father so called doth find fault with the words Three Hypostasis saying expresly in the words Three Hypostaâ—is Latet aliquid veneni There lieth hid some poyson And Laâ—rentius Valla a man well esteemed among the learned findeth fault with the words Three Persons why then should we be so uncharitably charged by I. A. or such hot-headed men with Blasphemy only for keeping close to Scripture words in so great a Mysterie while the thing it self so far as the Scripture declareth it is owned by us And whereas he urgeth us to tell what Three are they to be called if neither Three Gods nor Three Persons I Answer It sufficeth us to call them what the Spirit of God in Christ and the Apostles hath called them and to enquire no further nor to be curiously wise above what they have dâ—â—lared Hath not I. A. heard That there is a Docta Ignorantia or Learned Ignorance which is more safe and to be preferred to an uncertain Knowledge or Science falsly so called And if I. A. his definition of Person be received viz. That it is an intelligent Being subsisting incommunicably or distinctly one from another I see not for my part but that Three Persons at this rate shall infer three intelligent Beings subsisting incommunicably and consequently Three Gods Lastly That he saith Some Quakers have called them three Manifesâ—ations viz. of Moses of Christ and of the Spirit he ought to have produced their names or then we are not bound to believe him that any have said so for at this rate Moses should be the Father of Christ which I do not believe any called a Quaker ever thought perhaps some have said there have been three Dispensations or Manifestations of God one through Moses and one through Christ in the Flesh and one through the Spirit or Christ in Spirit and that these may after some sort have such a reference as that the first may be called relative to the Father yet not excluding the Son and the second may be relative to the Son not excluding the Father c. which yet doth not argue that we understand the Dispensation or Administration of the Father to be the Father himself far less Moses to be the Father as I. A. I believe very rashly and unwarrantably doth alledge Now that there are or have been diversity of Administrations the Scripture is plain and Protestants as well as Papists do acknowledge it Yea what saith I. A. to the common Catechism that saith The Father hath Created us the Son hath Redeemed us and the Holy Ghost hath Sanctified us which is to be understood not exclusively nor yet without some order in the manner of working But who will be so foollish or ignorant for all this to say That the Father is our Creation the Son our Redemption strictly or literally and without a Figure so understood and the Holy Ghost our Sanctification Nor doth it follow that because Christ bringeth in his Father and himself as two Witnesses to prove that he was the true Messiah that therefore there are either two or three Persons in the Godhead for Christ speaketh these words not simply as God but as man Now as Man we acknowledge that Christ is a distinct Nature or Being from God although not divided or separated therefrom And lastly that he argueth That Christ is called the express Image of the Fathers Hypostasis and that Hypostasis should be and is truly Translated Person and not Substance and otherwise it would infer Arianism I Answer That Hypostasis should be Translated Person he doth meerly affirm without any proof from approved Authors and sure I am the Etymologie of the word hath no affinity to person but properly signifieth Substance being compounded of the Preposition and Substantive Verb which as near as possible is in Latin substantia and in English substance and is so Translated Heb. 11. 1. Now that to Translate it substance would infer Arrianism I. A. doth but meerly say it without any proof and so is not to be believed And beside Christ in Scripture is called The Image of the Invisible God and certainly God is a substance and yet this I hope will not infer Arrianism and may we not well understand how Christ as man is the Character or Image of God's substance without Arrianism seeing Christ said viz. in respect of his Manhood My Father is greater than I and it is clear that the aforesaid place Heb. 1. 2 3. is to be understood of Christ not simply as God but as man who certainly as man is the most bright and glorious Image of God and above all Angels or Men or whatever can be named besides the Godhead it self CHAP. VI. HAving thus traced I. A. in his unnecessary and impertinent digression I shall now reply unto his Arguments whereby he laboureth to prove that the Scriptures are the principal rule of Faith and manners And to the first that in Isaiah 8. 10. they were sent
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
commonly understood of that which originally is Grafted or Implanted in us and in this sense is used generally both by Christian and Heathen Writers as it is contradistinguished from that which is outwardly received Hence the natural love or affection that is in mankind is said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the which is not a thing outwardly received and consequently the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot be the Letter of the Scripture but a Divine principle immediately grafted into our Souls when God Created them and in respect of which men are said to be made in the Image of God Seventhly He alledgeth that we bring Heb. 6. 1 2. To oppose and reject all External Ordinances out of the Church citing Principles of Truth pag. 63 68 77 80. And here he insulteth not a little as if by the same Argument The Quakers were obliged to reject the very Principles of the Doctrine of Christ and the foundation of Repentance and Faith as well as Water-Baptism But to this I Answer having examined these pages cited by him I do not find that they mention or intend any thing of rejecting the Principles of the Doctrine of Christ or External Ordinances And let but the Reader examine the words and he shall find that nothing further is intended than this that people should not sit down or build their Faith upon a form of words though never so sound but should come further than all words so that leaving them behind as in respect of a foundation they were to come unto Christ the true foundation and grow up in him unto perfection And as for Water-baptism that place of the Heb. 6. 1 2. doth not mention it among the principles of the Doctrine of Christ but only the Doctrine of Baptisms which is another thing than Water-Baptism For although we have not Water-Baptism among us yet we have the Doctrine of Baptisms that is set down with other principles of our Faith as in divers other of our Book so in that mentioned by him called The Principles of Truth Now to leave a form of Words or Articles and Propositions concerning Faith which commonly are called Principles so as not to set them up for the principal and only foundation of our Faith which people are but too ready to do This is not to reject them no more than when a man leaves his Affairs he hath been conversant in and goeth to his Bed to rest him with moderate sleep is to reject his Affairs for he returneth unto them again Eighthly He saith We object that Enoch Noah Abraham c. Had not the Scripture to be their Rule and therefore nor are we to have it to be our Rule And this he makes as ridiculous a consequence as to say the Scriptures were not written in the primitive World therefore neither afterwards But I Answer that to argue from thence that the Scripture is not to be our only and principal Rule is both safe and pertinent For it Enoch Noah Abraham had the Spirit to be a Rule unto them it is no less a rule unto all now who have the same Faith which they had seeing the same Spirit is given to Believers now which they had which Spirit is one as Paul hath declared and it is most Rational that as the Faith is one in all Ages of the World and the Spirit one so the Principal rule of Faith should be one also Ninthly He saith I object Quakerâ—sm no Popery pag. 9. 13. That the Testâ—mony of the Spirit within is greater than the External Testimony of the Scripture and therefore the said Testimony of the Spirit is the Principal Rule To which he roundly Answereth by denying that there is any such Testimony of the Spirit within Believers and because I say there is he alledgeth I drive the Plough before the Oxen. But I Answer that I have proved it sufficiently already and now also I have Answered I hope sufficiently all his objections against it And here I desire the Reader to take notice how that notwithstanding I. A. saith elsewhere as Pag. 44. That he and his Brethren never denyed the Spirits Teaching Yet how inconsistent that is with denying any Testimony of the Spirit or Dictate thereof in mens hearts Is the Teaching of the Spirit only an outward thing Is it nothing else but to Hear or Read the Letter of the Scripture And are they all Taught of the Spirit who are but only and meerly Taught by the Letter But if it be granted that there is an inward Teaching of the Spirit distinct from the outward Teaching of the Scripture although not separated therefrom or without the outward as I know some of the more sober doth acknowledge then I say is not that inward Teaching a Testimony of the Spirit For to affirm it to be a Teaching and no Testimony seemeth to me to be a great contradiction And as for us althogh we cannot say that the inward Teaching or Testimony of the Spirit is never in any case without the outward yet we grant it is oft accompanied with the outward and in that case it is no less truly immediate than if it were without it as I have already shewed And supposing but not at all granting that the inward Teaching of the Spirit were never without the outward of the Letter yet seeing the outward Teaching of the Letter is oft without the inward for many are Taught by the Letter who are not Spiritually Taught all that the Letter hath outwardly Taught them it followeth evidently that the inward Teaching of the Spirit and outward Teaching of the Letter are distinct things as is manifest from that sure maxime that when two things can be seperate so as the one to be without the other they are really distinct This Argument I used in my Book called Quakerism no Popery but I. A. hath made no reply to it And still I say if the inward Teaching of the Spirit be denyed it doth follow that in respect of any inward Speaking or Teaching God doth no more intelligibly or perceptibly speak to the Saints than he speaketh to the Earth to bring forth Grass the which consequence I. A. seemeth to allow but how absurdly I leave to sober men to judge And whereas I. A. saith That God doth not always make use of the greater Witnesses for testifying his will to us I Answer In respect of men and Angels it is true But notwithstanding God hath given himself and his own Holy Spirit which is one with him to be unto us a witness of his will and this is the greatest witness that can be given See Rom. 8. 16. 1 Ioh. 5. 8 9. CHAP. VIII IN his pretended Survey of the Fifth Query he begins with two false Charges against us the First That we deny all Scripture Interpretation the Second That we deny all Scripture Consequences And to refute these idle Suppositions which are none of our Assertions he spendeth many Pages of his Book to no purpose and wherein we are
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
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
are Grace so an evil principle is sin I Answer there is a Principle of Grace in the Souls of Bad men which is Grace in it self and Truth and Righteousness yet it is not their Righteousness nor Grace because they joyn not with it and even so an evil Principle in a good man though evil and sin is not his sin when he doth not joyn with it 5. He Argueth That which inclineth men to sin must be sin But if this Argument hold then the Devil must be sin still because he inclines men to sin Again as to what he alledges that Paul said Sin did dwell in him from Rom. 7. I Answer I. A. hath not proved that Paul was at that time in that condition whereof he makes mention and although he speaks of the dwelling of sin in him viz. in respect of his former condition yet he telleth that not his mind but his flesh was the Subject where it did indwell And therefore when I. A. so insultingly inquireth at me What is the Subject of that evil thing or motion for seeing it is an accident it must have some subject without which it cannot exist I Answer him from the Apostle the Subject of it in good men is not the mind or more noble part which is immortal but the flesh And seeing it is not lodged in the mind of any righteous man it cannot defile it when it is not in any wise consented unto Nor doth it follow that because an evil motion may be in the flesh or mortal part the Devil is also lodged there too this is nothing but a foolish inference of I. A. his making and therefore let him take home his silly Jest to himself where he saith It is better to lodge sâ—n alone than it and the Devil too for two such Deviâ—s are worse together than any of them it self I say nothing of this can be inferred from our Principle but let I. A. take heed lest sin and the Devil too have not too great place in him which so leads him forth to foolish Jesting and reproaching the Blessed Spirit of Truth in its Holy Inspirations in the Hearts of Gods People But why is I. A. so offended with the Inquirer for asking if Sin be the Devil seeing he calleth sin Devil saying Sin and the Devil are two worse Devils than one alone To conclude this matter I. A. doth plainly acknowledge That by Christ his destroying the Devil is meant the destroying his Power and Kingdom in the World pag. 137. And not the Annihilating the Devils entity and being Is it not then clear that I. A. his own Confession the Devils Power and Kingdom is called Devil in Scripture and what is that but sin and thus we see hâ—w at last he is forced at least indirectly to acknowledge what he hath so earnestly opposed CHAP. XIV IN the pretended Survey of the thirteenth Query I. A. accuseth the Spirit in the Inquirer As being either an ignerant Blockhead or else a Captious Sophister and withal alledging That the Question as it is propounded cannot be Answered and that therefore it must be purged from a plurality of Interrogations But all this Accusation proceeds upon a wrong Supposition viz. That Christ hath not died for all men And therefore although I. A. cannot Answer the Question according to his own false Principle yet according to Scripture it can be well Answered viz. That Christ hath died for all the ungodly and sinners that they should live unto him In the next place he offereth to give some clear demonstrations from the Scriptures That Christ did not die for all men But in his whole Survey of this Question consisting of above 13 Pages he bringeth not one place of Scripture which saith expresly That Christ died not for all men And for my part I have Read the Scriptures all over several times but to this day I could never find any such place But on thâ— contrary I have found divers places of Scripture expresly affirming That Christ hath died for all as Isaiah 53. 6. 2 Cor. 5. 14 15. Heb. 2. 9. and 1 Tim. 2. 6. and 1 Ioh. 2. 2. And therefore his clear demonstrations are but his own consequences gathered not from Scripture but from his own mistakes and his absurd Interpretations of Scripture the which we are not bound to receive seeing he has renounced all claim to the Inspiration of that Spirit that gave forth the Scripture And because it would be too tedious and to little purpose to Answer particularly to every frivolous Objection he maketh against the Doctrine of the Scripture Concerning Christs dying for all men I shall lay down some general Heads or Propositions according to Scripture by which all his Objections shall be sufficiently Answered PROP. I. ALthough Christ died for all men and thereby gave a Testimony of Gods great Love and also of his own to all mankind according to 1 Ioh. 4. 9 10. and 1 Ioh. 3. 16. and Rom. 5. 8. Yet it doth not follow that Christ or God hath equally conferred upon all the Spiritual Blessings procured by his Death for the Love of God being free he might extend it in different measures or degrees to men as it pleased him according to his own infinite Counsel which we cannot comprehend And whereas Ioh. 15. 13. it is said Greater Love hath no man than this that a man lay down his Life for his Friends This doth not import as I. A. doth alledge That Christ died only for his Friends but it expresseth the superabundant Love of Christ above the Love of all other men in that whereas it is the greatest Testimony of the love among men a man to die for his Friend yet Christ hath given a far greater in that he died for his Enemies Rom. 5. 10. PROP. II. CHrist died in so far even for these who perish that by vertue of his Death all such have a day of Visitation wherein it is possible for them to be saved during which day Christ Jesus doth Enlighten them with his true Light to shew them their way unto God and also he breaths upon them in some measure sufficient unto their Conversion with his Spirit of Grace to draw and gather them whereby it is possible for them within the day of their Visitation to believe and so to be saved And this Grace of Illumination which hath a Sanctifying and renewing vertue in it comes upon them as the real effect and consequence of what Christ hath done and suffered for them God having so ordered it in his infinite Love and Wisdom that this Grace whereby he converteth Souls should flow and run forth unto us in that way and as it were through the Conduit of Christ his Blood so that the Sufferings of Christ were as the opening of a great Fountain out of which the abundant Grace of God that formerly as it were but droped on mankind is in the Latter days poured forth upon them as it was promised so to be for which
read and compare these following Scriptures Isaiah 44. 3. Ioel 2. 28. Ieremiah 31. 31. Psal. 68. 18. Eph. 4. 7 8. and Ioh. 1. 16 17. Rom. 5. 18. PROP. III. WHen once the day of mens Gracious Visitation is at an end which is possible to come to pass on many and doth no doubt come to pass on many even when living in the World after they have finally rejected the Call of God in their Souls and â—â—ully resisted and hardned themselves against his tender dealings by his Spirit of Grace gently working on their hearts I do not say that Christ hath died for the sins of all or any one of those after the said day of their Visitation is at an end For although we read in Scripture That Christ hath died for the reâ—ission of all sins past in the time of ignorance when God winked and for the redemption of the transgressions under the first Covenant according to Rom. 3. 25. and Heb. 9. 15. Yet we find not that Christ hath died for all sins of men that were to come after they were Enlightned And although no doubt all sins as well to come as past are pardoned upon Repentance and that Christ hath died for such sins as are repented of by any men at any time when they truly repent yet seeing many sins are committed by many that are never repented of and wherein they die finally Impenitent and hardned against Gods tender Call and Visitation of Grace in their Souls Also seeing some sin wilfully and fall away after they have received the knowledge of the Truth and die in that state the Scripture is plain That there remaineth no more Sacrifice for them Also Iohn speaketh Of a sâ—n that is unto death of which he Writes I do not say that such a one is to be Prayed for And what is such a sin but a final impenitence even until the day of Visitation be over and God be provoked to give them up even as many at this day because they received not the Truth in Love are given up to the strong delusions of Antichrist to believe Lies and die in that state PROP. IV. MEn are not according to Scripture called Reprobates within that time that God dwelleth with them by his Grace in order to convert them and renew them by Repentance far less doth the Scripture speak of mens being Reprobated from all Eternity or before the foundation of the World as some alledge although we read of an Election in Christ before the foundation of the World And to say that God doth simply Reprobate men while he is calling them to Repentance and graciously inviting them in true Love to be reconciled with him is an absolute inconsistency The time therefore of any mans final Reprobation is after this day of Grace is over and God hath wholly left striving with him in order to his Conversion We must therefore distinguish betwixt persons and their sins and sinful state for also â—in and state of sin is always rejected and reprobated yet not the persons until their day be over For the Scripture speaketh aboundantly of a day of Grace that all men have or are to have wherein the Lord not only visits them but even endures with much long suffering the Vessels of wrath fitted for destruction These only therefore are properly Reprobates who are finally given over to a Reprobate mind after their day of Grace is over and Gods fore-knowledge and preordination respecteth them only as such PROP. V. ACcording to what is formerly said it may be further concluded that although Christ hath died for all men in a day so that within that day of Grace all their sins past and to come as well as present are pardonable for Christs sake no man being absolutely reprobated and finally given over within this day of Grace yet that day being at an end Christs death is no more a Sacrifice for them nor for their sins and because of their rejecting so great Salvation offered them by Christ all their former sins which formerly were not imputed unto them so as to hinder Pardon are newly charged upon them and that in the just Judgement of God seeing they deny the Lord that bought them and account his Blood as an unholy or common thing And in this respect Christ hath Died for no Reprobates to wit as such And he hath neither died nor Prayed for the World in that sense to wit as it signifieth them who die in the final unbelief and impenitency and so perish for so I find the term World sometimes to signify in Scripture And if I. A. think that this is a contradiction as implying that Christ hath died for all men and yet hath not died for Reprobates who are a great part or the greatest part of mankind I shall mind him of a Rule in his School-Logick that he doth so highly magnifie to wit that Propositions are not contradictory although the one be Affirmative and the other Negative unless they be in ordtne ad idem in order to the same and in regard of the same Circumstances of time place condition c. PROP. VI. THe Sacrifice of Christs death did truely extend for the remission of sins past from the beginning of the world hence all the Believers that lived under the Law and Prophets and before the Law were saved by Faith in Christ and had their sins pardoned not by the Offering of the Blood of Bulls and Rams but by the Blood of Christ who was to die for them and in whom they believed and died in Faith as is clear out of many places of Scripture and especially the Epistle to the Hebrews And by vertue of Christ's death and offering once for all men have had or have or shall have a day of Visitation and offer of Grace through Christ even these who lived before Christ came in the flesh in that prepared body as well as others And therefore all who finally perish and are lost in whatever Age or time of the World they lived they must be accountable to Christ who is judge both of quick and dead and Lord of both and they shall be punished with Fire of Hell for neglecting and despising the Salvation offered by him And although this is a great Mistery and hard to be uttered how this Gospel Invitation and Visitation cometh unto all and how all shall be accountable unto the man Christ Jesus on the score or account of his dying for them yet seeing the Scripture is so plain and clear for it it is better to believe it than curiously to dispute how or after what manner it comes so to be And the opening of this and other great Misteries of the Christian Religion is approaching to many who as yet do not see them and when men are prepared to receive them God will no doubt give that and all other Good things to those that Love and Fear him PROP. VII ANd whereas I. A. and others do urge That either Christ
require as also that he alledgeth divers Arguments as used by us in the Case which I know not if indeed used by any of us Nor is it my work at present to bring Arguments for our Doctrine that being already done by others and partly also by me but to Answer I. A. in what he hath against the same He alledgeth that Paul must needs have been in that very condition which he there describes Rom. 3. 14 15 18 23. and consequently there can be no place for the figure called Metaschematismus as I did alledge except I will say that Paul then did not with his mind serve the Law of God But how weak and frivolous is his â—cason here Could not Paul in the same discourse speak of something that was truly his present conditions and of some other thing that was not Is it not clear that Iames doth so in his Epistle when he saith of the Tongue Herewith Bless we God and herewith Curse we men My Brethren these things ought not to be so Now according to I. A. his highly admired Logick Iames behoved to be both a Blesser of God and Curser of men at the same time seeing he useth the first person to express both and the like Impertinency I. A. is guilty of in saying the word cleanseth 1 Ioh. 1. 7. Being in the present Tense imports the Sanctification of Believers to be imperfect in this Life for the word is also used in the present time And second by I. A. his reason the word justifieth Rom. 8. 33. importeth an imperfect Justification contrary to I. A. his express assertion Again he alledgeth that the words in Ecclesiast 7. 20. There is not a just man upon the Earth that doth good and sinneth not Have the Verb in the indicative Mood and not in the Potential signified frequently by the second future as I did affirm But this is a bareevasion and no direct Answer to my Assertion And I say again the second future even that of the indicative may be turned into the Potential Mood as it is often at other times because the Hebrew Language hath no Potential Mood distinct by it self Again whereas he urgeth That Solomon must needs understand Actual Sinning and not a bare possibility of mens sinning for who would be ignorant of that To this I Answer that Solomon did not mean a bare possibility but such a possibility as did infer the great danger and hazard that men were under to sin if they were not duely watchful And although all men did know this yet they did need to be admonished of it for some parts of the Scripture are for admonition and putting us in remembrance and not barely for Information How oft doth the Scripture tell us that all men are Mortal and must die which yet none are ignorant of although they oft forget that it is so and therefore need often to be remembred But by I. A. his Logick either men are ignorant that they shall die or the Scripture saith so in vain Who seeth not here the weakness of I. A. his Reasons which I am already weary to repeat or spend my time and pains on such stuff and therefore shall hast to an end of the whole Only I cannot but take notice with what confidence I. A. doth conclude That the Apostles and Prophets their Writing the Scriptures was an Action surely defective and iâ—perfect as to the exact and compleat degree of Love to God and men c. But where doth he read any such assertion in Scripture Or by what consequence doth he prove it Suppose they did not what they did in the highest degree that men could attain to this doth not prove any sinful defect in what they did For it did sufficiently Answer to the exactness of the Law if what they did was with all that degree of Love to God and men that was possible for them at that time to perform CHAP. XVII J. A. in his pretended Answer to the 16 th Query first of all beginneth to accuse the Inquirer As guilty of a leud Calumny in charging his Brethren for holding Salvation by Self-works and Self-Righteousness whereas they disclaim Salvation by the best works of the Saints But I. A. in this as in other things doth grosly abuse his Reader and falsly accuse the Inquirer For doth not I. A. know that to Query a thing is no positive conclusion either for or against it And albeit the Inquirer did know that in words ye cry down all self-works and self-righteousness yet he had but too much ground to question you about them seeing ye are generally found so much practising them and if they be not so much as useful means or helps of Salvation why do ye both so much practice them and plead for them as I. A. hath done at great length for Preaching and Praying and Singing without the Spirit all which are nothing but Self-righteousness Another fault that I. A. committeth here is that he confoundeth the meritorious cause of Salvation with the subordinate and instrumental means thereof For although those called Protestants deny the Saints good Works that are wrought by the Spirit to be strickly the meritorious cause of Salvation yet generally or for the most part they deny not that they are means of Salvation and necessary in order thereunto which yet I. A. seemeth here altogether to deny And as to that place of Scripture cited by I. A. to prove that the Saints are not saved by any work of righteousness even wrought by the Holy Spirit in their hearts viz. Tit. 3. 5. He could not have brought a more convincing Testimony against his false Doctrine than that very place For after that Paul said Not by works of Righteousness which we had done viz. by any power of our own he immediately addeth That God saveth us according to his Mercy by the washing of Regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost Which Regeneration and â—enewing of the Holy Ghost comprehendeth the whole work of Sanctification in the Saints And here I. A. goâ—th on at his old rate of multiplying false accusations and perversions and perversions against us Some of the chiefest whereof I shall briefly mention 1. That we hold a Popish Iustification 2. That in one of our Books called A Confession of Faith p. 21. We deny to be justified by Righteousness received of us by Faith and also by a Righteousness imputed unto us All which are most gross Forgeries and Slanders for the words in that page 21. say expresly That acceptance with the Father is only in Christ and by his Righteousness made ours or imputed unto us And the said Book denyeth not that the Righteousness of Christ is received by Faith that is the Gift of God but both that Faith and imputation which is only and alone the Creatures act or work without the Spirit of Christ we do justly deny to have any place in our Justification 3. Whereas in the said Book our Friends alledge it is not Acts
summum jus we think to merit our Justification by our Inherent Righteousness at Gods Tribunal This I say is an absurd inference and smelleth ranckly of deep prejudice and perverseness of Spirit in I. A. in opposition to which I say that unless God did not only not exact in his Justice the rigid rigour of the Law as he terms it but did not also pardon and forgive us freely for Christs sake multitude of sins so as not only to remit us a Penny but many thousands of Pounds neither we nor any man living could be justified at Gods Tribunal by the greatest Holiness attainable for all that the best of the Saints can attain unto of Holiness or Righteousness is but their duty and therefore can be no ransom nor redemption unto God for the lest by past sin far less for many that they have formerly committed And whereas in my Book aforesaid I charged I. A. and his Brethren to be too much one with the Papists in the Doctrine of Justification both of them denying that the Saints Justified by Christ indwelling in them as Luther expresly Taught in his Commentary on the Galatians And also denying that Gods Justifying his Children is an inward Sentence or Dictate of his Spirit immediately pronounced in their hearts to which the said I. A. can give no reply but a meer evasion and falleth on a fresh to accuse us of Enthusiasme which being already Answered in the former part I need not here to repeat Only I cannot but take notice how ignorantly I. A. opposeth the word or term immediate to the use of means which I have already refuted and shewed how immediate Revelation such as the Prophets and Apostles had doth very well consist with the use of means And so I willingly acknowledge that true and right means are as Vessels whereby ordinarily our Spiritual Meat and Drink are conveyed to us sometimes in the use of one mean sometimes in the use of another but I hope when we Eat and Drink that which is conveyed to us we Eat and Drink it immediately See Taste Savour and Handle and Feel it immediately and can well understand when the Meat is indeed in the Vessel and when it is empty and therefore I. A. his comparison in this respect doth altogether halt and is impertinent Another great impertinency and abuse I observe in I. A. that whereas I. A. blamed our Friends for saying We are not justified by Acts of Righteousness 〈◊〉 Acts grosly inferring that thereby they understand that they are not justified by sinful Acts as Blasphemy Murder and the like yeâ— hâ— himself 〈◊〉 the same kind of Expression as to Faith saying The Saints are not justified by Faith as it is a 〈◊〉 Act And according to I. A. his Logick he means they are not justified by all works as Blasphemy Murder Unbelief according to the maxime cited by him A quatenus ad omne sequitur Vniversaliter Nor is he less Impertinent to accuse me of a self contradiction because I distinguish Faith as it is both receptive and operative for even the receptive Faith I hold it to be a work and also wrought not only in the Soul but in some degree by it as a co-worker through the operation of the Holy Spirit And I say again to affirm that the Saints are not justified by Faith as it is a work is too nice and subtle a distinction unless they mean thereby as work wrought by them and as having an equal proportion to the reward of Eternal Salvation And in this sense that may be as well said we are justified by Love Repentance and all the Acts of men and Spiritual obedience but not as works done by us and having that quality of proportion to Eternal Life I shall not insist to Answer particularly I. A. his pretended Arguments against Justification by Repentance and Conversion and inward Acts of Righteousness as proceeding from the Spirit of Christ in Believers The whole force of his reasons being founded on a bare Assertion that hath been often sufficiently refuted both by us and divers noted men in the Episâ—â—pal Church as if Paul did oâ—pose Faith and all works or the inward work of Regeneration and Renewing by the Holy Ghost when he saith We are not saved by Works and the contrary is manifest from Tit. 3. 5. already cited As for his saying That our Souls are of great price in the sight of God and yet do not merit Heaven and consequently nor the best Works although they are said to be of great price with God I grant neither our Souls nor our Vertues merit Heaven nor Redemption as merit signifieth equality But seeing God hath counted our Souls so dear as to give so great a price for them as the Blood of his Dear Son they may at least be said to have some dignity or worth which is to say merit in them otherwise God would never have given so great a Ransome for them if the Souls of men in respect of their Nature and Being had not been of great value which is all I understand by the word merit as used by any of us And truly for our part we very rarely or never use the word merit as with a respect to the Saints best works unless when we are constrained to bear our Testimony against the ignorance and rashness of those who so undervalue and reproach the Blessed Spirit his works in the Saints as to call them not only unclean and underfiled with sin but sin it self for which God might justly condemn them to Hell as some have not been afraid to affirm I take notice also on this Head how I. A. doth acknowledge that Repentance Love and Hope are necessary to Justification by way of presence and existence but not as conditions or qualifications required in order to Justification which is another frivolous and groundless distinction for seeing the Scripture doth equally press our Repentance and Conversion that we may obtain Forgiveness and Justification as it doth Faith The one is certainly as much the condition as the other And it is not Faith barely considered which hath the fitness to receive us into the Favour of God and his acceptance but as it is accompanied with sincere Repentance and Obedience for as it is a most unfit and incongruous thing that any man while remaining in his unbelief should be admitted into Friendship and Favour with God so it is no less unfit and unagreeable to the Wisdom and Holiness of God to receive them into his Friendship and Favour as his Children who remain still Rebellious and disobedient against him As for I. A. his last Assertion on this Head consisting of above three pages wherein he only beats the Air and fights with his own shadow upon a gross and perverse but altogether groundless surmise as if the Quakeâ—s did deny any imputed Righteousness of Christ in what he did and suffered for us but as it is inwardly wrought and inherent in us for we most
willingly and sincerely acknowledge that the Righteousness of Christ in what he did and suffered for us outwardly in his own person is imputed unto us for Justification and so much I did acknowledge in my Book already mentioned But we further say that all to whom that is imputed which Christ did and suffered for us outwardly must witness a real and true Conformity both to the Death of Christ and also to his Holy Life and walk without which all mens imputing it unto themselves is but an airy Dream and Imagination There is yet another gross perversion used by I. A. in his pretended Survey or Answer of the sixteenth Question as if the Quakers so called Seem to deny that there was any Spiritual Worship in the time of the Old Testament And thus because it is said in the Query that Christ set up the True Worship in Spirit and in Truth above 1600 years ago but nothing but great Ignorance or prejudice can from this inferr that there was not any degree of it in the World in former times And I. A. might as well argue against the Scriptures that because God saith in the last days He would make a New Covenant with the House of Israel and Write his Law in their Hearts That therefore nothing of this sort was formerly in the World And thus I have done with I. A. his long and tedious pretended Survey of this Question having omitted nothing that seemed unto me Material and having found in his whole Discourse consisting of about 19 pages scarce any thing but gross mistakes and perversions CHAP. XVIII HEre again I. A. in his pretended Survey to the 17th and last Question beginneth with a most gross perversion As if the Quakers because they would have men to cease from all their own works meerly acted in the strength of mans Will and natural Power without the supernatural and Spiritual aid and assistance of the Spirit of God would have men to be as senseless Trunks doing nothing the bare Rehearsal of which is sufficient Refutation Another charge little less gross is That the Quakers hold only Babylon to be within in mens hearts for which he citeth the aforesaid Book called The Principles of Truth in several pages To which I Answer Although the said Book saith That Babylon c. is â—ithin yet it doth not say it is only within but on the contrary it plainly affirmeth that all who are in outward Worships without the leading and enabling of the Spirit of God painted over with glorious Words but inwardly full of Abominations belong to the Kingdom of Babylon And well may that unclean and deceitful Spirit that acteth all such persons who are levened and governed therewith and thereby be called Babylon by a Figurative Speech even as the Soul of a man is commonly called the man which hinders not that the people in whatsoever Profession they may be who are acted by that evil and Antichristian Spirit are Babylon And as for the Pope and Popish Church as we do cordially joyn with the best and most sincere Proantests against them as being the great and principal Members of that Scarlet Whore Mystery Babylon in whom Antichrist or that Antichristian Spirit hath its chiefest or most principal residence and therefore in no respect can be said to favour the Pope or Popish Church on that or any consideration although we with the Salvation of the worst so we most freely declare that wherever we find any degree or measure of the same Spirit of Antichrist and Babylon as too much of it is to be found in I. A. and too many of his Brethren we cannot acquit them from being Members of the same Antichristian body although in this our upright and honest Testimony we expect neither the kindness of the Pope nor yet of I. A. far less the Popes Wages or reward for being so kind to him as I. A. doth most falsly and grosly alledge And divers of our Friends have suffered deeply under the Popish Power for bearing a Testimony against him and them which neither I. A. nor his Brethren have ever done but sit warmly at home without exposing themselves to any suffering on that account Having thus as briefly as I could given an Answer to I. A. his Book against us omitting nothing that seemed to be material I shall neither trouble the Readers nor my self with his two Postscripts to Answer them in particular The substance of the first Postscript against me being already Answered in the foregoing Sheets as to what is any wise material Or if he suppose any thing is omitted let him mind me of it in his next and withall Write an intire and thorough Answer to what is already said both here and in the Treatise called Quakerism no Popery which he hath only but here and there nibled at And I may possibly if God give me freedom and convenience return him a â—urther Answer 〈◊〉 at present I suppose he hath work enough to lye on his hand and needs no more As for his Postscript against or for Doctor Everards Ghost as he calleth it I find not my self concerned to Answer him therein nor defend every word or Opinion of his seeing he never went under that Name or Designation with us Albeit I must needs acknowledge both my Friends and I such of them I mean as have read his Book have a great love and respect to his memory which all I. A. his bitter Revilings against him shall never be able to defame And we believe the said Everard hath indeed had rare and singular gifts of Understanding and Openings of Scripture from God and withal a good measure of Integrity and zeal for the Truth according to the time and Dispensation he was in and in that respect doth truly deserve to be accounted among the Witnesses of Truth in his day whatever imperfections attended him otherwise or suppose some mistakes of Judgment in some things or not so warily cautioning some of his words as could have been wished Although I judge that I. A. doth seek to fix or fasten upon him divers errors of Judgment of which he is not guilty by reason of deep prejudice against him Partly whiles he takes the said Iohn Evrard's words too Literally and Superficially which are to be understood more Mystically and Figuratively and partly while he takes that as spoken absolutely which is but spoken comparative and by way of some Similitude and but in some respect But before I make a full close I shall only take notice of two gross and absurd Assertions waving others to another opportunity in his Postscript to me The one is that the Pope and his Clergy had the true Power and Authority of Ordination and calling Ministers before the Reformation neither as Christian nor as Antichristian Not as Christian or else all Christians would have it nor as Antichristian seeing these two terms are not contradictory but contrary for many things and persons too are neither Christian nor Antichristian To which
this immediateness doth not hinder or make void the use of means but make them the more profitable and useful even so nor the iâ—mediate objective illumination doth in the least made void the means as is already said in the case of the Prophets and Apostles and Paul said the Scriptutes were writ for his and his Brethrens Learning even his fellow Apostles as well as other Christians And to say or think the contrary is as absurd and unreasonable as who would say a Scholar that is taught of his Master immediately is not to read upon any Book nor to hearken to any of his fellow Scholars that may be as well or better learned than himself and on the other hand to set up the means in opposition to the Lords immediate Teachings is equally unreasonable as to conclude such a man has Books whereon to learn and therefore it can profit him nothing to be taught immediately or viva voce and by word of mouth by a lâ—ving Teacher Now both these extreams our Principle and the Scripture and also our good experience have taught us to shun And the immediateness of the Spirits illuminations both effectively and objectively to work and operate in us in the use of all the means appointed of God sometimes in the use of one means and sometimes in the use of another as now in Reading then in Hearing now in Preaching then in Praying now in Meditating then in Singing or Praising God now in giving Alms then in visiting the Sick or thosâ— that are in Prison and sometimes as the mind is retired in pure silence to wait upon the Lord which may be as well and as truly called a mean as any of the former I say the immediateness of the Spirits Communications and Illuminations in the use of those and the like means aforesaid do as well consist with the means and the means with them as the immediate Sun-shine and influence of the heat and comfortable warmth of the Sun which worketh both effectively and objectively upon us consist with the means when we walk or travel on the Road at noon day or labour in the Field Plough Digg Sow Reap and use any other manual operation the which means are so far from hindring or making void the necessity of the Suns immediate influence and concurrence that none of these things can be well or comfortably performed without it And in this large and general sense of the word means which also is true it may be warrantably enough said without any prejudice to our principle of Immediate Revelation that we have no ground to expect any Immediate Manifestation or Revelation of God but in the use of some one means or another that God requireth us to be found in For there is not one hour or moment of our Life but there is something of Duty or Obedience that we ought to be found in either inwardly or outwardly if we have the use of our understandings as men and every act of Obedience may and ought truly to be called a means of our receiving somewhat immediately of God to wit our Faith our Love our Hope our Holy Fear our Care our Watchfulness our Praying Meditating and silent Waiting and in one word our whole Obedience all these are as truly and properly means as Preaâ—â—ing or reading in the Scriptures And thus every one that is most diligently exercised in the true means has greatest access unto God and doth most abundantly partake of the immediate Revelations and Communications of God's Holy Spirit Light Life Love Vertue Power and Wisdom And if it be said Why are they called then Immediate I Answer Because we feel or perceive them most near unto us even as near or rather more near unto us as the things or actions wherein we are exercised giving Spiritual Vigour Life and lustre unto them without which they are but as dead or lifeless And thus even as when the soul liveth in the Body it is said to be immediately united with it and act immediately therein or therewith although it useth the Body as its Instrument Even so the Spirit of God and of Christ livingly indwelling in the Saints and united with them and they with him is said to act immediately in them and with them although the Lord useth them as means or instruments to work with him And as for the word Immediate Revelation seeing it is not any express Scripture phrase no not in the case of the Prophets and Apostles so far as I can remember if the thing it self were granted to wit That God doth inwardly reveal and speak his mind or shew his Glory and glorious â—ower and Presence in his Children as he did in and to his Saints of Old so that the Saints do Hear See and perceive also Taste and Savour and feel after God Himself as he reveals himself in his Son by the Holy Spirit the Controversy about the Name or Phrase should soon be at an end for it did satisfie the Prophets and Apostles who had it in great measure to call it simply Revelation and Vision or the like without adding the word Immediate for in those daies it seemeth that deceitful distinction of Mediate and Immediate Revelation was not found out in the World I call it deceitful and false because to speak properly all Revelation is Immediate even as all Vision is Immediate and so is all Hearing for I can neither see nor hear a man unless I see and hear him immediately And as for the Scripture when it is called a Revelation it should be figuratively understood as when it is called a Vision for none will say that Isaiah his Book is really the Vision it self which he sâ—w but only a declaration of it And as 〈◊〉 could not write the intellectual Vision that he saw to speak properly so nor could he write the intellectual Voice Word or Words that he did only intellectually hear but only a Report or Declaration of them the which doth far come short of what he saw or heard and in this respect Paul saith that he heard verba ineffabilia unspeakable words that could not be uttered or expressed and so did all the Prophets and Apostles for indeed the words of the mouth as they can be spoken and writ fall short many times to express the depth of what we inwardly think or receive in natural things and how much more to express what God doth inwardly speak or reveal which yet is no derogation from the words of Scripture for it is acknowledged by us to be a blessed instrument in the hand of the Spirit for our Instruction And though we cannot be so bold as to say That the true God is not Worshipped nor known savingly where the Scripture is wanting as I. A. doth alledge more daringly I suppose than many of his Brethren that that are more sober will allow yet we do believe and freely acknowledge that the Scriptures are ordinary means but yet not without the inward Direction Revelation and
limit or confine the Gospel to outward Preaching of men otherwise what God or Christ Preaches of his Love and Mercy to men in their Hearts should not be the Gospel nor should that be Gospel which God Preached unto â—braham and also unto Adam after the Fall seeing to none of these God did use the Miniâ—â—ry of men To conclude therefore what God reveals of his Love and Mercy for mens Salvation whether without or by the Ministry of men Spiritually fitted and called thereunto is the Gospel and that Gospel may be called the Power of God unto Salvation because it is mighty and powerful in operation but yet it doth not follow that the â—reaching of the Letter without the Spirit and Power of God is the Gospel as I. A. would have it CHAP. XIII IN the pretended Survey of the 12th Query I. A. 〈◊〉 the Inspirer of the Quakers as he scâ—ffingâ—y 〈◊〉 it as being both a great Jester and a great Fool also because the Inquirer asketh Whether Original Sin be the Devil seeing the Word Original signifieth the Beginning But I ask I. A. why may not the Devil be called sin or unrighteousness in a certain sense as Christ is called righteousness frequently in Scripture And what is it that made him that was an Angel of Light to become a Devil but sin for when God first created him he was not a Devil but he became so or made himself so by his sin And seeing sin made him become a Devil why may it not receive his Name And also seeing the Devil stirreth up men to sin and is the Author of it commonly in mens Hearts it may very well receive his Name at least by a Metonymie Again is not sin called in Scripture The Old Man or Old Adam whom we are bidden to put off According to I. A. his reasoning Sin cannot be an Old Man because a man is a person and then Sin should be a person also Again by his Argument God made man but he made not sin therefore sin cannot be a man And thus according to I. A. the Inspirer of the Apostle Paul must also be a Fool and a Jester which were very Blasphemous to think because Paul calleth sin in men The Old Man and compareth it unto man having its various Members Now if indwelling sin may be called man in any tollerable sense of a Metonymie or Allegory according to Scripture why not also Devil Serpent Leviathan as also it is called flesh And whereas the Inquirer doth ask what did Christ come to destroy was it not the Devil and his works To this I. A. giveth no direct Answer for certainly that Divel whom Christ destroyeth in mens hearts and that Serpent whose head Christ the Seed of the Woman doth bruise is sin which is the Serpents birth in mens hearts and which receiveth his Name as the Child doth the Name of its Parent Now as to the words Original sin as they are no express Scripture words so they have an Ambiguous or doubtful signification and therefore it were better to leave those words and to keep to express Scripture For in one Sense there can be no Original sin because originally all things were good and sin came in not with the Creation but sometime after it But how sin hath come generally upon all men as whether by the bare imputation of Adam's sin without the consent of his Posterity or by and through their consenting thereunto is the true state of the question which I. A. hath not as yet resolved And it seemeth most absurd that God should reckon any sinners for Adam's sin without the least consent or concurrence on their part which is not just among men and certainly what is unjust with just men is not just before the Lord who is infinitely just and good And seeing none are Righteous or Just by the Righteousness of Christ the second Adam without their Faith in him and consenting to his Righteousness so none are unrighteous by the first Adam but such as consent to his sin But again when this consenting to Adam's sin took place in his posterity as namely whether before they came into the womb as those who hold the pre-existence of all Souls from the beginning do affirm whereof there have been and are divers among those called Christians or whether after they are born when they grow up to the capacity of discerning good from evil is yet another Question which I. A. hath not touched far less resolved And it were well that men were more inquisitive to find the way how to get sin put out than how it came in seeing they are generally sensible that that it hath entred and got too great place in them But as to the determinate and precise time when sin hath entred into mens Souls as it is no part of the Query so it is none of my present work to determine It shall suffice enough to reply unto I. A. that all his Arguments for the in being of sin in mens hearts fall short to prove that it came into them without their own consent or that God doth impute sin unto any Soul simply and barely for the Fact of another for that is to contradict the common instinct of Justice that is placed by the Lord the judge of the whole Earth in all men Another Question which I. A. raiseth on this Head although it be no part of the Query is Whether that Seed of Concupiscence which is felt to move in those who are Travelling uprightly towards perfection be really and properly their sin or imputed unto them for sin by the Lord when not consented unto in any measure or degree And he resolveth it in the affirmative but with very weak and insufficient Arguments 1. He saith By the sin of Adam all were made sinners Rom. 5. 16 17 18. But what then doth it therefore follow that they were made sinners without their own consent let him show us this any where in Scripture 2. He saith Adam was the representative Head of mankind But I say again it doth not thence follow that his sin is the sin of his Posterity without their consent no more than it doth follow that because Christ is also the Head of every man that his righteousness becometh theirs without their consent and their actual receiving of him and believing in him 3. He saith There are motions which are sinful though not consented to when they are tampered with or listned unto I Answer to tamper with any evil motion or listen thereunto is some measure of consenting but when the evil motion is not tampered with nor listned unto in any measure this reason hath no place And here he alledgeth on me that as he was informed I did once dispute for a Professors place which to what purpose he mentioneth this I donot understand however I tell him his Information is false for I never disputed any where in all my life for a Professors place 4. He argueth That as Gracious Principles