paragraph where he saith I say the Scriptur only beareth Testimony to some of them to wit of the Chief Heads of Christianity which I dare him to prove ever to have been said or written by me And of the like natur are his lying conjecturs and his malitious insinuations from my words in the two following paragraphs which I utterly renounce and return upon him as his own false and fictitious apprehensions for do not I declare the Authority of the Scriptur when I testifie they are from the Spirit and that such commands require obedience as has been above shewn But what he urgeth of this further p. 57 59 from the saying of some Quakers affirming that is not a Command to them which is given to another albeit I might justly reject it as impertinent till he prove it for the reasons upon this occasion above declared yet because he mentions Benjamin Furly in Rotterdam having some knowledge of that matter I answer Whether will he say all the Commands in Scriptur to every person there mentioned are binding upon every individual now If he dare not say they are as I know he dare not how must I then distinguish betwixt what binds me and binds me not Must it not be by the Spirit suppose it were only subjectively as he will confess inlightening the Understanding To make this distinction then it seems it is the operation of the Spirit that makes them know their duty and sure they can not obey before they know But if he say that though they should want that operation of the Spirit did not know nor acknowledge them to be their duty yet they are binding upon them neither B. F. nor any Quaker will deny but even the Commands of God's Spirit the Precepts of the Scriptur which now concern all are binding upon all so that they shall be justly condemned for not obeying albeit that by the perversness of their hearts and wills they either refuse to obey or will not acknowledge them So that his urging of that p 60 61. n. 13. and his pleading for it is unnecessary and needs no answer yet who would say they could obey to any advantage of their Souls without this operation of the Spirit since what soever is not of Faith is sin But as to these words said to be writen by B. F. he is here challenged to prove they are his without adding or diminishing and it 's wel known the adding or diminishing of two or three words in a few lines will quite alter the sense and before he has answered this challenge and free'd himself from the just censur of a Calumniator albeit he take the help of his Author Hicks he will find his folly in accusing men at second hand proofs and upon the testimony of their adversarys What follows in this paragraph and p. 60. is meer railing and perversions comparing us with Papists as is before observed and indeed all of it is overturned by that one assertion of mine that what revelations are contrary to the Scriptur are to be rejected ¶ 5. Pag. 57. n. 10. he faith I come nearer to the core of my designe which is to set up Enthusiasmes in affirming that the Scripturs are not the Fountain but a declaration of the Fountain and yet the man within 3 or 4 lines confesseth it himself ascribing it to my folly to dream any man thinks so thus he goes backward and forward which he illustrats by the example of Laws But if it be so are not they to be blam'd that account them the principal Original of all Truth and knowledge Whether the other branch of my deduction follow from this that they are not to be accounted the primary Rule of Faith and manners will appear when the arguments and objections relating to that come particularly to be mentioned And whereas he thinks this is absurd and not making for my designe because God himself is the Fountain and yet not the Rule he mistakes the matter as urged by me for I argue that the Scripturs are not the original ground of knowledge but GOD not simply considered but as manifesting himself in Divine immediat revelations in the hearts of his Children which being the New Covenant's dispensation as in the last section is proven is the primary and adequat Rule of Christians For I was never so absurd as to call God simply considered or the Spirit of God in abstracto not as imprinting Truths to be believed and obeyed in mens hearts not contrary but according to Scriptur for he can not contradict himself the Rule of Christians and this may serve to answer all his cavills upon this Theam And whereas he wondereth in the following page 58. why any revelations even from the Spirit should be more primary than the Scripturs since they are confessed to come from the inspiration of the Spirit for why he useth the Latine word afflatus and doth not interpret it I know not unless to fright ignorant folk that they may think it 's a piece of the witch-craft of the Quakers whom he accuseth it is strange he should have so little sense as to make it a matter of admiration as if that were not more primary to a man which cometh immediatly from the Spirit of God in his heart than that which albeit it come from the Spirit yet is through another and so must needs be but secondary albeit it be confessed they writ them not for themselvs but for others which I deny not Of the same natur is and the same way is answered what he saith p. 65. n. 19. to wit that I confound the Principal Leader with the Original Rule because I say the Spirit is the Prime and Principal Leader but I deny his consequence neither doth his example of the Wind and Compass prove it the Spirit is the Principal Leader as imprinting upon man's Soul the Rules he should walk by but indeed he would prove a very uncertain Pilot that had no compass but only a description of it and a journal how other men had steered that course and such Pilots is he and his Brethren according to their own confession But he thinks I drive at something more intolerable to wit that the Revelations the Quakers pretend to or the Light within is to be preferred as the more primary and principal Rule to the Scripturs If the Quakers did affirm any revelations they speak of as coming from that Light either were or could be contrary to the Scripturs he would say something otherwise it will amount to no more but that commands as they are imprinted upon the Soul that is the Law writen in the heart by the Spirit is more primarily and principally the Rule than the same things writen and received only from another as to which I will only ask him Whether those things which the Apostles received immediatly from the Spirit commanding them to go here or there to preach the Gospel or the like were as to these ends more
manifested upon you my witness is in heaven I am one who desires not the evil day but am willing to embrace all the sweet opportunitys of the drawings of my Father's love and the arisings of his Life to stand in the gapp for the single-hearted among you and I must declare for the exoneration of my own Conscience I am an experimental witness how grievously thou violatst the Truth in misrepresenting the things which thou callest the bitter root springing up in these sprouts of hell 1. Mens not receiving the love of the Truth 2. Their pleasing themselves with names and notions while Christ was not received to dwell in the heart 3. Their not departing from iniquity who seemed to call on his Name I am a witness when the Lord called me out from among the Presbyterians I was one who according to my education and information and inclination from my child-hood was a true lover of that called the Glorious Gospell and a constant attender upon the declarations thereof and the messengers feet that published it were beautifull to me so long as those Ordinances of man were unto me as the Ordinances of Christ which was more than 30 years I loved them more than all things in this world I passed through them hungry and hardly bestead for many years feeling after Life and immortality but could not find that somewhat was raised in me that words and reports could not feed names and notions I minded little but Christ to dwell in me was that and is that more and more I press after And now I must for the Truth 's sake say somewhat which I humbly mention with a fresh remembrance of the Love Power and tender Mercy of God who enabled me I know the Lord will not impute it to be boasting in that season wherein the Lord revealed the true way to life and immortality to me by his inward appearance in my Soul it was a time wherein he had mercifully turned me from all that ever his Light inwardly and Law outwardly had condemned me for my heart also did bear witness for me that whatsoever I had known would please him I was chusing to do that not that thereby I was seeking justification in my own righteousness but a sure evidence of my interest in him who was made unto us Righteousness Justification c. This blessed glimpse of my begun freedom was given me in a seasonable time that I might thereby be enabled to speak with mine enemy in the gate and be encouraged to believe in the Light and wait upon the Lord to feel his vertue perfectly to cleanse me from all filthyness of flesh and Spirit Neither was I an undervaluer of the Scripturs they were my Rule then and I hope for ever my life shall answer them I think they honour the Scripturs most who live most according to them and not they who call them the only Rule yet do not make them their pattern The Scripturs of Truth were pretious to me and by them was I taught not to walk nor worship in the way of the People the Spirit shewing me his mind in them and then I saw in his Light that it is not the Scripturs many adore so much as their own corrupt glosses upon them neither can my experience go along with what thou affirmest of the hazard of converse with that People It is very wel known to all that lived in the place where I sojourned I was none who conversed with them I was never at one of their meetings I never read one of their books unless accidentally I had found them where I came and lookt to them and laid them by again So now it remains with me to tell thee what was the occasion I joyned with them since it was none of those thou mention'st which I will very singly and can very comfortably do it was that thing ye school-men call Immediat Objective Revelation which my desire is ye were more particularly and feelingly acquainted with whereby the Lord raising in my Soul his feeling Life I could not sit down satisfied with hearing of what the Son of God had done outwardly though I believe thereby he purchased all that Grace and Mercy which is inwardly wrought in the hearts of his Children untill I should be a partaker of the vertue and efficacy thereof whereby I might possess the Substance of things hoped for I saw an historical faith would neither cleanse me nor save me if that could save any the Devils were not without a door of hope I felt I needed the Revelation of the Son of God in me All that ever I read or heard without this could not give me the Saving knowledge of God None knoweth the Father but the Son and he to whom the Son revealeth him through the vertue whereof mine eyes were more and more by degrees opened for the tender-hearted Samaritan had pitty upon my wounded Soul when both Priest and Levit passed by and the watch-men rent my vail and when there was no eye to pitty nor hand to help me he drew near and poured in wine and oile as he saw needfull and fulfilled the promise in measur wherein he had long caused me to hope he that follows me shall not walk in darkness but shall have the Light of Life and that sweet saying whereby I am confirmed and comforted if evil Parents know how to give their children good things how much more will the Lord give his holy Spirit to those who ask him When your children ask bread will ye give them a stone or when they ask a fish will ye give them a serpent These pretious Scripturs and many such like being opened up and applied by the Spirit of Truth powerfully and seasonably in saying be not faithless but believing times above number before and since hath made me set to my seal to these words of Christ The words that I speak are Spirit and Life and as I walk with him and abide in him watching at the posts of Wisdoms gates travelling in Spirit more and more to bring forth fruit unto him and walk worthy of him unto all wel-pleasing daily to dye unto self that Christ may live in me I becoming a passive creatur and he an active Christ in the encrease of his Government I feel the encrease of my peace And so my friend thou hast here by some touches at things occasion to see how far thou art mistaken concerning us and how far contrary to the Truth as it is in Jesus thou represent'st many things to the world speaking evil of things which thou knowst not and if thou dost the greater is thy sin two Particulars indeed I can not strain charity so far as to believe thou thinkst do we deny Jesus Christ and justification through his Righteousness because we make the sufficiency thereof of a more universal extent than ye or because we love whole Christ so much and his seamless coat that we will not have it divided Nay we dare not divide
perswasion and assurance in them was the formal object of their faith as the things spoken were the material Even as the Light serves by way of formal object to make us see what is proposed unto us ¶ 8. Pag 31 32. he acknowledgeth that Divine and inward revelations need not be tried by the Scriptur as a more noble Rule by him who hath such a revelation but by those to whom he delivers it and then giveth the instance of the Bereans being commended to which I shall willingly assent judging no man that delivers or declares a revelation to another ought to be offended that he try it by the Scriptur which no true revelation can contradict But that such may not also try it by the Testimony of the Spirit of God in their hearts I can not deny and that it is the more noble Rule as being most universal since some Divine revelations such as Prophecys of contingent truths or things to come can not be tried by the Scripturs as was that of George Wishart concerning the Cardinal's death for had another taken upon him at that time to prophesy the quite contrary I would willingly be informed by what Scriptur it could be deduced or known that the one was false or the other true yet who will be so absurd as to deny but that it could by the immediat Testimony of the Spirit As for his proof that the Scriptur is the most certain Rule taken from those words 2 Pet. 1 19 20. We have also a more sure Word of Prophecy c. it is but a begging of the question in supposing that Peter by this understood the Scriptur and indeed is most ridiculous to affirm For since the Apostle reckons this Word more sure than the voyce they heard with their outward ears and the vision they saw with their outward eyes it were absurd to affirm that the description or narration of a thing were more sure than the immediat seeing and hearing it Can any description I may receive of I. B. however true give me so certain a knowledge of him as if I saw him and spake with him Yet without any absurdity it may be said that the Inward Word or Testimony of the Spirit in the heart is more sure in things spiritual than any thing that is objected to or conveighed by the outward senses as that vision was of which the Apostle there speaks since the inward and spiritual senses are the most proper and adequat means of conveighing spiritual things to the Soul by which the saints after they have laid down this body and have no more the use of the outward senses which are seated in it do most surely enjoy the blessed vision of God and fellowship both with him and one another As for that of Isa. 8 20. To the Law and to the testimony c. and that of Joh. 5 39. Search the Scripturs c. mentioned here by him I shall have occasion to speak of them hereafter It 's true John tels we are not to believe every spirit but it will not thence follow that the Scriptur is a more sure rule than the Spirit for such a trial Pag. 35. he thinks my saying that the Divine revelation moveth the understanding wel disposed confirmeth what he saith and spoileth all my purpose because then every revelation pretending to be Divine is not to be submitted to But where did ever I say so What he talks further of this wel disposed intellect pag. 36. I spake to in my answer to Arnoldus pag. 18 19. to which I referr For I believe all men in a day have by the gratious visitation of God's Love an understanding wel disposed to some Divine revelations which becomes disposed for others as these are received which will after in its place be discussed And some Divine revelations which are prophetik of things to come may so far manifest themselves by their self-evidence even to men not regenerat as to force an assent as in the case of Balaam mentioned by him did appear What he saith further pag. 36 37. inquiring how and after what manner these revelations were the object of the Saints faith of old is easily answered by applying it to what is before mentioned in answer to his querys and conjecturs of the formal object For those of old that had these revelations immediatly the formal object of their faith was God manifesting himself and his will in them to them by such revelations and those who received and obeyed the things delivered by the Patriarchs and Prophets those things so delivered as he confesseth were not the Formal but Material Object of their Faith but the Formal Object was GOD by the secret and inward Testimony of his Spirit perswading them in their hearts that these things declared to them were really his command and thence inclining and bowing their minds to an assent and obedience to them And albeit pag. 38 he terms this a wild assertion yet he hath but said and not proven it to be so and till he prove he needs no further refutation neither is it non-sense nor yet a destroying of the cause as with the like proofeless confidence he affirms p. 37 that where revelations are made by outward voices or in a manner objected to the outward senses the cause or motive of credibility is not so much because of what the outward senses perceive as because of the inward testimony of the Spirit assuring the Soul that it is GOD so manifesting himself Which testimony to answer his question is distinguishable from what is objected to the outward senses albeit it go always along with it simul semel as they use to say since he with me accounts it a serious truth to say the Devil may delude the external senses and he can far more easily deceive them than the true inward and spiritual senses of the Soul by counterfeiting the inward testimony of the Spirit since by that the Apostle saith we know and partake of that which neither eye hath seen nor ear heard ¶ 9. Pag. 39. He confesseth with me that the formal Object of the Saints faith is always the same But yet that he may say something he spendeth the paragraph in railing accusing me as writing non-sense and being an Ignoramus because I bring instances which relate to the material object which himself confesseth also to be the same in substance But by his good leave for all he is so positive in his judgment I must shew the Reader his mistake for those exampls of Abraham and others are adduced by me to shew the one-ness of the formal object neither has he shewn that they are impertinent for that end since as the formal object of Abraham's Faith was God's speaking to him by Divine revelations so is the same the Formal object of the saints now and therein stands the unity or one-ness of our faith with him and not in the material object which often differs for to offer up his son was
a part of the material object of his Faith which is none of ours now And so for as much as he desires to know of me what was the material object of Adam's faith before the fall a question not to the purpose he must first tell me why he so magisterially and positivly denys Christ to have been the object of his faith and then he may have an answer And whereas he flouts at that reason that actions are specified from their objects as non-sensical he should have proved and shewn wherein and then I might have answer'd him he might have wit enough to know that no man of reason will be moved by his bare railing assertions pag. 40. besides a deal of railing wherein he accuseth me of confusion and darkness he accounts my arguing for immediat revelation from the revelations the Patriarchs and Prophets had impertinent to which I answered before the sum of which is that since these immediat revelations were so frequent under the Law it must be very absurd to say they are ceased under the Gospel He himself proveth pag. 41 that under the New there is a more clear discovery according to that of Paul 2 Cor. 3 18. But we all with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord c. which being brought by him albeit against himself I leave him to answer In this page and the next 42 he allegeth the sayings of Christ and his Apostles brought by me and my arguments thence do prove no more than he confesseth but whether they prove not all I plead for from thence is left to the Readers judgment Here according to his custom though I condemn the Socinians he will be insinuating that I agree with them to whose notions of the Spirit albeit I assent not yet I desire to know of him in what Scriptur he finds these words that the Spirit is a distinct Person of the Trinity for I freely acknowledge according to the Scriptur that the Spirit of God proceedeth from the Father and the Son and is God and by what authority he seeks to obtrude upon others expressions of the chief articles of faith not to be found in Scriptur or to accuse such as will not accept of them and assent to them or whether any has reason to think he truely makes the Scriptur the Rule of his faith notwithstanding his pretence when he either will not or can not find words in it to express the chief articles of his Creed ¶ 10. Pag. 43. By a strange mistake he would have me prove that since I make use of these promises of Christ relating to the Spirit I would prove that all have warrand to write Scriptur as if no man could have immediat revelation without he write Scriptur whereas himself confesseth that many of the Patriarchs had it before Moses who yet wrot no Scriptur yea and Cain whom I suppose he judgeth to have been no writer of Scriptur And by the like mistake pag. 45. he confesseth all I plead for and contradicts all he has been fighting for in affirming that Believers now have free access to Christ the great Teacher of his People always to get his mind known and writen in their hearts but not to get prophetik revelations But where doth he find me plead for prophetik revelations as common to all And whether the former words do not grant immediat objective revelation in the largest sense I plead for it I leave the Reader to judge Here he accuses me of speaking basely of the Scriptur but neither tels me where nor what I say which is indeed a base way of reviling though familiar to him To my last argument pag. 49. § 35. he answers little but railing The minor to wit that whereas Protestants call the Scripturs their Rule yet if asked why they believe them do say because in them is delivered the Will of God which was revealed objectively and immediately to holy men he saith destroyeth the whole argument but why I know not since surely that proves they at last recurr to the immediat testimony of the Spirit as the certain and infallible ground of Faith which is my conclusion That I thence inferr that Protestants are for the uncertainty of immediat objective revelation is most falsly and disingenuously asserted by him for I seek not to inferr any such thing from the medium of that argument but having shewn thereby how they are forc'd to recurr to this revelation as the primary ground of their Faith I add that it 's strange then they should seek to represent that as dangerous or uncertain which they are thus forced to recurr to And whether he doth not so ever and anon repeating the story of Delusions to nauseating through this chapter any that reads it may see and easily perceive his base disingenuity in that part as also in the following lines where he saith their concession makes nothing for the falsly pretended immediat and objective revelations which Quakers boast of for where doth he find me pleading for any such Neither is it the question Whether the Quakers do falsly pretend to immediat revelation yea or nay but Whether Quakers do wel and are sound in believing that immediat Divine inward revelation is necessary to every Believer for the building up of true faith But it is usual with him where he can not answer to turn-by the question and fill-up the paper with railing and reviling Section IV. Wherein his Fourth Chapter of the Scripturs is considered ¶ 1. WE may judge of this chapter of the Scripturs by the first sentence which contains a lye saying he finds the third Thesis in somethings altered and more clearly set down in the Apology than in the single sheet whereas there is not one word of difference but the misplaçing of a word by the Printer but it is become so familiar with him to speak untruth that he can not forbear it Indeed this whole chapter is a complex of railing calumnys and malitious groundless insinuations and indeed the man is so troubled that he can not find any thing in what I write which he ought according to his title and undertaking only to examin and confute that in stead of that he bestows several pages out of Stalham and Hicks and his considerations upon them whose lyes and calumnys are long ago answered and unreplyed to by them So that the Partys concerned having already vindicated themselvs it is not my place to medle in it and if I. B. would do any thing in this to the purpose he should take up this debate where his friend Mr Stalham and his brother Mr Hicks the Anabaptist whose authority he useth so often and to whom he gives so much credit have given it over by a reply to these answers Having solaced himself in the repetitions of these mens calumnys for that appears to be his delight he digresseth to prove the Scripturs to be the Word of God But if they be granted to be the words of God
which no Quaker that ever I knew of did or will deny wherein are they derogated from since they are many words and not one But if he will plead they are the Word of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or per eminentiam to say so seing the Word of God is ascribed to Christ must either equal them with him or speak non-sense seing that one epithet can not be predicated of two things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without a gross contradiction That the Word of the Lord came to the Prophets and that what they spake was the words that came from that Word is granted nor was it ever denyed by us who are against all false revelations and lying fancys of mens imaginations as much as he which he here in this chapter repeats over and over again to nauseating but it will not thence follow that the Word spoken of by the Apostle 2 Pet. 1 19. is the Scriptur which he has not yet proven and I have shewn the contrary in the former Section ¶ 2. At last pag. 54. n. 5. he comes to treat of of the Divine authority of the Scripturs and reckons it confusion and self-contradiction in me to assert that the authority of the Scripturs doth not depend upon any efficacy or vertue placed in these writings but is wholly to be ascribed to that Spirit from whence they came and yet within half a dozen of lines he confesseth the same saying we stoop unto the authority of the Scripturs of Truth because delivered by the Inspiration of God so the confusion and contradiction is his own Yea the exampls he brings of the Acts and Statutes of Parliament do very wel prove what I say for we do not submit to these status because of the matter in them or things commanded but because of the Authority commanding for when the Parliament by an Act appoynts a tax of so much money to be levyed from the Subjects it is not the matter or substance of this Act that makes us obey it but because of the Magistrats Authority But he saith they are Divine revelations and therefore must have the stamp of Divine authority Answ. The stamp of Divine Authority lies not in the things revealed but in the manner of the revelation as being the voyce and manifestation of God else great absurdity would follow as I shall briefly shew being to pursue him in this poynt as he has it lieing up and down in his rambling discourse whose way is not to follow one matter to a period but to touch it here and there intermixing other things that so his nauseating repetitions and oft reiterated railings may be the more covered And therefore I intend not to tie my self to follow him page after page immediatly lest I should embark my self in the like disorder and make such a confused hodg-podg as he has done but to follow every matter as he has it scatter'd up and down And of this I thought fit to acquaint the Reader in this place once for all as being the method I purpose to use throughout this treatise So from this 55 page we have him not upon this matter untill page 61 where he takes notice of my citations out of several Protestant Confessions and Calvin and will not have them to favour me giving most disingenuously as one reason because they expressly say that the work of the Spirit is by and with the Word and not an inspiration distinct and separated from it thereby he would make his Reader believe as if this were said by all of them whereas it is only said by the Westminster Divines of whom I particularly observed that they spake not so clearly as the other The French confession saith it is by the inward perswasion of the Holy Spirit and the Belgik that it is by the testimony of the Spirit in our hearts and Calvin saith the Spirit of God must inwardly teach us that Moses and the Prophets spake from God But that testimony of the Spirit which is in our hearts and by which the Spirit teacheth us there albeit it be not different from and contrary to the things it teacheth us of yet it is certainly distinct and separat albeit all the things taught were the very same which here is not Els because a man may be taught that by a Jesuit at Rome which I. B. may teach another man in Holland therefore that Jesuit and I. B. are not distinct and separat Are these good reasonings But let us now see whether these be any better by which in the two following pages 62 63 he prosecutes the same matter the sum whereof amounts to this that there are such evident characters of Divinity in the Scripturs which do as manifestly prove them to be of God as the Sun doth its shining to a man whose eyes are opened and that the work of the Spirit is only to take the vail from offmens eyes that they may see these Characters of Divinity and not that the Spirit by any inward immediat revelation doth signifie to the Soul by way of object that these Books proceeded from the Dictats of the Spirit of God in which he places the difference betwixt himself and the Quakers Now whether these aforesaid Testimonys of Calvin and the rest do not confirm this last rather than the other I leave the Reader to judge But further it 's like the man has not been aware into what inextricable Difficulty he has run himself by his reasoning here for if this opening of the eyes by the Spirit be needful to perceive these Divine Characters as the opening of the natural eyes is needful to see the outward Sun then the Characters can not be seen but by those whose eyes are thus opened that is to say who have a wel disposed intellect And thus recurr upon himself all the difficultys and absurditys he would urge upon me in his former chapter for saying that Divine Revelations are evident to a wel disposed Intellect For it may be query'd Whether all have this wel disposed Intellect their eyes thus opened If yea then all men have subjective revelation yet at other times he accounts this a privilege of the Saints and thence denies it in confessing pag. 63 that some are blind and see it not and then again the question recurrs How a man knows he has it so that he may not think he sees it and has it when he has it not This can not be decided by the Scripturs for they are the matter under debate and that were to run in a Circle And since as he saith the Devil is God's Ape and that there are so many Delusions of the Devil and false imaginations of the phansy which men are subject unto as he has told over and over again how is he sure that he is not thus deluded by the Devil and abused by his phancy in imagining he seeth when indeed he is blind And to give him his own argument and query since some and even Protestants
in particular murder may be known by the Light of Natur and so overturns his own argument But he asketh What use can children or idiots or mad men make of the Light within Answ. The Light within being affirmed by us to be a Living Principle that quickens the Soul may influence such persons but so can not any writings As for his learned Dr. Owen's book which he recommends he may find it answered long ago by Samuel Fisher a Quaker which because the Doctor found too hot to reply to I. B. that is so busy a body may supply that want But most rare of all is his answer p. 80. to my Conclusion that Christ would not leave his own to be led by a Rule obvious to so many doubts which is and yet we see he hath done it if this be not to beg the question in the highest degree the Reader may judge He confesseth the Spirit is the chief Leader but to seem to come off with some credit he falleth a railing upon me for not distinguishing but confounding the Spirit 's work and the Scripturs and then bestows many words to prove they are distinct with a heap of citations in the next p. 81. all which he might have spared untill he had proved first that I denyed they were distinct or shewn where or when I confound them What he writes n. 38. 39. p. 82. is meer railing as the Reader by looking unto them may observe he flouts there at my affirming I know one that could not read discover an error in the version saying but the good luck was himself was Judge what he would infer hence I see not unless that their version is free of errors which if he will adventur to affirm his mistake may be shewn by the testimony of learned men among themselvs and his own correcting it divers times which will after be observed He saith my speaking soberly of the Scripturs is only out of Policy because the Quakers could not effectuat their poynt which was to have the Scripturs quite laid-by as an old Almanack But such malitious lyes and railings need no answer To this he adds two other gross calumnys to conclude his paragraph that it is the Quakers fixed opinion that the Scripturs are not to be made use of in their assemblys it being below them to expound any portion of it there or to adduce any testimony therefrom for confirmation of their assertions This can be proved to be a manifest untruth by the testimony of many that are not Quakers who have been witnesses of the contrary The other which he calleth their constant opinion is that when one cometh to hearken to the Light within he hath obtained the whole end of the Scripturs so that they become wholly useless to him this is also a horrid calumny ¶ 11. In his examining of what I assert to be the end and usefulness of the Scripturs p. 83 84. he can not find fault with what I ascribe to them but that I give them not all and whether I do wrong denying that to them which he would seem to give the former debate will shew But that he may be here like himself he seeks to infer from my words most gross and malitious consequences which are utterly false and till he prove them they need no other answer but to observe them and deny them which I utterly do such as that albeit Christ has ordained Pastors and the Scripturs under the Gospel to make the man of God perfect yet the Quakers think they may be both laid aside as useless that according to me the Scripturs are not so much as a subordinat Rule that the Quakers would have all others save themselvs to look upon themselvs as not concerned in the Scripturs that so they might be the sole keepers of these Oracles and then he saith they shall quickly know what shall become of them and that the Quakers always suppose that what the Spirit within them saith can not contradict the Scriptur and therefore what they say contrary to the Scriptur from the Spirit within must be supposed to be seeming and not real this he repeats again according to his custom in the next page if he mean the Spirit of God I hope he will not deny it and if he mean any other spirit we deny it But he would be fastening that upon us here which may be justly said to them of their exalting their Confession of Faith above the Scripturs as in the first section upon his Preface I observed But he hath an objection which he urgeth p. 67. and by which he thinks to overturn all asking if I believe the testimony of the Scripturs to be true Yes I do believe them because the Testimony of the Spirit in my heart obligeth me so to do and therefore being perswaded they are true I make use of them though in respect to my self not in the first and primary place but in a secondary next to the Spirit yet as to him I may urge them every way because he accounts them so and as to their testimony for the Spirit 's being the Principal Leader upon my using of which he founds his objection albeit since he acknowledgeth it he has the less reason to carp at it I believe it from the Scriptur testimony but not as the primary ground of my faith which I derive from the Spirit it self yet as a ground and that a very weighty one As for his other question Whether I be of the same mind with other Quakers of whom Mr Hicks reporteth I answer that what is there reported by Hicks is false and I here dare I. B. and his Author Hicks to prove it to have been said by any Quaker which till they can do by good and sufficient proof they are both to be held as lying Calumniators Section Fifth Wherein his Fifth and Sixth Chapters intituled by him Of Man's Natural State and Of Original Sin are considered 1 AFter he has repeated some of my words he complains I speak darkly and having given his usual malitious insinuations that I do it of designe and have some mysteries under it He takes upon him to endeavour to guess at my meaning and bestows many pages to frame one conjectur after another and then spends many words to refute these shaddows and men of straw of his own making and yet at the end of all he confesses he doubts whether he has got or hit my meaning and to be sure then he must be as uncertain that he has refuted it and therefore knoweth not but all his reasonings against his own conjecturs are impertinent for after he hath written one conjectur and bestows much labour in refuting it his own words are p. 91. n 5. if this be not his true meaning let us try another Conjectur Which shews he knows not whether what he said before was to the purpose thus he spendeth pag. 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98. in which last page he is very
that will not meet this case Those 1 Tim. 1 19. who are said to make shipwrack of a good Conscience are such who believed the true doctrin of faith in Christ as himself before acknowledgeth Now albeit a man may be said to live in good Conscience to other principles while ignorant of this yet he should prove how a man can be said to have a good Conscience with respect to the true faith of Christ held by him and yet without saving or true grace With railing he tels me pag. 358. n. 18. that Phil. 1 6. 1 Pet. 1 5. God's beginning and perfecting the condition And what then yet God doth not this against our wills it is with a respect to our performing the conditions on our part which yet we can not do without him Then he goes about to prove that Paul could not fall in answer to my saying from 1 Cor. 9 27. that Paul supposeth a possibility that he might become a reprobat but if the Reader consider how I bring that in my Apology he will find he had no reason for this cavill for I alledged it only to reprove those that are too too secure shewing where sin was there was always a ground of jealousy since the Apostle did reckon it needfull to keep under his body to subdue sin that he might not become a reprobat which since the Apostle did but upon this supposition if he did not keep under his body suppose possible others had no reason to presume Section Eleventh Wherein his XVI Chapter Of the Church his XVII Of the Ministerial Call his XVIII XIX and XXI Of their Qualifications Office and Maintenance and his XX Of VVomens Preaching is considered ¶ 1. HIs chapter of the Church is soon dispatched for it contains scarce any thing but perversions and railing for after he has given a large citation out of their Confession of Faith and then added some enlargements of his own and some little nibling cavils to what I say of no Salvation being without the Church pag. 361. he goes on with his old reiterated calumny that I suppose men may be made members of the Catholik Church by the Light of Nature which is utterly false And upon this false supposition is built his n. 5. pag. 362. as also what he saith pag. 364. But n. 4. he screws this to a greater pitch of falshood affirming that what I say of a Particular Church gathered together in the faith of the true Principles and Doctrins of Christ by the Spirit of God and testimony of some of his Ministers is that these are persons only taught by the Light of Nature and by such Ministers as preach nothing of the Gospel Against a man thus desperatly resolved and determined to lye and calumniat there can be no guard but sure all sober Readers will abhorr such dealing What I speak of a Church in this respect is only of such as have the advantage of the outward knowledge of Christ as my words afterwards shew where I say such were the Churches gathered by the Apostles of which the Scriptur makes mention And therefore what he objects that can not be don by Pagans is wholly impertinent and doth but verify the grossness of his calumny which he endeavours to inculcat as a truth to his Reader pag. 363. as if what I say further of the things requisit to be a member of this Particular Church were a third sort and not a more particular description of the former which the Reader may easily observe by looking to the place to be a meer fetch of his to afford himself some matter of cavill which imagining he has got he fills-up the paragraph with gross lyes and railing saying That the Quakers believe not the holy Truths set down in the Scripturs because they oppose and contradict them That they believe not in nor maké profession of Jesus Christ revealed in the New Testament because they oppose him and all his Institutions That faith according to them is not wrought by the Spirit of God but that Nature can sweetly and naturally incline yea compell thereunto All which are gross calumnys And then he concludeth saying And thus we have run round and are again where we began which is very true for he began with calumnys and having run round the same way his work resolvs in them Pag. 364. he affirmeth Men may be Members of the visible Church and consequently ought to be reputed such who are ungodly and without holiness and offereth to make it good if I will form a dispute upon it but I leave him as to this to disput with his learned Dr. Owen whose works he has applauded in this Treatise and whom his Postscript-Brother R. M. has in his preface to this B.'s book highly commended as a gratious man As for his silly argument that from the Apostle's saying Act. 2 39. the promise is unto you and to your children and 1 Cor. 7 14. it follows men become members of the Church by birth I leave him to debate it with his great Author Thomas Hicks who will tell him if he be consonant to his own principles it is a Babylonish invention But I. B. hath here unawares contradicted himself for if these Scripturs prove men become members of the Church by birth then the sprinkling them with water sometime after they are born or their Baby-Baptism is not necessary to make them members of the Church and they are to be accounted such without it He saith I am mistaken when I say Antichrist built his structure upon this foundation to wit that men without holiness may be members of the true Church because he applieth all the priviledges of the invisible Church unto his visible synagogue of Sathan where as this sheweth that I am not mistaken but that my affirmation is true for if he to wit Antichrist did believe holiness to be necessary to make a member of the true Church he could not apply the privileges of the invisible Church unto his visible members most of which he wel knows as often-times himself are not only void of but enemies to holiness It is false that I agree with him in his not distinguishing betwixt the Visible and Invisible Church and yet much more in unchurching all who are not of his combination in which albeit I. B. most impudently insinuats I approach to him yet himself can not but know it to be a most manifest falshood since I suppose some of all sects of Christians may be members of the catholik Church and he knows and has observed here how contrary the Pope is to this doctrin At last he concludes this chapter with a fit of Railing of which the last words must not pass without observation to wit that in stead of true holyness I press upon them a natural dead and anti-Evangelical Morality Now this Morality as pressed by me he himself confessed before to be such as the Law of Nature taught albeit in truth I pressed none but what
he accuses me as an Ignoramus writing non-sense and confusion pag. 39. More of that kind in pag. 31. while yet to his own confusion pag. 40 41 he saith he knows not what I mean nor what I would prove nor what my arguments must conclude wherein if he speak true he declares himself uncapable to judge of and far less to answer my arguments a large disquisition of his impertinency in which things I willingly omitt and will consider this his chapter as wel where he misses as where he truely in any measur urges the matter And first to dispatch what is superfluous all that is said by him against false revelations and delusions of the Devil against which he speaks sometimes more largely sometimes more overly in pag. 21. 22. 34. 35. 36. 47. no judicious Reader will think is any thing to the purpose since I never did plead for False revelations but for the necessity of the true Revelation of the Spirit to all real Christians And though it could be proved that either I or any other Quaker so called were deluded by a false revelation yet it will not thence follow that our asserting the necessity of true revelation to the building up of true faith is erroneous more than in I. B's own sense the Arminians or Socinians asserting false doctrins pretending to have for them the authority of Scriptur will make him judge that their asserting the Scriptur to be the onely and adequat rule of faith is false in his judgment since he therein agrees with them And therefore his disingenuity as wel as weakness doth notably appear pag. 46 47 48. where coming to take notice of what I have said in shewing how the same may be returned upon such as own the Scriptur Reason and Tradition to be the Rule of their faith he gives it no answer and most effrontedly comes up with his oft reiterated story of Iohn à Leyden and Munster with which we are less concerned than himself notwithstanding that I shew that even men pretending to the Scriptur and to be led by it and in particular his ow Brethren had don no less vile actions than those of Munster and yet he would not think it wel argued to inferr thence that it were dangerous to follow the Scriptur as the Rule To all this he returns no answer which taketh up 6 pages in my Apology Lat. ed. pag. 26 27 28 29 30 31. unless it be a sufficient answer to say he needs not take notice of my trifling answers and that it is a meer rapsody But the truth is to use his own expression it was too hot for his fingers and therefore he judged best to shuffle it by so easily but his unfairness in this is so much the more considerable where the pinch of the question lay and his own and his Brethrens reputation was so highly concerned as being charged as guilty of no less abominations than the Monsters of Munster in that he boasts in his epistle to the Reader that he hath examin'd every thing asserted by me particularly which he gives as the reason of troubling him with so prolix a Treatise ¶ 2. Now albeit I might in reason pass his new inforced objection till he have satisfied to this so shamefull an omission yet lest he should fancy any strength in it and to shew him the sillyness of it I will here consider and remove it it runnes thus pag. 46. If since the Apostles and other extraordinary Officers fell asleep and after the canon of the Scripturs was compleated All that have pretended to immediat Revelation have been led by a spirit of Error Then that is not the Way of Christ. But the former is true Therefore so is the other Such an objection is not like to signify much where in both Propositions the question is most miserably begged and the thing in debate taken for granted for albeit the connexion of the Major should be granted yet the question is there in a great part of it begged to wit that such Officers in the Church as were the Apostles are not now neither as to the natur of their Office nor manner of their being led by the Spirit Next that the canon of the Scripturs is compleated that is to say No writings are ever hereafter to be expected or believed to be written by the Spirit both which I deny and he has not so much as offer'd to prove and therefore his argument if I should go no further can conclude nothing Next his Minor to wit that all pretending to Immediat revelation have been led by a spirit of error is not at all proved by him for albeit it might be said of all those old Scots named by him and of the German Enthusiasts yet that is not sufficient proof unless he can make it appear that there was never any other but were so also which yet remains for him to prove and will trouble him to effect For to affirm there were never any because he has never heard nor read of them were an argument a great deal more ridiculous than rational And for his challenging me to shew them albeit the instance of the Quakers be enough to spoil all his argument as will after appear yet by his good leave I am not bound Affirmanti incumbit probatio and that this answer is sufficient I have the testimony of his learned Brother John Menzies Professor of Divinity at Aberdeen in his book intituled Papismus Lucifugus where he answers the Jesuit's Minor the same way and proveth it to be sufficient And surely he has not taken notice that by this he has condemned as led by a spirit of error all the primitive Protestant Martyrs that prophesied at any time such as John Hus and George Wishart our Countrey-man and many others by reason of whose prophecying I. B. and his Brethren have valued their cause since these Prophecys were said by them to proceed from inward and immediat Revelation and so they pretended to it albeit not as the ground of their faith and obedience in all matters of Doctrin and Worship yet as the ground of that Faith by which they believed these Revelations to proceed from God and not from the Devil and of that Obedience by which they published and declared these things Moreover he overturns all by the last instance which he gives to prove it to wit that the Quakers who pretend to immediat Revelations are led by a spirit of Error for proof of which we have only his bare affirmation and yet till this be proved his objection is naught For indeed this is a rare way of debating with an adversary to make use of an argument by which he must be concluded already as erroneous in order to convince him that he is such if this be not as they say to put the plough before the Oxen I know not what can be said to be so for I. B's argument to make it plain amounts to this If the Quakers be
more largely in my Apology in those paragraphs which I observed he most foully omitted And indeed this is a fine argument he has provided for Atheists and Sceptiks for it renders all Faith even that of the Patriarchs uncertain for since the ground and warrand of their writing the Scripturs was in his own account inward immediat and extraordinary revelations and if such be as he affirms uncertain then the truth of the Scripturs which depends upon such must necessarily be uncertain since the stream can not be more pure than the fountain nor the superstructur more sure than the foundation And therefore most weak is his reasoning pag. 46. where he pleadeth that such Revelations can not be more sure than the Scripturs which are the objective revelations of the Apostles writen down since the certainty of these writings depends upon the certainty of these revelations by which they were written and certainly if in any case that maxim of the Schools do hold it must in this Propter quod unum quod que est tale illud ipsum est magis tale ¶ 5. It will not be amiss here in the third place to take notice of his most uncharitable and unchristian insinuations contrary to all Christian and fair rules of debate as first pag. 24. where he will needs inferr our denying of the Trinity albeit he can not deny but he finds it owned by me groundlesly coupling us with the Socinians and to help him in this he brings-in the testimony of one Mr Stalham as he terms him an open Opposer of ours which Witness to receive against us is most unjust But I desire here in the entry that it be observed that I intend to take little or no notice of his many citations to prove what we hold out of the writings of our open Opposers and shall give such a sufficient reason for my so doing ere I make an end as I am hopefull shall satisfie all judicious Readers as wel of our innocency as his unjustice therein but by this the man's temper may be seen and that his design is not so much to refute what we truely hold as to make the world believe that we hold what we doth not to render us the more odious And thus he proceedeth also basely to insinuat that I deny Jesus of Nazareth to be the Son of God albeit he doth not so much as pretend to any color for it from my words only he finds some Quakers give an indistinct answer in this matter but who they are or what their answer is he tels not In pursuance of this in the following page he insinuats as if I mean'd not the first but the second Creation and so joyned with Socinus which is a gross calumny like the former as also is what he saith pag. 31. num 18. where he raileth against me as writing things contrary to the Scripturs and as one whose revelations are not from God but from Satan For all this the only proof is I. B. saith so which I must plainly tell him is with me of no weight at all Of the same natur is what is asserted by him pag. 33. nu 20. wherein he insinuats that we contemn the Scripturs telling a lying story from his Author Mr Hicks of one Nicolas Lucas which I desire him to prove the next time not by Hicks for he is accuser but by some more indifferent Witness else to be justly held as a Calumniator And whereas he saith We should not obtrude any thing upon them without Scriptures this is another lying insinuation for where do we obtrude any doctrins without offering to confirm them by Scriptur as much as he and his Brethren For if he say that our confirmations are not valid that is not to the purpose we can easily say so of his and do as truely believe it but the question is Whether we obtrude any doctrins upon any to be believed telling them they ought to believe it albeit we either will not or can not confirm them by the Scriptur Now he knoweth in his Conscience this to be a lye since I affirm of the Scripturs Apol. Lat. ed. p. 47. n. 60. that they are the most fit outward judge of controversies of which himself also taketh notice in that place And lastly of the natur of these malitious insinuations is what he saith pag. 48 49 and last paragraph of this chapter where after he has repeated what he terms my monitory conclusion he infers that I mean that a man should believe that Natur 's dim light is the Spirit of God and the Holy Ghost and that he may burn the Bible and with confidence assert he is led by the Holy Ghost whatever Scriptur or common sense say to the contrary This is all affirmed by him without the least proof which as it is the height of injustice so it is with respect not only to my words but belief and intention God the Searcher of hearts knows a most horrid falshood and calumny ¶ 6. Now albeit what is said may seem sufficient for a reply to this chapter and is indeed enough to give any sober man a disgust of it yet that he may not have reason to complain that any thing wherein he may judge there is weight and is directly to the purposs is omitted I will now in the last place consider and answer what he saith against the validity of my Arguments to which an answer hath not been included in what is already said To begin then like himself which to be sure is with some calumny or other he saith pag. 14. I stigmatize with the black mark of being carnal and natural Christians all that assent not to what I say but he takes no time to prove it and indeed can not for albeit I say that it is like many natural and carnal Christians will condemn what I say yet it will not follow I account them all such who will not fully agree with me in this matter Of the same kind is his calumny p. 22. n. 5. where he allegeth the citations of the Fathers so called prove no more than his sense of Revelation above expressed but whether he speaks true here or not the Reader may judge by seriously reading over these citations and then let him see if they do not hold out an inward and immediat teaching of the Spirit of God in the Soul as the firm ground of Knowledge without which all outward teaching is in vain but to inserr this he tels they writ against such as being Impostors and led by the spirit of the Devil pretended to Revelations What then Can not men write against false revelations without they deny the necessity of true ones That is an odd conclusion If I. B. were wel acquainted with the writings of the Quakers so called he would find them as much against false Pretenders as any other But pag. 24 25 he findeth fault with my argument deduced from these words that there is no knowledge of the
primarily and principally the Rule to them than any thing that was recorded in the Scriptur where they could not learn their duty as to those particulars And that I make not the Scripturs and the Spirit all one I have above shewn and therefore his malitious insinuations of Socinianisme fall to the ground but he thinks he has found-out a mighty dilemma in the end of this paragraph p. 66. Or will I say that the Light within me is really the Increated Spirit This saith he must be blasphemy with a witness to be heard with horror and therefore needing no other confutation Poor man how apt is he to make a noise about nothing If there be any blasphemy it is his own For what if I should say Is not GOD a LIGHT and is not he in every man and is not this Light within the Increated Spirit The Reader may judge how easily these windy boasts of his are blown away how the Spirit ruleth us and yet is not confounded with the Rule I have above shewn so that what he saith to that in the rest of this page where he vapers and rails is but superfluous Next after he has a little plaid the Pedant upon the words magis originaliter he concludes his 22 paragraph with asking me why the revelations I pretend to should be accounted more One with the Spirit himself than those revelations by which the Scripturs were dictated but this is his allegeance none of my affirmation Next I never said that the Revelations by which the Scripturs were dictat were less primary than any other whatsoever albeit no revelation which is writen and transmitted to a man only by the report of another can be so primary and immediat to him as that which he receives in himself he confesseth here with me p. 67. that the Spirit is the Prime and Principal Leader whether that makes for my cause as also what follows will after in its place be examined ¶ 6. But because he foundeth his assertion of my detracting from the perfection of the Scripturs because I deny them to be the primary and original Rule for he acknowledgeth that I confess them to be a secondary one I will examin the ground by which he goes about to prove it as also his answers to my arguments proving the contrary His first is from the parable Luke 16 31. where it is said They have Moses and the Prophets whom if they hear not neither will they be perswaded if one be raised from the dead but this proves only that one raised from the dead is not able to convince those that will not hear Moses and the Prophets not that the Scriptur is a more primary and principal Rule than what the Spirit immediatly reveals in the Soul for that consequence will not nor doth follow nor is in the least proven by him neither can be unless he first prove that albeit the testimony of one from the dead be less powerfull to perswade than the Scripturs yet it is more than the immediat testimony of the Spirit in the heart which I deny and rests for him to prove before he conclude any thing from this place Next this Parable was used by Christ to the Jews to shew them their hypocrisy who albeit they deceitfully pretended so much to reverence and follow Moses and the Prophets as many now adays do the Scripturs yet they did not really hear them els they would have acknowledged him of whom Moses and the Prophets did so clearly write since he also did as great and convincing miracls before them as if they had the testimony of one raised from the dead And this leads me to take notice of what he saith p 68. n. 24. in answer to my argument drawn from the difference betwixt the Law that is writen without and the Gospel that is writen within where he accuseth me of contradiction because of my argument drawn from the revelations that were under the Law and the same-ness of the object but I have answered this cavill in the former section Yet since the strength of this resolves in his supposing I affirm there is no writen Rule under the Gospel which he after concludes the whole falleth to the ground for I never denied the Scriptur to be a secondary Rule and that is some Rule for to say I affirm there is no writen Rule because the writen is not the primary is a wild conclusion And therefore all the rest of his talk to prove that Christ inspired the Apostles to write things to be a Rule to Christians is meerly superfluous since that that is a Rule though not the primary was never denied by me and it may be here observed that all his arguments to prove the Scriptur to be a Rule unless they prove them to be the primary and principal one conclude nothing and are against me to no purpose ¶ 7. His second argument is deduc'd from 2 Tim. 3 16. where he cites the Apostle saying of the Scripturs they are able to make wise unto Salvation and to make the man of God perfect Where is first to be observed his perverting of the Apostl's words by an addition of his own and therefore no wonder that he so frequently pervert mine for the Apostle saith not they are able to make the man of God perfect but All Scriptur given by inspiration is that the man of God may be perfect that is contributeth in its kind and order towards the perfection of the Saints but it follows not thence that they are the Primary Rule no more than though I. B. will affirm that his book is writen that the man of God may be perfect that is to help him to perfection that thence it is to be esteemed the primary and chief Rule Thus is answered that of John 20 31. But these are written that ye may believe c. cited by him p 74. For his book is also written for that end yet the consequence will not follow that they are able to make wise unto Salvation is not denied in so far as they declare of the grace that brings Salvation and directs to the Light which leads to it but how he thence inferreth they are the primary Rule he must inform us the next time since he has forgotten to do it now And this may serve to answer those places where he according to his custom repeats it over and over again as p. 74. 77 82. where he hath again the fore-mentioned perversion and enumerated the particular uses applied to the Scriptur he concludeth its perfection as wanting nothing Now I deny not that every book as wel as chapter and verse of Scriptur is perfect as to its end that is so far to express the mind of God as he was pleased at that time and also with a respect to its Author as being written by the dictats of the Spirit but that place will not conclude its perfection either as the primary only or adequat that is entire Rule els
all the other Scripturs which were written after that Epistle of Paul as he will not deny but there were some so written must be denied being any part of the Rule so to be any way necessary for that end The like absurditys follow upon his using 2 Cor. 3 14. where the Apostle speaks of a Testament since he dare not deny a great part of that Testament was written afterwards And thus is also answered what he urges from Psal. 19 7. pag. 74 79 The Law of the Lord is perfect c and from other Scripturs of like import for if he understand perfection in the first sense it is not denied if in the second which indeed is the question it concludeth nothing without rendring all the Scriptur written afterwards no part of the Rule or Canon to use his own term As for that of Peter which he insists upon in the end of his paragraph p. 70. I deny it to be understood of the Scriptur and gave my reasons before and yet the man takes that for granted and thence argues from it which is a most silly manner albeit very familiar to him to beg the question ¶ 8. Next he comes to consider my answer to their objections but how he removes them may be judged by the first he observs p. 71. where in stead of proving that these words of Isa 8 20. usually brought by them To the Law and to the Testimony c. are meant of the Scriptur which I desired ere any thing could be inferred for it he answers As if any that ever read the Bible could be ignorant what is all along meaned by these words Is not this a goodly proof Reader I am one that have read the Bible and know by the Law is sometimes meant the outward sometimes the inward and thousands more are yet to be convinced that that place speaks only of the outward and will need some better argument than this of his ere we change our judgment But to proceed he thinks my saying that the Law was in a more special manner given to the Jewes and more principally than to us to be a railing and roaving and a contradicting what I said in the former These but this cavill often repeated before I did answer above The like he judgeth my arguing therefrom that as they were to try all things by the outward Law so we are to try all in the first place by the Word within but here his base disingenuity appears for he has left-out these words in the first place that he might introduce the better the difficulty he phancyeth to himself to have brought me to afterwards for by this argument saith he I prove more than I ought to wit that the Scripturs shall not be so much as a less principal Rule Who will be so foolish as to conclude that the saying things ought in the first place to be tried by the Word within excludes things in the second place to be tried by the Scripturs and is not that still to own it as a secondary and subordinat Rule And so he may see my feet here are easily rid and that he held them not so fast as he phancyed And as for the other part of his alternative the consequence is of the like natur that what was a principal Rule then is now only subordinat for albeit I said it was more principal to them than now to us yet I said not it was the most principal to them or then more principal than what came immediatly from the Spirit which he confesseth to have been frequent under the Law yea more frequent than now according to his Principle and my saying so could only inferr that consequence He rejects what I urge from the version of the Septuagint as spurious but for that we must take his word els want a proof And then because he can not come off better according to his custom he concludes with a gross perversion and falshood saying it is my opinion that the Law id est the outward Law was given the Jews for a Rule even above the Spirit 's revelations which if it be mine as I utterly renounce it I desire to know where I have asserted it he might have been at the pains to mark it but he knew it 's like it was not convenient Next he comes to prove that these words Search the Scripturs c. Joh. 5 39. do evince the Scripturs to be the primary and adequat Rule because if Christ's doctrins should be tried by them much more privat Euthusiasmes but who denies that Yet he doth not thence prove that the Scripturs are the primary Rule by which all things must be tried in the first place which is the thing in question Secondly I would ask him Whether the words Christ spake to the Jewes which are recorded in Scriptur were less a Rule to them or less binding and obliging upon them than the sayings of Moses and the Prophets If he say they were less then he overturns all his own tedious reasonings by which he labours to prove the obligation of what Christ and the Apostles delivered p. 84. at the end as wel as what Moses and the Prophets without the need of a new obligation and likewise he must shew us how these sayings come to be as binding upon us now as Moses and the Prophets or how they acquired greater authority after Christ spake them than they had then or why they wanted then that authority If he say they were binding and obliging to the Jews because spoken by Christ then his proof falleth to the ground He is angry that I say the words may be interpreted Ye search the Scripturs as wel as Search the Scripturs albeit the Greek word signify the one as wel as the other and for answer very magisterially tels it is quite contrary to the very words of Command Search the Scripturs but the question is whether that be the words and that was what he should have proven but he makes no bounds of begging the question telling Tolet and Maldonat say it is so taken by all the Fathers except Cyrill And what then Did I undertake to subscribe to all these Authors writings He must give me a reason why ere I do it and let him deny it if he dare that the Greek word fignifies Ye search the Scripturs as wel as Search the Scripturs and if it do before I conclude the one more than the other I must have some better argument than his bare affirmation But to finish this he will conclude all by the words of the Apostle James c. 1 v. 25. where he saith the Apostle calleth the Scripturs the perfect Law of Liberty but that doth not prove them to be the primary Rule Suppose it were granted the Apostle meant the Scripturs which remains yet by him to be proven and is not done by what he citeth chap. 2 8. by his desiring them to fulfill the Royal Law according to Scripture Thou shalt love thy neighbour
flesh are set forth for an example suffering the vengeance of eternal fire But it is strange the man should be so desperatly audacious as to proclame his own sottishness to the world Is there a word here of Infants Is not the very reason of suffering the vengeance of eternal fire given because of their giving themselvs over to Fornication which reason could not touch Infants Pag. 129. he thinks I wrong Zuinglius upon the credit of the Council of Trent but if the Counçil of Trent wronged Zuinglius in condemning him for that he was not guilty of he and his Brethren have the honour to have their judgment approved by that Council while ours is condemned and let him remember how he useth to upbraid me with à ffinity with Papists yea in this very chapter upon less ground Pag. 130. he goes about to prove his matter from several Scripturs but how shallowly the Reader may easily observe 1. He citeth Gen. 6 5. Man's thoughts are evil continually What then Are Infants therefore guilty of Adam's sin that 's the thing in question But the Hebrew signifies à pueritiis from their infancy What then how proves that the case I do not deny but Children may become guilty of sin very early but the question is Whether they be guilty of Adam's sin even in their Mothers womb And hereby we may see he thinks not their version so exact but I. B. must take upon him to correct it to help himself at a dead lift as they say The same way is answered the other Scripturs that follow Ezech. 16 4. Matth. 15 19. Eph. 2 3. which are yet more impertinent as the Reader by looking to them may see and I might easily by examining them particularly shew if it were not that I study brevity and delight not to glory over the man's impertinency And though Infants perished in the flood and that was brought upon the men and women that sinned for their iniquitys yet it will not follow thence that infants are guilty of sins untill he better prove that natural death is always and to all the wages of sin albeit I confess with the Apostle eternal death is And indeed if these infants were punished at all it must have been for the sins of their immediat Parents which he will not affirm since the flood is not said to have come for Adam's sin but for their own so this instance clearly overturns his assertion I leave to the Readers judgment the Scripturs not mentioned at length but set down by him in this to judge whether they prove the thing in debate to wit that Infants are guilty of Adam's sin The citations out of Augustin and Origen brought by him in the next page 131. the Reader may also judge of in case they be truely cited which I can not examin at present whether they have weight enough to overturn what has been here proved from Scriptur The words of Eliphaz Iob 15 14. speak of a Man not of a child and therefore not to the purpose neither do I believe though the Spirit of God gave a relation of what Eliphaz said that we ought to build our Faith upon his affirmations Next he urges Gen. c. 5 v. 3. And Adam begat a son in his own likeness after his image but this would prove Adam's sons as guilty of all sins as that first which he denied or let him shew a ground for such a distinction And thus is further answered what he saith next page Gen. 17 14. where it is said the man-child that is uncircumcised shall be cut-off which he thinks so strong that in a vapor he desires me to chew my cud upon it for if this cutting-off was a punishment of these children for sin it must be for that of their immediat parents who neglected to circumcise them which Adam could not do and therefore could not sin in omitting it and since he will not say this he can urge nothing from that place He saith the Fathers used to make use of these words of Christ Ioh. 3 5. Except a man be born of water c. but their using it was upon their mistake that Baptism took away Original sin and that therefore infants unbaptized could not be saved That regeneration is needfull to Infants I deny not and whereas he asks how are they regenerat I answered that before asking him how those he accounts Elect Infants whom he confesses to be guilty of Adam's sin are regenerat He confesses the Fathers argument taken from sprinkling infants with water which they and he falsly call Baptisme will conclude nothing against me but since he names here Initial Sacraments in the plural number which the Fathers made use of it seems they had some more than Baptisme And since he and his Brethren make use of no more as Initial but Baptisme it seems he differs from them in what they judged needfull here as wel as the Quakers I have shewn above how I evite both contradicting myself as to Universal Redemption and excluding infants from the benefit of Christ's death And for his last question wherein did Christ excell other Infants if they be born without sin he should have said not guilty of Sin I answer In that he had no Seed of Sin in him as other infants have and that not only but he had nothing of that weakness and propensity to yeeld to the evil influence thereof as other Infants but was in greater strength glory and dominion over it than Adam even before he fell This shews his privilege above others and in nothing contradicteth what I have said before Section Sixth Wherein his Seventh and Eighth Chapters Of Reprobation and Vniversal Redemption are considered ¶ 1. IN his seventh chapter of Reprobation he expatiateth himself at great length in large and tedious homilies which will make my reply the shorter who look not upon it as my concern to answer them because these controversies are largely handled by others and what is said by him is abundantly answered yet if he will affirm he has said something that is new upon this Theam and poynt to it it is like it may not want an answer And indeed the Reader may observe him much pained and strained to put a fair face upon these foul doctrins and though what he saith here may be and it is most probable is to be understood of the reason he gives in his Epistle in being so large because of the opposition of others besides Quakers and also because I touched these things but passingly as being a Theam much debated and common to us with others I might pass it by with a reference to those Authors who largely treat of them yet I will take notice of what he saith in direct answer to what by me is affirmed And first as for his accusation of me as not being positive and punctual enough in setting down my judgment of the Decrees of Election and Reprobation it is of no weight All do at times confess that
asketh me if my argument from 2 Pet. 3 9. the Lord is long-suffering to us ward not willing that any should perish but that all should come unto repentance do hold What will I do with those that out-live the day of their Visitation is the Lord willing to give them repentance I answer No and yet no overturning of my argument for in respect all had a day of visitation wherein they might have repented God may be said to be long-suffering and not to have been willing any should have perished c. But this can not be said if none ever had such a day or season as they affirm He would insinuat as if this made all to depend upon Free-Will but how frivolous this calumny is will after appear and whereas both in this and the following page he rants at an high rate as if I did fight against God's Omnipotency saying God will be God whether I will or not and that Christ must turn a petitioner and supplicat Lord Free-Will exclaiming O cursed Religion the man doth but shew his malitiousness and weakness For if God's Omnipotency because he doth whatsoever he will be urged to prove that men can not resist his will and that therefore whatsoever men do even the wickedest actions are willed by God then violence is offered to the will of the creaturs and the liberty and contingency of second causes are necessarily taken away which yet is expressly denied by the Westminst Confess chap. 3. Nor will all his distinctions far less affirmations solve this that Peter speaketh only of the Elect because he mentioneth them elsewhere unless he prove all here to be restricted is but a begging of the question ¶ 8. Pag. 210. n. 65. He quarreleth my bringing some testimonies of Antiquity agreeing with what I say which he termeth a fouling of fingers with humane writings saying himself layeth not so much weight upon the authority of men in this matter and yet afterwards he cites some as making for his purpose He may know I as little build upon the testimony of the Antients as he can for the bottoming of faith and yet to shew their agreement with us and against them is a good check to their shameless objection of Novelty considering how the same is objected to them as strongly and with no less reason by their Mother the Church of Rome whom when pinched by us they begin to run to for the ground of their Church Ministery and Maintainance That ever I said the Quakers whom he terms to be of yesterday have only found the Truth is false albeit I say they have a more clear and full discovery of it But one would think notwithstanding his pretending he lays little weight upon the Authority of Antiquity in this matter that it is not so else why doth he so often in this matter upbraid us with the heresie of Pelagius as contradicting the sense of the antient Church and their Doctors Who are those whose testimony he cals the authority of men in this matter Section Seventh Wherein his IX Chapter Of Vniversal Salvation Possible his X. Of Vniversal Grace and Light XI Of the necessity of this Light to Salvation and his XII Of the Salvation of Heathens without hearing the Gospel are considered ¶ 1. HE beginneth his 9 chapter Of Universal Salvation Possible according to his custom with railing accusing me of ignorance folly pride and pedantry but he thinks it not worth his pains to spend words to discover it yet he gives a main reason for all to wit I suppose our opinions were never known in the world before we were raised up to declare them Which being a manifest untruth and never said by me the Reader may thence judge of the grounds he has for this his Railing however he supposeth they are but old errors cloathed with new notions and which himself has sufficiently enough enervated in his former chapter of Reprobation and Vniversal Redemption which being the basis of them is by him if he may be admitted judge in his own cause already overturned And then he thinks it was impertinency to say that Quakers can by sensible experience be confirmed in their doctrin and so brings to an end his first two paragraphs His next work is to play the Commentator and to tell his Reader my meaning which to be sure is to pervert it as he doth in this chapter throughout affirming it to be my belief that every man has power and ability moral to lay hold of Salvation and that there is not requisit thereunto any new grant of Grace and Divine help to quicken the man he has a stock from his Mothers womb which is sufficient this he cals the proper and native face of my doctrine and this he puteth down as my opinion and charges me with it p. 214. And 218. he saith it further without any concurrence of Divine Grace Pag 220. he saith I conclude Man has power to believe and obey the Gospel without the Spirit of God as also the like p. 221. twice And p. 222. he saith I conclude that the wicked have power of themselvs without the Spirit of Regeneration and Grace to do what is commanded in reference to Life eternal and further p. 223 224 226. he affirmeth the like of me which is utterly false and was never believed nor asserted by me and it 's observable that in all these places where he thus charges me he doth not so much as once poynt to any one page in my Apology and not only so but not so much as from the words or writings of any other Quaker borrowed from some of his usual Authors which is his most frequent refuge And therefore the Reader may judge what he builds upon his false supposition or batters against it fals to the ground without further refutation After he has branded this brat of his own begeting p. 214. with Pelagianism Jesuitism Arminianism and Socinianism thence accusing the boldness and confidence of the Quakers and of my self in particular in terming it a new discovery of ours he endeth this page with a fit of Railing and beginneth in his next to wonder how the Heathens can be said to have a day of Visitation since nothing can be called a day of Visitation in reference to Salvation but what is in and through the preaching of the Gospel But this wonder is built upon his supposition that the preaching of the Gospel is no where but where there is an outward administration of it wherein his mistake will come hereafter to be manifested into which mistake he fals in the next page and elsewhere in this chapter where I shall pass it over untill I come to speak of it in its proper place In this page 215. he thinketh that since I affirm their doctrin makes God unjust as denying to some the means of Salvation that which I affirm may be likewise so charged because some may think God is not just in not granting to all an equally
eat them Now these can make nothing for his purpose unless for this reason that because these people commonly and avowedly did these things therefore they had no Light that reproved them for them otherwise their doing of them will not import the Light did not bear witness against their so doing more than men under the Presbyterian Ministery committing adultery and murder will import there was no witness born against these sins by the Presbyterian Preachers But he has overthrown this his reason himself by affirming p. 232. 235. that there is a Natural Conscience or the Law of Nature left in every man as God's deputy informing of some good and testifiing against some evils of which elsewhere he particularizeth murder and adultery and yet here he saith it is observed there is hardly one poynt of the Law of Nature which some nation hath not violated not only by their customs but by their very Laws If then their thus violating the Law of Nature do not prove they had not the Law of Nature or were not reproved by it which he himself has confessed all had then neither will their doing those things prove they had no Divine Light nor Seed or were not thereby reproved for if it prove they had not that it will as much prove they had no Natural Conscience no Law of Nature which yet he confesseth is in Every man ¶ 4. In this chapter also he would insinuat and infer to render that which he writes against odious that the asserting of an Universal Gospel by which Salvation may be possible to such as want outward preaching renders outward preaching needless but this cavill used often before by him is already answered in the 3 4 Sections and therefore what he repeats of this again here p. 229. 236. 245. needs no further answer And whereas he asks upon this occasion p. 244. how can the believing of the history of the Gospel be necessary as I say it is to such as hear it if they may be saved without it Because God commands every one to believe these Truths to whom he bringeth the knowledge of them albeit not them to whom he hath rendred it impossible Has he forgotten their own distinction of some things being necessary necessitate praecepti that are not so necessitate medii Neither do I intend by this belief which the proposing of the outward knowledge requires a belief meerly historical as he malitiously would insinuat I shall now take notice of his gross perversions and calumnies which as he advances I observe grow thicker and are in this chapter very numerous as first from my saying that we understand by the Light or Seed a Spiritual and Heavenly Principle in which GOD as he is the Father the Son and the Spirit dwelleth from this he infers p. 231. It may be he doth not acknowledge a Trinity c. But if there be any ground for such an inference from these words of mine I leave it to all rational men to judge Pag. 255. Because I say it is Christ's flesh and blood which came down from Heaven he asks if Christ had no other flesh and blood then as if I had answered He had not he concludes Us deniers of the incarnation of Christ asking Whether the death of Christ his resurrection and ascension and all the history of his Life be but dreams and lyes which malitious insinuation and perversion is returned upon him as false and groundless And whereas he saith here he will ask one word more Where I read that Christ's flesh and blood came down from heaven for so my words should be translated it seems he is either very ignorant or forgetfull of the Scripturs and therefore let him read John 6 51. where Christ saith he is the Living Bread that came down from heaven adding that Bread to be his Flesh. In like manner is his other malitious perversion denied and returned upon him where he would infer upon us that each of us esteemed our selvs as much the Christ of God as Christ was so that the blasphemy he exclaims against is his own who speaks evil of others without a cause Another of his perversions is p. 236. where repeating my words he rendereth them thus out of the Latine this is that inward Christ of which we Only and so often speak whereas it should have been translated which we so much and so often speak for as the English edition doth verifie the Latine word tantum signifies so much as wel as only and was so intended here by me that it must be so both the context and what I say elsewhere sheweth But he would have it only that he might pervert and rail the more liberally albeit he can not be ignorant that the Latine word tantum signifies so much as ordinary Dictionaries shew and Cicero saying nec tantum proficiebam quantum volebam nec quicquam posthac non modo tantum sed ne tantulum quidem praeterîeris Those who debate fairly use not to strain their adversaries words to abuse them when they know they may bear a better interpretation His next perversion is yet more gross and abusive p. 238. where from my denying that we equalour selvs to that Holy Man the Lord Jesus Christ c. in whom the fulness of the Godhead dwelt bodily he concludes I affirm him to be no more but a Holy Man and because I use the words plenitudo Divinitatis that I deny his Deity which is an abominable falshood I detest that doctrine of the Socinians and deny there is any ground for their distinction and when I confess him to be a Holy Man I deny him not to be GOD as this man most injuriously would insinuat for I confess him to be really both true God and true Man And whereas he rails and exclaims here and in the following page at a monstrous rate as if the comparison I bring of the difference betwixt every saint and the Man Jesus from the sap its being other ways in the Root and Stock of the Tree than in the branches did further confirm our equalling our selvs to him he doth but shew his folly since Christ himself useth the same comparison Ioh 15 5. I am the Vine ye are the branches to which I alluded and upon this he runneth out in a vehement strain of railing p. 239. exclaiming against us as if we denied the Deity of Christ and his Incarnation which is utterly false and therefore his work there to prove what I deny not is in vain And yet he repeateth this calumny p. 242. adding that my saying that we believe what is written of the Conception Birth Life and Death of Christ c. to be true doth not vindicat us from it and then he subjoyns Do you believe that that Body which was crucified at Jerusalem rose again and is now in glory Speak your mind here if you dare this defiance to all men of reason will insinuat as if I did not believe
relief to my desperat cause as he terms it he concludes this 11 Paragraph p 200. with one of his sententious sayings Quakers can dream waking I see He goes-on in answer to my proofs brought from the antient Philosophers to confirm this to which he resumes little but railing wherein I will not trouble the Reader to follow him since without them the thing in hand is sufficiently proved by Scriptur yet if he will affirm the citations to be either false or fictitious they may be proved by production of the books themselvs He thinks the impertinency of my citing Augustin's words is discovered by the bare reading and little less he saith to those of Buchanan which I refer to the Readers judgment as he will find them in my Apology towards the latter end of the explanation of the 5 and 6 Propositions and I will leave him concluding this chapter with railing and empty threats which I neither fear nor value as being without ground and the fruits of no better spirit than that of Rabshakeh Section Eighth Wherein his thirteenth Chapter Of Iustification is considered ¶ 1. I come now to his thirteenth chapter Of Justification where after he has begun by telling this doctrin hath been principally questioned by Heretiks which I deny not and given us according to his custom some large citations out of their Confession of Faith and Catechism with the supposed sense of other Quakers from some of his formerly mentioned partial Authors at last he comes pag. 296. n. 4. to examin what I say in this matter where according to his custom he begins with a calumny upon his own false supposition as if the justification I plead for were not the true justification of the Saints because proceeding from the Light which saith he is but the dimme light of nature This he takes for granted to be true and thence falsly makes his inference pag. 297 298. 307 308. 324. To this he adds another perversion as if because I say from the Light received proceeds an holy birth therefore there were no infusion of any gracious Principle or Vertue c. which is false Men use to say that where seed is received in the earth it grows up to fruit yet not without the influence of the Sun and descending of rain so is it with this Spiritual Seed but with this difference that where-ever this Seed is God is never wanting to give his Heavenly influences towards its growth advançment In this chapter also he omits not his railing calling us poor deluded Wretches c. with the repetition of which I will not trouble the Reader if he be pleased he may observe it pag. 227-299 316. 318 319. in several other places but especially where he endeth the chapter p. 324 325. I needed not at all trouble the Reader with his often re-iterared accusation of my joyning with the Papists since he saith I am worse and less orthodox than they in this matter p. 301. 309. were it not to shew him how his malice has blinded him for he confesseth p. 300. n. 8. that I condemn their meritum ex condigno and placing justification in such works as are rather evil than good and yet p. 305. he asks wherein I differ from the worst Papists So then such as assert meritum ex condigno and these other things denied by me are not in his sense the worst Papists let him reconcile this with the general sense of Protestants yea with great bitterness he quarreleth me for wronging the Papists p. 301. calling it a base falshood and deceit in me to say Papists do not place justification in any real inward renovation of the soul citing the words of the Councel of Trent and Bellarmin to the contrary but he must know if he will I will not be cheated by the fair words of Papists contrary to what mine ears have heard and eyes seen to be the general practice of their people and Preachers and that in a kingdom where their superstition less abounds than any place of their territories I know they place more vertue towards the inward renovation of the Soul in such things as are justly condemnable than in obedience to Christ's precepts and were it not that he is even glad to patronize the Papists that he might get some occasion to rail against me he could not but acknowledge this since he can not be ignorant whatever distinctions and fair words they have invented now to smooth their doctrin that all the first Reformers do with one voice affirm that before the Reformation there was a profound silence of any thing save their superstitious works pilgrimages and indulgences in the point of justification not only as to making just but even as to remission of sins which they asserted to be attained by such means Yet this man's charity can extend to palliat their hypocrisy that he may accuse me while yet in the same page as to me he lays-aside all his charity alledging most abusivly that it is but good words I give them about the satisfaction of Christ and that I deceive them with Socinian glosses and metaphorical senses which is a gross calumny like to which is his calumny p. 317. where he saith the Quakers talk of Christ's Sufferings and Death c. as all done within man ¶ 2 That the Reader may not be interrupted in the through examination of this point by his calumnies perversions and malitious insinuations which he bestows throughout most of his work to squeeze out of my words that he may render me either odious or ridiculous I will remove them in the first place ere I come to the main matter Of this kind is what he saith p. 297. where he plays upon me saying that justification is not by our work or works considered by themselvs as if this were a mighty absurdity to say works wrought in a man could in any sense not be called his which he reckons Phanaticism in folio But if this be so he must accuse Christ and the Apostle Paul of this Phanaticism and it shall not much trouble me to be accounted guilty with them albeit I lie under I. B's censur for it for Christ saith to his Apostles Mat. 10 20. For it is not ye that speak but the Spirit of your Father that speaketh in you and Mark 13 11. for it is not ye that speak but the Holy Ghost yet they uttered the words He must either here confess his shame albeit he term me a shameless man for saying that Christ's words confirm it or else condemn Christ was not this speaking a work of the Apostles and doth not Christ say it is not they and dare he call this a contradiction So then he may see in what respect good works considered otherwise than as meerly the works of men help in justification see also 1 Cor. 15 10. But I laboured more abundantly than they all yet not I but the grace of God which was with me So here the Apostle's labour is
but removing of the filth as wel as of the guilt is the act of God's Mercy and Grace as saith the Apostle Tit. 3 5 6. and yet we are saved and consequently justified according to his Mercy by the washing of Regeneration since this is the fruit of the Grace and Spirit of God freely given us And therefore it is not enough for him pag. 302. to affirm that I pervert the Apostle's words 2 Cor. 5 19 20. God was in Christ reconciling the World unto himself upon this bare supposition that this World is only understood of the Elect for if this reconciliation had been absolute and not in part only that is a readyness on God's part to be reconciled with them if they repent which I affirm to what purpose should the Apostle as an Embassadour intreat them to be reconciled there needed no intreaty to that which was already done neither are his meer assertions to this p. 303. any answer It is strange that to prove that all for whom Christ dyed are certainly made alive one time or other he brings these words And that he dyed for all that they which live should not hence forth live unto themselvs but unto him which dyed for them c. for he doth not say here that all he dyed for are made alive but that they that are made alive should so live neither doth the saying Christ has born the sins of all in his own body on the tree import any being actually freed of the guilt of sin untill they receive the condition as above be ye therefore reconciled unto God But he overturns what he earnestly pleaded for before p 310. n. 23. where he saith they owne not that reconciliation was so perfected by Christ on earth that there is nothing to be done by man in order to his actual justification if so then no man is actually justified untill something be done by him and this doing imports a work so here a work of man is necessary for justification and this is rather more than I say And if something be to be don on man's part ere actual justification be obtained then that which is don by Christ before must be only a potential justification and what is this more than a capacity of being justified which yet he batters against in me and yet he must confess this to distinguish himself from the Antinomians whose opinions albeit he divers times disclaims yet he shews not how he can liberat himself from it and therefore in contradiction to what is here observed both his assertions and proofs resolve in the Antinomian doctrin and concludes for it as much as for him which I might therefore pass all as impertinent But for instance his great example of a Cautioner or Surety used often as pag. 299. 310 311. for when a Cautioner pays a man's debt for him so soon as he lays down the money which is a sufficient intimation to him to whom the debt is due the person for whom it is paid is really acquited albeit he have done no act yea know not of it and this as I observed before himself acknowledgeth in the application saying p. 304. that some who are united to Christ by Grace and surely such are justified can neither see it nor acknowledge it So then if this example of his Surety hold true men are justified before they believe as say the Antinomians and therefore all the Scripturs brought by him p. 308. to prove that Christ made a proper real and full satisfaction in the behalf of men will conclude for the Antinomians as much as for him whereas p. 314. he looks upon it as a calumny to say they speak not of a real justification for he concludes p. 312. that imputative justification is real He argues for the Antinomians also since he accounts this imputation to be only of righteousness wrought without men by Christ in his own person for if by this imputation men be really justified then they are as much or at lest as really justified before they believe as after since faith is an act of man's will and no such thing according to him can have place in Justification and yet to go round he saith p. 308. that they say not that God justifieth any remaining in their sins But do they not say so since taking his opinion the safest way and furthest from Antinomians he concludeth a man justified in the act of conversion and such he supposes to have been great sinners yea and that they may not be purged from them many years after yea and how can they if they must sin daily as they say in thought word and deed of which more hereafter are not such then remaining in their sins according to them justified Pag. 306. N. 16. he would infer a contradiction upon me from saying good works are necessary as causa sino qua non for this he saith contradicts my saying We are justified by the inward birth and not by our works seing works being but the consequence of that birth is but the effect even a causa sine qua non must be before the effect on which he also insists p. 319. n. 38. But this contradiction is founded upon the supposition that this birth is brought forth without good works which I deny seing regeneration is a work of the Spirit in us by which we are justified that is really made just and the works which proceed therefrom are but a consequence of it And now as to his proofs and also his examining of mine they are inserted pag. 204. n. 13. where he saith that the redemption of Christ is a far other thing and hath far other effects than to make men capable of salvation even remission of sins But I never denied but that it brought remission of sins to such as embrace and receive it neither do the Scripturs cited by him prove more 2 Cor. 5 19. Dan. 9 24-26 Col. 1 19 20. Ephes. 1 11-15 Ioh. 17 2. Heb. 9 12 13. 2 Cor. 1 v. 20. none of which speak of the reconciliation made by Christ to be in itself more than procuring a capacity of Salvation other ways than as received and laid hold-on by believers and when it is spoken of with respect to such I never denied but it was more for the capacity is brought unto action he addeth the very texts cited by my self make against me Eph. 2. 15. he dyed to make in himself of twain one new man so making peace ver 13. but now in Christ Iesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ asking was this only a capacity of coming near but the Apostle here speaks of those who had received and not resisted the benefit of that capacity And whereas he saith 1 Joh. 4 10. the Son of God's being said to be a propitiation for our sins is more than a meer possibility of friendship But doth not the same Apostle say he is a propitiation for the whole World yet
not actually doing some work looks liker the objection of a man sleeping who knows not what he saith than of one awake for by the same way it might be said that Faith is not necessary since men do no more actually believe than do good works when they are sleeping My argument deduced from Heb. 12 14. Matth. 7 21. Iohn 13 17. 1 Cor. 7 19. Revel 22 14. he sayes proves the necessity of Works unto final Salvation but not to Iustification and if it do so it doth the business unles he will say that full and perfect justification is not sufficient to Salvation My answer to their first objection he observs but replies not to the second answering what they urge from Rom. 3 20. by the deeds of the Law there shall no flesh be justified which I shew is to be understood of works don and not by the Grace of God he answers that such are no good works at all But may not a man do some of the works which even the Moral Law commands such as not to committ murder theft or adultery without the Grace of God Hath not he confessed as much of some Heathens whom he judgeth not to have had the Grace of God and will he say these works are not materially good albeit not formally with a respect to any advantage as to Salvation they receive by them And though it should be confessed that all is not always requisite to be antecedent to justification which falls-out to be antecedent to Salvation yet the question is Whether there be any thing absolutly requisit to be antecedent to salvation which is not also absolutly requisit to be antecedent to justification If not then if works be absolutly necessary or so far as they are absolutly necessary to Salvation they must also be so to justification If he say other ways then as I observed before full and perfect justification according to him must not be esteemed sufficient to Salvation Pag 322. n. 42. He comes to prove the best works even those wrought by the Spirit in the Saints to be impure which before also he had affirmed pag. 307 there he would infer we say the same of good works because I affirm that works done by man's own strength are polluted but it will not thence follow we believe Works done by the Grace of God to be such But for this impurity of good works he marks Psal. 143 2. 130 3. Iob 9 16. none of which speak one word of good works thus understood then he mentions Esai 64 6 all our righteousness is as filthy rags but silently passeth over how I shew their own Authors as Calvin and Musculus c. affirm this not to be understood of Evangelical righteousness and himself overturns what he urges from this affirming that we ought not to call the work of the Spirit of God in his People filthy rags but if they were so they might be so called and yet he overturns it further by confessing some works wrought by the Apostles were undefiled then all the works wrought by the Spirit in the Saints can not be said to be impure which is their assertion And the instance of clean water passing through an unclean pipe doth not hold which is their great probation He will not contend with what I say about the word Merit neither hath he much against my conclusion in this matter yet that he may end this chapter like himself he concludeth it with a gross lye and railing saying I affirm a man may be regenerated without the least help of the Grace of God which as I wholly abhorr so there can not be a greater falshood alledged upon me Section Ninth Wherein his Fourteenth Chapter Of PERFECTION is considered ¶ 1. I come now to his XIV Chapter Of Perfection where after he has repeated my eighth Proposition he reckons it confidence in me to accuse their answer in their larger Catechism of speaking against the power of Divine Grace which saith that man is not able by any Grace of God received in this life to keep the commands of God But in stead of justifying this assertion he saith they are not ashamed of it then he recurreth a little to his Author Hicks according to his custom and falls a railing where among other great charges he accuseth the Quakers of Reproaching Revileing Calumnies Scolding and the like also pag. 329. speaking of bridling the tongue But he of all men should have been silent in this who is such a Railer in the Superlative degree that some of his own faith who have bad enough thoughts of the Quakers have said that he not only equals them but exceeds them in railing of his Railing in this chapter the Reader may further observe pag. 332. 345-349 Here as in his former chapter to enervat the perfection asserted by me he brings forth his old and often repeated Calumny as if I asserted this perfection to proceed meerly from the Light of Nature affirming the Light pleaded for by me p. 327. to be such as never came from the Grace of God to be flesh blindness enmity to God natural sensual c. affirming that I say Man is regenerated sanctified justified though not one ray of Divine Illumination hath shined into his Soul nor one act of Grace has reached either his intellect will or affection to cause this change the like p. 331. all which is most abominably false and never either believed or asserted by me and therefore all he concludes upon this malitious assertion falls to the ground and needs no further answer Next he bestows much pains p. 328 329. to shew from the Hebrew and Greek word that perfection is sometimes understood of sincerity and integrity and Perfection in these respects he thus defines in regeneration the whole man is changed so that he is now born a new creatur sanctified wholly in mind heart spirit affections Conscience memory and body though but in a small measur or degree and again yeelding impartial obedience through the Grace of God unto all God's precepts waving none But if he will stand by what he here asserts I will desire no more albeit he falsly say in the following page that all this will not satisfie us for I would desire the next time he would reconcile this with breaking the commands daily in thought word and deed To prove this he insists in contradiction to what he said before p. 330. n. 7. and his proofs are 1. because in Christ's house there are diverse syzes and degrees of persons as babes or little children young men old men and this is not denied but the thing he should have proved is that none of those degrees can be without daily breaking God's commands His second proof is yet more rare Christians are exhorted to grow in Grace to put-off the old man which is corrupt to put-on the New Man to mortifie their members Very good but is to break the commands daily in thought word and deed the way to grow
he saith further in that paragraph is above answered To my argument shewing that if the Inward testimony of the Spirit be not thought needfull the Gospel-Ministery should be postponed to the Legal he most ridiculously answers then the Jews needed to doubt of the Priests and Levits whereas my argument was if they were certain and we should be uncertain it would make the Evangelical worse than the Legal and therefore to this he returneth nothing further but railing Pag. 373. n. 10. he asketh how I will prove that all such as want the call of the Spirit come not in by the door but are thievs and robbers affirming here a man may come in the way appointed by Christ though they want this whereas before pag. 369. and in the end of this page he affirms the necessity of an inward call saying they must have an inward call I run not out as he alledgeth upon a mistake in saying the succession of the Church is objected against this doctrin albeit I. B. and his We may not do so since I write to others than he will perhaps include in his We. He bestoweth his n. 12. pag. 374. in railing and referring to what is formerly said by him pag. 375. n. 13. To my answer to that objection that who pretend to an immediat call should prove it by miracles shewing it was the same objected by Papists against the primitive Protestants he in a frothy manner desires me to take it thus and it will be too hot for my fingers that they who had immediat calls from God were able to give evidence of the same by miracles or some other evident testimony of the Spirit which to contradict had been iniquity and utterly unreasonable I grant the whole and therefore desire him to shew me and prove it what way the first Reformers did thus evidence their call which is not done by those called Quakers but his probation must be somewhat solider than the railing with which he filleth up the rest of this paragraph Pag. 376. n. 14. as it should be marked he argueth against my saying that such as receive and believe the call of true Ministers verify it and become the signes of their Apostleship 2 Cor. 13 3. albeit this was the very answer given by Beza to Claudius Espenseus at the conference of Poissy and let him urge this if he can any way against us which may not be as wel urged by Protestants against Papists and if he can not he doth but work for his great Father the Pope to whom to their great shame the Protestant Clergy begin to recurr to justify their calling Having ended this paragraph with railing he begins the next with a silly groundless perversion and inference viz that because I say that this to wit the inward Life and Vertue which is in true Ministers is that which giveth to the Minister the true and substantial call and title it follows that the extraordinary call was no true and substantial title as if any extraordinary call wanted this life and vertue and that albeit it prove an evidence to such as receive them yet some may have it who are rejected of rebellious men To prove the necessity of laying-on of hands he asketh Why then were hands laid upon Paul and Barnabas Act. 13 3. citing other places Answ. Because there was then a Spiritual vertue communicated by that action which they ascribe not to theirs yea the places cited by him prove it as Mark 16 18. Luk 13 13. where the laying-on of hands is said to cure the sick I said not that the laying-on of hands always was the giving of the Holy Ghost it is enough if it was a communicating of some spiritual vertue which by their own confession theirs is not After he has ended this paragraph with railing he ends this chapter with observing the infallibility pleaded for in Ministers by some Quakers but if he judgeth them to errin this he should have applied himself to them answering the arguments by which they vindicat what they say in that matter ¶ 3. I come now to his 18 chapter of Ministerial Qualifications where after he has begun and repeated some words of mine he will have the Grace of God to respect not the esse or being but benè esse or wel-being of a Minister albeit elsewhere he would be mincing this and eating it up yet it appears to be his belief to prove which he asketh pag. 380. what I think of Balaam who is called a Prophet not a false Prophet But he hath not proven that no more is required in a Gospel Minister than in a Prophet meerly to fore-tell things to come God's speaking to him urgeth nothing for God spake also to Cain as himself confesseth chap. 3. yet it will not follow that Cain had all the qualifications requisit to a Gospel-Minister To my answer of Iudas that they had not proved he wanted Grace when called he refers to what is written of the possibility of falling from Grace to which also I refer it and in this also resolveth what he saith pag. 380. n. 4. in his very first paragraph he has his old calumny that all the power vertue and life of the Spirit according to me is not to be understood of what is imported by these words in Scriptur and this he insinuateth again pag. 379 380-384 but as this is false so what is built upon it falls to the ground Because I deny the absolute necessity of humane learning to the Ministery therefore he insinuats as if I thought it utterly useless pag. 379. which is false And so what he saith p. 382 383 384. to prove the usefulness of natural Sciences is to no purpose against me who deny not their usefulness among men nor yet say when wel improved they are useless to a Minister or that such things may not be improved by a Minister when acted by the Spirit so to do as Paul did the saying of the Heathen Poet. The thing then I only deny is that they are absolutely needfull qualifications to a Minister What he mentions to be said by Calvin of the Philosophy spoken of by Paul Col. 2 8. I can very wel agree to without prejudice to any thing said by me I do not say as he falsly affirms p. 383. that Learning and Grace are contradictory And whereas he saith he is far from saying that Learning is more necessary than Grace he doth but cheat his Reader and contradict himself and his learned Mr. Durham who makes Grace only needfull to the wel-being but Learning to the being of a Minister And their admitting of Ministers shews this for they will admit none till they be sure he has Learning but many whom they are not sure have Grace yea upon the supposition they want Grace yet they think they ought to be held and reputed by the People as true and lawfull Ministers And whereas he insinuateth pag. 383. that I bring-in a fable which he saith I have ready
plead so tenaciously for the other Let him give a reason for this next and by the same we shall answer what he urges from this but he must remember it is not enough for him barely to say these were extraordinary and are ceased and the other ordinary and remain but he must prove it by plain Scriptur or else be justly rejected as but begging the question as he doth pag. 394. where he supposeth there were only 13 Apostles or perhaps 14 if Barnabas be accounted one since he confesseth the word signifies one sent and therefore whoever is sent is properly an Apostle Thus also will his other argument return upon his own head for since such as he saith were settled and ordained in the Church by Christ and his Apostles how come they to walk so contrary to Christ's Order as to want yea and to judge such unnecessary in their Church And as for all the Scripturs cited by him to shew the distinction of such Church Officers from other Members they are not to the purpose against me who deny not but Members were to be distinguished but yet that proves not that any Member was barred from these exercises when called by the Spirit thereto which is the thing in question As for his saying that the Apostle is speaking of the Church 1 Cor. 12. as an Organical body if he means the Apostle is comparing the Church to a Body to which it answers in many respects I deny not but if he say that it answers in all I leave him to prove it however then if we make application of it as the Apostle illustrateth it their Church will prove a very lame one for in this Body as I. B. himself observs the Apostle names Apostles and Prophets and if we may suppose that these as being the most eminent are the chiefest Members as the eyes and ears of the Body their Church that wanteth these must be blind and deaf And whereas he would make my saying that the Apostle meaned here different operations ridiculous he but sheweth his own folly for if the Apostle point at different Offices they will not only want Apostles Prophets and Evangelists but a great many more for the Apostle nameth also verse 28. miracles gifts of healing helps governments diversitys of tongues c. these then must all be distinct Offices also how come they to want them in their Church or how can they plead for these they have more than for such as are placed nothing less by way of distinct Officers than they Yea all the several titles enumerated by him pag. 390. will prove the same way distinct Officers and how came they to cashier all these and reduce them to so few a number By what authority and Scriptur warrant do they this But I would enquire at him what an Office is if it be not an operation of the Spirit more particularly working in some persons under such a designation And this is proved by the coincidency of these Offices in one person which he confesseth that some are thence more particularly called to the work of the Ministery I acknowledge and he observs it That God will move none to violat the Order established in his house I deny not but that to move some at times to speak is a violation of that Order I deny since the Apostle saith the contrary 1 Cor. 14 31. we may all prophesy In answer to which he supposeth this is restricted to Prophets but the Text saith all not all Prophets albeit it were no absurdity to suppose all the Lord's People to be Prophets in this sense as wel as they are said to be Kings and Priests and the words following shew it that all may learn and all may be comforted for it were non-sense to understand this with a restriction And therefore his bare asserting that this contradicts the plain scop of the place is no argument for men of reason who resolve not to build their faith upon his meer say so pag. 395. he thinketh my acknowledging that some are more particularly called to the work of the Ministery than others is not enough because they are not to exhort but when moved by the Spirit and others when moved may as wel as they so there is no difference That Ministers ought not to preach or exhort without the Spirit 's motion or assistance will come afterwards to be proved and to suppose God can not or will not move any but Ministers by his Spirit to exhort were to limit him which is presumptuous in us to do but in this appeareth the difference that we confess many may and know thousands among us whom we acknowledge to be good men and sufficiently endued with the Spirit towards the work of regeneration in themselvs and brotherly love and care to their brethren who never find themselvs moved to speak a word in publike and there are others whom God calleth to make teaching and the oversight of the Church so their constant business that they are less engaged in worldly affairs than the generality of those called Clergy-men even among I. B's Brethren and therefore are owned and honoured and so far as need requires maintained by the Church But to say that no man ought without he be thus particularly called at any time speak in a publik assembly since we say that they ought not but when moved by the Spirit is not only to accuse us but imperiously bind up God from moving with his Spirit whom and when he pleaseth and this being applied will answer his querys pag. 369. where n. 14. he affirms that to suppose Ministers may use an honest trade is to account the work of the Ministery a light business But this is to account it no more a light business than the Apostle did who recommended working with their hands for a livelyhood to the Elders of the Church of Ephesus Act. 20 34 35. giving them his own example in so doing But they indeed must have small experience of a true Ministery who do not know a man may be better qualified to discharge it by being inwardly exercised in the Spirit and instructed thereby than by all the labour and study they can derive from their books and perhaps it may be true which he after affirms that such who bring their preaching always out of books will find little time to follow another trade but it seems such Preachers are uncapable to follow the Apostle's exhortation above mentioned and therefore we will justly conclude them to be no true Gospel-Ministers ¶ 5. That he may be like himself he begins his 20 chapter of Woman-Peachers with railing saying the Quakers are against all the appointments and ordinances of Christ then he goeth-on at a high rate enveighing against the liberty of Womens speaking from Paul's words 1 Cor. 14 34. as being against the Law as being contrary to modesty and shamefacedness urging pag. 398. the Apostle's authority in writing that epistle which we deny not and then he urgeth against us
1 Tim. 2 11. alledging that its being said Adam was first formed and then Eva and Eva being first in the transgression infers that Womens preaching is against the Law of Nature and that this silence is imposed upon Women as a just judgment for Eva's transgression for this last inference we have nothing but his affirmation to the former I answered in my Apology shewing that these words of the Apostle can not be taken absolutely and without limitation since the same Apostle giveth rules how Women should behave themselvs in their praying and preaching in the Church But he reckons that this is for me to make the Apostle contradict himself while this is his own case who takes the Apostle's words without limitation else there is not the least contradiction yea his desiring them to ask their husbands at home shews that it can not be taken universally seing all women have not husbands And for his saying that what the Apostle saith chap. 11 v. 5. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered c. is not to be meant of their carriage when they are praying themselvs but when they are present at others doing of it this is his bare affirmation without proof contrary to the express words of the Text which saith every woman that prayeth c. not when she heareth another pray And by this way it might be as easily affirmed where the Apostle in the same place speaks of mens praying with their heads covered that it is not when they pray themselvs but when they hear others And that there must be a limitation he confesseth saying that the Lord made use of Prophetesses of old and that he is free to make use of whom be will If so then if the Lord do so now who dare plead against it Yea the practice of 1. B.'s brethren doth contradict this Scriptur if they will not admit a limitation for will he deny but heretofore at Presbyterian meetings where sometimes 20 and 30 and more have been together Women have both spoken and prayed yea been invited and urged to do so by eminent preachers there present And is not that properly a Church where Christians are met together to worship God and edify one another If he say this was only private I answer However Privat it was it was still a Church for it is not the greatness of the number that makes the Church since the fewer number may more properly sometimes be esteemed the Church than the greater And if he take the Apostle's words absolutely without limitation it will exclude Women from speaking in any assembly met for Religious worship and exercise unless he will be so superstitious as to ascribe the Church ship to the old Popish Mass-house walls and if so it will trouble him to prove there were any such in Corinth used by Christians when the Apostle wrot to them so as to think that if women speak not there they do not speak in the Church And yet how comes it that by the Acts of the General Assembly whoores are not only permitted but constrained to speak in the most publick Assemblys and that in a place allotted for them no less eminent than the Pulpit Sure if such Women may there speak of their sins and tell how they have been tempted of the Devil good Women moved by the Spirit of God may tell what God has done for them in preserving them from such evils Neither will it serve to say that it is not authoritative speaking for the Apostle's words are I permit not a Woman to speak not I permit her not to speak authoritatively for the words added nor to usurp authority over the man is a distinct precept Women may usurp authority over their men who never offer to preach in the Church as also some may speak there who may be very subject to their husbands Besides they permit women to sing publickly which is a speaking and actual part of God's worship Now there is not a word in the Text of these exceptions more than the other and let him prove them if he can from the Scriptur without making way for Womens preaching He confesseth pag. 400. that Women may be instrumental in conversion privatly but not publickly and for his saying he will suspect the conversion that way wrought rather to be a delusion he but telleth his own conjectur that so he may conclude this chapter according to his custom with Railing ¶ 7. Pag. 401. He begins his 21 chapter of Ministers Maintainance with a manifest perversion insinuating as if I were joyning with such who are against Ministers maintainance which is utterly false as by what I say upon that subject doth evidently appear But indeed the man contendeth here very warmly and with might and main and tooth and nail as they say albeit the thing he pleads for as to the substantial part of it be not denied but it will not satisfie him to grant as I do that the Ministers should receive temporal things from them to whom they minister Spiritual or that their necessitys should be supplied No he will have it to be an honorary as he calls it and that a large one too for so Pag. 405. he interprets 1 Tim. 5 17 18 as if double honour could not be given without large giving of money It seems poor folks with him can not give double honour nor fulfill this command of the Apostle it is only the rich folks honor who can give largely that he regards yea he reckons this giving liberally to Ministers a sowing to the Spirit for so he interpreteth Gal. 6 8. By all which it is manifest that to give liberally to Ministers goeth with him for a great article of Faith but the question only lieth betwixt us concerning a limited and forced maintainance for a sumptuous he can not for shame but seem to disclaim and a necessary yea what in any true sense can be so called I confess therefore as what he saith of our denying it is false so what he urgeth to prove it as to us is superfluous As for a constrained or forced Maintainance I desire him next time to prove it from Scriptur since he has not yet done it nor indeed can he by any thing there written since what is there said is only by way of such exhortation as liberality and charity is injoyned which albeit he saith confidently he has convicted of falshood but he hath said it and that is all for there were then no Christian Magistrats to limit or constrain such as would not give the conclusions and determinations of the Magistrat and People make it not lawfull in it self as all that hath been given either by Heathen or Popish Magistrats or People out of Superstition may be lawfull for Ministers to receive and indeed many of them begin to call that the Churches patrimony and reckon it sacrilege for others than Church-men as they call them to meddle with it He knows not how to turn-by Paul's
to the Spirit 's influences He would seem to say it were since it is but some and a may be some too with him that do so And whereas he tels of some that are constrained to change their text and what they bad purposed to speak upon it this shews the case is but rare and therefore I am not to be blamed for what I say in general of Preachers among Papists and Protestants whose general way is to prepare aforehand what they preach and then speak it to the People at a set hour without waiting for the leading of the Spirit or whether they have its influence or not And for all the weight that this man would seem to lay sometimes upon the Spirit 's influence and concurrence yet he gives shrewd presumptions that he doth it but pro forma else how comes he to urge as an absurdity pag. 445. that all that Ministers preach by the Spirit must be true And why not If it be from the Spirit it can not be other ways yet men whose principle it is to speak from the Spirit may through weakness and mistake preach false doctrin yet the Spirit is not to be blamed for it but those who keep not purely to it I suppose he will not deny but all that which men preach according to the Scriptur is infallibly true it will not thence follow that all that which men whose principle it is to preach acccording to Scriptur preach is true because that through weakness they may mistake the true meaning of the Scriptur Also what he adds if the matter be thus it is all one whether the Preacher be young or old for it is not he that speaketh but the Spirit in him for this savoureth not of a Christian Spirit to seek to draw an absurdity or make a mock of that which is no other than Christ's express words Matth. 10 20. Mark 13 3. and indeed what he saith in this page N. 9. in answer to these Scripturs seemeth rather a mock at Christ his Apostles than any answer asking me if I know not that Christ gave them their Preaching with them telling them what they should say And as ye go preach saying The Kingdom of God is at hand And a little after he saith they had their sermon taught them before hand But dare he say that Christ's words before mentioned were therefore false This he must say or else prove nothing Or will he say that the Apostles in all that progress said nothing but these seven words The Kingdom of God is at hand For according to him this was all they said which they had learned aforehand and not as the Holy Ghost taught them in that hour what to say albeit it be Christ's express words Luk 12 12. Pag. 447. to my argument that according to their doctrin the Devil himself ought to be heard seing he knoweth the notion of Truth and excelleth many of them in learning and eloquence he answers Why doth the man thus speak untruth Do we say that every one though he were the Devil if he speak truth should be heard Do they not say that men ought to be heard and accounted as Ministers albeit void of the true Grace of God if having the formality of the outward call And to prove this do not they bring the example of Judas whom Christ called a Devil And they suppose him to have been such even when sent by Christ deserved to be heard as his Apostle Let him consider then how he can shun what I have affirmed And albeit the Devil may speak without study yet he can not be said to speak by the Spirit of God which is the thing we affirm needfull to Gospel preaching And for his last argument pag. 448. that since extraordinary gifts ceased there hath been no ordinary way of Preaching but by ordinary gifts studied and acquired it is but a bare begging of the question and the same upon the matter with his new enforced objection which I answered towards the beginning of my third section of Immediat Revelation ¶ 4. I come now to his 24th chapter of Prayer and as to his first paragraph there needs no debate for except some railing intermixed I own what is asserted in it as to the necessity of Prayer and its being through Christ as Mediator In the next he alledgeth I speak untruely in saying that the acts of their Religion are produced by the strength of the natural will for they can pray when they please but how truely this is affirmed concerning them will after appear albeit in opposition to it after citing a passage out of the larger Catechism he saith they owne the influences of the Spirit as absolutely necessary to this duty which if he would hold to there needed no further debate I should agree to it for he doth untruely state the question when he saith a little after that the motions and inspirations I plead for are extraordinary which is false and never said by me and therefore his building on it is in vain as wel here as pag. 452. 457-459 461. where he insinuats that I judge not the gratious and ordinary influences of the Spirit a sufficient warrand to pray which is false What he saith pag. 451. of the necessity of Prayer at some times and of the Scripturs mentioning Prayers being made three times a day I deny not nor is it to the purpose The question is Whether any can pray acceptably without the Spirit We see he hath granted they can not then the thing to be proved is Whether the general command authorizeth any to set about it albeit in a manner which is granted will not avail and is unacceptable So the matter resolves in examining what he can say from Scriptur or other ways to prove this and that there may be no mistake let it be considered that I deny not the general obligation to pray upon all so that they who do not pray sin albeit they be not sensible of the Spirit 's help enabling them to do it but that the way to avoid this sin is not to commit another to pray with out the Spirit but to wait for the Spirit that they may pray acceptably seing without it though they should use words of Prayer it would be no fulfilling of the command And first then to what he argueth pag 452. from the reïterated commands of God to pray I answer that God's command lays upon man an obligation to pray I deny not but God commands no man to pray unacceptably God commands the right performance of Prayer and this he has confessed can not be without the Spirit therefore God commands no prayer without the Spirit neither is the command answered or fulfilled by such as pray without it To this he objecteth pag. 453 458. that the same Moral dutys might be shifted untill the Spirit lead to them and also natural acts of sleeping eating c. which are abomination in the wicked yet to go round he
quod in se est Deus non denegat gratiam i. e. God will not deny Grace to such as do what they can And indeed this allowing men to perform Spiritual dutys without the allowance of the Spirit as this man doth pleading for it and reckoning the contrary absurd pag. 453. is compleat Pelagianism and doth clearly import that man by the working of Nature can acquire the Spirit and can do something in order to obtaining the Spirit of himself before he have it and thence this man pleads so much pag. 451. for the general use of Prayer from the Light and Law of Nature let him reconcile this if he can with his other doctrins and clear himself of Pelagianism And it is so much the more considerable that he has faln into this pit of which he so often falsly accuseth me as also pag. 461. He asketh again pag. 460. why we come to their places of Worship if our Conscience be hurt in joining with them and thence he concludes it is to do open contempt This is but his malitious conjectur we come not there but in obedience to the Lord when moved by his Spirit so to do to bear a faithfull testimony against all superstition and will-worship for it is not pleasant to us to come there where for the most part we are saluted with knocks and stones and other such brutish and Paganish dealings by their Church Members which is the fruit of their holy things and whereunto the People are often encouraged by their Preachers who sometimes shew an example of this themselvs and of whose barbarous actions even by the Presbyterian Preachers there is a book extant entituled of Fighting Priests giving account how many of them fell upon these innocent servants of the Lord with their own hands and I my self have seen of the present Preachers of Scotland do it As for his flouting at the Quakers for laying claim to a Spirit of discerning so as to distinguish who pray from the Spirit and who not he doth but therein declare himself to be none of Christ's sheep who are said to know his voice from that of a stranger And as for his saying that the Quakers judge of this by the mimical postur of the body it is false and would agree far rather to his Brethren whose affected posturs of body as wel as their nonsensical and absurd expressions in Prayer have disgusted many of their way of which I could give some eminent instances but that I spare them at present The example I gave of their excluding some from their Sacrament of the Supper so called doth not halt as he affirmeth pag. 462. as to the main for if the command to take it is with presupposition of examination so the command of praying is with the presupposition of its being in the Spirit in which all Worship is now to be Praying always in the Spirit Eph. 6 18. To my shewing in answer to their objection of Peter his commanding Simon Magus to pray that he sayes repent and pray after a meer assertion without proof he sayes he sees that with our Quaker a graceless person can repent but not pray To which I answer if he speak of possibility I believe a graceless person may both repent and pray but as he can not repent without Grace so not pray without the Spirit but Grace worketh in all if not resisted as the Spirit doth in all to Prayer when they have received the Grace in measur but that some measur of repentance must go before prayer himself I judge will hardly deny since the very offering to pray importeth in the person applying himself thereunto a sense of his iniquity and a desire to be delivered from it for which end he approacheth to God to demand pardon and help to amend ¶ 6. Now I come to his 25th chapter of Singing Psalmes where I shall not need to be large I deny not as he observs singing but to justify their custom of singing David's conditions by which many are made as I observed in my Apology to speak lyes in the presence of God He objecteth the practice of the Iews But their practice in matters of Worship without a Gospel precept is not a rule to us Neither doth the instance given by him of Psal. 66 6. answer the matter for the Jews might very wel praise the Lord for the deliverance of their fore-Fathers out of Egypt but that will not allow Drunkards and impenitent persons to say They water their couch with tears as by singing Psalmes many do which is false As for his saying they do but praise God for what he hath done for others why do they not express it so then And whereas he asketh whether the Spirit inspireth the meter in the song and the tone of the singing he sheweth his folly and lightness while he ridiculously supposeth that Meter is necessar or any other Tone than Nature hath given to every one of which God by his Spirit maketh use as an instrument as he doth of other parts and facultys of the body to the performing of Spiritual dutys And the like folly he sheweth when he tels what they do not in Scotland since he knows it was not particularly or only against the things practised in Scotland that I write in that Apology Section Thirteenth Wherein his 26th Chapter Of Baptisme is considered ¶ 1. OUr Author to shew how angry and froward he resolvs to be in this chapter makes his first paragraph a compleat stick of railing he begins with telling that the Paganish Antichristian Spirit which reigneth and rageth in the Quakers manifesteth a perfect and compleat hatred at all the Institutions of our Lord Jesus Christ and he endeth with this exclamation O! what desperat Runagadoes must these men be More of this kind may be seen pag. 472 473 474. 480 481. As for what he adds from several Scripturs of Baptisme pag. 466 467. what of it relates to the weight of the question will be examined afterwards He gives us here a citation out of their larger Catechism and then comes at last pag. 468. n. 4. to examin what I say in the matter where upon my urging the many contests among Christians concerning these things called Sacraments as one reason against them he concludes I might as wel plead against all Christianity because of the many debates about it and with this conceit he pleaseth himself a little which only evidenceth his malitious genius for I should never have used that as an only argument and did not use it at all but as having many other considerable ones against their use of these things and therefore I add that these things contended for are meer shaddows and outward things Then to cover their making use of the word Sacrament which is not to be found in Scriptur he objecteth my making use of the word fermentation and of the Vehicle of God but I use not to make use of these words when I speak Scots or English but these