Scriptures I say to the satisfaction of a man or womans owne conscience in what they are to believe yea those to whom God hath given a more excellent measure of understanding in the mystery of Christ revealed in the Scriptures these may in some measure judge or be inferiour Judges of spirituall things and of private mens opinions in the Controversies of Faith For the Spirit of the Prophets 1 Cor. 14.32 is subject to the Prophets but all private spirits of men in the world yea the Pope himselfe and all the Quakers they are and must bee subject one day to the voice of Gods Spirit speaking in the holy Scriptures and that word of Christ recorded in holy Scriptures shall judge them all at the last day witnesse our Saviour himselfe John 12.48 The Quaker abuseth other places of holy Scripture But the Answers I have given may satisfie any understanding Reader I shal name only one more from Nayler and his fellow Quakers which seems to conclude against the Scriptures excellency and authority of being chiefe Judge of Controversies of Faith calling the holy Scriptures a dead letter and the letter that killeth all to discountenance the credit of the Scriptures to exalt their owne private spirit The place of Scripture they pervert is that of the Apostle 2 Cor. 3.6 Who hath made us able Ministers of the New Testament not of the letter but of the Spirit for the letter killeth but the Spirit giveth life I might answer at large shew how the letter is taken in severall places of Scripture and evidence the falshood of Naylers application of this place also but in briefe The letter is taken 1. Propperly for the first Elements or beginnings of learning for the letters in severall languages from which by spelling and putting together are made syllables and words and sentences in and by which the mind of God and men is held forth to our understanding as in those letters of Greek and Latine and Hebrew which were written over Christ upon his Crosse Luke 23.38 And these letters may be called dead letters because of themselves they signifie nothing to declare the mind of the writer except they be joined and put together inâ— syllables words and sentences Againe Improperly and more generally letters are taken severall waies in Scripture for Epistles private or publick 2 Cor. 3.6 c. And in that place alledged The letter killeth The Apostle doth speak of the Law which he opposeth to the Gospell which is the ministration of the Spirit as will appear plainly if the Chapter be truly looked into yea the Law it selfe doth not properly kill of it selfe but is said to kill when men break it and so are become subject to death by sinning against it Rom. 7.12 13. Rom. 6.27 Psal 119.50 for the wages of sinne is death otherwise the Law and word of God doth quicken as David found by experience Psal 119. And the written words of God are lively oracles Acts 7.38 Heb. 4.12 2 Tim. 3.16 17 as the blessed Martyr Stephen witnessed yea mighty in operation and able to make us wise to salvation and therefore most fit to be the chiefe Judge of Controversies of Faith whatsoever the deluding Quakers pretend to the contrary Thus I have done with the first Question I come now to the second Question Mr Bourns Argument The second Question Whether the private Spirit in the Pope or in any Quaker be the chiefe Judge of Controversies of Faith This was denyed and Mr Bourne proved the negative by this Argument No Spirit which is subject to tryall it selfe can be the chiefe Judge of Controversies of Faith but the private Spirit in the Pope or in any Quaker is subject to tryall it self therefore the private Spirit in the Pope or in any Quaker cannot be the chiefe Judge of any Controversies of Faith The first proposition was not denied and the second is witnessed 1 John 4. Beloved believe not every spirit but try the spirits whether they be of God for many false Prophets are gone out into the world And here you may see the Evangelist giveth a generall rule for Christians to try the spirit all spirits in any man yea all that pretend to the Spirit of God as the Pope and the Quakers doe therefore their spirits are to be tried and so are not fit to be chiefe Judges of Controversies of Faith Naylers Answer James Nailer wrangled about the Spirit but gave no satisfying answer to the Argument but said the Spirit was not a private spirit if he was but in one against a hundred and said the Spirit was in them and he was Judge in them as if the Spirit in the Quaker were a publick infallible Spirit and so fit to be the chief Judge of Controversies of Faith which cannot be for if the Spirit of the Prophets be subject to the Prophets 1 Cor. 14.32 then much more the Spirit in the Pope or in any Quaker subject to tryall and therefore they cannot bee the chiefe Judges of Controversiies of Faith Mr Bourns 2 Argument Then Mr Bourne pressed a second Argument No Spirit which is a Spirit of Errour lying and false accusation is or can be a chiefe Judge of Controversies of Faith But the Spirit in the Quaker and in James Nayler in particular is a Spirit of Errour lying and false accusation therefore that Spirit in them cannot be a chiefe Judge of Controversies of Faith The first proposition is cleare because a chiefe Judge must and ought to have in him a Spirit not of errour lying and false accusation but a Spirit of truth and righteousnesse that he may bee directed to give true judgement and not to wrest or give wrong sentence for this is contrary to the Law of God Exod 23.6 7. Thou shalt not wrest the judgement of the poor in his cause and keep the farre from a false matter c. Therefore a Spirit of lying and Errour and false accusation is not fit to be a chiefe Judge of Controversies especially not of Controversies of Faith And for the second proposition that the Spirit in the Quaker and in James Nayler in particular is a Spirit of Errour lying and false accusation Mr Bourne proved it by these Arguments Mr Bournes Argument Whatsoever Spirit did or doth affirme and falsely accuse the Ministers of Christ in England that they erre and are false Teachers because they say the books of Matthew Marke Luke and John are the Gospell that is a Spirit of Errour lying and false accusation But the Spirit that is in James Nayler and some of his fellow Quakers did or doth accuse the Ministers of Christ in England that they erre and are false Teachers because they affirme the books of Matthew Marke Luke and John to be the Gospell therefore the Spirit in the Quakers and in James Nayler in particular is a Spirit of Errour lying and false accusation and so not fit to be chiefe Judge of Controversies of Faith To
and holiness and by our own good conversation 1 Pet. 2.15 put to silence the scandals of malicious the ignorance of foolish men that God wil give repentance free pardon in Christ to all our Adversaries who complain of us as contentious because though after long sufferings we seeke in a just and lawfull way to recover our due and just Rights which they unjustly detaine from us desiring if it be the will of God that they may obtaine salvation in the Lord Jesus and be delivered from wrath to come and that one day they may enjoy a happy and peaceable communion with us in glory and to conclude daily powring out my soule to God That the Lord the great Protector of Sion will be pleased to preserve his Highness and Honourable Councell and you my Honourable Lords and the rest of the Honourable Judges Justices Magistrates and other Worthies who are Actors for Piety and Peace to Gods glory and the benefit of these Nations together with this whole Common wealth in Truth Unity and Peace long to continue Most humbly subscribing my selfe Your Honours daily Oratour at the Throne of Grace Immanuel Bourne Pastor of the Church in Ashover London Feb. 26. 1655. A Defence of the Scriptures and of the Holy Spirit of God speaking in them as the chiefe Judge of Controversies of Faith c. In a Disputation at Chesterfield in the County of Darby Jan. 3. 1654. FIrst when the Ministers came to the Church or Meeting House-yard Iames Nayler was there with his company but seemed unwilling to goe into the Church or Church-House yet at last went into the lower end and stood there But when Mr Billingsley Minister of Chesterfield began with praier to God for a blessing upon the meeting Nayler and his fellowes went forth againe pretending some plot might be against them But after praier assurance given there was none they came in againe Secondly Mr John Billingsley began to read the Questions But after Nayler read them in the Paper sent to him as I take it and then began to read his Answer in writing and when he had read his Answer to the first Question it was desired that that Question and his Answer to that might be first Argued and so the rest afterwards in order Question 1 The first Question was Whether the Spirit of God speaking in the Scriptures bee the chiefe Judge of Controversies of Faith Mr Bourne shewed Nayler the Bible and asked him if he would owne that as Gods word he answered part of it or to that effect First For the state of the Question By the Spirit was meant the Spirit of God 1 Iohn 5.7 the third Person in Trinity one with the Father and the Sonne Secondly by the Scriptures the Canonicall books of the Old and New Testament Thirdly By the Spirit of God speaking in the Scriptures that voice or speaking forth of Gods Spirit recorded in Scripture which is there now to be found so whether the holy Scriptures or Spirit in them be judg This state was not so fully opened by reason of disturbance even in the entrance Nayler endeavouring to avoid this Question Naylers Answer Nayler in his Answer owned the Spirit that did speake in the holy men who gave forth the holy Scriptures to be Judge and said that Spirit was Judge before the Letter was written and all Controversies were judged by that Spirit but hee did not owne that Spirit that doth now speak in the Scriptures Hee said hee granted the Spirit was Judge and would have avoided the Question Mr Bournes Reply But Mr Bourne pressed to go on with the Question and affirmed it was one thing to say the Spirit that did speake in the holy men that gave out the Scriptures was Judge and another to say the Spirit of God speaking in the Scriptures was Judge or that the holy Scripture was Judge Therefore pressed to go on with the Question and began as I remember with this Reason Mr Bourns 1 Argument Whatsoever was and is the speaking forth of the Holy Ghost himselfe that was and is the chiefe Judge of Controversies of Faith but the holy Scriptures are the speaking forth of the holy Spirit himselfe therefore they are the chiefe Judge of Controversies of Faith The first proposition was not denied and the second was proved Acts 1.16 the Scripture which the holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake concerning Judas Here it is evident what Scriptures David writ or spake by writing that the Holy Ghost spake Therefore the holy Scripture is the speaking forth of the Holy Ghost and so judge of Controversies The same again witnessed by the Spirit Acts 28.25 wel spake the Holy Ghost by the mouth of Isaias the Prophet saying c. Here you see the Holy Ghost is witnessed by the Apostle Paul to speak by the mouth of Isaias and that Scripture which Isaiah writ was the speaking forth of the Holy Ghost and so the supreme Judge of Controversies c. Naylers Answer Nayler gave no direct answer but he wrangled and said he did owne the Spirit to be Judge but not the written word or to that effect and that the Spirit did speak not in the dead but in the living which was as I did understand him not in the dead letter of the Scripture but in living men and vapoured as if he had said much but yet would have avoided the Question as needlesse to be further disputed on since he did yield the Spirit to be Judge although he denyed that the Spirit speaking in Scripture was the chiefe Judge of Controversies of Faith But Mr Bourn went on to press another Argument Mr Bourns 2 Argument Whatsoever Christ himselfe did appeale unto as to a chiefe Judge and send his hearers unto as to a chiefe Judge of Controversies of Faith that is and ought to be esteem'd the chief Judge of Controversies of Faith But Christ himselfe appealed to the Scriptures and sent his hearers to the Scriptures as to the chiefe Judge of Controversies of Faith therefore the holy Scriptures are the chiefe Judge of Controversies of Faith The first not denyed the second witnessed by the Spirit in John 5.39 in that great controversie of Faith whether Christ were the Sonne of God or equall with God Christ appeales to the Scriptures Search the Scriptures for in them you thinke to have eternall life and they are they that testifie of me therefore the Scriptures are the chiefe Judge Naylers Answer Nayler did not give any answer to satisfie the Argument but said still the Spirit was the Judge not the written word and cried out liar liar hold thy peace the Spirit is Judge not the written word Mr Bourne bad him yield the Question since Christ himselfe appealed to the Scriptures But he cried out and one of his fellow Quakers away lyar the Spirit is Judge Mr Bourn replied The Spirit is Judge but not the Spirit speaking in any man but the Spirit speaking in the Scriptures and pressed
a third Argument Mr Bourns 3 Argument Whatsoever is the very word of God himselfe that is and ought to be the chiefe Judge of Controversies of Faith But the holy Scriptures are the very word of God himselfe and therefore they are the chiefe Judge of Controversies of Faith The first not denied the second proved John 10.34 35 Jesus said is it not written in your Law I have said ye are Gods If he called them gods to whom the word of God came and the Scriptures cannot be broken c. Here our Saviour calleth the Scriptures the word of God therefore the holy Scripture is the word of God And the like againe Marke 7.12 13. Ye make the word of God of none effect by your traditions Christ plainly calleth the Scriptures the written Law of God the word of God therefore the holy Scriptures are the very word of God himselfe and so the chiefe Judge of Controversies of Faith Naylers Answer Nayler cavilled still and cried out it is false it is false the word is not the Judge and sit downe liar But Mr Bourne pressed him to answer And Nayler said the word was God but the Scripture was the letter and that was not Judge Mr Billingsleys 1 Argument Mr Billingsley pressed an Argument to prove that the written word of which the Question is made is not God That which is the word of Christ who is God that is not Christ nor God But the holy Scriptures and word preached and written by the Apostles is the word of Christ Therefore the holy Scripture is not Christ nor God First that Christ is God that is evident Rom. 9.5 of whom concerning the flesh Christ came who is God over all blessed for ever Therefore by this testimony it is evident Christ is God Secondly that the holy Scriptures and word preached by the Apostles is the word of Christ that is witnessed Col. 3.16 Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdome The Apostle doth not say let the word Christ dwell in you but let the word of Christ Therefore the word of Christ is not Christ nor God so neither the holy Scriptures which are the word of Christ and of the spirit of Christ which holy men spake and writ as they were moved by the Holy Ghost Naylers Answer Nayler instead of a better Answer still quarrelled and cried out liar liar the word is God and God and his word are all one but the letter was in time Mr Bourns Reply To this Mr Bourne replyed that was not so for although God and his written word were one in respect of that agreement of truth was in the written word and in God yet that word of God and God were not all one essentially as the naturall word or Son of God was all one and the same Essence or Being with God Naylers Answer To this Nayler cried out away with thy dark word Iohn â— 12 14. I do not owne that word essentially and so rejected the distinction of Gods written word and essentiall word Mr Bourns Reply Mr Bourne replied that the written word of God was not of the same Being with God Naylers Answer Nayler and one of his fellow Quakers by him cried out liar liar stop thy mouth for shame stop thy mouth God and his word are all one Mr Bournes Argument Mr Bourne bad Nayler hearken to an Argument to prove it by Scripture and told Nayler he was the brazen fac'd foule mouth'd fellow he had heard when his owne mouth was stopped that he could not answer an Argument he still cried out liar liar stop thy mouth stop thy mouth Mr Bourns Argument And Mr Bourne pressed this Argument No word which was written in time part by God himselfe and part by Moses and other holy men of God was or is all one with God essentially or of the same essence or being with God but the holy Scriptures were written part by God himselfe in time and part by Moses and other holy men of God Therefore that word of God was not of one or of the same Essence and Being with God The first Proposition is evident of it selfe The second is witnessed Exod. 31.18 where God gave unto Moses when he had made an end of communing with him two Tables of stone written with the finger or by the power of God And Exod. 34.27 God commanded Moses to write all the words of the Covenant for after the tenour of these words I have made a Covenant with thee and with Israel And this was written two thousand yeare after the Creation of the world which God made therefore God and that written word was not all one or of the same Essence and Being with God and so not the rest of the holy Scriptures which was written in after times Naylers Answer But Nayler with a loud voice still cried out liar liar is not God and his word all one and bad the people beare witnesse hee saith God and his word are not all one Mr Bourn For Reply We distinguish there is a unity of agreement so God and his written word are all one and a unity of Essence or Being so God and his written word the Scripture are not all one Mr Gardiners Argument Mr Gardiner Minister of Eckinton being present when he saw him so audaciously impudent called to Nayler to hearken to an Argument to the contrary which was to this effect Whatsoever is all one with God is eternall but the holy Scripture or written word is not eternall therefore it is not all one with God Naylers Answer The Quaker Nayler presently cried out in a scornfull manner away liar away stop thy mouth the word is eternall and God is eternall And one of his fellow Quakers that stood by Nayler called Mr Gardiner lyar lyar both with a loud voice stop thy mouth thou art a liar thou art a liar But let any indifferent man but read and consider the Argument and see if the Quaker be not proved the liar and justly deserved that shame himselfe which he so unjustly cast upon Mr Gardiner and the other Ministers Then Mr Godfrey Watkinson of Brampton an understanding Gentleman not a Minister being present Mr Godfrey Watkinson of Brampton Moor neer Chesterfield called to Nayler and told him he had lost the Question and he himselfe was the liar for even now he said the letter or written word was in time and so not eternall and now he saith the word is eternall and God and his word is all one when as the Question and Aâ—gument is about the written word which is not eternall and therfore he was the lyar lost the Question or words to this effect for I cannot remember every particular but I endeavour to keep the sence and words as well as I can remember Naylers Answer But Nayler kept on his loud mouthed pace and gave Mr Watkinson some unfit disrespective speeches and said he owned the Spirit speaking in holy men to bee the Judge but would
not own the Spirit of God speaking in the Scriptures Mr Bournes Reply Mr Bourn began to presse other Arguments but Nayler would not hearken but cried stop thy mouth liar liar Then Mr Bourne called to another Question But let any man truly consider the Arguments and see if Naylers mouth was not most fit to be stopped and if Nayler was not the great liar accusing others wrongfully for that of which hee was so justly guilty himselfe Nayler did not then give his answer to the Question in writing but sent it to us the day after the Disputation In which he falsely applieth divers places of Scripture to prove if he could that it is not the Spirit of God speaking in the holy Scriptures but the Spirit in holy men that is the chiefe Judge of Controversies of Faith I shall only in briefe give some answer to his Allegation of Scripture and some observations by the way and then proceed to the second Question Naylers Allegation 1. The first Scripture Nayler alledgeth is that Exod. 18.16 When they have any matter saith Moses they come to me and I judge between one and another c. Therefore thinks Nayler it is not the Spirit speaking in the Scriptures but the Spirit speaking in men that judgeth To which for answer Reply First I observe with what spirit the Quaker doth agree in this Allegation Cardinalis Bellarmin de judice Controversiarii fidei lib. 3. cap. 3. and this is with the Spirit of Antichrist in Cardinall Bellarmine who brings the selfe same place of Scripture to prove an outward Judge of Controversies of Faith and to bee interpreter of the holy Scripture The Question he proposeth is whether the interpretation of Scripture be to be sought from some one visible common Judge which he affirmeth and endeavours to prove from this Scripture That as Moses did answer to all doubts arising about the Law of God so there must be an outward visible Judge of all Controversies And this is the Church and the Spirit in the Church or in the chiefe Pastor the Pope with his Councill of Pastours saith Bellarmine and the Spirit speaking in holy men saith Nayler that is in himselfe and his fellow Quaker And thus you may see from whom the Quakers received this Doctrine even from the popish seducing Jesuits or some seduced Socinians or other Heretickes who seeke to disgrace the holy Scriptures that they may more easily set forth their owne errours with faire pretences of the spirit But to answer Cardinall Bellarmine and James Nayler both together 1. Moses was an extraordinary man and had an extraordinary measure of the Spirit and yet Moses did not take upon him an infallibility of Spirit and Judgement but did make known to the people the statutes of God and his lawes Thus what God had or did reveale that was the Judge not his own Spirit nor any Spirit in him but the voice of God in his law or Gods own direction to end the Controversie This is evident if you consult these places of Scripture which witnesse what Moses did in the cause of the womans son that cursed God Lev. 24. Lev. 24.11 12 13 14. And about receiving the Passeover by the men that had touched the dead body of a man Num. 6.9 Numb 9.7 8. Numb 32.33 34 15 32. And concerning the man that gathered sticks upon the Sabbath day Numb 15. he consults with God in all those Thus Moses and holy men before the Law written they enquire of God to know his mind and pleasure and follow that which God taught them But after the Law and word and will of God was written then to the Law and to the Testimony If they speake not according to this it is because they have no light in them Isaiah 8.20 as the Prophet Isaiah doth witnesse 2. Observe what matters they were which Moses did judge they were not matters of Faith but matters of Fact Controversies between man and man he did judge between one and another saith that Text which Nayler himselfe alledgeth nothing to the purpose if he speak of the Question For this is whether the Spirit of God speaking in the Scriptures Exod. 18.16 be the chiefe Judge of controversies of Faith not of actions between man and man And this the Reader whose eies are open may easily discerne that this place of Scripture will neither fit Cardinall Bellarmine a Papist nor James Nayler a Quaker Nayler doth alledge divers other Scriptures of the same nature to the same purpose As that in Solomons prayer 1 Kin. 3.9 1 Kin. 3. That God would give him an understanding heart that he might judge Gods people to which the former answer may give full satisfaction 3. 1 Cor. 2 15 16. Nayler alledgeth that of the Apostle 1 Cor. 2. He that is spirituall judgeth all things yet he himselfe is judged of no man for who hath known the mind of the Lord that he might instruct him but we have the mind of Christ Therefore if Nayler may judge it is not the Spirit of God speaking in the Scriptures but the Spirit speaking in such spirituall men as he is which is the chiefe Judge of Controversies of Faith And herein the Quaker exceeds Cardinall Bellarmine by far for the popish Cardinall would have infallibility of spirit only in the Pope and his company but the Quaker maketh every particular spirituall man a spirituall Pope to be a chiefe Judge of Controversies of Faith otherwise Naylers Scripture is nothing to the Question for the Question is not concerning a private inferiour or particular Judge but concerning a chiefe Judge of Controversies of Faith as Nayler himselfe repeateth it Question the first To give an answer to this and divers other Scriptures alledged by Nayler But that he cannot away with a Distinction he might know that there is a twofold Judge of Controversies First A Magisteriall Judge as I may so call it a supreme highest directing publike Judge to judge and discerne and direct and finally sentence in the Church all Controversies of Faith And this is the holy Scriptures and the Spirit of God speaking in the Scriptures to which Christ himselfe did appeale and direct his hearers to appeale unto in that great Controversie of Faith John 5.39 Search the Scriptures for in them ye think to have eternall life and they are they that testifie of me which we noted before Againe there is a Ministeriall inferiour more private Judge of spirituall things and so of Controversies of Faith And this may be every particular spirituall regenerate man or Christian according to the measure of that light of the Spirit and grace of Faith he hath received from Christ and for the satisfaction of his owne conscience by the light of the Spirit speaking in the Scriptures and the light of Christ within him he may so far as he is able judge of opinions and doctrines of men whether they agree to the doctrine of Christ in the holy
evidence the second proposition Mr Bourne did shew a book the Title of it was concerning a threefold Antichrist or to that effect The same in effect by Richard Tarnworth in his discovery of Faith or rather of infidelity page 13. This was set out by some Quaker and in page the 13. in the very leafe in which beginneth a Letter of James Naylers to severall friends about Wakefield when Nayler was prisoner at Appleby There is Printed this false accusation of the Ministers in England as of Errour because they say the books of Matthew Marke Luke and John are the Gospell or containe the glad tidings of salvation through Jesus Christ therefore the Quakers are not fit to be the chiefe Judges of Controversies of Faith Naylers Answer Nayler answered hee did owne that Letter writ to his friends about Wakefield and said the books of Matthew Marke Luke and John were not the Gospell but Christ was the Gospell Mr Bourns Reply Mr Bourne went on to prove that the books of Matthew Marke Luke and John were the Gospell by this Argument Whatsoever book the Spirit of God by the mouth of the Evangelist Marke calleth the Gospell that is the Gospel but the Spirit of God by the mouth of the Evangelist Marke calleth the book of Marke the Gospell therefore that book of Marke is the Gospell The first proposition is unquestionable The second is witnessed Marke 1.1 Marke 1.1 The beginning of the Gospell of Jesus Christ the Sonne of God as it is written in the Prophets Observe first That the Evangelist affirmeth that the Gospel was written in the Prophets Secondly that he calleth the beginning of that book the beginning of the Gospell not that the Gospell was not before for the Gospell was preached to Adam and Eve in Paradise after the Fall Gen. 3.15 But the seed of the woman shall break the serpents head but that it was the beginning of that book of the Gospell of that history of Christ and declaration of salvation by Christ Jesus For what is the Gospell but good newes or good tidings of a Saviour as that Angell speaketh Luke 2.10 And good tidings of Christ is not Christ himselfe and so the Gospell is not Christ himselfe but good newes of salvation by Christ This is the book of Marke the Gospell and thus are the books of Matthew Luke and John the Gospell and the Quaker denying this and accusing the Ministers of Christ as of Errour for affirming it this assertion is plainely proved that the Spirit in the Quaker is a Spirit of Errour lying and false accusation and so not fit to be the Judge of Controversies of Faith Naylers Reply Nayler had nothing to answer but lyar lyar hold thy tongue and sit downe for Christ is the Gospell the books of Matthew Marke Luke and John are not the Gospell Mr Bournes Argument Mr Bourne began to presse another Argument out of a booke of one Nicolas Cowlings Nicol. Cowling his word to 52 London Ministers p. 15 c. A word to the 52 London Ministers pages 15 16. whereing he blasphemously compareth Christ that dyed at Jerusalem to a woodden leg Let me be bold saith he to impart unto you my former experience in the mystery of Christ I thought a long while a faith in Christ that died at Jerusalem was the top gallant of a Christian but since it doth appeare I Answer There was a twofold Faith in the person of Christ 1. Erring of an outward Redemption from Roman tyranny of which Luke 24 21. Acts 1.16 2. True Faith of an eternall Redemption from sinne c. and purchase of liternall happinesse for his people in Heaven of which Mat. 1.21 Iohn 1.29 6 47 14 1 2 3. The Erring faith died with Christ but the true faith in Christs person did not dye as the Blasphemer imagineth c. that faith the Disciples had in the person of Christ died with him c. therefore it is Christ in the mystery that will save A woodden legge saith he that is tyed on may do some service but it is the legge naturall that is usefull for all occasions Thus doth this blasphemer make Christ our Saviour that died for us at Jerusalem but as a woodden legge But it is not that Christ that died at Jerusalem mighty to save not only by the work of sanctification in us by his Spirit through Faith to purifie our hearts but by the worke of justification by his blood and merits of his death and passion by which he hath made our peace even by the blood of his crosse and righteousnesse imputed to us for our justification before God as by our holinesse and good workes we are declared to be justified before men For God made him to be sinne for us who knew no sinne that we might be made the righteousnesse of God in him But this Spirit in this deceived Quaker or Erring Sectary who glories in his perfection and disgracefully calleth Christ that died at Jerusalem a woodden legge it is an Erring spirit and therefore not fit to be judge of Controversies of Faith Naylers Answer James Nayler would give no Answer to this but said he would not answer for any but himselfe Yet certainly James Nayler needed not then to have disowned that or denied to answer for it is nothing but what he himselfe did owne before Read the Perfect Pharisee p. 8. position 5. as appeares by that expression of his in a Letter sent by him to one in Lancashire That he that expected to be saved by him that died at Jerusalem should be deceived This witnessed by those reverend Divines who writ that book called the Perfect Pharisee And it seemeth it is their common opinion as may appeare by that speech of another Quaker neer Bristoll who said he was not such a foole as to hope to be saved by Jesus Christ that died at Jerusalem sixteen hundred yeares agoe Mr Farmer in his mystery of godlinesse and ungodlinesse witnessed by Reverend Mr Farmer a Reverend Minister in Bristol This spirit in the Quaker cannot be the chiefe Judge of Controversies of Faith Mr Billingsleys Argument Then Mr John Billingsley to prove that the Spirit in the Quakers and in James Nayler in particular was a lying scandalizing Spirit and so not fit to be Judge of Controversies of Faith brought an Argument to this purpose That Spirit whatsoever that did or doth affirm that Bul-baiting swearing cursing and such like are the fruits of John Billingsley's Ministrie that is a lying scandalizing Spirit but the Spirit that is in thee James Nayler or thou thy selfe James Nayler diddest affirme that Bul-baiting swearing cursing and such like is or are the fruits of John Billingsley's Ministery therefore thy Spirit is a lying scandalizing Spirit and so not fit to be Judge of Controversies of Faith For the first proposition I John Billingsley doe appeale to all the Congregations which have heard me preach in Chesterfield or else where
have no light in them then all men have not a light within them sufficient to direct them to attaine salvation But there are some men that have no light in them witness the Prophet Isaiah chap. 8.20 To the Law and to the Testimony if they speak not according to this rule it is because there is no light in them Therefore all men have not a light within them sufficient to direct them to attaine salvation Naylers Answer James Nayler vapoured and said that place made most against us But he gave no answer to shew how that place did make against us but cryed out all are enlightned by Christ and that light of Christ is in them all lyars lyars all are enlightned Thus in a proud contemptuous manner did Nayler behave himselfe and as his manner was when hee could not answer turned aside and talked to those that were about him and at last affirmed againe that all had a light within them sufficient to guide them to attaine salvation Naylers Argument because Christ said to the Pharisees Luke 17.21 The Kingdome of God is within you in you Pharisees and therefore in all and so the Kingdome of God being in all all are sufficiently enlightned to direct them to attaine salvation Mr Bournes Answer To which Answer was given to this effect That the Kingdome of God is taken diversly in the holy Scriptures 1. For the Kingdome of Gods power which is Gods soveraignty over all the world and this Kingdome of God is in every creature and in and over every man in the world he sets up and puls downe 1 Sam. 2.6 7 8 c. Dan. 4.30 c. kils and maketh alive at his pleasure and ruleth and over-ruleth all when and how he will and this Kingdome of God was in the Pharisees as in all men whatsoever 2. The Kingdome of God is taken for the Kingdome of Gods Grace and this diversly taken also First for the outward administration of the comming and Kingdome of the Messiah Christ Jesus in the Gospell of which the Pharisees questioned Christ in that place Luke 17. Luke 17.20 Gen. 49.10 demanding when the Kingdome of God should come that is the Kingdome of the Messiah which was prophecied and promised should come Psal 2. Psal 45.6 7. Luke 2.25 26. and which the Saints and people of God did expect and waite for And John the Baptist the forerunner of Christ told the people this Kingdome was at hand This Kingdome is called the Kingdome of Heaven Mat. 3.2 Mat. 13.24 44. Acts 1.3 and it is taken for the Gospel and Gospel Administrations and this Kingdome and comming of Christ this King not only the Scribes and Pharisees Luke 24.21 but some of the Disciples did think should come in outward pompe and power to deliver the Jewes from the tyranny of the Romans under whom they were tributaries But Christ giveth them answer in that 20 verse Luke 17 20. The Kingdome of Christ the Messiah which they enquired after commeth not with observation or with outward pompe but saith Christ the Kingdome of God is within you not individually or personally as if the Kingdome of heaven the Gospell and Christ the Messiah had been in every one of them particularly or in every Pharisee but collectively or as they were a company of Pharisees or people of the Jewes The Kingdome of God is within you or rather amongst you as the Greek word is well translated in the margin of our Bibles in that place And thus Expositors agree ye seeke the Messiah as if hee were absent when hee is in the middest of you Beza upon the Text. Pâ—scator on that place Thus Passor Iex con c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in medio vestri intra gentem vestram within your nation saith Beza And Piscator The Kingdome of God is in the middest of you in the bosome of your Nation The Kingdome of God is within you understand it not as every one is looked upon by and in himselfe but as one body of many people collected or joined together in one body or Nation And the Kingdome of God in this sence was in and amongst the Pharisees and people to whom Christ did preach at that time Againe the Kingdome of Grace is taken for the gifts and Graces of the Kingdome or which Christ the King giveth to his subjects and servants and by his Spirit worketh in them as Knowledge Faith Love Righteousness Peace and Joy in the Holy Ghost and such like inward spirituall Riches and Graces of the spirit by which God doth rule and reigne in the heats of his children and this Kingdome is in Gods Elect his chosen and faithfull and called ones Rev. 17.14 not only amongst them but in them but this Kingdome or these graces of the Kingdome of Christ the Messiah and Christs Spirit was not in the Pharisees to whom Christ did preach though it was amongst them in such as were true beleevers Gods faithfull servants This Answer was delivered far shorter but to this effect and purpose Naylers Reply But Nayler according to his accustomed manner cried out lyars lyars it is false Christ speaketh of the Kingdome of Grace and that was in the Pharisees and so in all and all have a light in them to which they may look as sufficient to guide them to Salvation or to that effect Mr Bournes Reply Mr Bourne did Reply Iohn 3.1 Iohn 19.38 39 that some of the Pharisees may be were beleevers as Nicodemus who came to Jesus by night and was at cost with Joseph of Arimathea at the buriall of Christ who was a Disciple though secretly for feare of the Jewes And if this Kingdome of Grace was in any of the Pharisees they must be such as were beleevers for other wise in unbeleevers and wicked Pharisees who kept men to their power from confessing of Christ to be the Messiah Iohn 12.42 in them Christ was not nor the Kingdome nor the graces of Christs Kingdome For in unbeleevers where sinne ruleth and reigneth in their mortall bodies and they obey it in the lusts thereof there or in their soules Rom. 6.12 16. the Kingdome of Grace is not for Christ and sinne cannot reign both together in one soule This answer was shorter likewise but to this intent Naylers Reply But Nayler would not yield the Question for all this but told the people the Kingdome of God was in the Pharisees and we were lyars that denied it Mr Maudâ—slâ—y's Question Mr Maudesley if my memory did not faile me or some one neer him asked Nayler what Kingdome that was which Christ spake of after his resurrection Acts 1. Acts. 1.3 He was seen of them forty daies speaking of the things pertaining to the Kingdome of God Naylers Reply Nayler did not answer what that Kingdome was but said Christ was not seene after his Ascension In which Nayler did mistake Answer for it was not after Christs Ascension but after his
horsemen thereof Thus you see titles of honour Lord Master Father are both given and received by holy men and this without any reproofe or check of the Spirit of God recorded in the Scriptures concerning any of these examples therefore sure it was and is lawfull to give and receive titles of respect and honour to call or be called Lord or Master or Father according to every ones place and dignity All these places of Scripture were not then alledged Naylers Answer And James Nayler by his loud clamour hindred the pressing and application of those places that were alledged as much as he could and cried out that was in the Law but now in the Gospell Christ forbids to call any man Master or to be called of men Masters or Father and alledged that of our Saviour Mat. 23. But be not ye called Rabbi for one is your Master even Christ and all ye are brethren and call no man your Father upon earth for one is your Father which is in heaven And hence Nayler would infer That now in time of the Gospell it was not lawfull tocall any man Master or to be called of men Master or Father upon earth Mr Bournes Reply Then I replied and bad Nayler read the context in the verses before and if his eies were open he might see the mind of Christ that it was not absolutely to forbid his hearers to call any man Master or Father but to forbid the ambitious seeking of honor and the ambitious love of honour which was in the Scribes and Pharisees This you may finde is that that he reproveth in them in the 6 and 7 verfes They love saith Christ the uppermost rooms at Feasts and the chiefe seats in the Synagogues and greetings in the Markets and to be called of men Rabbi Rabbi And this ambitious pride and love of honour from men Christ reproveth in the Pharisees and this he forbiddeth his disciples but be not ye called Rabbi for one is your Master even Christ and all ye are brethren he would not have his Apostles to seeke superiority and power one over another in a proud ambitious manner Diotrephes-like to love to have the preheminence as 3 John 9. the Evangelist doth witnesle Diotrephes did Yet our Saviour Christ here doth not simply and absolutely forbid all giving or receiving of honour or of calling or being called of men Master or Father or Lord or Lady or the like Yet it is certaine our Saviour Christ doth forbid so to call Master or Father as to make any man the Master or Father of our Faith instead of Christ or that any man should be called Master or Father so as to take the honour of chiefe Master or Father or Teacher to himselfe which is due to Christ This is that which Christ forbiddeth and this is that which the Apostle Paul forbiddeth the Corinthians 1 Cor. 1. Now this I say saith the Apostle that every one of you saith I am of Paul and I of Apollo and I of Cephas and I of Christ One said he was Pauls Disciple another he was Apollos another he was Christs But what saith the Apostle is Christ divided was Paul crucified for you Thus they made Paul the Master or Father of their faith And this the Apostle Paul reproveth here And this Christ our Saviour reproveth and forbiddeth Mat. 23. And Christ doth forbid to give that divine honour which is due to God and Christ that God-man our Saviour to any man in the world but hee doth not forbid to give or receive civill honour and respect one to another according to each mans place and dignity or so to be called of men Master or Father or the like To this effect was the Answer given but more close and briefe then now I give it But Nayler instead of any better Answer cried out lyar lyar hold thy peace for shame doth not Christ plainly forbid to call Father or Master and made a great clamorous noise and bid siâ— downe for shame for shame Mr Bourns Reply Then Mr Bourn called to Nayler and bid him leave his loud shamelesse out cries and hearken to an Argument to prove the Exposition to be truth and according to the mind of Christ which was to this effect Argument 2 Whatsoever Christ himselfe or the Spirit of Christ in the Apostles of Christ doth approve of elsewhere in thenew Testament as lawfull to be done that Christ himselfe doth not forbid in that place Mat. 23. But Christ himselfe and the Spirit of Christ in the Apostles doth elsewhere approve of the calling of men Masters and Fathers and of giving other titles of respect and honour to men Therefore Christ in that place Mat. 23. did not forbid to call any man Master or Father as James Nayler pretendeth The first proposition is witnessed to be clear because Christ is truth yea the way the truth and the life and he is no way contrary to himselfe For Jesus Christ is yesterday and to day and the same for ever Heb. 13. Therefore Christ doth not forbid that here Mat. 23. which he alloweth elsewhere And for the second proposition that Christ and his spirit in the Apostles doth approve and allow fit titles of honour to bee given to men as is agreeable to their conditions in their severall places This will bee evident if you read rightly consider that of the Evangelist Marke 7. Where Christ is witnessed to repeat the Commandement Honour thy Father and thy Mother and in the next verse Christ himselfe giveth the name of Father and Mother to the parents of the man of whom he spake to the Pharisees And saith Christ ye suffer him no more to do ought for his Father and Mother Now Christ certainly would not have named Father and Mother nor have approved of those titles and that relation if it had not been lawfull And the same also doth the Spirit of Christ in the Apostle Paul in divers places read Eph. 6. Col. 3. Col. 4. and you may finde he giveth the titles of Father and Master Honour thy father and mother and fathers provoke not your children and masters give unto your servants that which is just and equall knowing that ye also have a master in heaven And the Apostle Peter to the same effect 1 Pet 2. Honour all men love the brother-hood feare God honour the King the supreme magistrate by whatsoever title he be called And servants be subject to your masters with all feare not only to the good and gentle but also to the froward so that here are earthly fathers and masters as well as God and Christ is our father and master in heaven And therefore it is evident that our Saviour Christ in that place Mat. 23. did not simply and absolutely forbid to call or to bee called master or father for if he had he would not have approved it himselfe nor would the Apostles of Christ who had the Spirit of Christ have done it as we have proved they did to
this purpose was the Argument but shorter Naylers Answer Then Nayler was constrained to acknowledge that a naturall father might bee called father by his child and a civill master might bee called master by his servant but that it was not lawfull for any other to give or receive such honour or titles of honour as father or master or the like or to that effect Although this acknowledgement of Naylers was contrary to the Doctrine and practice even of Nayler himselfe and divers of his fellow Quakers and proselytes as the uncivill carriage of some of them towards their naturall parents and civill masters and of others towards Magistrates and Ministers doth witnesse at full Mr Gardiner Minister of Eckinton Mr Gurdiner a good Disputant as I remember seeing Nayler wrangle and endeavour to shift off from the Question began to presse Nayler with an Argument But before Mr Gardiner could speake out his Argument Naylers Reply Nayler would not heare him but he and some other of his sellow Quakers that stood by him cried out aloud lyar lyar stop thy mouth and made a clamouring noise against him to cause him to hold his peace Mr Gardiner To whom Mr Gardiner seeing Nayler's so uncivill unchristian and unreasonable behaviour Replied fie on thee thou unreasonable man thou art not fit to be reasoned with or to that purpose and so turned his backe upon him Mr Bournes Argument Then Mr Bourne called aloud to Nayler againe and bad him leave his uncivill rayling and reviling speeches and loud clamours and hearken to an Argument to prove it which was to this effect That title of honour which St Paul did give to Festus who was none of his naturall father nor civill master that it is lawfull for Christians to give now to those who are neither naturall fathers nor ordinary civill masters But read Acts 26. and you may finde that St Paul stiled Festus noble Festus which is a title of honour and high respect and therefore it is lawfull now to give honourable titles to such as are neither naturall parents nor civill masters and to be given by such as are neither naturall children nor meniall or hired servants or to this end was the Argument Naylers Answer Nayler answered those were noble Romans and deserved honour c. But now c. as if he thought now we had none so worthy to whom such honour should be given for to my best observation this was the sence of his broken speech for hee did not speake whole sentences but wrangled about giving honour and said howsoever honour might be given to naturall parents or civill masters yet how could we prove that any that professed themselves Ministers of Christ should be called master or father contrary to that of Christ Mat. 23. noted before where he said Christ did particularly forbid his Apostles and ministers to be so called Mr Bournes Reply To which Mr Bourne replied Nayler and bad him reade again that place Mat. 23.1 2. and thou shalt find that Christ did speake there to the multitude as well as to his Disciples and what in that text he did not forbid others he did not forbid them Consider the Text fully and thou maiest see it plaine if thou hast eies to see Naylers Answer Nayler according to his custome instead of other Answers cried out it is false it is false prove that any Minister of Christ should be called master or father or have any such honour given to them or to that effect Mr Maudesley Mr Maudesly Minister of Dronfield being neer to Nayler as I remember brought an Argument from that place Eccl. 12.11 The words of the wise are like goads fastened by the masters of the Assemblies And if by the Masters of the Assemblies be intended teachers of Gods people and Ministers of Christ then it is lawfull for them to be called masters because the Spirit of God in Solomon calleth them so But this is apparent that by masters he meaneth teachers therefore it is lawfull to call the ministers of Christ who are teachers of Gods people masters or to that purpose Naylers Answer But James Nayler sings still his old song liar liar no such thing is intended there and wrangled ignorantly about the sence of that place as nothing concerning ministers in the New Testament Mr Bournes Argument Then Mr Bourne bad Nayler to heare an Argument out of the New Testament from that place of the Apostle to Timothy 1 Tim. 5.17 Let the Elders that rule well be accounted worthy of double honour especially them that labour in the word and doctrine to this effect If preaching Elders that labour in the word and doctrine be worthy of double honour then the faithfull labouring ministers of Christ are worthy of honour but preaching Elders who labour in the word and doctrine are worthy of double honour witnesse the Apostle in that place 1 Tim. 5. therefore the ministers of Christ who labour in the word and doctrine are worthy of honour and so may lawfully have honour given them yea that honour which is due to them that is not only the honour of maintenance but the honour of reverence and esteem let a man esteem of us as ministers of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God 1 Cor. 4.12 Nailers Answer This was not so fully pressed then But Nayler answered and said The ministers of Christ they must bee honoured in the Lord but not be called master or father and have any outward honour And still Nayler wrangled and turned to those people neer him not answering the Argument but railed at ministers for suffering our selves to be called masters vapouring in contemptuous termes but bringing no word of proofe at all Mr Bournes Argument Mr Bourne bad Nayler leave off his vapouring or to that effect and hearken to another Scripture 1 Cor. 4.15 where St Paul did take to himselfe the name of father of the Corinthians their spirituall father though you have ten thousand instructers saith he yet yee have not many fathers for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the Gospell Now if Paul as a minister of Christ converting soules did lawfully take to himself the name of father Then the faithfull ministers of Christ who convert men and women to Christ may lawfully take to themselves the name of father but this was lawfull for blessed Paul therefore it is lawfull also for all the faithfull ministers of Christ Jesus who turne men to God to take to themselves the name of father and so to be called masters or sirs which is a title of honour and respect For what title was lawfull to that blessed Apostle and Silas preachers of the Gospel to receive from men and they did accept that as lawfull now to Gods faithfull ministers But it was lawfull for the Apostle Paul and Silas to receive the title of sirs or masters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Domini Sirs or Masters a title of honour and they did accept of that title of honour
due as well as tribute or custome or any other service I might call in the Apostle Peter to witness the same 1 Pet. 2.13 14 17. but I refer the Reader to the Scripture it self these testifie an honor due to our superiours And for the minor or second proposition That magistrates supreme or inferiour are Gods Ordinance set and approved by God for government above others the places alledged might suffice but if you read Exod. 18.21 23. when Jethro Moses Father in law gave him that good counsell to provide out of all the people able men such as feare God men of truth hating covetousnesse and to place them over them to be Rulers of thousands of hundreds of fifties and of tens And if thou doe this thing and God command thee so then shalt thou be able to endure and this people shall goe to their place in peace And Moses did so and God himselfe doth approve of this order of government of superiours and inferiours and giveth Moses order to gather to God seventy Elders and the Lord taketh of the Spirit of government that was upon Moses and gave it to the seventy Elders as you may read Numb 11.16 17 25. Thus are Governours over the people of Gods owne ordination as superiours and so a higher honour and respect is due unto them Argument 2 Againe that outward manifestation of honour and those titles of honour which have been given by holy men in Scripture to Princes Magistrates and Judges and others according to their places and dignities which are not reproved by Gods Spirit that may lawfully bee given now to Princes to Judges Magistrates Governours and others according to their places and dignities But outward manifestation of honour and honourable titles have been given by holy men in Scripture to Princes Judges and Magistrates and others according to their place and dignities therefore they may be given now to such without sinne yea it is our duties so to doe Psal 82.16 Doth not the Scripture call them Gods as in Gods stead And to evidence both propositions Example 1 I shall give you severall examples If we read that place Numb 11.28 when the Spirit of God rested upon Eldad and Medad in the campe Joshua in his zeale speaks to Moses to forbid them and cals him Lord and Joshua said my Lord Moses forbid them he giveth him an honourable title my Lord Moses And did not wise Abigal call David Lord when he was comming with his Souldiers to destroy churlish Nabal for his ingratitude 1 Sam. 25 24 25 c. Yea divers times in that Chapter she giveth David the honourable title of Lord. And did not good David cry after King Saul and giveth him this honourable title my Lord the King 1 Sam. 24.8 And doth he not then give outward reverence to Saul to witnesse his honorable respects to Saul as to his superiour in place and power the text saith David stooped with his face to the earth and bowed himselfe This is far unlike Naylers and his quaking companions carriage even to Princes Magistrates and Judges and Justices of the peace to stand with their hats on their heads and to speak to them in an irreverent manner thou man or thee man who sittest in the place of judgement do this or that as some of them have said and done May I not say the same of Abner who as David testifieth was a Prince and a great man in Israel yet when he came to David he gave him titles of honour I will goe saith he and gather all Israel unto my Lord the King 2 Sam. 3.21 What need I tell you of that great Prophet of God Elijah doth he not call Ahab Obadiahs Lord goe tell thy Lord behold Elijah is here 1 Kin. 18.14 Though Ahab was a wicked man yet hee doth not take from him his title of honour And doth not the Spirit of God give the title of Lord to that noble man on whose hand the King leaned 2 Kin. 7.2 What need I tell you that in the New Testament the blessed Evangelist Luke in that his history of the Gospell which he did write to Theophilus he giveth him that honourable title most excellent Theophilus Luke 1.3 a title of great honour and high esteem given to Theophilus And blessed Paul calleth Festus the Governour of that Province noble Festus Acts 26.25 27. And in the same Chapter when he was before King Agrippa to answer for himselfe he doth not in a proud or blind ignorant sottish manner call Agrippa thou man or thee man as the Quakers doe but King Agrippa believest thou the Prophets I know that thou believest Thus do these Saints give titles of honour according to mens place and dignities I will name but one more and that is the blessed Evangelist St John that beloved Disciple of Christ John 19.26 in his second Epistle hee giveth that gratious woman to whom he writ her title of honour and respect verse 1. The Elder saith he to the elect Lady And againe verse 5. I beseech thee Lady Thus doth the blessed Apostle give titles of honour to whom honour belongs And these certainly are witnesses sufficient to justifie this truth against the Quakers that there may be some kinde of respect civill respect I mean though not to corrupt or flatter yet to know and owne difference of persons and to give to each that honor which is due to them in their severall places Againe as it is a duty to give honour and respect so it is lawfull for Princes Judges Justices and others to this honour when in a right and due manner it is given unto them I shall call in only one witnesse to evidence this truth besides those whom I named before to whom honor was given of men none of which godly men did reject that honor which was ascribed given unto them which had it been unlawfull to have received they would certainly have refused The witnesse is that holy man Job one that feared God and eschewed evill and what doth he testifie of himselfe you may read Job 29.7 8 c. when I went out of the gate saith he through the City when I prepare my seat in the street the young men saw me and hid themselves and the aged arose and stood up Righteous Job was an honourable and just Judge he was eies to the blind and feet to the lame he was a father to the poor and the cause which he knew not he searched it out he did break the jawes of the wicked and plucked the spoile out of his teeth therefore was Job honourable and both old and young did honor Job not in their hearts only as the Quakers would have magistrates honoured but outwardly also in giving all civill outward honour unto them according to their severall place and dignities and good reason it should be so For who more honourable profitable and necessary then good religious just and righteous Judges and Magistrates in a Common-wealth When justice is