living Creatures or Animals to love and cherish their Off-spring which is a shadow or figure of that more Divine Law in God's people is not any complex Proposition of words but an innate principle of love and affection which he hath planted in them Moreover the said I. A. digresseth here from his matter to seek an occasion against us and to load us with down-right Blasphemy because we do not say that there are three Persons in the God-head But to this Charge I have answered already to one of I. A. his Champions in my book called The Way Cast Vp the which hath given content to divers-sober people and I hope may give content to all who reads it in that particular where I show that it is only the unscriptural terms of a Trinity of Persons or of three Persons in the Godhead that we deny and not the mysterie or thing it self of Father Son and Holy Ghost being three that bear Record in Heaven which according to the Scripture we both believe and confess And indeed Augustine in his Fifth and Seventh Books of the Trinity not only saith the words three Persons are improper but disputeth against them and I suppose I. A. for all his School-Logick and Philosophy shall hardly be able to Answer his Argument the substance of which to my best remembrance is this The word Person either it signifieth somewhat absolute and simple or somewhat relative to say the first is absurd otherwise there should be three 〈◊〉 Beings or Essences in God which is absurd if somewhat relative which is the second then seeing every relative is referred or is relative to another as Father is relative to Son and therefore Father is the Father of another and no man is his own Father in this sense to say the Father is a Person is to say the Father is the Person of some other and so of the rest which is absurd The which Argument not as mine but really Augustines I leave I. A. to Answer and Ierome another ancient Doctor and Father so called doth find fault with the words Three Hypostasis saying expresly in the words Three Hypostaâ—is Latet aliquid veneni There lieth hid some poyson And Laâ—rentius Valla a man well esteemed among the learned findeth fault with the words Three Persons why then should we be so uncharitably charged by I. A. or such hot-headed men with Blasphemy only for keeping close to Scripture words in so great a Mysterie while the thing it self so far as the Scripture declareth it is owned by us And whereas he urgeth us to tell what Three are they to be called if neither Three Gods nor Three Persons I Answer It sufficeth us to call them what the Spirit of God in Christ and the Apostles hath called them and to enquire no further nor to be curiously wise above what they have dâ—â—lared Hath not I. A. heard That there is a Docta Ignorantia or Learned Ignorance which is more safe and to be preferred to an uncertain Knowledge or Science falsly so called And if I. A. his definition of Person be received viz. That it is an intelligent Being subsisting incommunicably or distinctly one from another I see not for my part but that Three Persons at this rate shall infer three intelligent Beings subsisting incommunicably and consequently Three Gods Lastly That he saith Some Quakers have called them three Manifesâ—ations viz. of Moses of Christ and of the Spirit he ought to have produced their names or then we are not bound to believe him that any have said so for at this rate Moses should be the Father of Christ which I do not believe any called a Quaker ever thought perhaps some have said there have been three Dispensations or Manifestations of God one through Moses and one through Christ in the Flesh and one through the Spirit or Christ in Spirit and that these may after some sort have such a reference as that the first may be called relative to the Father yet not excluding the Son and the second may be relative to the Son not excluding the Father c. which yet doth not argue that we understand the Dispensation or Administration of the Father to be the Father himself far less Moses to be the Father as I. A. I believe very rashly and unwarrantably doth alledge Now that there are or have been diversity of Administrations the Scripture is plain and Protestants as well as Papists do acknowledge it Yea what saith I. A. to the common Catechism that saith The Father hath Created us the Son hath Redeemed us and the Holy Ghost hath Sanctified us which is to be understood not exclusively nor yet without some order in the manner of working But who will be so foollish or ignorant for all this to say That the Father is our Creation the Son our Redemption strictly or literally and without a Figure so understood and the Holy Ghost our Sanctification Nor doth it follow that because Christ bringeth in his Father and himself as two Witnesses to prove that he was the true Messiah that therefore there are either two or three Persons in the Godhead for Christ speaketh these words not simply as God but as man Now as Man we acknowledge that Christ is a distinct Nature or Being from God although not divided or separated therefrom And lastly that he argueth That Christ is called the express Image of the Fathers Hypostasis and that Hypostasis should be and is truly Translated Person and not Substance and otherwise it would infer Arianism I Answer That Hypostasis should be Translated Person he doth meerly affirm without any proof from approved Authors and sure I am the Etymologie of the word hath no affinity to person but properly signifieth Substance being compounded of the Preposition and Substantive Verb which as near as possible is in Latin substantia and in English substance and is so Translated Heb. 11. 1. Now that to Translate it substance would infer Arrianism I. A. doth but meerly say it without any proof and so is not to be believed And beside Christ in Scripture is called The Image of the Invisible God and certainly God is a substance and yet this I hope will not infer Arrianism and may we not well understand how Christ as man is the Character or Image of God's substance without Arrianism seeing Christ said viz. in respect of his Manhood My Father is greater than I and it is clear that the aforesaid place Heb. 1. 2 3. is to be understood of Christ not simply as God but as man who certainly as man is the most bright and glorious Image of God and above all Angels or Men or whatever can be named besides the Godhead it self CHAP. VI. HAving thus traced I. A. in his unnecessary and impertinent digression I shall now reply unto his Arguments whereby he laboureth to prove that the Scriptures are the principal rule of Faith and manners And to the first that in Isaiah 8. 10. they were sent
Rules of that called Philosophy but remain at great uncertainty in the very foundations of it as is acknowledged by the most ingenuous Professors thereof Now to make a thing so uncertain as their Philosophy is in many or most things to wit a fallible thing an infallible Rule to make a Minister of the Infallible Truth is a very absurd and unreasonable matter But I. A. giveth us a number of Thirteen or Fourteen Positions which his School-Philosophy doth teach the truth whereof is evident as that there is a God who is Infinite Eternal Omnisciâ—nt Omnipotent Unchangeable that every man is a Rational Creature that the Soul of man is Immortal that no Brute is a Man that no Action can be without some Subject nor without some effect nor any Union without some extremes But I suppose there are few men if any that have but the right use of their understanding as men that do not or may not know all this without School-Philosophy as well as I. A. doth with it And then what advantage giveth his Philosophy unto him But toere are other great matters which his Philosophy teacheth and as he particularly describeth them they are these following That every thing either is or is not that nothing can â—oth be and not be at once that of every contradiction the one part is true and the other false that every whole is more than 〈◊〉 part that every Cause is prior in nature to its effect that nothing can work before it exist But I must tell I. A. that these last mentioned Positions are not taught by Philosophy and are not any part of Philosophy as is generally acknowledged by the Professors of it because they are first Principles which Philosophy doth not undertake to teach but presupposeth them as already known and understood by the common dictates of understanding that is in all men and are called by them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 common Sentiments or Principles and therefore we still desiderate what peculiar Misteries I. A. his Philosophy doth teach that men of ordinary understanding doth not already know or at least may know very easily by a simple reflection without his Philosophy or School-Craft Not that I deny but that there are divers things which the true genuine Philosophy may teach that are not obvious to common understanding but I find nothing asserted by I. A. in all these positions which he giveth as instances of what Philosophy teacheth but every ordinary Tradesman knoweth as well to be true as I. A. And therefore he might have spared his Pains in that idle and unnecessary work CHAP. III. J. A. in his Survey or Examination of the third Query doth earnestly contend That the Words of the Scripture are and ought to be called the Word of God For which he useth divers Arguments and Citations of Scripture but the true state of the Question here is not whether the Scriptures figuratively as by a Synecdoche or Metonymie may not be called the Word for which I shall not contend finding that the Greek Word Logoâ— Translated into English the Word is used sometimes in Scripture to signifie either Words or Writings as Acts 1. 1. the Treatise Writ by Luke he calleth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is to say in English the first Word or Speech Also where Paul saith Our Gospel came unto you not in Word only but in Power c. 1 Thess 1. 5. And some other places may be found both in the Old and New Testament to that effect which yet doth in nothing give to I. A. nor to any of our Adversaries the least advantage against us For the Question is what is properly the Word God or the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That which is most properly and eminently that Word of God so much mentioned in the Scripture with its wonderful effects and that the Letter is not properly the Word of God is as evidently apparent as that the Writing or Written Letter of a mans Speech is not properly the words of a mans Mouth for we commonly distinguish betwixt a mans Word and his Write How much more ought we to distinguish betwixt the outward Letter and Writing and the Word of God in the proper sense seeing God is an invisible Spirit and so is his Word And what he hath spoke by his Prophets or Apostles he spoke it first in their Hearts and Mouths before there was any Declaration of it in Writ and consequently it was the Word of God before the Writing And therefore the Writing is not the Word properly but only figuratively as when a part is put for the whole by a Synecdoche or when the sign is put for the thing signified as a Map of England and Scotland is commonly called England and Scotland and yet none will say that that Map is really England or Scotland or when we hear that England and Scotland produceth such and such Fruits who is so ignorant as to think that the Map or Card produceth these Fruits and not the Land it self Let I. A. know therefore that in all the places where the Word is mentioned he must prove that the Letter of the Scripture is meant or he doth nothing against us the which I am sure he shall never be able to perform seeing he grants himself That sometimes at least by the Word is meant Christ and not the Letter Moreover I ask I. A. when he saith The Scripture is the Word of God what he meaneth by the term Scripture Doth he mean the only bare Writing or Characters consisting of Ink and Paper and will he say that is properly the Word of God Or doth he mean the Doctrine expressed and signified by the said Writing and Characters and the true sense and meaning of the Spirit of God held forth in the same which Metonymically may be called the Scripture putting the thing signified for the sign and thus the Doctrine may be called the Scripture and the Scripture the Doctrine to wit by a twofold Metonymie one where the thing signified is put for the sign the other where the sign is put for the thing â—igniâ—ied Now we do most willingly grant that the Doctrine and true sense or mind of the Spirit declared of or expressed in the Scripture is and may properly be called the Word of God But then we further affirm that the said Doctrine or true sense of the mind or Spirit cannot be reached or attained unto by the meer Reading or Hearing the Letter o the bare meditating in the Letter and thereâ—fore not every one that hath the Letter Preacheth the Letter and Heareth the Letter hath also the true Doctrine and mind of the Spirit and consequently nor hath he the Word of God But he only that receiveth the Spirit of Christ or Christ the Lord who is that Spirit receiveth the true Doctrine when he Readeth or Heareth the Scriptures or meditateth in them and consequently he only receiveth the Word of God And thus also none can Preach the true
Doctrine and Word of God but he who speaketh it by the Spirit of God and none Heareth the Word of God but he who Heareth it and into the Heart and inward Ears of his inward man receiveth it by the Spirit of God To these only I say the Doctrine is known and by these it is only received as it is indeed the Word of God and in this respect it was that Paul commended such as received the Truth by the same Spirit by which it was Preached unto them through him That they received it not as the word of Man but as the Word of God c. Now this commâ—ndation can be given to no unbeliever that what he receiveth in the Ministry of the true Servants of God he receiveth it as the Word of God for only the true Believers do so receive it according to Paul's Testimony as it is indeed the Word of God Moreover I would have the Reader to know that when we say by the Word is understood Christ we mean not Christ abstractly or seperately considered from the Divine Doctrine and Testimony of Life whether in the heart or Mouth that immediately proceedeth from him nor yet as divided or seperated from any Divine operation of his Spirit Power and Life in any of his Servants but we take both these conjoyned together to be the Word of God even as the Soul and Body is one Man and sometimes the Soul is called the man and sometimes the Body and both properly enough when the Soul is in the Body and united therewith but the Body alone without the Soul is not properly called the man and thus much I hope shall suffice to satisfie the sober Reader as concerning the Word of God how we understand it Now whereas I. A. citeth divers places of Scripture to prove That by the Word of God is not understood Christ but the outward Testimony or Writing of the Scriptures It is very evident and may plainly appear so to be unto any having the least measure of Spiritual understanding that by the Word of God in these Scriptures is not understood the Letter but Christ together with the Divine operation and Testimony of his Life in the Hearts and Mouthes of his Servants And among these places by him alledged I shall cite these following for it is needless to cite them all viz. Heb. 4. 12. Eph. 6. 17. Rev. 1. 16. Rev. 2. 12 16. Rev. 19. 15. And also he citeth divers Scriptures which mention the Word of Christ and the Word which he hath spoken And seeing that cannot be Christ himself it must needs ac-according to him be the Letter Now as to that Scripture Heb. 4. 12. For the Word of God is quick and powerful c. There are divers Protestants that expound it of Christ and not of the Letter and indeed the words themselves do plainly enough evince it seeing it is said in the next verse concerning the same Word That all things are bare and manifest to his sight and therefore that Word hath an Omniâ—cience which I suppose I. A. when he considers will not affirm of the Letter of the Scripture As for Eph. 6. 17. his reason is weak that by it cannot be understood Christ seeing it is called The Sword of the Spirit as to say an Instrument in the hand of the Spirit But this is only I. A. his gloss and not Paul's words For the Sword of the Spirit may very well be understood to be the Spirit it self As the shield of Faith is Faith that shield The Helmet of Hope is Hope that Helmet so the City of Rome is Rome that City and why not also the Sword of the Spirit that Spirit it self And this is further confirmed out of the Greek Article Englished by which that is in the Neuter Gender and therefore rendring this Sense The Sword of the Spirit which Spirit is the Word of God so that the Article which being in the Neuter Gender is Relative to Spirit which in the Greek Language is in the same gender Again as to those three places in the Revelation which mention the Word of God it s being the Sword of his Mouth and proceeding out of the Mouth of Christ Doth I. A. think that this only is the Letter of the Scripture Doth nothing but the Letter come out of his Mouth Doth not Spirit and Life and living vertue come out of his Mouth And did not Christ say The Words that I speak unto you they are Spirit and Life John 6. And is not this somewhat more than the Letter But lastly The Word of Christ and the Word that Christ speaks hath of the Life and Spirit of Christ in it and therefore it is still somewhat beside the External Writing or Letter and is not divided or seperated from Christ. And I have told I. A. already that not only Christ abstractly considered but the immediate Testimony and influence of his Life which can never be seperated from him no more than the Sun Beams can be seperated from the Son is also acknowledged by us to be the Word of God and to be Light and Life Bâ—t saith I. A. The whole Doctrine of the Prophets is the Word of the Lord To which I Answer I have granted and do still grant it so to be but as is already said that Doctrine is not the bare Letter nor hath every one that doctrine who hath the Letter for to have the true doctrine and sence of the Spirâ—t is not only to have the Letter but to have the Spirit by which only the true doctrine can be conveyed unto us although the true service and use of the Letter in subordination to the Spirit is not denied And whereas I. A. accuseth the Quakers That they call the Scriptures a dead Letter I no where remember that ever I read or heard any of them simply calling it so But only in so far as it is eventually such unto them who are spiritually dead themselves and are not turned to the quickning Spirit but alienated therefrom to such only the Scripture is a dead and killing Letter and this much divers Protestants have acknowledged as well as we and particularly Iohn Owen in his Treatise on the Scriptures That it is so to the Iews and other Vnbelievers But unto all those who are spiritually alive the Scripture is no dead nor killing Letter but a living Testimony as also unto all such whom it pleased God to quicken by his Spirit in the reading or hearing or meditating in the Scriptures Again that he saith A part of the Scripture to wit the Law considered as strictly legal is in respect of guilty sinners called a killing Letter but never the whole Scripture I Answer That not only the Old Testament but even the Writings or Letter of the New Testament may be called a killing Letter to those that remain alienated from the Spirit that quickens Lven as Origen hath formerly taught in his Commentary on Leviticus Not only saith he in the Old
Testament is found the killing Letter there is also in the New Testament the Letter which killeth him who doth not spiritually attend unto the things which are spoken And why was the Law called a killing Letter only because it did curse and condemn guilty sinners Nay that is not the only or main reason but rather that its Ministration could not give life whereas the Ministration of the Gospel being accompanied with the Spirit doth quicken and give life and in that respect Paul said The Law was weak and could no make perfect and therefore calls it The Law of a carnal Commandment Now if any go from the Spirit that only makes the true Gospel Administration and set up the Letter or Writings of the Apostles in the room of the same These Writings of the Apostles do eventually become a killing Letter no less than that of the Law and can no more give life or make perfect than the outward Law could And here upon this Head I do readily take notice what I. A. acknowledgeth concerning the Scriptures in page 16. of his Book towards the middle part viz That the Scriptures as to the external Form and Mode which they have from the Writers Pen they are not the Word of God but that as to their ennutiate doctrine and sentence they are the Word of God And why then doth I. A. make all this loud clamour and noise against the Quakers seeing upon the matter he confesseth what they say viz. That the letter or external form of the Writing is not properly the Word of God And I suppose I may add with I. A his allowance that the external Form and Mode of the Preachers mouth when he formeth a sound in speaking Scripture Words is not properly the Word of God any more than the bare writing â—seeing there is no more in the one than in the other simply as such Let not I. A. therefore blame us for that hereafter which he confesseth himself and we do as readily acknowledge as he either doth or can do That the ennutiate and expressed Doctrine and sense of the Spirit is indeed truly and properly the Word of God But then is there no difference betwixt him and us I Answer as to the naming the Scriptures the Word it seemeth there is none But yet another great Controversie ariseth which I doubt will not be so soon ended betwixt us viz. Whether any man can reach unto that Ennutiâ—te Doctrine and sense of the Scriptures without the Spiritual Illumination and Assistance of that Spirit that gave them forth we say Not and if he say Yea we still differ but not as it seemeth to me by his Confession in naming the Scriptures The Word of God But there is yet another great Charge wherewith he loadeth us in this his Survey of the Third Query Some Quakers saith he are upon this Head so grosly Atheistical as to say That the Scriptures are but the Saints Words and Testimony from their own particular experiences And again he alledgeth That according to the Quakers they are but the meer bare Word of a Creature Hence he inferreth That the Pen-men of the Scripturs of all men in the World must have been the greatest Cheats and archest Impostors c. But seeing he produceth no express Testimonies out of the Writings of that People for such Assertions he is not to be believed Nor doth it follow that because the Scriptures are the Saints Words that therefore they are not also the Words of God even unto all who hear or read them at least mediately and remotely although none but such as believe do receive them as such which yet is only and alone the â—ault of those unbelieving persons because they reject the Spirit of God that doth certifie or assure unto us That the Scriptures are proceeded from God by Divine Inspiration And what if some have said That the Scriptures are Testimonies of the Saints from their experience May not this receive a fair and charitable construction and not presently be judged to be gross Atheism for although the Scriptures give a narration of divers Histories as also of Precepts Prohibitions and mysteries of Faith As Christ His coming in the Flesh His being born of a Virgin His being Crucified and Buried His Resurrection and Ascension the which Histories and things aforementioned albeit they cannot properly be called the Saints Experiences yet the Divine Inspiration and Revelation which the Prophets and Apostles had immediately of those things was truly their Experience and let us see if I. A. will deny it or if he do may it not be more justly retorted upon him That he and not the Quakers deny that the Scriptures are from Divine Inspiration or can he say that although the Prophets and Apostles had Divine Inspiration and Immediate Revelation yet they had no Experience of the same And that we call the Scriptures sometimes the Saints Words yet not denying them in a true sense to be the Words of God I. A. can no more justly blame us than Paul and Iohn who called their own Preaching and Writing and that of their Brethren the Witness and Teaching of men so that Paul and the Apostles Words were both the words of men and yet also the Words of God to wit mediately declared unto them by the Apostles Now they whose Faith stood in the Power of God received them as the Words of God but who came not to that power to believe in it they were but unto such as the words of men which as is alâ—eady said was only and alone the fault of such unbelieving Persons There yet remains two parts or branches of the third Query to which I. A. for all his pretended Survey hath given no more satisfaction than to any of the former The first is Whether all that is written in the Scriptures from Genesis to Revelation be a Rule of Faith and Manners To this he only answereth in general That we are bound to believe all Sâ—ripture Enunciation from the beginning to the eâ—d which we do readily grant and that therefore it may well be called an Historical Rule of Faith and that the Moral Law with whatsoever is of common equity or whatever enjoyning any peice of Religious Worship under the New Testament doth belong to Christians of our Calling and Condition but that the obligation of the Ceremonial and Iudicial Law is totally abrogated And saith he the Quakers must be content with these generals To which I Answer When the Nature of the Question requireth a particular Answer to Answer in general neither can nor ought to satisfie for notwithstanding of all he hath said the great Question yet remains unanswered What parts of the Scripture belong to the Moral Law and what â—o the Ceremonial and Judicial so called Also seeing there are divers things that were commanded and practised by the Apostles and Primitive Christians under the New Testament whether all these do oblige us now yea or nay as for example the Washing one
Rule and like Proteus turning my self into all shapes sometimes I design Christ himself oftner the Spirit himself but oftnest the Dictate of the Spirit within to be that Rule But he might at that raâ—e have no less blamed the Apostle Paul that he turned himself into all shapes while he affirmeth sometimes That Christ spoke in him and sometimes that the Spirit spoke in him and certainly what Christ or the Spirit spoke in him was by a certain Word or dictate But to Answer directly when I say Christ is the Rule And again when I say the Spirit is the Rule there is no absurdness therein for if we mean by the Spirit the Holy Ghost Christ and the Holy Ghost are never separated or divided in what they Speak or Witness in the souls of men but their speech and Testimony is one and the same alwaies and also Christ himself in Scripture is called the second Adam the quickening Spirit and the Lord that Spirit and said Christ I am the way the Truth and the Life and certainly that Life is Spirit and also the Words or dictate of it is Spirit and Life as Christ said The words that I speak unto you are Spirit and Life So the Reader may see that my words are sound and according to Scripture and therefore whether I say Christ or the Spirit or the internal dictate and Word of the Spirit is the Rule it is to the same purpose And to say the dictate of the Spirit is the Rule is no other than to say the Spirit dictating or speaking is that Rule and do not some of your selves use a variety of Speech when ye speak of the Rule one time saying The Scripture is the Rule another time The Word of God contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament is the only Rule c. as the Westminster Confession of Faith expresly hath it Another time The Spirit of God speaking in the Scriptures c. Now according to I. A. I may blame him and his Brethren in this case that Proteus like he and his Brethren turn themselves into all shapes when they speak of the Rule And whether these phrases used by them be not more unscriptural I leave unto sober men for to judge In the next place he argueth That Christ cannot be the Rule nor the Spirit because the Rule of Faith must be some complex Proposition Direction or Precept and the like To this I Answer First That the Rule of Faith must be a complex Proposition Direction or Precept formally understood in words formally conceived I altogether deny and I. A. hath not offered to prove it And although the Spâ—rit of Christ may and often doth speak express words in the souls of his people yet he doth not alwaies so do when yet he clearly enough signifieth his mind and will unto them for if among men a King may signifie his mind to his Subjects or a Master to his servants without any formal Proposition or direction of words but only by some motion of his hand or face How much more may the Lord God who is the King of Kings signifie his mind unto his servants by the motion of his Spirit without any formal or express words Again I ask I. A. if he hath not learned in the Schools that the reasonable nature of God is the first rule of Manners And certainly the reasonable Nature of God is not a complex Proposition consisting of many words And hath he not read in Boetius that excellent saying Quis legem det amantibus major lex amor est ipse sibi which the Author of a late Book called The Life of God in the soul of man doth use to prove that somewhat more than words is a Law or Rule to Christians and Englisheth thus For who shall give a Law to them that Love Love 's a more powerful Law that doth such persons move And I further Query I. A. seeing the Scripture saith God is Love he that knoweth God to be Love and hath the Love of God shed abroad in his Heart by the holy Spirit which in Scripture is called The Spirit of Love shall not this man be tyed to love God and his Brethren yea and all mankind even his very enemies Suppose it be not said to him in formal express words do so and so Again whether he that only readeth or heareth these outwardly Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy Heart c. and thy Neighbour as thy self but his Heart is utterly void of the love of God or he that hath the love of God in his heart and feelleth the powerful constraint of it is under the most powerful Law Whether the words without or the Spirit and Nature of Divine Love within is the most powerful Law and Rule There may therefore be a Law or Rule which is not a complex Proposition of words either inward or outward to wit the Divine Love it self which hath a Voice and Language to the souls of men in the silence of all words many times and can be understood as well without words as with them And therefore when I say the dictate of the Spirit is the Rule I mean not that there is alwaies a dictate of express words but that which is either such a formal express dictate or equivalent thereunto which those who are acquainted with the experiences of the Saints do well understand although it may seem to I. A. a strange Riddle or Paradox And thus by what I have said in this particular the intelligent Reader I hope shall perceive that in saying The Spirit is the Rule I am not beside my self as I. A. doth alledge but speak the words of Truth and soberness And I further ask Whether I. A. thinks that Ignatius the Martyr was beside himself when he writ in one of his Epistles to the People 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Vsing the Holy Ghost for a Rule or Whether Paul was beside himself when he said The Law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Iesus had made him free from the law of Sin and Death And whether that Law was not the Spirit of Life even as the Law of sin was sin and the Law of death was death And whether the Law of the Mind mentioned by Paul was not a Divine Principle of Grace in his mind even as the Law of his Members was a principle of sin and corruption that sometime had place in him and not any complex Proposition of words And whether the Law that God writeth in the hearts of his people in the new Covenant be simply a form of words consisting of so many letters syllables and sentences or rather to speak properly is not that Law a new and Divine Nature or substantial Life of Holiness and Righteousness and Wisdom by which the Children of God are led and taught under the new Covenant naturally as it were to love God and all men even as the Law that God hath put in all
unto the Law and Testimony supposing that were the Scripture it followeth not that therefore it is the principal rule especially in Gospel times when God writeth his Law in the heart and the Testimony of Jesus is the Spirit of Prophecy and he that believeth hath the Testimony or Witness in himself But that people are not sent to any dictate Word or Light within as I. A. doth alledge is false and contrary to 2 Pet. 1. 19. Deut. 30. 14. Rom. 10. 8. Ioh. 3. 20 21. Ioh. 12. 36. And doth not God and Christ and the Holy Ghost dwell in the Hearts of believers and must not they go to God and Christ where they are and doth not God and Christ speak in his people Are they not his Temple and as God spoke immediately in the outward Temple under the Old Covenant the which Temple was a Figure of Christ and the Church shall he not speak now immediately in his true Temple as well as he did in former times Or are we wholly to neglect God and Christ in us and their Inward Teaching and only to mind the Letter of the Scripture without us according to I. A. And when Paul said to Timothy Neglect not the Gift that is in thee Hath this command no regard unto us And when Christ saith Behold I stand at the door and knock if any man will hear my voice Is this door only an outward door or is not rather the door of the Heart which is inward and therefore is not that voice inward And whence is it that seeing Christ is so near to his people as to be in them that he doth not speak one word to them by himself as a man doth to his Friend that he is present with Is it want of power or unkindness that he doth so refrain Doth not I. A. and those of his Principle make God over all Blessed for ever more like unto the dumb Idols mentioned in the Scripture Who have a Mouth but speak not being always dumb or silent Oh! what an Indignity is this to the Lord of Glory and let I. A. take heed lest he who is so ready to charge us with Blasphemy be not found among the Blasphemers himself who would limit the Lord from speaking and revealing himself in his Living Temples To his second Argument I Answer Though the Scriptures are Infallible and cannot deceive us yet they cannot sufficiently demonstrate unto us their Infallibility nor yet their true Sense without the evidence of the Spirit as is clear by Paul's Testimony 1 Cor. 2. 4. where he telleth That his Speech and Preaching was in Demonstration of the Spirit and Power And therefore without that demonstration of the Spirit his words could not prevail nor perswade them that they were of God And certainly if Paul's Preaching needed the demonstration of the Spirit his Writing doth as much need it at this day To the third I say It is no derogating from the Scripture that they derive their Authority from the Spirit of God which gave them their being even as it is no derogation from the words of a King long ago spoken by him That he confirmeth them a new by a new immediate Testimony To the fourth Although we may not receive any Dictate within that agrees not with the Scripture it doth not follow that therefore the Scripture is above the Spirit of God or his Dictate for as the Spirit can never contradict the Scripture so nor can the Scripture ever contradict the Spirit of God and neither can the Spirit or Scripture ever contradict pure and sound Reason yet it doth not follow that Reason is either greater or equal to the Spirit or to Scripture And because that Dictate which is contrary to Scripture is to be rejected as being none of Gods Spirit it doth only well follow that the Scripture is a Rule that is to be set over all false Dictates to judge and condemn them which we most willingly grant Now I. A. perceiving that I could retort one of his Arguments labours to guard against it As seeing the Word of God is the principal Rule and the Dictate or Speech of Gods Spirit within men is the word of God therefore that Dictate is the principal Rule And this Argument I did use in my Book called Quakerism no Pepery To which he Answers by denying That there is any such Dictate of God or the spirit in any men whomsoever whether believers or unbelievers But to this I Answer 1. He will not deny but that the Apostles had such an inward or immediate Dictate and also the Prophets and therefore he must allow that the Scripture as to the Prophets and Apostles was but a secondary Rule or at least no greater Rule than that Dictate within which they had And yet by I. A. his Logick the Apostles did vilifie and despise the Scriptures and it was a needless or unuseful thing unto them seeing they had an inward Dictate which was greater or at least equa unto the Scripture Or let I. A. shew how their having the Inward Dictate for their Rule did not make them undervalue the Scriptures whereas our having such a Dictate as he alledgeth or pretending to such a Dictate makes us so to undervalue them But secondly he only supposeth it without any proof that such an Inward Dictate which was once in the Church of God as is confessed is discontinued or ceased And this indeed is the general manner of our opposers who lay it down as a Principle as needing no proof that Immediate Revelation and Teaching of Gods Spirit is ceased But let I. A. know that we can receive no such Doctrine as a Principle from hims but return it as a meer idle and false supposition which yet is the foundation of a great many of his consequences against us Thirdly that he saith I should first prove that there is such a Dâ—ctate in every man I Answer that I have done already in my Book called Immediate Revelation published many years ago by many Arguments and he should first have Answered to these before he had sought any more Also in my Book called Quaâ—erism no Popery to which he has given no sufficient reply and some of the most weighty he hath not so much as once Named And whereas he objecteth the Americans and others that cannot tell how many Gods there are I ask him by what shall the Americans be judged at the last day shall it not be by the Law of God writ in their Hearts And do not these Americans sin against God and those also who are most ignorant and yet want the Scripture now where no Law is there is no transgression This I hope is enough to prove that even the Americans and consequently all men have a Divine Law in their Hearts for if it were not Divine and as really the Law of God as any that we have to transgress it were not a sin against God Hence I thus argue a Divine Law in all men is
this immediateness doth not hinder or make void the use of means but make them the more profitable and useful even so nor the iâ—mediate objective illumination doth in the least made void the means as is already said in the case of the Prophets and Apostles and Paul said the Scriptutes were writ for his and his Brethrens Learning even his fellow Apostles as well as other Christians And to say or think the contrary is as absurd and unreasonable as who would say a Scholar that is taught of his Master immediately is not to read upon any Book nor to hearken to any of his fellow Scholars that may be as well or better learned than himself and on the other hand to set up the means in opposition to the Lords immediate Teachings is equally unreasonable as to conclude such a man has Books whereon to learn and therefore it can profit him nothing to be taught immediately or viva voce and by word of mouth by a lâ—ving Teacher Now both these extreams our Principle and the Scripture and also our good experience have taught us to shun And the immediateness of the Spirits illuminations both effectively and objectively to work and operate in us in the use of all the means appointed of God sometimes in the use of one means and sometimes in the use of another as now in Reading then in Hearing now in Preaching then in Praying now in Meditating then in Singing or Praising God now in giving Alms then in visiting the Sick or thosâ— that are in Prison and sometimes as the mind is retired in pure silence to wait upon the Lord which may be as well and as truly called a mean as any of the former I say the immediateness of the Spirits Communications and Illuminations in the use of those and the like means aforesaid do as well consist with the means and the means with them as the immediate Sun-shine and influence of the heat and comfortable warmth of the Sun which worketh both effectively and objectively upon us consist with the means when we walk or travel on the Road at noon day or labour in the Field Plough Digg Sow Reap and use any other manual operation the which means are so far from hindring or making void the necessity of the Suns immediate influence and concurrence that none of these things can be well or comfortably performed without it And in this large and general sense of the word means which also is true it may be warrantably enough said without any prejudice to our principle of Immediate Revelation that we have no ground to expect any Immediate Manifestation or Revelation of God but in the use of some one means or another that God requireth us to be found in For there is not one hour or moment of our Life but there is something of Duty or Obedience that we ought to be found in either inwardly or outwardly if we have the use of our understandings as men and every act of Obedience may and ought truly to be called a means of our receiving somewhat immediately of God to wit our Faith our Love our Hope our Holy Fear our Care our Watchfulness our Praying Meditating and silent Waiting and in one word our whole Obedience all these are as truly and properly means as Preaâ—â—ing or reading in the Scriptures And thus every one that is most diligently exercised in the true means has greatest access unto God and doth most abundantly partake of the immediate Revelations and Communications of God's Holy Spirit Light Life Love Vertue Power and Wisdom And if it be said Why are they called then Immediate I Answer Because we feel or perceive them most near unto us even as near or rather more near unto us as the things or actions wherein we are exercised giving Spiritual Vigour Life and lustre unto them without which they are but as dead or lifeless And thus even as when the soul liveth in the Body it is said to be immediately united with it and act immediately therein or therewith although it useth the Body as its Instrument Even so the Spirit of God and of Christ livingly indwelling in the Saints and united with them and they with him is said to act immediately in them and with them although the Lord useth them as means or instruments to work with him And as for the word Immediate Revelation seeing it is not any express Scripture phrase no not in the case of the Prophets and Apostles so far as I can remember if the thing it self were granted to wit That God doth inwardly reveal and speak his mind or shew his Glory and glorious â—ower and Presence in his Children as he did in and to his Saints of Old so that the Saints do Hear See and perceive also Taste and Savour and feel after God Himself as he reveals himself in his Son by the Holy Spirit the Controversy about the Name or Phrase should soon be at an end for it did satisfie the Prophets and Apostles who had it in great measure to call it simply Revelation and Vision or the like without adding the word Immediate for in those daies it seemeth that deceitful distinction of Mediate and Immediate Revelation was not found out in the World I call it deceitful and false because to speak properly all Revelation is Immediate even as all Vision is Immediate and so is all Hearing for I can neither see nor hear a man unless I see and hear him immediately And as for the Scripture when it is called a Revelation it should be figuratively understood as when it is called a Vision for none will say that Isaiah his Book is really the Vision it self which he sâ—w but only a declaration of it And as 〈◊〉 could not write the intellectual Vision that he saw to speak properly so nor could he write the intellectual Voice Word or Words that he did only intellectually hear but only a Report or Declaration of them the which doth far come short of what he saw or heard and in this respect Paul saith that he heard verba ineffabilia unspeakable words that could not be uttered or expressed and so did all the Prophets and Apostles for indeed the words of the mouth as they can be spoken and writ fall short many times to express the depth of what we inwardly think or receive in natural things and how much more to express what God doth inwardly speak or reveal which yet is no derogation from the words of Scripture for it is acknowledged by us to be a blessed instrument in the hand of the Spirit for our Instruction And though we cannot be so bold as to say That the true God is not Worshipped nor known savingly where the Scripture is wanting as I. A. doth alledge more daringly I suppose than many of his Brethren that that are more sober will allow yet we do believe and freely acknowledge that the Scriptures are ordinary means but yet not without the inward Direction Revelation and
commonly understood of that which originally is Grafted or Implanted in us and in this sense is used generally both by Christian and Heathen Writers as it is contradistinguished from that which is outwardly received Hence the natural love or affection that is in mankind is said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the which is not a thing outwardly received and consequently the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot be the Letter of the Scripture but a Divine principle immediately grafted into our Souls when God Created them and in respect of which men are said to be made in the Image of God Seventhly He alledgeth that we bring Heb. 6. 1 2. To oppose and reject all External Ordinances out of the Church citing Principles of Truth pag. 63 68 77 80. And here he insulteth not a little as if by the same Argument The Quakers were obliged to reject the very Principles of the Doctrine of Christ and the foundation of Repentance and Faith as well as Water-Baptism But to this I Answer having examined these pages cited by him I do not find that they mention or intend any thing of rejecting the Principles of the Doctrine of Christ or External Ordinances And let but the Reader examine the words and he shall find that nothing further is intended than this that people should not sit down or build their Faith upon a form of words though never so sound but should come further than all words so that leaving them behind as in respect of a foundation they were to come unto Christ the true foundation and grow up in him unto perfection And as for Water-baptism that place of the Heb. 6. 1 2. doth not mention it among the principles of the Doctrine of Christ but only the Doctrine of Baptisms which is another thing than Water-Baptism For although we have not Water-Baptism among us yet we have the Doctrine of Baptisms that is set down with other principles of our Faith as in divers other of our Book so in that mentioned by him called The Principles of Truth Now to leave a form of Words or Articles and Propositions concerning Faith which commonly are called Principles so as not to set them up for the principal and only foundation of our Faith which people are but too ready to do This is not to reject them no more than when a man leaves his Affairs he hath been conversant in and goeth to his Bed to rest him with moderate sleep is to reject his Affairs for he returneth unto them again Eighthly He saith We object that Enoch Noah Abraham c. Had not the Scripture to be their Rule and therefore nor are we to have it to be our Rule And this he makes as ridiculous a consequence as to say the Scriptures were not written in the primitive World therefore neither afterwards But I Answer that to argue from thence that the Scripture is not to be our only and principal Rule is both safe and pertinent For it Enoch Noah Abraham had the Spirit to be a Rule unto them it is no less a rule unto all now who have the same Faith which they had seeing the same Spirit is given to Believers now which they had which Spirit is one as Paul hath declared and it is most Rational that as the Faith is one in all Ages of the World and the Spirit one so the Principal rule of Faith should be one also Ninthly He saith I object Quakerâ—sm no Popery pag. 9. 13. That the Testâ—mony of the Spirit within is greater than the External Testimony of the Scripture and therefore the said Testimony of the Spirit is the Principal Rule To which he roundly Answereth by denying that there is any such Testimony of the Spirit within Believers and because I say there is he alledgeth I drive the Plough before the Oxen. But I Answer that I have proved it sufficiently already and now also I have Answered I hope sufficiently all his objections against it And here I desire the Reader to take notice how that notwithstanding I. A. saith elsewhere as Pag. 44. That he and his Brethren never denyed the Spirits Teaching Yet how inconsistent that is with denying any Testimony of the Spirit or Dictate thereof in mens hearts Is the Teaching of the Spirit only an outward thing Is it nothing else but to Hear or Read the Letter of the Scripture And are they all Taught of the Spirit who are but only and meerly Taught by the Letter But if it be granted that there is an inward Teaching of the Spirit distinct from the outward Teaching of the Scripture although not separated therefrom or without the outward as I know some of the more sober doth acknowledge then I say is not that inward Teaching a Testimony of the Spirit For to affirm it to be a Teaching and no Testimony seemeth to me to be a great contradiction And as for us althogh we cannot say that the inward Teaching or Testimony of the Spirit is never in any case without the outward yet we grant it is oft accompanied with the outward and in that case it is no less truly immediate than if it were without it as I have already shewed And supposing but not at all granting that the inward Teaching of the Spirit were never without the outward of the Letter yet seeing the outward Teaching of the Letter is oft without the inward for many are Taught by the Letter who are not Spiritually Taught all that the Letter hath outwardly Taught them it followeth evidently that the inward Teaching of the Spirit and outward Teaching of the Letter are distinct things as is manifest from that sure maxime that when two things can be seperate so as the one to be without the other they are really distinct This Argument I used in my Book called Quakerism no Popery but I. A. hath made no reply to it And still I say if the inward Teaching of the Spirit be denyed it doth follow that in respect of any inward Speaking or Teaching God doth no more intelligibly or perceptibly speak to the Saints than he speaketh to the Earth to bring forth Grass the which consequence I. A. seemeth to allow but how absurdly I leave to sober men to judge And whereas I. A. saith That God doth not always make use of the greater Witnesses for testifying his will to us I Answer In respect of men and Angels it is true But notwithstanding God hath given himself and his own Holy Spirit which is one with him to be unto us a witness of his will and this is the greatest witness that can be given See Rom. 8. 16. 1 Ioh. 5. 8 9. CHAP. VIII IN his pretended Survey of the Fifth Query he begins with two false Charges against us the First That we deny all Scripture Interpretation the Second That we deny all Scripture Consequences And to refute these idle Suppositions which are none of our Assertions he spendeth many Pages of his Book to no purpose and wherein we are
nothing concerned to Answer For we own both Scripture interpretation and just and necessary consequences of Scripture but then we say that these interpretations and consequences ought to be by the help and direction of the same Spirit that gave forth the Scriptures immediately teaching them to interpret and to draw such consequences therefrom to which I. A. doth not pretend nor any of his Brethren For all the Interpretations and consequences which Christ or the Apostles used were by the same Spirit that was in the Prophets and Peter saith expresly that no Prophecy of Scripture is of private Interpretation and it is said of Christ that he opened the understandings of the Disciples that they might understand the Scriptures which opening was by his Spirit that he gave unto them and seeing the Scripture cannot be understood without the opening of the Spirit that gave it forth it cannot be interpreted without the same nor can consequences be lawfully deduced from Scriptures without it for how can a man interpret what he doth not understand or how can he deduce a consequence from that whereof he is ignorant And there is yet another fault that we find in I. A. and his Brethrens interpretations of Scripture and consequences therefrom that they keep not closely to Scripture it self when they interpret or draw consequences but for most part mingle with the Scripture words many of their false principles and Axioms of that they call their Philosophy For as I have already said the most part of that they call their Philosophy is utterly false or uncertain nor are the Teachers of it agreed among themselves in their Principles and Axioms And yet their Consequences are commonly from one or other of these false or uncertain Maxims or Principles which they joyn with the Scripture in which case the consequences are not purely Scriptural For seeing in Argumentation the Conclusion or Consequence is drawn from two Propositions or Premisses one of which may be true the other false Again the one may be true and certain the other although true yet may be to us uncertain and doubtful in which cases the consequence or conclusion is always of the nature of the weaker premise hence if but one of the premisses be false the conclusion is false although the other Premise be true And if one of the Premisses be unclear or uncertain the conclusion is also uncertain And again if one of the Premisses be Scripture and the other be but some principle or maxime of Natural Philosophy so called the conclusion in that case is not Scriptural but Natural And thus much is generally acknowledged by all the Schoolmen so called And hence it is that the School-Divinity as it is so termed is rejected by many as a dubious and uncertain thing because the conclusions thereof for most part depend not on Scripture Propositions but uncertain and doubtful principles and maxims of that called Natural Philosophy But again suppose one should draw a consequence from Premisses that are both Scriptural yet seeing the terms in those Premisses may have different significations as the words Flesh Spirit Life Light Man and many others that have one signification in one place of Scripture and quite another in another part of Scripture the conclusion in that case doth not follow for not only the Art of Logick but Common Reason it self Teacheth us that in all Arguments the word or term that is used in both Premisses must have the same sense and signification in both Now he who has not the direction of the same Spirit that did Dictate the Scripture hath not this discerning so as to know the true sense or signification of Scripture words as they signify Spiritual Misteries and things For the Natural man understands not the Things of God as saith the Scripture and therefore he is utterly unfit to reason about them By which natural man I understand any man considered as never so well furnished with all Natural helps of his Parts and Arts but wanting the Spirit of God or at least not making use of the help of it but puting another thing in its room And thus much shall suffice at present to the Intelligent Reader how and after what manner we own both Scripture Interpretations and Consequences and yet may very well deny I. A. his Interpretations and Consequences and all such as he is who declare themselves Enemies to that Spirit that gave forth the Scriptures as necessary to help them in interpreting and drawing Consequences from Scripture And albeit I. A. use many Arguments to prove that Interpretations of Scripture are lawful and Consequences therefrom as that Christ and the Apostles did interprâ—â— the Scriptures and draw Consequences therefrom yet all this proves not that I. A. his Interpretations and Consequences without the same Spirit which they had are as good which is all one as to say Christ and the Apostles did Interpret the Scriptures and argue from them by the Spirit And therefore I. A. and his Brethren may as well do it without the Spirit but who having common Sense doth not see the unreasonableness of this Consequence Again as for the Levites their Expounding the Scripture which is another Argument of I. A. it remaineth for him to prove that these Levites who did rightly Interpret the Scripture did it without the Spirit of God and meerly by their own Natural Understanding And what if these Levites were not in all respects Infallible it doth not therefore follow that they had no Infallible direction of Gods Spirit when they did rightly Interpret the Scripture And indeed this is a third false Charge of I. A. against us as if we did hold that none is to Intepret the Scripture but he who is simply and absolutely or in all respects Infallible which we affirm not Nor is that the true state of the Question but this Whether any should give an Interpretation of Scripture without he be Infallibly perswaded by the Spirit of God that he hath received it from the Loâ—d We say Nay otherwise he Preacheth not the Word of God to the people but his own Fallible conjecture Now it is one thing to be simply or universally Infallible and another thing to be Infallibly directed in some particular cases of Interpreting some particular places of Scripture as God giveth to a man the help of his Spirit so to do And thus I. A. his two first Sections wherein he spendeth 18 Pages are sufficiently Answered In the beginning of his third Section concerning Baptism with Water he alledgeth falsly upon us That wherever Baptâ—sm is mentioned in the New Testament and the word Water is not expresly added that we always deny Baptism with Water there to be meant This is false for we grant that though Water be not expressed yet in some places Baptism with Water is understood as where Paul said Christ sent me not to Baptize here we affirm that to Baptize signifieth to Baptize with Water But we say further That the words
Baptism and Baptize when Water is not mentioned do sometimes signifie Water-baptism and at other times not but some other thing as the Baptism of the Spirit or the Baptism of Sufferings as where Christ said to two of his Disciples Can ye be Baptized with my Baptism this was not Water-baptism but the Baptism of his Sufferings whereof they were to be partakers And here in my Answer to I. A. his Arguments for Water-baptism its being a Gospel Ordinance it shall suffice to take notice what is the principal defect of every one of them and wherein he comes short in his proof as being meerly asserted which therefore are to be returned unto him to be proved In his first Argument he alledgeth That John the Baptist was the first Minister of the New Testament way of Dispensation for which he citeth Mat. 11 12 13. Luk. 16. But these places prove no such thing for they do not call him the first and the words viz. The Law and the Prophets was unto John here Iohn is the term inclusive in respect of the Law and Prophets as if I should say England reaches from I ands end in Cornwall to Berwick upon I weed here Berwick is the term inclusive and therefore it doth not follow that it is any part of Scotland again to say Scotland reacheth from Berwick to Orknay here again Berwick is exclusive in respect of Scotland and therefore when it is said From John the Gospel of the Kingdom is Pâ—eached It doth not inferr that the Gospel began at Iohn inclusively but exclusively even as Scotland begins at Berwick exclusively for Iohn was but a fore-runner of Christ who himself began the Gospel Disâ—ensation in a peculiar way and yet Christ also was subject to the Law for he was Circumcised and did Eat the Passover both which were but Legal Administrations And here again in the Prosecution of the first Argument I. A. abuseth us saying That we agree with Papists in affirming that Christs Baptism was substantially differing from the Baptism of John But his fallacy lyeth in this that he doth not express what the Papists mean by Christs Baptism for they mean Water-Baptism even as I. A. doth but we say the Baptism of Christ is not with Water but with the Holy Ghost Now we do not say as the Papiâ—ts That there were two Baptisms with Water one of John another of Christ but only that Iohn's Baptism with Water and Christs Baptism with the Holy Ghost were distinct even as Iohn and Christ have expresly distinguished them And therefore the seeond Objection he instanceth pag. 69. doth not concern us As to his second Argument he taketh great pains to prove a thing which we no wise deny viz. That the Disciples did Baptize divers with Water after Christ his Ascention and his giving the Holy Ghost But it is the consequence that is denâ—ed by us viz. That therefore Water-Baptism is a Gospel precept for the Disciples practised divers things after Christ his Ascension which were not Gospel Precepts for Paul Circumcised Timothy long after Christ his Ascention also he purified himself after the manner of the Law none of which were Gospel Precepts And the Disciples did not only abstain from Blood and things Strangled but enjoyned it unto others the which Abstinance continued in the Church even in Tertullian's days as is clear from his words and I. A. doth not hold that to be a Gospel Precept nor yet the Anointing with Oyl the Sick nor the Washing one anothers Feet both which were commanded and practised in the Primitive times And this doth also sufficiently Answer his third Argument from Peter his saying Repent and be Baptised if it were granted him that Baptism with Water is there to be understood for Peter might see it convenient at that time for a help to their weakness who were much used with outward Signs to require it of them which yet proveth not that it is a Gospel Precept For all Gospel Precepts reach further than unto Figures and Signs which are but the shadows of Gospel Mysteries And his fourth Argument hath the same defect with the former that because Peter commanded Cornelius and others with him to be Baptized that therefore it was a Gospel Precept which doth no more follow than that abstaining from Blood was commanded by the Apostles that therefore it is a Gospel Precept or because Anointing the Sick with Oyl was commanded by Iames that therefore it is a Gospel Precept And to his Fifth Argument from Eph. 4. 5. that the one Baptism must be Water-Baptism because that is the only proper Baptism according to the signification of the word whereas there is not one but mány improper or Metaphorical Baptisms But according to this reason of I. A. when in the same place Paul saith There is one Body Body doth not signifie the Church for to call the Church Body is but improper and metaphorical and there are many such metaphorical Bodies Also when Paul saith There is one Spirit I. A. I suppose doth know that Spirit or as it is in the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not improperly and metaphorically signifie God as much as Baptize signifieth inward Baptism for the Grammatical signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â— is Wind and therefore if I. A. his consequence hold good when the Apostle saith There is one Spirit that Spirit must be in the Grammatical sense Wind that is a material thing and not the Spirit of God even as the Baptism must be a material or outward Baptism And thus we may see whether I. A. his blind way of drawing consequences doth lead him even to the greatest impertinencies imaginable His sixth Argument from Mark 16. 16. hath this defect that seeing the word Baptised cannot be meant of Conversion or any other metaphorical Baptism it must therefore be meant of Water-baptism And it cannot be meant of Conversion because of the order of the words which requireth Faith to go before Baptism whereas Faith cannot go before Conversion because Faith is Conversion it self I say his Argument hath this defect that it confounds the part with the whole for granting that Faith is Conversion in part or in some degree it doth not follow that therefore it is the whole or furthest degree of Conversion for the work of Conversion or Sanctification hath its several degrees and that high or eminent degree of the Souls purification which may be called its Bapâ—ism or through plunging is really posterior to the Souls first believing and is the effect or consequence of it Hence we read of purifying the heart by Faith so as the purification is the effect and consequent of Faith Again whereas he laboureth to prove that the Baptism that saveth which is mentioned 1. Pet. 3. 21. must be Water-baptism because it is called the Anti-type or thing signified in respect of Noah's temporal saving by Water and there must be some near resemblance betwixt a Type and its Anti-type but he
yet done and on the contrary we have good ground to believe that the spiritual only is meant because it is the spiritual Baptism only which is called the Baptism of Christ in Scripture and is expresly distinguished from the Baptism of Iohn with Water and certainly the Baptism which Christ commanded was his own Baptism whereof he gave the Apostles charge to administer it as servants and instruments under him who made them Ministers of the Spirit and Power that was in him by whose Ministry others were partakers of the same But if I. A. his Argument hold good the spiritual Baptism is altogether excluded and the Apostles received no Authority to Administer the Baptism of the Spirit but only of Water and consequently they were no Minister of the Spirit for how could they Minister of the Spirit or the spiritual Baptism unless they received Authority so to do and where received they this Authority or Command if not when Christ said these words unto them Again if Christ had sent the Apostles to Baptize with Water then certainly he had sent Paul a Chief Apostle but Paul said Christ sent him not to Baptize to wit with Water But whereas I. A. doth alledge that Paul meaneth That Christ sent him not principally to Baptize I ask him Why doth he transgress his own Rule to go from the proper to the improper and unusual signification of the word not which is absolutely Negative and not Comparative and that without any urgeâ—t necessity but that of his own meer devising and that he saith Doubtless the Apostles did not Baptize without a Commission I Answer this is barely asserted without proof why might not Paul and others Baptize without a Commission to wit by a permission as well as he did Circumcise and did other things of the Law and that without any impuâ—â—tion of Will-worship Having thus Answered I. A. his Arguments I shall not need to answer his Objections or pretended refutation of our Arguments and that especially because some â— of them which he bringeth as our Arguments are not really ours and none of them he bringeth doth he fairly propose and therefore I shall refer the Reader to our other Treatises wherein our Arguments are more duly and fairly proposed without repâ—ating them here because of Brevity Only whereas he alledgeth we argue that Water-baptism is not meant Matth. 28. 19 20. because not expressed I say that Baptism with Water is not expressed nor by any true and just consequence is proved to be meant in Matth. 28. 19. and therefore we are not bound to believe that Water-baptism is there understood And I hope the intelligent and impartial Reader may see that I. A. hath not proved it to be so meant by all his endeavours and therefore not of his own mouth henceforth he is not to be believed As concerning I. A. his Fourth Section which is altogether concerning Infant-Baptism I might wave it because it proceeds upon a bare Supposition that is not proved viz. That Water-Baptism is a Gospel Precept And seeing the Controversie is most proper betwixt him and these called Anabaptists wherein we are little concerned I shall not insist to Answer every thing only I cannot but take notice of some of his most gross and impertinent Assertions and Proofs He alledgeth Baptism under the New Testament is succeeded in the room of Circumcision to this I may reply in his own language elsewhere He putteth the Plough â—before the Oxen because he supposeth still a thing without proof that Water-baptism is any New Testament Precept Again he alledgeth That Boptism with Water is come â—n the room of Circumcision because Paul saith Col. 2. 11 12. Our burial with Christ in Baptism is our Circumcision But he hath not proved that the Baptism there mentioned is Water-baptism where is his consequence for this And why doth he expound the Circumcision to be spiritual in that place and the Baptism outward and visible Is it not more proper to take them both spiritually and then his Argument doth wholly vanish And I find ask him Are all buried with Christ who are Bâ—ptized with Water if he say Not as he ought then surely the Water-baptism is not the Baptism there understood Another Argument of his is That because the Infants of Believers are probably partakers of Regeneration which is the thing sealed or signified that therefore they ought to be baptized with Water But this Argument proves as much that Infants should also have that called the Supper because Christ who was signified thereby doth as probably belong to Infants as Regeneration seeing none can have Regeneration without Christ and I would know what I. A. doth say to this or let him shew a reason why his Argument prove the one rather than the other And it seems that for that or the like reason Augustine and others of those called the Fathers were for giving that called the Supper to Infants as well as Water-baptism and in that respect was long ago really administred to them But seeing I. A. hath spent so much Paper on Water-baptism why saith he nothing to sprinkling of Infants why doth he not so much as attempt to prove that sprinkling with Water is or ever was the true form of Baptism with Water although the Question doth expresly mention it Thus we see how all along hitherto I. A. hath left the substance of the Queries unanswered CHAP. IX BEfore my Answer to I. A. his pretended Survey of the Sixth Query which is concerning that called the Sacrament of the Supper I shall premise these few particulars 1. That we do not deny but own and believe that all true Christians and Believers do eat of Christ's body and drink of his blood and that beyond or what is more than a figure or figurative Commemoration thereof to wit really and substantially yet so as spiritually and by Faith and not outwardly and with the outward or bodily mouth 2. Nor do we deny but that in all our Eatings and Drinkings we are to remember the Lords Death and so Eat with Holy Fear and Reverence and Thankfulness 3. And we deny not but that the night wherein he was betrayed he took Bread and brake it after Supper and having given Thanks he gave it unto his Apostles saying Take Eat this is my Body and likewise the Cup saying Drink ye all of it for as oft as ye Eate this Bread and Drink this Cup ye shew forth the Lords Death until he come So we grant he gave them a Commandment to do the like for sometime to come But that which is Queried is this Where is it called a Gospel Ordinance or standing Command of Christ unto the Worlds end to Eat Bread and Drink Wine after Supper in a peculiar and solemn way of Commemoration over and besides that which may and ought to be done every day And whereas Christ said Do this in remembrance of his Death till he come again It is Queried Was this coming to the end of
the World or was it his coming to dwell in them Now saith I. A. to all this first he alledgeth It was a meer Circumstance the doing of it at night and after Supper and so is no Essential part of the Action But he giveth no proof of this And if men take a liberty to change one Circumstance why may they not change all the rest as well as that one As for Example why may they not say that Bread of Wheat and the Wine are but Circumstances also seeing Eating and Drinking may be without either Wheat or Wine as well as it may be any other time then at Night Again why may it not be said that the whole Action is but a Circumstance in respect of the thing principally intended which was to signifie our Spiritual Eating and Drinking of Christ his Body and Blood which may be very well without the outward Eating and Drinking as all Protestants do generally acknowledge and thus the outward Eating and Drinking is but a Circumstance as well as the time And surely the time doth seem no less to have signification than the Eating and Drinking it self had to wit that it was at Night for that time when Christ suffered was the Evening or last part of the Covenant Dispensation wherein he gave them a Sign or Figure suitable to that present Dispensation and was not to continue as a binding thing after the Gospel day or Dispensation should clearly break up or be dispersed And it doth plainly enough appear that in the primitive times they who used that Solemnity they laid weight upon the circumstance of the time doing it at Night and after Supper which came in process of time to be changed to the doing of 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 or before Dinner And if Christ 〈…〉 intended some weighty significatio◠〈…〉 â—ircumstance of time to wit at 〈…〉 the Passover I see not 〈…〉 of time is so carefully 〈…〉 â—angelists Hence from the 〈…〉 of time I bring an 〈…〉 Christ did at that time and 〈…〉 do until he came is no Gospel 〈◊〉 because it was done in the Night or Evening of the Old Covenant Dispensation and consequently was to come to an end with it Although for the weakness of some it was continued for a time in the Primitive Church after the Night of the Old Covenant was expired and the day of the Gospel Dispensation was clearly broke up And another Argument we have that the outward Bread and Wine is but a Figure of Christs Flesh and Blood and not his real Body as all Protestants acknowledge and consequently is no Gospel Ordinance which consists not in the Figures Types and Shaddows that were proper to the Law but in the things signified by them Again whereas I. A. doth alledge That Christ commanded it to be done It is granted he commanded it for that time and for some time to come until the darkness of the legal Dispensation should clearly â—anish and be dispelled from the Eyes of the Disciples which was not â—uddeâ—ly done but required a time And many 〈…〉 believe in Christ were but 〈◊〉 and could not easily be weaned from 〈◊〉 observation of outward Figures and 〈◊〉 and therefore Christ gave them thus 〈…〉 to condescend to their weakness to bring them off from the Law and the Figures Types and Shaddows thereof by degrees as they were able to bear But it doth not follow that because Christ commanded it unto them for that time or sometime following that therefore it is a Gospel Ordinance seeing he commanded them as expresly divers other things which I. A. and his Brethren acknowledge are no Gospel Ordinances As the washing one anothers Feet also That they should go and tarry at Jerusalem for certain days and wait for the Promise of the Father And he bid them Provide neither Bag nor Shoes nor Money when they went forth to Preach But I suppose none of all these will I. A. or his Brethren plead to be Gospel Ordinances And even as his commanding them to tarry at Ierusalem until they received the Promise of the Father which was the Spirit to wit in greater measure than formerly it was given unto them did not oblige them to stay longer So his commanding them to use that solemn and peculiar commemoration of his Death until he shâ—uld come did not oblige them longer than until that his coming But now the Question is What coming did Christ mean whether his last coming at the end of the World or his Spiritual coming to dwell in them and feed with his real Flesh and Blood Spiritually received which is more than the Figure We say it is his Spiritual coming in his Saints but I. A. and his Brethren say It is his outward coming which yet he hath not proved for all his wrangling And instead of proving what he saith he not only abuseth us with bad words as calling us Possest with a blind and deaf Spirit but most falsly alleadgeth on us that we hold Christ did not dwell in his Apostles before that time when Christ took the Bread For we say no such thing nor is any thing of that sort insinuated in the Queries Only That Christ did promise unto them that he would come and dwell in them to wit in a more abunâ—ant measure and clearer way of manifestation suitable to the Gospel Dispensation than formerly they witnessed under the Law Nor will this argue that either the Apostles were wholly unconverted or unregenerated at that time all this is but the bare imagination of I. A. his Brain and no just or true consequence from our words And whereas I. A. Querieth Did not Christ dwell in these Corinthians whom Paul writes to I Answer he did in some measure but yet in diverse of them he did not dwell in that measure or manner of clear manifestation as was promised for Paul said unto them He could not write unto them as spiritual but as carnal and he fed them with milk and not with meat which plainly imports that many of them was short of that measure and degree of Spirituality which the pure Gospel state required And as for 1 Cor. 11. 23 24. Which I. A. bringeth to prove That the outward Eating is a Gospel Institution I Answer that place 1 Cor. 11. 23 24. contains no Institution of it at all but only an Historical relation of what Christ did and said that night to his Disciples Nor did Paul say that he received a Command from the Lord or delivered a command unto them concerning Bread and Wine but that which he received and delivered unto them from the Lord was the knowledge of what the Lord did and said at that time And though this practise was continued in the Church of Corinth for that time and perhaps in other Chruches this proves it not be a Gospel Ordinance more than Water-baptism or Circumcision both which were practised by many that did believe in those times And here again I. A. falls into his old trade of falâ—ly
Defence of the Episcopal Church and Faith that Ioh. Alexander undertaketh but the Presbyterian and yet I. A. is a Member of the Episcopal Church and Officiates therein under Iohn Hamilton an Episcopal Preacher who hath recommended his Book at the Order of the Bishop of Edenburgh But I suppose the Episcopal Church in Brittain will give Iohn Alexander or his Patriot Iohn Hamilton little Thanks for his Service seeing many Episcopal Teachers in Brittain differ widely in Doctrin from the said Westminster Confession And had I. A. no other Confession of Faith or Catechism to commend but that of the Presbyterians whom his Episcopal Brethren commonly call Fanaticks and is it turned to that that they commend their Confession of Faith as the only Confession of the Church in Brittain But I can find no mention in the said Confession that Episcopacy is Iure Divino However since I. A. has undertaken the defence of the Presbyterian Church and Faith in all its Articles and Definitions as very Gospel Rule and Scripture Sentence he must then acknowledge that all these Definitions and Articles of his Presbyterian Brethren are at left materially considered infallible Oracles â—nd seeing he confesseth they are not all expresly contained in Scripture but many of them only deduced by consequence therefrom by what infallible consequence can he convince any rational man that his and their consequences are just and right since he laies no claim to the least measure of that kind of direction of the Holy Spirit teaching him and his Brethren to draw those consequences which Christ and the Apostles had whereby they argued and did draw consequences from places of Scripture formerly writ And seeing not only Papists and Protestants but the Episcopal and Presbyterian draw contrary consequences from the Scriptures what evidence can I. A. give us why we should receive the consequences of the one more than the other Or can we think the Lord hath left his people so in the dark as to give no other knowledge of his Will in a great many things whiâ—h are Articles of Faith but what can be searched out by long and tedious consequences of the bare natural understanding of man as it is left to it self to fish and hunt in the dark after such consequences without any such special direction and conduct of the Holy Spirit in the least measure which Christ and the Prophets and Apostles had Nay I do not find that I. A. doth acknowledge so much as the least absolute necessity of any sort of operation or illumination of the Spirit so â—uch as that they call effective or subjective order to draw their consequences from the â—cripture But if this way of drawing consequences without the help of the Holy Spirit were so safe and sure how is it then that so many of all sorts draw contrary consequences from the same Scriptures Is not the great reason of all this because men are departed from that holy Spirit which gave forth the Scriptures and can only give the true understanding of them And therefore is it not plain and manifest as the Light at Noon-day that man's natural Spirit and Reason and Wisdom in its highest perfection is altogether unable to meddle with Divine Truths or to search after them as it remains alone hunting in the dark And certainly this is no small part of that cursed self-conceit and exaltation of mind that Rules in the degenerated nature of man that they think they can be wise enough without God's Spirit they need no direction or assistance or illumination to help them to search into the Scriptures they can do that well enough with their natural reason and a little School-craft of Artificial Logick and Grammar and Natural Philosophy but that blessed man David was of another mind when he prayed unto the Lord saying Open my Eyes that I may see the wonderful things of thy Law And as for consequences which men draw as they are directed and taught by the Spirit of God as Christ and the Apostles were when they drew any consequence from what was formerly writ we do own them and receive them and none else But yet as to the most weighty and necessary things to wit such as are the general principles of the Christian Faith and Doctrine and which as such are generally to be received by all Christians as well these of the meanest capacity as others of the greatest we see the Lord hath not left it to mans industry to search after them by consequences long or short but hath delivered them to us in plain express words and terms and that many times over and over again as in respect of many of them in the Holy Scriptures And why is it that the Scriptures are so full and large in their Testimony to the Doctrines and Principles of Religion but to let us understand that all the Principles and Doctrines of the Christian Faith which God requireth in common of all Christians are expresly their delivered and recorded and put as it were in a puplick Register And therefore for my part what I cannot find expresly delivered in Scripture I see no reason why I should receive or believe it as any common Article or principle of the Christian Faith or Life and for such to whom God hath given that Divine skill to â—ive or dip into the depth of the Scriptures 〈◊〉 out of the reach of other men who may â—e true Christians so as to collect or gather by just and true consequences other things that lie out of the view of their weaker Brethren they ought not to obtrude them upon any to be received as principles of Faith but in that case to have Faith to themselves and receive them as peculiar discoveries or Revelations of the Spirit to them and such others as God hath so enlightened the which by the Apostle Paul is called The Word of Wisdom to wit such a peculiar degree of Wisdom or Understanding in the depth of the Scriptures as others who yet were true Christians did not reach unto and concerning such a peculiar gift of Divine Wisdom he said We speak Wisdom among the perfect this certainly could be no common Article of Faith else he should have Preached it to all And this by the same Apostle is elsewhere called The knowledge of Mysteries as distinguished from the common Faith and knowledge of the whole Church Now if this were but received among those called Christians that nothing should be required by one sort from another as an Article of Faith or Doctrine or principle of the Christian Religion in common to be believed but what is expresly delivered in the Scriptures in plain express Scripture terms of how great an advantage might it be to bring a true reconcilement among them and beget true Christian Unity Peace Love and Concord And as for the consequential part of peculiar Doctrines whether true or false to leave every one a freedom or latitude without imposing upon them the affirmative or negative as
limit or confine the Gospel to outward Preaching of men otherwise what God or Christ Preaches of his Love and Mercy to men in their Hearts should not be the Gospel nor should that be Gospel which God Preached unto â—braham and also unto Adam after the Fall seeing to none of these God did use the Miniâ—â—ry of men To conclude therefore what God reveals of his Love and Mercy for mens Salvation whether without or by the Ministry of men Spiritually fitted and called thereunto is the Gospel and that Gospel may be called the Power of God unto Salvation because it is mighty and powerful in operation but yet it doth not follow that the â—reaching of the Letter without the Spirit and Power of God is the Gospel as I. A. would have it CHAP. XIII IN the pretended Survey of the 12th Query I. A. 〈◊〉 the Inspirer of the Quakers as he scâ—ffingâ—y 〈◊〉 it as being both a great Jester and a great Fool also because the Inquirer asketh Whether Original Sin be the Devil seeing the Word Original signifieth the Beginning But I ask I. A. why may not the Devil be called sin or unrighteousness in a certain sense as Christ is called righteousness frequently in Scripture And what is it that made him that was an Angel of Light to become a Devil but sin for when God first created him he was not a Devil but he became so or made himself so by his sin And seeing sin made him become a Devil why may it not receive his Name And also seeing the Devil stirreth up men to sin and is the Author of it commonly in mens Hearts it may very well receive his Name at least by a Metonymie Again is not sin called in Scripture The Old Man or Old Adam whom we are bidden to put off According to I. A. his reasoning Sin cannot be an Old Man because a man is a person and then Sin should be a person also Again by his Argument God made man but he made not sin therefore sin cannot be a man And thus according to I. A. the Inspirer of the Apostle Paul must also be a Fool and a Jester which were very Blasphemous to think because Paul calleth sin in men The Old Man and compareth it unto man having its various Members Now if indwelling sin may be called man in any tollerable sense of a Metonymie or Allegory according to Scripture why not also Devil Serpent Leviathan as also it is called flesh And whereas the Inquirer doth ask what did Christ come to destroy was it not the Devil and his works To this I. A. giveth no direct Answer for certainly that Divel whom Christ destroyeth in mens hearts and that Serpent whose head Christ the Seed of the Woman doth bruise is sin which is the Serpents birth in mens hearts and which receiveth his Name as the Child doth the Name of its Parent Now as to the words Original sin as they are no express Scripture words so they have an Ambiguous or doubtful signification and therefore it were better to leave those words and to keep to express Scripture For in one Sense there can be no Original sin because originally all things were good and sin came in not with the Creation but sometime after it But how sin hath come generally upon all men as whether by the bare imputation of Adam's sin without the consent of his Posterity or by and through their consenting thereunto is the true state of the question which I. A. hath not as yet resolved And it seemeth most absurd that God should reckon any sinners for Adam's sin without the least consent or concurrence on their part which is not just among men and certainly what is unjust with just men is not just before the Lord who is infinitely just and good And seeing none are Righteous or Just by the Righteousness of Christ the second Adam without their Faith in him and consenting to his Righteousness so none are unrighteous by the first Adam but such as consent to his sin But again when this consenting to Adam's sin took place in his posterity as namely whether before they came into the womb as those who hold the pre-existence of all Souls from the beginning do affirm whereof there have been and are divers among those called Christians or whether after they are born when they grow up to the capacity of discerning good from evil is yet another Question which I. A. hath not touched far less resolved And it were well that men were more inquisitive to find the way how to get sin put out than how it came in seeing they are generally sensible that that it hath entred and got too great place in them But as to the determinate and precise time when sin hath entred into mens Souls as it is no part of the Query so it is none of my present work to determine It shall suffice enough to reply unto I. A. that all his Arguments for the in being of sin in mens hearts fall short to prove that it came into them without their own consent or that God doth impute sin unto any Soul simply and barely for the Fact of another for that is to contradict the common instinct of Justice that is placed by the Lord the judge of the whole Earth in all men Another Question which I. A. raiseth on this Head although it be no part of the Query is Whether that Seed of Concupiscence which is felt to move in those who are Travelling uprightly towards perfection be really and properly their sin or imputed unto them for sin by the Lord when not consented unto in any measure or degree And he resolveth it in the affirmative but with very weak and insufficient Arguments 1. He saith By the sin of Adam all were made sinners Rom. 5. 16 17 18. But what then doth it therefore follow that they were made sinners without their own consent let him show us this any where in Scripture 2. He saith Adam was the representative Head of mankind But I say again it doth not thence follow that his sin is the sin of his Posterity without their consent no more than it doth follow that because Christ is also the Head of every man that his righteousness becometh theirs without their consent and their actual receiving of him and believing in him 3. He saith There are motions which are sinful though not consented to when they are tampered with or listned unto I Answer to tamper with any evil motion or listen thereunto is some measure of consenting but when the evil motion is not tampered with nor listned unto in any measure this reason hath no place And here he alledgeth on me that as he was informed I did once dispute for a Professors place which to what purpose he mentioneth this I donot understand however I tell him his Information is false for I never disputed any where in all my life for a Professors place 4. He argueth That as Gracious Principles
are Grace so an evil principle is sin I Answer there is a Principle of Grace in the Souls of Bad men which is Grace in it self and Truth and Righteousness yet it is not their Righteousness nor Grace because they joyn not with it and even so an evil Principle in a good man though evil and sin is not his sin when he doth not joyn with it 5. He Argueth That which inclineth men to sin must be sin But if this Argument hold then the Devil must be sin still because he inclines men to sin Again as to what he alledges that Paul said Sin did dwell in him from Rom. 7. I Answer I. A. hath not proved that Paul was at that time in that condition whereof he makes mention and although he speaks of the dwelling of sin in him viz. in respect of his former condition yet he telleth that not his mind but his flesh was the Subject where it did indwell And therefore when I. A. so insultingly inquireth at me What is the Subject of that evil thing or motion for seeing it is an accident it must have some subject without which it cannot exist I Answer him from the Apostle the Subject of it in good men is not the mind or more noble part which is immortal but the flesh And seeing it is not lodged in the mind of any righteous man it cannot defile it when it is not in any wise consented unto Nor doth it follow that because an evil motion may be in the flesh or mortal part the Devil is also lodged there too this is nothing but a foolish inference of I. A. his making and therefore let him take home his silly Jest to himself where he saith It is better to lodge sâ—n alone than it and the Devil too for two such Deviâ—s are worse together than any of them it self I say nothing of this can be inferred from our Principle but let I. A. take heed lest sin and the Devil too have not too great place in him which so leads him forth to foolish Jesting and reproaching the Blessed Spirit of Truth in its Holy Inspirations in the Hearts of Gods People But why is I. A. so offended with the Inquirer for asking if Sin be the Devil seeing he calleth sin Devil saying Sin and the Devil are two worse Devils than one alone To conclude this matter I. A. doth plainly acknowledge That by Christ his destroying the Devil is meant the destroying his Power and Kingdom in the World pag. 137. And not the Annihilating the Devils entity and being Is it not then clear that I. A. his own Confession the Devils Power and Kingdom is called Devil in Scripture and what is that but sin and thus we see hâ—w at last he is forced at least indirectly to acknowledge what he hath so earnestly opposed CHAP. XIV IN the pretended Survey of the thirteenth Query I. A. accuseth the Spirit in the Inquirer As being either an ignerant Blockhead or else a Captious Sophister and withal alledging That the Question as it is propounded cannot be Answered and that therefore it must be purged from a plurality of Interrogations But all this Accusation proceeds upon a wrong Supposition viz. That Christ hath not died for all men And therefore although I. A. cannot Answer the Question according to his own false Principle yet according to Scripture it can be well Answered viz. That Christ hath died for all the ungodly and sinners that they should live unto him In the next place he offereth to give some clear demonstrations from the Scriptures That Christ did not die for all men But in his whole Survey of this Question consisting of above 13 Pages he bringeth not one place of Scripture which saith expresly That Christ died not for all men And for my part I have Read the Scriptures all over several times but to this day I could never find any such place But on thâ— contrary I have found divers places of Scripture expresly affirming That Christ hath died for all as Isaiah 53. 6. 2 Cor. 5. 14 15. Heb. 2. 9. and 1 Tim. 2. 6. and 1 Ioh. 2. 2. And therefore his clear demonstrations are but his own consequences gathered not from Scripture but from his own mistakes and his absurd Interpretations of Scripture the which we are not bound to receive seeing he has renounced all claim to the Inspiration of that Spirit that gave forth the Scripture And because it would be too tedious and to little purpose to Answer particularly to every frivolous Objection he maketh against the Doctrine of the Scripture Concerning Christs dying for all men I shall lay down some general Heads or Propositions according to Scripture by which all his Objections shall be sufficiently Answered PROP. I. ALthough Christ died for all men and thereby gave a Testimony of Gods great Love and also of his own to all mankind according to 1 Ioh. 4. 9 10. and 1 Ioh. 3. 16. and Rom. 5. 8. Yet it doth not follow that Christ or God hath equally conferred upon all the Spiritual Blessings procured by his Death for the Love of God being free he might extend it in different measures or degrees to men as it pleased him according to his own infinite Counsel which we cannot comprehend And whereas Ioh. 15. 13. it is said Greater Love hath no man than this that a man lay down his Life for his Friends This doth not import as I. A. doth alledge That Christ died only for his Friends but it expresseth the superabundant Love of Christ above the Love of all other men in that whereas it is the greatest Testimony of the love among men a man to die for his Friend yet Christ hath given a far greater in that he died for his Enemies Rom. 5. 10. PROP. II. CHrist died in so far even for these who perish that by vertue of his Death all such have a day of Visitation wherein it is possible for them to be saved during which day Christ Jesus doth Enlighten them with his true Light to shew them their way unto God and also he breaths upon them in some measure sufficient unto their Conversion with his Spirit of Grace to draw and gather them whereby it is possible for them within the day of their Visitation to believe and so to be saved And this Grace of Illumination which hath a Sanctifying and renewing vertue in it comes upon them as the real effect and consequence of what Christ hath done and suffered for them God having so ordered it in his infinite Love and Wisdom that this Grace whereby he converteth Souls should flow and run forth unto us in that way and as it were through the Conduit of Christ his Blood so that the Sufferings of Christ were as the opening of a great Fountain out of which the abundant Grace of God that formerly as it were but droped on mankind is in the Latter days poured forth upon them as it was promised so to be for which
willingly and sincerely acknowledge that the Righteousness of Christ in what he did and suffered for us outwardly in his own person is imputed unto us for Justification and so much I did acknowledge in my Book already mentioned But we further say that all to whom that is imputed which Christ did and suffered for us outwardly must witness a real and true Conformity both to the Death of Christ and also to his Holy Life and walk without which all mens imputing it unto themselves is but an airy Dream and Imagination There is yet another gross perversion used by I. A. in his pretended Survey or Answer of the sixteenth Question as if the Quakers so called Seem to deny that there was any Spiritual Worship in the time of the Old Testament And thus because it is said in the Query that Christ set up the True Worship in Spirit and in Truth above 1600 years ago but nothing but great Ignorance or prejudice can from this inferr that there was not any degree of it in the World in former times And I. A. might as well argue against the Scriptures that because God saith in the last days He would make a New Covenant with the House of Israel and Write his Law in their Hearts That therefore nothing of this sort was formerly in the World And thus I have done with I. A. his long and tedious pretended Survey of this Question having omitted nothing that seemed unto me Material and having found in his whole Discourse consisting of about 19 pages scarce any thing but gross mistakes and perversions CHAP. XVIII HEre again I. A. in his pretended Survey to the 17th and last Question beginneth with a most gross perversion As if the Quakers because they would have men to cease from all their own works meerly acted in the strength of mans Will and natural Power without the supernatural and Spiritual aid and assistance of the Spirit of God would have men to be as senseless Trunks doing nothing the bare Rehearsal of which is sufficient Refutation Another charge little less gross is That the Quakers hold only Babylon to be within in mens hearts for which he citeth the aforesaid Book called The Principles of Truth in several pages To which I Answer Although the said Book saith That Babylon c. is â—ithin yet it doth not say it is only within but on the contrary it plainly affirmeth that all who are in outward Worships without the leading and enabling of the Spirit of God painted over with glorious Words but inwardly full of Abominations belong to the Kingdom of Babylon And well may that unclean and deceitful Spirit that acteth all such persons who are levened and governed therewith and thereby be called Babylon by a Figurative Speech even as the Soul of a man is commonly called the man which hinders not that the people in whatsoever Profession they may be who are acted by that evil and Antichristian Spirit are Babylon And as for the Pope and Popish Church as we do cordially joyn with the best and most sincere Proantests against them as being the great and principal Members of that Scarlet Whore Mystery Babylon in whom Antichrist or that Antichristian Spirit hath its chiefest or most principal residence and therefore in no respect can be said to favour the Pope or Popish Church on that or any consideration although we with the Salvation of the worst so we most freely declare that wherever we find any degree or measure of the same Spirit of Antichrist and Babylon as too much of it is to be found in I. A. and too many of his Brethren we cannot acquit them from being Members of the same Antichristian body although in this our upright and honest Testimony we expect neither the kindness of the Pope nor yet of I. A. far less the Popes Wages or reward for being so kind to him as I. A. doth most falsly and grosly alledge And divers of our Friends have suffered deeply under the Popish Power for bearing a Testimony against him and them which neither I. A. nor his Brethren have ever done but sit warmly at home without exposing themselves to any suffering on that account Having thus as briefly as I could given an Answer to I. A. his Book against us omitting nothing that seemed to be material I shall neither trouble the Readers nor my self with his two Postscripts to Answer them in particular The substance of the first Postscript against me being already Answered in the foregoing Sheets as to what is any wise material Or if he suppose any thing is omitted let him mind me of it in his next and withall Write an intire and thorough Answer to what is already said both here and in the Treatise called Quakerism no Popery which he hath only but here and there nibled at And I may possibly if God give me freedom and convenience return him a â—urther Answer 〈◊〉 at present I suppose he hath work enough to lye on his hand and needs no more As for his Postscript against or for Doctor Everards Ghost as he calleth it I find not my self concerned to Answer him therein nor defend every word or Opinion of his seeing he never went under that Name or Designation with us Albeit I must needs acknowledge both my Friends and I such of them I mean as have read his Book have a great love and respect to his memory which all I. A. his bitter Revilings against him shall never be able to defame And we believe the said Everard hath indeed had rare and singular gifts of Understanding and Openings of Scripture from God and withal a good measure of Integrity and zeal for the Truth according to the time and Dispensation he was in and in that respect doth truly deserve to be accounted among the Witnesses of Truth in his day whatever imperfections attended him otherwise or suppose some mistakes of Judgment in some things or not so warily cautioning some of his words as could have been wished Although I judge that I. A. doth seek to fix or fasten upon him divers errors of Judgment of which he is not guilty by reason of deep prejudice against him Partly whiles he takes the said Iohn Evrard's words too Literally and Superficially which are to be understood more Mystically and Figuratively and partly while he takes that as spoken absolutely which is but spoken comparative and by way of some Similitude and but in some respect But before I make a full close I shall only take notice of two gross and absurd Assertions waving others to another opportunity in his Postscript to me The one is that the Pope and his Clergy had the true Power and Authority of Ordination and calling Ministers before the Reformation neither as Christian nor as Antichristian Not as Christian or else all Christians would have it nor as Antichristian seeing these two terms are not contradictory but contrary for many things and persons too are neither Christian nor Antichristian To which
appearing and do still at this day load them with such kind of Charges and to none is it more familiar to blame others for Heresie than those who are greatest Hereticks themselves 4. He saith In Doctrine we trample generally upon the whole Moral Law but more especially upon the first Table And here very falsly he Charges our Doctrine to be contrary to the first second fourth fifth sixth and ninth Commandments but let us see how he maketh good his Charge in each of them He alledgeth our Doctrine transgresseth the first Commandment because we say All Prayer and Worship that is performed without the Spirit of God is Will-worship and Superstition and consequently no wicked or unregenerate persons are bound to Worship God or indeed in any respect to obey God And from thence he concludes They are not under any Law of God and therefore lastly let them do what they will they cannot sin against God such men in the Quakers Principles as he saith may deny disown reject hate and contemn God worship the Devil and debauch at their pleasure they may lawfully dishonour and defame all men Murder commit Adultery Steal bear false Witness and yet they cannot sin because they are under no Law Hence also he infers That Reprobates are most unjustly condemned for their sinning against God seeing they not having received the Spirit are not under Law to God and so cannot be guilty of sinning against him Now what Sober Impartial and indifferent person that is not byassed with deep prejudice against us seeth not that these absurd consequences have not the least shadow of any Rational inference For although we say indeed that there is no true Worship but that which is in Spirit according to the express words of Christ and that none are true Worshippers of God but such as Worship him n the Spirit and that God requireth no Lifeless or Spiritless Worship yet we still affirm that all mankind ought to Worship God and Call upon him even all the wicked and unrenewed persons as well as the renewed so that in the thing of Worship it self we have no Controversy whether it be due unto God by all mankind but the state of the Question lyeth here betwixt us and those that dissent from us what the Worship of God is and what kind or sort of Worship it is that God requires of all men And in Answer thereunto we say the true Worship of God is a Spiritual Worship requiring the sincerity of the heart not as a circumstance or accidental thing but as the essential part thereof which cannot be done without the Spirit of God How much therefore more True and Rational consequence is it to argue thus God commands all men to Worship him therefore he hath given some measure more or less of the help of his Spirit unto all men whereby they may so do which doth continue with them so long as it pleaseth God who taketh away this help from none but such as mightily provoke him and sin out the day of their Visitation And even those whom the Lord in his Justice hath withdrawn that help or grace of his Spirit are still bound by the Law of God to Worship him as much as ever even when they neither do or can Worship him truly because they have brought this unpotency or inability upon themselves by their own unfaithfulness Even as a Servant or Steward that hath received a sum of Money to pay his Master and the said Servant spendeth the Money upon his Lusts and hath not one Penny wherewith to pay the debt yet he is still lyable for the whole sum Hence what I. A. saith in page 11. of his Preface is true that the inability of unrenewed men to perform acceptable Worship neither does nor can take away their Obligation to perform it But we differ from I. A. in the cause or reason why those who want that ability are still under the said Obligation which reason he will have only and alone mens losing it in Adam in whom they all once had it and the losing of it is their fault citing Rom. 5. 12 19. But to this I Answer First Whatever loss or inability is come upon Adam's posterity by the primitive disobedience yet now by vertue of the second Adam his obedience a new ability is conferred upon all men So that as broad as the Sore did spread by the first sin even as broad is the Plaister that God hath provided to the Lame and Diseased Souls of all mankind And this is most clear and plain from Rom. 5. 18. as also from Ioh. 3. 19. And this is the condemnation said Christ that Light is come into the world and men loved darkness rather than Light because their deeds were evil So we see that Christ layeth not the ground of wicked mens condemnation upon Adams sin but upon their hating the Light that did come unto them as a new and fresh discovery and visitation of Gods love But secondly Whether this Inability is come upon the wicked by reason of Adam's sin or by their own actual disobedience since that time yet we affirm no less than I. A. that the most wicked and ungodly are still under the obligation to the whole Law of God and their inability can be no ground of excuse unto them But the true state of the Queston is this Whether wicked men not simply as men or creatures but as wicked and remaining still in their wickedness should or are required to offer up unto God hypocritical and lifeless performances of that which men commonly call Prayer and Worship but is no more so in the sight of God than a dead Picture of Stone or Clay is a true living man and so whether God did ever require any to draw near to him with their Mouths and remove their Hearts far away as the manner of all wicked persons while so remaining always is Now we say God never required such sort of Prayers but refused and forbad them to be offered unto him even under the Law see Isaiah 1. 13. Bring no more vain Oblations and v. 12. When ye come to appear before me who hath required this at your hand to tread my Courts Again Psal. 50. 16 17. But unto the wicked God saith what hast thou to do to declare my Statutes or that thou shouldest take my Covenant in thy mouth seeing thou hatest instruction c. And whereas I. A. citeth some words of our Friends That wicked men should not Pray let the Impartial and Indifferent Reader understand these words in the Sense of those Scriptures just now mentioned which are as positive and full as any that can be cited out of our Friends Books and all occasion of mistake shall be removed For neither the Sense of the Scripture nor of our Friends is That wicked men are bâ—und in no respect to Worâ—ip God for the contrary is manifest from the words cited by I. A. out of the Book called The Principles of Truthâ—
where he alledgeth their words saying All men ought first to wait until they receive the Spirit in Truth then in the same Truth to Worship God in Spirit who is a Spirit So we see by I. A. his own Confession the Quakers teach that all men ought to Worship God in the Spirit and that they may indeed Worship him they would have all men follow the Lords order which is to wait or watch unto Prayer and they would have men in the first place cease or depart from their wickedness and then by the help of the Spirit which is never wanting in the proper season of it to come and Pray unto God And that this is no new or invented way of the Quakers so called Read Isaiah 1. 16 17 18. where the Lord by the Prophet bids first That they wash and be clean and put away the evil of their doings c. And then said he Come now let us reason together Also Peter commanded Simon Magus to joyn Repentance with Prayer Repent said he and Pray that the Thoughts of thy heart may be forgiven thee And for the more clear understanding of this whole matter we are to consider that Prayer is either simply Mental and with the heart only or both Mental and Vocal to wit both with heart and Mouth Now as for Mental Prayer at least in respect of the bent or frame and inclination of the Heart God requireth it always of all men and it is possible for all men if they but receive that help of his Spirit which he giveth or offereth unto men always to perform it But as for Vocal Prayer he neither doth require it at all times nor doth he give the help at all times nor the utterance whereby to perform it And it is observable that under the Gospel no particular set or limited time is appointed for Vocal Prayer But every one is to wait to know the times of the Spirits call and moving thereunto which will be seasonably and frequently afforded to such as wait singly therefore especially when the people of God Assemble together for then it is that Vocal Prayer is of greatest use and service though it hath also its use and service in private or when one is apart But whereas I. A. alledgeth further That if wicked men are not to Pray viz. their Hypocritical Prayers because they sin when they Pray No man on earth should offer to Pray or Worship God seeing as he saith There is somewhat of sin â—leaving to the best Actions of the Saints here away To this I answer That there is somewhat of sin cleaving to the best Actions of the Saints here away is denyed seeing it is asserted by him without proof for the Scriptures cited by him viz. Prov. 20. 9. Gal. 5. 17. say no such thing and by consequence he hath not evinced it and for a proof to the contrary see Iob 16. 17. Malach. 1. 11. But secondly nor doth it follow that men who are not yet come to a perfect state but labour sincerely under the burden of their sins to be delivered from them may not Pray unto God because their Prayer as they put it up unto God by the help of his Spirit is pure and without all sin proceeding from the pure or renewed part of their hearts for it is only the pure or renewed part of the heart from which indeed the true Prayer doth proceed even as on the contrary the evil desires and affections arise and spring only from the impure and unrenewed part Therefore he that hath this unrenewed part in him ought to watch against it while he prayeth that he give it no liberty to move or stir as indeed he ought to watch against it at all other times And though he that prayeth sincerely being not attained to a sinless state pray not with that degree or measure of fervency wherewith another more perfect doth or can pray yet God regarding that mans sincerity he accepteth his Prayer in Christ and for Christs sake pardoneth him when at any time he committeth a weakness in his Prayer in not keeping purely to the Spirit Again Lastly Whereas I. A. objecteth That the Plowing Eating Sleeping c. of the wicked is sin Shall the wicked then do nothing at all because whatever they do they go about it in a sinful manner I answer This consequence doth no wise follow because there is a great difference betwixt a wicked mans Plowing Eating Drinking c. and his Praying as remaining wicked and alienated from the Spirit of God for his Plowing Eating Drinking or any other Corporal or Natural actions are really these actions and they are profitable and necessary in the Creation and when he performeth these actions he faileth not in the substance or matter of the action required but only in the manner for the substance or matter of a wicked mans Plowing Eating Travelling is not sin but the manner of it viz. That it is not in Faith but a wicked mans Prayer as he is a wicked man is no true Prayer at all it hath nothing of the true substance of true and real Prayer it is a meer picture or dead resemblance of Prayer and is rather a mocking God than praying unto him for it wants the life of true Prayer which alone the Spirit of God doth give and thus a plain difference is demonstrated betwixt the two cases and the Unvalidity of I. A. his consequences in this whole matter is evinced And if the Reader desire further satisfaction in this particular let him Read our Answer to the Students and R. B. his Apology where these Objections of I. A. are largely Answered for he has brought no new matter against us and it had been better he had both spared his own pains and not troubled the world with his repeating other mens Arguments long since answered As for his instance of our opposing the second Commandment by our rejecting wresting and abusing the Word of God and avowing of Error and Blasphemy seeing it is but a bare alledging without any shadow of proof it is enough as simply to deny it as he doth simply affirm it But another instance he giveth of our opposing the second Commandment By swallowing down our Meat and Drink as so many Beasts without any Prayer and Thansgiving without which if they will believe the Apostle 1 Tim. 4. 3 4 5. they are not sanctied But how unjustly he chargeth this upon us I can freely leave to the Judgment of all sober and true Christians For how doth he prove that we Eat or Drink or receive any Creatures of God without Prayer and Thanksgivings Because we do not always use Vocal and External Prayer when we Eat and Drink although at other times we use it as God is pleased to give utterance and are most glad either to do it or joyn with these who do it by the help of Gods Spirit But is I. A. so ignorant and unreasonable to think that theirs is no Prayer