in the least follow that the Law and Testimony there mentioned was not inward It is more Observeably strange here then in any other place with what shameless confidence he asserts his own bare Assertions instead of Arguments After the like manner without answering a word of what I infer Pag. 27. of mine against him and his Brethren from Joh. 7. 49. He concludes That Scripture fits us better then them because of our known rash censuring upon which supposition of his own he condemnes us as like to Pharisees without more adoe still also by way of reply to me he sayes It is not probable that Christ checked the Lawyer in saying How readest thou Luk. 10. 26. not offering to add any further probation and as for what he subjoyneth Pag. 7 That Christ used the Scripture about Divorcement and in the matter of the Sabbath it doth no wayes prove them to be the only Rule for as is said we are willing to try Doctrins by them Pag. 37. He sayeth It is false to affirm that the Divine Authority of the Scriptures cannot be prov'd other-wayes then by the Spirits inward Testimony adding There are other Arguments whereby it can solidly and convincingly be proved and for this he instanceth one which he sayes is excellently improved by R. Baxter what then because W. M. thinks that Argument of R. Baxter will prove the Scriptures Authority without the Spirit must we therefore be of the same mind I doubt very much if R. Baxter think so much himself Now W. M. his deceit is very Remarkable in quoteing some words of John Calvin where he sayes If he were to deal with Arguments he could produce many to prove the Laws came from God for that I never Imagined these Arguments could convincingly prove the Scriptures Authority without the Spirit which is the thing in debate it appears in the very following words Lib. Inst. 1. Cap. 7. Sect. 4. But if we will well look to our Consciences that they be not troubled with doubts and stick not at every scruple it is requisite the Perswasion whereof we have spoken be taken higher then humane Judgment or Conjecture Viz. the secret Testimony of the Holy Spirit And a little after in direct opposition to wit his words he adds This word shall not obtain Faith in the Hearts of men if it be not Sealed by the Inward Testimony of the Spirit It is necessary then saith he that the Saints Spirit which spake by the mouth of the Prophets enter in our Hearts and touch them Livingly to perswade us that the Prophets have faithfully delivered that which was Commanded them from on high and a little after This then is a perswasion which requires no reasons And again This is a Perswasion which cannot be Begotten but by a heavenly Revelation And in the beginning of the next Chapter he adds If we have not this certainly higher and more firme then all humane Judgment in vain is the Authority of the Scriptures proved by Arguments This doth abundantly shew how contrary W. M. is to Calvin in this matter and not to him alone but to the whole Reformed Churches of France who in their confession of Faith agreed upon by the first National Synod they ever had at Paris Anno 1559. say thus Art 4. We know these Books to be Canonique not so much by the common consent of the Church as by the Inward Testimony and perswasion of the Holy Spirit and whereas he adviseth me to read Calvin his 6th Chap. but that it would prove to long a Digression I could easily shew that we are no such contemners of the Scripture as those he there speaks to And what if he contradict the Truth which we and himself else where acknowledges I make use of his Testimony against W. M. and his Brethren even as he did the Testimony of Augustin Gregory and others of the Fathers against those of Rome whom nevertheless he spared not to reject sometimes Read Inst. lib. 1. cap. 11. Sect. 5 lib. cap. Sect. 4. and in many other places thus also is added that which he adds about Passur whose Translation he sayes We follow in one thing but not in another for we are not bound to follow him further then he follows the Truth Nor doth W. M. here produce any argument to prove that these words Joh. 5. 39. should be Search the scriptures and not ye Search the scriptures but his own bare assertion adding That Christ did not check them when he saith in them ye think to have eternal life whereas the very following words clearly Import a reproof Ye will not come to me that ye might have life He says not seek for Life in the Scriptures ye do well to think to find it there but thus Ye think to have eternal life in the scriptures but will not come to me that ye might have life He ends this Section asking Seeing I grant the Scriptures are profitable for doctrine correction reproof c. Why I deny them to be a perfect Rule but I never denyed them and I told him also they were thus profitable not to every man but to the man of God i e. he that 's led by the Spirit of God Now to this he replys nothing onely tells me The man of God is most commonly understood of the Ministers of Christ Jesus which though I should grant him what he either can or would Infer from it against my Argument he hath left unmentioned Sect. 3. Pag. 40. He alledgeth The voice and Testimony of the Father which Christ speaks of to the Jewes not to have been inward desiring the reader to look to the place and thereupon he cites Joh 5. 36. where Christ speaks of his Miracles as a greater witness then that of John but his deceit is here abundantly manifest for the place mentioned by me was 1 Joh 5. 10. For this is the witness of God which he testified of his Son he thaâ— believeth in the Son of God hath the witness in himself Now this he hath wholly omited and mentioned another in the stead of it which makes nothing to the purpose I deny not but the Miracles were a greater witness then that of John but then will it therefore follow that the inward Testimony of the Father is not greater also this was the matter in question After the like manner he concludeth the voice spoken of John 5. 37. Is not inward but outward citing for Proof Mat. 3. 27. 2 Pet. 1. 17 18. the one is the voice heard at Christs being Baptized the other at his being Transfigured But what way he seeks to Infer from thence that the Voice of the Father here spoken of by Christ to the Jewes was not inward but outward he hath left unmentioned Likewise the Exposition he adds upon this place as if Christ were onely here reproving the Ignorance of the Jewes whose Predecessors had heard so much of God it would be the better received that it had some other bottom then
11. Reckoning it as a great Absurdity flowing from our Doctrine that it would Import Christ in some measure to be in the Americans because He bears Testimony in them against Iniquity but to prove this to be absurd he produceth no Reason and if we may beleive the Apostle Paul he tells us That a Manifestation of the Spirit is given every one to profit withall 1 Cor. 12. 7. So this Every one Includes the Americans The second Absurdity which he seeks to Infer from this hath no better bottom that then it might be said that Christ is Revealed to Devils and that we do the Heathens small favour in puting them but in the same case with such for the Revelation of Christ to man before the Day of their Visitation be Expired and to such after they have Sin'd it out is far different as may appear by Luk. 17. Likewise W. M. hath forgot how easily this Argument may be Retorted upon himself for it is not Questioned but Devils have enough of outward knowledg even such as is gathered from Scripture and that which W. M. accounts the great Priviledge of Christians doth it therefore follow that Christians are in no better condition then Devils And thus is Answered another of his profuse Assertions Page 12. That if Pagans have Saving Light their State should be as good as the State of real Christians for it is one thing to have Saving Light and another to harken to and receive it else according to his owne Argument the State of Devils should be as good as the State of real Christians He adds Where Saving Illumination is there is Saving Faith because there is a Concatination betwixt these Graces of the Spirit Ans. There is Grace given in order to Save where Faith doth not follow upon it which is evident by the Parrable of the Seeds Ma. 13. 3. it was the same Seed was sown in the Stony and Thorny Ground that was sown in the good Ground and yet it onely brought forth Fruit there the Light enlighteneth every man He came unto His own and they received Him not but it was onely to as many as received Him that He gave Power to become the Sons of God And wheras he Objecteth That where we are desired to beleive in the Light it is understood of Christs Person else it would Import a beliefe in a Creature I Answer He that believeth in the Light believeth in Christ for where the Light of Christ is as saith W. M. himself Page 22. there is Christ himself In the same Page he further adds That if Pagans have saving Light then there is no Spiritual benefit accrues to Christians by the Scriptures and Gospel But he hath not heard us contra-distingish this Light from the Gospel we say expresly it is the Gospel according to Col. 1. 23. where the Apostle sayth That the Gospel whereof he was a Minister was Preached to every Creature This Scripture mentioned by me in my last he hath wholly Omited nor is this arguing of his concerning the bad Tendency of our Principle but a reiterate Clamour of what is already Answered in Page 16. of my last where I shew him we distingish betwixt things absolutly needful and things very profitable and how they Admit of this Distinction themselves As also how these bad Consequences of Rendring the Gospel and Preaching useless doth far more follow from their Doctrine of absolute Predestination all which he hath also Omitted Now such are far likelier then we to reprove David his Praying for more Understanding and that he might keep the Precepts of God for being Predestinate to Life he could not miss of it and how can such but reckon it folly for him to Pray that he might keep the Precepts whose Principles Oblidges them to believe they can never be made able to keep them Page 13. To say that men are Brutish in their Knowledg because they turn their Backs upon the Light he reckons a Begging of the Question as having no proof at all whereas it is particularly Intimated 1 Joh. 1. 5 6 7. where the cause of mens Walking in Darkness is said to be their not Walking in the Light though it be Pastors mentioned in that 10. of Jer. 19. that are said to be Brutish yet he cannot be Induced to name them It is easie to prove though he Insinnuate the contrary that what in Scripture is called Darkness hath Saving Light seeing it is expresly mentioned that the Light shineth in the Darkness but the Darkness Comprehended it not And this was Saving being Christ who is the Saviour Joh. 1. 5. Nor doth his supposed Contradiction follow from this as if men could be Spiritually Dead and not Spiritually Dead in respect they have this in them which is Saving for though it be in them yet it is not of them he that beliveth in me saith Christ though he be dead yet shall he live Joh. 11. 25. If Life be not in them as their Permanent condition yet they may have some touches of it and the Principle of Life is Permanent even in those that are Spiritually Dead though many times as a Spark covered under the Ashes he addeth further That according to us such who are the Children of Darkness may be called the Children of Light because a Child of Light is as much as one in whom there is Saving Light and Grace Citing for Proof Luk. 16. 8. the words are For the children of this world are wiser in their generation then the children of Light but he offereth from this to Infer That such who are indeed the Children of Darkness because of their Disobedience to the Saving Light and Grace of Truth that is in them he has not offered so much as to mention Pag. 13. He confesseth with me That the Light in some may be Darkness but speaks not one word of what Light I mention may be so Page 17. of mine onely adds That we will do well to exhort our Dsciples to take heed of our Light not to it But we desire not People to take heed to our Light or their Light as he terms it but to the Light wherwith Christ-Jesus hath Enlightened them and in this there is no danger he greatly declares his Ignorance in Alledging our way of bidding People heed the Light within is not Warranted by Scripture for God is light 1 Joh. 1. 3. is he not in us Act. 17. 27 28. Must we not then there take heed unto Him or is not that Light to be taken heed unto which shineth in our hearts to give us the knowledg of the glory of God 2 Cor. 4. 6. And is not the Word of God Light which the Apostle sayeth expresly is not far off neither above us below us nor without us but nigh even in our mouthes and in our hearts Rom. 10. 8. Deut. 30. 14. Moreover W. M. himself Confesseth That the Light of Christ is in Wicked Men and if so let him tell us plainly if men ought not to take
without doubt to us that the words which Christ spake will stand in Judgment against him and his Brethren because while in words they pretend to Exalt it both in Principle and Practice they Villifie and deny it As a 3d. Reason he Alledges We Prefer our Silent Waiting to the Reading of Scriptures as if we must first come to this ere we can know the Scripture aright adding that this waiting is defined by us to be a silent posture of the Heart without thinking good or evil Answ. These thoughts which we say ought to be excluded from waiting are mans own thoughts not such as the Spirit of God furnisheth him with and it is great Ignorance to say that without this we can use the Scriptures aright seeing the things of God knoweth no man save the Spirit of God 1 Cor. 2. 11. As for his own Imaginations which he Subjoines concerning our waiting they signifie nothing because Alledged without any proof we deny not but that Faith Hope and Charity is exercised in waiting yet not without such thoughts as proceed from the Spirit of God and whereas he finds we clear our selves of this Calumnie of being Vilifiers of the Scripture by showing how much it is our desire to try Doctrines by them he alledgeth We have herein been suspected of Jugling the proof is R. Farmer saith so but R. Farmers saying and W. M's saying is all one in this matter neither of them are to be trusted without proof Now the Reason because we say that the Scriptures are not the Saints Rule of knowing God and Living to him but this is just to beg the thing in Question That Story mentioned by him of a Quakers telling a certain Woman in Aberdeen that she might as well read a Lattin Book as the Bible doth no waies prove that we ate against trying of Doctrins by the Scripture seeing the Quaker he speaks of might have had good reason to look upon that supposed Religious Woman as one alienated from that Spiritual Key of David which can alone truly open the Scriptures and so might well tell her she would do well first to come to that else her Reading might be so far from profiting her that she might come to Wrest them to her own Destruction 2 Pet. 3. 16. Sect. 2. Page 30. he begins with acknowledging That something may be accounted the Declaration of ones Mind which is not his word though Page 12. of his Dialouge he could not but smile at it as Irrational To prove the Scriptures to be truly and properly called the Word of God he subjoyneth That the Precepts of the Scripture were uttered and spoke of God but in Answ. to this I shew him Pag. 26. of my last that the Properties peculiar to the Word cannot be spoken of the Scripture but of the Inward and Living Word to which he replys nothing onely tells there is a twofould Word a Co-essentiall Co-eternal Word and a Spiritual Word the Temporal expressed Word or the Word written in time but seeing he pretends to be pleading for the Scripture he should have used the Language of it and not such strange Antescriptural expressions which are not to be found in all the Bible Where doth he read of a Spiritual Temporal expressed Word a part of my Argument shewing that these Scriptures Hos. 1. 1. Joel 1. 1 Esa. 38. 4. are understood of that Word from which the Scriptures are given forth he hath but mentioned not answered for I told him Pag. 26. of my last that where it is said The Spirit of God came upon such a one or to such a one that therefore the Scripture is the Spirit and so as do the Socinians call the writings of the Prophets and Apostles the Spirit denying the necessity of any other Spirit this he hath wholly Omited and indeed he seemes prety much to incline to the Socinians in this matter for he sayes That the Scripture is the Sword of the Spirit and that because Christ in his conflict with Satan said it was written but had this been Christs onely Sword we must conclude the Devil to have had the same for he said also it is written and according to this Doctrine who hath a Bible in his pocket wanteth not the Sword of the Spirit which favoureth of that Popish foppery that the sign of the Cross puts away Devils but experience teacheth us both these Opinions to be alike Ridiculous Upon this occasion in his Dialogue Page 13. he asserted That it is all one to say the Scripture saith and God saith and whereas in Answer to this I told him that they might be said to be one because of their Agreement yet were no more one then the Sun Beam and the Shadow is one though they agree together because he knew not what to reply to this he mentions a part of these words of mine and Subjoyns by way of Answer to them that they tend to advance humane Writings and equal them with the Scripture when they agree with what God sayeth which as it is a manifest shift and no reply so it is a notable Impertinency to say there is any hazard of advancing such Writings as truly agree with what God sayeth for upon what other account are the Scriptures to be esteemed Page 32. to prove that word mentioned Mark 7. which he Phancies are said to be made void is not the Living Word but the outward Precept of the Scripture he sayes It is plainly held forth to be so without any further Probation He addeth Page 34. That it seems we think they set up the Scriptures as an Idoll instead of that from which they come asking If we did ever hear them call it the Eternal Son of God that Saviour who died c. Answer Though we have not heard you term the Scripture yet it is not without Reason we say ye set them up in Christs stead for I have a Letter under one of the present National Teachers hand wherein he sayes The Scriptures are the alone means of Salvation yea the alone Way Truth and Life and that none can be saved without them And I have heard another call the Greek Testament The onely foundation Now being these are the peculiar Properties of Christ have we not reason to say that such as ascribe them to the Scriptures puts the Scriptures in Christs stead though W. M. be pleased to term it unworthy dealing Sect. 2 Pag. 35. he sayes It is not dificult to prove that the Law and Testimony mentioned Deut. 8. 20. was not an inward Law The reason Alledged is Because the Prophet opposes what is written as no Light if it agree not to the Law and Testimony But what then doth this prove the Testimony here not to be inward He adds That let People pretend what they will to a Law within if it agree not with the Scripture Word there is no Light in them and that the outward Law gets the name of the Testimony but granting him all this it doth not
truely apply the instance in his Epistle to himself that he is sailing in one boat with Papists though his face seems to look a verse from them Pag. 100 He saith Whatever inward call the Elders mentioned Tit. 1. 5. Act. 14. 23. had yet they had not an imediate call which is by the imediate command and voyce of God without the intervention of men but for this he adds no proof at all nor is there any Inconsistancy betwixt being imediatly called by command from God and afterwards being aproved of men or that being aproved and set apart by man excludes having an imediate call from God Sect. 1. Pag. 101. He sayes That Eph. 4. 13. is a pregnant and pertinent proof for the continuance of the Ministry which I never denied But this doth not answer my saying that it is impertinent as to them who deny perfection seeing that place sayes the Ministry is for the perfecting of the Saints now to this he answers nothing but that it cannot be gathered that this perfection is on Earth which is but his own assertion yea by himself there after overthrown saying That the Ministry is given that we may press after an absolute full Perfection even of degrees for it is folly to press after this if there be no hopes of attaining it He wholly passes by my objections against their Ministry Pag. 59. especially in that they make not the Grace of God a necessary quallification to the esse or being of a Preacher without so much as making any mention of it where I also show how contrary it is to the order delivered by the Apostles in Scripture Therefore his conclusion is false to say we cast off such a Ministry seeing he was not able to prove theirs to be such else he would not have wholy past in silence my reasons shewing it not to be so His Thirteenth Head Pag. 102. Is concerning the Sabbath or first day of the weeks being so as to which I desire the Reader first to take notice that as we believe the Apostles and primitive Christians did meet this day to worship God so we as following their example do the like and forbear working or useing our lawful occasions upon that day as much as our Adversaries so that the debate is onely whether there be any inherent Holiness in this Day more then in another or if there be any positive command for it from Scripture Particularly if the fourth command bind us to the observation of it And here W. M. notwith-standing of his great pretences to the Protestant Churches doth wholly disagree from them in this thing who are of our mind as to it the generality of all the Protestants both in Germany France and else where out of this Illand do look upon the supposed morrallity of the first day of the week as altogether ridiculous which may be seen in Calvin upon the fourth command lib. inst 2. cap. 8. Sect. 34. where he explains the signification of it as we do Viz. Typifiing a Spiritual Rest wherein leaving our own works the Spirit of God may work in us he there refuts W. Ms. notion as a Jewish Opinion saying Some false Doctors have abused ignorant People with it adding as we do That the Apostle Paul reproves such superstitions likewise he plainly asserts That the keeping of the first day is onely for conveniency and to preserve order in the Church that the Saints might have a fit time set apart to meet together to Worship which we also say hence doth appear the folly of that impertinent story mentioned by him Pag. 105. seeking to infer That we agree with Papist in takeing away the fourth Command as they have done the second for by this he might conclude the first and chiefest Reformers guilty of Popery whereas himself agrees with papists both against the Protestants abroad us in pleading for this imaginary holiness of the first day of the week which in his Dialogue he sought to prove because Christ did rise upon it but to my answer showing he might from thence infer the rest of the Popish holydaies of His Birth Ascention Conception c. he replies not one word he summarly passes over what is said by me concerning this thing Page 59 60 61 and 62 which the Reader by looking unto may observe He aledgeth The fourth command speaketh not precisly of the Seventh day in order from the Creation and that the beginning and ending of it mentions the Sabbath day and not the Seventh quid inde c. What then is not the middle of the command as observable which saith expressly But the Seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord there God himself expounds the Sabbath to be the Seventh day and W. M. must not think we will reject this exposition to accept of his proofless glosses My argument drawn from Coll. 2. 16 17. Let no man judge you in respect of a holy day or Sabbath dayes and Rom. 14. 6. which sheweth all dayes to be alike and Gal. 4 10 11. Ye observe dayes and months times and years He answereth aledging These reprove not morral dayes but ceremonial adding That the fourth command binds to this and therefore it cannot be more abrogate then any of the rest of the ten commands but this is no proof at all onely a meer begging the question he should have more convincingly proved that the fourth command binds to the observation of this day Now the Apostle in these places sayeth not I am afraid of you because ye observe ceremonial dayes W. M. hath no bottom for this distinction he confesseth that Christ Mat. 24. 20. speaketh nothing of the first day of the week and therefore overthrowes the inference he makes in his Dialogue from it and what I further add to show the folly of this inference from the Scripture He hath wholly omited which the Reader may see Pag. 59 60. of my last Pag. 106. He sayes Oh! the conscientious keeping of the Sabbath is a comfortable evidence of those that shall be admitted to this Rest viz. the rest of the Lamb. But seeing these words are without any proof they are only like to have credit with such silly superstitious Bigots as Calvin in the place above mentioned reproves and not with any solid serious Christians Sect. 2. Pag. 107. To prove that the first day of the week is set apart for the service of God by Divine Authority he citeth Rev. 1. 10. I was in the Spirit on the Lords day but whereas I told him this did no way prove that day to be the first day of the week because the day of the Lord or the Lords day in Scripture is not limited to any particular day He answers That these two ought not to be confounded for all dayes wherein the Lord executeth judgement are dayes of the Lord but the Lords day mentioned Rev. 1. is but one For this he bringeth no proof but his own meer assertion As Ignatius calling the first day of the
week The Queen of dayes doth not prove that Lords day spoken of by John to be the first day so if Ignatius had been of this mind and had esteemed of it above other dayes that makes nothing against us we know this Superstition was creeping into the Church before Ignatius's time therefore the Apostle Paul warned the Galatians Gal. 4. 10 11. To prove this day spoken of by John to be the first day of the week he saith Christ appeared to his Disciples declared himself to be the Son of God upon the first day of the week That it is supposed that was the day the Spirit was poured forth And that Beza in an ancient Greek Manuscript did find the first day of the week called the Lords day But all this doth not in the least prove the matter in question except this may suffice for proof W. M. thinks this will infer the day of the Lord spoken of by John to be the first day of the week therefore it is so There may be Superstition-enough found in old Greek Manuseripts It is near fourteen hundred years since the Eastern and Western Churches were like to split about the observation of Easter and yet Protestants with good reason look upon that Controversie as both Superstitious and frivolous Now giving but not granting this day spoken of by John were the first day of the week How doth he prove from this that the first day of the week is come to Christians in place of the Jewish Sabbath or that it stands as an obligation upon them as a part of the moral Law whereunto we are bound by the forth Command which though it be the cheif thing in debate remaines yet unproved seeing then he has had very few proofs for these his supposed Ordinances but such as are onely bottomed upon his own affirmations the Juditious Reader may judge it is with out ground he concludes here that we deny the Ordinances of Christ and not the inventions of men His fourteenth Head Pag. 109 Is concerning Original sin so called which the Reader by comparing with Pag. 62 63 64 and 65. of mine will see that he makes no reall but a meer counterfeit shew of answer and I desire the Reader first to observe That neither here nor in his Dialogue he doth not so much as offer to prove that this phrase Original sin is to be found in Scripture and for all his pretences to make the Scripture his rule he hath no ground from this but from Popish Tradi ion Secondly That we grant a reall Seed of sin derived from Sathan which Adams Posterity is liable to But we say none become guilty of this before God nutill they close with this evill Seed and in them who close with it it becomes an Origine or Fountain of evill thoughts desires words and actions And as by granting all capeable of receiving this real Seed of sin we differ from the Socinians and Pelagians So by saying it is not the Childrens sin until they do close with it We agree with Zuinglius a famous Protestant who for this very Doctrine was condemned by the Council of Trent in the Art of the Fifth Ses. Cons. Trent lib. 2. Pag. 208. The acts of which Council not onely against us but against this famous founder of the Protestant Churches in Zuitserland is that which W. M. is here vindicating Thirdly I desire the Reader may observe That the thing he pleads for is that Infants are really guilty before God that Infants are guilty before God simply for Adams sin And that some of them who die in their Infancy and never actually sin in their own Persons do for this sin of Adam Eternally perish Now whither this Doctrine be sutable either to the Justice or Mercy of God I leave the Christian Reader to judge I shall examine the reasons he brings for it his cheif argument for this in his Dialogue Pag. 47. was That because Children die citing Rom. 23. The wages of sin is death now I shew him Pag 64. of mine how that made nothing because natural Death of the Saints is not the wages of sin for their sins are forgiven them c. this he hath not so much as mentioned far less answered And whereas he might as well argue that the Earth Trees and Herbs were sinners because they received great decay by Adams sin He slightly passes it over aledging It will not therefore follow that all mankind who suffer Death are not Sinners Now this is no answer but a meer shift and the thing I intended against his assertion doth very naturally follow from my argument thus If as W. M. sayes Infants be guilty of Adams Sin because they are subject to diseases and Death then the Beasts who are subject to the like and the Earth Herbs and Trees who have received their decay are sinners before God but this is absurd therefore the other let him answer this the next time more effectually The first proof he brings here is 1 Joh. 3. 6. That which is born of the flesh is flesh adding This intimates man by his natural Birth to be Corrupt and Fleshly But for this his gloss he bringeth no proof though That which is born of the flesh be flesh he showeth us not how it followeth thence that Infants are guilty of Adams Sin after the like manner he concludes this his doctrine from Job 14. 4. Psal. 5. 5. But as the words in these places do not plainly express any such thing so he brings no reason to make his consequences deduceable from them after the like proof-less manner he aledgeth Rom. 5. 14. By one mans disobedience many were made sinners Now though the matter in question be Whether these many were made sinners before they actually sinned in their own Persons He doth not so much as offer to prove it in the like manner though David said his Mother conceived him in sin he sheweth us not how it followeth from thence that David was guilty of sin before he actually sinned and here I observe how he asserts That men are guilty of the sin of their immoderate Parents contrary to the plain Testimony of the Scripture Ezek. 18. 20. The Son shall not bare the iniquity of the Father To prove Infants thus guilty he further addeth Rom. 5. 12. aledging these words For that all have sinned includes Infants but I shew him this includes not Infants because the Apostle clears it in the next verse saying Sin is not imputed where there is no law and that there being no Law to Infants they cannot be guilty of sin To this he replies There was a Law to Adam and that he represented mankind and stood as a publik Person Therefore Children had a Law in him But for this signification of his own he produceth no proof and it cannot be received as being direct contrary to the Scripture above mentioned The Son shall not bare the Fathers iniquity He aledgeth That those the Apostle speaks of who sinned
cannot depart from him Christ came to his own for this end that he might save them and yet it is said they received him not Joh. 1. 11. He sayes I make short work of these Scriptures Joh. 10. 27 28. Joh. 13. 1. 1 Joh. 2. 19. because I say they speak of those who were come to a through Regeneration which he sayes is without proof But the Reader by looking unto them will find they cannot be understood otherways then of such as are throughly Regenerate and it appears he was sensible of this having produced nothing to the contrary and whereas he adds That if those who are throughly Regenerate were onely to persevere then this were the priviledge of Saints in heaven and not in earth who never come to be so there can be nothing more rediculus then this manner of arguing seeing that question whether the Saints can be perfectly Regenerate on Earth is as much in debate as the other That objection of his as if from this Doctrine it might follow one were a Child of God to day and a Child of the Devil to morrow I answered in my last Pag. 66. to which he returneth no answer and therefore it is disingenuity in him to bring it forth here again and whereas in Pag. 66 67. of my last I shew him how he contradicted himself in this matter by granting some of the Quakers to have been truly converted and yet now to condemn them as Apostates he is so far from reconciling it that he avers it a new in plain terms saying Pag. 118. That some of them have felt a gratious opperation on their hearts and Pag. 9. He cannot but think That some of them were savingly wrought upon and yet adds That it is clear that they have Apostatised from the Truth Now to reconcile this he hath nothing to say But he trusts the Lord will convince them Answ. As some of them to whom he and his Brethren were forced to give the Testimony of gratious Persons have already departed this Life not onely not shrinking from but even Testifying to these Truths he calls error so others whom they have also accounted gratious having been at deaths door have asserted the same Truth and rejoyced in it which suffiseth to overturn his vain confidence and truly such a groundless hope is but a poor shift to reconcile so palpable a contradiction whereby while in words they condem this Doctrine of the capacity of mans falling away from Grace yet as to the experience of some particulars they are forced to acknowledg it for fear they should fall in greater Inconveniences of granting some among the Quakers to be choice Saints His Sixteenth Head Pag. 119. Is to prove the danger of Quakerisme as he terms it but that his folly may appeare in this particular I desire the Reader first to observe our Principle which he concludes so hazardous even as repeated by himself Pag. 121. Viz. That a man cannot nor ought not to Pray without the Spirits motion and to say none can Pray without it hath no bad tendency because all such Prayers as are performed without the help of the Spirit are Abomination not true Prayers but hypocritical and deceitful Now he cannot deny this and therefore grants it to be true yea saith plainly in the next Page That Prayer without the Spirit is Abomination And whereas he adds That forbearing of Prayer is also Abomination we do not deny it but freely confess that forbearing of Prayer in the wicked is sinful but the way to prevent this is not to commit a second evill Viz. to Pray without the Spirit they ought first to come to the Spirit that thereby they may Pray acceptably according to that of Paul Rom. 8. 26. Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities for we know not what we should Pray for as we ought but the Spirit it self maketh intercession for us with groans that cannot be uttered 1 Cor. 14. 15. I will pray with the Spirit which being brought by me in my last he hath wholly omitted so much muchasto mention far less to answer And though omiting of Prayer be sinful yet to bid a man Pray without the Spirit is as much as to desire a man to see without opening his eyes This thing may appeare by a familar example thus suppose a servant turn slugard and sleep while he should be about his Masters work if when he is raised out of his bed he should run naked to it without taking along those Tools or Instruments which are absolutly needful for the doing of it what will he profit either himself or his Master Yea he will but hinder the work more Even so the wicked as they ought to Pray so they ought first to come to the Spirit whereby they may do it to the glory of God and their own Souls good Now though this be so undeniable that he cannot gainsay it yet in contradiction to the Truth and his own Concessions he goes about to cavil against it aledging It might take off men as well from their necessary works because the ploughing of the wicked is sin and that also it might follow from this That Children should not honour their Parents and Husbands love their Wives but when they have a motion of the Spirit for it Answ. This objection hath no weight to overturn the Truth for there is a great difference betwixt these things that relate to the worship of God and what relates to outward things either concerning our selves or our neighbours The worship of God is a Spiritual thing relating to himself which we are commanded to perform in the Spirit and God doth offer us his Spirit for the performance of it And because it is that which is meerly relative betwixt God and the Soul he doth not accept of it but as so offered we cannot Pray as we ought saith the Apostle But the Spirit helpeth c. Now though these other things would no doubt be the more acceptable to God and more frequently accompanied with his blessing that they were done in the sence of his fear and in the drawings of his Spirit yet they are materially good in themselves answering really their end to them unto whom they immediatly relate without it but it is not so of Prayer which as it immediately relates to God so W. M. himself confesseth without the Spirit to be Abomination Thus is also solved his supposition Pag. 1 124. That if a wicked man contract guilt he may provoke the Lord to withdraw the motions of the Spirit and then his not Praying is not sin for I have asserted that the not Praying of the wicked is sinful and this doth not lull People in a sinful security on the contrary they are like rather to be lulled in such a security by being told they may be set about Prayer when they please whereby they foster themselves in a groundless hope because of their now and then repeating their words of Prayer neither expecting nor looking for