mayst observe he answers nothing and thereby see the spirit of those men that doe stop their eyes against the plainest light but he that hardeneth his heart shall not prosper Position 13. That the Scriptures are not the Word of God but a Declaration of the conditions of them that spoke them forth He answers nothing according to his custome to our arguments nor excepts against our proofes but labours to confirme the Position Excep 1 Christ is the Word now if the Scriptures be the Word then there is two Words of God now prove that in Scripture or that the Letter is â—aked the Word in plaine words Reply 1. That Christ is the Word is plaine Iohn 1. and who knoweth it not The essentiall and declarative Word not all one 2. That the will of God contained in the Scripture is the Word of God is as plaine besides the Scriptures we named â—n the Perfect Pharisee pag. 24. Marke 7.13 Luke 11 28. Rom. 10.17 Iohn 12.48 we shall adde these Luke 8.11 the Seed is the Word of God ver 12. then commeth the Devill and taketh the word out of their heart least they should beleeve and be saved can the Devill take Christ out of their hearts 1 Thes 2.13 When yee receaved the Word of God which you heard of us yee received it not as the Word of Men but as it is in truth the Word of God c. This was the Word which the Apostles spake yea received it which cannot be meâ—nt of Christ he should have said yee received him not as the word of men but as it is in truth the word of God This is so plaine a case we shall not trouble thee further And here thâ—u mayst observe there are two words of God the essentiall and 〈◊〉 declarative and wonder the man should be so weake as to bid 〈◊〉 produce Scripture to prove this when the Scripture is so full of it to any that doth but reade it Excep 2 The Apostle calls what he wrote a Declaration 1 â—ohn 1.2.3 Reply How doth this prove the Scriptures are noâ— the word of God nay doth it not fully prove the contrary for that which he declares was what he had heard of the Lord Iesus Scriptures not onely a declaration of the conditions of Saints Againe we doe owne the Scriptures to be the declarative Word of God or a declaration of the minde of God but we say the Quakers doe destroy the Scriptures Divinity and authority when they call them onely a declaration of the conditions of them that spoke them forth For as we prâ—ved before 1 They shall be then no foundation for the Faith of Saints for one mans condition is not the foundation of another mans Faith 2. The Scripture shall have no authority over the soule of any but he that is in the same condition and hath experienced it contrary to Iohn 2.4 8. this is the reason why Nayler sayes they are not commanded to forbear to weare shâ—oes in his Book p. 21. if they were they should as well as they are commanded not to sâ—lute whereas that command if it be in any part binding Luke 10.4 requires both but this will tell thee what is meant by their calling Scripture a speaking forth of the Saints condition viz. it shall have no authority over them further then they list or have an impulse on their spirits or they practice for both the commands are of equall authâ—rity yet he denyes they are commanded one of them nay they are both in the same verse Luke 10.4 Yea 3. This destroyes the divine authority of all Historicall and Propheticall Scripture which could not be the Saints conditions when thâ—y spoke them as also threatnings and promises c But see this at large Perfect Pharisee pag. 24.25 We sha l say but this 1 Iohn 5.16 There is a sinne unto death I doe not say that you should pray for it was this Iohns condâ—â—ion when he spake it did he exper ence in his heart that he had sinned to death 2 Pet. 2.22 The Dog is returned to his vomit c. was this the condition of Peter that spoke it but we are ashamed of this wickednesse and folly of these men Excep 3 VVhereas you say it cannot be understood to be the word Christ that came to the Prophets Samuel Ieremy c it seems your understanding is not with the Apostle who saith It was the Spirit of Ch i st that was in them 1 Peter 1 11 and you say what Christ and his Apostles Preached c. was not Christ the Father or Spirit when as the Scripture saith Holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the holy Ghost 2 Pet. cap. 1 ver 21. Reply The Quakers grossâ— confounding of Christ with the written VVord 1 Consider Reader how grossely he abuseth and perverts the Scripture to prove that the words that they spoke were Christ and the spirit because it is said These holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the holy Ghost What a grosse and blasphemous conâ—ounding is here of the word that those men spoke and the holy Ghost that moved them to speake making the word spoken by a finite creature to be the everlasting spirit the holy Ghost The words were committed to Paper and Inke Rev. 1. Heb. 2.2 engraven in Tables 2 Cor. 3.7 Isay 30 8. write it before them in a Booke note it in a Booke c. can this be Christ or the Spirit of God and yet these are the things which they were moved of the holy Ghost to write Who knoweth not that it was the spirit of God that moved them to write that revealed the things they were to publish to the world but were those things that the holy Ghost moved them to write were those things Christ were those things the spirit What a miserable ignorance or judiciall blindnesse is this which certainely the righteous judgement of God hath given up this Generation of people to because they received not the truth in the love thereof that they might be saved Position 14. That the Spirits are not to be tryed by the Scriptures c. This Position is not denyed by Nayler we proved it from three testimonies and Nayler in his answer addes his owne defence thereof without exception against any of our proofes VVe shall take his arguments for defence thereof in order Excep 1 The infallible spirit which is the originall of all Scriptures is the tryall of all spirits and that spirituall man judgeth all things and by that spirit the Saints was to judge of all spirits and gave those up to Sathan that was for that end as is plaine 1 Cor. 5 4. Reply 1 The spirit not to be set in opposition to Scripture The force of this argument by which he would prove that spirits are not to be tryed by Scripture lyeth thus The infallible spirit is the tryall of all spirits therefore spirits are not to â—e tryed by Scriptures To
denied truely he could not in so few words have spoken more untruely to prepossesse the Reader but we beg the Reader as to that to suspend his judgement till he have fully read the ensuing Discourse wherein whether any thing have been charged on them that is false and whether Nayler have done faithfully in owning what is truth will appeare at large In the Preface of James Nayler to his answer he tells you The Man of sin and his â—orkings in the last times Revealed That Christ now appearing in his Saints to discover the man of sinne with all his deceits and deceiveable workings now all the powers of darkenesse are gathered against him Gog and Magog As for those deceits and deceiveable workings truely these blasphemous Doctrines of these men with their Diabolicall delusions and quakings will make it appeare where the man of sin is now working To open this we shall stay the Reader a little Agreement betwixt Papists and Quakers 1. It is as claere as the noone day 2 Thes 2. chapter Rev. 12.3 Rev. 13. Rev. 17.4.5.9.10 that the Papall Apostacy and state is The Antichrist so often Prophesied of in Scripture Now it is as plainâ— that the very distinguishing Doctrines and practises of these men are such as are the maine principles of that man of sinne in opposition to Jesus Christ Papist Bell. l. 2. de justif cap. 7. 1. The Papists deny the imputed righteousnesse of Christ for justification and in scorne and derision call it A putative Righteousnesse Quak. These also from the same spirit deny the imputed Righteousnesse of Christ for justification And Nayler himselfe before the whole Court at Appleby discoursing with W. C. about justification by righteousnesse of Christ imputed not onely denyed it but in a sleighting way ended his discourse thereabout with this language That which is without is without So George Fox affirmed That he that is borne of God is justified by Christ alone without imputation Sauls Errand pag. 12. Papist Bell. l. 2. de justif cap. 3. 2. The Papists in their controversies with us doe positively affirme that justification is by inherent Righteousnesse Hence Bellermine Stapleton c. with the rest doe positively affirme that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is onely justum facere per inherentem justitiam that to justifie is onely to make righteous by inherent righteousnesse Quak. So these men doe as confidently affirme that they are onely justified by inherent righteousnesse or that righteousnesse within which Christ within them enableth them to performe See our proofe Perfect Pharisee pag. 10. Papist Bell. de juâ—tif l. 4. c. 11. 12. 13. 14 3. The Papists againe doe confidently conclude that a man may perfectly keep the whole Law Hence their neglect of the righteousnesse of Christ their workes of supererogation and the like Quak So the Quakers their great assertion as a challenge to all is that eâ—ery Saint is perfect that it is pâ—ssible to be perfectly holy and without sinne Perfect obedience to the Law of God is their great Principle which they confidently cry up more then any Papist Bell. l. 3. de verbo Dei c 4. 4. The Papists affirme that the Scriptures or the Written Word of God are not the supreame Iudge of sp rits Quak So these people that the spirits are not to be câ—yed by Scripture So A. P. in the Booke he but forth called Severall Papers p 19. The Woâ—lds touchstone is without them and they try the spirit by the letter c. but the Saints touchstone is within So that though they agree not what shall be yet both of them consent in denying the Scripture to be the judge of spirits Papist 5 The Papists call the Scripture aâ—â— ad letter a nose of wax a scâ—bbard without a sword Coâ—erus in Euchir pag. 44 Pighius lib. 1. cap. 4. So Melchior Canus sayes It is most certaine the Written Word is onely for Babes and is no way necessary for those that are growâ—e as is more fu l Melchior Canus defens each fid contra confess Worâ—berg cap. 36. Quak. So these men also not onely câ—y downe the necessity of the written word see the perfect Pharisee pag. 20. but also call it a dead letter a carnall letter that they are but a declaration of them that spake it So Melchior Canus againe saith the Gospel is not the Scripture as Farnworth in his Booke Discovery of Faith scoffes at our saying the foure Bookes of Matthew Marke Luke and John are the Gospel pag. 1â— Papist 6. The great argument by which the Papists doe goe about to establish the truth of their way is Immediate revelations and pretended miracles the want of which they upbrayd the Protestant Ministers and charge us to be no Church Quak So the Quakers doe in their pretence to an immediate call and their supposed miracle of quaking So A. P. the Word of the Lord came to me saying So Audland the Word of the Lord came to me but of that more hereafter Papist 7. The Papists doe place much of their holinesse in their Eastings beggerly apparell and forsaking the World as they call it as their lâ—â—ing mewed up in convents and cloysters their wandring up and downe as Hermits and begging Fryers c. Quak. So these men is knowne to place abundance of their holinesse in Fasting beggarly apparell wandring up and downe the World c. we might adde much more but here you may see how the man of sinne in these men in their compliance with the principles and practises of the Romish way breaks out in his deceit and deceiveâ—ble workings 2. He is a stâ—anger in the Booke of God as to the discovery of Antichrist The spirit of errour the spirit of Anti-Christ who doth not observe the spirit of God mightily unvailing Antichrist by the revealing of the spirit of errour in him for 1 Iohn 2.18 there it plainly appeares that horrid errors are of that affinity with the Antichrist that when he would describe that man of sinne in the last time he calls the Heretiques by that very name Now are there many Antichrists whereby we know it is the last time c. Now besides those which we have named the Reader will easily observe such a masse and heape of Arminian Socinian Familisticall errors in their Doctrines layd downe in the Perfect Pharisee that he may câ—earely observe where the spirit of Antichrist works in all deceiveablenesse in this last time 3. Lastly It is the Saints bulwarke against the Papists while they call for our miracles that the spirit of God clearely holds forth that the comming of the man of sinne is after the working of Satan with all power and signes and lying wonders 2 Thes 2.9 So Rev. 16.13 the three uncleane spirits ver 14. are the spirits of Devils working miracles to gather together c. Now this further evidenceth the spirit of the man of sinne
which is the cause of such most wretched blasphemies 1 Cor 6.17 opened This next Scripture is 1 Cor 6.17 He that is joyned unto the Lord is one spirit The designe of the Apostle there being to dehort from Fornication upon the account of that union that is betwixt the Fornicator and the Harlot ver 16 they are one body for two saith he shall be one flesh doth adde a further reason to the Saints he that is joyned to the Lord is one spirit V. 15. Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them the members of an Harlot God forbid Now that this Text doth not hold forth a Beleevers equality with God will thus appeare For first The strength of the Apostles argument in this place is by the membership of a Beleever to Christ to prove the exceeding sinfulnesse of taking a member of Christ and making it a member of an Harlot all the union it holds forth betwixt us and Christ is onely as we are members of the Lord Jesus Now the membership of a Beleever with Christ is nothing to prove his equality with God For first The implantation of a Beleever into Christ being by Faith in his death and Faith it selfe being a finite grace can no way bring the soule into an infâ—nite equality 2. Besides Paul after membership by Faith in Christ yet complained of a body of sinne which utterly disclaimes all equality with God 2. The nature of this union speaks no physicall onenesse for as there is no physicall onenesse betwixt the Fornicator and the Harlot neither are they physically one body though so ca led out of a relative respect so neither is there any such physicall onenesse betwixt Beleevers and Christ And without the soules physicall onenessâ— with God there can be no equality betwixt it and God nay if Christ were not essentially one with the Father neither could he be equall with the Father Having thus seen the full meaning of these Scriptures we beleeve Readâ—râ— thou wilt wonder how the Justices could heare the Scriptures so blaâ—phemously abused and yet be satisfied as Nayler pretends they understanding his affirming his equality with God of the spirit of Christ in him For did they thinke that the spirit did essentially dwell in Fox how then came they to be satisfied when Fox attributes that to himselfe which is the spirits property or how comes he to be the same essentially with the spirit of God or did they conceive the spirit in Fox to be the graces or fruits of the spirit how then could they be satisfied it so in as much as those fruits of the spirit are in their best capacity but a new creature and so in no way equall with God But were they all satisfied How then was it that Mr. Sawry a Member of the late Parliament and as unprepossessed as any of the Justices then present was so fully satisfied that Fox was really and by confession guilty of those blasphemous words that he said he was equall with God that he openly declared against him in the presence of them all and urged the Iustices that Fox was clearely guilty of that blasphemy by his owne confession before them all Now for what he addes concerning Dr. Marshall his Oath That one of the Iustices who was present at Lancaster when Fox spoke these words did openly there witnesse against Marshals false Oath in the hearing of the open Court Let the Reader know W. C. 1. T is true that Iustice did so in the hearing of one of us but did it in such a way with his head hanging downe and a low voyce that spake clearely enough to observant hearers he had more will to accuse him then either confidence or reason 2. That Iustice was Coll. Benson t is true he was at Lancaster and t is as true he was a Quaker long since and before that time and had made it his worke to ride up and downe about that businesse to get Fox discharged from his blasphemy and what such a partiall evidence is to gaine-say the Doctors Oath let the Reader judge 3. Besides the Dr. swore it and so did Mr. Altham but Coll. Benson onely whispered it or said it at the utmost 4. It was fully evidenced after in Lancaster before the whole Country 5. But to discharge our selves and to cleare up the truth beyond all denyall we have here given you the testimony of the said Dr. Marshall and Mr. Altham sent to us and dated at Lancaster Ian. 19. 1653. George Fox said That he that sanctifieth and they that are sanctified are one and they are equall George Fox being asked Whether he was equall with God answered thus I am equall with God The truth of these two Articles against George Fox we have already witnessed by deposing our Oaths before the Magistrate at severall times and still witnesse though now our testimony be not so necessary as formerly since the observant Reader may discerne what we witnesse more generally held out in their owne Books perticularly in the Booke entituled Sauls Errand to Damascus pag. 8. line 8. See also their answers pag. 5. 6. and 10. Jan. 19. 1653. William Marshall Michaell Altham Excep 2 Thus we have you see fully cleared our first testimony And for the second That Nayler said He was as holy just and good as God against which Nayler thus excepts It is an untruth and was never spoken by me nâ—r ever did it enter into my thoughts but is a lye raysed up by the father of lyes the Devill and vented by his servants to make the truth odious and so goes on denying that ever Will. Baldwinson heard him say so c. We thus answer Reply 1 Surely this man thinkes by his rage to darken the truth of this testimony but that thou mayst againe acquit us and see that Iames Nayler makes no conscience of lyes as we have given thee the testimonies of Dr. Marshall and Mr. Altham for the former so we here give thee a large account of the proofe of this horrible blasphemy under the hand of Will. Baldwinson January 14. 1653. Sir YOu Writ to me to certifie you of some Words that I heard from Iames Nayler and Richard Farnsworth as they call themselves amongst us I my selfe went to George Bateman his house in Underbarrow called the Crag and there was a great deale of people come in to the house and Nayler and Farnsworth sitting beyond a Table upon a Bench and there Nayler speaking and teaching Perfection and to be attaind to in this life and to be without sin this teaching so did trouble me as being contrary to the Word of God that I stood up before the Table and spoke these words Friends doe you hold that a man may attaine to that height of perfection in this life to be as perfect as pure as holy and just as God himselfe And they joyntly replyed Yea and they were so And one in the house spake and said My question was not
which we reply That this is no consequence at all and shall demonstrately prove it from these severall arguments 1. To set the minde and will of the spirit in opposition to the spirit it selfe can be no Gospel argument For the Scriptures are the infallible will of the spirit layd downe as the rule of Saints beleeving judging and walking What a reproach had it been when the spirit of God sent the Prophets to reveale his will or when Jesus Christ sent the Iewes to search the Scriptures what a reproach had it been to the living God for them to have answered We will not be judged not will we judge of spirits or doctrines by that Word or Scripture we will stand to the judgement of the spirit it selfe opposing the spirit it selfe to its owne will How wicked a thing had it been in them and how ridiculous an answer is this in Nayler 2. How is this to undervalue the wisedome of the holy Ghost himselfe Bereans commended for trying spirits by Scriptures Acts 17.11 who judgeth and pronounceth the Bereans more Noble then those of Thessaloniea in that they searched the Scriptures dayly whether those things that were spoken by Paul and Silas were so or no in that they searched the Scriptures the Spirit prizeth them for trying the Doctrines of Paul and Silas by the Scripâ—uâ—es the written Word And how wicked a thing is this in the Quakers to cry downe this trying of spirits and Doctrines of Scriptures which the spirit expressely ownes with such a signall testimony as speaking out in the soule such a spirituall noblenesse 3. It is confessed on all hands that the eternall Spirit is the originall of Scriptures and the tryer of Spirits who ever questioned that But our question is what the Saints are to try the spirits by not whether the spirit can try the Doctrines No. But we affirme that this eternall Spirit hath left the written Word as that which shall be the discovery touchstone and tryall of spirits and Doctrines by authority and divine warrant from himselfe See 2 Pet. 1.21 Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the holy Ghost 2 Tim. 3 16. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God c. John 5.99 Search the Scriptures Isay 8.20 c. So that our asserting the Scriptuâ—es to be tryall of spirits is but setting up the spirit in his owne authority and throne over the spirits and consciences of men and pleading with men that the spirit may rule in his owne way and that they will try Doctrines by that Scripture which the holy Ghost commands them to try the Doctrines by And he that refuseth that touchstone which the spirit hath layd dâ—wne for tryall doth destroy the authority of the holy Ghos â—et hâ—m speake fantastically of trying by the spirit what he will But this reasoning of Naylers is as if when the Loâ—d Protector should declare what is treason by Law in publique Proclâ—mations a Justice of Peace should when a Person were proved before him guilty of treason according to that Law yet should say he is not to judge what is treason according to that Law but he would appeale from the Law to himselfe for what is treason though the Law had determined it before But in this case to exclude the Scriptures because the holy Ghost is the originall of them is to destroy that plaine truth Subordinate non pugnant things that act in a subordination though about the same thing doe not destroy one anothers usefulnesse or causality Nay the spirits being the Originall of all Scripture this being confessed doth necessarily confesse their divine authority for that trying of spirits for which they were given forth by the inspiration of God 2. As to that expression the spirituall man judgeth all things we have fully spoken before in pag. 79. We know there is a spirit of discerning which Beleevers have of Gospel mysteries but what absurdity is this to inferre therefore spirits are not to be tryed by Scriptures For that light which a spirituall man hath is a Scripture light 1 Cor. 5.4 opened 3. How ignorantly is that 1 Cor. 5.4 produced to prove this assertion when Paul sayes In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ when you are gathered together and my spirit to deliver such an one to Sathan c. Paul is not trying of spirits or judging of Doctrines but exhorting the Church to excommunicate the incestuous Person and tells them That his Apostolicall power shall goe along with them in that sentence The verse going before tells you what is the meaning of his spirit where he sayes I as absent in body but present in spirit have judged already as though I were present concerning him that hath done this deed that is I in this Epistle doe send you my mind and my judgement what you ought to doe with this man that hath committed Incest as fully as if I were present with you and so you may goe on at your meeting to excommunicate him having for so doing not onely the authority of the Lord Jesus but also the conseâ—t and iudgement of me his Apostle This is that in those words In the name of the Lord Jesus and my Spirit How doth this man heape up quotations without any understanding of the minde of the spirit in them and with what exceeding ignorance doth he apply such Texts to his absurdities as neither prove them nor speake a tittle concerning them Excep 2 By this spirits were the spirits tryed before the letter was therefore spirits are not to be tryed by Scriptures Reply What a miserable non sequitur is here There was a time when the spirit had not given forth the Written Word therefore when the spirit doth give forth a written Word it is not to be regarded There was a time when the Law was not engraven in Tables of Stone therefore when it was engraven the Israelites must not looke upon it as a rule of life or judgement There was a time when the will of God was not written was not Scripture therefore when Christ bids you search the Scriptures you need not heed them at all But we leave the Reader to laugh at this absurd consequence The Bereans judged by another light then James Nayler doth who though they knew there was a time when Scripture was not written yet they tryed the spirits and doctrines of Paul and Salas by the Scriptures And the Spirit it selfe inspired and moved holy men of God to write the Scriptures to leave them as a tryall and touchstone of spirits though once there was a time when there was no written word But oh how doth God infatuate men when they will not submit to the authority of his Word Excep 3 He falls a rayling exceedingly and sayes We have no guide but the letter because we assert the authority of Scripture and addes how many minds how many formes how many gods doe ye worship and all pretend Scripture If it be possible to
rake up a reason out of a heape of rayling this it is Those that doe uphold the Scriptures to be the tryall of Doctrines doe yet differ amongst themselves therefore the Spirits or Doctrines are not to be tryed in Scriptures Reply Quakers Popish argument This as many other of their answers is a knowne thread-bare Popish argument they say You Protestants cannot agree in your Discipline and therefore the Scriptures are not to be the judge of Doctrines but the infallible spirit of the Pope We hope God will discover them ere lonâ— to be men meerely acted by the spirit of Anti-christ but we shall give you a full answer under these two considerations Difference in non-fundamentals no prejudice to the Scriptures being judge of spirits 1. First as it reflects upon our selves We say to differ in discipline is not to worship severall gods as Nayler rayles while it is knowne we hold the head the Lord Jesus but this we looke upon as the spitting of his venome When Peter was for Circumcision and Paul was against Circumcision Gal. 2.13.14 did they worship severall gods So those Acts 15. that contested in different judgements did they worship severall gods But this man cares not what he sayes so be may throw his dirt upon us though he bewray his excessive ignorance in it before the world 2. As it fights against the Scriptures being the judge and tryall of spirits we shall shew there is no strength in this exception at all For the Scripture loseth not its authority for the tryall of spirits by reason of the darkenesse and different apprehensions of spirits How darke were the Apostles in the Prophesies of Christs Resurrection Luke 24 25. Fooles and flow of heart to beleeve all that the Prophets have spoken c. yet the Scriptures lost not their touchstone authority upon the account of their darkenesse though Christ saw thâ—t truth of the Resurrection in the Scriptures spoken of which they could not apprehend ought not Christ ver 26. to have sâ—ffoâ—ed these things and to enter into his glory Doth not Peter say plainely that in the writings of Paul there are 2 Pet 3.10 difficult things and hard to be understood and such as the unstable and unlearned rest and yet those Writings and Epist es doe not lose their authority because of the diversities and darkenesse of Beleevers thoughts Scripture rightly understood will clearely discover every spirit and every Doctrine though the best of men knowing but in part 1 Cor. 13.9 and so not fully taking in the genuine sense of Scripture may have through their darkenesse difference of judgement in things lesse fundamentall But we may be weary in following such triviall arguments onely we would not have the saints entrapped in any of Satans snares nor the blessed word that 's sweeter then hony and the hony combe subjected to the delusions of evill men Thus we have given thee the strength of his answer onely he addes his false glosse upon that of Isay 8.20 Isay 8.20 vindicated by us objected against them in the Perfect Pharisee the glosse is this Whereas you quote that place To the Law and to the testimony it is true the Law of the new Covenant is written in the heart by God and the testimody of Jesus is the spirit of Prophesie and if any be not guided by and speake according to these it is because they have no light in them but without them But we answer As he plainly by this overturnes all Scripture and leaves no rule but the Law written upon mens hearts which we have confuted in the Perfect Pharisee pag. 25. so it is a grosse perverting of the text and truth for it is clearely spoken of the Written Word and the very next words expresseth it clearely If they speake not according to this Word the Hebrew is full beyond exception cedabar hazzeh according to this Word so that that text is no reference that God makes to the Law written upon mens hearts but to the Law written in Tables of stone which tables were called the testimony and the Arke thereof called the Arke of the testimony Exod. 25.22 because the Tables of stone in which the Law was written called Exod. 31.18 the tables of the testimony were layd up there We have fully showne in the Booke called the Perfect Pharisee pag. 26. the sad fruits of this Doctrine of denying the Scripture to be the rule of trying doctrines and spirits that it is to open a gap to all the delusions of Satan and we instanced sin the knowne case of Iohn Gilpin who was sometimes a Quaker to which Nayler replyes onely thus It is no more then if the chiefe priests should have cited Iudas to confute Christ c. as he consulted with the priests to betray the truth so Iohn Gilpin hath done now who shall receive his reward and you priests also as Nayler sayes To which rayling we thus answer Shaking off the Sâ—ripture tâ—e â—â—ler to Satans delusions 1. That Iohn Gilpin was thus acted by the Devill is a known truth beyond questioning 2. That he did verily beleeve he was acted by Christ when yet the Devill acted him is very apparant Nay Atkinson the boy that pretends to answer that reâ—ation of Gilpin doth all along confesse that he was acted by the Devill is plaine to any that reades that his childish â—nd non-sensicall piece of rayling 3. Iohn Gilpin himselfe â—â—ee the Lord hath delivered him in mercy out of the snares of Satan hath fully confest that it was the spirit of Satan and not the Lord Iesus that then acted him 4 And that all this grew â—ut of his casting off the Scriptures searching to a light within Take his owne words pag. 15. of a Booke called The Quakers shaken It was most just with God to give me over to strong delusions to beleeve lyes c. as for other provocations sâ— especially for rejecting the revealed will of God in his Word and heaâ—kning onely to a Voyce within me nay not onely to l sten to the Devils suggestions but to embrace his Voyce for the Voyce of Christ Thou seest now Reader what reason we had to say this rejecting the Scriptures from being the tryer of Doctrines doth open an unavoydable gap to Satans delusions 2. But what reason hath the man to say in this both Iohn Gilpin and we have consulted against Christ Nay have we not been pleading for Christ against Iudas the desperate betrayen of his truth and Gospel while we have been discovering â—he subtilties of Satan in those that are acted by him and pleading for the authority of Christ in his word against all the delusions of the Devill And as we can thankefully and comfortably looke upon it that God hath engaged us in so good a work so we can looke for our reward not what Nayler we beleeve could wish us but how can he defie when God hath not defied but what Christ hath promised to them that can
Bâ—oke be the persecution Pauls zeale against wicked principles and unlawfull practises may as well be called persecution as our pleading for the truth of Christ against opposers we being set for the confirmation and defence of the Gospel We now proceed to take notice of his answers to the Positions they have asserted the first is Position 1. Their Equality with God Excep 1 TO the first Proofe that George Fox affirmed He was equall with God Iames Nayler answers and sayes that it is false that George Fox did say that George Fox was equall with God Reply Let the Reader take notice that Nayler in his reply doth not deny our proofe at all when we say that George Fox said these words I am equall with God he doth not except against this at all 2. Naylers further reply plainely doth evidence it also where he confesseth that George Fox when he was asked Whether he was equall with God said I deny George Fox he is dust c. but I and my Father are one VVhere he clearely asserts his onenesse with God as to equality for that was the question the Justices put to him So that our proofe against him stands cleare by his owne confession Now the strength of Naylers answer lyes in this evasion which we doubt not but any that have their eyes open will discover to be the subtilty of the Serpent viz. he doth not deny that George Fox said He was equall with God but denyes that he said that George Fox was equall with God where Nayler makes Fox to distinguish ignorantly and make a difference betwixt George Fox and himselfe so that though George Fox is not equall with God yet he that is called George Fox is equall with God Now to this blasphemous evasion we thus answer 1. If George Fox for his blasphemy be turned into Hell what will become of him that is what will become of that person that is called by the name of George Fox 2. Is not the name alwayes given for the distinguishing of the person yea even when they are in a blessed state translated from corruption Mat. 17.3 there appeâ—red Moses and Elias talking with him they were Moses and Elias still though in a state of glory So that the person is understood and distinguished by the name and therefore by the name George Fox must be understood in our Booke the person distinguished by that name we were never so childish as to thinke that a bare name without its relation to the person distinguished by â—it any should cry up to an equality with God we speake of the person understood by George Fox Such cobweb answers and childish evasions may satisfie such deluded spirits as Nayler but we cannot but in the feare of the Lord cry out Oh! the plotted blasphemy of these men 3. Did ever any of the Saints of God in the old or new Testament distinguish in this way Did not Paul say Paul a servant of Iesus Christ not saying I deny Paul Paul is dust and must to dust but I am a servant of Jesus Christ what unscripturall and ridiculous language is this 4. Hence you may see it was not without reason that we were jealous of a mystery of iniquity lying under these distinctions betwixt George Fox and himselfe and in these words one whom the World calls James Nayler and in Francis Howgill his paper called A woe to Kendall one whom the World calls F. H. 5. The very evasion that Nayler useth is a very great demonstration to us that George Fox asserted he was equall with God For Nayler confesseth he was present when George Fox was asked whether he spoke this of George Fox as he was a creature Now here is a cleare confession that George Fox did say He was equall with God that 's confessed he spoke this onely the question was about the sence of these words and whether he spoke them of himselfe as a creature What ever the person were that asked Fox that question we would leave this upon his conscience what apprehensions he had of Fox For by the necessary and infallible rules of reason there is nothing that hath a being but either a creature or a Creator and if Fox have an other consideration as that question clearely implyes besides that as a creature it must necessarily be as a Creator and so his equality with God is asserted Well t is confessed he spoke these words 2. In this answer he denies George Fox as a creature the meaning therof as given in answer to that question must be this that George Fox as a creature denyes to be equall with God but that he as under some other consideration is equall with God he denyes not nay asserts it when he sayes I and my Father are one 6. We cannot but presse it upon the Reader that in theâ—e debates about equality with God it had been easie for Naylâ—r or Fox to have declared their totall inequality with God and not so to have deluded the people in such fond distinctions as I am equall with God and yet George Fox is not equall with God nay this debate certainly was an eminent call to thâ—m to disclaime it if this wretched principle had not filled their hearts yet in stead of our ingenious denying of this blasphemy their whole worke is falsely to assert it under the cloake of subtle and unscripturall nay blasphemous distinctions and evasions Iohn 10.13 opened Now for the Scriptures he so blasphemously abuseth they are these two First Iohn 10.30 I and my Father are one this Scripture that it is properly and incommunicably spoken of Christ God and Man and cannot be applyed to any meere creature we shall thus make evident The Person there spoken of is first in the 9. ver the Doore I am the Doore by me if any enter in he shall be saved Is George Fox the doore 2. That Person spoken of affirmes ver 18. that he hath power to lay downe his life of himselfe and power to take it up againe Hath George Fox that power 3. In ver 26. He saith to the Jewes Ye cannot beleeve because ye are not of my Sheep Dare George Fox say so The reason why men doe not beleeve is it because George Fox hath not elected them from Eternity 4. That Person there spoken of faith ver 27.28 My Sheep heare my voyce and I give unto them eternall life neither shall any man plucke them out of my hands Is it not blasphemy for Fox to assert these things of him else 5. He also saith My Father that gave them me is greater then all ver 29. Did the Father give the Elect to George Fox Now ver 30. this Person of whom these things are spoken it is who is one with the Father And you may as well ascribe the other five considerations to George Fox or any meere creature as this that he and the Father are one But oh the greatnesse of his ignorance of God of Christ of Scripture of himselfe
he know them for they are discerned spiritually There the Apostle gives the reason why no light implanted in our natures in the creation can discerne the things of the spirit of God because they are spiritually discerned where he makes an opposition betwixt naturall and spirituall light and puts an impossibility upon discovering Christ by the light of Nature We may adde that ver 9.10 Eye hath not seene Eare hath not heard neither hath it entred into the heart of man to conceive c. but God hath revealed them unto us by his spirit 3. That that light which by Christ in the creating of the world is implanted in the soule is not a knowledge of Christ as a Mediator will appeare by undenyable examples for there are multitudes of men and women without contradiction never knew the Lord Iesus as a Mediator though it must be confessed they had a rationall or naturall light Those thousands of Saints that went over into new England fully experienced it that there is not the least hint of a Christ implanted in those Indians one of us having often conversed amongst them can also fully witnesse it as is more fully also evident by the confessions of many of them in Print who have been converted by the Ministry of Mr. Eliot of which we spake in the Perfect Pharisee pag. 19. But may not these Scriptures fully confound these mens pervertings of that Scripture Reade Psal 143.19 He shewd his Word unto Iacob his statutes and judgements unto Israel he hath not dealt so with any people and as for his judgements they have not knowne them Psal 79.6 Powre out thy wrath vpon the Heathen that have not knowne thee Col. 1.26 the disponsation of God is given to fulfill the Word of God even that mystery which hath been hid from ages and generations But let Paul determine the contrary to whose judgement we shall desire to stand 2 Thes 3.2 All men have not Faith Light in all not sufficient to save 3. That this light which by Christ in creating of the world is implanted in man is not sufficient to bring to a Gospel salvation is also plaine from what we have convincingly proved that this naturall light may be in thousands that never knew the Lord Iesus as a Mediator and Iohn 17.3 this is life eternall to know thee the very God and Iesus Christ whom thou hast sent So that there is an utter insufficiency and incapacity in this light to bring to salvation So that though A. P. hath lately expressed his abhorring the distinction betwixt naturall and spirituall light yet our Lord Iesus and the Apostles are so full in it that they are of more authority with us then the novell opinion of A. P. Thus you see this Scripture fully vindicated from their wrestings for hence it is apparent that though Iesus Christ by whom the Father made the world Heb. 1.2 in his creation of man did enlighten and create a principle of light and naturall reason and understanding in the soule which we have proved is eminently there understood yet this proves nothing for the Quakers that either therefore every man that hath a reasonable soule Christ dwells in him or that he knowes Christ or that his naturall light can possibly suffice to bring to Gospel salvation Excep 4 Naylers next defence is this ridiculous argument If Christ be not in the most vile in the world c how shall he judge every one according to their thoughts as well as according to what they doe must he proceed as carnall Iudges doe by proofe or confession and no further Reply We need say no more to shew the simplicity of this argument then to aske them these questions Doth the Scripture say that Christ is in the Devills and yet he sees and knowes and judgeth them Or doth the Scripture say that the damned in Hell Christ is in them Nay but doth not Scripture speake in this language Christ in you the hope of glory Col 1 27. so that Scripture speaking of Christ in you speaks of him as being the hope of glory where he dwells And is Christ in Devils and damned soules the hope of glory For geâ—â—â—er the Quakers nor we are in this controversie at all disposinâ— concerning the abiquity of the Divine Nature by reason of which he is above all and through all and 〈◊〉 all But of Christ in us in that sense the Gospel useth the expression viz. as a saving light and principle the hope of glory 2. How ridiculous is it from Christs knowing all things to inferre that he dwells in all can he not know things unlesse he dwell in them Doth he not know the inward motions of Brutes Horses Fishes c. and is it Scripture Language from thence to inferre his dwelling in them Oh! the vainenesse and frothinesse of such a spirit and how are these men given up to blasphemy We shall conclude with that of David Psal 11.4 The Lord is in his holy temple the Lords throne is in Heaven his eyes behold his eye-lids try the children of men He hath another argument that Christ dwells in the Saints which we know in its Gospel sense but not in Naylers that Christ as man dwells in them but how absurdly and un-scripturally doth this conclusion follow therefore Christ doth dwell in all Thus you see our proofes fully confirmed his lyes confuted his perverted Scriptures cleared and answered and the folly of his arguments fully opened though he hath not answered one of our arguments and many Scriptures against that Doctrine Position 5. That Christ in the Flesh with all he did and suffered therein was but a Figure and nothing but an Example Excep 1 O deceitfull spirits c. are those words expressely found in Sauls Errand to Damascus as you say they are let that Booke be witnesse against you and your lying slanders to all that reade it Reply Surely this man pretends neither to conscience nor modesty that doth challenge us here for a lye for saying that Doctrine was expressely found in Sauls Errand He that shalâ— but looke upon that Booke pag. 2. pag 8. pag. 14. shall begin to know the impudence of Iames Nayler pag. 2. 9. line last in the schedule annaxed to the Lancashire Petition to the Councell of State you have this charge Richard Hubbethorn wrote that Christs comming in the Flesh was but a Figure Now are we lyars in affirming those words are expressely found there Nay further in pag. 8. where Hubbethorne answers to that charge we will give you his owne words Christ in his people is the substance of all figures types and shadowes fulfilling them in them but as he is held forth in the Scripture-letter without them and in the flesh without them he is their example or figure which is both one that the same things might be fulfilled in them that was in Christ Iesus Could a man have spoken more plainely to affirme what we asserted of him And doe we adde our
owne imaginations to make them odious when we say according to their principle those things that are held forth of Christ without us as Hubbethorn sayes must be acted over againe within us and so Christ must be borne of the Virgin in us and Iudas and Herod and Pilate must be in us to betray and crucifie him Is not this the plaine assertion of Hubbethorn the same thiâ—gs must be fulfilled in us that was in Christ Iesus as he was held forth in the Scripture-letter and in the flesh without us And this we also proved by an assertion of George Bateman pag. 29. to which Nayler answers nothing But further it shall yet appeare that its cleare in Sauls Errand to Damâ—scus pag. 14. where George Fox expressâ—â—y sayes Christ his flesh is a figure for every one passeth thrâ—ugh the same way that Christ did who comes to know Christ in the flesh What a seared conscience must this man needâ— have that when this Doctrine is expressely found in those evidâ—nt plâ—ces in that Booke yet hath the impudence against the light of conscience to say Let that Booke he wiâ—nesse agaiâ—st yâ—u and your lying slanders herein to all that reade it But both you and we shall both learne what thâ—s man and his way iâ— Excep 2 You say this was written in a Letter which Nâ—yler wâ—ote to one in Lancashire viz. That â—e that expects to be saved by him that dyed at Ierusalem should be deceived which â—s a mâ—st 〈◊〉 by untruth c and so he goes on â—aâ—ling Reply 1. It is acknowledged thaâ— that Letter which had this Doctrine in it that Chriâ—t was but a figure was not Naylers Letter in which that other passage is we mistooke Nâ—yleâ— for Hubbethorne and that it was in a Letter from Huâ—bethoâ—â—e written to one in Lancashire Take this ensuing Testimony of Mr. Moore a godly Minister in Lancashire RIchard Hubbethorne wrotâ— that the câ—mmiâ—g of Châ—â—st iâ— the flâ—sh is but a figure or an â—olâ—ing 〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉 and actions amongst men those things that he will truely spiritually and really doe in the spirits of his people at his second comming This but being objected against him as denying the Lord that bought us He replyed in another Letter Thou dost not understand what I meant by that expression c. These words being often objected to the Quakers and particularly to George Fox though some of them made an answer to the but yet none of them deny it in these parts that I can heare of These Letters were sent to Henry Holme and are now in my hands Kellet in Lancash Jan. 16. 1653. William Moore Thus you have our confession of our mistake onely of the Name you see the truth of the thing convincingly evidenced But that it is a filthy untruth that Nayler wrote such a Letter in which were those words He that expects to be saved by him that dyed at Ierusalem should be deceived we answer First Nayler may know that we doe onely affirme that Doctor Marshall did object this against him at Applehy and Master Iaques Minister of Bolton in Lancashire sent his promise that he would make it appeare Had Nayler denyed that either of these two were true he might have charged us with a falsehood but this he doth not he dare not doe 2. Though Nayler doe so cry out against this as a slander yet he that considers this their Principle that Christ with all he did in the flesh is but a figure which is proved to be their principle beyond exception will wonder why Nayler should looke upon this as a slander when it is the necessary consequence of that wicked Doctrine for if Christ were but a Figure I should no more expect to be saved by him then by the figures and types of thâ— Law But because the man so loudly cryes out against this as being a filthy untruth that ever he wrote such a Letter though he deny not what we say that this was objected against him by D. Marshall and that M. Iaques engaged to justifie it yet we have affixed M. Iaques Testimony to satisfie the world of our clearenesse from the scandals and wicked reproaches of Nayler and this sent is under his Hand and Scale JAmes Nayler in a Lettor which he writ to Henry Holme gave out this expression If thou expect to be saved by him that dyed at Ierusalem thou art deceived Hoc unum test John Jaques Excep 3 There is but one thing more in Naylers answer whereby he shuffles this Position and that evasion is this We doe owne and confesse that Iesus Christ in the flesh is a figure or example as if figure and example were all one To which we answer Reply Iesus Christ not a Figure 1. We challenge Iames Nayler to shew one tittle of Scripture wherein Iesus Christ is called a Figure The first Adam is called a Figure Rom. 5.14 the Tabernacle called a Figure Heb. 9.9 but Iesus Christ is never called a Figure and therefore it is a sinfull shuffle of Iames Nayler thus to confound an Example and Figure 2. If he be a Figure we againe affirme he must typifie some thing but we referre you to our Booke as to Christ not being a Figure or onely an example where we have layd downe many Scriptures and arguments to which he answers nothing Perfect Pharisee pag. 8. 9. Position 6. That men are not justified by that righteousnesse of Christ which he in his owne Person did fulfill without us Reader thou wilt see in our Booke we had foure proofes for this three of which Nayler denyeth not and for the fourth we referre thee to Mr. Iaqueâ— testimony so that as to the truth of the assertion we must take it for granted especially considering what George Fox saith in Sauls Errand to Damascus pag. 12. He that is borne of God is iustified by Christ alone without imputation This gives us to understand the meaning of Naylers answer to that Position thus Except That righteousnesse Christ hath performed without me was not my justification c. untill Christ appeared in me c. and appeared in me my righteousnesse sanctification justification and redemption c. Reply Fox denying imputed righteousnesse in plaine tearmes 1. Let but the Reader compare this of Iames Nayler with that expressiâ—n of George Fox viz. he is justified by that alone without imputation and that of Authory Hodgson viz I beleeve to be saved not by the righteousnesse of Christ imputed to me but by the righteousnesse of Christ inherent in me which he doth not deny he wâ—ll learne the meaning of Naylers worâ—s to be clearly this that Christ in a man is the matter of his just fication so that though he labour to colour over the businesse in this answer by saying Christ was not his justification till he appeared in him yet comparing his answer with these testimonies it will appeare to be downe-right equivocation and shuffling Question betwixt Quakers uâ—concerning the
Papists and quâ—keâ—s about justification This is the old thread bare shâ—fâ—lle of the Papists when they are prest by the Protestants and their justification by workes or inherent holinesse is confuted by Scripture they constantly answer as Nayler doth they deny their being justified by their owne workes which flow from a Princip e oâ— their owne power but say that the workes by which they are justified are such as flow from grace or the workings of God within their soules They say that by the first Bell. de justif l. 1. c. 19 ne hominem justificare pâ—sse men cannot be justified but per opera qua ex fide Christi gratiâ fluunt homines justificari by the workes which flow from Christ All this while both Papists and Quakers allâ—â—â— justification by inherent holinesse not by the righteousnesse of Christ imputed onely they pretend it is not by their owne power The full confutation of which Popâ—sh and Anti-christian Doctrine we have layd downe in the Perfect Pharisee at large pag. 11. and to which Nayler according to his wonted presumptuous confidence answers nothing Position 8. That God and man cannot be wholly reconciled till he brought into the state of the first Adam and able in his owne power to stand perfect Excep 1 Nayler first excepts against this assertion that the Booke shall witnesse against us and sayes mans being able to stand in his owne power was never spoken by him nor thought by him and sayes that though the word be twice repeated to stand in Gods power yet they are not ashamed to wrest it to their owne power c. Reply 1 1. To this we answer that the Booke which he saith shall witnesse against us hath not so much as once the words to stand in Gods power though Nayler say those words are twice repeated for the quaere is in these words Whether God created Man and Woman perfect without sinne and able in his power to have stood if they had not forsaken his power and consented to the wisedome of the Serpent The nature of the power of the first Adam considered 2. From these words We considering the nature of the state of the fi st Adam to which Nayler sayes man must be brought before he be reconciled could not but gather that standing in mens owne power must be the sense of those words Our reason is plaine For That power which Adam had to stand in his state of perfection was given to him as the Prodigals portion into his owne hand but the power that the Saints now are to stand by is a power in the hand of the Lord Iesus given to him as a feoffee in trust for in this lyes the difference of the power in the sons of men in the first and second Adam our standing in the second Adam being by a power and support in the hands and dispose of the Lord Iesus by reason of which it is alone that none can plucke us out of the Fathers hands Ioh. 10. And the standing of the first Adam being by that portion of power which was intrusted in his owne hands without any promise of assistance or perseverance from God So that it is apparent that when Nayler saies Man must be brought into the state of the first Adam before he be reconciled he must meane he must be able to stand in his owne power without any engagement of support from God for thaâ— was undeniably the state of Adams power Let Nayler shew us a tittle out of Scripture where Adam had any thing of promise or assistance for his standing more then the power he had in his own hands which was his owne power 3. If yet Nayler will shuffle that this is not one of the Doctrines of the Quakers we shall further convincingly cleare it from the very words of George Fox in a Booke entituled To all that would know the way to the Kingdome pag. 10. he profanely and like a perfect Atheist scoffes at the grace of God saying thus And to you that tempt God and say Lord give us a sight of our sins c. this light within you lets you see it so you need not tempt God to give you a sight of your sins Foxes horrible â—eering at the graâ—e of God for ye know enough c. and give over tempting of God to give you a sight of your sins And to all yee that say God give us grace and we shall refraine from our sins there yee have got a tempting customary word for the free grace of God hath appeared unto all men c. Hence thou seest Fox most wretchedly asserting these two things 1. That to pray for sight of sinne and for power from sinne is a tempting of God 2. That to pray for light and power for the discovery of sinne and refraining from it are needlesse for so he saith yee need not tempt God to give you a sight of sinne and cease from saying God give us grace for the grace of God hath appeared to all men so that he plainely affirmes that all men have both a light and power also that they need not be beholding to God to give them nor to aske them of him for he addes the reason Why you need not aske it of God for you have a light within you and you know enough c. Begging of lâ—ght and power the Saints duty What a wretched Principle is this and how câ—â—trary to plaine Scripture If any man lack Wisedome let him askâ— it of God Iames 1.5 where the Apostle bids the poore creature to beg wisedome of God though Fox scoffe at it Open thaâ— my eyes that I may see Psal 119.18 Give me understanding 〈◊〉 34.31.32 Surely it is meet to be sâ—â—d unto God that which I see not teach thou me 1 Peter 5.10 where Peter prayer the God of all grace mâ—ke you pe fect stabâ— sh strengthen settle 〈◊〉 Ephes 3 14.16 for this cause I bow my kâ—eâ—s 〈◊〉 the Fathe◠〈◊〉 our Lord Iesus that he would grant you to be strengthned 〈◊〉 might by his spirit Every good and every perfect gif◠〈◊〉 downe from above from the Father of lights Iames 1. â—er 17 Now here you may see the practice of the Sain s and the wickednesse of Foxes profane jeering at the grace of God with sending men to theiâ— owne light and power in oppositiâ—â— to the grace of God and how all the lyes that Nayler chargeth on us while he denyes this Position doe fully fall upâ—â— his owne head while it is as confidenâ—ly affeâ—ted by the gâ—◠〈◊〉 Master of this Babylonish mystery The second exception is this You that say that Adam 〈◊〉 the state of innocency was under a covenant of workes make it appearâ— to all that know Adams state that you never knew it for the Law wherein is the covenant of workes was added after c. Reply Adam in innocence under a covenant of vvorkes What we have said at large about Adams being
Christs being made manifest which are not voyd because they are not fulfilled in this world such as the putting of the Saints into the possession of his fulnesse of glory the putting of all his enemies under his feet c. so that perfection in holinesse being one of these things that are reserved for a state of glory we doe not destroy the end of Christs comming when we pleade he shall attaine this end in his owne appointed time and though the most holy here are full of many infirmities yet the day shall be when the workes of Satan shall be destroyed in them altogether in the time appointed by the Father the Quakers may as well say because the Saints are not now in glory therefore Christ hath lost his end in dying What we have said to this both in Christs satisfying for soules whereby he presents them perfect as to justification as also his destroying at death the whole body of sinne when they enter into a perfect state of glory will shew the vanity of his second plea for though we be not perfectly holy in our selves in this life yet we are perfect as to justification and compleat in him Col. 2.10 and though the Saints be not compleatly holy at present yet the day is comming when they shall even the time appointed by him that dyed for it and purposeth to present us spotlesse at his comming so that Christ loseth not the end of his comming Mat. 5.28 opened As to his third that Mat. 5.18 not one jâ—t or tittle of the Law shall passe till all be fulfilled which he brings to prove perfection in the Saints thus First It is evident that he that is there spoken of in v. 17. as fulfilling the Law is the Lord Iesus I came to fulfill it and that was solely and alone the worke of Christ both as he was the accomplishment of Prophesies in the Law or Booke of Scripture as he was the substance of all shaddowes in the Law ceremoniall and as he in Person did exactly as Mediator performe all the duties of the Law Morall that so by his obedience many might be made righteous What is this to prove perfection in the Saints because Christ fulfilled all righteousnesse 2. But the naturall and proper sense of this Text is clearely another businesse Christ is speaking here that the Law or the word of command and prophesies shall stand good and sure the word here is interpreted in the repetition of them Luke 16.17 not one jot shall fall so here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not one tittle shall passe from the Law it shall stand good and entire in it selfe Christ is not speaking as if the Law should be compleatly fulfilled and obeyed by us it shall stand in its force and authority notwithstanding that I am come yet I came not to destroy it but to continue it in its truth entirenesse and authority like that Rom. 3.31 Doe we then make voyd the Law through Faith nay we establish it And that Isay 40.48 repeated 1 Peter 1.25 the grasse withereth and the flower thereof fadeth but the Word of the Lord abideth for ever And what a non sensicall reason is this to prove that the Saints are perfect here and doe perfectly fulfill the Law because the Law shall not lose a tittle of its authority and entirenesse Rom. 8.4 opened 3. His third plea to prove the perfection of holinesse in this life is Rom. 8.4 that the righteousnesse of the Law might be fulfilled in us To which we answer First The Apostle here ver 1. is speaking of justification there is now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Iesus Ver. 3. he layes downe whence that freedome from condemnation flowes and tells you that what the Law could not doe in that it was weake through the flesh God sending his owne Sonne in the likenesse of sinfull flesh for sin viz. by a sacrifice for sinne or to satisfie for sinne condemned sinne in the flesh that is when man could not be justified by reason that sinfull flesh could not satisfie the Law God sent his Sonne to satisfie for sinne that so the righteousnesse of the Law might be fulfilled in us So that though we personally cannot and could not performe it yet through our union with Christ being dead with Christ Col. 2.20 quickned with him Ephes 2.5 we have his righteousnesse fulfilled in us Thou wilt fullier understand that this place is meant of the righteousnesse of Christ satisfying and fulfilling the righteousnesse of the Law and so made ours by our union with him if thou consider these observations 1. It is no where said in all the Booke of God that the righteousnesse of the Law is fulfilled in this life in any Saint as to inherent holinesse nay the contrary is here asserted ver 3. the Law was weake through Faith As also Rom. 3.20 that a man is not justified by the workes of the Law c. 2. It is Beza's note that the righteousnesse of the Law might be fulfilled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in us not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not of us or by us 3. Is not this to goe about to confirme justification by inherent holinesse against which you have had such undenyable proofe 4. What is this but to build up the old Popish notion of justification by inherent holinesse 5. If any shall thinke that latter expression who walkes not after the flesh but after the spirit shall tye this fulfilling of the Law in us to sanctification we referre him to the first verse where the same words are used and yet they are onely layd downe as a description of the Persons to whom there is no condemnation as they are layd downe also as a description of these persons that enjoy the fruite of that glorious worke of Christ fulfilling the Law and satisfying it So that this Text onely holds forth the satisfaction of the Law by Iesus Christ to be made really ours by our union with him as fully as if it had been performed in our owne persons But as to justification by inherent holinesse or perfection of it in this life we have fully proved the contrary Lastly He tells us we looked upon it as a strange thing that Farnesworth should say No uncleane thing can enter into the Kingdome of Heaven When as that which we say is no such thing but a challenging of Farnsworth his ignorance of the Gospel that he can see no consistency with these two A Saint cannot be perfect here And no uncleane thing can enter into the Kingdome of God Is this to count the Scripture a strange thing or is it not Farnsworths grosse ignorance that he knows no way of entring into glory unlesse he be perfect before he dye Is he not grossely ignorant of the maine mistery of justification by the blood of Christ May not a man be in part uncleane by reason of the imperfection of his present holines and yet pure and spotlesse too as to