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
Spirit of God then the Testimony of the Spirit must be more certain then they according to the received Maxim of the Schools Propter quod unumquodque est tale id ipsum magis est tale That which makes a thing certain must be more certain then it and this arguing against the certainty of the Spirit checks not onely at the certainty of the Saints Faith now from the Light within and the assurance of knowledg but at the Faith and Knowledg which all the Saints and holy Prophets had not onely before the Scripture was writ but even in their writing of them We are in no greater hazard to be deceived now then they were then therefore the Apostle notably reproves such Pratlers against this certainty 1 Joh. 4. 6. We are of God he that knoweth God heareth us he that is not of God heareth not us hereby know we the Spirit of truth and the Spirit of error Page 48. He asks Why I complain for his improving Esa. 59. 21. But mentions not one word of that part of Pag. 32. of mine wherein I shew him how this Scripture made against him as holding forth Gods putting words in mens mouthes which they deny as a thing ceased This the Reader by looking to the place may observe that the Lord there Promises his Spirit and Word shall continue to direct his People is not denied In his Dialogue Pag. 16. He sayes That the Scriptures cannot be said to be a dead Letter because they are called killing and whereas I told him Pag. 31. of my answer That as dead things do kill if fed upon so if men feed upon the Letter of the Scripture without the Spirit which is the Life they will kill he shifts a reply to this telling me The Scripture is called killing as being the Ministration of the Law which threatens Death against the sinner What then doth it therefore follow that they are not dead and deadly to such as feed upon them without the Spirit which giveth Life it is an apparent Mallitious Passion to add That the drinking in of the Lifeless Poysonous Opinions of the Quakers will prove hurtfull to the Soul seeing he bringeth not the least shadow of proof for it I observe that he Intitleth this Section The Quakers way Inefectual to convince an Opposer And yet how is it that he and his Brethren are so affraid that it spread and are daily so much crying out and clamouring against it as dangerous intreating and beseeching People to beware of us and comparing our words and writings to Poyson as that which is so ready to gain ground I say how comes it that they are so pressing in their importunate and often reiterate Pulpit-exhortations to the Magistrates to Suppress Imprison us and break up our Meetings as such against whom their labours will prove altogether fruitless and ineffectual if not assisted by the external Sword Sect. 5. Pag. 49. He undertakes to compare us with Papists as having learned our Language about Scripture from them but herein he hath notably manifested both his self contradiction and Ignorance He alledgeth We agree with Papists in that we say if the delusion be strong in the Heart it will twine the Scriptures to make them seem for it and in that we say they are dead and occasion Sects and Janglings wherunto we allwayes add because the Spirit is wanting And yet in this sence he fully grants it himsef Pag. 43. saying It is granted that deluded Souls do wrest the Scriptures c. He concluds us one with Papists for saying there was a rule before the Scriptures and yet grants it himself Page 46. in confessing the Scripture was not a Rule to such Saints as lived before it was writ such then had some Rule before the Scriptures thus far as to his self contradictions As to his Ignorance can there be any thing more sottish to compare us with Papist for our preferring and calling the light within as that which onely makes the outward dispensation of the Gospel profitable and for our saying that the Spirit is both our Teacher and our Coppy according to which if we walk we may profit without going forth for a coppy seeing it is known none to be more enemies to these Doctrines then Papists and if we deny the Scripture to be the principal and compleat rule of faith that proves us no wayes to agree with Papists except we all agreed with them concerning what is the rule of faith wherein we differ wider from Papists then our opposers therefore that sentence of Tertulian Viz. That Christ is allwayes Crucified betwixt two Thieves is Impertinently objected by W. M. against us and if the Lord will it may in due time be made appear to publick view that it far better suits our adversaries He looks upon it as a great absurdity Pag. 51. To deny the more sure word of prophecie mentioned 2 Pet. 1. 19. to be the Scripture Alledging I should have confuted the Apostle who expounds it so vers 20. But before he had been so peremptory in his conclusion he should have first proved that the Apostle mentions these words by way of exposition to the former seeing he thinks himself so secure here why did he omit to answer that part of Page 31. of mine where I told him That seeing the Scriptures have all their sureness from the Spirit they cannot be more sure then it for to say that Scripture is more sure as to us being a standing Record then a Transient voice from heaven which may be mistaken or forgotten answers nothing seeing that more sure word we speak of is not a Transient voice but that Word of God which is allwayes with us nigh us in our hearts if we be willing to hear it and regard it and can far less be either forgotten or mistaken then Scripture for it speaks plain home and neer even to such somtimes who would willingly both mistake and forget it Heb. 4. 12. Though I could freely refer his 6 Head concerning Justification to be compared by the Juditious Reader with that which is contained from Page 32. of my last to Pag. 44. As being a confused mass which needs no further refutation yet because he makes a great noise here I shall subjoyn these few observations a little to unvail him in this matter And in His first Section from Pag. 52. to 58. I observe how hastily he passes over the Charges laid by me to his door Pag. 23. which because he cannot clear himself of therefore he hath not lesure to answer Secondly I observe how after he repeats my words Of our sence of Justification which the Reader may see at length Pag. 33. of my first he can say nothing against them but onely I seem to Insinuate they had no need of inward Righteousness It appears his guilt has made him so jealous in this thing as if I had been reproaching him where I onely gave an account of my own belief his accusing or suspecting me of
the Spirits assistance whereby instead of advancing in Grace and Righteousness they do but reiterate Abominations and so aggrevate their own guilt And whereas here he is forced to acknowledg that motives of the Spirit will not be wanting to the Saints to Pray when they are at the gates of Death or in danger of present Drownding He asks me What shall the wicked do in this case Shall they not follow the advice which Peter gave to Simon Magus Act. 8. 22. pray God if perhaps the thoughts of thy heart may be forgiven thee but here he minceth the Apostles words which are Repent therefore of thy wickedness and pray c. here the Apostle puts repentance before Prayer it shall not be denied but when the wicked have repented of their wickedness the Spirit will not be wanting to assist them to Pray It is therefore to little purpose That Pag. 120. and 121. He pleads For craving a Blessing when we use the creatures of God calling the neglect of it a phrophane custome for we do not deny it and condemn a prophane neglect of it as much as themselves And as Christ had the Spirit without and above measure having all wayes a ready access to the Father so we are glad and willing at such occasions to express words if we find the Spirit assisting us so to do yea we reckon that we ought not to use the creatures without our hearts be in some measure retired to the sence of Gods presence and stayed in his fear whereby we may secretly breath for a Blessing for to speak audible words is not essential and therefore it is apparently malitious for him to say That when we are not stayed in Gods fear we have liberty and freedom to full to mâ—at my words had no such Importance though he seeks 〈◊〉 them and yet can wholly omit much of Pag. 67. of mine where I shew their abuses in this matter how they mock God in it and provoke him to withdraw his Blessing And whereas he sayes One of us confessed That he had not called together nor Prayed in his family for a twelve-month past He should have produced the persons name that we might have inquired concerning it and therefore until he so do we can lay no stress upon it but reject it as false especially considering that W. M. being particularly challenged upon this refuseth absolutly to do it nor durst he aver he had any better ground for it then hear-say Upon this ocasion he asks If Abraham must not keep up Religion in his family because an Ishmael is in it but this maketh nothing against us for none of us that are Masters of Families have forborn to keep up the worship of God though enemies of Truth have been in it whom we have not barred from being present And for whom we have not been wanting to Pray though we cannot joyn with them in their Prayers as W. M. adviseth us until first they repent of their wickedness This was the method of Peters advice to Simon Magus first to repent and then to Pray as is above shewed Sect. Pag. 125. He sayes Quakerisme tend to make Mortification of sin useless and to me asking Whether Mortification be useless where the end of it which is Perfection is atained He answereth That Perfection is toofold comparative and absolute and seeing we are for an absolute Perfection there is no use for Mortification Answ. There can none come to this absolute Perfection as he terms it but by Mortification of sin and even such as are so Perfect while on earth do constantly use Mortification to keep down sin least it rise again and to resist the Temptations of the enemy wherewith even such as be Perfect are daily assaulted He aledgeth I Triumph before the Victory in quarreling him for saying That a sinless Perfection wounds the very vitals of Religion But his silly subterfuge in this place may easily be discovered I asked him in my last that seeing he sayes so Whether the vitals of Religion consisted in sinning or not sinning Adding That if it consist in sinning they that sin most are most Religious but if it consist in not sinning then to plead for such a thing as attainable hurts not the vitals of Religion to this he answereth That the vitals of Religion consist in the means appointed of God Who seeth not this to be a meer evasion Why did he not give a direct answer But that he could not without either denying his former Antichristian expression or else faling into palpable groseness And whereas he adds That these means are Repentance Mortification Believing application of the Blood of Christ though it be no answer to my question I deny not but that Religion consists in these things but I suppose he will not say that they are sinning It is not in the least absurd that one who hath attained to Perfection may practice these duties Man though he have attained to Perfection cannot too much repent of his former wickedness and therefore it is without ground that he aledgeth That I shift and cannot deny but the forbearance of these duties flow as a consequence from our Principle nor is my saying that they who come to Perfection witness the true use of these things any shift at all though he be pleased to term it so without any proof after his wonted manner according to which he addeth That under the pretence of Perfection we take men off from the practice of these duties and so strike at Christianity in the vitals of it which though it fall of it self as being a meer assertion yet the contrary is above abundantly shown He saith He doth not contradict himself in inferring a sinless man to be sinful He affirmed onely the Quakers conceitedly sinless men to be sinful who discover much sin in their pride passion bitterness railing accusations adding If such say they have no sin they are but liars and the truth is not in them Answ. There was no such addition in his Dialogue as conceitedly sinless but absolutly He said Bring me to the man that is sinless and therefore his contradiction remains Moreover let him name that Quaker if he can that tould him he was Perfectly free from all sin and yet was guilty of those crimes he speaks of else he can deduce nothing from his own false supposition Pag. 127. To prove the Saints continuance allwayes in sin he desires to remark that 1 Joh. 18 It is even such who have heard seen and handled of the word of God c. Who sayeth If we have no sin we are liars And here indeed is to be observed his detestable Impudence in adding to the Scripture words citing vers 7. which he repeats thus We who are cleansed from the guilt of sin whereas there is no such word as Guilt in that place but onely We are cleansed from all sin which imports a cleansing from the filth Mark these words vers 9. From all unrighteousness now when the Guilt
but he is for it According to the true sence and meaning of the Spirit And therefore it remains to prove that ours is not so His alledging from some words of Samuel Fisher Where he speaks of works having merit sayeth nothing for the question recurrs concerning the signification of the word Merit which we use in a qualified sence for we say that works are no other wayes Meritorious then as they are rewarded Merit and reward being relative terms as I told him in my last to which he returneth no answer And thus is solved Sam. Fishers using of that argument mentioned by him Page 60 to whom he foolishly supposes I cannot reconcile my self without being of a higher strain then for a reward of Merit to wit That as Condemnation is the reward of evil works so Eternal Salvation and consequently Justification is the reward of good works Now Merit in a quallified sence doth not import an absolute desert according to strict Justice as on our part but a sutableness agreableness or congruity according to these Scriptures Mat. 3. 8. Bring forth fruits worthy of repentance the Greek word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth Moritorious or Worthy and the same Greek word is used in these other Scriptures 1 Thes. 2. 12. Walk worthy of God 2 Thes. 1. 5. That ye may be counted Worthy of the Kingdom of God And thus R. Baxter speaketh of Merit in the Book above mentioned Page 90. in a large sence saith he As promise is an obligation and the thing promised is called debt so the performers of the conditions are called Worthy and their performance Merit Though properly it is all of Grace and not of debt Moreover whereas Augustine Bernard and others of the Fathers uses the word Merit in this qualified sence W. M. and his Brethren can give it the right hand but where we use it notwithstanding we tell them the simplicity of our meaning we must be upbraided with Popery It is here observeable How he turns it to my reproach That I seem to draw neer in the least to any of the moderate sort of Papists And yet as to things wherein I charged him of affinity with them he returneth no solid answer but sayes I must not be credited Yea he plainly not onely drawes neer but fully acknowledges his agreement with them Saying They hold some things common with the Orthodox His third and fourth Section containeth not any thing of a solid reply to that which is writ from Page 36. to 44. of my last which the Reader by comparing them may easily observe He begins alledging That Rom. 3. 28. Gal. 2. 19. must exclude all works even the Works of Christ in us And that because the Apostle must be supposed to exclude either evil or good Works not evil therefore good And consequently the Works of Christ in us But as I told him in my last some Works may be good materially which proceeding not from the Spirit of God but mans own Spirit are therefore excluded And thus the case of Abraham doth not answer who though a godly-man was capable sometimes to have done Works from his own Spirit It is here observeable How he seeks to shift that which I inforce upon him from Tit. 3. 5. Alledging He mentioned it in opposition to Justification by Works as the meritorious cause thereof But of this there was not one word Where he cites in his Dialogue Pag. 20. nor doth he answer any thing for that which I infer from this Scripture showing Page 37. of my last to which I refer the Reader he having wholly omitted it that by this Scripture where the Apostle sayes According to his mercy he saved us by the washing of regeneration the Apostle includes good works as to Justification now all this he shuffles over as Insulting Triumphing words And yet notwith-standing he himself insults here as though he had found us guilty of Popery though what we say in this matter be no other then what is clearly asserted by these famous Protestants above mentioned and more particularly by R. Baxter in his Book aforesaid from Pag. 185. to the end where he sayes That we are Justified by Works in the same kind of causality as by Faith Viz. as causae sine quibus non conditions or quallifications of the new Covenant requisite on our part in order to Justification showing How the Apostle Paul in the places above mentioned excludes onely the Works of the Law from Justification and never at all the Works of the Gospel as they are the conditions of the new Covenant and there he refutes W. M's exposition upon Isa. 2. 12. As if our Justification were onely Justified by Works or we declared Just by them before men And seeing W. M. hath declared he hath so good an esteem of R. Baxter I refer him to read how he is refuted by him as being to large to be here inserted Pag. 65. 66. To overturn that which is said by me concerning the Faith Knowledg and Obedience of the Saints Pag. 38. 39. of mine But his Impertinency will be more then manifest if the Reader do but look unto the place for I shew him how faith was not alwayes attended with doubting by the example of Abraham And therefore his example of the Light and the Air is foolish for faith and doubt are not onely distinct but opposite and not mixt as is the Air and Light and a little Gold may be perfect and unmixed with dross so may little faith be perfect in its measure without doubting And though the knowledge and obedience of the Saints be not such as there can nothing be added unto or answerable to the infinite Love of God yet that doth not prove them in what they are to be defined His Answer to that Scripture brought by me 1 Joh. 3. 9. He that 's born of God sinneth not is most Impious and Antichristian as if the words imported onely He maketh not a trade of sinning for accordingly he might argue that where it is said Commit no Adultery do not Steal Murder c. it is onely understood that we ought not to make a trade of these sins but yet might practice them now and then Page 67. He addeth That as the Prophet Esa. 64. 6. saith not all our righteousness which is of thy working in us is as filthy rages so neither as we say all our righteousness which we even the best of Saints can perform of and from themselves are as filthy rags from thence infering That because of this general term all even the Righteousness of Christ in us ought to be accounted as filthy rags but for this he bringeth no proof and as the Prophet saith All so he saith Our which implyes it to be different from the Righteousness of Christ As he proceeds in the same Page he is highly confused first he sayes It ought not to make us ashamed that our Righteousness understanding that which Christ works in us are as filthy rags and
heed to the Light of Christ where it is how hath Darkness Blinded him in this Matter Page 14. He repeats my words falsly Alledging I say The Light is Darkness to them that Reject it instead of is as Darkness For I said plainly the Light of Christ is not nor cannot be Darkness otherwayes then as the Day of the Lord in Scripture is called Darkness this he hath Omitted Page 15. Having sought but Ineffectually to overturn my Assertion where I say some may have Saving Light and Grace who after a certain manner may be said not to have the Spirit Viz. as not bringing forth the Fruits of it Averring That unless I can Prove that the Spirit calls upon all in Order to Conversion I cannot conclude that all have the Spirit Ans. As the one is easily proved so is the other safely concluded these are the plain words of the Apostle 1 Cor. 12. 7. A manifestation of the spirit is given to every man to profit withall Now it were not profitable unto them if it did not strive with them in Order to Convert them That other Scripture Joh. 16. 8. he passes over Alledging I should Prove the World there to be understood of all and every one though in Reason it might suffice for answer that there is nothing brought by him to shew why the word World here is not taken in its Geunine and Common Acceptation yet the Apostle solves this Scruple in the following verse of sin because they believe not in me Then if there all unbelievers be included is not that all and every one in the World for of the Saints there is not here any question In his Second Section Page 16. he beginneth with Omitting my Concession of the Benefit and Advantages that accrue to those that Believe by the outward Knowledg of Christ and mentioneth nothing of the State of the Question which was Whether any might be Saved without this outward Knowledg and to shew that some might I gave him the Instance of Deaf People and Children to which he returneth nothing but takes up the Paper to Prove That the Greek Preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is somtimes Translated among which is not denied yet I shall find him twenty to one where it is rendered in and can no wayes be said to be among the Question is whether in this place 1 Cor. 2. 2. it be In or Among the Reason Alledged by him proves it no wayes to be Among to wit that it would have been the Apostles Grief not his Joy to know that the Light of Truth was born down among them This was the Apostles Joy that the Corrinthians come to be sensible how they had Crucified Christ in them that so looking upon and takeing heed to Him whom they had Peirced they might come to be Healed by Him Page 17. He slightly passes over that expression of Paul 2 Cor. 5. 16. where he sayth Henceforth know we Christ no more after the flesh but after the spirit adduced by me to show that Paul prefered a Spiritual Knowledg of Christ to all other as if the Apostle were here onely condemning earthly thoughts of Christ as if as King of Isarael he should begin a Temporal Kingdom but for this Exposition we have onely the bare Authority of his own naked Assertion Page 18. For want of a true Spiritual Understanding Concerning what I mean by the Inward Blood of Christ he bringeth forth his own malitious guessings The first is That I seem to Incline to Justifie that which hath been charged upon some of my Brethren to wit That we are not such Fools as to hope to be Saved by that Jesus that died at Jerusalem As he hath no ground to Suspect such a thing from my words so there was never any ground for such a charge against any owned of that People The 2d is That Perhaps I Intend that Christ as man dwells in us there can none truly charge us with such grosness as to Assert the Manhood or Weshel that walked at Jerusalem is in us but if any of us have said that Christ as man dwells in us they have said no more then the express words of Scripture 1 Pet. 3. 3 4. Let your adorning be the hidden man of the heart Eph. 4. 24. That ye put on the new man now what is this new man but Christ Jesus and therfore saith the Scripture Rom. 13. 14. Put on the Lord Jesus Christ. Gal. 3. 27. As many as are baptized into Christ have put on Christ and this is Christ which the Apostle travelled that He might be formed in the Galatians Gal. 4. 19. And whereof he Admonnisheth the Corinthians that they should know Him in them else they were reprobates 2 Cor. 13. 5. If it be hard for W. M. to take up the meaning of these things let him acknowledge his Ignorance in the Holy Scriptures whose Language this is In his 3 Section Page 19. He begins by offering to Prove our Principles have a tendancy to Introduce Paganism and to Contradict him he reckons an Impertinency but his Ridiculous Vanity herein will appear by looking unto Page 24. of my last neither bringeth he any Arguments to Prove this but such whereby he might conclude the same against the Apostle Paul The Quakers saith he Spakes of a Light within to which who take heed need no Teacher and the Apostle speaks of a Knowledg or Light under the new Covenant where there is no need of a Teacher Heb. 8. 10 11. so if the tendency of the Apostles words be not to Introduce Paganisme neither are ours and because that W. M. finds that notwithstanding of this we dispise not Teaching but are led even by that Light to hear and to recieve the Ministry of them whom God sends he concludes that herein we are Inconsistent adding That some of us have been heard to say That we only Taught to bring People off from other Thachers to mind the Light within that then they will need none which he concludes would quickly make them like such among whom the name of Christ is not in Remembrance but he might as well seek to Infer the like hazard and Contradiction from the plain words of the Apostle 1 Joh. 2. 27. Ye have an anoynting and ye need not that any man teach you but as the same anoynting teacheth you of all things and yet in the mean time was Teaching them As for that Story mentioned by him Of a certain Dying Man in Aberdeen whom two Quakers pressed so much to mind Christ within It inferreth nothing for his Purpose for that Dying Person had Abundance of the outward Knowledg of Christ and they needed not Preach that to him which he knew therefore was he sensible of the seasonableness of their Advice saying as I am certainly Informed by one of the two how good a thing would it be for an old dying man like me to know that Christ within which ye speak of He bringeth not any thing of weight in
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
his own meer assertion Page 14. He confesseth That where we are desired to try the Spirits there is no mention of trying them by the Scripture And to my Question asking if there be any surer way of trying of Spirits then by the Spirit of God he returneth no reply but another Question Viz. Whether there be any surer way then that for which the Bereans were commended I Answer Yes by the Spirit Peter could never have discerned Ananias and Saphira by the Scripture and yet did it by the Spirit To say as he does That this was a matter of Fact and not of Doctrine and that it was extraordinary is a meer silly shift for it was onely by the Spirit of God which is so ordinary to Christians that none can be truly one without it Rom. 8. 9. If any man have not the Spirit of Christ he is none of his And if this Spirit can discern the secret hypocrisie of the Heart in matters of Fact far more the Errors and mistake of the Understanding in matters of Judgment which all grant to be more Obvious And though I never aver'd that John excluded all external Rules by pointing to the anointing so his assertion to say That the anointing directeth us to the Law and to the Testimony as supposing it to be outward is but to beg the thing in question already refuted Page 43. As he affirmeth That mans being deluded proceeds not from the Scripture but their own blindness so he acknowledges That falling in Delusion proceeds not from the Spirit but from the tricks and deceits of Satan and thereby he hath clearly confessed what is asserted by me Page 30. and not answered And whereas he adds That leaning to the Spirit and for sakeing the Scripture provokes God to give men up to strong delusions which he Illustrateth by the example of one I. Gilpen once a Quaker who by harkening to a voice within was put upon Mischievous and Detestable Practices I Answ. He hath not proved that we forsake the Scripture nor will one mans being deceived by harkening to a voice within prove the Spirit not to be a certain Rule more then as himself ackowledges The Pharisees having the Scripture in such high esteem and accounting them their Rule will prove their delusion proceeded from them that Story of Gilpens was largly answered about 5. years agoe by E. B. and C. A. who have laid open his Deceit and Wickedness neither can any of these Rediculous Pranks granting the matter to be true which he pretended to doe by a voice within while appearing to be among us prove the insufficiency of that Light we Preach or the hazard of following it more then his Beastly Drunkness and open Prophanity naturally known in the Garison of Carlile where he was a Souldier proves he was led by the Scripture which it is like he then pretended was his Rule unto these wicked practices which were the best fruits of that Repentance W. M. seems so much to congratulate in him Such filthy Dross whom God purgeth out from among us are fittest persons to be Proselited by him and his Brethren and truly we are well rid of them and can heartily spare such unto them They went out from us but they were not of us for if they had been of us they would no doubt have continued with us but they went out that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us 1 Joh. 2. 16. Pag. 43. He sayes That though the Scripture be sufficient for discovering of Delusions and ending of differencs in genere objecti yet the Spirit is necessary in genere causae affectivae Now this necessity of the Spirit he saith himself Is that we may be right discerners for removeing our natural depravedness and now granting the Scripture were sufficient in this manner will it therefore follow that the Spirit within is not the Rule which was the thing to prove in this Section in so far as he acknowledges this necessity of the Spirits work he hath yeilded to the Truth yet it is observable how in contradiction to the Truth he overturns it all again Pag. 47. 48. Where he expresly pleads For Preaching upon and using the Scriptures without the joynt Concurrance of the Spirit alledging I have no ground to say they ought not so to do then consider first he said The Spirit was necessary to Remove the depravedness of our nature that we might be discerners but now he sayes we ought to use the Scripture without the Spirit though our nature be depraved yea though we be in no capacity to make a right discerning and here he hath notably manifested his affinity with the Jesuits Arminians Socinians Pelagians and Semipelagians in saying How many cold hearts have been Rubbed and Chaffed unto Spiritual hear by reading and talking of the Scripture For is not this to set nature a work and to grant a capacity in man to beget Spiritual heat without the joynt Concurrence of the Spirit and this is alltogether agreeable to that known Maxim of the Semipelagians facienti quod in se est deus non denegat gratiam God will not deny him Grace that doth what in him lies And hereby the Intelligent Reader may perceive how much nearer a kin our Adversaries are to these Errors then we notwithstanding they so falsly and frequently brand us with them in their Pulpits and elswhere as also that it is meerely constraint when they are hardly put to it that they now and then and that in contradiction to themselves let a word or two drop concerning a necessary Work of the Spirit Sect. 4. Pag. 45. He alledgeth There is no convincing People by this Rulâ—â—f the Spirit within because each way may pretend to the guidence of his Spirit and so both remain obstinate adding That according to them the Scripture is the rule which lieth patent to both parties and though it do not actually convince the stuborn yet there is enough in it to satisfie any Inqusitive Adversary Answ. And is not that Spirit sufficen to satisfie any Inquisitive Adversary that 's willing to be undeceived which searcheth all things even the deep things of God There is no inconvenience can be pressed from making the Spirit a Rule or Guide but the same recurs by making the Scripture one for is it not laid claim unto by Persons quite different in Judgment yea both sometimes to one verse and will have it speak opposite to the other if it be said that Scripture being compared explaines it self has not such as have so compared been found uncessantly to jangle even in their comparing of it And this W. M. cannot deny but this hath been because one or both parties hath been estranged from the true Testimony of the Spirit What is then the Ultimate Recorse that can onely resolve all doubts even concerning the meaning of the Scripture but the certain Testimony of the Spirit for if the Scriptures be onely certain because they came from the
Fraud or Cheating signifies nothing except he produce some reason for it In order to discover this he proposeth What may be the sence of the word Justifie in Scripture as it imports the sinners Justification before God which he determinatly affirms Onely to be a pronouncing or accounting a man Righteous and not a making him so citing for proof Pro. 17. 15. Though Justifie in someplaces may be so understood as in this which indeed hath no relation to the sinners Justification before God yet where it hath such a relation it may be understood otherwayes Viz. a makeing a man just as in that notable expression of the Apostle Paul 1 Cor. 6 11. But ye are washed ye are sanctified ye are justified c. For if Justifie here were not to make men Righteous but onely to impute them or account them so then Washing and Sanctifying were not real but only imputative also and at this rate the Corinthians could not be esteemed truly washed of their sins which the Apostle mentions in the former verse such as Stealing Drunkness Covetousness but onely thought or imputed so and this were to make the Christian Religion a cloak for all wickedness as if men were not by it truly cleansed of these evils but on the contrary fostered in them In these places also Justification was taken in relation to inward righteousness Rom 8. 30. Whom he called them he also justified and whom he justified them he also glorified Rev. 22. 11. Qui Justus est Justificetur adhuc for so the Greek and Latine hath it which being rightly Translated is He that is just let him be justified still It is to be observed that I deny not but the word Justifie is sometimes taken in Scripture for pronouncing men just though he fasly seems to insinuate the contrary Thirdly I observe his alledging That our speaking of being Justified by Christ revealed in us is a falling in with the Popish sence of Justification adding That our more full agreement with them doth appear in that wherein I say we differ from them but here his shameless disingenuity is manifest in that he hath not answered at all Page 34. 35. of my last as to that wherein I shew our disagreement with Papists And how this manner of Justification by the indwelling of Christ is denyed by them and particularly disputed against by Bellarmine For to prove our supposed Affinity with Papists and imagined opposition to Protestants he formeth a Question Viz. What is that which causeth a man to stand pardoned and so Just before God and for which he is pronounced Righteous adding That the Papists have herein recourse to infused Righteousness but Protestants to the imputed Righteousness of Christ namely the Satisfaction and Merit of His death But here is to be observed how confusedly he hath tumbled things together that ought to be distinguished whereby he may the more securely lurk under them though Originally the cause of both be the infinite Love of God in which Christ was given who offered up himself a most sweet and satisfactory Sacrifice as the Ransom the Atonement the Propitiation for our sins But as to our being Justified it is by Christ and his Spirit as he comes in our hearts truly and really to make us Righteous which because we are thus made therefore are we accounted so of him as the Apostle plainly intimats in the 1 Cor. 6. 11. That it is by the Spirit of God we are Justified nor is this any conivance with Papists who as is abovesaid deny Justification in this manner and it is but to befool children and simple ignorants that he covers himself so much with the general term of Protestants as if our Doctrine were generally denied by all such seeing many and that very Famous Protestants have been of our mind and have eagerly pleaded for this real Righteousness as to Justification against his sence of it particularly Ossinder one of the first and most Renowned Reformers of Germany who not without ground avered Luther to be of this Judgment And Melancton in the Apology of the Augustinian Confession saith To be Justified in Scripture not onely signifieth to be pronounced Just but to be made Just or Regenerate Johannes Brentius and Cheminitus admit also of the same signification so Epinus and Bucenus include in Justification not onely forgiveness of sins but Regeneration and Righteousness wrought in us And Borheus sive Cellanus a Germane Protestant and professor of Theology at Basil In the Imputation saith he by which Christ is ascribed and imputed to believers for Righteousness both the merit of His Blood and the holy Spirit given unto us by the vertue of his merits is equally included and thus saith he we shall consider wholly Christ proposed to us unto Salvation and not a part of him lib. in Gen. Pag. 162. again Pag. 169. he saith In our Justification Christ is considered who Breatheth and Liveth in us Viz. Put on by us through his Spirit And Pag. 181. he saith The form of our Justification is the Divine Righteousness whereby we are formed Just and Good this is Jesus Christ who is esteemed our Righteousness partly by the forgiveness of sins partly by the Restauration and Renovation to Integrity lost by the fall of the first Adam He being put on by us as the new and heavenly Adam of which the Apostle Ye have put on Christ put him on I say as a form i. e. the Wisdom Righteousness and Life of God And Pareus de just Cont. Bellar lib. 2. cap. 7. Pag. 469. We saith he neither ever spoke nor thought the Righteousness of Christ to be imputed to us that by it we were and might be named formally Righteous as we have oft now shewed for surely that should no less fight with reason then if one quite absolved in Judgment should say he were formally Righteous by the mercy of the Judge These are the plain and positive expressions of several famous Protestants though W. M. reckons G. Keith's words mentioned by him Page 5. 5. as Popish which are nothing different from these And of late R. Baxter whom W. M. Page 37. termes A Juditious Servant of God holdeth this Doctrine throughout in his Book termed Aphorisims of Justification who Page 80. saith That some Ignorant Wretches gnash their teeth at this Doctrine as if it were flat Popery not understanding the nature of the Righteousness of the new Covenant which is all out of Christ in our selves though wrought by the power of the Spirit of Christ. Page 195. He saith How this differeth from the Papist he need not tell any Scollar who have read their writings hereby the Inteligent Reader may observe how ridiculous if not malitious W. M. is in making such a noise as if we were in this matter either going with Papists or opposing Protestants In his second Section Pag. 58. Though he would be making a great bussle of our speaking of Justification by works yet in the very entry he cannot deny
our selves to God as in Prayer and it is no less a lie to sing to God words that sute not our condition then to pray with them The Saints in Scripture used such expressions as did sute the present posture of their hearts in their Spiritual Songs See Luk. 1. 46. and 2. 29. he shall not find me in the whole Bible where they borrowed or sealed the expressions of others experience which no wayes suted their own condition this is a meer humane invention which has its original from the Romish Vespers and Mattins and from no other foundation Head 10. Concerning Baptism Page 81. He alledgeth That John distingisheth not the matter of his Baptism from Christ but only his work but his proof for this overthrowes himself for since as he sayes truly John could onely administer Baptism with water but Christ with the Spirit this sheweth them to have differed in the matter for without doubt John could administer the matter of his own Baptism and whereas I told him they differed in the end because the one pointed to the other even as the shadow pointed to the substance in stead of replying to this he tells me That the Scripture speaking of Johns Baptism calls it the Baptism of Repentance intimating its end was to signifie and Seal remission of sins which likewise is the end of Christs Baptism As this no-wayes answers my argument so it makes nothing to the purpose for it is one thing to signifie Repentance and remission of sins and far another to know and possess it which is the end and constant fruit of Christs Baptism Gal. 3. 27. As many of you saith the Apostle as have been baptized unto Christ have put on Christ And therefore it may be observed that without any proof he concludes that Johns Baptism and Christs agree both in the matter and end Pag. 82. As a reply to Act. 19. 2 cited by me to show that they differed in substance he sayeth The meaning is not that they were ignorant of the Person of the holy Ghost contrary to the very express Scripture words We have not so much as heard if there be any holy ghost He saith further That the Apostles did not anew baptize such Persons that had been baptized with the Baptism of John in direct contradiction to the Scripture words ver 5. When they heard this they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus And when Paul had laid his hands upon them the holy Ghost came upon them now vers 3. she weth That they were baptized unto Johns Baptism before so let him clear himself here of giving the Scripture the lie if he can Section 2. Pag. 83. To prove the perpetuity of water Baptism he begins with that often answered argument of the Apostles practice adding That though Christ Mat. 28. doth not mention Baptism with water so neither with the Spirit alledging That thus the one may be excluded as well as the other Answ. Seeing Christ commanded them to baptize it cannot be denied but it was with his own Baptism which is that of the Spirit He adds That if Baptism of the Spirit were intended it would infer a needless Tautology in the command of Christ as being all one with these words Go Teach Answ. Teaching and making men holy and Righteous are different things for he will grant that he and his Brethren have been teaching People these several years and yet he will have much adoe to prove all their Church-members are really made Righteous and Holy why then doth he account these two one reckoning it a Tautology to express them severally A little after he insinuates and that most falsly that I deny Peters commanding Cornelius to be baptized concealing my express words Page 50. which are these And though it be said ver 28. that he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Christ yet it holds forth no command from Christ onely the thing being agreed upon that it might be done he bid do it this he hath left un-answered And whereas he adds That doing things in the name of Christ is as much as his command he bringeth no proof for giving but not granting it did hold so Mat. 18. 20. in the case of meeting that will not prove it is allways so taken To evict my objection against any determinate Commission the Apostles had of Baptizing with water because Paul said he was not sent to Baptize but to Preach he returns That if he had no Commission he would have Baptized none but he Baptized some which would have been of self-will Answ. He might object the same as to Circumcision that because the Apostle Circumcised Timothy therefore he had a Commission for it he would not have done it of self-will His inference from Hos. 6. 6. For I desire mercy and not sacrifice as if from thence Paul were sent principally to Baptize and not to Preach as God there required onely principally Mercy not excluding Sacrifice is most ridiculous and inconsequential nor is there any reason produced to show the party the Apostles were Commissioned to Baptize as principally as to Preach go Preach and Baptize are knit together but the question is Whether this be a Baptism with water which remains yet unproven And therefore his additions to the Scripture is no wayes Justified as if Paul had been sent to Baptize with water but not principally Pag. 86. He undertaketh to prove that Mat. 28. 19. is meant of water-Baptism and not of the Spirits-Baptism the reason alledged there Because the Baptism there mentioned is the action of the Apostles and that to Baptize with the Spirit is peculiar to Christ adding That it would be a confounding of the Duty commanded with the Promise of the blessing annexed to it from thence he concludes That Baptism with water is to continue to the end of the world Answ. The reasons prove nothing and might militate the same way against Teaching which is also there commanded as the action of the Apostles and though it be pecuilar to Christ to teach by the Spirit that did not hinder them to do it further the very Apostles by laying on of hands did administer the holy Spirit and so Baptize with the Spirit Act. 10. 44. 19. 6. And this is no confounding of the Promise with the duty for therein was the Promise and Blessing fullfiled that they did it efectually and therefore from hence he had no ground to conclude the perpetuity of water-Baptism Moreover whereas he cited in his Dialogue Pag. 39. Act. 2. 28. 1. Pet. 3. 21. Act. 22 16. Eph. 5. 26. Gal. 3. 27. as holding forth the excellent uses of water-Baptism though I shew him Pag. 5. of mine that these Scriptures are onely aplicable to Baptism with the Spirit and not to sprinkling with water When Pag. 87. he comes to reply againe he offers not in the least to prove that they are aplicable to Baptism with water which is the thing in Question but tells me That those Scriptures