Rule and like Proteus turning my self into all shapes sometimes I design Christ himself oftner the Spirit himself but oftnest the Dictate of the Spirit within to be that Rule But he might at that raâ—e have no less blamed the Apostle Paul that he turned himself into all shapes while he affirmeth sometimes That Christ spoke in him and sometimes that the Spirit spoke in him and certainly what Christ or the Spirit spoke in him was by a certain Word or dictate But to Answer directly when I say Christ is the Rule And again when I say the Spirit is the Rule there is no absurdness therein for if we mean by the Spirit the Holy Ghost Christ and the Holy Ghost are never separated or divided in what they Speak or Witness in the souls of men but their speech and Testimony is one and the same alwaies and also Christ himself in Scripture is called the second Adam the quickening Spirit and the Lord that Spirit and said Christ I am the way the Truth and the Life and certainly that Life is Spirit and also the Words or dictate of it is Spirit and Life as Christ said The words that I speak unto you are Spirit and Life So the Reader may see that my words are sound and according to Scripture and therefore whether I say Christ or the Spirit or the internal dictate and Word of the Spirit is the Rule it is to the same purpose And to say the dictate of the Spirit is the Rule is no other than to say the Spirit dictating or speaking is that Rule and do not some of your selves use a variety of Speech when ye speak of the Rule one time saying The Scripture is the Rule another time The Word of God contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament is the only Rule c. as the Westminster Confession of Faith expresly hath it Another time The Spirit of God speaking in the Scriptures c. Now according to I. A. I may blame him and his Brethren in this case that Proteus like he and his Brethren turn themselves into all shapes when they speak of the Rule And whether these phrases used by them be not more unscriptural I leave unto sober men for to judge In the next place he argueth That Christ cannot be the Rule nor the Spirit because the Rule of Faith must be some complex Proposition Direction or Precept and the like To this I Answer First That the Rule of Faith must be a complex Proposition Direction or Precept formally understood in words formally conceived I altogether deny and I. A. hath not offered to prove it And although the Spâ—rit of Christ may and often doth speak express words in the souls of his people yet he doth not alwaies so do when yet he clearly enough signifieth his mind and will unto them for if among men a King may signifie his mind to his Subjects or a Master to his servants without any formal Proposition or direction of words but only by some motion of his hand or face How much more may the Lord God who is the King of Kings signifie his mind unto his servants by the motion of his Spirit without any formal or express words Again I ask I. A. if he hath not learned in the Schools that the reasonable nature of God is the first rule of Manners And certainly the reasonable Nature of God is not a complex Proposition consisting of many words And hath he not read in Boetius that excellent saying Quis legem det amantibus major lex amor est ipse sibi which the Author of a late Book called The Life of God in the soul of man doth use to prove that somewhat more than words is a Law or Rule to Christians and Englisheth thus For who shall give a Law to them that Love Love 's a more powerful Law that doth such persons move And I further Query I. A. seeing the Scripture saith God is Love he that knoweth God to be Love and hath the Love of God shed abroad in his Heart by the holy Spirit which in Scripture is called The Spirit of Love shall not this man be tyed to love God and his Brethren yea and all mankind even his very enemies Suppose it be not said to him in formal express words do so and so Again whether he that only readeth or heareth these outwardly Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy Heart c. and thy Neighbour as thy self but his Heart is utterly void of the love of God or he that hath the love of God in his heart and feelleth the powerful constraint of it is under the most powerful Law Whether the words without or the Spirit and Nature of Divine Love within is the most powerful Law and Rule There may therefore be a Law or Rule which is not a complex Proposition of words either inward or outward to wit the Divine Love it self which hath a Voice and Language to the souls of men in the silence of all words many times and can be understood as well without words as with them And therefore when I say the dictate of the Spirit is the Rule I mean not that there is alwaies a dictate of express words but that which is either such a formal express dictate or equivalent thereunto which those who are acquainted with the experiences of the Saints do well understand although it may seem to I. A. a strange Riddle or Paradox And thus by what I have said in this particular the intelligent Reader I hope shall perceive that in saying The Spirit is the Rule I am not beside my self as I. A. doth alledge but speak the words of Truth and soberness And I further ask Whether I. A. thinks that Ignatius the Martyr was beside himself when he writ in one of his Epistles to the People 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Vsing the Holy Ghost for a Rule or Whether Paul was beside himself when he said The Law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Iesus had made him free from the law of Sin and Death And whether that Law was not the Spirit of Life even as the Law of sin was sin and the Law of death was death And whether the Law of the Mind mentioned by Paul was not a Divine Principle of Grace in his mind even as the Law of his Members was a principle of sin and corruption that sometime had place in him and not any complex Proposition of words And whether the Law that God writeth in the hearts of his people in the new Covenant be simply a form of words consisting of so many letters syllables and sentences or rather to speak properly is not that Law a new and Divine Nature or substantial Life of Holiness and Righteousness and Wisdom by which the Children of God are led and taught under the new Covenant naturally as it were to love God and all men even as the Law that God hath put in all
appearing and do still at this day load them with such kind of Charges and to none is it more familiar to blame others for Heresie than those who are greatest Hereticks themselves 4. He saith In Doctrine we trample generally upon the whole Moral Law but more especially upon the first Table And here very falsly he Charges our Doctrine to be contrary to the first second fourth fifth sixth and ninth Commandments but let us see how he maketh good his Charge in each of them He alledgeth our Doctrine transgresseth the first Commandment because we say All Prayer and Worship that is performed without the Spirit of God is Will-worship and Superstition and consequently no wicked or unregenerate persons are bound to Worship God or indeed in any respect to obey God And from thence he concludes They are not under any Law of God and therefore lastly let them do what they will they cannot sin against God such men in the Quakers Principles as he saith may deny disown reject hate and contemn God worship the Devil and debauch at their pleasure they may lawfully dishonour and defame all men Murder commit Adultery Steal bear false Witness and yet they cannot sin because they are under no Law Hence also he infers That Reprobates are most unjustly condemned for their sinning against God seeing they not having received the Spirit are not under Law to God and so cannot be guilty of sinning against him Now what Sober Impartial and indifferent person that is not byassed with deep prejudice against us seeth not that these absurd consequences have not the least shadow of any Rational inference For although we say indeed that there is no true Worship but that which is in Spirit according to the express words of Christ and that none are true Worshippers of God but such as Worship him n the Spirit and that God requireth no Lifeless or Spiritless Worship yet we still affirm that all mankind ought to Worship God and Call upon him even all the wicked and unrenewed persons as well as the renewed so that in the thing of Worship it self we have no Controversy whether it be due unto God by all mankind but the state of the Question lyeth here betwixt us and those that dissent from us what the Worship of God is and what kind or sort of Worship it is that God requires of all men And in Answer thereunto we say the true Worship of God is a Spiritual Worship requiring the sincerity of the heart not as a circumstance or accidental thing but as the essential part thereof which cannot be done without the Spirit of God How much therefore more True and Rational consequence is it to argue thus God commands all men to Worship him therefore he hath given some measure more or less of the help of his Spirit unto all men whereby they may so do which doth continue with them so long as it pleaseth God who taketh away this help from none but such as mightily provoke him and sin out the day of their Visitation And even those whom the Lord in his Justice hath withdrawn that help or grace of his Spirit are still bound by the Law of God to Worship him as much as ever even when they neither do or can Worship him truly because they have brought this unpotency or inability upon themselves by their own unfaithfulness Even as a Servant or Steward that hath received a sum of Money to pay his Master and the said Servant spendeth the Money upon his Lusts and hath not one Penny wherewith to pay the debt yet he is still lyable for the whole sum Hence what I. A. saith in page 11. of his Preface is true that the inability of unrenewed men to perform acceptable Worship neither does nor can take away their Obligation to perform it But we differ from I. A. in the cause or reason why those who want that ability are still under the said Obligation which reason he will have only and alone mens losing it in Adam in whom they all once had it and the losing of it is their fault citing Rom. 5. 12 19. But to this I Answer First Whatever loss or inability is come upon Adam's posterity by the primitive disobedience yet now by vertue of the second Adam his obedience a new ability is conferred upon all men So that as broad as the Sore did spread by the first sin even as broad is the Plaister that God hath provided to the Lame and Diseased Souls of all mankind And this is most clear and plain from Rom. 5. 18. as also from Ioh. 3. 19. And this is the condemnation said Christ that Light is come into the world and men loved darkness rather than Light because their deeds were evil So we see that Christ layeth not the ground of wicked mens condemnation upon Adams sin but upon their hating the Light that did come unto them as a new and fresh discovery and visitation of Gods love But secondly Whether this Inability is come upon the wicked by reason of Adam's sin or by their own actual disobedience since that time yet we affirm no less than I. A. that the most wicked and ungodly are still under the obligation to the whole Law of God and their inability can be no ground of excuse unto them But the true state of the Queston is this Whether wicked men not simply as men or creatures but as wicked and remaining still in their wickedness should or are required to offer up unto God hypocritical and lifeless performances of that which men commonly call Prayer and Worship but is no more so in the sight of God than a dead Picture of Stone or Clay is a true living man and so whether God did ever require any to draw near to him with their Mouths and remove their Hearts far away as the manner of all wicked persons while so remaining always is Now we say God never required such sort of Prayers but refused and forbad them to be offered unto him even under the Law see Isaiah 1. 13. Bring no more vain Oblations and v. 12. When ye come to appear before me who hath required this at your hand to tread my Courts Again Psal. 50. 16 17. But unto the wicked God saith what hast thou to do to declare my Statutes or that thou shouldest take my Covenant in thy mouth seeing thou hatest instruction c. And whereas I. A. citeth some words of our Friends That wicked men should not Pray let the Impartial and Indifferent Reader understand these words in the Sense of those Scriptures just now mentioned which are as positive and full as any that can be cited out of our Friends Books and all occasion of mistake shall be removed For neither the Sense of the Scripture nor of our Friends is That wicked men are bâ—und in no respect to Worâ—ip God for the contrary is manifest from the words cited by I. A. out of the Book called The Principles of Truthâ—
Testament is found the killing Letter there is also in the New Testament the Letter which killeth him who doth not spiritually attend unto the things which are spoken And why was the Law called a killing Letter only because it did curse and condemn guilty sinners Nay that is not the only or main reason but rather that its Ministration could not give life whereas the Ministration of the Gospel being accompanied with the Spirit doth quicken and give life and in that respect Paul said The Law was weak and could no make perfect and therefore calls it The Law of a carnal Commandment Now if any go from the Spirit that only makes the true Gospel Administration and set up the Letter or Writings of the Apostles in the room of the same These Writings of the Apostles do eventually become a killing Letter no less than that of the Law and can no more give life or make perfect than the outward Law could And here upon this Head I do readily take notice what I. A. acknowledgeth concerning the Scriptures in page 16. of his Book towards the middle part viz That the Scriptures as to the external Form and Mode which they have from the Writers Pen they are not the Word of God but that as to their ennutiate doctrine and sentence they are the Word of God And why then doth I. A. make all this loud clamour and noise against the Quakers seeing upon the matter he confesseth what they say viz. That the letter or external form of the Writing is not properly the Word of God And I suppose I may add with I. A his allowance that the external Form and Mode of the Preachers mouth when he formeth a sound in speaking Scripture Words is not properly the Word of God any more than the bare writing â—seeing there is no more in the one than in the other simply as such Let not I. A. therefore blame us for that hereafter which he confesseth himself and we do as readily acknowledge as he either doth or can do That the ennutiate and expressed Doctrine and sense of the Spirit is indeed truly and properly the Word of God But then is there no difference betwixt him and us I Answer as to the naming the Scriptures the Word it seemeth there is none But yet another great Controversie ariseth which I doubt will not be so soon ended betwixt us viz. Whether any man can reach unto that Ennutiâ—te Doctrine and sense of the Scriptures without the Spiritual Illumination and Assistance of that Spirit that gave them forth we say Not and if he say Yea we still differ but not as it seemeth to me by his Confession in naming the Scriptures The Word of God But there is yet another great Charge wherewith he loadeth us in this his Survey of the Third Query Some Quakers saith he are upon this Head so grosly Atheistical as to say That the Scriptures are but the Saints Words and Testimony from their own particular experiences And again he alledgeth That according to the Quakers they are but the meer bare Word of a Creature Hence he inferreth That the Pen-men of the Scripturs of all men in the World must have been the greatest Cheats and archest Impostors c. But seeing he produceth no express Testimonies out of the Writings of that People for such Assertions he is not to be believed Nor doth it follow that because the Scriptures are the Saints Words that therefore they are not also the Words of God even unto all who hear or read them at least mediately and remotely although none but such as believe do receive them as such which yet is only and alone the â—ault of those unbelieving persons because they reject the Spirit of God that doth certifie or assure unto us That the Scriptures are proceeded from God by Divine Inspiration And what if some have said That the Scriptures are Testimonies of the Saints from their experience May not this receive a fair and charitable construction and not presently be judged to be gross Atheism for although the Scriptures give a narration of divers Histories as also of Precepts Prohibitions and mysteries of Faith As Christ His coming in the Flesh His being born of a Virgin His being Crucified and Buried His Resurrection and Ascension the which Histories and things aforementioned albeit they cannot properly be called the Saints Experiences yet the Divine Inspiration and Revelation which the Prophets and Apostles had immediately of those things was truly their Experience and let us see if I. A. will deny it or if he do may it not be more justly retorted upon him That he and not the Quakers deny that the Scriptures are from Divine Inspiration or can he say that although the Prophets and Apostles had Divine Inspiration and Immediate Revelation yet they had no Experience of the same And that we call the Scriptures sometimes the Saints Words yet not denying them in a true sense to be the Words of God I. A. can no more justly blame us than Paul and Iohn who called their own Preaching and Writing and that of their Brethren the Witness and Teaching of men so that Paul and the Apostles Words were both the words of men and yet also the Words of God to wit mediately declared unto them by the Apostles Now they whose Faith stood in the Power of God received them as the Words of God but who came not to that power to believe in it they were but unto such as the words of men which as is alâ—eady said was only and alone the fault of such unbelieving Persons There yet remains two parts or branches of the third Query to which I. A. for all his pretended Survey hath given no more satisfaction than to any of the former The first is Whether all that is written in the Scriptures from Genesis to Revelation be a Rule of Faith and Manners To this he only answereth in general That we are bound to believe all Sâ—ripture Enunciation from the beginning to the eâ—d which we do readily grant and that therefore it may well be called an Historical Rule of Faith and that the Moral Law with whatsoever is of common equity or whatever enjoyning any peice of Religious Worship under the New Testament doth belong to Christians of our Calling and Condition but that the obligation of the Ceremonial and Iudicial Law is totally abrogated And saith he the Quakers must be content with these generals To which I Answer When the Nature of the Question requireth a particular Answer to Answer in general neither can nor ought to satisfie for notwithstanding of all he hath said the great Question yet remains unanswered What parts of the Scripture belong to the Moral Law and what â—o the Ceremonial and Judicial so called Also seeing there are divers things that were commanded and practised by the Apostles and Primitive Christians under the New Testament whether all these do oblige us now yea or nay as for example the Washing one
where he alledgeth their words saying All men ought first to wait until they receive the Spirit in Truth then in the same Truth to Worship God in Spirit who is a Spirit So we see by I. A. his own Confession the Quakers teach that all men ought to Worship God in the Spirit and that they may indeed Worship him they would have all men follow the Lords order which is to wait or watch unto Prayer and they would have men in the first place cease or depart from their wickedness and then by the help of the Spirit which is never wanting in the proper season of it to come and Pray unto God And that this is no new or invented way of the Quakers so called Read Isaiah 1. 16 17 18. where the Lord by the Prophet bids first That they wash and be clean and put away the evil of their doings c. And then said he Come now let us reason together Also Peter commanded Simon Magus to joyn Repentance with Prayer Repent said he and Pray that the Thoughts of thy heart may be forgiven thee And for the more clear understanding of this whole matter we are to consider that Prayer is either simply Mental and with the heart only or both Mental and Vocal to wit both with heart and Mouth Now as for Mental Prayer at least in respect of the bent or frame and inclination of the Heart God requireth it always of all men and it is possible for all men if they but receive that help of his Spirit which he giveth or offereth unto men always to perform it But as for Vocal Prayer he neither doth require it at all times nor doth he give the help at all times nor the utterance whereby to perform it And it is observable that under the Gospel no particular set or limited time is appointed for Vocal Prayer But every one is to wait to know the times of the Spirits call and moving thereunto which will be seasonably and frequently afforded to such as wait singly therefore especially when the people of God Assemble together for then it is that Vocal Prayer is of greatest use and service though it hath also its use and service in private or when one is apart But whereas I. A. alledgeth further That if wicked men are not to Pray viz. their Hypocritical Prayers because they sin when they Pray No man on earth should offer to Pray or Worship God seeing as he saith There is somewhat of sin â—leaving to the best Actions of the Saints here away To this I answer That there is somewhat of sin cleaving to the best Actions of the Saints here away is denyed seeing it is asserted by him without proof for the Scriptures cited by him viz. Prov. 20. 9. Gal. 5. 17. say no such thing and by consequence he hath not evinced it and for a proof to the contrary see Iob 16. 17. Malach. 1. 11. But secondly nor doth it follow that men who are not yet come to a perfect state but labour sincerely under the burden of their sins to be delivered from them may not Pray unto God because their Prayer as they put it up unto God by the help of his Spirit is pure and without all sin proceeding from the pure or renewed part of their hearts for it is only the pure or renewed part of the heart from which indeed the true Prayer doth proceed even as on the contrary the evil desires and affections arise and spring only from the impure and unrenewed part Therefore he that hath this unrenewed part in him ought to watch against it while he prayeth that he give it no liberty to move or stir as indeed he ought to watch against it at all other times And though he that prayeth sincerely being not attained to a sinless state pray not with that degree or measure of fervency wherewith another more perfect doth or can pray yet God regarding that mans sincerity he accepteth his Prayer in Christ and for Christs sake pardoneth him when at any time he committeth a weakness in his Prayer in not keeping purely to the Spirit Again Lastly Whereas I. A. objecteth That the Plowing Eating Sleeping c. of the wicked is sin Shall the wicked then do nothing at all because whatever they do they go about it in a sinful manner I answer This consequence doth no wise follow because there is a great difference betwixt a wicked mans Plowing Eating Drinking c. and his Praying as remaining wicked and alienated from the Spirit of God for his Plowing Eating Drinking or any other Corporal or Natural actions are really these actions and they are profitable and necessary in the Creation and when he performeth these actions he faileth not in the substance or matter of the action required but only in the manner for the substance or matter of a wicked mans Plowing Eating Travelling is not sin but the manner of it viz. That it is not in Faith but a wicked mans Prayer as he is a wicked man is no true Prayer at all it hath nothing of the true substance of true and real Prayer it is a meer picture or dead resemblance of Prayer and is rather a mocking God than praying unto him for it wants the life of true Prayer which alone the Spirit of God doth give and thus a plain difference is demonstrated betwixt the two cases and the Unvalidity of I. A. his consequences in this whole matter is evinced And if the Reader desire further satisfaction in this particular let him Read our Answer to the Students and R. B. his Apology where these Objections of I. A. are largely Answered for he has brought no new matter against us and it had been better he had both spared his own pains and not troubled the world with his repeating other mens Arguments long since answered As for his instance of our opposing the second Commandment by our rejecting wresting and abusing the Word of God and avowing of Error and Blasphemy seeing it is but a bare alledging without any shadow of proof it is enough as simply to deny it as he doth simply affirm it But another instance he giveth of our opposing the second Commandment By swallowing down our Meat and Drink as so many Beasts without any Prayer and Thansgiving without which if they will believe the Apostle 1 Tim. 4. 3 4 5. they are not sanctied But how unjustly he chargeth this upon us I can freely leave to the Judgment of all sober and true Christians For how doth he prove that we Eat or Drink or receive any Creatures of God without Prayer and Thanksgivings Because we do not always use Vocal and External Prayer when we Eat and Drink although at other times we use it as God is pleased to give utterance and are most glad either to do it or joyn with these who do it by the help of Gods Spirit But is I. A. so ignorant and unreasonable to think that theirs is no Prayer
Doctrine and Word of God but he who speaketh it by the Spirit of God and none Heareth the Word of God but he who Heareth it and into the Heart and inward Ears of his inward man receiveth it by the Spirit of God To these only I say the Doctrine is known and by these it is only received as it is indeed the Word of God and in this respect it was that Paul commended such as received the Truth by the same Spirit by which it was Preached unto them through him That they received it not as the word of Man but as the Word of God c. Now this commâ—ndation can be given to no unbeliever that what he receiveth in the Ministry of the true Servants of God he receiveth it as the Word of God for only the true Believers do so receive it according to Paul's Testimony as it is indeed the Word of God Moreover I would have the Reader to know that when we say by the Word is understood Christ we mean not Christ abstractly or seperately considered from the Divine Doctrine and Testimony of Life whether in the heart or Mouth that immediately proceedeth from him nor yet as divided or seperated from any Divine operation of his Spirit Power and Life in any of his Servants but we take both these conjoyned together to be the Word of God even as the Soul and Body is one Man and sometimes the Soul is called the man and sometimes the Body and both properly enough when the Soul is in the Body and united therewith but the Body alone without the Soul is not properly called the man and thus much I hope shall suffice to satisfie the sober Reader as concerning the Word of God how we understand it Now whereas I. A. citeth divers places of Scripture to prove That by the Word of God is not understood Christ but the outward Testimony or Writing of the Scriptures It is very evident and may plainly appear so to be unto any having the least measure of Spiritual understanding that by the Word of God in these Scriptures is not understood the Letter but Christ together with the Divine operation and Testimony of his Life in the Hearts and Mouthes of his Servants And among these places by him alledged I shall cite these following for it is needless to cite them all viz. Heb. 4. 12. Eph. 6. 17. Rev. 1. 16. Rev. 2. 12 16. Rev. 19. 15. And also he citeth divers Scriptures which mention the Word of Christ and the Word which he hath spoken And seeing that cannot be Christ himself it must needs ac-according to him be the Letter Now as to that Scripture Heb. 4. 12. For the Word of God is quick and powerful c. There are divers Protestants that expound it of Christ and not of the Letter and indeed the words themselves do plainly enough evince it seeing it is said in the next verse concerning the same Word That all things are bare and manifest to his sight and therefore that Word hath an Omniâ—cience which I suppose I. A. when he considers will not affirm of the Letter of the Scripture As for Eph. 6. 17. his reason is weak that by it cannot be understood Christ seeing it is called The Sword of the Spirit as to say an Instrument in the hand of the Spirit But this is only I. A. his gloss and not Paul's words For the Sword of the Spirit may very well be understood to be the Spirit it self As the shield of Faith is Faith that shield The Helmet of Hope is Hope that Helmet so the City of Rome is Rome that City and why not also the Sword of the Spirit that Spirit it self And this is further confirmed out of the Greek Article Englished by which that is in the Neuter Gender and therefore rendring this Sense The Sword of the Spirit which Spirit is the Word of God so that the Article which being in the Neuter Gender is Relative to Spirit which in the Greek Language is in the same gender Again as to those three places in the Revelation which mention the Word of God it s being the Sword of his Mouth and proceeding out of the Mouth of Christ Doth I. A. think that this only is the Letter of the Scripture Doth nothing but the Letter come out of his Mouth Doth not Spirit and Life and living vertue come out of his Mouth And did not Christ say The Words that I speak unto you they are Spirit and Life John 6. And is not this somewhat more than the Letter But lastly The Word of Christ and the Word that Christ speaks hath of the Life and Spirit of Christ in it and therefore it is still somewhat beside the External Writing or Letter and is not divided or seperated from Christ. And I have told I. A. already that not only Christ abstractly considered but the immediate Testimony and influence of his Life which can never be seperated from him no more than the Sun Beams can be seperated from the Son is also acknowledged by us to be the Word of God and to be Light and Life Bâ—t saith I. A. The whole Doctrine of the Prophets is the Word of the Lord To which I Answer I have granted and do still grant it so to be but as is already said that Doctrine is not the bare Letter nor hath every one that doctrine who hath the Letter for to have the true doctrine and sence of the Spirâ—t is not only to have the Letter but to have the Spirit by which only the true doctrine can be conveyed unto us although the true service and use of the Letter in subordination to the Spirit is not denied And whereas I. A. accuseth the Quakers That they call the Scriptures a dead Letter I no where remember that ever I read or heard any of them simply calling it so But only in so far as it is eventually such unto them who are spiritually dead themselves and are not turned to the quickning Spirit but alienated therefrom to such only the Scripture is a dead and killing Letter and this much divers Protestants have acknowledged as well as we and particularly Iohn Owen in his Treatise on the Scriptures That it is so to the Iews and other Vnbelievers But unto all those who are spiritually alive the Scripture is no dead nor killing Letter but a living Testimony as also unto all such whom it pleased God to quicken by his Spirit in the reading or hearing or meditating in the Scriptures Again that he saith A part of the Scripture to wit the Law considered as strictly legal is in respect of guilty sinners called a killing Letter but never the whole Scripture I Answer That not only the Old Testament but even the Writings or Letter of the New Testament may be called a killing Letter to those that remain alienated from the Spirit that quickens Lven as Origen hath formerly taught in his Commentary on Leviticus Not only saith he in the Old
unto the Law and Testimony supposing that were the Scripture it followeth not that therefore it is the principal rule especially in Gospel times when God writeth his Law in the heart and the Testimony of Jesus is the Spirit of Prophecy and he that believeth hath the Testimony or Witness in himself But that people are not sent to any dictate Word or Light within as I. A. doth alledge is false and contrary to 2 Pet. 1. 19. Deut. 30. 14. Rom. 10. 8. Ioh. 3. 20 21. Ioh. 12. 36. And doth not God and Christ and the Holy Ghost dwell in the Hearts of believers and must not they go to God and Christ where they are and doth not God and Christ speak in his people Are they not his Temple and as God spoke immediately in the outward Temple under the Old Covenant the which Temple was a Figure of Christ and the Church shall he not speak now immediately in his true Temple as well as he did in former times Or are we wholly to neglect God and Christ in us and their Inward Teaching and only to mind the Letter of the Scripture without us according to I. A. And when Paul said to Timothy Neglect not the Gift that is in thee Hath this command no regard unto us And when Christ saith Behold I stand at the door and knock if any man will hear my voice Is this door only an outward door or is not rather the door of the Heart which is inward and therefore is not that voice inward And whence is it that seeing Christ is so near to his people as to be in them that he doth not speak one word to them by himself as a man doth to his Friend that he is present with Is it want of power or unkindness that he doth so refrain Doth not I. A. and those of his Principle make God over all Blessed for ever more like unto the dumb Idols mentioned in the Scripture Who have a Mouth but speak not being always dumb or silent Oh! what an Indignity is this to the Lord of Glory and let I. A. take heed lest he who is so ready to charge us with Blasphemy be not found among the Blasphemers himself who would limit the Lord from speaking and revealing himself in his Living Temples To his second Argument I Answer Though the Scriptures are Infallible and cannot deceive us yet they cannot sufficiently demonstrate unto us their Infallibility nor yet their true Sense without the evidence of the Spirit as is clear by Paul's Testimony 1 Cor. 2. 4. where he telleth That his Speech and Preaching was in Demonstration of the Spirit and Power And therefore without that demonstration of the Spirit his words could not prevail nor perswade them that they were of God And certainly if Paul's Preaching needed the demonstration of the Spirit his Writing doth as much need it at this day To the third I say It is no derogating from the Scripture that they derive their Authority from the Spirit of God which gave them their being even as it is no derogation from the words of a King long ago spoken by him That he confirmeth them a new by a new immediate Testimony To the fourth Although we may not receive any Dictate within that agrees not with the Scripture it doth not follow that therefore the Scripture is above the Spirit of God or his Dictate for as the Spirit can never contradict the Scripture so nor can the Scripture ever contradict the Spirit of God and neither can the Spirit or Scripture ever contradict pure and sound Reason yet it doth not follow that Reason is either greater or equal to the Spirit or to Scripture And because that Dictate which is contrary to Scripture is to be rejected as being none of Gods Spirit it doth only well follow that the Scripture is a Rule that is to be set over all false Dictates to judge and condemn them which we most willingly grant Now I. A. perceiving that I could retort one of his Arguments labours to guard against it As seeing the Word of God is the principal Rule and the Dictate or Speech of Gods Spirit within men is the word of God therefore that Dictate is the principal Rule And this Argument I did use in my Book called Quakerism no Pepery To which he Answers by denying That there is any such Dictate of God or the spirit in any men whomsoever whether believers or unbelievers But to this I Answer 1. He will not deny but that the Apostles had such an inward or immediate Dictate and also the Prophets and therefore he must allow that the Scripture as to the Prophets and Apostles was but a secondary Rule or at least no greater Rule than that Dictate within which they had And yet by I. A. his Logick the Apostles did vilifie and despise the Scriptures and it was a needless or unuseful thing unto them seeing they had an inward Dictate which was greater or at least equa unto the Scripture Or let I. A. shew how their having the Inward Dictate for their Rule did not make them undervalue the Scriptures whereas our having such a Dictate as he alledgeth or pretending to such a Dictate makes us so to undervalue them But secondly he only supposeth it without any proof that such an Inward Dictate which was once in the Church of God as is confessed is discontinued or ceased And this indeed is the general manner of our opposers who lay it down as a Principle as needing no proof that Immediate Revelation and Teaching of Gods Spirit is ceased But let I. A. know that we can receive no such Doctrine as a Principle from hims but return it as a meer idle and false supposition which yet is the foundation of a great many of his consequences against us Thirdly that he saith I should first prove that there is such a Dâ—ctate in every man I Answer that I have done already in my Book called Immediate Revelation published many years ago by many Arguments and he should first have Answered to these before he had sought any more Also in my Book called Quaâ—erism no Popery to which he has given no sufficient reply and some of the most weighty he hath not so much as once Named And whereas he objecteth the Americans and others that cannot tell how many Gods there are I ask him by what shall the Americans be judged at the last day shall it not be by the Law of God writ in their Hearts And do not these Americans sin against God and those also who are most ignorant and yet want the Scripture now where no Law is there is no transgression This I hope is enough to prove that even the Americans and consequently all men have a Divine Law in their Hearts for if it were not Divine and as really the Law of God as any that we have to transgress it were not a sin against God Hence I thus argue a Divine Law in all men is
Teaching of God's own Spirit of Peoples Instruction in all Nations according to Rom. 16. 26. and those Nations that want the Scriptures are no doubt for most part in great darkness But why some Nations want the blessing of the Scriptures belongeth to the secret Judgments of God and as for us who have them let us be thankful to God and earnestly seek the holy Spirit that gave them forth without which they will be a Sealed Book unto us whether learned or unlearned as it is at this day unto the unbelieving Jews and also unto many thousands of unfaithful Professors of Christ who in works deny him And thus by what is said how and in what manner we own the Word of God in our Hearts immediately Speaking and Teaching as our principal Rule I. A. his Cavils and false Charges are sufficiently Answered which may serve to all his Third Section Yet to Answer to some things more particularly whereas I. A. alledgeth That the Word mentioned Deut. 30. 14. is not Christ but the Books or Writings of Moses To this I Answer But whether shall we rather believe I. A. or the Apostle Paul who Rom. 10. doth plainly expound it of Christ see Verse 4. compared with Verse 5 6 7 8. when he distinguisheth betwixt the Law and Christ as preferring Christ to the Law and he saith Christ is the end of the Law which he proveth out of Moses's words Deut. 30. 14. and therefore these words of Moses are to be understood of Christ and so did Clements Alexandrinus and others of the Fathers understand them But saith I. A. Moses tyes them straitly to the external written Word of the Scriptures But what then doth he so tye them as that they were not to regard God or Christ or the Holy Spirit in their Hearts How wild and unreasonable is this consequence Could the people understand the true Spiritual intent and signification of the Law without Christ and his Spirit and inward Teaching Was it not the fault of the people that they stuck so close to the bare outward performances of the Law and neglected Christ and his Spirit which could alone give the understanding of it And therefore when he came in the flesh they rejected him Secondly as to Ieremiah 31. v. 31 32. we do not bring this place to overthrow the external Rule of the Scripture or true outward Teaching as I. A. falsly doth alleadge but only to prove that God himself doth Teach his people under the New Covenant so that they hear God himself and learn of him which yet doth not hinder yet they both also may and ought to hear all those whom God sendeth And certainly that Scripture expression to be Taught of God is more or a further thing then to be Taught by the Letter of the Scripture or by Moses and the Prophets Writings otherwise it might be said that the people simply by the Old Covenant was as much Taught of God as under the New Thirdly Nor do we bring Luke 17. 20 21. where Christ saith The Kingdom of God is within you to exclude all External helps and means as I. A. doth again no less falsely alleadge But only to prove that there is an inward Principle of Christs Light Life and Grace in men whereby he ruleth in those that are obedient unto the same and even in them who are disobedient it hath its Rule and Kingdom so far as to judge and condemn them which yet it could not do without some inward Dictate or witness Fourthly As to Iohn 16. 13. where Christ Promises to send his Spirit to guide us into all Truth Nor do we bring this to oppose all outward Teaching Reading Learning c. But still we say seeing it was a promise made to the Apostles as well as unto us it implyeth a real inward Teaching of God and the Spirit that is somewhat further then the outward Teaching whatsomever which if it may and ought to be called immediate in the Apostles may and ought also to be called immediate in Gods people now and always to the end of the World seeing the promise is the same to both and therefore hath the same performance at least in kind if not in degree Fifthly The same false and absurd charge he is guilty of as to 1 Ioh. 2. 20 27. which mentioneth The Anointing which taught them all things so that they needed not any man to Teach them For we bring not this place to oppose all outward Preaching or Teaching of men of God truly sent and called by him But only the bare dead and dry Teaching of men who run and God hath not sent them And also the words may be understood in respect of an absolute necessity so as they who are come to that inward Anointing and that it abide in them they have not an absolute necessity of outward true Teachers so as they must need perish for want of them if so be at any time they could not be had as doth at times come to pass And thus also that of Ieremiah 31. 31 32 33 34. is to be understood importing likewise that all True Believers should have that experimental knowledge of God and acquaintance with him by the inward Teachings of his Spirit so as none should be wholly ignorant of God but all should know him in measure and therefore it should not be needful to say unto any of them know the Lord as if they were utterly ignorant of him in respect of Spiritual and experimental knowledge as indeed many or most of the people under the Law were Which yet hinders not but that still there will be both need and great use of True Teachers in the Church to the Worlds end though not to say know the Lord as if they did not in any measure know him yet to promote and advance them who know him already in more knowledge of him and of the great and deep Mysteries of his Kingdom Sixthly He saith That engrafted word mentioned Jam. 1. 21. which we are bid receive is the Scripture and not Christ or his Light For he saith We cannot in proper Speech be said to receive or hear a Dictate within which we have already and is not audible properly But how weak is this Argument Could not the Prophets and Apostles both hear and receive Christ whom they had already were they not still more and more to receive him And have we not the Scripture already and consequently according to I. A. we cannot receive it And that he saith A Dictate within is not audible properly But why not as properly as a Dictate without Seeing the Spiritual Hearing and Seeing are as proper in their kind as the Natural are in their kind And according to this reasoning of I. A. none of the Prophets nor Apostles were to hear God or the Spirit in them seeing nothing within is audible properly And as for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Englished Engrafted it doth most properly signifie innate and is
Defence of the Episcopal Church and Faith that Ioh. Alexander undertaketh but the Presbyterian and yet I. A. is a Member of the Episcopal Church and Officiates therein under Iohn Hamilton an Episcopal Preacher who hath recommended his Book at the Order of the Bishop of Edenburgh But I suppose the Episcopal Church in Brittain will give Iohn Alexander or his Patriot Iohn Hamilton little Thanks for his Service seeing many Episcopal Teachers in Brittain differ widely in Doctrin from the said Westminster Confession And had I. A. no other Confession of Faith or Catechism to commend but that of the Presbyterians whom his Episcopal Brethren commonly call Fanaticks and is it turned to that that they commend their Confession of Faith as the only Confession of the Church in Brittain But I can find no mention in the said Confession that Episcopacy is Iure Divino However since I. A. has undertaken the defence of the Presbyterian Church and Faith in all its Articles and Definitions as very Gospel Rule and Scripture Sentence he must then acknowledge that all these Definitions and Articles of his Presbyterian Brethren are at left materially considered infallible Oracles â—nd seeing he confesseth they are not all expresly contained in Scripture but many of them only deduced by consequence therefrom by what infallible consequence can he convince any rational man that his and their consequences are just and right since he laies no claim to the least measure of that kind of direction of the Holy Spirit teaching him and his Brethren to draw those consequences which Christ and the Apostles had whereby they argued and did draw consequences from places of Scripture formerly writ And seeing not only Papists and Protestants but the Episcopal and Presbyterian draw contrary consequences from the Scriptures what evidence can I. A. give us why we should receive the consequences of the one more than the other Or can we think the Lord hath left his people so in the dark as to give no other knowledge of his Will in a great many things whiâ—h are Articles of Faith but what can be searched out by long and tedious consequences of the bare natural understanding of man as it is left to it self to fish and hunt in the dark after such consequences without any such special direction and conduct of the Holy Spirit in the least measure which Christ and the Prophets and Apostles had Nay I do not find that I. A. doth acknowledge so much as the least absolute necessity of any sort of operation or illumination of the Spirit so â—uch as that they call effective or subjective order to draw their consequences from the â—cripture But if this way of drawing consequences without the help of the Holy Spirit were so safe and sure how is it then that so many of all sorts draw contrary consequences from the same Scriptures Is not the great reason of all this because men are departed from that holy Spirit which gave forth the Scriptures and can only give the true understanding of them And therefore is it not plain and manifest as the Light at Noon-day that man's natural Spirit and Reason and Wisdom in its highest perfection is altogether unable to meddle with Divine Truths or to search after them as it remains alone hunting in the dark And certainly this is no small part of that cursed self-conceit and exaltation of mind that Rules in the degenerated nature of man that they think they can be wise enough without God's Spirit they need no direction or assistance or illumination to help them to search into the Scriptures they can do that well enough with their natural reason and a little School-craft of Artificial Logick and Grammar and Natural Philosophy but that blessed man David was of another mind when he prayed unto the Lord saying Open my Eyes that I may see the wonderful things of thy Law And as for consequences which men draw as they are directed and taught by the Spirit of God as Christ and the Apostles were when they drew any consequence from what was formerly writ we do own them and receive them and none else But yet as to the most weighty and necessary things to wit such as are the general principles of the Christian Faith and Doctrine and which as such are generally to be received by all Christians as well these of the meanest capacity as others of the greatest we see the Lord hath not left it to mans industry to search after them by consequences long or short but hath delivered them to us in plain express words and terms and that many times over and over again as in respect of many of them in the Holy Scriptures And why is it that the Scriptures are so full and large in their Testimony to the Doctrines and Principles of Religion but to let us understand that all the Principles and Doctrines of the Christian Faith which God requireth in common of all Christians are expresly their delivered and recorded and put as it were in a puplick Register And therefore for my part what I cannot find expresly delivered in Scripture I see no reason why I should receive or believe it as any common Article or principle of the Christian Faith or Life and for such to whom God hath given that Divine skill to â—ive or dip into the depth of the Scriptures 〈◊〉 out of the reach of other men who may â—e true Christians so as to collect or gather by just and true consequences other things that lie out of the view of their weaker Brethren they ought not to obtrude them upon any to be received as principles of Faith but in that case to have Faith to themselves and receive them as peculiar discoveries or Revelations of the Spirit to them and such others as God hath so enlightened the which by the Apostle Paul is called The Word of Wisdom to wit such a peculiar degree of Wisdom or Understanding in the depth of the Scriptures as others who yet were true Christians did not reach unto and concerning such a peculiar gift of Divine Wisdom he said We speak Wisdom among the perfect this certainly could be no common Article of Faith else he should have Preached it to all And this by the same Apostle is elsewhere called The knowledge of Mysteries as distinguished from the common Faith and knowledge of the whole Church Now if this were but received among those called Christians that nothing should be required by one sort from another as an Article of Faith or Doctrine or principle of the Christian Religion in common to be believed but what is expresly delivered in the Scriptures in plain express Scripture terms of how great an advantage might it be to bring a true reconcilement among them and beget true Christian Unity Peace Love and Concord And as for the consequential part of peculiar Doctrines whether true or false to leave every one a freedom or latitude without imposing upon them the affirmative or negative as
are Grace so an evil principle is sin I Answer there is a Principle of Grace in the Souls of Bad men which is Grace in it self and Truth and Righteousness yet it is not their Righteousness nor Grace because they joyn not with it and even so an evil Principle in a good man though evil and sin is not his sin when he doth not joyn with it 5. He Argueth That which inclineth men to sin must be sin But if this Argument hold then the Devil must be sin still because he inclines men to sin Again as to what he alledges that Paul said Sin did dwell in him from Rom. 7. I Answer I. A. hath not proved that Paul was at that time in that condition whereof he makes mention and although he speaks of the dwelling of sin in him viz. in respect of his former condition yet he telleth that not his mind but his flesh was the Subject where it did indwell And therefore when I. A. so insultingly inquireth at me What is the Subject of that evil thing or motion for seeing it is an accident it must have some subject without which it cannot exist I Answer him from the Apostle the Subject of it in good men is not the mind or more noble part which is immortal but the flesh And seeing it is not lodged in the mind of any righteous man it cannot defile it when it is not in any wise consented unto Nor doth it follow that because an evil motion may be in the flesh or mortal part the Devil is also lodged there too this is nothing but a foolish inference of I. A. his making and therefore let him take home his silly Jest to himself where he saith It is better to lodge sâ—n alone than it and the Devil too for two such Deviâ—s are worse together than any of them it self I say nothing of this can be inferred from our Principle but let I. A. take heed lest sin and the Devil too have not too great place in him which so leads him forth to foolish Jesting and reproaching the Blessed Spirit of Truth in its Holy Inspirations in the Hearts of Gods People But why is I. A. so offended with the Inquirer for asking if Sin be the Devil seeing he calleth sin Devil saying Sin and the Devil are two worse Devils than one alone To conclude this matter I. A. doth plainly acknowledge That by Christ his destroying the Devil is meant the destroying his Power and Kingdom in the World pag. 137. And not the Annihilating the Devils entity and being Is it not then clear that I. A. his own Confession the Devils Power and Kingdom is called Devil in Scripture and what is that but sin and thus we see hâ—w at last he is forced at least indirectly to acknowledge what he hath so earnestly opposed CHAP. XIV IN the pretended Survey of the thirteenth Query I. A. accuseth the Spirit in the Inquirer As being either an ignerant Blockhead or else a Captious Sophister and withal alledging That the Question as it is propounded cannot be Answered and that therefore it must be purged from a plurality of Interrogations But all this Accusation proceeds upon a wrong Supposition viz. That Christ hath not died for all men And therefore although I. A. cannot Answer the Question according to his own false Principle yet according to Scripture it can be well Answered viz. That Christ hath died for all the ungodly and sinners that they should live unto him In the next place he offereth to give some clear demonstrations from the Scriptures That Christ did not die for all men But in his whole Survey of this Question consisting of above 13 Pages he bringeth not one place of Scripture which saith expresly That Christ died not for all men And for my part I have Read the Scriptures all over several times but to this day I could never find any such place But on thâ— contrary I have found divers places of Scripture expresly affirming That Christ hath died for all as Isaiah 53. 6. 2 Cor. 5. 14 15. Heb. 2. 9. and 1 Tim. 2. 6. and 1 Ioh. 2. 2. And therefore his clear demonstrations are but his own consequences gathered not from Scripture but from his own mistakes and his absurd Interpretations of Scripture the which we are not bound to receive seeing he has renounced all claim to the Inspiration of that Spirit that gave forth the Scripture And because it would be too tedious and to little purpose to Answer particularly to every frivolous Objection he maketh against the Doctrine of the Scripture Concerning Christs dying for all men I shall lay down some general Heads or Propositions according to Scripture by which all his Objections shall be sufficiently Answered PROP. I. ALthough Christ died for all men and thereby gave a Testimony of Gods great Love and also of his own to all mankind according to 1 Ioh. 4. 9 10. and 1 Ioh. 3. 16. and Rom. 5. 8. Yet it doth not follow that Christ or God hath equally conferred upon all the Spiritual Blessings procured by his Death for the Love of God being free he might extend it in different measures or degrees to men as it pleased him according to his own infinite Counsel which we cannot comprehend And whereas Ioh. 15. 13. it is said Greater Love hath no man than this that a man lay down his Life for his Friends This doth not import as I. A. doth alledge That Christ died only for his Friends but it expresseth the superabundant Love of Christ above the Love of all other men in that whereas it is the greatest Testimony of the love among men a man to die for his Friend yet Christ hath given a far greater in that he died for his Enemies Rom. 5. 10. PROP. II. CHrist died in so far even for these who perish that by vertue of his Death all such have a day of Visitation wherein it is possible for them to be saved during which day Christ Jesus doth Enlighten them with his true Light to shew them their way unto God and also he breaths upon them in some measure sufficient unto their Conversion with his Spirit of Grace to draw and gather them whereby it is possible for them within the day of their Visitation to believe and so to be saved And this Grace of Illumination which hath a Sanctifying and renewing vertue in it comes upon them as the real effect and consequence of what Christ hath done and suffered for them God having so ordered it in his infinite Love and Wisdom that this Grace whereby he converteth Souls should flow and run forth unto us in that way and as it were through the Conduit of Christ his Blood so that the Sufferings of Christ were as the opening of a great Fountain out of which the abundant Grace of God that formerly as it were but droped on mankind is in the Latter days poured forth upon them as it was promised so to be for which
read and compare these following Scriptures Isaiah 44. 3. Ioel 2. 28. Ieremiah 31. 31. Psal. 68. 18. Eph. 4. 7 8. and Ioh. 1. 16 17. Rom. 5. 18. PROP. III. WHen once the day of mens Gracious Visitation is at an end which is possible to come to pass on many and doth no doubt come to pass on many even when living in the World after they have finally rejected the Call of God in their Souls and â—â—ully resisted and hardned themselves against his tender dealings by his Spirit of Grace gently working on their hearts I do not say that Christ hath died for the sins of all or any one of those after the said day of their Visitation is at an end For although we read in Scripture That Christ hath died for the reâ—ission of all sins past in the time of ignorance when God winked and for the redemption of the transgressions under the first Covenant according to Rom. 3. 25. and Heb. 9. 15. Yet we find not that Christ hath died for all sins of men that were to come after they were Enlightned And although no doubt all sins as well to come as past are pardoned upon Repentance and that Christ hath died for such sins as are repented of by any men at any time when they truly repent yet seeing many sins are committed by many that are never repented of and wherein they die finally Impenitent and hardned against Gods tender Call and Visitation of Grace in their Souls Also seeing some sin wilfully and fall away after they have received the knowledge of the Truth and die in that state the Scripture is plain That there remaineth no more Sacrifice for them Also Iohn speaketh Of a sâ—n that is unto death of which he Writes I do not say that such a one is to be Prayed for And what is such a sin but a final impenitence even until the day of Visitation be over and God be provoked to give them up even as many at this day because they received not the Truth in Love are given up to the strong delusions of Antichrist to believe Lies and die in that state PROP. IV. MEn are not according to Scripture called Reprobates within that time that God dwelleth with them by his Grace in order to convert them and renew them by Repentance far less doth the Scripture speak of mens being Reprobated from all Eternity or before the foundation of the World as some alledge although we read of an Election in Christ before the foundation of the World And to say that God doth simply Reprobate men while he is calling them to Repentance and graciously inviting them in true Love to be reconciled with him is an absolute inconsistency The time therefore of any mans final Reprobation is after this day of Grace is over and God hath wholly left striving with him in order to his Conversion We must therefore distinguish betwixt persons and their sins and sinful state for also â—in and state of sin is always rejected and reprobated yet not the persons until their day be over For the Scripture speaketh aboundantly of a day of Grace that all men have or are to have wherein the Lord not only visits them but even endures with much long suffering the Vessels of wrath fitted for destruction These only therefore are properly Reprobates who are finally given over to a Reprobate mind after their day of Grace is over and Gods fore-knowledge and preordination respecteth them only as such PROP. V. ACcording to what is formerly said it may be further concluded that although Christ hath died for all men in a day so that within that day of Grace all their sins past and to come as well as present are pardonable for Christs sake no man being absolutely reprobated and finally given over within this day of Grace yet that day being at an end Christs death is no more a Sacrifice for them nor for their sins and because of their rejecting so great Salvation offered them by Christ all their former sins which formerly were not imputed unto them so as to hinder Pardon are newly charged upon them and that in the just Judgement of God seeing they deny the Lord that bought them and account his Blood as an unholy or common thing And in this respect Christ hath Died for no Reprobates to wit as such And he hath neither died nor Prayed for the World in that sense to wit as it signifieth them who die in the final unbelief and impenitency and so perish for so I find the term World sometimes to signify in Scripture And if I. A. think that this is a contradiction as implying that Christ hath died for all men and yet hath not died for Reprobates who are a great part or the greatest part of mankind I shall mind him of a Rule in his School-Logick that he doth so highly magnifie to wit that Propositions are not contradictory although the one be Affirmative and the other Negative unless they be in ordtne ad idem in order to the same and in regard of the same Circumstances of time place condition c. PROP. VI. THe Sacrifice of Christs death did truely extend for the remission of sins past from the beginning of the world hence all the Believers that lived under the Law and Prophets and before the Law were saved by Faith in Christ and had their sins pardoned not by the Offering of the Blood of Bulls and Rams but by the Blood of Christ who was to die for them and in whom they believed and died in Faith as is clear out of many places of Scripture and especially the Epistle to the Hebrews And by vertue of Christ's death and offering once for all men have had or have or shall have a day of Visitation and offer of Grace through Christ even these who lived before Christ came in the flesh in that prepared body as well as others And therefore all who finally perish and are lost in whatever Age or time of the World they lived they must be accountable to Christ who is judge both of quick and dead and Lord of both and they shall be punished with Fire of Hell for neglecting and despising the Salvation offered by him And although this is a great Mistery and hard to be uttered how this Gospel Invitation and Visitation cometh unto all and how all shall be accountable unto the man Christ Jesus on the score or account of his dying for them yet seeing the Scripture is so plain and clear for it it is better to believe it than curiously to dispute how or after what manner it comes so to be And the opening of this and other great Misteries of the Christian Religion is approaching to many who as yet do not see them and when men are prepared to receive them God will no doubt give that and all other Good things to those that Love and Fear him PROP. VII ANd whereas I. A. and others do urge That either Christ
cannot be any resistance of it in that respect But he may as well say God doth not command perfection and so not to be perfect is no sin for certainly whatever God commands his Grace inclines men to yea it is his Grace in their Hearts that is a Law and command unto them In the close of this Section I. A. falleth on to dispute against the posibility of the falling away of any from real beginnings of Sanctification the which because he doth it so overly and barely not bringing Arguments for what he saith but meerly giving us his own private conjectures on some places of Scripture which are alledged on both sides as also because it is altogether a digression from the Queries I shall not insist upon particularly to refute Only for a service unto those who may desire Information as touching the thing it self because of the seeming contrariety of some places of Scripture which hold forth the state of some in the Grace and favour of God as unchangeable and not lyable to any alteration of falling away from the same are to be understood of the State of such persons after they have come to such a growth in Grace so that perseverance in the same is a reward given them of God with a respect to their Faithfulness and diligence wherein they have been formerly exercised And such especially is that place Rev. 3. 12. CHAP. XVI IN my Examination of I. A. his Survey of the 15 th and two other Queries which are the last I design to be very brief finding little or nothing in all that he objecteth against us on these heads but meer quibbling and trifling together with some manifest abuses and perversions part of which I shall take notice of leaving other things of less moment to the Readers own consideration And indeed were it not for the worth and serviceableness of the things themselves proposed in the Queries and to give to my Native Country as well as unto other places a new occasion to Read and Consider those Queries and the weightiness of the things proposed in them I had not taken the paâ—ns to put Pen to Paper in Answer to I. A. notwithstanding his many abusive reflections against me in particular considering of what small repute or esteem he is among his Brethren for although he appears in his Book as some great Pillar mightily concerned in his Brethrens Quarrel and Cause yet so small is their esteem of him or of his work as it seemeth that they have suffered him to lye in Prison in the Tolbooth of Edinburgh for want of Money to pay the Charges of his Book as is not our to many in this place It is like I. A. will be more provident the next time he engageth against the Quakers to get Iohn Hamilton who hath so highly commended his work or some other to secure him from the next inconveniency of that sort First of all he begins on this Query to Quibble about the word should as if the Inquirer did mean by these words That men should not be perfect as if these called Ministers did teach that it was not mens duty to be perfect or as if it were not commanded whereas by the word should is only meant the event or attainment and not the duty as sometimes the word doth signifie a thing most common in ordinary Speech as when one saith if such a man had lived long he should have been Rich or he should have been Wise c. Next he alledges I abuâ—e some worthy men because I had cited some as holding a Divine condescendence or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and as if the same did consist in God his remitting or nullifying his Law in its obligation but this is a gross perversion for I did not mean any such thing thereby as I. A. doth alledge but only that God out of his infinite goodness and wisdom hath given unto men under the Gospel Dispensation a Law that is so Gentle and so full of Clemency as that by the same he requires no more of any of us but according to the measure of Grace and Strength he doth afford unto us and still as our Strength and Ability is Increased the obligation of the Law becomes the greater upon us Hence it is that he who is Faithful in every respect to the measure of Grace which he hath received is indeed a perfect man and doth please God although he be not equal in his attainment unto others who have more given them For to whom much is given much is required and to whom less is given less is required which is most clear from the Doctrine of Christ in his Parable of the Talents And whereas I. A. doth plead against the possibility of perfection in this Life by divers Arguments deduced from a misapplication of some places of Scripture I shall only point at the defects of his Arguments in general which shall suffice to every one of them if duely applyed in particular 1. One great defect of his Arguments is that the most they prove is That man of himself without the Grace and help of Gods Spirit cannot attain to perfection which we do not deny but this hinders not that by Grace he may 2. A second defect is that his Arguments prove That the Saints had their Imperfections and sins before they were fully washed and cleansed from them which we also acknowledge but this doth not hinder that some time or other they witnessed a perfect cleansing before death A third defect is his confounding â—he States and Conditions of the Saints to wit Their weak Estate when they are but in the warfare and strugling against sin with their Last and final Estate wherein they have overcome and got the Victory And lastly to mention no more his misapplying the word or term perfect when it is taken in an higher sense to the lowest condition of a sinless state as in the Case of Paul when he said Philip. 3. 12. He was not as yet perfected where he â—eaneth certainly that he had not attained to the highest pitch or condition of Holiness that was attainable in this Life which notwithstanding doth not hinder a sinless perfection for although Adam was Created in a sinless perfection yet certainly he was to have gone on to a higher state of Perfection And we Read of Christ who had no sin at all that he was made perfect through Sufferings Again when Christ said I work to day and to morrow and the third day I am perfected This cannot signifie that he had any sinful Imperfection before that time but his being perfected the third day signifieth that his work was then to be done and so that he was prepared for the Glory that he was to receive thereafter Again whereas he maketh some show of bringing our Arguments or Reasons for Perfection I find not my self concerned to Vindicate those Arguments as managed by him because he doth not propose them either in matter or form as they do
summum jus we think to merit our Justification by our Inherent Righteousness at Gods Tribunal This I say is an absurd inference and smelleth ranckly of deep prejudice and perverseness of Spirit in I. A. in opposition to which I say that unless God did not only not exact in his Justice the rigid rigour of the Law as he terms it but did not also pardon and forgive us freely for Christs sake multitude of sins so as not only to remit us a Penny but many thousands of Pounds neither we nor any man living could be justified at Gods Tribunal by the greatest Holiness attainable for all that the best of the Saints can attain unto of Holiness or Righteousness is but their duty and therefore can be no ransom nor redemption unto God for the lest by past sin far less for many that they have formerly committed And whereas in my Book aforesaid I charged I. A. and his Brethren to be too much one with the Papists in the Doctrine of Justification both of them denying that the Saints Justified by Christ indwelling in them as Luther expresly Taught in his Commentary on the Galatians And also denying that Gods Justifying his Children is an inward Sentence or Dictate of his Spirit immediately pronounced in their hearts to which the said I. A. can give no reply but a meer evasion and falleth on a fresh to accuse us of Enthusiasme which being already Answered in the former part I need not here to repeat Only I cannot but take notice how ignorantly I. A. opposeth the word or term immediate to the use of means which I have already refuted and shewed how immediate Revelation such as the Prophets and Apostles had doth very well consist with the use of means And so I willingly acknowledge that true and right means are as Vessels whereby ordinarily our Spiritual Meat and Drink are conveyed to us sometimes in the use of one mean sometimes in the use of another but I hope when we Eat and Drink that which is conveyed to us we Eat and Drink it immediately See Taste Savour and Handle and Feel it immediately and can well understand when the Meat is indeed in the Vessel and when it is empty and therefore I. A. his comparison in this respect doth altogether halt and is impertinent Another great impertinency and abuse I observe in I. A. that whereas I. A. blamed our Friends for saying We are not justified by Acts of Righteousness 〈◊〉 Acts grosly inferring that thereby they understand that they are not justified by sinful Acts as Blasphemy Murder and the like yeâ— hâ— himself 〈◊〉 the same kind of Expression as to Faith saying The Saints are not justified by Faith as it is a 〈◊〉 Act And according to I. A. his Logick he means they are not justified by all works as Blasphemy Murder Unbelief according to the maxime cited by him A quatenus ad omne sequitur Vniversaliter Nor is he less Impertinent to accuse me of a self contradiction because I distinguish Faith as it is both receptive and operative for even the receptive Faith I hold it to be a work and also wrought not only in the Soul but in some degree by it as a co-worker through the operation of the Holy Spirit And I say again to affirm that the Saints are not justified by Faith as it is a work is too nice and subtle a distinction unless they mean thereby as work wrought by them and as having an equal proportion to the reward of Eternal Salvation And in this sense that may be as well said we are justified by Love Repentance and all the Acts of men and Spiritual obedience but not as works done by us and having that quality of proportion to Eternal Life I shall not insist to Answer particularly I. A. his pretended Arguments against Justification by Repentance and Conversion and inward Acts of Righteousness as proceeding from the Spirit of Christ in Believers The whole force of his reasons being founded on a bare Assertion that hath been often sufficiently refuted both by us and divers noted men in the Episâ—â—pal Church as if Paul did oâ—pose Faith and all works or the inward work of Regeneration and Renewing by the Holy Ghost when he saith We are not saved by Works and the contrary is manifest from Tit. 3. 5. already cited As for his saying That our Souls are of great price in the sight of God and yet do not merit Heaven and consequently nor the best Works although they are said to be of great price with God I grant neither our Souls nor our Vertues merit Heaven nor Redemption as merit signifieth equality But seeing God hath counted our Souls so dear as to give so great a price for them as the Blood of his Dear Son they may at least be said to have some dignity or worth which is to say merit in them otherwise God would never have given so great a Ransome for them if the Souls of men in respect of their Nature and Being had not been of great value which is all I understand by the word merit as used by any of us And truly for our part we very rarely or never use the word merit as with a respect to the Saints best works unless when we are constrained to bear our Testimony against the ignorance and rashness of those who so undervalue and reproach the Blessed Spirit his works in the Saints as to call them not only unclean and underfiled with sin but sin it self for which God might justly condemn them to Hell as some have not been afraid to affirm I take notice also on this Head how I. A. doth acknowledge that Repentance Love and Hope are necessary to Justification by way of presence and existence but not as conditions or qualifications required in order to Justification which is another frivolous and groundless distinction for seeing the Scripture doth equally press our Repentance and Conversion that we may obtain Forgiveness and Justification as it doth Faith The one is certainly as much the condition as the other And it is not Faith barely considered which hath the fitness to receive us into the Favour of God and his acceptance but as it is accompanied with sincere Repentance and Obedience for as it is a most unfit and incongruous thing that any man while remaining in his unbelief should be admitted into Friendship and Favour with God so it is no less unfit and unagreeable to the Wisdom and Holiness of God to receive them into his Friendship and Favour as his Children who remain still Rebellious and disobedient against him As for I. A. his last Assertion on this Head consisting of above three pages wherein he only beats the Air and fights with his own shadow upon a gross and perverse but altogether groundless surmise as if the Quakeâ—s did deny any imputed Righteousness of Christ in what he did and suffered for us but as it is inwardly wrought and inherent in us for we most
of Righteousness as done by us nor as inherent in us as Acts by which we are accepted of God and justified before him but by Christ the Author and worker of those Acts in us and for us c. He most grosly perverteth the sober and honest intent of those words as if by them they understood only that they hold not themselves justified by all Acts as Blasphemy or any other gross sin But who seeth not that this is a most gross perversion for certainly all Righteous Arts of all sorts they exclude when they say not by Acts of Righteousness and therefore when they say it is not Righteous Acts as Acts whereby we are justified their meaning is most plain and obvious as Acts being understood to be only even as Acts of Righteousness and not simply and barely as Acts though upon this meer Grammatical Quibble I. A. buildeth all his loud clamour against them But I. A. should know better that when the Sense is obvious a word may be understood that is not expressed in the Sentence as so it is in this present Case A fourth gross Perversion of his that he saith of me in my Book called Quakerism no Popery I affirm That we are justified by our inward Graces immediately I. A. doth understand that I mean without all respect to Christ which is a most gross perversion for the express words of my Book are these following The Righteousness of God and Christ by which we are most immediately and nearly justified is Christ himself and then I add and his work of Righteousness in us by his Spirit So that I am so far from excluding Christ that I say in the first place Christ himself is our Righteousness A fifth gross Perversion of I. A. is that in my defunction of Justification I give no other material cause of our Righteousness before God but only our Inward Graces whereas in the said definition I mention expresly Jesus Christ as being the ground and foundation of our Justification both in what he hath done and suffered for us without us and as really and truly indwelling in us A sixth perversion of his is that I confound Justification and Sanctification together making no imaginable distinction betwixt them and that because I say we are justified by inward Righteousnes and sanctified by the very same But this proveth not that I do not distinguish them for one and the same thing may have a respect to different operations as well as to different Causes But this reasoning of I. A. is as one would argue that when a Malefactor is both Condemned and punished for his Crime that his Sentence of Condemnation and his punishment are one and the same without any imaginable distinction betwixt them As also that his Condemnation and guiltiness are the same seeing by his Crime he is both guilty and condemned But as to Justification and Sanctification that they are distinguished although sometimes in Scripture one and the same word doth signifie both I willingly grant and do expresly mention them as distinct in my Book which I need not here repeat And whereas I. A. doth not only accuse me in particular as holding a Popish Justification but saith further That Bellarmine himself was never more Popish on that Head Surely this his assertion proceeds either from great ignorance or something worse For Bellarmine de justif lib. 5. cap. 17. holdeth That good works do merit Eternal Life condignly not only by reason of Gods Covenant and acceptation but also by reason of the work it self so that in a good works proceeding from Grace there may be a certain proportion and equality unto the reward of Eternal Salvation and to the same purpose writeth Gabriel Vasâ—uez a Papist But no such thing is affirmed by any of us nor by me but on the contrary in my Book called Quakerism no Popery I altogether deny the merit of the best works as it signifieth an equality of worth to the reward of Eternal Life Nor do I in any other case or sense allow the word merit with a respect to the best works of the Saints but in that sober and qualified sense used by divers of greatest note among those called Reformers among the Protestants as Melanction and Bucer and also by the Fathers so called and which is agreeable to Scripture which calleth Eternal Life the reward of good works now reward and 〈◊〉 are relative â—â—rms as Richarâ— Baxter highly commended by I. A. elsewhere doth acknowledge And not only the said Richard Baxter a great English Presbyterian but divers of the best account in the Episcopal way as particularly H. Hammond do hold that the Saints are justified not by Faith only but by Repentance Love and New Obedience as well as by Faith as Instruments of Justification and necessary conditions requisite thereunto and that Sanctification in the order of Causes is prior to Justification And Iames Durham a great Scots Presbyterian in his Commentary on the Revelation Digress 11. saith That such who rest upon Christ for Iustification and acknowledge his satisfaction ought not to be blamed as guilty of Popery although they hold that Repentance Love and other Spiritual Vertues and Graces are necessary to Iustification as Faith is Seeing then we have some of the greatest note both among those called Presbyterians and Episcopalians who agree with us in the Doctrine of Justification it must needs proceed from great prejudice and untowardliness in I. A. to charge us as being guilty of Papery in that for which we have not only the Scriptures abundantly to warrant us but divers also both Episcopal and Presbyterian of the best account to vindicate us And as for Henry Hammond a man of singular esteem in the Episcopal Church in Brittain whereof I. A. is a proâ—â—sâ—ed Member he doth not only agree with us on this Head of Justification but also on many other very great and weighty Heads of Doctrine so fiercely opposed by I. A. as particularly in those following 1. That Christ hath died for men 2. That there is no absolute decree of Reprobation 3. That Gods Grace is Vniversal 4. That beginnings of Regeneration may be fallen from 5. That these words of Paul Rom. 7. 14 15. concerning his being Sold under sin are a Metaâ—chematismus and not the present State that Paul was in And I. A. is extreamly ignorant if he know not that an exceeding great number if not the greatest of the most judicious persons of the Episcopal Church both in Britain and Ireland are of the same mind with the said H. Hammond in these things who therefore are so far from esteeming I. A. a Patron or Advocate of their Church that they cannot but judge him in so far at best their Adversary Moreover the great prejudice of I. A. against us appears in this that because I deny all merit strictly considered he inferreth most absurdly that if Justice will not exact the very rigid rigour of the Law from us and take the very