Rules of that called Philosophy but remain at great uncertainty in the very foundations of it as is acknowledged by the most ingenuous Professors thereof Now to make a thing so uncertain as their Philosophy is in many or most things to wit a fallible thing an infallible Rule to make a Minister of the Infallible Truth is a very absurd and unreasonable matter But I. A. giveth us a number of Thirteen or Fourteen Positions which his School-Philosophy doth teach the truth whereof is evident as that there is a God who is Infinite Eternal Omnisciâ—nt Omnipotent Unchangeable that every man is a Rational Creature that the Soul of man is Immortal that no Brute is a Man that no Action can be without some Subject nor without some effect nor any Union without some extremes But I suppose there are few men if any that have but the right use of their understanding as men that do not or may not know all this without School-Philosophy as well as I. A. doth with it And then what advantage giveth his Philosophy unto him But toere are other great matters which his Philosophy teacheth and as he particularly describeth them they are these following That every thing either is or is not that nothing can â—oth be and not be at once that of every contradiction the one part is true and the other false that every whole is more than 〈◊〉 part that every Cause is prior in nature to its effect that nothing can work before it exist But I must tell I. A. that these last mentioned Positions are not taught by Philosophy and are not any part of Philosophy as is generally acknowledged by the Professors of it because they are first Principles which Philosophy doth not undertake to teach but presupposeth them as already known and understood by the common dictates of understanding that is in all men and are called by them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 common Sentiments or Principles and therefore we still desiderate what peculiar Misteries I. A. his Philosophy doth teach that men of ordinary understanding doth not already know or at least may know very easily by a simple reflection without his Philosophy or School-Craft Not that I deny but that there are divers things which the true genuine Philosophy may teach that are not obvious to common understanding but I find nothing asserted by I. A. in all these positions which he giveth as instances of what Philosophy teacheth but every ordinary Tradesman knoweth as well to be true as I. A. And therefore he might have spared his Pains in that idle and unnecessary work CHAP. III. J. A. in his Survey or Examination of the third Query doth earnestly contend That the Words of the Scripture are and ought to be called the Word of God For which he useth divers Arguments and Citations of Scripture but the true state of the Question here is not whether the Scriptures figuratively as by a Synecdoche or Metonymie may not be called the Word for which I shall not contend finding that the Greek Word Logoâ— Translated into English the Word is used sometimes in Scripture to signifie either Words or Writings as Acts 1. 1. the Treatise Writ by Luke he calleth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is to say in English the first Word or Speech Also where Paul saith Our Gospel came unto you not in Word only but in Power c. 1 Thess 1. 5. And some other places may be found both in the Old and New Testament to that effect which yet doth in nothing give to I. A. nor to any of our Adversaries the least advantage against us For the Question is what is properly the Word God or the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That which is most properly and eminently that Word of God so much mentioned in the Scripture with its wonderful effects and that the Letter is not properly the Word of God is as evidently apparent as that the Writing or Written Letter of a mans Speech is not properly the words of a mans Mouth for we commonly distinguish betwixt a mans Word and his Write How much more ought we to distinguish betwixt the outward Letter and Writing and the Word of God in the proper sense seeing God is an invisible Spirit and so is his Word And what he hath spoke by his Prophets or Apostles he spoke it first in their Hearts and Mouths before there was any Declaration of it in Writ and consequently it was the Word of God before the Writing And therefore the Writing is not the Word properly but only figuratively as when a part is put for the whole by a Synecdoche or when the sign is put for the thing signified as a Map of England and Scotland is commonly called England and Scotland and yet none will say that that Map is really England or Scotland or when we hear that England and Scotland produceth such and such Fruits who is so ignorant as to think that the Map or Card produceth these Fruits and not the Land it self Let I. A. know therefore that in all the places where the Word is mentioned he must prove that the Letter of the Scripture is meant or he doth nothing against us the which I am sure he shall never be able to perform seeing he grants himself That sometimes at least by the Word is meant Christ and not the Letter Moreover I ask I. A. when he saith The Scripture is the Word of God what he meaneth by the term Scripture Doth he mean the only bare Writing or Characters consisting of Ink and Paper and will he say that is properly the Word of God Or doth he mean the Doctrine expressed and signified by the said Writing and Characters and the true sense and meaning of the Spirit of God held forth in the same which Metonymically may be called the Scripture putting the thing signified for the sign and thus the Doctrine may be called the Scripture and the Scripture the Doctrine to wit by a twofold Metonymie one where the thing signified is put for the sign the other where the sign is put for the thing â—igniâ—ied Now we do most willingly grant that the Doctrine and true sense or mind of the Spirit declared of or expressed in the Scripture is and may properly be called the Word of God But then we further affirm that the said Doctrine or true sense of the mind or Spirit cannot be reached or attained unto by the meer Reading or Hearing the Letter o the bare meditating in the Letter and thereâ—fore not every one that hath the Letter Preacheth the Letter and Heareth the Letter hath also the true Doctrine and mind of the Spirit and consequently nor hath he the Word of God But he only that receiveth the Spirit of Christ or Christ the Lord who is that Spirit receiveth the true Doctrine when he Readeth or Heareth the Scriptures or meditateth in them and consequently he only receiveth the Word of God And thus also none can Preach the true
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
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
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
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
in Brittain as by us And I judge that I. A. should hold himself a Member of thâ—s Episcopal Church seeing he himself Officiates as Reader and Presentor at at Leith under Iohn Hamilton an Episcopal Preacher who hath also recommended his Book And therefore seeing I. A. hath undertaken the Vindication of the Church of God in Brittain as he alledgeth against the Quakers he must either acknowledge that the Episcopal Church in Brittain is not the Church of God whereof he is a professed Member or else have proved out of the the Episcopal Church now in Brittain that she avoweth and owneth such principles all and every one as he asserteth and that those Eminent and Noted persons both in England and Scotland who dissent from him and agree with us in those principles already mentioned are Hereticks and renouncers of true principles of Religion stifling the faculties of reason such as among others in England R. Cudworth and H. More accounted great Doctors also William Sharlock and I. A. his Reverend and much admired Rich Baxter whom he particularly opposeth in the matter of Justification And in Scotland Bishop William Forbes in his Treatise called Considerationes modestae pacificae Controvers As also divers other persons of Note yet living whose Names I need not to mention all which I suppose and thousands more in the Episcopal Church in Brittain of all Qualities and Ranks will be loath to acknowledge I. A. for a Patron or Defender of their Faith but rather find â—ault with him in those things as an Enemy of their Faith and in other things a bewrayer and betrayer of it rather then a Defender In his Preface to the Reader he excuseth himself that he hath not Cited any humane Testimonies meaning Authorities of Ancient and Modern Writers against us Seeing these saith he they do not value except when they think they make for them especially ad hominem And with this slender pretext I suppose he thinketh to evade the many Testimonies I brought to confirm the Truth of our principles in my Book called Quakerism no Popery even out of Writters both Ancient and late of great esteem among them none of which he hath once so much as touched But to Answer to his Charge I say we value the Testimonies of all Writers whether Ancient or late which are true and agree with the Scriptures as much as any Protestants do or more than he doth And seeing he imputeth it as a fault to us that we will not own the Testimonies of others against us I ask him if he would own or value any Testimonies of Authors that make against him or his Judgment If he say nay then his excuse is removed and he hath nought to say for this omission But the matter seemeth to be in effect that those Testimonies adduced by me in the foresaid Treatise he knew not how to Answer unless by saying that those persons erred in those principles as much as we which he was loath to acknowledge lest he should seem to weaken the Charge of his Title against us and acknowledge his own party and those that are more worth of Credit than himself equally guilty of Iesuitism with the people called Quakers wherewith he doth falsly accuse them And here I shall give a List or Catalogue of divers gross Perversions and Calumnies whereby he seeketh to abuse his Reader in the very Preface of his book against us As 1. That we reject all manner of External Ordinances Which is notoriously false as all who have the least knowledge of us can witness that we are for Meeting together and that frequently and when we meet to Preach Exhort Pray and give Thanks to God in Audible words as the Spirit of the Lord doth help us And can I. A. say that none of these are External Ordinances or Appointments and we challenge him to instance any one External Ordinance or Appointment of God that is truly so which we are against For it is but only humane Institutions and Abolished shadows set up as Divine Ordinances which we oppose as in the Sequel of this Treatise doth appear 2. He saith We do directly strike at the Foundation of all with one blow overturning so far as we can the whole rule of Faith and Duty setting a new one of our own Invention in the room thereof But why doth he charge us so highly in this matter because we cannot own the Letter or External Testimony of the Scriptures as the primary Rule or Foundation of Faith but only Christ Jesus the first and last concerning whom Paul hath writ That another foundation no man can lay then that which is laid already which is Christ Iesus And said the Lord behold I lay in Zion an Elect precious Corner stone a sure foundation Which to be sure is not the Letter but Christ and his Spirit Light and Life revealed in the heart And I Query this Accuser I. A. whether if to acknowledge Christ in his immediate Teachings by his Spirit in mens hearts is to set up a false Foundation or overturn the true one the Apostles are guilty of this Charge as to their own particulars seeing I. A. will not deny but that the Apostles had Christ immediatly to Teach them and speak in them And was it not the Apostle Paul his labour to build the Churches upon Christ that their Faith might not stand in men though sent and moved of God but in the power of God And though I. A. blame us for setting up the Light within for the Rule yet Christ taught people to believe in the Light and that this Light was not the Scripture which he bid them believe in is clear that he said While ye have the Light believe in the Light that ye may be the Children of it This clearly Imports that this Light should not long remain with them if they did not believe in it as he said in the foregoing Verse Yet a little while is the Light with you walk while ye have the Light lest darkness come upon you see Iohn 12. 35 36. And indeed the gracious Visitation of Light did not long after remain with them who did reject it although the Scriptures did remain with them And therefore the Light which he bid them believe in was not the Letter of the Scripture but Christ himself who said I am the Light of the World 3. He saith This Heresie so he calleth our Faith is a very Sink or an Vniversal System of almost all the gross Errors which hitherto have annoyed the Church of God And herein he doth imitate I. Brown and the Author of the Postcript to S. R. his Epistles who have so charged us but how unjustly we hope our Answers do sufficiently evince And surely this I. A. in the Art of Slandering and false Accusing may pass muster for a Lieutenant to those aforesaid Champions who have led the way before him in this enterprise It is not unknown how the Papists loaded the Protestants at their
appearing and do still at this day load them with such kind of Charges and to none is it more familiar to blame others for Heresie than those who are greatest Hereticks themselves 4. He saith In Doctrine we trample generally upon the whole Moral Law but more especially upon the first Table And here very falsly he Charges our Doctrine to be contrary to the first second fourth fifth sixth and ninth Commandments but let us see how he maketh good his Charge in each of them He alledgeth our Doctrine transgresseth the first Commandment because we say All Prayer and Worship that is performed without the Spirit of God is Will-worship and Superstition and consequently no wicked or unregenerate persons are bound to Worship God or indeed in any respect to obey God And from thence he concludes They are not under any Law of God and therefore lastly let them do what they will they cannot sin against God such men in the Quakers Principles as he saith may deny disown reject hate and contemn God worship the Devil and debauch at their pleasure they may lawfully dishonour and defame all men Murder commit Adultery Steal bear false Witness and yet they cannot sin because they are under no Law Hence also he infers That Reprobates are most unjustly condemned for their sinning against God seeing they not having received the Spirit are not under Law to God and so cannot be guilty of sinning against him Now what Sober Impartial and indifferent person that is not byassed with deep prejudice against us seeth not that these absurd consequences have not the least shadow of any Rational inference For although we say indeed that there is no true Worship but that which is in Spirit according to the express words of Christ and that none are true Worshippers of God but such as Worship him n the Spirit and that God requireth no Lifeless or Spiritless Worship yet we still affirm that all mankind ought to Worship God and Call upon him even all the wicked and unrenewed persons as well as the renewed so that in the thing of Worship it self we have no Controversy whether it be due unto God by all mankind but the state of the Question lyeth here betwixt us and those that dissent from us what the Worship of God is and what kind or sort of Worship it is that God requires of all men And in Answer thereunto we say the true Worship of God is a Spiritual Worship requiring the sincerity of the heart not as a circumstance or accidental thing but as the essential part thereof which cannot be done without the Spirit of God How much therefore more True and Rational consequence is it to argue thus God commands all men to Worship him therefore he hath given some measure more or less of the help of his Spirit unto all men whereby they may so do which doth continue with them so long as it pleaseth God who taketh away this help from none but such as mightily provoke him and sin out the day of their Visitation And even those whom the Lord in his Justice hath withdrawn that help or grace of his Spirit are still bound by the Law of God to Worship him as much as ever even when they neither do or can Worship him truly because they have brought this unpotency or inability upon themselves by their own unfaithfulness Even as a Servant or Steward that hath received a sum of Money to pay his Master and the said Servant spendeth the Money upon his Lusts and hath not one Penny wherewith to pay the debt yet he is still lyable for the whole sum Hence what I. A. saith in page 11. of his Preface is true that the inability of unrenewed men to perform acceptable Worship neither does nor can take away their Obligation to perform it But we differ from I. A. in the cause or reason why those who want that ability are still under the said Obligation which reason he will have only and alone mens losing it in Adam in whom they all once had it and the losing of it is their fault citing Rom. 5. 12 19. But to this I Answer First Whatever loss or inability is come upon Adam's posterity by the primitive disobedience yet now by vertue of the second Adam his obedience a new ability is conferred upon all men So that as broad as the Sore did spread by the first sin even as broad is the Plaister that God hath provided to the Lame and Diseased Souls of all mankind And this is most clear and plain from Rom. 5. 18. as also from Ioh. 3. 19. And this is the condemnation said Christ that Light is come into the world and men loved darkness rather than Light because their deeds were evil So we see that Christ layeth not the ground of wicked mens condemnation upon Adams sin but upon their hating the Light that did come unto them as a new and fresh discovery and visitation of Gods love But secondly Whether this Inability is come upon the wicked by reason of Adam's sin or by their own actual disobedience since that time yet we affirm no less than I. A. that the most wicked and ungodly are still under the obligation to the whole Law of God and their inability can be no ground of excuse unto them But the true state of the Queston is this Whether wicked men not simply as men or creatures but as wicked and remaining still in their wickedness should or are required to offer up unto God hypocritical and lifeless performances of that which men commonly call Prayer and Worship but is no more so in the sight of God than a dead Picture of Stone or Clay is a true living man and so whether God did ever require any to draw near to him with their Mouths and remove their Hearts far away as the manner of all wicked persons while so remaining always is Now we say God never required such sort of Prayers but refused and forbad them to be offered unto him even under the Law see Isaiah 1. 13. Bring no more vain Oblations and v. 12. When ye come to appear before me who hath required this at your hand to tread my Courts Again Psal. 50. 16 17. But unto the wicked God saith what hast thou to do to declare my Statutes or that thou shouldest take my Covenant in thy mouth seeing thou hatest instruction c. And whereas I. A. citeth some words of our Friends That wicked men should not Pray let the Impartial and Indifferent Reader understand these words in the Sense of those Scriptures just now mentioned which are as positive and full as any that can be cited out of our Friends Books and all occasion of mistake shall be removed For neither the Sense of the Scripture nor of our Friends is That wicked men are bâ—und in no respect to Worâ—ip God for the contrary is manifest from the words cited by I. A. out of the Book called The Principles of Truthâ—
where he alledgeth their words saying All men ought first to wait until they receive the Spirit in Truth then in the same Truth to Worship God in Spirit who is a Spirit So we see by I. A. his own Confession the Quakers teach that all men ought to Worship God in the Spirit and that they may indeed Worship him they would have all men follow the Lords order which is to wait or watch unto Prayer and they would have men in the first place cease or depart from their wickedness and then by the help of the Spirit which is never wanting in the proper season of it to come and Pray unto God And that this is no new or invented way of the Quakers so called Read Isaiah 1. 16 17 18. where the Lord by the Prophet bids first That they wash and be clean and put away the evil of their doings c. And then said he Come now let us reason together Also Peter commanded Simon Magus to joyn Repentance with Prayer Repent said he and Pray that the Thoughts of thy heart may be forgiven thee And for the more clear understanding of this whole matter we are to consider that Prayer is either simply Mental and with the heart only or both Mental and Vocal to wit both with heart and Mouth Now as for Mental Prayer at least in respect of the bent or frame and inclination of the Heart God requireth it always of all men and it is possible for all men if they but receive that help of his Spirit which he giveth or offereth unto men always to perform it But as for Vocal Prayer he neither doth require it at all times nor doth he give the help at all times nor the utterance whereby to perform it And it is observable that under the Gospel no particular set or limited time is appointed for Vocal Prayer But every one is to wait to know the times of the Spirits call and moving thereunto which will be seasonably and frequently afforded to such as wait singly therefore especially when the people of God Assemble together for then it is that Vocal Prayer is of greatest use and service though it hath also its use and service in private or when one is apart But whereas I. A. alledgeth further That if wicked men are not to Pray viz. their Hypocritical Prayers because they sin when they Pray No man on earth should offer to Pray or Worship God seeing as he saith There is somewhat of sin â—leaving to the best Actions of the Saints here away To this I answer That there is somewhat of sin cleaving to the best Actions of the Saints here away is denyed seeing it is asserted by him without proof for the Scriptures cited by him viz. Prov. 20. 9. Gal. 5. 17. say no such thing and by consequence he hath not evinced it and for a proof to the contrary see Iob 16. 17. Malach. 1. 11. But secondly nor doth it follow that men who are not yet come to a perfect state but labour sincerely under the burden of their sins to be delivered from them may not Pray unto God because their Prayer as they put it up unto God by the help of his Spirit is pure and without all sin proceeding from the pure or renewed part of their hearts for it is only the pure or renewed part of the heart from which indeed the true Prayer doth proceed even as on the contrary the evil desires and affections arise and spring only from the impure and unrenewed part Therefore he that hath this unrenewed part in him ought to watch against it while he prayeth that he give it no liberty to move or stir as indeed he ought to watch against it at all other times And though he that prayeth sincerely being not attained to a sinless state pray not with that degree or measure of fervency wherewith another more perfect doth or can pray yet God regarding that mans sincerity he accepteth his Prayer in Christ and for Christs sake pardoneth him when at any time he committeth a weakness in his Prayer in not keeping purely to the Spirit Again Lastly Whereas I. A. objecteth That the Plowing Eating Sleeping c. of the wicked is sin Shall the wicked then do nothing at all because whatever they do they go about it in a sinful manner I answer This consequence doth no wise follow because there is a great difference betwixt a wicked mans Plowing Eating Drinking c. and his Praying as remaining wicked and alienated from the Spirit of God for his Plowing Eating Drinking or any other Corporal or Natural actions are really these actions and they are profitable and necessary in the Creation and when he performeth these actions he faileth not in the substance or matter of the action required but only in the manner for the substance or matter of a wicked mans Plowing Eating Travelling is not sin but the manner of it viz. That it is not in Faith but a wicked mans Prayer as he is a wicked man is no true Prayer at all it hath nothing of the true substance of true and real Prayer it is a meer picture or dead resemblance of Prayer and is rather a mocking God than praying unto him for it wants the life of true Prayer which alone the Spirit of God doth give and thus a plain difference is demonstrated betwixt the two cases and the Unvalidity of I. A. his consequences in this whole matter is evinced And if the Reader desire further satisfaction in this particular let him Read our Answer to the Students and R. B. his Apology where these Objections of I. A. are largely Answered for he has brought no new matter against us and it had been better he had both spared his own pains and not troubled the world with his repeating other mens Arguments long since answered As for his instance of our opposing the second Commandment by our rejecting wresting and abusing the Word of God and avowing of Error and Blasphemy seeing it is but a bare alledging without any shadow of proof it is enough as simply to deny it as he doth simply affirm it But another instance he giveth of our opposing the second Commandment By swallowing down our Meat and Drink as so many Beasts without any Prayer and Thansgiving without which if they will believe the Apostle 1 Tim. 4. 3 4 5. they are not sanctied But how unjustly he chargeth this upon us I can freely leave to the Judgment of all sober and true Christians For how doth he prove that we Eat or Drink or receive any Creatures of God without Prayer and Thanksgivings Because we do not always use Vocal and External Prayer when we Eat and Drink although at other times we use it as God is pleased to give utterance and are most glad either to do it or joyn with these who do it by the help of Gods Spirit But is I. A. so ignorant and unreasonable to think that theirs is no Prayer
or Thanksgiving nor any use of the Word of God but that which is Vocal and External Do we not Read of the Prayer of the Heart in Scripture and also of Singing and making Melody in the heart unto the Lord as well as with the Mouth Or doth I. A. think that brutes can do this as well as we that he compares our Eating and Drinking altogether to that of Brutes However for the satisfaction of those that are sober I futher declare that we hold it our duty and I hope we can say it is our aim and endeavour in all our Eating and Drinking and in the receiving all the Mercies of God both Spiritual and Temporal to reeeive them with Prayer and Thanksgiving either both Mental and Vocal or at least Mental which we know is aceepted of God if in sincerity when the Vocal is not used And they who Pray or seem to Pray with their Lips and Voices when their Hearts are far away as it is too much the general manner and custom of people their Eating and Drinking is worse than that of Brutes which sin not when they Eat as all wicked persons do But I ask I. A. doth he use Vocal and External Prayer and Thanksgiving always when he receives any of the Creatures of God as in the use of Tobacco or Tasting a little Wine or Ale occasionally in a Tavern or when walking in an Orchard is his Conscience so scrupulous that he cannot Taste an Aple but he must use Vocal Prayer I suppose he is not so scrupulous And doth not I. A. know that there is not one moment of our Life but we are still receiving the Creatures of God seeing every breathing or receiving in of the Air is a renewed Mercy and Bleâ—ing of God with many others continually added unto us And yet the Lord doth not continually require Vocal Prayer in the continual use of tâ—ose Mercies And here I shall propose a few plain Questions for I. A. to Answer upon this whole matter 1. Whether one that sincerely useth Prayer and Thanksgiving in his â—â—art before he Eateth and Drinketh and in his Eating and Drinking and at aâ—â— other times laboureth to have his heart exercised in the â—ear of God although at times he use not Vocal Prayer before and after Meat is not more unlike to a Brute and more indeed a true Christian than he who knoweth not what it is to fear God or Pray to God sincerely in his heart at any time yet always at Meal-times useth a form of dead and lifeless words before and after Meat 2. Whether to Pray without the Spirit and without sincerity of heart be not a transgressing of the first second and third Commandments 3. Whether that Doctrine which teacheth men to Pray spiritless and hypocritical Prayers doth not oppose these three Commandments Further I. A. doth alledge that we do openly impugne the fourth Commandment in one of the following Queries unto which place he referreth the Controversy To 〈◊〉 I Answer and so he might all the rest without prepossessing his Reader with prejudice against us until he had heard the whole matter more amply discussed Our opposing the fifth Commandment he instanceth in not taking off our Hats and bowing the body in Salutations But seeing the fifth Commandment mentioneth no such form of Honour nor doth he deduce it by any just consequence therefrom It is as easily denyed by us as affirmed by him Nor doth it follow as he alledgeth that because we are to obey ehe fifth Commandment with our Bodies as well as with our Souls that therefore we are to take off our Hats in giving that honour to Parents for the Iews to whom that command was particularly given used no such form of honor or respect And as for bowing the Body although it was practised under the Law yet we find it forbidden under the Gospel as in the case of Cornelius bowing to Peter And in the New Testament we read of no bowing that is lawful but that which is at the Name of Jesus and of God Almighty Again whereas he alledgeth that from the words of Christ Iohn 5. 44. We Impugne the very letter of the fifth Commandment and declare that no manner of Civil Reverence or regard is to be given to any man I Answer this is a false Charge like unto the rest for we deny not that there is a civil regard and honour that is due unto all men in their respective degrees which is also to be signified and practised with a suitable outward behaviour of the body and may very well be without either uncovering the Head or bowing the Knee such as to rise up before the Hoary-Head or those that are our Superiours also to stand before them to speak humbly or be silent unless when required or liberty is given also to havean humble Aspect or regard of the Eye and Face towards them to give the Hand if required to be ready at a beck to Answer their Call and to walk and run to serve them in what is requisite these and many such instances of External Honour and respect may Children lawfully practice to their Parents and Inferiors to their Superiors without either bowing the Knee or taking off the Hat But certainly these words of Christ Ioh. 5. 44. Condemn all false honour which the spirit of the World hath invented And such we have good cause to hold the uncovering of the Head to men until I. A. can produce a better Original for it Lastly His instances of our opposing the sixth and ninth Commandments seeing they are but Allegations I pass them And thus I have gone through all that I saw requisite in his Preface to answer which may occasion me to be the more brief in the things that follow where most of the same things do again occurr CHAP. II. ANd here I give the Reader to know that this pretended Examination of I. A. is in Answer to 17 Queries which he saith came to him subscribed by I. S. But I believe I. S. never did Subscribe those Queries nor was he Author of them but some of our Friends in England however it is possible that through a mistake some had put the said Letters unto them And though I. A. seemeth not a little offended that these Queries should be directed for one or all of the Ministers in Scotland to Answer as if such a direction did argue both the Arrogance and weakness of the Authors yet I do not believe that they all can Answer them sufficiently holding to Scripture without renouncing their former Principles in great part Far less is this pretended Examination of I. A. any sufficient Answer unto them as the sequel I hope shall make appear In his Survey or Examination of the first Query he alledgeth That the Questionist doth pervert the whole state of the Question For saith he who ever heard that the Church of Scotland or any other Church made humane Arts and Sciences an Infallible Rule to make a
Taught and some other Arts. Nor is it the use of these things but the abuse of them and laying too great a stress upon them that we oppose Nor do we deny but Grammar Logick and especially the knowledge of the Hebrew and Greek Languages may be of good use and service to him that is a Minister of Christ in a subordinate and subservient way when he hath to do with men especially that gâ—ory in these Arts and in the abuse of them contend against the Truth such adversaries may be lawfully redargued from their own principles and the points of their own weapons turned against them as the Lord giveth frâ—â—dom fo to do although the simple naked Truth out of the mouâ—h of a man having none of those Arts has more prevailed against a Letter-learned Adversary many times than many Learned men have done whereof a famous instance is recorded to have befallen at the Council of Nice where a simple Lay-man convinced again-saying Philosopher so called when the Learned Bishops and Doctors could nothing prevail upon him the which passage is at length recorded in Lucas Osiander his Epitome of the Church History Centur. 4. But the said I. A. seemeth to dispute not only for the lawfulness of Grammar and Logick as they are Taught in Schools but for the absolute necessity of them to a Minister of Christ. For he saith Would they then have a Minister not knowing how to Speak and Write Sense To which I Answer And thinketh he that none in all the Church of Scotland knoweth how to Speak and Write Sense but they who have Learned the Art of Grammar I suppose there are many thousands in that Church who never Learned any Art of Grammar that have as good Sense and can both Speak and Write to as good Sense at least in their Mother Tongue as I. A. and perhaps to better too if that Proverb hold good That an Ounce of Mother-wit is worth a Pound of Clergy And do we not commonly Learn to Speak and Write our Mother Tongue without any Rules of Grammar and these who so Learn to Speak and Write only by Reading and Hearing without Rules of Grammar speak well enough to be understood And what great or intollerable defect is it if a Minister of Christ having sufficient knowledge and Piety requisite to that Office should Speak or Write a little Incongruous Grammar doth or should that Unminister him Is not a blemish or error in Life and Conversation much more intolerable although such is the Vice of the Times whereof some good men have formerly complained that he who breaks a Rule of Grammar is more noticed than he who breaks the Rule of Piety Nor doth the Translation of the Scriptures out of Hebrew and Greek argue the absolute necâ—ssity of those Languages unto the Ministers of Christ seeing men who are not Ministers might have done that And now since the Scriptures are Translated which we acknowledge is a great Blessing of God the Knowledge of these Languages seemeth less necessary on a general account seeing whatever errors or weaknesses may be found in the present Iransstions they contain the form of found words in respect of the more necessary things And therefore the Scriptures thus Translated to him who is indued with that Spirit that gave them forth may well enough suffice though he hath neither Hebrew nor Greek Which for all this pretended necessity the far greatest part of those called Ministers in these three Nations have not so much skill of but that they are as much obliged to the Translation as many others that make no such Vaunt And it is a great question for all this pretended necessity of Hebrew and Greek whether many called Ministers in these three Nations ever once in all their life Read an intire Chapter of the Bible in Hebrew or indeed can so do And I see no cause why there is any more absolute necessity for a Preacher to have Hebrew and Greek than any ordinary true Christian for if true Faith Knowledge and Piety can be attained as well without Hebrew and Greek as with it then why is it made absâ—â—lutely necessary in the one rather than in the other Nor do we plead against the lawfulness or good use that may be made of Tongues because they began at Babel as I. A. doth alledge but seeing they began at Babel or Babylon we may lawfully infer they are not absolutely necessary to give the true knowledge of God nor to make true Preachers seeing there were men that did both truly know the Lord and also Preached him in Truth before the many Languages came in Nor is I. A. his Argument for the necessity of School-Logick less impertinent He that knows nothing saith he how to define divide judge and Argument aright if any such were is in no better capacity than the Ass speaking to his Master Take there saith he the Quakers Minister very fit for Balaam ' s Sadle if he had but four Legs Ignorance I see is the Mother of the Quakers Devotion By this Argument I. A. as it seemeth concludes that all men who want School-Logick are no more men and have no more the use of their Rational Faculties to define divide judge and Argument aright than Balaam's Ass and thus he puts many thousands and ten thousands of his Fellow-Church-Members in the same List with Balaam's Ass and maketh them as unskilsul to define divide judge and Argument aright as Balaam's Ass only because they want School-Logick And is this a Vindication of the Church of Brittain so to defame the greatest part of all her Members by comparing them to Balaam's Ass only for want of School-Logick which I suppose scarce the hundreth person has any knowledge of Indeed I confess it hath been but too familiar for such men to repute the people as Asses for want of those School-Arts and they have but too much used them in times past as Asses and also Rid upon them But whether is not I. A. short of Balaam's Ass which saw the Angel of God and had its mouth immediatly opened by the Lord to reprove the Prophet to none of which I. A. hath any pretence and why doth I. A. conclude That Ignorance is the Mother of the Quakers Devotion Because they have not commonly School-Logick and judge it not absolutely necessary to any Christian or Minister of Christ. Then by I. A. his Irronical and Sarcasme none have true Devotion but these who have School-Logick the which reflection striketh as much against his own Church Members as us And I suppose there are many thousands in the so called Church of Scotland that may think I. A. deserves a sharp reproof for such an idle Satyr as to conclude because we establish not School-Logick as necessaryâ— to Devotion That therefore Ignorance according to us is the Mother of Devotion When the Protestants blame the Papists for holding Ignorance to be the Mother of Devotion I understand they mean the ignorance of the
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
anotheâ—s Feet and Anointing the Sick with Oyl and whether these actions were commanded by any part of the Ceremonial or Judicial Law or whether they belong to any piece of Religious Worship under the New Testament The other branch of the Question is Whether every Title from 〈◊〉 to the Revelation be the Word or Words of God To this he Answereth affirmatively and seemeth to be so offended with the Question as if it did conclude That the Quakers judge that the Scriptures are interpolated and corrupted with the additions of men But in Answer I. A. ought to know that to Query a thing will not conclude that the Questionist doth positively affim or deny what is Queried Again I hope it may without offence not only be Queried but also concluded that the Translations of the Scripture the which Translations are commonly calâ—ed Scripture have divers additions which men have added without any pretence to Divine Inspiration The which Additions are commonly Printed in our English Bibles in another Character than the other words Now is it any Crime to ask if these Addititions be the words of God or only the words of man and if such Additions be any part of the Rule of Faith and Manners And yet those very Additions are of such consequence that they may occasion the Reader to take up another sense of the Sentences then otherwise he would or perhaps the Spirit of God did really intend Nor are there wanting divers both Judicious and Learned men so accounted and of good repute even among Protestants who do acknowledge that some particular words have dropt in into the Greek and Hebrew Texts since their first Writing and what are these various Lections of many places of Scripture especially when they contradict in one and the same place Are not some of them at least only the words of men All which being granted yet do not hinder but that the purity of the Scriptures is sufficiently preâ—erved viz. in respect of the main and necessary things for which we have cause to bless God and acknowledge his great care and Providence as in many other things And thus I. A. may see how much of the weightiest part of his task in giving a sufficient Answer to those Queries he hath still left undone for all his windy Braggings against the people called Quakers CHAP. IV. IN his pretended Survey of the fourth Query he divides it into three Sections In the first he laboureth by many Arguments to prove a thing which we do not deny to wit That the Scriptures are a Rule of Faith and Manners And so he might have spared himself and others all that pains for the state of the Question is not whether the Scriptures are not and may not be called a secondary Rule nor whether they may not in respect of all the Historical part be called an Historical Rule But the true Question is whether the words of the Scripture as they are only written and spoken outwardly be the Principal or only Rule of Faith and Manners Now seeing I. A. hath been at such needless pains to prove a thing against us which we do not deny I need not give a particular Answer to any of his Arguments But because there are divers of his Arguments which have some false premisses although the conclusion be granted therefore I shall a little take notice of one or two of them In his seventh Argument he maketh it one of the Premisses That the more sure word of Prophecy mentioned 2 Pet. 1. 19 20. is the Scripture But this is denyed by us for we believe it to be that Word of God in the heart by which all the true Prophets did Prophecy and without which we cannot understand their Prophecies nor any other part of the Scripture Now the reasons of his Assertion are 1. Because of the coherence of 19 and 20 Verses But this is no sufficient reason for the coherence is as good and better to understand it of the word in the heart as to understand Peter saying thus Take heed to the Word of God in your hearts by which the Prophets gave forth the Scriptures for it is that same word which maketh us sure that the Scriptures are Divinely Inspired and also doth give unto us the true Interpretation of them This is a good coherence and much better then that imagined by I. A. as if Peter had said Take heed unto the Scripture as the more sure Word for no Scripture is of any private interpretation The which violent and strained coherence I for my part cannot understand seeing Peter aimeth at something that is not the Scripture as being necessary to give us its Interpretation And what can that be But that Word of â—od which spake in the Prophets His second reason is That he cannot understand how the Dictate or Light within is more sure than Gods immediate voice from Heaven as that was at the Transfiguration To which I Answer that the inward Voice or Word of God immediately in the heart can very well be understood to be more sure as to us than any outward Voice of God from Heaven 1. Because that which is immediate in the Heart is more near and immediate than that which is outward in the Air which cometh to the Heart and Soul but mediately through the outward Hearing however immediate may be understood otherwise 2. It was by the immediate Word of God in the Heart by which the Prophets when at any time they heard an outward Voice or Word from God did assuredly know that it came from God and that it was no delusion of Satan And they believed the Word of God in their Hearts simply from its own self Evidence and not from any borrowed Evidence of an outward Voice For they oft believed and received the Word of God in their Hearts immediately when they heard no outward voice at all as is generally acknowledged And this inward or intellectual kind of speaking by the Lord unto the Prophets is acknowledged by Thomas Aquinas and Suarez and other Schoolmen to be the most noble kind of Divine Revelation and consequently the most sure at least unto us His 3. Reason Is the Testimony of other Scriptures produced and to be produced But he has neither produced nor can produce any Scripture that proveth that Word of Prophecy or Prophetical Word to be only the Letter of the Scripture and not the Word or Light of God and of Christ in the Heart Again in his eighth Argument he alledgeth That it cannot be the Dictate or Light within by which Spirits are to be tryed because the Dictate or Light within is â—allible And this he undertakes to prove from some words of mine in Quakerism no Popery where I acknowledge That it is possible for us to mistake and erre in Speaking and Writing and consequently in Examining and Iudging if we be not duely watchful But how unreasonable this consequence is I leave unto sober men to judge as to conclude because
men are infallible that therefore the Dictate and Light of Gods Spirit in men is fallible also Was not Peter fallible in some Cases Yea did he not fail sorely when he denyed his Master Doth it therefore follow that the Dictate or Light of Gods Spirit in him was fallible Indeed if I had said that when we follow the Dictate and Light of God within we are fallible he might have inferred such a consequence but I never said nor thought any such thing but on the contrary that the Dictates and Leadings of Gods Spirit in us are infallible and have a direct tendency to lead guide and move us infallibly as they are purely kept unto the which is possible for us to do Another Argument he bringeth against the Dictate 〈◊〉 Iâ—s being the rule to try Spirits because then it would be both Superior and Inferior which is Repugnant Superior when it tryes and examines and Inferior when it is tryed and examined To which I Answer 1. It is no Repugnancy that one and the same thing be Superior and Inferior in different respects and as it respecteth different Subjects But 2. There is no necessity to understand the Dictate and Light of Gods Spirit in divers men to be Superior and Inferior when it examines and is examined for one equal may be a measure or rule to another yea one thing may be said to be a rule unto it self according unto that common Maxim or principle Lineâ— recta est norma sui obliqui i. e. A right line is the rule of it self and also of that which is crooked Otherwise let I. A. Answer me How did Adam know the voice of God in his Heart and the Prophets before the Scriptures were writ how did they know it And in the close of his first Section he concludeth with a manifest Untruth That the Quakers are for a new Dispensation not only in manner but matter contrary to the Doctrine formerly Dictated by the Holy Ghost This I say is false which he neither doth nor can prove and the Dispensation we plead for is the same both for matter and manner which belonged to all true and good Christians in all Ages And as to what he saith Of our extream Infatuation and Brain-sickness and retaining the proportion and features of humane bodies having quite enervated our Rational Essence These and the like scoffing and disdainful expressions are no more to be regarded by us nor have any more weight than when some Epicureans at Athens called Paul a Babler We know it hath been the Lot of Gods people in former Generations to be reputed by Adversaries both Fools and Mad-men However we hope the sober Readers of our Books and Treatises and these also who have any Converse with us will find that we have neither abandoned nor lost the use of our Rational Faculties which we acknowledge to be good Gifts of God and for which he is to be praised nor doth our principle and belief of Divine Inspiration as being a more noble and excellent Gift of God than the highest Natural Faculty of Reason either weaken or render useless to us our Reason but both indeed both strengthen it and make it the more useful and comfortable whereof to Gods praise we are bold to say we have true experience notwithstanding of what I. A. or any of his insulting humour do or can say to the contrary There yet remains two other things in this first Section of I. A. which I think fit to notice One is That he alledgeth some of us understand by the more sure word of Prophecy the Scripture which is only to be taken heed unto until the day dawn and the day Star arise in the heart that is until the Holy Ghost be given and that consequently the Scriptures serve for nothing to belivers who are born with the Spirit and sealed therewith But seeing he has produced no Names of any among us understanding that more sure word of Prophecy to be the Scripture we are not concerned to Answer him It is possible that some in Discourse has only so argued with him ad hominem as they use to say and not as being their own judgment And as for the Scriptures we judge that they are profitable and ought to be Read by true Believers and renewed persons as well as others But when doth I. A. think that the day dawneth and the day Star ariseth in the hearts of believers Whether in this mortal State Yea or Nay and then whether the shining of Gods day and the day Star thereof be not a true immediate Revelation in the hearts of those who have it and whether it doth not more assure them who have it than the Letter of Scripture can do And seeing the Light of God in them when it shines in the heart but as in a dark place is a more sure Word than an audible voice from Heaven or than the Letter of the Scripture as to us what shall be said of that Light when it becometh not only as the day Star but as the day itself for clearness in the Soul Or can there be any greater or more principal rule than this The other thing I notice is That he inferreth the Scriptures to be a rule because Christ said to the Sadduces Ye erre not knowing the Scriptures Now if this Argument hold good seeing Christ said also Ye erre not knowing the Scriptures nor the Power of God It will as well follow That the Power of God is the Rule and that the rather because it was their being ignorant of the Power of God which quickens both Soul and Body that made them ignorant of the Scriptures for none know truly the Scriptures but they who know the Power of God and therefore that Power which is Life Light and Spirit is the more principal and original rule But I. A. in citing these words of Christ omitted the following words which are exceeding weighty viz. no the Power of God whether this was purposely done of him to ensuare his unwary Reader or not I shall not determine but leave to his consideration CHAP. V. J. A. in the beginning of his second Section concerning the Rule is pleased to call me an Arch-Quaker the which Title I no wise acknowledge and a man too Learned as I employ it To which I Answer That as to my Learning that is but very ordinary and a thing I neither can nor ought to glory in However in this I rejoyce that the Testimony of my Conscience beareth me Witness in the Holy Spirit that any small measure I have of that called Learning it hath been my sincere aim and endeavour to employ it to Gods Honour and serve the Truth therewith and not in the least to use it against the Truth so far as it was or is made manifest unto me Next he blames me that I affirm The Scriptures are only but a secondory Rule of Faith and Manners but that the Spirit or his Dictate within is the Principal
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
living Creatures or Animals to love and cherish their Off-spring which is a shadow or figure of that more Divine Law in God's people is not any complex Proposition of words but an innate principle of love and affection which he hath planted in them Moreover the said I. A. digresseth here from his matter to seek an occasion against us and to load us with down-right Blasphemy because we do not say that there are three Persons in the God-head But to this Charge I have answered already to one of I. A. his Champions in my book called The Way Cast Vp the which hath given content to divers-sober people and I hope may give content to all who reads it in that particular where I show that it is only the unscriptural terms of a Trinity of Persons or of three Persons in the Godhead that we deny and not the mysterie or thing it self of Father Son and Holy Ghost being three that bear Record in Heaven which according to the Scripture we both believe and confess And indeed Augustine in his Fifth and Seventh Books of the Trinity not only saith the words three Persons are improper but disputeth against them and I suppose I. A. for all his School-Logick and Philosophy shall hardly be able to Answer his Argument the substance of which to my best remembrance is this The word Person either it signifieth somewhat absolute and simple or somewhat relative to say the first is absurd otherwise there should be three 〈◊〉 Beings or Essences in God which is absurd if somewhat relative which is the second then seeing every relative is referred or is relative to another as Father is relative to Son and therefore Father is the Father of another and no man is his own Father in this sense to say the Father is a Person is to say the Father is the Person of some other and so of the rest which is absurd The which Argument not as mine but really Augustines I leave I. A. to Answer and Ierome another ancient Doctor and Father so called doth find fault with the words Three Hypostasis saying expresly in the words Three Hypostaâ—is Latet aliquid veneni There lieth hid some poyson And Laâ—rentius Valla a man well esteemed among the learned findeth fault with the words Three Persons why then should we be so uncharitably charged by I. A. or such hot-headed men with Blasphemy only for keeping close to Scripture words in so great a Mysterie while the thing it self so far as the Scripture declareth it is owned by us And whereas he urgeth us to tell what Three are they to be called if neither Three Gods nor Three Persons I Answer It sufficeth us to call them what the Spirit of God in Christ and the Apostles hath called them and to enquire no further nor to be curiously wise above what they have dâ—â—lared Hath not I. A. heard That there is a Docta Ignorantia or Learned Ignorance which is more safe and to be preferred to an uncertain Knowledge or Science falsly so called And if I. A. his definition of Person be received viz. That it is an intelligent Being subsisting incommunicably or distinctly one from another I see not for my part but that Three Persons at this rate shall infer three intelligent Beings subsisting incommunicably and consequently Three Gods Lastly That he saith Some Quakers have called them three Manifesâ—ations viz. of Moses of Christ and of the Spirit he ought to have produced their names or then we are not bound to believe him that any have said so for at this rate Moses should be the Father of Christ which I do not believe any called a Quaker ever thought perhaps some have said there have been three Dispensations or Manifestations of God one through Moses and one through Christ in the Flesh and one through the Spirit or Christ in Spirit and that these may after some sort have such a reference as that the first may be called relative to the Father yet not excluding the Son and the second may be relative to the Son not excluding the Father c. which yet doth not argue that we understand the Dispensation or Administration of the Father to be the Father himself far less Moses to be the Father as I. A. I believe very rashly and unwarrantably doth alledge Now that there are or have been diversity of Administrations the Scripture is plain and Protestants as well as Papists do acknowledge it Yea what saith I. A. to the common Catechism that saith The Father hath Created us the Son hath Redeemed us and the Holy Ghost hath Sanctified us which is to be understood not exclusively nor yet without some order in the manner of working But who will be so foollish or ignorant for all this to say That the Father is our Creation the Son our Redemption strictly or literally and without a Figure so understood and the Holy Ghost our Sanctification Nor doth it follow that because Christ bringeth in his Father and himself as two Witnesses to prove that he was the true Messiah that therefore there are either two or three Persons in the Godhead for Christ speaketh these words not simply as God but as man Now as Man we acknowledge that Christ is a distinct Nature or Being from God although not divided or separated therefrom And lastly that he argueth That Christ is called the express Image of the Fathers Hypostasis and that Hypostasis should be and is truly Translated Person and not Substance and otherwise it would infer Arianism I Answer That Hypostasis should be Translated Person he doth meerly affirm without any proof from approved Authors and sure I am the Etymologie of the word hath no affinity to person but properly signifieth Substance being compounded of the Preposition and Substantive Verb which as near as possible is in Latin substantia and in English substance and is so Translated Heb. 11. 1. Now that to Translate it substance would infer Arrianism I. A. doth but meerly say it without any proof and so is not to be believed And beside Christ in Scripture is called The Image of the Invisible God and certainly God is a substance and yet this I hope will not infer Arrianism and may we not well understand how Christ as man is the Character or Image of God's substance without Arrianism seeing Christ said viz. in respect of his Manhood My Father is greater than I and it is clear that the aforesaid place Heb. 1. 2 3. is to be understood of Christ not simply as God but as man who certainly as man is the most bright and glorious Image of God and above all Angels or Men or whatever can be named besides the Godhead it self CHAP. VI. HAving thus traced I. A. in his unnecessary and impertinent digression I shall now reply unto his Arguments whereby he laboureth to prove that the Scriptures are the principal rule of Faith and manners And to the first that in Isaiah 8. 10. they were sent
an Inward immediate Dictate but there is a Divine Law in all men and therefore c. And in this respect it is that the substance of the Moral Law is generally acknowledged to be Imprinted in the Hearts of all men even those who want the Scriptures And I well remember that Bishop Sanderson saith in one of his Sermons That the said Law in the Hearts of all men is as really the Word of God as that Printed in our Bibles And thus I hope I have sufficiently evinced that there is a Dictate in all men that is a Divine Law and Rule at least in many or most things belonging both to Piety Justice and Sobriety Although I do not plead that there is a Law or Rule in them who have not had the History of the Gospel revealed unto them to believe the same Nor do I say that the History of the Gospel is revealed to us immediately without the Scripture but that having Heard or Read the said History and all other Historical parts of the Scripture the Spirit of God by some Inward Dictate formal or virtual or that which is equivalent doth move and incline us to believe the same And that I. A. doth plead That Believers only have the Spirit I Answer They have it only so as to possess and enjoy the indwelling of it and union with it but that Unbelievers have it so far at least as to reprove them and call them to repentance is clear from many Scriptures especially Iohn 16. 8. Prov. 1. 23 24. In Answer to one Argument of mine he saith A Believer needs not any immediate Dictate to assure him that he is a Child of God seeing by the aâ—â—istance of the Spirit effectively he may draw a conclusion from Scripture Premisses in applying the Scripture marks But to this I Answer that the Scripture only telleth him one of the Premisses of that they call the practical Syllogism but no Scripture in all the Bible telleth I. A. or me that he or I have these marks and seeing a true Believer may attain to a Faith of assurance as I. A. doth not deny and Faith must have the Word of God for its object seeing there is not a word in all the Scripture that saith he or I have those marks we must seek that word somewhere else then in the Scripture and where shall we seek it else but in our Hearts where the Spirit himself witnesseth with our Spirits that we are the Children of God if so be that we have that witness even as it did witness in Paul And if the illumination of the Spirit discover the Graces of God in our Souls certainly that is an Immediate Revelation for Scripture doth not discover in us those Graces but the Spirit and he that discovers the Graces discovereth also himself to be the true Spirit of God and doth not hide himself from us or else we might doubt whether the discovery were true or not not knowing infallibly the Author thereof Lastly That he saith I spurn at the distinction of objective and subjective Illumination as Anti-christian and deceitful I Answer I do not blame the distinction simply as in it self but as it is illused and applyed Whereas they say The influence and illumination of the Spirit in Believers is meerly effective or subjective and not at all objective But I say it is both effective and objective effective to help us to See or Hear and objective or by way of â—bject for the Sight and Hearing or any other perception of our Souls to stay and rest upon but this object can no more be the Letter of Scripture alone than a report of Meat and Drink can be the object to satisfie a mans Taste or Appetite when he is Hungry or Thirsty And thus I do not confound the distinct considerations of objective and effective only I affirm that the same thing may be both and so indeed is as when the Sun enlightens us its Ray or Beam helps us to see and also it is the object of our sight And the Heat of the Fire is both the object of our Feeling and also when it is moderate helpeth us to feel and effectively doth strengthen our Feeling But when the Fire heateth a stone it worketh in it only effectively and not objectively or as an object but Believers receive not the Heavenly Light and warmth of the Spirit as dead and insensible stones but as living Souls that have a real sense and perception of that which doth influence them and therefore that influence is the proper immediate object of their perception And if there be no inward Spiritual object that the Spirit presents to Gods Children then there is no inward Spiritual Eye nor Ear nor inward Spiritual Taste or Savour nor inward Spiritual Feeling all which is most contrary both to Scripture which mentions all these Spiritual Senses as I have proved at large in my Book of Immediate Revelation and also to the Saints experiences And doth not God promise that his Children shall see him under the New Covenant and certainly all sight that is proper is immediate And to say that the Saints only see God by the Scriptures is but as much as to say that we only see our Father by a report of him or that we only see the outward Sun by ones telling us that it shines who hath indeed seen it or that we only see our Native Country in which we live and dwell by looking at the Map of it But certainly such a remote and improper seeing doâ—s no wise answer to the Glory of the New Covenant but rather falleth short of the Old And if that be all to see God in the Scriptures then all those that lived under the Old Covenant saw God as clearly as Believers under the New Covenant seeing they had the Scriptures in great part But I remember a good saying of S. R. in one of his Epistles that I hope may have some weight with I. A. That is little saith he to see Christ in a Book which yet the Scripture is and certainly if I. A. has seen no more of God or Christ but what he has had a report of from the Letter of the Scripture I must needs say he is a great stranger to the New Covenant Dispensation and is still like so to remain while he disputes in unbelief against so great a Blessing that if he did believe he might attain unto But I wish the Lord may open his Eyes and then he will no more contend against such a thing I. A. proceedeth further to dispute against the Dictate or Witness of the Spirit within although he saith He hath sufficiently affronted it yet because it is worthy of a thousand deaths for its proud usurpation as he saith he will reach it some few blowes more To this I Answer that these exceeding bold and daring words against the Blessed Dictates or Words of Gods Holy Spirit in the Hearts of his people hath not a little moved me
in I. A. else he would not run into such needless and idle Tautologies But he thinks I have yeilded the cause to him because I grant all Doctrines that agree not with the Scriptures are to be rejected therefore the Scripture is a superior rule to all such false Doctrines I grant Therefore the Scripture is Superior to the Spirit of God and his Dictate in our Hearts I deny it And though we are to examine the inward Dictates of Gods Spirit by the Scriptures yet that proves not that the Scriptures are superior no more than that it proves that the words of the Prophets were superior to the words of Christ and the Apostles because the people examined the latter by the former His fourth Argument is built upon a Supposition that the Scriptures are the principal rule and consequently not the Spirit inwardly Dictating in our hearts But he hath not proved that the Scripture is a more principal rule then the Spirit Although in respect of all outward rules that can be named or conceived the Scripture is the most principal rule Nor is it any repugnancy to say the Scripâ—ure is the principal external rule by which all Doctrines and Principles of Religion are to be examined and what is contrary to Scripture is to be rejected and yet to say also that the Spirit himself perswading or assuring us of the Truth of the Scripture is the principal inward rule seeing these two principles are in differing kinds the one external or without us the other internal and within us which are very well consistent and mutually bear witness one of another even as Iohn bare witness to Christ and Christ bare witness to Iohn Although Christ needed not the Testimony of Iohn as for himself His fourth Argument concludeth only against a thing which we do no wise deny viz. That every Dictate within is not the Rule And I. A. might have spared his pains to dispute against that which no man holdeth For who is so absurd to think that every Dictate suppose it be of a mans own vain and foolish mind or of the Devil is to be received as his rule The Question is not concerning every Dictate nor indeed concerning any other then that alone Dictate of the Spirit of God and of Christ in men which hath a self evidence unto him who hath it as I. A. must needs acknowledge it had to the Prophets and Apostles But he objects That the Devil may present an Imposture unto a man with so much seeming evidence as with the concurrence of a deceitful heart will make it be received for a Divine Truth especially by that man that for the present time has no Divine Dictate To this I Answer That the person supposed by I. A. is either one that the Lord hath in his just judgment for some great unfaithfulness and abuse of Light formerly given delivered up to Satan's delusions such as these mentioned 2 Thess. 2. 11. And as for him and the like sort the Scripture cannot help him For certainly he that is given up by the Lord to the delusion of Satan as a punishment of his sinning against the Light he once had will misunderstand the Scripture and cannot otherwise do even as the Iews and Sadducees did of old But as for others that are not so given up by the Lord it ought not to be supposed that they can altogether want some Divine Dictate or witness of Gods Spirit to testifie against the strongest delusion of Satan And therefore he to whom Satan presents such a delusion if he hath a sincere love to the Truth by comparing the delusion with the true Dictate or Light of Christ that witnesseth against it may readily discover it to be a delusion and if the said delusion be contrary to any Doctrine expresly declared in the Scripture the Scripture will also be a secondary confirmation to him that what is so presented to him is but a delusion But many times Satan presents delusions to men to do or act things that are not simply in themselves unlawful or contrary to Scripture And then I Query by what rule shall these delusions be discovered But I confess I. A. hath a very short way but yet very false and unsound to resolve this question viz. Positively to conclude that all inward Dictates and suggestions whatsoever that any man finds in himself are utterlâ— to be rejected as being any Command of God or any Divine Testimony seeing there are none such in the hearts of men They are all according to him either a mans own thoughts or suggestions of Satan And therefore nothing that a man hath in him is to be relyed upon But it is strange Doctrine that Satan shall be so near always to Dictate evil even unto the Children of God immediately but God and Christ shall be at such a distance as not once in a mans whole life time to Dictate in him immediately that which is good The which Doctrine of I. A. is so favourable to the Devil and so advantagious to advance and uphold his Kingdom among men that this one consideration is enough to render it suspected that it is not of God but of the adversary CHAP. VII IN the Third Section of his Survey upon the Fourth Query I. A. pretends to Answer our Objections or Reasons That there is a Word or Dictate of God in our Hearts or Christ himself that doth Dictate or Teach in us and who is the principal Rule of Faith and Life All which Objections he brings them not either in matter or form as used by us but miserably perverts the most of them to a contrary sense and intent as if we did use those Reasons to oppose an outward Ministry or the use of outward Preaching Hearing Reading Praying none of which we oppose but on the contrary we own all these things as both needful to be done seeing they are commanded of God and as profitable to men yea to the most advanced and experienced Saints when duly practised And it is an exceeding great mistake in our Adversaries generally to suppose That our Principle of Immediate Revelation or the Immediate Teachings of the Spirit doth destroy or make null and void the use of the Scriptures or any other means For by Immediate we mean not Immediate in opposition to those things that are means truly appointed of God as Reading the Scriptures Preaching Praying Meditating Singing Waiting But on the contrary we say It is only by the help of the Spirits immediate Teachings and Leadings that those and the like means are made effectual and profitable to the People of God For if the Prophets and Apostles their having Immediate Revelation did not make void the use of the Scriptures unto them nor the use of Preaching Praying Reading Meditating Waiting and Watching no more doth our having it Again our Adversaries grant that God doth operate or work immediately by an immediate effective illumination of his Spirit in the hearts of all his People and that
this immediateness doth not hinder or make void the use of means but make them the more profitable and useful even so nor the iâ—mediate objective illumination doth in the least made void the means as is already said in the case of the Prophets and Apostles and Paul said the Scriptutes were writ for his and his Brethrens Learning even his fellow Apostles as well as other Christians And to say or think the contrary is as absurd and unreasonable as who would say a Scholar that is taught of his Master immediately is not to read upon any Book nor to hearken to any of his fellow Scholars that may be as well or better learned than himself and on the other hand to set up the means in opposition to the Lords immediate Teachings is equally unreasonable as to conclude such a man has Books whereon to learn and therefore it can profit him nothing to be taught immediately or viva voce and by word of mouth by a lâ—ving Teacher Now both these extreams our Principle and the Scripture and also our good experience have taught us to shun And the immediateness of the Spirits illuminations both effectively and objectively to work and operate in us in the use of all the means appointed of God sometimes in the use of one means and sometimes in the use of another as now in Reading then in Hearing now in Preaching then in Praying now in Meditating then in Singing or Praising God now in giving Alms then in visiting the Sick or thosâ— that are in Prison and sometimes as the mind is retired in pure silence to wait upon the Lord which may be as well and as truly called a mean as any of the former I say the immediateness of the Spirits Communications and Illuminations in the use of those and the like means aforesaid do as well consist with the means and the means with them as the immediate Sun-shine and influence of the heat and comfortable warmth of the Sun which worketh both effectively and objectively upon us consist with the means when we walk or travel on the Road at noon day or labour in the Field Plough Digg Sow Reap and use any other manual operation the which means are so far from hindring or making void the necessity of the Suns immediate influence and concurrence that none of these things can be well or comfortably performed without it And in this large and general sense of the word means which also is true it may be warrantably enough said without any prejudice to our principle of Immediate Revelation that we have no ground to expect any Immediate Manifestation or Revelation of God but in the use of some one means or another that God requireth us to be found in For there is not one hour or moment of our Life but there is something of Duty or Obedience that we ought to be found in either inwardly or outwardly if we have the use of our understandings as men and every act of Obedience may and ought truly to be called a means of our receiving somewhat immediately of God to wit our Faith our Love our Hope our Holy Fear our Care our Watchfulness our Praying Meditating and silent Waiting and in one word our whole Obedience all these are as truly and properly means as Preaâ—â—ing or reading in the Scriptures And thus every one that is most diligently exercised in the true means has greatest access unto God and doth most abundantly partake of the immediate Revelations and Communications of God's Holy Spirit Light Life Love Vertue Power and Wisdom And if it be said Why are they called then Immediate I Answer Because we feel or perceive them most near unto us even as near or rather more near unto us as the things or actions wherein we are exercised giving Spiritual Vigour Life and lustre unto them without which they are but as dead or lifeless And thus even as when the soul liveth in the Body it is said to be immediately united with it and act immediately therein or therewith although it useth the Body as its Instrument Even so the Spirit of God and of Christ livingly indwelling in the Saints and united with them and they with him is said to act immediately in them and with them although the Lord useth them as means or instruments to work with him And as for the word Immediate Revelation seeing it is not any express Scripture phrase no not in the case of the Prophets and Apostles so far as I can remember if the thing it self were granted to wit That God doth inwardly reveal and speak his mind or shew his Glory and glorious â—ower and Presence in his Children as he did in and to his Saints of Old so that the Saints do Hear See and perceive also Taste and Savour and feel after God Himself as he reveals himself in his Son by the Holy Spirit the Controversy about the Name or Phrase should soon be at an end for it did satisfie the Prophets and Apostles who had it in great measure to call it simply Revelation and Vision or the like without adding the word Immediate for in those daies it seemeth that deceitful distinction of Mediate and Immediate Revelation was not found out in the World I call it deceitful and false because to speak properly all Revelation is Immediate even as all Vision is Immediate and so is all Hearing for I can neither see nor hear a man unless I see and hear him immediately And as for the Scripture when it is called a Revelation it should be figuratively understood as when it is called a Vision for none will say that Isaiah his Book is really the Vision it self which he sâ—w but only a declaration of it And as 〈◊〉 could not write the intellectual Vision that he saw to speak properly so nor could he write the intellectual Voice Word or Words that he did only intellectually hear but only a Report or Declaration of them the which doth far come short of what he saw or heard and in this respect Paul saith that he heard verba ineffabilia unspeakable words that could not be uttered or expressed and so did all the Prophets and Apostles for indeed the words of the mouth as they can be spoken and writ fall short many times to express the depth of what we inwardly think or receive in natural things and how much more to express what God doth inwardly speak or reveal which yet is no derogation from the words of Scripture for it is acknowledged by us to be a blessed instrument in the hand of the Spirit for our Instruction And though we cannot be so bold as to say That the true God is not Worshipped nor known savingly where the Scripture is wanting as I. A. doth alledge more daringly I suppose than many of his Brethren that that are more sober will allow yet we do believe and freely acknowledge that the Scriptures are ordinary means but yet not without the inward Direction Revelation and
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
nothing concerned to Answer For we own both Scripture interpretation and just and necessary consequences of Scripture but then we say that these interpretations and consequences ought to be by the help and direction of the same Spirit that gave forth the Scriptures immediately teaching them to interpret and to draw such consequences therefrom to which I. A. doth not pretend nor any of his Brethren For all the Interpretations and consequences which Christ or the Apostles used were by the same Spirit that was in the Prophets and Peter saith expresly that no Prophecy of Scripture is of private Interpretation and it is said of Christ that he opened the understandings of the Disciples that they might understand the Scriptures which opening was by his Spirit that he gave unto them and seeing the Scripture cannot be understood without the opening of the Spirit that gave it forth it cannot be interpreted without the same nor can consequences be lawfully deduced from Scriptures without it for how can a man interpret what he doth not understand or how can he deduce a consequence from that whereof he is ignorant And there is yet another fault that we find in I. A. and his Brethrens interpretations of Scripture and consequences therefrom that they keep not closely to Scripture it self when they interpret or draw consequences but for most part mingle with the Scripture words many of their false principles and Axioms of that they call their Philosophy For as I have already said the most part of that they call their Philosophy is utterly false or uncertain nor are the Teachers of it agreed among themselves in their Principles and Axioms And yet their Consequences are commonly from one or other of these false or uncertain Maxims or Principles which they joyn with the Scripture in which case the consequences are not purely Scriptural For seeing in Argumentation the Conclusion or Consequence is drawn from two Propositions or Premisses one of which may be true the other false Again the one may be true and certain the other although true yet may be to us uncertain and doubtful in which cases the consequence or conclusion is always of the nature of the weaker premise hence if but one of the premisses be false the conclusion is false although the other Premise be true And if one of the Premisses be unclear or uncertain the conclusion is also uncertain And again if one of the Premisses be Scripture and the other be but some principle or maxime of Natural Philosophy so called the conclusion in that case is not Scriptural but Natural And thus much is generally acknowledged by all the Schoolmen so called And hence it is that the School-Divinity as it is so termed is rejected by many as a dubious and uncertain thing because the conclusions thereof for most part depend not on Scripture Propositions but uncertain and doubtful principles and maxims of that called Natural Philosophy But again suppose one should draw a consequence from Premisses that are both Scriptural yet seeing the terms in those Premisses may have different significations as the words Flesh Spirit Life Light Man and many others that have one signification in one place of Scripture and quite another in another part of Scripture the conclusion in that case doth not follow for not only the Art of Logick but Common Reason it self Teacheth us that in all Arguments the word or term that is used in both Premisses must have the same sense and signification in both Now he who has not the direction of the same Spirit that did Dictate the Scripture hath not this discerning so as to know the true sense or signification of Scripture words as they signify Spiritual Misteries and things For the Natural man understands not the Things of God as saith the Scripture and therefore he is utterly unfit to reason about them By which natural man I understand any man considered as never so well furnished with all Natural helps of his Parts and Arts but wanting the Spirit of God or at least not making use of the help of it but puting another thing in its room And thus much shall suffice at present to the Intelligent Reader how and after what manner we own both Scripture Interpretations and Consequences and yet may very well deny I. A. his Interpretations and Consequences and all such as he is who declare themselves Enemies to that Spirit that gave forth the Scriptures as necessary to help them in interpreting and drawing Consequences from Scripture And albeit I. A. use many Arguments to prove that Interpretations of Scripture are lawful and Consequences therefrom as that Christ and the Apostles did interprâ—â— the Scriptures and draw Consequences therefrom yet all this proves not that I. A. his Interpretations and Consequences without the same Spirit which they had are as good which is all one as to say Christ and the Apostles did Interpret the Scriptures and argue from them by the Spirit And therefore I. A. and his Brethren may as well do it without the Spirit but who having common Sense doth not see the unreasonableness of this Consequence Again as for the Levites their Expounding the Scripture which is another Argument of I. A. it remaineth for him to prove that these Levites who did rightly Interpret the Scripture did it without the Spirit of God and meerly by their own Natural Understanding And what if these Levites were not in all respects Infallible it doth not therefore follow that they had no Infallible direction of Gods Spirit when they did rightly Interpret the Scripture And indeed this is a third false Charge of I. A. against us as if we did hold that none is to Intepret the Scripture but he who is simply and absolutely or in all respects Infallible which we affirm not Nor is that the true state of the Question but this Whether any should give an Interpretation of Scripture without he be Infallibly perswaded by the Spirit of God that he hath received it from the Loâ—d We say Nay otherwise he Preacheth not the Word of God to the people but his own Fallible conjecture Now it is one thing to be simply or universally Infallible and another thing to be Infallibly directed in some particular cases of Interpreting some particular places of Scripture as God giveth to a man the help of his Spirit so to do And thus I. A. his two first Sections wherein he spendeth 18 Pages are sufficiently Answered In the beginning of his third Section concerning Baptism with Water he alledgeth falsly upon us That wherever Baptâ—sm is mentioned in the New Testament and the word Water is not expresly added that we always deny Baptism with Water there to be meant This is false for we grant that though Water be not expressed yet in some places Baptism with Water is understood as where Paul said Christ sent me not to Baptize here we affirm that to Baptize signifieth to Baptize with Water But we say further That the words
Baptism and Baptize when Water is not mentioned do sometimes signifie Water-baptism and at other times not but some other thing as the Baptism of the Spirit or the Baptism of Sufferings as where Christ said to two of his Disciples Can ye be Baptized with my Baptism this was not Water-baptism but the Baptism of his Sufferings whereof they were to be partakers And here in my Answer to I. A. his Arguments for Water-baptism its being a Gospel Ordinance it shall suffice to take notice what is the principal defect of every one of them and wherein he comes short in his proof as being meerly asserted which therefore are to be returned unto him to be proved In his first Argument he alledgeth That John the Baptist was the first Minister of the New Testament way of Dispensation for which he citeth Mat. 11 12 13. Luk. 16. But these places prove no such thing for they do not call him the first and the words viz. The Law and the Prophets was unto John here Iohn is the term inclusive in respect of the Law and Prophets as if I should say England reaches from I ands end in Cornwall to Berwick upon I weed here Berwick is the term inclusive and therefore it doth not follow that it is any part of Scotland again to say Scotland reacheth from Berwick to Orknay here again Berwick is exclusive in respect of Scotland and therefore when it is said From John the Gospel of the Kingdom is Pâ—eached It doth not inferr that the Gospel began at Iohn inclusively but exclusively even as Scotland begins at Berwick exclusively for Iohn was but a fore-runner of Christ who himself began the Gospel Disâ—ensation in a peculiar way and yet Christ also was subject to the Law for he was Circumcised and did Eat the Passover both which were but Legal Administrations And here again in the Prosecution of the first Argument I. A. abuseth us saying That we agree with Papists in affirming that Christs Baptism was substantially differing from the Baptism of John But his fallacy lyeth in this that he doth not express what the Papists mean by Christs Baptism for they mean Water-Baptism even as I. A. doth but we say the Baptism of Christ is not with Water but with the Holy Ghost Now we do not say as the Papiâ—ts That there were two Baptisms with Water one of John another of Christ but only that Iohn's Baptism with Water and Christs Baptism with the Holy Ghost were distinct even as Iohn and Christ have expresly distinguished them And therefore the seeond Objection he instanceth pag. 69. doth not concern us As to his second Argument he taketh great pains to prove a thing which we no wise deny viz. That the Disciples did Baptize divers with Water after Christ his Ascention and his giving the Holy Ghost But it is the consequence that is denâ—ed by us viz. That therefore Water-Baptism is a Gospel precept for the Disciples practised divers things after Christ his Ascension which were not Gospel Precepts for Paul Circumcised Timothy long after Christ his Ascention also he purified himself after the manner of the Law none of which were Gospel Precepts And the Disciples did not only abstain from Blood and things Strangled but enjoyned it unto others the which Abstinance continued in the Church even in Tertullian's days as is clear from his words and I. A. doth not hold that to be a Gospel Precept nor yet the Anointing with Oyl the Sick nor the Washing one anothers Feet both which were commanded and practised in the Primitive times And this doth also sufficiently Answer his third Argument from Peter his saying Repent and be Baptised if it were granted him that Baptism with Water is there to be understood for Peter might see it convenient at that time for a help to their weakness who were much used with outward Signs to require it of them which yet proveth not that it is a Gospel Precept For all Gospel Precepts reach further than unto Figures and Signs which are but the shadows of Gospel Mysteries And his fourth Argument hath the same defect with the former that because Peter commanded Cornelius and others with him to be Baptized that therefore it was a Gospel Precept which doth no more follow than that abstaining from Blood was commanded by the Apostles that therefore it is a Gospel Precept or because Anointing the Sick with Oyl was commanded by Iames that therefore it is a Gospel Precept And to his Fifth Argument from Eph. 4. 5. that the one Baptism must be Water-Baptism because that is the only proper Baptism according to the signification of the word whereas there is not one but mány improper or Metaphorical Baptisms But according to this reason of I. A. when in the same place Paul saith There is one Body Body doth not signifie the Church for to call the Church Body is but improper and metaphorical and there are many such metaphorical Bodies Also when Paul saith There is one Spirit I. A. I suppose doth know that Spirit or as it is in the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not improperly and metaphorically signifie God as much as Baptize signifieth inward Baptism for the Grammatical signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â— is Wind and therefore if I. A. his consequence hold good when the Apostle saith There is one Spirit that Spirit must be in the Grammatical sense Wind that is a material thing and not the Spirit of God even as the Baptism must be a material or outward Baptism And thus we may see whether I. A. his blind way of drawing consequences doth lead him even to the greatest impertinencies imaginable His sixth Argument from Mark 16. 16. hath this defect that seeing the word Baptised cannot be meant of Conversion or any other metaphorical Baptism it must therefore be meant of Water-baptism And it cannot be meant of Conversion because of the order of the words which requireth Faith to go before Baptism whereas Faith cannot go before Conversion because Faith is Conversion it self I say his Argument hath this defect that it confounds the part with the whole for granting that Faith is Conversion in part or in some degree it doth not follow that therefore it is the whole or furthest degree of Conversion for the work of Conversion or Sanctification hath its several degrees and that high or eminent degree of the Souls purification which may be called its Bapâ—ism or through plunging is really posterior to the Souls first believing and is the effect or consequence of it Hence we read of purifying the heart by Faith so as the purification is the effect and consequent of Faith Again whereas he laboureth to prove that the Baptism that saveth which is mentioned 1. Pet. 3. 21. must be Water-baptism because it is called the Anti-type or thing signified in respect of Noah's temporal saving by Water and there must be some near resemblance betwixt a Type and its Anti-type but he
alledgeth there is little or no resemblance betwixt Noah's temporal saving by Water and the saving by the inward or Spiritual Baptism But who is so blind or weak that doth not see the falsehood of this his Assertion Is there not the greatest and most near and infallible resemblance betwixt that temporal Salvation of Noah by Water and the spiritual and eternal Salvation by the spiritual Baptism which doth universally and infallibly save all Souls that are partakers of the said spiritual Baptism whereas many thousands get the Water-baptism who are not saved thereby and therefore it doth much more naturally follow that not Water-baptism but the Baptism of the Spirit that doth infallibly purifie the Soul is here meant even as the inward Circumcision of the Spirit is the Anti-type or thing signified by outward Circumcision Lastly As to his seventh Argument whereas he laboureth to prove That Water-baptism is meant Matth. 28. 19 20. whereof he is so confident that he entreats his Reader Not to believe him henceforth if he do not prove it so to be I shall briefly take his proof into consideration 〈◊〉 He says The Greek Word which is Translated Teach signifies to make Disciples and therefore they were to be made Disciples before they were to be Baptized but they could not be made Disciples before Conversion nor does Conversion pre-require Discipleship or else no man might endeavour the Conversion of an Heathen or of any man who is not before Hand a Disciple To which I Answer That granting the Greek word may signifie to make Disciples yet all this reasoning of I. A. doth not inferr that by Baptizing here cannot be meant the Spiritual Baptizing by the effusion of the Spiritual Water upon them which as is already said signifies not barely the first or lowest degree of Conversion but an high or eminent degree thereof even as the outward Plunging or Dipping into Water iâ— more than a small Sprinkling Now as true Faith is before this eminent degree of Conversion or Purification so is also true Discipleship Nor doth it follow that else no man might endeavour the Conversion of an Heathen for they were to endeavour the full and perfect Conversion of Heathens in the highest degree that was possible but so as to do it in Gods way and order to wit first by Teaching and Discipling them into the true Faith and then their full and perfect Conversion or Purification and Spiritual Cleansing was to follow one degree after another His other reason is That the Baptism of Conversion or the Spiritual cleansing of the Soul is but only improper and Metaphorical and we must 〈◊〉 throw about the words of any Text of Scripture from a proper to an improper meaning without some necessity constrain us so to do To this I Answer First That we ought not to go from the proper signification of any word to an improper without some urgent necessity I already acknowledge But then why doth I. A. and his Brethren frequently transgress this Rule in expounding other places of Scripture as to instance when the Scripture saith Christ died for all men I. A. expoundeth this all not of all individuals of mankind but only some and these the far less number and yet he must needs acknowledge that the proper signification of the word all is all individual Again when the Scripture saith Thâ— Kingdom of God is within you I. A. turneth it to among you contrary to the proper sigâ—ification and also to the common Translâ—tion Also when the Scripture speaketh frequently of Christ and the Holy Spirit being in the Saints they commonly say This is not to be meant properly but figuratively understanding by Christ and the Spirit the effects and operations or Graces of the Spirit and not Christ or the Spirit himself And many instances of that nature can be given to shew how I. A. and his Brethren go from the proper signification of Scripture words to an improper without any necessity unless that of their own devising But Secondly I. A. doth but barely take it for granted without any shadow of proof that it is an improper meaning to mean by the Baptism of Christ the spiritual Baptism For the proper meaning of any place or sentence of Scripture is certainly that meaning which the Spirit of God doth intend whether there be a Metaphor used in that place or not Nor doth the Metaphorical use of the word hinder the meaning of it to be properwhen it is so intended And seeing the Scripture doth almost every whereabound with Metaphors and metaphorical expressions we are not so much to consider what is the bare Grammatical sense of any word in common Speech as what is the most common and usual sense of it in Scripture for what is the most common sense of it in Scripture I judge is the most proper meaning of it whether the word be otherwise metaphorical or not for who will deny but according to Scripture sense by the word Christ is properly understood the true Christ of God to wit His only begotten Son and yet Grammatically it is but metaphorical at least as much as the word Baptize for Christ signifieth Anointed even as Baptized signifieth Wasâ—ed or Dipped and if I. A. or any will contend That Christ is properly called Christ or Anointed because the spiritual Anointing is as real and proper in its kind as the outward and natural is in its kind I shall not contend against them but rather go along with them therein but then I say also that the spiritual Baptism is as real and proper in its kind as the spiritual Anointing is in its kind and thus also when Christ is called Bread in Scripture in the Scripture sense he is truly and properly called so yea why doth he call himself The true Bread and why said he that the Manna which Moses gave to the People in the Wilderness was not the true Bread from Heaven Doth not this signifie that whatever vertue or excellency outward Bread hath to feed the Body Christ who is the inward and spiritual Bread hath it much more to feed the Soul yea and the Body also when he pleaseth so to do and in this respect it is that some do affirm That those names of Bread Water Light Oyl and the likâ— are more properly applyed to the spiritual than to the natural so that the Water Oyl Light and Bread that is but outward and natural is rather metaphorically so called and the inward and spiritual more truly and properly deseâ—ving those names And thus the spiritual Baptism shall be the most proper in that sense also But now let the Scripture be searched and we shall find that the word to Baptize doth no less commonly signifie the spiritual Baptism than the outward and Elementary and therefore whoever would perswade us to believe that the spiritual Baptism is not meant here in Matth. 28. 19 20. must shew some invinsible necessity why it ought not the which I. A. hath not as
the World or was it his coming to dwell in them Now saith I. A. to all this first he alledgeth It was a meer Circumstance the doing of it at night and after Supper and so is no Essential part of the Action But he giveth no proof of this And if men take a liberty to change one Circumstance why may they not change all the rest as well as that one As for Example why may they not say that Bread of Wheat and the Wine are but Circumstances also seeing Eating and Drinking may be without either Wheat or Wine as well as it may be any other time then at Night Again why may it not be said that the whole Action is but a Circumstance in respect of the thing principally intended which was to signifie our Spiritual Eating and Drinking of Christ his Body and Blood which may be very well without the outward Eating and Drinking as all Protestants do generally acknowledge and thus the outward Eating and Drinking is but a Circumstance as well as the time And surely the time doth seem no less to have signification than the Eating and Drinking it self had to wit that it was at Night for that time when Christ suffered was the Evening or last part of the Covenant Dispensation wherein he gave them a Sign or Figure suitable to that present Dispensation and was not to continue as a binding thing after the Gospel day or Dispensation should clearly break up or be dispersed And it doth plainly enough appear that in the primitive times they who used that Solemnity they laid weight upon the circumstance of the time doing it at Night and after Supper which came in process of time to be changed to the doing of 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 or before Dinner And if Christ 〈…〉 intended some weighty significatio◠〈…〉 â—ircumstance of time to wit at 〈…〉 the Passover I see not 〈…〉 of time is so carefully 〈…〉 â—angelists Hence from the 〈…〉 of time I bring an 〈…〉 Christ did at that time and 〈…〉 do until he came is no Gospel 〈◊〉 because it was done in the Night or Evening of the Old Covenant Dispensation and consequently was to come to an end with it Although for the weakness of some it was continued for a time in the Primitive Church after the Night of the Old Covenant was expired and the day of the Gospel Dispensation was clearly broke up And another Argument we have that the outward Bread and Wine is but a Figure of Christs Flesh and Blood and not his real Body as all Protestants acknowledge and consequently is no Gospel Ordinance which consists not in the Figures Types and Shaddows that were proper to the Law but in the things signified by them Again whereas I. A. doth alledge That Christ commanded it to be done It is granted he commanded it for that time and for some time to come until the darkness of the legal Dispensation should clearly â—anish and be dispelled from the Eyes of the Disciples which was not â—uddeâ—ly done but required a time And many 〈…〉 believe in Christ were but 〈◊〉 and could not easily be weaned from 〈◊〉 observation of outward Figures and 〈◊〉 and therefore Christ gave them thus 〈…〉 to condescend to their weakness to bring them off from the Law and the Figures Types and Shaddows thereof by degrees as they were able to bear But it doth not follow that because Christ commanded it unto them for that time or sometime following that therefore it is a Gospel Ordinance seeing he commanded them as expresly divers other things which I. A. and his Brethren acknowledge are no Gospel Ordinances As the washing one anothers Feet also That they should go and tarry at Jerusalem for certain days and wait for the Promise of the Father And he bid them Provide neither Bag nor Shoes nor Money when they went forth to Preach But I suppose none of all these will I. A. or his Brethren plead to be Gospel Ordinances And even as his commanding them to tarry at Ierusalem until they received the Promise of the Father which was the Spirit to wit in greater measure than formerly it was given unto them did not oblige them to stay longer So his commanding them to use that solemn and peculiar commemoration of his Death until he shâ—uld come did not oblige them longer than until that his coming But now the Question is What coming did Christ mean whether his last coming at the end of the World or his Spiritual coming to dwell in them and feed with his real Flesh and Blood Spiritually received which is more than the Figure We say it is his Spiritual coming in his Saints but I. A. and his Brethren say It is his outward coming which yet he hath not proved for all his wrangling And instead of proving what he saith he not only abuseth us with bad words as calling us Possest with a blind and deaf Spirit but most falsly alleadgeth on us that we hold Christ did not dwell in his Apostles before that time when Christ took the Bread For we say no such thing nor is any thing of that sort insinuated in the Queries Only That Christ did promise unto them that he would come and dwell in them to wit in a more abunâ—ant measure and clearer way of manifestation suitable to the Gospel Dispensation than formerly they witnessed under the Law Nor will this argue that either the Apostles were wholly unconverted or unregenerated at that time all this is but the bare imagination of I. A. his Brain and no just or true consequence from our words And whereas I. A. Querieth Did not Christ dwell in these Corinthians whom Paul writes to I Answer he did in some measure but yet in diverse of them he did not dwell in that measure or manner of clear manifestation as was promised for Paul said unto them He could not write unto them as spiritual but as carnal and he fed them with milk and not with meat which plainly imports that many of them was short of that measure and degree of Spirituality which the pure Gospel state required And as for 1 Cor. 11. 23 24. Which I. A. bringeth to prove That the outward Eating is a Gospel Institution I Answer that place 1 Cor. 11. 23 24. contains no Institution of it at all but only an Historical relation of what Christ did and said that night to his Disciples Nor did Paul say that he received a Command from the Lord or delivered a command unto them concerning Bread and Wine but that which he received and delivered unto them from the Lord was the knowledge of what the Lord did and said at that time And though this practise was continued in the Church of Corinth for that time and perhaps in other Chruches this proves it not be a Gospel Ordinance more than Water-baptism or Circumcision both which were practised by many that did believe in those times And here again I. A. falls into his old trade of falâ—ly
Argument is That because Christ rose on that day and honoured it with his most frequent appearings after his Resurrection on that day that therefore he appointed it to be kept for a Sabbath But this inference is without any proof and is therefore returned to him And it is manifest that at a certain time when Christ did appear some of the Disciples were Fishing with their Nets Ioh. 21. And if that was the first day of the Week and appointed by Christ for a Sabbath how was it that the Disciples did so openly transgress it and yet were not reproved by Christ but were bidden cast out the Net by himself Nor is his other Argument of any greater weight That because the Primitive Christians in the Apostles times and downwards did constantly meet on that day and had their Collections for the poor that therefore it was appointed to be strickly observed as a Sabbath This consequence is also returned upon him as barely alledged without proof And both we and many other Protestants in France and Holland constantly meet on that day and yet it doth not follow that we or they hold it for a Sabbath for many of them do not any more than we Another Argument of his is Because it is called the Lords day Rev. 1. 10. To which I Answer I. A. hath not as yet proved it evidently that by the Lords day there is meant the first day of the Week but giving it that Iohn meant the first day as I find generally that Iustine Martyn and others about his time did call the first day of the Week the Lords day yet it doth not follow that therefore the Lord appointed it to be kept as a Sabbath for it might well enough he called the Lords day because he arose upon it for many dayâ— have received Names for much less reason according to the Ancient Tradition in Old times which not being in Scripture is not so certain to us as that other viz. Of Christ his Resurrection day Another Argument of his is Because that Christ Taught the Disciples to Pray that their flight might not be on the Winter nor on the Sabbath day when he Prophecied of the Destruction of Jerusalem Math. 24. 20. But to this I Answer That the Name of Sabbath doth not infer that any outward day is to be kept for a Sabbath under the New Testament more than the Name of Circumcision doth infer that there is now to be any outward Circumcision and what Christ spoke to the Disciples it was not to them alone but to all the Iews who as he did well know would still be Zealous for the Iewish Sabbath after his Resurrection As indeed they were and also for Circumcision and therefore he knew what great an Affliction it would be to them to be put to flee on that day and accordingly we find that not only them but long after the Iews even many of them that believed and also our Christians did observe the Iewish Sabbath and some observed both that and also the first day until Constantine's time What Christ therefore spoke of the Sabbath was not to confirm them to keep either that or the first day of the Week for a Sabbath but to express the great Affliction they would be in if they should flee on that day which they so much did regard And beside some understand the Sabbath here also by way of Allegory which I. A. hath not reâ—uâ—ed And whereas the said I. A. alledgeth that Rom. 14. 5 6. Is not to be understood of the first day of the Week but only of other Jewish days This is meerly alledged without any shadow of proof for no where doth Paul or any other Pen-man of the Scripture make an exception of the first day And therefore seeing Rom. 14. speaks of days indefinitely the first day is understood as well as the rest CHAP. XI IN the pretended Survey of the eighth Query which is concerning Singing of Psalms I. A. is at much pains to prove a thing which we do not deny viz. That Singing of Psalms is allowed and commanded under the New Testament For this we willingly acknowledge and those who can Sing with the Spirit and undestanding they may use either David's words or words of any other Holy-men recorded in Scripture or any other sound words as the Lord shall move them But all this is no Answer to the Question which is not concerning Singing only or simply but that way of Singing used by I. A. and his Brethren without any pretence to an immediate direction or motion of the Spirit Infallibly Teaching or assisting them what and how to Sing Now the Query is where doth he find such Singing Warranted in Scripture viz. without the Spirit infallibly directing them 2. Their Singing with Meeter or Tooting Rhymes Artificially composed by meer Natural Art and Industry where is such Singing commanded or practised in Scripture And 3. it is Queried since the Apostles did not turn them into Meeter why have others since them done so as if they were more wise than the Apostles or saw further what God required of them And whereas I. A. alledgeth That Psalms cannot be Sung except they be Meetered If he mean by Meetering putting them in Tooting Rhymes or Rhymes ending with the like Cadencies and Sounds he sheweth his great ignorance in Poetry and Musick for the best Poesies are without any such Cadencies Nor have David's Psalms any such Cadencies of like sounds at the end of the Lines as they are written in Hebrew And although Davids Psalms are Penned with certain measures of Words and Sentences yet that was by some Divine Skill which the Spirit of the Lord Taught him and not by bare humane Art as I suppose I. A. will not deny But another great abuse in I. A. is that he excuseth wicked and proud mens Singing such words of David as these I am not puft up in mind I water my Couch with my Tears c. alledging they may be Sung as well as Read by such men But who cannot see the absurdity of this inference for to Read and to Pray and also to Sing are very differing and one may Read the Devils words and the words of the wickedest men Recorded in Scripture but when one Prayeth or Praiseth he expresseth somewhat of his own condition And men may read the Creed or Ten Commands but yet they are not proper for a Prayer and the most of the Psalms are Prayers But lastly whereas I. A. saith He and his Brethren have the same Spirit the Apostles had though not the same measure We may not unfitly Query them how he can prove or demonstrate this to us seeing some of his Brethren have asked a proof from us that we had the same Spirit And if I. A. be in good earnest and doth indeed believe that he has the same Spirit which the Aposâ—les had how is it that he doth so very frequently mock and scoff at the Infallible Inspiration of the
any bond or tye of Christian fellowship for if such consequential Doctrine be false it is most unreasonable to impose it and therefore in that Case a Dissenter should have his liberty to differ in judgment without any breach of Brotherly Unity and Society and if it be true yet not being opened or revealed to another it cannot be in justice pressed or urged upon him where God has not given him the true freedom and clearness of mind to receive it and to do otherwise is to transgress that Golden Rule delivered by Paul viz. To walk by the same Rule according to what we have attained and if any be otherwise minded said he God will reveal it unto him And if this Advice could find place it would bring the differences among those called Christians in point of judgment into a very small and narrow compass and they would understand one another far better than now they do But again seeing I. A. is so absolute and peremptory that the Presbyterian Confession of Faith and Catechism and whâ— not the Presbyterian Directory also materially considered is infallible and yet is but a Book of their making and the consequential part of it the alone Fruit and product of their humane Spirit since they deny all pretence to an inward Dictate or Direction of Gods Spirit in the Case why should the said I. A. so oft Taunt and upbraid us with an Infallible Spirit and Infallible Speaking and Writing and Inspiration for now it seems a meer humane Spirit hath inspired those that gave forth the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechism to write every Article and Sentence of it Infallibly according to I. A. his high estimation of them But whereas I. A. dareth us To give any instances of any Articles and Definitions contained in the said Confession and Catechism that are not Scripture Sentence materially or formally considered This hath been done many times over and over again by our Friends in England and by some of us here in Scotland particularly by R. B. in his Catechism and Apology and by me in my Book of Immediate Revelation And there was in the year 1651. an intire examination of that Confession of Faith published in Print by one W. Parker who was not called a Quaker and whose words in all things we do not own and to the said Examination I. A. or any of his Fraternity is referred where I am abundantly perswaded he hath said more against it and many Articles contained therein viz. in the said Confession then ever I. A. or any of his Presbyterian half Brethren shall be able to Answer which whole Book lyeth at their door to this day so far as I can understand unanswered Another gross mistake or rather abuse of I. A. is that he alledgeth The Quakers are against all Confessions of Faith and Catâ—chisms whatsoever and yet they have Confessions and Catechisms of their own I say this is a gross abuse for we do own that there may and ought to be Confessions of Faith given by True Christians and also we own that there may be Catechisms and that they are useful in the Church and accordingly we have such And though the Writers of those Confessions and Catechisms be not absolutely or universally Infallible yet we hold that none should publish any Confession of Faith or Catecâ—ism but in such things whereof they are Infallibly perswaded by the Spirit of the Lord and as to other things that may be uncertaâ—n or unclear unto them they should forbear and so every one should Speak or Write as they have received the â—pirit of Faith as the Apostle Paul said We haâ—ing reâ—eâ—ved the same â—pirit of Faith we believe and therefore we have spoken buâ— I. A. thinks he may Speak and Confess his Faith without the same Spirit of Faith which David and Paul had And as for our Catechisms and Confessions of Faith if we cannot prove them and all the Articles and Sentences in them to be according to express Scripture words then let them not be received For we profess to urge nothing nor to press any thing to be received as a common Article of Faith but what is expresly delivered and Recorded in the Scriptures And if any should be so unbelieving and obstinate as not to believe the express Scripture words we may not urge them or press them thereunto by any Humane or Carnal Force and Compulsion but only to labour to perswade them according to that evidence and demonstration of the Spirit and Power as God shall be pleased to furnish us withal Another great mistake or abuse of I. A. is that he alledgeth the Tenth Query is void of Sense as if it did import That their Iustification and Sanctification Faith and Grace were the Gifts of their Directory Catechism and Confession of Faith and thus because the Query saith The Gifts of these whereas it is plain to any Sober and Rational Person that by the Gifts of these the Inquirer meaneth the Gifts of Justification Sanctification Faith and Grace and this is a form of Speech allowed by the Grammar it self and practised by Learned Authors I suppose far beyond I. A. who say not only the Town London or Rome or Edinburgh but also the Town or City of London the City of Rome the City of Edinburgh and therefore why may it not be as well said the Gift of Faith of Justification of Sanctification and speaking of these in general why may it not be said the Gifts of these which is equivalent to these Gifts And beside perhaps all this Quible is only raised upon a mistake of the Transcriber wriâ—ing the Gifts of these for these Gifts but it seems I. A. is barren of matter when he maketh a mountain of so small a matter if so be it were an impropriety of Speech But to deal in earnest with I. A. seeing he is so declared an Enemy to Divine Inspiration in our days we cannot think that he indeed oweth his pretended Justification Sanctification and Faith unto God but rather unto those Confessions and Catechisms for what Evidence or probable ground can he give us that he hath any Divine Faith or that which is more than barely Historical and Traditional Another gross abuse of his is That because we call the Gospel the Power of God as we are warranted by the express words of Paul Rom. 1. 16. therefore he alledgeth That we fain to our selves a sort of dumb Gospel without any Words or Doctrine But to remove this abuse let the Reader know that by the Gospel we mean not the Power of God abstractly considered without the Doctrine and suitable words inwardly or outwardly Preached nor yet the Doctrine and Worâ—â— without the Power and Life and 〈◊〉 God but both conjunctly And although we do readily acknowledge that the Doctrine when it is outwardly Preached by the Spirit of God and so hath the Power of God accompanying it is and may be called Gospel yet we cannot simply or absolutely
willingly and sincerely acknowledge that the Righteousness of Christ in what he did and suffered for us outwardly in his own person is imputed unto us for Justification and so much I did acknowledge in my Book already mentioned But we further say that all to whom that is imputed which Christ did and suffered for us outwardly must witness a real and true Conformity both to the Death of Christ and also to his Holy Life and walk without which all mens imputing it unto themselves is but an airy Dream and Imagination There is yet another gross perversion used by I. A. in his pretended Survey or Answer of the sixteenth Question as if the Quakers so called Seem to deny that there was any Spiritual Worship in the time of the Old Testament And thus because it is said in the Query that Christ set up the True Worship in Spirit and in Truth above 1600 years ago but nothing but great Ignorance or prejudice can from this inferr that there was not any degree of it in the World in former times And I. A. might as well argue against the Scriptures that because God saith in the last days He would make a New Covenant with the House of Israel and Write his Law in their Hearts That therefore nothing of this sort was formerly in the World And thus I have done with I. A. his long and tedious pretended Survey of this Question having omitted nothing that seemed unto me Material and having found in his whole Discourse consisting of about 19 pages scarce any thing but gross mistakes and perversions CHAP. XVIII HEre again I. A. in his pretended Survey to the 17th and last Question beginneth with a most gross perversion As if the Quakers because they would have men to cease from all their own works meerly acted in the strength of mans Will and natural Power without the supernatural and Spiritual aid and assistance of the Spirit of God would have men to be as senseless Trunks doing nothing the bare Rehearsal of which is sufficient Refutation Another charge little less gross is That the Quakers hold only Babylon to be within in mens hearts for which he citeth the aforesaid Book called The Principles of Truth in several pages To which I Answer Although the said Book saith That Babylon c. is â—ithin yet it doth not say it is only within but on the contrary it plainly affirmeth that all who are in outward Worships without the leading and enabling of the Spirit of God painted over with glorious Words but inwardly full of Abominations belong to the Kingdom of Babylon And well may that unclean and deceitful Spirit that acteth all such persons who are levened and governed therewith and thereby be called Babylon by a Figurative Speech even as the Soul of a man is commonly called the man which hinders not that the people in whatsoever Profession they may be who are acted by that evil and Antichristian Spirit are Babylon And as for the Pope and Popish Church as we do cordially joyn with the best and most sincere Proantests against them as being the great and principal Members of that Scarlet Whore Mystery Babylon in whom Antichrist or that Antichristian Spirit hath its chiefest or most principal residence and therefore in no respect can be said to favour the Pope or Popish Church on that or any consideration although we with the Salvation of the worst so we most freely declare that wherever we find any degree or measure of the same Spirit of Antichrist and Babylon as too much of it is to be found in I. A. and too many of his Brethren we cannot acquit them from being Members of the same Antichristian body although in this our upright and honest Testimony we expect neither the kindness of the Pope nor yet of I. A. far less the Popes Wages or reward for being so kind to him as I. A. doth most falsly and grosly alledge And divers of our Friends have suffered deeply under the Popish Power for bearing a Testimony against him and them which neither I. A. nor his Brethren have ever done but sit warmly at home without exposing themselves to any suffering on that account Having thus as briefly as I could given an Answer to I. A. his Book against us omitting nothing that seemed to be material I shall neither trouble the Readers nor my self with his two Postscripts to Answer them in particular The substance of the first Postscript against me being already Answered in the foregoing Sheets as to what is any wise material Or if he suppose any thing is omitted let him mind me of it in his next and withall Write an intire and thorough Answer to what is already said both here and in the Treatise called Quakerism no Popery which he hath only but here and there nibled at And I may possibly if God give me freedom and convenience return him a â—urther Answer 〈◊〉 at present I suppose he hath work enough to lye on his hand and needs no more As for his Postscript against or for Doctor Everards Ghost as he calleth it I find not my self concerned to Answer him therein nor defend every word or Opinion of his seeing he never went under that Name or Designation with us Albeit I must needs acknowledge both my Friends and I such of them I mean as have read his Book have a great love and respect to his memory which all I. A. his bitter Revilings against him shall never be able to defame And we believe the said Everard hath indeed had rare and singular gifts of Understanding and Openings of Scripture from God and withal a good measure of Integrity and zeal for the Truth according to the time and Dispensation he was in and in that respect doth truly deserve to be accounted among the Witnesses of Truth in his day whatever imperfections attended him otherwise or suppose some mistakes of Judgment in some things or not so warily cautioning some of his words as could have been wished Although I judge that I. A. doth seek to fix or fasten upon him divers errors of Judgment of which he is not guilty by reason of deep prejudice against him Partly whiles he takes the said Iohn Evrard's words too Literally and Superficially which are to be understood more Mystically and Figuratively and partly while he takes that as spoken absolutely which is but spoken comparative and by way of some Similitude and but in some respect But before I make a full close I shall only take notice of two gross and absurd Assertions waving others to another opportunity in his Postscript to me The one is that the Pope and his Clergy had the true Power and Authority of Ordination and calling Ministers before the Reformation neither as Christian nor as Antichristian Not as Christian or else all Christians would have it nor as Antichristian seeing these two terms are not contradictory but contrary for many things and persons too are neither Christian nor Antichristian To which