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
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
TRUTHS DEFENCE Or the Pretended EXAMINATION BY Iohn Alexander of Leith Of the Principles of those called QUAKERS Falsly termed by him Jesuitico-Quakerism Re-Examined AND Confuted Together with Some Animadversions on the Dedication of his Book to Sir Robert Clayton then Major of London By G. K. LONDON Printed for Benjamin Clark in George-Yard in Lombard-street Bookseller 1682. The pretended Examination of the Principles of those called Quakers Falsly called Jesuitico-Quakerism by John Alexander in Leith Re-examined and Confuted by G. K. CHAP. I. IN my Answer to this pretended Examination of I. A. I intend to observe on his Answer to every Question wherein he misrepresents or perverts the state of the Question and wherein he hath missed to Answer â—it Also to Answer briefly but I hope sufficiently and distinctly what is necessary to the Vindication of Truth not to every Word or Sentence nor to every frivolous and weak or impertinent Argument where the solution thereof lyeth obvious to any ordinary understanding but to any thing alledged by him that seemeth Material or to require an Answer referring the Enquiring and Truth-loving Reader to divers Treatises already published not to mention our Friends books in England by some here in Scotland to wit R. B. his Apology also to his Answer in Vindication thereof to I. B. alâ—o his book called Truth cleared of Calumnies in Answer to W. M. in Aberden And the Answer given by the said R. B. and me to the Students of Aberden as also to divers Treatises published by me such as my book of Immediate Revelation my book of Vniversal Grace my book called The Way cast up my book called The Rector Corrected in Answer to T. W. who calls himself Rector of Arrow and lastly to my book called Quakerism no Popery And though to this last book I. A. hath replyed in some few particulars which I purpose so far as may seem requisite to Answer yet he hath quite passed by the most material passages and especially all the Authorities and Testimonies of Ancient Writers and also of the Protestants brought by me as concurring with the Scriptures Testimony to clear us of that imputation of Popery falsly charged upon us by I. M. To none of which weighty Testimonies hath the said I. A. replyed one word Now because there is little or nothing that seems Material of I. A. his Objections that is not already fully answered in these Books and Treatises above mentioned therefore I Judge it not needful to Write a large or particular Answer to every thing yet lest he should seem too wise in his own Eyes or lest he and others that favour him should think he is stronger than really he is and especially to prevent the stumbling of the weak into whose hands his book may come I purpose through the Lords Assistance to reply some things which may suffice on every Head or Section What hath induced I. A. to Dedicate his book against us to the Mayor of London may seem no impertinent Query Had he none in all his Native Country whom he had confidence in to Patronize his undertakings Or being Conscious of his small esteem at home did he despair to find any Liberal Mecenas in Scotland and therefore he must go so far as London to find out one and that no less then the Mayor himself to whom it may be supposed I. A. his greatest commendation was his being a stranger And that he saith in his Epistle to the said Eminent person His Treatise presums not to add any lustre to his Name whereof it is uncapable That may well be believed that his Book is indeed uncapable of adding any lustre thereunto But why was he not afraid that it would detract from his lustre It were good that those Eminent persons in the World who suffer men to Superscribe their Names as Patrons to their Books did first examine them diligently if they did deserve any such Patronage lest Error masking it self under the name of Truth seek the Protection as is too common now in the World And for my part I have no small conjecture that if the said Eminent person to whom this disingenuous and impertinent piece by I. A. is Dedicated had but taken the leisure or pains to review but one sixth part of it he had never suffered his Name to be superscribed to it And I am very hopeful that the Mayor of London who hath divers thousands of that people within his Precinct in that Famous City many of whom I judge are better known to him than I. A. ever was hath more charity towards the people called in scorn Quakers than to believe I. A. his description of them in his said Epistle were he expresly alledgeth on them That they renounce all true Principles of Religion and stifle their very faculties of Reason charging them also with Absurdity And in his Preface to the Reader he calleth them Vncircumcised Philistins and reproachful Adversaries having in their Queries and other Papers disgorged as many Lies against God and his Truth and as many Slanders against the Church of God in Brittain as if they had exchanged both Persons and Offices withâ—the Father of Lies and Accuser of the Brethren But if that Eminent person whose Name and Favour this I. A. hath abused shall please to look into this small Treatise in Answer to that of I. A. I hope he shall find that they are falsly charged with those Crimes It seemeth no new or strange thing to us to be so falsly accused knowing that not only our Fellow Servants and Brethren in former Generations have been so used but also the Head himâ—elf and Captain of our Salvation the Lord Jesus Christ was not only numbred among transgressors but called a Blasphemer and said to have a Devil And the Lord forewarned his Disciples and Followers that they should be so lied upon and all manner of evil things said against them falsly for his Name sake But rejoyce said he and be glad for great is your reward in Heaven Now whereas I. A. calleth his Book A Vindication of the Church of God in Brittain he ought to have told what Church he meant seeing there are divers sorts of people in Brittain who call themselves the Church of God and yet in divers things Dissent from I. A. And upon review of his Book I find the said I. A. his Principles to be almost wholly Calvinistical and particularly 1. That he denyeth the Vniversal Grace of God or that Christ hath died for all men 2. That he denyeth that God hath any regard to the new Creature or work of Conversion or Repentance to be so much as a condition requisite in order to our Iustification 3. That he denyeth that any can be free from actual sining in this Life by any Grace of God given them or to be given These and other principles alledged by him which are wholly Calvinistical are as much disliked by many and some of those the most considerable of the Episcopal Church
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
commonly understood of that which originally is Grafted or Implanted in us and in this sense is used generally both by Christian and Heathen Writers as it is contradistinguished from that which is outwardly received Hence the natural love or affection that is in mankind is said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the which is not a thing outwardly received and consequently the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot be the Letter of the Scripture but a Divine principle immediately grafted into our Souls when God Created them and in respect of which men are said to be made in the Image of God Seventhly He alledgeth that we bring Heb. 6. 1 2. To oppose and reject all External Ordinances out of the Church citing Principles of Truth pag. 63 68 77 80. And here he insulteth not a little as if by the same Argument The Quakers were obliged to reject the very Principles of the Doctrine of Christ and the foundation of Repentance and Faith as well as Water-Baptism But to this I Answer having examined these pages cited by him I do not find that they mention or intend any thing of rejecting the Principles of the Doctrine of Christ or External Ordinances And let but the Reader examine the words and he shall find that nothing further is intended than this that people should not sit down or build their Faith upon a form of words though never so sound but should come further than all words so that leaving them behind as in respect of a foundation they were to come unto Christ the true foundation and grow up in him unto perfection And as for Water-baptism that place of the Heb. 6. 1 2. doth not mention it among the principles of the Doctrine of Christ but only the Doctrine of Baptisms which is another thing than Water-Baptism For although we have not Water-Baptism among us yet we have the Doctrine of Baptisms that is set down with other principles of our Faith as in divers other of our Book so in that mentioned by him called The Principles of Truth Now to leave a form of Words or Articles and Propositions concerning Faith which commonly are called Principles so as not to set them up for the principal and only foundation of our Faith which people are but too ready to do This is not to reject them no more than when a man leaves his Affairs he hath been conversant in and goeth to his Bed to rest him with moderate sleep is to reject his Affairs for he returneth unto them again Eighthly He saith We object that Enoch Noah Abraham c. Had not the Scripture to be their Rule and therefore nor are we to have it to be our Rule And this he makes as ridiculous a consequence as to say the Scriptures were not written in the primitive World therefore neither afterwards But I Answer that to argue from thence that the Scripture is not to be our only and principal Rule is both safe and pertinent For it Enoch Noah Abraham had the Spirit to be a Rule unto them it is no less a rule unto all now who have the same Faith which they had seeing the same Spirit is given to Believers now which they had which Spirit is one as Paul hath declared and it is most Rational that as the Faith is one in all Ages of the World and the Spirit one so the Principal rule of Faith should be one also Ninthly He saith I object Quakerâ—sm no Popery pag. 9. 13. That the Testâ—mony of the Spirit within is greater than the External Testimony of the Scripture and therefore the said Testimony of the Spirit is the Principal Rule To which he roundly Answereth by denying that there is any such Testimony of the Spirit within Believers and because I say there is he alledgeth I drive the Plough before the Oxen. But I Answer that I have proved it sufficiently already and now also I have Answered I hope sufficiently all his objections against it And here I desire the Reader to take notice how that notwithstanding I. A. saith elsewhere as Pag. 44. That he and his Brethren never denyed the Spirits Teaching Yet how inconsistent that is with denying any Testimony of the Spirit or Dictate thereof in mens hearts Is the Teaching of the Spirit only an outward thing Is it nothing else but to Hear or Read the Letter of the Scripture And are they all Taught of the Spirit who are but only and meerly Taught by the Letter But if it be granted that there is an inward Teaching of the Spirit distinct from the outward Teaching of the Scripture although not separated therefrom or without the outward as I know some of the more sober doth acknowledge then I say is not that inward Teaching a Testimony of the Spirit For to affirm it to be a Teaching and no Testimony seemeth to me to be a great contradiction And as for us althogh we cannot say that the inward Teaching or Testimony of the Spirit is never in any case without the outward yet we grant it is oft accompanied with the outward and in that case it is no less truly immediate than if it were without it as I have already shewed And supposing but not at all granting that the inward Teaching of the Spirit were never without the outward of the Letter yet seeing the outward Teaching of the Letter is oft without the inward for many are Taught by the Letter who are not Spiritually Taught all that the Letter hath outwardly Taught them it followeth evidently that the inward Teaching of the Spirit and outward Teaching of the Letter are distinct things as is manifest from that sure maxime that when two things can be seperate so as the one to be without the other they are really distinct This Argument I used in my Book called Quakerism no Popery but I. A. hath made no reply to it And still I say if the inward Teaching of the Spirit be denyed it doth follow that in respect of any inward Speaking or Teaching God doth no more intelligibly or perceptibly speak to the Saints than he speaketh to the Earth to bring forth Grass the which consequence I. A. seemeth to allow but how absurdly I leave to sober men to judge And whereas I. A. saith That God doth not always make use of the greater Witnesses for testifying his will to us I Answer In respect of men and Angels it is true But notwithstanding God hath given himself and his own Holy Spirit which is one with him to be unto us a witness of his will and this is the greatest witness that can be given See Rom. 8. 16. 1 Ioh. 5. 8 9. CHAP. VIII IN his pretended Survey of the Fifth Query he begins with two false Charges against us the First That we deny all Scripture Interpretation the Second That we deny all Scripture Consequences And to refute these idle Suppositions which are none of our Assertions he spendeth many Pages of his Book to no purpose and wherein we are
Spirit which we plead for as the common priviledge of all true Christians And was not the Spirit which the Apostles had the Infallible Spirit And if I. A. thinks he has the same Spirit either he must needs acknowledge that he has the Infallible Spirit and is so far infallible or then he must say that the Spirit of God is changed so that whereas it was Infallible in the Apostles and Primitive Christians it is become Fallâ—ble in I. A. and his Brethren And if he have the same Spirit which the Apostles had but in the least measure how is it â—hat he hath said above that the Dictate of the Spirit within is worthy of a thousand Deaths Let I. A. extricate himself of these contradictions if he can And further I ask I. A. whether the Psalms he and his Brethren Sing in their Meetings be these Spiritual Songs which the Primitive Christians did Sing and such as we Read of particularly in the Church of Corinth where Psalms are reckoned among the other peculiar Gifts of the Spirit such as Revelations and Interpretations where it is manifest that the whole Assembly did not all Sing the same words with their voice but every one did Sing as they received it from the Lord and as he did put it into their Hearts and such were the Songs of Zachariah Mary and Elizabeth who Sung and Blessed the Lord by the Holy Ghost And seeing I. A. saith That they cannot Sing unless what they Sing be turned into Meeter I ask him whether the Songs of Zachariah Mary and Elizabeth were Sung by them in Meeter or Rhyme and with Musical Dittyes and Tunes Artificially Composed or whether they had a Precentor or any that went before them And whether such kind of Officers were in the Church in the time of the Apostles as Precentors that went before the people And whom they were all to follow accordingly as he Sang after â—his or that Tune of Musick Artificially Composed Or rather have ye not Learned all this from the Papists And was it not Guido Aretinus â— Popish Monk that invented the Scale of Musick commonly called the Gamut according to which the Precentors are Learned to Raise the Psalms All which is but the bare Act of Man and such who plead for Vocal Musick in the Church from the example of David and the Law they may also on the same account plead for the use of Musical Instruments in the Church not only as lawful but as necessary which yet the Episcopal Church here wanteth and not only so but Dancing also as a part of Divine Worship which was used in time of the Law and especially by David And thus by I. A. his Argument both Instrumental Musick and Dancing shall be necessary parts of Gospel Worship And as concerning wicked mens Singing it is most clear that as they are not to Pray while remaining wicked so nor are they to Sing because all true Singing is a real part of Divine Worship which is to be done in Spirit and Truth but no wicked nor unrenewed person can so do And seeing all wicked persons professing Christianity are Captives in Spiritual Babylon how can they Sing any of the Songs of Zion in a strange Land Can they Sing that new Song which the Redeemed from the Earth Sing Rev. 14. was not the Lord displeased with their Singing even under the Law when the people did degenerate and become perverse And did he not threaten that he would turn the Songs of their Temple into Howlings And yet according to I. A. the most perverse and abominable corrupted persons may and ought to Sing Psalms But what Harmony can such Singing make in the Ears of the Lord while the Heart is so discordant to the Law of God And although I. A. hath his best and greatest Patrons for his Musical Singing with Artificial Dittyes and Tunes and Rhymes out of the Popish Church as also for his pleading that wicked persons may Sing David's words without making a Lye I shall here Cite a very fair acknowledgement out of a late Popish Writer to the Truth of what we alledge against I. A. The which Writer is Iohannes Bona in his Book called The Principles of the Christian Life Part 1. Sect. 44. They are â—yes saith he and empty words when any comâ—â—tteth wickedness and singeth in a Psalm unto God I have hated iniquity and abominated it Psal. 118. He that is altogether in his Dishes and saith I have forgot to Eat my Bread Psal. 101. 1. He Laugheth the whole day and exceedeth in vain joy and saith my Tears were my Bread day and night he obeyeth not the Commandments and he Singeth They are Cursed who decline from thy Commandments Psal. 118. Such Prayers saith he are Accursed provoking the wrath of God toward such and they deserve to be punished with severe Pains Now albeit this Testimony is from a Papist I hope no Sober person will call it a Popish Doctrine but rather a Christian Truth which the Evidence of Truth hath extorted from him And it is a shame that I. A. should be more blind who pretends to more knowledge CHAP. XII J. A. in his pretended Survey of the 9th 10 th and 11 th Queries doth ground his Discourse so much partly upon mistakes and partly upon barely supposed alledged principles which he doth not prove that I shall need to say very little directly in Answer to the whole from his pag. 119 to pag. 131. only some of his most considerable mistakes and bare Suppositions I shall take notice of the which being denyed and removed his whole Superstructure falls of it self First He blames the Queriest or Writer of the Queries For falsly accusing the or slâ—ndering the Church in Brittain as he calleth it as if they did hold their Ecclesiastical Constitutions formally as such for an Infallible Rule and their Catechisms and Confessions of Faith equal to the Scriptures But I Answer the Query maketh no mention of those terms formally as such But simply whether they hold their Directory Confession of Faith and Catechism to be an Infallible Rule and equal to the Scripture Again Secondly what is proposed in the Query is not positively concluded one way or another as the Nature of a Query doth plainly demonstrate And yet Thirdly he plainly affirmeth pag. 129. That the whole Articles and Difinitions contained in the Catechism and Confession of Faith materially considered are very Gospel Rule and Scripture Sentence either expresly and formally or materially implicitely and by good consequence taught therein How then can he have any face to accuse the Inquirer for asking such a thing which he doth openly acknowledge And here let the Reader take notice that the Catechism and Confession of Faith whereof I. A. giveth so great a Commendation is not that of the Episcopal Church but the Presbyterian viz. that made by the Assembly at Westminster which is expresly cited by him cap. 31. art 4. it is not then as seemeth the