denied truely he could not in so few words have spoken more untruely to prepossesse the Reader but we beg the Reader as to that to suspend his judgement till he have fully read the ensuing Discourse wherein whether any thing have been charged on them that is false and whether Nayler have done faithfully in owning what is truth will appeare at large In the Preface of James Nayler to his answer he tells you The Man of sin and his â—orkings in the last times Revealed That Christ now appearing in his Saints to discover the man of sinne with all his deceits and deceiveable workings now all the powers of darkenesse are gathered against him Gog and Magog As for those deceits and deceiveable workings truely these blasphemous Doctrines of these men with their Diabolicall delusions and quakings will make it appeare where the man of sin is now working To open this we shall stay the Reader a little Agreement betwixt Papists and Quakers 1. It is as claere as the noone day 2 Thes 2. chapter Rev. 12.3 Rev. 13. Rev. 17.4.5.9.10 that the Papall Apostacy and state is The Antichrist so often Prophesied of in Scripture Now it is as plainâ— that the very distinguishing Doctrines and practises of these men are such as are the maine principles of that man of sinne in opposition to Jesus Christ Papist Bell. l. 2. de justif cap. 7. 1. The Papists deny the imputed righteousnesse of Christ for justification and in scorne and derision call it A putative Righteousnesse Quak. These also from the same spirit deny the imputed Righteousnesse of Christ for justification And Nayler himselfe before the whole Court at Appleby discoursing with W. C. about justification by righteousnesse of Christ imputed not onely denyed it but in a sleighting way ended his discourse thereabout with this language That which is without is without So George Fox affirmed That he that is borne of God is justified by Christ alone without imputation Sauls Errand pag. 12. Papist Bell. l. 2. de justif cap. 3. 2. The Papists in their controversies with us doe positively affirme that justification is by inherent Righteousnesse Hence Bellermine Stapleton c. with the rest doe positively affirme that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is onely justum facere per inherentem justitiam that to justifie is onely to make righteous by inherent righteousnesse Quak. So these men doe as confidently affirme that they are onely justified by inherent righteousnesse or that righteousnesse within which Christ within them enableth them to performe See our proofe Perfect Pharisee pag. 10. Papist Bell. de juâ—tif l. 4. c. 11. 12. 13. 14 3. The Papists againe doe confidently conclude that a man may perfectly keep the whole Law Hence their neglect of the righteousnesse of Christ their workes of supererogation and the like Quak So the Quakers their great assertion as a challenge to all is that eâ—ery Saint is perfect that it is pâ—ssible to be perfectly holy and without sinne Perfect obedience to the Law of God is their great Principle which they confidently cry up more then any Papist Bell. l. 3. de verbo Dei c 4. 4. The Papists affirme that the Scriptures or the Written Word of God are not the supreame Iudge of sp rits Quak So these people that the spirits are not to be câ—yed by Scripture So A. P. in the Booke he but forth called Severall Papers p 19. The Woâ—lds touchstone is without them and they try the spirit by the letter c. but the Saints touchstone is within So that though they agree not what shall be yet both of them consent in denying the Scripture to be the judge of spirits Papist 5 The Papists call the Scripture aâ—â— ad letter a nose of wax a scâ—bbard without a sword Coâ—erus in Euchir pag. 44 Pighius lib. 1. cap. 4. So Melchior Canus sayes It is most certaine the Written Word is onely for Babes and is no way necessary for those that are growâ—e as is more fu l Melchior Canus defens each fid contra confess Worâ—berg cap. 36. Quak. So these men also not onely câ—y downe the necessity of the written word see the perfect Pharisee pag. 20. but also call it a dead letter a carnall letter that they are but a declaration of them that spake it So Melchior Canus againe saith the Gospel is not the Scripture as Farnworth in his Booke Discovery of Faith scoffes at our saying the foure Bookes of Matthew Marke Luke and John are the Gospel pag. 1â— Papist 6. The great argument by which the Papists doe goe about to establish the truth of their way is Immediate revelations and pretended miracles the want of which they upbrayd the Protestant Ministers and charge us to be no Church Quak So the Quakers doe in their pretence to an immediate call and their supposed miracle of quaking So A. P. the Word of the Lord came to me saying So Audland the Word of the Lord came to me but of that more hereafter Papist 7. The Papists doe place much of their holinesse in their Eastings beggerly apparell and forsaking the World as they call it as their lâ—â—ing mewed up in convents and cloysters their wandring up and downe as Hermits and begging Fryers c. Quak. So these men is knowne to place abundance of their holinesse in Fasting beggarly apparell wandring up and downe the World c. we might adde much more but here you may see how the man of sinne in these men in their compliance with the principles and practises of the Romish way breaks out in his deceit and deceiveâ—ble workings 2. He is a stâ—anger in the Booke of God as to the discovery of Antichrist The spirit of errour the spirit of Anti-Christ who doth not observe the spirit of God mightily unvailing Antichrist by the revealing of the spirit of errour in him for 1 Iohn 2.18 there it plainly appeares that horrid errors are of that affinity with the Antichrist that when he would describe that man of sinne in the last time he calls the Heretiques by that very name Now are there many Antichrists whereby we know it is the last time c. Now besides those which we have named the Reader will easily observe such a masse and heape of Arminian Socinian Familisticall errors in their Doctrines layd downe in the Perfect Pharisee that he may câ—earely observe where the spirit of Antichrist works in all deceiveablenesse in this last time 3. Lastly It is the Saints bulwarke against the Papists while they call for our miracles that the spirit of God clearely holds forth that the comming of the man of sinne is after the working of Satan with all power and signes and lying wonders 2 Thes 2.9 So Rev. 16.13 the three uncleane spirits ver 14. are the spirits of Devils working miracles to gather together c. Now this further evidenceth the spirit of the man of sinne
mayst observe he answers nothing and thereby see the spirit of those men that doe stop their eyes against the plainest light but he that hardeneth his heart shall not prosper Position 13. That the Scriptures are not the Word of God but a Declaration of the conditions of them that spoke them forth He answers nothing according to his custome to our arguments nor excepts against our proofes but labours to confirme the Position Excep 1 Christ is the Word now if the Scriptures be the Word then there is two Words of God now prove that in Scripture or that the Letter is â—aked the Word in plaine words Reply 1. That Christ is the Word is plaine Iohn 1. and who knoweth it not The essentiall and declarative Word not all one 2. That the will of God contained in the Scripture is the Word of God is as plaine besides the Scriptures we named â—n the Perfect Pharisee pag. 24. Marke 7.13 Luke 11 28. Rom. 10.17 Iohn 12.48 we shall adde these Luke 8.11 the Seed is the Word of God ver 12. then commeth the Devill and taketh the word out of their heart least they should beleeve and be saved can the Devill take Christ out of their hearts 1 Thes 2.13 When yee receaved the Word of God which you heard of us yee received it not as the Word of Men but as it is in truth the Word of God c. This was the Word which the Apostles spake yea received it which cannot be meâ—nt of Christ he should have said yee received him not as the word of men but as it is in truth the word of God This is so plaine a case we shall not trouble thee further And here thâ—u mayst observe there are two words of God the essentiall and 〈◊〉 declarative and wonder the man should be so weake as to bid 〈◊〉 produce Scripture to prove this when the Scripture is so full of it to any that doth but reade it Excep 2 The Apostle calls what he wrote a Declaration 1 â—ohn 1.2.3 Reply How doth this prove the Scriptures are noâ— the word of God nay doth it not fully prove the contrary for that which he declares was what he had heard of the Lord Iesus Scriptures not onely a declaration of the conditions of Saints Againe we doe owne the Scriptures to be the declarative Word of God or a declaration of the minde of God but we say the Quakers doe destroy the Scriptures Divinity and authority when they call them onely a declaration of the conditions of them that spoke them forth For as we prâ—ved before 1 They shall be then no foundation for the Faith of Saints for one mans condition is not the foundation of another mans Faith 2. The Scripture shall have no authority over the soule of any but he that is in the same condition and hath experienced it contrary to Iohn 2.4 8. this is the reason why Nayler sayes they are not commanded to forbear to weare shâ—oes in his Book p. 21. if they were they should as well as they are commanded not to sâ—lute whereas that command if it be in any part binding Luke 10.4 requires both but this will tell thee what is meant by their calling Scripture a speaking forth of the Saints condition viz. it shall have no authority over them further then they list or have an impulse on their spirits or they practice for both the commands are of equall authâ—rity yet he denyes they are commanded one of them nay they are both in the same verse Luke 10.4 Yea 3. This destroyes the divine authority of all Historicall and Propheticall Scripture which could not be the Saints conditions when thâ—y spoke them as also threatnings and promises c But see this at large Perfect Pharisee pag. 24.25 We sha l say but this 1 Iohn 5.16 There is a sinne unto death I doe not say that you should pray for it was this Iohns condâ—â—ion when he spake it did he exper ence in his heart that he had sinned to death 2 Pet. 2.22 The Dog is returned to his vomit c. was this the condition of Peter that spoke it but we are ashamed of this wickednesse and folly of these men Excep 3 VVhereas you say it cannot be understood to be the word Christ that came to the Prophets Samuel Ieremy c it seems your understanding is not with the Apostle who saith It was the Spirit of Ch i st that was in them 1 Peter 1 11 and you say what Christ and his Apostles Preached c. was not Christ the Father or Spirit when as the Scripture saith Holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the holy Ghost 2 Pet. cap. 1 ver 21. Reply The Quakers grossâ— confounding of Christ with the written VVord 1 Consider Reader how grossely he abuseth and perverts the Scripture to prove that the words that they spoke were Christ and the spirit because it is said These holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the holy Ghost What a grosse and blasphemous conâ—ounding is here of the word that those men spoke and the holy Ghost that moved them to speake making the word spoken by a finite creature to be the everlasting spirit the holy Ghost The words were committed to Paper and Inke Rev. 1. Heb. 2.2 engraven in Tables 2 Cor. 3.7 Isay 30 8. write it before them in a Booke note it in a Booke c. can this be Christ or the Spirit of God and yet these are the things which they were moved of the holy Ghost to write Who knoweth not that it was the spirit of God that moved them to write that revealed the things they were to publish to the world but were those things that the holy Ghost moved them to write were those things Christ were those things the spirit What a miserable ignorance or judiciall blindnesse is this which certainely the righteous judgement of God hath given up this Generation of people to because they received not the truth in the love thereof that they might be saved Position 14. That the Spirits are not to be tryed by the Scriptures c. This Position is not denyed by Nayler we proved it from three testimonies and Nayler in his answer addes his owne defence thereof without exception against any of our proofes VVe shall take his arguments for defence thereof in order Excep 1 The infallible spirit which is the originall of all Scriptures is the tryall of all spirits and that spirituall man judgeth all things and by that spirit the Saints was to judge of all spirits and gave those up to Sathan that was for that end as is plaine 1 Cor. 5 4. Reply 1 The spirit not to be set in opposition to Scripture The force of this argument by which he would prove that spirits are not to be tryed by Scripture lyeth thus The infallible spirit is the tryall of all spirits therefore spirits are not to â—e tryed by Scriptures To
to the purpose And I answered and said But it was because I knew no such thing by my selfe And after these words they began to teach that every man had a light within him if hearkened to would teach guide and save him And I replyed againe and said how is it that our Saviour Christ sayes There is no man comes to me except my father which sent me draw him before God and Christ draw where is my light and to this they spoke not one word so I went home from amongst them But the day of the Moneth nor the Moneth I set not downe I not fearing the danger of this Heresie All these words were spoken in the same house in the night time Will. Baldwinson We doe testifie this to be Will. Baldwinsons owne testimony Tho Walker John Myriell John Wallace 2. Here thou hast our innocency vindicated and now what reason hath Nayler to call us the servants of the Devill and venters of lyes when as thou seest his deniall of that testimony is but the backing of his owne blasphemy with a notorious lye which must needs fly in in his face if he have any sparke of conscience left in him 3. This full testimony gives a further discovery of their Positions we formerly layd downe as first Their asserting perfection in this life and to be without sinne As also secondly Not onely Nayler but Farnsworth also affirmed he was as holy just and good as God for so saith Will. Baldwinson they joyntly replyed Yea and they were so Thirdly That every man hath a light within him if harkned to will teach guide and save him Thus we can blesse the Lord that our being forced by Nayler his charging us with lyes to vindicate the truth hath been an occasion to discover the blasphemies of these men more apparantly and convincingly unto all But we wonder how they dare deny these things or why Nayler should stand disputing against these testimonies when their being equall with God is fully layd downe in Foxes owne words in Print See Sauls Errand to Damascus pag. 8. and line 8. He that hath the same spirit that raysed up Iesus Christ is equall with God And againe thus line 11. c As Iesus Christ which is the mystery hath passed before so the same spirit takes upon it the same seed and is the same where it is made manifest Where it is clearely his designe to shew that there is the same hypostaticall union betwixt the spirit and our nature where the spirit dwels as was betwixt the Divine nature and the Humane in the Lord Jesus Excep 3 To our proofe that George Fox affirmed He was the Judge of the World Nayler denieth it not but replyes by justifying that expression And tells us we are grossely ignorant of Christ and rayles at us exceedingly For this he quotes 1. Cor. 6.2.3 Know you not that the Saints shall judge the World Hence he abuseth the Scripture to inferre that George Fox is the Judge of the World Reply 1 Cor. 6.2 opened For the opening of this Scripture know first That the Father hath committed all judgement to the Sonne Iohn 5 22. Acts 17.31 God hath appointed a day in which he will judge the World in righteousnesse by that Man whom he hath ordained whereof he hath given an assurance unto all men in that he hath raysed him from the dead Where you see plainely the Father hath eminently apointed Jesus Christ alone that man to be the Iudge of the World How then comes George Fox to be Iudge of the World for the Scripture doth but hold forth One to be the Iudge of the World even the Lord Iesus whom the Father hath therefore furnished with all necessary qualifications viz. of infinite power infinite knowledge infinite presence things absolutely necessary for the Iudge of the World 1 Cor. 15. â—5 Againe It is one thing to Iudge the world and much another thing to be the Iudge of it there is very much difference betwixt these two but George Fox must be either the judge oâ— none it seems 3. It is not said the Saints doe judge the world that 's proper to the Lord Iesus but t is said they shall judge the world they shall judge Angels the Apostles kept very strictly and closely to the expression of the future clearely holding forth that he means of their judging of the world at the end thereof and the resurrection of the dead according to that of Christ concerning the Apostles in the day of judgement Mat. 19.28 Verily I say unto you that you which have followed me in the regeneration when the Sonne of man shall sit in the throne of his glory ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel We shall not need to speake of the manner of their judging as Iustices at the Bench by subscription or assent to the righteous proceedings of the Lord Iesus at that day And is it not still apparant to be a blasphemy for Fox to say he is the judge of the world And can the abusing of this Scriture help him And what reason hath Nayler to charge us with grosse ignorance and rayle upon us upon this account but we have layd this open enough to any Reader Onely this we shall adde in Sauls Errand to Damascus pag. 6. it is objected against Fox that he professed himselfe to be the Eternall judge of the world not onely the judge but the Eternall judge and this he doth not at all deny but blasphemously goeth about to justifie it This is suitable to that which one of these Quakers lately wrote to an eminent Officer in the Army who told it himselfe to one of us viz. Looke to the light within thee which cannot sinne whereby thou wilâ— judge and determine God-like His next justification of that title is bottom'd upon that 1 Cor. 2.15 1 Cor. 2.15 opened The spirituall man judgeth all things To which we answer that he that is acquainted with the Originall will easily perceive that the word judgeth in the 15. ver is the same with that in the 14. ver which is rendred discerned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ver 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so that the meaning of the expression is no more but the spirituall man discerneth all things All things viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the spirituall mysteries of the Gospel this is evident that these all things are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the Apostle is speaking of the Mysteries of the Gospel ver 7. the wisedome of God in a mystery he is speaking of such things ver 9. which God hath prepared for theâ— that love him and ver 11. the things of God ver 12. the things freely given to us of God ver 13. things spoken of such things as are ver 16. the minde of Christ So that Nayler is wide to seek when he applyes this as he doth the spirituall man t is true doth discerne the mysteries of the Gospel and minde of
owne imaginations to make them odious when we say according to their principle those things that are held forth of Christ without us as Hubbethorn sayes must be acted over againe within us and so Christ must be borne of the Virgin in us and Iudas and Herod and Pilate must be in us to betray and crucifie him Is not this the plaine assertion of Hubbethorn the same thiâ—gs must be fulfilled in us that was in Christ Iesus as he was held forth in the Scripture-letter and in the flesh without us And this we also proved by an assertion of George Bateman pag. 29. to which Nayler answers nothing But further it shall yet appeare that its cleare in Sauls Errand to Damâ—scus pag. 14. where George Fox expressâ—â—y sayes Christ his flesh is a figure for every one passeth thrâ—ugh the same way that Christ did who comes to know Christ in the flesh What a seared conscience must this man needâ— have that when this Doctrine is expressely found in those evidâ—nt plâ—ces in that Booke yet hath the impudence against the light of conscience to say Let that Booke he wiâ—nesse agaiâ—st yâ—u and your lying slanders herein to all that reade it But both you and we shall both learne what thâ—s man and his way iâ— Excep 2 You say this was written in a Letter which Nâ—yler wâ—ote to one in Lancashire viz. That â—e that expects to be saved by him that dyed at Ierusalem should be deceived which â—s a mâ—st 〈◊〉 by untruth c and so he goes on â—aâ—ling Reply 1. It is acknowledged thaâ— that Letter which had this Doctrine in it that Chriâ—t was but a figure was not Naylers Letter in which that other passage is we mistooke Nâ—yleâ— for Hubbethorne and that it was in a Letter from Huâ—bethoâ—â—e written to one in Lancashire Take this ensuing Testimony of Mr. Moore a godly Minister in Lancashire RIchard Hubbethorne wrotâ— that the câ—mmiâ—g of Châ—â—st iâ— the flâ—sh is but a figure or an â—olâ—ing 〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉 and actions amongst men those things that he will truely spiritually and really doe in the spirits of his people at his second comming This but being objected against him as denying the Lord that bought us He replyed in another Letter Thou dost not understand what I meant by that expression c. These words being often objected to the Quakers and particularly to George Fox though some of them made an answer to the but yet none of them deny it in these parts that I can heare of These Letters were sent to Henry Holme and are now in my hands Kellet in Lancash Jan. 16. 1653. William Moore Thus you have our confession of our mistake onely of the Name you see the truth of the thing convincingly evidenced But that it is a filthy untruth that Nayler wrote such a Letter in which were those words He that expects to be saved by him that dyed at Ierusalem should be deceived we answer First Nayler may know that we doe onely affirme that Doctor Marshall did object this against him at Applehy and Master Iaques Minister of Bolton in Lancashire sent his promise that he would make it appeare Had Nayler denyed that either of these two were true he might have charged us with a falsehood but this he doth not he dare not doe 2. Though Nayler doe so cry out against this as a slander yet he that considers this their Principle that Christ with all he did in the flesh is but a figure which is proved to be their principle beyond exception will wonder why Nayler should looke upon this as a slander when it is the necessary consequence of that wicked Doctrine for if Christ were but a Figure I should no more expect to be saved by him then by the figures and types of thâ— Law But because the man so loudly cryes out against this as being a filthy untruth that ever he wrote such a Letter though he deny not what we say that this was objected against him by D. Marshall and that M. Iaques engaged to justifie it yet we have affixed M. Iaques Testimony to satisfie the world of our clearenesse from the scandals and wicked reproaches of Nayler and this sent is under his Hand and Scale JAmes Nayler in a Lettor which he writ to Henry Holme gave out this expression If thou expect to be saved by him that dyed at Ierusalem thou art deceived Hoc unum test John Jaques Excep 3 There is but one thing more in Naylers answer whereby he shuffles this Position and that evasion is this We doe owne and confesse that Iesus Christ in the flesh is a figure or example as if figure and example were all one To which we answer Reply Iesus Christ not a Figure 1. We challenge Iames Nayler to shew one tittle of Scripture wherein Iesus Christ is called a Figure The first Adam is called a Figure Rom. 5.14 the Tabernacle called a Figure Heb. 9.9 but Iesus Christ is never called a Figure and therefore it is a sinfull shuffle of Iames Nayler thus to confound an Example and Figure 2. If he be a Figure we againe affirme he must typifie some thing but we referre you to our Booke as to Christ not being a Figure or onely an example where we have layd downe many Scriptures and arguments to which he answers nothing Perfect Pharisee pag. 8. 9. Position 6. That men are not justified by that righteousnesse of Christ which he in his owne Person did fulfill without us Reader thou wilt see in our Booke we had foure proofes for this three of which Nayler denyeth not and for the fourth we referre thee to Mr. Iaqueâ— testimony so that as to the truth of the assertion we must take it for granted especially considering what George Fox saith in Sauls Errand to Damascus pag. 12. He that is borne of God is iustified by Christ alone without imputation This gives us to understand the meaning of Naylers answer to that Position thus Except That righteousnesse Christ hath performed without me was not my justification c. untill Christ appeared in me c. and appeared in me my righteousnesse sanctification justification and redemption c. Reply Fox denying imputed righteousnesse in plaine tearmes 1. Let but the Reader compare this of Iames Nayler with that expressiâ—n of George Fox viz. he is justified by that alone without imputation and that of Authory Hodgson viz I beleeve to be saved not by the righteousnesse of Christ imputed to me but by the righteousnesse of Christ inherent in me which he doth not deny he wâ—ll learne the meaning of Naylers worâ—s to be clearly this that Christ in a man is the matter of his just fication so that though he labour to colour over the businesse in this answer by saying Christ was not his justification till he appeared in him yet comparing his answer with these testimonies it will appeare to be downe-right equivocation and shuffling Question betwixt Quakers uâ—concerning the
matter of justification but the time 2. For Nayler cannot but know that the question is not at all concerning the time when Iesus Christ becomes actual y my justification but concerning what is the matter of our justification whether the righteousnesse which Christ in his Person did performe or the holinesse which he worketh in us be the matter of our justification when we are justified Now notstithstanding Naylers shuffling its cleare their sense is that whensoever the soule is justified for we speake not of the time the matter of its justification is not that righteousnesse which Iesus Christ in his owne Per on did performe without us N yler himselfe at Appleby in discourse asserted He was justified by Christ in him and being there told by one of us that justification is an act of God for Christs sake absolving me from the guilt of sinne not done in me but without me in the Court of Heaven Nayler said nothing to this but that which is wi hout is without See Mr. Higginsons Booke pag. 78. Further proof that Christs righteousnes is the matter of our justification Now that the righteousnesse of Christ performed without us is the matter of our justification whensoever we are justified hesides what we have layd downe undeniably from the Scriptures in the Perfect Pharisce pag. 10. will further appeare by these testimonies Rom 3.24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Iesus Christ whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation c. Isay 53. He was wounded for our transgressions and through his stripes we are healed Ver. 5.6 he layd on him the iniquities of us all ver 11. he shall beare their iniquities where Christs merit or righteousnesse is the reason of the non-imputation of sinne to the soule But what need we adde more in a case which is so full a Principle of the Gospel But of this enough we shall adde more in the next Position As for reckoning Drunkards and Swearers to have as much right to what Christ did and suffered at Ierusalem as we we looke upon it as one of his reviling fits and passions and leave him to the Lord to rebuke him But this is all the answer he gives to the many Scriptures against his Doctrine layd downe by us Position 7. That men are justified by that Righteousnesse which Christ wiâ—hin us enahled us to performe or which is in effect and some of them have expressed by inherent holinesse We proved this to be their Doctrine by fix testimonies None of which are denyed onely he quarrels at one expression in one of them viz. the third which Nayler layes downe viz. We are not reconciled to God till we be perfectly holy and able to stand so in our owne power he quarrels at the last clause of this of which we shall give you an account in the next Position whether it properly is to be referred but the first branch of it viz. we are not reconciled to God till we be perfectly holy this he denyeth not but asserts againe in his answer thus No imperfect thing can be reconciled to God so that the charge stands cleare against them notwithstanding the heresie of the Tenet and the loud out-cryes of Nayler as if we slandered him And to put it further out of question we shall adde these besides Naylers confession in the present answer New proof that quakers justificution is by inherent righteousnesse Iohn Wâ—lkinson of Hutton in the hearing of Mr. T W. Minister at Kendall and Mr. G. affirmed that the light within men would not onely discover sinne but also redeeme from it and justifie Capt. Robert Lucas of Kellot in Lancashire attesteth under hand that Robert Wither said that men are saved by the workes of Christ which he worketh in them and maketh them to worke 〈◊〉 Cham affirmed to Mr. T. and Mr. Gr. that holy and 〈◊〉 walking with God was a Saints covering from the wrath of 〈◊〉 so that this Principle stands cleare notwithstanding his evasions Excep 1 He chargeth us with wresting truth to slander by saying that his affirming that the light within men will bring to feâ—re God and so leade to iustification doth hold forth justification by inherent righteousnesse Reply 1 To this we answer that it is evident to as it is the sense of his words for let any sober spirited Christian consider his words the light within by bringing a man to exercise a pure conscience in the feare of God towards God and man in uprightnesse will so leade up to justification and peace what doth this but plainely speake that we are justified by obedience to this light in the exercise of a good conscience towards God and man for saith he it doth so leade to justification c. Excep 2 But what saith he againe that no imperfect thâ—ng can be reconciled to God is plaine in Scripture This he layes downe to prove if it would serve the truth of that Position that no are justified by iâ—herent righteousnesse Reply Justification consistent vvith the Saints infirmities We answer That Paul was reconciled to God is plaine and that he was justified which are the same Rom. 5.1.9 10.11 but that Paul was imperfect when yet he was â—eâ—â—nciled to God Rom. 7. will abundantly evidence He that â—â—yes I am carnall and sold under sinne ver 14 was not he tâ—en imperfect What I doe I allow not what I would that I doe not but what I hate that doe I ver 15. he that was in this condition was he not imperfect He that had a Law iâ— his members warring against the Law of his minde and leading him iâ—to captivity to the Law of sinne ver 23. was not he imperfect He that in the sense of his body of death cryed out Wretched man that I am c. was not he imperfect How ignorant doth Nayler discover himselfe to be of the conditions of the Saints of God Was not Peter imperfect when he cursed and denyed his Master Mat. 26.72 but that then he was in a justified state we know none that ever questioned But this grosse fancy of his owne perfections and ignorance of the mistery of justification runs him upon such bold assertions and desperate rocke as these What an uncomfortable Doctrine had this been to Paul when he was complaining of the body af his sinne to have told him therefore he was not justified nor reconciled to God with what a glorious Gospel spirit would Paul have challenged such a man as he doth Angels Principalities and Powers Rom. 8.37.38 It is God that justifieth who shall condemne me It is Christ that died fetching out a pardon and justification from the blood of Iesus notwithstanding his owne imperfection in the worke of holinesse Excep 3 To your Position of being justified by our owne workes we deny for it is he that worketh in us to will and to doe c. and herein we deny selfe-workes c. Reply Ceâ—â—eâ—t of
Christs being made manifest which are not voyd because they are not fulfilled in this world such as the putting of the Saints into the possession of his fulnesse of glory the putting of all his enemies under his feet c. so that perfection in holinesse being one of these things that are reserved for a state of glory we doe not destroy the end of Christs comming when we pleade he shall attaine this end in his owne appointed time and though the most holy here are full of many infirmities yet the day shall be when the workes of Satan shall be destroyed in them altogether in the time appointed by the Father the Quakers may as well say because the Saints are not now in glory therefore Christ hath lost his end in dying What we have said to this both in Christs satisfying for soules whereby he presents them perfect as to justification as also his destroying at death the whole body of sinne when they enter into a perfect state of glory will shew the vanity of his second plea for though we be not perfectly holy in our selves in this life yet we are perfect as to justification and compleat in him Col. 2.10 and though the Saints be not compleatly holy at present yet the day is comming when they shall even the time appointed by him that dyed for it and purposeth to present us spotlesse at his comming so that Christ loseth not the end of his comming Mat. 5.28 opened As to his third that Mat. 5.18 not one jâ—t or tittle of the Law shall passe till all be fulfilled which he brings to prove perfection in the Saints thus First It is evident that he that is there spoken of in v. 17. as fulfilling the Law is the Lord Iesus I came to fulfill it and that was solely and alone the worke of Christ both as he was the accomplishment of Prophesies in the Law or Booke of Scripture as he was the substance of all shaddowes in the Law ceremoniall and as he in Person did exactly as Mediator performe all the duties of the Law Morall that so by his obedience many might be made righteous What is this to prove perfection in the Saints because Christ fulfilled all righteousnesse 2. But the naturall and proper sense of this Text is clearely another businesse Christ is speaking here that the Law or the word of command and prophesies shall stand good and sure the word here is interpreted in the repetition of them Luke 16.17 not one jot shall fall so here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not one tittle shall passe from the Law it shall stand good and entire in it selfe Christ is not speaking as if the Law should be compleatly fulfilled and obeyed by us it shall stand in its force and authority notwithstanding that I am come yet I came not to destroy it but to continue it in its truth entirenesse and authority like that Rom. 3.31 Doe we then make voyd the Law through Faith nay we establish it And that Isay 40.48 repeated 1 Peter 1.25 the grasse withereth and the flower thereof fadeth but the Word of the Lord abideth for ever And what a non sensicall reason is this to prove that the Saints are perfect here and doe perfectly fulfill the Law because the Law shall not lose a tittle of its authority and entirenesse Rom. 8.4 opened 3. His third plea to prove the perfection of holinesse in this life is Rom. 8.4 that the righteousnesse of the Law might be fulfilled in us To which we answer First The Apostle here ver 1. is speaking of justification there is now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Iesus Ver. 3. he layes downe whence that freedome from condemnation flowes and tells you that what the Law could not doe in that it was weake through the flesh God sending his owne Sonne in the likenesse of sinfull flesh for sin viz. by a sacrifice for sinne or to satisfie for sinne condemned sinne in the flesh that is when man could not be justified by reason that sinfull flesh could not satisfie the Law God sent his Sonne to satisfie for sinne that so the righteousnesse of the Law might be fulfilled in us So that though we personally cannot and could not performe it yet through our union with Christ being dead with Christ Col. 2.20 quickned with him Ephes 2.5 we have his righteousnesse fulfilled in us Thou wilt fullier understand that this place is meant of the righteousnesse of Christ satisfying and fulfilling the righteousnesse of the Law and so made ours by our union with him if thou consider these observations 1. It is no where said in all the Booke of God that the righteousnesse of the Law is fulfilled in this life in any Saint as to inherent holinesse nay the contrary is here asserted ver 3. the Law was weake through Faith As also Rom. 3.20 that a man is not justified by the workes of the Law c. 2. It is Beza's note that the righteousnesse of the Law might be fulfilled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in us not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not of us or by us 3. Is not this to goe about to confirme justification by inherent holinesse against which you have had such undenyable proofe 4. What is this but to build up the old Popish notion of justification by inherent holinesse 5. If any shall thinke that latter expression who walkes not after the flesh but after the spirit shall tye this fulfilling of the Law in us to sanctification we referre him to the first verse where the same words are used and yet they are onely layd downe as a description of the Persons to whom there is no condemnation as they are layd downe also as a description of these persons that enjoy the fruite of that glorious worke of Christ fulfilling the Law and satisfying it So that this Text onely holds forth the satisfaction of the Law by Iesus Christ to be made really ours by our union with him as fully as if it had been performed in our owne persons But as to justification by inherent holinesse or perfection of it in this life we have fully proved the contrary Lastly He tells us we looked upon it as a strange thing that Farnesworth should say No uncleane thing can enter into the Kingdome of Heaven When as that which we say is no such thing but a challenging of Farnsworth his ignorance of the Gospel that he can see no consistency with these two A Saint cannot be perfect here And no uncleane thing can enter into the Kingdome of God Is this to count the Scripture a strange thing or is it not Farnsworths grosse ignorance that he knows no way of entring into glory unlesse he be perfect before he dye Is he not grossely ignorant of the maine mistery of justification by the blood of Christ May not a man be in part uncleane by reason of the imperfection of his present holines and yet pure and spotlesse too as to
rake up a reason out of a heape of rayling this it is Those that doe uphold the Scriptures to be the tryall of Doctrines doe yet differ amongst themselves therefore the Spirits or Doctrines are not to be tryed in Scriptures Reply Quakers Popish argument This as many other of their answers is a knowne thread-bare Popish argument they say You Protestants cannot agree in your Discipline and therefore the Scriptures are not to be the judge of Doctrines but the infallible spirit of the Pope We hope God will discover them ere lonâ— to be men meerely acted by the spirit of Anti-christ but we shall give you a full answer under these two considerations Difference in non-fundamentals no prejudice to the Scriptures being judge of spirits 1. First as it reflects upon our selves We say to differ in discipline is not to worship severall gods as Nayler rayles while it is knowne we hold the head the Lord Jesus but this we looke upon as the spitting of his venome When Peter was for Circumcision and Paul was against Circumcision Gal. 2.13.14 did they worship severall gods So those Acts 15. that contested in different judgements did they worship severall gods But this man cares not what he sayes so be may throw his dirt upon us though he bewray his excessive ignorance in it before the world 2. As it fights against the Scriptures being the judge and tryall of spirits we shall shew there is no strength in this exception at all For the Scripture loseth not its authority for the tryall of spirits by reason of the darkenesse and different apprehensions of spirits How darke were the Apostles in the Prophesies of Christs Resurrection Luke 24 25. Fooles and flow of heart to beleeve all that the Prophets have spoken c. yet the Scriptures lost not their touchstone authority upon the account of their darkenesse though Christ saw thâ—t truth of the Resurrection in the Scriptures spoken of which they could not apprehend ought not Christ ver 26. to have sâ—ffoâ—ed these things and to enter into his glory Doth not Peter say plainely that in the writings of Paul there are 2 Pet 3.10 difficult things and hard to be understood and such as the unstable and unlearned rest and yet those Writings and Epist es doe not lose their authority because of the diversities and darkenesse of Beleevers thoughts Scripture rightly understood will clearely discover every spirit and every Doctrine though the best of men knowing but in part 1 Cor. 13.9 and so not fully taking in the genuine sense of Scripture may have through their darkenesse difference of judgement in things lesse fundamentall But we may be weary in following such triviall arguments onely we would not have the saints entrapped in any of Satans snares nor the blessed word that 's sweeter then hony and the hony combe subjected to the delusions of evill men Thus we have given thee the strength of his answer onely he addes his false glosse upon that of Isay 8.20 Isay 8.20 vindicated by us objected against them in the Perfect Pharisee the glosse is this Whereas you quote that place To the Law and to the testimony it is true the Law of the new Covenant is written in the heart by God and the testimody of Jesus is the spirit of Prophesie and if any be not guided by and speake according to these it is because they have no light in them but without them But we answer As he plainly by this overturnes all Scripture and leaves no rule but the Law written upon mens hearts which we have confuted in the Perfect Pharisee pag. 25. so it is a grosse perverting of the text and truth for it is clearely spoken of the Written Word and the very next words expresseth it clearely If they speake not according to this Word the Hebrew is full beyond exception cedabar hazzeh according to this Word so that that text is no reference that God makes to the Law written upon mens hearts but to the Law written in Tables of stone which tables were called the testimony and the Arke thereof called the Arke of the testimony Exod. 25.22 because the Tables of stone in which the Law was written called Exod. 31.18 the tables of the testimony were layd up there We have fully showne in the Booke called the Perfect Pharisee pag. 26. the sad fruits of this Doctrine of denying the Scripture to be the rule of trying doctrines and spirits that it is to open a gap to all the delusions of Satan and we instanced sin the knowne case of Iohn Gilpin who was sometimes a Quaker to which Nayler replyes onely thus It is no more then if the chiefe priests should have cited Iudas to confute Christ c. as he consulted with the priests to betray the truth so Iohn Gilpin hath done now who shall receive his reward and you priests also as Nayler sayes To which rayling we thus answer Shaking off the Sâ—ripture tâ—e â—â—ler to Satans delusions 1. That Iohn Gilpin was thus acted by the Devill is a known truth beyond questioning 2. That he did verily beleeve he was acted by Christ when yet the Devill acted him is very apparant Nay Atkinson the boy that pretends to answer that reâ—ation of Gilpin doth all along confesse that he was acted by the Devill is plaine to any that reades that his childish â—nd non-sensicall piece of rayling 3. Iohn Gilpin himselfe â—â—ee the Lord hath delivered him in mercy out of the snares of Satan hath fully confest that it was the spirit of Satan and not the Lord Iesus that then acted him 4 And that all this grew â—ut of his casting off the Scriptures searching to a light within Take his owne words pag. 15. of a Booke called The Quakers shaken It was most just with God to give me over to strong delusions to beleeve lyes c. as for other provocations sâ— especially for rejecting the revealed will of God in his Word and heaâ—kning onely to a Voyce within me nay not onely to l sten to the Devils suggestions but to embrace his Voyce for the Voyce of Christ Thou seest now Reader what reason we had to say this rejecting the Scriptures from being the tryer of Doctrines doth open an unavoydable gap to Satans delusions 2. But what reason hath the man to say in this both Iohn Gilpin and we have consulted against Christ Nay have we not been pleading for Christ against Iudas the desperate betrayen of his truth and Gospel while we have been discovering â—he subtilties of Satan in those that are acted by him and pleading for the authority of Christ in his word against all the delusions of the Devill And as we can thankefully and comfortably looke upon it that God hath engaged us in so good a work so we can looke for our reward not what Nayler we beleeve could wish us but how can he defie when God hath not defied but what Christ hath promised to them that can
nakednesse The next exception is against our objecting Perf. Phar. p. 48. Christopher Atkinson his immodest familiarity with a woman of that way c. where Atkinson challengeth the proofe of it we shall onely say that that immodest familiarity if he will needs force us from our modest covering of that carriage to speak out it was his familiar Kissing of her as we are fully informed by the testimony of M. Walker and M. Wallas and we cannot but account it as a sinfull behaviour But to weaken the strength of this testimony Atkinson tells the Reader that M. Wallace said It was no murther in him to murther Christopher Atkinson and the rest of the prisoners at Kendale Truely we are afraid this whole generation of men are in a confederacy of lying we have purposely sent to finde out the truth of this foule challenge and shall give thee his clearing of himselfe word for word as we received it M. Wallace his vindication from Atkinsons lye HAving received a Paper from the Quakers that were prisoners containing horrible blasphemies viz. That they were the searchers of hearts and saying Let them be accursed from God for ever that will have Christ have any other Body but his Church I spoke these words and no more in the hearing of many viz. That I thought it was no murder in the civill Magistrate to put such blasphemers as they were to death it being according to the Law of God Reade Lev 24.10.16 Deut. 13. the vvhole chapter But that I ever said It was no murder in me to murder them or to put them to death I declare it to be a manifest lye Kendale Ian. 14. 1653. Iohn Wallace We whose names are subscribed did heare when M. Wallace spoke these words above written namely these which are inclosed within the parenthesis but no more Thomas Barket Miles Harrison Now let the Reader judge of what spirit these men are and as for the rayling which Atkinson powres out by reason of this testimony like a floud upon W. C. we his Brethren sâ—y we hope he hath learned that of Christ 2 Pet. 2.23 who when he was reviled reviled not againe when he suffered he threatned not but committed himselfe to him that judgeth righteously There is but one thing remains And that is the account we gave why we called our Booke the Perfect Pharisce which thou mayst reade in pages 49. 50. 51. and so conclude We therein prove from Scripture that that Title was most truely and properly applicable to them to which Nayler answers so exceeding weakely and raylingly that we are resolved not to reply one word thereto as having said enough before to that purpose to discover how weakely he struggles to evade the clearenesse of these Scriptures against himselfe and that way Reader thou wilt by this time see the falsenesse of what Nayler speaks in his word of conclusion to us five as if we had uttered many untruths and false reports taken up by heare say without any ground at all and divers things out of Books which we have on purpose wrested to slander with c. Thou wilt in this reply see the fullest evidence we thinke that can be given as to such cases and all these particulars that he excepts against made the more apparant unto all We professe before the Lord that it 〈◊〉 nothing we have against their persons that should any way leade us to wrest any of their writings to make them odious it is our onely zeale for the truth and Saints of the high God that hath carried out our spirits thus to expose our selves to the revilings of all this generation if by any meanes we might be serviceable to the Gospel and save our selves and them that heare us Thou wilt finde in the close of Naylers Booke two leaves put forth in the name of one who sayes his name in the Flesh is Iohn Andland t is such a perfect piece of bitternesse and rayling and no way in answer to our Booke that we leave it for waste Paper Thus having been carried on by the Everlasting Arme and drawne out by the cords of Love to our deare Lord Iesus his Ordinances and his Saints to beare witnesse to the true grace of God wherein we stand we shall sit downe in comfort and fly to him who is a refuge from the storme and a shadow from the beat when the blaâ—â—â—â— the terrible ones shall be as the storme against the Wall FINIS
Scriptures not the Word of God but a Declaration of the conditions of them that spoke them This he denyeth not we proved it by five testimonies He answers by one Scripture grossely perverted and two others ignorantly applyed but gives no answer to many Scripture arguments against it 14 Spirits not to be tryed by Scripture This we proved by three testimonies none of which nor the Position is denyed but goes about to prove it and falls a rayling 15. No sence meaning or exposition to be given or studying of Scripture This we proved in foure testimonies he confesseth goes about to prove it but answers not a word to fourteen evident Scriptures but falls a rayling grossely 16. They cry downe Baptisme and the Lords Supper as types and shadowes For this we gave foure proofes which he denyed not and we further prove it He shuffles from Baptisme in generall to the businesse of Infant Baptisme and falls a rayling 17. No mediate cull to the Ministry Denies not the Proof but falls miserably a rayling as if he would powr out his gall upon us As for the rest of his Reply to what we charged upon them as their Principles and Practises there is such palpable shufflings such miserable weakenesse and such horrible rayling as that we should not have medled with it at all but that we beleeve it is the designe of God to lay more and more open the spirits of these men THis Booke pretending to Answer us is thus subscribed By one whom the World calls Iames Nayler About man being called by names given them by their Parents We are â—ot a little jealous that there lyes a mystery of iniquity in that very stile and expression For first God himselfe whom to thinke to follow any sinfull expression or custome were no lesse then blasphemous calls men by their Names of distinction given by Men. Gen. 22.11 God said unto him Abraham Hannah called her sonne Samuel 1 Sam. 1.20 She called his name Samuel c. and afterwards when the Lord appeared to him to call him out to the worke of the Priest-hood chap. 3.4 and 6. and 8. verses The Lord called Samuel and called him againe so the second and third time here its evident that God himselfe calls him by the Name that his Mother gave him Acts 9.4 there Iesus Christ from Heaven calls him Saul Saul a Name given him before his conversion Christ when upon Earth calls his Disciples by the Names given them at their Circumcision as Philip Iohn Simon sonne of Ionas c. The Apostles doe so constantly as Festus Agrippa Gaius Aristarchus c. and this without such a mysterious preamble as one whâ—â— the World calls Festus Agrippa c. You see how these pretendâ—r to Scripture depart from Scripture as if they would include God and Christ under the carnall observations of the World or else teach them to speake 2. It is apparant That these very men doe constantly call themselves by these Names as Iames Nayler doth in an Epistle at the end of Farneworths Booke George Fox in a Pamphlet lately Printed and the very men of their Generation call them so without any such preamble The mystery of â—â—e 〈…〉 â—riting tâ—emselve such wâ—o the World câ—ll so and so 3. But shall we tell you where the mystery lyes We are satisfied that this expression is meerly to cloake their pretence to an equality with God Our reason is evident For in this very Answer of Naylers pag 4. where he relates Foâ—es his evadâ—ng of the charge against him that he said He was equall with God Nayler thus hints that Fox being asked whether he spake this of George Fox as he was a creature To this he answered I deny George Fox he is dust and must be dust but I and my Father are one Is not this as plaine as the Sunne that he therefore denyes George Fox that he may deny his being a creature one that must returne to dust that so he may set up and assert his onenesse with God Compare but this with that usuall expression of theirs in their Books Whose name in the flesh is James Nayler Whose name in the flesh is Iohn Audland c. and it will be more apparent But more of this you have in our Answer to their Reply to the first Article In the Epistle in the said Answer Written by A. P. he calls us About the word Priest the Priests of the North a word on purpose given us to our reproach Surely their pretended meeknesse should have taught them other expressions though truely we finde and the Reader may even in this their answer finde more cursed rayling then we receive from the worst of men yet our suffering in that kinde from them also is not small But A. P. might know that every Priest was to offer both gifts and sacrifices for sinne and that we waite not upon any such worke and that the Gospel knowes no Chiefe Priest but the Lord Iesus who is a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedek not any Priests at all properly but the Saints metaphorically â—â—lled a Royall Priest-hood and shall the stile of the Lord Iesâ—â— and his Saints be a reproach in the mouthes of Quakers He goes on and tells the world That we 〈◊〉 all strangers to that sort of people called Quakers except one A. P. who is none of the least of that sort of people cannot but know that he is too well knowne to all of us Secondly Three of these five also have had cause to know many more of them as M. Taylour Iohn Audland Stubbs Holmes Atkinson Hedgshon Ayry c. and others from whom we suffered disturbance in our publique Ministry and some of these also are pretenders to be eminently sent forth Thirdly Though all of us were strangers to their persons yet are we not strangers to them in their writings and so if it be possible to know them by their Papers which they industriously scatter up and downe we know them fully But whither tends this aspersion that they are strangers to all of us save one but to make the world beleeve that we have taken up these things against them by report But we hope the Reader by this time understands the nakednesse of the slander and the subtilty of A. P. W. C. As for that evidence which one of us gives concerning their principles and practises which A. P. under the name of Reports would insinuate into the people as if they were lyes the Reader shall observe that the most of these evidences are not at all contradicted by Nayler in his Answer but passed over which we take as confessed by him others onely evaded which yet shall appeare to the Reader in the ensuing answer to be either such things as he was an eye or eare witnesse of or shall be fully confirmed by undeniable testimony A. P. goes on and tells the Reader that in this answer What is truth is owned and what is false is