Authentick that it ought to be Received First If he should say Because it Contradicts not the Rest besides that there is no mention made of it in any of the Rest perhaps these men think it doth Contradict Paul in relation to Faith and Works Whether the Epistle of James be Authentick and how to know it But if that should be granted it would as well follow that Every Writer that Contradicts not the Scripture should be put into the Canon and by this means these men fall into a greater Absurdity than they fix upon us For thus they would Equal every one the Writings of their own Sect with the Scriptures for I suppose they judge their own Confession of Faith doth not Contradict the Scriptures Will it therefore follow that it should be bound up with the Bible And yet it seems impossible according to their Principles to bring any better Aagument to prove the Epistle of James to be Authentick There is then this Vnavoidable Necessity to say We know it by the same Spirit from which it was written or otherwise to step back to Rome and say We know by Tradition that the Church hath declared it to be Canonical and the Church is Infallible Let them find a Mids if they can So that out of this Objection we shall draw an Vnanswerable Argument ad hominem to our purpose That which cannot Assure me concerning an Article of Faith necessary to be believed is not the Primary Adequate Only Rule of Faith But The Scripture cannot thus Assure me Therefore c. I prove the Assumption thus That which cannot Assure me concerning the Canon of the Scripture to wit that such Books are only to be Admitted and the Apocrypha to be Excluded Cannot Assure me of this Therefore c And lastly As to these words Rev. 22.18 that If any man shall add Object 3 unto these things God shall add unto him the Plagues that are written in this Book I desire they will shew me Answ. how it relates to any thing else than to that Particular Prophecy It saith not Now the Canon of the Scripture is filled up no man is to write more from that Spirit Yea do not all Confess What it means to Add to the Scriptures that there have been Prophecies and true Prophets since The Papists deny it not And do not the Protestants affirm that John Huss prophesied of the Reformation Was he therefore Cursed or did he therein Evil I could give many other Examples Confessed by themselves But moreover the same was in Effect Commanded long before Prov. 30.6 Add thou not unto his words lest he reprove thee and thou be found a liar Yet how many Books of the Prophets were written after And the same was said by Moses Deut. 4.2 Ye shall not Add unto the Word which I command you neither shall ye Diminish ought from it So that though we should extend that of the Revelations beyond the particular Prophecy of that Book it cannot be understood but of a New Gospel or New Doctrines or of Restraining Prop. 4 man's Spirit that he mix not his Humane Words with the Divine and not of a New Revelation of the Old as we have said before PROPOSITION IV. Concerning the Condition of Man in the Fall All Adam's Posterity or Mankind both Jews and Gentiles as to the first Adam or Earthly Man is fallen degenerated and dead deprived of the sensation or feeling of this Inward Testimony Rom. 5.12 15. or Seed of God and is subject unto the Power Nature and Seed of the Serpent which he soweth in mens hearts while they abide in this Natural and Corrupted Estate from whence it comes that not only their Words and Deeds but all their Imaginations are Evil perpetually in the sight of God as proceeding from this depraved and wicked Seed Man therefore as he is in this State can know nothing aright yea his Thoughts and Conceptions concerning God and things Spiritual until he be dis-joined from this Evil Seed and united to the Divine Light are Unprofitable both to himself and others Hence are Rejected the Socinian and Pelagian Errors in the Exalting a Natural Light as also the Papists and most of Protestants who Affirm That man without the true Grace of God may be a True Minister of the Gospel Nevertheless this Seed is not imputed to Infants until by Transgression they actually join themselves therewith for they are by Nature the Children of Wrath who walk according to the Power of the Prince of the Air Ephes. 2. and the Spirit that now worketh in the Children of Disobedience having their Conversation in the Lusts of the Flesh fulfilling the desires of the Flesh and of the Mind § I. HItherto we have Discoursed how the True Knowledge of God is Attained and Preserved also of what Vse and Service the Holy Scripture is to the Saints We come now to Examine The State and Condition of Man as he stands in the Fall what his Capacity and Power is and how far he is able as of himself to Advance in relation to the things of God Of this we touch'd a little in the beginning of the Second Proposition but the full right and through Understanding of it is of great Vse and Service because from the Ignorance and Altercations that have been about it there have arisen great and dangerous Errors both on the one hand and the other While some do so far Exalt the Light of Nature or the Faculty of the Natural man as Capable of himself by vertue of the Inward Will Faculty Light or Power that pertains to his Nature to follow that which is good and make real progress towards Heaven And of these are the Pelagians and Semi-Pelagians of old and of late the Socinians and divers others among the Papists Others again will needs run into another Extream to whom Augustine among the Ancients first made way in his Declining Age Augustine 's Zeal against Pelagius through the heat of his zeal against Pelagius not only Confessing men Vncapable of themselves to do good and prone to evil but that in his very Mother's Womb and before he Commits any Actual Transgression he is Contaminate with a Real Guilt whereby he deserves Eternal Death in which respect they are not afraid to Affirm That many poor Infants are Eternally Damned and for ever endure the Torments of Hell Therefore the God of Truth having now again Revealed his Truth that good and even Way by his own Spirit hath taught us to avoid both these Extreams That then which our Proposition leads to Treat of is Part I First What the Condition of Man is in the Fall and how far Vncapable to meddle in the Things of God And Secondly That God doth not impute this Evil to Infants until Part II they Actually join with it That so by Establishing the Truth we may overturn the Errors on both parts And as for that Third thing Included in the Proposition it self concerning Part III
Testament and the New are one or that Circumcision and Baptism are one The Baptism of John and of Christ differ as the Shadow and Substance for that God was the Author of both As to the Matter they are not one neither for the one was a Baptism with Water and the other a Baptism with the Spirit and with Fire as John himself distinguisheth them Mark 1.8 Now in respect Baptism with water can be administred where the other to wit with the Spirit is not therefore they are not one in Substance They also agree not in the End for the End of the one to wit Baptism with Water is but to point or shew forth the other So that as the Shadow and the Substance differ in their Ends in like manner do these two for the End of the Shadow is but to point to the Substance the End of the Substance in this thing being to cleanse and purify the heart producing that effect to such as it is truly administred unto but the Shadow is frequently administred and the heart not cleansed therefore they differ in their Ends. Now to shew that they differ in Substance it is written Acts 19.2 3 4 5. that there were of the Baptism of John who had not so much as heard of the Holy Ghost far less received it Now had the Baptism of John and the Baptism of Christ been one they could not have had the one and been altogether ignorant of the other For a Third Reason thou say'st That Jesus Christ commanded and injoined the Disciples to Baptise and that Baptizing they used Water But where he commands them to Baptise Matth. 28. there is no Command to Baptise them with Water or into Water but into the Name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit So here is the Baptism into the Spirit but not into outward Water And the Apostles were Ministers of the Spirit and ministred the Spirit unto those who believed And though they used the Water-Baptism at times Water-Baptism used in Condescension to the Weak yet it rests to be proved that they did it in obedience to that general Command Matth. 28. and not in Condescendence to the People who had received a great Esteem of John and were so nursed up with outward Ceremonies that it was hard suddenly to wean them from such as they did the like in other Cases Which also serves for answer to thy Fourth Reason where thou instancest Peter his baptizing Cornelius after he received the Spirit For Peter's words imply no Command but only that at that occasion the thing might be done Can any man said he forbid Water that they may not be Baptised Acts 10.47 And though it be said Vers. 48. That he commanded them to be baptised in the Name of Christ yet it holds forth no Command from Christ only the thing being agreed upon that it might be done he did do it But that the Apostles received no Commission to Baptise with water Water-Baptism no Commission to the Apostles is clear from that of Paul where he saith I thank God I baptised none of you but Crispus and Gajus and the houshold of Stephanus c. for said he I was not sent to baptise but to preach the Gospel 1 Cor. 1.16 17. Now it is not questioned but his Commission was as large as any of the rest for he himself said that he was not Inferior to the chiefest of the Apostles but that he thereby denied he was sent to administer the Holy Spirit which is the Baptism of Christ is absurd to think For a Fifth Reason thou say'st It is the will of Christ that this Ordinance should continue and abide in the Church because he promised to be with his Ministers to the end of the World To which I Answer That this promise related to the Baptism of the Spirit which is Christ's Baptism is granted but that it related to the Baptism of water is denied for he was with Paul who yet professed he was not sent to Baptise with water And whereas some give their meaning to Paul his words that he was not sent only or principally to baptise with water this is an Addition to the Scripture-Words for which they can shew no sufficient ground And if men will take a liberty to Add to scripture-Scripture-Words from their own Spirit they may wrest the Scriptures to defend the worst of Opinions As when it is said Thou shalt not bow down to them nor Worship them One should put this meaning upon it Thou shalt not bow down to them nor Worship them principally and therefore would aver that Graven Images may be worshipped this were a most perverse abusing of Scripture Sixthly Thou say'st These who cast off this Ordinance do what in them lyeth to rob themselves of all the excellent ends and uses of it which are held forth in these Scripture-Expressions Answ. That such who cast off the Baptism of Christ by the Spirit may incur that hazard it is granted but that any such thing will follow from the not using of water is denied as shall appear by examining the Scriptures cited The first is Acts 2.28 Repent and be baptised every one of you for the Remission of your sins Answ. Here is no mention made of outward Water and Repentance and Remission of sins may be and are found without it and where it is both these are frequently wanting Water-Baptism no universal Command but to particulars But though it should be understood of outward water it is spoke but to particulars and is no universal Command The Second is 1 Pet. 3.21 The like figure whereunto even Baptism doth also save us But the very following words do give an Answer to that and clear the meaning not to be of Water-Baptism saying Not the putting away the filth of the flesh but the Answer of a good Conscience towards God by the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. The Third is Acts 22.16 Arise and be baptised and wash away thy sins But that a being baptised with water is a washing away of sin thou canst not from hence prove seeing the contrary is abundantly witnessed And suppose Water-baptism were here to be understood it being but spoke to one infers no universal Command The Fourth is Ephes. 5. verse 26. That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water But by Water cannot here be understood outward Water but that of the Word and Spirit for the next Verse speaks of presenting it without spot or wrinkle Which the outward Water cannot do see the like place John 3.5 Vnless a man be born of the Water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God Now if by Water here were to be understood outward Water it would infer that Water-baptism is absolutely necessary to Salvation which thou say'st thou canst not affirm with Papists Lastly thou citest Gal. 3.7 For as many as have been baptised into Christ have put on Christ. But Water-baptism cannot be here understood because
and worship him but to plead so obstinately as ye do that the Fourth Commandment bindeth to a particular observation of that day and yet to be found so slack in the observation of it as you generally are in such an Inconstancy as the Quakers cannot own And so whereas thou would'st confine the Lord his giving rest and comfort to the Souls of his People and the falling of the Manna to the First Days calling them Spiritual Market-days as if there were no other we cannot own it knowing that the Lord giveth rest and comfort every day and causeth the Manna plentifully to fall every day to those that walk in his fear and wait upon him and he has no such circumscribed Market-day as thou dreamest of The Priest's Market-day But that ye I mean the Priests make a Market-day of that day so that ye may call it Your Day as thou say'st Page 44. our day we know wherein you sell and vend your Babylonish Commodities and will be forcing and compelling all to come and buy of them or if not to send you Money whether they receive ought or not or else ye will endeavour by the help of the Magistrate to have them punished So that it is made manifest that it is only the Inventions of Men that we disown and not any of the Ordinances of Jesus Christ. Page 46. Thou grantest the word Original Sin is not found in Scripture and yet thou pleadâ—st for it because say'st thou the thing intended by it is contained and expressed in Scripture Answ. We deny that the thing by you intended is exprest in Scripture to wit That all Infants are sinners before God only for Adam 's sin and that there are Reprobate Infants who are sent to Hell only for Adam 's first sin This we deny nor do the Scriptures cited by thee prove it Psal. 51. Behold I was conceived in sin But first if this place should prove the Infant guilty of any sin Infants not guilty of Adam's sin it should be of the sin of its own immediate Parents In iniquity did my Mother bring me forth Now you say the Infant is not guilty of the sin of its own immediate Parents but only of Adam's and Eve's first sin of which this Scripture speaks nothing 2. It doth not say I was conceived and brought forth a Sinner as you would have it why make you Infants guilty of Adam's sin and not the sins of their immediate Parents Now it is granted that there is a seed of sin derived unto Adam's Posterity The Seed of Sin but we say none become guilty of sin before God until they close with this evil seed and in them who close with it it becomes an Origine or Fountain of evil Thoughts Desires Words and Actions which are their sins who close with it But that the guilt of Adam's first sin lyes at the door of Infants who never actually sinned we deny For a Second Proof thou citest Rom. 5.12 alledging It should be rendred that in Adam all sinned But it is no such matter For the words however they be truly Translated can never be so rendred In Adam all sinned The strictest Translation of the words is thus upon which all have sinned or in which all have sinned They hold forth how that Adam by his Sin gave an entrance to Sin in the World and Death by Sin and so upon this accasion all others have sinned to wit actually in their own Person so that all who ever sinned actually it was upon the occasion of Adam's Sin For the Apostle is here speaking not of Infants who are not capable of any Law but of such as have a Law and act against it Yea from the Apostle's words in the other following Verse it is plain that Sin is not imputed to Infants For saith he Sin is not imputed where there is no Law Now there is no Law given to Infants as such for they are not capable of it What the Law saith it saith to them No Law no Transgression who have in more or less some exercise of understanding which Infants new born have not Or if the words be translated in which all have sinned that word WHICH hath a nearer Relative than ADAM to wit Death for the seed of sin is justly called Death because where it is joined unto and obeyed it killeth and so in this seed all have sinned who ever did actually sin And as for the 18 th Verse of Rom. 5. which is commonly used to prove Infants guilty and under Condemnation it is not rightly translated for the word Judgment or Condemnation or Guilt is not at all in the Greek but those who have drunk-in this imagination have added this word to the Scripture so bending and bowing the Scripture to their false Opinion And whereas thou say'st We were all in the Loins of Adam and therefore wouldest infer That Infants are sinners in him or guilty of his sin I say It follows not more than to say We are guilty of all the sins of our Fore-fathers because we have been in their Loins Again thou labourest to prove that Infants are sinners because they are subject to pains and diseases and death But this proveth them not to be Sinners as it proveth not that the Earth is a Sinner or that the Herbs and Trees of the Field are sinners for even these things have suffered by Adam's fall a great decay And as for the outward Death of those that are saved from Eternal Death it is rather a Sleep The outward and eternal Death than a Death as Christ said concerning Lazarus he sleepeth And concerning the Maid she is not dead but sleepeth And therefore that Scripture Rom. 6.23 cannot be applied to them who dye not or perish not eternally for though the Saints lay down the outward man is not as the punishment or reward of their Sins which are forgiven and from which they are delivered And so the sting of Death being taken away in those who are saved it is not that Death which is the Wages of Sin And seeing the Apostle said unto the Saints that all things were theirs even Death it cannot be that their Death should be reckoned the Wages of their Sin How many of the blessed Martyrs have looked upon their Suffering a most violent Death for Truth and Righteousness as a Gift of God How then could it be said to be the Wages of their Sins which implys as if their Sins were not all freely forgiven Page 48. From this Doctrine thou say'st it will follow First That all Infants that dye in their Infancy are saved and though Charity may be pleaded for this Opinion thou say'st yet what Scripture can be alledged for it Infants dying how saved Answ. If I should bring that Scripture Suffer little Children to come unto me for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven It will much more naturally flow from the words than that they ought to be sprinkled which is the meaning
Sacred The first he saith may be given to men but the second to God only alledging this distinction to be founded on Scripture Luke 14.10 Then shalt thou have worship in the presence of them Luke 14.10 wrong Translated that sit at meat with thee Now these words ought to be translated Thou shalt have glory praise or renown and therefore in the Latine it is Et erit tibi gloria for so the Greek word Doxa signifies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gloria which W.M. will not shew me to signifie Adoratio or Worship It 's therefore but a poor Argument that has no better bottom than this manifest mistake of the Translation For other proof he hath none neither for his Distinction nor former Assertion Thirdly I observe his Instancing of the practices of Abraham Lot Joseph Jacob adding That though they be not to be followed in all things yet in such they may as are not elsewhere Reprehended nor Prohibited For Answer Let him look unto Rev. 22.9 where the Angel refused it and seeing I suppose he may have so much Charity for this beloved Disciple as to judge he was not Tempted with Idolatry especially in a season wherein God was Revealing such pretious things unto him he may observe now this Holy Man was a stranger to this unscriptural distinction of Civil and Religious Worship Fourthly I observe his endeavours to shift Affinity with Popery but he hath no way disproved the parity in that wherein I compared them viz. The Papists distinguish the Worship they give to God and that they give to their Images only in the Intention and not in the outward signification and ye distinguish the Worship ye give to Men and that ye give to God only in the Intention and not in the outward signification For ye bow and take off your Hats to the worst of Men as well as to God and therefore ye agree in so far as both have nothing but their simple Intention to plead the difference whereunto nothing is answered He concludes his Section saying I seem to justifie Moses his doing Obeysance to his Father in law adding What is Obeysance but civil Reverence by bowing the Body This is a fit Conclusion to close up such a silly Section for after he has laboured long in vain he concludes thus begging the thing in question And if Moses bowed himself as I said in my last that makes nothing against us His second Section is to prove Salutations by words which might have been spared until he had proved how and where we deny them But because he had something to say from Scripture for this which we deny not but own as much as himself he would have it in that he might seem with some credit to bring-in his Inference which is That bowing of the Body and expressing our Affection by words is agreeable to Scripture The latter part of this concerns not us as being not denied and for the first of Bowing it signifies nothing until it be brought in with some more pressing Premisses In this Section he acknowledges That taking off the Hat is without any Scripture-warrant Hat-honour to Man not warranted by Scripture but to God And from Argument passes here to Entreaties begging that it may not be quarrelled at But seeing the taking of it off or uncovering of our Heads is that which the Apostle requires as a sign of Subjection in our Worship towards God 1 Cor. 11.4 7. we Resolve to keep it to him and not to give it to man wherein if he will solve our Scruple according to Scripture we may be the more easily induced to answer his desire It is to be Observed that notwithstanding of this we are not against outward Signification of Honour though in the end of this Section he falsly would be insinuating the contrary He hath here subjoined a Third Section which he termeth an Answer to my Objection and which in Reason should have some relation to Salutations as being under this Head though indeed it hath none at all but is a meer Cavil at some of my words upon another Subject concerning the Single Language Where page 11. I confess with him that the Kingdom of God consists not in words adding that it seems inconsistent with his Principles seeing the Gospel according to him is but words yea the Scripture it self I mean that which ye have of it to wit the Letter Now this Parenthesis he hath Dis-ingenuously omitted and thereupon goes about to explain their meaning of the Scripture and the Gospel alledging If we be for another we may justly be accounted Subverters of the Christian Religion But such shallow Criticisms brought in beside the purpose whereas other things more Material are either wholly Omitted or scurvily Shifted over will easily appear to the Impartial and Judicious Reader In his second Head concerning our using Thou and Thee which is the singular number to one Person I observe First How he hath given away his own Cause by confessing By You are meant all the Apostles Luke 22.31 that Luke 22.31 is not understood of one exclusively of others and therefore no wonder if Christ used the Plural Number seeing as W.M. confesses he intended to speak to all the Apostles As for that Expression of Bildad's Job's Friend granting both the Transcription and Translation to be true shall this one Expression overturn the Universal practice of Christ and the whole Saints in Scripture or let him tell us plainly whether these Words and Practices of Job's Friends which are Recorded be for to be our Rule so as we ought to imitate and follow them especially where they contradict or differ from the Practice of Christ and his Apostles But to follow this so frequent Practice of the Saints is with W.M. to be proud knowing nothing but doting about Questions and Strife of Words for so he mis-applies 1 Tim. 6.4 and to his own Confusion uses it himself in the end of his Epistle to the Reader where he has these Words I am thy Servant and thereby hath Condemned himself as one of those Ignorant Proud Boasters he speaks of c. Secondly The second thing I observe that he produceth not one Argument against our Practice in this thing but his own groundless yea lying Imaginations and Conjectures alledging He is of the mind that if the Translators had not kept to the Rigor of Construction but Translated Atach and so not Thou which is the true signification but You we had kept our old tone Though his disdainful Insinuation of our Ignorance be here apparent yet experience might have taught him and his Brethren that even where the Translators have favoured them with their Escapes the Quakers have both had Hebrew and Greek enough to find them out It is also here to be observed how easily W. M. can dispense with Mistakes even wilful ones in the Translators when they make for his purpose thereby in effect for all his pretences of Exalting the Scripture and
saith so These are his most Frequent and Inforcing Arguments against us Of this nature is his Arguing page 11. Reckoning it as a great Absurdity flowing from our Doctrine that it would Import Christ in some measure to be in the Americans because He bears Testimony in them against Iniquity Christ in the Americans in some measure But to prove this to be Absurd he produceth no Reason and if we may believe the Apostle Paul he tells us That a Manifestation of the Spirit is given every one to profit withal 1 Cor. 12.7 So this Every one Includes the Americans The second Absurdity which he seeks to Infer from this hath no better bottom That then it might be said that Christ is Revealed to Devils and that we do the Heathens small favour in putting them but in the same case with such For the Revelation of Christ to man before the Day of their Visitation be Expired and to such after they have sin'd it out is far different as may appear by Luke 17. Likewise W. M. hath forgot how easily this Argument may be Retorted upon himself for it is not questioned but Devils have enough of outward Knowledge even such as is gathered from Scripture and that which W.M. accounts the great Priviledge of Christians doth it therefore follow that Christians are in no better condition than Devils And thus is Answered another of his profuse Assertions page 12. That if Pagans have Saving Light their State should be as good as the State of real Christians For it is one thing to have Saving Light and another to harken to and receive it else according to his own Argument the State of Devils should be as good as the State of Real Christians He adds Where Saving Illumination is there is Saving Faith because there is a Concatination betwixt these Graces of the Spirit Answ. There is Grace given in order to Save where Faith doth not follow upon it which is evident by the Parable of the Seeds Matth. 13.3 it was the same Seed was sown in the Stony and Thorny Ground that was sown in the good Ground and yet it only brought forth Fruit there The Light enlighteneth every man He came unto His own and they received Him not but it was only To as many as received Him that He gave Power to become the Sons of God And whereas he Objecteth That where we are desired to believe in the Light it is understood of Christ's Person else it would Import a belief in a Creature I Answer He that believeth in the Light believeth in Christ for where the Light of Christ is as saith W. M himself page 22. there is Christ himself In the same page he further adds That if Pagans have Saving Light then there is no Spiritual Benefit accrues to Christians by the Scriptures and Gospel Pagans have Saving Light and Gospel But he hath not heard us contra-distinguish this Light from the Gospel We say expresly it is the Gospel according to Col 1.23 where the Apostle saith That the Gospel whereof he was a Minister was preached to every Creature This Scripture mentioned by me in my last he hath wholly Omitted Nor is this Arguing of his concerning the bad tendency of our Principle but a reiterate Clamour of what is already Answered in page 16. of my last where I shew him we distinguish betwixt things absolutely needful and things very profitable and how they Admit of this Distinction themselves As also how these bad Consequences of rendring the Gospel and Preaching useless doth far more follow from their Doctrine of absolute Predestination all which he hath also Omitted Predestination made void Now such are far likelier than we to reprove David his Praying for more Vnderstanding and that he might keep the Precepts of God for being Predestinate to Life he could not miss of it and how can such but reckon it folly for him to Pray that he might keep the Precepts whose Principles Obliges them to believe they can never be made able to keep them Page 13. To say That men are Brutish in their Knowledge because they turn their Backs upon the Light he reckons a Begging of the Question as having no proof at all Whereas it is particularly Intimated 1 Joh. 1.5 6 7. where the cause of mens Walking in Darkness is said to be their not Walking in the Light though it be Pastors mentioned in that 10 th of Jer. 19. that are said to be Brutish Brutish Pastors yet he cannot be Induced to name them It is easie to prove though he Insinuate the contrary that what in Scripture is called Darkness hath Saving Light seeing it is expresly mentioned that the Light shineth in the Darkness but the Darkness comprehended it not And this was Saving being Christ who is the Saviour Joh. 1.5 Nor doth his supposed Contradiction follow from this as if men could be Spiritually Dead and not Spiritually Dead in respect they have this in them which is Saving for though it be in them yet it is not of them he that believeth in me saith Christ though he be dead yet shall he live Joh. 11.25 If Life be not in them as their permanent Condition yet they may have some touches of it and the Principle of Life is Permanent even in those that are Spiritually Dead though many times as a Spark covered under the Ashes He addeth further That according to us such who are the Children of Darkness may be called the Children of Light because a Child of Light is as much as one in whom there is Saving Light and Grace citing for proof Luke 16.8 the words are For the Children of this world are wiser in their generation than the Children of Light But he offereth from this to Inter That such who are indeed the Children of Darkness because of their Disobedience to the Saving Light and Grace of Truth that is in them he has not offered so much as to mention Page 13. He confesseth with me That the Light in some may be Darkness but speaks not one word of what Light I mention may be so page 17. of mine only adds That we will do well to exhort our Disciples to take heed of our Light not to it But we desire not People to take heed to our Light or their Light as he terms it but to the Light wherewith Christ Jesus hath Enlightened them and in this there is no danger He greatly declares his Ignorance in alledging Our way of bidding People heed the Light within is not warranted by Scripture for God is Light 1 Joh. 1.3 Is he not in us Acts 17.27 28. God is Light Must we not then there take heed unto Him Or is not that Light to be taken heed unto which shineth in our hearts to give us the knowledge of the glory of God 2 Cor. 4.6 And is not the Word of God Light which the Apostle saith expresly is not far off neither above us below us nor without us but Nigh even
as ascribe them to the Scriptures put the Scriptures in Christ's stead though W. M. be pleased to term it unworthy dealing Sect. 2. page 35. he says it is not difficult to prove that the Law and Testimony mentioned Deut. 8.20 was not an inward Law The reason alledged is Because the Prophet opposes what is written as no Light if it agree not to the Law and Testimony But what then The Law and Testimony inward doth this prove the Testimony here not to be inward He adds That let People pretend what they will to a Law within if it agree not with the scripture-Scripture-Word there is no Light in them and that the outward Law gets the name of the Testimony But granting him all this it doth not in the least follow that the Law and Testimony there mentioned was not inward It is more observably strange here than in any other place with what shameless confidence he asserts his own bare Assertions instead of Arguments After the like manner without answering a word of what I infer page 27. of mine against him and his Brethren from Joh. 7.49 he concludes That Scripture fits us better than them because of our known rash censuring Upon which Supposition of his own he condemns us as like to Pharisees without more ado still by way of Reply to me he says It is not probable that Christ checked the Lawyer in saying How readest thou Luke 10.26 not offering to add any further probation And as for what he subjoineth page 7. That Christ used the Scripture about Divorcement and in the matter of the Sabbath it doth no ways prove them to be the only Rule for as is said we are willing to try Doctrines by them Page 37. He saith It is false to affirm that the Divine Authority of the Scriptures cannot be prov'd other ways than by the Spirit 's inward Testimony adding There are other Arguments whereby it can solidly and convincingly be proved and for this he instanceth one which he says is excellently approved by R. Baxter What then because W. M. thinks that Argument of R. Baxter will prove the Scriptures Authority without the Spirit must we therefore be of the same mind I doubt very much if R. Baxter think so much himself Now W. M. his deceit is very remarkable Joh. Calvin's Testimony concerning the Scriptures in quoting some words of John Calvin where he says If he were to deal with Arguments he could produce many to prove the Laws came from God for that I never imagined these Arguments could convincingly prove the Scriptures Authority without the Spirit which is the thing in debate it appears in the very following words Lib. Inst. 1. c. 7. Sect. 4. But if we will well look to our Consciences that they be not troubled with doubts and stick not at every scruple it is requisite the Perswasion whereof we have spoken be taken higher than human Judgment or Conjecture viz t. he secret Testimony of the Holy Spirit And a little after in direct Opposition to wit his words he adds This Word shall not obtain Faith in the hearts of Men if it be not Sealed by the Inward Testimony of the Spirit It is necessary then saith he that the Saints Spirit which spake by the mouth of the Prophets enter in our Hearts and touch them livingly to perswade us that the Prophets have faithfully delivered that which was Commanded them from on high and a little after This then is a Perswasion which requires no Reasons And again This is a Perswasion which cannot be Begotten but by a heavenly Revelation And in the beginning of the next Chapter he adds If we have not This certainly higher and more firm than all humane Judgment in vain is the Authority of the Scriptures proved by Arguments This doth abundantly shew how contrary W. M. is to Calvin in this matter and not to him alone but to the whole Reformed Churches of France who in their Confession of Faith agreed upon by the first National Synod they ever had at Paris Anno 1559. say thus The Synod at Paris concerning the Canonical Books in Scripture Art 4. We know these Books to be Canonique not so much by the common consent of the Church as by the Inward Testimony and Perswasion of the Holy Spirit And whereas he adviseth me to read Calvin his 6 th Chap. but that it would prove too long a Digression I could easily shew that we are no such Contemners of the Scripture as those he there speaks to And what if he contradict the Truth which we and himself elsewhere acknowledge I make use of his Testimony against W. M. and his Brethren even as he did the Testimony of Augustine Gregory and others of the Fathers against those of Rome whom nevertheless he spared not to reject some times Read Inst. lib. 1. cap. 11. Sect. 5. lib. cap. Sect. 4. and in many other places Thus also is added that which he adds about Pasor whose Translation he says We follow in one thing but not in another for we are not bound to follow him further than he follows the Truth Nor doth W. M. here produce any Argument to prove that these words Joh. 5.39 should be Ye search the Scriptures c. 2 pl. praes Ind. See Pasor Search the Scriptures and not Ye search the Scriptures but his own bare Assertion adding That Christ did not check them when he said In them ye think to have Eternal Life Whereas the very following words clearly Import a Reproof Ye will not come to me that ye might have Life He says not Seek for Life in the Scriptures ye do well to think to find it there but thus Ye think to have Eternal life in the Scriptures but will not come to me that ye might have life He ends this Section asking Seeing I grant the Scriptures are profitable for Doctrine Correction Reproof c. Why I deny them to be a perfect Rule But I never denied them and I told him also they were thus profitable not to every man but to the man of God The Scriptures profitable to the man of God i. e. he that 's led by the Spirit of God Now to this he replys nothing only tells me The man of God is most commonly understood of the Ministers of Christ Jesus which though I should grant him what he either can or would Infer from it against my Argument he hath left unmentioned Sect. 3. Page 40. He alledgeth The Voice and Testimony of the Father which Christ speaks of to the Jews not to have been inward desiring the Reader to look to the place and thereupon he cites Joh. 5.36 where Christ speaks of his Miracles as a greater Witness than that of John But his deceit is here abundantly manifest for the place mentioned by me was 1 Joh. 5.10 For this is the witness of God which he testified of his Son he that believeth in the Son of God hath the witness in himself Now this
occasion to be witnesses to our practice in this thing which says just nothing Why might not W. M. his Intelligencers fail him in this as well as his Brother 's David Lyall did in telling him That there was not one word spoken among the Quakers at their Meeting the 3 d of the 11 th Month 1670. Which though a manifest untruth in matter of Fact he spared not to bring forth in his Chair of Verity upbraiding the Magistrates as if God had miraculously sent an Officer to stop or impede our Worship though they had refused to do it J. Nailor's sincere Repentance The Story of J. Nailor which he subjoins any may observe to be meerly brought in to render us Odious and fill up the paper though indeed it tends no ways to our disadvantage he being in that thing and at that time altogether denied by us and hath since in print freely acknowledged his fall in that hour of Temptation of whose sincere Repentance and true return to the fellowship of the Truth we have had many evident tokens whereas were we to retort we could find a Thousand to one among your Church-members many whereof are daily knit up for Thieving Murder c. and some burnt for Witchcraft without the least sense of true Repentance For to vindicate their manner of singing with a mixt Multitude he alledgeth That all men yea all the Earth are called to praise God And though all be called to do so Singing by whar Instrument it is acceptable yet there are things absolutely needful previous to this duty And granting their want of praising to be sinful yet the way to prevent this evil is to come first to that wherein they may be in a capacity to do it acceptably Therefore saith the Apostle I will sing with the spirit and I will sing with the understanding also 1 Cor. 14.15 Where he speaks of singing he always subjoins the Instrument wherewith it is altogether needful that we take it And that the same may be urged in the case of Praying without any absurdity in its place shall be shewn He says It is no more a lie to use words in singing which sute not our condition such as I water my Couch with tears My heart is not haughty than to read them But there is a great difference betwixt Reading and Singing in Reading we but relate the Conditions and Actions of others as wholly distinct and extrinsick from our selves but in Singing we do really address our selves to God as in Prayer and it is no less a lie to sing to God words that sute not our Condition than to pray with them The Saints in Scripture used such expressions as did sute the present posture of their hearts in their Spiritual Songs see Luke 1.46 and 2.29 He shall not find me in the whole Bible where they borrowed or sealed the Expressions of others Experience which no ways suted their own Condition this is a meer human Invention which has its original from the Romish Vespers and Mattins and from no other foundation Head 10. Concerning Baptism page 81. he alledgeth That John distinguisheth not the matter of his Baptism from Christ but only his work But his proof for this overthrows himself For since as he says truly John could only administer Baptism with water John's Baptism and Christ's differ in the Matter and End but Christ with the Spirit this sheweth them to have differed in the matter for without doubt John could administer the matter of his own Baptism And whereas I told him they differed in the End because the one pointed to the other even as the shadow pointed to the substance Instead of replying to this he tells me That the Scripture speaking of John 's Baptism calls it the Baptism of Repentance intimating its End was to signifie and seal Remission of Sins which likewise is the End of Christ's Baptism As this no ways answers my Argument so it makes nothing to the purpose for it is one thing to signifie Repentance and Remission of Sins and far another to know and possess it which is the End and constant fruit of Christ's Baptism Gal. 3.27 As many of you saith the Apostle as have been baptized unto Christ have put on Christ. And therefore it may be observed that without any proof he concludes that John's Baptism and Christ's agree both in the Matter and End Page 82. As a Reply to Acts 19.2 cited by me to shew And Substance that they differed in substance he saith The meaning is not that they were ignorant of the Person of the Holy Ghost Contrary to the very express Scripture-words viz. We have not so much as heard if there be any Holy Ghost He saith further That the Apostles did not a-new baptize such Persons that had been baptized with the Baptism of John In direct Contradiction to the Scripture-words verse 5. When they heard this they were baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus W. M. contradicts the Scriptures And when Paul had laid his hands upon them the Holy Ghost came upon them Now verse 3. sheweth That they were baptized unto John's Baptism before so let him clear himself here of giving the Scripture the Lie if he can Section 2. page 83. To prove the perpetuity of Water-Baptism he begins with that often answered Argument of the Apostle's practice adding That though Christ Matth. 28. doth not mention Baptism with Water so neither with the Spirit alledging That thus the one may be excluded as well as the other Answ. Seeing Christ commanded them to baptize it cannot be denied but it was with his own Baptism which is that of the Spirit He adds That if Baptism of the Spirit were intended it would infer a needless Tautology in the Command of Christ as being all one with these words Go Teach Answ. Teaching and making men holy and righteous are different things Water-Baptism not commanded by Christ. For he will grant that he and his Brethren have been Teaching People these several years and yet he will have much ado to prove all their Church-members are really made Righteous and Holy Why then doth he account these two one reckoning it a Tautology to express them severally A little after he insinuates and that most falsly That I deny Peter's commanding Cornelius to be baptized Concealing my express words page 31. which are these And though it be said ver 48. that he commanded them to be baptized in the Name of Christ yet it holds forth no Command from Christ only the thing being agreed upon that it might be done he bid do it This he hath left un answered And whereas he adds That doing things in the Name of Christ is as much as his Command He bringeth no proof for giving but not granting it did hold so Matth. 18.20 in the case of Meeting that will not prove it is always so taken To evict my Objection against any determinate Commission the Apostles had of Baptizing
Act of Sin and never actually sin in their own Persons do for this sin of Adam Eternally perish Now whether this Doctrine be sutable either to the Justice or Mercy of God I leave the Christian Reader to judge I shall examine the Reasons he brings for it His chief Argument for this in his Dialogue page 47. was That because Children die citing Rom. 23. The wages of sin is death Now I shew him pag. 41. of mine how that made nothing because natural Death of the Saints is not the Wages of Sin for their Sins are forgiven them c. this he hath not so much as mentioned far less answered And whereas he might as well argue that the Earth The Saints natural Death is not the Wages of Sin Trees and Herbs were Sinners because they received great decay by Adam's Sin He slightly passes it over alledging It will not therefore follow that all Mankind who suffer Death are not Sinners Now this is no answer but a meer shift and the thing I intended against his Assertion doth very naturally follow from my Argument thus If as W. M. says Infants be guilty of Adam's Sin because they are subject to Diseases and Death then the Beasts who are subject to the like and the Earth Herbs and Trees who have received their decay are Sinners before God But this is absurd therefore the other Let him answer this the next time more effectually The first proof he brings here is 1 Joh. 3.6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh adding This intimates man by his natural Birth to be Corrupt and Fleshly But for this his gloss he bringeth no proof Though That which is born of the flesh be flesh he sheweth us not how it followeth thence that Infants are guilty of Adam's Sin After the like manner he concludes this his Doctrine from Job 14.4 Psal. 5.5 Whether Infants are guilty of Adam's Sin But as the words in these places do not plainly express any such thing so he brings no Reasons to make his Consequences deduceable from them After the like proofless manner he alledgeth Rom. 5.14 By one mans disobedience many were made sinners Now though the matter in question be Whether these many were made Sinners before they actually sinned in their own Persons He doth not so much as offer to prove it In the like manner though David said his Mother conceived him in sin he sheweth us not how it followeth from thence that David was guilty of Sin before he actually sinned And here I observe how he asserts That men are guilty of the Sin of their immoderate Parents contrary to the plain Testimony of the Scripture Ezek. 18.20 The Son shall not bear the Iniquity of the Father To prove Infants thus guilty he further addeth Rom. 5.12 alledging these words For that all have sinned includes Infants But I shew him this includes not Infants because the Apostle clears it in the next verse saying Sin is not imputed where there is no Law and that there being no Law to Infants they cannot be guilty of sin To this he Replies There was a Law to Adam and that he represented mankind and stood as a publick Person Therefore Children had a Law in him But for this signification of his own he produceth no proof and it cannot be received as being direct contrary to the Scripture above-mentioned The Son shall not bear the Father 's Iniquity He alledgeth That those the Apostle speaks of who sinned not after the similitude of Adam 's Transgression are Infants But after his usual manner bringeth not the least proof for it The 1 Cor. 15.22 cited by him is so far from making anything for his purpose that it maketh directly against him which any that have the least grain of true understanding may perceive The words are As in Adam all died even so in Christ all are made alive for here All are said to die in Adam None die in Adam until they actually join with his Vnrighteousness even as All are said to be made alive in Christ now as none are made alive in Christ until they actually receive and join with his Righteousness so none die in Adam until they actually receive and join with his unrighteousness c. He maketh a deal a do page 110 111. about the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wherein though it were easie to refute him were it not needless to fill up Paper with Grammatical Criticisms For giving but not granting the words might be Translated In Adam all have sinned it will not from thence follow that Infants are guilty before they actually sin seeing All are said to die or have sinned in Adam even as All are said to be made alive in Christ and yet none are said to be so until they actually receive his Righteousness as is above demonstrated Page 113. He alledgeth Though it be said that the Kingdom of God is of little Children yet some Infants are not saved because they are not of the Kingdom of Grace But for this he bringeth no proof at all And I here take notice That he acknowledges that God Sanctifies and Regenerates some Infants W.M. contradicting himself and thereby he notably contradicts his second Section concerning the Light and page 29. of his Dialogue where he condemns it as a dangerous Error in us to say Any can be saved without the outward Knowledge of Christ of which Infants are not capable To prove That some Infants perish even Eternally he alledgeth The burning of Sodom and Gomorrah citing Jude 7. But his wresting this Scripture is very manifest For the reason Jude gives of their suffering Vengeance was because they gave themselves up to Fornication and went after strange flesh Now of this Infants were not capable of whom therefore Jude speaks not one word He terms Impudent or else Ignorant for bringing Matth. 1.22 against them alledging It is an unjust charge to say they plead for a Salvation in their sins And yet he has the Impudence immediately to aver it himself saying They are but in part delivered or saved in this Life do they not then dream of Salvation while in part they remain in their Sins Compare Matth. 1.21 with 1 Joh. 1.7 Christ is said to cleanse us from All Iniquity not a part of it It is bad Inference drawn from my Assertion that Children are not guilty of sin to say that therefore they need not a Saviour I told him in my last Christ was truly a Saviour unto them in that he kept them from sinning as one How Christ is a Saviour to Children that 's kept from falling in a Ditch is as truly saved as he that 's taken out of one It is altogether Inconsequential to infer from this That Christ died to save the holy Angels from sin because they are not suffered to fall into it For Christ is said only to have died for Adam's Posterity of which number Infants are but not Angels It is likewise
and then to Pray as is above shewed Sect. page 125. He says Quakerism tends to make Mortification of sin Useless and to me asking Whether Mortification be useless where the end of it which is Perfection is attained He answereth That Perfection is twofold Comparative and Absolute and seeing we are for an Absolute Perfection there is no use for Mortification Answ. There can none come to this Absolute Perfection as he terms it but by Mortification of Sin and even such Perfection attained by Mortification as are so Perfect while on Earth do constantly use Mortification to keep down Sin least it rise again and to resist the Temptations of the Enemy wherewith even such as be Perfect are daily assaulted He alledgeth I Triumph before the Victory in quarrelling him for saying That a sinless Perfection wounds the very Vitals of Religion But his silly Subterfuge in this place may easily be discovered I asked him in my last That seeing he says so Whether the Vitals of Religion consisted in sinning or not sinning Adding That if it consist in sinning they that sin most are most Religious but if it consist in not sinning than to plead for such a thing as attainable hurts not the Vitals of Religion To this he answereth That the Vitals of Religion consist in the means appointed of God Who seeth not this to be a meer Evasion Why did he not give a direct Answer But that he could not without either denying his former Antichristian Expression or else falling into palpable Grosness And whereas he adds That these Means are Repentance Mortification Believing Application of the Blood of Christ Though it be no Answer to my Question I deny not but that Religion consists in these things but I suppose he will not say that they are sinning It is not in the least absurd that one who hath attained to Perfection may practise these Duties Man though he have attained to Perfection cannot too much Repent of his former Wickedness And therefore it is without ground that he alledgeth That I shift and cannot deny but the forbearance of these Duties flow as a Consequence from our Principle Nor is my saying that they who come to Perfection witness the true use of these things any Shift at all though he be pleased to term it so without any proof after his wonted manner according to which he addeth That under the pretence of Perfection we take Men off from the practice of these Duties and so strike at Christianity in the Vitals of it Which though it fall of it self as being a meer Assertion yet the contrary is above abundantly shewn He saith He doth not contradict himself in inferring a sinless man to be sinful He affirmed only the Quaker's conceitedly sinless men to be sinful who discover much sin in their pride passion bitterness railing accusations adding If such say they have no sin they are but liars and the Truth is not in them Answ. There was no such Addition in his Dialogue as Conceitedly Sinless but absolutely he said Bring me to the Man that is sinless and therefore his Contradiction remains Moreover let him name that Quaker if he can that told him he was Perfectly free from all sin and yet was guilty of those Crimes he speaks of else he can deduce nothing from his own false Supposition Page 127. To prove the Saints Continuance always in Sin he desires to remark that 1 Joh. 18. It is even such who have heard seen and handled of the Word of God The Saints were cleansed from All Vnrighteousness c. Who say If we have no sin we are liars And here indeed is to be observed his detestable Impudence in adding to the scripture-Scripture-words citing verse 7. which he repeats thus We who are cleansed from the guilt of sin whereas there is no such word as Guilt in that place but only We are cleansed from all Sin which imports a Cleansing from the Filth Mark these words verse 9. From All unrighteousness now when the Guilt is only taken away and the Filth remaineth as W. M. falsly supposes they could not be said to be cleansed from All Vnrighteousness For it is an improper speech to say W.M. pleads for a Cleansing from the Guilt or Punishment but not from the Filth or Act of Sin We are cleansed from Guilt It is from the Filth we are cleansed and the Guilt is forgiven us Therefore saith the Apostle verse 9. first He is faithful to forgive us and next he adds To cleanse us from all unrighteousness Nor will John's saying If we say we have no sin import John himself to be of that number more than than the Apostle James speaking of the Tongue James 3.9 saying Therewith Curse we Men who are made after the similitude of God will prove James to have been of these Cursers Now in answer to me shewing that that Scripture 1 John 1.8 is Conditional else it would contradict what follows verse 9. Chap. 24. and Chap. 3 9. he returneth no Answer but his own Assertions He saith The 9 th verse speaketh of Forgiveness but it also adds Cleansing as is above observed He saith That 1 John 2.4 is understood of a sincere not absolute keeping of the Commands of God but for this he brings no proof at all He saith That John 3.9 whosoever is born of God sinneth not Is meant of sinning unto death from which the Child of God is secured The reason he gives of this gloss is Because the Apostle Chap. 5. verse 16. speaketh of a Sin unto Death which Sin W. M. supposeth to be that the Apostle means He that 's born of God cannot Commit But to prove this Supposition we have nothing but his own meer Assertion Reader These are the best and strongest Arguments he hath to prove his Doctrines His Seventeenth Head page 128. is to shew his Doctrines not to be acceptable to the Wicked and his Eighteenth Head page 131. is To prove ours to be so But he is so pitifully ridiculous in this matter that such as have the least measure of Vnderstanding and are Unprejudiced cannot but see his Weakness Yet that he may be left altogether without a Cover I shall Answer his Objections and leave the Unbiassed Reader as he desires to judge which Principles in their nature have most tendency to strike at or foster Wickedness To prove that it is not acceptable to the Wicked to hear they must always Sin he says Some are so conceited of their honesty that they cannot be convinced of their Sins And that Mortification of Sin is distastful to them But how he makes this to answer the other is not told us If Hypocrites love not to hear of their sins it doth not therefore follow that pleading for a constant Continuance in Sin is not acceptable to the Wicked Continuance in Sin pleaded for is acceptable to the Wicked they may be the easier induced to acknowledge their Sins that they hear it told them
Moreover the Scripture it self wherein we are so earnestly pressed to seek after this Assurance doth not at all affirm it self a Rule sufficient to give it but wholly ascribeth it to the Spirit as Rom. 8.16 The Spirit it self beareth witness with our spirit that we are the Children of God 1 Joh. 4.13 Hereby do we know that we dwell in him and he in us because he hath given us of his Spirit and Ch. 5.6 And it is the Spirit that beareth Witness because the Spirit is Truth § IV. Lastly That cannot be the only Principle nor Chief Rule which doth not Vniversally reach every Individual that needeth it to produce the Necessary Effect and from the Vse of which either by some innocent and sinless Defect or natural yet harmless and blameless Imperfection many who are within the Compass of the Visible Church That the Scriptures are not the Chief Rule and may without Absurdity yea with great Probability be accounted of the Elect are necessarily Excluded and that either wholly or at least from the Immediate Vse thereof But it so falls out frequently concerning the Scriptures in the Case of Deaf People 1. Deaf People Children and Idiots Instanced Children and Idiots who can by no means have the Benefit of the Scriptures shall we then affirm that they are without any Rule to God-ward or that they are all Damned As such an Opinion is in it self very Absurd and Inconsistent both with the Justice and Mercy of God so I know no sound Reason can be alledged for it Now if we may suppose any such to be under the New Covenant-Dispensation as I know none will deny but that we may suppose it without any Absurdity we cannot suppose them without some Rule and Means of Knowledge seeing it is expresly Affirmed They shall all be taught of God Joh. 6.45 And they shall all know me from the least to the greatest Hebr. 8.11 But secondly though we were rid of this Difficulty how many Illiterate and yet Good men are there in the Church of God who cannot Read a letter in their own Mother's Tongue which Imperfection though it be Inconvenient I cannot tell whether we may safely affirm it to be Sinful These can have no Immediate Knowledge of the Rule of their Faith so their Faith must needs depend upon the Credit of other mens Reading or Relating it unto them where either the altering adding or omitting of a little word may be a foundation in the poor Hearer of a very dangerous Mistake whereby he may either continue in an Iniquity ignorantly or believe a Lie confidently As for Example 2. Papists conceal the Second Commandment from the People the Papists in all their Catechisms and publick Exercises of Examination towards the People have boldly Cut away the Second Command because it seems so expresly to hit against their Adoration and Vse of Images whereas many of these People in whom by this Omission this false Opinion is fostered are under a simple Impossibility or at least a very great Difficulty to be outwardly Informed of this Abuse But further suppose all could Read the Scriptures in their own language where is there One of a Thousand that hath that Through-Knowledge of the Original Languages in which they were written so as in that respect Immediately to receive the Benefit of them Must not all these here depend upon the honesty and faithfulness of the Interpreters 3. The Uncertainty of the Interpreters of the Scriptures and their Adulterating it Which how Vncertain it is for a man to build his Faith upon the many Corrections Amendments and various Essays which even among Protestants have been used whereof the latter hath constantly Blamed and Corrected the former as guilty of Defects and Errors do sufficiently declare And that even the last Translations in the Vulgar Languages need to be Corrected as I could prove at large were it proper in this place Learned men do Confess But last of all there is no less Difficulty even occurs to these Skilled in the Original Languages who cannot so immediately receive the Mind of the Authors in these Writings as that their Faith doth not at least obliquely depend upon the Honesty and Credit of the Transcribers since the Original Copies are granted by all not to be now Extant Hieron Epist. 28. ad Lucin. pag. 247. Of which Transcribers Jerom in his time Complained saying That they wrote not what they Found but what they Vnderstood And Epiphanius saith That in the Good and Correct Copies of Luke it was written That Christ wept and that Irenaeus doth cite it but that the Catholiks blotted it out fearing lest Hereticks should have abused it Other Fathers also declare that whole Verses were taken out of Mark because of the Manichees But further Epiph. in Anachor Tom. 3. Oper. the Various Lections of the Hebrew Character by reason of the Points which some plead for as Cooevous with the first Writings which others with no less probability alledge to be a latter Invention The various Lections of the Hebrew Character c. the disagreement of divers Citations of Christ and the Apostles with those passages in the Old Testament the Appeal to the great Controversy among the Fathers whereof some most highly Approve the Greek Septuagint decrying and rendring very doubtful the Hebrew Copy as in many places vitiated and altered by the Jews other some and particularly Jerom Exalting the Certainty of the Hebrew and rejecting yea even deriding the History of the Septuagint which the Primitive Church chiefly made use of and some Fathers that lived Centuries before him affirmed to be a most Certain thing And the many Various Lections in divers Copies of the Greek and the great Alterations among the Fathers of the first three Centuries who had greater opportunity to be better informed than we can now lay claim to concerning the Books to be admitted or rejected as above is observed I say all these and much more which might be alledged puts the Minds even of the Learned into Infinite Doubts Scruples and inextricable Difficulties Whence we may very safely Conclude that Jesus Christ who promised to be always with his Children to lead them into all Truth to guard them against the devices of the Enemy and to establish their Faith upon an unmoveable Rock left them not to be principally ruled by that which was subject in it self to many Vncertainties and therefore he gave them his Spirit as their Principal Guide which neither Moths nor Time can wear out nor Transcribers nor Translators Corrupt which none are so Young none so Illiterate none in so Remote a place but they may come to be Reached and rightly Informed by it Through and by the Clearness which that Spirit gives us it is that we are only best rid of those Difficulties that occur to us concerning the Scriptures The real and undoubted Experience whereof I my self have been a Witness of with great Admiration of the love
Fear God and work Righteousness â—hen what can be said to do so seeing the Apostle calls the Lawâ— spiritual holy just and good But this appears manifestly by another Medium taken out of the same Chapter vers 13. So that nothing can be more Clear The words are The doers of the Law shall be justified From which I thus Argue without Adding any word of my own Arg. The doers of the Law shall be justified But The Gentiles do the things contained in the Law The Gentiles Justified in doing the Law All that know but a Conclusion do easily see what follows from these Express Words of the Apostle And indeed He through that whole Chapter labours as if he were Contending now with our Adversaries to Confirm this Doctrine vers 9 10 11. Tribulation and Anguish upon every Soul of man that doth evil to the Jew first and also to the Gentile For there is no respect of persons with God Where the Apostle clearly homologates the Sentence of Peter before-mentioned and shews that Jew and Gentile or as he himself explains in the following verses both they that have an outward Law and they that have none when they do good shall be Justified And to put us out of doubt in the very following verses he tells That the doers of the Law are Justified and that the Gentiles did the Law So that except we think he spake not what he intended we may safely Conclude that such Gentiles were Justified and did partake of that honour glory and peace which comes upon Every one that doth good even the Gentiles that are without the Law when they work good seeing with God there is no Respect of persons So as we see that it is not the having of the Outward Knowledge that doth save without the Inward so neither doth the Want of it to such to whom God hath made it Impossible who have the Inward bring Condemnation And many that have wanted the Outward have had a Knowledge of this Inwardly by virtue of that Inward Grace and Light given to every man working in them by which they forsook Iniquity and became Just and Holy as is above proved who though they knew not the History of Adam's Fall yet were sensible in themselves of the Loss that came by it Many wanting the History were sensible of the Loss by Adam and Salvation come by Christ in themselves feeling their Inclinations to sin and the Body of Sin in them and though they knew not the Coming of Christ yet were sensible of that Inward Power and Salvation which came by him even before as well as since his Appearance in the flesh For I question whether these men can prove that all the Patriarchs and Fathers before Moses had a distinct Knowledge either of the one or the other or that they knew the History of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and of Adam's Eating the forbidden Fruit far less that Christ should be Born of a Virgin should be Crucified and treated in the manner he was For it is justly to be believed that what Moses wrote of Adam and of the first times was not by Tradition but by Revelation yea we see that not only after the Writing of Moses but even of David and all the Prophets who prophesied so much of Christ how little the Jews How little the Jews knew Christ mistaking the Prophets that were expecting and wishing for the Messiah could thereby Discern him when he came that they Crucified him as a Blasphemer not as the Messiah by mistaking the Prophecies concerning him for Peter saith expresly Acts 3.17 to the Jews that both They and their Rulers did it through Ignorance And Paul saith 1 Cor. 2.8 That had they known it they would not have Crucified the Lord of Glory Yea Mary her self to whom the Angel had spoken and who had laid up all the Miraculous things accompanying his Birth in her heart she did not understand How when he disputed with the Doctors in the Temple that he was about his Father's business And the Apostles that had believed him Conversed daily with him and saw his Miracles could not understand neither believe those things which related to his Death Sufferings and Resurrection but were in a certain respect stumbled at them § XXVII So we see how that it is the Inward Work and not the Outward History and Scripture that gives the True Knowledge The Heathens were sensible of the Loss received by Adam and by this Inward Light many of the Heathen-Philosophers were sensible of the Loss received by Adam though they knew not the outward History Hence Plato asserted That Man's Soul was fall'n into a dark Cave where it only conversed with shadows Pythagoras saith Man wandereth in this world as a stranger banished from the Presence of God Heathen-Philosophers Divine Knowledge Plato Pythag. Plotiâ— And Plotinus compareth man's Soul fall'n from God to a Cinder or dead Coal out of which the fire is extinguished Some of them said That the Wings of the Soul were clipped or fall'n of so that they could not flie unto God All which and many more such Expressions that might be gathered out of their Writings shew they were not without a sense of this Loss Also they had a Knowledge and Discovery of Jesus Christ Inwardly as a Remedy in them to deliver them from that Evil Seed and the Evil Inclinations of their own hearts though not under that particular Denomination Some called him a Holy Spirit as Seneca Epist. 41. who said There is a Holy Spirit in us that treateth us as we treat him Cicero calls it an Innate Light Lactan. In Sect. Cicero calleth it an Innate Light in his Book de Republicâ cited by Lactantius 6. Instit. where he calls this Right Reason given unto all Constant and Eternal calling unto duty by Commanding and deterring from deceit by Forbidding Adding that it cannot be abrogated neither can any be freed from it neither by Senate nor People that it is One Eternal and the same always to all Nations so that there is not one at Rome and another at Athens who so obey it not must flee from himself and in this is greatly tormented although he should escape all other punishment Plotinus also calls him Light saying That as the Sun cannot be known but by its own Light so God cannot be known but with his own Light and as the Eye cannot see the Sun but by receiving its Image so man cannot know God but by receiving his Image and that it behoved man to come to purity of heart before he could know God Calling him also Wisdom a name frequently given him in Scripture see Prov. 1.20 to the end and Prov. 8.9 34. where Wisdom is said to Cry Intreat and Invite all to come unto her and learn of her And what is this Wisdom but Christ Hence such as came among the Heathen to forsake Evil Philosophers Whence Called and cleave to Righteousness were
Legal Acceptation As first in that of 1 Cor. 6.11 But ye are washed but ye are sanctified but ye are justified as I before have proved which also many Protestants are forced to acknowledge Neither diffide we saith Thysius because of the most great and strict Connexion Thysius Disp. de Just. Thes. 3. that Justification doth sometimes seem also to Comprehend Sanctification as a Consequence as in Rom. 8.30 Tit. 3.7 1 Cor. 6.11 And such sometimes were ye Zanchius in cap. 2. ad Eph. ver 4. loc de Just. but ye are washed c. Zanchius having spoken concerning this sense of Justification adds saying There is another signification of the word viz. for a man from Unjust to be made Just even as sanctified signifies from unholy to be made holy In which signification the Apostle said in the place above-cited And such were some of you c. that is of unclean ye are made holy and of unjust ye are made just by the Holy Spirit for Christ's sake in whom ye have believed Of this signification is that Rev. 22.11 Let him that is just be just still that is really from just become more just even as from unjust he became just And according to this signification the Fathers and especially Augustine have Interpreted this word H. Bullinger Thus far he H. Bullinger on the same place 1 Cor. 6. speaketh thus By divers words saith he the Apostle signifies the same thing when he saith ye are washed ye are sanctified ye are justified Proof II Secondly In that Excellent Saying of the Apostle so much observed Rom. 8.30 Whom he called them he also justified and whom he justified them he also glorified This is commonly called the Golden Chain as being acknowledged to Comprehend the Method and Order of Salvation And therefore if Justified were not understood here in its proper signification of being made just Sanctification would be excluded out of this Chain Righteousness the only Medium by which from our Calling we pass to Glorification And truly it is very worthy of observation that the Apostle in this succinct and compendious Account makes the word Justified to comprehend all betwixt Calling and Glorifying thereby clearly insinuating that the being really Righteous is that only Medium by which from our Calling we pass to Glorification All for the most part do acknowledge the word to be so taken in this place and not only so but most of those who oppose are forced to acknowledge that as this is the most proper so the most common Signification of it thus divers famous Protestants do acknowledge We are not saith D. Chamierus such Impertinent Esteemers of words as to be ignorant nor yet such importunate Sophists as to deny that the words of Justification and Sanctification do infer one another yea we know that the Saints are chiefly for this Reason so called D. Chamier Tom. 3. de Sanct. l. 10. c. 1. because that in Christ they have received Remission of Sins and we read in the Revelation Let him that is just be just still which cannot be understood except of the fruit of Inherent Righteousness Nor do we deny but perhaps in other places they may be promiscuously taken especially by the Father I take saith Beza the name of Justification largely Beza in cap. 3. ad Tit. vers 7. so as it comprehends whatsoever we acquire from Christ as well by Imputation as by the Efficacy of the Spirit in sanctifying us So likewise is the word of Justification taken Rom. 8.30 Melanchthon saith Melancht in Apol. Confes. Aug. that to be justified by Faith signifies in Scripture not only to be pronounced Just but also of Unrighteous to be made Righteous Also some Chief Protestants though not so clearly yet in part hinted at our Doctrine whereby we ascribe unto the Death of Christ Remission of Sins and the work of Justification unto the Grace of the Spirit acquired by his Death Boraeus in Gen. c. 15. ad verb Credidit Abraham Deo pag. 161. Martinus Boraeus explaining that place of the Apostle Rom. 4.25 Who was given for our sins and rose again for our Justification saith There are two things beheld in Christ which are necessary to our Justification the one is his Death the other is his Arising from the dead By his Death the sins of this World behoved to be Expiated By his Rising from the dead it pleased the same goodness of God to give the Holy Spirit whereby both the Gospel is believed and the Righteousness lost by the fault of the first Adam is restored And afterwards he saith The Apostle expresseth both parts in these words Who was given for our sins c. In his Death is beheld the Satisfaction for sin in his Resurrection the Gift of the Holy Spirit by which our Justification is perfected And again the same man saith elsewhere Idem lib. 3. Reg. cap. 9. v. 4. pag. 681. Both these kinds of Righteousness are therefore contained in Justification neither can the one be separate from the other So that in the Definition of Justification the Merit of the Blood of Christ is included both with the Remission of sins and with the gift of the Holy Spirit of Justification and Regeneration Martinus Bucerus saith Seeing by one sin of Adam the world was lost Bucerus in Rom. 4. ad ver 16. the Grace of Christ hath not only abolished that one sin and death which came by it but hath together taken away those infinite sins and also led into full Justification as many as are of Christ so that God now not only Remits unto them Adam 's sin and their own but also gives them therewith the Spirit of a solid and perfect Righteousness Righteousness a Conformity to the Image of the First-begotten which renders us Conform unto the Image of the First-Begotten And upon these words by Jesus Christ he saith We always judge that the whole benefit of Christ tends to this that we might be strong through the Gift of Righteousness being rightly and orderly adorned with all virtue that is restored to the Image of God And lastly William Forbes our Country-man W. Forbes in Considerat Modest. de Just. lib. 2. Sect 8. Bishop of Edinburgh saith Whensoever the Scripture makes mention of the Justification before God as speaketh Paul and from him besides others Augustin it appears that the word Justify necessarily signifies not only to pronounce Just in a Law sense but also really and inherently to make Just because that God doth otherways justify a wicked man than Earthly Judges For he when he Justifies a wicked or unjust man How God justifies the Wicked doth indeed pronounce him as these also do but by pronouncing him Just because his Judgment is according to Truth he also makes him really of Unjust to become Just. And again the same man upon the same occasion answering the more rigid Protestants who say That God first justifies and
this is that other saying of the same Apostle Gal. 4.19 My little Children of whom I travel in Birth again until Christ be formed in you and therefore the Apostle terms this Christ within the Hope of Glory Col. 1.27 28. Now that which is the hope of glory can be no other than that which we immediately and most nearly Rely upon for our Justification and that whereby we are really and truly made Just. And as we do not hereby deny but the Original and Fundamental Cause of our Justification is the love of God manifested in the Appearance of Jesus Christ in the flesh who by his life death Christ by his Death and Sufferings has open'd a way for our Reconciliation sufferings and obedience made a way for our Reconciliation and became a Sacrifice for the Remission of sins that are past and purchased unto us this Seed and Grace from which this Birth arises and in which Jesus Christ is inwardly Received formed and brought forth in us in his own pure and holy Image of Righteousness by which our Souls live unto God and are cloathed with him and have put him on even as the Scripture speaks Eph. 4.23 24 Gal. 3.27 We stand Justified and Saved in and by him and by his Spirit and Grace Rom. 3.24 1 Cor. 6.11 Tit. 3.7 So again reciprocally we are hereby made partakers of the fulness of his Merits and his cleansing Blood is near to wash away every Sin and Infirmity and to heal all our back-slidings as often as we turn towards him by unfeigned Repentance and become Renewed by his Spirit Those then that find him thus Raised and Ruling in them have a true ground of Hope to believe that they are Justified by his Blood But let not any deceive themselves so as to foster themselves in a vain Hope and Confidence that by the Death and Sufferings of Christ they are Justified so long as sin lies at their door Gen. 4.7 Iniquity prevails and they remain yet Vnrenewed and Vnregenerate lest it be said unto them I know you not Let that saying of Christ be remembred Not every one that saith Lord Lord shall enter but he that doth the Will of my Father Matth. 7.21 To which let these excellent sayings of the beloved Disciple be added Little Children let no man deceive you he that doth righteousness is righteous even as he is righteous He that committeth sin is of the Devil because if our heart condemn us God is greater than our heart and knoweth all things 1 John 3.7 and 20. Many famous Protestants bear witness to this inward Justification by Christ inwardly Revealed and Formed in man Borhaeus in Gen. pag. 162. As 1. M. Borhaeus In the Imputation saith he wherein Christ is Ascribed and Imputed to believers for Righteousness the Merit of his Blood and the Holy Ghost given unto us by virtue of his Merits are equally Included And so it shall be Confessed The Testimonies of Famous Protestants of Inward Justification that Christ is our Righteousness as well from his Merit Satisfaction and Remission of sins obtained by him as from the Gifts of the Spirit of Righteousness And if we do this we shall consider the whole Christ proposed to us for our Salvation and not any single part of him The same man p. 169. In our Justification then Christ is considered who breaths and lives in us to wit by his Spirit put-on by us concerning which putting-on the Apostle saith Ye have put on Christ. And again p. 171. We endeavour to Treat in Justification not of part of Christ but him wholly in so far as he is our Righteousness every way And a little after As then blessed Paul in our Justification when he saith Whom he Justified them he Glorified comprehends all things which pertain to our being Reconciled to God the Father and our Renewing which fits us for attaining unto Glory such as Faith Righteousness Christ and the Gift of Righteousness exhibited by him whereby we are Regenerated to the fulfilling of the Justification which the Law requires so we also will have all things comprehended in this cause which are contained in the Recovery of Righteousness and and Innocency And p. 181. The Form saith he of our Justification is the Divine Righteousness it self by which we are formed just and good This is Jesus Christ who is esteemed our Righteousness partly from the Forgiveness of sins and partly from the Renewing and the Restoring of that Integrity which was lost by the fault of the first Adam so that this New and Heavenly Adam being put-on by us of which the Apostle saith Ye have put on Christ ye have put him on I say as the Form so the Righteousness Wisdom and Life of God So also affirmeth Claudius Alberius Inuncunanus Inuncunanus see his Orat. Apodict Lausaniae Excus 1587. Orat. 2. p. 86 87. Zuinglius also in his Epistle to the Princes of Germany as cited by Himmelius Zuinglius c. 7. p. 60. saith That the Sanctification of the Spirit is true Justification Essius which alone suffices to Justify Essius upon 1 Cor. 6.11 saith Lest Christian Righteousness should be thought to consist in the Washing alone that is in the Remission of Sins he addeth the other Degree or part but ye are sanctified that is Ye have attain'd to Purity so that ye are now truly holy before God Lastly expressing the sum of the Benefit received in one word which includes both the parts But ye are Justified the Apostle adds in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ that is by his Merits and in the Spirit of our God that is the Holy Spirit proceeding from God and communicated to us by Christ. And lastly R. Baxter R. Baxter a famous English Preacher who yet liveth in his Book called Aphorisms of Justification p. 80. saith That some ignorant Wretches gnash their Teeth at this Doctrine as if it were flat Popery not understanding the nature of the Righteousness of the New Covenant which is all out of Christ in our selves thô wrought by the Power of the Spirit of Christ in us § IX The Third thing proposed to be considered is Concerning Good Position III Works their necessity to Justification I suppose there is enough said before to clear us from any Imputation of being Popish in this matter Good Works But if it be queried Whether we have not said or will not affirm Quest. that a man is Justified by Works I answer I hope none need neither ought to take Offence Answ. if in this matter we use the plain language of the Holy Scripture which saith expresly in Answer hereunto James 2.24 Ye see then That Works are necessary to Justification how that by Works a man is Justified and not by Faith only I shall not offer to prove the Truth of this saying since what is said in this Chapter by the Apostle is sufficient to Convince any man that will read and
by our selves For should we so Conclude then it would follow that we should throw away all Holiness and Righteousness since that which is filthy Rags and as a menstruous Garment ought to be thrown away yea it would follow that all the fruits of the Spirit mentioned Gal. 4. were as filthy Rags whereas on the contrary some of the Works of the Saints are said to have a Sweat savour in the nostrils of the Lord are said to be an Ornament of great price in the sight of God are said to Prevail with him and to be Acceptable to him which filthy Rags and a menstruous Garment cannot be Yea many famous Protestants have acknowledged that this place is not therefore so to be understood Calvin's and others their sense concerning Isa. 64 6. of our Righteousness Calvin upon this place saith That it is used to be cited by some that they may prove there is so little Merit in our Works that they are before God filthy and defiled but this seems to me to be different from the Prophet's Mind saith he seeing he speaks not here of all Mankind Musculus upon this place saith Musculus That it was usual for this people to presume much of their legal Righteousness as if thereby they were made Clean nevertheless they had no more Cleanness than the unclean Garment of a man Others expone this place concerning all the Righteousness of our flesh that Opinion indeed is true Yet I think that the Prophet did rather accommodate these sayings to the Impurity of that people in legal Terms The Author commonly supposed Bertius speaking concerning the True Sense of Chap. 7. of the Epistle to the Romans Bertius Epistolae praefixae dissert ann hath a Digression touching this of Isaiah saying This place is commonly corrupted by a pernicious wresting for it is still alledged as if the meaning thereof inferred the most Excellent Works of the best Christians c. Ja. Coret Apolog. Impress Paris ann 1597· pag. 78. James Coret a French Minister in the Church of Basil in his Apology concerning Justification against Alescales saith Nevertheless according to the Counsel of certain good men I must admonish the Reader that it never come into our minds to abuse that saying of Isa. 64.6 against good Works in which it is said that all our Righteousness are as filthy Rags as if we would have that which is good in our good Works and proceedeth from the Holy Spirit to be esteemed as a filthy and unclean thing § XII As to the other part That seeing the best of men are still Impure and Imperfect therefore their Works must be so It is to beg the Answ. 2 question and depends upon a Proposition denied and which is to be discussed at further length in the next Proposition But though we should suppose a man not throughly perfect in all respects yet will not that hinder but good and perfect Works in their kind may be brought forth in them by the Spirit of Christ Neither doth the Example of Water going through an unclean Pipe hit the matter because though Water may be capable to be tinctured with Vncleanness yet the Spirit of God cannot whom we assert to be the Immediate Author of those Works that avail in Justification and therefore Jesus Christ his Works in his Children are pure and perfect and he worketh in and through that pure thing of his own forming and creating in them Moreover if this did hold according to our Adversaries supposition That no man ever was or can be perfect it would follow that the very Miracles and Works of the Apostles which Christ wrought in them Were the Miracles and Works of the Apostles wrought by the power of Christ in them Impure and Imperfect and they wrought in and by the Power Spirit and Grace of Christ were also Impure and Imperfect such as their Converting of the Nations to the Christian Faith their gathering of the Churches their writing of the Holy Scriptures yea and their Offering up and Sacrificing of their Lives for the Testimony of Jesus What may our Adversaries think of this Argument whereby it will follow that the Holy Scriptures whose Perfection and Excellency they seem so much to magnify are proved to be Impure and Imperfect because they came through Impure and Imperfect Vessels It appears by the Confessions of Protestants that the Fathers did frequently attribute unto Works of this kind that Instrumental Work which we have spoken of in Justification albeit some ignorant persons cry out that it is Popery and also divers and that famous Protestants do of themselves Confess it Amandus Polanus in his Symphonia Catholica Am. Polanus c. 27. de Remissione Peccatorum Our Doctrine of Justification and Works is not Popery p. 651. places this These as the Common Opinion of Protestants most agreeable to the Doctrine of the Fathers We obtain the Remission of Sins by Repentance Confession Prayers and Tears proceeding from Faith but do not Merit to speak properly and therefore we obtain Remission of Sins not by the Merit of our Repentance and Prayers but by the Mercy and Goodness of God Gentiletus Ex. Impressi Genev. 151◠Innocentius Gentiletus a Lawyer of great fame among Protestants in his Examen of the Council of Trent p. 66 67. of Justification having before spoken of Faith and Works adds these words But seeing the one cannot be without the other we call them both conjunctly Instrumental Causes Zanchius Zanchius in his 5. Book de Naturâ Dei saith We do not simply deny that good Works are the Cause of Salvation to wit the Instrumental rather than the Efficient Cause which they call sine quâ non And afterwards Good Works are the Instrumental Cause of the possession of Life Eternal for by these as by a means and a lawful way G. Ames in Medullâ S. Theologiae l. 2. c. 1. Thes. 30. God leads unto the possession of Life Eternal G. Amesius saith That our Obedience albeit it be not the Principal and Meritorious Cause of Life Eternal is nevertheless a Cause in some respect administring helping and advancing towards the possession of the Life R. Baxter Also R. Baxter in the Book above cited p. 155. saith That we are Justified by Works in the same kind of Causality as by Faith to wit as being both Causes sine quâ non or Conditions of the New Covenant on our part requisite to Justification And p. 195. he saith It is needless to teach any Scholar who hath read the writings of Papists how this Doctrine differs from them Of the Merit and Reward of Works But lastly because it is fit here to say something of the Merit and Reward of Works I shall add something in this place of our Sense and Belief concerning that matter We are far from thinking or believing that man Merits any thing by his Works from God all being of Free Grace and therefore do we
II § IV. Secondly It is Inconsistent with the Justice of God For since he requires Purity from his Children It s Inconsistency with the Justice of God and Commands them to abstain from every Iniquity so frequently and precisely as shall hereafter appear and since his Wrath is revealed against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men it must needs follow that he hath Capacitated man to answer his Will or else that he Requires more than he has given power to perform which is to declare him openly Vnjust and with the slothful servant to be a Hard Master We have elsewhere spoken of the Injustice these men ascribe to God in making him to damn the Wicked to whom they alledge he never afforded any means of being good But this is yet an Aggravation more Irrational and Inconsistent to say That God will not afford to those whom he has Chosen to be his own whom they confess he loveth the Means to please him What can follow then from so strange a Doctrine This Imperfection in the Saints either proceeds from God or from themselves If it proceed from them it must be because they are short in Improving or making use of the Power given them whereby they are Capable to Obey and so it is a thing possible to them as indeed it is by the help of that Power but this our Adversaries deny They are then not to be blamed for their Imperfection and Continuing in sin since it is not possible to them to do otherwise If it be not of themselves it must be of God who hath not seen meet to allow them Grace in that degree to produce that Effect And what is this but to attribute to God the Heighth of Injustice to make him require his Children to forsake sin and yet not to afford them sufficient means for so doing Surely this makes God more Vnrighteous than Wicked men Who will give their Children a Stone instead of Bread Who if as Christ saith Their Children require bread of them will not give them a stone or instead of a fish a serpent but these men confess We ought to seek of God power to Redeem us from Sin and yet believe They are never to Receive such a power such Prayers then cannot be in Faith but are all vain Is not this to make God as Vnjust to his Children as Pharaoh was to the Israelites in requiring brick and not giving them straw But blessed be God he deals not so with those that truly Trust in him and Wait upon him as these men vainly imagine for such Faithful ones find of a truth that his Grace is sufficient for them and know how by his power and Spirit to overcome the Evil one Proof III § V. Thirdly This Evil Doctrine is highly Injurious to Jesus Christ and greatly derogates from the Power and Vertue of his Sacrifice and renders his Coming and Ministry The great and principal End of Christ's Coming and Appearance was for the removing of Sin and to redeem us from all Iniquity as to the great End of it Ineffectual For Christ as for other Ends so principally he appeared for the Removing of Sin for gathering a righteous Generation that might serve the Lord in purity of mind and walk before him in fear and bring-in Everlasting Righteousness and that Evangelical Perfection which the Law could not do Hence he is said Tit. 2.14 to have Given himself for us that he might Redeem us from all Iniquity and purify unto himself a peculiar people zealous of good Works This is certainly spoken of the Saints while upon Earth But contrary thereunto these men Affirm That we are never Redeemed from all Iniquity and so make Christ's giving of himself for us void and ineffectual and give the Apostle Paul the Lie plainly by denying That Christ purifieth to himself a peculiar people zealous of good works How are they Zealous of Good works who are ever committing Evil ones How are they a Purified people that are still in Impurity as are they that daily sin unless sin be accounted no Impurity Moreover it is said expresly 1 Joh. 3.5 8. That for this purpose the Son of God was manifested that he might destroy the works of the Devil and ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins But these men make this purpose of none Effect for they will not have the Son of God to destroy the works of the Devil in his Children in this World Neither will they at all believe that he was manifest to take away our sins seeing they plead a necessity of always living in them And lest any should wrest this place of the Apostle as if it were spoken only of Taking away the guilt of sin as if it related not to this life the Apostle as of purpose to obviate such an Objection adds in the two following verses Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not c. I hope then they sin not daily in thought word and deed Let no man deceive you he that doth Righteousness is Righteous even as he is Righteous he that committeth sin is of the Devil But he that sinneth daily in thought word and deed committeth sin how comes such a one then to be the Child of God And if Christ was manifest to take away sin how strangely do they overturn the Doctrine of Christ that deny that it is ever taken away here And how Injurious are they to the Efficacy and Power of Christ's Appearance Came not Christ to gather a people out of Sin into Righteousness out from the Kingdom of Satan into the Kingdom of the Dear Son of God and are not they that are thus gathered by him his Servants his Children his Brethren his Friends Who as he was so are they to be in this World holy pure and undefiled And doth not Christ still Watch over them Stand by them Pray for them Preserve them by his Power and Spirit Walk in them and Dwell among them The Devil dwells among the Reprobates even as the Devil on the other hand doth among the Reprobate ones How comes it then that the Servants of Christ are less his Servants than the Devil 's are his or is Christ unwilling to have his Servants throughly pure which were gross Blasphemy to assert contrary to many Scriptures Or is he not able by his Power to preserve and enable his Children to serve him which were no less blasphemous to affirm of him concerning whom the Scriptures declare that he has Overcome sin death hell and the grave and Triumphed over them openly and that all power in heaven and earth is given to him But certainly if the Saints sin daily in thought word and deed as these men Assert they serve the Devil daily and are subject to his power and so he prevails more than Christ doth and holds the Servants of Christ in bondage whether Christ will or not But how greatly then doth it Contradict the End of Christ's Coming as it is
3 4 5. be considered where though their being found without fault be spoken in the present time yet is it not without respect to their Innocency while upon earth and their being Redeemed from among men and no guile found in their mouth is expresly mentioned in the time past But I shall proceed now in the Third place to answer the Objections which indeed Sect. III are the Arguments of our Opposers § IX I shall begin with their chief and great Argument Object I which is the words of the Apostle 1 Joh. 1.8 If we say that we have no sin we deceive our selves and the Truth is not in us This they think Invincible But is it not strange to see men so blinded with partiality How many Answ. 1 Scriptures tenfold more plain do they Reject and yet stick so tenaciously to this that can receive so many Answers As first If we say we have no sin c. will not import the Apostle himself to be included If we say we have no sin c. objected Sometimes the Scripture useth this manner of Expression when the person speaking cannot be Included which manner of speech the Grammarians call Metaschematismus Thus James 3.9 10. speaking of the Tongue saith Therewith bless we God and therewith curse we men adding these things ought not so to be Who from this will conclude that the Apostle was one of those Cursers But Secondly this Objection hitteth not the matter he saith not Answ. 2 We sin daily in thought word and deed far less that the very good works which God works in us by his Spirit are sin Yea the next verse clearly shews that upon Confession and Repentance we are not only forgiven but also cleansed He is faithful to forgive us our Sins and to cleanse us from all Vnrighteousness Here is both a Forgiveness and Removing of the guilt and a Cleansing or removing of the Filth for to make forgiveness and cleansing to belong both to the removing of the Guilt as there is no reason for it from the Text so it were a most violent forcing of the words and would imply a Needless Tautology The Apostle having shewn how that not the Guilt only but even the Filth also of sin is removed subsumes his words in the time past in verse 10. If we say we have not sinned we make him a liar Thirdly as Augustine well observed in his Exposition upon the Epistle to the Galatians It is one thing not to sin another thing Answ. 3 not to have sin The Apostle's words are not If we say we sin not It is one thing not to sin and another thing not to have sin or commit not sin daily but if we say we have no sin And betwixt these two there is a manifest difference for in respect all have sinned as we freely acknowledge all may be said in a sense to have sin Again Sin may be taken for the Seed of Sin which may be in those that are Redeemed from actual Sinning but as to the Temptations and Provocations proceeding from it being Resisted by the Servants of God and not yielded to they are the Devil's Sin that tempteth not the man's that is preserved Fourthly this being considered as also how positive and how plain once and again the Answ. 4 same Apostle is in the very same Epistle as in divers places above cited Is it equal or rational to strain this one place presently after so qualified and subsumed in the time past to contradict not only other positive Expressions of his but the whole Tendency of his Epistle and of the rest of the holy Commands and Precepts of the Scripture Secondly Object II Their second Objection is from Two places of Scripture much of one signification The one is 1 Kings 8.46 For there is no man that sinneth not The other is Eccles. 7.20 For there is not a Just man upon earth that doth good and sinneth not I Answer first These affirm nothing of a daily and continual sinning so as never to be Redeemed from it but only that all have sinned or that there is none that doth not sin though not always so as never to cease to sin and in this lies the Question Yea in that place of the Kings he speaks Answ. within two verses of the Returning of such with all their Souls and hearts Diversity of Seasons and Dispensations respected which implies a Possibility of leaving off sin Secondly There is a respect to be had to the seasons and dispensations For if it should be granted that in Solomon's time there was none that sinned not it will not follow that there are none such now or that it is a thing is not now Attainable by the Grace of God under the Gospel for A non esse ad non posse non valet sequela And lastly This whole Objection hangs upon a false Interpretation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that sinneth not or who may not sin for the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be read in the Potential Mood thus There is no man who may not sin as well as in the Indicative so both the old Latin Junius and Tremellius and Vatablus have it and the same word is so used Psal. 119.11 I have hid thy Word in my heart 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is to say that I may not sin against thee in the Potential Mood and not in the Indicative as it is in the English which being more answerable to the universal scope of the Scriptures the Testimony of the Truth and the sense almost of all Interpreters doubtless ought to be so understood and the other Interpretation rejected as spurious Object III Thirdly They object some Expressions of the Apostle Paul Rom. 7.19 For the good that I would I do not but the evil which I would not that I do And verse 24. O wretched man that I am Who shall deliver me from the body of this death Answ. I Answer This place infers nothing unless it were apparent that the Apostle here were speaking of his own Condition and not rather in the person of others or what he himself had sometimes born which is frequent in Scripture as in the case of Cursing in James before-mentioned But there is nothing in the Text that doth clearly signify the Apostle to be speaking of himself or of a Condition he was then under or was always to be under yea on the contrary in the former Chapter as afore is at large shewn he declares They were Dead to sin demanding how such should yet live any longer therein Paul personates the Wretched man to shew them the Redeemer Secondly It appears that the Apostle only personated one not yet come to a Spiritual Condition in that he saith vers 14. But I am carnal sold under sin Now is it to be Imagined that the Apostle Paul as to his own proper Condition when he wrote that Epistle was a Carnal man who in Chap. 1. testifies of himself that
no such thing nor yet are often-times sensible of it must needs stand in the Enticing Words of man's Wisdom since it is by the meer Wisdom of man it is sought after and the meer Strength of man's Eloquence and Enticing words it is uttered and therefore no wonder if the Faith of such as hear and depend upon such preachers and preachings stand in the Wisdom of Men and not in the Power of God The Apostles declared that they spake not in the words which man's Wisdom teacheth but which the Holy Ghost teacheth 1 Cor. 2.13 But these Preachers confess that they are Strangers to the Holy Ghost his Motions and Operations neither do they Wait to feel them and therefore they speak in the words which their own natural Wisdom and Learning teacheth them mixing them in and adding them to such words as they steal of the Scripture and other Books and therefore speak not what the Holy Ghost teacheth Thirdly This is contrary to the Method and Order of the primitive Church mentioned by the Apostle 3. True Church's method was to speak by Revelation 1 Cor. 14.30 c. where in Preaching every one is to Wait for his Revelation and to give place one unto another according as things are Revealed But here there is no waiting for a Revelation but the Preacher must speak and not that which is Reveald unto him but what he hath prepared and premeditated before-hand Lastly By this kind of Preaching the Spirit of God which should be the Chief Instructor and Teacher of God's People 4. The Spirit is shut out by Priests to be the Teacher and whose influence is that only which makes all Preaching effectual and beneficial for the edifying of Souls is Shut out and man's natural Wisdom Learning and Parts set up and Exalted which no doubt is a great and chief reason why the Preaching among the generality of Christians is so Vnfruitful and Vnsuccessful yea according to this doctrine the Devil may preach and ought to be Heard also seeing he both knoweth the Truth and hath as much Eloquence as any But what availes Excellency of speech if the Demonstration and Power of the Spirit be wanting which toucheth the Conscience We see that when the Devil confessed to the Truth yet Christ would have none of his Testimony And as these pregnant Testimonies of the Scripture to prove this part of Preaching to be contrary to the Doctrine of Christ so do they also prove that of ours before affirmed to be Conform thereunto Object § XX. But if any Object after this manner Have not many been Benefitted yea and both Converted and Edified by the Ministry of such as have Premeditated their Preachings yea and hath not the Spirit often concurred by its Divine Influence with preachings thus premeditated so as they have been powerfully born in upon the Souls of the Hearers to their Advantage I answer Though that be granted which I shall not deny it will not infer that the thing was good in it self more than because Paul was met with by Christ to the Converting of his Soul riding to Damascus to persecute the Saints that he did well in so doing Neither particular Actions Answ. nor yet whole Congregations as we above observed are to be measured by the Acts of God's Condescension in times of Ignorance But besides Paul Persecuting was Converted is therefore Persecuting good it hath often-times fall'n out that God having a regard to the Simplicity and Integrity either of the Preacher or Hearers hath faln in upon the heart of a Preacher by his Power and holy Influence and thereby hath led them to speak things which were not in his premeditated Discourse and which perhaps he never thought of before and those passing Ejaculations and unpremeditated but living Exhortations have proved more beneficial and refreshful both to Preacher and Hearers than all their premeditated Sermons But all that will not allow them to Continue in these things which in themselves are not approved but contrary to the practice of the Apostles when God is raising up a people to serve him according to the primitive purity and spirituality yea such acts of God's Condescension in times of Darkness and Ignorance should ingage all more and more to follow him according as he Reveals his most perfect and Spiritual Way § XXI Having hitherto spoken of Preaching II. Of Prayer how the Outward is distinguisht from the Inward now it is fit to speak of Praying concerning which the like Controversy ariseth Our Adversaries whose Religion is all for the most part Outside and such whose Acts are the meer products of man's natural Will and Abilities as they can Preach so can they Pray when they please and therefore have their set particular Prayers I meddle not with the Controversies among themselves concerning this some of them being for set Prayers as a Liturgy others for such as are ex tempore Conceived it suffices me that all of them agree in this that the Motions and Influence of the Spirit of God are not Necessary to be previous thereunto and therefore they have Set Times in their publick Worship as before and after preaching The Priests set times to Preach and Pray deny's the Spirit and in their private Devotion as Morning and Evening and before and after meat and other such occasions at which they precisely set about the performing of their Prayers by speaking words to God whether they feel any Motions or Influence of the Spirit or not so that some of the Chiefest have confessed that they have thus Prayed without the Motions or Assistance of the Spirit acknowledging that they sinned in so doing yet they said they look upon it as their Duty to do so though to Pray without the Spirit be Sin We freely Confess that Prayer is both very profitable and a necessary Duty commanded and fit to be practised frequently by all Christians but as we can Do nothing without Christ so neither can we Pray without the concurrence and assistance of his Spirit But that the State of the Controversy may be the better understood let it be considered First That Prayer is twofold Inward and Outward Inward Prayer is that Secret turning of the mind towards God whereby What Inward Prayer is being secretly touched and awakened by the Light of Christ in the Conscience and so bowed down under the sense of its Iniquities Vnworthiness and Misery it looks up to God and joining issue with the secret Shinings of the Seed of God it breaths towards him and is constantly breathing forth some secret Desires and Aspirations towards him It is in this sense that we are so frequently in Scripture commanded to Pray continually Luke 18.1 1 Thess. 5.17 Eph. 6.18 Luke 21.36 which cannot be understood of Outward Prayer because it were impossible that men should be always upon their Knees expressing words of Prayer and this would hinder them from the Exercise of those Duties no less positively Commanded
judged it unlawful to Eat flesh c saith If they eat doubting they eat their own Damnation Now it is manifest for all this that either the doing or forbearing of this was to another that placed no Conscience in it of no moment so I say he that Eateth that which in his Conscience he is perswaded is not lawful for him to Eat doth Eat his own Damnation so he also that placeth Conscience in Eating bread and wine as a Religious Act if he do it Vnprepared and without that due Respect wherein such Acts should be gone about he Eateth and Drinketh his own Damnation not discerning the Lord's Body i. e. not minding what he doth to wit with a special Respect to the Lord and by way of a special Commemoration of the Death of Christ. § VI. I having now sufficiently shewen what the True Communion of the Body and Blood of Christ is how it is partaken of and how it has no necessary Relation to that Ceremony of bread and wine used by Christ with his Disciples it is fit now to consider the Nature and Constitution of that Ceremony for as to the proper Vse of it we have had occasion to speak of before whether it be a standing Ordinance in the Church of Christ obligatory upon all II. Whether this Ceremony be a necessary Part of the New Covenant and Obligatory or indeed whether it be any necessary part of the Worship of the New Covenant-dispensation or hath any better or more binding Foundation than several other Ceremonies appointed and practised about the same time which the most of our Opposers acknowledge to be ceased and now no ways binding upon Christians We find this Ceremony only mentioned in Scripture in four places to wit Matthew Mark and Luke and by Paul to the Corinthians If any would infer any thing from the frequency of the mentioning of it that will add nothing for it being a matter of Fact is therefore mentioned by the Evangelists and there are other things lets Memorable as often yea oftner mentioned Matthew and Mark give only an Account of the matter of Fact Mat. 26.26 Mark 14.22 Luke 22.19 1 Cor. 11.23 without any Precept to do so afterwards simply declaring that Jesus at that time did desire them to Eat of the Bread and Drink of the Cup To which Luke adds these words This do in Remembrance of me If we consider this Action of Christ with his Apostles there will appear nothing singular in it for a Foundation to such a strange Superstructure as many in their Airy Imaginations have sought to build upon it for both Matthew and Mark press it as an Act done by him as he was Eating Matthew saith And as they were Eating The breaking of Bread was no singular thing but a Custom to Jews P. Riccius and Mark And as they did Eat Jesus took bread c. Now this Act was no singular thing neither any solemn Institution of a Gospel-Ordinance because it was a Constant Custom among the Jews as Paulus Riccius observes at length in his Celestial Agriculture That when they did Eat the Pass-over the Master of the Family did take Bread and bless it and breaking it gave of it to the rest and likewise taking Wine did the same so that there can nothing further appear in this than that Jesus Christ who fulfilled all Righteousness and also observed the Jewish Feasts and Customs used this also among his Disciples only that as in most other things he laboured to draw their Minds to a further thing so in the use of this he takes occasion to put them in mind of his Death and Sufferings which were shortly to be which he did the oftner Inculcate unto them for that they were Averse from believing it And as for that Expression of Luke What it is To do this in Remembrance of Christ Do this in Remembrance of me it will amount to no more than being the last time that Christ did Eat with his Disciples he desired them that in their Eating and Drinking they might have regard to him and by the Remembring of that opportunity be the more stirred up to follow him diligently through Sufferings and Death c. But what man of Reason laying aside the Prejudice of Education and the Influence of Tradition will say that this Account of the Matter of Fact given by Matthew and Mark or this Expression of Luke to do that in Remembrance of him will amount to these Consequences which the generality of Christians have sought to draw from it as calling it Augustissimum Eucharistiae Sacramentum Venerabile Altaris Sacramentum The Principal Seal of the Covenant of Grace by which all the Benefits of Christ's Death are sealed to Believers and such like things But to give a further Evidence how these Consequences have not any bottom from the Practice of that Ceremony nor from the words following Do this c. let us consider another of the like Nature as it is at length expressed by John c. 13. v. 3 4 8 13 14 15. Jesus riseth from Supper and laid aside his Garments and took a Towel and girded himself After that he poured Water into a Bason and began to Wash the Disciples Feet and to wipe them with the Towel wherewith he was girded Peter saith unto him Thou shalt never Wash my Feet Jesus answered him If I Wash thee not thou hast no part with me Christ's Washing of Feet and its Manner related So after he had Washed their Feet he said Know ye what I have done to you If I then your Lord and Master have Washed your Feet ye also ought to Wash one anothers Feet For I have given you an Example that ye should do as I have done to you As to which let it be observed that John relates this Passage to have been done at the same time with the other of breaking Bread both being done the Night of the Pass-over after Supper If we regard the Narration of this and the Circumstances attending it it was done with far more Solemnity and prescribed far more punctually and particularly than the former It is said only As he was Eating he took Bread Compar'd with the Breaking of Bread so that this would seem to be but an Occasional business But here he rose up he laid by his garments he girded himself he poured out the Water he Washed their Feet he wiped them with the Towel He did this to all of them which are Circumstances surely far more observable than those noted in the other The former was a Practice common among the Jews used by all Masters of Families upon that occasion but this as to the Manner and Person acting it to wit for the Master to rise up and Wash the Feet of his Servants and Disciples was more singular and observable In the breaking of Bread and giving of Wine it is not pleaded by our Adversaries nor yet mentioned in the Text that he particularly put
of the week At Troas the Supper till Midnight deferred when the Disciples came together to Break Bread Paul preached unto them ready to depart on the Morrow and continued his Speech until Midnight Here is no mention made of any Sacramental Eating but only that Paul took occasion from their being together to Preach unto them And it seems it was a Supper they intended not a Morning-bit of Bread and Sup of Wine else it 's not very probable that Paul would from the Morning have preached until Midnight But the 11 th Verse puts the matter out of Dispute which is thus When he therefore was come up again and had broken Bread and eaten and talked a long while even till break of day so he departed This shews that the Breaking of Bread was deferred till that time for those words and when he had broken Bread and eaten do shew that it had a relation to the Breaking of Bread afore-mentioned and that that was the time he did it Secondly These words joined together and when he had broken Bread and eaten and talked shew it was no Religious Act of Worship They only did Eat for refreshing the Body but only an Eating for bodily Refreshment for which the Christians used to Meet together some time and doing it in God's Fear and Singleness of Heart doth notwithstanding difference it from the Eating or Feasting of profane persons And this by some is called a Love-Feast By some called a Love-Feast or a being together not meerly to feed their Bellies or for outward Ends but to take thence occasion to Eat and Drink together in the Dread and Presence of the Lord as his people which Custom we shall not Condemn but let it be observed that in all the Acts there is no other nor further mention of this matter But if that Ceremony had been some Solemn Sacrifice as some will have it or such a Special Sacrament as others plead it to be it is strange that that History that in many lesser things gives a particular Account of the Christians Behaviour should have been so silent in the matter Only we find that they used sometimes to Meet together to Break Bread and Eat Now as the Primitive Christians began by degrees to depart from that Primitive Purity and Simplicity so as to accumulate Superstitious Traditions The Christians began by degrees to depart from the Primitive Purity and vitiate the Innocent Practices of their Predecessors by the intermixing either of Jewish or Heathenish Rites so also in the Vse of this very early Abuses began to creep in among Christians so that it was needful for the Apostle Paul to Reform them and Reprove them therefore as he doth at large 1 Cor. 11. from ver 17. to the End 1 Cor. 11.17 Concerning the Supper of the Lord so called Explained which place we shall particularly Examine because our Adversaries lay the chief Stress of their matter upon it and we shall see whether it will infer any more than we have above granted 1 st because they were apt to use that Practice in a superstitious mind beyond the true Vse of it as to make of it some Mystical Supper of the Lord he tells them v. 20. That their Coming together into one place is not to Eat the Lord's Supper he saith not This is not the right Manner to Eat but This is not to Eat the Lord's Supper because the Supper of the Lord is Spiritual and a Mystery 2 ly he blames them in that they come together for the worse and not for the better the Reason he gives of this is v. 21. For in Eating every one hath taken before his own Supper and one is hungry and another is drunken Here it is plain that the Apostle Condemns them for that Why the Custom of Supping in Common was used among Christians because this Custom of Supping in general was used among Christians for to increase their Love and as a Memorial of Christ's Supping with the Disciples that they should have so vitiated it to Eat it apart and to come full who had abundance and hungry who had little at home whereby the very Vse and End of this Practice is lost and perverted And therefore he blames them that they do not either Eat this in Common at home or reserve their Eating till they come all together to the Publick Assembly This appears plainly by the following verse 22. Have ye not houses to eat and to drink in or despise ye the Church of God and shame them that have not Where he blames them for their Irregular Practice herein in that they despised to Eat orderly or reserve their Eating to the Publick Assembly and so shaming such as not having Houses nor Fulness at home came to partake of the Common Table who being hungry thereby were ashamed when they observed others come thither full and drunken Those that without prejudice will look to the place will see this must have been the Case among the Corinthians For supposing the Vse of this to have been then as now used either by Papists Lutherans or Calvinists it is hard making sense of the Apostle's words or indeed to conceive what was the Abuse the Corinthians committed in this thing Having thus observed what the Apostle said above because this Custom of Eating and Drinking together some time Tee Rise of that Custom had its rise from Christ's Act with the Apostles the Night he was betrayed therefore the Apostle proceeds ver 23. to give them an Account of that For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you that the Lord Jesus the same Night in which he was betrayed took Bread c. Those that understand the difference betwixt a Narration of a thing and a Command cannot but see if they will that there is no Command in this place but only an Account of Matter of Fact He saith not I received of the Lord that as he took Bread so I should command it to you to do so also there is nothing like this in the place yea on the contrary ver 25. where he repeats Christ's Imperative Words to his Apostles he placeth them so as they import no Command This do ye as oft as ye drink it in Remembrance of me That as often imports no Command of this Supper And then he adds For as often as ye eat this Bread and drink this Cup ye do shew the Lord's Death till he come But these words as often imports no more a Command than to say As often as thou goest to Rome see the Capitol will infer a Command to me to go thither But whereas they urge the last words Ye shew forth the Lord's Death till he come Object insinuating That this imports a necessary Continuance of that Ceremony until Christ come at the end of the World to Judgment Answ. I Answer They take Two of the Chief Parts of the Controversy here for granted without proof
Wife saving for the cause of Fornication causeth her to commit Adultery If I say they say this they not only labour in vain but also fight against themselves because they can produce no Exception of this general Command of not Swearing expressed by God to any under the New Covenant after Christ gave this prohibition so clear as that which is made in the prohibition it self Moreover if Christ would have excepted Oaths made before Magistrates Also Oaths before a Magistrate certainly he had then expressed adding Except in judgment before the Magistrate or the like as he did in that of divorcement by these words saving for the cause of Fornication Which being so it is not lawful for us to except or distinguish or which is all one make void this general prohibition of Christ it would be far less agreeable to Christian Holiness to bring upon our heads the crimes of so many Oaths which by reason of this corruption and exception are so frequent among Christians Neither is it to be omitted that without doubt the most learned Doctors of each Sect know that these fore-mentioned words were understood by the antient Fathers of the first three hundred years after Christ The concurrence of the Antient Fathers therein to be a prohibition of All sorts of Oaths It is not then without reason that we wonder that the Popish Doctors and Priests bind themselves by an Oath to interpret the Holy Scriptures according to the universal Exposition of the holy Fathers who notwithstanding understood those controverted Texts quite contrary to what these modern Doctors do And from thence also doth clearly appear the vanity and foolish certainty so to speak of Popish Traditions for if by the Writings of the Fathers so called the Faith of the Church of these Ages may be demonstrated it is clear they have departed from the Faith of the Church of the first three Ages in the point of Swearing Moreover because not only Papists but also Lutherans and Calvinists and some others do restrict the words of Christ and James I think it needful to make manifest the vain Foundation upon which their presumption in this matter is built Object § XI First They object That Christ only forbids these Oaths that are made by Creatures and things Created and they prove it thence because he numbers some of these things Secondly All rash and vain Oaths in familiar discourses because he saith Let your Communication be Yea Yea and Nay Nay Answ. 1 To which I answer First That the Law did forbid all Oaths made by the Creatures as also all vain and rash Oaths in our common discourses commanding that men should only swear by the Name of God and that neither falsly nor rashly for that is to take his Name in vain Answ. 2 Secondly It is most evident that Christ forbids somewhat that was permitted under the Law to wit To swear by the Name of God To swear by God himself forbidden by Christ. because it was not lawful for any man to Swear but by God himself And because he saith Neither by Heaven because it is the Throne of God therefore he excludes all other Oaths even those which are made by God for he saith chap. 23. ver 22. He that shall Swear by Heaven Sweareth by the Throne of God and by him that sitteth thereon Which is also to be understood of the rest Lastly that he might put the matter beyond all controversy Answ. 3 he adds Neither by any other Oath Therefore seeing to Swear before the Magistrate by God is an Oath it is here without doubt forbidden Secondly they object Object That by these words Oaths by God 's Name cannot be forbidden because the heavenly Father hath commanded them for the Father and the Son are One which could not be if the Son did forbid that which the Father commanded I answer They are indeed One Answ. and cannot contradict one another nevertheless the Father gave many things to the Jews for a time because of their Infirmity under the Old Covenant which had only a shadow of good things to come not the very Substance of things until Christ should come Oaths under the Old Covenant who was the Substance and by whose coming all these things evanished to wit Sabbaths Circumcision the Paschal Lamb men used then Sacrifices who lived in controversy with God and one with another which all are abrogated in the coming of the Son who is the Substance Eternal Word and essential Oath and Amen in whom the promises of God are Yea and Amen Who came that men might be redeemed out of strife and might make an end of Controversy Thirdly they object But all Oaths are not Ceremonies Object nor any part of the Ceremonial Law I answer Except it be shewn to be an eternal Answ. immutable and moral precept it withstands not neither are they of so old an Origin as Tithes and the Offering of the first fruits of the ground Tithes c. unlawful now which by Abel and Cain were offered long before the ceremonial Law or the use of Oaths which whatever may be alledged against it were no doubt Ceremonies and therefore no doubt unlawful now to be practised Fourthly they object That to Swear by the Name of God Object is a moral Precept of continual duration because it is marked with his essential and moral Worship Deut. 6.13 and 10 20. Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God and serve him alone Thou shalt cleave to him and swear by his Name I answer This proves not Answ. that it is a moral and eternal Precept for Moses adds that to all the Precepts and Ceremonies in several places As Deut. 10.12 13. saying And now Israel what doth the Lord thy God require of thee but to fear the Lord thy God to walk in all his ways and to love him and to serve the Lord thy God with all thy Heart and with all thy Soul To keep the commandments of the Lord and his Statutes which I command thee this day And chap 14. ver 23. the Fear of the Lord is mentioned together with the Tithes And so also Lev. 19.2 3 6. the Sabbaths and regard to Parents are mentioned with swearing Fifthly they object That solemn Oaths which God commanded Object cannot be here forbidden by Christ for he saith that they come from evil But these did not come from evil for God never commanded any thing that was evil or came from evil I answer There are things which are good because commanded and evil because forbidden Other things are commanded because good and forbidden because evil As Circumcision and Oaths Answ. which were good when and because they were commanded and in no other respect Oaths are evils because forbidden and again when and because prohibited under the Gospel they are evil And in all these Jewish Constitutions however Ceremonial there was something of good to wit in their season as prefiguring some good
believed afterwards he disarmed every Soldier in disarming of Peter Idem de Coron Mil. asketh Shall it be lawful to use the Sword the Lord saying that he that useth the Sword shall perish by the Sword Ninthly Because the Apostle admonisheth Christians That they defend not themselves Rom. 12.19 neither revenge by rendring evil for evil but give place unto wrath because Vengeance is the Lord's Be not overcome of evil but overcome evil with good If thine enemy hunger feed him if he thirst give him drink But War throughout teacheth and injoineth the quite contrary Tenthly Because Christ calls his Children to bear his Cross not to crucify or kill others Mark 8.34 To Patience not to Revenge To Truth and Simplicity not to fraudulent Stratagems of War or to play the Sycophant which John himself forbids To flee the Glory of this World not to acquire it by Warlike Endeavours Therefore War is altogether contrary unto the Law and Spirit of Christ. Object § XV. But they object That it is lawful to War because Abraham did War before the giving of the Law and the Israelites after the giving of the Law Answ. I answer as before 1. That Abraham offered Sacrifices at that time and Circumcised the Males Which nevertheless are not lawful for us under the Gospel 2. That neither defensive nor offensive War was lawful to the Israelites Israelites going to War enquired the Oracle of God of their own Will or by their own Counsel or Conduct but they were obliged at all times if they would be successful first to enquire the Oracle of God 3. That their Wars against the wicked Nations were a figure of the inward War of the true Christians against their Spiritual Enemies in which we overcome the Devil the World and the Flesh. 4. Something is expresly forbidden by Christ Matth. 5.26 which was granted to the Jews in their time because of their hardness and on the contrary we are commanded that singular Patience and Exercise of love which Moses commanded not to his Disciples From whence Tertullian saith well against Marc. Some things permitted in the Old Testament because of hardness of heart Christ truly teacheth a new Patience even forbidding the revenging of an Injury which was permitted by the Creator And lib. de patien The Law finds more than it lost by Christ saying Love your Enemies And in the time of Clem. Alex. Christians were so far from Wars that he testified that they had no marks or signs of violence among them saying Neither are the Faces of Idols to be painted to which so much as to regard is forbidden Neither Sword nor Bow to them that follow Peace nor Cups to them who are moderate and temperate as Sylvius Disc. de Rev. Belg. Secondly They object That Defence is of natural Right Object and that Religion destroys not nature I answer Be it so but to obey God Answ. and commend our selves to him in Faith and Patience is not to destroy nature but to exalt and perfect it to wit to elevate it from the natural to the super-natural life by Christ living therein and comforting it that it may do all things and be rendered more than Conqueror Thirdly they object Object That John did not abrogate or condemn War when Soldiers came unto him I answer What then Answ. The question is not concerning John's doctrine but Christ's whose Disciples we are not John's For Christ and not John is that Prophet whom we ought all to hear and albeit that Christ said Luke 7.28 That a greater than John the Baptist was not among men born of women yet he adds That the least in the Kingdom of God is greater than he But what was John's answer that we may see if it can justifie the Soldiers of this time For if it be narrowly minded it will appear that what he proposeth to Soldiers doth manifestly forbid them that Employment for he commands them Not to do violence to any man not to defraud any man but that they be content with their Wages Luke 3 14. Consider then what he dischargeth to Soldiers viz. Not to use Violence or Deceit against any which being removed let any tell how Soldiers can War For are not Craft Violence and Injustice three properties of War and the natural consequences of Battels Fourthly they object That Cornelius and that Centurion Object of whom there is mention made Matth. 8.5 were Soldiers and there is no mention that they laid down their Military Employments I answer Neither read we that they continued in them Answ. But it is most probable that if they continued in the doctrine of Christ and we read not any where of their falling from the Faith that they did not continue in them especially if we consider that two or three Ages afterwards Christians altogether rejected War or at least a long while after their time if the Emperor Marc. Aurel. Anton. be to be credited who writes thus I prayed to my-Country Gods but when I was neglected by them and observed my self pressed by the Enemy considering the fewness of my Forces I called to one and entreated those who with us are called Christians and I found a great number of them And I forced them with Threats Christians instanced that did not War which ought not to have been because afterwards I knew their Strength and Force Therefore they betook themselves neither to the use of Darts nor Trumpets for they use not to do so for the cause and Name of their God which they bear in their Consciences And this was done about an hundred and sixty years after Christ. To this add those words which in Justin Martyr the Christians Answer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is We fight not with our Enemies And moreover the answer of Martin to Julian the Apostate related by Sulpitius Severus I am a Soldier of Christ therefore I cannot fight which was three hundred years after Christ. It is not therefore probable that they continued in Warlike Employments How then is Vincentius Lyrinensis and the Papists consistent with their Maxim That which always everywhere and by all was received c. And what becomes of the Priests with their Oath That they neither ought nor will Interpret the Scripture but according to the universal Consent of the Fathers so called For it is as easie to obscure the Sun at Mid day as to deny that the Primitive Christians renounced all Revenge and War And albeit this thing be so much known to all yet it is as well known that all the Modern Sects live in the neglect and contempt of this Law of Christ and likewise oppress others who in this agree not with them for Conscience sake towards God Persecution for not bearing Arms and not fasting and praying for Victory Even as we have suffered much in our Country because We neither could our selves bear Arms nor send others in our place nor give our money for the buying
Students tell us whether in their esteem they deserve a better Designation Now that to use Proverbs in things written even from the Spirit of Truth is no Inconsistency let them read Tit. 1.12 To use Proverbs is not Inconsistent with Truth Evil beasts slow bellies 2 Pet. 2.22 The dog is returned c. and the sow to the puddle But to proceed they offer to prove the Spirit in the Quakers not to be the Spirit of God because it teaches Doctrines contrary to the Scriptures The first Instance of this is The Quakers denying the necessity of the Continuance of the use of Bread and Wine as an Ordinance in the Church which they alledge pag. 67. is Commanded Matth. 26.26 Mark 14.21 Luke 22.19 But the Students may look over these places and find if they can any thing in the first two of Matth. and Mark like a Command The Use of Bread and Wine discontinued but only a meer Narrative of the Matter of Fact In that of Luke these Words are added Do this in remembrance of me They proceed to prove that this is not Ceased of its own nature carping at these Words of R. B. in his first Answer to W. M. pag. 54 55. where he saith The very Institution intimates the Abolishing thereof at Christ's Coming Insinuating as if he had mistaken himself for his Words say they allude to Paul 's 1 Cor. 11. and not to Christ's But while they take a Liberty to judge of his Thoughts they do but shew their own forwardness to Mistake For either these Words of Christ's in Luke above-mentioned do import They should do that in Remembrance of him until he came or they do not If they do not the Students give away their own Cause If they do then he might allude to that as being there included though not expressed As often c. implies no Continuance They urge The Coming of Christ mentioned must be his Coming to Judgment because these to whom Christ was come in Spirit do use it But this proves not That they then practised it by way of Necesary Duty more than their practising other things which our Adversaries themselves do acknowledge do not Continue nor are not Binding But they proceed pag. 69. to prove it Commanded since from the Apostle's words 1 Cor. 11. And to prove that this was not a meer Narrative of a Matter of Fact as we truly affirm but a Command they Affirm first That he often gives the Title of the Lord's Supper to it even as received by those Corinthians For Answer the Students must needs be like themselves and as they often belied us so they use the Apostle the same way For not only in this Chapter or Epistle but in all Paul's Epistles these Words the Lord's Supper are only once mentioned so not often Secondly verse 20. where he useth these Words thus When ye come together therefore into one place this is not to eat the Lord's Supper It is so far from making for them that it makes clearly against them And the Syriack Copy hath not in that 20. ver nor elswhere these Words The Lord's Supper at all but in lieu of it when then ye meet together not as ye ought to do in the day of the Lord. For the Apostle clearly here asserts that the Corinthians in their using of Bread and Wine did not eat the Lord's Supper He says not they did not eat it as they ought Secondly they urge That the Apostle received of the Lord a Command to take eat do this This is strongly alledged but we deny it and let them prove it For Proof they give none unless we may take an Example for a Proof in which they beg the Question For unless that alledged Minion of the King should tell these Citizens he came to that he had received Order to Command them to obey the Decree repeated by him the Example says nothing But that the Apostle has signified any such thing to us we deny and it remains for them to prove Thirdly They alledge That since the Apostle reproves them for Abuses in the use of this and to rectifie those brings them back to the Institution the duty of Receiving it may be much more concluded from the same Institution Answer this is their bare Affirmation The Abuses committed in practising a Ceremony may be regulated by telling the proper Rise Vse and End of it and yet the using it may not be an Absolute Duty The Apostle says how those that observe Days ought to do it to the Lord it will not therefore follow that the Observation of Days is a Duty Incumbent upon all Yea the Apostle in that Place expresly asserts the Contrary Their fourth Reason is yet more Ridiculous The Apostle insinuates that it is a Duty because of the first Word FOR that which I have c. Who but the Students would Argue at this rate such kind of Reasons serve to shew their Folly not to confirm their Opinions As do these that follow with their old Example of the King's Minion In all which they miserably beg the Question taking for granted That it is a standing Statute Which is the thing remains to them yet to prove In the end of this page they desire to join the Word OFTEN which say they evidenceth it was a practice to be Continued in And here they insult because that R. B. in answer to W. M. arguing thus from this Word Often did Reply That thence it would not follow That As often as a man sins he offends God did import we should sin often Here they say R. B. egregiously shews his Folly and Impiety because they never did argue from the Word OFTEN precisely But their Brother W. M. to whom he then Answered did precisely Argue from it whose express Words in his pretended Sober Answer are pag. 92. It may be observed That the Corinthians were to be often in the use of it because it is said as often as ye eat c. So since he argued from the Word Often his answer was proper nor have they brought any thing to weaken it And whereas they add Who will say that ever sin was instituted by God R. B. never said so but yet that weakens not his Retortion nor strengthens their Argument from the Word Often As may appear in a thing truly Instituted by God and yet unlawful else as Often as a Man Marrieth he is bound to his Wife might be said to Import that it were a Duty Incumbent upon Men to Marry often or unlawful to forbear Their Fifth Reason is A Regulating Prescription is no Commanding Injunction because the Apostle prescribes the right Method of using it For they alledge If it had been indifferent he would have rather forbidden it as useless c. This is no Argument but their bare Conjecture in which they would be wiser than the Apostle and we have answered it before shewing the Apostle gives Rules to rectifie the Observation of Days
clearly Repealed because Murtherers Witches Traitors are Tares as well as Hereticks and if the one were to be eximed * Exempt or Excepted so would the other Is not this the way to Argue against Christ and to charge Contradictions upon him not upon us Wherein they fasten an Absurdity upon him who gave this Command or else they must acknowledge that by these Tares are to be understood some sort of Evil-doers with whom the Magistrates are not to meddle But since the Students say This is Repealed they must Confess it sometimes stood in Vigour it being once Commanded we would willingly be informed then of them and they may remember it when they write next How long this Command stood and to whom it belonged since it had its Rise from Christ and was none of the Old Covenant-Precepts Or if it be one of those useless Gospel-Commands they dream of which it is unlawful for us to Obey But to go on they say That by the Tares is to be understood bemasked Hypocrites who being scarce discernable from the Wheat are therefore not to be meddled with No Discerning no Judging Very well then where the Magistrate cannot discern Heresies according to themselves he is not to punish And then what comes of that Authority was acknowledged Nero had from Rom. 13. who was as uncapable to Discern Hereticks as Hypocrites And then seeing as before is said They are not to Iudge of hidden things Experience hath abundantly shewn how much the True Discerning of Heresy is both Vncertain and Difficult even to Protestant Magistrates who have called that Wheat to day which they have called Tares to morrow And therefore ought according to this Rule to forbear meddling in such Matters Sundry Religions may live in Peace together Their Second Argument pag. 123. drawn from Rom. 13. and 1 Pet. 2.14 which is parallel with it is before Answered Afterwards they go about to play the Politicians shewing both here and in the following page How the Publick Peace is disturbed by suffering of sundry Religions And this they reckon so Certain that they conclude It is known by all that are but indifferently versed in Histories c. Now if this Conclusion hold True it is Impossible either for France Germany Holland or Zwitserland to be in Peace without either the Papists rise up and Cut the Protestants Throats or the Protestants theirs And who but such as the Students can be Ignorant that after much Blood-shed and Contention who should Oppress and Destroy each other they have learned by sad Experience That it is safest and most conducible to the Peace and contributes most to the Publick Benefit Not to meddle with each others Consciences Notwithstanding that these pitiful States-men can prattle to the Contrary Who have shewn themselves in this to be very indifferently versed in History Civil Offences require a Civil Censure and Religious Offences an Ecclesiastick Censure But they proceed Affirming That since the Magistrate is Keeper of both Tables to whom is entrusted not only the Care of Mens Bodies but Souls he ought to punish not only for Evil but also for Religious Offences If all this were confessed would it follow that he were to punish Religious as Civil Offences by a Civil Censure Surely nay no more than he must punish Civil Offences by an Ecclesiastick Censure Now it remains for them to prove That Offences in things purely Conscientious should among Christians be punished by the External Sword Which they have not as yet done And let it be here Observed that notwithstanding all their Clamours for the Magistrates Priviledge and that the Quakers detract from him All the Power Dignity and Honour they put upon him is To be the Clergy's Burrow For as they allow him not Authority to judge who are Hereticks and who not So he must only serve to be their Executioner and persecute such as they find prejudicial to their Interest For though they will have it to be lawful for Preachers such as their Bishops to be Magistrates as Chancellor Councellor Judge c. yet no Magistrate nay the King himself must take upon him to be a Preacher though we could never see any thing in all the New Testament making this Vnlawful yea and David and Solomon in the Old who were not of the Tribe of Levi were both Prophets and Preachers and Pen-men of the Scripture This Trick even the Protestant Clergy have learned from their Father the Pope Priests shut out the Magistrate from medling with their Function who shewed the Clergy long ago the way to make themselves Princes and Judges but to be sure to shut out the Magistrate from medling with their Function So it may be easily seen here whether the Quakers or the Students be the greatest Friends to the Magistrate Lastly They Conclude that since those that broach Heresy do Evil and that the Magistrate is the Executor of God's Wrath upon him that doth or acteth outwardly Evil without any Restriction c. it is not lawful for us to add a Restriction where the Spirit of God hath put none Who can but Admire the Impudency of these Students which do that which in the following line they Affirm is unlawful by adding Outwardly which is a Restriction For the words in the Text are not Outwardly Evil but Evil which being taken without any Restriction Comprehends Inward as well as Outward Acts of Evil. Seeing then they put a Restriction though to their own Self-Condemnation they Confess it to be Vnlawful which they are forced to do else Hypocrites would be Comprehended whom they Confess to be Tares that are not to be medled with Tares We that judge it no wise Vnlawful because without other clear Texts be Contradicted there must be here a Restriction may Restrict it to things Civil and Moral excluding matters of Worship and Difference in Opinion for the Reasons often before-mentioned Their third Argument wholly misses the matter which is The Practice of many Princes even approved of God in Coercing Idolatries c. For since all the Examples they give are of the Kings of Judah and Israel under the Law it no wise meets the present Controversy which is concerning the power of Christian Magistrates under the Gospel Lastly they Argue That the Prophets of the Old Testament have prophesied The Death of false Prophets that it should be the Office of Christian Magistrates to Coerce false Prophets for which they alledge Deut. 18.20 He that shall speak in the name of other Gods shall die Very well he saith not shall be put to death in a Judicial Way It is said The Soul that sinneth shall die it will not therefore follow that Every Soul that sinneth shall be killed by the Magistrate But though it be understood of putting to death it reacheth not the Case we being under the Gospel not under the Law where also it was not lawful so to do for different Opinions and Interpretations of the Law but
hard to make sense they Conclude That this late Engagement meaning the Dispute with themselves is a fulfilling of the Offer in the End of the English Theses Notwithstanding they subscribed the Articles whereof the first expresly bears That it is Abstract from it But first they say The Ministers are not concerned to meet with the Quakers because the Report of the Victory is already gone upon their side who are but Young-Men and cannot do so well as their Ministers who are more Learned and Grave And yet a little after that they may not omit here to give themselves the Lie they say That such a Dispute would be a means to stumble the Weak harden the Fallen and dishonour God rather than the contrary What Confusion is here They are but Young-Men and their Masters more Learned Grave and Able their Dispute if they be to be believed has done good Established many Inclining to Quakerism And yet their Ministers Disputing would be a mean to stumble the Weak c. They conclude that we are not to be sought after because we are Goats and Wolves and not strayed Sheep We could produce enough under their Masters hands to Contradict this if it were worth the pains They fill up the rest of the Sect with alledging That publick Disputes are against the Law upbraiding me as a Rebel for offering one alledging that it is not lawful for Protestants neither in the Turkish nor Popish Dominions to offer to dispute against the publick Religion authorized by the Magistrate though they may privately call it in question and disswade from it Whereby they openly condemn as Rebels the Apostles and Primitive Christians The Students Condemning the Apostles c. yea and the Primitive Protestants as by many Instances both at home and abroad could be shewn And whereas they say We profess to oppose their Religion and not Papists It is another Falshood for some of us of late years have lost their Lives and otherâ— deeply Suffered for opposing Popery at Rome it self a Task the Students so long as they can sit at ease and buy a Benefice at home will as unwillingly undertake as another Dispute with the Quakers They begin their last Section most Impudently alledging That they have past by as much as they could personal Criminations How great a Lie this is the Reader by what is above said will Observe They are Angry we should alledge That their Masters had put Arguments into their Mouths Though we can shew them of the Closest of them in Manuscripts sent by them to us And to disprove this they say They faithfully declare it to be Lies But what Men of Faith they are is above shewen Let it be left to the Reader to judge whether they be more to be Trusted in saying The Arguments they brought were their own than when they say They had a Dispute with the Quakers the 1. of June 1675. Though one of them was altogether Absent and the other two were but meer Hearers What Reason is there they should be believed in saying The Arguments they used were their own though perhaps they only Repeated them as when they positively affirmed That they disputed with us though they were meer Auditors And to this they add another great Lie saying That the Quakers affirmed in their Contra-Remonstrance that this is G. M 's Work under their Cover Whereas the Words are It is strange that they to wit the Students should Vndertake so hastily what he has been so long Advising unless this be his Work under their Cover but a Supposition is not a positive Assertion It is not said This is his Work as the Students have perverted it who are so accustomed to Lie that such kind of Perversions pass with them but for small Escapes They are offended W. M. should be called a Catechist though the Bishop their Ordinary is not pleased he should have a higher Designation and themselves cannot deny it And whereas they say This is done exceeding malitiously for he officiated at the foresaid Place for a short Space and long before the publishing of their Pamphlet They would do well to shew wherein the Malice of this lieth and to examine Whether he did not exercise that Office longer than he has done any since But it is their Custom to speak at Random They cry out against our saying We were informed Their Master complains to the Bishop against the Quakers c. that their Master had gone to the B. to desire him to Complain to the Council c. Alledging That though we say we are Informed yet they Insinuate it is a Lie of our making Because it is usual for us that are damnable Hereticks to spread a false Report our selves and then say We heard it Let them Instance any Report if they can Raised up by us for which we cannot give them Authors of their own Religion whereas the most part of their Reports against us have no Authors but our Enemies But for Answer let them know that the same was told to R. B. by G. M. and J. S. two Chief Citizens of their own Profession the last of which Constrained him to stand upon the Street until he should Tell it him And whereas they add That if they would follow our Foot-steps they could cast many horrid things in our Teeth Answ. It is one thing To receive Information against a People and report things as true spoken or written by their professed Enemies as the Students do in their Citations out of Clerk's Examples Hicks and Faldo and another To Report things spoken by Members of their own Church who if they have belied them let them reckon that among themselves Lastly They accuse me As having Impudently Aspersed their Professor J. M. with Scurrilous Revilings and Malitious Calumnies Of which they are so Impudent as not to give one Instance and are thereto dared when they write next to Name them or Instance one Calumny or Scurrilous Reviling wherewith I asperse him or else be accounted Impudent Liars Whereas they say These Calumnies we borrowed from the spiteful Jesuits and like Vipers spouted them out again they declare their Folly The Jesuit accused him of Treason as the Students following his Example do us but so not I who only minded him that seeing he who says The Scripture is his Rule has been deceived in pretending the Scripture said that which now he confesses to be an Errour If the Spirit were to be rejected from being the Rule because Men pretending to it have been deceived so should the Scripture also In which Instances if he or they dare say I have Calumniated him Let them name Wherein and I shall prove all I have Asserted in that Affair and that without Recurring to the Jesuit's Testimony having my Information from better Hands And to Augment their Lies they say It tends to his Advantage to be calumniated by such as the Quakers They have not proved that we have Calumniated him And we may justly Retort That
doubt that Five of the Ten Letters subscribed with her Husband's Name were not his she could not know the Certainty but by her Husband 's own Testimony and since he himself has said That to Discern these Characters a Subjective Concurrence of the Spirit is necessary Which since he saith some have not they can then not be sure of this Article of Faith His Example of the Five Fingers is yet more silly than the former And albeit he confidently Affirms he has above shewn this we shall by Examining it shew the Contrary As p. 74. and 75. answering to that of mine The Prohibition of not Adding to Prophecy considered where I shew that in Prov. 30.5.6 there is the same Prohibition of Not adding that is Rev. 22. ver 18. and therefore it would follow That all written after Solomon 's time was against the mind of God To this he gives a rare Answer What is spoken of that Book I suppose he means the Revelations and elsewhere of the Commands of God is consequently to be understood of all But this is to Repeat that against which the Argument is formed instead of Answering it Either that of Revelations must not be understood as he doth it or that of Proverbs makes the same Exclusion since the words are the same and the Authority also But the Prophecies of the Prophets saith he were but Explications of the Law of God But such Explications go to make up the Canon and will he admit that yet No. But the Lord did not saith he bind up his own hand but has he bound up his hands now that he cannot move any of his Servants by his Spirit to write I suppose he will not say he hath He Confesseth there were Prophets after John's days who truly foretold Events but were not to write Scripture But is not a part of that which he accounts the Canon a fore-telling of Events And yet that excludes it not from the Canon Here because he is pinched he takes his usual Retreat by falling a Railing and Comparing us with Papists who he saith use this Argument And what then I could tell him an hundred Arguments used by him which the Papists also use against us will he say it follows they are Invalid But at last he thinks he has found a Mysterious Riddle that will do the business and therefore he leaves it with a Defiance J. B's query of a Compleat Canon and Revelations ended Let him un-riddle this Mystery if he can to wit When shall our Canon be Compleated When will there be no more need of Revelations But might not this same Question have been proposed to the Christians that lived before John wrote his Book of the Revelation And as I suppose They would have Answered to many of whom perhaps it was not Revealed that John should write such a Book afterwards so shall I directly Answer his Question When it shall please God in whose Power it is to Reveal himself when how and so long as he pleases and who as he saith has not bound up his own Hand ¶ 4. I come now to consider what he saith of the Perfection of the Scriptures And because he is very Clamorous in accusing me as derogating there-from it will be manifest whether he has any reason so to do P. 55. n. 6. he quarrels I forget the Narration of the first Creation and that the Examples are Instructive But who will deny or when did I that the Remarkable Providences of God towards his Children are Instructive Do not I expresly shew how they are Instructive p. 46. * See above p. 304 305. which himself also noticeth And was the first Creation no part of God's Providence towards Man who was to Rule over it Is it not then there Included But I make no mention of the Promises and Threatnings But are not they any part of the Doctrines of Christ nor included in any part of these precious Declarations which I say the Scripture Contains Next he Carps at my saying The Chief Doctrines of Christianity asking Where we may find the whole Doctrines of the Christian Faith I answer freely In the Scriptures And let him prove if he can this to be any Contradiction seeing my saying The Chief Doctrines of Christianity is Indefinite excluding none And therefore most base and abominable is that Lye he makes of me in the last part of this Paragraph where he saith I say the Scripture only beareth Testimony to some of them to wit of the Chief Heads of Christianity which I dare him to prove ever to have been said or written by me And of the like nature are his lying Conjectures and his malitious Insinuations from my Words in the two following Paragraphs which I utterly Renounce and Return upon him as his own false and fictitious Apprehensions The Authority of the Scriptures is from the Spirit For do not I declare the Authority of the Scripture when I Testify They are from the Spirit and that such Commands require Obedience as has been above shew'n But what he urgeth of this further p. 57. and 59. from the saying of some Quakers affirming That is not a Command to them which is given to another Albeit I might justly reject it as Impertinent till he prove it for the Reasons upon this occasion above declared yet because he mentions Benjamin Furly in Roterdam having some knowledge of that matter I answer Whether will he say All the Commands in Scripture to every Person there mentioned are binding upon every Individual now If he dare not say they are as I know he dare not how must I then distinguish betwixt what binds me and binds me not Must it not be by the Spirit suppose it were only subjectively as he will Confess Inlightning the Vnderstanding To make this Distinction then it seems it is the Operation of the Spirit that makes them know their Duty and sure they cannot Obey before they Know. But if he say That though they should want that Operation of the Spirit and did not know nor acknowledge them to be their Duty yet they are binding upon them Neither B. F. nor any Quaker will deny but even the Commands of God's Spirit and the Precepts of the Scripture which now concern all are binding upon all so that they shall be justly Condemned for not Obeying albeit that by the perversness of their Hearts and Wills they either Refuse to Obey or will not Acknowledge them So that his urging of that p. 60. and 61. n. 13. and his pleading for it is Vnnecessary and needs no Answer yet who would say they could Obey to any Advantage of their Souls without this Operation of the Spirit since Whatsoever is not of Faith is Sin But as to these words said to be written by B. F. he is here Challenged to prove They are his without adding or diminishing and it 's well known the adding or diminishing of two or three words in a few Lines will quite alter the
flee to an All sufficient Saviour But what 's the preaching of the Gospel especially in his Sense even as a little before acknowledged by him but a Declaring and Offering of Salvation to all to whom it is Preached Mercy and Good will through the Merits of Christ who died for them Next the Argument still holdeth good If the Gospel Commands as he saith to flee unto an All-sufficient Saviour For unless it be possible for such who are so Commanded to do it the preaching of it to them is a mocking of them and that to purpose if this Impossibility be Imposed upon them by him by whose Command the Gospel is thus preached The Example of Moses to Pharaoh and Esaias to the Jews has been before answered He ends this Paragraph begging the Question As if the Gospel could be said no where to be but where there is an outward Dispensation of it by the Ministry of Men. ¶ 7. Pag. 197. N. 51. He confesseth There is no Scripture that saith Salvation possible for all because Commanded to pray for all Christ has not died for all Men and there is that saith He has tasted Death for every Man Which is rather more and not a probation by Consequence only as I have already shewen Then he cometh to consider my Argument from 1 Tim. 2.1 3 4-6 shewing That Salvation cannot be Impossible for all since we are Commanded to pray for all and that since Christ gave himself a Price of Redemption for all it cannot be Impossible that all should be saved As is more largely illustrated in my Apology Now how he is pained in Answer to this and in his Nibblings about the particle all even unto pag. 204. the Reader may easily observe First he distinguisheth upon the Word Possible It is meant saith he here of such a thing as may be abstracting from the Decree yea in respect of the Decree the Contrary whereof is not decreed by God but not a thing simply so The Man it 's like thinks he has found-out a very subtile Distinction but it serves for little save to shew his own Confusion For to be possible abstracting from the Decree and with a respect to the Decree is for a thing to be Impossible if God had not decreed the Contrary and yet to be possible because God has not decreed the Contrary But to leave this piece of Confused Pedantry J. B. denies praying for all Men. he denies That we may pray for every one because John saith There is a Sin unto Death I do not say ye should pray for it But this is in plain Words to say The Apostle Paul was deceived and therefore his Brother John reproved him For the Man labours more in this to make these Two Apostles Contradict one another than to Refute me But for all this we see they are no ways at Variance We may pray for all because all may in a day be saved though when some have out-lived that Day it may not be fit to pray for them but if Salvation were by an absolute Decree made Impossible for most of Men it were Madness to pray for them He thinks it may as well be Inferred and to give Thanks for all Men. That we should give Thanks for all Men This I suppose he reckons Absurd but why so May not Men give thanks to God for and in the behalf of all Men for his Grace that he has given to all Men and also for his daily Care and good Providence over all Men That which he saith afterwards in many Words amounts to this That Men have prayed allowably for that which by reason of God's Decree was Impossible and therefore may pray in Faith for that which is Impossible Of this he gives one great Instance from Christ's praying Christ's praying Father save me from this Hour c. Save me from this hour Which is always with a Submission to God's Will But this may divers ways be answered for he has not proved That Christ's praying to save him from this Hour was in him a real Desiring however submissively that he might not undergo that which he knew he came into the World to do Neither can this be affirmed without Importing That Christ was unwilling to do his Father's Will and desirous to shun it which to Affirm were Blasphemy to Accuse him who in all things was found Willing and Obedient So that his Prayer was not a Desiring the thing might not be but that he might be saved and preserved from being overwhelmed with the Difficulties and Distresses that in that Hour did and might Attend him And in this his Prayer was Answered for albeit these Difficulties were not Removed yet he Triumphed over them That a Man pray for the Life of his Father or Friend who notwithstanding dieth at that Time is not denied but it will not thence follow that it was Impossible that those Prayers could have been Answered For to Conclude from the Events that things could not have been other ways were to Conclude all things came to pass by a Stoical Fate The Stoical Fate believes God an Agens necessarium and all things to come to pass necessarily after an Inevitable and Vnchangeable manner So that God himself were Agens necessarium and to savour of Spinosa Then it had been Impossible for J. B. to have Omitted though at te earnest Desire of his Friends one Word as what he has written or to have added one Word more and yet he saith in some Places He might have said more But the Apostle's desiring to pray here is founded upon the positive Mind of God who willeth all Men to be saved This he saith is most false in the Sense asserted by me else all Men should be saved But I never took it in that Sense The Question is Whether in any true Sense it could be said that he will all Men to be saved and that given as a Reason why we should pray for all if God had made it always simply Impossible for many to be saved To shew that God's Will of Precept as his Phrase is may be Impossible in respect of his Decree he saith God Commandeth all perhaps Devils and Damned to love him perfectly and yet this is not now possible But this perhaps spoils all this Inference For until he be Certain of it he can Conclude nothing from it He bestows divers pages upon the Universal particle ALL to shew how it is diversly taken and by an Instance of several Scriptures to prove it sometimes is not taken for All and every One But in this had he not loved to be longsom and tedious he might have spared his pains since that was never denied by me But the Question is That since the proper common and most universal Signification of all is to signifie every one whether in the places brought by me the most common Signification should not be made use of according to the general Rule of all Interpreters And therefore if he
will not serve him with such as are not Blind To what I have said to shew that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to be referred to the Light 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That all Men through it the Light not John might believe and not to John he returneth his contrary Assertion in stead of Reason My shewing it by its being said That all might believe through him which all could not do through John as not hearing him in stead of Answering he tells me I may learn thence how to take the particle All which in Effect is nothing but by his own bare Authority to Command me to take All not Vniversally But I find no Vertue in his Order to perswade and therefore will wait for Probation ere I Obey That John as an Instrument might be useful to bring People to believe in the Light I deny not and therefore he might have spared his pains in this Page to prove that But it will not thence follow that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is referred to John until he first remove the Ground given against it by me in shewing All is not understood here Vniversally which is incumbent for him to do since he denies it ¶ 6. Pag. 256. N. 31. In answer to my arguing That this Light is saving and sufficient because it is the Light of Christ whereby all ought to believe he saith They know no Light sufficient which is not Efficacious that is which certainly doth not save But besides that this Answer is but a meer begging of the Question J. B.'s Quibbles against Saving Light it is Contrary to many Scriptures which I have at length shewen before in proving Many that have had a Day have resisted the Mercy and Grace thereof What he saith further here against those who affirm That the Improving of Nature aright shall obtain Grace Toucheth me not who affirm no such thing He beginneth his N. 32. p. 257. with a Perversion as if I denied that we received what is Natural and Common from Christ because I say The Evangelist John c. 1. is treating of what we receive from Christ as Mediator therefore I deny we receive from Christ what is Common and Natural But in Answer to my urging the Light 's being Supernatural to pass by his pedantick Quibble which he adventureth not to Insist upon because the Darkness that is Man in his Natural Estate Comprehendeth it not but Man in that Estate can Comprehend what is Natural to him he tells me they thence Infer That Man in that Estate is void of all Spiritual Light Is not this a Learned Refutation of my Reason Reader But suspecting this would not serve he adds another Quibble upon the Word Comprehend That though Man in his Natural State can Comprehend that which is Natural yet he cannot Comprehend the God of Nature I say not To Comprehend to receive or apprehend 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that in his Natural State he can nor yet in his Spiritual Comprehend being taken in the most Comprehensive Sense But otherwise being understood of Receiving or Apprehending for so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be understood he may Receive it by vertue of the Power which from the Light he Receives so to do That the Quakers exhort People to believe in a meer Creature Is a meer Calumny with which like Stuff this Page is filled And therefore my Argument of the Light being saving and Supernatural because we are commanded to believe in it Remains Unremoved Pag. 258. In answer to what I urge from the Parable of the Sower Matth. 13. and the Word of Faith Rom. 10. and the Engrafted Word Jam. 1.21 he only opposeth his meer Assertions and Railing calling it Quaker-Dotages and a fanciful Dream And to the Argument drawn from the Talents Mat. 25. he denieth them to signify Saving Grace of which above Pag. 259. When he comes to answer what I urge from Col. 1.23 of the Gospel's being preached in every Creature which is not only a Declaration of good Things but the Power of God he gives his meer Assertions That the Gospel was the Doctrine delivered by Men J. B. asserts the Gospel to be the Doctrine or Declaration of the Power of God but the Doctrine was not the Power of God which the Gospel is albeit it declared of it No more than a Receipt of Physick is the Ingredients Next he asserts That if the Gospel be in them it needs no Preacher but this he proves not A Man may have good Herbs in his Garden and yet need another to tell him the Right Vse of them yea and discover them unto him And what if I would say as he desires That it was preached from the beginning of the World in a Measure that it wrought in mens Hearts in order to save them albeit the full plain and manifest Discovery and pretious Effects thereof was reserved to the Ministration of Christ and his Apostles And therefore his Assertion in the next page 260. is false That according to the Quakers Principle the Gospel was alike manifest in all Ages Was not the promised Seed a Preaching of the Gospel to Adam How poorly he has shewn the Restriction of the Particle All albeit the Words here be Every Creature which is more pathetick in his Eighth Chapter is before Evinced And whereas he desires to know Where the Gospel is taken properly for that Inward Strength that is Common to all Men I have shewen him the Gospel is called the Power of God expressly Rom. 1. and that is an Inward Power and Strength And then again I have shewen him that this Gospel is preached to or in Every Creature which are plain Words what is preached to Every Creature is Common to all Men And therefore until he answer this his calling me a Babbler and a Pagan-Preacher as he doth in this Place with such like Stuff will have little Weight with Men of Reason To Assert the Manifestation of God in Man to be the Gospel J. B. calls Heathenism Pelag. Socin Armin. and Jesuitism The rest of this page and the following 261 and 262. is a Complex of Railing That the Quakers Gospel is meer Heathenism worse than Pelagianism Socinianism Arminianism and Jesuitism because they say that what is manifest from God in Man is by the Gospel and that which Revealeth Justice and Equity is the Gospel Which this Man supposeth only to be the Light of Nature and thereupon concludeth The Quakers Gospel is but Nature's dim and corrupt Light All which is but to beg the Question as he doth where he supposes That Man naturally can perceive the Eternal Power of the Godhead in the outward Creation without any supernatural Light Which he should prove and not mock at my being otherwise minded for this savours more of Pelagianism than any thing asserted by me He asks me by what Authority I make 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is what is to be known of God for
Sense above mentioned it doth as also for the necessity of pressing after Regeneration begun and Perfection pressed after and for the possibility of obtaining it after Regeneration begun since so far as Man is joined to Sin his perfect Regeneration is Retarded Yet as himself towards the end of this Paragraph saith It may be begun where some Members may yet be to be mortified and albeit some Corruption be not wholly purged out yet God can have Fellowship with his own work of Grace in the Soul and with the Soul so far as it is sanctified and renewed but no further Pag. 339 n. 19. he saith I wickedly dispute for God c. to say It is against his Wisdom not to have found Means whereby he might be served but by such Actions by which the Devil is no less yea is more served But his Charge is upon the naked Supposition that their Doctrine is the Truth which is pitifully to beg the question Yea he indirectly notwithstanding much winding about to avoid it Confesseth my Charge saying There is no formal service performed to the Devil so he grants some Material Service to be performed to him Is not the Devil served and that Service justly displeasing to God unless it be a Formal Service for to serve the Devil formally is to acknowledge him as their Master and give him Service as due to him which many do not who yet may be said truly enough to serve him He addeth The Spiritual Warfare J. B. pleads for is not to Overcome but to break daily the Commandments of God in Thought Word and Deed. That God bath seen meet his Children be in a spiritual Warfare What then Can no Man be in a Warfare unless he be Overcome Men may be Engaged in War and may be liable to be Assaulted yea may be often-times narrowed straitned and beset by the Enemy and sometimes wounded and yet never overcome but what he pleads for is not only a Warfare but a being Worsted and Overcome and that Every Day for so truly are such Overcome by the Devil Who daily break the Commandments of God in Thought Word and Deed as he affirms of all God's Children He goes on n. 20. to say I run my self blind in saying it is against God's Justice to require Men to abstain from all Sin and not enable them to do it because it would prove all the Wicked are Perfect for God requires of them Obedience But it seems himself has been blind when he made this Answer I never urged that because God gave Men power therefore they are perfect as he foolishly throughout this Paragraph Imagineth and then battereth against this Man of Straw of his own making And that this proves that Wicked Men might if they had not Resisted God's Grace have forsaken their Wickedness and been Perfect I deny not neither doth he prove the Contrary He confesseth Manâ—s Imperfection to be of themselves but he thinks it cannot be accounted Vnrighteousness in God to Require and yet not to give that measure of Grace whereby Men should become Perfect because that power which was once given was sinfully Cast away But all this dependeth upon the Supposition that Man lost his power in Adam which was before Discust and is now in him but a begging of the Question And when I shew That their Doctrine maketh God more Vnjust than the vilest of Men J. B.'s Doctrine makes God to give a Stone instead of Bread c. who will not give to their Children asking Bread a Stone c. he reproacheth me as a Blasphemous Tongue But let us see how he frees their Doctrine of this foul Consequence The Lord forbid saith he they hope for a full Deliverance but it is in Heaven This Answer confirmeth the Charge and doth not lessen it and so for all his Brag the Stone yet remains according to them instead of Bread and is like to Choke him unless he find some better way to digest it than thus for God requires to forsake Sin here and yet according to them denies the power here for concerning being free from Sin in Heaven there is no question He addeth pag. 341. That my saying Their Doctrine is Injurious to the Sacrifice of Christ's Death which was To take away Sin destroys all I said of Vniversal Redemption but he forgets to shew How perhaps we may Expect it next since his 8 th Chapter is already Answered His saying They affirm that the stain of Sin is taken away and Victory obtained doth not answer because they refer that to another Life and the question is concerning this And to my saying That if the Children of God Sin in Thought Word and Deed daily then there is no difference betwixt the Holy and Profane he answereth The difference is great because what the Wicked do is done with full purpose of heart c. but the Other mourneth over and repenteth of his Sin This difference is in respect of Repentance not of Sinning in their Sinning they are both alike That there is a Difference betwixt him that Continueth in Sin J. B.'s Godly continue in Sin all their Life-time and Sin daily and him that Repenteth I deny not but since he supposes the Godly to Continue in Sin all their life-time yea in daily Sinning the Similitude still remaineth and such will do well to take heed Who break God's Commands daily in Thought Word and Deed lest notwithstanding they may be in J. B.'s Account the Godly yet in Jesus Christ's they prove such to whom it shall be said Depart ye Workers of Iniquity I know you not ¶ 4. Pag. 343. N. 23. Instead of answering my Argument shewing Their Doctrine maketh the Work of the Ministry Preaching and Praying useless he saith Hence we see the necessity of a standing Ministry which I am against This is false as shall appear He adds The Ministry is to bring them on toward Perfection but the question is Whether that Perfection is not attainable here For a Perfection that admitteth not of a growth I plead not If he would have had this Answer understood to be to the purpose he should have said That such as Sin not cannot be said to admit of a growth which he doth not so much as attempt nor offer to prove What I affirm to the Contrary in the Example of Christ who notwithstanding he was always free of Sin is said to Increase both in Favour with God and Man Luk. 2.52 To this mentioned in my Apology notwithstanding his Prolixity he is as Mute as a Fish How their Doctrine makes Prayers useless I have shewen before Instead of answering Col. 4.12 where Epaphras is said To labour fervently in Prayers Perfection prayed for and Vnblameableness c. that the Colossians might stand perfect and compleat in all the Will of God and to 1 Thess. 3.12 13. where Paul prays That the Lord would make them increase and abound in Love c. to the end he might
establish their Hearts unblameable in Holiness I say instead of Answering he makes Commentaries upon these places which in themselves are as plain as can be that this is They should walk in Sincerity and always be growing And what if all this be granted it will not follow that it is Impossible Men should be free of Sin here even by the Grace of God And sure where Men are Perfect and Compleat in all the Will of God and Vnblameable in Holiness they are not Sinning daily in Thought Word and Deed. Thus the Reader may judge of this Man's Confidence who saith These Scriptures make against this Imagined Perfection meaning that which is asserted by me Pag. 343. he saith My affirming Men are called Justified or Reprobated in respect of their being leavened with Sin or Righteousness fermenting is a piece of his own Pedantry and none of the Quakers Dialect would prove full Perfection to be Essential to the State of Christianity Therefore I must answer it as well as they who deny that to be Common to all the Regenerate But it seems he has not well understood his own New-Coined English word fermenting for one thing thing is not said to be leavened with another but where it hath much prevailed Every Touch or Tast of a thing doth not leaven him with it that so toucheth or tasteth it as all Men that understand common Language know and so every Sin is not enough to denominate a Man leavened with Sin And so with his own Answer that follows he looseth the Knot he imagined I was Tied by What he adds afterward of fulfilling the Law urges nothing but upon a Supposition of its being fulfilled by the meer strength of Man which I never affirmed That no Man is called Just because of inward Righteousness is but his bare Supposition as for the word Inherent so often repeated by him it is none of mine And to my urging That the Subject is denominated from the Accident he saith A Wall that is more Black than White cannot be called White So J. B.'s breakers of the Commands daily and yet such as have renounced the Works of Darkness Yet that a Wall is called White though the Whiteness be not Perfect But it is not called White if it be more Black than White which was the pinch I urged but slily over-slipt by him and such must be those that break the Commands daily for how such can be said to be more Just than Sinful is more than I can Reconcile either with Scripture or Reason sure the Answer which he gives doth it not To this question Where are then the Children of God and of Light His Reply is with a notable piece of Inconsistent Presbyterian Canting Even where these are who are giving to Christ much work to speak so to wash and make them clean from their daily Pollutions and Defilements and have renounced the Works of Darkness c. I desire to know of him the next time how these can be said to have Renounced the works of Darkness who have need to be washed from their daily defilements To my Argument shewing That Christ's Command to be perfect proves it possible he saith p. 344. That this only proves we should Endeavour after it But for this he addeth no Proof we must rest contented with his meer Affirmation As we must also do throughout the next N. 26. where he confidently Preacheth his own sense of Scripture instead of Answer or Reason and then concludes with a Railing saying I am led by an anti-Evangelical and Diabolical Spirit He saith that Matth. 7.21 and some other places cited by me prove nothing without supposing that no Man shall be saved who ever Sinned but without giving any Reason That the Vnconverted may be by the Grace of God Converted and consequently made Perfect I deny not He saith Rom. 6. speaks only of the Dominion of Sin And what then Doth not every Sin bring him that commits it under the power of that Sin in so far To the Instances of Enoch Noah and others Enoch Noah c. called perfect in Scriptures whom the Scriptures call Perfect he goes about to prove they sometimes Sinned And what then The question is not Whether they always were without Sin but Whether they never were without it and Sinned daily which is his Affirmation Which if they had done they could at no time have been called Perfect As for his other Glosses it will be time to receive them when he proves them it is not enough to make them Authentick with me though Augustin had approved If he will subscribe to all Augustin's glosses of Scripture I may give him a further Answer ¶ 5. Pag. 346. n. 28. He comes to take notice of my Answers to their Arguments and first to my Answer to their arguing from 1 Joh. 1. v. 8. If we say we have no Sin we deceive our selves c. That this will not prove the Apostle includeth more than James c. 3. v. 9 10. He answereth The Apostle is included though not for the present time If it be not for the present time J. B.'s pretended Proofs for Sinning daily then it will not plead for Sinning daily in Thought Word and Deed which is the case in hand Next supposing the Apostle were not Included he saith It is enough that Believers are Included But this he affirms without proof troubling himself and the Reader to prove that those John wrote to were Believers which no body will deny yet though they were Included it will not prove such a continual and daily Sinning as they plead for In answer to my shewing the words are Have not Sin and not Ye Sin not he only proves That they did or may Sin which I deny not And then when I say It may be affirmed of the Seed of Sin he concludes This to be Sinful so as to affect the Man but minds not to prove it and with this manner of begging the Question he concludes this Paragraph pag. 347. To my shewing that in 1 King 8.46 and Eccles. 7.20 there is nothing said of Sinning daily he answers It is express in Ecclesiastes That there is not a just Man upon earth that doth good and Sinneth not clearly Importing that even in their doing good they Sin But that this is clearly Imported he affirmeth but proveth not though there be no Man that Sinneth not it will not follow they Sin daily And for his Alledging That my Answer That it will not thence follow that though there was none that did not sin at that time there are none such now or that it is Impossible there should be such will infer there was none then Regenerate no not Solomon himself What if I should say so understanding Regeneration in the absolute Sense To what I shew from the Hebrew Word that it may be Interpreted not That sinneth not but That may not sin he tells me in sum That it is but Vanity and this he saith is obvious to
he concludes J. B.'s false Accusation why we come to their places of Worship It is to do open Contempt This is but his malitious Conjecture We come not there but in Obedience to the Lord when moved by his Spirit so to do to bear a faithful Testimony against all Superstition and Will-worship For it is not pleasant to us to come there where for the most part we are saluted with knocks and stones and other such brutish and Paganish dealings by their Church-Members which is the fruit of their holy things and whereunto the People are often encouraged by their Preachers who sometimes shew an Example of this themselves and of whose barbarous Actions even by the Presbyterian-Preachers there is a Book Extant entituled Fighting Priests falling upon the Innocent with their own hands Of Fighting Priests giving account how many of them fell upon these Innocent Servants of the Lord with their own hands and I my self have seen of the present Preachers of Scotland do it As for his flouting at the Quakers for laying claim to a Spirit of discerning so as to distinguish who pray from the Spirit and who not he doth but therein declare himself to be none of Christ's Sheep who are said to know his Voice from that of a Stranger And as for his saying That the Quakers judge of this by the Mimical posture of the Body it is false and would agree far rather to his Brethren whose affected Postures of Body as well as their Nonsensical and Absurd Expressions in Prayer have disgusted many of their Way of which I could give some eminent Instances but that I spare them at present The Example I gave of their Excluding some from their Sacrament of the Supper so called doth not halt as he affirmeth pag. 462. as to the main for if the Command to take it is with presupposition of Examination so the Command of praying is with the presupposition of its being in the Spirit in which all Worship is now to be Praying always in the Spirit Eph. 6.18 To my shewing in answer to their Objection of Peter his Commanding Simon Magus to pray that he says Repent and Pray after a meer Assertion without proof he says He sees that with our Quaker a graceless Person can Repent but not Pray To which I answer If he speak of possibility I believe a graceless Person may both Repent and Pray but as he cannot Repent without Grace so not Pray without the Spirit but Grace worketh in all if not Resisted as the Spirit doth in all to Prayer when they have received the Grace in measure but that some Measure of Repentance must go before Prayer A measure of Repentance goes before Prayer in a sense of Iniquity and desire of Deliverance himself I judge will hardly deny since the very offering to Pray importeth in the Person applying himself thereunto a sense of his Iniquity and a desire to be delivered from it for which end he approacheth to God to demand Pardon and help to Amend ¶ 6. Now I come to his 25 th Chapter of Singing Psalms where I shall not need to be large J. B. endeavours to Justify their Custom of Singing Davids Conditions and their speaking Lies I deny not as he observes Singing But to Justify their Custom of singing David 's Conditions by which many are made as I observed in my Apology to speak Lies in the presence of God he objecteth the practice of the Jews but their practice in matters of Worship without a Gospel-precept is not a Rule to us Neither doth the Instance given by him of Psal. 66.6 answer the matter for the Jews might very well praise the Lord for the deliverance of their Fore-Fathers out of Egypt but that will not allow Drunkards and Impenitent Persons to fay They water their Couch with Tears as by singing Psalms many do which is false As for his saying They do but praise God for what he hath done for others why do they not express it so then And whereas he asketh Whether the Spirit inspireth the Meeter in the Song and the Tone of the singing he sheweth his Folly and Lightness while he ridiculously supposeth that Meeter is necessary or any other Tone than Nature hath given to every one of which God by his Spirit maketh use as an Instrument as he doth of other parts and faculties of the Body to the performing of Spiritual duties And the like Folly he sheweth when he tells What they do not in Scotland since he knows it was not particularly or only against the things practised in Scotland that I write in that Apology SECT XIII Wherein his Twenty Sixth Chapter Of Baptism is Considered ¶ 1. OUR Author to shew how angry and froward he resolves to be in this Chapter J. B. a Compleat Railer makes his first Paragraph a Compleat stick of Railing He begins with telling That the Paganish Antichristian Spirit which reigneth and rageth in the Quakers manifesteth a perfect and compleat hatred at all the Institutions of our Lord Jesus Christ and he endeth with this Exclamation O! what desperate Renegado's must these Men be More of this kind may be seen pag. 472 473 474.480 481. As for what he adds from several Scriptures of Baptism pag. 466 467. what of it relates to the weight of the Question will be Examined afterwards He gives us here a Citation out of their larger Catechism and then comes at last pag. 468. n. 4. to Examin what I say in the matter where upon my urging the many Contests among Christians concerning these things called Sacraments as one Reason against them he concludes Contests about their Sacraments among Christians so called I might as well plead against all Christianity because of the many Debates about it and with this Conceit he pleaseth himself a little which only evidenceth his malitious Genius for I should never have used that as an only Argument and did not use it at all but as having many other Considerable ones against their Vse of these things and therefore I add That these things contended for are meer Shadows and outward things Then to cover their making use of the word Sacrament which is not to be found in Scripture he objecteth my making use of the word Fermentation and of the Vehicle of God but I use not to make use of these words when I speak Scots or English but these words when Interpreted are made use of in Scripture For the Latine fermentum which signifies Leaven Fermentum or Leaven is oft used in Scripture is oft used even as compared to Spiritual things as Matth. 13 31. Luk. 13 21. 1 Cor. 5 6 7 8. yea the word Leaven and Leavened is to be found in Scripture above 30 times but the word Sacrament never so much as once And it is not as he saith a poor thing to Challenge them for expressing the Chief Mysteries of their Religion in words that cannot be found in all the Scripture
John's Pag. 479. he saith The Words of Baptizing into the Name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 J. B's false Gloss upon the Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is only to be understood of a dedicating to God and not a being Baptized into the Power and Vertue But this is his own Assertion Neither doth Paul's saying 1 Cor. 1.13 Were ye Baptized in the Name of Paul make it clear at all For making it unto Paul will render the Apostle's Argument more forcible to shew the Corinthians their Folly in saying they were of Paul or other Men into whose Power or Vertue it was absurd to say they were Baptized as must be said of all true Christians being baptized into the Name of Christ. That I Condemn their manner of Baptizing is true but that I do it because of their doing it in the Name of the Father is his false and foolish Conjecture And therefore his troubling himself to prove that is to no purpose For his saying That if Matth. 28.19 be not understood of Water-Baptism it would make a Tautology I answered that n. 8. in my Apology of Baptism and here he only repeats the Objection without taking notice of my Answer Which sheweth how defective his Examen is He goes on pag. 480. upon the Supposition That the Apostle's Baptizing with Water was not by meer permission The Apostles baptizing with Water proves it not Evangelical and yet the Apostle's Commanding the Gentiles to Abstain for a time from things strangled and from Blood which was a Jewish Rite shews their Vsing Baptism with Water doth not prove it Evangelical He confesseth here They did not fully at first comply with their Commission and he must also say they did not understand it though he would here wave it And because he knows not well what to say he falls to Rail saying He seeth what Quakers cannot do with Reason they must do with Confident and bold Lies But the Reason he gives of all this Accusation so strange Confidence is my saying That the Chief of Christ's Disciples had been John's adding Will he tell us who these Chief were Yes I will seeing he is so ignorant Joh. 1.35 37. where he may see Two of John's Disciples followed Christ one of which is expresly mentioned to be Andrew the Apostle Some of Christ's Disciples had been John's and it is there clearly enough imported that Peter was another And such may without Absurdity be accounted among the Chief of Christ's Disciples Pag. 481. He most falsly saith That I Condemn Peter and all the Apostles for resting satisfied with what he had done His saying here That they do not urge their Baptism from Peter 's Baptizing Cornelius shews he sees a Necessity of not laying great Stress upon that But for his adding That Jesus Christ hath commanded he doth but say and not prove it He saith That Gal. 2.12 will not prove that Peter constrained the Gentiles to be Circumcised But verse 14. to which my words alluded saith expresly Why Compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews and sure that was to be Circumcised For his malitious false Asseveration That we with the Jews design to destroy Christianity it needs no Reply That there were Baptisms among the Jews is clear from Heb. 6.2 albeit Paulus Riccius were not alledged to prove it nor any Debate used about the Antiquity of the Jews Writings but that some of them wrote before the year 200 Josephus's History is an Example He confesseth The Etymology of the Word inferreth Dipping and albeit we deny not that yet this sheweth with how little Reason he urgeth that Etymology upon us If the Reader will but seriously read what I have written in my Apology of Baptism he will easily find how slender his Answer is albeit I had not written this Reply SECT XIV Wherein his Twenty Seventh Chapter Intituled Of the Lord's Supper is Considered ¶ 1. THE Reader before this time hath had so much Opportunity to Discern the Temper of this Man's Spirit that he need not wonder to find him begin this Chapter of the Lord's Supper with an Heap of Railing accounting us such as Overturn Christianity and Introduce Paganism yea as are posting towards it And then having given a large accout pag. 48 484. of their Confession of Faith and larger Catechism J. B's good Experiences of this Suffer prove not its Continuance pag. 485. he comes to tell the Good Experiences many have had by their Vse of this Supper which to make strong in his Conceit he useth a Continued Style of Railing against us as Men only led by our own Imaginations and given up to the working of the Prince of Darkness And thus he goes on But such Experience albeit granted will not prove the Necessity of its Continuance for the Assembly of Divines so called in their Preface to the Directory do speak of the good which was Experienced by the Liturgy of the Church of England and of the Religious Intentions of the Compilers of it while yet they are rejecting and abolishing it as that which proved an Offence to the godly and occasioned much Mischief Therefore that is no Argument Pag. 586. N. 5. He comes to Examin what I say in the Matter and then after a Reference to his Tenth Chapter he has his Old Calumny That the Celestial Seed J. B's Railing against the Light and Spiritual Substance is nothing but the dim Light of Nature he falleth into a new Fit of Railing which holds him to the end of this Paragraph terming us such as are Judicially blinded and deluded acted and driven by the Devil into a Profane and Paganish Contradiction to the Ways of Grace And with the like Shame and upon the same old Supposition of our Exalting the Light of Nature which is most False he filleth his N. 6. and also his 7. p. 488. For what he saith there of the Absurdity of God's Revealing himself to Heathens or such as were Idolaters I have spoken before writing upon that Subject And here he Concludes That my Asserting of a Spiritual Body and Flesh of Christ at one Blow is a denying the Christ of God and overturning Christianity But instead of proving it he proposeth some Questions Had Christ two Bodies Yes and let him deny it if he dare without contradicting the Scripture Christ's Flesh which came down from Heaven was not the Flesh he took from the Virgin Mary Joh. 6.58 Christ speaks of his Flesh which came down from Heaven but this was not the Flesh he took from the Virgin Mary for that came not down from Heaven but he had a Spiritual Body in which his Soul Existed long before he took Flesh of the Virgin and we will see how John Brown proves this to be an Error in the Refutation that is promised in his Name of G. K's Book And for the rest of his Conjectures such as We have two such Bodies too is but a Fiction of his own Brain We call
no Body of Christ Carnal but believe That that Body which Christ took of the Virgin which was of the Seed of Abraham and David in which Christ walked upon the Earth and was Crucified did Arise the Third Day was glorified and remaineth in Heaven wherein the Centre of his most glorious Soul remaineth for Ever And let him shew if he can how this is a denying of the Christ of God or overturning of Christianity He proceedeth pag. 489. at a most violent strain of Railing upon the Supposition of his Old Calumny and here that it may be compleat J. B. makes a Preaching to the Devil he makes a preaching to the Devil For which Blasphemous Abuse I wish heartily the LORD forgive him that these Devils to whom he preacheth be not permitted to give him his Reward for his Sermon But seeing he blusheth not to do this in Print I shall not think the many gross Abuses I have heard to have been uttered by Presbyterian Preachers so Incredible as I have been apt to do especially that which I have been informed of of late of one A Presbyterian Preacher Praying to the Devil to take the Bishops and Curates to him that they might be quit of them who at a Conventicle in the South near Legerwood not far from Lauther made a Digression in his Prayer to the Devil saying O Devil thou hast troubled us much with the Bishops and Curates We beseech thee Devil take them to thee and make us quit of them This Prayer sutes with John Brown's preaching And indeed the Presbyterians will need a New Directory for the Old one by which they are instructed to preach to Men and pray to God will not serve for this New Ministry by which they begin to Preach and Pray to Devils And of the like Strain is his saying after much Railing pag. 490. That if the Quaker write Comments on Paul's Epistles it must be of Paulus Paganizans This sort of Stuff is enough to give all sober Christians a Disgust of this Man's Writings In this page after some Quibbles about Relation he comes pag. 491. N. 11. to affirm That there may be a Relation which is neither from the Nature of the thing nor from some Divine Precept such as a Promise and Divine Institution But is not a Divine Institution a Divine Precept And whereas he boasts here That my whole Discourse falleth as being built upon a Mistake the Reader may see the Mistake is his own and not mine and then judge of his Discourse that 's built thereon as also how Airy Vain and Ostentive he is in saying What will he now do The Declaring of the Lord's Death has no necessary relation with partaking of Christ's Body and Blood His Light has confounded him so as he knows not what he says Is this Language becoming a Gospel-Minister That what Luke saith doth not import a perpetual but temporary Command will after appear Of what Paul saith 1 Cor. 10. will be spoken hereafter To my shewing that 1 Cor. 11.26 Paul expreseth the End of this Ceremony to be a declaring of the Lord's Death which hath no necessary Relation with partaking of Christ's Body and Blood he answereth That a declaration of Christ's Death is a comprehensive End c. And what then That proves not the Necessary Relation nor yet what he adds in this Paragraph therefore I intreat him next time to speak to the purpose Pag. 492. n. 12. He Raileth at me as perverting the Apostle's words but giveth no Reason unless his own meer Affirmation and Queries be esteemed sufficient J. B.'s proofless Proofs for the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper so called He asketh What signified Christ's blessing of the Bread breaking giving it to his Disciples desiring them to eat Answ. Christ blessed the Bread brake it and gave it to his Disciples to eat and they to others where themselves confess no such Mystery or Sacrament as they would have here is deducible see Matth. 14 v. 19. Mark 6.41 He insinuates I speak falsly in saying there is no mention of this Ceremony 1 Cor. 10.16 but is not so Charitable as to point to me where if there be any such thing As for his meer Affirmations and Distinctions here about the Bread I will wait the next time to have them proved by Scripture then will judge them worth the Considering I have shewn in my Apology that the Corinthians being in the Vse of this Ceremony and the Apostles rectifying the Abuse they were in in the Vse of it nor yet its having been done upon a Religious Account or in a general respect to the participiation of the Body and Blood of Christ will not prove the Necessity of its being now to be performed and therefore what he saith pag. 493. n. 14. evanisheth And as for his adding here That then it was an Act of Will-Worship and Superstition and that I conclude the Apostle encouraged such a thing whence he taketh occasion to Rail at me as blasphemousty imputing Vnfaithfulness to the Apostle and to the Spirit of God that acted him I answer What is done by permission for a time is not Will-Worship and Superstition and he confesseth he argues not from the Corinthians practice and for his Railing the ground of it being false it needs no Answer As for his denying the Jews had such a Custom at the time of their Passover his meer Negation is not sufficient to Elide the Testimony of far more Credible Authors than he himself in this matter and as for the words of Luke Do this in Remembrance of me Do this in Remembrance is no perpetual Obligation It doth not infer perpetual Obligation upon the Church in all Ages He Raileth at this but without a reason pag. 495. instancing the Apostle's 1 Cor. 24 25. But I told him before that the Apostle gives here an account of matter of fact which infers not a Command and in this page the Man is miserably pinched to shew how the washing of one anothers Feet albeit commanded with as great Solemnity doth not oblige as much now but his Conjectures prove nothing What! albeit it was a Custom in the hot Countreys and that it was a sign of Christ's Humility how doth all that Abrogate the express Command to do it Let him shew an Exemption from this from plain Scripture The Washing of Feet commanded with as great Solemnity yet Ceased for his meer Assertions have but small weight and by which I am not like nor yet any Man of reason that is not resolved to set up John Brown as a Pope to believe all he saith from his bare words to conclude the differences He thinks pag. 496. That their not keeping exactly to the Method used by Christ in this thing signifieth nothing Professors not keeping to the Method Christ used in the Supper but he should prove by Scripture how they are safe in practising one part and not the other and by what Rule he accounts the
of outward Help and where the Arm of Flesh had least hand in it as the Children of Israel's Deliverance out of Egypt as also Judges c. 5 from ver 16. to the end 2 Kings 6 17 c. and Chapters 7 13. and 19. 35. and in other places To prove That Christ in the 5th of Matth. commands no more than in the Law he referreth to the Writings of their Divines but he might have done this to all he has Written if he judge it sufficient and so have saved himself a great deal of labour since he saith elsewhere All I have written is Confuted long ago How can Men love their Enemies and yet kill and destroy them How Men can Love their Enemies and yet kill and destroy them is more than I can reach but if it were to such as rather suffer than do it do surely more love them and to do so is no Injury to our Selves nor Neighbours when done out of Conscience to God in answering our Duty to whom we must not Regard our own or Neighbours profit And if what I grant of the Lawfulness of Fighting to the present Magistrates and State of Christians be considered it will render all his Arguments superfluous since he confesseth A time will come in which the Prophecy of Isaiah 2 4. Mic. 4 3. will be fulfilled and thinks fit there should be a Praying for the fulfilling of it and what if some believe that as to some there is a beginning already of the fulfilling thereof We do nothing doubt but that of Rev. 16.5 7. which he mentions pag. 522. will in due time be fulfilled but we see no necessity of believing that that will be performed by outward Fighting or that the Saints shall need to draw Carnal Swords or shoot Cannons towards the performing of it When he saith Fighting is from the Corrupt Nature of Man that the Argument of Fighting is not taken from the Corrupt nature of Man pag. 519. he must have forgotten himself since had not Man fall'n and so his nature been corrupted he may infer if he can where there should have been an occasion for Fighting with Carnal Weapons And since he Confesseth That in nothing more than in War is seen the Fruits of Man's Rebellion against God He may thence see how little need Christians have to plead for it As for the Citation out of the Confession of Faith wherewith to fill-up he closeth his Chapter I know not to what purpose he did it since no Man doubts their Faith in this matter ¶ 2. He begins his 30 th Chapter of Oaths with saying We deny their lawfulness that we may destroy all Policy and Government But it must only be the Devil's Government for where the Government of Christ prevails and Men speak Truth there all must Confess there is no need of Oaths and also where the like punishment of Perjury is inflicted for speaking falsly Where Men speak Truth there is no need of Oaths the End of Oaths is obtained and that without breaking Christ's Command Thus according to his own Concession since the Verity may be had as well without an Oath none should be urged to take an Oath But let us see what after a Citation out of their Confession of Faith he saith to Answer Matth. 5 34. and James 5 12. which saith so expresly Swear not at all Swear not at all To this he saith That Christ is only Interpreting the Law and not Adding any thing to it and that it only relates to ordinary discourse but for proof of this he has nothing but an Heap of words asserting the thing To all which till he bring some Scripture-proof there needs no Answer But to oppose Christ's and James's words Swear not at all It is not said Except ye be called before a Judge let him prove this Exception by Scripture next time and therefore till he do so his Affirming over and over again That Christ forbad no more than was forbidden in the Law pag. 525. is to no purpose The Law forbad idle Swearing and Oaths in Communication but Christ's Resumption shews throughout that Chapter some more to be urged to any that understand plain words and will not shut their Eyes That its being said Deut. 6 13. Thou shalt swear by his Name is urged as an Explication or Comprehensive part of Moral Worship I deny and remains for him to prove or that it was more than a Command to the Jews to Swear by the true God that they might not Swear by Idols and till he prove this Arguments founded upon it need no further Answer As for what he addeth N. 8. to prove Swearing not to be of the Devil because commanded of God and afterwards Concluding That my urging against it as being of the Devil is pregnant of Blasphemy because it would infer some of the Ceremonial Laws of God to have their Rise not from the Will of God but from the work of the Devil he sheweth here more Malice than strength of Reason The Bill of Divorcement permitted in the Old Test. because the hardness of their hearts Was not the Command Deut. 24 v. 1. Let him write for her a Bill of Divorcement A part of the Ceremonial Law and yet Christ saith Matth. 19.7 that Moses did this because of the hardness of their Hearts and is not hardness of Heart which gave a Rise to this Command of the Work of the Devil Let him then make the Application and then Answer the Empty Bluster he has made of Blasphemy And doth not what Christ saith of this matter of Divorce Matth. 5 v. 31 32. shew Christ Commanded more there than was Commanded under the Law He confesseth pag. 529. That God cannot be said properly to Swear Albeit some things being ascribed to God makes them not Vnlawful to us yet any things being ascribed to God makes it not Lawful to us when Christ commands the Contrary Christ's and the Apostles Asseverations were not Oaths That Christ's saying Verily Verily is more than Yea and Nay I deny and it remains for him to prove it That the Apostles Asseverations are Oaths he affirms in like manner but proves it not His thinking We in being willing to do as much as the Apostle did do strain at a Gnat and Swallow a Camel is but an Evidence of his Railing Genius as it doth of his Malice in Catching what follows That the Question is not What Paul or Peter did but what their and our Lord For that is not said by me he hath but said it as believing they did Swear or that their Words were Oaths But the giving not granting it had been so to shew it would not prove this thing now lawful and that Peter and Paul both had their Failings so as all though not in that himself will not deny which is enough to shew their practice in all things is not to be our Rule His 531. page needeth no Answer being but his own Affirmations and Conjectures
be gathered to many of my Brethren who are gone before me and to my Dear Son This was his Youngest Son who died at Sea about a Year before Upon the Eleventh Day of the Eighth Month between Two and Three in the Morning he growing Weaker I drew nigh to him He said Is this my Son I said Yea and spake a few Words signifying my Travel That he that loved him might be near him to the End He answered The Lord is Nigh Repeating it once again saying You are my Witnesses in the Presence of God that the Lord is Nigh And after a little he said The Perfect Discovery of the Day-spring from on high how great a Blessing it hath been to me and my Family My Wife desiring to know if he would have something to Wet his Mouth he said It needed not She said it would Refresh him He laid his Hand upon his Breast saying He had that Inwardly that Refreshed him And after a little while he added divers times these Words The TRVTH is over ALL. He took my Eldest Son to him and Blessed him saying He prayed God he might never depart from the Truth And when my Eldest Daughter came near he said Is this Patience Let Patience have its perfect Work in thee And after Kissing the other Four he laid Hands upon them and blessed them He called for my Father-in-Law and two of his Daughters that were present and spake some weighty Words to them very kindly And perceiving one of them who was not a Friend of Truth Weeping much he Wished She might come to the Truth bidding her Not weep for him but for herself A Sober Man an Apothecary that waited upon him coming near he took him by the Hand saying Thou wilt bear me Witness that in all this Exercise I have not been Curious to Tamper nor to Pamper the Flesh he answered Sir I can bear Witness that you have always minded the better and more substantial Part and rejoice to see the Blessed End the Lord is bringing you to He Replyed Bear a Faithful and true Witness Yet it is the Life of Righteousness repeating these Words twice over that we bear Testimony to and not to an Empty Profession Then he called several Times Come Lord Jesus Come Come And again My Hope is in the Lord And so slept now and then about Ten Hours Observing a Countryman coming into the Room he thought it had been one of his Tenents who was a Carpenter I telling him it was not he but another he said See thou Charge him to make no manner of Superfluity upon my Coffin About Three in the Afternoon there came several Friends from Aberdeen to see him I telling him he took them by the Hand and said divers Times They were come in a seasonable Time and after some Words were spoken and that Patrick Living stone had prayed which Ended in Praises he held up his Hands and said Amen Amen for ever And after they stood up looking at him he said How pretious is the Love of God among his Children and their Love one to another Thereby shall all Men know that ye are Christ's Disciples if you love one another How pretious a thing it is to see Brethren to Dwell together in Love My Love is with you I leave it among you About Eight at Night several Friends standing about the Bed he perceiving some of them to Weep he said Dear Friends all mind the Inward Man heed not the Outward There is one that doth Regard the Lord of Hosts is his Name After he heard the Clock strike Three in the Morning he said Now the Time comes And a little after he was heard to say Praises Praises Praises to the Lord Let now thy Servant depart in Peace Vnto thy Hands O Father I Commit my Soul Spirit and Body Thy Will O Lord be done in Earth as it is in Heaven These Sentences he spake by little Intervals one after another And so a little after Five in the Morning the twelfth Day of the Eighth Month 1686. he fell asleep like a Lamb in Remarkable Quietness and Calmness there being standing about to Behold his End above Twenty Persons who were Witnesses to what is above said though not all to every part yet some to every part and some to all of it This Brief Account is only intended for the Refreshing and Satisfaction of some particular Friends else several other things might be added which are not Inconsiderable He was Buried in a Place allotted by himself for that End and Discharged any should be Called to his Burial but the professed Friends of Truth and his own Tenents Yet the Time being known a great Number of the Gentry came undesired and Conveyed his Body to the Grave Vrie the 20th of the 8th Month 1686. A Table of the Chief Things Contained in this VOLUME A. ABraham's Faith 278. The Jews Error of Abraham's outward Succession 410. Adam see Man Sin Redemption what Happiness he lâ—st by the Fall 311 121. what Death he dyed 311. He retained in his Nature no Will or Light capable of it self to manifest Spiritual Things ibid. whether there be any Reliques of the heavenly Image left in them 317 470 767 769. Alexander Skein's Queries proposed to the Preachers 470. Americans confess to that which Checks within for Evil 7. Anabaptists of Great Britain 288. Anabaptists of Munster how their mischievous actings nothing touch the Quakers 288 289 290 516 651 653. Anicetus 289. Anointing teacheth all things It is and abideth for ever a Common Priviledge and sure Rule to all Saints 287 116 169. Antichrist is exalted when the Seed of God is pressed 82 337. his Work 284 426 428. The Body of Antichrist is but one having many Members 591. who those Members be 592 Antinomians their Opinion concerning Justification 371. Apostasy 399 425. Apostle who he is their Number was not limited and whether any may be now a days so called 465 466 429 430. Calvin maintains that God raised Apostles and Evangelists in his Day 37. Apparel 543 545 556. Appearances see Faith Arians they first brought in the Doctrine of Persecution upon the account of Religion 425. Arius by what he fell into Error 425. Armenian Greek and Aethiopian Churches indulged by the Pope in some Ceremonies different from those commonly injoined and received is rather the Effect of Policy than Fatherly Compassion 688 689. Arminians see Remonstrants Arminians Lutherans and Calvinists hold that there can be no Salvation without the Explicit Knowledge of Christ and Benefit of the Scriptures which Doctrine destroys the nature of Vniversal Love 692. Articles of Faith with respect to them that believe them are Matters of Conscience 213. Assemblings are needful and what sort 441 444 c. see Worship they are not to be forsaken 461. Assurance a certain Assurance and Establishment given of God to many of his Saints and Children 402. Astrologer 294 295. Atheism see Superstition Athenians directed to somewhat of God within them by