a part of the material object of his Faith which is none of ours now And so for as much as he desires to know of me what was the material object of Adam's faith before the fall a question not to the purpose he must first tell me why he so magisterially and positivly denys Christ to have been the object of his faith and then he may have an answer And whereas he flouts at that reason that actions are specified from their objects as non-sensical he should have proved and shewn wherein and then I might have answer'd him he might have wit enough to know that no man of reason will be moved by his bare railing assertions pag. 40. besides a deal of railing wherein he accuseth me of confusion and darkness he accounts my arguing for immediat revelation from the revelations the Patriarchs and Prophets had impertinent to which I answered before the sum of which is that since these immediat revelations were so frequent under the Law it must be very absurd to say they are ceased under the Gospel He himself proveth pag. 41 that under the New there is a more clear discovery according to that of Paul 2 Cor. 3 18. But we all with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord c. which being brought by him albeit against himself I leave him to answer In this page and the next 42 he allegeth the sayings of Christ and his Apostles brought by me and my arguments thence do prove no more than he confesseth but whether they prove not all I plead for from thence is left to the Readers judgment Here according to his custom though I condemn the Socinians he will be insinuating that I agree with them to whose notions of the Spirit albeit I assent not yet I desire to know of him in what Scriptur he finds these words that the Spirit is a distinct Person of the Trinity for I freely acknowledge according to the Scriptur that the Spirit of God proceedeth from the Father and the Son and is God and by what authority he seeks to obtrude upon others expressions of the chief articles of faith not to be found in Scriptur or to accuse such as will not accept of them and assent to them or whether any has reason to think he truely makes the Scriptur the Rule of his faith notwithstanding his pretence when he either will not or can not find words in it to express the chief articles of his Creed ¶ 10. Pag. 43. By a strange mistake he would have me prove that since I make use of these promises of Christ relating to the Spirit I would prove that all have warrand to write Scriptur as if no man could have immediat revelation without he write Scriptur whereas himself confesseth that many of the Patriarchs had it before Moses who yet wrot no Scriptur yea and Cain whom I suppose he judgeth to have been no writer of Scriptur And by the like mistake pag. 45. he confesseth all I plead for and contradicts all he has been fighting for in affirming that Believers now have free access to Christ the great Teacher of his People always to get his mind known and writen in their hearts but not to get prophetik revelations But where doth he find me plead for prophetik revelations as common to all And whether the former words do not grant immediat objective revelation in the largest sense I plead for it I leave the Reader to judge Here he accuses me of speaking basely of the Scriptur but neither tels me where nor what I say which is indeed a base way of reviling though familiar to him To my last argument pag. 49. § 35. he answers little but railing The minor to wit that whereas Protestants call the Scripturs their Rule yet if asked why they believe them do say because in them is delivered the Will of God which was revealed objectively and immediately to holy men he saith destroyeth the whole argument but why I know not since surely that proves they at last recurr to the immediat testimony of the Spirit as the certain and infallible ground of Faith which is my conclusion That I thence inferr that Protestants are for the uncertainty of immediat objective revelation is most falsly and disingenuously asserted by him for I seek not to inferr any such thing from the medium of that argument but having shewn thereby how they are forc'd to recurr to this revelation as the primary ground of their Faith I add that it 's strange then they should seek to represent that as dangerous or uncertain which they are thus forced to recurr to And whether he doth not so ever and anon repeating the story of Delusions to nauseating through this chapter any that reads it may see and easily perceive his base disingenuity in that part as also in the following lines where he saith their concession makes nothing for the falsly pretended immediat and objective revelations which Quakers boast of for where doth he find me pleading for any such Neither is it the question Whether the Quakers do falsly pretend to immediat revelation yea or nay but Whether Quakers do wel and are sound in believing that immediat Divine inward revelation is necessary to every Believer for the building up of true faith But it is usual with him where he can not answer to turn-by the question and fill-up the paper with railing and reviling Section IV. Wherein his Fourth Chapter of the Scripturs is considered ¶ 1. WE may judge of this chapter of the Scripturs by the first sentence which contains a lye saying he finds the third Thesis in somethings altered and more clearly set down in the Apology than in the single sheet whereas there is not one word of difference but the misplaçing of a word by the Printer but it is become so familiar with him to speak untruth that he can not forbear it Indeed this whole chapter is a complex of railing calumnys and malitious groundless insinuations and indeed the man is so troubled that he can not find any thing in what I write which he ought according to his title and undertaking only to examin and confute that in stead of that he bestows several pages out of Stalham and Hicks and his considerations upon them whose lyes and calumnys are long ago answered and unreplyed to by them So that the Partys concerned having already vindicated themselvs it is not my place to medle in it and if I. B. would do any thing in this to the purpose he should take up this debate where his friend Mr Stalham and his brother Mr Hicks the Anabaptist whose authority he useth so often and to whom he gives so much credit have given it over by a reply to these answers Having solaced himself in the repetitions of these mens calumnys for that appears to be his delight he digresseth to prove the Scripturs to be the Word of God But if they be granted to be the words of God
thoughts of him than I have yet expressed My argument drawn from Ephes. 2 3. where the Apostle ascribes the reason of mens being children of wrath to their evil deeds he saith was the Fathers against Pelagius And what then doth that render it null But his own answer to it is rare saying he thinks I put out my eyes that do not observe how the Apostle changes the second person saying Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past and were by natur the children of wrath whence the man wisely infers That Paul and the Jews were the children of Wrath which is not denied but they must have quick eyes indeed that see it from thence to be inferred that they were such ere they committed any actual sin since the Apostle expressly mentions his their having had their conversation among the World as a reason of their having been in the same condition He saith further I confess 1 Cor. 2. that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to be understood of the Rational soul and what then Therefore so soon as they partake of the Rational soul they become children of Wrath This is indeed a rare consequence but he must excuse me for not admitting it till better proved It would seem much more rational to say that so soon as they come to the exercise of their Rational soul and then do evil they become guilty for he can not deny that the Gospel nor condemneth nor threatneth any man but him that has actually sinned and whether this destroys not his cause the Reader may judge That except a man be born-again he can not enter the Kingdom I never denied Albeit children be capable of death yet it will not follow that they are guilty of sin since death is no punishment but rather an advantage to such to whom it 's a transition to a better Life He thinks p. 117. that my saying such as homologat their fathers sins God will visit the iniquitys of their fathers upon them is not worth noticing but whether his answer be worth noticing the Reader may judge which is That Adam's sin was not a personal sin as other mens are and his own after-sins but the man forgot to prove this and therefore may do it next but he thinks the children of Core Dathan and Abiram of Achan and the Sodomites were judged guilty of their Fathers sins for unless he proves that he saith nothing but for what reason I know not unless that they were outwardly destroyed but untill he prove that infers guilt he must for bear making his conclusion He is highly offended I should say their opinion is contrary to the Iustice and Mercy of God alledging it is without proof but if to account one guilty for a sin committed by another thousands of years ere they had a being and to punish for it be not against Iustice and inconsistent with Mercy I desire to know of him what is more unjust and unmercifull To say that this is an accusing of God is but a silly begging of the question untill he has first proved his opinion to be true it 's no accusing of God to condemn mens opinions when contrary to his Natur. He will have it to be a rapsody of non-sense when I say this proceeds from self-love founded on their opinion of absolute Reprobation but whether it be or not the Reader may judge sure his saying it makes it not so That this of Infants being guilty of Adam's sin and therefore many of them being damned depends upon their doctrin of Reprobation no Man of sense that knows their doctrin will deny since they say some Infants are saved because elected Are not the rest then according to them damned because reprobated He gives me nothing here in answer but railing and so concludes this Paragraph with this notable saying Woe I say that is I. Brown forsooth and thrice woe to such as drink-in this Man's doctrine and live and dye accordingly p. 118. n. 14. He thinks my saying Papists are more charitable in allowing a Limbus to children shews my affection to them but he has not heard me allow of their notion of a Limbus as he does in the chapter of Iustification p. 310. of the opinion of a certain Popish Cardinal preferring it not only to what is said by William Forbes a Protestant Bishop but even as it would appear to Richard Baxter his ancient Presbyterian Brother and in pursuance of this he asks how they come to Heaven meaning Children who have nothing to do with Christ But then what wil he say of those he accounts elect children go they to Heaven without Christ If not the difficulty is the same way solved To prove Children are under a law and subject to transgression he gives the common practices among men who forfeit children yea such as are unborn with their fathers for great crimes But in what countrey do they use to kill all the children when the father is put to death for a crime and unless this were done his comparison infers not the poynt His plain answer he saith is Adam his being a publike person of which hereafter To my citation Ezech. 18 20. the son shall not bear the father's iniquity he preaches at large upon the Prophet's words alledging his meaning is that those persons he wrot to had so much sin of their own that God might justly judge them albeit he did not visit them for their fathers iniquitys and this is the quick dispatch he saith this place receives it is a quick way to dispatch indeed if it were valid to make the meaning destroy the Text but men of sense use not to be sudden in receiving such dispatches The words are plain and positive The son shall not bear the father's iniquity therefore untill he give ground from plain Scriptur to take it away it must stand to the overthrow of his Doctrin for the greater sinners those men were the more justly and deservedly might their Fathers iniquity be laid upon them ¶ 6. Pag. 120. n. 17. he cometh from my confession that Adam was a publike person to infer That the guilt passeth from him to all and first in this page he affirmeth that this sin of Adam's from whence Original sin proceeds is the sin of the whole natur of Mankind and not like Adam's after sins and the sins of other Men which he confesses are not the sins of the whole Nature and because upon this dependeth much of what he infers he had don wel to have proved this in the first place by some Scriptur till which time his inference is not to be received For did Adam cease to be a publick person after he had committed that sin If he say Yea let him prove it by plain Scriptur for I deny it if not then his other sins must be imputed to all men which he denies or els nothing can be urged from his being a publick person and while to urge it he asketh Did ever any hear one
all the other Scripturs which were written after that Epistle of Paul as he will not deny but there were some so written must be denied being any part of the Rule so to be any way necessary for that end The like absurditys follow upon his using 2 Cor. 3 14. where the Apostle speaks of a Testament since he dare not deny a great part of that Testament was written afterwards And thus is also answered what he urges from Psal. 19 7. pag. 74 79 The Law of the Lord is perfect c and from other Scripturs of like import for if he understand perfection in the first sense it is not denied if in the second which indeed is the question it concludeth nothing without rendring all the Scriptur written afterwards no part of the Rule or Canon to use his own term As for that of Peter which he insists upon in the end of his paragraph p. 70. I deny it to be understood of the Scriptur and gave my reasons before and yet the man takes that for granted and thence argues from it which is a most silly manner albeit very familiar to him to beg the question ¶ 8. Next he comes to consider my answer to their objections but how he removes them may be judged by the first he observs p. 71. where in stead of proving that these words of Isa 8 20. usually brought by them To the Law and to the Testimony c. are meant of the Scriptur which I desired ere any thing could be inferred for it he answers As if any that ever read the Bible could be ignorant what is all along meaned by these words Is not this a goodly proof Reader I am one that have read the Bible and know by the Law is sometimes meant the outward sometimes the inward and thousands more are yet to be convinced that that place speaks only of the outward and will need some better argument than this of his ere we change our judgment But to proceed he thinks my saying that the Law was in a more special manner given to the Jewes and more principally than to us to be a railing and roaving and a contradicting what I said in the former These but this cavill often repeated before I did answer above The like he judgeth my arguing therefrom that as they were to try all things by the outward Law so we are to try all in the first place by the Word within but here his base disingenuity appears for he has left-out these words in the first place that he might introduce the better the difficulty he phancyeth to himself to have brought me to afterwards for by this argument saith he I prove more than I ought to wit that the Scripturs shall not be so much as a less principal Rule Who will be so foolish as to conclude that the saying things ought in the first place to be tried by the Word within excludes things in the second place to be tried by the Scripturs and is not that still to own it as a secondary and subordinat Rule And so he may see my feet here are easily rid and that he held them not so fast as he phancyed And as for the other part of his alternative the consequence is of the like natur that what was a principal Rule then is now only subordinat for albeit I said it was more principal to them than now to us yet I said not it was the most principal to them or then more principal than what came immediatly from the Spirit which he confesseth to have been frequent under the Law yea more frequent than now according to his Principle and my saying so could only inferr that consequence He rejects what I urge from the version of the Septuagint as spurious but for that we must take his word els want a proof And then because he can not come off better according to his custom he concludes with a gross perversion and falshood saying it is my opinion that the Law id est the outward Law was given the Jews for a Rule even above the Spirit 's revelations which if it be mine as I utterly renounce it I desire to know where I have asserted it he might have been at the pains to mark it but he knew it 's like it was not convenient Next he comes to prove that these words Search the Scripturs c. Joh. 5 39. do evince the Scripturs to be the primary and adequat Rule because if Christ's doctrins should be tried by them much more privat Euthusiasmes but who denies that Yet he doth not thence prove that the Scripturs are the primary Rule by which all things must be tried in the first place which is the thing in question Secondly I would ask him Whether the words Christ spake to the Jewes which are recorded in Scriptur were less a Rule to them or less binding and obliging upon them than the sayings of Moses and the Prophets If he say they were less then he overturns all his own tedious reasonings by which he labours to prove the obligation of what Christ and the Apostles delivered p. 84. at the end as wel as what Moses and the Prophets without the need of a new obligation and likewise he must shew us how these sayings come to be as binding upon us now as Moses and the Prophets or how they acquired greater authority after Christ spake them than they had then or why they wanted then that authority If he say they were binding and obliging to the Jews because spoken by Christ then his proof falleth to the ground He is angry that I say the words may be interpreted Ye search the Scripturs as wel as Search the Scripturs albeit the Greek word signify the one as wel as the other and for answer very magisterially tels it is quite contrary to the very words of Command Search the Scripturs but the question is whether that be the words and that was what he should have proven but he makes no bounds of begging the question telling Tolet and Maldonat say it is so taken by all the Fathers except Cyrill And what then Did I undertake to subscribe to all these Authors writings He must give me a reason why ere I do it and let him deny it if he dare that the Greek word fignifies Ye search the Scripturs as wel as Search the Scripturs and if it do before I conclude the one more than the other I must have some better argument than his bare affirmation But to finish this he will conclude all by the words of the Apostle James c. 1 v. 25. where he saith the Apostle calleth the Scripturs the perfect Law of Liberty but that doth not prove them to be the primary Rule Suppose it were granted the Apostle meant the Scripturs which remains yet by him to be proven and is not done by what he citeth chap. 2 8. by his desiring them to fulfill the Royal Law according to Scripture Thou shalt love thy neighbour
flesh are set forth for an example suffering the vengeance of eternal fire But it is strange the man should be so desperatly audacious as to proclame his own sottishness to the world Is there a word here of Infants Is not the very reason of suffering the vengeance of eternal fire given because of their giving themselvs over to Fornication which reason could not touch Infants Pag. 129. he thinks I wrong Zuinglius upon the credit of the Council of Trent but if the Counçil of Trent wronged Zuinglius in condemning him for that he was not guilty of he and his Brethren have the honour to have their judgment approved by that Council while ours is condemned and let him remember how he useth to upbraid me with à ffinity with Papists yea in this very chapter upon less ground Pag. 130. he goes about to prove his matter from several Scripturs but how shallowly the Reader may easily observe 1. He citeth Gen. 6 5. Man's thoughts are evil continually What then Are Infants therefore guilty of Adam's sin that 's the thing in question But the Hebrew signifies à pueritiis from their infancy What then how proves that the case I do not deny but Children may become guilty of sin very early but the question is Whether they be guilty of Adam's sin even in their Mothers womb And hereby we may see he thinks not their version so exact but I. B. must take upon him to correct it to help himself at a dead lift as they say The same way is answered the other Scripturs that follow Ezech. 16 4. Matth. 15 19. Eph. 2 3. which are yet more impertinent as the Reader by looking to them may see and I might easily by examining them particularly shew if it were not that I study brevity and delight not to glory over the man's impertinency And though Infants perished in the flood and that was brought upon the men and women that sinned for their iniquitys yet it will not follow thence that infants are guilty of sins untill he better prove that natural death is always and to all the wages of sin albeit I confess with the Apostle eternal death is And indeed if these infants were punished at all it must have been for the sins of their immediat Parents which he will not affirm since the flood is not said to have come for Adam's sin but for their own so this instance clearly overturns his assertion I leave to the Readers judgment the Scripturs not mentioned at length but set down by him in this to judge whether they prove the thing in debate to wit that Infants are guilty of Adam's sin The citations out of Augustin and Origen brought by him in the next page 131. the Reader may also judge of in case they be truely cited which I can not examin at present whether they have weight enough to overturn what has been here proved from Scriptur The words of Eliphaz Iob 15 14. speak of a Man not of a child and therefore not to the purpose neither do I believe though the Spirit of God gave a relation of what Eliphaz said that we ought to build our Faith upon his affirmations Next he urges Gen. c. 5 v. 3. And Adam begat a son in his own likeness after his image but this would prove Adam's sons as guilty of all sins as that first which he denied or let him shew a ground for such a distinction And thus is further answered what he saith next page Gen. 17 14. where it is said the man-child that is uncircumcised shall be cut-off which he thinks so strong that in a vapor he desires me to chew my cud upon it for if this cutting-off was a punishment of these children for sin it must be for that of their immediat parents who neglected to circumcise them which Adam could not do and therefore could not sin in omitting it and since he will not say this he can urge nothing from that place He saith the Fathers used to make use of these words of Christ Ioh. 3 5. Except a man be born of water c. but their using it was upon their mistake that Baptism took away Original sin and that therefore infants unbaptized could not be saved That regeneration is needfull to Infants I deny not and whereas he asks how are they regenerat I answered that before asking him how those he accounts Elect Infants whom he confesses to be guilty of Adam's sin are regenerat He confesses the Fathers argument taken from sprinkling infants with water which they and he falsly call Baptisme will conclude nothing against me but since he names here Initial Sacraments in the plural number which the Fathers made use of it seems they had some more than Baptisme And since he and his Brethren make use of no more as Initial but Baptisme it seems he differs from them in what they judged needfull here as wel as the Quakers I have shewn above how I evite both contradicting myself as to Universal Redemption and excluding infants from the benefit of Christ's death And for his last question wherein did Christ excell other Infants if they be born without sin he should have said not guilty of Sin I answer In that he had no Seed of Sin in him as other infants have and that not only but he had nothing of that weakness and propensity to yeeld to the evil influence thereof as other Infants but was in greater strength glory and dominion over it than Adam even before he fell This shews his privilege above others and in nothing contradicteth what I have said before Section Sixth Wherein his Seventh and Eighth Chapters Of Reprobation and Vniversal Redemption are considered ¶ 1. IN his seventh chapter of Reprobation he expatiateth himself at great length in large and tedious homilies which will make my reply the shorter who look not upon it as my concern to answer them because these controversies are largely handled by others and what is said by him is abundantly answered yet if he will affirm he has said something that is new upon this Theam and poynt to it it is like it may not want an answer And indeed the Reader may observe him much pained and strained to put a fair face upon these foul doctrins and though what he saith here may be and it is most probable is to be understood of the reason he gives in his Epistle in being so large because of the opposition of others besides Quakers and also because I touched these things but passingly as being a Theam much debated and common to us with others I might pass it by with a reference to those Authors who largely treat of them yet I will take notice of what he saith in direct answer to what by me is affirmed And first as for his accusation of me as not being positive and punctual enough in setting down my judgment of the Decrees of Election and Reprobation it is of no weight All do at times confess that
eat them Now these can make nothing for his purpose unless for this reason that because these people commonly and avowedly did these things therefore they had no Light that reproved them for them otherwise their doing of them will not import the Light did not bear witness against their so doing more than men under the Presbyterian Ministery committing adultery and murder will import there was no witness born against these sins by the Presbyterian Preachers But he has overthrown this his reason himself by affirming p. 232. 235. that there is a Natural Conscience or the Law of Nature left in every man as God's deputy informing of some good and testifiing against some evils of which elsewhere he particularizeth murder and adultery and yet here he saith it is observed there is hardly one poynt of the Law of Nature which some nation hath not violated not only by their customs but by their very Laws If then their thus violating the Law of Nature do not prove they had not the Law of Nature or were not reproved by it which he himself has confessed all had then neither will their doing those things prove they had no Divine Light nor Seed or were not thereby reproved for if it prove they had not that it will as much prove they had no Natural Conscience no Law of Nature which yet he confesseth is in Every man ¶ 4. In this chapter also he would insinuat and infer to render that which he writes against odious that the asserting of an Universal Gospel by which Salvation may be possible to such as want outward preaching renders outward preaching needless but this cavill used often before by him is already answered in the 3 4 Sections and therefore what he repeats of this again here p. 229. 236. 245. needs no further answer And whereas he asks upon this occasion p. 244. how can the believing of the history of the Gospel be necessary as I say it is to such as hear it if they may be saved without it Because God commands every one to believe these Truths to whom he bringeth the knowledge of them albeit not them to whom he hath rendred it impossible Has he forgotten their own distinction of some things being necessary necessitate praecepti that are not so necessitate medii Neither do I intend by this belief which the proposing of the outward knowledge requires a belief meerly historical as he malitiously would insinuat I shall now take notice of his gross perversions and calumnies which as he advances I observe grow thicker and are in this chapter very numerous as first from my saying that we understand by the Light or Seed a Spiritual and Heavenly Principle in which GOD as he is the Father the Son and the Spirit dwelleth from this he infers p. 231. It may be he doth not acknowledge a Trinity c. But if there be any ground for such an inference from these words of mine I leave it to all rational men to judge Pag. 255. Because I say it is Christ's flesh and blood which came down from Heaven he asks if Christ had no other flesh and blood then as if I had answered He had not he concludes Us deniers of the incarnation of Christ asking Whether the death of Christ his resurrection and ascension and all the history of his Life be but dreams and lyes which malitious insinuation and perversion is returned upon him as false and groundless And whereas he saith here he will ask one word more Where I read that Christ's flesh and blood came down from heaven for so my words should be translated it seems he is either very ignorant or forgetfull of the Scripturs and therefore let him read John 6 51. where Christ saith he is the Living Bread that came down from heaven adding that Bread to be his Flesh. In like manner is his other malitious perversion denied and returned upon him where he would infer upon us that each of us esteemed our selvs as much the Christ of God as Christ was so that the blasphemy he exclaims against is his own who speaks evil of others without a cause Another of his perversions is p. 236. where repeating my words he rendereth them thus out of the Latine this is that inward Christ of which we Only and so often speak whereas it should have been translated which we so much and so often speak for as the English edition doth verifie the Latine word tantum signifies so much as wel as only and was so intended here by me that it must be so both the context and what I say elsewhere sheweth But he would have it only that he might pervert and rail the more liberally albeit he can not be ignorant that the Latine word tantum signifies so much as ordinary Dictionaries shew and Cicero saying nec tantum proficiebam quantum volebam nec quicquam posthac non modo tantum sed ne tantulum quidem praeterîeris Those who debate fairly use not to strain their adversaries words to abuse them when they know they may bear a better interpretation His next perversion is yet more gross and abusive p. 238. where from my denying that we equalour selvs to that Holy Man the Lord Jesus Christ c. in whom the fulness of the Godhead dwelt bodily he concludes I affirm him to be no more but a Holy Man and because I use the words plenitudo Divinitatis that I deny his Deity which is an abominable falshood I detest that doctrine of the Socinians and deny there is any ground for their distinction and when I confess him to be a Holy Man I deny him not to be GOD as this man most injuriously would insinuat for I confess him to be really both true God and true Man And whereas he rails and exclaims here and in the following page at a monstrous rate as if the comparison I bring of the difference betwixt every saint and the Man Jesus from the sap its being other ways in the Root and Stock of the Tree than in the branches did further confirm our equalling our selvs to him he doth but shew his folly since Christ himself useth the same comparison Ioh 15 5. I am the Vine ye are the branches to which I alluded and upon this he runneth out in a vehement strain of railing p. 239. exclaiming against us as if we denied the Deity of Christ and his Incarnation which is utterly false and therefore his work there to prove what I deny not is in vain And yet he repeateth this calumny p. 242. adding that my saying that we believe what is written of the Conception Birth Life and Death of Christ c. to be true doth not vindicat us from it and then he subjoyns Do you believe that that Body which was crucified at Jerusalem rose again and is now in glory Speak your mind here if you dare this defiance to all men of reason will insinuat as if I did not believe
relief to my desperat cause as he terms it he concludes this 11 Paragraph p 200. with one of his sententious sayings Quakers can dream waking I see He goes-on in answer to my proofs brought from the antient Philosophers to confirm this to which he resumes little but railing wherein I will not trouble the Reader to follow him since without them the thing in hand is sufficiently proved by Scriptur yet if he will affirm the citations to be either false or fictitious they may be proved by production of the books themselvs He thinks the impertinency of my citing Augustin's words is discovered by the bare reading and little less he saith to those of Buchanan which I refer to the Readers judgment as he will find them in my Apology towards the latter end of the explanation of the 5 and 6 Propositions and I will leave him concluding this chapter with railing and empty threats which I neither fear nor value as being without ground and the fruits of no better spirit than that of Rabshakeh Section Eighth Wherein his thirteenth Chapter Of Iustification is considered ¶ 1. I come now to his thirteenth chapter Of Justification where after he has begun by telling this doctrin hath been principally questioned by Heretiks which I deny not and given us according to his custom some large citations out of their Confession of Faith and Catechism with the supposed sense of other Quakers from some of his formerly mentioned partial Authors at last he comes pag. 296. n. 4. to examin what I say in this matter where according to his custom he begins with a calumny upon his own false supposition as if the justification I plead for were not the true justification of the Saints because proceeding from the Light which saith he is but the dimme light of nature This he takes for granted to be true and thence falsly makes his inference pag. 297 298. 307 308. 324. To this he adds another perversion as if because I say from the Light received proceeds an holy birth therefore there were no infusion of any gracious Principle or Vertue c. which is false Men use to say that where seed is received in the earth it grows up to fruit yet not without the influence of the Sun and descending of rain so is it with this Spiritual Seed but with this difference that where-ever this Seed is God is never wanting to give his Heavenly influences towards its growth advançment In this chapter also he omits not his railing calling us poor deluded Wretches c. with the repetition of which I will not trouble the Reader if he be pleased he may observe it pag. 227-299 316. 318 319. in several other places but especially where he endeth the chapter p. 324 325. I needed not at all trouble the Reader with his often re-iterared accusation of my joyning with the Papists since he saith I am worse and less orthodox than they in this matter p. 301. 309. were it not to shew him how his malice has blinded him for he confesseth p. 300. n. 8. that I condemn their meritum ex condigno and placing justification in such works as are rather evil than good and yet p. 305. he asks wherein I differ from the worst Papists So then such as assert meritum ex condigno and these other things denied by me are not in his sense the worst Papists let him reconcile this with the general sense of Protestants yea with great bitterness he quarreleth me for wronging the Papists p. 301. calling it a base falshood and deceit in me to say Papists do not place justification in any real inward renovation of the soul citing the words of the Councel of Trent and Bellarmin to the contrary but he must know if he will I will not be cheated by the fair words of Papists contrary to what mine ears have heard and eyes seen to be the general practice of their people and Preachers and that in a kingdom where their superstition less abounds than any place of their territories I know they place more vertue towards the inward renovation of the Soul in such things as are justly condemnable than in obedience to Christ's precepts and were it not that he is even glad to patronize the Papists that he might get some occasion to rail against me he could not but acknowledge this since he can not be ignorant whatever distinctions and fair words they have invented now to smooth their doctrin that all the first Reformers do with one voice affirm that before the Reformation there was a profound silence of any thing save their superstitious works pilgrimages and indulgences in the point of justification not only as to making just but even as to remission of sins which they asserted to be attained by such means Yet this man's charity can extend to palliat their hypocrisy that he may accuse me while yet in the same page as to me he lays-aside all his charity alledging most abusivly that it is but good words I give them about the satisfaction of Christ and that I deceive them with Socinian glosses and metaphorical senses which is a gross calumny like to which is his calumny p. 317. where he saith the Quakers talk of Christ's Sufferings and Death c. as all done within man ¶ 2 That the Reader may not be interrupted in the through examination of this point by his calumnies perversions and malitious insinuations which he bestows throughout most of his work to squeeze out of my words that he may render me either odious or ridiculous I will remove them in the first place ere I come to the main matter Of this kind is what he saith p. 297. where he plays upon me saying that justification is not by our work or works considered by themselvs as if this were a mighty absurdity to say works wrought in a man could in any sense not be called his which he reckons Phanaticism in folio But if this be so he must accuse Christ and the Apostle Paul of this Phanaticism and it shall not much trouble me to be accounted guilty with them albeit I lie under I. B's censur for it for Christ saith to his Apostles Mat. 10 20. For it is not ye that speak but the Spirit of your Father that speaketh in you and Mark 13 11. for it is not ye that speak but the Holy Ghost yet they uttered the words He must either here confess his shame albeit he term me a shameless man for saying that Christ's words confirm it or else condemn Christ was not this speaking a work of the Apostles and doth not Christ say it is not they and dare he call this a contradiction So then he may see in what respect good works considered otherwise than as meerly the works of men help in justification see also 1 Cor. 15 10. But I laboured more abundantly than they all yet not I but the grace of God which was with me So here the Apostle's labour is
words when interpreted are made use of in Scriptur for the Latine fermentum which signifies leaven 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 Scriptur 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 can not be found in all the Scriptur while they affirm it to be the only adequat Rule of their faith and manners That we deny the thing truely imported by the Trinity is false As for the word Vehiculum Dei as having a respect to Christ's Body or Flesh and Blood from heaven that it is a Scriptur word see Cant. 3 9. King Solomon made unto himself a chariot of the wood of Lebanon and v. 10. Vehiculum ejus purpureum the Hebrew words for Chariot and Vehiculum are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 appirion and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 merkabh or merkaba both which signify a chariot and vehicle and that by Solomon is mystically understood Christ of whom Solomon was a figur or type none who are spiritually minded can deny and consequently that this chariot or vehicle must be mystically and spiritually understood nor can it be meant of Believers or the church because it is said the midst of it being paved with love for the Daughters of Jerusalem i. e. for Believers so that they are received by Christ into this chariot or vehicle and therefore not it but distinct as the contained is distinct from the containing But for the further understanding of these Hebrew words see Buxtorf his Hebrew lexicon and the book called Apparatus in lib. Sohar part 1. p. 144. 553. And however he might cavill upon this mystical meaning yet the word is Scriptural which their barbarism Sacrament is not And to his saying in answer to my shewing that by laying aside this unscriptural term the contest of the number of the Sacraments will evanish that it will remain if instead of Sacrament they use Signes or Seals of the Covenant this is but his bare assertion untill he prove by clear Scriptur that there are only two signes or seals of the Covenant which he will find hard and yet harder that these two are they Pag. 469. n. 5. he denieth the Scriptur saith there is one onely Baptisme instancing the baptism of Affliction But I speak here of the Baptisme of Christ in a true and proper sense and Eph. 4 5. will prove as much that there is one onely Baptisme as there is one onely God which is in the next verse But before I proceed any further I must desire the Reader to observe how this man speaking of the Baptisme of the Holy Ghost understands it only to relate to the extraordinary gift of speaking with tongues which the Apostles had and not as any thing common to all true and really regenerated Christians so that he concludes the Baptism with the Spirit and with Fire now to be ceased And upon this his supposition he buildeth pag. 471-473 474-478 without so much as offering to prove it And to this he addeth a gross lye upn me pag. 472. that I will have none to be baptized in the Spirit but such as are endued with these extraordinary gifts which I never said nor believed and therefore this his false supposition I deny consequently till next time that he take leasur to prove it all that he builds thereupon is meerly precarious and needs no further answer Iohn the Baptist speaking of the Baptisme of Christ in general as contradistinct from his saith He that cometh after me shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire which could not have been the mark of distinction if this had only been restricted to what the Apostles received the day of Pentecost and not of the Baptisme wherewith Christ baptizeth all his Children But to rectify the mistake he supposeth I am in concerning the One Baptisme he tels me the One Baptism comprehendeth both the outwvrd element and the thing represented and sealed thereby but the reasons he gives for this are so weak that thereby I am confirmed I am not in a mistake I might say saith he there were two Circumcisions because Circumcision is called Circumcision of the heart And what then In that sense there were two so long as the outward continued to wit the outward and the inward that of the Flesh and that of the Heart and if he can answer this no better than by smiling at it we must pitty the levity of his Spirit but not be moved by the weight of such airy arguments What he addeth of the Object of Faith being called faith as also the profession albeit the Apostle say there is one faith is not to the purpose since these are included in the one true faith the Apostle speaketh of but for him to say that the baptisme of water is included in the One Baptism spoken of there by the Apostle is only to beg the question and yet all he doth is strongly to affirm this without proof so that all that he saith in answer to me being built upon this and such like mistakes needed in strictness no more reply as his answer to my argument pag. 471. sheweth where he supposeth two Baptismes one administred by Men another administred by Christ himself by his Spirit and not by men But he should have proved this ere he had used it as a distinction and till he do so my argument to wit That since such as were baptized with Water were not therefore baptized with the Baptisme of Christ therefore Water-Baptisme can not be the Baptism of Christ will stand for all his blowing I desire the Reader take notice here of his insinuation as if I had borrowed this argument from Socinus which he hath over and over again afterwards as to others speaking expressly pag. 433 of my stealing arguments from Socinus But to shew him how unhappy he is in being so apt to speak untruth he may understand that I never read three lines of Socinus's writings hitherto nor knew what arguments he used till now he informs me in case his information be true In stead of answer to what I urge from 1 Pet. 3 21. in my Apology he giveth a preaching made up of meer assertions built on the former mistakes and railing his answer is built upon the supposing that water baptisme goes to the making up of Christ's Baptisme which is now to continue which yet remains for him to prove and on the other hand supposing that I affirm that by the answer of a good Conscience there mentioned is to be understood the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit which is false And upon the same two mistakes he grounds his answer pag. 473. n. 8. to what I urge from Gal. 3 27. and Col. 2 12. as a supplement that