living Creatures or Animals to love and cherish their Off-spring which is a shadow or figure of that more Divine Law in God's people is not any complex Proposition of words but an innate principle of love and affection which he hath planted in them Moreover the said I. A. digresseth here from his matter to seek an occasion against us and to load us with down-right Blasphemy because we do not say that there are three Persons in the God-head But to this Charge I have answered already to one of I. A. his Champions in my book called The Way Cast Vp the which hath given content to divers-sober people and I hope may give content to all who reads it in that particular where I show that it is only the unscriptural terms of a Trinity of Persons or of three Persons in the Godhead that we deny and not the mysterie or thing it self of Father Son and Holy Ghost being three that bear Record in Heaven which according to the Scripture we both believe and confess And indeed Augustine in his Fifth and Seventh Books of the Trinity not only saith the words three Persons are improper but disputeth against them and I suppose I. A. for all his School-Logick and Philosophy shall hardly be able to Answer his Argument the substance of which to my best remembrance is this The word Person either it signifieth somewhat absolute and simple or somewhat relative to say the first is absurd otherwise there should be three 〈◊〉 Beings or Essences in God which is absurd if somewhat relative which is the second then seeing every relative is referred or is relative to another as Father is relative to Son and therefore Father is the Father of another and no man is his own Father in this sense to say the Father is a Person is to say the Father is the Person of some other and so of the rest which is absurd The which Argument not as mine but really Augustines I leave I. A. to Answer and Ierome another ancient Doctor and Father so called doth find fault with the words Three Hypostasis saying expresly in the words Three Hypostaâ—is Latet aliquid veneni There lieth hid some poyson And Laâ—rentius Valla a man well esteemed among the learned findeth fault with the words Three Persons why then should we be so uncharitably charged by I. A. or such hot-headed men with Blasphemy only for keeping close to Scripture words in so great a Mysterie while the thing it self so far as the Scripture declareth it is owned by us And whereas he urgeth us to tell what Three are they to be called if neither Three Gods nor Three Persons I Answer It sufficeth us to call them what the Spirit of God in Christ and the Apostles hath called them and to enquire no further nor to be curiously wise above what they have dâ—â—lared Hath not I. A. heard That there is a Docta Ignorantia or Learned Ignorance which is more safe and to be preferred to an uncertain Knowledge or Science falsly so called And if I. A. his definition of Person be received viz. That it is an intelligent Being subsisting incommunicably or distinctly one from another I see not for my part but that Three Persons at this rate shall infer three intelligent Beings subsisting incommunicably and consequently Three Gods Lastly That he saith Some Quakers have called them three Manifesâ—ations viz. of Moses of Christ and of the Spirit he ought to have produced their names or then we are not bound to believe him that any have said so for at this rate Moses should be the Father of Christ which I do not believe any called a Quaker ever thought perhaps some have said there have been three Dispensations or Manifestations of God one through Moses and one through Christ in the Flesh and one through the Spirit or Christ in Spirit and that these may after some sort have such a reference as that the first may be called relative to the Father yet not excluding the Son and the second may be relative to the Son not excluding the Father c. which yet doth not argue that we understand the Dispensation or Administration of the Father to be the Father himself far less Moses to be the Father as I. A. I believe very rashly and unwarrantably doth alledge Now that there are or have been diversity of Administrations the Scripture is plain and Protestants as well as Papists do acknowledge it Yea what saith I. A. to the common Catechism that saith The Father hath Created us the Son hath Redeemed us and the Holy Ghost hath Sanctified us which is to be understood not exclusively nor yet without some order in the manner of working But who will be so foollish or ignorant for all this to say That the Father is our Creation the Son our Redemption strictly or literally and without a Figure so understood and the Holy Ghost our Sanctification Nor doth it follow that because Christ bringeth in his Father and himself as two Witnesses to prove that he was the true Messiah that therefore there are either two or three Persons in the Godhead for Christ speaketh these words not simply as God but as man Now as Man we acknowledge that Christ is a distinct Nature or Being from God although not divided or separated therefrom And lastly that he argueth That Christ is called the express Image of the Fathers Hypostasis and that Hypostasis should be and is truly Translated Person and not Substance and otherwise it would infer Arianism I Answer That Hypostasis should be Translated Person he doth meerly affirm without any proof from approved Authors and sure I am the Etymologie of the word hath no affinity to person but properly signifieth Substance being compounded of the Preposition and Substantive Verb which as near as possible is in Latin substantia and in English substance and is so Translated Heb. 11. 1. Now that to Translate it substance would infer Arrianism I. A. doth but meerly say it without any proof and so is not to be believed And beside Christ in Scripture is called The Image of the Invisible God and certainly God is a substance and yet this I hope will not infer Arrianism and may we not well understand how Christ as man is the Character or Image of God's substance without Arrianism seeing Christ said viz. in respect of his Manhood My Father is greater than I and it is clear that the aforesaid place Heb. 1. 2 3. is to be understood of Christ not simply as God but as man who certainly as man is the most bright and glorious Image of God and above all Angels or Men or whatever can be named besides the Godhead it self CHAP. VI. HAving thus traced I. A. in his unnecessary and impertinent digression I shall now reply unto his Arguments whereby he laboureth to prove that the Scriptures are the principal rule of Faith and manners And to the first that in Isaiah 8. 10. they were sent
appearing and do still at this day load them with such kind of Charges and to none is it more familiar to blame others for Heresie than those who are greatest Hereticks themselves 4. He saith In Doctrine we trample generally upon the whole Moral Law but more especially upon the first Table And here very falsly he Charges our Doctrine to be contrary to the first second fourth fifth sixth and ninth Commandments but let us see how he maketh good his Charge in each of them He alledgeth our Doctrine transgresseth the first Commandment because we say All Prayer and Worship that is performed without the Spirit of God is Will-worship and Superstition and consequently no wicked or unregenerate persons are bound to Worship God or indeed in any respect to obey God And from thence he concludes They are not under any Law of God and therefore lastly let them do what they will they cannot sin against God such men in the Quakers Principles as he saith may deny disown reject hate and contemn God worship the Devil and debauch at their pleasure they may lawfully dishonour and defame all men Murder commit Adultery Steal bear false Witness and yet they cannot sin because they are under no Law Hence also he infers That Reprobates are most unjustly condemned for their sinning against God seeing they not having received the Spirit are not under Law to God and so cannot be guilty of sinning against him Now what Sober Impartial and indifferent person that is not byassed with deep prejudice against us seeth not that these absurd consequences have not the least shadow of any Rational inference For although we say indeed that there is no true Worship but that which is in Spirit according to the express words of Christ and that none are true Worshippers of God but such as Worship him n the Spirit and that God requireth no Lifeless or Spiritless Worship yet we still affirm that all mankind ought to Worship God and Call upon him even all the wicked and unrenewed persons as well as the renewed so that in the thing of Worship it self we have no Controversy whether it be due unto God by all mankind but the state of the Question lyeth here betwixt us and those that dissent from us what the Worship of God is and what kind or sort of Worship it is that God requires of all men And in Answer thereunto we say the true Worship of God is a Spiritual Worship requiring the sincerity of the heart not as a circumstance or accidental thing but as the essential part thereof which cannot be done without the Spirit of God How much therefore more True and Rational consequence is it to argue thus God commands all men to Worship him therefore he hath given some measure more or less of the help of his Spirit unto all men whereby they may so do which doth continue with them so long as it pleaseth God who taketh away this help from none but such as mightily provoke him and sin out the day of their Visitation And even those whom the Lord in his Justice hath withdrawn that help or grace of his Spirit are still bound by the Law of God to Worship him as much as ever even when they neither do or can Worship him truly because they have brought this unpotency or inability upon themselves by their own unfaithfulness Even as a Servant or Steward that hath received a sum of Money to pay his Master and the said Servant spendeth the Money upon his Lusts and hath not one Penny wherewith to pay the debt yet he is still lyable for the whole sum Hence what I. A. saith in page 11. of his Preface is true that the inability of unrenewed men to perform acceptable Worship neither does nor can take away their Obligation to perform it But we differ from I. A. in the cause or reason why those who want that ability are still under the said Obligation which reason he will have only and alone mens losing it in Adam in whom they all once had it and the losing of it is their fault citing Rom. 5. 12 19. But to this I Answer First Whatever loss or inability is come upon Adam's posterity by the primitive disobedience yet now by vertue of the second Adam his obedience a new ability is conferred upon all men So that as broad as the Sore did spread by the first sin even as broad is the Plaister that God hath provided to the Lame and Diseased Souls of all mankind And this is most clear and plain from Rom. 5. 18. as also from Ioh. 3. 19. And this is the condemnation said Christ that Light is come into the world and men loved darkness rather than Light because their deeds were evil So we see that Christ layeth not the ground of wicked mens condemnation upon Adams sin but upon their hating the Light that did come unto them as a new and fresh discovery and visitation of Gods love But secondly Whether this Inability is come upon the wicked by reason of Adam's sin or by their own actual disobedience since that time yet we affirm no less than I. A. that the most wicked and ungodly are still under the obligation to the whole Law of God and their inability can be no ground of excuse unto them But the true state of the Queston is this Whether wicked men not simply as men or creatures but as wicked and remaining still in their wickedness should or are required to offer up unto God hypocritical and lifeless performances of that which men commonly call Prayer and Worship but is no more so in the sight of God than a dead Picture of Stone or Clay is a true living man and so whether God did ever require any to draw near to him with their Mouths and remove their Hearts far away as the manner of all wicked persons while so remaining always is Now we say God never required such sort of Prayers but refused and forbad them to be offered unto him even under the Law see Isaiah 1. 13. Bring no more vain Oblations and v. 12. When ye come to appear before me who hath required this at your hand to tread my Courts Again Psal. 50. 16 17. But unto the wicked God saith what hast thou to do to declare my Statutes or that thou shouldest take my Covenant in thy mouth seeing thou hatest instruction c. And whereas I. A. citeth some words of our Friends That wicked men should not Pray let the Impartial and Indifferent Reader understand these words in the Sense of those Scriptures just now mentioned which are as positive and full as any that can be cited out of our Friends Books and all occasion of mistake shall be removed For neither the Sense of the Scripture nor of our Friends is That wicked men are bâ—und in no respect to Worâ—ip God for the contrary is manifest from the words cited by I. A. out of the Book called The Principles of Truthâ—
Spirit which we plead for as the common priviledge of all true Christians And was not the Spirit which the Apostles had the Infallible Spirit And if I. A. thinks he has the same Spirit either he must needs acknowledge that he has the Infallible Spirit and is so far infallible or then he must say that the Spirit of God is changed so that whereas it was Infallible in the Apostles and Primitive Christians it is become Fallâ—ble in I. A. and his Brethren And if he have the same Spirit which the Apostles had but in the least measure how is it â—hat he hath said above that the Dictate of the Spirit within is worthy of a thousand Deaths Let I. A. extricate himself of these contradictions if he can And further I ask I. A. whether the Psalms he and his Brethren Sing in their Meetings be these Spiritual Songs which the Primitive Christians did Sing and such as we Read of particularly in the Church of Corinth where Psalms are reckoned among the other peculiar Gifts of the Spirit such as Revelations and Interpretations where it is manifest that the whole Assembly did not all Sing the same words with their voice but every one did Sing as they received it from the Lord and as he did put it into their Hearts and such were the Songs of Zachariah Mary and Elizabeth who Sung and Blessed the Lord by the Holy Ghost And seeing I. A. saith That they cannot Sing unless what they Sing be turned into Meeter I ask him whether the Songs of Zachariah Mary and Elizabeth were Sung by them in Meeter or Rhyme and with Musical Dittyes and Tunes Artificially Composed or whether they had a Precentor or any that went before them And whether such kind of Officers were in the Church in the time of the Apostles as Precentors that went before the people And whom they were all to follow accordingly as he Sang after â—his or that Tune of Musick Artificially Composed Or rather have ye not Learned all this from the Papists And was it not Guido Aretinus â— Popish Monk that invented the Scale of Musick commonly called the Gamut according to which the Precentors are Learned to Raise the Psalms All which is but the bare Act of Man and such who plead for Vocal Musick in the Church from the example of David and the Law they may also on the same account plead for the use of Musical Instruments in the Church not only as lawful but as necessary which yet the Episcopal Church here wanteth and not only so but Dancing also as a part of Divine Worship which was used in time of the Law and especially by David And thus by I. A. his Argument both Instrumental Musick and Dancing shall be necessary parts of Gospel Worship And as concerning wicked mens Singing it is most clear that as they are not to Pray while remaining wicked so nor are they to Sing because all true Singing is a real part of Divine Worship which is to be done in Spirit and Truth but no wicked nor unrenewed person can so do And seeing all wicked persons professing Christianity are Captives in Spiritual Babylon how can they Sing any of the Songs of Zion in a strange Land Can they Sing that new Song which the Redeemed from the Earth Sing Rev. 14. was not the Lord displeased with their Singing even under the Law when the people did degenerate and become perverse And did he not threaten that he would turn the Songs of their Temple into Howlings And yet according to I. A. the most perverse and abominable corrupted persons may and ought to Sing Psalms But what Harmony can such Singing make in the Ears of the Lord while the Heart is so discordant to the Law of God And although I. A. hath his best and greatest Patrons for his Musical Singing with Artificial Dittyes and Tunes and Rhymes out of the Popish Church as also for his pleading that wicked persons may Sing David's words without making a Lye I shall here Cite a very fair acknowledgement out of a late Popish Writer to the Truth of what we alledge against I. A. The which Writer is Iohannes Bona in his Book called The Principles of the Christian Life Part 1. Sect. 44. They are â—yes saith he and empty words when any comâ—â—tteth wickedness and singeth in a Psalm unto God I have hated iniquity and abominated it Psal. 118. He that is altogether in his Dishes and saith I have forgot to Eat my Bread Psal. 101. 1. He Laugheth the whole day and exceedeth in vain joy and saith my Tears were my Bread day and night he obeyeth not the Commandments and he Singeth They are Cursed who decline from thy Commandments Psal. 118. Such Prayers saith he are Accursed provoking the wrath of God toward such and they deserve to be punished with severe Pains Now albeit this Testimony is from a Papist I hope no Sober person will call it a Popish Doctrine but rather a Christian Truth which the Evidence of Truth hath extorted from him And it is a shame that I. A. should be more blind who pretends to more knowledge CHAP. XII J. A. in his pretended Survey of the 9th 10 th and 11 th Queries doth ground his Discourse so much partly upon mistakes and partly upon barely supposed alledged principles which he doth not prove that I shall need to say very little directly in Answer to the whole from his pag. 119 to pag. 131. only some of his most considerable mistakes and bare Suppositions I shall take notice of the which being denyed and removed his whole Superstructure falls of it self First He blames the Queriest or Writer of the Queries For falsly accusing the or slâ—ndering the Church in Brittain as he calleth it as if they did hold their Ecclesiastical Constitutions formally as such for an Infallible Rule and their Catechisms and Confessions of Faith equal to the Scriptures But I Answer the Query maketh no mention of those terms formally as such But simply whether they hold their Directory Confession of Faith and Catechism to be an Infallible Rule and equal to the Scripture Again Secondly what is proposed in the Query is not positively concluded one way or another as the Nature of a Query doth plainly demonstrate And yet Thirdly he plainly affirmeth pag. 129. That the whole Articles and Difinitions contained in the Catechism and Confession of Faith materially considered are very Gospel Rule and Scripture Sentence either expresly and formally or materially implicitely and by good consequence taught therein How then can he have any face to accuse the Inquirer for asking such a thing which he doth openly acknowledge And here let the Reader take notice that the Catechism and Confession of Faith whereof I. A. giveth so great a Commendation is not that of the Episcopal Church but the Presbyterian viz. that made by the Assembly at Westminster which is expresly cited by him cap. 31. art 4. it is not then as seemeth the
require as also that he alledgeth divers Arguments as used by us in the Case which I know not if indeed used by any of us Nor is it my work at present to bring Arguments for our Doctrine that being already done by others and partly also by me but to Answer I. A. in what he hath against the same He alledgeth that Paul must needs have been in that very condition which he there describes Rom. 3. 14 15 18 23. and consequently there can be no place for the figure called Metaschematismus as I did alledge except I will say that Paul then did not with his mind serve the Law of God But how weak and frivolous is his â—cason here Could not Paul in the same discourse speak of something that was truly his present conditions and of some other thing that was not Is it not clear that Iames doth so in his Epistle when he saith of the Tongue Herewith Bless we God and herewith Curse we men My Brethren these things ought not to be so Now according to I. A. his highly admired Logick Iames behoved to be both a Blesser of God and Curser of men at the same time seeing he useth the first person to express both and the like Impertinency I. A. is guilty of in saying the word cleanseth 1 Ioh. 1. 7. Being in the present Tense imports the Sanctification of Believers to be imperfect in this Life for the word is also used in the present time And second by I. A. his reason the word justifieth Rom. 8. 33. importeth an imperfect Justification contrary to I. A. his express assertion Again he alledgeth that the words in Ecclesiast 7. 20. There is not a just man upon the Earth that doth good and sinneth not Have the Verb in the indicative Mood and not in the Potential signified frequently by the second future as I did affirm But this is a bareevasion and no direct Answer to my Assertion And I say again the second future even that of the indicative may be turned into the Potential Mood as it is often at other times because the Hebrew Language hath no Potential Mood distinct by it self Again whereas he urgeth That Solomon must needs understand Actual Sinning and not a bare possibility of mens sinning for who would be ignorant of that To this I Answer that Solomon did not mean a bare possibility but such a possibility as did infer the great danger and hazard that men were under to sin if they were not duely watchful And although all men did know this yet they did need to be admonished of it for some parts of the Scripture are for admonition and putting us in remembrance and not barely for Information How oft doth the Scripture tell us that all men are Mortal and must die which yet none are ignorant of although they oft forget that it is so and therefore need often to be remembred But by I. A. his Logick either men are ignorant that they shall die or the Scripture saith so in vain Who seeth not here the weakness of I. A. his Reasons which I am already weary to repeat or spend my time and pains on such stuff and therefore shall hast to an end of the whole Only I cannot but take notice with what confidence I. A. doth conclude That the Apostles and Prophets their Writing the Scriptures was an Action surely defective and iâ—perfect as to the exact and compleat degree of Love to God and men c. But where doth he read any such assertion in Scripture Or by what consequence doth he prove it Suppose they did not what they did in the highest degree that men could attain to this doth not prove any sinful defect in what they did For it did sufficiently Answer to the exactness of the Law if what they did was with all that degree of Love to God and men that was possible for them at that time to perform CHAP. XVII J. A. in his pretended Answer to the 16 th Query first of all beginneth to accuse the Inquirer As guilty of a leud Calumny in charging his Brethren for holding Salvation by Self-works and Self-Righteousness whereas they disclaim Salvation by the best works of the Saints But I. A. in this as in other things doth grosly abuse his Reader and falsly accuse the Inquirer For doth not I. A. know that to Query a thing is no positive conclusion either for or against it And albeit the Inquirer did know that in words ye cry down all self-works and self-righteousness yet he had but too much ground to question you about them seeing ye are generally found so much practising them and if they be not so much as useful means or helps of Salvation why do ye both so much practice them and plead for them as I. A. hath done at great length for Preaching and Praying and Singing without the Spirit all which are nothing but Self-righteousness Another fault that I. A. committeth here is that he confoundeth the meritorious cause of Salvation with the subordinate and instrumental means thereof For although those called Protestants deny the Saints good Works that are wrought by the Spirit to be strickly the meritorious cause of Salvation yet generally or for the most part they deny not that they are means of Salvation and necessary in order thereunto which yet I. A. seemeth here altogether to deny And as to that place of Scripture cited by I. A. to prove that the Saints are not saved by any work of righteousness even wrought by the Holy Spirit in their hearts viz. Tit. 3. 5. He could not have brought a more convincing Testimony against his false Doctrine than that very place For after that Paul said Not by works of Righteousness which we had done viz. by any power of our own he immediately addeth That God saveth us according to his Mercy by the washing of Regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost Which Regeneration and â—enewing of the Holy Ghost comprehendeth the whole work of Sanctification in the Saints And here I. A. goâ—th on at his old rate of multiplying false accusations and perversions and perversions against us Some of the chiefest whereof I shall briefly mention 1. That we hold a Popish Iustification 2. That in one of our Books called A Confession of Faith p. 21. We deny to be justified by Righteousness received of us by Faith and also by a Righteousness imputed unto us All which are most gross Forgeries and Slanders for the words in that page 21. say expresly That acceptance with the Father is only in Christ and by his Righteousness made ours or imputed unto us And the said Book denyeth not that the Righteousness of Christ is received by Faith that is the Gift of God but both that Faith and imputation which is only and alone the Creatures act or work without the Spirit of Christ we do justly deny to have any place in our Justification 3. Whereas in the said Book our Friends alledge it is not Acts