〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth chiefly signifie that which is DIVINE and Reasonable that God doth give unto us H. Bullenger saith The Soul is a Spiritual Substance poured of God into Man's Body in his 4 Decad. 10 Serm. Augustine saith It is felt in the Life it is unutterable breathed into Man's Body by God of his own Essence and Nature from the secret Power of God In short Very various have been the Opinions of the Ancients concerning the Soul Plato divided it into Two parts Zeno into Three Panaetius into Five or Six Soranus into Seven Chrysippus into Eight Apollophanes into Nine by some of the Stoicks into Ten by Possidonius into Twelve as Tertullian reports in his Book de Anima p. 273. and H. Bullenger tells us That hardly two say one and the same thing concerning it Seeing then that Men of such excellent Abilities and nicest Disquisitions both in Nature and Theology rather prove their own Contradiction and Confusion then give us any certain Account of the Soul what she is and that the Scripture mentions it so rarely and obscurely and that J. Faldo denies all immediate Inspiration as he calls it which is the only Way left us to understand it he hath not shown himself a Charitable Divine but an Impious Wrangler in falling so heavily upon us with the opprobious Name of Idolaters for assigning something more of Divinity unto the Soul in its primitive Perfection then his Opinion will allow us CHAP. XII Of the Resurrection of Dead Bodies and Eternal Recompence Our Doctrine maintained by Scripture Reason and Authorities IN his former Book he charged us with the Denyal of the Resurrection of the Dead and Eternal Recompence The Testimonies he brought for Proof were such as rendred him very weak or something worse I hope they were sufficiently dis-engaged from his Service unto which according to his old Custom he hath not thought fit to reply He only takes notice of two or three short Passages out of six or seven pages of Answer on which he bestows a few Squibs and concludes with that Contempt and Rudeness no Man pretending to Religion or Humanity would have vented especially against a Man that he provok't to answer him by beginning to abuse his Friends in general and him in particular considering withal that his Profession is to suffer not to insult Strange that my Religion and Conscience should subject me to so much Contempt with a Man that pretends to both But W. P. I dare say had not been thus treated by J. F. could he threaten the Law and Flant and Swagger at the rate J. F. doth But it is like such Folk to insult where he may do it safely One of his Testimonies was this Christ is the Resurrection to raise up that which Adam lost and to destroy him who deceived him So Christ is the Resurrection unto Life of Body Soul and Spirit and sorenews Man Princ. pap call Quak. p. 34. I will not trouble my self nor spend my Reader 's time in transscribing what I said in Defence of this Passage as to the End he designed it Nothing can be clearer then that this concerns Regeneration so sayes J. F. himself pag. 132. consequently the Resurrection of Dead Bodies is not concerned in it His second Testimony fell from G. Whitehead in these words if we may believe him I do not believe this Body shall rise again after it is Dead I told him of his Disingenuous Catching and put him in mind of the Apostles own Expression that justifies the Saying if it was ever said Thou Fool Thou SOWEST NOT that Body that shall be But unto whatever I urged for the clearing of our Friends Words and Writings from his ill Constructions like an unfair if not a fearful Adversary he makes no Return I will now set down what he thought fit to give us Reply p. 88. Take W. P' s own words acknowledging the Truth of my Charge Either the Resurrection of the Body must be without the Matter or it must not If it must then it is not the same numerical Body and so their proper and strict Resurrection they must let go although this allows my Charge true and so enough to its Vindication yet I shall Answer P's Arguments against the Resurrection wherein be opposes Philosophical Conclusions to the express Doctrine of the Scriptures Rejoynder If I have herein vindicated his Charge it must follow that he charged us with Denying the Resurrection of the Body without any Allowance of Change as to that Matter and Corruptibility it was buried with consequently That J. Faldo believes a Resurrection of the same Carnal Bodies that are interred without any Alteration whatever for that allowed they cannot rise properly and strictly the same Bodies If our rejecting this Carnal Dream of his is that horrid Principle he charged us with Denying we have no Reason to be much concerned about the Success But he proceeds Reply pag. 88 89. The latter part of W. P's Dilemma is the Horn with which he pushes at the Resurrection viz. If it must not be without that same gross matter it dyed with then I affirm it cannot be incorruptible because it will carry with it that which will render it corruptible ad infinitum The Body must necessarily be the same Matter is allowed but W. P. calls it in his assumption of the 2d part of his Dilemma the same gross Matter which makes his Argument Falacious in the Form of it But to let that pass it shall be the same Matter and numerical though not of the same Grosness and shall have the same Substance and Essential Form though not the same Accidents Rejoynder Is this the Scripture-Doctrine he says I oppose with Philosophical Conclusions Would he would give us but one Scripture that looks but favourably towards this Reply I never read one yet of a Body's having the same Matter and not the same Grosness the same substance and Essence and not the same Accidents For shame must our Denyal of Physical Nicities or rather J. Faldo's Absurdities be branded for horrid Doctrine 'T is true in Philosophy that a Substance may loose its Accidents and yet remain the same Substance Things may be discolour'd yet the same Beings they were before But that Matter should be such and not gross is incongruous with Scripture and Philosophy Matter and Grosness or Corruption are Synonimous in Philosophy and common Speech But that Grosness or the Substantial Part of any Man's Body should be but an Accident that the Accidence teaches all Boyes in a Noun-Substantive deserves a Lash at least Are Flesh Blood and Bones Accidents or that of them which is gross and corruptible an Accident I wonder what a fearful sort of a Noun-Substantive J. F. would be in case he were condens'd and rarefied of such gross and corruptible Accidents Indeed one would think his Head if not all the rest had been near akin to them when he writ this piece of new Philosophy But this abundantly proveth
47. pag. 101. T. Ienner a Presbyter-Independent Priest of Ireland writ a Book against us for Gain for he went from House to House of many sufficient and some great Men to present them some gave him a Crown some two Crowns some a Piece Among others he had the Confidence and Avarice to give one to the Lord Lt. of that Kingdom His Secretary carryed it to him he turning it over observed many black Charges of foulest and most pernicious Errors to Religion and Civil Government The Parson still stayed The Secr. thought he had favored him sufficiently but not understanding the Priests Aim that is Lucre the Old Priests Sin was prest to tell his Lord that he waited for his Excellencies Answer The Secretary was so civil as to answer his Desire But when the Lord Lt. understood his Drifâ— he returned the Book to the Parson with this Account That be was sorry to bear that the Quakers held such ill Principles but the Tares and the Wheat must grow together till the Day of ludgment So the Parson was corrected for his Baseness and disappointed of the great Bone he crept thither for Leg. alledg l. 1. Admonâ— ad Gent. Strom. l. 5. pag. 48. See Dr. Bilsons and the Heads and Doctors of Oxford against the Brownists Gifford against H. Barrow R. Bernard against Brownism answered by I. Robinson and Ball against I. Cann c. Rob. Nor. his Ans to Syd Sym. Excomm pag. 8. * An odd unsound Phrase Acts 1. 2 Tim. 3. 16. Job 23. 8 1. Cor. 2. Ephes 1 T. C Works page 249. I. John 1 To call any Day of the Week a Christian-Sabbath is not Christian but Iewish give us one Scripture for it I will give two against it Gal. 4. 9 10 11 12. where the Apostle makes their Observation or Preference of Dayes to be no less then a Token of their Turning from the Gospel Also Col. 2. 16. An outward Sabbath or keeping of a Day to be but a Shadow and that Christians ought not to be judged for rejecting such Customs for this very Reason the Protestant-Churches beyond the Seas generally deny the Morality of the First Day counting all Dayes alike in themselves only they have Respect to the First Day as an Apostolical Custom and think it convenient to give one Day of Rest from Labour to Man and Beast each Week Of this Mind several Learned Protestants of our own Country have declared themselves to be So that neither our English Episcopalians nor French Presbyterians can escape Iohn Faldo's Consequence any more then the Quakers for if those that deny the Supper Baptism and the first day of the Week to be the Christian Sabbath deny Gospel-Ordinances then those who deny the First Day of the Week J. F's Christian-Sabbath to be the Christian-Sabbath must needs deny a Gospel-Ordinances but that doth many English Episcopalians and most French Presbyterians therefore both several English Episcopalians and the generallity of the French Presbyter and are Denyers of a Gospel-Ordinance Consequently J. F. told an Untruth in his Preface when he assured both Episcopalian and Presbyterian that they were no further concerned in his Discourse then vindicated In short Though we assert but one Christian-Sabbath and believe that to be the Everlasting Day of Rest from all our own Works to Worship and Enjoy God in the Newness of the Spirit yet 't is well known that we both meet upon the First Day in the Week and behave our selves with as In-offensive a Conversation as any of our Sabbatherian Adversaries The Honour is God's by whom we are what we are but this Testimony I record for God His Gopel and Right-begotten Children that the Meats Drinks Washings and Dayes observing Christians are not come so far as those foolish Galatians for â—hom the Apostle travelled again until Christ were formed in them Gal. 4. 19. being yet Stranger to the Life Power Spirit and the Substance of the Gospel * See Iudas and the Iews comb again Chri. * See Iudas and the Iews comb against Christ c. John 14. 10. Mat. 10. 20. See my Answ pag. 133. Rom. 8. 13. 14. Math. 7. 27. 23. Heb. 12. 14. John 3. 3. 5. Gal. 6 7 8 9. Dan. 9. 24. A. Sadeel Oper. pag. 37. Rom. 3. 25. 2 Cor. 5. 19 20. Psal 16. 11. * What sayes J. F. to this Is it not beyond what E. B. said of a Report of Christ H. Grot. in Epist 1 Cor. Phil. 2. 8. Christ was the Eternal Light before Iohn testified of him See Book called Annotations of certain learned Divines in the Year 1645 on Ioh. 1. verse 9. Gen. 45. 8. Plat. Pol. 1. Isa 2. 3. Clem. Al. Admo ad Gent. p. 2. Strom. l. 2. See Rom. 8. 9 10 11. where the Spirit of Christ and Christ are equivâ—â—ently taken E. B.'s Works p. 144. Homo rationabilis factus irrationabiliter vivens amisit rationem tradidit se terraâ—o spiritui Psalm 48. 21. vide Irraeneus P. 336. i. e. A Man who is made reasonable living unreasonably hath lost his Reason having given himself up to an Earthly Spirit * If it be objected that Adam is not mentioned as degenerated but as created and therefore this Interpretation will not do I answer 't is true he is said to be made a living Soul but first this makes not for the Resurrection of dead Bodies and so far our Adversary gets no Strength 2ly Though the Apostle beings with the first Adam's Creation yet he orderly comes to the Earthly Image that the living Soul put on by Disobedience which introduceth the Necessity of the coming of the second Adam and his Quickning Spirit to create a new bring into the Image of God So there is Adam as sown and his Posterity representatively in him and his and their Laps and then the Restoration by him that is the Resurrection and the Life the second Adam the Lord from Heaven however Annot. cert Divin anno 1645. * Note Reader that our Translation is erroneous Iob 19. 32. whom mine Eyes shall behold In the Hebrew thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. mine Eyes have seen the Septuagint 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vidit doth see as Drusius and Cadurcus observe * Oh the Angry Countenances the Wicked will have on that Day Oh the Angry Speeches It may be from Words they fall to Blows and tear one another Hair and spurn at one anothers Bellies bite one anothers Flesh and even claw out one anothers Eyes Dr. Barnea I. Brad. I. Calv. B. Iew. VV. Perk. VV. Green I. Car D. Owen with a Hundred more of this Mind admir'd by such as I. F. yet that Doctrine derided by him in us particularly I. de VVessalia No Man can know the Mind of Christ which he holds forth in his words but he alone Paradox in Fasc Rer. p. 163. Book 1. Part 3. pag. 50. Balaam's Ass shall rise up in Judgment against J. F. B. 1. P. 1. p. 107. p. 39 80 107. p. 109. P. 2. p. 20. B. 1. P. 1. p. 8. P. 2. p. 21. p. 22. p. 126. P. 3. p. 37. Book 1. Part 1. pag. 31 32 33 34 35 36. Part 3. from p. 62. to 90. Psalm 85 9 10.
But this Shift will not serve J. Faldo's turn since G. F. meant a visible changeable and not a visible permanent Worship This Passage relates to Figurative and Temporary Services standing in those things which were but Signs of the Substance to come and which are finished by it So that the Apostle did indeed labour to bring the Jews and other weak Christians off from their Visible Typical or Legal to the more Spiritual VVorship of the Gospel not that they should be debarred from expressing that VVorship for while Bodies and Souls are together there is as I writ at large in my Answer a Necessity of some Bodily Demonstration I will yet give one Relish more of the Man 's Disingenuous Spirit before I conclude this Chapter Reply pag. 50. Before W. P. parts from this Argument be grows kind and shews the Power of Condescension to have place in him by these words Yet thus far we could go That Visible Worship as such without a due Regard to what kind of Worship it may be and what is the Root from whence it came cannot be well-pleasing to God A great Compliance indeed which is thus much just and no more a man's filling a Dung-Cart or W. P's acting on the Stage or the Table in their Meeting-place as like a Fencer as ever was seen are not Worship because seen though they should by some be so called for every thing that is seen is not therefore Worship Rejoynder His Acknowledgment of my Condescension is a small Artifice to insinuate my yielding him the Cause But what Reason he had to commend me would be better seen by considering how aptly and honestly he hath replyed to that little piece of my Answer he found in his Heart to give us He thinks to fling us off with his dirty and vain Similitudes I writ of Visible Worship as Praying Speaking c. on a Religious Account he turns it to any visible thing as Filling a Dung-Cart Acting on a Stage or Table as a Fencer Similes right-well suiting his Disposition as if I denyed that to be Worship which was seen because seen which was the farthest thing from my Thoughts and is not at all deduceable from my Words Yet hath this Man the Confidence to tell his Reader that they signifie just thus much and no more But in good Conscience Courteous Reader can this Man think to escape the Hands of God that acts with so much willful Baseness against me as to make no Difference between my saying That visible VVorship as such unless proceeding from a Right Root cannot be well-pleasing to God and saying That visible VVorship is not Worship because Visible though it should proceed from never so true a Ground which he makes my Answer to speak at least he infers so from it though â— direct Contradiction Is it one and the same thing to say Visible VVorship is not therefore true VVorship because Visible and concluding filling a Dung-Cart is not true VVorship because Visible is it honestly done to â—pply that to Acting upon Stages and Fencing which â—lly me was joyned to Worship If I had said Visible Fencing as such is not Worship because seen his â—y Shift might have had something in it but to make Difference betwixt saying that Visible Prayer is 〈◊〉 true VVorship because seen and Fencing or filling Dung-Cart is not true VVorship because seen thereby turning what I said of VVorship to every Trivial or Common Action among Men is unworthy of an Ingenuous Disputant much more an Humble Christian and least of all a Christian-Minister In short I spoak against Visible VVorship not Rightly Grounded a Position as true as Scripture it self for it is Scripture twenty times over and he twisteth it to my Denyal of VVorship because visible be it grounded as it will as his last words in the Chapter tell us For every thing sayes he as the sense of my Answer that is seen is not therefore VVorship instead of this Every VVorship that is seen is not therefore true VVorship But his extending the Major Proposition to every visible Thing and not to visible Worship only opens a Gap for his wild and extravagant Similes I will lay down our Propositions that the whole VVorld may see his Unjust VVay of Dealing with us My Proposition lay in form thus That Visible Worship which ariseth not from a Right Ground is not acceptable with God But John Faldo's Visible Worship say ariseth not from a Right Ground Therefore John Faldo's Visible Worship is not Acceptable with God The Argument as he gives it in my Name formed lies thus That which is seen is not Worship But a man's filling a Dung-Cart c. is seen Therefore Filling a Dung-Cart c. is not Worship Which Argument makes nothing Worship that is seen or visible however truly grounded because Visible instead of making such Visible Worship not true which doth not proceed from a right Root Now be pleased Friendly Reader to observe whither this Evasion drives the Matter If that which is seen be not therefore Worship as says J. F. in my Name then publick Praying or Preaching though of never so True a Kind or arising from never so Right a Ground because seen is not Worship much less True Worship By this it undeniably appears that my Adversary hath at best mistaken my Answer which abundantly confesseth as he himself hath observed in his Reply pag. 50. That there will be there must be and there ought to be a Visible Worship and that such Visible Worship only is rejected which ariseth not from a Right Ground in the Heart But how can this be if publick Praying and Preaching springing from never so spiritual a Root because seen must be no Worship which J. F. tells the World in my Name How can these so grand Opposites meet Or how is it possible to reconcile things as contrary as this William Penn owns Visible Worship William Penn denyes Visible Worship For it is no less then to make me renounâ—e Visible Worship for Visibility's sake who by my Principle and Writings hold and maintain such Visible VVorship as is of a true Nature or springs from a good and spiritual Ground So that it is not the Visibility but the Ground or Nature not being as it should be that is the Reason of our Exception Dr. Everad's Sermons Beloved I would have you ponder these things well If ye set up Ordinances c. so as to build and rest in them ye do make Idols of them or at best you play the Babes and the Children with them by resting alwayes on such Crutches and Go-bies and never come to be Young-men much less as Fathers in Christ pag. 562. And truly with some men herein lies the Top or Quintescence of their Religion making such ado about Shadows Figures and Resemblances and they let the Truth the Substance the thing pass and regard it not forasmuch as they are so zealous and hot about Forms But if they are by
to be the Effect or purchase of inward Righteousness and Holiness for its impossible but the free Love and Mercy of God yet without the Holy Sanctifying or Regenerating Work of God in the Heart by the Operation of his Eternal Spirit whereby to do the Will of God as it is in Heaven it is impossible to have Access into God's Tabernable and Holy Hill much less to be justified by him And indeed as true Repentance which is the beginning of the Work of Sanctfication opens the Way for the Remission of Sins that are past which I call the first part of Justification so is Regeneration or Sanctification throughout in Body Soul and Spirit as well the compleating of Justification as Sanctification consequently it is that second Part of Justification because it is a making Man just by Nature who was before Just but by Imputation that is he that was accounted just by not having Sin imputed through Repentance and Faith in the Love of God declared in and by Christ is now inwardly made more just because made Holy as God is Holy Levit. 20. 7. Perfect as his Heavenly Father is perfect Mat. 5. 48. Righteous even as God is Righteous 1 John 3. 7. through the effectual Working of the Holy Ghost There are Two Scriptures which prove this The one is 1 Cor. 1. 30. But of him are ye in Christ Jesus who of God is made unto us Wisdom and Righteousness and Sanctification and Redemption where the word Justification is left out and yet the Thing Justification doubtless included and implyed The other is Rom. 8. 30. Moreover whom he did predestinate them he also called and whom he called them he also justified and whom he justified them he also glorified where Sanctification is left out yet without Dispute the word Justification includes it Nor are we alone in this Judgment since both Ancient and Modern Writers avouch the same Irenaeus adv Heres lib. 4. cap. 30. Irenaeus Disciple to Polycarpus who was Disciple to John the Divine Apostle sayes Justiantem Patres virtute Decalogi conscriptam habentes in cordibus sâ—is legem The Patriarchs sayes he were justified by vertue of the Law written in their Hearts Again Lib. 3. cap. 4. He speaks of many Nations of the Barbarians of whom they that believe in Christ have Salvation written in their Hearts by the Spirit without Paper or Ink. Clemens Alexandrinus Strom. lib. 7. And sayes Clemens Alexandrinus who lived in the same Century Ye are made of him to be Righteous as he is Righteous and leavened of the Holy Ghost Orig. Epist ad Rom. L. 4. c. 4. And Origen also tells us Therefore Christ Justified them only who have betaken themselves to a New Life by the Example of his Resurrection and have cast away the Old Garments of Unrighteousness and Iniquity as the Cause of Death Thus far of Fathers Of the Reformers from Popery H. Bullenger Decad. 1. Serm. 6. de Justif H. Bullenger thus To justifie signifieth to remit Offences that is as I distinguisht the first part but hear what followeth to cleanse to sanctifie and to give utterance of Life Everlasting Again Justification is taken in this present Treatise for the Absolution and Remission of Sins for Sanctification and Adoption into the Number of the Sons of God D. Barns's Works p. 243 244 245. To him I will add D. Barnes Burnt in Henry the Eighth's Dayes who in his Discourse of the True Church against the Romish Bishops asserts in full and pathetical Expressions That what gives her Acceptance in the Sight of God is her being presented to God by Christ her Head without Spot through the Washing of Regeneration B. Downam of Justif chap. 1. So Bishop Downam of Justification distinguisheth and determineth this Point almost in the very same Terms I will conclude with some Passages out of J. Spirgg's Book entituled A Testimony to an Approaching Glory J. Sprig Test p. 81 82 83 84 85 88 89. We may be bold to say after Christ That Flesh profitteth nothing If you only know Christ's Dying and Rising without you it will profit you nothing except you have him Dying and Rising within you Error in this is the Root of the Dead Faith whereof the World is full Paul doth not say that the Hearing that Christ dyed for the Sins of Men doth make them free No there was the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus Here is that which puts a Difference when the Spirit of Jesus Christ brings the Covenant to the Heart of a poor Creature when the Spirit of Adoption and Sonship revealing us God as our Father revealing God in Vnion with us our Righteousness and our Strength he doth indeed seal us to the Day of Redemption He sets apart Christ's Sheep this distinguisheth them from the other So that if you lay your Salvation upon an Historical Christ ye will be deceived If you will have that in which you may confide you must have Christ revealed in you in the Spirit This is the sum of all I desire to commend unto you that we are not justified we are not sanctified by Christ's dying by Christ's suffering in the Flesh only That is not the compleat Ministration of our Salvation There indeed we see our Salvation as in a Glass and it is transacted as in a Figure as in the History but then are we actually sanctified wher as God doth send that same Spirit of Adoption into our Hearts revealing unto us the Love of the Father and revealing unto us our Reconciliation that Reconciliation that was held forth to us on the Cross but which is dispensed unto us by our being offered up upon the Cross as Christ was All these Persons put great Value upon the Inward Work of God and Christ in the Heart and plainly determine Sanctification and Justification to be one and the same thing but if any one have the Preference the Scripture it self gives it to Sanctification 1 Cor. 6. 11. Know ye not that the Vnrighteous shall not inherit the Kingdom of God Be not deceived neither Fornicators nor Idolaters nor Adulterers nor Effeminate nor Abusers of themselves with Mankind nor Thieves nor Covetous nor Drunkards nor Revilers nor Extortioners shall inherit the Kingdom of God and such were some of you but ye are washed but ye are sanctified 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ye are justified in the Name of the Lord Jesus and the Spirit of our God H. Grotius expounds the word sanctified 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 accepistis spiritum sanctum ye have received the Holy Ghost and the word Justified majores quotidie in justitia fecistis progressus ye have made daily greater progress in Righteousness And D. Hammond in his Annotations upon the fifth Chapter of the second Epistle to the Corinthians interprets 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Righteousness a being first sanctified and then justified To end this Chapter serious Reader It is our Faith that Christ to conform us to his Heavenly Image who have
manifested himself by it was from Everlasting In short Christ qualified that Body for his Service but that Body did not constitute Christ He is invisible and ever was so to the ungodly World that was not his Body as honest J. Bradford told Arch-Deacon Harpsfield B. Mart. 3. Vol. p. 293. and so much the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or anonted signifieth which was not outward after the Jewish Ceremony but by the Spirit and invisible Power of God Lastly I will leave it with my Reader to consider what better terms then Earthly and Perishing J. F's Comparison implyeth to Christ's Body for such was the Apostles and the Bodies of those Saints he writ to But he will by no means have himself concerned with a great Part of my following Discourse which was he thinks in Opposition to no Body because I argued that the meer Body of Christ could not be the intire Christ though he makes our Denyal of it to be a disowning of the true Christ producing a Passage out his Book to my Purpose in Contradiction to himself viz. p. 72. The Flesh and Blood of Christ we do not believe to be Christ separated from his Mans Soul or that to be Christ separated from his Divne and Eternal Nature bestowing upon me for so ill employing of my time these Terms Vain Trifler Pedantick Magesterialness Forger and that it is a greater Wickedness then being a Thief to make him assert the meer Body to be the intire Christ adding but this is Penn ' s high-way and beaten Rode One would think after all this that I had wronged him with all imaginable Baseness in fastning upon him any such Conclusion yet if I make it not appear by his Reply which one would think he should have penned a little more cautiously after he had given such Occasion by his former Discourse and that to in his very next page let my Reader say I merit all thâ—se hard Words that J. Faldo flingeth so angrily upon me He produced several Scriptures to prove as I understood him the Manhood to be the Christ of God or else he did nothing for without so believing and arguing it was impossible for him to prove our Denyal of the true Christ because we asserted Christ to have been before that Body consequently that it was not the the intire Christ which I explained and rescued He omits giving the Reader any account of it only in general Tearms and that not without Perversion His Reply unto which will make good my Construction of his Words or I am greatly mistaken Reply p. 77. Whereas I produced Abundance of Scriptures to prove that the Man Jesus is the Christ W. P. will by no means allow them to have that Sence no not that in Luke 2. 26. And it was revealed to him Simeon by the Holy Ghost that he should not see Death before he had seen the Lord's Christ neither that the Child Jesus whom Simeon took up in his Arms was the Christ Certainly sayes W. P. p. 161. This Allegation from Luke 2. 26. will never prove the Body of Jesus which the Father prepared before him to be the whole intire Christ c. Neither did I produce It to prove the Body to be such what Disputing can there be with a Man that keeps neither to my Words nor to the Question Rejoynder But is this the great Enemy to Forgery the express Quoter one that cites to a Tittle and scorns as to Ignore his own Concessions so to render his own Conclusions for his Enemies Assertions who charges me with denying this Passage among others as any whit proving the Man Jesus to be the Christ whilst he quotes my own Conclusion upon it to have been no other then the Body of Jesus to have been the whole and intire Christ Now he cant compass his End he produced not those Scriptures to prove any such Thing but what is clearer then that it is the same thing with J. Faldo to deny the Body of Jesus to be the intire Christ of God and to deny the Christ of God consequently that by the Christ of God he understands with L. Muggleton only the Body that died So that he did but evade when he said that I argued against no body in affirming and proving that the Body taken in that time was not the whole Christ of God and that he produced those Scriptures to that very End notwithstanding what he sayes to the contrary for what else can any infer when he so obviously makes no Difference between saying The Man Jesus is not Christ and the visible Body of Jesus is not the whole intire Christ Thus Reader he Faulters at the Entrance I will give a brief Account of neer two pages of Answer by him omitted It is and will be granted that Simeon saw the Lord 's Christ but I hope J. F. will not deny unto that good man who waited for Israel's Consolation that he had as well a spiritual as natural or inward as outward Sight of Christ for it were both to deny Christ's Divinity and to conclude Simeon void of any spiritual Sight or Intendment in these Words of the Lord 's Christ as a Light enlightning the Gentiles c. though still be it understood that we confess that Child as seen and understood by Simeon with Respect to that great End of his Appearance to be the Lord 's Christ Let none then be so unjust as to infer we deny the Lords Christ because we rather chuse to say the Body of Christ then Christ for sayes J. Faldo as well as we elsewhere Christ is God manifest in Flesh See my Answer pag. 161. Nothing can be clearer then that I only argued in Opposition to his carnal Doctrine against the meer Bodie 's being the Christ of God Now since he makes me hereby to deny the Man Christ Jesus I must conclude that by the Man Jesus he understands no more then the meer Body of Jesus otherwise how do I deny the Man Jesus to be the Christ of God in only scrupeling to call the meer and only Body of Jesus the â—hrist of God His next Animadversion was this Reply p. 78. Let us observe how W. P. abuses that Scripture Acts 5. 30 31. The words sayes he are thus to be understood The God of our Fathers who raised up the Body of Jesus from the Dead which ye slew and hung upon a Tree him whose Body you so cruelly used hath God exalted at his Right Hand c. Beside this Construction which renders it not to be Christ but only his Body that suffered and so Christ never suffered nor dyed nor rose he W. P. puts instead of whom he slew which he slew that it may intend only the Body and not the Person of Christ Rejoynder I appeal to my Reader 's Understanding and Conscience if J. Faldo doth not in this Sentence make the meer Body of Christ to be the Christ of God for one Reason why he denyes my Interpretation is my
making the meer Body only to have dyed which not being the intire Christ of God it was not He but his Body only that dyed So that either J. Faldo holds the meer Body to be the Christ or else that something more dyed then the meer Body But because he acknowledgeth the Deity could not dye nor that the Soul did dye it must follow that the Body only dyed And since he will strictly have it that the Christ of God dyed the meer Body must be the Christ of God His second Exception is very trivial and what in it can be thought to deserve an Answer is included in what was said before for whom might be attributed to the Body as it represented the whole or intire Christ that is Metonymically spoaken the Thing containing for the Thing contained which is very frequent in Scripture for many times that is ascribed to the Body of Jesus which belongs to the whole Christ This with abundance more of pertinent Answer he takes no more notice of then if it had never been written But a little to give J. F. his Humor and to see if the Upshot rises higher then which What doth he understand by the Person slain according to J. F's own distinctions Was it the Godhead That he denyes first Book part 2. p. 73. Was it the Man's Soul No Reply p. 78. Must it not be the Body then And if so What Corrupting of Scripture is it to say which ye slew instead of whom ye slew 'T is at this slender trifling rate he hath dealt with us throughout the Controversie Two Passages more before we conclude this Chapter Upon my recollecting the whole of this Argumentation and concluding thus Since the Divinity could not dye and the Man's Soul was not Mortal much less could be hanged on a Tree or put into a Sepulchre it follows That it was the visible Body only that dyed c. and that it is therefore the intire Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in J. F's as well as Blasphemous L. Muggleton's Sense he makes this Reply word for word Reply p. 78. But if it follows upon my Sense it follows upon the words and scope of the Scripture which saith the same in so many words and in sense a Hundred Times But there is no such abâ—urdity follows upon either The Soul can't dye cannot therefore the Man dye If not there is no such thing as killing of Men or mortal Men. Rejoynder Man cannot properly be said to dye whilst his Soul lives but he may be said to cease to be in this Visible World or to depart out of it and to lay down his mortal Body so that the Body dyes but not the Man I know it is a common Phrase but synecdochically spoken where that is ascribed to the whole Man which only belongeth to the Mortal part of Man This brings the Business no nearer then it was before for if I understand any thing the Comparison makes the Death of Christ to be the Death of his Body only and that it is call'd the Death of Christ instead of the Death of the Body of Christ from that familiar usage in Speech the Thing contained for the Thing containing that is Christ instead of the Body of Christ In short Because such Murderers who are said to kill Men kill only the Bodies of Men those Jews who crucified Christ properly crucified the Body of Christ only though in a more mysuical Sense they may be also said in that very Action to have murdered the Prince of Life and Glory 1 Cor. 2. His other Passage containeth a Reflection upon my saying that Souls could not be hanged on a Tree Reply pag. 79. I had thought that the Soul being Vnited with the Body till Death where-ever the Body was disposed the Soul was also and therefore the Body so long as it liveth hanging on a Tree the Soul hangs there too also many a poor Wretch can tell him at the Torment of Execution that his Doctrine is False for were but their Souls separated from their Bodies they would feel no Pain nor cry out of their Torment Rejoynder A very Shuffie and nothing to the Purpose The Soul is in the Body so long as the Body is alive upon the Tree and yet it self not strictly hanged on the Tree for if it were then would it be as impossible for the Soul as Body to free it self whilst the Soul by his own Allowance is incomparable and impossible because immaterial whereas Nales Ropes or any other Instruments of Cruelty can only fasten upon material things for if the Soul could be properly hanged she could as well be burnt and laid into a Sepulchre A Man might as well say if J. Faldo were hanged on a Tree his Watch in his Pocket would be hanged or if he were put in the Stocks his Understanding would be in the Stocks Nor hath any poor Wretch reason to complain of my Doctrine at their Executions for I never denyed that Pain was a Sign of the Soul 's not being separated since it is an undeniable Reason why it is not separated however it is not the Soul but the Body through that sensibility the Soul while unseparated continues in it which feels that Pain But I could tell J. Faldo of many Blessed Martyrs that in the midst of Flames were carryed above the Sense of Pain not because their Souls were not in their Bodies at the Stake but from the exceeding Joy of the Holy Spirit which by the way may as well be said to be tyed to the Stake as the Soul because in the Soul for that is the Conclusion of J. F's Argument The Soul is in the Body therefore the Soul is as well tyed as the Body the Holy Spirit and his Comforts are in the Soul therefore tyed as well to the Stake as either Body or Soul In short Souls may be hanged upon Trees as Souls in Scripture are said to dye or be slain an Hebrew Phrase not that Souls really did dye or were slain but that Man is called many times by his nobler Part. I shall conclude this Chapter with a few Reasons for the Hope that is in us concerning the Subject Matter of this Chapter and two or Three Testimonies in Confirmation of them which I offer with all Tenderness of Conscience unto my serious Reader First This Opinion of our Adversary's renders Christ not to have been the Saviour of the World from Abel's Day contrary to Scripture which teacheth us to believe That there was never another Name or Power by which Men could be saved then the Name and Power of Jesus Christ Acts 4. 12. Secondly It makes Christ's Words either an Equivocation or a Contradiction when he said unto the Jews Before Abraham was I am since it makes him that was before Abraham and him that said so not the same Person or Being rather Thirdly Because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Anointed hath a Relation to his being King Priest and Prophet which are both of a
upon what Foot his Resurrection standeth if it may be said to have any or to stand at all Faellacious is but one of his hard words for if the Body rifeth with the same Matter it carried to the Grave it riseth with gross Matter unless it carried no gross Matter thither Let him chuse of the two which to deny But is this to answer my Argument to tell us with so much unwarranted Confidence that the Body shall be the same Matter Substance and Essence c. the very Question What is this but to say It shall be so because it shall be so If he would have done any thing he should have demonstrated how Matter can be without Grosness and the most gross and Material part of the Body to be but the Accidents But he thinks he hath said something to the Point Reply pag. 89. To talk that it the Body cannot be incorruptible because beyond the Nature of Matter it self is to talk like an Atheist making Nature to be God and not acknowledging the God of Nature Rejoynder Did I dare sport in Religion scarce ever Man gave a fairer Occasion in his Compass But he practises it and I abhor it This is such a riddle me riddle me as I never heard of before W. P. sayes The Nature of Matter admits not of Incorruptibility ergo W. P. is an Atheist ergo he makes Nature to be God and ergo he acknowledges not the God of Nature This is the very Man that not a page off reflects Ignorance upon my Philosophy Doubtless a Peerless Disputant one way or other May he evermore thus confute me which is all I will say to such subtil Reasoning and losty Argumentation in this place Yet he has not done Reply p. 89. If God be omnipotent which he is or he is not God he is able as the Apostle speaks to subdue all things to himself with which words he answers all Cavils from Impossibility in Nature Rejoynder The Question was not about God's Power nor was it so much as any Part of the Question But whether Matter is not by Nature corruptible and how that which is corruptible by Nature may be by Nature incorruptible This Scripture he urges to prove his carnal Resurrection will as well prove the Popish Transubstantiation or any the most unreasonable Conceit in the World for it is but saying All things are possible with God and God is able to subdue all things unto himself and the Business is done at J. Faldo's rate of arguing But the Question is not about what God can do but what he hath done and has declared he will do I know there are Impossibilities in Nature which God's Omnipotency makes possible but if J. Faldo doth not know that there is a Difference between Impossibility in Nature and Contrariety to Nature I now tell him there is one and that so wide as though Almighty God frequently supplies Nature's Want of Power yet he rarely if ever acts contrary to and inconsistent with the Nature of his own Creatures What is spiritual remains spiritual what is material material and what is corruptible corruptible But let us see how much better he acquits himself of another Passage which he ventures to cite and in my Opinion doth no more Reply p. 89. W. P. proceeds farther in this vain Reasoning and wicked too p. 202. I say we cannot see how that which is of the Dust should be eternal whilst that from whence it came is by Nature but temporal and that which is yet most of all irreconcileable with Scripture and right Reason is that the Loss and Change of Nature from corruptible to incorruptible natural to spiritual should not make it another Body That it is according to Scripture I have given large Proof in my Book to no one of which he replyeth as also how unreasonable it is to call that a Resurrection which is not of the same numerical Body Rejoynder We may guess how well he proved it in his first Book by the Strength he hath employed to maintain it in his second But let all sober Men judge if this Reply be pertinent to this Part of my Answer yet he promised he would answer my Arguments For the Scripture it is clear That Corruption shall not inherit Incorruption neither can Flesh and Blood inherit the Kingdom of God 1 Cor. 15. 50. Thus Anota cert Divin anno 1645. upon the Place and if he will know the true Resurection set him learn to understand this weighty Passage For we know that if our Earthly House of this Tabernacle were dissolved we have a Building of God an House not made with Hands Eternal in the Heavens 2 Cor. 5. 1. And I cannot but wonder my Adversaries Understanding should be so benighted as that contrary to express Scripture he should assert a Resurrection of the same Body that is buried properly and strictly so the Apostle teaches us to believe that it is not that same Body that is sown that shall be for though we shall be changed from Mortality to Immortality Corruption to Incorruption 2 Cor. 5. 1. and 1 Cor. 15. 37 50. yet mens Bodies of Flesh and Blood shall not inherit the Kingdom of God For the Word Resurrection 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth hot strictly imply a taking up of the same Numerical Body as he would have us believe from his new found Relative IT first Book 2. Part p. 138. for which Beza shall give him a Release both from the Latin and original Greek there being no Word in either for his Relative IT on which he and his factious Brother Hicks have so relatively insisted Indeed as their last and best Refuge The Text lyeth thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Seritur corpus animale resuscitatur corpus spirituale i. e. Anatural Body is sown a spiritual Body is raised that is They lay down a natural and take up a spiritual Body or in lieuof a Natural receive a spiritual Body not that the Natural Body shall be transubstantiated into a Spiritual Body or that admitting of such an Exchange that the Spiritual is the same Numerical Body that was the Natural for so the Natural and Spiritual Body would be one and the same but suppose J. Faldo ' s Relative IT to hold I do utterly deny that this Text is concerned in the Resurrection of Man's Carnal Body at all I will recite it with the five following Verses as they ly in our English Translation It is sown a Natural Body it is raised a spiritual Body There is a Natural Body and there is a Spiritual Body and so it s written The first Man Adam was made a Living Soul the last Adam was made a Quickning Spirit howbeit that was not first which is spiritual but that which is Natural and afterward that which is Spiritual The first Man is of the Earth Earthy the second Adam is the Lord from Heaven As is the Earthy so are they that are Earthy and as is the Heavenly so are they also
which are Heavenly and as we have born the Image of the Earthy we shall also bear the Image of the Heavenly v. 44 45 46 47 48 49. I say this doth not concern the Resurrection of carnal Bodies but the two States of Men under the first and second Adam Men are sown into the World natural and so they are the Sons of the first Adam but they are raised spiritually through him who is the Resurrection and the Life so they are the Sons of the second Adam the Lord from Heaven the quickning Spirit The very Words of the Apostle undeniably prove this to be the Scope how else could the first Adam's being made a living Soul and the second Adam a Quickning Spirit be a pertinent Instance to prove Natural and spiritual Bodies upon which follows that the Natural was first that is the first Adam and then that which is spiritual which is the second Adam the quickning Spirit the Lord from Heaven who came to raise up the Sons of the first Adam from their Dead to his Living their Natural to his Spiritual Estate But perhaps it will be objected that the 47th Verse The first Man is of the Earth Earthy and part of the 9th Verse We shall also bear the Image of the Heavenly seem to imply a bodily Resurrection But let the whole Verses be considered and we shall find no such thing The first Man is of the Earth Earthy The second Man is the Lord from Heaven who sees not that this is rather spoken of the Earthy-Mindedness then the Earthy Body of Adam It was mentioned to show the great Disparity that is between the Nature and Qualification of the first and second Adam the following Verse puts this Interpretaion out of Doubt as is the Earthy such are they that are Earthy and as is the Heavenly such are they also that are Heavenly For those Words We shall also bear the Image of the Heavenly I cannot see how they should relate to the Resurrection of the Carnal Bodies of Men for the Image of the Heavenly is a renewed State to God through the Operation of the Spirit and Power of Christ the first Part of the Verse clears it and as we have born the Image of the Earthy we shall or rather let us bear the Image of the Heavenly as Ambrose and Theophilact read it and six or seven Copies besides have it which is as much as to say That as we having born the Image of the God of this World by becoming his Children so may we bear the Image of the True and Living God by being redeemed from a vain Conversation having our Consciences sprinkled from dead Works and being born again of the incorruptible Seed by the Word of God which lives and abides forever Had this concerned the Resurrection in our Adversary's Sense the Image would be changed wholy Accidents would not serve his Turn therefore not the same Image unless the Earthy could be the Heavenly Image which were Impossible for we should loose our Earthly Bodies at what time we become the Image of the Heavenly in this World if this conceit had any Truth in it and if of the other they to be sure must never enter for another takes Place But as it was never understood so by any that I know of but evermore of that Earthly Image which came by transgression and the Heavenly Image that comes in obeying the Truth by the Spirit according to what the Apostle saith Col. 3. 8 9 10. But now you also put off all these Anger Wrath Blasphemy filthy Fornication out of your mouths lye not one to another seeing that you have put off the old Man with his Deeds and have put on the new Man which is renewed in Knowledge after the Image of him that created him So till the natural Man that is sown comes to dye to his own Image Will and Affections he can never be quickned into this Glorious Image of the second Adam the quickning Spirit who is the Lord from Heaven But suppose it were to be understood rather of Bodies then Souls the Text may be as well translated a Living as a Natural Body is sown yea rather so for the Word is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Animale that imports as much as a Soulâ—-Body and such an one I dare say J. Faldo would not be willing to sow except he had a Mind to be buried alive So Clarius both translates it and interprets it Corpus animale accipiendum est cui anima vitam prestat ne intereat i. e. A Souly or Living Body is that to whom the Soul gives Life that it doth not dye But to go farther suppose the Apostle treated of a natural Change and not only of the spiritual State of the Soul in this Life yet can it be extended no farther then this when good Men lay down this Earthly House or Tabernacle of Clay the Image that came to us from Adam's Loyns we shall be cloathed upon of Immortality received into the Building that is Eternal in the Heavens and be made like unto his glorious Body 2 Cor. 5. 1. Philip. 3. 21. We sow a natural we reap a spiritual and we sow not that Body which shall be but God giveth a Body as pleaseth him 1 Cor. 15. 37 38. I also parralelled my Adversary's Change yet Sameness of Bodies with the Popish Transubstantiation showing that the Absurdity Protestants Charge upon this is equally chargeable upon that only with this Distinction that the Papists deny it to continue a Wafer after Consecration but J. Faldo asserts the spiritual Body to be the same carnal Body after Mutation which is a Kind of Consubstantiation and far more ridiculous But of this he took no notice and his Silence is prudent Things unanswerable are better unmedled with then cited and not confuted He knows who pasâ— for wise Men by holding their Tongues I wish that were his greatest Fault I will conclude this Head with a few Testimonies in Defence of what we have said against J. Faldo's Carnal Resurrection referring my Reader to my Chapters of the Resurrection both against him in my Answer and my Book against T. Hicks entituled Reason against Railing and particularly the second Part of a Discourse that we hope will suddenly be publisht call'd The Christian-Quaker for his fuller Satisfaction of our Scriptural Judgment and our Adversary's fleshly Apprehension concerning the Resurrection H. More Myst God p. 221 224 225. Dr. H. More the Cantabridgian Philosopher begins his Discourse of the Resurrection with this Censure of J. Faldo's We come now to the second particular propounded the Resurrection of the Dead which I dare say the Atheist will listen to with more then ordinary Attention and greedily suck in the Doctrine provided it be stated with the most curious Circumstances that the RIDGIDEST OF THEOLOGERS will describe it by that we shall have the same NUMERICAL Bodies in which we lived here on
THE INVALIDITY OF John Faldo's Vindication Of his Book called Quakerism No Christianity BEING A REJOYNDER In Defence of the Answer intituled Quakerism a New Nick-Name for Old Christianity Wherein many Weighty Gospel-Truths are handled and the Disingenuous Carriage of our Adversary is observed for the better Information of all Moderate Inquirers In II Parts By W. P. Who loves not Controversie for Controversie sake Every day they wrest my Words all their Thoughts are against me for Evil Psa 56. 5. But he that doth a Wrong shall receive for the Wrong which he has done Col. 3. 23. Printed in the Year 1673. To all that Seriously Profess RELIGION Among those called Episcopalians Presbyterians Independents Anabaptists Socinians and Latitudinarians THe Duty I ow to Almighty God and the Respect I bear to his Truth with that great Concern which lives in my Mind for your better Information about us a poor People traduced by some despised by others and our Principles mis-given here perverted there are the only Inducements I have to pursue this tedious and unpleasant Controversie And that you might be undeceived of those false Apprehensions vulgar Stories or the Insinuations of more prevalent Agents have imprest you with I could God knows be contented that even Sufferings were added to my Labours What would I not cheerfully undergo to win you into a serious View and impartial Consideration of our Case Truly I have that Belief of many of you that were the Prejudice of Education and common Vogue of the World set aside you would do us some Justice And I beseech you weigh how much it becomes you you the serious Professors of Religion to give us a fair Hearing for our Principles and Reputations before you finally determine any thing against us To Try all things was an Apostolical Exhortation Nor can you escape the Censure of Dis-regarding it if you decline a fair Inquiery after us Let not Education be dearer to you then Truth and see if more be not to be known by you then yet you know Objected Novelty ought to have no Force with a Christian since had that prevailed he had never been one Nor should the Offence Formality or Worldly Learning takes at us stave you off from a serious Search much less the Crucifie Crucifie of the Vulgar because the God of Truth when manifested in the Flesh was not exempted from more of that then ever yet attended us Indeed it should rather be an Argument for us Believe us we intreat you when we tell you that Religion Pure and Vndefiled Religion we greatly love 'T is that we desire as well to Live as Defend God knows we have long made it the Bent of our Hearts and the whole Aim of our Lives without it we were the Miserablest of Men Yet how are we Defamed Undervalued Contemned and set at Nought for a Company of Seducers Blasphemers Idolaters and what not But why because we are not understood and as cunningly by some hindred from being so But therefore is this Discourse more particularly Dedicated to you that you may be both acquainted with the Foulest Charges one of our greatest Enemies hath exhibited against us his kind of Witnesses produced to confirm them and his Management of the whole Debate with our Plain and Honest Vindication If we shall be found guilty then let us be Condemned for such as he hath represented us to be but if innocent suffer us not any longer to Groan under the Heavy Pressure of such Infamous Accusations for in omitting to Right us for these Grievous Wrongs you will make your selves Accessories to an Injustice that must needs be detested of all Vertuous and Good Men. I leave this Rejoynder with you containing the True Meanings of our Wrested Principles those confirmed by express Scriptures many Râ—â—sons and a Cloud of Testimonies And shall conclude with a Passage out of Jerome well-becoming all Honest Writers and fit to be observed of every impartial Reader Quaeso Lector ut memor Tribunalis Domini de judicio tuo te intelligens judicandum nec mihi nec Adversario meo faveas neve Personas Loquentium sed causam consideres I beseech thee Reader that remembring the Judgment-Seat of the Lord and understanding that as thou dost judge so thou shalt be judged thou favourest neither me nor mine Adversary that writes against me that thou regardest not the Persons but the Cause only I am a real Valuer of whatsoever is Worthy in any of you and an Hearty Wisher of your Improvement in the Knowledge of those things that lead to Eternal Peace which are only to be found in the Light and Life of Righteousness William Penn. THE CONTENTS Part I. CHAP. I. OF Christianity in General pag. 12. CHAP. II. Of Quakerism as this Independent Priest scoffingly calls our Holy Religion pag. 25. CHAP. III. Of the Scriptures pag. 31. CHAP. IV. His Preâ—ence of our Equalling our own Writings and Sayings with the Scriptures pag. 41. CHAP. V. Of the Scriptures being the Rule of Faith and Life and Judge of Controversie p. 68. CHAP. VI. Of our Dehorting People from Reading the Scriptures c. as charged by this Adversary pag. 94. CHAP. VII Of Scripture-Commands what are binding and what not Our Adversary's Disingenuity observed pag. 103. CHAP. VIII That we do not Deny the Scriptures to be any Means whereby to resist Temptation in Opposition to and Denyal of our Adversary's Charge pag. 121. CHAP. IX Not we but our Adversary opposeth the Teachings of the Spirit to the Doctrines of the Scriptures The Testimonies brought by him cleared and delivered from his Application Our Doctrine proved from Scripture and several Testimonies His frequent and gross Perversions of our Words and Writings discovered and justly rebuked pag. 141. PART II. CHAP. I. Of Gospel-Ordinances in general such truly imbraced pag. 187. CHAP. II. Of true and false Ministry p. 203. CHAP. III. That we own a Gospel-Church contrary to our Adversary's Charge pag. 217. CHAP. IV. His Charge of our Denying to hear the Word of God examined True Preaching acknowledged pag. 237. CHAP. V. Of True and False Prayer p. 240. CHAP. VI. Of Positive Ordinances as our Adversary calls them to wit Baptism and the Supper Of Baptism in particular pag. 249. CHAP. VII Of the Bread and Wine which Christ gave to his Disciples after Supper commonly called the Lord's Supper pag. 264. CHAP. VIII Of the Doctrine of Justification pag. 273. CHAP. IX Of the True Christ We own and our Adversary proved to deny him pag. 296. CHAP. X. Three Scriptures rescued from the false Glosses of our Adversary Joh. 1. 9. Rom. 10. 8. 2 Pet. 1. 19. pag. 317. CHAP. XI That we are not guilty of Idolatry as charged by our Adversary True Worshippers The Charge inverted pag. 343. CHAP. XII Of the Resurrection of Dead Bodies and Eternal Recompence Our Doctrine maintain'd by Scripture Reason and Authorities pag. 362. CHAP. XIII My Adversary declines medling with my Appendix
on this Passage in Job But there is a Spirit in Man and the Inspiration of the Almighty giveth him Understanding There is no man saith he that doth not partake of the Spirit and from Almighty God and his Spirit Vnderstanding and Wisdom is to be sought Adds Clarius there is no Vnderstanding in men nisi ab altissimo afflentur unless they be inspired from the Most High Drusius is yet clearer Our Eternal Help is from God who illuminates our Minds without whom we are unable to understand any thing in Divine Matters and that inspires men with that Vnderstanding which neither Age nor Industry nor Doctrine of any man can possibly give Cradock a famous Independent-Preacher tells us That if men had all the Sermons that ever they heard recorded in their Memory though some may think them very knowing yet truly they might be miserable confused and blind For that it is the Spirit of God alone in the Heart clears orders assures and settles things yea that the Scripture is a dead and speechless thing without the Spirit of God This sayes he is the exceeding Greatness of the Power of the Spirit of God And it is a wonderful thing to see how quickly the Spirit of God will make a Schollar ripe In short as to him he greatly extolls the Dispensation of the Spirit and pag. 210. ventures at a kind of Prophecy That in these latter times God will exalt his Spirit and throw down every thing that exalts it self against the Spirit and stands in his Light He affirms the Spirit to be within that the Children of God are taught by it for sayes he If thou be a Saint thou hast the Spirit of God as truly dwelling in thee as in the Lord Jesus Christ now Blasphemy and that the Way to know this Spirit to be in us is from its own Evidence and that it is the Way to know it in others too from whence he draws such kind of Conclusions That the Lord Jesus is anointed and so are they we have the same Vnction with Christ we have the same Offices with Christ we have the same Love of God the same Spirit and the same Kingdom with Christ The Church is the Fulness of Jesus Christ It is said of the Oyl that was poured on Aaron It ran upon the Skirts of his Garments so Christ being anointed that Oyl runs on us Nay the least Saint is as real a Prophet Priest and King as the Lord Jesus was for he dwells in him only in all things he must have the Preheminence William Dell no small man in the Account of many who profess not themselves to be Quakers positively saith in Answer to this Objection That men now are not to receive the Spirit in that immediate way to understand the Scriptures in which it was given to them who wrote the Scriptures â—he very Point depending between J. Faldo and me Surely Mr. Simpson will not deny that the Spirit is given to that whole Church which is the Body of Christ seeing Paul saith If any man have not Christ's Spirit he is none of his he is no Member of his Now the Spirit is alwayes given to whomsoever it is given by the Father and the Son as Christ taught his Disciples promising them that the Father would send the Spirit to them in his Name And also that he himself would send it to them from the Father and was this Promise only made to them and not to all the Faithful also Doth not Paul say Rom. 12. 13. of the whole Church that by one Spirit we are all baptized into one Body and are all made to drink into one Spirit because ye are Sons God hath sent the Spirit of his Son into your Hearts crying Abba Father Gal. cap. 4. And do they not receive it alike immediatetly from God Who can give the Spirit of God to Man but God himself When God promised to pour out his Spirit in the last dayes upon all Flesh did he name any Difference in the pouring of it out saying some shall receive it immediately and some mediately No But all who receive it receive it alike immediately from him And by this Spirit saith W. Dell did Holy Men speak the Scripture and by this onely do Holy Men of God understand the Scripture To this Objection that Men now are to get Knowledge to wit of the Scripture by Studies and humane Learning and not by Inspiration still the very matter betwixt us he boldly briefly and smartly answers This Doctrine carryes the visible Mark of Antichrist upon it For it is only the Inspiration of God that enables a man to know the things of God and not a man's Study or humane Learning It is not in this case in him that wills and runs but in God that sheweth Mercy Wherefore Christ hath said No man knoweth the Son but the Father and he to whomsoever the Father will reveal him Wherefore Paul prayes for the Ephesians that God would give them the Spirit of Wisdom and Revelation in the Knowledge of Christ without which Spirit of Revelation Christ and the Father can never be known Wherefore to deny the Inspiration of God's Spirit now is the most gross and palpable Doctrine of Antichrist and his Prophets To confirm what he writes He brings several Testimonies out of Chrisostom Wickliff Tindall 〈◊〉 Luther Latimer and Calvin I will transscribe but two of them Of the Knowledge of the Gospel Zwinglius speaks thus We must needs be taught of God not of Men for this is the Saying of the eternal Truth which knows not how to Lye John 6. Luther gives us his Mind thus The Scriptures are not to be understood but by that very Spirit by which they were writ No man sees one jot or tittle in the Scriptures but he that hath the Spirit of God For all men have a darkened Heart in such sort that if they could speak and know how to bring forth all things of the Scripture yet have they not any true Sense or right Knowledge of them For saith Luther The Spirit is required to the Vnderstanding of the whole Scripture and of every part thereof To this I am willing to add the Testimony of a Famous English Godly and Learned Martyr John Philpot in a Conference with Bishop Bonner in his eleaventh Examination before him and several other Bishops B. Bonner asking what meanest thou by writing in the beginning of thy Bible Spiritus est vicarius Christi in terris The Spirit is Christ's Vicar on Earth Philpot gave him Answer after this manner That Christ since his Ascension worketh all things in us by his Spirit and by his Spirit doth dwell in us Again in Answer to one Morgan who mockingly queried Have you alone the Spirit of God and not we he thus answered I say not that I alone had the Spirit of God But as many as abide in the true Faith of Christ have the Spirit of God as well as I.
they may come to receive the Benefit thereof for without that necessary Condition it will be impossible to obtain Remission of Sins though it be so generally promulgated thereby To conclude As in my Answer at large so here in short I say Justification may be taken in a two-fold Sense Compleatly and Incompleatly or rather thus compleat Justification hath two parts the first is not imputing past Sins or accounting a true Penitant as Righteous or clear from the Guilt of past Sin as if he had never Sinned through the Remission which God declared and sealed up to all such in the Blood of his Son and thus far Righteousness as imputed goes and is the first part or Justification begun The compleat or last part of compleat Justification is the Cleansing of the Conscience and Regenerating the Mind from the Nature Power and In-dwelling of Sin by the effectual working of the Heavenly Power of Christ and bringing into the Heart and establishing his Everlasting Righteousness in the room thereof Some Scriptures considered relating to this Doctrine To the first part belong such Scriptures as these Isa 53. 11. He shall bear their Iniquities 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 septuagint 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is He shall bear away their Iniquities as did the Scape Goat figuratively under the Law or That God would declare his remitting or passing over the Sin that was past and. that he would be in Christ reconciling the World unto himself not imputing their Trespasses unto them Also Rom. 4. 5. But to him that worketh not but believeth on him that justified the Vngodly his Faith is counted for Righteousness that is God acquitted upon Repentance and Faith in his Promise such as have lived in a Course of Vngodliness For no present Work how good soever can justifie any Man from the Condemnation which is due for the Guilt of Sin that is past So that justifying the Ungodly in this place is pardoning the Ungodly and being so pardoned upon Faith in the Promise of God is accounted for Righteousness or as if the Person pardoned had never sinned and this appears from the 7th and 8th verses Blessed are they whose Sins are forgiven and whose Iniquities are Covered Again Chap. 5. 6. For when we were yet wit hout Strength Christ in due time dyed for the Vngodly and verse 8. But God commended his Love towards us in that while we were yet Sinners Christ dyed for us That is Christ laid down his Life to reclaim Sinners and to declare the Righteousness of God for the Forgiveness of the Sin that is past to all Ungodly and Sinful Men that turn from the Evil of their Wayes by unfeigned Repentance it was done in and by Christ for all Ungodly Men but not to the Benefit of any without Repentance Not that people should go on in Sin but by so recommending of his Love and sealing such Glad-Tidings with his own Blood to allure and engage them from their present Course of Sin 1 John 4. 19. He first loved us men must not therefore continue in Sin that Grace that is Forgiveness may abound God forbid Rom. 6. 1. The last considerable Place is in the second Epistle to the Corinthians Chap. 5. 21. For he hath made him Sin for us who knew no Sin That is He was made a Sacrifice for the remitting or passing over of the Sin that was past for such as repent and believe that they might be made the Righteousness of God or rather accounted Righteous in the Sight of God as if they had never committed Sin by not imputing or forgiving the Sin that was past This Sence the two fore-going Verses confirm to wit that God was in Christ reconciling the World unto himself not imputing their Trespasses unto them and hath committed unto them the Word of of Reconciliation Now then we are Ambassadors for Christ as though God did beseeeh you through us We pray you in Christ's Stead that you would be reconciled to God verse 19 20. agreeing with Rom. 3. 25. Whom God hath set forth to be a Propitâ—ation through Faith in his Blood to declare his Righteousness for the Remission or passing over of Sins that are past through the Forbearance of God which is neither a rigid Satisfaction for nor a Justification from Sins that are past present and to come as a late shallow VVriter in his Preface to the Hartford self-confuting Pamphlet idlely and falsely called the Quaker converted would have us believe but an acquitting from or remitting of past Sin upon Faith and Amendment of Life which makes up that only imputative Righteousness that the Scripture holds forth or we can allow of The Scriptures that belong to the second Part of this Doctrine which makes up compleat Justification are such as these Keep thee far from a false Matter the Innocent Righteous slay thou not for I will not justifie the wicked Exod. 23. I. Lord who shall ABIDE in thy TABERNACLE who shall DWELL in thy HOLY HILL He that WALKETH UPRIGHTLY and WORKETH RIGHTEOUSNESS and SPEAKETH THE TRUTH IN HIS HEART Psalm 15. 1 2. When a Righteous man turns away from his Righteousness for his Iniquity that he has done shall he dye Again when the wicked Man turneth away from his Wickedness and doth that which is Lawful or Right he shall save his Soul Ezek. 18. 26 27. Not every one that sayeth unto me Lord Lord shall enter into the Kingdom of Heaven but he that DOTH the Will of my Father which is in Heaven Math. 7. 21. Vnless a Man be born again he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God John 3. 3 5. If ye keep my Commandment ye shall abide in my Love John 15. 10. For not the Hearers of the Law are justified but the Doers of the Law shall be justified Rom. 2. 13. If ye live after the Flesh ye shall dye but if ye through the Spirit do mortifie the Deeds of the Body ye shall live for as many as are led by the Spirit of God are the Sons of God Rom. 18. 13 14. That the Offering of the Gentiles might be acceptable being sanctified by the Holy Ghost Rom. 14. 16. But this is the Will of God even your Sanctification 1 Thes 43. Because God hath from the Beginning chosen you to Salvation through Sanctification of the Spirit and Belief of the Truth 2 Thes 2. 13. Was not Abraham our Father JUSTIFIED by WORKS when he offered Isaac his Son upon the Altar Ye see then how that by Works a Man is justified and not by Faith only Jam. 2. 22 24. In all these weighty Passages there is nothing more clear then that Sanctification both ushers in and compleats Justification First In that no Man can have right to Remission of Sins but upon Vnfeigned Repentance and True Faith begotten in the Heart which is as well the Beginnings of Sanctification as Introduction to Justification 2 dly That though we grant as before at large Remission of Sins not
Earth and that those very Bodies the Molds being turned aside shall start out of the Grave This Doctrine the Atheist very dearly hugs as a Pledge in his bold Conceit of the Falsness and Vanity of all the other Articles of Religion wherefore he fancying the upshot of Christianity to be so groundless and incredible he fairly quits himself of the Trouble of all and yields himself up wholely to the Pleasures of this present World To the Objection of Atheists who play hard upon J. Faldo's Carnal Resurrection First In that Canables proper Bodies are made up the Flesh of other Men so as if every one had his own he would have never a Body in the Resurrection Secondly That it implies that all Men are buried when as Myriads are drowned in the Sea and eaten by Fishes Thirdly That Men's Bodies are passing like Rivers consequently no more the same Numerical Bodies then the Water that runs away is the same River and upon this score the Body of an Old Man must pay for the Sine of a Young Man whose youthful Body felt the Pleasure and is gone He thus answers out of the best sort of Philosophers That the Soul of every Man is his individial Person and that she alone it is that sees hears enjoyes Pleasures and undergoes Pain and that the Body is not sensible of any thing no more then a Man's Dublet when he is well Bastinado'd and this Answer sayes he takes away all the first and last Cavil he goes on and why do Men plead for the Consociation of the Soul 's numerical Body in Reward or Punishment but that they fancy the Body capable of Pleasure Pain but they err not knowing the Nature of things the Body being utterly uncapable of all Sense and Cogitation as not only the best Platonists but also that excellent Philosopher Des-Cartes hath determined and is abundantly demonstrated in my Treatise of the Immortallity of the Soul See Book 2. Chap. 2 4 5 6. To the second Cavil I answer That the Universal Expression of Men's rising out of the Grave is but a Prophetical Scheme of Speech the more strongly to strike our Sences as I have already intimated in my Exposition on the 1 Cor. 15. against the Psichopannachites see Book 1. c. 6. § 3. This Succour saith he we have against the Atheists out of Philosophy but I answer further as concerning the Scripture it self That I dare challenge him to produce any place of Scripture out of which he can make it appear that the Mystery of the Resurrection implies the Recessitation or raising up of the same Numerical Body The most Pregnant of all is Job 19. which late Interpreters are now so wise as not to understand at all of the Resurrection And for 1 Cor. 15. that Chapter is so far from asserting this Curiosity that it plainly sayes it is not the same Body But the Atheist will still hang on and object further That the very Term Resurrectio implies that the same Body shall rise again for that only that falls can be said properly to rise again Where let the Reader take notice that D. More calls J. Faldo Atheist for it his Objection against me Rep. p. 89. But sayes D. More The Answer will be easie the Objection being grounded meerly upon a Mistake of the sense of the word which is to be interpreted out of those higher Origiginals the Greek and Hebrew and not out of the Latine though the word in Latine doth not alwayes imply an Individual Restitution of what is gone or faln as in that Verse in Ovid Victa tamen vinces subversaque Troja resurges But this faith he is not so near to our Purpose yet it excludes the same numerical Troja Let us rather consider the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which resurrectio supplies in Latine and therefore must be made to be of as large a sense as it Now 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is so far from signifying in some places the Reproduction or Recovery of the same thing that was before that it â—ears no sense at all of Reiteration in it as Mat. 22. 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and shall raise up Seed unto his Brother Also Gen. 7. 4. there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies meerly a living Substance and therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in an active signification according to this sense will be nothing else but a giving or continuing Life and Substance to a thing The word in the Hebrew that answers to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Translators translate a living Substance whence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to this Analogy may very well bear the same latitude of sense that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they being both words that are rendred Resurrectio but simply of themselves only Vevification or Erection unto Life Thus far D. H. More against John Faldo's Carnal Resurrection of whose Philosophy Scripture-Challenge and Criticisms let him clear himself if he can I shall also produce a Testimony out of T. Collier T. Coll. Works pag. 169. This Doctrine of the Resurrection of this Body is by some denyed by others too Carnally looked upon some thinking that our Bodies of Flesh shall be raised in the same Form in which it dyed others that it shall be spiritual yet question whether it shall be of the same Substance therefore it will be necessary to consider two Particulars for the clearing of it First By what Power we shall be raised Secondly With what Bodies 1. By what Power Answ 1 st By the same Power by which Jesus Christ was raised which was by the Power and Spirit of God 2dly By the same Power and Spirit that the Saints are raised from the Spiritual Death of Sin and Self Phil. 3. 10. Rom. 8. 11. This being a Truth that they shall be raised by the same Power it may somewhat direct us to the Form in which they shall be raised which is the second Particular that is in a spiritual Form not in a Fleshly for as the Spirit of Christ raiseth us up in the Spirit while we are here so shall it raise up our Spirit in the last Day It is sown a Natural Body it is raised a Spiritual Body Our vile Bodies shall be changed and made like his Glorious Body D. H. Hammon also denyes a proper and strict Resurrection of Bodies and consequently is guilty of that horrid Principle as J. Faldo calls it which may be seen at large in his Comment 1 Cor. 15. Among other things he tells us of one Synesius out of Vossius who was made Bishop not withstanding he refused to subscribe the Article of the Resurrection of the Body which shows how much greater Charity they had for Dissenters then our rigid Adversary whilst a Dissenter for indeed it was very diversly thought on and very obscurely laid down in the beginning of the third Century sayes P. D. Huetius in Origenianis p. 132. Farrellus Calvin's Predecessor at Geneva