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
in Brittain as by us And I judge that I. A. should hold himself a Member of thâ—s Episcopal Church seeing he himself Officiates as Reader and Presentor at at Leith under Iohn Hamilton an Episcopal Preacher who hath also recommended his Book And therefore seeing I. A. hath undertaken the Vindication of the Church of God in Brittain as he alledgeth against the Quakers he must either acknowledge that the Episcopal Church in Brittain is not the Church of God whereof he is a professed Member or else have proved out of the the Episcopal Church now in Brittain that she avoweth and owneth such principles all and every one as he asserteth and that those Eminent and Noted persons both in England and Scotland who dissent from him and agree with us in those principles already mentioned are Hereticks and renouncers of true principles of Religion stifling the faculties of reason such as among others in England R. Cudworth and H. More accounted great Doctors also William Sharlock and I. A. his Reverend and much admired Rich Baxter whom he particularly opposeth in the matter of Justification And in Scotland Bishop William Forbes in his Treatise called Considerationes modestae pacificae Controvers As also divers other persons of Note yet living whose Names I need not to mention all which I suppose and thousands more in the Episcopal Church in Brittain of all Qualities and Ranks will be loath to acknowledge I. A. for a Patron or Defender of their Faith but rather find â—ault with him in those things as an Enemy of their Faith and in other things a bewrayer and betrayer of it rather then a Defender In his Preface to the Reader he excuseth himself that he hath not Cited any humane Testimonies meaning Authorities of Ancient and Modern Writers against us Seeing these saith he they do not value except when they think they make for them especially ad hominem And with this slender pretext I suppose he thinketh to evade the many Testimonies I brought to confirm the Truth of our principles in my Book called Quakerism no Popery even out of Writters both Ancient and late of great esteem among them none of which he hath once so much as touched But to Answer to his Charge I say we value the Testimonies of all Writers whether Ancient or late which are true and agree with the Scriptures as much as any Protestants do or more than he doth And seeing he imputeth it as a fault to us that we will not own the Testimonies of others against us I ask him if he would own or value any Testimonies of Authors that make against him or his Judgment If he say nay then his excuse is removed and he hath nought to say for this omission But the matter seemeth to be in effect that those Testimonies adduced by me in the foresaid Treatise he knew not how to Answer unless by saying that those persons erred in those principles as much as we which he was loath to acknowledge lest he should seem to weaken the Charge of his Title against us and acknowledge his own party and those that are more worth of Credit than himself equally guilty of Iesuitism with the people called Quakers wherewith he doth falsly accuse them And here I shall give a List or Catalogue of divers gross Perversions and Calumnies whereby he seeketh to abuse his Reader in the very Preface of his book against us As 1. That we reject all manner of External Ordinances Which is notoriously false as all who have the least knowledge of us can witness that we are for Meeting together and that frequently and when we meet to Preach Exhort Pray and give Thanks to God in Audible words as the Spirit of the Lord doth help us And can I. A. say that none of these are External Ordinances or Appointments and we challenge him to instance any one External Ordinance or Appointment of God that is truly so which we are against For it is but only humane Institutions and Abolished shadows set up as Divine Ordinances which we oppose as in the Sequel of this Treatise doth appear 2. He saith We do directly strike at the Foundation of all with one blow overturning so far as we can the whole rule of Faith and Duty setting a new one of our own Invention in the room thereof But why doth he charge us so highly in this matter because we cannot own the Letter or External Testimony of the Scriptures as the primary Rule or Foundation of Faith but only Christ Jesus the first and last concerning whom Paul hath writ That another foundation no man can lay then that which is laid already which is Christ Iesus And said the Lord behold I lay in Zion an Elect precious Corner stone a sure foundation Which to be sure is not the Letter but Christ and his Spirit Light and Life revealed in the heart And I Query this Accuser I. A. whether if to acknowledge Christ in his immediate Teachings by his Spirit in mens hearts is to set up a false Foundation or overturn the true one the Apostles are guilty of this Charge as to their own particulars seeing I. A. will not deny but that the Apostles had Christ immediatly to Teach them and speak in them And was it not the Apostle Paul his labour to build the Churches upon Christ that their Faith might not stand in men though sent and moved of God but in the power of God And though I. A. blame us for setting up the Light within for the Rule yet Christ taught people to believe in the Light and that this Light was not the Scripture which he bid them believe in is clear that he said While ye have the Light believe in the Light that ye may be the Children of it This clearly Imports that this Light should not long remain with them if they did not believe in it as he said in the foregoing Verse Yet a little while is the Light with you walk while ye have the Light lest darkness come upon you see Iohn 12. 35 36. And indeed the gracious Visitation of Light did not long after remain with them who did reject it although the Scriptures did remain with them And therefore the Light which he bid them believe in was not the Letter of the Scripture but Christ himself who said I am the Light of the World 3. He saith This Heresie so he calleth our Faith is a very Sink or an Vniversal System of almost all the gross Errors which hitherto have annoyed the Church of God And herein he doth imitate I. Brown and the Author of the Postcript to S. R. his Epistles who have so charged us but how unjustly we hope our Answers do sufficiently evince And surely this I. A. in the Art of Slandering and false Accusing may pass muster for a Lieutenant to those aforesaid Champions who have led the way before him in this enterprise It is not unknown how the Papists loaded the Protestants at their
men are infallible that therefore the Dictate and Light of Gods Spirit in men is fallible also Was not Peter fallible in some Cases Yea did he not fail sorely when he denyed his Master Doth it therefore follow that the Dictate or Light of Gods Spirit in him was fallible Indeed if I had said that when we follow the Dictate and Light of God within we are fallible he might have inferred such a consequence but I never said nor thought any such thing but on the contrary that the Dictates and Leadings of Gods Spirit in us are infallible and have a direct tendency to lead guide and move us infallibly as they are purely kept unto the which is possible for us to do Another Argument he bringeth against the Dictate 〈◊〉 Iâ—s being the rule to try Spirits because then it would be both Superior and Inferior which is Repugnant Superior when it tryes and examines and Inferior when it is tryed and examined To which I Answer 1. It is no Repugnancy that one and the same thing be Superior and Inferior in different respects and as it respecteth different Subjects But 2. There is no necessity to understand the Dictate and Light of Gods Spirit in divers men to be Superior and Inferior when it examines and is examined for one equal may be a measure or rule to another yea one thing may be said to be a rule unto it self according unto that common Maxim or principle Lineâ— recta est norma sui obliqui i. e. A right line is the rule of it self and also of that which is crooked Otherwise let I. A. Answer me How did Adam know the voice of God in his Heart and the Prophets before the Scriptures were writ how did they know it And in the close of his first Section he concludeth with a manifest Untruth That the Quakers are for a new Dispensation not only in manner but matter contrary to the Doctrine formerly Dictated by the Holy Ghost This I say is false which he neither doth nor can prove and the Dispensation we plead for is the same both for matter and manner which belonged to all true and good Christians in all Ages And as to what he saith Of our extream Infatuation and Brain-sickness and retaining the proportion and features of humane bodies having quite enervated our Rational Essence These and the like scoffing and disdainful expressions are no more to be regarded by us nor have any more weight than when some Epicureans at Athens called Paul a Babler We know it hath been the Lot of Gods people in former Generations to be reputed by Adversaries both Fools and Mad-men However we hope the sober Readers of our Books and Treatises and these also who have any Converse with us will find that we have neither abandoned nor lost the use of our Rational Faculties which we acknowledge to be good Gifts of God and for which he is to be praised nor doth our principle and belief of Divine Inspiration as being a more noble and excellent Gift of God than the highest Natural Faculty of Reason either weaken or render useless to us our Reason but both indeed both strengthen it and make it the more useful and comfortable whereof to Gods praise we are bold to say we have true experience notwithstanding of what I. A. or any of his insulting humour do or can say to the contrary There yet remains two other things in this first Section of I. A. which I think fit to notice One is That he alledgeth some of us understand by the more sure word of Prophecy the Scripture which is only to be taken heed unto until the day dawn and the day Star arise in the heart that is until the Holy Ghost be given and that consequently the Scriptures serve for nothing to belivers who are born with the Spirit and sealed therewith But seeing he has produced no Names of any among us understanding that more sure word of Prophecy to be the Scripture we are not concerned to Answer him It is possible that some in Discourse has only so argued with him ad hominem as they use to say and not as being their own judgment And as for the Scriptures we judge that they are profitable and ought to be Read by true Believers and renewed persons as well as others But when doth I. A. think that the day dawneth and the day Star ariseth in the hearts of believers Whether in this mortal State Yea or Nay and then whether the shining of Gods day and the day Star thereof be not a true immediate Revelation in the hearts of those who have it and whether it doth not more assure them who have it than the Letter of Scripture can do And seeing the Light of God in them when it shines in the heart but as in a dark place is a more sure Word than an audible voice from Heaven or than the Letter of the Scripture as to us what shall be said of that Light when it becometh not only as the day Star but as the day itself for clearness in the Soul Or can there be any greater or more principal rule than this The other thing I notice is That he inferreth the Scriptures to be a rule because Christ said to the Sadduces Ye erre not knowing the Scriptures Now if this Argument hold good seeing Christ said also Ye erre not knowing the Scriptures nor the Power of God It will as well follow That the Power of God is the Rule and that the rather because it was their being ignorant of the Power of God which quickens both Soul and Body that made them ignorant of the Scriptures for none know truly the Scriptures but they who know the Power of God and therefore that Power which is Life Light and Spirit is the more principal and original rule But I. A. in citing these words of Christ omitted the following words which are exceeding weighty viz. no the Power of God whether this was purposely done of him to ensuare his unwary Reader or not I shall not determine but leave to his consideration CHAP. V. J. A. in the beginning of his second Section concerning the Rule is pleased to call me an Arch-Quaker the which Title I no wise acknowledge and a man too Learned as I employ it To which I Answer That as to my Learning that is but very ordinary and a thing I neither can nor ought to glory in However in this I rejoyce that the Testimony of my Conscience beareth me Witness in the Holy Spirit that any small measure I have of that called Learning it hath been my sincere aim and endeavour to employ it to Gods Honour and serve the Truth therewith and not in the least to use it against the Truth so far as it was or is made manifest unto me Next he blames me that I affirm The Scriptures are only but a secondory Rule of Faith and Manners but that the Spirit or his Dictate within is the Principal
summum jus we think to merit our Justification by our Inherent Righteousness at Gods Tribunal This I say is an absurd inference and smelleth ranckly of deep prejudice and perverseness of Spirit in I. A. in opposition to which I say that unless God did not only not exact in his Justice the rigid rigour of the Law as he terms it but did not also pardon and forgive us freely for Christs sake multitude of sins so as not only to remit us a Penny but many thousands of Pounds neither we nor any man living could be justified at Gods Tribunal by the greatest Holiness attainable for all that the best of the Saints can attain unto of Holiness or Righteousness is but their duty and therefore can be no ransom nor redemption unto God for the lest by past sin far less for many that they have formerly committed And whereas in my Book aforesaid I charged I. A. and his Brethren to be too much one with the Papists in the Doctrine of Justification both of them denying that the Saints Justified by Christ indwelling in them as Luther expresly Taught in his Commentary on the Galatians And also denying that Gods Justifying his Children is an inward Sentence or Dictate of his Spirit immediately pronounced in their hearts to which the said I. A. can give no reply but a meer evasion and falleth on a fresh to accuse us of Enthusiasme which being already Answered in the former part I need not here to repeat Only I cannot but take notice how ignorantly I. A. opposeth the word or term immediate to the use of means which I have already refuted and shewed how immediate Revelation such as the Prophets and Apostles had doth very well consist with the use of means And so I willingly acknowledge that true and right means are as Vessels whereby ordinarily our Spiritual Meat and Drink are conveyed to us sometimes in the use of one mean sometimes in the use of another but I hope when we Eat and Drink that which is conveyed to us we Eat and Drink it immediately See Taste Savour and Handle and Feel it immediately and can well understand when the Meat is indeed in the Vessel and when it is empty and therefore I. A. his comparison in this respect doth altogether halt and is impertinent Another great impertinency and abuse I observe in I. A. that whereas I. A. blamed our Friends for saying We are not justified by Acts of Righteousness 〈◊〉 Acts grosly inferring that thereby they understand that they are not justified by sinful Acts as Blasphemy Murder and the like yeâ— hâ— himself 〈◊〉 the same kind of Expression as to Faith saying The Saints are not justified by Faith as it is a 〈◊〉 Act And according to I. A. his Logick he means they are not justified by all works as Blasphemy Murder Unbelief according to the maxime cited by him A quatenus ad omne sequitur Vniversaliter Nor is he less Impertinent to accuse me of a self contradiction because I distinguish Faith as it is both receptive and operative for even the receptive Faith I hold it to be a work and also wrought not only in the Soul but in some degree by it as a co-worker through the operation of the Holy Spirit And I say again to affirm that the Saints are not justified by Faith as it is a work is too nice and subtle a distinction unless they mean thereby as work wrought by them and as having an equal proportion to the reward of Eternal Salvation And in this sense that may be as well said we are justified by Love Repentance and all the Acts of men and Spiritual obedience but not as works done by us and having that quality of proportion to Eternal Life I shall not insist to Answer particularly I. A. his pretended Arguments against Justification by Repentance and Conversion and inward Acts of Righteousness as proceeding from the Spirit of Christ in Believers The whole force of his reasons being founded on a bare Assertion that hath been often sufficiently refuted both by us and divers noted men in the Episâ—â—pal Church as if Paul did oâ—pose Faith and all works or the inward work of Regeneration and Renewing by the Holy Ghost when he saith We are not saved by Works and the contrary is manifest from Tit. 3. 5. already cited As for his saying That our Souls are of great price in the sight of God and yet do not merit Heaven and consequently nor the best Works although they are said to be of great price with God I grant neither our Souls nor our Vertues merit Heaven nor Redemption as merit signifieth equality But seeing God hath counted our Souls so dear as to give so great a price for them as the Blood of his Dear Son they may at least be said to have some dignity or worth which is to say merit in them otherwise God would never have given so great a Ransome for them if the Souls of men in respect of their Nature and Being had not been of great value which is all I understand by the word merit as used by any of us And truly for our part we very rarely or never use the word merit as with a respect to the Saints best works unless when we are constrained to bear our Testimony against the ignorance and rashness of those who so undervalue and reproach the Blessed Spirit his works in the Saints as to call them not only unclean and underfiled with sin but sin it self for which God might justly condemn them to Hell as some have not been afraid to affirm I take notice also on this Head how I. A. doth acknowledge that Repentance Love and Hope are necessary to Justification by way of presence and existence but not as conditions or qualifications required in order to Justification which is another frivolous and groundless distinction for seeing the Scripture doth equally press our Repentance and Conversion that we may obtain Forgiveness and Justification as it doth Faith The one is certainly as much the condition as the other And it is not Faith barely considered which hath the fitness to receive us into the Favour of God and his acceptance but as it is accompanied with sincere Repentance and Obedience for as it is a most unfit and incongruous thing that any man while remaining in his unbelief should be admitted into Friendship and Favour with God so it is no less unfit and unagreeable to the Wisdom and Holiness of God to receive them into his Friendship and Favour as his Children who remain still Rebellious and disobedient against him As for I. A. his last Assertion on this Head consisting of above three pages wherein he only beats the Air and fights with his own shadow upon a gross and perverse but altogether groundless surmise as if the Quakeâ—s did deny any imputed Righteousness of Christ in what he did and suffered for us but as it is inwardly wrought and inherent in us for we most
Doctrine and Word of God but he who speaketh it by the Spirit of God and none Heareth the Word of God but he who Heareth it and into the Heart and inward Ears of his inward man receiveth it by the Spirit of God To these only I say the Doctrine is known and by these it is only received as it is indeed the Word of God and in this respect it was that Paul commended such as received the Truth by the same Spirit by which it was Preached unto them through him That they received it not as the word of Man but as the Word of God c. Now this commâ—ndation can be given to no unbeliever that what he receiveth in the Ministry of the true Servants of God he receiveth it as the Word of God for only the true Believers do so receive it according to Paul's Testimony as it is indeed the Word of God Moreover I would have the Reader to know that when we say by the Word is understood Christ we mean not Christ abstractly or seperately considered from the Divine Doctrine and Testimony of Life whether in the heart or Mouth that immediately proceedeth from him nor yet as divided or seperated from any Divine operation of his Spirit Power and Life in any of his Servants but we take both these conjoyned together to be the Word of God even as the Soul and Body is one Man and sometimes the Soul is called the man and sometimes the Body and both properly enough when the Soul is in the Body and united therewith but the Body alone without the Soul is not properly called the man and thus much I hope shall suffice to satisfie the sober Reader as concerning the Word of God how we understand it Now whereas I. A. citeth divers places of Scripture to prove That by the Word of God is not understood Christ but the outward Testimony or Writing of the Scriptures It is very evident and may plainly appear so to be unto any having the least measure of Spiritual understanding that by the Word of God in these Scriptures is not understood the Letter but Christ together with the Divine operation and Testimony of his Life in the Hearts and Mouthes of his Servants And among these places by him alledged I shall cite these following for it is needless to cite them all viz. Heb. 4. 12. Eph. 6. 17. Rev. 1. 16. Rev. 2. 12 16. Rev. 19. 15. And also he citeth divers Scriptures which mention the Word of Christ and the Word which he hath spoken And seeing that cannot be Christ himself it must needs ac-according to him be the Letter Now as to that Scripture Heb. 4. 12. For the Word of God is quick and powerful c. There are divers Protestants that expound it of Christ and not of the Letter and indeed the words themselves do plainly enough evince it seeing it is said in the next verse concerning the same Word That all things are bare and manifest to his sight and therefore that Word hath an Omniâ—cience which I suppose I. A. when he considers will not affirm of the Letter of the Scripture As for Eph. 6. 17. his reason is weak that by it cannot be understood Christ seeing it is called The Sword of the Spirit as to say an Instrument in the hand of the Spirit But this is only I. A. his gloss and not Paul's words For the Sword of the Spirit may very well be understood to be the Spirit it self As the shield of Faith is Faith that shield The Helmet of Hope is Hope that Helmet so the City of Rome is Rome that City and why not also the Sword of the Spirit that Spirit it self And this is further confirmed out of the Greek Article Englished by which that is in the Neuter Gender and therefore rendring this Sense The Sword of the Spirit which Spirit is the Word of God so that the Article which being in the Neuter Gender is Relative to Spirit which in the Greek Language is in the same gender Again as to those three places in the Revelation which mention the Word of God it s being the Sword of his Mouth and proceeding out of the Mouth of Christ Doth I. A. think that this only is the Letter of the Scripture Doth nothing but the Letter come out of his Mouth Doth not Spirit and Life and living vertue come out of his Mouth And did not Christ say The Words that I speak unto you they are Spirit and Life John 6. And is not this somewhat more than the Letter But lastly The Word of Christ and the Word that Christ speaks hath of the Life and Spirit of Christ in it and therefore it is still somewhat beside the External Writing or Letter and is not divided or seperated from Christ. And I have told I. A. already that not only Christ abstractly considered but the immediate Testimony and influence of his Life which can never be seperated from him no more than the Sun Beams can be seperated from the Son is also acknowledged by us to be the Word of God and to be Light and Life Bâ—t saith I. A. The whole Doctrine of the Prophets is the Word of the Lord To which I Answer I have granted and do still grant it so to be but as is already said that Doctrine is not the bare Letter nor hath every one that doctrine who hath the Letter for to have the true doctrine and sence of the Spirâ—t is not only to have the Letter but to have the Spirit by which only the true doctrine can be conveyed unto us although the true service and use of the Letter in subordination to the Spirit is not denied And whereas I. A. accuseth the Quakers That they call the Scriptures a dead Letter I no where remember that ever I read or heard any of them simply calling it so But only in so far as it is eventually such unto them who are spiritually dead themselves and are not turned to the quickning Spirit but alienated therefrom to such only the Scripture is a dead and killing Letter and this much divers Protestants have acknowledged as well as we and particularly Iohn Owen in his Treatise on the Scriptures That it is so to the Iews and other Vnbelievers But unto all those who are spiritually alive the Scripture is no dead nor killing Letter but a living Testimony as also unto all such whom it pleased God to quicken by his Spirit in the reading or hearing or meditating in the Scriptures Again that he saith A part of the Scripture to wit the Law considered as strictly legal is in respect of guilty sinners called a killing Letter but never the whole Scripture I Answer That not only the Old Testament but even the Writings or Letter of the New Testament may be called a killing Letter to those that remain alienated from the Spirit that quickens Lven as Origen hath formerly taught in his Commentary on Leviticus Not only saith he in the Old
Testament is found the killing Letter there is also in the New Testament the Letter which killeth him who doth not spiritually attend unto the things which are spoken And why was the Law called a killing Letter only because it did curse and condemn guilty sinners Nay that is not the only or main reason but rather that its Ministration could not give life whereas the Ministration of the Gospel being accompanied with the Spirit doth quicken and give life and in that respect Paul said The Law was weak and could no make perfect and therefore calls it The Law of a carnal Commandment Now if any go from the Spirit that only makes the true Gospel Administration and set up the Letter or Writings of the Apostles in the room of the same These Writings of the Apostles do eventually become a killing Letter no less than that of the Law and can no more give life or make perfect than the outward Law could And here upon this Head I do readily take notice what I. A. acknowledgeth concerning the Scriptures in page 16. of his Book towards the middle part viz That the Scriptures as to the external Form and Mode which they have from the Writers Pen they are not the Word of God but that as to their ennutiate doctrine and sentence they are the Word of God And why then doth I. A. make all this loud clamour and noise against the Quakers seeing upon the matter he confesseth what they say viz. That the letter or external form of the Writing is not properly the Word of God And I suppose I may add with I. A his allowance that the external Form and Mode of the Preachers mouth when he formeth a sound in speaking Scripture Words is not properly the Word of God any more than the bare writing â—seeing there is no more in the one than in the other simply as such Let not I. A. therefore blame us for that hereafter which he confesseth himself and we do as readily acknowledge as he either doth or can do That the ennutiate and expressed Doctrine and sense of the Spirit is indeed truly and properly the Word of God But then is there no difference betwixt him and us I Answer as to the naming the Scriptures the Word it seemeth there is none But yet another great Controversie ariseth which I doubt will not be so soon ended betwixt us viz. Whether any man can reach unto that Ennutiâ—te Doctrine and sense of the Scriptures without the Spiritual Illumination and Assistance of that Spirit that gave them forth we say Not and if he say Yea we still differ but not as it seemeth to me by his Confession in naming the Scriptures The Word of God But there is yet another great Charge wherewith he loadeth us in this his Survey of the Third Query Some Quakers saith he are upon this Head so grosly Atheistical as to say That the Scriptures are but the Saints Words and Testimony from their own particular experiences And again he alledgeth That according to the Quakers they are but the meer bare Word of a Creature Hence he inferreth That the Pen-men of the Scripturs of all men in the World must have been the greatest Cheats and archest Impostors c. But seeing he produceth no express Testimonies out of the Writings of that People for such Assertions he is not to be believed Nor doth it follow that because the Scriptures are the Saints Words that therefore they are not also the Words of God even unto all who hear or read them at least mediately and remotely although none but such as believe do receive them as such which yet is only and alone the â—ault of those unbelieving persons because they reject the Spirit of God that doth certifie or assure unto us That the Scriptures are proceeded from God by Divine Inspiration And what if some have said That the Scriptures are Testimonies of the Saints from their experience May not this receive a fair and charitable construction and not presently be judged to be gross Atheism for although the Scriptures give a narration of divers Histories as also of Precepts Prohibitions and mysteries of Faith As Christ His coming in the Flesh His being born of a Virgin His being Crucified and Buried His Resurrection and Ascension the which Histories and things aforementioned albeit they cannot properly be called the Saints Experiences yet the Divine Inspiration and Revelation which the Prophets and Apostles had immediately of those things was truly their Experience and let us see if I. A. will deny it or if he do may it not be more justly retorted upon him That he and not the Quakers deny that the Scriptures are from Divine Inspiration or can he say that although the Prophets and Apostles had Divine Inspiration and Immediate Revelation yet they had no Experience of the same And that we call the Scriptures sometimes the Saints Words yet not denying them in a true sense to be the Words of God I. A. can no more justly blame us than Paul and Iohn who called their own Preaching and Writing and that of their Brethren the Witness and Teaching of men so that Paul and the Apostles Words were both the words of men and yet also the Words of God to wit mediately declared unto them by the Apostles Now they whose Faith stood in the Power of God received them as the Words of God but who came not to that power to believe in it they were but unto such as the words of men which as is alâ—eady said was only and alone the fault of such unbelieving Persons There yet remains two parts or branches of the third Query to which I. A. for all his pretended Survey hath given no more satisfaction than to any of the former The first is Whether all that is written in the Scriptures from Genesis to Revelation be a Rule of Faith and Manners To this he only answereth in general That we are bound to believe all Sâ—ripture Enunciation from the beginning to the eâ—d which we do readily grant and that therefore it may well be called an Historical Rule of Faith and that the Moral Law with whatsoever is of common equity or whatever enjoyning any peice of Religious Worship under the New Testament doth belong to Christians of our Calling and Condition but that the obligation of the Ceremonial and Iudicial Law is totally abrogated And saith he the Quakers must be content with these generals To which I Answer When the Nature of the Question requireth a particular Answer to Answer in general neither can nor ought to satisfie for notwithstanding of all he hath said the great Question yet remains unanswered What parts of the Scripture belong to the Moral Law and what â—o the Ceremonial and Judicial so called Also seeing there are divers things that were commanded and practised by the Apostles and Primitive Christians under the New Testament whether all these do oblige us now yea or nay as for example the Washing one
anotheâ—s Feet and Anointing the Sick with Oyl and whether these actions were commanded by any part of the Ceremonial or Judicial Law or whether they belong to any piece of Religious Worship under the New Testament The other branch of the Question is Whether every Title from 〈◊〉 to the Revelation be the Word or Words of God To this he Answereth affirmatively and seemeth to be so offended with the Question as if it did conclude That the Quakers judge that the Scriptures are interpolated and corrupted with the additions of men But in Answer I. A. ought to know that to Query a thing will not conclude that the Questionist doth positively affim or deny what is Queried Again I hope it may without offence not only be Queried but also concluded that the Translations of the Scripture the which Translations are commonly calâ—ed Scripture have divers additions which men have added without any pretence to Divine Inspiration The which Additions are commonly Printed in our English Bibles in another Character than the other words Now is it any Crime to ask if these Addititions be the words of God or only the words of man and if such Additions be any part of the Rule of Faith and Manners And yet those very Additions are of such consequence that they may occasion the Reader to take up another sense of the Sentences then otherwise he would or perhaps the Spirit of God did really intend Nor are there wanting divers both Judicious and Learned men so accounted and of good repute even among Protestants who do acknowledge that some particular words have dropt in into the Greek and Hebrew Texts since their first Writing and what are these various Lections of many places of Scripture especially when they contradict in one and the same place Are not some of them at least only the words of men All which being granted yet do not hinder but that the purity of the Scriptures is sufficiently preâ—erved viz. in respect of the main and necessary things for which we have cause to bless God and acknowledge his great care and Providence as in many other things And thus I. A. may see how much of the weightiest part of his task in giving a sufficient Answer to those Queries he hath still left undone for all his windy Braggings against the people called Quakers CHAP. IV. IN his pretended Survey of the fourth Query he divides it into three Sections In the first he laboureth by many Arguments to prove a thing which we do not deny to wit That the Scriptures are a Rule of Faith and Manners And so he might have spared himself and others all that pains for the state of the Question is not whether the Scriptures are not and may not be called a secondary Rule nor whether they may not in respect of all the Historical part be called an Historical Rule But the true Question is whether the words of the Scripture as they are only written and spoken outwardly be the Principal or only Rule of Faith and Manners Now seeing I. A. hath been at such needless pains to prove a thing against us which we do not deny I need not give a particular Answer to any of his Arguments But because there are divers of his Arguments which have some false premisses although the conclusion be granted therefore I shall a little take notice of one or two of them In his seventh Argument he maketh it one of the Premisses That the more sure word of Prophecy mentioned 2 Pet. 1. 19 20. is the Scripture But this is denyed by us for we believe it to be that Word of God in the heart by which all the true Prophets did Prophecy and without which we cannot understand their Prophecies nor any other part of the Scripture Now the reasons of his Assertion are 1. Because of the coherence of 19 and 20 Verses But this is no sufficient reason for the coherence is as good and better to understand it of the word in the heart as to understand Peter saying thus Take heed to the Word of God in your hearts by which the Prophets gave forth the Scriptures for it is that same word which maketh us sure that the Scriptures are Divinely Inspired and also doth give unto us the true Interpretation of them This is a good coherence and much better then that imagined by I. A. as if Peter had said Take heed unto the Scripture as the more sure Word for no Scripture is of any private interpretation The which violent and strained coherence I for my part cannot understand seeing Peter aimeth at something that is not the Scripture as being necessary to give us its Interpretation And what can that be But that Word of â—od which spake in the Prophets His second reason is That he cannot understand how the Dictate or Light within is more sure than Gods immediate voice from Heaven as that was at the Transfiguration To which I Answer that the inward Voice or Word of God immediately in the heart can very well be understood to be more sure as to us than any outward Voice of God from Heaven 1. Because that which is immediate in the Heart is more near and immediate than that which is outward in the Air which cometh to the Heart and Soul but mediately through the outward Hearing however immediate may be understood otherwise 2. It was by the immediate Word of God in the Heart by which the Prophets when at any time they heard an outward Voice or Word from God did assuredly know that it came from God and that it was no delusion of Satan And they believed the Word of God in their Hearts simply from its own self Evidence and not from any borrowed Evidence of an outward Voice For they oft believed and received the Word of God in their Hearts immediately when they heard no outward voice at all as is generally acknowledged And this inward or intellectual kind of speaking by the Lord unto the Prophets is acknowledged by Thomas Aquinas and Suarez and other Schoolmen to be the most noble kind of Divine Revelation and consequently the most sure at least unto us His 3. Reason Is the Testimony of other Scriptures produced and to be produced But he has neither produced nor can produce any Scripture that proveth that Word of Prophecy or Prophetical Word to be only the Letter of the Scripture and not the Word or Light of God and of Christ in the Heart Again in his eighth Argument he alledgeth That it cannot be the Dictate or Light within by which Spirits are to be tryed because the Dictate or Light within is â—allible And this he undertakes to prove from some words of mine in Quakerism no Popery where I acknowledge That it is possible for us to mistake and erre in Speaking and Writing and consequently in Examining and Iudging if we be not duely watchful But how unreasonable this consequence is I leave unto sober men to judge as to conclude because
Rule and like Proteus turning my self into all shapes sometimes I design Christ himself oftner the Spirit himself but oftnest the Dictate of the Spirit within to be that Rule But he might at that raâ—e have no less blamed the Apostle Paul that he turned himself into all shapes while he affirmeth sometimes That Christ spoke in him and sometimes that the Spirit spoke in him and certainly what Christ or the Spirit spoke in him was by a certain Word or dictate But to Answer directly when I say Christ is the Rule And again when I say the Spirit is the Rule there is no absurdness therein for if we mean by the Spirit the Holy Ghost Christ and the Holy Ghost are never separated or divided in what they Speak or Witness in the souls of men but their speech and Testimony is one and the same alwaies and also Christ himself in Scripture is called the second Adam the quickening Spirit and the Lord that Spirit and said Christ I am the way the Truth and the Life and certainly that Life is Spirit and also the Words or dictate of it is Spirit and Life as Christ said The words that I speak unto you are Spirit and Life So the Reader may see that my words are sound and according to Scripture and therefore whether I say Christ or the Spirit or the internal dictate and Word of the Spirit is the Rule it is to the same purpose And to say the dictate of the Spirit is the Rule is no other than to say the Spirit dictating or speaking is that Rule and do not some of your selves use a variety of Speech when ye speak of the Rule one time saying The Scripture is the Rule another time The Word of God contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament is the only Rule c. as the Westminster Confession of Faith expresly hath it Another time The Spirit of God speaking in the Scriptures c. Now according to I. A. I may blame him and his Brethren in this case that Proteus like he and his Brethren turn themselves into all shapes when they speak of the Rule And whether these phrases used by them be not more unscriptural I leave unto sober men for to judge In the next place he argueth That Christ cannot be the Rule nor the Spirit because the Rule of Faith must be some complex Proposition Direction or Precept and the like To this I Answer First That the Rule of Faith must be a complex Proposition Direction or Precept formally understood in words formally conceived I altogether deny and I. A. hath not offered to prove it And although the Spâ—rit of Christ may and often doth speak express words in the souls of his people yet he doth not alwaies so do when yet he clearly enough signifieth his mind and will unto them for if among men a King may signifie his mind to his Subjects or a Master to his servants without any formal Proposition or direction of words but only by some motion of his hand or face How much more may the Lord God who is the King of Kings signifie his mind unto his servants by the motion of his Spirit without any formal or express words Again I ask I. A. if he hath not learned in the Schools that the reasonable nature of God is the first rule of Manners And certainly the reasonable Nature of God is not a complex Proposition consisting of many words And hath he not read in Boetius that excellent saying Quis legem det amantibus major lex amor est ipse sibi which the Author of a late Book called The Life of God in the soul of man doth use to prove that somewhat more than words is a Law or Rule to Christians and Englisheth thus For who shall give a Law to them that Love Love 's a more powerful Law that doth such persons move And I further Query I. A. seeing the Scripture saith God is Love he that knoweth God to be Love and hath the Love of God shed abroad in his Heart by the holy Spirit which in Scripture is called The Spirit of Love shall not this man be tyed to love God and his Brethren yea and all mankind even his very enemies Suppose it be not said to him in formal express words do so and so Again whether he that only readeth or heareth these outwardly Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy Heart c. and thy Neighbour as thy self but his Heart is utterly void of the love of God or he that hath the love of God in his heart and feelleth the powerful constraint of it is under the most powerful Law Whether the words without or the Spirit and Nature of Divine Love within is the most powerful Law and Rule There may therefore be a Law or Rule which is not a complex Proposition of words either inward or outward to wit the Divine Love it self which hath a Voice and Language to the souls of men in the silence of all words many times and can be understood as well without words as with them And therefore when I say the dictate of the Spirit is the Rule I mean not that there is alwaies a dictate of express words but that which is either such a formal express dictate or equivalent thereunto which those who are acquainted with the experiences of the Saints do well understand although it may seem to I. A. a strange Riddle or Paradox And thus by what I have said in this particular the intelligent Reader I hope shall perceive that in saying The Spirit is the Rule I am not beside my self as I. A. doth alledge but speak the words of Truth and soberness And I further ask Whether I. A. thinks that Ignatius the Martyr was beside himself when he writ in one of his Epistles to the People 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Vsing the Holy Ghost for a Rule or Whether Paul was beside himself when he said The Law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Iesus had made him free from the law of Sin and Death And whether that Law was not the Spirit of Life even as the Law of sin was sin and the Law of death was death And whether the Law of the Mind mentioned by Paul was not a Divine Principle of Grace in his mind even as the Law of his Members was a principle of sin and corruption that sometime had place in him and not any complex Proposition of words And whether the Law that God writeth in the hearts of his people in the new Covenant be simply a form of words consisting of so many letters syllables and sentences or rather to speak properly is not that Law a new and Divine Nature or substantial Life of Holiness and Righteousness and Wisdom by which the Children of God are led and taught under the new Covenant naturally as it were to love God and all men even as the Law that God hath put in all
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
an Inward immediate Dictate but there is a Divine Law in all men and therefore c. And in this respect it is that the substance of the Moral Law is generally acknowledged to be Imprinted in the Hearts of all men even those who want the Scriptures And I well remember that Bishop Sanderson saith in one of his Sermons That the said Law in the Hearts of all men is as really the Word of God as that Printed in our Bibles And thus I hope I have sufficiently evinced that there is a Dictate in all men that is a Divine Law and Rule at least in many or most things belonging both to Piety Justice and Sobriety Although I do not plead that there is a Law or Rule in them who have not had the History of the Gospel revealed unto them to believe the same Nor do I say that the History of the Gospel is revealed to us immediately without the Scripture but that having Heard or Read the said History and all other Historical parts of the Scripture the Spirit of God by some Inward Dictate formal or virtual or that which is equivalent doth move and incline us to believe the same And that I. A. doth plead That Believers only have the Spirit I Answer They have it only so as to possess and enjoy the indwelling of it and union with it but that Unbelievers have it so far at least as to reprove them and call them to repentance is clear from many Scriptures especially Iohn 16. 8. Prov. 1. 23 24. In Answer to one Argument of mine he saith A Believer needs not any immediate Dictate to assure him that he is a Child of God seeing by the aâ—â—istance of the Spirit effectively he may draw a conclusion from Scripture Premisses in applying the Scripture marks But to this I Answer that the Scripture only telleth him one of the Premisses of that they call the practical Syllogism but no Scripture in all the Bible telleth I. A. or me that he or I have these marks and seeing a true Believer may attain to a Faith of assurance as I. A. doth not deny and Faith must have the Word of God for its object seeing there is not a word in all the Scripture that saith he or I have those marks we must seek that word somewhere else then in the Scripture and where shall we seek it else but in our Hearts where the Spirit himself witnesseth with our Spirits that we are the Children of God if so be that we have that witness even as it did witness in Paul And if the illumination of the Spirit discover the Graces of God in our Souls certainly that is an Immediate Revelation for Scripture doth not discover in us those Graces but the Spirit and he that discovers the Graces discovereth also himself to be the true Spirit of God and doth not hide himself from us or else we might doubt whether the discovery were true or not not knowing infallibly the Author thereof Lastly That he saith I spurn at the distinction of objective and subjective Illumination as Anti-christian and deceitful I Answer I do not blame the distinction simply as in it self but as it is illused and applyed Whereas they say The influence and illumination of the Spirit in Believers is meerly effective or subjective and not at all objective But I say it is both effective and objective effective to help us to See or Hear and objective or by way of â—bject for the Sight and Hearing or any other perception of our Souls to stay and rest upon but this object can no more be the Letter of Scripture alone than a report of Meat and Drink can be the object to satisfie a mans Taste or Appetite when he is Hungry or Thirsty And thus I do not confound the distinct considerations of objective and effective only I affirm that the same thing may be both and so indeed is as when the Sun enlightens us its Ray or Beam helps us to see and also it is the object of our sight And the Heat of the Fire is both the object of our Feeling and also when it is moderate helpeth us to feel and effectively doth strengthen our Feeling But when the Fire heateth a stone it worketh in it only effectively and not objectively or as an object but Believers receive not the Heavenly Light and warmth of the Spirit as dead and insensible stones but as living Souls that have a real sense and perception of that which doth influence them and therefore that influence is the proper immediate object of their perception And if there be no inward Spiritual object that the Spirit presents to Gods Children then there is no inward Spiritual Eye nor Ear nor inward Spiritual Taste or Savour nor inward Spiritual Feeling all which is most contrary both to Scripture which mentions all these Spiritual Senses as I have proved at large in my Book of Immediate Revelation and also to the Saints experiences And doth not God promise that his Children shall see him under the New Covenant and certainly all sight that is proper is immediate And to say that the Saints only see God by the Scriptures is but as much as to say that we only see our Father by a report of him or that we only see the outward Sun by ones telling us that it shines who hath indeed seen it or that we only see our Native Country in which we live and dwell by looking at the Map of it But certainly such a remote and improper seeing doâ—s no wise answer to the Glory of the New Covenant but rather falleth short of the Old And if that be all to see God in the Scriptures then all those that lived under the Old Covenant saw God as clearly as Believers under the New Covenant seeing they had the Scriptures in great part But I remember a good saying of S. R. in one of his Epistles that I hope may have some weight with I. A. That is little saith he to see Christ in a Book which yet the Scripture is and certainly if I. A. has seen no more of God or Christ but what he has had a report of from the Letter of the Scripture I must needs say he is a great stranger to the New Covenant Dispensation and is still like so to remain while he disputes in unbelief against so great a Blessing that if he did believe he might attain unto But I wish the Lord may open his Eyes and then he will no more contend against such a thing I. A. proceedeth further to dispute against the Dictate or Witness of the Spirit within although he saith He hath sufficiently affronted it yet because it is worthy of a thousand deaths for its proud usurpation as he saith he will reach it some few blowes more To this I Answer that these exceeding bold and daring words against the Blessed Dictates or Words of Gods Holy Spirit in the Hearts of his people hath not a little moved me
commonly understood of that which originally is Grafted or Implanted in us and in this sense is used generally both by Christian and Heathen Writers as it is contradistinguished from that which is outwardly received Hence the natural love or affection that is in mankind is said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the which is not a thing outwardly received and consequently the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot be the Letter of the Scripture but a Divine principle immediately grafted into our Souls when God Created them and in respect of which men are said to be made in the Image of God Seventhly He alledgeth that we bring Heb. 6. 1 2. To oppose and reject all External Ordinances out of the Church citing Principles of Truth pag. 63 68 77 80. And here he insulteth not a little as if by the same Argument The Quakers were obliged to reject the very Principles of the Doctrine of Christ and the foundation of Repentance and Faith as well as Water-Baptism But to this I Answer having examined these pages cited by him I do not find that they mention or intend any thing of rejecting the Principles of the Doctrine of Christ or External Ordinances And let but the Reader examine the words and he shall find that nothing further is intended than this that people should not sit down or build their Faith upon a form of words though never so sound but should come further than all words so that leaving them behind as in respect of a foundation they were to come unto Christ the true foundation and grow up in him unto perfection And as for Water-baptism that place of the Heb. 6. 1 2. doth not mention it among the principles of the Doctrine of Christ but only the Doctrine of Baptisms which is another thing than Water-Baptism For although we have not Water-Baptism among us yet we have the Doctrine of Baptisms that is set down with other principles of our Faith as in divers other of our Book so in that mentioned by him called The Principles of Truth Now to leave a form of Words or Articles and Propositions concerning Faith which commonly are called Principles so as not to set them up for the principal and only foundation of our Faith which people are but too ready to do This is not to reject them no more than when a man leaves his Affairs he hath been conversant in and goeth to his Bed to rest him with moderate sleep is to reject his Affairs for he returneth unto them again Eighthly He saith We object that Enoch Noah Abraham c. Had not the Scripture to be their Rule and therefore nor are we to have it to be our Rule And this he makes as ridiculous a consequence as to say the Scriptures were not written in the primitive World therefore neither afterwards But I Answer that to argue from thence that the Scripture is not to be our only and principal Rule is both safe and pertinent For it Enoch Noah Abraham had the Spirit to be a Rule unto them it is no less a rule unto all now who have the same Faith which they had seeing the same Spirit is given to Believers now which they had which Spirit is one as Paul hath declared and it is most Rational that as the Faith is one in all Ages of the World and the Spirit one so the Principal rule of Faith should be one also Ninthly He saith I object Quakerâ—sm no Popery pag. 9. 13. That the Testâ—mony of the Spirit within is greater than the External Testimony of the Scripture and therefore the said Testimony of the Spirit is the Principal Rule To which he roundly Answereth by denying that there is any such Testimony of the Spirit within Believers and because I say there is he alledgeth I drive the Plough before the Oxen. But I Answer that I have proved it sufficiently already and now also I have Answered I hope sufficiently all his objections against it And here I desire the Reader to take notice how that notwithstanding I. A. saith elsewhere as Pag. 44. That he and his Brethren never denyed the Spirits Teaching Yet how inconsistent that is with denying any Testimony of the Spirit or Dictate thereof in mens hearts Is the Teaching of the Spirit only an outward thing Is it nothing else but to Hear or Read the Letter of the Scripture And are they all Taught of the Spirit who are but only and meerly Taught by the Letter But if it be granted that there is an inward Teaching of the Spirit distinct from the outward Teaching of the Scripture although not separated therefrom or without the outward as I know some of the more sober doth acknowledge then I say is not that inward Teaching a Testimony of the Spirit For to affirm it to be a Teaching and no Testimony seemeth to me to be a great contradiction And as for us althogh we cannot say that the inward Teaching or Testimony of the Spirit is never in any case without the outward yet we grant it is oft accompanied with the outward and in that case it is no less truly immediate than if it were without it as I have already shewed And supposing but not at all granting that the inward Teaching of the Spirit were never without the outward of the Letter yet seeing the outward Teaching of the Letter is oft without the inward for many are Taught by the Letter who are not Spiritually Taught all that the Letter hath outwardly Taught them it followeth evidently that the inward Teaching of the Spirit and outward Teaching of the Letter are distinct things as is manifest from that sure maxime that when two things can be seperate so as the one to be without the other they are really distinct This Argument I used in my Book called Quakerism no Popery but I. A. hath made no reply to it And still I say if the inward Teaching of the Spirit be denyed it doth follow that in respect of any inward Speaking or Teaching God doth no more intelligibly or perceptibly speak to the Saints than he speaketh to the Earth to bring forth Grass the which consequence I. A. seemeth to allow but how absurdly I leave to sober men to judge And whereas I. A. saith That God doth not always make use of the greater Witnesses for testifying his will to us I Answer In respect of men and Angels it is true But notwithstanding God hath given himself and his own Holy Spirit which is one with him to be unto us a witness of his will and this is the greatest witness that can be given See Rom. 8. 16. 1 Ioh. 5. 8 9. CHAP. VIII IN his pretended Survey of the Fifth Query he begins with two false Charges against us the First That we deny all Scripture Interpretation the Second That we deny all Scripture Consequences And to refute these idle Suppositions which are none of our Assertions he spendeth many Pages of his Book to no purpose and wherein we are
nothing concerned to Answer For we own both Scripture interpretation and just and necessary consequences of Scripture but then we say that these interpretations and consequences ought to be by the help and direction of the same Spirit that gave forth the Scriptures immediately teaching them to interpret and to draw such consequences therefrom to which I. A. doth not pretend nor any of his Brethren For all the Interpretations and consequences which Christ or the Apostles used were by the same Spirit that was in the Prophets and Peter saith expresly that no Prophecy of Scripture is of private Interpretation and it is said of Christ that he opened the understandings of the Disciples that they might understand the Scriptures which opening was by his Spirit that he gave unto them and seeing the Scripture cannot be understood without the opening of the Spirit that gave it forth it cannot be interpreted without the same nor can consequences be lawfully deduced from Scriptures without it for how can a man interpret what he doth not understand or how can he deduce a consequence from that whereof he is ignorant And there is yet another fault that we find in I. A. and his Brethrens interpretations of Scripture and consequences therefrom that they keep not closely to Scripture it self when they interpret or draw consequences but for most part mingle with the Scripture words many of their false principles and Axioms of that they call their Philosophy For as I have already said the most part of that they call their Philosophy is utterly false or uncertain nor are the Teachers of it agreed among themselves in their Principles and Axioms And yet their Consequences are commonly from one or other of these false or uncertain Maxims or Principles which they joyn with the Scripture in which case the consequences are not purely Scriptural For seeing in Argumentation the Conclusion or Consequence is drawn from two Propositions or Premisses one of which may be true the other false Again the one may be true and certain the other although true yet may be to us uncertain and doubtful in which cases the consequence or conclusion is always of the nature of the weaker premise hence if but one of the premisses be false the conclusion is false although the other Premise be true And if one of the Premisses be unclear or uncertain the conclusion is also uncertain And again if one of the Premisses be Scripture and the other be but some principle or maxime of Natural Philosophy so called the conclusion in that case is not Scriptural but Natural And thus much is generally acknowledged by all the Schoolmen so called And hence it is that the School-Divinity as it is so termed is rejected by many as a dubious and uncertain thing because the conclusions thereof for most part depend not on Scripture Propositions but uncertain and doubtful principles and maxims of that called Natural Philosophy But again suppose one should draw a consequence from Premisses that are both Scriptural yet seeing the terms in those Premisses may have different significations as the words Flesh Spirit Life Light Man and many others that have one signification in one place of Scripture and quite another in another part of Scripture the conclusion in that case doth not follow for not only the Art of Logick but Common Reason it self Teacheth us that in all Arguments the word or term that is used in both Premisses must have the same sense and signification in both Now he who has not the direction of the same Spirit that did Dictate the Scripture hath not this discerning so as to know the true sense or signification of Scripture words as they signify Spiritual Misteries and things For the Natural man understands not the Things of God as saith the Scripture and therefore he is utterly unfit to reason about them By which natural man I understand any man considered as never so well furnished with all Natural helps of his Parts and Arts but wanting the Spirit of God or at least not making use of the help of it but puting another thing in its room And thus much shall suffice at present to the Intelligent Reader how and after what manner we own both Scripture Interpretations and Consequences and yet may very well deny I. A. his Interpretations and Consequences and all such as he is who declare themselves Enemies to that Spirit that gave forth the Scriptures as necessary to help them in interpreting and drawing Consequences from Scripture And albeit I. A. use many Arguments to prove that Interpretations of Scripture are lawful and Consequences therefrom as that Christ and the Apostles did interprâ—â— the Scriptures and draw Consequences therefrom yet all this proves not that I. A. his Interpretations and Consequences without the same Spirit which they had are as good which is all one as to say Christ and the Apostles did Interpret the Scriptures and argue from them by the Spirit And therefore I. A. and his Brethren may as well do it without the Spirit but who having common Sense doth not see the unreasonableness of this Consequence Again as for the Levites their Expounding the Scripture which is another Argument of I. A. it remaineth for him to prove that these Levites who did rightly Interpret the Scripture did it without the Spirit of God and meerly by their own Natural Understanding And what if these Levites were not in all respects Infallible it doth not therefore follow that they had no Infallible direction of Gods Spirit when they did rightly Interpret the Scripture And indeed this is a third false Charge of I. A. against us as if we did hold that none is to Intepret the Scripture but he who is simply and absolutely or in all respects Infallible which we affirm not Nor is that the true state of the Question but this Whether any should give an Interpretation of Scripture without he be Infallibly perswaded by the Spirit of God that he hath received it from the Loâ—d We say Nay otherwise he Preacheth not the Word of God to the people but his own Fallible conjecture Now it is one thing to be simply or universally Infallible and another thing to be Infallibly directed in some particular cases of Interpreting some particular places of Scripture as God giveth to a man the help of his Spirit so to do And thus I. A. his two first Sections wherein he spendeth 18 Pages are sufficiently Answered In the beginning of his third Section concerning Baptism with Water he alledgeth falsly upon us That wherever Baptâ—sm is mentioned in the New Testament and the word Water is not expresly added that we always deny Baptism with Water there to be meant This is false for we grant that though Water be not expressed yet in some places Baptism with Water is understood as where Paul said Christ sent me not to Baptize here we affirm that to Baptize signifieth to Baptize with Water But we say further That the words
Defence of the Episcopal Church and Faith that Ioh. Alexander undertaketh but the Presbyterian and yet I. A. is a Member of the Episcopal Church and Officiates therein under Iohn Hamilton an Episcopal Preacher who hath recommended his Book at the Order of the Bishop of Edenburgh But I suppose the Episcopal Church in Brittain will give Iohn Alexander or his Patriot Iohn Hamilton little Thanks for his Service seeing many Episcopal Teachers in Brittain differ widely in Doctrin from the said Westminster Confession And had I. A. no other Confession of Faith or Catechism to commend but that of the Presbyterians whom his Episcopal Brethren commonly call Fanaticks and is it turned to that that they commend their Confession of Faith as the only Confession of the Church in Brittain But I can find no mention in the said Confession that Episcopacy is Iure Divino However since I. A. has undertaken the defence of the Presbyterian Church and Faith in all its Articles and Definitions as very Gospel Rule and Scripture Sentence he must then acknowledge that all these Definitions and Articles of his Presbyterian Brethren are at left materially considered infallible Oracles â—nd seeing he confesseth they are not all expresly contained in Scripture but many of them only deduced by consequence therefrom by what infallible consequence can he convince any rational man that his and their consequences are just and right since he laies no claim to the least measure of that kind of direction of the Holy Spirit teaching him and his Brethren to draw those consequences which Christ and the Apostles had whereby they argued and did draw consequences from places of Scripture formerly writ And seeing not only Papists and Protestants but the Episcopal and Presbyterian draw contrary consequences from the Scriptures what evidence can I. A. give us why we should receive the consequences of the one more than the other Or can we think the Lord hath left his people so in the dark as to give no other knowledge of his Will in a great many things whiâ—h are Articles of Faith but what can be searched out by long and tedious consequences of the bare natural understanding of man as it is left to it self to fish and hunt in the dark after such consequences without any such special direction and conduct of the Holy Spirit in the least measure which Christ and the Prophets and Apostles had Nay I do not find that I. A. doth acknowledge so much as the least absolute necessity of any sort of operation or illumination of the Spirit so â—uch as that they call effective or subjective order to draw their consequences from the â—cripture But if this way of drawing consequences without the help of the Holy Spirit were so safe and sure how is it then that so many of all sorts draw contrary consequences from the same Scriptures Is not the great reason of all this because men are departed from that holy Spirit which gave forth the Scriptures and can only give the true understanding of them And therefore is it not plain and manifest as the Light at Noon-day that man's natural Spirit and Reason and Wisdom in its highest perfection is altogether unable to meddle with Divine Truths or to search after them as it remains alone hunting in the dark And certainly this is no small part of that cursed self-conceit and exaltation of mind that Rules in the degenerated nature of man that they think they can be wise enough without God's Spirit they need no direction or assistance or illumination to help them to search into the Scriptures they can do that well enough with their natural reason and a little School-craft of Artificial Logick and Grammar and Natural Philosophy but that blessed man David was of another mind when he prayed unto the Lord saying Open my Eyes that I may see the wonderful things of thy Law And as for consequences which men draw as they are directed and taught by the Spirit of God as Christ and the Apostles were when they drew any consequence from what was formerly writ we do own them and receive them and none else But yet as to the most weighty and necessary things to wit such as are the general principles of the Christian Faith and Doctrine and which as such are generally to be received by all Christians as well these of the meanest capacity as others of the greatest we see the Lord hath not left it to mans industry to search after them by consequences long or short but hath delivered them to us in plain express words and terms and that many times over and over again as in respect of many of them in the Holy Scriptures And why is it that the Scriptures are so full and large in their Testimony to the Doctrines and Principles of Religion but to let us understand that all the Principles and Doctrines of the Christian Faith which God requireth in common of all Christians are expresly their delivered and recorded and put as it were in a puplick Register And therefore for my part what I cannot find expresly delivered in Scripture I see no reason why I should receive or believe it as any common Article or principle of the Christian Faith or Life and for such to whom God hath given that Divine skill to â—ive or dip into the depth of the Scriptures 〈◊〉 out of the reach of other men who may â—e true Christians so as to collect or gather by just and true consequences other things that lie out of the view of their weaker Brethren they ought not to obtrude them upon any to be received as principles of Faith but in that case to have Faith to themselves and receive them as peculiar discoveries or Revelations of the Spirit to them and such others as God hath so enlightened the which by the Apostle Paul is called The Word of Wisdom to wit such a peculiar degree of Wisdom or Understanding in the depth of the Scriptures as others who yet were true Christians did not reach unto and concerning such a peculiar gift of Divine Wisdom he said We speak Wisdom among the perfect this certainly could be no common Article of Faith else he should have Preached it to all And this by the same Apostle is elsewhere called The knowledge of Mysteries as distinguished from the common Faith and knowledge of the whole Church Now if this were but received among those called Christians that nothing should be required by one sort from another as an Article of Faith or Doctrine or principle of the Christian Religion in common to be believed but what is expresly delivered in the Scriptures in plain express Scripture terms of how great an advantage might it be to bring a true reconcilement among them and beget true Christian Unity Peace Love and Concord And as for the consequential part of peculiar Doctrines whether true or false to leave every one a freedom or latitude without imposing upon them the affirmative or negative as
any bond or tye of Christian fellowship for if such consequential Doctrine be false it is most unreasonable to impose it and therefore in that Case a Dissenter should have his liberty to differ in judgment without any breach of Brotherly Unity and Society and if it be true yet not being opened or revealed to another it cannot be in justice pressed or urged upon him where God has not given him the true freedom and clearness of mind to receive it and to do otherwise is to transgress that Golden Rule delivered by Paul viz. To walk by the same Rule according to what we have attained and if any be otherwise minded said he God will reveal it unto him And if this Advice could find place it would bring the differences among those called Christians in point of judgment into a very small and narrow compass and they would understand one another far better than now they do But again seeing I. A. is so absolute and peremptory that the Presbyterian Confession of Faith and Catechism and whâ— not the Presbyterian Directory also materially considered is infallible and yet is but a Book of their making and the consequential part of it the alone Fruit and product of their humane Spirit since they deny all pretence to an inward Dictate or Direction of Gods Spirit in the Case why should the said I. A. so oft Taunt and upbraid us with an Infallible Spirit and Infallible Speaking and Writing and Inspiration for now it seems a meer humane Spirit hath inspired those that gave forth the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechism to write every Article and Sentence of it Infallibly according to I. A. his high estimation of them But whereas I. A. dareth us To give any instances of any Articles and Definitions contained in the said Confession and Catechism that are not Scripture Sentence materially or formally considered This hath been done many times over and over again by our Friends in England and by some of us here in Scotland particularly by R. B. in his Catechism and Apology and by me in my Book of Immediate Revelation And there was in the year 1651. an intire examination of that Confession of Faith published in Print by one W. Parker who was not called a Quaker and whose words in all things we do not own and to the said Examination I. A. or any of his Fraternity is referred where I am abundantly perswaded he hath said more against it and many Articles contained therein viz. in the said Confession then ever I. A. or any of his Presbyterian half Brethren shall be able to Answer which whole Book lyeth at their door to this day so far as I can understand unanswered Another gross mistake or rather abuse of I. A. is that he alledgeth The Quakers are against all Confessions of Faith and Catâ—chisms whatsoever and yet they have Confessions and Catechisms of their own I say this is a gross abuse for we do own that there may and ought to be Confessions of Faith given by True Christians and also we own that there may be Catechisms and that they are useful in the Church and accordingly we have such And though the Writers of those Confessions and Catechisms be not absolutely or universally Infallible yet we hold that none should publish any Confession of Faith or Catecâ—ism but in such things whereof they are Infallibly perswaded by the Spirit of the Lord and as to other things that may be uncertaâ—n or unclear unto them they should forbear and so every one should Speak or Write as they have received the â—pirit of Faith as the Apostle Paul said We haâ—ing reâ—eâ—ved the same â—pirit of Faith we believe and therefore we have spoken buâ— I. A. thinks he may Speak and Confess his Faith without the same Spirit of Faith which David and Paul had And as for our Catechisms and Confessions of Faith if we cannot prove them and all the Articles and Sentences in them to be according to express Scripture words then let them not be received For we profess to urge nothing nor to press any thing to be received as a common Article of Faith but what is expresly delivered and Recorded in the Scriptures And if any should be so unbelieving and obstinate as not to believe the express Scripture words we may not urge them or press them thereunto by any Humane or Carnal Force and Compulsion but only to labour to perswade them according to that evidence and demonstration of the Spirit and Power as God shall be pleased to furnish us withal Another great mistake or abuse of I. A. is that he alledgeth the Tenth Query is void of Sense as if it did import That their Iustification and Sanctification Faith and Grace were the Gifts of their Directory Catechism and Confession of Faith and thus because the Query saith The Gifts of these whereas it is plain to any Sober and Rational Person that by the Gifts of these the Inquirer meaneth the Gifts of Justification Sanctification Faith and Grace and this is a form of Speech allowed by the Grammar it self and practised by Learned Authors I suppose far beyond I. A. who say not only the Town London or Rome or Edinburgh but also the Town or City of London the City of Rome the City of Edinburgh and therefore why may it not be as well said the Gift of Faith of Justification of Sanctification and speaking of these in general why may it not be said the Gifts of these which is equivalent to these Gifts And beside perhaps all this Quible is only raised upon a mistake of the Transcriber wriâ—ing the Gifts of these for these Gifts but it seems I. A. is barren of matter when he maketh a mountain of so small a matter if so be it were an impropriety of Speech But to deal in earnest with I. A. seeing he is so declared an Enemy to Divine Inspiration in our days we cannot think that he indeed oweth his pretended Justification Sanctification and Faith unto God but rather unto those Confessions and Catechisms for what Evidence or probable ground can he give us that he hath any Divine Faith or that which is more than barely Historical and Traditional Another gross abuse of his is That because we call the Gospel the Power of God as we are warranted by the express words of Paul Rom. 1. 16. therefore he alledgeth That we fain to our selves a sort of dumb Gospel without any Words or Doctrine But to remove this abuse let the Reader know that by the Gospel we mean not the Power of God abstractly considered without the Doctrine and suitable words inwardly or outwardly Preached nor yet the Doctrine and Worâ—â— without the Power and Life and 〈◊〉 God but both conjunctly And although we do readily acknowledge that the Doctrine when it is outwardly Preached by the Spirit of God and so hath the Power of God accompanying it is and may be called Gospel yet we cannot simply or absolutely