but they do procure our happiness neither will any wise man rest upon them for the obtaining of salvation Gal. 5.2 Isa. 64.6 3. It's wonder he should own such a Religion as saith nothing of faith when that is a chief lesson that the Gospel teacheth for a sinners salvation Mark 16.16 1 Tim. 1.16 This is an old Popish trick to make much of the doctrine of St. James in a mistaken interpretation and to lay aside the doctrine of St. Paul in its true sense Rom. 3.28 when they should join both together and ascribe to â—aith the justification of men as sinners and to works their justification as believers Jam. 2.22 4. Whereas he saith Christ is the â—ight of the world which I own as the fouâ—dation of my Religion who is within me The question is whether he build his Religion and salvation on that Christ who is within or on Christ as he is within that is on that of Christ which is within I grant that Christ is in us except we be Reprobates but its true also that Christ doth not save us as within us nor by any thing he hath put within us as if that were the cause of our salvation or Christ by that for how can that save us which is imperfect which needs a Saviour It is therefore Christ without us that saves us that by what he wrought without us that is by dying for our sins and rising again for our justification nor doth grace reign to eternal life any other way then through Christs righteousness made ours by faith Rom. 5.21 which clearly appears in converted Paul within whom Christ was abundantly he feared God and wrought righteousness and yet he desires to be found not having his own righteousness which is of the Law but that which is through the fâ—iâ—h of Christ the righteousness which is of God by faith Phil. 3.9 T. S. That you may know my Religion will bear the trial I do hereby declare my self free and willing Pag. 28 upon seasonable notice to appear in the midst of your Congregation or in the presence of the whole County to have my principles tried by the Scriptures of truth VV. T. A. 1. It seems he thinks now the Scripture is the touchstone or Rule to try things by whether they be of God or no 2. He hath been in my Congregation once already which considering his sad Apostacy since I am sorry for and shall not have to do with him there again nor by way of dispute anywhere else I have not been used to tumultuous things nor is it like his conference will be better then his writing and then let others judge whether it be fit a Congregation especially a whole County should be called together to hear it I began with him in writing and shall walk with him no other way nor long in that but shall leave him as a man whom no conference or writing is like to do good upon unless the Lord be pleased to change his heart which I should be most glad to see T. S. Can â—ny man be said to own the Spirit that breathed fâ—rth the Scripture and living the life of Christ and yet disown the Scripture which is the testimony of that Spirit and that Christ a W. T. A. I grant that they that truly own the spirit breathed forth the Scripture and live the life of Christ will also own the Scripture yet are these two distinct things though they meet together and agree in the same person But I answer further that a man may own the Sgirit in profession that breathed forth the Scripture and yet not own the Scripture as we see in Zâ—dekia that owned and arrogated the Spirit of the Lord and yet disowned and detested what Michaias spake by that Spirit 1 King 22.24 28. 2 Thes. 2.2 so quakers talk much of the Spirit and yet instead of owning the Scripture their design is found to be to depend upon an unwritten word immediatly dictated to them within themselves proceeding from him who is as they say the word from the beginning and is the life and is manifested as they give out within them as to the Apostles â—am. Eatonâ— answer to the quakers 19. queries pag. 20. Yea they do little less then deride the Text of Scripture calling Ministers in contempt preachers of the letter when as they preach those spiritual truths that be contained in it yea one of them makes this out-crie All people cease from their outside lights and return to the light of Christ in you and this light is not a chapter without you in a book c. Perfect Pharisee p. 20. out of James Nayler in a book called The glory of the Lord shining out of the north Of the word Sacrament T S. Pag. 30 SAcrament principally signifieth the Oath by which Souldiers of old bound themselves to be faithful to their Captains and is there such affinity between this word and the word sign seal Antitype and example W. T. A. Its true that the word Sacrament among profane Authors signifies a military oath which because it was accounted of all things the most sacred yea and went under the name also of a most holy mystery a hence use was made of the same word in the Churches of God to set forth the holy things instituted therein of God wherein there was a secret and mysterious signification and in special the two New Testament Seals of the Covenant of grace I deny not therefore that notion and acception of the word Sacrament which he and many others mention it being very fit to set forth these Seals as they represent the covenant of grace in which regard as on the 〈◊〉 side they assure us of the benefit of the Covenant on Gods part so on the other side we are therein consecrated unto God and bound as Souldiers were that took that military Oath to perform the Covenant on our part But this being granted it no way crosseth the ordinary description of a Sacrament which is that it is an outward and visible signe of a spiriâ—ual and invisibâ—e Grace Now to set two things one against another which being rightly taken do very well stand together is a poor quarrel And so is the whole contestation about the word Sacrament it being not made any matter or necessary appurtenance of our faith but used only as a convenient and received expression of that thing which is found in Scripture Whereas he questioneth further what affinity there is between the words sigâ—e and seaâ— and the word Sacrament as it relates to the aforesaid Military Oath I answer the words signe and seal expresse what we have from God to wit the benefits of the Covenant of Grace represented and sealed in that Ordinance The word Sacramen in that sense wherein he takes it shews what God is to have from us As for his cavilling about my forbearing to answer his quâ—râ—es I shall only say this Pag. 32 That though questions may
declare themselves to be men fearing God It seems he is of their minde who think men may be saved in any Religion if they be honest in their cariage when it was wont to be said in England They are to be had accursed that presume to say that every man shall be saved by the law and Sect which he professeth so that he be diligent to frame his life according to that law and the light of nature for holy Scripture doth set out unto us only the Name of Jesus Christ whereby men must be saved Articl of Relig. art 18 They therefore are against holy Scripture that are of that opinion Other trifling catches and Câ—vils I shall leave and in conclusion advertise the Reader of two things 1. Whereas this Replyer p. 70. complains though causelesly of the proofs that are produced from several writers to discover what the Quakers are the Reader may observe that the most I have cited is out of two Books the one called A faithful discovery of a treacherous design c. The other The Worlds wonder c. which Books whosoever shall unpartially read as I wish all to doe that would be fully acquainted with the Quakers light and life will easily see that they write so Candidly and Charitably of them that there is no cause to suspect their testimony 2. I cannot but here admonish all Christians with fear and trembling to take into consideration and to take warning by the late story of the Entrance * of James Nayler that famous infamous Quaker into the City of Bristol October 24. 1656. With one man going bare-headed before him and two women one on one side the other on the other side of his Horse holding the reins and leading him singing Hâ—sanna and Holy Holy Holy Lord God of Israel I doubt not but many of those that are turned out of the right way are in respect of this horrid height of Blasphemy of Hazaels mind 2 King 8.13 Am I a dog that I should do this great and hideous thing but this Narrative of Nayler may let them know that they cannot now conceive how far they will range and rise when once they have begun to wander and to take head Particularly three things come in here to be considered 1. What it is to follow an inward light separated from and unagreeable to Scripture light That 's so wilde and wicked a thing that it suggests at last to sing Holy Holy Holy to a most sinfull man for the Apology for that singing is this They that did sing were called to it by the Lord * and one of them saith The power of the Lord carried me to sing and lead his Horse †Dorcas Erbury cals that wretch over and over again The only begotten Son of God and then Lord and Master whom she is to serve for the Spirit within her doth command her to call him so * It 's true that Quakers say they disown this abomination but do they not own the principle that leads to it to wit a being led and instigated by that which is within them Unto which what limits do they put 2. What it is to have low thoughts of Gods word and of the Preaching thereof which God hath appointed to be the means of feeding his people with knowledge and understanding Jer. 3.15 Such men quickly come to set up a Religion and in the end a Jesus of their own making with this hellish Blasphemy Thy name shall be no more James but Jesus †Let every one whom it concerns weigh it well Why may not he that now speaks scornfully of bowing down and crying Hosanna to the mutable directions of the Pulpit as this Replyer doth p. 2. come at length to have others fall down upon the ground at his feet as it is informed upon Oath some did at Nailers feet * yea and to have Hosanna also sung to himself He that cries out wickedly against Ministers for persecuting Jesus may come himself to be so wicked as to be named Jesus and to have Hosanna sung before him yea he may come to such an height of pride and madness as to take such honours and defend the taking of them saying as Nayler said I may not refuse any thing that is moved of the Lord and that their Father commanded them to do †I wish and pray that James Naylers just punishment may be foelix flagellum an happy Scourge to drive yea by grace to draw him and his company not only from the highest risings but from the lowest root and rise of ever-increasing errour He spake truly and wisely that said Blanda sunt quae Haeretici proponunt sed aspera quae subinferunt sicut radices spinarum molâ—es sunt sed tamen ex ipsa sua mollitie proferunt unde pungunt Heretical things are like the roots of thorns that are in themselves soft but from that softness they bring forth pricking and piercing things See Eccl. 10.12 13. 3. What it is to be ever learning and never setled in a sound Religion such are easily drawn to the utmost height in soul-ruining wayes For which reason I shall I hope without offence seriously advise younger Students in Divinity by reading Scripture Orthodox Divines and much Prayer to season themselves at first with a right Religion lest the conclusion bâ— to have no Religion particularly to arme themselves against that man-exalting and God-depressing Arminianism which is the forerunner of Popery and that much-spreading Socinianism which is the entrance to Atheism I have now done with the Quakers and intend not to make any further return to this Replyer The old proverb is It will weary an old man to follow a childe I am sure it 's very tedious to walk in and out after an unprincipled man not well acquainted with Religion at first and led by phansie at last If there be yet any thing that he can reasonably object some or other it 's likely will answer it perhaps some honest Merchant or Tradesman that loves the Ministery as much as he hates it If he contend only in a way of railing and vaunting therein he must be suffered to get the better and he shall for me have the last word only if he make any further Reply upon me I desire the Readers to do me so much right as to reflect on what I have already done and to view my writings before they believe his I told him formerly that I would not have further to do with him that is that I would not direct my speach to him though I meant to make Answer to his Reply but to the Reader for whose sake I wrote hereafter I mean not to say any thing to him or of him Let him first answer the Books that have been printed against his phansies already and know that those Books how mean soever he makes them will not be answered by Bravadoes or by counting the sheets and making the sum total wrath and confusion *
A VINDICATION OF Scripture and Ministery In a Rejoynder to a Reply not long since published by Thomas Speed formerly but unsutably Merchant in the City of Bristol and Preacher lately but more sadly Merchant and QVAKER Wherein sundry Scriptures are explained divers Questions relating to these times discussed and the truth asserted against the exceptions of PAPISTS and QVAKERS Whereunto is adjoyned a Postscript reflecting upon and returning Answer to divers passages in Thomas Speed his last Pamphlet By William Thomas Minister of the Gospel at Ubley Isa. 8.20 To the Law and to the Testimony if they speak not according to this word it is because there is no light in them Ephes. 4.11 12 13. He gave some Pastours and Teachers For the perfecting of the Saints the work of the Ministery for the edifying of the body of Christ Till we all come in the unity of the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God unto a perfect man unto the measure of the age of the fulness of Christ Ignat. Epist. ad Ephes. Si autem ii qui humanas domos corrumpunt morte plectuntur quanto graviores poenas dabunt qui moliuntur Christi doctrinam adulterare pro quâ crucem mortem sustinuit Dominus Jesus unicus Dei Filius London Printed for Edward Thomas and are to be sold at his house in Green-Arbour 1657. The several Heads of this Rejoynder 1. QUakers Quaking detected and refuted 2. That the Scriptures are the Saints rule is proved 3. Ministers taking of Tithes justified 4. A general Scripture command for Infant-Baptism asserted 5. That the Scriptures are the ground of faith is more largely maintained 6. That life is to be had in Scripture is manifested 7. A brief account of the word Sacrament 8. The Ministery the Calling of Ministers together with Imposition of Hands in Ordination Vindicated and more fully spoken to 9. Calling to the Civil Magistrate for punishing the open enemies of Religion declared from Scripture 10. The point of Conscience-liberty discussed 11. Something concerning inward and common light observed and opened 12. Our Justification is declared to be by a righteousness without us not by a righteousness within us The Epistle to the Christian and considerate READER READER COncerning the rise of the present business between my self and Thomas Speed be pleased to receive this relation About two years ago or more I did upon importunity give way to Mr. Speeds Preaching in my charge I confess it was not without reluctancy because he had been so long a publick Teacher and yet no Minister that is not called to that office in the way of Christ yet I knew not but that he might in a further time be so called he being in such a tendency to that Office but while there were hopes of him that he might do some good service in the Church of Christ there comes newes that he had joyned himself to those whom they call Quakers The report at first was very strange but when it was found to be so indeed it troubled me much that I should be induced to admit one to Preach in my place so poorly principled and of so inconstant a spirit as to close with such a company and be wafted over suddenly to so senseless a Sect. Hereupon after many debates with my self I resolved to write unto him about the Quakers way for I had not reason then to think him to be a Scorner but rather hoped that some good might have been done upon him and that he was not so far gone and hampered in Satans snare but that possibly he might by a milde admonition be recovered out of it at least I did not know but that there might be so much ingenuity left as to return unto a calm and friendly Letter a fair and civill Answer But how far he was from any such humane frame his rough and Quaker-like Reply to my first Letter did more then sufficiently manifest Yet because in that his first return amongst a great deal of rudeness there was something that looked like reason I wrote my second Letter in way of Answer to his first but that high spirit of his that could not receive an admonition in my first Letter could not bear an answer in my second but must needs tumultuate in Print and by this means our Contestation is come into publick view In which regard it might have been satisfactory to have published the Letters that passed between us but being that they were so large as that it would be tedious to print and peruse them and his Reply together with this Rejoynder will present in good part the substance of them therefore I have resolved to publish no more but only my first brief Letter whereby it will appear I think how little cause this angry Antagonist had to fall into so hot a combate For this was the Letter Mr. Speed THough my acquaintance with you hath not been much yet since by providence there hath been some and that also a Pulpit-acquaintance by your Preaching not long since in my place and charge I presume you will not take it ill if I shall a little more then ordinarily impart my self unto you upon the report that I have heard from divers who know you and are like to know your way of your closing though how far I know not with those that own the name of Quakers I have read but one of their Books viz. The fierie Darts of the Devill quenched but therein I find enough to make it strange that any that hath known and owned much more that hath held forth Gods Scripture way should have any correspondence with them in theirs 1. For the Scriptures though they do not professedly reject them yet really they do whilest they hold and witness 1. That they are not the rule of Saints contrary to these Scriptures Gal. 6.16 Jam. 2.8 Deut. 5.32 33. 2 Pet. 1.19 2. That they are not the ground of faith contrary to Joh. 20.31 Rom. 16.26 Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God Rom. 10.17 So that the word of God was ever the ground of Faith even before it was written as now it is for though it were not written yet it was revealed And now it is written Christ directs us to look for life in the Scriptures because they testifie of him to wit as the person on whom our faith should rest for salvation Joh. 5.39 -46 47. 2. For the Sacrament of the Lords Supper They acknowledge a command of Christ for it to stand for a time and no more when Christ tels us his death is to be shewed therein till he come 1 Cor. 11.26 3. For the Ministery As they deny there was any true Church since the Apostles dayes which is as though they should say Christ hath had no body upon earth since the Apostles dayes for the Church is his body So they deny any Ministers unlesse called as the Apostles were when we finde Titus ordaining Elders in an ordinary
fiery work to burn up in them and take off their hearts from hanging after old dispensations wayes and discoveries So that in this way they look to be purged from that which they have received formerly from the Truth and Ordinances of God 2. It is conceived from their own words to be for their justification for they say They must be brought to suffer as Christ did and to undergo as great a sense of wrath as Christ did when he cryed My God my God why hast thou forsaken me Thus reckoning saith the Relator of these things as far as I am able to determine that upon this account they must be justified before the Lord Worlds wonder pag. 23. Now let all men judge what agreement there is between this and Scripture-quaking 4. I wonder that among all the quaking which they would have us suppose ariseth from the fear of God they did never tremble in conformity to that Scripture wherein God himself saith VVherefore were ye not afraid to speak against my servant Moses but in stead of that are still inveighing against men of Moses his minde and Office Numb. 12.8 VVhether Scripture be the Saints Rule T.S. NO Scripture saith so in terminis W. T. 1. That is Scripture which is necessarily deduced from it though it be not in so many words expressed in it Our Saviour to shew that the Scriptures hold forth the Doctrine of the resurrection to all knowing men produceth this Scripture I am the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob Mark 22.29 32. Now shall a Quaker come to our Saviour and say Your proof is nothing because the Scripture you bring saith not in terminis There shall be a resurrection 2. That in Deut. 5.31 32 33. is all one to a rational man as if it had been said in plain terms You shall walk perfectly according to the Rule and direction of my word 3. Add hereunto that Gal. 6.16 the word Rule is expressed to shew the Doctrine laid down there is the Rule they must walk by that look for peace and mercy Hence Scriptures are called Canonical because they are a Canon and Rule to walk by T.S. Let me ask you and many others who have been Teachers were those things that you have taught so many yeers together necessarily deduced from Scriptures if not then by your own confession you have taught falshood if they were then all that you have so taught is infallible for you say it is Scripture and the Scripture is infallible W.T. A. Here is an horned Argument wherewith he pusheth hard but wants strength One horn is this If the things you have taught were not necessarily deduced from Scripture then by your own confession you have taught falshood To which I answer That what he saith had something in it if it were not a falshood that I made any such confession I was not so lost as to confesse that to be a falshood which neither my self nor any man well in his wits ever thought to be so Was all that Moses learned from the Egyptians or Daniel from the Chaldeans a meer falshood A Minister may have occasion to deliver divers things for peoples help not necessarily deduced from Scripture and yet very true as Paul said of what a Poet said Tit. 3.12 13. This witness is true yet what we have taught people to believe and practise as the mind of God that we have prov'd to them out of the word of God But now the other horn seems stronger T. S. If they were necessarily deduced from Scripture then all that you have so taught is infallible Pag. 6 W.T. A. So it is but not because we taught it but because it lies in and was necessarily deduced from that Scripture which is infallible T.S. Why then do you not adjoin all your Sermons to the Scripture for if necessarily deduced thence they are Scripture and a part of the Saints Rule but what a sad condition would many poor souls be in whose small Estates would not amount to the purchase of a Bible so voluminous would it be c. VV.T. A. When it is said why do you not then adjoine all your Sermons to Scripture that sure is something simply spoken for what need that be adjoined and added to Scripture that is already in it as all is that is necessarily deduced from it for how could it be gathered from it and that necessarily if it were not in it who can take any thing from thence where it is not to be had The poor souls therefore of whom he speaks need not trouble themselves about the purchasing of a bigger Bible any more then of another well in the place of that living Fountaine from whence water hath been drawn which when it was drawn was that well-water this hundred or thousand yeers T.S. Whereas you quote Christ his proving the resurrection of the dead c. I answer That what Christ spake was infallible he neither did nor could erre in what he said W.T. A. It 's true that what Christ spake was infallible but this he saith to no purpose for Christ doth not speak there as one that would presse them to receive what he delivers upon his bare word but as one that would convince them of the truth of what he spake by Scripture that is by his necessary and unanswerable reasonings from it He doth not say Ye do erre not knowing me to be an infallible Teacher whom you ought to believe upon his word but not knowing the Scriptures and the Power of God both which plainly prove that there shall be and may be a resurrection T.S. Were you as infallible in those meanings and interpretations which you force upon the Scriptures as he was in what he spake from the Spirit of the Lord I should readily close with them as the Oracles of God W.T. A 1. If all Pastors and Teachers were Apostles then these men would presently be Converts This is like them that said to our Savior Let him now come down from the Cross and we will believe him but they who contemn that means which God in his wisdom ordains and will do nothing without that means which they in their folly demand justly perish 2. Neither is this device of any value for the question is not whether we be infallible in our meanings and deductions but whether that which is deduced and drawn from Scripture that is necessarily and upon supposal that we are not deceived in the deducing be Scripture or a thing truly contained in Scripture which I affirm it is Let him not talk to no purpose but keep him to his work and prove the contrary T.S. Either say to the people plainly that you are infallible or else say that you are fallibles that so they may take liberty of proving both your actions and Doctrine W.T. A. We willingly acknowledge we are fallible or men that may be deceived therefore do not onely give liberty but give counsel to people and exhort them
is expressed Gal. 6.16 Is therefore the Scripture the Saints Rule Pag. 7 W.T. Answ. Here he puts down a word or two of what I spake leaving out the rest and then makes as if I had spoken that which I never spake for I never said that because the word Rule was there therefore the Scripture is the Saints Rule but the force of the Argument lies in this That the very word Rule is expressed there for the end and purpose to declare hold forth the Scripture to be a Rule For here 's an happy end Peace and Mercy a walk prescribed for the attaining of that end a Rule revealed to guide that walk to wit that Word of God which is written in the two verses immediately going before viz. v. 14 15. wherein all men are directed to glory in the Cross of Christ v. 14. and that so as to become new Creatures v. 14 15. that is they are guided to faith accompanied with holinesse as the sure way to happinesse For the further opening and confirming whereof let it be observ'd that the Apostle doth in the close of this Epistle knit up the Doctrine of the whole Epistle yea of the whole Gospel yea of the whole Bible whereupon this is justly extended by Divines to the whole Canonical Scripture and the Doctrine is this That we are to look for Justification and life not in the works of the Law either without Christ or with Christ but in Christ crucified alone apprehended by Faith and yet that faith is not alone but appears in the novation of our nature within and in working by love without in the keeping of all Gods Commandments This is apparent by v. 14. where Paul professeth his glorying in the Crosse of Christ alone that is his contentful and triumphant confidence in Christ crucified the rather for the blessed effect thereof which he found in himself to wit The worlds being crucified to him as he was to the world that is whereby he was made a new creature which is a thing so considerable that if we reckon of things as Christ doth all outward priviledges and preheminences are nothing v. 15. Hereupon it follows v. 16. As many as walk according to this Rule that is this Scripture-Doctrine which teacheth men by faith to rest on and rejoyce in Jesus Christ crucified and crucifying that is so working on and in them by their believing in him as that they are crucified with him and become new creatures Peace shall be upon them Rom. 5.1 and mercy 1 Tim. 1.14 whether they be Jews or Gentiles when otherwise nothing will avail either the one or the other for peace and life Now if any shall say as this Writer doth who gives forth a meaning himself when he cries out upon other men for doing the like that the Rule is the new Creature meaning thereby the Law and Direction of the Spirit in the heart of a person regenerated this falls in with the former for the Spirit suggesteth no other Rule to the heart then that which it expresseth in the Word But the Apostle sufficiently decides this matter and interprets himself Ch. 5. v. 5 6. where handling the same Argument viz. Resting on Christ by faith for righteousness and life and bringing in the very same reason that he doth here he doth a little vary the words and instead of the new Creature named here puts Faith working by love So that the Rule is plainly this To look for salvation by Faith in Christ Jesus working by love which is the character of a new creature who first is in Christ by Faith 2 Cor. 5.17 and then that Faith worketh by love and in holinesse because the new creature is Gods workmanship created in Christ Jesus unto good works Eph. 2.10 W.T. Saints must walk by one Rule or another I ask then what is the Rule if Scripture be not the Rule T.S. I know no new Rule nor own none but the same that Abel Pag. 8 Enoch Noah Abraham Moses David Paul and the rest of the holy men of God walked by And by the same touchstone that those holy men proved the Light they walked by whether it were of God or no the same and no other do I own still W.T. Abel Enoch Noah Abraham had the Word of God for their Rule delivered to them as God pleased in those times Moses David and Paul had the same thing for their Rule that is the Word of God but committed to Writing for the Churches use in their times To that Word new I answer That the Rule is the same still that is the revealed will of God there 's nothing new but the Writing and that 's now old But what 's this to my question which was If the Scripture be not the Rule what is the Rule Hereunto he gives a crafty but no clear Answer he seems to say That 's the Rule which the holy men of God whose Names he puts down walked by I ask him again But what was that Rule which they walked by If he think it to be the Word of God whether revealed without writing as at first or written as afterward why doth he not say so and so yeild that the word written is now our Rule If he think the inward Light which Quakers dream of to be the Rule then I ask him again How shall we trye whether that pretended Light be a Rule to walk by For he 's a fool that beleeves every thing Now this he huddles up and speaks something to no purpose generally and guilefully but nothing determinately All he sayes is this That by the same Touchstâ—ne that those holy men proved the Light they walked by the same and no other do I own a Here I shall not examine whether this Author that is so exact in Grammer in the latter part of his Book speak so good sense as he should do I leave that to the Reader But since he speaks of Holy Mens Touchstone I shall propound unto him the approved Example of the Bereans who proved Pauls Doctrine as Paul was willing they should prove it to wit by searching the Scripture Let him prove his Light by the same Touchstone that these holy and noble persons did and it shall suffice If he say Paul proved not his own Light so I reply 1. That there is a great difference between 〈◊〉 that received his Light immediately from Christ and himself and Quakers who too much manifest that they have not received their Light from him either immediately or mediately 2. It is enough that the Spirit of God commends that way of proving Pauls Light by others that were his hearers for thence it will follow either that that Scripture-search is the way to prove every mans Light that professeth he receiveth it from Christ or else the commendation of the Bereans for doing so is not a sufficient approbation of the wisdom of that course and so we shall come to question the spirit of God speaking to their
praise in that portion of Scripture * T.S. When you say indefinitely Pag 8 they i. e. the quakers reject the Scriptures not quoting any particulars whether can it be any other way taken but that they throw them off in general W.T. A. If I spake indifinitely and what I said my Letters shew yet this Schollar was so long in the University I think as to know there is a difference between an indâ—â—â—nitâ— and an universal Proposition He is said to reject the Scriptures truly that rejects any part of them as the Jews do the New-Testament when Christ saith Ye do erre not knowing the Scriptures doth not he tax them truly though there were some part of Scripture that these men did know and acknowledge to wit because they did not know but denied or ignorantly perverted the Scriptures testifying of the resurrection T.S. Pag. 8 That you did intend the rejection of the whole Scripâ—ture I prove thus The Scripture as the Saints Rule you say they reject Now whether is a part of Scripture or the whole the Saints Rule If the whole and you go about to prove they reject the Scripture because they deny it to be the Saints Rule then nothing more plain then this That they reject the whole Scripture W.T. He 's a great Undertaker that assumes so much to himself as to discover a mans intentions But to the thing I answer The whole Scripture is the compleat Rule and the several parts of Scripture are the Rule in part Whereupon I adde further That he that rejects all Scripture rejects the whole Rule but he that rejects but a part is truly said to reject Scripture for every part of Scripture is Scripture The quakers therefore denying the Scripture to be the Saints Rule really reject the Scripture that is they reject those Scriptures from which it is necessarily concluded that it is their Rule Now for his Argument its true That they who reject any Scripture as * the Saints Rule â— which I said not of them reject the whole Scripture that is they reject the whole as a Rule yet upon some other account they may retain it Let himself and the quakers look after his Argument and see how they will answer it T.S. Pag. 9 However we will take your own words with your own Interpretations by which you give us to understand that they whom you call quakers do not reject the Scripture in genâ—ral W.T. I do not give any man to understand that they do not reject the Scripture in general for though I did not say they reject it wholly nor meant to say so yet I think they reject it wholly in a very high degree whilest they deny it to be the Word of God a and reproach it as if it were nothing but Ink and Paper as we shall see hereafter All that I did give men to understand is That I did not say they rejected the Scriptures in general neither did I say they did not How glad is a man in his necessity to catch at any thing but yet it is but a folly to catch at nothing Of Ministers receiving Tythes T. S. BY what Rule in Scripture do you receive Tythes for preaching Pag. 10 W.T. I did and do answer him That with respect to our Labour in Preaching we receive a maintenance from these Scripture Rules 1 Cor. 9.14 So hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel Gal. 6.6 In special Luk 10.7 with 1 Cor. 9.9 The Labourer is worthy of his hire which Scriptures he is so wise as to take no notice of I answered further That we received Tythes because for present that 's the allotted maintenance It being the Scripture-Rule that Ministers should be maintained suppose that no particular way of maintenance be prescribed yet that Rule doth evince the Righteousnesse of any lawful way such as that by Tythes is Till he prove that an unlawful way of maintenance we still plead the Scripture-Rule which requires a maintenance T.S. A Father putteth his Son to the University for some certain yeers to learn the Trade of Sermon-making c. W.T. This general prophane fancie I leave for quakers and quaffers and athiests to make merry withal and come to his self-pleasing particulars T.S. If any man dye possest of a rich Parsonage how many of you have presently a call to it Pag. 11 then dayes of fasting and humiliation must be kept pretending to seek God to know who hath the clearest Call and though you are all resolved in your hearts beforehand to get it if you can yet the Name of God and the Prayers of some well-meaning people must be made use of by every one of you as a cloak lest your deceit should be too plainly discovered I know you will call this clamour but I speak plain truth A. 1. There may be just reason for the exchanging of a mans place by the judgement of the Church of God out of respect to the benefit of the Church and the advantage of Jesus Christ And a man may be duly called from a place where there is lesse maintenance to another where there is more to wit because there is more work there which rebukes the affecting of the maintenance Now if any change ungroundedly or passe into any place disorderly whereof here 's no proof for that I shall not plead 2 It is not very like that they who betake themselves to fasting and humiliation are the persons that are guilty of such mis-removeals self-seeking and God seeking do not well agree together nor is it like that Gods people will come together to fast and pray upon a worldlings call sure they take him to be a godly Minister with whom they join in such an exercise and if he prove otherwise so publike a course will make his sin the more observed and so will turn to his greater shame If he be wise therefore though he be not good it is not probable that he will walk in that way mean while this helps to cast a profane contempt upon Gods highest course in difficult cases and teacheth Atheistical people what to say when they see a Minister humbling his soul together with Gods people to seek resolution from him Fasting and prayer they will acknowledge to be good in it self but when any Minister sought to for a removeal comes to practise this course they cry out against it for this man tels them and they be glad to hear it that there is nothing but hypocrisie in it So all fasts for Ministers direction in case of their call from one place to another become a matter of derision 3. This Poetical Relator saith it is thus But how shall we know that he speaks truth Is it certainly true that Ministers that seek to God to clear up their call are resolved and all resolved and all resolved in their hearts before hand to get a rich Parsonage if they can How doth this man know the resolution
an end in Christ deny Christ to be come in the flesh but whether taking Tythes be such an upholding which we deny and he shall never be able to prove T.S. Qu. 3. Whethâ—r they that claim the Maintenance particâ—larly appointed to the Priests and Levites are not to do their work viz. Prepare the Sacrificeâ— slâ—y Oxen Shâ—ep Goats c. VV.T. A. 1. We take not the Maintenance particularly appointed to the Priests and Levites they had a far greater proportion of Maintenance then the Tythes we take and of another kind also 2. The Priests and Levites work was not only to prepare Sacrifices and to instruct about Jewish-Rites but also 1. To open the Scripture and teach the good knowledge of God generally Deu. 33.10 2 Chroâ— 30.22 Neh. 8.8 Mal. 2.7 2. To blesse and pray for the people Numb. 6.23 Joel 2.17 1 Sam. 12.23 The Ceremonial part of their work we do not because we ought not it being abolished yet while we minister the Gospel of God we are still sacrificing spiritually as â—aul did Rom. 15.16 The two other parts which we ought to do those we do and so receive Reward for our service as they did Numb. 18. â—1 3. Melchisedeck received Tythes and yet did no Levitical Work Heb. 7.6 and in him Christs Priesthood is represented whose â—inisters we are and therefore may take maintenance in that way without doing that Work Of Infants Baptism THe next thing is Infants Baptism in the defence whereof I usâ—d this Argument Christ by the Apostle Paul coâ—maâ—dâ— to render to all their aâ—â—s Rom. 13.7 Buâ— baptiâ—m is an Infants 〈◊〉 Ergo T. S VVas it ever heard Pag. 14 15. or did it ever enter into the heart of any sobeâ—-â—inded man to conceive that Paul intended the seventh vâ—rse of the thirteenth Chapter to the Romans to prove the sprinkling of Infants faces with water to be an Ordinance of Jesus Christ W.T. Surely if great words would carry a Cause this man would never fail to conquer But to come to the matter I answer That though the Apostle doth not intend in those words to prove Infant-Baptism yet he intends what he saies and what I cited the words for to wit That we must render to every one that which is due and more then that I desire not nor intend to take from that Scripture for that Baptism is an Infants due I prove otherwise and if it be so then by that general Rule both of Scripture and Nature it ought to be rendred to him And I did the rather bring this place of Scripture because the great Objection against Infant Baptism is That there is no command for it whereas if Baptism be an Infants due there lies in this Scripture though not a particular yet a pressing command for it in the general Law of rendring what is due If any shall say for I am not onely willing to answer him which is soon done but to satisfie others I say therefore that if any shall say and object That the Apostle applies this general Precept onely to things civil and therefore it is improperly drawn to Baptism which is a religious Ordinance 1. I answer That the application of a general precept or axiome is one thing the restricti is another The application of a general Rule to one thing doth not hinder the extent and application of it according to the general latitude in it to other particulars rightly ranked under that general So that general sentence like to this we have here in hand Whatsoever ye would that men shouâ—d do to you do even so to thâ—m Mattâ— 7.12 is very justly not onely applyed as Joâ— doth cap. 16.4 5 6. to shew that every man should put himself into a miserable mans case and speak and do as himself would expect in the like case but also is justly extended to any particulars in the Law and Prophets relating to the second Table In like manner that general truth It is required in Stewards 〈◊〉 a man be found faithful 1 Cor. 4.2 is rightly applyed not onely to any ordinary Steward in the house of the Lord but to every Minister and spiritual Steward in the Work of his Lord In sum Had the Apostle restrain'd that general Sentence to things civil there had been no room left for enlargement but being that he reciteth it as a known Maxim and applyeth it only to the matter in hand there is both a Liberty and a Pattern to make the like application in other the like cases 2. I answer That if it be true that every one is to have his due in things civil and belonging to the second Table then by proportion in things religious also and belonging to the first Table for the general Rule of rendring to every one his right runs thus not only Render to Cesar the things which are Cesarâ— that is which are due to Cesar and which are here spoken of to the Romans but also to God the things which are Gâ—ds that is which are due to God Matt. 22.21 3. It 's plain That the Apostle in Rom. 13. doth not only apply this to the rendring of what 's due to Magistrates but carries it further to all that love and duty which is required and owing in regard of the second Table v. 8.19 and therefore it hath a binding force to impose upon all men the rendring of that which is due to private persons as well as to Magistrates and consequently to tye Parents to every due and duty owing to their children If therefore it be Parents duty and childrens due to bring their children to baptism as in my Letter I have prov'd then that general Precept of rendring to every one their due is justly extended to the urging of their baptizing Now its true that baptizing Infants as it is a duty of Religion belongs to the first Table but as it is a duty of relâ—tion to the second Table As to bring up children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord belongs to the first Table as it is a duty of Piety promoting the honor and service of God but it belongs to the second Table as it is a duty of Pâ—rents and as it is a debt of love in them to teach their children as David and Baâ—hsheba did their dear Solomoâ— Prov. 43 4. 31.2 Now to winde up all since the Apostle applies the general Law of rendring what is due to all men generally and that also in all the duties of the second Table and since to the first commandment of the second Table every due from Parents to children is to be referred it is therefore manifest that if baptizing Infants be a due then Parents are not only permitted but commanded and that not onely by vertue of that general sentence in it self but also by the Apostles application of it to render it to them T.S. Your Argument runneth thuâ— Pag. 15 If we ought to render all their dues then Infants ought to be baptized but we
yet he did not hide ink and paper there that he might not sin against God Psal. 119 11 Are the great things of the word and Gospel of God which are said to be the power of God a to convert the son rejoyce the heart enlighten the eyes b which are able to make wise to salvation c come to be nothing else but paper and ink was ink and paper sweeter to David then the hoâ—y and the hony comb Ps. 19 10 119.103 Doth not Christ say that the Scriptures testifie of him John 5.39 But if all the ink and paper in the world were brought into America would that without any thing else testifie of Christ to the poor Heathens there let quakers quake to think that by this word Christ will â—udge the world John 12.48 and ink and paper if there were no more never drew any â—aâ— to execution in a way of justice Doth this Writer and Railer on the Ministry of this Nation and that offers such indignity to Scripture think he hath nothing to answer for but the wasting of so much ink and paper I wish he may think of more Yet it may be granted that the Law works not without Gospel-grace nor the Gospel to salvation without the sanctifying spirit But it is notwithstanding without that grace and spirit an informing word d a convincâ—ng word e and the savour of death to death f none of which can be reasonably ascribed to a poor thing called ink and paper T. S. Was there not faith and was not Jesus Christ before the written word and yet must that be first believed or and be the ground of our faith W. T. A. To leave out his empty exclamations he may know that the question is not what men were to do before the word of God was written then they were to ground their faith upon it as it was delivered then though not written but what we are to do unto whom it is written The Word of God being now written I must first believe it before I believe in Christ for how can any rest his faith on the person testified of if he do not believe the testimony T. S. Is not the foundation spoken of Eph. 2.20 that Jesus which was both preacht and believed on by the Prophets and Apostles Pag. 20 W. T. A. The foundation spoken of in the latter part of the â— and expressed by the chief corner stone is Christ alone The foundation spoken of in the former part of the v. is if we speak of the essential foundation or the personal foundation Christ also whom the Prophets and Apostles preached and held forth as the sole foundation for believers to build up but if we speak of the doctrinal foundation it is the word of God delivered by the Prophets and Apostles The word of the Prophets and Apostles was the foundation teaching Christ himself the foundation taught so that to say we are founded on the Apostles and Prophets that is on their doctrine and that we are founded on Christ is upon the matter all one a for their doctrine was in sum Christ onely there is this difference the doctrine is the immediate foundation Christ the â—lâ—imaâ—e on that we build our faith on this our selves But the business in hand will be more plainly made out to those Christians whom I would assist by answering two questions 1. qu. How can the doctrine of the Prophets and Apostles be called a foundation A. Because we are to build our faith upon that doctrine when Christ saith Upon this rock will I build my Church I conceive it is rightly understood thus upon this truth preached and manifested to the world to wit Thou art the Christ the true Messias and Son of the living God Will I as upon a Main ground-stone found the faith of all Believers b or I will cause the doctrine of this self same faith to be the foundation of my Church c This is agreeable to our ordinary manner of speaking which is Build upon my word this shall be done for you If a King shall speak such words to a subject he fals to building presently on that foundation such a foundation and infinitely above that in firmness and stability is the Word of God which faithful men therefore build upon as the people sometimes leaned and rested on the words of Hâ—zekias 2 Chron. 32.8 with Judg. 16.29 where the same original word is used 2. Qu. How doth it appear that this doctrinal foundation is spoken of or is to be taken notice of in this Scripture A. Because Apostles and Prophets are named and why should they be named but to point at their Ministry and the main part thereof namely the manifestation of Jesus Christ both to come and already come upon which manifestations Believers have ever built and so setled themselves on the Rock Christ This is it that Calvin marks He doth not saith he name Paâ—riarchs or Godly Kings but onely those that had the office of teaching and that were set over the Church for the building thereof 〈◊〉 therefore he concludes that the faith of the Church ought to be founded on this doctrine To conclude this I shall not deny that in these words The foundation of the Apostlâ—s and Prophets Christ is principally intended All that I contend for is that the doctrine and Ministery of the Apostles and Prophets is here also included and contained under the name of Foundation as that which is no way opposite but subservient unto the great foundation Jesus Christ for first our faith is built upon the word of God revealed to and by the Apostles and Prophets and then and in that way our persons are built upon the Son of God And thus were the Ephesians built on the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets to wit by receiving their doctrine by faith a and by being thereby put in as living stones into that spiritual Temple whereof Jesus Christ is the Foundation in regard of superstruction and the corner-stone in regard of coagmentation union and coalition of Jews and Gentiles T. S. Could you so confidenâ—ly give Paul the lye Pag. 20 who saith expresly Other foundation then Jesus Christ can no man lay W. T. Christ alone is the foundation revealed whereon to build my person The Scripture is but the foundation revealing whereon I build my faith I shall ever say that the only person the Church is built on is the Son of God but that I may build on that person I must have such an infallible revelation of him as I may firmly build upon T. S. Doth not Calvin conclude you to be a lyar who saith in terminis that the Apostle doth in that Scripture intend Jesus Christ to whom the Prophets and Apostles did bear witness * W. T. A. He cannot speak like a Christian that is Pag. 20 meekly or like a Citizen that is civilly he must speak like a quaker of whose Religion rudeness
is one part but still he is unhappy whilst he speaks of lying for how can Calvin conclude me to be a lyar with those words which he never spake And what he cites out of Calvin is not to be found in him but in Calvin upon that place I mean on Eph. 2.20 these words are to be found Quâ—â— fundamentum hic pro doctrina sumatur minime dubium est that the word foundation in this place is to be taken for doctrine that is for the doctrine of the Apostles and Prophets is not at all to be doubted of for which he gives his reason before mentioned and then concludes Itaque docet Paulus fidem ecclesiae in hac doctrina debere esse fundatam therefore Paul teacheth that the faith of the Church ought to be founded in this doctrine But suppose some other interpreter speak the words that he puts upon Calvin the matter is soon answered for Christ is the foundation witnessed the word of the Prophets and Apostles is the foundation witnessing or the fundamental doctrine giving testimony of Jesus Christ W.T. There 's a double foundation 1 personal or real that 's Christ 2. doctrinal or declarative that 's the Scripture T. S. If the Scripture be no real foundation it is then imaginary Pag. 22 for that which is not real is imaginary W. T. A. His silence had been better then his sophistry Is the story of a thing the whole story of Scripture nothing but an imagination because it is not the thing acted Had he had as much mind to understand as he had to cavil he might have seen that I did not oppose real to imaginary but to declarative and that my plain meaning was that Christ is the person or the thing whereupon we build our selves but the word whereupon we build our faith that we may build our selves upon that thing or person is the doctrine and declaration of Scripture T. S. You go on to distinguish between Gods testimony and Gods truth Pag. 23 Is not his testimony his truth W. T. A. Its true I make a distinction but he falsly cries out that I creat an opposition and then runs on to poure out his pulpit-hatred he cares not how I onely ask him this question When he receives letters from France or Spain is there no difference between the things themselves whereof the letters speak and the letters and lines that testifie of those things T. S. But the ground of faith you say may be corrupted nay pag. 22 you say further that faith may be lost Is faith bottomed on a corruptible foundation W. T. I did not say the ground of faith may be corrupted but only that if the Scriptures be corrupted they must be purged And yet if any man say that the Scriptures which are the ground of faith may be corrupted it doth not follow thence that the faith of the Elect is bottomed on a corruptible foundation for their faith is not bottomed on Scripture as corrupted but as pure and clear and as it is that word of God that endureâ— for ever having no dross in it though men seek to mix their dross with it which the Elect of God that build upon it do both detect and detest It s worse then this that he reports me to say that faith may bâ— lost when the words of my letter were that if the Scriptures could be 〈◊〉 â—here would quickâ—y be found a loss in faith And hath not he wit to distinguish between a loss in it and a loss of it between less and nothing T. S. You confess that the Scriptures were not the ground of Abeâ—â— Enockâ— and Noahs faith and if they were not the ground of their faith then neither were they the ground of any of the Saints faith since them for that they and all the Saints since have the same foundation and are built on the same Rock which can never be removed nor corrupted as you do most absurdly assert VV. T. A. The name Scripture denotes and contains two thâ—ngs in it 1. The revealed will of God 2. The written will of God The revealed will of God is the foundation of Saints faith from the beginning to the end of the world but in a different manner viz. as delivered by God without writing in the first times but in writing since and being now delivered in writing that written word is now the ground of Saints faith 2. Unto this argument a I answer That all Saints former and later have the same foundation in regard of the substance but not in regard of the manner of communication The ground of the faith of the first Saints was the revealed will of God unwritten since the same will of God revealed and setting forth the object of our faith in and by writing that is the doctrine contained in the old and new Testament about which two things are considerable 1. something inward and that is the immutable truth of God 2. Something outward and that is in the writing by which it is exactly presented unto the Churches view when we say the Scripture is the ground of faith we put both together and say it is the word ofâ—God as writter and communicating unto us in that way the doctrine of our salvation 3. I never asserted nor ever thought to say that the Rock whereon our persons are built can be removed yet it may be granted that the Scripture on which our faith is founded may be corrupted though our faith be not grounded on corrupted Scripture T. S. Did ever any of those called Quakers say that the Word of God was not the ground of Abrahams faith and still is of the faith of all Saints VV. T. In that book which was the occasion of writing my first letter called The fiery darts of the dâ—vil quenched * there are these words a This again I affirm as before I did that the Scriptures is not the Saints Rule but the Spirit that gave forth the Scriptures we walk as Abel Noah c. by the immediate Spirit of God which was before those Scriptures were wâ—itten Here I observe two things 1. That this Quaker saith the Scripture is not the Saints Rule which is all one as to say the Word of God is not the Saints Rule for the Scriptures are the Word of God Christ calls the written Law of Moses the Word of God which the Pharises made of none effect by their traditions Maâ—k 7.10 13. The Scripture speaks Rom. 4.3 and whose words doth it speak but the words of God Rom. 10.17 2. I observe here that though he do not say The word of God is not the Saints Rule but onely that the Scripture is not yet the same reason why he holds the Scripture not to be the Saints Rule to wit because we must walk by the immediate spirit of God excludes the word of God also for the Word and Spirit are different things Isa. 59.21 T. S. Pag. 24 Because Christ saith to the
to the Reader le ts all men know that he offered to come among them and confer with them and they refused it and so put him to write and that 's their fashion If a man would write they put him to confer to no end because with men uncapable of conviction If he would confer they 'l force him to write Mr. Skip out of his own experience conversing familiarly with them speaks thus of them Sometimes when I have desired to have had some fair reasonings with them about some things and found they would not I have told them they were possessed of a dumb Devill as well as a railing Devill for Satan is all upon extreams Worlds wonder p 24. 3. That others may beware of them many Books have been written to confute their opinions by which though be there little hope of doing good on inveterate Quakers they being too like those of whom it was said Who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come Luke 37. yet we believe they will effectually warn other Christians to beware of their way Of Imposition of hands T. S. YOu say that imposition of hands is a sign of consecration and the blessing of God settling on them so consecrated Hath not imposition of hands been used on them that are enemies to God and goodness and doth the blessing of God settle on such W.T. A. It is a sign of consecration because used to that end Exod. 29.10 Acts 13.3 And a sign of the blessing of God settling on them so consecrated because we finde in Scripture blessing adjoyned to the laying on of hands Gen. 48.14 15. Mark 10.16 it is expresly said that Joshua was full of the Spirit of wisedome for Moses had laid his hands upon him Deut. 34.29 And the gift whereby we may understand both the calling of the Ministry Ephes. 4.11 and qualifications for that calling was given Timothy with the laying on of hands Tim. 4.14 Yet Ministers that impose hands are far from assuming to themselves the giving of grace which belongs to God onely nor do they make it an operative ceremony but whilest they use that Rite and declarative Sign which the Scripture holds forth in the aâ—tion of Ordination they humbly hope that through our Lord Jesus Christ by the solemn prayer of the Churches that blessing shall be obtained of God which he hath formerly been pleased to give in that way Nor is it of any moment that divers so Ordained have proved bad afterward for are not the Sacraments of Baptism and the Lords Supper signs of inward spirituall grace and of a blessed condition to those that do as they ought partake in them though to many they be condemning Ordinances because they reject and rebell against the Lords conditions required on their part T. S You prove the laying on of hands is not the foundation of your Call To which I say You esteem it so much the foundation that you judge him no Minister that hath not received it W. T. A. If any do judge so which I believe he cannot shew that doth not prove that imposition of hands is the foundation of our Call but onely a necessary ingredient to a regular Call T. S. Whereas you say that they that do assume unto themselves the name of Saints do persecute the general company of ordinary Ministers in their scolding Books I answer They who were Saints of Old did call an Idol Shepheard by his name and a greedy dumb Dog by his name W. T. A. But they did not write to all the publick Teachers of the Nation wherein they lived and call them so T.S. If any charge those with that of which they are not guilty I am no Patron of them but do judge them Revilers W.T. A. I wish he may judge himself according to his own rule that he may not be judged of the Lord for hath he not written To all the publick Teachers of this Nation And doth he not charge those so to whom he writes If he charge some onely this Book hath no reason for some yea many in all Ages were bad that were lawfully called If he meâ—n all or say that there are not a very considerable company that cannot be charged with being Idol Shepheards or greedy Dogs then his Book hath no Patron for he will be no Patron of such as revile Of Calling to the civill Magistrate for the punishing of the open enemies of Religion T. S. I challenge you to produce me one example through all the Scriptures of any Saint that persecuted any for conscience sake or that called to the civill Power to punish Hereticks W.T. You finde the Prophet Elijah calling to King Ahab for a tryal that brought many false Prophets to execution 1 King 18.19.40 T.S. How do you prove the Prophets of Baal to be Hereticks any more than the poor Indians in America that worship the Creatures W.T. I did not say the Prophets of Baal were Hereticks nor was it needfull for his question was extended to the punishing of men for conscience sake but yet why may not such be called a Hereticks who were habitual and most obstinate opposers of the truth yea of the nature of God in their most abominable Idolatry And must the poor Indians therefore be Hereticks who never heard of God nor were ever convinced of the evill of their Idolatrous worship because they were so that were bred up in the knowledge of God and had the true Prophets of God among them by whom they might and should have been but never would be reclaimed T.S. Doth the Scripture say that Elijah call'd to Ahab to punish Baals Prophets who was himself a worshipper of Baal or doth it onely say that he bad him send and gather them together and do you read that Ahab did more than Elijah desired of him W.T. A. The afore-cited Scripture shews that Elijah called to Ahab when the Kingdome was pestered and pined with Idolatry and why made he his address to him but to have the assistance of his kingly power for a course and concertation tending to and ending in the false Prophets execution which he being a Prophet did in all likelihood fore-see should come to such an issue yea this Objector saith after It cannot be imagined but that if Elijahs God had not been known to be the God that answered by fire the portion of Baals Prophets had fallen to Elijahs Lot Therefore on the other side it may be reasonably said that if God did answer Elijah by fire then Baals Prophets should undoubtedly have the portion which in conclusion befell them else the business had been unjustly carried and would have become an useless tryall Should Ministers make such address to Authority as Elijah did what out-cries should we hear when there be so many cryes against us though we be in many respects on the suffering side Nor doth it follow that because Ahab himself was a worshipper of Baal therefore he would not
otherwise be saved then it is apparent that the light that enlightens every one that comes into the world could not suffice to save those Gentiles who in former times never heard of that Gospel which sounded in all the Earth in and after the Apostles times Douâ—tleâ—s that Sound went not into all the Earth before the Apostles times Psal. 147. last v. And yet the Gentiles who then lived had that inward light which Qâ—akers plead for because they were men come into the world therefore that light will not suffice to save which is the thing for which I quoted that Scripture and it is in vain for this Writer to speak of an answer from verse 18. for that shewes only what was done in Gospel times we are sure the Gentiles heard not of Christ before at least in any observable generality and yet they had the inward light therefore that light is not sufficient to save for why then could it not save without any further hearing T. S To which I shall adde these following Queries 1. Q Whether had not the Lord his witnesse in the hearts of those of whom Paul speaketh in his first Chapter to the Romans convincing them of and condemning them for sin thought it was kept under and held in unrighteousnesse W.T. A. Yes they had that in them which was sufficient to make up a convincing and condemning witnesse against them T. S. 2. Q Whether that which left them without excuse did not also reveal unto them the way of life which if it had not done whether had they not been excusable W.T. A. Though that light did not reveal unto them the way of life as I affirm the light that all the Gentiles had did not there being no way to life but by his Name whom the Apostle saith was not named among those Gentiles to whom he preached Rom. 15.20 yet wâ—re they not therefore excusable but by so much light as they had from the works of God though they had none from the word of God were left without excuse Rom. 1.20 T.S. 3. Q Whether were they condemned because they knew not God or for disobedience against the light they had in that they glorified him not as God according to the measure of light they had received W.T. A. For both to wit because they liked not to retain God in their knowledge Rom. 1.28 and therefore they had not the knowledge they might have had because they glorified not God according to the knowledge they had v. 21. T.S. 4. Q. If they had obeyed and glorified God according to that measure of light and knowledge they had received whether had they been condemned W.T. A. That 's an impossible supposition for the darknesse that was in them would not suffer them to glorifie God according to the light that was in them John 1.5 which dâ—rknesse also they willingly preâ—erring above the light they exposed themselves thereby to just condemnation without excuse which is enough for us to know and acknowledge in this point without puzling our selves with needlesse suppositions T.S. The thing that I charged you with was the denial of Jesus Christ to be within us which charge I grounded on these words of yours viz the Scripture â—aith that we are justified freely by the grace of God through the redemption and righteousness of Jesus Christ which is not within us but without us Now the thing in controversie between you and my self is in which of these two orders these words must be read either thus which redemption and righteousnesse is noâ— within us or which Jesus Christ is not with in us you would have them to save your self out of the myre to be read in the former sense W. T. A. 1. That if I had meant what I spake of Christ I should in congruitie of speech rather have said who is within us then which is within us the latter being a more proper expression of a thing the former of a person 2. If he had meant to take my words plainly and honestly as they lay before him with consideration of the businesse between us he would have found no cause at all of his Unconcocted conceit for he knows the question between us was not about Christ within but about Righteousnesse within and namely whether that righteousnesse within doth lead to justification Whereupon I proved to him out of Scripture that the riâ—hteousnesse wâ—thin is not that which doth justifie us but that we are freely justified and saved through the redemption and righteousnesse that is through that redemption and righteousnesse which is not within us but without us Now to dream of a thing that was never in controversie and to forget the matter that is in present dispute shewes that a man is willing where he cannot finde a fault to make it T.S. Which being supposed I demand of you two things 1. What number is the word which the singular or the plural The singular you cannot say unlesse you will destroy your Grammer which saith that many Antecedents singular having a conjunction copulative comming between them will have a Relative plural This being granted that the word which is the plural number I demand 2. What 's the Nominative case to the verb is for which you can finde no other but the word which and that being the plural number and the verb is the singular number pray produce me some rule in your Grammer that alloweth any concord betwixt a verb of the singular number and a nominative case of the plural W.T. A. Now here 's a piteous accusation that I that have lived in the world 64 years have forgot and have need to be catechised in the Childrens Accidence but this Grammer Scholler carries it so high that something must be said to so frivilous a thing In his Childrens Catechisme theâ—e be two questions I shall need to speak onely to the first of them whereupon the other will fall I answer therefore and can say well enough that the word which is the singulâ—r number not the plural and yet the Grammer will scape well enough onely he that fears the destruction of Grammer may comfort himself with this that there be more Grammers then one and should remember also that the Composers of our ordinary Grammer acknowledge that they framed it Crassâ Minervâ for Childrens use It is no marvel therefore if they wrote those things that were plainest and most common and doe for other things not so fit to be communicated to young beginners refer them to other Gramarians as Linacer Despaucerius and to their own aâ—ter experience in the reading of those Authours out of whom Grammers are composed This being premised I shall come to a more close and particular answer Where 1. It were enough to say that the Relative which refers to the latter Antecedent that is to the word râ—ghteousness which righteousness though I added the word Redemption exabundanti was that which I intended principally to speak of