testimony as to build my faith upon it or to reject their doctrin meerly for its dissent from them which he insinuats and yet to his own self-contradiction confesseth I say I would not much regard all that if it had any ground in Scriptur and he denies not his union with the Dominicaus and that he may shew how little he cares for good company he willingly rejecteth the chief and first Reformers to wit the Lutherans whom according to his charity he denieth so much as the name of Reformed Protestants ¶ 3. Pag. 146. n. 16. He cometh to prove that this their doctrin maketh not God the author of sin but he laboureth here like a man in a sweat and giveth so little of a direct answer as scarce deservs any reply such as amounts to this being by way of retortion that if I acknowledge God fore-saw sin permitted it and might have hindred it I will make God the author of sin too but I deny the parity and he has forgoten to prove it His other answer is from the authority of Cicero and Plautus who oppose author to dissuasor and then he asketh whether they say God perswadeth any man to sin But Zanchius one of their Doctors saith he moves the thief to kill and that he sinneth God putting him yea forcing him to it and sure that 's more than perswading But the poor man must be at a low ebb when he is forced to go to the Heathens of whom he has expressed he has so mean thoughts for a shelter to his doctrin At last to come off with some seeming credit he desires me to confute the Apostle Rom. 9 11 12 13. because that he thinks from that as much as from their doctrin this charge may be inferred but here he doth only begg the question he and I do both agree that the Apostle makes not God the author of sin but it doth not thence follow that their doctrin doth not infer it since from the positive saying of their Doctors and the doctrin itself it is manifest as is more largely shewn in my Apology and this remains yet by him to be removed For his desiring me to refute the Apostle is no more answer than if to all his arguments in his book I should only say Confute the Scriptur which contains our Doctrin and therefore dispute no more against us untill thou first do that Would he reckon this suffieient As for their misapprehensions of Rom. 9. he may find them refuted in many Authors that have written upon that subject particularly in the examination of West Confess of Faith chap. 3. to which I refer him To the citations I give him of their Authors making God the author of Sin he saith If they give more ground than the very expressions of Scriptur he will not own them And what then the consequence is but very small whether he will or not It is enough for me that I have shewn the absurdity of their doctrin which even by the testimony of their chief Doctors makes God the author of Sin unless he will reply all this is nothing because I I. B. will not own them and if to say he that forceth another to do a thing is the cause author of it who without contradicting their own Reason can deny they make God the author of sin As for the many testimonies of Scriptur brought by him I own them and both agree they make not God the author of sin but that the saying of their Divines doth it what is above said doth evince Pag. 149. He cometh but as may be observed unwillingly to vindicat the twofold will they ascribe to God the one revealed by which he commands men to repent and the other secret and quite contrary how he is pained here the Reader may observe by his IFs and AN Ds thinking to turn it by without any direct answer The sum of what he saith resolvs in this That the Purpose of God is not of the same natur with his Command but what if that should be granted The question is Whether they be quite contrary and that in respect to one and the same subject so that when a man is commanded by God to do a thing by his secret Purpose he is forced to do the quite contrary Pag. 150. n. 19. He comes to answer my saying that their affirming Man sinneth willingly will not avail because according to them his propensity of Inclination to sin is necessarily imposed upon them by God To this in stead of answer he refers me to Rom. 9. of which before and for want of reason he falles a railing calles me a proud Quaker saying I agent the Devil's cause but whether that be to remove my objection or vindicat their doctrin the Reader may judge Pag. 151. n. 20. In answer to my shewing their doctrin is injurious to God because it maketh him delight in the death of a sinner contrary to Ezech. 33 11. 1 Tim. 2 3. 2 Pet. 3 9. he saith nothing directly but would be retorting that if I prove any thing from this then I must say That God did absolutely Decree that all men should be saved But I deny this consequence albeit it is injurious to God to say he decreeth that which he declareth to take no delight in it will not follow that it is injurious to him to say he permitteth what he delighteth not in For on all hands it is confessed he permitteth sin and yet on no hand that he delighteth in sin so that this injuriousness of their doctrin to God is no ways removed by him albeit he would fain be mincing and covering it saying they do not say that God purposes to punish any not for their sins but meerely to satisfie his own Pleasur but such silly shifts must only satisfie blind men Do not they say God purposed to damn Many to eternal torment and that Sin is no ways the cause of this purpose And will he say to be eternally tormented is no punishment And was not this a purpose to punish men and not for their sin His alledging in this page that this is not injurious to Christ's Mediation is upon the supposition that Christ dyed not for all which comes after to be examined ¶ 4. Pag. 152. n. 22. He comes to prove their doctrin makes not the Gospel a meer mock as I shew it did by proposing the offer of Salvation to many who yet by an irrevocable Decree are excluded from receiving any benefit by it and to this he gives the instance of Moses being sent to Pharaoh whose heart was hardned and Esai to the People of Israel to make their ears heavy and shut their eyes with others of like import But this is easily answered considering I grant many men out-live the day of God's Visitation to their Soul and are justly hardned and yet the offers of Mercy and Peace is no illusion because they were once in a capacity to have by it received it But he thinks here
have affirmed Books denied by him to be of the Canon such as the Wisdom of Solomon and Esdras and to have these Divine Characters and others deny some to be of the Canon and to have these Characters as the Epistle of Iames which he saith has it how is he sure that they are blind and deceived and not he So that he must either confess all his former reasonings as also here pag. 83 86. to be to no purpose or els acknowledge that all he saith here for the Scripturs is of no force and that he has no better certainty nor ground for his faith of the Scripturs verity to give him back his own durty example he throws at me p. 64. than for the Turks Alcoran and thus is dispatched also what he saith p. 64. n 18 where he confesseth some approved Books which others rejected And whereas he saith p. 86 87 that sad Experience has taught the World what devilish Doctrins have been invented under the Notions of New Revelations of which after he gives a list since the same sad Experience has taught the World what Devilish doctrins have been taught under the notion of being revealed in the Scriptur such as in his own account those of the Socinians Arminians Antinominians and present English Anabaptists to wit his Author Hicks and his Brethren and yet what will more follow the one against the Spirit of Revelations now than from the other against the Scripturs ¶ 3. Like to this are his reasonings pag. 87 concerning the Canon of the Scripturs that there are just so many Books neither more nor less for I have proposed this to be proved by Scriptur it being an Article of their Faith since they judge all such should be proved by Scriptur To this in stead of offering any Scriptur-proof he saith they have the Characters of Divine Light the weakness of which is above observed then he brings two Exampls one of the Acts of Parliament another of a man's writing ten letters to his wife But exampls are poor arguments especially to prove Articls of Faith when not one Scriptur can be brought to do it by such as say the Scriptur is the adequat and only Rule of their Faith neither will his exampls do For if in a Nation one Part should differ from the other alledging spurious Acts not made by the Parliament were by the industry of some printed and recorded with the right as the case is now among the Professors of Christianity concerning the Canon of Scriptur the writen Acts could never decide this question but either these Legislators if alive or a new Parliament having equal Authority and Legislative power with those that made the former And if a Woman should doubt that five of the ten Letters subscribed with her Husband's Name were not his she could not know the certainty but by her Husband 's own Testimony and since he himself has said that to discern these Characters a subjective concurrence of the Spirit is necessary which since he saith some have not they can then not be sure of this Article of Faith his Example here of the five Fingers is yet more silly than the former And albeit he confidently affirms he has above shewn this we shall by examining it shew the contrary as p. 74 75. answering to that of mine where I shew that in Prov. 30 5 6. there is the same Prohibition of not adding that is Rev. 22 v. 18. and therefore it would follow that all writen after Solomon's time was against the mind of God To this he gives a rare answer what is spoken of that Book I suppose he means the Revelations and elsewhere of the Commands of God is consequently to be understood of all but this is to repeat that against which the argument is formed in stead of answering it Either that of Revelations must not be understood as he doth it or that of Proverbs makes the same exclusion since the words are the same and the Authority also But the Prophecys of the Prophets saith he were but Explications of the Law of God but such Explications go to make up the Canon and will he admit that yet No. But the Lord did not saith he bind up his own hand but has he bound up his hands now that he can not move any of his Servants by his Spirit to write I suppose he will not say he hath He confesseth there were Prophets after John's days who truly fore-told Events but were not to write Scriptur But is not a part of that which he accounts the Canon a fore-telling of Events and yet that excludes it not from the Canon Here because he is pinched he takes his usual retreat by falling a railing and comparing us with Papists who he saith use this Argument And what then I could tell him an hundred arguments used by him which the Papists also use against us will he say it follows they are invalid But at last he thinks he has found a mysterious Riddle that will do the business and therefore he leaves it with a defiance Let him un-riddle this mystery if he can to wit when shall our Canon be compleated when will there be no more need of Revelations But might not this same question have been proposed to the Christians that lived before John wrot his Book of the Revelation And as I suppose they would have answered to many of whom perhaps it was not revealed that John should write such a Book afterwards so shall I directly answer his question When it shall please God in whose Power it is to reveal himself when how and so long as he pleases and who as he saith has not bound up his own hand ¶ 4. I come now to consider what he saith of the perfection of the Scripturs and because he is very clamorous in accusing me as derogating therefrom it will be manifest whether he has any reason so to do P. 55. n. 6. he quarrels I forget the narration of the first Creation and that the Exampls are instructive But who will deny or when did I that the remarkable Providences of God towards his Children are instructive Do not I expressly shew how they are instructive p. 46. which himself also notiçeth And was the first Creation no part of God's Providence towards Man who was to rule over it Is it not then there included But I make no mention of the promises and threatnings but are not they any part of the Doctrins of Christ nor included in any part of these pretious Declarations which I say the Scriptur contains Next he carps at my saying the Chief Doctrins of Christianity asking where we may find the whole Doctrins of the Christian Faith I answer freely in the Scripturs and let him prove if he can this to be any contradiction seing my saying the Chief Doctrins of Christianity is indefinit excluding none And therefore most base and abominable is that lye he makes of me in the last part of this
all the other Scripturs which were written after that Epistle of Paul as he will not deny but there were some so written must be denied being any part of the Rule so to be any way necessary for that end The like absurditys follow upon his using 2 Cor. 3 14. where the Apostle speaks of a Testament since he dare not deny a great part of that Testament was written afterwards And thus is also answered what he urges from Psal. 19 7. pag. 74 79 The Law of the Lord is perfect c and from other Scripturs of like import for if he understand perfection in the first sense it is not denied if in the second which indeed is the question it concludeth nothing without rendring all the Scriptur written afterwards no part of the Rule or Canon to use his own term As for that of Peter which he insists upon in the end of his paragraph p. 70. I deny it to be understood of the Scriptur and gave my reasons before and yet the man takes that for granted and thence argues from it which is a most silly manner albeit very familiar to him to beg the question ¶ 8. Next he comes to consider my answer to their objections but how he removes them may be judged by the first he observs p. 71. where in stead of proving that these words of Isa 8 20. usually brought by them To the Law and to the Testimony c. are meant of the Scriptur which I desired ere any thing could be inferred for it he answers As if any that ever read the Bible could be ignorant what is all along meaned by these words Is not this a goodly proof Reader I am one that have read the Bible and know by the Law is sometimes meant the outward sometimes the inward and thousands more are yet to be convinced that that place speaks only of the outward and will need some better argument than this of his ere we change our judgment But to proceed he thinks my saying that the Law was in a more special manner given to the Jewes and more principally than to us to be a railing and roaving and a contradicting what I said in the former These but this cavill often repeated before I did answer above The like he judgeth my arguing therefrom that as they were to try all things by the outward Law so we are to try all in the first place by the Word within but here his base disingenuity appears for he has left-out these words in the first place that he might introduce the better the difficulty he phancyeth to himself to have brought me to afterwards for by this argument saith he I prove more than I ought to wit that the Scripturs shall not be so much as a less principal Rule Who will be so foolish as to conclude that the saying things ought in the first place to be tried by the Word within excludes things in the second place to be tried by the Scripturs and is not that still to own it as a secondary and subordinat Rule And so he may see my feet here are easily rid and that he held them not so fast as he phancyed And as for the other part of his alternative the consequence is of the like natur that what was a principal Rule then is now only subordinat for albeit I said it was more principal to them than now to us yet I said not it was the most principal to them or then more principal than what came immediatly from the Spirit which he confesseth to have been frequent under the Law yea more frequent than now according to his Principle and my saying so could only inferr that consequence He rejects what I urge from the version of the Septuagint as spurious but for that we must take his word els want a proof And then because he can not come off better according to his custom he concludes with a gross perversion and falshood saying it is my opinion that the Law id est the outward Law was given the Jews for a Rule even above the Spirit 's revelations which if it be mine as I utterly renounce it I desire to know where I have asserted it he might have been at the pains to mark it but he knew it 's like it was not convenient Next he comes to prove that these words Search the Scripturs c. Joh. 5 39. do evince the Scripturs to be the primary and adequat Rule because if Christ's doctrins should be tried by them much more privat Euthusiasmes but who denies that Yet he doth not thence prove that the Scripturs are the primary Rule by which all things must be tried in the first place which is the thing in question Secondly I would ask him Whether the words Christ spake to the Jewes which are recorded in Scriptur were less a Rule to them or less binding and obliging upon them than the sayings of Moses and the Prophets If he say they were less then he overturns all his own tedious reasonings by which he labours to prove the obligation of what Christ and the Apostles delivered p. 84. at the end as wel as what Moses and the Prophets without the need of a new obligation and likewise he must shew us how these sayings come to be as binding upon us now as Moses and the Prophets or how they acquired greater authority after Christ spake them than they had then or why they wanted then that authority If he say they were binding and obliging to the Jews because spoken by Christ then his proof falleth to the ground He is angry that I say the words may be interpreted Ye search the Scripturs as wel as Search the Scripturs albeit the Greek word signify the one as wel as the other and for answer very magisterially tels it is quite contrary to the very words of Command Search the Scripturs but the question is whether that be the words and that was what he should have proven but he makes no bounds of begging the question telling Tolet and Maldonat say it is so taken by all the Fathers except Cyrill And what then Did I undertake to subscribe to all these Authors writings He must give me a reason why ere I do it and let him deny it if he dare that the Greek word fignifies Ye search the Scripturs as wel as Search the Scripturs and if it do before I conclude the one more than the other I must have some better argument than his bare affirmation But to finish this he will conclude all by the words of the Apostle James c. 1 v. 25. where he saith the Apostle calleth the Scripturs the perfect Law of Liberty but that doth not prove them to be the primary Rule Suppose it were granted the Apostle meant the Scripturs which remains yet by him to be proven and is not done by what he citeth chap. 2 8. by his desiring them to fulfill the Royal Law according to Scripture Thou shalt love thy neighbour
as thy self which proves it not at all yea to understand it of the Scripturs were to make the Apostle's words scarce good sense as if he had said fulfill the Scripturs according to the Scripturs whereas it sutes the place much better that the Apostle meaned they should fulfill the Royal Law in their hearts which was one with the Scripturs that also command the same thing that the Apostle means the outward Law and not that written in the heart chap. 4 12. he hath affirmed but not proven Next he comes to the Bereans being commended for searching the scripturs Act. 17 11. But this is the same way answered as the former for if the Bereans were obliged to believe and receive Paul's testimony because he preached the Truth to them by authority from God then their using or his commending them for using the Scriptur will not prove the Scriptur to be the Primary Rule yea more a Rule than the doctrin they tried by it In the rest of what he saith in this n. 28. he but sights with his shaddow for I never said they excluded the Law of Natur in affirming the Scriptur to be the Rule or did I ever deny but that the Sriptur reveals things which Natur could never have discovered But the question is whether that truth that Man is the Off spring of God from which the Apostle argues with the Athenians was discovered to any by meer Natur or by a Divine Principle and this is that he should have proven and therefore yet remaines for him to do but to be like himself he concludes this also with a gross lye saying I affirm the Scriptur to be no more our Rule than the Heathen Poets which no ways follows from my words neither hath or can he ever prove it ¶ 9. He thinks the Scriptures not determining of many things nor having any Rule for them which he seems to acknowledge is no argument against their being the primary and adequat or only Rule for that he apprehends no rational man will think needfull to a compleat Rule Why because general Rules are enough and thence he thinks it would follow that the Quakers must have a new particular revelation for every act and word such as eating drinking walking c. But I deny this consequence these acts as simply considered are natural and it will not follow because to spiritual acts relating to Faith and my immediat service towards God I need a spiritual motion and influence of the Spirit that therefore I need such a thing to natural acts If he say these natural acts under some circumstances may be sin or duty I confess then the revelation of the Spirit is needfull for if I be sitting sleeping or eating in one place when it is the mind of God I should be preaching and praying in another I do sin but how can the Scriptur give me a Rule here All that he answers to this p. 76 77. resolves into this that all such doubts may be solved applying the general rules of Scriptur by Christian Wisdom Prudence and Discretion c. But how shall I know that I truly make this application And to give him his own often repeated argument in the case of Revelation have not some thought they have made this application by Christian prudence when they did not And not to go further than I. B's own Brethren the Presbyterians yea the chief and most eminent Teachers among them did not some of them judge it Christian prudence according to the Scriptur Rule to draw near adhere to the Remonstrance which others called publik Resolution men denied Do not some of them think it Christian prudence to go hear the Bishops Curats which others deny Did not those chief men among them as George Hutcheson and others think it Christian prudence to acçept of the Indulgence Anno 1668 in entring according to the limitations proposed by the Council to their Places which others especially of the banished Brethren and perhaps himself was highly offended at whence these men were termed Council-Curats Other instances among them I could give But how shall all this be decided What Scriptur-Rules can he assign that clearly do it Let him answer this distinctly and not pass it over lest he be suspected to leap where he can not step He confesseth to my alledging 1 Cor. 12. Rom. 12. and after a little railing he tels p. 78. that he that is to rule is to do it with diligence c. but that the Scriptur saith not that James or Peter should take-on this or that Office by which confession he destroys all since the question is How James and Peter knew they should take upon them to rule This he saith he has shewn above but how insufficiently my reply will evidence He thinks no less impertinent p. 78. for me to argue against their being a Rule as to all things because they do not tell a man that he has the marks of true Faith upon which knowledge the assurance of Salvation is founded as if I must think the Laws of the Land must prove that R. B. is a Quaker or that if R. B. had murther'd a man it is a sufficient defence to say the Law doth not name R. B. But such examples are poor arguments and do miserably halt R. B. confessing himself to be a Quaker acknowledging every one of their doctrins is enough to prove him one in the sense of the Law of the Land and the Judge is to condemn him a murtherer if convict by Witnesses that he really did the deed And both these relate to outward things which can be proven by outward restimonys for without the certainy of the evidence the Judge can not pronounce his sentence But is a man 's own confessing or affirming he hath the true marks of faith enough to prove he has them And what are the Witnesses to apply the example of committing the murther by which a man shall know he has these marks and who must examin the Witnesses and judge of the certainty or clearness of their evidences Must it be the man that is accused who useth that method Doth not the man see how miserably his pittyfull example claudicats ¶ 10. To my objection against the Scripturs being the Only and Adequat Rule the example of deaf persons idiots infants such as can not read and are ignorant of the Original Tongues so called all which in some measur less or more are deprived of the benefit of the Scripturs so as to apply them to themselvs immediatly and effectually for a Rule he asketh Whether if any such person in a land should kill a man or do any thing contrary to the Law would it not punish them And this he repeats n. 35. in other words which urgeth nothing but upon supposition that the will of God can not be known otherwise than by the Scriptur which supposition is false and therefore his argument concludes nothing yea himself confesseth that some things and
was not the Power of God which the Gospel is albeit it declared of it no more than a recept of Physik is the ingredients Next he asserts that if the Gospel be in them it needs no Preacher but this he proves not A man may have good herbs in his garden and yet need another to tell him the right use of them yea and discover them unto him And what if I would say as he desires that it was preached from the beginning of the world in a measur that it wrought in mens hearts in order to save them albeit the full plain and manifest discovery and pretious effects thereof was reserved to the ministration of Christ and his Apostles And therefore his assertion in the next page 260. is false that according to the Quakers principle the Gospel was alike manifest in all ages Was not the promised Seed a preaching of the Gospel to Adam How poorly he has shewn the restriction of the particle all albeit the words here be every creatur which is more pathetik in his 8 chapter is before evinced And whereas he desires to know where the Gospel is taken properly for that inward strength that is common to all men I have shewn him the Gospel is called the Power of God expressly Rom. 1. and that is an inward Power and strength and then again I have shewn him that this Gospel is preached to or in every creatur which is plain words what is preached to every creatur is common to all men and therefore untill he answer this his calling me a babler and a Pagan-preacher as he doth in this place with such like stuff will have little weight with men of reason The rest of this page and the following 261 262. is a complex of railing that the Quakers Gospel is meer heathenism worse than Pelagianism Socinianism Arminianism and Jesuitism because they say that what is manifest from God in man is by the Gospel and that which revealeth justice and equity is the Gospel which this man supposeth only to be the light of Nature and thereupon concludeth the Quakers Gospel is but Nature's dimme and corrupt light All which is but to beg the question as he doth where he supposes that man naturally can perceive the eternal Power of the Godhead in the outward Creation without any supernatural light which he should prove and not mock at my being otherwise minded for this savours more of Pelagianisme than any thing asserted by me He asks me by what authority I make 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is what is to be known of God for it seems he was fear'd to speak plain Scots of it lest every one should have seen his impertinency and the knowledge of God one and the same For to see this he saith he wants the Quakers spectacls But indeed he must be as dark-lighted inwardly as these are outwardly that need spectacls if he deny that the knowledge of God is somewhat of what is to be known of him and then what is to be known of God indefinitly must comprehend the knowledge of God He addeth that if by inward revelation the Heathens know the will of God then the Apostle was quite out here but this follows no more than that a Master teacheth not his scholar navigation because he makes use of the compass and outward observations to demonstrat it to him Pag. 262. n. 38. as also n. 40. In answer to what I urge from Rom. 10. of the Word being near in the heart and in the mouth he returneth railing and meer assertions for his saying that this word is not in every man is but to affirm strongly not to prove As for his asserting that the Apostle speaks of outward preaching I deny not and that by an outward testimony the mystery that had been hid and even sparingly revealed in the visible Church was openly declared by Christ and his Apostles I acquiesce to but from all that it will no ways follow that the Apostle spake only of outward preachers and that it was not in the hearts of all men though they had not a distinct knowledge of it He confesses the mystery of Adam's fall was not known to the Gentiles but by the Scriptur yet that hindered not but they were hurt yea and according to him all of them defiled by it His saying that I confirm here my desperat designe and overturn the foundations of the Christian Religion with his exclamations O desperat Souls O wretched error with much more of this kind of stuff uttered by him for want of better arguments may fright fools but will not move men of reason At last to conclude this chapter he alledgeth the testimonies of the Fathers brought by me do not expressly prove my assertions yet he tacitly and indirectly acknowledges such testimonies may be found among the most ancient of them while albeit to their disadvantage he saith it is observable that some of them had so put-on Christ as not fully to have put-off Plato ¶ 7. Pag. 267. Cometh his XI chapter entituled Of the necessity of this Light to Salvation where according to his custom he beginneth with proofless affirmations and railing saying the Universal Gospel pointed at by me is no Gospel not the Gospel revealed in the word making the whole Gospel and Grace of God null and void as that by which the outward administration thereof by the Apostles is unnecessary to which is answered before And then after an enumeration of many Scripturs wherein the Apostle Paul glorieth in his being an instrument of the preaching of it with which he hath not shewn our doctrin inconsistent he concludeth O what wretched desperado's must these Quakers be who thus undervalue and trample upon the riches of the wisdom and grace of God and instead of the true Gospel give us pure Paganisme This is a fit introduction for such a chapter wherein there is much of the same sort of stuff which I shall willingly pass and which that he may end as he begins has the like railing conclusion p. 281. Then when he enters upon the matter n. 5. and p. 269. and comes to examin what I say to shew wherein we differ from some other assertors of Universal Redemption and for that end to shew why one is saved and not another seing all have sufficient Grace among others he mentions these my words Moreover we believe that in that special time of every man's visitation as man of himself is wholly impotent for working with grace so neither can he make the least progress out of his natural state till grace lay hold on him So that it is possible for him to suffer and not resist as it is also possible for many to resist By these words of mine cited by him the Reader may easily observe how falsly he charged me in the fore-going chapter with asserting that men could be saved by meer Nature without the operation of the grace of God and yet he is not ashamed to re-iterat the
Truth that the common People might maintain and admire them But have not Protestants and that truely asserted this of the Popish Clergy and is not the Thesis directed to such Will it not then hold true according to his own judgment of a great yea the greatest part of those to whom it is directed what then will become of his clamors Yea if it were needfull I could give instances of very mean thoughts he and his Party have of many of the Protestant Clergy yea and reflexions not much if any thing inferior to this to verifie with how little ground he quarrelleth me here As for his malitious aspersion that there are shrewd presumptions our stock lies at Rome he should have produc'd some of them if he could we could never yet obtain for this old calumny from our adversarys the least probation and it will be found as hard for him to prove it as he may think it for such who strongly affirm their great IDOL the COVENANT was contrived at Rome and came from thence As for his reflexions upon our Church as being all eyes and ears it will be proper to speak of it in its own place Next to prove the positions of the Quakers to be such as overturn and destroy the Gospel he bringeth pag. 11 divers citations out of Mr Norton and Mr Stalham as he terms them adding more may be had out of Mr Hicks but such witnesses will have small credit with impartial Readers If he himself had dealt impartially he should have first read our answers to them ere he had given them such authority It wer easy for me by way of reply to transcribe what our Friends have written particularly by way of answer to them did I as much affect to have my writings bulky as it seemes he doth He closeth up this with a fit of railing and after he has quarrelled me pag. 12. for having an high conceit as he imagines of my Theses he falls fresh to that work again telling they have weight to sink into the bottomless pit the poor Soul that embraces them I never sought any should receive doctrins as truth upon my bare testimony and therefore he needs not upbraid me with so doing and whereas on the contrary as himself immediatly observes I leave what I say to the LIGHT in every man's Conscience it shewes with how little reason he made his former alledgance after he has pleased himself with making an impertinent conjectur of the import of these words that so he might if he could render them ridiculous he cometh at last to the true understanding of them and truely he needed not fear at my being offended that he should make a judgment of what I writ according to his Conscience but he went the wrong way to work when his labour is to pervert and wrest and make them speak what they do not This apparently proceeds from malice and prejudice and the Light of his Conscience if he had minded it would never have prompted him so to do Thus I am come to the end of the first chapter ¶ 7. In the second chapter intituled Of the true ground of knowledge I find he can not contradict what is asserted by me only because he must be carping he makes a noise that Joh. 17 3. cited by me so much of the sentence was not set down in the first as second edition What a pittifull cavill this is the Reader may easily judge since the place was noted it was enough though never a word had been set down but this with him is a bad Omen let the judicious judge of this man's judgment in the matter But because he can not quarrel at what is said he will quarrel that so much is not said as he judged meet but he may be pleased to understand that I judged my self under no necessity to advise with him what was needfull for me to write But saith he since I take upon me to teach the whole world it is strange it should be so natural for this man to write untruths since I direct my Theses only to the Christian world but if it may render me odious such Peccadillo's pass with him it seems but for Piae fraudes I intended never to write of those things concerning which we do not differ from others But let us see wherein he accounts me defective I have written nothing saith he of the nature and attributes of God I write not to Atheists but Christians who already acknowledge and I judg it not my work to write books to persuade men of that they already profess to believe But I write not expressly and distinctly of the Trinity yet himself after acknowledges pag. 24 that it would seem I am orthodox herein that he finds not any clear ground to the contrary I writ as expressly and distinctly of that as is expressed in Scriptur which I hope I. B. will not say is defective in sufficiently expressing this article of Faith ¶ 8. The third challenge is I speak nothing of God's Decrees by which some are praedestinated to Life others fore-ordained to death for the man without ceremony takes the doctrin for granted But if I have spoken nothing of this though perhaps not in the method he would how extravagant must he be that writes a whole chapter upon Reprobation as pretending to refute what I have said concerning it With the like confidence not to say impudence he accuses me of silence in relation to the Covenants to the Redemption purchased by Christ his taking flesh upon him to the work of Grace and Sanctification to obedience to the Law of God Which gross abuse any one that reads my book will easily see considering how much and how particularly these things are spoken to in the explanation of the 5 6 7 8 Theses Last of all he accuseth me for giving no account of the Resurrection of the Body But do I not expressly in my conclusion affirm that those that accuse us of denying of it belye us and doth not that clearly import an owning But as to that matter because I love not repetitions as he doth who will be upon one matter often and out of its proper place I will referr what further I have to say untill I come to his last chapter At last after he has confessed in part to what I affirm he craves liberty because some may put a wrong Foundation for the right to examin what by me is placed for it which liberty is freely granted him for I am a great enemy to implicit Faith as wel the Popish as Presbyterian who in that are much what alike and I will take also liberty to re-examin his examination that I may free my self of those many abuses wherewith he has injured me Section III. Wherein his third Chapter of Inward and Immediat Revelations is considered ¶ 1. THat I may not trouble the Reader with a long and taedious pursuit of I. B. in all his extravagant rambls and unreasonable railings wherein
he accuses me as an Ignoramus writing non-sense and confusion pag. 39. More of that kind in pag. 31. while yet to his own confusion pag. 40 41 he saith he knows not what I mean nor what I would prove nor what my arguments must conclude wherein if he speak true he declares himself uncapable to judge of and far less to answer my arguments a large disquisition of his impertinency in which things I willingly omitt and will consider this his chapter as wel where he misses as where he truely in any measur urges the matter And first to dispatch what is superfluous all that is said by him against false revelations and delusions of the Devil against which he speaks sometimes more largely sometimes more overly in pag. 21. 22. 34. 35. 36. 47. no judicious Reader will think is any thing to the purpose since I never did plead for False revelations but for the necessity of the true Revelation of the Spirit to all real Christians And though it could be proved that either I or any other Quaker so called were deluded by a false revelation yet it will not thence follow that our asserting the necessity of true revelation to the building up of true faith is erroneous more than in I. B's own sense the Arminians or Socinians asserting false doctrins pretending to have for them the authority of Scriptur will make him judge that their asserting the Scriptur to be the onely and adequat rule of faith is false in his judgment since he therein agrees with them And therefore his disingenuity as wel as weakness doth notably appear pag. 46 47 48. where coming to take notice of what I have said in shewing how the same may be returned upon such as own the Scriptur Reason and Tradition to be the Rule of their faith he gives it no answer and most effrontedly comes up with his oft reiterated story of Iohn à Leyden and Munster with which we are less concerned than himself notwithstanding that I shew that even men pretending to the Scriptur and to be led by it and in particular his ow Brethren had don no less vile actions than those of Munster and yet he would not think it wel argued to inferr thence that it were dangerous to follow the Scriptur as the Rule To all this he returns no answer which taketh up 6 pages in my Apology Lat. ed. pag. 26 27 28 29 30 31. unless it be a sufficient answer to say he needs not take notice of my trifling answers and that it is a meer rapsody But the truth is to use his own expression it was too hot for his fingers and therefore he judged best to shuffle it by so easily but his unfairness in this is so much the more considerable where the pinch of the question lay and his own and his Brethrens reputation was so highly concerned as being charged as guilty of no less abominations than the Monsters of Munster in that he boasts in his epistle to the Reader that he hath examin'd every thing asserted by me particularly which he gives as the reason of troubling him with so prolix a Treatise ¶ 2. Now albeit I might in reason pass his new inforced objection till he have satisfied to this so shamefull an omission yet lest he should fancy any strength in it and to shew him the sillyness of it I will here consider and remove it it runnes thus pag. 46. If since the Apostles and other extraordinary Officers fell asleep and after the canon of the Scripturs was compleated All that have pretended to immediat Revelation have been led by a spirit of Error Then that is not the Way of Christ. But the former is true Therefore so is the other Such an objection is not like to signify much where in both Propositions the question is most miserably begged and the thing in debate taken for granted for albeit the connexion of the Major should be granted yet the question is there in a great part of it begged to wit that such Officers in the Church as were the Apostles are not now neither as to the natur of their Office nor manner of their being led by the Spirit Next that the canon of the Scripturs is compleated that is to say No writings are ever hereafter to be expected or believed to be written by the Spirit both which I deny and he has not so much as offer'd to prove and therefore his argument if I should go no further can conclude nothing Next his Minor to wit that all pretending to Immediat revelation have been led by a spirit of error is not at all proved by him for albeit it might be said of all those old Scots named by him and of the German Enthusiasts yet that is not sufficient proof unless he can make it appear that there was never any other but were so also which yet remains for him to prove and will trouble him to effect For to affirm there were never any because he has never heard nor read of them were an argument a great deal more ridiculous than rational And for his challenging me to shew them albeit the instance of the Quakers be enough to spoil all his argument as will after appear yet by his good leave I am not bound Affirmanti incumbit probatio and that this answer is sufficient I have the testimony of his learned Brother John Menzies Professor of Divinity at Aberdeen in his book intituled Papismus Lucifugus where he answers the Jesuit's Minor the same way and proveth it to be sufficient And surely he has not taken notice that by this he has condemned as led by a spirit of error all the primitive Protestant Martyrs that prophesied at any time such as John Hus and George Wishart our Countrey-man and many others by reason of whose prophecying I. B. and his Brethren have valued their cause since these Prophecys were said by them to proceed from inward and immediat Revelation and so they pretended to it albeit not as the ground of their faith and obedience in all matters of Doctrin and Worship yet as the ground of that Faith by which they believed these Revelations to proceed from God and not from the Devil and of that Obedience by which they published and declared these things Moreover he overturns all by the last instance which he gives to prove it to wit that the Quakers who pretend to immediat Revelations are led by a spirit of Error for proof of which we have only his bare affirmation and yet till this be proved his objection is naught For indeed this is a rare way of debating with an adversary to make use of an argument by which he must be concluded already as erroneous in order to convince him that he is such if this be not as they say to put the plough before the Oxen I know not what can be said to be so for I. B's argument to make it plain amounts to this If the Quakers be
more largely in my Apology in those paragraphs which I observed he most foully omitted And indeed this is a fine argument he has provided for Atheists and Sceptiks for it renders all Faith even that of the Patriarchs uncertain for since the ground and warrand of their writing the Scripturs was in his own account inward immediat and extraordinary revelations and if such be as he affirms uncertain then the truth of the Scripturs which depends upon such must necessarily be uncertain since the stream can not be more pure than the fountain nor the superstructur more sure than the foundation And therefore most weak is his reasoning pag. 46. where he pleadeth that such Revelations can not be more sure than the Scripturs which are the objective revelations of the Apostles writen down since the certainty of these writings depends upon the certainty of these revelations by which they were written and certainly if in any case that maxim of the Schools do hold it must in this Propter quod unum quod que est tale illud ipsum est magis tale ¶ 5. It will not be amiss here in the third place to take notice of his most uncharitable and unchristian insinuations contrary to all Christian and fair rules of debate as first pag. 24. where he will needs inferr our denying of the Trinity albeit he can not deny but he finds it owned by me groundlesly coupling us with the Socinians and to help him in this he brings-in the testimony of one Mr Stalham as he terms him an open Opposer of ours which Witness to receive against us is most unjust But I desire here in the entry that it be observed that I intend to take little or no notice of his many citations to prove what we hold out of the writings of our open Opposers and shall give such a sufficient reason for my so doing ere I make an end as I am hopefull shall satisfie all judicious Readers as wel of our innocency as his unjustice therein but by this the man's temper may be seen and that his design is not so much to refute what we truely hold as to make the world believe that we hold what we doth not to render us the more odious And thus he proceedeth also basely to insinuat that I deny Jesus of Nazareth to be the Son of God albeit he doth not so much as pretend to any color for it from my words only he finds some Quakers give an indistinct answer in this matter but who they are or what their answer is he tels not In pursuance of this in the following page he insinuats as if I mean'd not the first but the second Creation and so joyned with Socinus which is a gross calumny like the former as also is what he saith pag. 31. num 18. where he raileth against me as writing things contrary to the Scripturs and as one whose revelations are not from God but from Satan For all this the only proof is I. B. saith so which I must plainly tell him is with me of no weight at all Of the same natur is what is asserted by him pag. 33. nu 20. wherein he insinuats that we contemn the Scripturs telling a lying story from his Author Mr Hicks of one Nicolas Lucas which I desire him to prove the next time not by Hicks for he is accuser but by some more indifferent Witness else to be justly held as a Calumniator And whereas he saith We should not obtrude any thing upon them without Scriptures this is another lying insinuation for where do we obtrude any doctrins without offering to confirm them by Scriptur as much as he and his Brethren For if he say that our confirmations are not valid that is not to the purpose we can easily say so of his and do as truely believe it but the question is Whether we obtrude any doctrins upon any to be believed telling them they ought to believe it albeit we either will not or can not confirm them by the Scriptur Now he knoweth in his Conscience this to be a lye since I affirm of the Scripturs Apol. Lat. ed. p. 47. n. 60. that they are the most fit outward judge of controversies of which himself also taketh notice in that place And lastly of the natur of these malitious insinuations is what he saith pag. 48 49 and last paragraph of this chapter where after he has repeated what he terms my monitory conclusion he infers that I mean that a man should believe that Natur 's dim light is the Spirit of God and the Holy Ghost and that he may burn the Bible and with confidence assert he is led by the Holy Ghost whatever Scriptur or common sense say to the contrary This is all affirmed by him without the least proof which as it is the height of injustice so it is with respect not only to my words but belief and intention God the Searcher of hearts knows a most horrid falshood and calumny ¶ 6. Now albeit what is said may seem sufficient for a reply to this chapter and is indeed enough to give any sober man a disgust of it yet that he may not have reason to complain that any thing wherein he may judge there is weight and is directly to the purposs is omitted I will now in the last place consider and answer what he saith against the validity of my Arguments to which an answer hath not been included in what is already said To begin then like himself which to be sure is with some calumny or other he saith pag. 14. I stigmatize with the black mark of being carnal and natural Christians all that assent not to what I say but he takes no time to prove it and indeed can not for albeit I say that it is like many natural and carnal Christians will condemn what I say yet it will not follow I account them all such who will not fully agree with me in this matter Of the same kind is his calumny p. 22. n. 5. where he allegeth the citations of the Fathers so called prove no more than his sense of Revelation above expressed but whether he speaks true here or not the Reader may judge by seriously reading over these citations and then let him see if they do not hold out an inward and immediat teaching of the Spirit of God in the Soul as the firm ground of Knowledge without which all outward teaching is in vain but to inserr this he tels they writ against such as being Impostors and led by the spirit of the Devil pretended to Revelations What then Can not men write against false revelations without they deny the necessity of true ones That is an odd conclusion If I. B. were wel acquainted with the writings of the Quakers so called he would find them as much against false Pretenders as any other But pag. 24 25 he findeth fault with my argument deduced from these words that there is no knowledge of the
Father but by the Son because I take notice as a first instance of God's creating all things by Jesus Christ adding Was this so difficult a point to be proved that I was constrained to go back to the first Creation for an argument Answ. No but I judged it not improper however he may to shew first as prepatory God's more general way of working by his Son Jesus Christ ere I come to that which is more particular and this was the reason as wel of my putting these Propositions into that order as of my using of that instance by which that pretended abomination which he pretends lurks under words evanisheth For the man is very good at drawing inferences from other mens words which they that spake and wrot them never thought of as I for one can very wel witness since the least can be allowed me is to know my own thoughts and purpose which how he should come to assure himself he knows better than I is more than I can fathom For the same reason above mentioned I used the instance of God's moving in his manifesting himself in his creaturs and of the Spirit of the Lord 's moving upon the face of the waters which pag. 26. he flouts at but doth not answer and it is strange that he of all men should be offended with such preparatory considerations where the matter is in a few pages after closely come to who has used so many remote arguments and several not pages only but sheets yea quires of paper in order to prove the first day of the Week to be the Christian Sabbath He objects pag. 26. against my affirming that God's communion with man was by immediat manifestation of the Spirit from Adam to Moses because so few are mentioned and he supposeth the rest not mentioned had it only by their instruction But since these few that are mentioned are said to have had immediat revelation and that the rest had no written Rule as I. B. will confess it seems there was more of God's immediat revelation in those dark times even by his confession than now under the Gospel where the chief Pastors of the Church according to him are to expect no such thing neither is it proved that others not mentioned had no immediat revelations albeit they might have been instructed by these Patriarchs which I have shewn before to be very consistent And thus may be easily answered seting-aside his railings what he saith pag. 27. against my urging the frequent revelations that men had during all the time of the Law betwixt Moses and Malachy by which himself confesseth the Scripturs of the Old and New Testament to have been written that that doth not prove that every one had such revelations What then I lay not the stress of the proof of every one's having immediat revelations upon this but this is clearly proved from it that since immediat inward and objective revelations were so frequent during all the time of the Law which was the less glorious administration and that of the Letter it is grossly absurd to say as I. B. and his Brethren do that they are now ceased under the Gospel which is said to be more glorious and the pouring-forth of the Spirit more abundant and Universal and that not only for a little time to wit to the Apostles with restriction to them and their times for which he never produc'd the least proof from Scriptur but to the end of the world And if so that immediat Revelation be not ceased there is a great deal of the point gained albeit I. B. confidently affirm that there can be proved nothing by these reasonings but what no body will deny since the Divines of Westminster have denyed and I. B. no doubt with them will deny that immediat revelation now is since they positively say that it is ceased and Iames Durham whom I. B. applauds as a reverend Brother and Pastor of the Church hath most absurdly affirmed in his Treatise upon the Revelation that when John finished that book God spake his last words to his Church ¶ 7. When he cometh pag. 28. to my Proposition asserting that these revelations were of old the Formal Object of Faith he beginneth to inquire and conjectur what I mean by the formal object and upon that he bestows the following page For answering then his scruples in that matter I say In a Divine revelation two things are to be considered 1. the thing revealed and 2. the revelation the thing revealed is indeed the Material Object the revelation is the Formal Object In which may be considered not only the manner of the Revelation that is the voyce or speech of God unto the Soul or his imprinting in the soul by a Divine manifestation the things revealed but also God himself so operating both which to wit Deus loquens id est God speaking is the formal object of Faith He himself his Veracity is the original ground of our Faith his voyce holy Influence and manifestation by which he expresseth himself gives us the certainty and assurance that it is He and is very distinguishable by those of a Spiritual discerning from the most subtile appearance and transformations of the Devil since Christ saith My sheep hear my voyce and will not hear that of a stranger even as the voyce and appearance of two men of the most contrary and different humors staturs and complexions are different and distinguishable by a man of sharp sight to whom those men are wel known but of this I wrot more largely in my Letter to a certain Ambassadour printed the last year at Rotterdam at the end of the Letter writen to the Ambassadours of Nimwegen whereto I referr him for further satisfaction But I wholly deny the consequence deduced by him that if God's Veracity because it is God that speaketh and commandeth be the formal object of faith Therefore it is all one whether it be mediat or immediat since albeit that be the original ground yet the immediat revelation is necessary that we may certainly know that it is he For what avails it me to believe that all that God commands is true and ought to be obeyed if I do not certainly know the things I believe as truth do come from him And the question is Whether certain knowledge can be had without immediat revelation and therefore to this his question in the following page 30 What was the formal object of the faith of the People to whom the Patriarchs and Prophets said Thus saith the LORD I answer The inward Testimony of the Spirit in their heart assuring them that the things spoken were from the Lord and not the Divinations of the mens brains that spake them and therefore inclining their hearts to receive and acknowledge these things as the commands of God unto them since as I. B. confesseth they were not to believe them because spoken by those men but because of the Authority of God it must be that which wrought this
which no Quaker that ever I knew of did or will deny wherein are they derogated from since they are many words and not one But if he will plead they are the Word of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or per eminentiam to say so seing the Word of God is ascribed to Christ must either equal them with him or speak non-sense seing that one epithet can not be predicated of two things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without a gross contradiction That the Word of the Lord came to the Prophets and that what they spake was the words that came from that Word is granted nor was it ever denyed by us who are against all false revelations and lying fancys of mens imaginations as much as he which he here in this chapter repeats over and over again to nauseating but it will not thence follow that the Word spoken of by the Apostle 2 Pet. 1 19. is the Scriptur which he has not yet proven and I have shewn the contrary in the former Section ¶ 2. At last pag. 54. n. 5. he comes to treat of of the Divine authority of the Scripturs and reckons it confusion and self-contradiction in me to assert that the authority of the Scripturs doth not depend upon any efficacy or vertue placed in these writings but is wholly to be ascribed to that Spirit from whence they came and yet within half a dozen of lines he confesseth the same saying we stoop unto the authority of the Scripturs of Truth because delivered by the Inspiration of God so the confusion and contradiction is his own Yea the exampls he brings of the Acts and Statutes of Parliament do very wel prove what I say for we do not submit to these status because of the matter in them or things commanded but because of the Authority commanding for when the Parliament by an Act appoynts a tax of so much money to be levyed from the Subjects it is not the matter or substance of this Act that makes us obey it but because of the Magistrats Authority But he saith they are Divine revelations and therefore must have the stamp of Divine authority Answ. The stamp of Divine Authority lies not in the things revealed but in the manner of the revelation as being the voyce and manifestation of God else great absurdity would follow as I shall briefly shew being to pursue him in this poynt as he has it lieing up and down in his rambling discourse whose way is not to follow one matter to a period but to touch it here and there intermixing other things that so his nauseating repetitions and oft reiterated railings may be the more covered And therefore I intend not to tie my self to follow him page after page immediatly lest I should embark my self in the like disorder and make such a confused hodg-podg as he has done but to follow every matter as he has it scatter'd up and down And of this I thought fit to acquaint the Reader in this place once for all as being the method I purpose to use throughout this treatise So from this 55 page we have him not upon this matter untill page 61 where he takes notice of my citations out of several Protestant Confessions and Calvin and will not have them to favour me giving most disingenuously as one reason because they expressly say that the work of the Spirit is by and with the Word and not an inspiration distinct and separated from it thereby he would make his Reader believe as if this were said by all of them whereas it is only said by the Westminster Divines of whom I particularly observed that they spake not so clearly as the other The French confession saith it is by the inward perswasion of the Holy Spirit and the Belgik that it is by the testimony of the Spirit in our hearts and Calvin saith the Spirit of God must inwardly teach us that Moses and the Prophets spake from God But that testimony of the Spirit which is in our hearts and by which the Spirit teacheth us there albeit it be not different from and contrary to the things it teacheth us of yet it is certainly distinct and separat albeit all the things taught were the very same which here is not Els because a man may be taught that by a Jesuit at Rome which I. B. may teach another man in Holland therefore that Jesuit and I. B. are not distinct and separat Are these good reasonings But let us now see whether these be any better by which in the two following pages 62 63 he prosecutes the same matter the sum whereof amounts to this that there are such evident characters of Divinity in the Scripturs which do as manifestly prove them to be of God as the Sun doth its shining to a man whose eyes are opened and that the work of the Spirit is only to take the vail from offmens eyes that they may see these Characters of Divinity and not that the Spirit by any inward immediat revelation doth signifie to the Soul by way of object that these Books proceeded from the Dictats of the Spirit of God in which he places the difference betwixt himself and the Quakers Now whether these aforesaid Testimonys of Calvin and the rest do not confirm this last rather than the other I leave the Reader to judge But further it 's like the man has not been aware into what inextricable Difficulty he has run himself by his reasoning here for if this opening of the eyes by the Spirit be needful to perceive these Divine Characters as the opening of the natural eyes is needful to see the outward Sun then the Characters can not be seen but by those whose eyes are thus opened that is to say who have a wel disposed intellect And thus recurr upon himself all the difficultys and absurditys he would urge upon me in his former chapter for saying that Divine Revelations are evident to a wel disposed Intellect For it may be query'd Whether all have this wel disposed Intellect their eyes thus opened If yea then all men have subjective revelation yet at other times he accounts this a privilege of the Saints and thence denies it in confessing pag. 63 that some are blind and see it not and then again the question recurrs How a man knows he has it so that he may not think he sees it and has it when he has it not This can not be decided by the Scripturs for they are the matter under debate and that were to run in a Circle And since as he saith the Devil is God's Ape and that there are so many Delusions of the Devil and false imaginations of the phansy which men are subject unto as he has told over and over again how is he sure that he is not thus deluded by the Devil and abused by his phancy in imagining he seeth when indeed he is blind And to give him his own argument and query since some and even Protestants
primarily and principally the Rule to them than any thing that was recorded in the Scriptur where they could not learn their duty as to those particulars And that I make not the Scripturs and the Spirit all one I have above shewn and therefore his malitious insinuations of Socinianisme fall to the ground but he thinks he has found-out a mighty dilemma in the end of this paragraph p. 66. Or will I say that the Light within me is really the Increated Spirit This saith he must be blasphemy with a witness to be heard with horror and therefore needing no other confutation Poor man how apt is he to make a noise about nothing If there be any blasphemy it is his own For what if I should say Is not GOD a LIGHT and is not he in every man and is not this Light within the Increated Spirit The Reader may judge how easily these windy boasts of his are blown away how the Spirit ruleth us and yet is not confounded with the Rule I have above shewn so that what he saith to that in the rest of this page where he vapers and rails is but superfluous Next after he has a little plaid the Pedant upon the words magis originaliter he concludes his 22 paragraph with asking me why the revelations I pretend to should be accounted more One with the Spirit himself than those revelations by which the Scripturs were dictated but this is his allegeance none of my affirmation Next I never said that the Revelations by which the Scripturs were dictat were less primary than any other whatsoever albeit no revelation which is writen and transmitted to a man only by the report of another can be so primary and immediat to him as that which he receives in himself he confesseth here with me p. 67. that the Spirit is the Prime and Principal Leader whether that makes for my cause as also what follows will after in its place be examined ¶ 6. But because he foundeth his assertion of my detracting from the perfection of the Scripturs because I deny them to be the primary and original Rule for he acknowledgeth that I confess them to be a secondary one I will examin the ground by which he goes about to prove it as also his answers to my arguments proving the contrary His first is from the parable Luke 16 31. where it is said They have Moses and the Prophets whom if they hear not neither will they be perswaded if one be raised from the dead but this proves only that one raised from the dead is not able to convince those that will not hear Moses and the Prophets not that the Scriptur is a more primary and principal Rule than what the Spirit immediatly reveals in the Soul for that consequence will not nor doth follow nor is in the least proven by him neither can be unless he first prove that albeit the testimony of one from the dead be less powerfull to perswade than the Scripturs yet it is more than the immediat testimony of the Spirit in the heart which I deny and rests for him to prove before he conclude any thing from this place Next this Parable was used by Christ to the Jews to shew them their hypocrisy who albeit they deceitfully pretended so much to reverence and follow Moses and the Prophets as many now adays do the Scripturs yet they did not really hear them els they would have acknowledged him of whom Moses and the Prophets did so clearly write since he also did as great and convincing miracls before them as if they had the testimony of one raised from the dead And this leads me to take notice of what he saith p 68. n. 24. in answer to my argument drawn from the difference betwixt the Law that is writen without and the Gospel that is writen within where he accuseth me of contradiction because of my argument drawn from the revelations that were under the Law and the same-ness of the object but I have answered this cavill in the former section Yet since the strength of this resolves in his supposing I affirm there is no writen Rule under the Gospel which he after concludes the whole falleth to the ground for I never denied the Scriptur to be a secondary Rule and that is some Rule for to say I affirm there is no writen Rule because the writen is not the primary is a wild conclusion And therefore all the rest of his talk to prove that Christ inspired the Apostles to write things to be a Rule to Christians is meerly superfluous since that that is a Rule though not the primary was never denied by me and it may be here observed that all his arguments to prove the Scriptur to be a Rule unless they prove them to be the primary and principal one conclude nothing and are against me to no purpose ¶ 7. His second argument is deduc'd from 2 Tim. 3 16. where he cites the Apostle saying of the Scripturs they are able to make wise unto Salvation and to make the man of God perfect Where is first to be observed his perverting of the Apostl's words by an addition of his own and therefore no wonder that he so frequently pervert mine for the Apostle saith not they are able to make the man of God perfect but All Scriptur given by inspiration is that the man of God may be perfect that is contributeth in its kind and order towards the perfection of the Saints but it follows not thence that they are the Primary Rule no more than though I. B. will affirm that his book is writen that the man of God may be perfect that is to help him to perfection that thence it is to be esteemed the primary and chief Rule Thus is answered that of John 20 31. But these are written that ye may believe c. cited by him p 74. For his book is also written for that end yet the consequence will not follow that they are able to make wise unto Salvation is not denied in so far as they declare of the grace that brings Salvation and directs to the Light which leads to it but how he thence inferreth they are the primary Rule he must inform us the next time since he has forgotten to do it now And this may serve to answer those places where he according to his custom repeats it over and over again as p. 74. 77 82. where he hath again the fore-mentioned perversion and enumerated the particular uses applied to the Scriptur he concludeth its perfection as wanting nothing Now I deny not that every book as wel as chapter and verse of Scriptur is perfect as to its end that is so far to express the mind of God as he was pleased at that time and also with a respect to its Author as being written by the dictats of the Spirit but that place will not conclude its perfection either as the primary only or adequat that is entire Rule els
angry that I should condemne the Socinians and Pelagians but the reason is manifest because he would so willingly have it believed that I am one with them and albeit I could not in reason be obliged to say any thing more to these pages yet that none of these fictitious and false conjecturs may catch any unwary Reader I do freely affirm that I believe man fell and was degenerated both as to Soul and body and I understand the first Adam or earthly man to comprehend both but that there was something in Adam which was no part of his Soul and body nor yet constitutive of his being a man in my judgment which could not degenerate and which was in Adam by the fall reduced to a seed and could never have been raised in him again to his comfort but by a new visitation of Life which from Christ by the promise was administred unto him and is to all men in a day for to say the affirming such a Seed remained in Adam when he fell doth infer his understanding was not hurt and as he doth p. 94. is a consequence I deny and remains for him to prove That to believe there was such a thing in Adam which the Scriptur calleth spiraculum vitarum the breath of Lives is no new coin'd doctrin these may see that will read Athanasius de definitionibus and his third dialogue de Trinitate 4 oration against the Arians and Cyrillus Alexandrinus in his Treatise upon John lib. 2. 3. lib. 8. 47. and in his Thesaurus lib. 4. and others that might be mentioned As for his arguing p. 96. that because I affirm the Seed of God is a Substance therefore according to me the seed of sin must be a substance also which consequence I deny and therefore what he builds against me upon this supposition falls to the ground What he saith here and there scattered in these pages of the Light will in its proper place come more fully to be considered ¶ 2. Pag. 98. n. 17. after he has saluted me with the titles of effronted and impudent he will have me one with Socinians and Pelagians because I deny outward death to be a consequence of the fall but where he proves I do so I see not It 's true I say the death threatned Gen. 2 17. was not outward death for Adam did not so dye the day he did eat and I do still believe so neither offereth he me any thing to give me ground to alter my mind but to conclude thence I deny outward death to be a consequence of the fall was too hastily inferred But what if I were undetermined in this matter and that it remained a mystery to me for I believe not the being positive therein essential to my Salvation which if I were truly what he saith seems not to me sufficient to proselyt me to his opinion for albeit I willingly confess with him that sickness and all the other miseries attending this life yea and death it self considering the anguishes wherewith it is now generally accompanyed are the consequence of the fall and of sin yet I see not how it would thence follow that Adam should not have dyed seing death to him if he had not faln would have been freed of all these miseries and rather a pleasur than a pain which has been known to have befaln many Saints As for his n. 19. he confesseth the matter of it is left to the next chapter where I may meet him ¶ 3. Pag. 100. n. 20. he goes on at an high rate of perverting for after he has said Who would suspect but I mean honestly he applieth to me the saying of Solomon he that hateth dissembleth with his lips we must not believe him for there are seven abominations in his heart But why am I with him guilty of this great charge Because albeit I affirm that man is wholly degenerat yet I say Whatever good man doth in his natur that doth not proceed from him but from the Divine Seed in him Answ. These words are none of mine but a forgery of his own so incident it is for the man to lye and pervert and therefore all his vaporing and absurd inferences drawn from this throughout this Paragraph fall to the ground My words are that the natur by which the Apostle saith the Gentiles did the things contained in the Law cannot be understood of the proper corrupt natur of man but of a Spiritual natur which proceedeth from the Seed of God as he receiveth a new visitation of the Divine Love Where it is very plain I consider man as visited anew and that in the strength of that Grace thereby received not of his degenerat natur he doth that which is good Nor do I any where say as he falsly insinuats That this Spiritual Natur is in all men though I do say That all men are visited by God in order to beget this spiritual Natur in them as will after come in its place to be spoken of Now all his battering of this my assertion in the three following pages depends upon this supposition That the good acts done by the Gentiles are not done by vertue of any such visitation but only by a Light of corrupt natur which remained in them after the fall so that it is but a meer begging of the question untill that be first debated But he thinks he has brought me under a great dilemma p. 103. urging That since I say all their imaginations are evil I must say every Heathen has this Spiritual natur in him yea and the Devils must be partakers of it because they believe there is a God which is a good thought Answ. He is too hasty in his reasonings for that the knowledge a man may receive from the Divine Seed makes him instantly to partake of the Divine Natur is not proved by him and he knows I believe all men to be visited by this Divine Seed which may give them an head-knowledg which they may retain as some men do the Truth in unrighteousness and yet not receive it in the love of it so though they have it from a Divine Seed yet it will not follow they must necessarily so receive it as to become partakers of the Divine Natur. And as for the Devils he wil confess that once they had this knowledge from a Spiritual Natur and though they have faln yet they may retain the memory of it for that their fall and Man's is every way alike he will not affirm He saith p. 102. That to believe good done by Heathens that is by such as have not the benefit of the outward knowledge of Christ is done in vertue of a Divine Seed overturns the Gospel but he leavs the confirmation of it to the sequel where I shall attend him N. 25. he tels me very fairly the Apostle doth not contradict himself as if I had ever imagined he did but the question is whether the meaning he gives the Apostl's words implys not
thoughts of him than I have yet expressed My argument drawn from Ephes. 2 3. where the Apostle ascribes the reason of mens being children of wrath to their evil deeds he saith was the Fathers against Pelagius And what then doth that render it null But his own answer to it is rare saying he thinks I put out my eyes that do not observe how the Apostle changes the second person saying Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past and were by natur the children of wrath whence the man wisely infers That Paul and the Jews were the children of Wrath which is not denied but they must have quick eyes indeed that see it from thence to be inferred that they were such ere they committed any actual sin since the Apostle expressly mentions his their having had their conversation among the World as a reason of their having been in the same condition He saith further I confess 1 Cor. 2. that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to be understood of the Rational soul and what then Therefore so soon as they partake of the Rational soul they become children of Wrath This is indeed a rare consequence but he must excuse me for not admitting it till better proved It would seem much more rational to say that so soon as they come to the exercise of their Rational soul and then do evil they become guilty for he can not deny that the Gospel nor condemneth nor threatneth any man but him that has actually sinned and whether this destroys not his cause the Reader may judge That except a man be born-again he can not enter the Kingdom I never denied Albeit children be capable of death yet it will not follow that they are guilty of sin since death is no punishment but rather an advantage to such to whom it 's a transition to a better Life He thinks p. 117. that my saying such as homologat their fathers sins God will visit the iniquitys of their fathers upon them is not worth noticing but whether his answer be worth noticing the Reader may judge which is That Adam's sin was not a personal sin as other mens are and his own after-sins but the man forgot to prove this and therefore may do it next but he thinks the children of Core Dathan and Abiram of Achan and the Sodomites were judged guilty of their Fathers sins for unless he proves that he saith nothing but for what reason I know not unless that they were outwardly destroyed but untill he prove that infers guilt he must for bear making his conclusion He is highly offended I should say their opinion is contrary to the Iustice and Mercy of God alledging it is without proof but if to account one guilty for a sin committed by another thousands of years ere they had a being and to punish for it be not against Iustice and inconsistent with Mercy I desire to know of him what is more unjust and unmercifull To say that this is an accusing of God is but a silly begging of the question untill he has first proved his opinion to be true it 's no accusing of God to condemn mens opinions when contrary to his Natur. He will have it to be a rapsody of non-sense when I say this proceeds from self-love founded on their opinion of absolute Reprobation but whether it be or not the Reader may judge sure his saying it makes it not so That this of Infants being guilty of Adam's sin and therefore many of them being damned depends upon their doctrin of Reprobation no Man of sense that knows their doctrin will deny since they say some Infants are saved because elected Are not the rest then according to them damned because reprobated He gives me nothing here in answer but railing and so concludes this Paragraph with this notable saying Woe I say that is I. Brown forsooth and thrice woe to such as drink-in this Man's doctrine and live and dye accordingly p. 118. n. 14. He thinks my saying Papists are more charitable in allowing a Limbus to children shews my affection to them but he has not heard me allow of their notion of a Limbus as he does in the chapter of Iustification p. 310. of the opinion of a certain Popish Cardinal preferring it not only to what is said by William Forbes a Protestant Bishop but even as it would appear to Richard Baxter his ancient Presbyterian Brother and in pursuance of this he asks how they come to Heaven meaning Children who have nothing to do with Christ But then what wil he say of those he accounts elect children go they to Heaven without Christ If not the difficulty is the same way solved To prove Children are under a law and subject to transgression he gives the common practices among men who forfeit children yea such as are unborn with their fathers for great crimes But in what countrey do they use to kill all the children when the father is put to death for a crime and unless this were done his comparison infers not the poynt His plain answer he saith is Adam his being a publike person of which hereafter To my citation Ezech. 18 20. the son shall not bear the father's iniquity he preaches at large upon the Prophet's words alledging his meaning is that those persons he wrot to had so much sin of their own that God might justly judge them albeit he did not visit them for their fathers iniquitys and this is the quick dispatch he saith this place receives it is a quick way to dispatch indeed if it were valid to make the meaning destroy the Text but men of sense use not to be sudden in receiving such dispatches The words are plain and positive The son shall not bear the father's iniquity therefore untill he give ground from plain Scriptur to take it away it must stand to the overthrow of his Doctrin for the greater sinners those men were the more justly and deservedly might their Fathers iniquity be laid upon them ¶ 6. Pag. 120. n. 17. he cometh from my confession that Adam was a publike person to infer That the guilt passeth from him to all and first in this page he affirmeth that this sin of Adam's from whence Original sin proceeds is the sin of the whole natur of Mankind and not like Adam's after sins and the sins of other Men which he confesses are not the sins of the whole Nature and because upon this dependeth much of what he infers he had don wel to have proved this in the first place by some Scriptur till which time his inference is not to be received For did Adam cease to be a publick person after he had committed that sin If he say Yea let him prove it by plain Scriptur for I deny it if not then his other sins must be imputed to all men which he denies or els nothing can be urged from his being a publick person and while to urge it he asketh Did ever any hear one
if his citation from him be true and therefore finding this to pinch him he brings it up again p. 126. where bringing me in saying Infants are under no Law he answers but the Apostle saith the contrary He would have done charitably to have told me where that I might have observed it What he saith in this as wel as the former page in answer to my affirmation that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may relate to death and that it 's understood upon which occasion man sinned urging absurditys by the like application of Christ's Righteousness is solved by a serious observation of the comparison as stated by me betwixt Christ and Adam His arguing from Childrens dying doth not conclude untill he prove Death simply considered necessarily to infer guilt in the Party dying of which I have spoken before p. 126. n. 20. to my answer to Psal. 51 5. alledged by them wherein I shew that David saith not my Mother conceived me sinning and therefore it proves not his assertion His reply is after he has given a scoff it quite crosseth David's designe But why so because in that Psalm he expresseth his sorrow and humiliation for his sins and what then might not David lament upon that occasion that he was not only a sinner himself but also came of such as were so But when I urge this place further shewing their interpretation would make Infants guilty of the sin of their immediat Parents since there is no mention here of Adam his answer to this is a repetition of his own doctrin A rare method of debate very usual to him And then taking it for granted he asks me whether this originated Sin of which he supposed David spake for he never offers to prove it though it be the matter in debate came from another Original than Adam What he affirmed here of my insinuating Marriage-Dutys to be Sin is but a false conjectur but as to the hurt and loss that Man got by Adam which I ascribe to no other Original as being no Manichee I spake before but he should first prove before he obtrude such things upon others and I desire yet to be informed of him in what Scriptur he reads of Original Sin and whether if the Scriptur be the only Rule he can not find words in it fit enough to express his faith or must he shift for them elsewhere ¶ 8. Pag. 127. n. 21. He urges Paul's saying the wages of sin is death and to my saying This may be a consequence of the fall but that thence it can not at all be inferred that iniquity is in all those that are subject to death he saith it is in plain terms but my modesty dare not speak it out to say the Apostle speaketh not truth Answ. Is not this to take upon him to judge of another man's heart which elsewhere he accounts a great presumption why takes he no notice or gives he no answer to the absurdity I shew followed from thence since the whole Creation received a decay by Adam's fall and yet we say not Herbs and Trees are Sinners and while he would make-out this great charge of my contradicting the Apostle he forgets the half of his business which is to prove the Apostle meaned in that place Natural death and not Eternal since the Apostle opposeth it there to Eternal Life and eternal death he will confess is the wages of Sin which the Apostle shews they shun by Jesus Christ's obtaining Eternal Life whereas Natural death they do not avoid Likewise he should have proved that all the Scripturs mentioned by him p. 128. are meant of natural death which he will find not very easy As for his citing Death as mentioned by the Apostle 1 Cor. 15. the Apostle's words ver 56. confirm what I say That death is only a punishment to the wicked not to the Saints for the words are The sting of death is Sin so where sin is taken away there death has no sting and that is the Saints Victory Now he can not apply this to Infants without supposing that they have sin which were to begg the question And whereas he asks Whether Death be NO punishment for Sin I answer that I said not so neither is that needfull for me to affirm seing it is sufficient if it be not always a punishment of sin which if it be not it can not be concluded that because infants dye therefore they must be guilty of sin Since then the absurditys he after urges follow from his supposition that death is No punishment for sin which I say not they do not touch me He judgeth p. 128. n. 22. that I run wilder than Papists in saying we will rather admitt the supposed absurdity of saying all Infants are saved to follow from our doctrin than with them say that innumerable Infants perish eternally not for their own but only for Adam's fault This he reckons a contradicting of my doctrin of Christ's dying for all saying I here grant that all Infants will be saved without Christ. What horrible lye is this Where say I that all Infants will be saved without Christ If he say it is by consequence that I say so which he must needs do or els be an impudent unparallel'd lyar then he infers it either from my saying Christ dyed for all Therefore if all Infants are saved it must be without Christ or that If all Infants be saved Christ can not have dyed for all for one of these two must be if I contradict my self But such consequences are only fit for such an Author as seems to have abandoned all sense of honesty and Christian reputation and resolvs per fas aut nefas and without rime or reason as the proverb is to bespatter his adversary As for his adding they that have no sin have no need of a Saviour to save them from sin he overturns it all by asking me in which also lies the pinch of his matter since I affirm they have a seed of Sin in them wich is called Death and the Old man how can they put-off this and sing the Song of the Redeemed which all that enter into Glory must do Does not this then shew I believe they have need of Christ as a Saviour who dyed for them to deliver them from this and is not the contradiction his own in urging this question which I thus answer How are those he accounts elect Infants saved whom he affirms to be really guilty of Adam's sin and so in a worse condition than I affirm Infants to be for he will not say with Papists and Lutherans that the adminstiring of that they call the Sacrament of Baptism does it When he answers this he will solve his own argument To insinuat that some Infants are damned he asketh me what I think of those of Sodom Jude v. 7. the words are these Even as Sodom and Gomorrah and the Citys about them in like manner giving themselves over to fornication and going after strange
I answer This reasoning would inferr those to be saved by the death of Christ who never repent especially with those who judge men may sin yea must sin all their life-time and yet be saved neither doth the absurdity reach those who affirm Christ to have dyed for all as to obtain remission of sins that are past and Grace sufficient to work faith and repentance yea and restore those that may fall into sin after their conversion if not resisted and this is sufficient to infer that Christ dyed for all neither can that absurdity more reach them than the Apostle who speaks of such as denied the Lord that bought them And since the Evangelist placeth the benefit upon the reception saying but unto as many as received him he gave power to become the sons of God all these Scripturs afterwards cited by him signifiing the efficacy of Christ's Blood is not denied they themselvs confess it was sufficient and of value enough to have redeemed every man but that doth not hinder it from proving ineffectual to such as will not receive it as is above shewn And therefore his question p. 172. If Christ dyed for the sins of all persons how cometh it that they are not all actually pardoned is easily answered Because of their non-reception of the Grace by which his Death should be made effectual to them and albeit this maketh Free-will author of condemnation as himself will acknowledge yet not of Salvation as shall after appear His next argument p. 174. is that If Christ had dyed for all men all men should be saved because he hath purchased Faith and Salvation for all for whom he has dyed and this he supposeth he has shewn before but his confidence in his own arguments doth not influence other men I am yet to see where he has proved any such thing The Scripturs he brings such as Rom. 8 32-39 c. to prove this speak of those who had really received the Grace and in whom regeneration was working by it and do indeed very wel prove that Christ dyed for them yea what if I should say hath purchased them Grace prevalent to Salvation Yet they will not prove that he has not dyed for others also that may miss of Salvation Pag. 175. N. 25. he saith It is considerable That no where in Scriptur we find it expressly affirmed That Christ dyed for all Men. Why then is all this trouble made But is it not expressly said Heb. 2 9. that we see Jesus that he by the Grace of God should tast death for every man Let him tell us what less that importeth yea if it be not more emphatik to say Christ tasted death for Every man than to say Christ dyed for all Men. It is much the man would so proclaime his ignorance ¶ 6. After more of his tedious and superfluous reasonings against this meer possibility as he calls it he comes p. 195. n. 48. to overturn my grounds for Universal Redemption and first in answer to the Angels song Luk. 2 10. urged by me wherein they hold-forth the coming of Christ as tideings of great joy to all People This he saith is to shew the Offer was to be made now to all Kindreds Nations Tongues and Languages And what then It is not said only so excluding all Particulars of these since the word ALL in the common acceptation comprehends every Particular as wel as all sorts and he should have given some reason from Scriptur why he restricts it here but in stead of that he contradicts himself in the very following words saying for he was to reign over the house of Iacob Luk. 1. v. 13. for this if it urge any thing it will exclude his former concession if it be not exclusive he can prove nothing from it Neither doth he more pertinently alledge Matth. 1 21. that he was to save his People from their sins for that Scriptur doth not say that he purchased not a capacity for some to be his People who by their resisting lost the benefit oftered them How often would I have gathered you and ye would not saith Christ Mat. 23 37. Luk 13 34. He saith further this would not have been glade tideings if it had been a meer possibility But I affirm no such thing To my urging Christ's commission Mark 16 15. to preach the Gospel to every creatur and that of Paul Col. 1 28. he saith it will no more prove that Christ dyed for all men than for Devils and Beasts for they are creatures But how silly and perverse this answer is is easily apparent for is it lawfull to preach the Gospel to Beasts and Devils or is it as unlawfull to preach the Gospel to any men as it is to do it to Beasts and Devils But on the contrary since he will not deny but it is a duty to preach the Gospel to all men indefinitly yea in this place he acknowledges it they being the proper subjects of it so that of them must be understood every creature here mentioned Pag. 196. N. 50. To my arguing the Gospel inviteth all and that it would be a mocking of men if Christ dyed not for all to command them all to believe that Christ dyed for them he saith This is built upon an untruth that the Gospel doth not command all to whom it is preached to believe that Christ dyed for them but only to flee to an all-sufficient Saviour But what 's the preaching of the Gospel especially in his sense even as a little before acknowledged by him but a declaring and offering of Salvation to all to whom it is preached Mercy and Good-will through the merits of Christ who dyed for them Next the argument still holdeth good if the Gospel commands as he saith to flee unto an all-sufficient Saviour for unless it be possible for such who are so commanded to do it the preaching of it to them is a mocking of them and that to purpose if this impossibility be imposed upon them by him by whose command the Gospel is thus preached The example of Moses to Pharaoh and Esaias to the Iews has been before answered He ends this paragraph begging the question as if the Gospel could be said no where to be but where there is an outward dispensation of it by the ministery of men ¶ 7. Pag. 197. N. 51. He confesseth there is no Scriptur that saith Christ has not dyed for all men and there is that saith he has tasted death for every man which is rather more and not a probation by consequence only as I have already shewn then he cometh to consider my argument from 1 Tim. 2 13 4-6 shewing that Salvation can not be impossible for all since we are commanded to pray for all and that since Christ gave himself a Price of Redemption for all it can not be impossible that all should be saved as is more largely illustrated in my Apology Now how he is pained in answer to this and in his nibblings about
which himself I judge will not deny for will he say that the hour of tentation Rev. 3 10. came upon every one as contradistinguished from the Saints and that the Beast 12 9. did in this sense deceive the World that is all and every one and that 13 3. all the World wondred after him The other places marked by him have no relation to the Whole World in the sense I here urge it which is that the whole World when used in contradistinction from the Saints expresseth all and every one and the thing he should have done if he would have truely reâ—uâ—ed me which he has not so much as attempted was to prove that the Elect or any part of them as expressed by the word We or Us by any of the Pen-men of Scriptur are contradistinguished from the Elect or any part of them under the term of the whole World untill he do which he no ways overturns my argument and therefore what he saith besides this is beside the purpose ¶ 7. Pag. 204. N. 59. In answer to Ioh. 3 16. compared with 1 Ioh. 4 9. God so loved the World c. and God sent his Only-begoten Son into the World c. he tels whosoever albeit indefinit is not universal unless it be in a necessary matter which this is not But he should have defined what he means by a necessary matter distinctly and then proved this not to be such till both which be done that 's now omitted by him his answer is deficient His next quibble is that the world in these two places is not the same the one being understood of the Habitable World and the other of the Inhabitants but the last may be understood of the Inhabitants as wel as the first where is the absurdity of saying God sent his Son into the world that is unto men or among men 3. He supposeth I will not say God sent his Son into the World that all Inhabitants might live the life of Faith for all men have not faith and all men will not be saved or God should be disappointed of his Intentions and therefore he adds as his commentary upon Rev. 3 3 4. what if some do not believe shall their unbelief make the unchangeable Purposes of God of none effect No. Answ. I perceive as most of the man's reasonings are built upon suppositions so most of his suppositions are false for God sent his Son into the World to put all men into a capacity to live the life of Grace and therefore who do not the fault is their own nor are God's unchangeable Purposes of none effect since God has not unchangeably purposed to damn any which he supposeth he did And upon this meer and unproved supposition according to his method he builds his matter He adds Ioh. 3 16 is directly against the meaning of his Adversaries I judge he means all those who assert Universal Redemption who build much upon it albeit I had not the wit to improve it but it seems had I had a great deal more wit than I have he judgeth himself to have wit enough to prove it all to no purpose why because according to the Greek it is for God so loved the World that all believing or all believers or every one that believeth in him might not perish c. And what then we must prove that either all are or shall be Believers and then he will easily grant without disput that Christ dyed for them all But the man has not here wel heeded what he saith there is no necessity of proving that all are or shall be Believers it is enough to prove that all are put in a capacity to believe and that Faith is not made by an absolute decree impossible to most this in part is done already and more of it will appear hereafter that Christ by this place intended to shew that his Death should not be restricted to the advantage of the Jews only is not denied In answer to Heb. 2 9. that he tasted death for every man he saith that the Greek here for every man importeth in their room and stead shall we think that Christ dyed so for every man and yet many of these men dyed for themselvs But if any absurdity be inferred here it will redound upon himself no less than upon me who will confess as his after words make manifest the saying here Christ tasted death for Every man imports his dying here for the Elect and yet do not many of the Elect dye for themselvs Here again he saith this sheweth the benefit of his death is not restricted to the Jews which is granted but that proveth not that it is not therefore Universal Next he taketh notice of the context where it is said it became him in bringing many sons unto glory c. and therefore these are the all for whom he dyed But this is strongly to affirm not to prove albeit Christ brought many sons unto glory and called such Brethren it doth not follow he tasted death only for such The Apostle sheweth us first the general extent of Christ's death in saying he tasted death for every man and then sheweth us how it became effectual to many and yet the man is so confident albeit he has urged nothing but only affirmed that he adds If this context do not sufficiently confute this conceit we need regarde the Scripturs no more But here he has spoken out the truth as it is for this evidently shews that for all their pretence to exalt the Scripturs yet they regard it no more than it favours their opinion This is the account for which they regard the Scripturs if it favour their opinion and confute their advetsaries but if it do not they need no more regard it else surely he should have said If the Scripturs do not confute that which he esteems an error then he will not judge it so any more but regard the Scripturs more than his own judgment but on the contrary he is resolved if the Scriptur do not confute what he thinks a conceit that he need no more regard them Likewise in the rest of this page he gives himself a notable stroak for to my saying that their doctrin would infer that Christ came to condemn the world contrary to his own words Ioh. 3 17. 12 47. he answereth that prejudice has so blinded mine eyes that I can not see the beam in mine eye for in my opinion not one man might have been saved because Christ only procured a meer possibility and no certainty for any one man c. But as I have above observed I assert as my judgment the express contrary that Christ has so dyed for some that they can not miss of Salvation and this himself also noticeth afterwards p. 276. I would know then and let all honest men judge if there be any spark of honesty left in him whether himself be not the man whom prejudice has blinded Almost at the same rate p. 207. he
that will not meet this case Those 1 Tim. 1 19. who are said to make shipwrack of a good Conscience are such who believed the true doctrin of faith in Christ as himself before acknowledgeth Now albeit a man may be said to live in good Conscience to other principles while ignorant of this yet he should prove how a man can be said to have a good Conscience with respect to the true faith of Christ held by him and yet without saving or true grace With railing he tels me pag. 358. n. 18. that Phil. 1 6. 1 Pet. 1 5. God's beginning and perfecting the condition And what then yet God doth not this against our wills it is with a respect to our performing the conditions on our part which yet we can not do without him Then he goes about to prove that Paul could not fall in answer to my saying from 1 Cor. 9 27. that Paul supposeth a possibility that he might become a reprobat but if the Reader consider how I bring that in my Apology he will find he had no reason for this cavill for I alledged it only to reprove those that are too too secure shewing where sin was there was always a ground of jealousy since the Apostle did reckon it needfull to keep under his body to subdue sin that he might not become a reprobat which since the Apostle did but upon this supposition if he did not keep under his body suppose possible others had no reason to presume Section Eleventh Wherein his XVI Chapter Of the Church his XVII Of the Ministerial Call his XVIII XIX and XXI Of their Qualifications Office and Maintenance and his XX Of VVomens Preaching is considered ¶ 1. HIs chapter of the Church is soon dispatched for it contains scarce any thing but perversions and railing for after he has given a large citation out of their Confession of Faith and then added some enlargements of his own and some little nibling cavils to what I say of no Salvation being without the Church pag. 361. he goes on with his old reiterated calumny that I suppose men may be made members of the Catholik Church by the Light of Nature which is utterly false And upon this false supposition is built his n. 5. pag. 362. as also what he saith pag. 364. But n. 4. he screws this to a greater pitch of falshood affirming that what I say of a Particular Church gathered together in the faith of the true Principles and Doctrins of Christ by the Spirit of God and testimony of some of his Ministers is that these are persons only taught by the Light of Nature and by such Ministers as preach nothing of the Gospel Against a man thus desperatly resolved and determined to lye and calumniat there can be no guard but sure all sober Readers will abhorr such dealing What I speak of a Church in this respect is only of such as have the advantage of the outward knowledge of Christ as my words afterwards shew where I say such were the Churches gathered by the Apostles of which the Scriptur makes mention And therefore what he objects that can not be don by Pagans is wholly impertinent and doth but verify the grossness of his calumny which he endeavours to inculcat as a truth to his Reader pag. 363. as if what I say further of the things requisit to be a member of this Particular Church were a third sort and not a more particular description of the former which the Reader may easily observe by looking to the place to be a meer fetch of his to afford himself some matter of cavill which imagining he has got he fills-up the paragraph with gross lyes and railing saying That the Quakers believe not the holy Truths set down in the Scripturs because they oppose and contradict them That they believe not in nor maké profession of Jesus Christ revealed in the New Testament because they oppose him and all his Institutions That faith according to them is not wrought by the Spirit of God but that Nature can sweetly and naturally incline yea compell thereunto All which are gross calumnys And then he concludeth saying And thus we have run round and are again where we began which is very true for he began with calumnys and having run round the same way his work resolvs in them Pag. 364. he affirmeth Men may be Members of the visible Church and consequently ought to be reputed such who are ungodly and without holiness and offereth to make it good if I will form a dispute upon it but I leave him as to this to disput with his learned Dr. Owen whose works he has applauded in this Treatise and whom his Postscript-Brother R. M. has in his preface to this B.'s book highly commended as a gratious man As for his silly argument that from the Apostle's saying Act. 2 39. the promise is unto you and to your children and 1 Cor. 7 14. it follows men become members of the Church by birth I leave him to debate it with his great Author Thomas Hicks who will tell him if he be consonant to his own principles it is a Babylonish invention But I. B. hath here unawares contradicted himself for if these Scripturs prove men become members of the Church by birth then the sprinkling them with water sometime after they are born or their Baby-Baptism is not necessary to make them members of the Church and they are to be accounted such without it He saith I am mistaken when I say Antichrist built his structure upon this foundation to wit that men without holiness may be members of the true Church because he applieth all the priviledges of the invisible Church unto his visible synagogue of Sathan where as this sheweth that I am not mistaken but that my affirmation is true for if he to wit Antichrist did believe holiness to be necessary to make a member of the true Church he could not apply the privileges of the invisible Church unto his visible members most of which he wel knows as often-times himself are not only void of but enemies to holiness It is false that I agree with him in his not distinguishing betwixt the Visible and Invisible Church and yet much more in unchurching all who are not of his combination in which albeit I. B. most impudently insinuats I approach to him yet himself can not but know it to be a most manifest falshood since I suppose some of all sects of Christians may be members of the catholik Church and he knows and has observed here how contrary the Pope is to this doctrin At last he concludes this chapter with a fit of Railing of which the last words must not pass without observation to wit that in stead of true holyness I press upon them a natural dead and anti-Evangelical Morality Now this Morality as pressed by me he himself confessed before to be such as the Law of Nature taught albeit in truth I pressed none but what
plead so tenaciously for the other Let him give a reason for this next and by the same we shall answer what he urges from this but he must remember it is not enough for him barely to say these were extraordinary and are ceased and the other ordinary and remain but he must prove it by plain Scriptur or else be justly rejected as but begging the question as he doth pag. 394. where he supposeth there were only 13 Apostles or perhaps 14 if Barnabas be accounted one since he confesseth the word signifies one sent and therefore whoever is sent is properly an Apostle Thus also will his other argument return upon his own head for since such as he saith were settled and ordained in the Church by Christ and his Apostles how come they to walk so contrary to Christ's Order as to want yea and to judge such unnecessary in their Church And as for all the Scripturs cited by him to shew the distinction of such Church Officers from other Members they are not to the purpose against me who deny not but Members were to be distinguished but yet that proves not that any Member was barred from these exercises when called by the Spirit thereto which is the thing in question As for his saying that the Apostle is speaking of the Church 1 Cor. 12. as an Organical body if he means the Apostle is comparing the Church to a Body to which it answers in many respects I deny not but if he say that it answers in all I leave him to prove it however then if we make application of it as the Apostle illustrateth it their Church will prove a very lame one for in this Body as I. B. himself observs the Apostle names Apostles and Prophets and if we may suppose that these as being the most eminent are the chiefest Members as the eyes and ears of the Body their Church that wanteth these must be blind and deaf And whereas he would make my saying that the Apostle meaned here different operations ridiculous he but sheweth his own folly for if the Apostle point at different Offices they will not only want Apostles Prophets and Evangelists but a great many more for the Apostle nameth also verse 28. miracles gifts of healing helps governments diversitys of tongues c. these then must all be distinct Offices also how come they to want them in their Church or how can they plead for these they have more than for such as are placed nothing less by way of distinct Officers than they Yea all the several titles enumerated by him pag. 390. will prove the same way distinct Officers and how came they to cashier all these and reduce them to so few a number By what authority and Scriptur warrant do they this But I would enquire at him what an Office is if it be not an operation of the Spirit more particularly working in some persons under such a designation And this is proved by the coincidency of these Offices in one person which he confesseth that some are thence more particularly called to the work of the Ministery I acknowledge and he observs it That God will move none to violat the Order established in his house I deny not but that to move some at times to speak is a violation of that Order I deny since the Apostle saith the contrary 1 Cor. 14 31. we may all prophesy In answer to which he supposeth this is restricted to Prophets but the Text saith all not all Prophets albeit it were no absurdity to suppose all the Lord's People to be Prophets in this sense as wel as they are said to be Kings and Priests and the words following shew it that all may learn and all may be comforted for it were non-sense to understand this with a restriction And therefore his bare asserting that this contradicts the plain scop of the place is no argument for men of reason who resolve not to build their faith upon his meer say so pag. 395. he thinketh my acknowledging that some are more particularly called to the work of the Ministery than others is not enough because they are not to exhort but when moved by the Spirit and others when moved may as wel as they so there is no difference That Ministers ought not to preach or exhort without the Spirit 's motion or assistance will come afterwards to be proved and to suppose God can not or will not move any but Ministers by his Spirit to exhort were to limit him which is presumptuous in us to do but in this appeareth the difference that we confess many may and know thousands among us whom we acknowledge to be good men and sufficiently endued with the Spirit towards the work of regeneration in themselvs and brotherly love and care to their brethren who never find themselvs moved to speak a word in publike and there are others whom God calleth to make teaching and the oversight of the Church so their constant business that they are less engaged in worldly affairs than the generality of those called Clergy-men even among I. B's Brethren and therefore are owned and honoured and so far as need requires maintained by the Church But to say that no man ought without he be thus particularly called at any time speak in a publik assembly since we say that they ought not but when moved by the Spirit is not only to accuse us but imperiously bind up God from moving with his Spirit whom and when he pleaseth and this being applied will answer his querys pag. 369. where n. 14. he affirms that to suppose Ministers may use an honest trade is to account the work of the Ministery a light business But this is to account it no more a light business than the Apostle did who recommended working with their hands for a livelyhood to the Elders of the Church of Ephesus Act. 20 34 35. giving them his own example in so doing But they indeed must have small experience of a true Ministery who do not know a man may be better qualified to discharge it by being inwardly exercised in the Spirit and instructed thereby than by all the labour and study they can derive from their books and perhaps it may be true which he after affirms that such who bring their preaching always out of books will find little time to follow another trade but it seems such Preachers are uncapable to follow the Apostle's exhortation above mentioned and therefore we will justly conclude them to be no true Gospel-Ministers ¶ 5. That he may be like himself he begins his 20 chapter of Woman-Peachers with railing saying the Quakers are against all the appointments and ordinances of Christ then he goeth-on at a high rate enveighing against the liberty of Womens speaking from Paul's words 1 Cor. 14 34. as being against the Law as being contrary to modesty and shamefacedness urging pag. 398. the Apostle's authority in writing that epistle which we deny not and then he urgeth against us
exhortation to the Elders of Ephesus Act. 20 33. and therefore at last after some ado he agrees to it but to make it have the less weight he tels how Paul took from other Churches which is not denied but it is manifest Paul preferred the not taking but working with their hands to supply their necessitys as that which was rather to be done else to what purpose desires he them to remember the words of the Lord Jesus that it is more blessed to give than to receive But it seems 1. B. and his Brethren think it the most blessed thing to be getting large augmentations My speaking of their complaining of the hardness of Christians indefinitly doth not hinder exceptions and therefore his carping at it pag. 409. is frivolous And albeit Paul did not plead for a carnal Ministery in reasoning for Maintainance as he saith pag. 410. yet it very wel follows that such are but a carnal Ministery that will not preach without they get money yea himself confesseth in the former page that true Minister must speak whether they get aliment or not and commendeth some for so doing But he hath given in this page 410. a notable example of his sottishness and malice both together for in answering what I say that a carnal Ministery wanteth the Life and Power and therefore needs a fixed maintainance but a Spiritual Ministery can confide in God who will provide for them to this he tels that the Priests in the days of Iezabel were richly provided for and the servants of God put to great straits shall we therefore saith he say that these Priests of Baal were the only called of God sent-forth in his Power and Authority and that the Servants of the Lord were but a carnal Ministery This were to argue carnally with belly arguments as our Quakers do The sober Reader may judge of the sottishness and malitious perversness of this answer sottish it is because no ways to the purpose for I never made the being richly provided a token of a Spiritual Ministery as the whole I say of this matter evinceth but on the contrary with Christ and the Apostle I think they are most blessed who receive least And will he say that my saying that Spiritual Ministers can depend upon God who will provide for them so as not to need a fixed maintainance infers any such thing it is malitious because he would insinuat to the Reader that this gross assertion were mine affirming we argue with belly arguments which is a base but bare calumny how much more his arguments savour of that the Reader may judge and that his extream keenness in this matter shews how near of kin he is to those whose God is their belly who preach for hire and divine for money and look for their gain from their quarter What he saith of the Quakers riches is both false and frivolous for they are none of the richest People and their Preachers especially such as receive maintainance are usually the poorest among them for such as have of their own and are called to the Ministery do not use to receive but following the Apostle labour to make the Gospel without charge He turns-by what I say in the conclusion of my explication of my 10 These where I shew by many Scripturs the distinction betwixt a true and false Ministery shewing how we plead for the true and deny the false this he calls false groundless and impertinent but he passed it so hastily because it was too hot for his fingers and having given it this passing sentence he concludes with his old calumny of our being Pagan-Preachers and designing Paganish Antichristianisme Section Twelfth Wherein his 22th Chapter Of the Quakers Silent Worship his 23th of Preaching his 24th of Praying and 25th of Singing Psalmes are considered NOw followeth his 22th chapter entituled of the Quakers silent worship wherein if I should return him no answer but that of Michaël to Lucifer the father of lyes I should do him no injustice it being a heap either of manifest calumnies gross perversions or abusive railing wherein as if he were constituted Judge by GOD over the Quakers he concludes them over and over again to be acted and deluded by the Devil and to be such as wholly lay themselvs open to him to possess them and work in them at his pleasur with much more of this stuff for which I need not particularly note pages for the Reader will scarce look seriously unto any one of this chapter from 412. to 419. but he will find it very thick and for a sufficient refutation of it I recommend to any sober and unprejudicat Reader seriously to compare and read with this chapter that to which it relates to wit the explication of the 11th These in my Apology which I judge may suffice to give a sufficient disgust of this chapter But lest he should think this were too slightly a passing-over his matter and for the Readers more full direction and satisfaction I will propose to him to be considered these things following ¶ 1. And first his calumnies as pag. 411. where he saith I would have them understand Christ's Spiritual Resurrection was never till now whereas I speak only with reference to the time since the Apostasy and not to the primitive times before And pag. 412. he saith We acknowledge no Motion or inward Breathing of the Spirit but what is Extraordinary and meerly Enthusiastik as also that we abstract from all means This is false But as for his supposing that studied sermons are a mean appointed of God and that not to do it is a sure way of tempting God and inviteing the Devil to deceive and delude which he affirms he has shewn I have not seen it and will expect that next time he will make it more manifest His 413 page containeth a mass of calumnies to wit That there is no word in our Assemblys of the Scriptur That we apply them not for instruction reproof and edification of the People That the Scriptur is no Rule to us in our walk nor has any place in our Worship That there is to be found in all our solemn service neither preaching nor prayer nor praise And pag. 414. he has his old reïterated calumny that the power and life the Quakers speak of proceedeth not from the Grace of God but is the meer operation of Nature To this purpose he hath over and over again pag. 415 416 417 418. 421 422. He supposeth p. 414. that it is affirmed by me that at all times the Quakers meet all of them are truely gathered unto the sense of the Power and whatever any sayes comes from it and is not to be questioned which is wholly false I shew their manner of meeting and their duty when met according to their principles and the consequence thereof when they truely perform it but it doth not thence follow that none of them ever miss in the performance no more than if he should relate their
manner of Worship and the good effects he may suppose it sometimes has it would follow that whoever set about it and got up to the pulpit and read his Text could not preach false doctrin nor speak impertinently and therefore what he builds upon this here as also pag. 416. n. 7. pag. 517 429. falls to the ground But he seeketh to uphold this with another calumny as if all that frequent the Quakers meetings and are accounted of their number were supposed by us to be perfect asking how can the power of darkness work if they be made free from sinning which is false How we affirm this absolute perfection even of such as we account our Brethren I have shewn in my section of Perfection A sixth calumny is pag. 415. which he also hath pag. 424. where he supposeth it to be our doctrin that there is no setting about Prayer or other dutys without a previous motion of the Spirit and upon this he insists as an absurdity But we speak not of a previous motion in order of time as absolutely necessary it is enough if it be in order of nature which he knows may be without any priority of time and so his absurdity upon this pag. 424. evanisheth which I also answer speaking of Prayer in my Apology A seventh calumny is p. 426. where he concludeth because I say Gospel-Worship is not to be in outward observations gon-about by man in his own will and proper strength that I affirm Gospel worship putteth-away all external actions which how false it is and inconsequential any ordinary Reader may easily judg and yet upon this false inference he thinketh to bind upon me a contradiction in owning afterwards external acts of Worship for to say worship may be performed without these acts and that worship can not be performed in these acts is very different the last I deny but own the first An eighth calumny is pag. 418. where because I say that it sometimes falleth out that one come into a meeting upon a sinistrous account may by the Power raised in the Meeting be reached if the day of his Visitation be not expired he concludes if any such come in and be not thus changed his day is gon and it is impossible to him to be saved which is a gross abuse for albeit the not expiring of his day must be presupposed to a capacity of Salvation yet his not presently yea after divers times not being converted doth not suppose his day to be over since it was never our principle to say God affords men no opportunity but one Besides these there are many other perversions scatter'd up and down such as pag. 421. his saying that the waiting we plead for is such as putteth away Prayer that we plead for it to shut out the ordinances of Iesus Christ and to give God no more for all his solemn worship but a dumb mumry which word pleaseth him so wel that he hath it several times over ¶ 2. His great and mighty charge in this chapter is indeed great enough if he could make it out and that is that the Quakers are guilty of Devilry and are certainly acted by the Devil in their assemblys But this he only strongly affirms without proof unless one which whether it be valid or not comes now to be examined and that is pag. 418. from my saying that there will be sometimes an inward struggling yea so as the body will be strangely moved to this he adds a story of one Gilpin long ago answered and describeth these motions of the Quakers to be foam swell and froath at the mouth which is false and returned upon him as a calumny however he compares these motions of the body as asserted by me to the work of the Devil and the old Phythoniks But it seems malice hath wonderfully blinded the man here else he would not have given his own cause which he esteems the great Cause of God so deep a wound for in the book called The Fulfilling of the Scripturs a treatise much applauded by them whose author is said to be Robert Fleeming one of their non-conforming Brethren he relates as a convincing proof of the Power of God how some were so choaked and taken by the heart that they were made to fall over and so carryed out of the Church and as a convincing appearance of God and down-pouring of the Spirit that there was a strange and unusual motion on the hearers which by the profane was called the Stewarton Sickness from the name of the Parish Now what difference is betwixt this and my speaking of mens being strangely moved by the Power of God Will not this prove as much that all this was Devilry and the passions of the old Phythoniks Since these motions are made the great argument why the Quakers are said to be acted by the Devil let him the next time assign clear reasons according to Scriptur why these motions upon the Presbyterian bodys are a convincing sign of the working of the Power of God among them but that the motions on the Quakers bodys are enough to confirm they are acted by the Devil and if he do this effectually he may be in some hopes of gaining a proselyt Next to this I come to consider what he urges as a great absurdity to wit that the Quakers turning their minds inward which he will needs term introverting and not interpret the word that he may make ignorant folks believe it is a piece of the Quakers Devilry and laying-aside all their own thoughts and imaginations were a laying-aside both Christianity and humanity a becoming no men but brutes and worse and most capable to be deluded by the Devil Upon this he insists pag. 414. 422. and else where as if for men to abstain from their own thoughts and imaginations were the way to unman them yet if he will understand it of the Old Man the Man of sin that is corrupted we will say with the Apostle that ought to dye and be crucified and are so far from thinking this is against Christianity that we believe according to Scriptur it is the way to become a Christian and to overcome the Devil not to lay our selvs open to him And therefore his railing against man's silence from his own thoughts that God may speak and work in him doth evidence his great ignorance in the work of a true Christian for this is so far from descending from humanity to brutism that it is rather an ascending from humanity to Divinity so that albeit in one sense we are said to dye or be emptied as to our selvs yet we do more truely live and exist And if he think this a contradiction let him consider that of the Apostle Gal. 2 20. I am crucified with Christ nevertheless I live yet not I but Christ liveth in me and this if rightly considered will answer his questions pag. 422. by answering of which he would have me clear my way of Devilry As
is not inward since the Spirit of God by which Christians are led and instructed is said to be within them But pag. 424. n. 16. he saith that watching is not a turning inward but a looking outward also Indeed they who look outward go the way to be tempted for outward objects is not that which delivers men from temptations but often draws them to them But it would seem according to him that men if their eyes be shut or in a dark room can not watch in a Spiritual sense and then what became of many Saints that have been put into dungeons As to what he adds out of Dr Stillingfleet's book of the idolatry of the Church of Rome and Taulerus sermons which takes up about 7 whole pages by which the Reader may see how his book grows so bulky he misseth his aim for he will never prove that the first and most eminent Preachers among the Quakers who both practised and commended this way of Worship as wel as thousands of them yet did ever know that there was such a thing spoken of among Papists or that there ever lived such a man as Taulerus So that he but wasts his paper in seeking to prove they have borrowed their doctrin thence and albeit I will not justify many of the expressions used in the pages cited by him yet I will not scruple to affirm that some of them favour more of Christianity than his lyes calumnys and railings ¶ 3. He begins his 23th chapter of Preaching that he may be like himself with a calumny saying I have something against Preaching Praying and Singing which is false I am against none of those dutys as truely performed according to the right Gospel method as by the sequel will appear And that he may go on at the same rate he seems to be glad that I acknowledge the necessity of Worships being consonant to Scriptur but then that he may not want something to cavill he entreats me to reconcile this with what I say of the Scripturs but he should first have shewn me wherein the difference is for I profess I see none He desires also to know from Scriptur the necessity when men are met together of turning their minds inward which he still will express to make it the more frightfull by the Latine word Introversio and this he thinks so hard that he often insists upon it as pag. 446 447 448. But is it not needfull to assemble in the Name of Jesus And can that truely be without turning the mind inward unless with superstitious Papists he thinks it is enough for meeting in the Name of Jesus to say when they begin In Nomine Domini however their minds be abroad Can there be any true sense of God's Majesty as him to whom we draw near which himself confest before to be needfull without a serious turning of the mind inward that is an abstracting from all worldly and vain thoughts to mind GOD and the operations of his Spirit in the Soul Let him read Psalm 46 14. 62 1. Eccles. 5 2. Zach. 2 3. It were hard for him to forget his old often reiterated calumny and therefore he hath it here oftner than once as pag. 441 442-447 alledging most falsly that all that by which the Quakers preach or require as needfull to preach is but the dimme and darkned and malignant Light of Nature neither will he forget here his constant trade of Railing take one instance pag. 447. where he sayes that before I want revelations I will go to the Devil to get them as Saul did to the Witch of Endor More of such railing stuff the Reader may find and that very plentifully pag. 440-442-448 He wants not here also his malitious insinuations as pag. 439. that the Quakers use legerdemaine to make People believe they speak all without a previous thought in their Preaching and yet have all to a word wel studied If he accuse the Quakers of this let him prove it if he can for we deny it as a gross calumny Another is pag. 441. That we would have all study all meditation all Prayer and wrestling with God in Prayer laid aside which is also false But to proceed he foundeth what he saith in this matter upon two great mistakes which being removed the superstructur will fall of it self The first is pag. 438. where to prove the usefulness of study and premeditation to Preaching he tels how Paul made use of what he had read out of a Heathen Poet his recommending reading to Timothy his desiring Titus to hold fast the faithfull Word as he had ben taught c. and Apollos being instructed by Aquila and Priscilla all which are nothing to his purpose for we never said it was unlawfull for men to read books especially the Scriptur or that by such reading men may not acquire knowledge which may prove usefull in Preaching or defending the Truth but the question is Whether men may make use of these things in publik Worship otherwise than as led and acted and influençed by the Spirit so to do and Whether any of these places will allow men to preach in the strength of their natural or acquired parts without being acted therein by the Spirit Let him prove this if he can for this is the matter in question and remember Robert Bruce his censur of Robert Blair his sermon recorded in the fulfilling of the Scripturs His second mistake is pag. 443. where he supposeth that to be led by the Spirit excludeth or is inconsistent with reading Scriptur and with all the particular instructions given by Paul to Timothy and Titus who might have said as this man argues I can not be stinted unto these doctrins which you desire me to put the brethren in remembrance of for I must speak as the Spirit speaketh in me and the like But will he say that Timothy was not to speak as the Spirit spake in him To suppose this as inconsistent with such instructions is to beg the question and that these are consistent I have shewn above in my third section of Immediat Revelation or let him tell plainly if Timothy could do those things acceptably without the Spirit since all worship is commanded by Christ to be done now in the Spirit And yet he seemeth to agree to the necessity of the Spirit else why quarreleth he me pag. 448. for insinuating as he saith that their Ministers preach not in the demonstration of the Spirit giving an enumeration pag. 439. of several ways which he saith I know not but their Ministers are led to preach by among which this is one What know I saith he but there may be some that never digest their preachings so as not to lye open to the influences of the Spirit and to welcome his seasonable and usefull suggestions and so speak many things which they had not once premeditated But I would ask him Whether it be lawfull for any so to digest their matter as not to lie thus open
the putting-on of Christ there mentioned by the Apostle may be understood of putting-on Christ by profession though not in truth and reality which he also hath pag. 438. for which exposition I shall expect his proof next time if he have any ¶ Pag. 474. He proceedeth upon the same unproved supposition that Water-Baptisme was instituted by Christ and here he denies that Iohn's baptisme was a figure But since Iohn's baptisme was a washing with water and that the Apostle ascribeth the putting-on Christ to the baptism of Christ as washing with water typifieth or signifies the washing of Regeneration so doth Iohn's baptisme that of Christ. He concludeth this paragraph with a silly quibble where in answer to my urging Iohn's words saying I must decrease and he must encrcase he adds as if John and Baptisme with Water were all one and Christ one and the same with the Baptisme of the Holy Ghost Poor man he has been sore pinched when he betook himself to this silly shift Will he say this is to be understood of Iohn's and Christ's Persons and not of their Ministery Then we must suppose Iohn grew less and decrepit as to his person ever after this and Christ grew bigger and taler let him remember to prove this when he writes next He goes on pag. 475. upon his old mistake supposing that Water-baptism was instituted by Christ and that he gave command to his Disciples so to baptize and that Mat. 28 19. is to be understood of water-baptisme all which is meerly to beg the question He saith that to say John's baptisme is not pure and Spiritual or that it is a Legal rite is to condemn John Christ and his Apostles because God gave John an express command for it And what then God commanded the Legal rites also that did not hinder them from being such to say he needed not such a command If it had of the nature of the Legal rites is but a presumptuous quarrelling with God seing on all hands it is granted he commanded it and a meer affirming it is not such in stead of proving of it As for the Apostle his making honorable mention of Baptisme in his Epistles and of its ends which he points in several Scripturs all which is granted but it doth not thence follow that all this is to be understood of Water-baptisme and while that still remaineth the thing in debate he can prove nothing from these Scripturs But it is no wonder he thus forgets himself here as to me since in the following words he quareleth with the Apostle Paul saying in answer to his words 1 Cor. 1 v. 17. that he was not sent to baptize if Paul had not been sent to baptize why would he have done it I think it needless to me to answer the absurdity he would here fix upon the Apostle since it sufficeth me and I hope will other good Christians that the Apostle saith positively that he was not sent to baptize and for his baptizing of some we will suppose he had a reason though not from his commission which he expressly denies whatever Iohn Brown may brawle to the contrary As for his saying that it seemeth then the other Apostles had another commission than Paul had it is built upon the supposition that they had a commission to baptize with water which remains for him yet to prove And not to contend with him for brevity's sake about that of Hosea 6 6. whether not there be only to be understood of less principally yet though it were it would not follow it should be so understod here also I shew him by an example 1 Cor. 2 5. what wild work such an interpretation would make if ordinarily applied but he it seems judged it most convenient not to take notice of it in this his Examen albeit in reason he should have done it if he would give a compleat answer for he must either prove not always to be understood of less principally or otherwise he must bring particular reasons why it should be so here and not that it sometimes is so understood for such a Particular will not infer the consequence ¶ 3. The reason he giveth of Christ's submitting to water-baptisme to prove it now to continue is his saying for thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness But may not that be applied also to Circumcision and yet its continuance will not thence follow John's receiving a Divine command to baptize sheweth there was a Divine institution for it under the Law because the Law was not as yet abrogated nor the Legal ministration accomplished till Christ was offered up As for Christ his consecrating it in his own person the like may be also said of Circumcision I come now to see what he saith n. 14. to prove Matth. 28 19. to be understood of Water-baptisme and first after a little railing he saith This was but an enlargement of their former Commission as to the Object And before this we heard of their baptizing with Water with Christ's warrand and authority c. Answ. We have heard him say so indeed but must wait untill he prove ere we be so forward as to believe it And next what if it were all granted we heard before of the Disciples preparing and eating the Passover with Christ's warrand and authority will it thence follow that that practice is still to continue in the Church 2. Because it is joyned here with Discipling and baptizing was the way of making Disciples among the Jews So was Circumcision and that no less constantly and necessary will it therefore follow that circumcision is to continue 3. He saith Their constant after-practice declareth this to be the meaning of the Command But the Apostle Paul's practice and testimony declareth this to be false 4. He saith This is the proper import of the word But I deny it is so in Scriptur since we see no necessity in most of the places of Scriptur to understand the word of Water-baptisme and when he shews the necessity he may be answered and the Scripturs so frequently using it where Water upon all hands is confessed not to be understood prove this to be true And as for his saying that it can not be understood here of Baptisme with the Spirit it falleth to the ground because only built upon the supposition that that is only understood of extraordinary gifts He urgeth Christ's saying Luk 12 50. I have a baptisme to be baptized with and how am I straitned till it be accomplished as if this were to be called Christ's own baptisme and so I shall grant it with a respect to his Personal Sufferings but when I speak of Christ's own baptisme I speak of that which is his as being instituted by him for others and that contradistinct from John's Pag. 479. He saith the words of baptizing into the Name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is only to be understood of a dedicating to God and not a being baptized into the Power and Vertue But this is
paragraph where he saith I say the Scriptur only beareth Testimony to some of them to wit of the Chief Heads of Christianity which I dare him to prove ever to have been said or written by me And of the like natur are his lying conjecturs and his malitious insinuations from my words in the two following paragraphs which I utterly renounce and return upon him as his own false and fictitious apprehensions for do not I declare the Authority of the Scriptur when I testifie they are from the Spirit and that such commands require obedience as has been above shewn But what he urgeth of this further p. 57 59 from the saying of some Quakers affirming that is not a Command to them which is given to another albeit I might justly reject it as impertinent till he prove it for the reasons upon this occasion above declared yet because he mentions Benjamin Furly in Rotterdam having some knowledge of that matter I answer Whether will he say all the Commands in Scriptur to every person there mentioned are binding upon every individual now If he dare not say they are as I know he dare not how must I then distinguish betwixt what binds me and binds me not Must it not be by the Spirit suppose it were only subjectively as he will confess inlightening the Understanding To make this distinction then it seems it is the operation of the Spirit that makes them know their duty and sure they can not obey before they know But if he say that though they should want that operation of the Spirit did not know nor acknowledge them to be their duty yet they are binding upon them neither B. F. nor any Quaker will deny but even the Commands of God's Spirit the Precepts of the Scriptur which now concern all are binding upon all so that they shall be justly condemned for not obeying albeit that by the perversness of their hearts and wills they either refuse to obey or will not acknowledge them So that his urging of that p 60 61. n. 13. and his pleading for it is unnecessary and needs no answer yet who would say they could obey to any advantage of their Souls without this operation of the Spirit since what soever is not of Faith is sin But as to these words said to be writen by B. F. he is here challenged to prove they are his without adding or diminishing and it 's wel known the adding or diminishing of two or three words in a few lines will quite alter the sense and before he has answered this challenge and free'd himself from the just censur of a Calumniator albeit he take the help of his Author Hicks he will find his folly in accusing men at second hand proofs and upon the testimony of their adversarys What follows in this paragraph and p. 60. is meer railing and perversions comparing us with Papists as is before observed and indeed all of it is overturned by that one assertion of mine that what revelations are contrary to the Scriptur are to be rejected ¶ 5. Pag. 57. n. 10. he faith I come nearer to the core of my designe which is to set up Enthusiasmes in affirming that the Scripturs are not the Fountain but a declaration of the Fountain and yet the man within 3 or 4 lines confesseth it himself ascribing it to my folly to dream any man thinks so thus he goes backward and forward which he illustrats by the example of Laws But if it be so are not they to be blam'd that account them the principal Original of all Truth and knowledge Whether the other branch of my deduction follow from this that they are not to be accounted the primary Rule of Faith and manners will appear when the arguments and objections relating to that come particularly to be mentioned And whereas he thinks this is absurd and not making for my designe because God himself is the Fountain and yet not the Rule he mistakes the matter as urged by me for I argue that the Scripturs are not the original ground of knowledge but GOD not simply considered but as manifesting himself in Divine immediat revelations in the hearts of his Children which being the New Covenant's dispensation as in the last section is proven is the primary and adequat Rule of Christians For I was never so absurd as to call God simply considered or the Spirit of God in abstracto not as imprinting Truths to be believed and obeyed in mens hearts not contrary but according to Scriptur for he can not contradict himself the Rule of Christians and this may serve to answer all his cavills upon this Theam And whereas he wondereth in the following page 58. why any revelations even from the Spirit should be more primary than the Scripturs since they are confessed to come from the inspiration of the Spirit for why he useth the Latine word afflatus and doth not interpret it I know not unless to fright ignorant folk that they may think it 's a piece of the witch-craft of the Quakers whom he accuseth it is strange he should have so little sense as to make it a matter of admiration as if that were not more primary to a man which cometh immediatly from the Spirit of God in his heart than that which albeit it come from the Spirit yet is through another and so must needs be but secondary albeit it be confessed they writ them not for themselvs but for others which I deny not Of the same natur is and the same way is answered what he saith p. 65. n. 19. to wit that I confound the Principal Leader with the Original Rule because I say the Spirit is the Prime and Principal Leader but I deny his consequence neither doth his example of the Wind and Compass prove it the Spirit is the Principal Leader as imprinting upon man's Soul the Rules he should walk by but indeed he would prove a very uncertain Pilot that had no compass but only a description of it and a journal how other men had steered that course and such Pilots is he and his Brethren according to their own confession But he thinks I drive at something more intolerable to wit that the Revelations the Quakers pretend to or the Light within is to be preferred as the more primary and principal Rule to the Scripturs If the Quakers did affirm any revelations they speak of as coming from that Light either were or could be contrary to the Scripturs he would say something otherwise it will amount to no more but that commands as they are imprinted upon the Soul that is the Law writen in the heart by the Spirit is more primarily and principally the Rule than the same things writen and received only from another as to which I will only ask him Whether those things which the Apostles received immediatly from the Spirit commanding them to go here or there to preach the Gospel or the like were as to these ends more