which we reply That this is no consequence at all and shall demonstrately prove it from these severall arguments 1. To set the minde and will of the spirit in opposition to the spirit it selfe can be no Gospel argument For the Scriptures are the infallible will of the spirit layd downe as the rule of Saints beleeving judging and walking What a reproach had it been when the spirit of God sent the Prophets to reveale his will or when Jesus Christ sent the Iewes to search the Scriptures what a reproach had it been to the living God for them to have answered We will not be judged not will we judge of spirits or doctrines by that Word or Scripture we will stand to the judgement of the spirit it selfe opposing the spirit it selfe to its owne will How wicked a thing had it been in them and how ridiculous an answer is this in Nayler 2. How is this to undervalue the wisedome of the holy Ghost himselfe Bereans commended for trying spirits by Scriptures Acts 17.11 who judgeth and pronounceth the Bereans more Noble then those of Thessaloniea in that they searched the Scriptures dayly whether those things that were spoken by Paul and Silas were so or no in that they searched the Scriptures the Spirit prizeth them for trying the Doctrines of Paul and Silas by the Scripâ—uâ—es the written Word And how wicked a thing is this in the Quakers to cry downe this trying of spirits and Doctrines of Scriptures which the spirit expressely ownes with such a signall testimony as speaking out in the soule such a spirituall noblenesse 3. It is confessed on all hands that the eternall Spirit is the originall of Scriptures and the tryer of Spirits who ever questioned that But our question is what the Saints are to try the spirits by not whether the spirit can try the Doctrines No. But we affirme that this eternall Spirit hath left the written Word as that which shall be the discovery touchstone and tryall of spirits and Doctrines by authority and divine warrant from himselfe See 2 Pet. 1.21 Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the holy Ghost 2 Tim. 3 16. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God c. John 5.99 Search the Scriptures Isay 8.20 c. So that our asserting the Scriptuâ—es to be tryall of spirits is but setting up the spirit in his owne authority and throne over the spirits and consciences of men and pleading with men that the spirit may rule in his owne way and that they will try Doctrines by that Scripture which the holy Ghost commands them to try the Doctrines by And he that refuseth that touchstone which the spirit hath layd dâ—wne for tryall doth destroy the authority of the holy Ghos â—et hâ—m speake fantastically of trying by the spirit what he will But this reasoning of Naylers is as if when the Loâ—d Protector should declare what is treason by Law in publique Proclâ—mations a Justice of Peace should when a Person were proved before him guilty of treason according to that Law yet should say he is not to judge what is treason according to that Law but he would appeale from the Law to himselfe for what is treason though the Law had determined it before But in this case to exclude the Scriptures because the holy Ghost is the originall of them is to destroy that plaine truth Subordinate non pugnant things that act in a subordination though about the same thing doe not destroy one anothers usefulnesse or causality Nay the spirits being the Originall of all Scripture this being confessed doth necessarily confesse their divine authority for that trying of spirits for which they were given forth by the inspiration of God 2. As to that expression the spirituall man judgeth all things we have fully spoken before in pag. 79. We know there is a spirit of discerning which Beleevers have of Gospel mysteries but what absurdity is this to inferre therefore spirits are not to be tryed by Scriptures For that light which a spirituall man hath is a Scripture light 1 Cor. 5.4 opened 3. How ignorantly is that 1 Cor. 5.4 produced to prove this assertion when Paul sayes In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ when you are gathered together and my spirit to deliver such an one to Sathan c. Paul is not trying of spirits or judging of Doctrines but exhorting the Church to excommunicate the incestuous Person and tells them That his Apostolicall power shall goe along with them in that sentence The verse going before tells you what is the meaning of his spirit where he sayes I as absent in body but present in spirit have judged already as though I were present concerning him that hath done this deed that is I in this Epistle doe send you my mind and my judgement what you ought to doe with this man that hath committed Incest as fully as if I were present with you and so you may goe on at your meeting to excommunicate him having for so doing not onely the authority of the Lord Jesus but also the conseâ—t and iudgement of me his Apostle This is that in those words In the name of the Lord Jesus and my Spirit How doth this man heape up quotations without any understanding of the minde of the spirit in them and with what exceeding ignorance doth he apply such Texts to his absurdities as neither prove them nor speake a tittle concerning them Excep 2 By this spirits were the spirits tryed before the letter was therefore spirits are not to be tryed by Scriptures Reply What a miserable non sequitur is here There was a time when the spirit had not given forth the Written Word therefore when the spirit doth give forth a written Word it is not to be regarded There was a time when the Law was not engraven in Tables of Stone therefore when it was engraven the Israelites must not looke upon it as a rule of life or judgement There was a time when the will of God was not written was not Scripture therefore when Christ bids you search the Scriptures you need not heed them at all But we leave the Reader to laugh at this absurd consequence The Bereans judged by another light then James Nayler doth who though they knew there was a time when Scripture was not written yet they tryed the spirits and doctrines of Paul and Salas by the Scriptures And the Spirit it selfe inspired and moved holy men of God to write the Scriptures to leave them as a tryall and touchstone of spirits though once there was a time when there was no written word But oh how doth God infatuate men when they will not submit to the authority of his Word Excep 3 He falls a rayling exceedingly and sayes We have no guide but the letter because we assert the authority of Scripture and addes how many minds how many formes how many gods doe ye worship and all pretend Scripture If it be possible to
which is the cause of such most wretched blasphemies 1 Cor 6.17 opened This next Scripture is 1 Cor 6.17 He that is joyned unto the Lord is one spirit The designe of the Apostle there being to dehort from Fornication upon the account of that union that is betwixt the Fornicator and the Harlot ver 16 they are one body for two saith he shall be one flesh doth adde a further reason to the Saints he that is joyned to the Lord is one spirit V. 15. Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them the members of an Harlot God forbid Now that this Text doth not hold forth a Beleevers equality with God will thus appeare For first The strength of the Apostles argument in this place is by the membership of a Beleever to Christ to prove the exceeding sinfulnesse of taking a member of Christ and making it a member of an Harlot all the union it holds forth betwixt us and Christ is onely as we are members of the Lord Jesus Now the membership of a Beleever with Christ is nothing to prove his equality with God For first The implantation of a Beleever into Christ being by Faith in his death and Faith it selfe being a finite grace can no way bring the soule into an infâ—nite equality 2. Besides Paul after membership by Faith in Christ yet complained of a body of sinne which utterly disclaimes all equality with God 2. The nature of this union speaks no physicall onenesse for as there is no physicall onenesse betwixt the Fornicator and the Harlot neither are they physically one body though so ca led out of a relative respect so neither is there any such physicall onenesse betwixt Beleevers and Christ And without the soules physicall onenessâ— with God there can be no equality betwixt it and God nay if Christ were not essentially one with the Father neither could he be equall with the Father Having thus seen the full meaning of these Scriptures we beleeve Readâ—râ— thou wilt wonder how the Justices could heare the Scriptures so blaâ—phemously abused and yet be satisfied as Nayler pretends they understanding his affirming his equality with God of the spirit of Christ in him For did they thinke that the spirit did essentially dwell in Fox how then came they to be satisfied when Fox attributes that to himselfe which is the spirits property or how comes he to be the same essentially with the spirit of God or did they conceive the spirit in Fox to be the graces or fruits of the spirit how then could they be satisfied it so in as much as those fruits of the spirit are in their best capacity but a new creature and so in no way equall with God But were they all satisfied How then was it that Mr. Sawry a Member of the late Parliament and as unprepossessed as any of the Justices then present was so fully satisfied that Fox was really and by confession guilty of those blasphemous words that he said he was equall with God that he openly declared against him in the presence of them all and urged the Iustices that Fox was clearely guilty of that blasphemy by his owne confession before them all Now for what he addes concerning Dr. Marshall his Oath That one of the Iustices who was present at Lancaster when Fox spoke these words did openly there witnesse against Marshals false Oath in the hearing of the open Court Let the Reader know W. C. 1. T is true that Iustice did so in the hearing of one of us but did it in such a way with his head hanging downe and a low voyce that spake clearely enough to observant hearers he had more will to accuse him then either confidence or reason 2. That Iustice was Coll. Benson t is true he was at Lancaster and t is as true he was a Quaker long since and before that time and had made it his worke to ride up and downe about that businesse to get Fox discharged from his blasphemy and what such a partiall evidence is to gaine-say the Doctors Oath let the Reader judge 3. Besides the Dr. swore it and so did Mr. Altham but Coll. Benson onely whispered it or said it at the utmost 4. It was fully evidenced after in Lancaster before the whole Country 5. But to discharge our selves and to cleare up the truth beyond all denyall we have here given you the testimony of the said Dr. Marshall and Mr. Altham sent to us and dated at Lancaster Ian. 19. 1653. George Fox said That he that sanctifieth and they that are sanctified are one and they are equall George Fox being asked Whether he was equall with God answered thus I am equall with God The truth of these two Articles against George Fox we have already witnessed by deposing our Oaths before the Magistrate at severall times and still witnesse though now our testimony be not so necessary as formerly since the observant Reader may discerne what we witnesse more generally held out in their owne Books perticularly in the Booke entituled Sauls Errand to Damascus pag. 8. line 8. See also their answers pag. 5. 6. and 10. Jan. 19. 1653. William Marshall Michaell Altham Excep 2 Thus we have you see fully cleared our first testimony And for the second That Nayler said He was as holy just and good as God against which Nayler thus excepts It is an untruth and was never spoken by me nâ—r ever did it enter into my thoughts but is a lye raysed up by the father of lyes the Devill and vented by his servants to make the truth odious and so goes on denying that ever Will. Baldwinson heard him say so c. We thus answer Reply 1 Surely this man thinkes by his rage to darken the truth of this testimony but that thou mayst againe acquit us and see that Iames Nayler makes no conscience of lyes as we have given thee the testimonies of Dr. Marshall and Mr. Altham for the former so we here give thee a large account of the proofe of this horrible blasphemy under the hand of Will. Baldwinson January 14. 1653. Sir YOu Writ to me to certifie you of some Words that I heard from Iames Nayler and Richard Farnsworth as they call themselves amongst us I my selfe went to George Bateman his house in Underbarrow called the Crag and there was a great deale of people come in to the house and Nayler and Farnsworth sitting beyond a Table upon a Bench and there Nayler speaking and teaching Perfection and to be attaind to in this life and to be without sin this teaching so did trouble me as being contrary to the Word of God that I stood up before the Table and spoke these words Friends doe you hold that a man may attaine to that height of perfection in this life to be as perfect as pure as holy and just as God himselfe And they joyntly replyed Yea and they were so And one in the house spake and said My question was not
to the purpose And I answered and said But it was because I knew no such thing by my selfe And after these words they began to teach that every man had a light within him if hearkened to would teach guide and save him And I replyed againe and said how is it that our Saviour Christ sayes There is no man comes to me except my father which sent me draw him before God and Christ draw where is my light and to this they spoke not one word so I went home from amongst them But the day of the Moneth nor the Moneth I set not downe I not fearing the danger of this Heresie All these words were spoken in the same house in the night time Will. Baldwinson We doe testifie this to be Will. Baldwinsons owne testimony Tho Walker John Myriell John Wallace 2. Here thou hast our innocency vindicated and now what reason hath Nayler to call us the servants of the Devill and venters of lyes when as thou seest his deniall of that testimony is but the backing of his owne blasphemy with a notorious lye which must needs fly in in his face if he have any sparke of conscience left in him 3. This full testimony gives a further discovery of their Positions we formerly layd downe as first Their asserting perfection in this life and to be without sinne As also secondly Not onely Nayler but Farnsworth also affirmed he was as holy just and good as God for so saith Will. Baldwinson they joyntly replyed Yea and they were so Thirdly That every man hath a light within him if harkned to will teach guide and save him Thus we can blesse the Lord that our being forced by Nayler his charging us with lyes to vindicate the truth hath been an occasion to discover the blasphemies of these men more apparantly and convincingly unto all But we wonder how they dare deny these things or why Nayler should stand disputing against these testimonies when their being equall with God is fully layd downe in Foxes owne words in Print See Sauls Errand to Damascus pag. 8. and line 8. He that hath the same spirit that raysed up Iesus Christ is equall with God And againe thus line 11. c As Iesus Christ which is the mystery hath passed before so the same spirit takes upon it the same seed and is the same where it is made manifest Where it is clearely his designe to shew that there is the same hypostaticall union betwixt the spirit and our nature where the spirit dwels as was betwixt the Divine nature and the Humane in the Lord Jesus Excep 3 To our proofe that George Fox affirmed He was the Judge of the World Nayler denieth it not but replyes by justifying that expression And tells us we are grossely ignorant of Christ and rayles at us exceedingly For this he quotes 1. Cor. 6.2.3 Know you not that the Saints shall judge the World Hence he abuseth the Scripture to inferre that George Fox is the Judge of the World Reply 1 Cor. 6.2 opened For the opening of this Scripture know first That the Father hath committed all judgement to the Sonne Iohn 5 22. Acts 17.31 God hath appointed a day in which he will judge the World in righteousnesse by that Man whom he hath ordained whereof he hath given an assurance unto all men in that he hath raysed him from the dead Where you see plainely the Father hath eminently apointed Jesus Christ alone that man to be the Iudge of the World How then comes George Fox to be Iudge of the World for the Scripture doth but hold forth One to be the Iudge of the World even the Lord Iesus whom the Father hath therefore furnished with all necessary qualifications viz. of infinite power infinite knowledge infinite presence things absolutely necessary for the Iudge of the World 1 Cor. 15. â—5 Againe It is one thing to Iudge the world and much another thing to be the Iudge of it there is very much difference betwixt these two but George Fox must be either the judge oâ— none it seems 3. It is not said the Saints doe judge the world that 's proper to the Lord Iesus but t is said they shall judge the world they shall judge Angels the Apostles kept very strictly and closely to the expression of the future clearely holding forth that he means of their judging of the world at the end thereof and the resurrection of the dead according to that of Christ concerning the Apostles in the day of judgement Mat. 19.28 Verily I say unto you that you which have followed me in the regeneration when the Sonne of man shall sit in the throne of his glory ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel We shall not need to speake of the manner of their judging as Iustices at the Bench by subscription or assent to the righteous proceedings of the Lord Iesus at that day And is it not still apparant to be a blasphemy for Fox to say he is the judge of the world And can the abusing of this Scriture help him And what reason hath Nayler to charge us with grosse ignorance and rayle upon us upon this account but we have layd this open enough to any Reader Onely this we shall adde in Sauls Errand to Damascus pag. 6. it is objected against Fox that he professed himselfe to be the Eternall judge of the world not onely the judge but the Eternall judge and this he doth not at all deny but blasphemously goeth about to justifie it This is suitable to that which one of these Quakers lately wrote to an eminent Officer in the Army who told it himselfe to one of us viz. Looke to the light within thee which cannot sinne whereby thou wilâ— judge and determine God-like His next justification of that title is bottom'd upon that 1 Cor. 2.15 1 Cor. 2.15 opened The spirituall man judgeth all things To which we answer that he that is acquainted with the Originall will easily perceive that the word judgeth in the 15. ver is the same with that in the 14. ver which is rendred discerned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ver 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so that the meaning of the expression is no more but the spirituall man discerneth all things All things viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the spirituall mysteries of the Gospel this is evident that these all things are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the Apostle is speaking of the Mysteries of the Gospel ver 7. the wisedome of God in a mystery he is speaking of such things ver 9. which God hath prepared for theâ— that love him and ver 11. the things of God ver 12. the things freely given to us of God ver 13. things spoken of such things as are ver 16. the minde of Christ So that Nayler is wide to seek when he applyes this as he doth the spirituall man t is true doth discerne the mysteries of the Gospel and minde of
he know them for they are discerned spiritually There the Apostle gives the reason why no light implanted in our natures in the creation can discerne the things of the spirit of God because they are spiritually discerned where he makes an opposition betwixt naturall and spirituall light and puts an impossibility upon discovering Christ by the light of Nature We may adde that ver 9.10 Eye hath not seene Eare hath not heard neither hath it entred into the heart of man to conceive c. but God hath revealed them unto us by his spirit 3. That that light which by Christ in the creating of the world is implanted in the soule is not a knowledge of Christ as a Mediator will appeare by undenyable examples for there are multitudes of men and women without contradiction never knew the Lord Iesus as a Mediator though it must be confessed they had a rationall or naturall light Those thousands of Saints that went over into new England fully experienced it that there is not the least hint of a Christ implanted in those Indians one of us having often conversed amongst them can also fully witnesse it as is more fully also evident by the confessions of many of them in Print who have been converted by the Ministry of Mr. Eliot of which we spake in the Perfect Pharisee pag. 19. But may not these Scriptures fully confound these mens pervertings of that Scripture Reade Psal 143.19 He shewd his Word unto Iacob his statutes and judgements unto Israel he hath not dealt so with any people and as for his judgements they have not knowne them Psal 79.6 Powre out thy wrath vpon the Heathen that have not knowne thee Col. 1.26 the disponsation of God is given to fulfill the Word of God even that mystery which hath been hid from ages and generations But let Paul determine the contrary to whose judgement we shall desire to stand 2 Thes 3.2 All men have not Faith Light in all not sufficient to save 3. That this light which by Christ in creating of the world is implanted in man is not sufficient to bring to a Gospel salvation is also plaine from what we have convincingly proved that this naturall light may be in thousands that never knew the Lord Iesus as a Mediator and Iohn 17.3 this is life eternall to know thee the very God and Iesus Christ whom thou hast sent So that there is an utter insufficiency and incapacity in this light to bring to salvation So that though A. P. hath lately expressed his abhorring the distinction betwixt naturall and spirituall light yet our Lord Iesus and the Apostles are so full in it that they are of more authority with us then the novell opinion of A. P. Thus you see this Scripture fully vindicated from their wrestings for hence it is apparent that though Iesus Christ by whom the Father made the world Heb. 1.2 in his creation of man did enlighten and create a principle of light and naturall reason and understanding in the soule which we have proved is eminently there understood yet this proves nothing for the Quakers that either therefore every man that hath a reasonable soule Christ dwells in him or that he knowes Christ or that his naturall light can possibly suffice to bring to Gospel salvation Excep 4 Naylers next defence is this ridiculous argument If Christ be not in the most vile in the world c how shall he judge every one according to their thoughts as well as according to what they doe must he proceed as carnall Iudges doe by proofe or confession and no further Reply We need say no more to shew the simplicity of this argument then to aske them these questions Doth the Scripture say that Christ is in the Devills and yet he sees and knowes and judgeth them Or doth the Scripture say that the damned in Hell Christ is in them Nay but doth not Scripture speake in this language Christ in you the hope of glory Col 1 27. so that Scripture speaking of Christ in you speaks of him as being the hope of glory where he dwells And is Christ in Devils and damned soules the hope of glory For geâ—â—â—er the Quakers nor we are in this controversie at all disposinâ— concerning the abiquity of the Divine Nature by reason of which he is above all and through all and 〈◊〉 all But of Christ in us in that sense the Gospel useth the expression viz. as a saving light and principle the hope of glory 2. How ridiculous is it from Christs knowing all things to inferre that he dwells in all can he not know things unlesse he dwell in them Doth he not know the inward motions of Brutes Horses Fishes c. and is it Scripture Language from thence to inferre his dwelling in them Oh! the vainenesse and frothinesse of such a spirit and how are these men given up to blasphemy We shall conclude with that of David Psal 11.4 The Lord is in his holy temple the Lords throne is in Heaven his eyes behold his eye-lids try the children of men He hath another argument that Christ dwells in the Saints which we know in its Gospel sense but not in Naylers that Christ as man dwells in them but how absurdly and un-scripturally doth this conclusion follow therefore Christ doth dwell in all Thus you see our proofes fully confirmed his lyes confuted his perverted Scriptures cleared and answered and the folly of his arguments fully opened though he hath not answered one of our arguments and many Scriptures against that Doctrine Position 5. That Christ in the Flesh with all he did and suffered therein was but a Figure and nothing but an Example Excep 1 O deceitfull spirits c. are those words expressely found in Sauls Errand to Damascus as you say they are let that Booke be witnesse against you and your lying slanders to all that reade it Reply Surely this man pretends neither to conscience nor modesty that doth challenge us here for a lye for saying that Doctrine was expressely found in Sauls Errand He that shalâ— but looke upon that Booke pag. 2. pag 8. pag. 14. shall begin to know the impudence of Iames Nayler pag. 2. 9. line last in the schedule annaxed to the Lancashire Petition to the Councell of State you have this charge Richard Hubbethorn wrote that Christs comming in the Flesh was but a Figure Now are we lyars in affirming those words are expressely found there Nay further in pag. 8. where Hubbethorne answers to that charge we will give you his owne words Christ in his people is the substance of all figures types and shadowes fulfilling them in them but as he is held forth in the Scripture-letter without them and in the flesh without them he is their example or figure which is both one that the same things might be fulfilled in them that was in Christ Iesus Could a man have spoken more plainely to affirme what we asserted of him And doe we adde our
mayst observe he answers nothing and thereby see the spirit of those men that doe stop their eyes against the plainest light but he that hardeneth his heart shall not prosper Position 13. That the Scriptures are not the Word of God but a Declaration of the conditions of them that spoke them forth He answers nothing according to his custome to our arguments nor excepts against our proofes but labours to confirme the Position Excep 1 Christ is the Word now if the Scriptures be the Word then there is two Words of God now prove that in Scripture or that the Letter is â—aked the Word in plaine words Reply 1. That Christ is the Word is plaine Iohn 1. and who knoweth it not The essentiall and declarative Word not all one 2. That the will of God contained in the Scripture is the Word of God is as plaine besides the Scriptures we named â—n the Perfect Pharisee pag. 24. Marke 7.13 Luke 11 28. Rom. 10.17 Iohn 12.48 we shall adde these Luke 8.11 the Seed is the Word of God ver 12. then commeth the Devill and taketh the word out of their heart least they should beleeve and be saved can the Devill take Christ out of their hearts 1 Thes 2.13 When yee receaved the Word of God which you heard of us yee received it not as the Word of Men but as it is in truth the Word of God c. This was the Word which the Apostles spake yea received it which cannot be meâ—nt of Christ he should have said yee received him not as the word of men but as it is in truth the word of God This is so plaine a case we shall not trouble thee further And here thâ—u mayst observe there are two words of God the essentiall and 〈◊〉 declarative and wonder the man should be so weake as to bid 〈◊〉 produce Scripture to prove this when the Scripture is so full of it to any that doth but reade it Excep 2 The Apostle calls what he wrote a Declaration 1 â—ohn 1.2.3 Reply How doth this prove the Scriptures are noâ— the word of God nay doth it not fully prove the contrary for that which he declares was what he had heard of the Lord Iesus Scriptures not onely a declaration of the conditions of Saints Againe we doe owne the Scriptures to be the declarative Word of God or a declaration of the minde of God but we say the Quakers doe destroy the Scriptures Divinity and authority when they call them onely a declaration of the conditions of them that spoke them forth For as we prâ—ved before 1 They shall be then no foundation for the Faith of Saints for one mans condition is not the foundation of another mans Faith 2. The Scripture shall have no authority over the soule of any but he that is in the same condition and hath experienced it contrary to Iohn 2.4 8. this is the reason why Nayler sayes they are not commanded to forbear to weare shâ—oes in his Book p. 21. if they were they should as well as they are commanded not to sâ—lute whereas that command if it be in any part binding Luke 10.4 requires both but this will tell thee what is meant by their calling Scripture a speaking forth of the Saints condition viz. it shall have no authority over them further then they list or have an impulse on their spirits or they practice for both the commands are of equall authâ—rity yet he denyes they are commanded one of them nay they are both in the same verse Luke 10.4 Yea 3. This destroyes the divine authority of all Historicall and Propheticall Scripture which could not be the Saints conditions when thâ—y spoke them as also threatnings and promises c But see this at large Perfect Pharisee pag. 24.25 We sha l say but this 1 Iohn 5.16 There is a sinne unto death I doe not say that you should pray for it was this Iohns condâ—â—ion when he spake it did he exper ence in his heart that he had sinned to death 2 Pet. 2.22 The Dog is returned to his vomit c. was this the condition of Peter that spoke it but we are ashamed of this wickednesse and folly of these men Excep 3 VVhereas you say it cannot be understood to be the word Christ that came to the Prophets Samuel Ieremy c it seems your understanding is not with the Apostle who saith It was the Spirit of Ch i st that was in them 1 Peter 1 11 and you say what Christ and his Apostles Preached c. was not Christ the Father or Spirit when as the Scripture saith Holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the holy Ghost 2 Pet. cap. 1 ver 21. Reply The Quakers grossâ— confounding of Christ with the written VVord 1 Consider Reader how grossely he abuseth and perverts the Scripture to prove that the words that they spoke were Christ and the spirit because it is said These holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the holy Ghost What a grosse and blasphemous conâ—ounding is here of the word that those men spoke and the holy Ghost that moved them to speake making the word spoken by a finite creature to be the everlasting spirit the holy Ghost The words were committed to Paper and Inke Rev. 1. Heb. 2.2 engraven in Tables 2 Cor. 3.7 Isay 30 8. write it before them in a Booke note it in a Booke c. can this be Christ or the Spirit of God and yet these are the things which they were moved of the holy Ghost to write Who knoweth not that it was the spirit of God that moved them to write that revealed the things they were to publish to the world but were those things that the holy Ghost moved them to write were those things Christ were those things the spirit What a miserable ignorance or judiciall blindnesse is this which certainely the righteous judgement of God hath given up this Generation of people to because they received not the truth in the love thereof that they might be saved Position 14. That the Spirits are not to be tryed by the Scriptures c. This Position is not denyed by Nayler we proved it from three testimonies and Nayler in his answer addes his owne defence thereof without exception against any of our proofes VVe shall take his arguments for defence thereof in order Excep 1 The infallible spirit which is the originall of all Scriptures is the tryall of all spirits and that spirituall man judgeth all things and by that spirit the Saints was to judge of all spirits and gave those up to Sathan that was for that end as is plaine 1 Cor. 5 4. Reply 1 The spirit not to be set in opposition to Scripture The force of this argument by which he would prove that spirits are not to be tryed by Scripture lyeth thus The infallible spirit is the tryall of all spirits therefore spirits are not to â—e tryed by Scriptures To
rake up a reason out of a heape of rayling this it is Those that doe uphold the Scriptures to be the tryall of Doctrines doe yet differ amongst themselves therefore the Spirits or Doctrines are not to be tryed in Scriptures Reply Quakers Popish argument This as many other of their answers is a knowne thread-bare Popish argument they say You Protestants cannot agree in your Discipline and therefore the Scriptures are not to be the judge of Doctrines but the infallible spirit of the Pope We hope God will discover them ere lonâ— to be men meerely acted by the spirit of Anti-christ but we shall give you a full answer under these two considerations Difference in non-fundamentals no prejudice to the Scriptures being judge of spirits 1. First as it reflects upon our selves We say to differ in discipline is not to worship severall gods as Nayler rayles while it is knowne we hold the head the Lord Jesus but this we looke upon as the spitting of his venome When Peter was for Circumcision and Paul was against Circumcision Gal. 2.13.14 did they worship severall gods So those Acts 15. that contested in different judgements did they worship severall gods But this man cares not what he sayes so be may throw his dirt upon us though he bewray his excessive ignorance in it before the world 2. As it fights against the Scriptures being the judge and tryall of spirits we shall shew there is no strength in this exception at all For the Scripture loseth not its authority for the tryall of spirits by reason of the darkenesse and different apprehensions of spirits How darke were the Apostles in the Prophesies of Christs Resurrection Luke 24 25. Fooles and flow of heart to beleeve all that the Prophets have spoken c. yet the Scriptures lost not their touchstone authority upon the account of their darkenesse though Christ saw thâ—t truth of the Resurrection in the Scriptures spoken of which they could not apprehend ought not Christ ver 26. to have sâ—ffoâ—ed these things and to enter into his glory Doth not Peter say plainely that in the writings of Paul there are 2 Pet 3.10 difficult things and hard to be understood and such as the unstable and unlearned rest and yet those Writings and Epist es doe not lose their authority because of the diversities and darkenesse of Beleevers thoughts Scripture rightly understood will clearely discover every spirit and every Doctrine though the best of men knowing but in part 1 Cor. 13.9 and so not fully taking in the genuine sense of Scripture may have through their darkenesse difference of judgement in things lesse fundamentall But we may be weary in following such triviall arguments onely we would not have the saints entrapped in any of Satans snares nor the blessed word that 's sweeter then hony and the hony combe subjected to the delusions of evill men Thus we have given thee the strength of his answer onely he addes his false glosse upon that of Isay 8.20 Isay 8.20 vindicated by us objected against them in the Perfect Pharisee the glosse is this Whereas you quote that place To the Law and to the testimony it is true the Law of the new Covenant is written in the heart by God and the testimody of Jesus is the spirit of Prophesie and if any be not guided by and speake according to these it is because they have no light in them but without them But we answer As he plainly by this overturnes all Scripture and leaves no rule but the Law written upon mens hearts which we have confuted in the Perfect Pharisee pag. 25. so it is a grosse perverting of the text and truth for it is clearely spoken of the Written Word and the very next words expresseth it clearely If they speake not according to this Word the Hebrew is full beyond exception cedabar hazzeh according to this Word so that that text is no reference that God makes to the Law written upon mens hearts but to the Law written in Tables of stone which tables were called the testimony and the Arke thereof called the Arke of the testimony Exod. 25.22 because the Tables of stone in which the Law was written called Exod. 31.18 the tables of the testimony were layd up there We have fully showne in the Booke called the Perfect Pharisee pag. 26. the sad fruits of this Doctrine of denying the Scripture to be the rule of trying doctrines and spirits that it is to open a gap to all the delusions of Satan and we instanced sin the knowne case of Iohn Gilpin who was sometimes a Quaker to which Nayler replyes onely thus It is no more then if the chiefe priests should have cited Iudas to confute Christ c. as he consulted with the priests to betray the truth so Iohn Gilpin hath done now who shall receive his reward and you priests also as Nayler sayes To which rayling we thus answer Shaking off the Sâ—ripture tâ—e â—â—ler to Satans delusions 1. That Iohn Gilpin was thus acted by the Devill is a known truth beyond questioning 2. That he did verily beleeve he was acted by Christ when yet the Devill acted him is very apparant Nay Atkinson the boy that pretends to answer that reâ—ation of Gilpin doth all along confesse that he was acted by the Devill is plaine to any that reades that his childish â—nd non-sensicall piece of rayling 3. Iohn Gilpin himselfe â—â—ee the Lord hath delivered him in mercy out of the snares of Satan hath fully confest that it was the spirit of Satan and not the Lord Iesus that then acted him 4 And that all this grew â—ut of his casting off the Scriptures searching to a light within Take his owne words pag. 15. of a Booke called The Quakers shaken It was most just with God to give me over to strong delusions to beleeve lyes c. as for other provocations sâ— especially for rejecting the revealed will of God in his Word and heaâ—kning onely to a Voyce within me nay not onely to l sten to the Devils suggestions but to embrace his Voyce for the Voyce of Christ Thou seest now Reader what reason we had to say this rejecting the Scriptures from being the tryer of Doctrines doth open an unavoydable gap to Satans delusions 2. But what reason hath the man to say in this both Iohn Gilpin and we have consulted against Christ Nay have we not been pleading for Christ against Iudas the desperate betrayen of his truth and Gospel while we have been discovering â—he subtilties of Satan in those that are acted by him and pleading for the authority of Christ in his word against all the delusions of the Devill And as we can thankefully and comfortably looke upon it that God hath engaged us in so good a work so we can looke for our reward not what Nayler we beleeve could wish us but how can he defie when God hath not defied but what Christ hath promised to them that can
forsake their names and comforts c. for his testimony It is no small slandâ—â— to say we have consulted with John Gilpin whose face none of us ever saw to our knowledge till after the Printing of his confession but there is a day wherein God will call every idâ—e word to an account and then Naylers conceit of his perfection will not take off the guilt of such apparant lyes Position 15. That there ought to be no sense meaning or exposition given or studying of the Scriptures We had many proofes for this that it was a Position of thâ— Quakers which he denyes not we could adde more but ' tiâ— needlesse because Nayler in his answer goes about to justifie it 〈◊〉 the summe of which lyes in these two exceptions Excep 1 The Scriptures are either perfect or not perfect if perfect lâ—â— them alone and doe not darken them by your invented wisedome Reply 1 Though Scripture be perfect in it selfe yet needs expounding through the darknet of soules To which we answer The Scriptures were given out perfect by the Prophets and Apostles yet they gave them out iâ— some places more darkely and in some places more clearely as Peter plainely confesseth 2 Pet. 3.16 that some things iâ— Pauls Epistles were hard to be understood and layd downe 〈◊〉 darkly as that those that were unlearned that is not well aâ—quainted with the mind of the holy Ghost in them did wrâ— them to their owne destruction which shewes the necessity opening and expounding Scriptures unlesse we will suffer mâ— through their ignorance to runne upon their owne ruine 2. Were the Scriptures imperfect or did Ezra adde to them because he gave the sense and caused them to understand the Reading Neh. 3.8 3. Doth not Christ speake the necessity of expounding Scripture though it be perfect when he said to the Pharisees Goe learne what that meaneth I will have mercy and not sacrifice Mat. 9.13 Nay doth not Christ clearly assert the necessity of expounding when he saith Marke 12.24 Doe yee not therefore erre not knowing the Scriptures Ver. 26 Have ye not Read in the Booke of Moses how God spake unto him in the Bush saying I am the God of Abraham c. he is not the God of the dead but the God of the living where he opâ—n the Scripture and proves the Resurrection from thence wh ch lay but darkely hid in those words had not he that had the Key of David opened and expounded them 4. The necessiâ—y of expounding doth not arise from the imperfection of Scriptures but from that darkenesse that lyes upon the spirits of the saints For now we see through a glasse darkely 1 Cor. 13. so that though the Scriptures be perfect in them elves yet thou seest the necessity of the opening of them through the imperfectiâ—n that is in us This Christ and the Apostles knew when they made it a great part of their businesse in the teaching of soules to expound the Scriptures Excep 2 You that have not that infallible spirit that gave them forth what will you judge and open and expound them with c. Reply This is but an old straine of his railing but we can let prayses be to free grace say with the Apostle God hath revealed them unto us by the spirit by the light of which spirit we are taught to compare spirituall things with spirituall 1 Cor 2.13 and so to open the Scriptures for though we are the least of saints and Nayler thus revile us yet we can blesse God for the in dwellingâ— of the infallible spirit in us which communicates light to our soules in that measure that pleaseth him dividing to every man severally as he will The rest of that answer is a heape of bitter rayling which is no more to us then the chaffe before the wind or the Viper upâ—n Pauls hand which comes forth from the flaming of their contention James 3.6 and we can shake off as into the fire from whence it came Position 16. They cry downe Baptisme with Water and the Lords Supper as being but types and shadowes ceasing upon the appearance of Christ within them Excep 1 Though the generall charge lie and our many proofes which he doth not deny make it cleare that they cry downe all Baptisme with Water yet Nayler in his answer shuffles from that charge and falls to except against Infant Bapâ—isme Reply Reader we should willingly cleare up that Ordinance of Christ to thee but it hath bin so fully cleared in the learned writings of Mr. Marshall Mr. Baxter Mr. Blakâ— Mr. Siâ—enham c. 〈◊〉 are loath to fill up our Booke with the discussing and clearing 〈◊〉 that point it being already growne up to a bulke beyond 〈◊〉 thoughts and shall referre thee for satisfaction in thâ—se 〈◊〉 discourses But let the Reader observe that this is but a 〈◊〉 evasion of Nayler for our proofes doe evidently satisfie 〈◊〉 they cry downe all manner of Baptisme with Water no◠〈◊〉 the Baptizing of Infants but of all and its further appâ—â—â—â— by their practice Excep 2 But at last he speaks his mind and reasons against all â—â—â—tisme and quotes that of Paul 1 Cor. 4.14 Paul knew whaâ— he spake when he thanked God he had Baptized no more for Christ saith he sent me not to Baptize but to Preach Reply 1 1 Cor. 1 14 opened By these expressions Nayler seems to make Paul looke upon his Baptizing others as a sinne and so to thanke God that he Baptized no more How is this to heape sinne upon Peter and the rest of the Apostles who Baptized three thousand at one time Acts 2.41 Ierusalem and all Iudea went forth to John to be Baptized of him and yet Iesus himselfe made and Baptized more Disciples then Iohn See Iohn 4.1 though Iesus himselfe Baptized none but his Disciples what is this but to make â—â—ul condemne the practice of those saints and oppose the câ—â—mand of the Lord Iesus Goe and Baptize Mat. 28.19 2. But to give thee the full meaning of Pauls expression then shalt finde 1 Cor. 1.12 he is charging them for factions Ouâ— said I am of Paul another I am of Apollo c. and argues thus Were you Baptized in the name of Paul and thence takes occasion to blesse God for not having Baptized many lest any should from thence have growne into a Faction as himselfe gives the reason ver 15. lest any should say I have Baptized in my owne name and from thence have made a Faction so that he blesseth God that sith the Corinthians were growne of such Factions and dividing spirits that providence had so ordered it that they had by his Baptizing so few of them so little advantage to cry him or his name up in opposition to Apollos Christ or Cephâ—â— Yet by the history of the Acts of the Apostles thou mayst observe that when ever any were converted by Paul they were Baptized Acts 16.15 ver 33. Acts 18.8 many of the Corinthians
the nature of quaking owning it where there was any reall appearance of God to the Prophets and shewing a clear difference betwixt these divâ—ne repâ—ures and the Satanicall quakings of these men he answers nothing at all but onely cavils at a word Excep 2 That we say They call their Quaking their great perfection which he sayes is false c. Reply To which we answer We cannot but look upon that as the great perfection in the eyes of these men which they doe so much cry up and so much desire as such a pretious attainement W. C. One of us doth know that Cap Ward and Will. Cartmell did expresse their desires of it and their hopes to come under that condition Henry Houseman said speaking concerning quaking he was not come up to that perfection yet We might adde more but Iohn Gilpin tells you in Quakers Shaken p. 5 that he did earnestly desire that he might fall into quaking and trembling apprehending that he should thereby attaine to the immediate discoveries of God unto him And is not that perfection Why doth Nayler still charge us with slanders Practice 2. Rayling Except He would endeavour from Scripture to lay downe a warrant for his rayling and his reason is because Christ called the Iewes the children of the Devil c. The Apostle cals men dogs wolves c. Reply 1 We charged them with rayling at those persons they had never seen before telling them they were Devils damned they saw the Devil in their faces so that this appeares to be perfect rayling because not knowing the persons or actions of any such men nor any particular sinne by them yet they let fly their dreadfull censures at randome Thus we instanced in our Perfect Pharisee p. 46. in their rayling at Mr. H. T. Merchant of Newcastle calling him a Priest c. and Gorge Fox rayling at Mr. Nichols in Carlile p. 48. telling him he was an hypocrite though he had never seen his face nor knew his name Now how is this bottom'd upon Christs example or the Apostles who gave such expressions to none but such as they had particular knowledge of as to their sinne giving a reason for such titles 2. Those titles were given to wicked Herod and to the teachers of false Doctrines Phil. 3. 2 Pet. 2. and we have fully cleared it we hope to every mans conscience who is not filled with errour and prejudice that we are neither reproachers of Christ or his Doctrine but according to our talent have found mercy of the Lord to be faithfull in carrying on the interest of the Lord Iesus and therefore we cannot but looke upon it as their sinfull practice in powring out such language upon us 3. He that doth but reade the Scriptures shall finde that this is not the ordinary language of Christ and his Apostles it was very seldome and very solemne and he that doth but compare this with the practice of quakers shall see a vast difference for it is their common practice and such words are as familiar as any they use as thou art damned and I see the Devill in thy face nay they are their usuall first salute to all they meet withall Was this the Apostles way take but any of their Books and compare them with any of Pauls Epistles and as thou wilt see a spirit of sweetnesse and meeknesse in his so thou wilt observe such a continuall froathing out of passion and bitternes in these men as will lay them naked to be acted by a spirit vastly different from that of Paul or any of the Apostles of the Lord Iesus 4. But shall the holy zeale of Christ and his Apostles be wrested to be made a patronage to their malitious raylings Doe they not by this means labour to take away the sinfulnesse of that rayling which the Apostle tells you is the fruit of the flesh and of which they that are guilty shall never enter into the Kingdome of God 1 Cor. 6.9 But we referr thee for further information in this to the Perfect Pharisee pag 44. 45. Pract. 3. Their pretending upon all occasions to be sent by sheâ—iall Commission from God 1. Here we having related by severall passages of the quakers pretending to a Commission from God the ridiculousnesse of their Messages and that pretence he plainely tells us he will not justifie them and when he cannot shuffle it off he tell us he can say nothing to it because he knows not the things in particular though the persons Reader thou mayst observe that are there mentioned are of his familiar company and converse and so thou wilt easily think had they been lyes we should have heard from him with open mouth yet the man will needs take the boldnesse to call them lyes though he confesse he knows not the particulars Now Reader judge of Nayler and his conscience 2. He sayes that they who were before the Magistrates were invited to any of our houses is false Oh! the confidence of this man and how boldly dare he rush upon a lye or any thing to make us odious All we say is that some of them that came to Newcastle were invited to come to our houses by some of us If Iames Nayler will aske M. Tayler if he were not invited by W. C. to his house when he was at that time at Newcastle and did not come he will see the debauchednesse of his conscience for W. C. doth beleeve M. Tayler hath so much honesty left as not to deny it Quakers justifie their cursing because such vvords are in Scripture and make the Scripture a vvarrant for cursing As to George Foxes cursing M. Fetherston which we quoted p. 48. Perf. Phar. all that Nayler replyes is that M. Fetherston confessed all that Geo. Fox spoke was Scripture What a ridiculous evasion is this of so great a sin Because there are such words in Scripture therefore he may apply them as he will There are these words in Scripture I am the Lord and change not he sits upon the circle of the Heavens c. In the beginning was the Word and the Word was God these expressions because they are in Scripture is it therefore lawfull to give them to any creature Nay dare Geo. Fox challenge them to himself because they are in Scripture Or because such words the Lord smite thee thou painted wall thou hast lyed against the holy Ghost for whom is reserved the blacknesse of darknesse for ever Are these true of G. Fox or may we therefore lawfully apply them to G. Fox because they are such words as are found in Scripture Oh! what a ridiculous evasion is this He may also plead that he and his followers may lawfully swear because the words sweare and oaths are to be found in Scripture and then this generation will perfectly come up to the necessary and experienced fruit of these principles viz. Ranting to a great degree wherof they are already attained in their most impudent obscene and shamelesse