limit or confine the Gospel to outward Preaching of men otherwise what God or Christ Preaches of his Love and Mercy to men in their Hearts should not be the Gospel nor should that be Gospel which God Preached unto â—braham and also unto Adam after the Fall seeing to none of these God did use the Miniâ—â—ry of men To conclude therefore what God reveals of his Love and Mercy for mens Salvation whether without or by the Ministry of men Spiritually fitted and called thereunto is the Gospel and that Gospel may be called the Power of God unto Salvation because it is mighty and powerful in operation but yet it doth not follow that the â—reaching of the Letter without the Spirit and Power of God is the Gospel as I. A. would have it CHAP. XIII IN the pretended Survey of the 12th Query I. A. 〈◊〉 the Inspirer of the Quakers as he scâ—ffingâ—y 〈◊〉 it as being both a great Jester and a great Fool also because the Inquirer asketh Whether Original Sin be the Devil seeing the Word Original signifieth the Beginning But I ask I. A. why may not the Devil be called sin or unrighteousness in a certain sense as Christ is called righteousness frequently in Scripture And what is it that made him that was an Angel of Light to become a Devil but sin for when God first created him he was not a Devil but he became so or made himself so by his sin And seeing sin made him become a Devil why may it not receive his Name And also seeing the Devil stirreth up men to sin and is the Author of it commonly in mens Hearts it may very well receive his Name at least by a Metonymie Again is not sin called in Scripture The Old Man or Old Adam whom we are bidden to put off According to I. A. his reasoning Sin cannot be an Old Man because a man is a person and then Sin should be a person also Again by his Argument God made man but he made not sin therefore sin cannot be a man And thus according to I. A. the Inspirer of the Apostle Paul must also be a Fool and a Jester which were very Blasphemous to think because Paul calleth sin in men The Old Man and compareth it unto man having its various Members Now if indwelling sin may be called man in any tollerable sense of a Metonymie or Allegory according to Scripture why not also Devil Serpent Leviathan as also it is called flesh And whereas the Inquirer doth ask what did Christ come to destroy was it not the Devil and his works To this I. A. giveth no direct Answer for certainly that Divel whom Christ destroyeth in mens hearts and that Serpent whose head Christ the Seed of the Woman doth bruise is sin which is the Serpents birth in mens hearts and which receiveth his Name as the Child doth the Name of its Parent Now as to the words Original sin as they are no express Scripture words so they have an Ambiguous or doubtful signification and therefore it were better to leave those words and to keep to express Scripture For in one Sense there can be no Original sin because originally all things were good and sin came in not with the Creation but sometime after it But how sin hath come generally upon all men as whether by the bare imputation of Adam's sin without the consent of his Posterity or by and through their consenting thereunto is the true state of the question which I. A. hath not as yet resolved And it seemeth most absurd that God should reckon any sinners for Adam's sin without the least consent or concurrence on their part which is not just among men and certainly what is unjust with just men is not just before the Lord who is infinitely just and good And seeing none are Righteous or Just by the Righteousness of Christ the second Adam without their Faith in him and consenting to his Righteousness so none are unrighteous by the first Adam but such as consent to his sin But again when this consenting to Adam's sin took place in his posterity as namely whether before they came into the womb as those who hold the pre-existence of all Souls from the beginning do affirm whereof there have been and are divers among those called Christians or whether after they are born when they grow up to the capacity of discerning good from evil is yet another Question which I. A. hath not touched far less resolved And it were well that men were more inquisitive to find the way how to get sin put out than how it came in seeing they are generally sensible that that it hath entred and got too great place in them But as to the determinate and precise time when sin hath entred into mens Souls as it is no part of the Query so it is none of my present work to determine It shall suffice enough to reply unto I. A. that all his Arguments for the in being of sin in mens hearts fall short to prove that it came into them without their own consent or that God doth impute sin unto any Soul simply and barely for the Fact of another for that is to contradict the common instinct of Justice that is placed by the Lord the judge of the whole Earth in all men Another Question which I. A. raiseth on this Head although it be no part of the Query is Whether that Seed of Concupiscence which is felt to move in those who are Travelling uprightly towards perfection be really and properly their sin or imputed unto them for sin by the Lord when not consented unto in any measure or degree And he resolveth it in the affirmative but with very weak and insufficient Arguments 1. He saith By the sin of Adam all were made sinners Rom. 5. 16 17 18. But what then doth it therefore follow that they were made sinners without their own consent let him show us this any where in Scripture 2. He saith Adam was the representative Head of mankind But I say again it doth not thence follow that his sin is the sin of his Posterity without their consent no more than it doth follow that because Christ is also the Head of every man that his righteousness becometh theirs without their consent and their actual receiving of him and believing in him 3. He saith There are motions which are sinful though not consented to when they are tampered with or listned unto I Answer to tamper with any evil motion or listen thereunto is some measure of consenting but when the evil motion is not tampered with nor listned unto in any measure this reason hath no place And here he alledgeth on me that as he was informed I did once dispute for a Professors place which to what purpose he mentioneth this I donot understand however I tell him his Information is false for I never disputed any where in all my life for a Professors place 4. He argueth That as Gracious Principles
I Answer Every true Minister or Pastor hath his Anthority to Execute his Function as Christian as nor being a strict and formal reduplication but taken specifically seeing to be a Christian is as necessary to every true Minister of Christ as to be a living Creature is necessary to be a man or to be a man is necessary to be a Souldier or Magistrate or Lawyer And whereas I. A. saith That Christian and Antichristian are not contradictory terms seeing many persons are neither Christian nor Antichristian I Answer again as they are taken indefinitely they are not contradictory but as restricted to such as bear the Name and Profession of Christianity they are perfectly contradictory so that every one that professeth himself to be a Christian such as the Pope doth is most certainly either Christian or Antichristian The other gross Assertion of his is That the Church of Rome was still a True Church and not Babylon until the time of Reformation viz. about the time of the Council of Trent or Luther's arising with some others to witness against her notwithstanding she did hold many fundamental errors and thus because her errors were not so discovered and demonstrated unto her before as since that time But what a miserable shift and evasion this is and how contrary to Scripture and the Judgment of the most sound of all Protestant Writers I leave the Sober Reader to judge For doth not the Scripture plainly declare That Mystery Babylon was to rule over the Nations and deceive them and Drink the Blood of the Martyrs and Witnesses of Iesus for many Hundreds of years And when was it that she deceived all Nations Was it only since the Reformation or rather was not her chiefest timâ— before the Reformation for since the Reformation many Nations are come to see her Abominaâ—ions more than formerly And when was 〈◊〉 That the Kings of the Earth hath committed Fornication with her Hath it not been for many hundreds of years bygone rather than since the Reformation when they have begun to hate her and burn her flesh with Fire in some sense And when began she to drink the Blood of the Saints Only since Luther's days or the Council of Trent Surely none who hath the least knowledge of Church History but will say the contrary and acknowledge that she has been a Bloody Murtheress for divers hundreds of years long before the Reformation and consequently was no true Church of Christ. For not only her unsound and corrupt Doctrines but her wicked Life and especially her slaying the Witnesses of Christ And exalting her self over the Kings and Emperors of the Earth above six hundred years ago at least with many other things to be charged against her utterly inconsistent with a true Church doth altogether make her to be no true Church for many hundred of years before Luther And the Lord wanted not Witnesses sufficient to demonstrate her Errors unto her many hundreds of years before Luther for in every Century God raised up his Witnesses against her as the Church History doth plainly and fully relate Moreover she had both the Scriptures of Truth to Witness against her and also Gods Holy Checks and Reproofs of his Spirit in her Conscience that was instead of a thousand so she wanted not demonstration of her Errors sufficient to render without excuse for many hundreds of years before Luther's time And now let all sober Protestants judge who doth most favour the Harlot Babylon I. A. or we for by I. A. his Doctrine she is but a Young Woman as yet and â—carse â—ad time in the World to bring up her Daughters of Fornication to that Age and Stature the Scripture declareth How much more true is the Testimony of those Protestants who date her rising above a Thousand years agoe her whole time being numbred in Scripture to contain 1260 or 1290. days at most signifying according to the Proâ—hetick Stile of Scripture so many years the period or end of which time sincere Protestâ—ants are looking for as near approaching when she shall fall as a Millstone cast into the Sea and never rise again But by I. A. his account she began not to rise till little more then a hundred years agoe and consequently before her fall more then a thousand years are yet to expire which is too glad tydings unto her but they are false and too sad tydings to the people of God if that they were true THE END 1 Cor. 11 32. Act. 10. 42. Act. 17. 31.
Scriptures and principles of Religion and not of School-Logick which men may either have or want and yet be truly Devout And for all this scorn of I. A. I shall mind him of what Augustine observed above 12 hundred years ago Surgunt indocti indoctae rapiunt coelum a nobis doctis The unlearned men and women arise and take the Kingdom from us who are the Learned Which may well at least be applyed against them who glory in their Artificial Learning and set it up higher than it doth deserve And said Paul to the Corinthians as well to the Preachers among them as others For ye see your Calling Brethren how that not many wise men after the flesh c. are called And what is a man with all his School-Logick and other Natural Sciences and Arts but a wise man after the flesh And yet according to Paul's Doctrine God had not chosen many such either to be Christians or Ministers Moreover whereas I. A. pleadeth for the great commendation of Humane Arts and Sciences of Grammar Logick c. from Isaiah 50. 4. and 2 Pet. 3. 16. It remaineth for him to prove that these places are to be understood of such kind of Learning which I deny and on the contrary affirm it is Divine and Supernatural Learning which is there to be understood As to Isaiah 29. v. 12. 14. I grant that it is meant of humanly Learned but it maketh clearly against him seeing the Vision was a Sealed Book as well to the Learned as to the Unlearâ—ed And therefore none of I. A. his Arts of Grammar and Logick could open the Seals here of Again whereas he saith The Quakers have often Objected to him against the lawfulness of Logick among Christians because it was first used among Heathens and then he scoffingly doth inquire But what shall we do with the Isle of Brittain which was first used by Heathens I Anwer that I suppose it is I. A. his mistake or failure of memory that the Quakers have ever Objected against the lawfulness of true Logick which I know none to be against only I judge it may be well argued that seeing it was a thing used among the Heathens and yet did not bring them to the true knowledge of God nor can it bring any Christians thereunto now And it seemeth unreasonable that any Art found or used among the Heathens should be made an Infallible Rule to make a Minister of Christ. Or perhaps if any of those called Quakers have Disputed against Logick it hath been only against that falsly so called viz. a Sophistical way of contending about any thing for or against which is too much used in Schools at this day and wherein too many glory and are puffed up But I. A. his comparison betwixt the Isle of Brittain and School Logick is very unequal else let him prove that his School-Logick is as necessary and profitable to the life of man as the Land of Brittain is Again whereas in Answer to the Instances of Elisha Amos Peter and Iohn who were not bred up in Grammar and Logick and yet were true Minâ—sters he alledgeth It is no good consequence to argue from an extraordinary fact to an ordinary fixed Rule I Answer he hath not as yet proved that it is any ordinary fixed Rule by the Lord that all must have those Arts of School-Logick and Grammar who are Ministers of Christ. He but here beggeth the Question as it 's ordinary for him to do in other cases And as for us we judge it no tempting of God nor looking for extraordinaries to believe that we may receive true knowledge and grow up in the same so far as is requisite for a true Preacher to have by our diligent reading and meditating on the Scriptures by the help of God's Spirit assisting us to understand them and withal using fervent Prayer unto God to obtain the said help of His Spirit although we neither use the Art of Grammar or Logick and we find not that Paul recommended Timothy to give attendance to those Arts but only to Reading viz. the Scriptures and not to neglect the gift that was in him which I suppose I. A. will not be so raâ—h as to say was either Grammar or Logick And now after diverse abuses and perversions of I. A. in his examination of this first Question he concludeth with another great calumny and false charge in saying The Quakers alledge that Peter and John had no Grammar and Languages whereas the Question doth only alledge That Peter and John were not bred up in Grammar and Languages which doth not hinder it to be true that God afterwards did immediately inspire them with the gift of Tongues And yet even before they were inspired with these Tongues they were Ministers In his Survey or Examination of the second Query he continueth to play his old Game of perverting the state of the Question which is not as the Reader may see whether Grammar Logick and Philosophy c. were extant in the World before Christ his coming in the Flesh for that we readily acknowledge but the Question is How long it was after Christ that those Arts were set up to make Ministers of Christ To this he gives no Reply but only goeth on to prove the lawfulness of Philosophy and to tell what it teacheth Now as for true and genuine Philosophy the Quakers deny it not to be lawful even that commonly called Natural Philosophy which is a knowledge of natural things and the operations thereof with their effects but that which they oppose is to make such a natural knowledge so â—ar as it is only an Art taught in the Schools absolutely necessary to make a Minister of Christ. Again Secondly We Question much Whether that which is commonly taught in Schools among those called Christians under the name of Philosophy be indeed the true and genuine Natural Philosophy seeing the far greatest part of it is exploded and rejected by not a few of the more knowing among your selves and if any of us have called Philosophy Foolosophy and Witchcraft as I. A. alledgeth they did not mean it of any true Natural Knowledge but in the Apostlessence when he saith Beware lest any spoil you through Philosophy and vain deceit which I. A. confesseth is Sophisticate and corrupt Philosophy And dare he say there is none of that sophisticate and corrupt Philosophy taught in the Schools and Universities in Brittain And may not sophisticate and corrupt Philosophy be called Witchcraft in that sence used by Paul Gal. 3. O foolish Galatians who hath bewitched you And I Query what Philosophy doth I. A. mean by the true and genuine Philosophy which he maketh so necessary to every Minister of Christ whether Aristotle's Philosophy or the Cartesian or any other seeing there are many kinds of that called Philosophy in the World whose principles and rules directly contradict one another And the Schools in Christendâ—m to this day have not agreed in the common principles and
accusing us as being against all external Ordinances because the Query insinuates That such who are come into Death with Christ need not Bread and Wine to put them into remembrance of his Death from whence he most unjustly inferreth his consequence that we reject all outward helps and means whatsoever But doth not I. A. know that his own brethren acknowledge there is no absolute necessity of using that called the Supper so as none can be saved but such as paâ—take of it and the like may be said of any outward helps when people cannot have them But yet we say still whatever outward thing God hath Commanded us to use be it never so small or mean is in that respect both necessary and profitable unto us for there is none of God's Commands but they bring along with them a real advantage to mens Souls but I. A. hath not as yet proved it that using Bread and Wine as aforesaid is any Gospel Command Another abuse of his is that he alledgeth We reject the said practise of taking the Bread and Wine from a conceited perfection which is false for as we do not boast of our perfections so we do not reject that customâ— because of any perfection that some of us may become unto beyond others but because we cannot find it to be any Gospel Precept and therefore we cannot acknowledge it either to be necessary or profitable to the weakest Another thing he quarrelleth in the Query is That it makes to dye with Christ and to come to the Death with him all one And here he insults not a little in his knowledge of Philosophy above the Quakers for a meer Grammaticism of saying to for into which perhaps was only a fault in the Transcriber and yet we find commonly that to and into are indifferently used to signifie one thing as to come to Town is all one as to come into it and to come to Christ is all one as to come into him and when Christ said Come unto me he did certainly mean that they were to come into him Hence we read of the Saints being in Christ. And if this be I. A. his Philosophy so to quarrel at words proper enough and according to Scripture let the judicious and sober Reader judge whether some of our Friends that called his Philosophy Foolosophy had not ground so to do And whether he has not discovered more folly than true Philosophy from first to last in his Book against us In his Answer to the reason hinted in the Query from Paul's words to seek the things that are above and the things that are seen are temporal he still beggeth the Question That the outward observation of Bread and Wine is a mean which God hath appointed for the attaining the things above And in Opposition to his Assertion let him read what Paul saith Col. 2. 17. where he putteth meaâ— and drink in together with the new Moons and other legal Observations which he calleth A shadow of things to come but the body is of Christ. And seeing I. A. acknowledgeth that the Bread and Wine are but external signs and not the real body of Christ I ask him wherein then differ they from Shadows And if they be Shadows they are no part of the Gospel Dispensation according to Paul's Doctrine In the close of his pretended Survey to this Sixth Query he chargeth us most rashly and uncharitably as being related to the accuser of the Brethren as if the writer of the Queries had positively charged all the Ministers of Scotland that they never intended their Hearers should come any nearer to Christs Death than a bare Historical remembrance thereof But doth not I. A. know that to Query a thing is one and positively to conclude it far another And the Enquirer had ground so to Query because he understands that if it were the care of Preachers to bring people into the Death with Christ so as to be Crucified with him they would not plead so much for upholding a Figure or Shadow of Christ's Death to put them in remembrance of it when to suffer and die with Christ is much more effectual to remember them Nor Secondly would they plead so much for carrying a body of sin about with them while they live and that all must be under a necessity of sinning daily in Thought Word and Deed yea in whatever thay think speak or do for such a state is not consistent with a being Dead and Crucified with Christ. And Thirdly If it were their work to bring people to dye with Christ they would turn them to the Light of Christ in their Hearts and Preach it to be unto them of a saving Nature and an effectual mean to obtain the said Death with Christ which yet they do not but on the contrary deny it as meerly natural insufficient And is it not too apparent that the far greatest number of your Church Members know nothing more of Christ's Death than the History of it And whether the fault of this lye not in a very great part upon the Preachers is no small nor impertinent Question And seeing I. A. pretends so much to Scripture Rule I shall ask him a few Queries more upon the former Head First What Scripture hath he and his Brethren to call that eating of Bread and drinking of Wine once or twice in a year in the Pubâ—â—ck Assembly the Sacrament 2. What Scripture have they to instruct them how oft they should use it as once twice or four times in every year And if they have none was it not then left to people according to the Query at least as to the time 3. What Scripture have they for consecrating it or when did Christ say Before ye eat it consecrate it 4. When did Christ give only the power to a Priest or Presbyter or Ordamed Minister to Consecrate it so as without the said Consecration by some Priest or Ordained Minister it is no Sacrament And seeing every Christian may eat it as well as the Minister why may he not also consecrate it as well as he seeing every true Chrisâ—ian is a Priest 5. Where did Christ appoint that these words Take Eat this is my body should be the words of consecration and have ye not received all this from the Papists and not from Christ 6. Seeing ye commonly say that this Sacraâ—â—â—â— of the Supper is come in the room of the Passoâ—er and under the Law every Family had power without a Priest to celebrate the Passover why hath not also every Family under the Gospel 〈◊〉 much power without any Ordained Priest or Minister to celebrate that called the Supper 7. Seeing every true Christian feeds daily by Faith upon the body of Christ according to the Protestant Doctrine and ought daily to remember the Death of Christ in all their eating and drinking which is also sanctified unto them by the Word of God and Prayer what peculiar vertue or efficacy hath your sacramental eating more than ordinary eating