alledgeth there is little or no resemblance betwixt Noah's temporal saving by Water and the saving by the inward or Spiritual Baptism But who is so blind or weak that doth not see the falsehood of this his Assertion Is there not the greatest and most near and infallible resemblance betwixt that temporal Salvation of Noah by Water and the spiritual and eternal Salvation by the spiritual Baptism which doth universally and infallibly save all Souls that are partakers of the said spiritual Baptism whereas many thousands get the Water-baptism who are not saved thereby and therefore it doth much more naturally follow that not Water-baptism but the Baptism of the Spirit that doth infallibly purifie the Soul is here meant even as the inward Circumcision of the Spirit is the Anti-type or thing signified by outward Circumcision Lastly As to his seventh Argument whereas he laboureth to prove That Water-baptism is meant Matth. 28. 19 20. whereof he is so confident that he entreats his Reader Not to believe him henceforth if he do not prove it so to be I shall briefly take his proof into consideration 〈◊〉 He says The Greek Word which is Translated Teach signifies to make Disciples and therefore they were to be made Disciples before they were to be Baptized but they could not be made Disciples before Conversion nor does Conversion pre-require Discipleship or else no man might endeavour the Conversion of an Heathen or of any man who is not before Hand a Disciple To which I Answer That granting the Greek word may signifie to make Disciples yet all this reasoning of I. A. doth not inferr that by Baptizing here cannot be meant the Spiritual Baptizing by the effusion of the Spiritual Water upon them which as is already said signifies not barely the first or lowest degree of Conversion but an high or eminent degree thereof even as the outward Plunging or Dipping into Water iâ— more than a small Sprinkling Now as true Faith is before this eminent degree of Conversion or Purification so is also true Discipleship Nor doth it follow that else no man might endeavour the Conversion of an Heathen for they were to endeavour the full and perfect Conversion of Heathens in the highest degree that was possible but so as to do it in Gods way and order to wit first by Teaching and Discipling them into the true Faith and then their full and perfect Conversion or Purification and Spiritual Cleansing was to follow one degree after another His other reason is That the Baptism of Conversion or the Spiritual cleansing of the Soul is but only improper and Metaphorical and we must 〈◊〉 throw about the words of any Text of Scripture from a proper to an improper meaning without some necessity constrain us so to do To this I Answer First That we ought not to go from the proper signification of any word to an improper without some urgent necessity I already acknowledge But then why doth I. A. and his Brethren frequently transgress this Rule in expounding other places of Scripture as to instance when the Scripture saith Christ died for all men I. A. expoundeth this all not of all individuals of mankind but only some and these the far less number and yet he must needs acknowledge that the proper signification of the word all is all individual Again when the Scripture saith Thâ— Kingdom of God is within you I. A. turneth it to among you contrary to the proper sigâ—ification and also to the common Translâ—tion Also when the Scripture speaketh frequently of Christ and the Holy Spirit being in the Saints they commonly say This is not to be meant properly but figuratively understanding by Christ and the Spirit the effects and operations or Graces of the Spirit and not Christ or the Spirit himself And many instances of that nature can be given to shew how I. A. and his Brethren go from the proper signification of Scripture words to an improper without any necessity unless that of their own devising But Secondly I. A. doth but barely take it for granted without any shadow of proof that it is an improper meaning to mean by the Baptism of Christ the spiritual Baptism For the proper meaning of any place or sentence of Scripture is certainly that meaning which the Spirit of God doth intend whether there be a Metaphor used in that place or not Nor doth the Metaphorical use of the word hinder the meaning of it to be properwhen it is so intended And seeing the Scripture doth almost every whereabound with Metaphors and metaphorical expressions we are not so much to consider what is the bare Grammatical sense of any word in common Speech as what is the most common and usual sense of it in Scripture for what is the most common sense of it in Scripture I judge is the most proper meaning of it whether the word be otherwise metaphorical or not for who will deny but according to Scripture sense by the word Christ is properly understood the true Christ of God to wit His only begotten Son and yet Grammatically it is but metaphorical at least as much as the word Baptize for Christ signifieth Anointed even as Baptized signifieth Wasâ—ed or Dipped and if I. A. or any will contend That Christ is properly called Christ or Anointed because the spiritual Anointing is as real and proper in its kind as the outward and natural is in its kind I shall not contend against them but rather go along with them therein but then I say also that the spiritual Baptism is as real and proper in its kind as the spiritual Anointing is in its kind and thus also when Christ is called Bread in Scripture in the Scripture sense he is truly and properly called so yea why doth he call himself The true Bread and why said he that the Manna which Moses gave to the People in the Wilderness was not the true Bread from Heaven Doth not this signifie that whatever vertue or excellency outward Bread hath to feed the Body Christ who is the inward and spiritual Bread hath it much more to feed the Soul yea and the Body also when he pleaseth so to do and in this respect it is that some do affirm That those names of Bread Water Light Oyl and the likâ— are more properly applyed to the spiritual than to the natural so that the Water Oyl Light and Bread that is but outward and natural is rather metaphorically so called and the inward and spiritual more truly and properly deseâ—ving those names And thus the spiritual Baptism shall be the most proper in that sense also But now let the Scripture be searched and we shall find that the word to Baptize doth no less commonly signifie the spiritual Baptism than the outward and Elementary and therefore whoever would perswade us to believe that the spiritual Baptism is not meant here in Matth. 28. 19 20. must shew some invinsible necessity why it ought not the which I. A. hath not as
Rules of that called Philosophy but remain at great uncertainty in the very foundations of it as is acknowledged by the most ingenuous Professors thereof Now to make a thing so uncertain as their Philosophy is in many or most things to wit a fallible thing an infallible Rule to make a Minister of the Infallible Truth is a very absurd and unreasonable matter But I. A. giveth us a number of Thirteen or Fourteen Positions which his School-Philosophy doth teach the truth whereof is evident as that there is a God who is Infinite Eternal Omnisciâ—nt Omnipotent Unchangeable that every man is a Rational Creature that the Soul of man is Immortal that no Brute is a Man that no Action can be without some Subject nor without some effect nor any Union without some extremes But I suppose there are few men if any that have but the right use of their understanding as men that do not or may not know all this without School-Philosophy as well as I. A. doth with it And then what advantage giveth his Philosophy unto him But toere are other great matters which his Philosophy teacheth and as he particularly describeth them they are these following That every thing either is or is not that nothing can â—oth be and not be at once that of every contradiction the one part is true and the other false that every whole is more than 〈◊〉 part that every Cause is prior in nature to its effect that nothing can work before it exist But I must tell I. A. that these last mentioned Positions are not taught by Philosophy and are not any part of Philosophy as is generally acknowledged by the Professors of it because they are first Principles which Philosophy doth not undertake to teach but presupposeth them as already known and understood by the common dictates of understanding that is in all men and are called by them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 common Sentiments or Principles and therefore we still desiderate what peculiar Misteries I. A. his Philosophy doth teach that men of ordinary understanding doth not already know or at least may know very easily by a simple reflection without his Philosophy or School-Craft Not that I deny but that there are divers things which the true genuine Philosophy may teach that are not obvious to common understanding but I find nothing asserted by I. A. in all these positions which he giveth as instances of what Philosophy teacheth but every ordinary Tradesman knoweth as well to be true as I. A. And therefore he might have spared his Pains in that idle and unnecessary work CHAP. III. J. A. in his Survey or Examination of the third Query doth earnestly contend That the Words of the Scripture are and ought to be called the Word of God For which he useth divers Arguments and Citations of Scripture but the true state of the Question here is not whether the Scriptures figuratively as by a Synecdoche or Metonymie may not be called the Word for which I shall not contend finding that the Greek Word Logoâ— Translated into English the Word is used sometimes in Scripture to signifie either Words or Writings as Acts 1. 1. the Treatise Writ by Luke he calleth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is to say in English the first Word or Speech Also where Paul saith Our Gospel came unto you not in Word only but in Power c. 1 Thess 1. 5. And some other places may be found both in the Old and New Testament to that effect which yet doth in nothing give to I. A. nor to any of our Adversaries the least advantage against us For the Question is what is properly the Word God or the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That which is most properly and eminently that Word of God so much mentioned in the Scripture with its wonderful effects and that the Letter is not properly the Word of God is as evidently apparent as that the Writing or Written Letter of a mans Speech is not properly the words of a mans Mouth for we commonly distinguish betwixt a mans Word and his Write How much more ought we to distinguish betwixt the outward Letter and Writing and the Word of God in the proper sense seeing God is an invisible Spirit and so is his Word And what he hath spoke by his Prophets or Apostles he spoke it first in their Hearts and Mouths before there was any Declaration of it in Writ and consequently it was the Word of God before the Writing And therefore the Writing is not the Word properly but only figuratively as when a part is put for the whole by a Synecdoche or when the sign is put for the thing signified as a Map of England and Scotland is commonly called England and Scotland and yet none will say that that Map is really England or Scotland or when we hear that England and Scotland produceth such and such Fruits who is so ignorant as to think that the Map or Card produceth these Fruits and not the Land it self Let I. A. know therefore that in all the places where the Word is mentioned he must prove that the Letter of the Scripture is meant or he doth nothing against us the which I am sure he shall never be able to perform seeing he grants himself That sometimes at least by the Word is meant Christ and not the Letter Moreover I ask I. A. when he saith The Scripture is the Word of God what he meaneth by the term Scripture Doth he mean the only bare Writing or Characters consisting of Ink and Paper and will he say that is properly the Word of God Or doth he mean the Doctrine expressed and signified by the said Writing and Characters and the true sense and meaning of the Spirit of God held forth in the same which Metonymically may be called the Scripture putting the thing signified for the sign and thus the Doctrine may be called the Scripture and the Scripture the Doctrine to wit by a twofold Metonymie one where the thing signified is put for the sign the other where the sign is put for the thing â—igniâ—ied Now we do most willingly grant that the Doctrine and true sense or mind of the Spirit declared of or expressed in the Scripture is and may properly be called the Word of God But then we further affirm that the said Doctrine or true sense of the mind or Spirit cannot be reached or attained unto by the meer Reading or Hearing the Letter o the bare meditating in the Letter and thereâ—fore not every one that hath the Letter Preacheth the Letter and Heareth the Letter hath also the true Doctrine and mind of the Spirit and consequently nor hath he the Word of God But he only that receiveth the Spirit of Christ or Christ the Lord who is that Spirit receiveth the true Doctrine when he Readeth or Heareth the Scriptures or meditateth in them and consequently he only receiveth the Word of God And thus also none can Preach the true
nothing concerned to Answer For we own both Scripture interpretation and just and necessary consequences of Scripture but then we say that these interpretations and consequences ought to be by the help and direction of the same Spirit that gave forth the Scriptures immediately teaching them to interpret and to draw such consequences therefrom to which I. A. doth not pretend nor any of his Brethren For all the Interpretations and consequences which Christ or the Apostles used were by the same Spirit that was in the Prophets and Peter saith expresly that no Prophecy of Scripture is of private Interpretation and it is said of Christ that he opened the understandings of the Disciples that they might understand the Scriptures which opening was by his Spirit that he gave unto them and seeing the Scripture cannot be understood without the opening of the Spirit that gave it forth it cannot be interpreted without the same nor can consequences be lawfully deduced from Scriptures without it for how can a man interpret what he doth not understand or how can he deduce a consequence from that whereof he is ignorant And there is yet another fault that we find in I. A. and his Brethrens interpretations of Scripture and consequences therefrom that they keep not closely to Scripture it self when they interpret or draw consequences but for most part mingle with the Scripture words many of their false principles and Axioms of that they call their Philosophy For as I have already said the most part of that they call their Philosophy is utterly false or uncertain nor are the Teachers of it agreed among themselves in their Principles and Axioms And yet their Consequences are commonly from one or other of these false or uncertain Maxims or Principles which they joyn with the Scripture in which case the consequences are not purely Scriptural For seeing in Argumentation the Conclusion or Consequence is drawn from two Propositions or Premisses one of which may be true the other false Again the one may be true and certain the other although true yet may be to us uncertain and doubtful in which cases the consequence or conclusion is always of the nature of the weaker premise hence if but one of the premisses be false the conclusion is false although the other Premise be true And if one of the Premisses be unclear or uncertain the conclusion is also uncertain And again if one of the Premisses be Scripture and the other be but some principle or maxime of Natural Philosophy so called the conclusion in that case is not Scriptural but Natural And thus much is generally acknowledged by all the Schoolmen so called And hence it is that the School-Divinity as it is so termed is rejected by many as a dubious and uncertain thing because the conclusions thereof for most part depend not on Scripture Propositions but uncertain and doubtful principles and maxims of that called Natural Philosophy But again suppose one should draw a consequence from Premisses that are both Scriptural yet seeing the terms in those Premisses may have different significations as the words Flesh Spirit Life Light Man and many others that have one signification in one place of Scripture and quite another in another part of Scripture the conclusion in that case doth not follow for not only the Art of Logick but Common Reason it self Teacheth us that in all Arguments the word or term that is used in both Premisses must have the same sense and signification in both Now he who has not the direction of the same Spirit that did Dictate the Scripture hath not this discerning so as to know the true sense or signification of Scripture words as they signify Spiritual Misteries and things For the Natural man understands not the Things of God as saith the Scripture and therefore he is utterly unfit to reason about them By which natural man I understand any man considered as never so well furnished with all Natural helps of his Parts and Arts but wanting the Spirit of God or at least not making use of the help of it but puting another thing in its room And thus much shall suffice at present to the Intelligent Reader how and after what manner we own both Scripture Interpretations and Consequences and yet may very well deny I. A. his Interpretations and Consequences and all such as he is who declare themselves Enemies to that Spirit that gave forth the Scriptures as necessary to help them in interpreting and drawing Consequences from Scripture And albeit I. A. use many Arguments to prove that Interpretations of Scripture are lawful and Consequences therefrom as that Christ and the Apostles did interprâ—â— the Scriptures and draw Consequences therefrom yet all this proves not that I. A. his Interpretations and Consequences without the same Spirit which they had are as good which is all one as to say Christ and the Apostles did Interpret the Scriptures and argue from them by the Spirit And therefore I. A. and his Brethren may as well do it without the Spirit but who having common Sense doth not see the unreasonableness of this Consequence Again as for the Levites their Expounding the Scripture which is another Argument of I. A. it remaineth for him to prove that these Levites who did rightly Interpret the Scripture did it without the Spirit of God and meerly by their own Natural Understanding And what if these Levites were not in all respects Infallible it doth not therefore follow that they had no Infallible direction of Gods Spirit when they did rightly Interpret the Scripture And indeed this is a third false Charge of I. A. against us as if we did hold that none is to Intepret the Scripture but he who is simply and absolutely or in all respects Infallible which we affirm not Nor is that the true state of the Question but this Whether any should give an Interpretation of Scripture without he be Infallibly perswaded by the Spirit of God that he hath received it from the Loâ—d We say Nay otherwise he Preacheth not the Word of God to the people but his own Fallible conjecture Now it is one thing to be simply or universally Infallible and another thing to be Infallibly directed in some particular cases of Interpreting some particular places of Scripture as God giveth to a man the help of his Spirit so to do And thus I. A. his two first Sections wherein he spendeth 18 Pages are sufficiently Answered In the beginning of his third Section concerning Baptism with Water he alledgeth falsly upon us That wherever Baptâ—sm is mentioned in the New Testament and the word Water is not expresly added that we always deny Baptism with Water there to be meant This is false for we grant that though Water be not expressed yet in some places Baptism with Water is understood as where Paul said Christ sent me not to Baptize here we affirm that to Baptize signifieth to Baptize with Water But we say further That the words
appearing and do still at this day load them with such kind of Charges and to none is it more familiar to blame others for Heresie than those who are greatest Hereticks themselves 4. He saith In Doctrine we trample generally upon the whole Moral Law but more especially upon the first Table And here very falsly he Charges our Doctrine to be contrary to the first second fourth fifth sixth and ninth Commandments but let us see how he maketh good his Charge in each of them He alledgeth our Doctrine transgresseth the first Commandment because we say All Prayer and Worship that is performed without the Spirit of God is Will-worship and Superstition and consequently no wicked or unregenerate persons are bound to Worship God or indeed in any respect to obey God And from thence he concludes They are not under any Law of God and therefore lastly let them do what they will they cannot sin against God such men in the Quakers Principles as he saith may deny disown reject hate and contemn God worship the Devil and debauch at their pleasure they may lawfully dishonour and defame all men Murder commit Adultery Steal bear false Witness and yet they cannot sin because they are under no Law Hence also he infers That Reprobates are most unjustly condemned for their sinning against God seeing they not having received the Spirit are not under Law to God and so cannot be guilty of sinning against him Now what Sober Impartial and indifferent person that is not byassed with deep prejudice against us seeth not that these absurd consequences have not the least shadow of any Rational inference For although we say indeed that there is no true Worship but that which is in Spirit according to the express words of Christ and that none are true Worshippers of God but such as Worship him n the Spirit and that God requireth no Lifeless or Spiritless Worship yet we still affirm that all mankind ought to Worship God and Call upon him even all the wicked and unrenewed persons as well as the renewed so that in the thing of Worship it self we have no Controversy whether it be due unto God by all mankind but the state of the Question lyeth here betwixt us and those that dissent from us what the Worship of God is and what kind or sort of Worship it is that God requires of all men And in Answer thereunto we say the true Worship of God is a Spiritual Worship requiring the sincerity of the heart not as a circumstance or accidental thing but as the essential part thereof which cannot be done without the Spirit of God How much therefore more True and Rational consequence is it to argue thus God commands all men to Worship him therefore he hath given some measure more or less of the help of his Spirit unto all men whereby they may so do which doth continue with them so long as it pleaseth God who taketh away this help from none but such as mightily provoke him and sin out the day of their Visitation And even those whom the Lord in his Justice hath withdrawn that help or grace of his Spirit are still bound by the Law of God to Worship him as much as ever even when they neither do or can Worship him truly because they have brought this unpotency or inability upon themselves by their own unfaithfulness Even as a Servant or Steward that hath received a sum of Money to pay his Master and the said Servant spendeth the Money upon his Lusts and hath not one Penny wherewith to pay the debt yet he is still lyable for the whole sum Hence what I. A. saith in page 11. of his Preface is true that the inability of unrenewed men to perform acceptable Worship neither does nor can take away their Obligation to perform it But we differ from I. A. in the cause or reason why those who want that ability are still under the said Obligation which reason he will have only and alone mens losing it in Adam in whom they all once had it and the losing of it is their fault citing Rom. 5. 12 19. But to this I Answer First Whatever loss or inability is come upon Adam's posterity by the primitive disobedience yet now by vertue of the second Adam his obedience a new ability is conferred upon all men So that as broad as the Sore did spread by the first sin even as broad is the Plaister that God hath provided to the Lame and Diseased Souls of all mankind And this is most clear and plain from Rom. 5. 18. as also from Ioh. 3. 19. And this is the condemnation said Christ that Light is come into the world and men loved darkness rather than Light because their deeds were evil So we see that Christ layeth not the ground of wicked mens condemnation upon Adams sin but upon their hating the Light that did come unto them as a new and fresh discovery and visitation of Gods love But secondly Whether this Inability is come upon the wicked by reason of Adam's sin or by their own actual disobedience since that time yet we affirm no less than I. A. that the most wicked and ungodly are still under the obligation to the whole Law of God and their inability can be no ground of excuse unto them But the true state of the Queston is this Whether wicked men not simply as men or creatures but as wicked and remaining still in their wickedness should or are required to offer up unto God hypocritical and lifeless performances of that which men commonly call Prayer and Worship but is no more so in the sight of God than a dead Picture of Stone or Clay is a true living man and so whether God did ever require any to draw near to him with their Mouths and remove their Hearts far away as the manner of all wicked persons while so remaining always is Now we say God never required such sort of Prayers but refused and forbad them to be offered unto him even under the Law see Isaiah 1. 13. Bring no more vain Oblations and v. 12. When ye come to appear before me who hath required this at your hand to tread my Courts Again Psal. 50. 16 17. But unto the wicked God saith what hast thou to do to declare my Statutes or that thou shouldest take my Covenant in thy mouth seeing thou hatest instruction c. And whereas I. A. citeth some words of our Friends That wicked men should not Pray let the Impartial and Indifferent Reader understand these words in the Sense of those Scriptures just now mentioned which are as positive and full as any that can be cited out of our Friends Books and all occasion of mistake shall be removed For neither the Sense of the Scripture nor of our Friends is That wicked men are bâ—und in no respect to Worâ—ip God for the contrary is manifest from the words cited by I. A. out of the Book called The Principles of Truthâ—
Doctrine and Word of God but he who speaketh it by the Spirit of God and none Heareth the Word of God but he who Heareth it and into the Heart and inward Ears of his inward man receiveth it by the Spirit of God To these only I say the Doctrine is known and by these it is only received as it is indeed the Word of God and in this respect it was that Paul commended such as received the Truth by the same Spirit by which it was Preached unto them through him That they received it not as the word of Man but as the Word of God c. Now this commâ—ndation can be given to no unbeliever that what he receiveth in the Ministry of the true Servants of God he receiveth it as the Word of God for only the true Believers do so receive it according to Paul's Testimony as it is indeed the Word of God Moreover I would have the Reader to know that when we say by the Word is understood Christ we mean not Christ abstractly or seperately considered from the Divine Doctrine and Testimony of Life whether in the heart or Mouth that immediately proceedeth from him nor yet as divided or seperated from any Divine operation of his Spirit Power and Life in any of his Servants but we take both these conjoyned together to be the Word of God even as the Soul and Body is one Man and sometimes the Soul is called the man and sometimes the Body and both properly enough when the Soul is in the Body and united therewith but the Body alone without the Soul is not properly called the man and thus much I hope shall suffice to satisfie the sober Reader as concerning the Word of God how we understand it Now whereas I. A. citeth divers places of Scripture to prove That by the Word of God is not understood Christ but the outward Testimony or Writing of the Scriptures It is very evident and may plainly appear so to be unto any having the least measure of Spiritual understanding that by the Word of God in these Scriptures is not understood the Letter but Christ together with the Divine operation and Testimony of his Life in the Hearts and Mouthes of his Servants And among these places by him alledged I shall cite these following for it is needless to cite them all viz. Heb. 4. 12. Eph. 6. 17. Rev. 1. 16. Rev. 2. 12 16. Rev. 19. 15. And also he citeth divers Scriptures which mention the Word of Christ and the Word which he hath spoken And seeing that cannot be Christ himself it must needs ac-according to him be the Letter Now as to that Scripture Heb. 4. 12. For the Word of God is quick and powerful c. There are divers Protestants that expound it of Christ and not of the Letter and indeed the words themselves do plainly enough evince it seeing it is said in the next verse concerning the same Word That all things are bare and manifest to his sight and therefore that Word hath an Omniâ—cience which I suppose I. A. when he considers will not affirm of the Letter of the Scripture As for Eph. 6. 17. his reason is weak that by it cannot be understood Christ seeing it is called The Sword of the Spirit as to say an Instrument in the hand of the Spirit But this is only I. A. his gloss and not Paul's words For the Sword of the Spirit may very well be understood to be the Spirit it self As the shield of Faith is Faith that shield The Helmet of Hope is Hope that Helmet so the City of Rome is Rome that City and why not also the Sword of the Spirit that Spirit it self And this is further confirmed out of the Greek Article Englished by which that is in the Neuter Gender and therefore rendring this Sense The Sword of the Spirit which Spirit is the Word of God so that the Article which being in the Neuter Gender is Relative to Spirit which in the Greek Language is in the same gender Again as to those three places in the Revelation which mention the Word of God it s being the Sword of his Mouth and proceeding out of the Mouth of Christ Doth I. A. think that this only is the Letter of the Scripture Doth nothing but the Letter come out of his Mouth Doth not Spirit and Life and living vertue come out of his Mouth And did not Christ say The Words that I speak unto you they are Spirit and Life John 6. And is not this somewhat more than the Letter But lastly The Word of Christ and the Word that Christ speaks hath of the Life and Spirit of Christ in it and therefore it is still somewhat beside the External Writing or Letter and is not divided or seperated from Christ. And I have told I. A. already that not only Christ abstractly considered but the immediate Testimony and influence of his Life which can never be seperated from him no more than the Sun Beams can be seperated from the Son is also acknowledged by us to be the Word of God and to be Light and Life Bâ—t saith I. A. The whole Doctrine of the Prophets is the Word of the Lord To which I Answer I have granted and do still grant it so to be but as is already said that Doctrine is not the bare Letter nor hath every one that doctrine who hath the Letter for to have the true doctrine and sence of the Spirâ—t is not only to have the Letter but to have the Spirit by which only the true doctrine can be conveyed unto us although the true service and use of the Letter in subordination to the Spirit is not denied And whereas I. A. accuseth the Quakers That they call the Scriptures a dead Letter I no where remember that ever I read or heard any of them simply calling it so But only in so far as it is eventually such unto them who are spiritually dead themselves and are not turned to the quickning Spirit but alienated therefrom to such only the Scripture is a dead and killing Letter and this much divers Protestants have acknowledged as well as we and particularly Iohn Owen in his Treatise on the Scriptures That it is so to the Iews and other Vnbelievers But unto all those who are spiritually alive the Scripture is no dead nor killing Letter but a living Testimony as also unto all such whom it pleased God to quicken by his Spirit in the reading or hearing or meditating in the Scriptures Again that he saith A part of the Scripture to wit the Law considered as strictly legal is in respect of guilty sinners called a killing Letter but never the whole Scripture I Answer That not only the Old Testament but even the Writings or Letter of the New Testament may be called a killing Letter to those that remain alienated from the Spirit that quickens Lven as Origen hath formerly taught in his Commentary on Leviticus Not only saith he in the Old
Testament is found the killing Letter there is also in the New Testament the Letter which killeth him who doth not spiritually attend unto the things which are spoken And why was the Law called a killing Letter only because it did curse and condemn guilty sinners Nay that is not the only or main reason but rather that its Ministration could not give life whereas the Ministration of the Gospel being accompanied with the Spirit doth quicken and give life and in that respect Paul said The Law was weak and could no make perfect and therefore calls it The Law of a carnal Commandment Now if any go from the Spirit that only makes the true Gospel Administration and set up the Letter or Writings of the Apostles in the room of the same These Writings of the Apostles do eventually become a killing Letter no less than that of the Law and can no more give life or make perfect than the outward Law could And here upon this Head I do readily take notice what I. A. acknowledgeth concerning the Scriptures in page 16. of his Book towards the middle part viz That the Scriptures as to the external Form and Mode which they have from the Writers Pen they are not the Word of God but that as to their ennutiate doctrine and sentence they are the Word of God And why then doth I. A. make all this loud clamour and noise against the Quakers seeing upon the matter he confesseth what they say viz. That the letter or external form of the Writing is not properly the Word of God And I suppose I may add with I. A his allowance that the external Form and Mode of the Preachers mouth when he formeth a sound in speaking Scripture Words is not properly the Word of God any more than the bare writing â—seeing there is no more in the one than in the other simply as such Let not I. A. therefore blame us for that hereafter which he confesseth himself and we do as readily acknowledge as he either doth or can do That the ennutiate and expressed Doctrine and sense of the Spirit is indeed truly and properly the Word of God But then is there no difference betwixt him and us I Answer as to the naming the Scriptures the Word it seemeth there is none But yet another great Controversie ariseth which I doubt will not be so soon ended betwixt us viz. Whether any man can reach unto that Ennutiâ—te Doctrine and sense of the Scriptures without the Spiritual Illumination and Assistance of that Spirit that gave them forth we say Not and if he say Yea we still differ but not as it seemeth to me by his Confession in naming the Scriptures The Word of God But there is yet another great Charge wherewith he loadeth us in this his Survey of the Third Query Some Quakers saith he are upon this Head so grosly Atheistical as to say That the Scriptures are but the Saints Words and Testimony from their own particular experiences And again he alledgeth That according to the Quakers they are but the meer bare Word of a Creature Hence he inferreth That the Pen-men of the Scripturs of all men in the World must have been the greatest Cheats and archest Impostors c. But seeing he produceth no express Testimonies out of the Writings of that People for such Assertions he is not to be believed Nor doth it follow that because the Scriptures are the Saints Words that therefore they are not also the Words of God even unto all who hear or read them at least mediately and remotely although none but such as believe do receive them as such which yet is only and alone the â—ault of those unbelieving persons because they reject the Spirit of God that doth certifie or assure unto us That the Scriptures are proceeded from God by Divine Inspiration And what if some have said That the Scriptures are Testimonies of the Saints from their experience May not this receive a fair and charitable construction and not presently be judged to be gross Atheism for although the Scriptures give a narration of divers Histories as also of Precepts Prohibitions and mysteries of Faith As Christ His coming in the Flesh His being born of a Virgin His being Crucified and Buried His Resurrection and Ascension the which Histories and things aforementioned albeit they cannot properly be called the Saints Experiences yet the Divine Inspiration and Revelation which the Prophets and Apostles had immediately of those things was truly their Experience and let us see if I. A. will deny it or if he do may it not be more justly retorted upon him That he and not the Quakers deny that the Scriptures are from Divine Inspiration or can he say that although the Prophets and Apostles had Divine Inspiration and Immediate Revelation yet they had no Experience of the same And that we call the Scriptures sometimes the Saints Words yet not denying them in a true sense to be the Words of God I. A. can no more justly blame us than Paul and Iohn who called their own Preaching and Writing and that of their Brethren the Witness and Teaching of men so that Paul and the Apostles Words were both the words of men and yet also the Words of God to wit mediately declared unto them by the Apostles Now they whose Faith stood in the Power of God received them as the Words of God but who came not to that power to believe in it they were but unto such as the words of men which as is alâ—eady said was only and alone the fault of such unbelieving Persons There yet remains two parts or branches of the third Query to which I. A. for all his pretended Survey hath given no more satisfaction than to any of the former The first is Whether all that is written in the Scriptures from Genesis to Revelation be a Rule of Faith and Manners To this he only answereth in general That we are bound to believe all Sâ—ripture Enunciation from the beginning to the eâ—d which we do readily grant and that therefore it may well be called an Historical Rule of Faith and that the Moral Law with whatsoever is of common equity or whatever enjoyning any peice of Religious Worship under the New Testament doth belong to Christians of our Calling and Condition but that the obligation of the Ceremonial and Iudicial Law is totally abrogated And saith he the Quakers must be content with these generals To which I Answer When the Nature of the Question requireth a particular Answer to Answer in general neither can nor ought to satisfie for notwithstanding of all he hath said the great Question yet remains unanswered What parts of the Scripture belong to the Moral Law and what â—o the Ceremonial and Judicial so called Also seeing there are divers things that were commanded and practised by the Apostles and Primitive Christians under the New Testament whether all these do oblige us now yea or nay as for example the Washing one
anotheâ—s Feet and Anointing the Sick with Oyl and whether these actions were commanded by any part of the Ceremonial or Judicial Law or whether they belong to any piece of Religious Worship under the New Testament The other branch of the Question is Whether every Title from 〈◊〉 to the Revelation be the Word or Words of God To this he Answereth affirmatively and seemeth to be so offended with the Question as if it did conclude That the Quakers judge that the Scriptures are interpolated and corrupted with the additions of men But in Answer I. A. ought to know that to Query a thing will not conclude that the Questionist doth positively affim or deny what is Queried Again I hope it may without offence not only be Queried but also concluded that the Translations of the Scripture the which Translations are commonly calâ—ed Scripture have divers additions which men have added without any pretence to Divine Inspiration The which Additions are commonly Printed in our English Bibles in another Character than the other words Now is it any Crime to ask if these Addititions be the words of God or only the words of man and if such Additions be any part of the Rule of Faith and Manners And yet those very Additions are of such consequence that they may occasion the Reader to take up another sense of the Sentences then otherwise he would or perhaps the Spirit of God did really intend Nor are there wanting divers both Judicious and Learned men so accounted and of good repute even among Protestants who do acknowledge that some particular words have dropt in into the Greek and Hebrew Texts since their first Writing and what are these various Lections of many places of Scripture especially when they contradict in one and the same place Are not some of them at least only the words of men All which being granted yet do not hinder but that the purity of the Scriptures is sufficiently preâ—erved viz. in respect of the main and necessary things for which we have cause to bless God and acknowledge his great care and Providence as in many other things And thus I. A. may see how much of the weightiest part of his task in giving a sufficient Answer to those Queries he hath still left undone for all his windy Braggings against the people called Quakers CHAP. IV. IN his pretended Survey of the fourth Query he divides it into three Sections In the first he laboureth by many Arguments to prove a thing which we do not deny to wit That the Scriptures are a Rule of Faith and Manners And so he might have spared himself and others all that pains for the state of the Question is not whether the Scriptures are not and may not be called a secondary Rule nor whether they may not in respect of all the Historical part be called an Historical Rule But the true Question is whether the words of the Scripture as they are only written and spoken outwardly be the Principal or only Rule of Faith and Manners Now seeing I. A. hath been at such needless pains to prove a thing against us which we do not deny I need not give a particular Answer to any of his Arguments But because there are divers of his Arguments which have some false premisses although the conclusion be granted therefore I shall a little take notice of one or two of them In his seventh Argument he maketh it one of the Premisses That the more sure word of Prophecy mentioned 2 Pet. 1. 19 20. is the Scripture But this is denyed by us for we believe it to be that Word of God in the heart by which all the true Prophets did Prophecy and without which we cannot understand their Prophecies nor any other part of the Scripture Now the reasons of his Assertion are 1. Because of the coherence of 19 and 20 Verses But this is no sufficient reason for the coherence is as good and better to understand it of the word in the heart as to understand Peter saying thus Take heed to the Word of God in your hearts by which the Prophets gave forth the Scriptures for it is that same word which maketh us sure that the Scriptures are Divinely Inspired and also doth give unto us the true Interpretation of them This is a good coherence and much better then that imagined by I. A. as if Peter had said Take heed unto the Scripture as the more sure Word for no Scripture is of any private interpretation The which violent and strained coherence I for my part cannot understand seeing Peter aimeth at something that is not the Scripture as being necessary to give us its Interpretation And what can that be But that Word of â—od which spake in the Prophets His second reason is That he cannot understand how the Dictate or Light within is more sure than Gods immediate voice from Heaven as that was at the Transfiguration To which I Answer that the inward Voice or Word of God immediately in the heart can very well be understood to be more sure as to us than any outward Voice of God from Heaven 1. Because that which is immediate in the Heart is more near and immediate than that which is outward in the Air which cometh to the Heart and Soul but mediately through the outward Hearing however immediate may be understood otherwise 2. It was by the immediate Word of God in the Heart by which the Prophets when at any time they heard an outward Voice or Word from God did assuredly know that it came from God and that it was no delusion of Satan And they believed the Word of God in their Hearts simply from its own self Evidence and not from any borrowed Evidence of an outward Voice For they oft believed and received the Word of God in their Hearts immediately when they heard no outward voice at all as is generally acknowledged And this inward or intellectual kind of speaking by the Lord unto the Prophets is acknowledged by Thomas Aquinas and Suarez and other Schoolmen to be the most noble kind of Divine Revelation and consequently the most sure at least unto us His 3. Reason Is the Testimony of other Scriptures produced and to be produced But he has neither produced nor can produce any Scripture that proveth that Word of Prophecy or Prophetical Word to be only the Letter of the Scripture and not the Word or Light of God and of Christ in the Heart Again in his eighth Argument he alledgeth That it cannot be the Dictate or Light within by which Spirits are to be tryed because the Dictate or Light within is â—allible And this he undertakes to prove from some words of mine in Quakerism no Popery where I acknowledge That it is possible for us to mistake and erre in Speaking and Writing and consequently in Examining and Iudging if we be not duely watchful But how unreasonable this consequence is I leave unto sober men to judge as to conclude because
unto the Law and Testimony supposing that were the Scripture it followeth not that therefore it is the principal rule especially in Gospel times when God writeth his Law in the heart and the Testimony of Jesus is the Spirit of Prophecy and he that believeth hath the Testimony or Witness in himself But that people are not sent to any dictate Word or Light within as I. A. doth alledge is false and contrary to 2 Pet. 1. 19. Deut. 30. 14. Rom. 10. 8. Ioh. 3. 20 21. Ioh. 12. 36. And doth not God and Christ and the Holy Ghost dwell in the Hearts of believers and must not they go to God and Christ where they are and doth not God and Christ speak in his people Are they not his Temple and as God spoke immediately in the outward Temple under the Old Covenant the which Temple was a Figure of Christ and the Church shall he not speak now immediately in his true Temple as well as he did in former times Or are we wholly to neglect God and Christ in us and their Inward Teaching and only to mind the Letter of the Scripture without us according to I. A. And when Paul said to Timothy Neglect not the Gift that is in thee Hath this command no regard unto us And when Christ saith Behold I stand at the door and knock if any man will hear my voice Is this door only an outward door or is not rather the door of the Heart which is inward and therefore is not that voice inward And whence is it that seeing Christ is so near to his people as to be in them that he doth not speak one word to them by himself as a man doth to his Friend that he is present with Is it want of power or unkindness that he doth so refrain Doth not I. A. and those of his Principle make God over all Blessed for ever more like unto the dumb Idols mentioned in the Scripture Who have a Mouth but speak not being always dumb or silent Oh! what an Indignity is this to the Lord of Glory and let I. A. take heed lest he who is so ready to charge us with Blasphemy be not found among the Blasphemers himself who would limit the Lord from speaking and revealing himself in his Living Temples To his second Argument I Answer Though the Scriptures are Infallible and cannot deceive us yet they cannot sufficiently demonstrate unto us their Infallibility nor yet their true Sense without the evidence of the Spirit as is clear by Paul's Testimony 1 Cor. 2. 4. where he telleth That his Speech and Preaching was in Demonstration of the Spirit and Power And therefore without that demonstration of the Spirit his words could not prevail nor perswade them that they were of God And certainly if Paul's Preaching needed the demonstration of the Spirit his Writing doth as much need it at this day To the third I say It is no derogating from the Scripture that they derive their Authority from the Spirit of God which gave them their being even as it is no derogation from the words of a King long ago spoken by him That he confirmeth them a new by a new immediate Testimony To the fourth Although we may not receive any Dictate within that agrees not with the Scripture it doth not follow that therefore the Scripture is above the Spirit of God or his Dictate for as the Spirit can never contradict the Scripture so nor can the Scripture ever contradict the Spirit of God and neither can the Spirit or Scripture ever contradict pure and sound Reason yet it doth not follow that Reason is either greater or equal to the Spirit or to Scripture And because that Dictate which is contrary to Scripture is to be rejected as being none of Gods Spirit it doth only well follow that the Scripture is a Rule that is to be set over all false Dictates to judge and condemn them which we most willingly grant Now I. A. perceiving that I could retort one of his Arguments labours to guard against it As seeing the Word of God is the principal Rule and the Dictate or Speech of Gods Spirit within men is the word of God therefore that Dictate is the principal Rule And this Argument I did use in my Book called Quakerism no Pepery To which he Answers by denying That there is any such Dictate of God or the spirit in any men whomsoever whether believers or unbelievers But to this I Answer 1. He will not deny but that the Apostles had such an inward or immediate Dictate and also the Prophets and therefore he must allow that the Scripture as to the Prophets and Apostles was but a secondary Rule or at least no greater Rule than that Dictate within which they had And yet by I. A. his Logick the Apostles did vilifie and despise the Scriptures and it was a needless or unuseful thing unto them seeing they had an inward Dictate which was greater or at least equa unto the Scripture Or let I. A. shew how their having the Inward Dictate for their Rule did not make them undervalue the Scriptures whereas our having such a Dictate as he alledgeth or pretending to such a Dictate makes us so to undervalue them But secondly he only supposeth it without any proof that such an Inward Dictate which was once in the Church of God as is confessed is discontinued or ceased And this indeed is the general manner of our opposers who lay it down as a Principle as needing no proof that Immediate Revelation and Teaching of Gods Spirit is ceased But let I. A. know that we can receive no such Doctrine as a Principle from hims but return it as a meer idle and false supposition which yet is the foundation of a great many of his consequences against us Thirdly that he saith I should first prove that there is such a Dâ—ctate in every man I Answer that I have done already in my Book called Immediate Revelation published many years ago by many Arguments and he should first have Answered to these before he had sought any more Also in my Book called Quaâ—erism no Popery to which he has given no sufficient reply and some of the most weighty he hath not so much as once Named And whereas he objecteth the Americans and others that cannot tell how many Gods there are I ask him by what shall the Americans be judged at the last day shall it not be by the Law of God writ in their Hearts And do not these Americans sin against God and those also who are most ignorant and yet want the Scripture now where no Law is there is no transgression This I hope is enough to prove that even the Americans and consequently all men have a Divine Law in their Hearts for if it were not Divine and as really the Law of God as any that we have to transgress it were not a sin against God Hence I thus argue a Divine Law in all men is
this immediateness doth not hinder or make void the use of means but make them the more profitable and useful even so nor the iâ—mediate objective illumination doth in the least made void the means as is already said in the case of the Prophets and Apostles and Paul said the Scriptutes were writ for his and his Brethrens Learning even his fellow Apostles as well as other Christians And to say or think the contrary is as absurd and unreasonable as who would say a Scholar that is taught of his Master immediately is not to read upon any Book nor to hearken to any of his fellow Scholars that may be as well or better learned than himself and on the other hand to set up the means in opposition to the Lords immediate Teachings is equally unreasonable as to conclude such a man has Books whereon to learn and therefore it can profit him nothing to be taught immediately or viva voce and by word of mouth by a lâ—ving Teacher Now both these extreams our Principle and the Scripture and also our good experience have taught us to shun And the immediateness of the Spirits illuminations both effectively and objectively to work and operate in us in the use of all the means appointed of God sometimes in the use of one means and sometimes in the use of another as now in Reading then in Hearing now in Preaching then in Praying now in Meditating then in Singing or Praising God now in giving Alms then in visiting the Sick or thosâ— that are in Prison and sometimes as the mind is retired in pure silence to wait upon the Lord which may be as well and as truly called a mean as any of the former I say the immediateness of the Spirits Communications and Illuminations in the use of those and the like means aforesaid do as well consist with the means and the means with them as the immediate Sun-shine and influence of the heat and comfortable warmth of the Sun which worketh both effectively and objectively upon us consist with the means when we walk or travel on the Road at noon day or labour in the Field Plough Digg Sow Reap and use any other manual operation the which means are so far from hindring or making void the necessity of the Suns immediate influence and concurrence that none of these things can be well or comfortably performed without it And in this large and general sense of the word means which also is true it may be warrantably enough said without any prejudice to our principle of Immediate Revelation that we have no ground to expect any Immediate Manifestation or Revelation of God but in the use of some one means or another that God requireth us to be found in For there is not one hour or moment of our Life but there is something of Duty or Obedience that we ought to be found in either inwardly or outwardly if we have the use of our understandings as men and every act of Obedience may and ought truly to be called a means of our receiving somewhat immediately of God to wit our Faith our Love our Hope our Holy Fear our Care our Watchfulness our Praying Meditating and silent Waiting and in one word our whole Obedience all these are as truly and properly means as Preaâ—â—ing or reading in the Scriptures And thus every one that is most diligently exercised in the true means has greatest access unto God and doth most abundantly partake of the immediate Revelations and Communications of God's Holy Spirit Light Life Love Vertue Power and Wisdom And if it be said Why are they called then Immediate I Answer Because we feel or perceive them most near unto us even as near or rather more near unto us as the things or actions wherein we are exercised giving Spiritual Vigour Life and lustre unto them without which they are but as dead or lifeless And thus even as when the soul liveth in the Body it is said to be immediately united with it and act immediately therein or therewith although it useth the Body as its Instrument Even so the Spirit of God and of Christ livingly indwelling in the Saints and united with them and they with him is said to act immediately in them and with them although the Lord useth them as means or instruments to work with him And as for the word Immediate Revelation seeing it is not any express Scripture phrase no not in the case of the Prophets and Apostles so far as I can remember if the thing it self were granted to wit That God doth inwardly reveal and speak his mind or shew his Glory and glorious â—ower and Presence in his Children as he did in and to his Saints of Old so that the Saints do Hear See and perceive also Taste and Savour and feel after God Himself as he reveals himself in his Son by the Holy Spirit the Controversy about the Name or Phrase should soon be at an end for it did satisfie the Prophets and Apostles who had it in great measure to call it simply Revelation and Vision or the like without adding the word Immediate for in those daies it seemeth that deceitful distinction of Mediate and Immediate Revelation was not found out in the World I call it deceitful and false because to speak properly all Revelation is Immediate even as all Vision is Immediate and so is all Hearing for I can neither see nor hear a man unless I see and hear him immediately And as for the Scripture when it is called a Revelation it should be figuratively understood as when it is called a Vision for none will say that Isaiah his Book is really the Vision it self which he sâ—w but only a declaration of it And as 〈◊〉 could not write the intellectual Vision that he saw to speak properly so nor could he write the intellectual Voice Word or Words that he did only intellectually hear but only a Report or Declaration of them the which doth far come short of what he saw or heard and in this respect Paul saith that he heard verba ineffabilia unspeakable words that could not be uttered or expressed and so did all the Prophets and Apostles for indeed the words of the mouth as they can be spoken and writ fall short many times to express the depth of what we inwardly think or receive in natural things and how much more to express what God doth inwardly speak or reveal which yet is no derogation from the words of Scripture for it is acknowledged by us to be a blessed instrument in the hand of the Spirit for our Instruction And though we cannot be so bold as to say That the true God is not Worshipped nor known savingly where the Scripture is wanting as I. A. doth alledge more daringly I suppose than many of his Brethren that that are more sober will allow yet we do believe and freely acknowledge that the Scriptures are ordinary means but yet not without the inward Direction Revelation and
is it said they did the things contained in the Law by the corrupt Nature of man as it is corrupted in the Fall and no wise healed or restored And certainly corrupted Nature could not do the things contained in the Law for the Law of God in the Hearts of the Gentiles did require not only the outward action but the inward purity of the heart and if this was wanting they did not the things contained in the Law But that there was an uprightness of heart in some of the Gentiles is clear from divers examples of Scripture as from Rom. 2. 14. They show the work of the Law Writ in their Hearts and in the Case of Cornelius and also of Abimelech Gen. 20. 6. so that God said unto him I know that thou didst this in the Integrity of thy heart And therefore that Nature mentioned by Paul Rom. 2. 14. is either Nature healed and restored in some measure by the Grace of God as Augustine did partly expound it or the innate word mentioned by Iames to wit The Word of Life immediatly grafted or planted in the Souls of men which is a Divine Nature for the Greek word used by Iames in that place doth most properly signifie that which is immediately planted in mens Nature as distinguished from that which they receive by Education or Industry as when we say innate wisdom or understanding and innate goodness we mean that which a man hath immediately received from God from his Birth or Creation to distinguish it from what he hath acquired by his own pains or labour in which sense I find both the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be used by Greek Authors Now that the Gentiles had a measure of Gods Grace bestowed upon them which for most part they did not improve is clear as from many other passages of Scripture so in particular from the Parable of the Prodigal who received of his Fathers Goods and Substance as well as the Elder Brother but he spent it in Riotous living so that he was left destitute Now I ask what was that which the Prodigal spent which his Fathers gave him and was a Portion of his Fathers Goods and Substance surely this was not mans own corrupted Nature nor any faculty or power thereof for that remained still with him And therefore it behoved to be the Grace of God PROP. 8. Whereas I. A. expoundeth All men to whom the Grace of God hath appeared Tit. 2. 11. To be all Ranks Stations and Qualities of men c. This his Exposition contradicteth his own Doctrine who so fiercely doth oppose the appearing of Gods Grace not only unto all particulars but also to many or most of the Nations of the Earth who belong to some of the Ranks Stations and Qualities of men such as these numerous and great Nations in the East and West-Indies and other remote places to whom the Doctrine of the Gospel was not in Paul's time nor perhaps since outwardly Preached at least to most of them Nor can I. A. shew where all men signifie any definit number and that the smallest part also of mankind And when Paul spoke of his warning and teaching every man his sense is clear that he excepted none but still as he had occasion he Preached the Gospel freely unto all telling them That they should repent and believe that they might receive the remission of their sins through Iesus Christ who had died for them and was risen again But I. A. saith There are many Nations as well as persons for whom Christ died not and these for whom Christ died not are not exhorted to believe that Christ died for them except they shall first make choice of and embrace him for their Lord and Saviour as the Gospel offers him But this is a strange inconsistency and contradiction How can they or ought they to embrace him as their Lord and Saviour if they are not to believe that he has died for them even when the account of Christ his dying for mankind is Preached unto them It God require men to believe in Christ it is certainly upon reasonable and equal terms some foundation or ground for such a belief is to be made known unto them As that God is Merciful and ready to pardon their by past sins which yet cannot be if Christ hath not died for them PROP. 9. Lastly whereas I. A. doth argue That the Doctrine of Vniversal Grace destroyes the Efficacy of Grace and makes the Effectualness thereof depend upon mans will to chuse or refuse as he pleaseth and so the Grace of God shall be subordinate to mans will which is absurd To this it is easily Answered that the Grace of God is still effectual in its Nature even when it doth not actually work the Salvation of all for as much as it is sufficiently able to work it where it is not resisted even as the Fire is effectual to Melt the hardest Mettal if the Mettal be duely applyed to it but if the Mettal be removed from the Fire that the said Mettal is not Melted is not because of the Fire it s not having efficacy enough but because the Mettal is removed from it so the Fire still retaineth its efficacy as it had before Again the efficacy of Gods Grace dependeth not on mans will seeing the will of man doth not influence or excite the Grace of God to make it operate but on the contrary it is the Grace of God that doth influence or excite the heart and will of man without which it cannot do any thing towards mans Salvation and therefore the Grace of God is never subordinate to the will of man as I. A. doth falsly inferr And whereas I. A. upon this head Calls the Grace of God that can be resisted so as the Souls Conversion may be hindred by mans resisting it ill natured and false Grace and moreover addeth that he will have nothing to do with such Grace that can be resisted he speaketh here too rashly and presumptuously for do we not read of some in Scripture that resisted the Truth and also the Holy Ghost As Stephen charged the Iews that they did always resist the Holy Ghost as did their Fathers and yet according to I. A. his Principle he might as well say He would have nothing to do with the Holy Chest that can be resisted and charge it as ill natured and false which were Blasphemous to affirm Notwithstanding the same I. A. forgetting himself a few Lines after saith We may indeed resist both the means and motions of Grace and not improve Grace as we should and might too But saith he God makes it still effâ—ctual to the growth by him designed This is a contradiction not only to his former Assertion but to it self as implying that men may improve Grace further than God designed they should Another very absurd Assertion I find alledged by him as if Grace did not incline men to perfection and so there
of Righteousness as done by us nor as inherent in us as Acts by which we are accepted of God and justified before him but by Christ the Author and worker of those Acts in us and for us c. He most grosly perverteth the sober and honest intent of those words as if by them they understood only that they hold not themselves justified by all Acts as Blasphemy or any other gross sin But who seeth not that this is a most gross perversion for certainly all Righteous Arts of all sorts they exclude when they say not by Acts of Righteousness and therefore when they say it is not Righteous Acts as Acts whereby we are justified their meaning is most plain and obvious as Acts being understood to be only even as Acts of Righteousness and not simply and barely as Acts though upon this meer Grammatical Quibble I. A. buildeth all his loud clamour against them But I. A. should know better that when the Sense is obvious a word may be understood that is not expressed in the Sentence as so it is in this present Case A fourth gross Perversion of his that he saith of me in my Book called Quakerism no Popery I affirm That we are justified by our inward Graces immediately I. A. doth understand that I mean without all respect to Christ which is a most gross perversion for the express words of my Book are these following The Righteousness of God and Christ by which we are most immediately and nearly justified is Christ himself and then I add and his work of Righteousness in us by his Spirit So that I am so far from excluding Christ that I say in the first place Christ himself is our Righteousness A fifth gross Perversion of I. A. is that in my defunction of Justification I give no other material cause of our Righteousness before God but only our Inward Graces whereas in the said definition I mention expresly Jesus Christ as being the ground and foundation of our Justification both in what he hath done and suffered for us without us and as really and truly indwelling in us A sixth perversion of his is that I confound Justification and Sanctification together making no imaginable distinction betwixt them and that because I say we are justified by inward Righteousnes and sanctified by the very same But this proveth not that I do not distinguish them for one and the same thing may have a respect to different operations as well as to different Causes But this reasoning of I. A. is as one would argue that when a Malefactor is both Condemned and punished for his Crime that his Sentence of Condemnation and his punishment are one and the same without any imaginable distinction betwixt them As also that his Condemnation and guiltiness are the same seeing by his Crime he is both guilty and condemned But as to Justification and Sanctification that they are distinguished although sometimes in Scripture one and the same word doth signifie both I willingly grant and do expresly mention them as distinct in my Book which I need not here repeat And whereas I. A. doth not only accuse me in particular as holding a Popish Justification but saith further That Bellarmine himself was never more Popish on that Head Surely this his assertion proceeds either from great ignorance or something worse For Bellarmine de justif lib. 5. cap. 17. holdeth That good works do merit Eternal Life condignly not only by reason of Gods Covenant and acceptation but also by reason of the work it self so that in a good works proceeding from Grace there may be a certain proportion and equality unto the reward of Eternal Salvation and to the same purpose writeth Gabriel Vasâ—uez a Papist But no such thing is affirmed by any of us nor by me but on the contrary in my Book called Quakerism no Popery I altogether deny the merit of the best works as it signifieth an equality of worth to the reward of Eternal Life Nor do I in any other case or sense allow the word merit with a respect to the best works of the Saints but in that sober and qualified sense used by divers of greatest note among those called Reformers among the Protestants as Melanction and Bucer and also by the Fathers so called and which is agreeable to Scripture which calleth Eternal Life the reward of good works now reward and 〈◊〉 are relative â—â—rms as Richarâ— Baxter highly commended by I. A. elsewhere doth acknowledge And not only the said Richard Baxter a great English Presbyterian but divers of the best account in the Episcopal way as particularly H. Hammond do hold that the Saints are justified not by Faith only but by Repentance Love and New Obedience as well as by Faith as Instruments of Justification and necessary conditions requisite thereunto and that Sanctification in the order of Causes is prior to Justification And Iames Durham a great Scots Presbyterian in his Commentary on the Revelation Digress 11. saith That such who rest upon Christ for Iustification and acknowledge his satisfaction ought not to be blamed as guilty of Popery although they hold that Repentance Love and other Spiritual Vertues and Graces are necessary to Iustification as Faith is Seeing then we have some of the greatest note both among those called Presbyterians and Episcopalians who agree with us in the Doctrine of Justification it must needs proceed from great prejudice and untowardliness in I. A. to charge us as being guilty of Papery in that for which we have not only the Scriptures abundantly to warrant us but divers also both Episcopal and Presbyterian of the best account to vindicate us And as for Henry Hammond a man of singular esteem in the Episcopal Church in Brittain whereof I. A. is a proâ—â—sâ—ed Member he doth not only agree with us on this Head of Justification but also on many other very great and weighty Heads of Doctrine so fiercely opposed by I. A. as particularly in those following 1. That Christ hath died for men 2. That there is no absolute decree of Reprobation 3. That Gods Grace is Vniversal 4. That beginnings of Regeneration may be fallen from 5. That these words of Paul Rom. 7. 14 15. concerning his being Sold under sin are a Metaâ—chematismus and not the present State that Paul was in And I. A. is extreamly ignorant if he know not that an exceeding great number if not the greatest of the most judicious persons of the Episcopal Church both in Britain and Ireland are of the same mind with the said H. Hammond in these things who therefore are so far from esteeming I. A. a Patron or Advocate of their Church that they cannot but judge him in so far at best their Adversary Moreover the great prejudice of I. A. against us appears in this that because I deny all merit strictly considered he inferreth most absurdly that if Justice will not exact the very rigid rigour of the Law from us and take the very