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
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
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
Baptism and Baptize when Water is not mentioned do sometimes signifie Water-baptism and at other times not but some other thing as the Baptism of the Spirit or the Baptism of Sufferings as where Christ said to two of his Disciples Can ye be Baptized with my Baptism this was not Water-baptism but the Baptism of his Sufferings whereof they were to be partakers And here in my Answer to I. A. his Arguments for Water-baptism its being a Gospel Ordinance it shall suffice to take notice what is the principal defect of every one of them and wherein he comes short in his proof as being meerly asserted which therefore are to be returned unto him to be proved In his first Argument he alledgeth That John the Baptist was the first Minister of the New Testament way of Dispensation for which he citeth Mat. 11 12 13. Luk. 16. But these places prove no such thing for they do not call him the first and the words viz. The Law and the Prophets was unto John here Iohn is the term inclusive in respect of the Law and Prophets as if I should say England reaches from I ands end in Cornwall to Berwick upon I weed here Berwick is the term inclusive and therefore it doth not follow that it is any part of Scotland again to say Scotland reacheth from Berwick to Orknay here again Berwick is exclusive in respect of Scotland and therefore when it is said From John the Gospel of the Kingdom is Pâ—eached It doth not inferr that the Gospel began at Iohn inclusively but exclusively even as Scotland begins at Berwick exclusively for Iohn was but a fore-runner of Christ who himself began the Gospel Disâ—ensation in a peculiar way and yet Christ also was subject to the Law for he was Circumcised and did Eat the Passover both which were but Legal Administrations And here again in the Prosecution of the first Argument I. A. abuseth us saying That we agree with Papists in affirming that Christs Baptism was substantially differing from the Baptism of John But his fallacy lyeth in this that he doth not express what the Papists mean by Christs Baptism for they mean Water-Baptism even as I. A. doth but we say the Baptism of Christ is not with Water but with the Holy Ghost Now we do not say as the Papiâ—ts That there were two Baptisms with Water one of John another of Christ but only that Iohn's Baptism with Water and Christs Baptism with the Holy Ghost were distinct even as Iohn and Christ have expresly distinguished them And therefore the seeond Objection he instanceth pag. 69. doth not concern us As to his second Argument he taketh great pains to prove a thing which we no wise deny viz. That the Disciples did Baptize divers with Water after Christ his Ascention and his giving the Holy Ghost But it is the consequence that is denâ—ed by us viz. That therefore Water-Baptism is a Gospel precept for the Disciples practised divers things after Christ his Ascension which were not Gospel Precepts for Paul Circumcised Timothy long after Christ his Ascention also he purified himself after the manner of the Law none of which were Gospel Precepts And the Disciples did not only abstain from Blood and things Strangled but enjoyned it unto others the which Abstinance continued in the Church even in Tertullian's days as is clear from his words and I. A. doth not hold that to be a Gospel Precept nor yet the Anointing with Oyl the Sick nor the Washing one anothers Feet both which were commanded and practised in the Primitive times And this doth also sufficiently Answer his third Argument from Peter his saying Repent and be Baptised if it were granted him that Baptism with Water is there to be understood for Peter might see it convenient at that time for a help to their weakness who were much used with outward Signs to require it of them which yet proveth not that it is a Gospel Precept For all Gospel Precepts reach further than unto Figures and Signs which are but the shadows of Gospel Mysteries And his fourth Argument hath the same defect with the former that because Peter commanded Cornelius and others with him to be Baptized that therefore it was a Gospel Precept which doth no more follow than that abstaining from Blood was commanded by the Apostles that therefore it is a Gospel Precept or because Anointing the Sick with Oyl was commanded by Iames that therefore it is a Gospel Precept And to his Fifth Argument from Eph. 4. 5. that the one Baptism must be Water-Baptism because that is the only proper Baptism according to the signification of the word whereas there is not one but mány improper or Metaphorical Baptisms But according to this reason of I. A. when in the same place Paul saith There is one Body Body doth not signifie the Church for to call the Church Body is but improper and metaphorical and there are many such metaphorical Bodies Also when Paul saith There is one Spirit I. A. I suppose doth know that Spirit or as it is in the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not improperly and metaphorically signifie God as much as Baptize signifieth inward Baptism for the Grammatical signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â— is Wind and therefore if I. A. his consequence hold good when the Apostle saith There is one Spirit that Spirit must be in the Grammatical sense Wind that is a material thing and not the Spirit of God even as the Baptism must be a material or outward Baptism And thus we may see whether I. A. his blind way of drawing consequences doth lead him even to the greatest impertinencies imaginable His sixth Argument from Mark 16. 16. hath this defect that seeing the word Baptised cannot be meant of Conversion or any other metaphorical Baptism it must therefore be meant of Water-baptism And it cannot be meant of Conversion because of the order of the words which requireth Faith to go before Baptism whereas Faith cannot go before Conversion because Faith is Conversion it self I say his Argument hath this defect that it confounds the part with the whole for granting that Faith is Conversion in part or in some degree it doth not follow that therefore it is the whole or furthest degree of Conversion for the work of Conversion or Sanctification hath its several degrees and that high or eminent degree of the Souls purification which may be called its Bapâ—ism or through plunging is really posterior to the Souls first believing and is the effect or consequence of it Hence we read of purifying the heart by Faith so as the purification is the effect and consequent of Faith Again whereas he laboureth to prove that the Baptism that saveth which is mentioned 1. Pet. 3. 21. must be Water-baptism because it is called the Anti-type or thing signified in respect of Noah's temporal saving by Water and there must be some near resemblance betwixt a Type and its Anti-type but he
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
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
cannot be any resistance of it in that respect But he may as well say God doth not command perfection and so not to be perfect is no sin for certainly whatever God commands his Grace inclines men to yea it is his Grace in their Hearts that is a Law and command unto them In the close of this Section I. A. falleth on to dispute against the posibility of the falling away of any from real beginnings of Sanctification the which because he doth it so overly and barely not bringing Arguments for what he saith but meerly giving us his own private conjectures on some places of Scripture which are alledged on both sides as also because it is altogether a digression from the Queries I shall not insist upon particularly to refute Only for a service unto those who may desire Information as touching the thing it self because of the seeming contrariety of some places of Scripture which hold forth the state of some in the Grace and favour of God as unchangeable and not lyable to any alteration of falling away from the same are to be understood of the State of such persons after they have come to such a growth in Grace so that perseverance in the same is a reward given them of God with a respect to their Faithfulness and diligence wherein they have been formerly exercised And such especially is that place Rev. 3. 12. CHAP. XVI IN my Examination of I. A. his Survey of the 15 th and two other Queries which are the last I design to be very brief finding little or nothing in all that he objecteth against us on these heads but meer quibbling and trifling together with some manifest abuses and perversions part of which I shall take notice of leaving other things of less moment to the Readers own consideration And indeed were it not for the worth and serviceableness of the things themselves proposed in the Queries and to give to my Native Country as well as unto other places a new occasion to Read and Consider those Queries and the weightiness of the things proposed in them I had not taken the paâ—ns to put Pen to Paper in Answer to I. A. notwithstanding his many abusive reflections against me in particular considering of what small repute or esteem he is among his Brethren for although he appears in his Book as some great Pillar mightily concerned in his Brethrens Quarrel and Cause yet so small is their esteem of him or of his work as it seemeth that they have suffered him to lye in Prison in the Tolbooth of Edinburgh for want of Money to pay the Charges of his Book as is not our to many in this place It is like I. A. will be more provident the next time he engageth against the Quakers to get Iohn Hamilton who hath so highly commended his work or some other to secure him from the next inconveniency of that sort First of all he begins on this Query to Quibble about the word should as if the Inquirer did mean by these words That men should not be perfect as if these called Ministers did teach that it was not mens duty to be perfect or as if it were not commanded whereas by the word should is only meant the event or attainment and not the duty as sometimes the word doth signifie a thing most common in ordinary Speech as when one saith if such a man had lived long he should have been Rich or he should have been Wise c. Next he alledges I abuâ—e some worthy men because I had cited some as holding a Divine condescendence or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and as if the same did consist in God his remitting or nullifying his Law in its obligation but this is a gross perversion for I did not mean any such thing thereby as I. A. doth alledge but only that God out of his infinite goodness and wisdom hath given unto men under the Gospel Dispensation a Law that is so Gentle and so full of Clemency as that by the same he requires no more of any of us but according to the measure of Grace and Strength he doth afford unto us and still as our Strength and Ability is Increased the obligation of the Law becomes the greater upon us Hence it is that he who is Faithful in every respect to the measure of Grace which he hath received is indeed a perfect man and doth please God although he be not equal in his attainment unto others who have more given them For to whom much is given much is required and to whom less is given less is required which is most clear from the Doctrine of Christ in his Parable of the Talents And whereas I. A. doth plead against the possibility of perfection in this Life by divers Arguments deduced from a misapplication of some places of Scripture I shall only point at the defects of his Arguments in general which shall suffice to every one of them if duely applyed in particular 1. One great defect of his Arguments is that the most they prove is That man of himself without the Grace and help of Gods Spirit cannot attain to perfection which we do not deny but this hinders not that by Grace he may 2. A second defect is that his Arguments prove That the Saints had their Imperfections and sins before they were fully washed and cleansed from them which we also acknowledge but this doth not hinder that some time or other they witnessed a perfect cleansing before death A third defect is his confounding â—he States and Conditions of the Saints to wit Their weak Estate when they are but in the warfare and strugling against sin with their Last and final Estate wherein they have overcome and got the Victory And lastly to mention no more his misapplying the word or term perfect when it is taken in an higher sense to the lowest condition of a sinless state as in the Case of Paul when he said Philip. 3. 12. He was not as yet perfected where he â—eaneth certainly that he had not attained to the highest pitch or condition of Holiness that was attainable in this Life which notwithstanding doth not hinder a sinless perfection for although Adam was Created in a sinless perfection yet certainly he was to have gone on to a higher state of Perfection And we Read of Christ who had no sin at all that he was made perfect through Sufferings Again when Christ said I work to day and to morrow and the third day I am perfected This cannot signifie that he had any sinful Imperfection before that time but his being perfected the third day signifieth that his work was then to be done and so that he was prepared for the Glory that he was to receive thereafter Again whereas he maketh some show of bringing our Arguments or Reasons for Perfection I find not my self concerned to Vindicate those Arguments as managed by him because he doth not propose them either in matter or form as they do
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
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.
Teaching of God's own Spirit of Peoples Instruction in all Nations according to Rom. 16. 26. and those Nations that want the Scriptures are no doubt for most part in great darkness But why some Nations want the blessing of the Scriptures belongeth to the secret Judgments of God and as for us who have them let us be thankful to God and earnestly seek the holy Spirit that gave them forth without which they will be a Sealed Book unto us whether learned or unlearned as it is at this day unto the unbelieving Jews and also unto many thousands of unfaithful Professors of Christ who in works deny him And thus by what is said how and in what manner we own the Word of God in our Hearts immediately Speaking and Teaching as our principal Rule I. A. his Cavils and false Charges are sufficiently Answered which may serve to all his Third Section Yet to Answer to some things more particularly whereas I. A. alledgeth That the Word mentioned Deut. 30. 14. is not Christ but the Books or Writings of Moses To this I Answer But whether shall we rather believe I. A. or the Apostle Paul who Rom. 10. doth plainly expound it of Christ see Verse 4. compared with Verse 5 6 7 8. when he distinguisheth betwixt the Law and Christ as preferring Christ to the Law and he saith Christ is the end of the Law which he proveth out of Moses's words Deut. 30. 14. and therefore these words of Moses are to be understood of Christ and so did Clements Alexandrinus and others of the Fathers understand them But saith I. A. Moses tyes them straitly to the external written Word of the Scriptures But what then doth he so tye them as that they were not to regard God or Christ or the Holy Spirit in their Hearts How wild and unreasonable is this consequence Could the people understand the true Spiritual intent and signification of the Law without Christ and his Spirit and inward Teaching Was it not the fault of the people that they stuck so close to the bare outward performances of the Law and neglected Christ and his Spirit which could alone give the understanding of it And therefore when he came in the flesh they rejected him Secondly as to Ieremiah 31. v. 31 32. we do not bring this place to overthrow the external Rule of the Scripture or true outward Teaching as I. A. falsly doth alleadge but only to prove that God himself doth Teach his people under the New Covenant so that they hear God himself and learn of him which yet doth not hinder yet they both also may and ought to hear all those whom God sendeth And certainly that Scripture expression to be Taught of God is more or a further thing then to be Taught by the Letter of the Scripture or by Moses and the Prophets Writings otherwise it might be said that the people simply by the Old Covenant was as much Taught of God as under the New Thirdly Nor do we bring Luke 17. 20 21. where Christ saith The Kingdom of God is within you to exclude all External helps and means as I. A. doth again no less falsely alleadge But only to prove that there is an inward Principle of Christs Light Life and Grace in men whereby he ruleth in those that are obedient unto the same and even in them who are disobedient it hath its Rule and Kingdom so far as to judge and condemn them which yet it could not do without some inward Dictate or witness Fourthly As to Iohn 16. 13. where Christ Promises to send his Spirit to guide us into all Truth Nor do we bring this to oppose all outward Teaching Reading Learning c. But still we say seeing it was a promise made to the Apostles as well as unto us it implyeth a real inward Teaching of God and the Spirit that is somewhat further then the outward Teaching whatsomever which if it may and ought to be called immediate in the Apostles may and ought also to be called immediate in Gods people now and always to the end of the World seeing the promise is the same to both and therefore hath the same performance at least in kind if not in degree Fifthly The same false and absurd charge he is guilty of as to 1 Ioh. 2. 20 27. which mentioneth The Anointing which taught them all things so that they needed not any man to Teach them For we bring not this place to oppose all outward Preaching or Teaching of men of God truly sent and called by him But only the bare dead and dry Teaching of men who run and God hath not sent them And also the words may be understood in respect of an absolute necessity so as they who are come to that inward Anointing and that it abide in them they have not an absolute necessity of outward true Teachers so as they must need perish for want of them if so be at any time they could not be had as doth at times come to pass And thus also that of Ieremiah 31. 31 32 33 34. is to be understood importing likewise that all True Believers should have that experimental knowledge of God and acquaintance with him by the inward Teachings of his Spirit so as none should be wholly ignorant of God but all should know him in measure and therefore it should not be needful to say unto any of them know the Lord as if they were utterly ignorant of him in respect of Spiritual and experimental knowledge as indeed many or most of the people under the Law were Which yet hinders not but that still there will be both need and great use of True Teachers in the Church to the Worlds end though not to say know the Lord as if they did not in any measure know him yet to promote and advance them who know him already in more knowledge of him and of the great and deep Mysteries of his Kingdom Sixthly He saith That engrafted word mentioned Jam. 1. 21. which we are bid receive is the Scripture and not Christ or his Light For he saith We cannot in proper Speech be said to receive or hear a Dictate within which we have already and is not audible properly But how weak is this Argument Could not the Prophets and Apostles both hear and receive Christ whom they had already were they not still more and more to receive him And have we not the Scripture already and consequently according to I. A. we cannot receive it And that he saith A Dictate within is not audible properly But why not as properly as a Dictate without Seeing the Spiritual Hearing and Seeing are as proper in their kind as the Natural are in their kind And according to this reasoning of I. A. none of the Prophets nor Apostles were to hear God or the Spirit in them seeing nothing within is audible properly And as for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Englished Engrafted it doth most properly signifie innate and is
commonly understood of that which originally is Grafted or Implanted in us and in this sense is used generally both by Christian and Heathen Writers as it is contradistinguished from that which is outwardly received Hence the natural love or affection that is in mankind is said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the which is not a thing outwardly received and consequently the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot be the Letter of the Scripture but a Divine principle immediately grafted into our Souls when God Created them and in respect of which men are said to be made in the Image of God Seventhly He alledgeth that we bring Heb. 6. 1 2. To oppose and reject all External Ordinances out of the Church citing Principles of Truth pag. 63 68 77 80. And here he insulteth not a little as if by the same Argument The Quakers were obliged to reject the very Principles of the Doctrine of Christ and the foundation of Repentance and Faith as well as Water-Baptism But to this I Answer having examined these pages cited by him I do not find that they mention or intend any thing of rejecting the Principles of the Doctrine of Christ or External Ordinances And let but the Reader examine the words and he shall find that nothing further is intended than this that people should not sit down or build their Faith upon a form of words though never so sound but should come further than all words so that leaving them behind as in respect of a foundation they were to come unto Christ the true foundation and grow up in him unto perfection And as for Water-baptism that place of the Heb. 6. 1 2. doth not mention it among the principles of the Doctrine of Christ but only the Doctrine of Baptisms which is another thing than Water-Baptism For although we have not Water-Baptism among us yet we have the Doctrine of Baptisms that is set down with other principles of our Faith as in divers other of our Book so in that mentioned by him called The Principles of Truth Now to leave a form of Words or Articles and Propositions concerning Faith which commonly are called Principles so as not to set them up for the principal and only foundation of our Faith which people are but too ready to do This is not to reject them no more than when a man leaves his Affairs he hath been conversant in and goeth to his Bed to rest him with moderate sleep is to reject his Affairs for he returneth unto them again Eighthly He saith We object that Enoch Noah Abraham c. Had not the Scripture to be their Rule and therefore nor are we to have it to be our Rule And this he makes as ridiculous a consequence as to say the Scriptures were not written in the primitive World therefore neither afterwards But I Answer that to argue from thence that the Scripture is not to be our only and principal Rule is both safe and pertinent For it Enoch Noah Abraham had the Spirit to be a Rule unto them it is no less a rule unto all now who have the same Faith which they had seeing the same Spirit is given to Believers now which they had which Spirit is one as Paul hath declared and it is most Rational that as the Faith is one in all Ages of the World and the Spirit one so the Principal rule of Faith should be one also Ninthly He saith I object Quakerâ—sm no Popery pag. 9. 13. That the Testâ—mony of the Spirit within is greater than the External Testimony of the Scripture and therefore the said Testimony of the Spirit is the Principal Rule To which he roundly Answereth by denying that there is any such Testimony of the Spirit within Believers and because I say there is he alledgeth I drive the Plough before the Oxen. But I Answer that I have proved it sufficiently already and now also I have Answered I hope sufficiently all his objections against it And here I desire the Reader to take notice how that notwithstanding I. A. saith elsewhere as Pag. 44. That he and his Brethren never denyed the Spirits Teaching Yet how inconsistent that is with denying any Testimony of the Spirit or Dictate thereof in mens hearts Is the Teaching of the Spirit only an outward thing Is it nothing else but to Hear or Read the Letter of the Scripture And are they all Taught of the Spirit who are but only and meerly Taught by the Letter But if it be granted that there is an inward Teaching of the Spirit distinct from the outward Teaching of the Scripture although not separated therefrom or without the outward as I know some of the more sober doth acknowledge then I say is not that inward Teaching a Testimony of the Spirit For to affirm it to be a Teaching and no Testimony seemeth to me to be a great contradiction And as for us althogh we cannot say that the inward Teaching or Testimony of the Spirit is never in any case without the outward yet we grant it is oft accompanied with the outward and in that case it is no less truly immediate than if it were without it as I have already shewed And supposing but not at all granting that the inward Teaching of the Spirit were never without the outward of the Letter yet seeing the outward Teaching of the Letter is oft without the inward for many are Taught by the Letter who are not Spiritually Taught all that the Letter hath outwardly Taught them it followeth evidently that the inward Teaching of the Spirit and outward Teaching of the Letter are distinct things as is manifest from that sure maxime that when two things can be seperate so as the one to be without the other they are really distinct This Argument I used in my Book called Quakerism no Popery but I. A. hath made no reply to it And still I say if the inward Teaching of the Spirit be denyed it doth follow that in respect of any inward Speaking or Teaching God doth no more intelligibly or perceptibly speak to the Saints than he speaketh to the Earth to bring forth Grass the which consequence I. A. seemeth to allow but how absurdly I leave to sober men to judge And whereas I. A. saith That God doth not always make use of the greater Witnesses for testifying his will to us I Answer In respect of men and Angels it is true But notwithstanding God hath given himself and his own Holy Spirit which is one with him to be unto us a witness of his will and this is the greatest witness that can be given See Rom. 8. 16. 1 Ioh. 5. 8 9. CHAP. VIII IN his pretended Survey of the Fifth Query he begins with two false Charges against us the First That we deny all Scripture Interpretation the Second That we deny all Scripture Consequences And to refute these idle Suppositions which are none of our Assertions he spendeth many Pages of his Book to no purpose and wherein we are