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
Rule and like Proteus turning my self into all shapes sometimes I design Christ himself oftner the Spirit himself but oftnest the Dictate of the Spirit within to be that Rule But he might at that raâ—e have no less blamed the Apostle Paul that he turned himself into all shapes while he affirmeth sometimes That Christ spoke in him and sometimes that the Spirit spoke in him and certainly what Christ or the Spirit spoke in him was by a certain Word or dictate But to Answer directly when I say Christ is the Rule And again when I say the Spirit is the Rule there is no absurdness therein for if we mean by the Spirit the Holy Ghost Christ and the Holy Ghost are never separated or divided in what they Speak or Witness in the souls of men but their speech and Testimony is one and the same alwaies and also Christ himself in Scripture is called the second Adam the quickening Spirit and the Lord that Spirit and said Christ I am the way the Truth and the Life and certainly that Life is Spirit and also the Words or dictate of it is Spirit and Life as Christ said The words that I speak unto you are Spirit and Life So the Reader may see that my words are sound and according to Scripture and therefore whether I say Christ or the Spirit or the internal dictate and Word of the Spirit is the Rule it is to the same purpose And to say the dictate of the Spirit is the Rule is no other than to say the Spirit dictating or speaking is that Rule and do not some of your selves use a variety of Speech when ye speak of the Rule one time saying The Scripture is the Rule another time The Word of God contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament is the only Rule c. as the Westminster Confession of Faith expresly hath it Another time The Spirit of God speaking in the Scriptures c. Now according to I. A. I may blame him and his Brethren in this case that Proteus like he and his Brethren turn themselves into all shapes when they speak of the Rule And whether these phrases used by them be not more unscriptural I leave unto sober men for to judge In the next place he argueth That Christ cannot be the Rule nor the Spirit because the Rule of Faith must be some complex Proposition Direction or Precept and the like To this I Answer First That the Rule of Faith must be a complex Proposition Direction or Precept formally understood in words formally conceived I altogether deny and I. A. hath not offered to prove it And although the Spâ—rit of Christ may and often doth speak express words in the souls of his people yet he doth not alwaies so do when yet he clearly enough signifieth his mind and will unto them for if among men a King may signifie his mind to his Subjects or a Master to his servants without any formal Proposition or direction of words but only by some motion of his hand or face How much more may the Lord God who is the King of Kings signifie his mind unto his servants by the motion of his Spirit without any formal or express words Again I ask I. A. if he hath not learned in the Schools that the reasonable nature of God is the first rule of Manners And certainly the reasonable Nature of God is not a complex Proposition consisting of many words And hath he not read in Boetius that excellent saying Quis legem det amantibus major lex amor est ipse sibi which the Author of a late Book called The Life of God in the soul of man doth use to prove that somewhat more than words is a Law or Rule to Christians and Englisheth thus For who shall give a Law to them that Love Love 's a more powerful Law that doth such persons move And I further Query I. A. seeing the Scripture saith God is Love he that knoweth God to be Love and hath the Love of God shed abroad in his Heart by the holy Spirit which in Scripture is called The Spirit of Love shall not this man be tyed to love God and his Brethren yea and all mankind even his very enemies Suppose it be not said to him in formal express words do so and so Again whether he that only readeth or heareth these outwardly Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy Heart c. and thy Neighbour as thy self but his Heart is utterly void of the love of God or he that hath the love of God in his heart and feelleth the powerful constraint of it is under the most powerful Law Whether the words without or the Spirit and Nature of Divine Love within is the most powerful Law and Rule There may therefore be a Law or Rule which is not a complex Proposition of words either inward or outward to wit the Divine Love it self which hath a Voice and Language to the souls of men in the silence of all words many times and can be understood as well without words as with them And therefore when I say the dictate of the Spirit is the Rule I mean not that there is alwaies a dictate of express words but that which is either such a formal express dictate or equivalent thereunto which those who are acquainted with the experiences of the Saints do well understand although it may seem to I. A. a strange Riddle or Paradox And thus by what I have said in this particular the intelligent Reader I hope shall perceive that in saying The Spirit is the Rule I am not beside my self as I. A. doth alledge but speak the words of Truth and soberness And I further ask Whether I. A. thinks that Ignatius the Martyr was beside himself when he writ in one of his Epistles to the People 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Vsing the Holy Ghost for a Rule or Whether Paul was beside himself when he said The Law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Iesus had made him free from the law of Sin and Death And whether that Law was not the Spirit of Life even as the Law of sin was sin and the Law of death was death And whether the Law of the Mind mentioned by Paul was not a Divine Principle of Grace in his mind even as the Law of his Members was a principle of sin and corruption that sometime had place in him and not any complex Proposition of words And whether the Law that God writeth in the hearts of his people in the new Covenant be simply a form of words consisting of so many letters syllables and sentences or rather to speak properly is not that Law a new and Divine Nature or substantial Life of Holiness and Righteousness and Wisdom by which the Children of God are led and taught under the new Covenant naturally as it were to love God and all men even as the Law that God hath put in all
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
men are infallible that therefore the Dictate and Light of Gods Spirit in men is fallible also Was not Peter fallible in some Cases Yea did he not fail sorely when he denyed his Master Doth it therefore follow that the Dictate or Light of Gods Spirit in him was fallible Indeed if I had said that when we follow the Dictate and Light of God within we are fallible he might have inferred such a consequence but I never said nor thought any such thing but on the contrary that the Dictates and Leadings of Gods Spirit in us are infallible and have a direct tendency to lead guide and move us infallibly as they are purely kept unto the which is possible for us to do Another Argument he bringeth against the Dictate 〈◊〉 Iâ—s being the rule to try Spirits because then it would be both Superior and Inferior which is Repugnant Superior when it tryes and examines and Inferior when it is tryed and examined To which I Answer 1. It is no Repugnancy that one and the same thing be Superior and Inferior in different respects and as it respecteth different Subjects But 2. There is no necessity to understand the Dictate and Light of Gods Spirit in divers men to be Superior and Inferior when it examines and is examined for one equal may be a measure or rule to another yea one thing may be said to be a rule unto it self according unto that common Maxim or principle Lineâ— recta est norma sui obliqui i. e. A right line is the rule of it self and also of that which is crooked Otherwise let I. A. Answer me How did Adam know the voice of God in his Heart and the Prophets before the Scriptures were writ how did they know it And in the close of his first Section he concludeth with a manifest Untruth That the Quakers are for a new Dispensation not only in manner but matter contrary to the Doctrine formerly Dictated by the Holy Ghost This I say is false which he neither doth nor can prove and the Dispensation we plead for is the same both for matter and manner which belonged to all true and good Christians in all Ages And as to what he saith Of our extream Infatuation and Brain-sickness and retaining the proportion and features of humane bodies having quite enervated our Rational Essence These and the like scoffing and disdainful expressions are no more to be regarded by us nor have any more weight than when some Epicureans at Athens called Paul a Babler We know it hath been the Lot of Gods people in former Generations to be reputed by Adversaries both Fools and Mad-men However we hope the sober Readers of our Books and Treatises and these also who have any Converse with us will find that we have neither abandoned nor lost the use of our Rational Faculties which we acknowledge to be good Gifts of God and for which he is to be praised nor doth our principle and belief of Divine Inspiration as being a more noble and excellent Gift of God than the highest Natural Faculty of Reason either weaken or render useless to us our Reason but both indeed both strengthen it and make it the more useful and comfortable whereof to Gods praise we are bold to say we have true experience notwithstanding of what I. A. or any of his insulting humour do or can say to the contrary There yet remains two other things in this first Section of I. A. which I think fit to notice One is That he alledgeth some of us understand by the more sure word of Prophecy the Scripture which is only to be taken heed unto until the day dawn and the day Star arise in the heart that is until the Holy Ghost be given and that consequently the Scriptures serve for nothing to belivers who are born with the Spirit and sealed therewith But seeing he has produced no Names of any among us understanding that more sure word of Prophecy to be the Scripture we are not concerned to Answer him It is possible that some in Discourse has only so argued with him ad hominem as they use to say and not as being their own judgment And as for the Scriptures we judge that they are profitable and ought to be Read by true Believers and renewed persons as well as others But when doth I. A. think that the day dawneth and the day Star ariseth in the hearts of believers Whether in this mortal State Yea or Nay and then whether the shining of Gods day and the day Star thereof be not a true immediate Revelation in the hearts of those who have it and whether it doth not more assure them who have it than the Letter of Scripture can do And seeing the Light of God in them when it shines in the heart but as in a dark place is a more sure Word than an audible voice from Heaven or than the Letter of the Scripture as to us what shall be said of that Light when it becometh not only as the day Star but as the day itself for clearness in the Soul Or can there be any greater or more principal rule than this The other thing I notice is That he inferreth the Scriptures to be a rule because Christ said to the Sadduces Ye erre not knowing the Scriptures Now if this Argument hold good seeing Christ said also Ye erre not knowing the Scriptures nor the Power of God It will as well follow That the Power of God is the Rule and that the rather because it was their being ignorant of the Power of God which quickens both Soul and Body that made them ignorant of the Scriptures for none know truly the Scriptures but they who know the Power of God and therefore that Power which is Life Light and Spirit is the more principal and original rule But I. A. in citing these words of Christ omitted the following words which are exceeding weighty viz. no the Power of God whether this was purposely done of him to ensuare his unwary Reader or not I shall not determine but leave to his consideration CHAP. V. J. A. in the beginning of his second Section concerning the Rule is pleased to call me an Arch-Quaker the which Title I no wise acknowledge and a man too Learned as I employ it To which I Answer That as to my Learning that is but very ordinary and a thing I neither can nor ought to glory in However in this I rejoyce that the Testimony of my Conscience beareth me Witness in the Holy Spirit that any small measure I have of that called Learning it hath been my sincere aim and endeavour to employ it to Gods Honour and serve the Truth therewith and not in the least to use it against the Truth so far as it was or is made manifest unto me Next he blames me that I affirm The Scriptures are only but a secondory Rule of Faith and Manners but that the Spirit or his Dictate within is the Principal
an Inward immediate Dictate but there is a Divine Law in all men and therefore c. And in this respect it is that the substance of the Moral Law is generally acknowledged to be Imprinted in the Hearts of all men even those who want the Scriptures And I well remember that Bishop Sanderson saith in one of his Sermons That the said Law in the Hearts of all men is as really the Word of God as that Printed in our Bibles And thus I hope I have sufficiently evinced that there is a Dictate in all men that is a Divine Law and Rule at least in many or most things belonging both to Piety Justice and Sobriety Although I do not plead that there is a Law or Rule in them who have not had the History of the Gospel revealed unto them to believe the same Nor do I say that the History of the Gospel is revealed to us immediately without the Scripture but that having Heard or Read the said History and all other Historical parts of the Scripture the Spirit of God by some Inward Dictate formal or virtual or that which is equivalent doth move and incline us to believe the same And that I. A. doth plead That Believers only have the Spirit I Answer They have it only so as to possess and enjoy the indwelling of it and union with it but that Unbelievers have it so far at least as to reprove them and call them to repentance is clear from many Scriptures especially Iohn 16. 8. Prov. 1. 23 24. In Answer to one Argument of mine he saith A Believer needs not any immediate Dictate to assure him that he is a Child of God seeing by the aâ—â—istance of the Spirit effectively he may draw a conclusion from Scripture Premisses in applying the Scripture marks But to this I Answer that the Scripture only telleth him one of the Premisses of that they call the practical Syllogism but no Scripture in all the Bible telleth I. A. or me that he or I have these marks and seeing a true Believer may attain to a Faith of assurance as I. A. doth not deny and Faith must have the Word of God for its object seeing there is not a word in all the Scripture that saith he or I have those marks we must seek that word somewhere else then in the Scripture and where shall we seek it else but in our Hearts where the Spirit himself witnesseth with our Spirits that we are the Children of God if so be that we have that witness even as it did witness in Paul And if the illumination of the Spirit discover the Graces of God in our Souls certainly that is an Immediate Revelation for Scripture doth not discover in us those Graces but the Spirit and he that discovers the Graces discovereth also himself to be the true Spirit of God and doth not hide himself from us or else we might doubt whether the discovery were true or not not knowing infallibly the Author thereof Lastly That he saith I spurn at the distinction of objective and subjective Illumination as Anti-christian and deceitful I Answer I do not blame the distinction simply as in it self but as it is illused and applyed Whereas they say The influence and illumination of the Spirit in Believers is meerly effective or subjective and not at all objective But I say it is both effective and objective effective to help us to See or Hear and objective or by way of â—bject for the Sight and Hearing or any other perception of our Souls to stay and rest upon but this object can no more be the Letter of Scripture alone than a report of Meat and Drink can be the object to satisfie a mans Taste or Appetite when he is Hungry or Thirsty And thus I do not confound the distinct considerations of objective and effective only I affirm that the same thing may be both and so indeed is as when the Sun enlightens us its Ray or Beam helps us to see and also it is the object of our sight And the Heat of the Fire is both the object of our Feeling and also when it is moderate helpeth us to feel and effectively doth strengthen our Feeling But when the Fire heateth a stone it worketh in it only effectively and not objectively or as an object but Believers receive not the Heavenly Light and warmth of the Spirit as dead and insensible stones but as living Souls that have a real sense and perception of that which doth influence them and therefore that influence is the proper immediate object of their perception And if there be no inward Spiritual object that the Spirit presents to Gods Children then there is no inward Spiritual Eye nor Ear nor inward Spiritual Taste or Savour nor inward Spiritual Feeling all which is most contrary both to Scripture which mentions all these Spiritual Senses as I have proved at large in my Book of Immediate Revelation and also to the Saints experiences And doth not God promise that his Children shall see him under the New Covenant and certainly all sight that is proper is immediate And to say that the Saints only see God by the Scriptures is but as much as to say that we only see our Father by a report of him or that we only see the outward Sun by ones telling us that it shines who hath indeed seen it or that we only see our Native Country in which we live and dwell by looking at the Map of it But certainly such a remote and improper seeing doâ—s no wise answer to the Glory of the New Covenant but rather falleth short of the Old And if that be all to see God in the Scriptures then all those that lived under the Old Covenant saw God as clearly as Believers under the New Covenant seeing they had the Scriptures in great part But I remember a good saying of S. R. in one of his Epistles that I hope may have some weight with I. A. That is little saith he to see Christ in a Book which yet the Scripture is and certainly if I. A. has seen no more of God or Christ but what he has had a report of from the Letter of the Scripture I must needs say he is a great stranger to the New Covenant Dispensation and is still like so to remain while he disputes in unbelief against so great a Blessing that if he did believe he might attain unto But I wish the Lord may open his Eyes and then he will no more contend against such a thing I. A. proceedeth further to dispute against the Dictate or Witness of the Spirit within although he saith He hath sufficiently affronted it yet because it is worthy of a thousand deaths for its proud usurpation as he saith he will reach it some few blowes more To this I Answer that these exceeding bold and daring words against the Blessed Dictates or Words of Gods Holy Spirit in the Hearts of his people hath not a little moved me
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
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
summum jus we think to merit our Justification by our Inherent Righteousness at Gods Tribunal This I say is an absurd inference and smelleth ranckly of deep prejudice and perverseness of Spirit in I. A. in opposition to which I say that unless God did not only not exact in his Justice the rigid rigour of the Law as he terms it but did not also pardon and forgive us freely for Christs sake multitude of sins so as not only to remit us a Penny but many thousands of Pounds neither we nor any man living could be justified at Gods Tribunal by the greatest Holiness attainable for all that the best of the Saints can attain unto of Holiness or Righteousness is but their duty and therefore can be no ransom nor redemption unto God for the lest by past sin far less for many that they have formerly committed And whereas in my Book aforesaid I charged I. A. and his Brethren to be too much one with the Papists in the Doctrine of Justification both of them denying that the Saints Justified by Christ indwelling in them as Luther expresly Taught in his Commentary on the Galatians And also denying that Gods Justifying his Children is an inward Sentence or Dictate of his Spirit immediately pronounced in their hearts to which the said I. A. can give no reply but a meer evasion and falleth on a fresh to accuse us of Enthusiasme which being already Answered in the former part I need not here to repeat Only I cannot but take notice how ignorantly I. A. opposeth the word or term immediate to the use of means which I have already refuted and shewed how immediate Revelation such as the Prophets and Apostles had doth very well consist with the use of means And so I willingly acknowledge that true and right means are as Vessels whereby ordinarily our Spiritual Meat and Drink are conveyed to us sometimes in the use of one mean sometimes in the use of another but I hope when we Eat and Drink that which is conveyed to us we Eat and Drink it immediately See Taste Savour and Handle and Feel it immediately and can well understand when the Meat is indeed in the Vessel and when it is empty and therefore I. A. his comparison in this respect doth altogether halt and is impertinent Another great impertinency and abuse I observe in I. A. that whereas I. A. blamed our Friends for saying We are not justified by Acts of Righteousness 〈◊〉 Acts grosly inferring that thereby they understand that they are not justified by sinful Acts as Blasphemy Murder and the like yeâ— hâ— himself 〈◊〉 the same kind of Expression as to Faith saying The Saints are not justified by Faith as it is a 〈◊〉 Act And according to I. A. his Logick he means they are not justified by all works as Blasphemy Murder Unbelief according to the maxime cited by him A quatenus ad omne sequitur Vniversaliter Nor is he less Impertinent to accuse me of a self contradiction because I distinguish Faith as it is both receptive and operative for even the receptive Faith I hold it to be a work and also wrought not only in the Soul but in some degree by it as a co-worker through the operation of the Holy Spirit And I say again to affirm that the Saints are not justified by Faith as it is a work is too nice and subtle a distinction unless they mean thereby as work wrought by them and as having an equal proportion to the reward of Eternal Salvation And in this sense that may be as well said we are justified by Love Repentance and all the Acts of men and Spiritual obedience but not as works done by us and having that quality of proportion to Eternal Life I shall not insist to Answer particularly I. A. his pretended Arguments against Justification by Repentance and Conversion and inward Acts of Righteousness as proceeding from the Spirit of Christ in Believers The whole force of his reasons being founded on a bare Assertion that hath been often sufficiently refuted both by us and divers noted men in the Episâ—â—pal Church as if Paul did oâ—pose Faith and all works or the inward work of Regeneration and Renewing by the Holy Ghost when he saith We are not saved by Works and the contrary is manifest from Tit. 3. 5. already cited As for his saying That our Souls are of great price in the sight of God and yet do not merit Heaven and consequently nor the best Works although they are said to be of great price with God I grant neither our Souls nor our Vertues merit Heaven nor Redemption as merit signifieth equality But seeing God hath counted our Souls so dear as to give so great a price for them as the Blood of his Dear Son they may at least be said to have some dignity or worth which is to say merit in them otherwise God would never have given so great a Ransome for them if the Souls of men in respect of their Nature and Being had not been of great value which is all I understand by the word merit as used by any of us And truly for our part we very rarely or never use the word merit as with a respect to the Saints best works unless when we are constrained to bear our Testimony against the ignorance and rashness of those who so undervalue and reproach the Blessed Spirit his works in the Saints as to call them not only unclean and underfiled with sin but sin it self for which God might justly condemn them to Hell as some have not been afraid to affirm I take notice also on this Head how I. A. doth acknowledge that Repentance Love and Hope are necessary to Justification by way of presence and existence but not as conditions or qualifications required in order to Justification which is another frivolous and groundless distinction for seeing the Scripture doth equally press our Repentance and Conversion that we may obtain Forgiveness and Justification as it doth Faith The one is certainly as much the condition as the other And it is not Faith barely considered which hath the fitness to receive us into the Favour of God and his acceptance but as it is accompanied with sincere Repentance and Obedience for as it is a most unfit and incongruous thing that any man while remaining in his unbelief should be admitted into Friendship and Favour with God so it is no less unfit and unagreeable to the Wisdom and Holiness of God to receive them into his Friendship and Favour as his Children who remain still Rebellious and disobedient against him As for I. A. his last Assertion on this Head consisting of above three pages wherein he only beats the Air and fights with his own shadow upon a gross and perverse but altogether groundless surmise as if the Quakeâ—s did deny any imputed Righteousness of Christ in what he did and suffered for us but as it is inwardly wrought and inherent in us for we most