The deism of William Penn and his brethren destructive to the Christian religion, exposed and plainly laid open in the examination and refutation of his late reprinted book called, A discourse of the general rule of faith and practise and judge of controversie, wherein he contendeth that the Holy Scriptures are not the rule of faith and life, but that the light in the conscience of every man is that rule / by George Keith.

The DEISM of William Penn, and his Brethren, Destructive to the Christian Religion, Ex∣posed, and plainly laid open.

The Introduction.

Shewing the great Importance of our know∣ing what the True Rule of Faith and Life is: And containing a Retracta∣tion of some Ʋnsound and Erronious Passages in some of my former Books about the Rule of Faith, yet no-wise so Erronious as the Doctrine of W.P. nor being of that Tendency, as his is, to introduce Deism.

Page 3. HE saith, Since there are so many Faiths in the World, and per∣plex'd Controversies about them, that is greatly behoves every Man, if he contend for, then, first to know the True Faith

that overcometh the World. Concerning the General Rule of Faith and Life, he is press'd to say something from that weighty Conside∣ration, That Men Perish for want of it, and can no more arrive at Truth without it, than the distressed Mariner can gain his Port, who Sails without either Star or Compass. This his weighty Consideration is a plain Confession, That the not having a right and true under∣standing of the Rule of Faith, what it is, is of very dangerous Consequence, even no less than Perishing and Destruction to all such who want the true Knowledge of it, and set up another thing in the room of it. It may there∣fore be very necessary for W.P. to consider the Matter a little more weightily, that in case he himself have not the true Knowledge of the Rule of Faith and Life, in what dan∣ger he is of Perishing: And how, (in this his Work, of labouring to bring all People un∣der a Christian Profession, that give up to be∣lieve him, to another Rule of Faith and Life, than what is the true Rule indeed,) If he per∣sist in so doing, he will not only bring his own Blood upon himself, but the Blood of many others, that are and may be mislead by him. And whether he will yet better consider it or not, which I heartily wish, and pray, that God would be pleased to open his Eyes, and give him Repentance, and a better Under∣standing: It is a plain Case, That the true

Knowledge of the true Rule of Faith and Life is very necessary, yea, so necessary, that the Danger for want of it is Perishing or Destru∣ction. Yet I mean not, that every Error in Circumstance, about the true Rule, is of that Danger; or that some loose and indeliberate Expressions, that some have used in Preaching or Printing, while their Meaning hath been more sound than their Words, even about the RULE, are of that Consequence. It hath hap∣pened to some well-meaning People, as it had happened to my self, that they and I have both spoke and writ unadvisedly: As in some other Matters, so in this, running along, or rather being carried along with the Stream of some of the ancient Friends, so called of the Ministry, in asserting, both in Speech and Print, too fre∣quently, that the Spirit within, meaning the inward Evidence of the Spirit, as touching the great Matters of the Christian Faith and Pra∣ctise, was the principal Rule of Faith and Life, wherein I acknowledge my Error and great Mistake, and do here particularly retract it, notwithstanding the general Retractation I have lately made, in my late Book called, G.K's Explications and Retractations. But tho' I was then in an Error, and under a great Mistake, in my way of wording the Matter, and darkned too much and clouded in my Un∣derstanding in that very Point, yet I crave leave of my Reader to shew, that even then

my Error was not Fundamental, nor such as this is of W. Penn's and his Brethren, whose Error in the Case has carried them to plain Deism. My Mistake chiefly consisted in this, in confounding the Term Rule of Faith, with the Term Inward objective Medium, which I ought to have distinguished, for the Rule of Faith, is not (properly speaking) that for∣mal object of Faith, called by some, Objectum formale quo, or objective Medium and Motive of Credibility, but the material Objects of Faith, to wit, all the Credenda or things in Scripture that ought to be believed, are the Rule of Faith: And therefore instead of say∣ing, the Spirits inward Evidence and Testi∣mony was the Rule of Faith, and principal Rule; I should have said, it was the prin∣cipal objective Medium of Credibility: Which as I then did believe and assert, so I do still, and hope never to retract it. And therefore while I continue adhering to this Perswasion, I remain (as to the main) the same I was in my Judgment, as when I wrote my former Books touching these Matters; my chief Bent and Zeal being, against that which I judged a very Erronious Opinion, and Hurtful, held by some counted Learned Men, and which I judge still that so it is, to wit, That the inward Evidence of the Spirit in the Souls of the Faithful, to the Truths of the Christian Religion, is only Effective and not Objective; and I pleaded

warmly, that the Spirits inward Evidence, otherwise called Testimony, Witness, Inspiration, Illumination, or Operation in the Souls of the Faithful, is not only Effective, but Objective also, to wit, by way of formal Object, or ob∣jective Medium, and Motive of Credibility. And this I reckoned then, and do still, the greatest Certainty and Assurance, that the Scriptures are of Divine Authority, and in∣fallibly true; wherein I knew, and still know, I had the best Protestant Authors, both for Piety and solid Learning, on my side, as also my Feeling, and Experience (to the Praise of God's Grace I say it) in the Case hath con∣firmed me; though I know some called Learned Men, who have more of that called Divinity Learning in their Heads, than in their Hearts, do contradict it; yea, to a Degree of Ridi∣culing it, under the Name of Fanaticism and Enthusiasm, not well regarding the Authority of their worthy and judicious Ancestors, who in the Articles of the Church have expresly mentioned, the Feeling of the Holy Ghost in his Operations and Motions. But I erred in calling this either inward Feeling, or the Ob∣ject of it, the principal Rule, for properly and rightly speaking, it is not the Rule of Faith; but the principal Motive of Credibility. That which is only, strictly and properly speaking, the Rule of the Christian Faith, is the Doctrine of the Holy Scriptures; especi∣ally

respecting the great Fundamentals and Essentials thereof. To give a preference to the inward Operation of the Spirit, and his writing his Law in the Heart, to the same Law as writ on leaves of Paper; and to the expe∣rimental part of Christianity, above all that can be outwardly told, or heard, or read. I think no true Christian will deny, but when it is ask••d, which is the greater Rule, the In∣ward or the Outward, they compare things that are not to be compared, that cannot be said to be either the greater Rule, or the lesser, which is, properly speaking, no Rule at all, but the moving or impulsive Cause, that moves and inclines me to take the Holy Scriptures to be my Rule, being infallibly true, and of Divine Authority. And whoever be yet in the same Mistake and Error that I then was in, God forbid that I should judge so uncha∣ritably of them, as to conclude they err Fun∣damentally, for want of not giving right Names to things; or not having so clear in∣ward Idea's and Conceptions of them, when (as to the main) they mean well. I am bold to appeal to my Books from first to last, whi∣ther according to the Strain and Intent, in all that I have Printed on that Subject, I have not always acknowledged, that the Doctrine of Christ Crucified, and Remission of Sin by his Blood, and other Doctrinal Principles of Christianity, were absolutely necessary to be

believed by us for our Eternal Salvation: And that the Doctrine of the Holy Scriptures, as outwardly conveighed to us, by Preaching or Reading, is the ordinary Means whereby God works Faith, and Conversion, and Regenera∣tion, in them that shall be Saved: And that therefore so long as we live, we are not to lay aside either that, or any outward means of Grace and Salvation that God has afforded. And how far I have formerly denied, that the Scripture was the Rule of Faith, I meant, that as it was not the Letter or Writing, so nor the Doctrine, as simply and wholly li∣mited and confined to the Letter. As if it should happen by Divine Providence, that a Person, or Company of Persons, should have the Holy Bible by Violence taken from them, or not have it in any Language they can un∣derstand, that therefore they are not in a pos∣sible State of Salvation: For though in God's ordinary way, the Letter or Leaves of the Book, since the Writing of the Scriptures, are as it were, the Repository, or Ark, where God's Law is preserved, and to which a Re∣course ought frequently to be made, to read therein for daily Information and Instruction: Yet the Doctrine is not so limited, or con∣fined to the Letter or Leaves of a Book, but that the same Doctrine may be well and soundly preached, and believed, where the Book either hath not come, or by Violence

of Men has been taken away; as it hath been reported, that Persecutors have taken away the Bible from some Faithful Martyrs of Christ; but though they took the Letter out of their hands, they could not take the Word of God, to wit, the Doctrine and true Sense of it out of their Hearts. And so far as I can remember, it was never my Perswasion, what W.P. here layeth down in his Book, by way of Position, that the Light in every Man's Conscience, or the Dictates and Te∣stimony of it, abstractly considered, from the peculiar Doctrines of Christianity, are the Rule of Faith to Christian Men. If any shall find that or the like Doctrine in any of my Books, on the first Intimation of it, I declare I shall (by God's help) be ready to retract it, and condemn it as most Erro∣nious, and as a Fundamental Error; for it is plain Deism, of which I have not the least remembrance that ever I was guilty, as W.P. hath now plainly manifested his Deism, in this Book I have under Examination.

Section I.

The Definitions of General Rule and Faith, given by W.P. not to be allowed, because there is no such General Rule and Faith, as he defineth.

BEfore he comes to hs Arguments, he gives us his Definitions of General Rule and Faith. By General Rule (saith he) we under∣stand that constant Measure, by which Men in all Ages have been enabled to judge of the Truth or Error of Doctrines, and the Good or Evil of Thoughts, Words or Actions.

Answ. Here he undertakes to define a thing, that by the Definition of it, plainly demon∣strates, That it is not in being, nor ever was in any Ages of the World, ever since the Distinction betwixt God's Church and the World came to be. I say, ever since that Di∣stinction, all Mankind, in all Respects, Cases and Conditions, never had one General Rule; so his Definition is, as if one should define a golden Mountain, or something that never yet hath been, since the Distinction above men∣tioned. Possibly in Adam's Family, for some time, (God only knoweth how long) all Men belonging to it, had one Rule universally, but it is more than he can prove, that this was only

the Light in every of their Consciences, by its common Discoveries; for Adam himself had special Revelation, (whither by outward Vi∣sion, and an outward Voice, or only by in∣ternal Inspiration, is not necessary at present to determine) which taught him to expect Sal∣vation by the promised Seed of the Woman; and this Doctrine no doubt he preached to his Family. That the Light, or common disco∣very of the Light, in every Man's Conscience, may be called a General Rule of Moral Justice and Temperance, called by Paul, (Rom. 1. 19.) the Law writ in the Heart, may and ought to he granted, but this General Rule did not ex∣tend, nor doth, to be the Rule, or a Rule of the Faith of Remission of Sin, by the Blood of the promised Seed of the Woman, the Lamb of God that was to be slain, and should take away the Sin of the World. And seeing the Light in every Conscience teacheth nothing of this Faith, that in Scripture is called the Faith of God's Elect, and the common Faith, to wit, of the Faithful in all Ages. Therefore W.P. in the very entry of his Work, maketh a great Stumble, and useth a great Fallacy, as if all Mankind, ever since the Dispersion of the Na∣tions, to this day, had one general Rule of Faith and Life, and that was the Light in every Conscience, abstractly consider'd from all External Helps and Means, both of Know∣ledge and Faith. Let W.P. tell us, whether

the Light by its common discovery in every Man's Conscience, taught or gave the Com∣mand of Sacrificing. If he say, God, or the Spirit that is God, taught them to Sacrifice, he shifts the Question, which is not what God did teach by special Revelation, but what he did teach Men generally in all Ages, by common Illumination, the Dictates of which are in great part generally the same, to all Men in all Ages, but so is not that either of Sacrifices or Circumcision, or many other things that God commanded to some and not to others, and to some in one Age and not in another, such a general Rule of Morality or moral Justice has been, is, and ever will be, in the World: But what is this to the Rule of the Christian Faith, which for Substance is the same with the Faith of all the Fathers, Noah, Abraham, David, &c.? It is easie to espy W.P's Design in this his Undertaking, if he can prove that there is but one General Rule of Faith and Life to all Mankind, the next step is, by good Con∣sequence, that all Mankind ought to have but one Faith, and one Religion, and that is Deism and Paganism with a witness. The one Faith that the Scripture mentioneth, is not one Faith of all Mankind, but one Faith of God's Church, which is called the Faith of God's Elect, when that Blessed Time shall come, that the Gospel shall be outwardly

preach'd to all Nations, as our Saviour hath foretold it shall be, it is justly hoped that there will be a General Rule of Faith and Life to all Mankind that then shall live, but to talk of such a thing now, and to define a thing which is not, and write a Book about it, is like T. More's Ʋtopia.

Page 4. He is as Unsuccessful and Fallaci∣ous in his Definition of Faith: By Faith (saith he) we understand an Assent of the Mind, in such manner to the Discoveries made of God thereto, as to resign up to God, and have depen∣dence upon him, as the great Creator and Savi∣our of his People. This Definition of Faith, indeed, suits well with the Definition of his General Rule of Faith. But there are many parts of Mankind, that have not only a Faith in God, as the great Creator [the Faith here only defined by him] but have a Faith in Christ too, and in God the Saviour and Redeemer, considered as in the Person of a Mediator, who is both God and Man, by which Faith in Christ, they have a most firm Faith in God, grounded upon God's Promises, which are all Yea and Amen in Christ And here in W.P's Definition of this Pagan and Deist Faith, he supposes that which will not be granted to him, viz. That any ever had such a Faith in God, as to resign up to God and have dependence upon him, as the great Creator and Saviour of his People, with∣out

all Faith in Christ, considered as God-Man. If by the Saviour of his People, he means such a Saviour as saves them with eternal Salvation, and makes them Heirs of God, and Co▪heirs with Christ; I say without all Faith, either explicit or implicit. That some of the Gentiles who endeavoured to live up to some Moral Principles, discovered to them by the Light in their Consciences, and the Improvements that their reasonable Fa∣culties made, being enlightned thereby, by viewing the Works of Creation and gene∣ral Providence, had a kind of Faith and Hope in God, that prompted them to ex∣pect Temporal Blessings, and some Tempo∣ral Rewards, from the Observation they could make, that Divine Providence did or∣dinarily bestow such Blessings upon Men that were morally honest, may, and ought to be granted: But this is not the Faith of God's Elect, and of the Heirs of eternal Salva∣tion, that is grounded upon the Faithful Word of God, and his Faithful Promises first delivered to his Holy Prophets and Apo∣stles, and by them to us, even such a word of Faith, as that, It is a faithful saying, that Jesus Christ is come into the World to save Sin∣ners, 1 Tim. 1.15. For to him gave all the Prophets witness (as Peter preached to Cor∣nelius) that whoever believeth in him, should receive remission of Sins, Acts 10.43. God's

Promises come not to Men, nor ever came to them, by the common Dictates of the Light within, whither they call it God, or the Word, or the Spirit, there are diver∣sities of Operations, Gifts and Ministrati∣ons, inward as well as outward of one God, one Lord, and one Spirit, who is over all, in all, and through all. It is but a faint Hope and Faith, that Men can have in God, without the Promises, and without all spe∣cial Revelation. The knowledge of God's Goodness, discoverable by the Light in every Conscience, in the Works of Creati∣on and Providence, may give Men, that are morally honest, some probable Faith, that he will be favourable to them: But the in∣fallible ground of certainty, concerning eternal Life and Salvation, none ever had, or can have, without the Promises and spe∣cial Revelation. For all the Light and Know∣ledge that the Ephesian Gentiles had, in their meer Gentile State, Paul told, That at that time they were without hope, and without the Promises, and aliens and strangers to the com∣mon-wealth of Israel, Eph. 2.12. An indigent Man, that knows a good Man, that is able to help him, yet he is not sure that he will help him, unless he has his promise, and some particular intimation of his mind; but if he have that, then his Faith hath sure foot∣ing. But the Faithful have not only God's

Word and Promises, but confirmed by his Oath, that by two immutable things, they might have strong Confidence, and Hope, that is, as an Anchor, sure and stedfast, and which enters within the Vail, whither the Fore-runner hath gone. But there is no∣thing of this sort of Faith, that I can find, as any-wise necessary or essential to the Re∣ligion here described in this Treatise of W.P. but pure Deism, and at best refined Paganism all along, as will further appear in what follows.

I find in Page 50 of the same Treatise, a quite differing Definition of Faith, which if not plainly contradictory to the former, is very disingenous and full of Equivocation; but whatever way it be taken, if he adhere to it, and allow it to be a proper Definition, (where the Definition it self, in the parts of it, ought to be essential to the thing de∣fined, and such as the thing defined cannot be without,) it yields as sufficient Argument, against his Position, That the Light in every Man's Conscience is the Rule of Faith. His De∣finition is this, Faith is yielding up to the re∣quirings of God's Spirit in us, in full assurance of the Remission of Sins that are past, through the Son of his love and Life everlasting. Se∣veral things are faulty in this Definition: First, That he confounds the Effect, or Con∣comitant of Faith, with Faith it self; for

the yielding up, or Resignation to God's Requirings, is rather an Effect or Conco∣mitant of Faith, than Faith it self, especi∣ally in the present case, as it hath respect to the Rule which determines what is to be be∣lieved, or assented unto, upon the Credit of Divine Authority. Secondly, That he makes Remission of Sins to be antecedent and prior to Faith, which is the Error of the Antino∣mians, and plainly contradictory to the Scripture, that holds forth both Repentance and Faith, to be necessary Requisites, in or∣der to Forgiveness. Thirdly, That he makes full Assurance of Remission of Sins to be of the Nature of Faith, whereas there is a Faith of Adhesion, that is, true Faith, that many of the Faithful have, who have not arrived to that full Assurance. But that which I principally notifie in this his last Definiti∣on, is, That he makes this full Assurance of the Remission of Sins, to be through the Son of God's love. Where, that the Equi∣vocation and Fallacy may be discovered, I ask him, what he means by the Son of his Love, through which this Assurance if Re∣mission of Sins is obtained; If he means by the Son of his Love, only the Light within every Man's Conscience, it is a palpable Equivocation, and inserted on purpose to de∣ceive the Christian Readers, who generally by Mens having Remission of Sins through

the Son of God's Love, do understand the Son of God's Love to be the Word Incar∣nate, to wit, Jesus Christ God-man, as he died for our Sins, by his Death to purchase to us the Pardon of them. But this sense of the words, which is the true Scripture sense, and the sense of all true Christians, W.P. doth not admit, if he adhere to what he hath said, both here and in his other Books; for in his Serious Apology, Page 146. he saith, in behalf of himself and Brethren, That that outward Person that suffered at Jeru∣salem, was properly the Son of God, we utterly deny. And here in this Book, he makes it not any of the absolute Necessaries, in Re∣ligion, but some considerable Matters su∣peradded, P. 44. That God was manifested extraordinarily in the Flesh, that he gave his Life for the World; that such as believe and obey his Grace in their Hearts, receive Remission of Sins, and Life everlasting. But which way soever he understands these words, The Son of God's Love, seeing he makes the Rule of every Man's Faith, not to be the Words of God, declaring his Promise of Forgiveness, as outwardly delivered in the Holy Scrip∣tures; but the Light in every Man's Con∣science; he is bound to give us some better proof than his simple Affirmation, That the Light in every Man's Conscience, or indeed in any Man's conscience, reveals to him

God's Will to forgive Sins, without all spe∣cial Revelation or Declaration of God's Will, as contained in the Holy Scriptures, seeing the Holy Scriptures do hold it forth, as one of the great Secrets and Mysteries of God's Will declared to Men, by the special Reve∣lation of the Holy Spirit, through his Holy Prophets and Apostles, even Remission of Sin, and Free Justification, by Jesus Christ, through Faith in him, and not by any Works, or Obedience, that either the Jew did per∣form to the outward Law, or the Gentile did perform to the Law writ in the Heart. When Peter preached Remission of Sin, by Faith in Jesus Christ, whom the Jews hang'd on the Tree, to Cornelius, he confirm'd this Doctrine, not from the eternal Precepts in every Man's Conscience, or the common Dictates of the Light in every Man, but from the general Testimony of the Prophets, Acts 10.43. To him (said Peter) give all the Prophets witness, that through his name, who∣soever believeth in him, shall receive Remission of Sins. But according to W.P's Doctrine, the Apostle Peter should have said, To him the Light in every Conscience, gave the Dictates of that Light in every Conscience witness, That whosoever gave up to the Requirings of the Light in them, [without all Faith in Christ God-man without them] shall receive the Remission of their Sins. And

seeing whatever is the Rule of Faith must teach us, all that is needful to Salvation, by it self, as W.P. argueth, he must prove that the Light in every Man's Conscience, dictat∣eth to him this Proposition, That is thou shalt confess with thy mouth, the Lord Jesus, and believe in thine heart, that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved, Rom. 10.9. Or if it doth dictate some other way than this, then that and the like places of Scrip∣ture, contradict the Dictates of the Light within. But that this Proposition laid down Rom. 10.9. is no Dictate of the Light with∣in in Mens Consciences, is evident from W.P's plain Confession, P. 32, 33. who saith, That the Light within should tell us, that Christ suffered Death and rose again is not needed, in∣asmuch as an account of that is extant in Scrip∣ture. Whereby it plainly appears, he holds it not needful to our Salvation, to believe that Proposition Rom. 10.9. seeing the Light within, that is the Rule of Faith, doth not reveal it, and such Revelation is not ne∣cessary; and consequently according to him, the belief of that Proposition, Rom. 10.9. is not necessary to any for Salvation. And if that be not necessary, by the same method of Argument (according to W.P.) nor is the belief of all the other parts of Scripture necessary to Salvation, which are not the common Dictates of the Light in every Con∣science.

The only use of the whole Scrip∣ture, according to W.P. is meerly Histo∣rical, which though perhaps true, is no∣wise necessary to our Salvation to believe the truth of it; but we are left at liberty, to believe or disbelieve all and every part of what is contained in the Scripture, with∣out any danger to our Salvation; excepting these few absolute necessaries, that the Light within every Conscience teacheth us, as well as the Scriptures. But none of all the twelve Articles of the Apostle's Creed, according to the true Sense of Scripture, or the com∣mon received Sense of all true Christians, are taught by the Light within, without the external Revelation of the Scripture; there∣fore according to W.P. the belief of none of these twelve Articles is necessary to our Sal∣vation. The which being the plain Import of W.P's Doctrine laid down in his Book, whither it be not Plain Deism appearing with open face, I appeal to all sincere Chri∣stians.

Section 2.

His Arguments from Scripture, that the Light in every Man's Conscience, is the Rule of Faith and Life, Answered.

HE begins with his Proofs, Page 4. That the Light in every Man's Conscience, is the general Rule of Faith and Life, from Matt. 11.27. and 1 Cor. 2.11. he argues, That be∣cause the Father cannot be known, but by the Re∣velation of the Son, and Holy Spirit, consequently that Light, metioned John 1.3. or Spirit, must have been the general Rule of Mens Knowledge, Faith and Obedience, with respect to God.

Answ. His Consequence is denied, he gives no proof of it; yea it is manifestly false; and to discover its Fallacy, observe how he confounds the efficient Cause, and Author of Knowledge and Faith, with the Rule, which he ought to distinguish: He might as well argue, no Man sees what hour it is on a Sun-dyal, but by the Sun, and consequent∣ly the Sun, and not the Dyal, is the Rule whereby he knows the hour.

Page 5. His next Argument is, from Eph. 5.13. Whatever makes manifest is Light, therefore the Light in the Conscience is the gene∣ral Rule.

Answ. The Consequence again is denied, it has the same defect as the former, as will appear by forming the like Argument, Whatever makes manifest an outward object to our Eye, is some outward light of Sun, Moon, or Candle, &c. Therefore that alone, with∣out the object manifests it, and also with∣out the Organ of sight, who sees not the Fallacy of this Argument, and as much he may see the Fallacy of the other.

The next place of Scripture he argueth from, is Rom. 1.19. which he falsly quotes, as I have observed, he hath misquoted this place, both here and in pag. 21, for thus he quotes it. WHATEVER might be known of God, was made manifest within, for God who is Light hath shewn it unto them. But let the place it self be consider∣ed, and it saith not, WHATEVER, but what is to be known of God is manifest in them; to wit, the Gentiles or Heathen Nations, who had not the peculiar Doctrines of the Christian Faith revealed to them, or Preached among them. And that the words, what is to be known of God, cannot be meant of WHATEVER can or is to be known of God was manifest in them; as the Text doth not say it, so it is a manifest Falshood: It cannot be said of the best Christians, ••hat whatever is to be known of God, is made manifest in them; for the best know

but in part, and there is still more to be known of God, even in the best of Christi∣ans, than what is at present revealed, or made manifest in them. And it is very evi∣dent from the following words, what Paul meant by that saying, What is to be known of God; or as it is in the Greek, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. viz. The Eternal power and God-Head, which was made manifest, partly by the things made or created without Men, and partly by some Divine Illumination within them. But doth it therefore follow, that because those Heathens had some knowledge of the Eternal Power and God-head, that therefore they knew all the fundamental Princiles of the Christian Religion? By no means, more than it followeth, that W.P. knoweth some things of England, and some other Countries, partly by History, and partly by his sight of them, therefore he knows the whole Earth, so far as it is habitable.

He brings another Proof, That the Light in every Man's Conscience is the Rule of Faith and Life, from Micah 6.8. He hath shewed un∣to thee, O Man, what is good, and what God requireth of thee, &c. Which (saith he) could not be, without the Light of his Son shines in Man's Conscience; therefore the light of Christ in the Conscience, must needs have been the General Rule, &c.

Answ. His Consequence is again denied, which he doth not prove, it has the same defect with his foregoing proofs, that he confounds the Author, and Efficient cause of Faith, with the Rule, which is the instru∣mental Cause thereof. But let it be further considered, what the following words are, not mentioned by W.P. here, and let them be compared with the foregoing words, Ver. 7. Will the Lord be pleased with Thousands of Rams, or with ten Thousands of Rivers of Oyl? shall I give my first born for my transgression, the Fruit of my Body for the Sin of my Soul? Ver. 8. He hath shewed thee, O Man, what is good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and love Mercy, and walk hum∣bly with thy God? And it will appear, that the words at least have a Comparative Sense, as intimating that Justice, Mercy and Humi∣lity, or Humble walking with God, are more acceptable to God, and the greater things of God's Laws, than all outward Sa∣crifices were. But doth it therefore follow, that God did not require those outward Sacrifices then to be offered up, or that God did not require Faith in the People of Israel, that he did Com∣mand them? And if such a Faith was then required of them, which the common dictates of the light in every Conscience did not teach them but special Revelation; by

the like reason, it can be proved, that the Faith of Christ the great Sacrifice, as he was outwardly to be offered up, of which all the outward Sacrifices were Types, was also required by the Lord from that People, the which Faith, all the faithful then had, and by which Faith, they received the remission of their Sins according to Acts 10▪43. But seeing the Light within every Man gives them not this Faith, nor teacheth it them, it evidently follows, that the Light within every Man is not the Rule of the Christian Faith; it may be further said, that the words Micah 6.8, 9. if they were to be understood, with respect to meer Heathens and Gentiles, who have not the External Word, might imply, that no more is required of them, than those general things which the Law or Light in them doth teach them, and is the only Rule they have; but these words seem not to be spoke with respect to meer Gen∣tiles, but rather to them that were by Pro∣fession the Church of God; and though nei∣ther Faith nor Repentance, nor many other Evangelical Virtues and Duties are there expressed, yet without doubt they are im∣plyed, as well as where Faith is only exprest, in many places of Scripture, Love and other Virtues are implyed. And indeed by the like Fallacy W.P. might infer, that our whole Religion consists in practiseing the

Duties of the 2d. Table from James's words, Pure and undefiled Religion is to visit the Father∣less and the Widow, and to keep unspotted from the World. And that Consequently he that doth this, though he practise none of the Duties of the First Table, he has Religion enough, yea though he have no Faith in God, no fear of him nor Love to him, if he be Charitable, and temperate, as it has been reported some Atheists have been.

Page 5. His next Argument is, It was by this Law, that Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Melchisideck, Abimilech, Job, Jethro, &c. walked, and were accepted, as saith Jreneus and Tertullian, they w••re Just, by the Law written in their Hearts, then was it their Rule too, and in that Just State

Answ. This Argument hath several de∣fects in it. 1. To argue from a Law or Rule of Moral Justice, to a Law or Rule of Faith in Christ the promised Messiah, without which Faith there is no promise of Eternal Life and Salvation in all the Scrip∣ture. Secondly, That he Jumbleth Abime∣lech and Jethro, (none of which were pro∣phets) with Abraham, and others that were Prophets, and had extraordinary Revela∣tion, concerning the Messiah. Thirdly, That he makes no distinction betwixt what the Light or Word did reveal commonly in all Men, by the common Illumination, and

what that same word did reveal to the Pro∣phets, and by them to the Faithful, by spe∣cial Revelation and Illumination. And in∣deed all his Arguments are in great part built on this Fallacy, of not distinguishing, but confounding the common or general Illuminations, given to all Men, from the special and extraordinary given to some. That the common Illumination of the Di∣vine Word, was to the Patriarchs, Abra∣ham, Noah, &c. a Law, or Rule of Justice is granted; but that it was to them a Law, or Rule of Faith, whereby they believed in the promised Messiah, is denied, for that was a special Revelation, that was the Law or Rule of that Faith, and not the common Illumination, though both common and spe∣cial, were and are from the same Divine Word; yet this hinders not their Distin∣ction; as all the Creatures of God have one Creator and Author of their Being; yet this hinders not, but that the Creatures are widely distinct one from another.

Section 3.

His first and second Arguments, that the Scripture is not the Rule of Faith and Life, Answered.

Page 5. IN the next place he pleads, that the Scriptures cannot be the Rule, arguing thus, Arg. 1. How can they be the general Rule, that have not been general.

Answ. He is still guilty of confounding and jumbling things that ought to be di∣stinguished. 1. None saith, that the Scrip∣tures are a general Rule: If by a general Rule, he means a Rule actually obliging all Men whomsoever, for the Scripture obligeth none but such, who either have them, or at least can by some possible means have them. 2. It is granted, that the Law or Illumina∣tion that is in all Men, is the general Law, or Rule of Justice and Morality to all Men. But what then, will it follow, that Christi∣ans have no other Rule, but that of moral Justice? 3. He ought to have distinguished, betwixt the general Law, or Rule of Justice given to all Mankind, and the general super∣added Law, and Rule of Christian Faith and Practise, given in general to Christians; but for want of this distinction, he deceives him∣self,

and seeks to deceive others, with falla∣cious Arguments.

Page 6. He brings an Objection thus, But granting that the Light within were so, [viz. the general Rule] before Scripture was ex∣tant, yet, &c. Answ. He supposeth that to be granted, which ought not to be granted, viz. That the common Illumination before Scrip∣ture was extant, was the Rule of the Faith of all the Faithful, who lived and died in the Faith of the promised Messiah, by whom they believed to have Remission of Sin and eternal Life. This is altogether denied, for this Faith they had not by the common Illumination, but by special Revelation given to some by Prophesie, and to others by means of their Prophesies.

Page 6. His Quotations out of Gentile Authors, as Thales, Pythagoras, Socrates, &c. prove no more at most, but that they ac∣knowledged an inward Law, Rule and Prin∣ciple, of Justice and moral Virtue placed in Mankind: But what saith all this, to prove that all Mankind had, or have, a Law or Rule of the Christian Faith? Nothing at all.

Page 8. Arg. 2. He makes a fresh Assault, to prove that the Scriptures are not the Rule of Faith and Life, &c. His Argument is this, If now the Rule, then ever the Rule; but they were not ever the Rule, therefore they

cannot now be the Rule. That they were not ever the Rule, is granted. That they are not therefore now the Rule, I shall prove (saith he) thus: If the Faith of God's People, in all Ages, be of one Nature, then the Rule but of one Na∣ture: But clear it is, Heb. 11. the Faith has been but of one Nature, consequently the Rule but of one Nature. In short, If the Holy Ancients had Faith, before they had or wrote Scripture, they had a Rule, before they had or wrote Scripture.

Answ. His whole way of arguing here, is extreamly weak, to detect which, let him consider, when it is commonly said, the Scriptures are the Rule of Faith, it is not meant simply and barely the written Letter, but the Doctrine delivered in or by the writ∣ten Letter, is the Rule, which at other times is thus expressed, the Word of God con∣tained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, or the revealed Will and Mind of God, delivered to us by Scripture, is the Rule of Christian Faith, &c. And seeing the Doctrine of Faith in the promised Messiah, and of eternal Salvation, through Faith in him, is the same, in the Essentials and Fun∣damentals of it, now as then, and then as now without any substantial Variation; it is evident, that as the Doctrine now com∣mitted to writing, is the same it was before it was in writing, the Rule is still the same,

and the Faith is the same, for Substance and Nature; for the different manner of con∣veying the Doctrine, makes no essential Difference, either in the Doctrine, or Faith, and consequently nor a different Rule. As when the Doctrine is delivered by Preach∣ing or Writing, to one Nation in one Lan∣guage, and to other Nations in other Lan∣guages; yet the Doctrine may be still the same: Nor doth it change the Nature of the Doctrine, that some had it by Prophe∣tical Inspiration and Revelation, without any external Mediums; and others had it by and through some external Mediums, as by means of the Ministry of Faithful Men faithfully conveyed, through the several Ages, the Spirit of God inwardly by his secret Inspiration, moving the Faithful to believe the Doctrine preached to them by such Faithful Men. And here I would have him to consider his great default, in not di∣stinguishing the Inspirations of God's Spirit, the want of which leads him into so many By-paths, as if all Divine Inspirations were Prophetical, and of the same Nature, with what the Prophets and Apostles had, as Pro∣phets and Apostles; whereas the Scripture plainly distinguisheth the various Gifts, Ope∣rations, and Ministrations, of one and the same God, Lord and Spirit; all which may be accounted Divine Inspirations: Are all

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

Prophets? said Paul, 1 Cor. 12.29. intimating they were not all Prophets, who yet were true Saints and Believers, all which had the same Spirit inspiring them all, but not the same manner and kind of Inspirations, but far differing; the Prophetical Inspirations taught them the Doctrine of Faith without all outward teaching of Men; but the In∣spirations of other Faithful Men, who were not Prophets, did teach them the same Doctrines, by means of outward teaching of Men.

Section 4.

His third, fourth and fifth Arguments, Answered.

Page 9. Arg. 3 HE frames a new Argument here, which he sets out in a two-fold Dress; I shall produce it in its best Dress; and thus it is, Such as the Faith is, such must the Rule be; but the Faith is (as before) Inward and Spiritual, therefore the Rule must be In∣ward and Spiritual, which no meer Book can be.

Answ. Here he takes his Consequence as granted, without any offer of proof; but it is altogether Fallacious: If by the term

Such, he mean such every way, and in all respects, and Universally such, it will Infer the greatest Blasphemy, (ad Hominem) as to argue thus, Such as the Faith is, such must the Rule be; but the Faith is an Act, or thing that had a beginning in Time, therefore the Rule is an Act or thing that had a beginning in time; and that Rule, according to him, being the Word and Spirit of God, which is God, therefore God (Absit Blasphemia) had a beginning in time. If by the term Such, he mean not such universally, but on∣ly in some respects, as because the Faith is true and certain, therefore the Rule is such, his proposition is granted, but then the Consequence would not follow, that be∣cause the Faith is inward, the Rule is on∣ly inward, no more than it will follow, that because my sight of an object, is in my Eye, that therefore the Object is no where but in my Eye. He grants, that until the Son came, the Law outward was a Rule, pag. 19. and yet all those Holy Ancients who lived be∣fore the Son came, had the true inward Faith, therefore they had the true inward Rule, and not the outward Rule, by his Ar∣gument, which destroyeth his former Ar∣gument. His Syllogism Transgresseth a cer∣tain Rule in Logick, The major Proposition in the first Figure, must not be particular.

Page. 8.9. As to his Authorities and Testi∣monies,

out of Justin Martyr, and Clemens Alexandrinus, to prove that the Word and Spirit is the only Rule of Faith, that Socrates and Heraclitus were Christi∣ans as living with Christ the Word. It may be supposed that Justin Martyr and Cle∣mens Alexandrinus, might thhink that they had Faith in the promised Messiah, as Abraham, had, nor hath W.P. proved the contrary; and if they had that Faith, the Rule of that Faith was the same as to us, to wit, the Doctrine of Faith, which is still the same whither given by prophetical Inspiration, or by an outward Ministry. His Quotati∣on out of Eusebius, affirming that Abraham, and the Ancient Fathers were Christians, and his defining a Christian to be one, that by the knowledge and Doctrine of Christ excels in Moderation of Mind, in Righteousness and Continency of Life, &c. has not the least weight to confirm W.P's. most false Do∣ctrine, viz. That Deism and Christianity are but one and the same thing, and have but one and the same Rule, to wit, the Light as with respect to the common Illumi∣nation; for Eubseius in the definition of a Christian, makes the Doctrine of Christ that whereby he excels in those Vertues. But can W.P. prove, that the Doctrine of Faith in Christ, as God-man, for remisiion of Sin, and Eternal Salvation, was no part

of the Doctrine of Christ, according to Eusebius's Sense.

Page 9. Arg. 5. He proceeds to a new Argument, against the Scriptures being the Rule. If the Scriptures were the general Rule, they must have always been a perfect Rule, ever since they were a Rule, but this (saith he) is impossi∣ble, since they were many hundred years in Writing, and are now imperfect also as to number. How then are they the perfect Rule? And if im∣perfect (saith he) How can they be the Rule of Faith, since the Rule of Faith must be perfect?

Answ. This Argument surely is very im∣fect, as well as offensive, so openly to charge the holy Scriptures with imperfection. Is the common discovery by the Light with∣in given to all Mankind, a perfect discovery of all things necessary, given to all at once? He grants, It is not, comparing the Light within to a School-master, that first teach∣eth the Children to Spell, before he teach them to Read, Chr. Quak Page 18. what if all or much that was either spoke or writ by pro∣phetical Inspiration, was not at first extant, this doth no more argue, that the Scrip∣tures are imperfect, than that it argueth, that because our blessed Lord from the di∣mensions of a Child increased to the dimen∣sions of a Man; that therefore he was im∣perfect when a Child, whereas a Child and a Man have the same essential perfections:

And in like manner, the Doctrine of the Christian Faith, concerning the remission of Sin, and Eternal Salvation, by the promised Messiah, was the same, and had the same essential perfections from the beginning of the World, and in all Ages, as it has now. And one Tenth part, yea perhaps much less than one Hundred part of the Writings of the Holy Scriptures, do perfectly contain all the essential parts of the Christian Do∣ctrine, which yet makes not the other parts superfluous. I would fain know, if God Almighty had given to W.P. but an Estate of one hundred a Year, might not that without more have been a full enough pro∣vision for him; doth it therefore follow, that the other Hundreds he hath beside, are superfluous?

Besides, If not only, the number of the Books of the Holy Scriptures is increased, beyond what it was at first, and for many Ages after, but that divers very profitable Doctrines have been super-added, to the fundamental, and some new Commandments given by God Almighty to latter Ages, that were not at first given. Doth this ar∣gue any imperfection in the Commands of God? But that new Commands were given, to some in one Age, that were not given to others in former Ages, W.P. I think cannot deny, yea that to Abraham, the

Commandment of Circumcision was given, in the Ninety Ninth Year of his Age, the Scripture Testimony is plain; Doth it there∣fore follow, that the Commands formerly given him, or the Promises, or his Faith be∣fore that time was lame and imperfect? If adding new Commands by God himself, to what was formerly given by him, doth not make the body of God's Commandments im∣perfect, nor doth adding to the Rule of Faith, by Divine Authority, make the Rule as first given imperfect: Yea W.P. grants, page 2. That though Men in all Ages had some know∣ledge of God, yet not upon equal discovery. And in his Christian Quaker, page 18. Things are necessary in reference to their proper times, that may be requisite to morrow, which is not to day. If then all Men have not the same discovery, they have not the same general Rule.

Section 5.

His sixth Argument, taken from the Im∣perfection of the Scriptures, Answered.

IT is greatly worth our noticeing, after that W.P. hath argued against the Scrip∣tures being the Rule, because they were not

all given at once, but at sundry times, whence he infers their Imperfections, and conse∣quently that they are not the Rule of Faith and Life. Yet in Page 22, he makes the new Creature, or new Creation, to be the Rule, and on the Margent quoting, Gal. 6.16. As many as walk according to this Rule, or in this Rule, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; and Phil. 3.16. he saith it must be understood, Let us walk in the same Attainment; and he saith, The Rule mentioned Phil. 3.16. is spoken of the Measure of Attain∣ment. Pray consider how his Argument here, for the new Creature and Measure of Attain∣ment, being the Rule of Faith and Life, quite overthroweth his Argument, against the Scriptures being the Rule, because as he sug∣gesteth, they are imperfect, they were not all given at once.

That one Age of Christianity should have one Rule, and another Age another Rule, he makes it very absurd, p. 24. But is the Measure of Attainment the same in all Chri∣stians, and in all Ages? I suppose he will say nay; then by his own Argument, the lesser Attainment in some Ages and Persons is im∣perfect, and therefore cannot be the Rule of Faith. And will he say, the new Crea∣ture has the same Stature in all Christians? Or will or can he say, That the new Crea∣ture is so perfect in him, that nothing is to be added to it? If nay, then by his own Ar∣gument

it is imperfect, and therefore not the Rule. And whereas he quotes Drusius on the Margent, to prove from Gal. 5.6. that Faith that works by love is the Rule, that is according to him, Faith is its own Rule, for the subject of his Discourse is, What the Rule of Faith is, which one time he makes to be Faith it self, p. 22. another time Christ himself, and the Spirit; a third time neither this nor that, but the Testimony of the Spirit, Internal Revelation and Inspiration, the eternal Precepts of the Spirit in Mens Consci∣ences, there repeated and declared, p. 25. But again, How can the new Creature be the General Rule, seeing all Men have it not who have the Scriptures? If because the Scrip∣tures are not general, they are not the Rule, as W.P. argueth, by the like reason the new Creature is not the Rule, because not gene∣ral, and consequently by his way of reason∣ing, all unregenerated Persons have no Rule at all. But if unregenerated Persons have a Rule, who have not the new Creature brought forth in them; then by his own way of arguing against himself, one part of Mankind, to wit, the Regenerated, have one Rule, which is the new Creature; and the other part, to wit, the Unregenerated, which is commonly the greater part, have another; but that, according to him, is ab∣surd, for then all have not one and the same

general Rule, which he contends they ought to have. That there is a general Rule of Moral Honesty and Justice given to all Men, the same which Paul calls, The Law writ in the Hearts of the Gentiles, is granted; but that there is a general Law or Rule of Faith, concerning Salvation by Christ Crucified, is denied.

Section 6.

Whither the new Creature, mentioned Gal. 6.16. is the Rule of Faith: And whither the Doctrine is the Rule to the new Creature, or the new Creature the Rule to the Doctrine; and which is the prior or principal Rule.

AS touching these places of Scripture, quoted by him, touching the Rule, as Gal. 6.16. Phil. 3.16. 2 Cor. 10. 13, 15. none of them all say, either that the Light within, or the new Creature, is the Rule of Faith and Life; nor doth he give any proof by any true Consequence that it is. And here by the way, W.P. should be put in mind, to prove what he asserts by plain Scripture, without Consequences, which his Brethren commonly allow not of; but when

any of their Opponents argue with them, by Consequences, however so fair, they will not allow of them: And yet throughout this whole Treatise of W.P. he brings not one Argument from express Scripture to prove his Matter, but proceeds all along by Consequences, not one of which is fairly and truly inferred, as will appear in the thorough Examination of them. The Rule mentioned Gal. 6.6. hath a plain and easie reference to the Proposition laid down by the Apostle in the foregoing Verse, which is this, That in Christ Jesus, neither Circumcision availeth any thing, nor Ʋncircumcision, but a new Crea∣ture. This Proposition laid down by the Apostle, in so many express words, is an ex∣cellent Rule, and one of the many excellent Rules appertaining to the Christian Reli∣gion, the intire body of which Rules, is de∣servedly called the Rule; and well might the Apostle say, As many as walk according to that one Rule, which is very comprehensive, Peace be upon them; for he that duly walks accor∣ding to that Rule, will be careful to walk according to all the other Rules appertain∣ing to the Christian Religion, whereof that one is a main. But let it be granted, that in some sense, the new Creature may be al∣lowed to be a Rule (as I see no hurt to allow it in some sense) and a Law to him, or them in whom this new Creature is wrought, or

brought forth; for even those Gentiles, which did the things contained in the Law, are said by Paul, Rom. 2. to be a Law to themselves: Which did shew the Work of the Law writ in their Hearts: Then surely much rather every regenerate Person, by reason of his new Na∣ture, may be said to be a Law or Rule to himself, according to that saying of Boetius de Consol. Phil. Quis legem det amantibus? Major lex amor est ipse sibi. The love of Vir∣tue is greater than any Law that can be ex∣pressed or laid down in words. But how? as Law there is understood not properly, a Law or Precept informing the Understand∣ing, but Metaphorically, as it is an inward power, having a mighty impulse upon the Will of a good Man; even as the love of Vice is a mighty Law, that acts with a mighty impulse on the Will of a bad and vi∣cious Man: Hence as the one may be under∣stood to be (even in the Scripture sense) the Law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus, so the other may be understood to be the Law of Sin and Death, LAW in both these re∣spects being understood not properly but Metaphorically, as when we commonly say, God Almighty the great Author and Crea∣tor of Nature, hath given a Law to the Na∣ture of every thing, as weight to Stones and Metals, whereby they are moved downwards, and levity to Fire, whereby it is moved up∣wards;

but whither these Motions proceed from an inward or external Cause in these natural bodies, is not the proper matter of Debate here, only the instance is given to shew, that LAW hath commonly a Meta∣phorical Sense as well as proper, and so hath the word or term Rule. And I suppose W.P. though perhaps not much acquainted with School-distinctions, hath heard of the distinction of a Rule into Regula regulus, and Regula regulata, i. e. the Rule ruling, and the Rule ruled, at least of the primary and se∣condary Rule; for he hath allowed in this Treatise, that the Scriptures may be called a Secondary Rule, at least in several parts of them. And why may not much rather the new Creature, or work of Sanctification, be called a Secondary Rule; and the Do∣ctrine of the Christian Religion, consisting of many excellent Precepts and Promises, and other Gospel Truths, the Primary Rule? Yea, that it is so, is evidently proved, be∣cause the new Creature it self, to wit, the Work of Regeneration and Sanctification in the Souls of the Faithful, is instrumentally wrought by the Form of Doctrine contained in the Holy Scriptures, the Spirit of God, (working by and with the said Form of Do∣ctrine) being the principal Agent and Effi∣cient, according to Rom. 6.17. Ye have obeyed from the heart, that Form of Doctrine which

was delivered unto you, or as the better Tran∣slation is out of the Greek, unto or into which ye were delivered, the word translated Form is Type, signifying Pattern, Mould or Frame, according to the Fashion of which a thing is made, as when a piece of Clay is formed by the Potter, by the Frame to which it is applied, or Wax receiveth the Impression of the Seal; or a Vessel of Brass, Tin, or Silver is framed by the Mould into which it is cast. Now as the Mould or Pattern, where∣by any Vessel is framed, is prior to the Vessel, and the shape or fashion of the Vessel, is posterior to the Pattern or Exemplar, ac∣cording to which it is framed, even so the new Creature is posterior to the Form of Doctrine contained in the Holy Scriptures; and this evidently proves, that the Doctrine contained in the Holy Scriptures, being the same that was extant in the Church of God, before it was committed to writing, hath the precedency and priority in point of a Rule to the new Creature; so that the Do∣ctrine, to wit, the doctrinal Word and Words of God, given by God and Christ to the Holy Prophets and Apostles, and by them to other Men, who by means thereof are converted, and inwardly renewed, rege∣nerated and sanctified, through the Opera∣tion of the Holy Spirit, as the principal Efficient, is the Rule to the new Creature,

and not the new Creature the Rule to the Doctrine: Hence it is that the Word of God, to wit, the doctrinal word, or word of Doctrine, is by a Metaphor called Seed in Scripture, for of Seed, Plants, Trees and Animals are produced. And seeing accor∣ding to Scripture, Faith is wrought by hear∣ing the Word outwardly preached in God's ordinary way, and that Word is the Do∣ctrine of the Christian Religion, given ori∣ginally by God and Christ, to the Prophets and Apostles, and by them to us, it evident∣ly follows, that Faith, or the new Crea∣ture, is not a Rule to the Doctrine, but the Doctrine is a Rule to the Faith, and conse∣quently the Doctrine is the primary Rule of Faith and Life, but not that Faith and Life is the primary Rule, or any Rule at all to the Doctrine, even as in natural Generation the Seed is before the Birth and Fruit, so is the Doctrine before the Faith, and before the Person that is the Believer or Saint, and re∣generated Person, as such, and before the Church, for the Word and Doctrine doth not depend on the Church, nor is built on the Church, but the Church depends on it, and is built thereupon, Eph. 2.20. Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone, and great Foundation of both.

Section 7.

The Rule of the Christian Faith, must be a Doctrine which sets before our Minds, all the Credenda, or things necessary to be believed in certain Propositions, con∣cerning which, the Mind of Man can give a Judgment, Affirmative or Ne∣gative.

AGain, that the Doctrine is the most perfect Rule, being compared with the new Creature or work of Sanctification, is evident, because so far a Man is said to be the more sanctified and redeemed, the more that his Faith, Love, Hope, Humility, Pa∣tience, Temperance, Justice, and other Virtues, comes up to a Conformity to the precepts of God and Christ faithfully de∣clared to us in the Holy Scriptures. And notwithstanding the high pretentions of some among the People called Quakers to perfection, yet I appeal to W.P's Consci∣ence, if he can or dare say, or think, that his Sanctity, or Virtues come up to a full Conformity to the Holy precepts delivered in the Holy Scripture. Is his Faith as great, as the Doctrine given us in the Holy Scrip∣ture requires it to be? Is his Love as per∣fect

perfect and compleat? Is his Meekness, Pati∣ence and Humility, Justice, Temperance and Piety equal to the heighth, breadth, depth, and length of all God's Commands, even as outwardly delivered in the Holy Scriptures; I trust he hath so much discretion as to say nay; then let him not exalt his Sanctity, or Work of the New Creature wrought in him, above the Sanctity of the Holy Do∣ctrine, and precepts of God and Christ con∣tained in the Holy Scripture, making his Sanctity, or New Creature in him, superior or primary Rule to the Doctrine; but let the Doctrine have its due place, to be a superior and primary Rule, to his Sanctity, or work of the New Creature wrought in him; let his Faith and Love, and other Virtues (if he hath them) be Ruled by the Doctrine of the Holy Scriptures, and sub∣jected thereunto, but let not the Doctrine be subjected unto his Faith and Virtues, which are far inferior to the Purity, Spirituality and Holiness of the Doctrine. But if he will say, the New Creature in him, is the greatest, and highest, and most perfect Rule, whereby to square his Faith and Life, it followeth that he is arrived at the highest pitch of Holiness, for what can be beyond, or above the highest and most perfect Rule of Sanctity? But again, the greatest Sancti∣ty (that is possible) of Men, or Angels,

simply considered, could not have given the knowledge of Christ's Incarnation, and of our Redemption by him, without a divine Revelation; therefore the Sanctity or New Creature in the Holiest of Men, could not be to them a Rule of Faith, as touching these Mysteries. If he will say, there is a higher and more perfect Rule of Sanctity, than the New Creature wrought in him, let him tell us what it is, if not the Do∣ctrine delivered in the Holy Scriptures, the Laws, Precepts and Commandments deli∣vered there. If he say the Light within, or Christ and the Spirit within, is that high∣est and most perfect Rule of Sanctity. To this I answer, The Spirit, or Light within, ab∣stractly considered, cannot be properly a Rule; I say abstractly considered from the Doctrines and Precepts delivered by the Spirit, whither internally, without any external Medium, or externally by some ex∣ternal Meidum. Nothing properly can be a Rule of Christian Faith, as in respect of the peculiar Doctrines of the Christian Religion, but that Doctrine which sets before our Minds, certain propositions of Truth, to which the Mind can and ought to assent from sufficient Motives of Credibility, which W.P. from his own definition of Faith must al∣low. For he defines Faith (Page 4.) to be an assent of the Mind in such manner to the

discoveries made of God thereto, as to resign up to God, and have dependance on him, as the great Creator and Saviour of his People. [Where Note that he wholly passeth by, Christ Considered, as God-Man, from being concerned in the object of Faith, and so his Faith is no other, but the Faith of a meer Deist.] Now seeing he defines Faith to be an as∣sent of the Mind, to certain discoveries made of God thereto, &c. These discoveries must be certain propositions set before the Mind, in some form of Words mentally conceived and apprehended; for the Nature of the Mind, or intellect of Man is such, that it cannot Judge what is true or false, but as the truth is set before it in certain proposi∣tions consistng of Words, at least inter∣nally conceived and apprehended; for the assent of the Mind, is a Judgment of the Mind formed, whereby it Judgeth this or that to be true; and if it be a true Judgment, it must have some proposition consisting of words, concerning which it is enabled ei∣ther to affirm or deny what is really true; as the Mind cannot assent to this great truth, that God is not a Body, but by a negative proposition consisting of some words, which is a negative Judgment; nor can it assent to this other proposition, that God is a Spirit, but by an affirmative proposition, consist∣ing of some words, at least Internally con∣ceived,

[called by some Idea's] which is an affirmative Judgment; and therefore so far as Faith is an act of the intellect, and an assent of the Mind, it must needs have some Words, at least inter∣nally proposed to it, whereby it is capa∣ble to give an assent to the Truth of what it Judgeth; and seeing in matters purely of Faith, the Mind is not capable of giving an assent to the truth of them, with∣out some sufficient motives of Credibility, as that they are given of God, who is a God of Truth, and cannot lye nor deceive. From these Considerations it is evident, that as there can be no assent of the Mind or intel∣lect without words, or Idea's, so there can be no Faith without them, and consequent∣ly that the Rule of Faith must be certain pro∣positions consisting of words and sentences, such as God delivered to the Prophets, and which are recorded in Scriptures, such are, That the Word was made Flesh, that a Virgin should Conceive and Bare a Son, and that Son should be the Saviour of the World; that by his Death he should reconcile us unto God; That he should rise again from the Dead, on the Third Day, and ascend into Heaven; and that he should there remain, appearing in the presence of God for us, our mighty Advocate and Intercessor until he come again, to Judge the Quick and the Dead, &c. How can the Mind of Man

assent to these great Truths, without words, at least Internally conceived; if he cannot, as every intelligent Person must acknowledge, then those very words, as they lye in a cer∣tain series and order of propositions, are the Rule of his Faith. But seeing these words have no self-evidence, but the evidence of the truth of them depends on the veracity of God, the Original Author of them; the next thing to be enquired into is, what is the great and most principal motive of Cre∣dibility to move, and effectually perswade the Mind, that they are the Words of God; surely he who believes that there is a God, cannot but assent to this proposition, that whatever God hath said is true, that all the Words of God are Words of truth, it hath as immediate evidence to him, that has the least true knowledge of God, as that the whole is greater than the part. That then which is only requisite to move the Mind of Man to assent to any words delivered to us, as the words of God, is to have a sufficient motive of Credibility given us, why we should believe them to be indeed the words of God. That the Prophets and Apostles knew, that all the words they delivered to Men, as the words of God, were infallibly the words of God, is generally granted by all that own the Truth of Divine Revelati∣on, the manner of their Conveyance to their

Understanding, being with such a Divine Power, Majesty and Glory, and making such a Divine Impression on them, as infalli∣bly assured them; and this many times without all Miracles proposed to their out∣ward Senses.

Section 8.

That the Faithful have as good Assurance of the Truth, and Divine Authority of the Holy Scriptures, by the ordinary Inspirations of the Spirit, in the use of the outward Means, as the Prophets had by Extraordinary and Prophetical; The Distinction betwixt them, ex∣plained.

THE great Question therefore that re∣mains now to be considered and re∣solved is, Whither the Faithful cannot have, and actually have not, as good Assurance, in respect of all Fundamentals and Essentials of the Christian Faith at least, that the words delivered by the Holy Prophets and Apo∣stles, were the Words of God, as if they had received them in the same way and man∣ner, as the Prophets and Apostles received them, which was without any external Me∣dium,

such as the Ministry of Men and Books, whereas the way that we now receive those words, is by some external Medium, to wit, the Ministry of Men and Books. I shall not here insist upon the external Motives of Cre∣dibility, taken either from so many Thou∣sands of the best and wisest of Men, in the several Ages of the World, since the words were committed to writing, who have re∣ceived and embraced them, to be what re∣ally they are, even the Words of the Living and True God, or such as are taken from the Words themselves, as outwardly delivered, such as the Simplicity, Purity, Majesty and Efficacy of their Doctrine, the Harmony of the several Parts, the fulfilling of the many Prophecies contained in them, the many other incomparable Excellencies of them, the wonderful Effects they have had on many Thousands and Millions of Men, in being instrumental to their Conversion from Idolatry and Ungodliness, to true Piety and Sanctity; all which are of great weight, to convince the Reason of Men; but because all this doth amount to no more but a rational Conviction, and doth not beget a Divine Assent or Perswasion, Therefore I con∣clude with all Orthodox and Sound Chri∣stians, that our full Perswasion and Assu∣rance of the Infallible Truth, and Divine Authority of them, is from the inward

Work of the Holy Spirit, by his Internal and Supernatural Illumination, Inspiration, and Revelation, and secret and most inward Teaching in our Hearts, by sensible and per∣ceptible Impressions, Sealing to the Truth of them, upon our Hearts and Minds.

And here I think fit to guard against a two-fold Extream, that I find too many run into, both greatly and dangerously erroneous; the one is of some, that grant indeed, that the Spirit doth inwardly operate in the Souls of Men, and more especially in the Souls of the Faithful; but this Operation, or Agency and Efficiency of the Spirit, they will have it only to be effective, and no-wise objective; that is to say, no-wise percepti∣ble, or sensible to the Soul, in which the Spirit doth so operate: Hence it is, that some of them have called this Internal Ope∣ration of the Spirit even in the Faithful, Medium incognitum assentiendi; the which Assertion being so repugnant to the Scrip∣ture Testimonies in many places, that hold forth the Spirits internal Operations and Virtues to be as sensible, upon the internal and spiritual Senses of Souls, in any good degree, inwardly quickned and made alive to God, as the Operations of outward Light, Heat, Cold, or the most affecting Objects of Sight, Taste, Smelling and Feeling, are up∣on our outward and bodily Senses; and also

being so contrary to the Experience of many Thousands of true experienced Chri∣stians, I shall not insist here any further to refute it. The other as dangerous and erroneous Extream is of such, of whom is W.P. and his Party, as plainly appears by what he layeth down in this Treatise, and oft elsewhere in his Books, who hold, That the Manner and Kind of the Spirits Internal Inspirations, Revelations, Illuminations, and inward Teachings, is the same with that which the Prophets and Apostles had; that is to say, that whatever (they think) they have a Divine Knowledge and Faith of; the words, which are necessary to be the Rule and Medium, to the obtaining this Know∣ledge and Faith, must be given them, as they were given to the Pen-men of the Holy Scriptures to wit, without the external Medium of the Holy Scriptures, and with∣out any external Teaching whatsoever; and that therefore their Faith and Knowledge, so far as it is Divine, hath no dependence on the words delivered in the Holy Scrip∣tures; but whatever they know or believe, by a Divine Knowledge and Faith, it is wholly from words inwardly given them from the Spirit, without all outward con∣veyance of Men or Books. Hence it is, that W.P. calls his and his Brethrens Rule of Faith and Life, the eternal Precepts of the

Spirit in Mens Consciences; but as for the Precepts and Words outwardly delivered in Scripture, they are but to him, what Py∣thagoras, and other Philosophers quoted by him, Page 6. judged of other Writings, to wit, liveless Precepts: Hence many of his Party have presumed to call them, a Dead Letter, Death, and Carnal. Yet Page 25. he is so yielding and seemingly kind to the Scriptures, that he grants them to be a subordinate, secondary and declaratory Rule. Such a subordinate, secondary and de∣claratory Rule (saith he) we never said, several parts of Scripture were not. Here observe for all his professed kindness to the Scriptures, he will not allow all the parts of Scripture, but only some parts of it, to be so much as a subordinate, secondary and declaratory Rule: though even the Ceremonial Precepts, he has as great reason to believe them to be the Words of God, and consequently a Rule of Faith, though not of Practise (as touching the external Types) as truly as any other parts of Scripture. But seeing every subordinate and secondary Rule, pre-sup∣poseth a primary Rule, which hath no de∣pendence on the Secondary; though the Se∣condary is wholly from the Primary, as the Transcript is wholly from the Original; but the Original is intirely compleat and perfect without the Copy or Transcript;

it is evident that according to him, he hath all what he thinketh to be a Divine Know∣ledge and Faith, wholly from his primary Rule, and nothing from the Scriptures, which he calls the Secondary, for the Ex∣cellency of the primary Rule is, that it teach∣eth all that is to be divinely known or be∣lieved, without the need or help of any se∣condary Rule, otherwise it should not be primary, nor should the Scriptures in that case be a subordinate Rule but co-ordinate, and of equal Dignity, Necessity and Use with what he calls the Primary; for what∣ever is a primary, full, adequate and perfect Rule, such as he will have only the Light within, or by whatever other Name he de∣signs it, it must propose to him all the Cre∣denda and Agenda, i. e. all things he ought to believe and practise, without any other Rule whatsoever: And yet in Contradiction to his own Doctrine he grants, p. 25. That by and through the Scripture, as some Instru∣ment, this great and universal Rule (which he will have to be, the living, spiritual, imme∣diate, omnipresent, discovering, ordering Spirit of God) may convey its directions. Judge Reader, if this be not a Contradiction to his former Doctrine, and a great Impertinency, surely as he who hath the Original, has no need of the Copy, nor great use of it for himself; so if W.P. have such a perfect com∣pleat

primary Rule that teacheth him, with∣out Scripture, all what he ought to know, believe or practise, I cannot understand of what great use the Scripture can be unto him, or at least it is of no necessity to him, this primary Rule hath taught him all be∣fore-hand, otherwise it is not primary. If it be objected, That the Prophets and Apo∣stles had the Spirits inward Teachings, to be their primary Rule, in what they deli∣vered as Prophets and Apostles, and yet they made use of the Scriptures, such as were penned before them. I answer, Because nei∣ther the Prophets▪ nor Apostles were taught in all things, that they believed and pra∣ctised, by the Spirits inward Teachings, as the primary Rule; but only, in what they spoke or writ as Prophets and Apostles, in other things which they had not by Pro∣phetical Inspiration; the Scripture, what was then extant of it, was the primary Rule to them, as well as to others of the Faithful, who were neither Prophets nor Apostles.

Section 9.

That the Doctrine of the Holy Scripture is the Rule of Faith, which Faith, the Spirit of God, being the principal Effi∣cient, begets and works in the Faithful, by the Doctrine, which is the Instru∣ment of the Spirit. That it brings Confusion, and derogates from the Spirit, to make the Spirit the Rule.

Arg. 6. ANother of W.P's great Argu∣ments, to prove, that the Scripture is not the Rule of Faith, p. 13. is, How shall I be assured (saith he) that these Scriptures came from God. If with the Spirit that gave them forth, which searcheth the deep things of God, (a measure of which is given to me to profit withal) then it is most congruous, to call the Spirit, by way of Excellency, and not the Scriptures, the Rule.

I answer, denying his Consequence, It is indeed allowed, that it is congruous, for that cause, to call the Spirit the principal efficient and moving Cause, together with Christ, and God the Father; but most in∣congruous, false and pernicious, to make him to be the Rule; which is so far from giving the due Honour and Excellency to the

Spirit, so to do, that it derogates from his Honour and Excellency; for it confounds the efficient Cause with the Instrument, and is as absurd as to say, the Square, or Carpen∣ter's Rule, that the Carpenter works with, that is but of Wood, is the Carpenter him∣self, which is extreamly false; it is no dero∣gation from the Spirit, to say, that he useth the Rule or Instrument of his own preparing, whereby to frame and fashion us, according to his good pleasure, as the Carpenter useth his Square or Rule, to frame his pieces of Wood to put into a Building. And for the better clearing of the matter, a little fur∣ther, when all Orthodox Christian Writers say, that we are assured, that the Scriptures came from God, with, or by the Spirit that gave them forth; they mean not, that the Spirits inward Testimony or Witness to the Divine Authority of the Scriptures, is any new or repeated Testimony of the Words and Doctrines of the Scripture, which is not necessary, but only by way of putting a Seal on a Deed or Bond, together with the Hand or Subscription of him that gives the Deed or Bond; which Hand and Seal con∣firms the Truth of the Bond; yet it doth not tell what the Contents of the Deed or Bond is, nor is it necessary it should, the Deed or Bond it self tells the Contents of it. And to use the Schools Distinction a little in the

case, The Doctrines and Words contained in the Holy Scriptures, are the material ob∣ject of Faith, to wit, quod Creditur, i e. what is believed; but the Spirits inward Testi∣mony, Seal or Impulse, and Motion, which carrieth in it a peculiar Evidence, that none knoweth, but he who hath it, is the formal Object of Faith, to wit, propter quod Creditur, that inward Motion and Influence, Impressi∣on and Influence of the Spirit, that sensibly and perceptibly moveth the Faithful to be∣lieve the Truth of the Scriptures, as being the Words of God.

Nor is this Controversie, about the Rule of Faith and Life, a Logomachy, or strife of words, as some may ignorantly suppose, but a most material Case, and of most dangerous Consequence, to exclude the Scriptures, which are the great and blessed Means that God has appointed us, for begetting true Faith, Knowledge and Obedience in us, through the mighty Operation of the Spirit of God. But if what the Spirit of God hath appointed us to be the Means and In∣strument of our Knowledge, and Faith, and Practise, and the Rule whereby to discern Truth from Error, Right from Wrong, with the Spirits internal Illumination, we prove neglectful of it, to wit, of the Holy Scriptures, in the frequent use of them, by Reading, Hearing, Meditation and Prayer,

we provoke the Holy Spirit to depart from us, and to leave us to our vain imagina∣tions, and Satan's suggestions and delusi∣ons, to be received by us as Divine Reve∣lations, and Inspirations, as hath hap∣pened to many, to their unspeakable hurt. Again, as the Spirit, nor yet his Internal Inspiration, or Illumination, and Revelati∣on, is not the Rule of Faith, but the prin∣cipal efficient of it, and his Internal Inspi∣ration, Illumination and Revelation, is the Objective Medium, moving the Mind to as∣sent to the truth of the Doctrines contain∣ed in the Holy Scriptures, but not the Rule of Faith, nor the Material object of it, so nor is the Spirits Internal Illumination, In∣spiration and Revelation, the Rule of Inter∣pretation of Scripture, but that which en∣lightens the understanding, and opens the Spiritual Eyes of the Mind to understand the Scripture, or so much of it at least as contain the fundamental Doctrines of Chri∣stianity, and beget a Saving, Sanctifying and Savoury knowledge of them, without any other Rule than the Scripture it self; for as when our Eyes are opened, and receive outward Light, to see an object, we need no new object, whereby to see the Object pro∣posed, but that our sight be strengthned, and enlightned; so in receiving a Spiritual Understanding of Scripture truths, we need

no other Rule, either outward or inward, but the Scripture it self; only we need the Spirits inward Illumination, Inspiration, and Revelation, to assist and help us to a Saving Understanding of them, by way of an ob∣jective Medium.

Section 10.

His seventh Argument, against the Scrip∣ture being the Rule of Faith; from his arguing, That they are obscure, and have not the Method of a Rule, An∣swered.

Page 10. Arg. 7. ANother Reason he gives, which he calls his Third Reason, is, From the obscurity of them that they are not plain but to the Spiritual Man; they seem not in their own Nature and frame, to have been compiled and deliver'd as the general Rule, and intire Body of Faith, but rather Written upon particular occasions and emergencies, the Doctrines are scattered through∣out the Scriptures, insomuch that those So∣cieties who have given forth verbal Confessions of their Faith, have been necessitated to toss them to and fro, search here, and search there, to

lay down this or the other Principle. Besides here they are Proper, there Metaphorical; in one place literally, in another Mystically to be accepted. And after diverse other words of Complaint, against their being the Rule, he concludes, Thus Peter said of Paul's Writings, that in many things they were hard to be under∣stood, therefore not such a Rule which ought to be Plain, Proper and Intelligible.

Answ. Reader: What think'st thou of this sort of Language, in derogation from the Holy Scriptures? What if I should say of W.P's and all his Brethrens Writings, what he here saith of the Scriptures, That they are neither Plain, Proper, nor Intelligi∣ble, would he not account that saying, a de∣rogation from them? If this be not to pre∣fer the Friends Writings to the Scriptures in these Mens esteem, let the impartial Judge, most of which have the advantage above the Scriptures, by his arguing, The Scriptures were Writ upon particular occa∣sions, but some of their Books at least design∣edly Writ, in the Scriptures, the Doctrines are scattered here and there, but in W.P's and G.W's Books, the Doctrines and Prin∣ciples are in excellent Order, and lye toge∣ther. Paul's Writings in many things are hard to be understood, and beside they were originally Writ in Greek, which many un∣derstand not, and we have not the Auto∣grapha,

but Copies, and of these great varie∣ty and difference, as he argueth against the certainty of the Scriptures, upon the foun∣dation of all others that are not one with them, in making the Spirit the Rule of Faith. P. 23. But we have the Autographa, or at least the first Printed Copies of G.W. and W.P. without any variation, or difference in matter; and which is a great advantage, their Writings are the Dictates of the Holy Ghost, originally in English; whereas we have nothing of the Scriptures originally in English, but the whole is a Translation very imperfect, and differing from other Transla∣tions both of English and other Languages, and which is best, the unlearned know not at all, and even the learned many times are not certain; all which give the advantage by very far, to the Writings of the Friends above the Scriptures, upon the supposition, that they are the immediate Dictates of the Holy Ghost, as these Men do not suppose, but positively affirm many of them to be; especially such as they say, are given forth from the Spirit of Truth. But suppose divers parts of the Scripture were writ upon particular occasions, and emergencies, as to Men, yet many other parts were writ designedly and intentionally for general in∣struction to all the faithful; and these so writ, contain all the essentials and funda∣mentals

of Christian Faith and Practice, and even these writ upon particular occasions and emergencies seemingly to Men acciden∣tal or occasional; yet with respect to God, were designed by him for a general good, without whose wise and all-ruling provi∣vidence nothing can happen. What seemed more occasional than Joseph's being sold into Egypt? yet God Almighty had a glorious design in it, though he was neither the Au∣thor nor Approver of their Envy who sold him. But is it any prejudice against the Scriptures being the Rule, that they must be searched, to find out the Doctrines contain∣ed in them: Or that some places are hard to be understood, though all the fundamental Doctrines necessary to Salvation, are suffici∣ently plain, to all the Faithful who are Spi∣ritually enlightned to understand them. Do not the like Objections as much, and ra∣ther much more, lye against the Light within all Men, being the Rule of Faith and Life? For excepting the common Principles of Mo∣ral Justice and Temperance, all other things relating either to Faith or Life, with respect to the peculiar Doctrines and Precepts of the Christian Religion, are not to be found at all, in the Light within every Man, abstractly and by it self considered. Otherwise if W.P. think's they are, let him tell me, what one peculiar Doctrine of

Christian Religion, or peculiar Precept of it, distinct from Deism, or Gentile Religi∣on, has the Light within him taught him? If he say, to believe that there is one great God Almighty, that Commands him to be Honest, Just and Temperate; I say, these are not peculiar Doctrines and Precepts of Christianity, but common to it with Deism. And if he hath no other Principles or Pre∣cepts taught him by the Light within, but what every Deist, Mahometan or Jew, who are Enemies to the Christian Faith have, then let him speak out yet more plain∣ly, though I think he has spoke very plain already: If the Light within him, has taught him any other Principles or Precepts, than what Deists, Jews and Mahometans have, let him tell us, that he may convince us, that the Light within every Man is the Rule of Faith, and not the Scriptures with∣out; but let him not only tell us so, but give us some effectual Reason, to convince any rati∣nal Man, that the Light within him only has taught him that peculiar Principle and Pre∣cept of Christian Religion, without the Scriptures being so much as Instrumental in his being so taught: For all Orthodox Chri∣stians, by affirming the Scriptures to be the Rule, they give no more to the Scrip∣tures but to be the Instrument of the Spirit, in giving all Saving knowledge and Faith of

Divine Truth, and if he allow them in God's ordinary way, to be the Instrument of the Spirit, in giving him, and us all, the Know∣ledge of Christian Doctrines and Mysteries peculiar to the Christian Religion, he has all this time been fighting with his own Sha∣dow; for if so, he agrees with them all, from whom he seeks so much to differ, and writ against. That the Spirit of God can re∣veal in every Man, all necessary Truth, is granted by all Christians; but the Question is not, what he can do, but what he doth, in God's ordinary way of working.

Section 11.

His eighth Argument answered, That the Scriptures cannot give Faith, therefore they are not the Rule of Faith. And his ninth tenth Arguments an∣swered.

Page 11. Arg. 8. HIS fourth Argument, as he num∣bers them, against the Scrip∣tures being the Rule, is, Because the Scrip∣ture cannot give Faith, therefore is cannot be the Rule of Faith.

Ans. The Consequence is denied, and he gives no offer of proof for it; his Argument

is as weak, as to argue, a Carpenter's Rule or Square cannot build a House, therefore it cannot be a Rule or Instrument for him to work by in building a House. This his way of arguing, destroyeth all use of service of Instruments and secondary Causes; the like Failure hath his arguing against the Scrip∣tures being the Rule of Practise, Arg. 9. Because it cannot distinguish of it self in all Cases, what ought to be practised, and what not. Well; but what if it cannot of it self, as the Carpenter's Rule cannot of it self as mea∣sure one piece of Wood more than another, without the hand of him that useth it; doth it therefore follow, that the Rule cannot do it, when applied by the Hand of the Man himself?

Page 12. This (saith he) was the Case of Christ's Disciples, who had no particular Rule in the Old Testament, for the abolishing of some part of the Old Testament Religion; on the con∣trary they might have pleaded for the perpetuity of it. For instance, God gave Cirumcision as a Sign for ever.

Answ. By his favour he is mistaken, in saying they had no such particular Rule, for the abolishing (he should rather have said, expiring of) some parts of the Old Testa∣ment Religion: Let him read Jer. 3.16. and 31.31, 32. compared with Heb. 8.8 and he may find the contrary, the word for ever

in the place mentioned by him, in relation to Circumcision, and other Jewish Types, signified not to the end of the World, far less endlesly, but for a certain limited time, as the Jews themselves confess at times it so signifies; yea, and some of the most judicious of them have confessed, they were to cease before the end of the World.

In his tenth Argument he but too much gratifies his Deist Brethren, and Profane Atheists by his bringing their and other Popish Arguments, against the Scriptures being the Rule, Page 13. As that they are not in the Ori∣ginal, because that is not extant, nor in the Copies, because there are Thirty and above in number, and it is undetermined, and for ought we see (saith he) indeterminable. And the variety of Readings among those Copies, amount to several Thousands. And if the Copies cannot, how can the Translations (saith he) be the Rule? And so goeth on, disputing against the Transla∣tions being the Rule. And then argueth against their being the Rule, from diverse of the Books of Scripture being rejected by some, and received by others; all which Pleas both of Deists and Papists, have been abundantly answered by Protestant Writers; see Dr. Till••tson's Book, called, The Rule of Faith, in answer to J.S. a Papist, whole Arguments against the Scriptures being the Rule of Faith, are so much of the same sort with

these here of W.P. as if he had taken them from him. And the inward Testimony of the Spirit sufficiently asserted to the Truth and Divine Authority of the Holy Scriptures, without taking away from them their due Honour, Use and Service, of their being the Rule of Faith and Life, in all things neces∣sary to Salvation; which yet W.P. labours to rob them of, under a pretence of exalting the Spirit, but really is a degrading and dis∣honouring both, as is above proved; beside the great Mischief it causeth, in casting all People, who believe W.P. and his Party, loose from the Scriptures, that Satan may have the more advantage over them to de∣ceive them, as he hath wofully done; for if the whole Scripture, and every part of them, be not to them the Rule of Faith, they may chuse what to believe, and what not to be be∣lieve; and to believe no more than what the Spirit within (which as it may be, and often is not the Spirit of God) teacheth them to believe; for they may hence infer, since the Spirit, that is the primary Rule, teacheth them not to believe any such Doctrines, or Precepts, it is but Spurious and Apocryphal, and no part of the Secondary Rule, as some∣times they are pleased to call it; though the distinction of primary and secondary Rule will not be found in their first Authors, for then the Spirit was the only Rule, and the

only Means, and the Scriptures were Carnal, and the dead Letter, and li••eless Precepts, as W.P. seemeth to call them, else why doth he quote Philo, and Phythagoras, and others, that called all outward Precepts such.

Section 12.

His eleventh, twelfth and thirteenth Ar∣guments answered.

Arg. 11. HIS eighth Argument is, That the Scriptures are not the Rule of Faith and Life, because they cannot be the Rule in their Translations, Page 26. Supposing the ancient Copies were exact, it cannot be the Rule to far the greatest part of Mankind. Indeed (saith he) to none but learned Men; which nei∣ther answers the Promise relating to Gospel-times, which is universal; nor the Necessity of all Man∣kind, for a Rule of Faith and Life

Ans. Why not in their Translations, by the help of the Spirit, as above declared? It may be supposed, that W.P's Learning is not so great, that he needs not the Transla∣tion, as well as other Men; it is well known, that the Translations, and all the various Copies and Readings, make not the least Alteration in any of the Fundamental or Essential Doctrines of Christianity; yea,

scarcely in any (much material) what∣soever.

Arg. 12. His ninth Argument is, from those voluminous Discourses of Cases of Con∣science that are extant among us: For (saith he) had the Scriptures been as Sufficient [Note here his fling at their Sufficiency] as the Na∣ture of the Rule of Faith and Life requireth, there had been no need of such Tracts.

Answ. This Argument equally fighteth against the Light within being the Rule of Faith and Life, for if it actually doth all that the Nature of a Rule of Faith and Life requireth, then pray, What need had there been of so many Tracts of the Quakers Writings about Doctrines and Principles, as well as Cases of Conscience, which have amounted to a prodigious Number within these Fifty Years, seeing all Men have the same Light within them, to be the same Rule in all: Is not that sufficient without any of these Tracts? If W.P. say it is be∣cause the Authority of the Light within is much gain-said among Men, and the Dictates of it grievously perverted and made contra∣dictory; If both Parties, even among the Quakers themselves, may be believed, G.F and his Party, when alive, and now W.P's and G.W's Party, judging that which John Story and his Party believed to be the Dictates of the Light within, to be the Dictates of a

False Spirit, and they judging the like of them. Therefore Books and Tracts have been multiplied among themselves. And as good and much better reason can be given, why so many truly pious and edifying Tracts have been written by many Godly Men, to vindicate both the Sufficiency of the Spirit, and true Light within, in all the Faithful; and also the Sufficiency of the Scriptures without; this as the Rule, and that as the principal Teacher, Agent, and Efficient, working with and by the Rule, and yet none of the two, how much ever sufficient, ex∣cluding the Lord Jesus Christ God-Man with∣out us, from being our All sufficient Saviour, each being sufficient in their own order and manner of acting. As concerning such Gen∣tiles, to whom the offer of Faith has not been made, neither by Men nor Writings, none say, that the Scriptures are a Rule to them; but as they have no outward Rule of Christian Faith, so nor doth it appear, that they have the Christian Faith it self; If any have it, they have it not by the common Illumination, but by some miraculous and extraordinary manner, unknown to us. And how God disposeth of the more Sober and Virtuous among them, doth not at all reach the present Controversie, which is not, whi∣ther the Scripture be the Rule to all Man∣kind, that ever lived, or now live, but whi∣ther

it be the Rule of Faith and Life, to them who have them, or may have them, by some possible means.

Page 16. Arg 13. Whereas he saith, Doth not your own Language and Practise prove its (viz. the Scriptures) Insufficiency to that end, at what time you both exhort to, and go in secret to seek the Mind of the Lord in this or that im∣portant Affair? Why do not you turn to Chapter and Verse for satisfaction, if the Scripture be ap∣pointed of God for the General Rule.

Ans. This Argument hath also as great force, or rather much greater, against the Light within being the General Rule; for do none of the Friends both exhort to, and go in secret to seek the Mind of the Lord, in this or that important Affair? Why do they not turn to the Light within to be forthwith without all Prayer, or waiting, informed and satisfied? If they do not, yea, if W.P. do not, both he and they are wo∣fully deceived, by neglecting Prayer, and waiting on God, to receive Satisfaction in this or that important Affair; but if they find their need both for Prayer, and waiting for direction, then let him answer his own Argument, and make due Application. But to give a positive and direct answer, if it be either a matter of Doctrine or Precept, that any Christian wants due Instruction and Di∣rection in, they may both Pray, and Read,

and search the Scriptures, and Meditate, Iad wait for God's inward Illumination and ••nspiration, to give them a right Under∣standing, and they may expect it will be given them, if they sincerely seek it, and use all due Endeavours and Means to attain it, one of which is, to consult and use the Ad∣vice of others, whom they have cause to judge, Spiritually, more enlightned than themselves. If it be in Cases that are nei∣ther matter of Doctrine, nor Precept, but where the matter is by it self indifferent, and neither simply commanded nor forbid∣den, as many such Cases there are, they may and ought to pray and wait for direction, and it may please God to give it to them, by some secret Motion, Impulse or Impression of his Holy Spirit, which may sufficiently satisfie them, without making that impressi∣on, Motion or Impulse, the Rule of either Faith or Obedience, seeing the Matter is nei∣ther a Matter of Doctrine nor Precept, wherein either Faith or Obedience, as touch∣ing that particular is concerned, but a Mo∣tion or Impulse simply from God, upon the Will, cannot be properly called a Rule, be∣cause, as is above-said, a Rule, properly speaking, is a Form of Words and Proposi∣tions, either outwardly expressed, or in∣wardly conceived, to which the Intellect either assents or dissents: And if any true

Christian finds such a motion, or impulse on his VVill, if after examination he find that it doth not incline him, to any thing either contradictory to Scripture, or true Reason, he is in no great danger to yield to it; and if he do not yield to it, upon just suspicion or fear, that it is not of God, it will not be charged to be a Sin upon him; for nothing is Sin, but a Transgression of God's Law.

Page 19. The Law outward (saith he) as a Rule was but as Moses, till the Son came, the Servant abideth not in the House for ever, the Written Law held its place, but till the inward Rise in more Glory and Brightness, or rather, till People became more capable of being turned to it, and living with and in it.

Answ. Had not Mankind generally the Light within them, under Moses? How comes it then, that it was not the Rule to them, and did not dismiss the written Law? But if there be no written nor outward Law given by Christ under the Gospel, then all that he taught outwardly, and for which he sent his Spirit upon the Apostles, to bring it all to their Remembrance, and to move them to commit it to Writing, Yea, the whole New Testament Writings must be dismissed, and turned out of the Church, the House of God, as was Ishmael and his Mother out of Abraham's House be∣cause

by his most false Arguing, the writ∣ten Law given by Christ, and the Holy-Ghost, under the New Testament, is as much the Servant, as the Old Covenant was. O the Vanity and Folly of this manner of Arguing, which wholly makes void Christ's Prophetical and Kingly Office, as he was outwardly sent in the Flesh, by the Father, to give a more full and clear discovery of the way of Salvation, as the great Prophet, and to give forth his Royal Laws, to the Church under the New Testament, as King and Head thereof!

But he further enlargeth upon this Ar∣gument, P. 17. telling us, There are a Thou∣sand Cases, in which the Scripture cannot be our Plain and distinct Rule and Guide: And he adds on the Margent, There's not laid down in Scripture, any general Rule, how to answer before Magistrates, and to act in times of Sufferings.

To which I answer, First he doth not well to confound Rule and Guide; it is granted the Spirit of God is the Guide, Teacher and Leader of the Faithful; but it doth not therefore follow, that the Holy Scriptures, i. e. the many excellent Instructi∣ons, Precepts and Examples given us there∣in, for the Government of our Life in all Estates, are not the Rule which the Holy Spirit useth as his Instrument, to Guide us,

in all parts of our Duty. But he might have told us some of those Thousand Cases, in which the Scripture cannot be our plain and distinct Rule, whereby to know either our Duty to perform it, or what is prohibited, that we may avoid it, though we have the inward assistance of God's Spirit to enlighten our Minds; and set before them, on all neces∣sary occasions and emergencies, such Scrip∣ture Precepts and Prohibitions, as suit with the present occasions. But if the cases be of things in themselves simply indifferent, i. e. neither commanded nor forbidden, either by any Precepts of God, or Just Precepts and Laws of our Superiors, we are left to our choice, according as our rational Faculties, and Christian Prudence, shall direct us, a due regard over all being had, to the Glory of God; and that whatever we do, be done in the Spirit of true Love and Charity; which are general Rules plainly given us in the Ho∣ly Scriptures; the particular application of which in all particular Cases, whither in re∣lation to Superiors, Inferiors or Equals, the Holy Spirit by his special Illuminations in our Hearts will teach us, as we faithfully pray and wait for them, without the need of any other general or particular Rules, than what already are given us in the Holy Scriptures, Therefore in opposition to this extravagant and rash Assertion of W.P, that

there are a Thousand Cases, in which the Scripture cannot be our plain and distinct Rule; I affirm, that there is not one Case, respecting our Duty either towards God, our selves or our Neighbours, but plain Instructions, and Precepts are given us in the Holy Scriptures concerning the same; but we still need the Grace and Guidance of God's Holy Spirit, to give us the Spiri∣tual discovery of them, and to enable us rightly to practise them. Surely David had a far better and greater esteem of God's Laws, Precepts and Testimonies, even as outwardly delivered by Moses, and also by himself, than W.P. hath; concerning which he said Psal. 119.24. Thy Testimonies also are my delight and my Counsellors. Though David was a Prophet, yet, as King over the People of Israel, he was commanded of God, to write him a Copy of the Law of God, in a Book, which was to be with him, and he was to Read therein all the days of his Life, that he might learn to fear the Lord his God, to keep all the words of that Law, and these Statutes to do them, &c Deut. 17.18, 19, 20. And yet David was highly illuminated and inspired, far above W.P. or any of his Brethren, but the written Law, was to be the Rule of his Actions as well as of other Men. Nor could David have excused himself from taking the writ∣ten

Law, to be the Rule of his Life, be∣cause he had it in his Heart; and if it could be no excuse to David, nor can it be to any Christian now, [King or Subject,] that be∣cause they have the Law writ in their Hearts, and the Spirit put in their inward parts, according to God's promise in the New Covenant, that therefore the Laws of God, both of the Old and New Testament▪ that are of a Moral concern, even as out∣wardly delivered do not bind them, which is in very deed to take away the Authority of the Holy Scriptures, and make void the Prophetical and Kingly Office of Christ, yea and the Office of the Holy Spirit also▪ who inspired the Holy Pen-men to commit them to Writing. And it is no less extra∣vagant and rash in W.P. to assert, that there is not laid down in Scripture any ge∣neral Rule how to answer before Magistrates, and to act in times of Sufferings; for though no particular words are given us, limiting and determining us what to say, yet the ge∣neral matter of our Duty is plainly laid down in Scripture, what and how to an∣swer before Magistrates, as that of Peter and John, Acts 4.19. How that it is better to obey God than Men, and that of the three Children to King Nebuchadnezzer, Dan. 3.17, 18. And how to act in Times of Suf∣fering, we have both excellent commands

and examples in Scripture, as Mat. 10.28. 1 Pet. 2.20. 1 Pet. 4.16. Luke 23.34. Acts 7.59, 60. But seeing he doth so perempto∣rily require a general Rule, to suit all Cases, as well as all Persons of Mankind, otherwise it could not be general, which yet he will have it to be, what those dictates or Revelations of the Light in every Con∣science are of Jews, Mahometans and Christi∣ans, that can give such plain directions, to all Persons in all Cases, which the Scripture cannot give, I desire him to tell at least some of them, If he doth not, it is a sign he cannot, and that consequently his Argu∣ment is vain, for the Light or Spirit abstractly considered without all Revelation can be no Rule.

Section 13.

His fourteenth Argument (which he calls his eighth) answered.

Page 120. AFter he has given Thirteen Reasons, and all false ones enough, as I think I have sufficiently shew∣ed, he comes to that he calls his eighth reason after his former Thirteen at least: Why the Scriptures cannot be the Rule under the New

Covenant which is this, Christ the Spiritual Lea∣der of a Spiritual Israel, writeth his Spiritual Law in the Heart, as Moses, the outward Israel's Leader, writ the Law upon Tables of Stone. This was God's Promise, and the priviledge and blessing of the New Covenant, that as the out∣ward Jew had an outward Law for a directory, the inward Jew should have an inward Law for his directory; and as the outward Jew had an outward Priest, at whose Mouth be ought to seek the Law, so the Jew inward and Circumcision in Spirit, has an inward and Spiritual High-Priest, whose Lips preserve knowledge, at whose Mouth he is to receive the Law of Life. The King, Ruler, Judge, Law-giver, High-Priest, Law, Rule, are all Spiritual so the Scriptures inform us. My Kingdom, said Christ, is not of this World. Again, the Kingdom of God is with∣in, Luk. 17.20, 21. I will write my Law in their Hearts. They shall be all taught of me. Heb. 8.10. quoting Rev. 21.3. Joel 2.28. Tit. 2.11, 12. Job. 32.8. Rom. 1.19. [And here again he falsly quotes the words, Whatever may be known of God, &c.] Gal. 5.16. 1 John 1.7. Isa. 2.5. Rev. 21. 23. Gal. 6.15, 16. as also he quotes unduly 1 Cor. 12.7. putting a measure of the Spirit for a manifestation of the Spirit.

Answ. 1. If the Light within be a gene∣ral Rule to Mankind, then the outward Israel had it as well as the inward Israel▪

Where is then the distinction, and difference betwixt the one and the other? 2. If the Rule of the inward Israel be within, and the High-Priest within, then as the inward Israel, has no Rule, to be the Rule of their Faith and Life, but the Light in the Consci∣ence, so they have no High-Priest without them but only within them, that is, the Light in the Conscience; and so there is no High-Priest without us, nor no Heaven without us, into which the Man Christ Jesus is gone; nor King Christ without us, but only within us; for to say he is both without us and within us also, will spoil W.P's Argument altogether, and mar his Analogy, betwixt the Law without under Moses, and the Law within under Christ, the High-Priest without then, and the High-Priest within now. If he grant there is a High-Priest without us, and who is also King, as well as Priest, (and that he is more without us than within us, as all true Chri∣stians believe, who have not the fulness with∣in them, but receive of his fulness, and Grace for Grace, and therefore that ful∣ness is in the Man Christ without them) he must also grant, that the Law and Rule of Faith is as well without us as within us, and so his Argument is spoiled, but that he will be loth to grant, for then the funda∣mental Principle of him and his Brethren

is pluck'd up by the Roots, by confessing to the Man Christ, a High-Priest without us, or King without us, which will necessarily infer the Law and Rule of Faith delivered us by Christ without us, is not within us only, but without us also, as Christ the Law-giver is. Thus we see for Love of their (supposed) Rule of Faith only within them, W.P. and his Brethren, who ap∣prove his Book, abandon and reject utterly any Christ, High-Priest, or King without them, as also he has done in his Chri∣stian Quaker, where he will have P. 97. The Lamb without (in the Passover) to shew forth the Lamb within, (to wit, the Light in the Conscience) but not the Lamb Christ without, as he was outwardly slain. And yet W.P. for all this, hath said in his late answer to the Bishop of Cork, That the Quakers▪ differ little in Doctrine from the Church of England, setting aside some School Terms. And in his answer to the Bishop of Cork, P. 97. he saith, We [i. e. he and his Bre∣thren] plainly and intirely believe the Truths contained in the Creed, commonly called the Apostles Creed. But possibly some fallacy is latent here also, as if he had said, they be∣lieve the Truths Contained in the Jews Talmud, or Turks Alcoran, for doubtless there are some Truths contained in them both, but many Falshoods, and so he may

think there are in that Creed, for all his seeming fair Confession to it, and I offer to prove they have disbelieved them all. But how this consists with their having only their High Priest, King and Prophet with∣in them, as they have the Law and Rule of their Faith only within them, as W.P. here doth Argue, I leave to the intelligent to Judge, and whither this palpable contradicti∣on bewrayes not their great disingenuity, con∣sidering that they will not grant, that they are in any one point changed, in their Faith or Doctrine, from what they were ever since they were a People but as God and Truth is the same, so his People, to wit, (the Quakers) are the same, as they have in so many express words lately Printed, in the Book called the Quakers Cleared, &c. 3. As concerning the several places of Scripture quoted by him, that he brings to prove, the inward Teachings of God, Christ and the Holy Spirit, and God's writing his Laws in the Hearts of the Faithful, all this is granted by all Sound Christians, but that is not the true State of the Controversie be∣twixt the People called Quakers, and their Opponents. But the true State of the Con∣troversie is this, whither the inward Teach∣ings of God, of Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, come to believers, without all out∣ward means, and without all outward

Ministry and Service of Men or Books; and whither the Law, and Rule of Faith, that Believers have in them, put in them, yea, and writ in their Hearts by the Lord him∣self, is without all outward Instruction, and Teaching, or Service of Men, or Books; or whither the Law, and Rule of Faith and Practise within, in respect of all the pecu∣liar Doctrines and Precepts of the Christian Religion, be not (so to speak) a Transcript, or Copy from the Law, and Rule of Faith, without us, as delivered in the Holy Scrip∣tures, which therefore may be called the Original as to us, though that Original Law and Rule without us, came from an inward Original in the Holy Prophets, and in the Man Christ, and his Holy Evangelists and Apostles, which yet had a higher Ori∣ginal, to wit, the Archetypal Law, as it was in God, before the Copy or Transcript of it came to be in the Prophets, and from them, committed to writing outwardly, and from that outward writing, transferred and transcribed into the Hearts of the Faithful, where it becomes an inward Law, or Rule in them: And thus the Faithful have the Law and Rule of Faith both without them and within them; first without them, in the Holy Scriptures; next within▪ them, put in them by the Lord in their Hearts, by means of outward Instruction, as Preaching, Read∣ing,

&c. And if the Question be asked, Whither is best, to have it without them, or within them? I answer, to have it both ways is very necessary; for in God's ordi∣nary way of working▪ we cannot have it within us, if we had it not first without us, no more than we can have Food within us, if we had it not first without us; for as our outward and bodily Food, that nourisheth our Bodies, comes into our Bodies from with∣out us, by the Door (so to speak) of our Mouth, so the wholsome Doctrine of eter∣nal Salvation by Christ our Blessed Saviour and Redeemer, (by means of which our Souls and inward Man are nourished, being ac∣companied with the Divine Influences of the Grace and Spirit of God and of Christ) comes into our Souls, by the Door of our outward Hearing and Reading in the Holy Scriptures. Again, though there be ever so good Food, and ever so Plentiful, without us, yet if we receive it not within us, it neither doth nor can nourish us: And as the clean Beasts under the Law, did chew the Cud of what they did eat, for their Nourishment, so the Faithful, what they outwardly hear and read of God's Word in the Holy Scriptures, must meditate upon inwardly, for their Spi∣ritual Food. Thus the great necessity of having the Law and Word of God both without us and within us, the Rule of our

Faith and Life is evidently apparent, so long as we live in these mortal Bodies: And there∣fore God hath appointed, and Christ hath given an outward Ministry, together with his other Gifts and Graces, to his Church, to continue to the end of the World, and to his last coming. But again, if it be asked, Is there not an Internal word, Voice or Teaching of Christ, distinct from the out∣ward word, Voice and Teaching, that out∣wardly soundeth in our outward Ears. I an∣swer, There is, but in God's ordinary way, it works in the Faithful, accompanying the outward word; and by means thereof, the which inward word, Voice and Teaching, (properly and strictly speaking) is not any singular, new or differing Form of words, but rather a Divine Power, Light and Life, quickning, enlightning and strengthning the Understanding and Heart of Man, Spiritually and Savingly to understand the Divine Do∣ctrines and Mysteries of the Christian Faith, outwardly delivered in the Holy Scriptures; and not only so, but giving the Souls of the Faithful, at times, a Divine Sense, Sight and Taste of God's Divine Power, Love and Life, called in Scripture, A tasting of the heavenly Gift, and of the good Word of God, and of the powers of the World to come; which Sight, Sense and Taste, and Spiritual Feel∣ing, is indeed beyond all that can be either

uttered with the Mouth, heard with the Ear, or conceived in the Mind, in or by any Form of words, as the outward Sight, Sense, Taste and Feeling of outward delightful Ob∣jects, is beyond all words, and report of them, as the Scripture saith, Eye hath not seen, nor Ear heard, nor hath it entred into the Heart, to conceive the good things that God hath prepared for them that love him. But (as saith the Apostle Paul) God hath revealed them to us (to wit, to the Faithful) by his Spirit, 1 Cor. 2.9, 10. Isaiah 64.4. viz. in an earnest and first Fruits, the Harvest and full Fruition being reserved for the future State. And here again, if it be asked, what is the Rule, whereby to know surely the true Di∣vine Enjoyment, as above described, from the false and counterfeit, that may be no∣thing other than Satan's Transformings? I answer, It is improper in this Case, to ask what is the Rule of Faith or Practise, be∣cause this high Divine Enjoyment, is (pro∣perly speaking) neither an Act of Faith nor Practise, though it is a proper Consequent and Concomitant of sound Faith, and godly and virtuous Practise; for as in the exercise of the outward Sight, Hearing and Taste, no Form of words can be a Rule to a Man, to teach him how to See, Hear or Taste, but the sound Disposition of the Organs of those Senses, and the due Application of the Ob∣jects,

is all that is requisite to enable a Man to know what he certainly Sees, Hears and Tasts; so when the Spiritual Senses of the Soul, are awakened by the quickning Power of God, and the Mind fitly and duly dis∣posed, whatever Divine and Spiritual Objects are presented to that Soul and Mind, it na∣turally and necessarily apprehends them by its Spiritual Senses, which are as it were the Spiritual Organs of the Inward and Spiritual Man; the best and fittest Disposition of the Soul and Mind, making it capable for such Divine Enjoyment, is, Internal Purity of Heart, as our Saviour hath taught us, saying, Blessed are the pure in Heart, for they shall see God; that is, always accompanied with a sound Faith, grounded upon the sound and whol∣some Doctrine of the Holy Scriptures: And though no Form of words can be a Rule, a Priori, whereby to discern true Enjoyments from false and counterfeit, yet a Posteriori, that is, by the Consequents and Effects, they may soon and quickly be discerned, if duly examined by the infallible Rule of Faith and Life laid down in the Scriptures, even as a Posteriori; or consequentially, a Man may know, whither what (he apprehends) he seeth, heareth, or tasteth outwardly, be real or imaginary.

Section 14.

Diverse places of Scripture explained, and rescued from his Corrupt Glosses and Interpretations.

BUT before I finish my Answer to this his last Argument, I think fit to take notice, how he has perverted, misconstrued, and misapplied all and every one of the places of Scripture above recited out of his Page 21, to prove that the Light in every Man's Conscience, is the Rule of Faith and Life to every Man, and that without any necessary super-addition without or within Men, be they Jews, Mahometans, Infidels, Christians, they have all but one and the same Rule of Faith and Life, as they have one and the same Creator. For indeed not one of these places are to be understood, as with respect to that part of Mankind, that lived or now live in pure Heathenism, or Gentilism, but such as were or are professed Members of God's Church as the Jews were, when our Saviour was bodily present on Earth; and as the Christians were and now are, excepting that one place Rom. 1.19. which as I have above noted, he falsly quotes, rendring it, Whatsoever may be known of God;

which as the English Translation doth not so word, nor doth the Greek bear it, and the Falseness of it I have above described; as for the saying of our Saviour, My Kingdom is not of this World; which is the first of those Quotations above given: Can it be sup∣posed, that by his Kingdom there, he meant nothing but the Light in every Man's Con∣science, he offers not the least proof of it; the Kingdom of God, and of Christ, in Scripture, (otherwise called the Kingdom of Heaven) hath diverse significations, some∣times it signifies his Church, that is called a Kingdom of Priests, sometimes his Rule and Government in and over his Church, by his Laws, and Precepts, and Power of his Spirit and manifold Gifts and Graces, and some∣times the Gospel, with the Blessings there∣of, that is, the Doctrine of the Gospel; as where Christ said to the Jews, The Kingdom should be taken from them, Matt. 21.43. as hath been accordingly fulfilled, though still they have the common Illumination of the Light within them; and sometimes it sig∣nifieth his Kingdom of Glory in the future State after Death. This next Quotation is out of Luke 17.20, 21. The Kingdom of God is within you; which also he falsly quotes, leaving out the word you, so making it uni∣versal, to serve his Design, for a Proof that the Light in every Mans Conscience, is that

which is meant by Christ in this place, the Kingdom of God. I grant God has an uni∣versal providential Kingdom in and over all his Creatures, and more particularly in and over all Mankind, according to Psal. 103.19. and his Kingdom ruleth over all, or in all; and that his providential Kingdom among Men, is administred in great part, by means of the common Illumination in and over all Men; but the Kingdom, as it is here understood Luke 17.20, 21. is not his providential Kingdom, but a new Administration of the Gospel, that many were looking for, and expecting, which made the Pharisees ask, when the Kingdom of God should come; surely as they meant not to ask when his providential Kingdom should come, or when should Men begin to have something to re∣prove or convince them, for common Sins in their Conscience; nor did Christ mean it so, but of some more excellent Dispensation by his Doctrine and Preaching, which the Pharisees had heard as well as others; and therefore it might well be said to be not only among them, as some translate it, but even in them, to wit, the Doctrine of the Kingdom, together with which some in∣ward Seed of Light might have been sown in some of their Hearts by his Ministry, be∣yond and above the common Illumination▪ But what proof is this, that the Gentiles had

the Kingdom of God in them, in this Sense, who never to this day heard Christ, or any of his Ministers, nor received any Gospel Doctrine, by any outward Testimony, by voice or writing. And Heb. 8.10. com∣pared with Jer. 31.33. and all the other places do wholly respect that part of Man∣kind, to whom the Gospel is outwardly preached, and for most part such who did believe it, or were in due time to believe it, as that noted place Titus 2.11, 12. by the Grace of God, that had appeared to all, cannot be understood, the common Light or Illumination in all, because v. 13. it was such a Grace, that taught such who gave up to be taught by it, and obey it, to look for that blessed Hope and glorious Appearance of the great God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us [to dye for us, that by his Death, and precious Blood outwardly shed for us] he might redeem us from all In∣iquity. Now can W.P. or any of his Deist Brethren, prove that any Jew, Mahometan, Heathen, or Deist, that obey the Dictates of the Light within, are taught thereby to look for this glorious appearing of Jesus Christ, when he shall come in his glorified Manhood, to judge the Quick and the Dead, for that no doubt is the glorious Appearing here meant, the most Obedient of his Jewish Mahometan Brethren to the Light within

them, and the most strict and exact Deists here in England will tell him, they believe no such thing, their Light within them hath taught them no such Faith nor Hope; yea, Cornelius that was a most excellent Gentile for Virtue, and I suppose in his Gentile state surpassed for Piety and Virtue, the best Deist in England, was not taught by the Light that was formerly in him in his Gentile state, to believe Remission of Sin through Faith in Jesus of Nazareth, whom the Jews hanged on a Tree, &c. but was informed by the Angel, to send for Peter to preach this Jesus to him; nor did the Angel direct him to the Light in him simply for Information, but to the Apostle Peter without him, that by means of his Ministry he might receive the Christian Faith, and the special Illumi∣nation of the Holy Ghost, as accordingly was fulfilled. And as to the words Jer. 31.34. compared with Heb. 8.11. they shall not teach every Man his neighbour, and every Man his Brother, saying, Know the Lord: For all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. This Promise doth only belong to the Chil∣dren of the New Covenant, to wit, the Members of Christ's Catholick Church, and not to all Mankind, therefore cannot be meant of the common Illumination in Hea∣thens and Infidels, nor of many Thousands living under a visible Profession of Christi∣anity,

who are not so taught of God, that they need not a Man to teach them; or to say, know the Lord, for to be so taught is a high State, and the words have their full and perfect accomplishment in the future State, though in part here; and compara∣tively, they have their present fulfilling, as often indeed many places of Scripture have a comparative meaning Besides, that it is granted, that that high degree of Divine knowledge above described, that is, a divine enjoyment of God, by Spiritual Sensation, Sight and Taste, one Man can∣not teach it to another, for it surpasseth all words, either uttered or conceived; as one Man cannot teach another that is Blind to see, or Deaf to hear, or that hath not his Taste, to Savour; though as to the Doctri∣nal knowledge, he may teach him, and by means of that Teaching, be made instru∣mental, by the blessing and Grace of God, to open his Spiritual Eyes, and excite those Spiritual Sensations in him. And what though Christ left nothing in Writing by himself, for the Rule of Faith and pra∣ctise, as W.P. argueth, what his Apostles and Evangelists committed to Writing by his Inspiration, was sufficient, why it should be received to be the Rule of our Faith, that is, the outward Instrument, whereby Faith is wrought in us, and whereby we may be

helped, through the Spirits inward Illumi∣nation and assistance, how to discern what we are to believe to be true Doctrine, and what we are to practise. But it's very strange what he further saith, That had he intended the Rule of his followers to have been a written Rule, [note, a written Rule] he would have left it upon record, with all punctuality, this must be believed and that done, on pain of Eter∣nal Death. His words plainly import, as if such punctuality had not been recorded, but as if People who read the Scriptures, or hear them ever so truly expounded, were left at liberty to believe this or the other thing, or not belive it, though written and commanded; and also to do or not do, without any danger of Damnation; where∣as the plain words of our Saviour are re∣corded by Mark 16.16. He that believeth not shall be Damned; believeth not what? surely both what Christ Preached, and what his Apostles and Evangelists were inspired to write, by his Spirit, to whom those Wri∣tings should come, for others to whom they have not come, their Sins against the Law and Light in their Consciences, are suffici∣ent to render them without excuse. But (saith he) nor did his followers write in the me∣thod of a Rule. How knows he that? Is he so great a Master of Method, so as that he can prove, they write not in the

Method of a Rule? What saith he to Christ's Sermon on the Mount, and his other Ser∣mons recorded by the Four Evangelist's, which alone, though we had no other parts of the New Testament, are a sufficient Rule both of Faith and Life, which yet makes not the other parts superfluous: It is a good saying, Abundance of the Law breaks not the Law; as God's ways are not as Man's ways, so God's Method, in delivering us the Rule of Faith and Life, is not as Man's Method. And what saith he to Luke, who (Luk. 1.13.) declareth, that having had perfect understand∣ing of all things from the very first, it seemed good to him to write them in Order; and said John, (John 20.31.) These are written, that ye might believe, that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing ye might have Life through his Name. It is strange that a Quaker should argue against the Scripture being the Rule of Faith and Life for want∣ing the Method of a Rule, who may be thought very improper Judges of Method, being so immethodical themselves both in Writing and Preaching, and cry out against others for Method; and yet now the Scrip∣tures must be rejected from being the Rule of Faith and Life, for not being writ in the Method of a Rule, If W.P. must be believed, whereas the best skilful in the Method of Teaching, both pious and learned, have not

only greatly esteemed, but highly admir'd the Method of the Scripture, even when it seems least to have Method, and most especi∣ally, the Method of our Saviour's Sermons recorded in the Four Evangelists, and of that most excellent form of Prayer he taught his Disciples. And if the Scriptures must be rejected from being not only the Rule of Faith and Life, but a written Rule (as his express words above noted are, though in contradiction to himself, who elsewhere calls them a Rule, but not the Rule; now he will neither have them to be the Rule, nor a written Rule) for want of the Me∣thod of a Rule, he may quarrel against di∣verse parts of God's Creation, as not being placed in that Method and Order, that his Wisdom thinks meet. Sure I am, some Atheists have argued at such like rate, against the Worlds being Created by an infinite Wis∣dom and Goodness, because, as they imagi∣ned things lye in great disorder, throughout the visible World, here a spot of the Earth fruitful, there a great part of it unfruitful, and uninhabitable; some parts have too much Water that drown the dry Land, over∣flow Cities, fruitful Fields and pleasant Mea∣dows; other parts are scorched with drought and uninhabitable for want of Water; other large parts not fit for Habitation for Cold. Also the Providences of God towards Mankind

are greatly disputed by Atheists, because of that seeming disorder and want of method, in things and Events that happen to Men of all sorts, virtuous Men neglected, oppressed, afflicted, and vitious Men exalted, honoured and praised. It is a great Default in W.P. thus to argue against the Scriptures, for want of Method, as being the Rule, wherein he too much resembles the Atheists arguing against the Ways and Methods of Divine Providence, from thence concluding there is no Rule of Divine Providence in the World, as W.P. concludes, there is not the Rule of Faith and Life in the Holy Scriptures.

Section 15.

Whither the Laws and Precepts of God and Christ, as written in the Holy Scriptures, do bind the Faithful to Obedience. W.P. his absolute Necessa∣ries of Religion, no other but what are generally owned by Infidel Jews, Maho∣mitans, Deists, and the greatest Here∣ticks.

HAving thus finished my Answers to his Arguments against the Scriptures be∣ing the Rule of Faith and Life, yea, not

only against being the Rule, but a Rule, as above noted, in contradiction to himself, who sometimes calls them a Rule, to wit, a Subordinate, Secondary and Declaratory Rule; but yet he will not allow this to the whole Scripture, but that several parts of it are so, that is, so much of it as Heathens and Deists have taught them by the Light within, to wit, Precepts of Moral Honesty, &c. but Salvation by Christ Crucified, and Remission of Sins by his Blood, is not taught them by their Light within; therefore this Doctrine of the Scripture is not so much as a Secon∣dary Rule to W.P. and his Deist Brethren; the unsoundness of which Distinction I have above shewed, I shall now briefly point at some other Impertinencies in his Book now before me, and so conclude.

Page 25. We confess (saith he) the reason of our Obedience, viz. to the Precepts written in the Scriptures, is not meerly because they are written, for that were legal, but because they are the Eternal Precepts of the Spirit in Mens Consciences. Here divers things need Cor∣rection; First, I know none that ever said, that the reason of our Obedience to those Precepts, is meerly because they are written, but chiefly and principally we are obliged to believe and obey them, being the Commands of God: but though the reason of our Obe∣dience to them, is not meerly that they are

written, yet being now written, and the Wisdom of God having so appointed it, that they should be written, and the Writers be∣ing inspired to that very purpose, to write them for our Instruction, and that we should believe them and obey them; we ought both to believe them and obey them, as they are outwardly written; otherwise, if their deliverance to us by writing, have no In∣fluence on us to believe them, and obey them, we may wholly disregard them as such, and only mind those eternal Precepts of the Spi∣rit, as he terms them, in the Consciences of Men, to wit, Jews, Mahometans, Heathens, Deists. Again that he saith, It is legal to obey them, meerly because written I see not how it was legal, for the Law did not command them to obey them meerly as written, but because they were the Commandments of God; but to reject them, as having any In∣fluence on us, or laying any Obligation on us as written, is to reject Christ's Prophe∣tical and Kingly Office, a part of which was to inspire his Evangelists and Apostles to commit them to writing. But again, That nothing is to be obeyed for a Rule, or the Rule, but the eternal Precepts of the Spirit in Mens Consciences, as he affirmeth. This indeed makes a very short and near way to Heaven, were it as true as short and near. He seems to give us an account what these eternal

Precepts are, Page 44. But most Perswasions (saith he) are agreed about the absolute Necessa∣ries in Religion, from that Light and Witness God has placed in Man's Conscience, viz. That God is, that he is a Rewarder of them that dili∣gently seek him; that the way of God is a way of Purity, Patience, Meekness, &c. without which no Man can see the Lord.

Answ. Note well, Reader, these few things, That every Deist, Jew and Mahometan, that are sober and rational, will acknowledge, are all the absolute Necessaries in Religion, that he lays down. But how falsly doth he alledge that most Perswasions are agreed, that these, without all the Articles peculiar to the Chri∣stian Faith, (as concerning the Holy Tri∣nity, the Incarnation of the Word, the Sa∣tisfaction of Christ, by his Sacrifice on the Cross to Divine Justice, &c. in a word, all the twelve Articles of the Apostles Creed) are all the absolute Necessaries in Religion. Is the whole Christian Catholick Church of Christ throughout the World, in all Ages, no considerable part of Mankind, having Religious Perswasions? Or if they are, let him tell us, what part of Christ's Catholick Church ever held, or doth now hold, that none of all the twelve Articles of the Apo∣stles Creed, or few of them, are the abso∣lute Necessaries in Religion, together with other Moral parts relating to Moral Virtues.

I think he can tell us scarce any, but such as may be justly doubted, or disowned to be Members of the Church of Christ. If he bring in himself, and his Party and Deist Brethren, he but begs the Question, to say, they are a part of the Christian Church, while they deny the great Fundamentals of her Religion to be absolutely necessary. But let us hear him further in the same Page, he saith, Nay they accord in some considerable Matters super added, as some of them speak, that God was manifested extraordinarily in the Flesh; that he gave his Life for the World; that such as believe and obey his Grace in their Hearts, receive Remission of Sins, and Life everlasting. First, It is needful he should explain what he means by these words, That he gave his Life; whither the Life of the Man Christ without us, or the Blood, which is the Life, and that Life is the Light within, as he hath been heard to preach, and is according to his Books. And what means he by the word believe? Whither to believe, that Christ died for our Sins, and rose again? Well, in Charity I will suppose this to be his meaning, otherwise he would greatly equivocate; but still all this belief is none of the absolute Necessaries in Religion, they are some considerable Matters superadded; Superadded to what? To the Scriptures. Nay, they are the chief Doctrines of the

Scriptures. Therefore again I ask, Super∣added to what? Why to the Light within its Dictates. But are they necessary to be believed, since they are supernumerary, and superadded to the Dictates of the Light in every Conscience? Yea, saith W.P. Page 35. where the History has reached, and the Spirit of God has made a Conviction upon the Con∣science. Well then, If they are necessary to be believed, where the Spirit of God hath made this Conviction upon the Conscience; this Conviction is not the Effect of the gene∣ral Light in every Conscience, but somewhat superadded; and therefore the general Light in the Conscience, is not the perfect and compleat Rule. But what if the Spirit make not this Conviction upon the Conscience of some, who have the Scripture, which he calls the History? Is he sure the Spirit will make it, or doth make it, on every Con∣science to whom the History reacheth? If he say yea, he throweth down his Fabrick with his own words; for if so, this Con∣viction made by the Spirit of God on the Conscience, must be a part, yea, the great∣est part of the Rule of Faith, to all who have the Scriptures; because the Scriptures hold forth many more things to be believed and practised, than these few eternal Precepts, as he calls them, of the Spirit in the Con∣science. And though W.P. here seems to

render them excusable, to whom the Do∣ctrine of Christ's Death hath reached, and yet believe it not, on whom the Spirit of God hath not made a Conviction. Yet in his Treatise of Spiritual Liberty, he calls it a loose Plea, to pretend want of Conviction for not obeying G.F's Orders, and tending to Ranterism. But if he shall say, the Spirit doth not work this Conviction upon many that the History reacheth, as his words im∣port, then they are left at liberty, whither to believe them at all, without all Sin or danger. Thus we may see what sort of Faith he and his Brethren have, of the Ar∣ticles of the Creed, viz. An unnecessary Faith, to have it, or not have it, is all a Case, if they have it not, it is not their Sin, their primary Rule the Light within them, tells them nothing of it. But then why should the Secondary Rule tell them any of these things? As there is nothing in the Copy but what is in the Original, so there is nothing in the Secondary Rule, the Scriptures, at this rate, but what is in the Dictates of the Light within; and therefore all that is to be found in the Scripture, that is not in the Dictates of the Light within▪ is not so much as the Secondary Rule. Thus we may see of what little value the Scrip∣tures are and must be with him and his Party, by this his way of arguing and answering

Objections. But note, Reader, how in his foregoing words I have faithfully quoted, he makes the believing and obeying God's Grace for Remission of Sins, and Life ever∣lasting, to be none of the absolute Necessaries of Religion, but superadded, as some of them speak. Here is Obedience to God's Grace made as unnecessary by W.P. as Faith in Christ, as he was outwardly manifest in the Flesh. What thinks G.W. and his Brethren of this Doctrine? Is it not plain Antinomianism, yea plain Ranterism?

Section 16.

The Scriptures are not certainly known and believed, upon the Foundation of W.P. and his Party among the Qua∣kers, but are upon the Foundation of all Orthodox Christians. The Question wrongly stated by W.P. about the Suffi∣ciency of the Light or Spirit of God within, which is not what he can reveal, but what he doth reveal, without the out∣ward Means of Instruction.

Page 23. HE labours to turn off that Ob∣jection against him, of his ar∣guing from the uncertainty of the Scriptures,

that they cannot be a Rule of Faith and Life, by answering, The Scriptures are uncer∣tain upon their Foundation, but not upon ours. We would have them received (saith he) upon the Spirits Testimony and Evidence which gave them forth. I answer, And so would all true Christians; but the difference is great, in the way and manner of their and his defining this Testimony or Evidence, which he and his Brethren will have wholly to be by Prophetical and Apostolical Inspi∣ration, the same in Specie and Kind with what the Prophets and Apostles had, giving them a new repetition of the same Articles and Precepts, and all this only from the Light within, as it is a common dispensation to all Mankind; the falsity of which, com∣mon experience, as well as the Testimony of Scripture doth sufficiently prove; for if the, Light within them doth de novo, give W.P. and his Brethren, the Revelation of all or most of these peculiar Doctrines of Christianity, why should they have it more than Jews, Mahometans, Deists and Hea∣thens, many of whom they account have been, and are faithful and obedient to the Dictates of the Light within them. Besides if more be revealed to the Quakers by the common Light within, than to other parts of Mankind, who have not the Scriptures; they must needs grant, their Rule of Faith is

more large and full, than that in others; and consequently not being so perfect in others, as in them, it is no general Rule of Faith, for thus he argued against the Scriptures. But if the Scriptures, are so wholly un∣certain upon the foundation of other Chri∣stians, and so certain upon the foundation of the Quakers, from their pretence to the same divine Inspiration that the Prophets and Apostles had, they would wonderfully oblige the Christian World, If we could believe them, to tell us, from their infallibility, what Translations are best; or rather to give us a new Translation by divine Inspira∣tion; and which of all the Copies, and va∣rious Iections are truest: but that this is a groundless and empty brag, is too appa∣rent, while their ignorance, and gross per∣versions of Scripture, and false Interpreta∣tions, are greater than any other in Christen∣dom, as can easily be proved. But in con∣tradiction to all this, that the Scriptures are certain, upon the Quakers foundation, from the divine Inspiration, and Revelation that the Spirit has given them of their Truth, much or indeed most of all this is again denyed by W.P. telling us, in answer to that Objection Page 32. This Light you speak of, could not tell you, which way Sin came into the World, that there was an Adam and Eve, that they fell after that manner,

and that Sin so entred the World, that Christ was born of a Virgin, suffered Death, and rose again, &c. He roundly answereth, that inasmuch as an account of those things hath been al∣ready revealed, and is extant, therefore any new Revelation of such things is not needed. I answer, How not needed? and yet certain to you, upon the Spirits inward Evidence and Testimony, and to none but you, and such as you, who pretend to the same Revelations with the Prophets and Apostles? However, seeing he grants, he and his Brethren have no Revelation from the Light within them, That Christ was born of a Virgin, suffered Death, and rose again; therefore he must needs confess, all these things concerning Christs Birth, Death, Resurrection, are uncertain to them, and so no matters of their Faith. And then seeing other Christians believe these things upon an inward Evidence and Testimony of the Spirit, though not by the same Revela∣tion in Kind or Specie with that of the Prophets and Apostles; yet by way of Seal to the truth of them, as above explained, the proper consequence of which is this, that all these great things recorded in Scripture, concerning Christ's birth of a Virgin, his having dyed for our Sins, his Resurrection, Ascension and Intercession for us in Heaven, are altogether uncertain upon the Quakers

foundation, because as W.P. confesseth not inwardly revealed to them, which yet are certain upon the foundation of all true Christians, to wit, the inward Testimony and Evidence of the Spirit, by way of seal∣ing to the Truth of them, as by an objective medium, as above explained. But why are not these things, concerning Christ's Birth, Death, revealed to the Quakers by W.P's confession? Why; because they are not ne∣cessary to be believed, they are none of the Eternal Precepts of the Spirit in the Con∣sciences of all Men, Teaching some few things of owning a great God Almighty, and some few moral Principles, of Temper∣ance and Justice, as doing as we would be done by; this is the Quakers Evangelium E∣ternum, their everlasting Gospel, whatever is more is unnecessary and Superfluous.

Page 32. He saith, To say the Light or Spirit could not do it, [viz. reveal that Christ was born of a Virgin, suffered Death, and rose again, &c.] is blasphemous as well as absurd: Answ. I know none that saith, the Spirit or God and Christ considered as the Light, could not do it; but that's not the Question, what the Spirit could do, or what the Light within, taking it in the highest Sense, as to signifie the divine Word, could or can do; but the proper state of the questi∣on is, whither the Spirit, or Light within,

hath given, generally any such Revelation of these things; which if he hath not given, and that to all Men, then to be sure, even by W.P's confession, such Revelation is no part of the Rule of Faith, for it is not what God who is Light, or the Spirit can reveal, but what he hath revealed that is the Rule of Faith, and doth ordinarily reveal. And seeing the Quakers, as W.P. hath granted, have no inward Revelation of these things, viz. That Christ was born of a Virgin, &c. It is no part of their Faith, or Creed, for the Rule of their Faith hath not taught it them. If any have said, the Light within every man cannot reveal these things, they do not mean by the Light within, either Christ or the Spirit, but that common Illu∣mination that is in all Men, that is neither Christ nor the Spirit, but yet is a gift of Christ and of the Spirit.

Section 17.

His Proofs out of the Fathers, and Primi∣tive Protestants, for the Spirits being the Rule of Faith, all Fallacious. An Instance of Calvin (quoted by him) in some Passage of his Institutions, expresly to the contrary. Whither the Esseni, Pythagoras, Clinias, and the Scythi∣ans, before our Saviour's Incarnation, thought Swearing unlawful, from the Light within.

AS for these, many Authors some Fathers, and other late Protestant Authors, that he quotes in confirmation of his Asserti∣on, viz. That the Scripture is not the Rule of Faith and Life, but the Light in every Conscience; none of all these quotati∣ons, which I have diligently read and con∣sidered, say any such thing, viz. That the Scriptures are not the Rule of Faith and Life, or that the Light in every Conscience is that Rule. Either he is very ignorant, and unacquainted in Calvin and Beza's wri∣ings, and other Protestants, or very unfair to quote them, when he cannot but know in his Conscience, if he be acquainted with them, that all those Protestant Authors did

Zeolously contend, that the Scripture was the Rule of Faith and Life, and though they did Zealously assert the necessity of the Spi∣rits Internal Evidence and Testimony, to Seal to the Truth of the Scripture, and give the understanding of it, yet none of them all that he has quoted say, or hold that the Spirit, or Light in every Consci∣ence is the Rule of Faith and Life; I remem∣no such Doctrine taught by them, and yet I suppose, I know their Doctrine, as well as he; and were it needful, I could produce sufficient Testimonies from their Books, that he has manifestly wronged them; but he who takes so great liberty to wrest the Scriptures, no wonder if he make bold to do the same with these Mens Writings.

His Quotation out of Calvin is this, Inst. Lib. 1. Cap. 8. It is necessary the same Spi∣rit that spake by the mouth of the Prophets, should pierce into our Hearts, to perswade us that they faithfully delivered that which was committed to them of God. This doth not prove that Calvin denyed the Scriptures to be the Rule of Faith, having expresly taught that they were.

But to shew how little acquainted W.P. is with Calvin's Doctrine in this point, [whom he hath quoted for him, to prove that the Scripture, or written word, is not the Rule of Faith, but the Light in every Con∣science,

or the Spirit abstractly considered from the written word] or how unfair and fallacious in so doing, if acquainted with his writings, I shall give some passages out of his Institutions.

That is, in English.* 1.1

For when the mind of Man, for its weakness, could by no way come to God, unless helped and assisted by his Holy Word, it was necessary that all Men, the Jews excepted, did walk in vanity and error, because they sought God with∣out the Word.

Thus we see, according to Calvin, how necessary was the Word of God, to wit, the Doctrine outwardly delivered of God to Men, by the Holy Prophets, to bring them to God, out of error and vanity, for by the Holy Word, it is manifest, Calvin meant not the Light within, which all Mankind had, as well as the Jews, but the outward Word of Doctrine delivered by the Prophets, according to Psal. 147.19▪ He shewed his Word unto Jacob, &c. The which external Word, he calls, Sect. 1. Aliud & melius adminiculum, i. e. another and better help, which was necessary, to direct us rightly to

the Creator of the World, comparing it with whatever other helps God had given to Mankind, (without them or within them,) which he calls, Communia illa Do∣cumenta, those common Documents, the which external Word, (he saith) is Rectior & certior ad ipsum Cognoscendum nota, i. e. a more right and more sure Mark, whereby to know him, which also he calls, the Rule of the Eternal verity, and cap. 9. Sect. 1. l. 1. inst. He calleth them Nebulones i. e. Knaves, and chargeth them with Nefarious Sacriledge, that divide the Word, to wit, the exter∣nal Word from the Spirit, which God hath Joyned together by an inviolable Bond; and in the Title of that Chapter, he calleth them Fanaticks, and saith, They overthrow all the Principles of Piety, who despising the Scrip∣ture, (to wit, considered as the Rule) flee over to Revelation, pretending to be taught by the Spirit, without the external Word. Where it is evident, he doth not mean, that who∣ever are taught by the outward Word, are sufficiently taught, without the Spirit; but that whoever are taught Savingly, to know God as the Creator, or Christ the Redeem∣er, they are taught of the Spirit, with and by the external Word, as the instrument of the Spirit which he hath given to us, for a Rule of Faith and Life, not that it's the Rule to the Spirit, but the Rule to us of the

Spirits giving and preparing, and which he perswades us to be Truth, by his secret operation in us. And as unfair and fallaci∣ous as W.P. hath been, in wresting, misap∣plying and abusing Calvin's words, to prove that he was not of another Mind, than W.P. viz. That the Scriptures is not the Rule of Faith and Life, he is as unfair, ab∣surd and fallacious in his quoting other late Protestant Authors, as Bish. Jewel, Dr. Ames, Dr. Owen, all which are sufficiently known by their Books to be of a contrary Mind, as much, as one thing can be to ano∣ther: The Quotations indeed taken out of those Authors, prove, that they did assert the necessity of the Spirits inward Opera∣tion, in the Souls of Men, to perswade them, to believe the Truth of the Scriptures, and the necessity of his Internal Illumination, to give the Saving understanding of them, as particularly the quotation given out of J. Calvin instit. lib. 1. c. 8. who gives the Sense of all those Authors, and indeed of all true Christians, viz. It is necessary, the same Spirit, that spake by the Mouth of the Prophets, should pierce into our Hearts, to perswade us, that they faithfully deliver∣ed that which was committed to them of God, which he illustrates by the word Obsignare, elsewhere in that Book, that is, by Sealing to the truth of them; but this

does not prove that this inward Obsigna∣tion of the Spirit is the Rule of Faith, even in Calvin's sense; or that the Scripture was not that Rule.

Page 36 It's strange that W.P. should bring a proof against the Lawfulness of Swear∣ing, from the Conviction of the Light within some Jews, long before Christ came, to wit, the Esseni, that when the Scriptures of the Old Testament made it lawful to Swear, in some Cases, (if W.P. believes that the Spirit of God did Dictate these Scriptures) that the same Spirit in the Esseni should teach them that it was unlawful, even while the Mo∣saical dispensation was yet standing. But how proves he that the Esseni did think Swearing unlawful, from a Conviction of the Light within them, when others of the most faithful of the Jews, both then and be∣fore that time did Judge Swearing Lawful, and that from the declared and revealed Will of God, in the Old Testament, that came from the Light within, in Moses and the Prophets, that was in force until Christ suffered, as to all the other parts of it. If he will allow, that the eternal Pre∣cepts of the Spirit in the Conscience, com∣mand one thing to some, and the quite con∣tradictory to another, surely at this rate, the Light within must be a very uncertain Rule, for by this Concession, one may take

the liberty to say, his Light within com∣mands him to Kill, to Steal, to commit Adultery, though the same Light in another forbids it. I had thought, that by the Eter∣precepts in the Conscience, W.P. had meant, those unchangeable Precepts, and Laws of Justice and Temperance, &c, which in all Ages have been the same to all Men, and will ever be the same to all, so long as the World lasteth. But now it seems, even the Precepts of Light within are not Eternal, but Temporal, and may be changed, and one may be commanded to Swear, or per∣mitted without Sin to Swear, and another forbidden. But there are two things that W.P. in his instance of the Esseni (that would not Swear, which he quotes out of Josephus and Philo. That they shun Oaths worse than Perjury; for they esteem him Condemned for a Lyer, who without it is not believed,) should prove, neither of which he hath done: First, That they held it Unlawful in any Case to Swear, even when called before Authority, for it may rather be thought, it was common Swear∣ing they were against, [a thing that was too ordinary among the Jews,] seeing the Law did allow Swearing in a Judicial way, Levit. 5. that was then in force. Secondly, Suppose they were against all Swearing, that they had this from the Light within them,

it is much more probable, it was an erronious Opinion in them, which could not proceed from the Light within, otherwise it had con∣tradicted the standing Law of God without, then in force, which not only allowed Swear∣ing, but commanded it upon necessary Occa∣sions. And as idle and impertinent are his Instances of Pythagoras, the Scythians in King Alexander's time, and Clinias, all which lived some hundreds of Years before Christ came in the Flesh. Now if Swearing was lawful by the Law of God among the Jews in those Ages, How can we suppose it unlawful among the Gentiles, since I know not one Instance can be given, that the Light in any Gentile did con∣demn what the Light within, or Law of God without, in the Jews, did justifie, for this were to set Light against Light? It's nothing to the purpose, if some in these ancient Times were against Swearing, but the Question is, Whither it was the Light in them that taught them so; or rather, whither it was not an erronious Opinion, like that of not eating Flesh, said to be taught also by Pythagoras, was that (thinks W.P.) from the Light within? If so, How does the Light in him allow him to eat it, and to take his liberty in diverse things, that the Severity of Pythagoras's Do∣ctrine did not allow? What if any now should say, that the Light within them forbids them to eat Flesh, How could W.P. convince them

of their Error? If he bring Paul's words, or any other Scripture words to his Conviction, may he not answer, that the Scripture is not the Rule of his Faith, and W.P. hath con∣firmed him, by his late Book that saith the same; and if the Light within, in the Esseni, might contradict the Scripture of the Old Testament, why may not the Light within in a Quaker, contradict the Scripture of the New Testament, both being given from the same Spirit; and the Scripture of the Old Testament, as binding to the Jews, before Christ's Incarnation, as the Scripture of the New Testament is to the Christians since. And how can W.P. prove, that Poligamy is against the Light within? It is granted, that the New Testament for∣bids it. But what then; by W.P's Doctrine, the greatest things in the New Testament, are not necessary absolutely to be believed, but upon Conviction of the Spirit, i. e. upon a new Revelation, as that Christ was born of a Virgin, dyed for our Sins, &c. And he plainly tells us, Any such new Revelation is not necessary: If this be not to turn People loose, and to run them into great Confusion, Light against Light, and Spirit against Spirit, while the Holy Scripture is denied to be the Rule of Faith and Life; yea, a Rule, I leave to the Sober and Intelligent to judge.

Section 18.

A Correction of a Saying of W.P. Scan∣dalous and Offensive to Christian Ears, That Men are not like to be informed of the Knowledge and Experience of the New Birth, from our Saviour's words to Nicomedus, John 3. Nor can that Scripture be my Rule (saith he) in that heavenly travel, &c. Neither can any other Writing whatever.

Page 29. HERE I find one passage more in this book of W.P's, that I am sure greatly derogates from the Scrip∣tures, and is justly offensive to Christian Ears. Having quoted our Saviour's words to Nicodemus, that he saith may be credited Historically, that unless a Man be born again, he cannot see the Kingdom of God, John 3. But what is that (saith he) to the Knowledge and Experience of the new Birth, that they are never like to be informed of there: Nor can that Scrip∣ture be my Rule in that heavenly Travel, re∣specting the many and wonderful Trials and Ex∣ercises, that are to be met with in the way to it. Neither can any other Writing whatever. This Only is the Office of that Spirit and Word Immortal, by which we are begotten again. I answer, Here he excludes not only that

place above mentioned, but the whole Scrip∣ture, from being instrumental to our Infor∣mation, and plainly denies that any can be informed of it there; this is indeed to make it not only not the Rule, but not a Rule in this great case. But his assertion is extream∣ly false, the place quoted (John 3.3, 5.) in∣forms us of the necessity of Regeneration; and the following words informs us, of the way and manner how it is wrought, to wit, by the Spirit, as the principal Efficient, and by Faith in the Son of Man, as the Instru∣mental cause; v. 14, 15, 16. and this Faith is wrought instrumentally, by the Words and Doctrine of the Gospel, called by Paul, (Rom. 6.17.) The Form, or Pattern, of Do∣ctrine, whereunto the believing Romans were delivered, as the Mettal that is melted into the Mould, that frames it into a Vessel. And will W.P. say, that his and his Brethrens Preaching and Words, inform People no∣thing of Regeneration, nor of the manner of it, and the several steps in the progress of it. If not, their Preaching so much of the New Birth, and the manner of it (at least as they think) is very unprofitable; but if they think their Preaching profitable, to inform concerning Regeneration, and man∣ner of it, then their Preaching must be bet∣ter than the whole Scripture. Had he said the Scripture without the Spirit cannot

guide or direct us in the way of Regenera∣tion, nor be instrumental towards it, with∣out the same, he had not been to blame, all true Christians say the same; but to exclude the Scriptures, that is, the Word and Do∣ctrine contained in the Scriptures, from be∣ing so much as an Organ or Instrument in the hand of the Spirit, as the Spirit giveth Efficacy to it, is extreamly false and erroni∣ous, and contradicts the Scriptures Testi∣mony, and the Experience of Thousands, who can set to their Seal, that the Spirit of God has made the Scriptures, to wit, the Word and Doctrine delivered in them, In∣strumental, both to their Conviction and Conversion. Surely James was of another mind than W.P. who said, That the Faithful were begotten of the Will of God, by the Word of Truth, and Peter said, They were made Partakers of the Divine Nature, by the exceeding great and precious Promises, (which are to be found in the Holy Scrip∣tures) through the Operation of the Divine Power. And as false it is, what he saith, That Experience (to wit, of the New Birth,) must go before all Doctrinal Scripture: Mean∣ing the Doctrine delivered in the Scripture, which was the same before it was written: This is to set the Cart before the Horse, as the Proverb is, or the Fruit before the Seed; Are Men regenerated in Blindness and Igno∣rance,

or rather are they not renewed in Knowledge? And this Knowledge, doth it not presuppose some doctrinal Principles, of which Men must be first convinced? Has the Doctrine of the great Love of God, in send∣ing his Son into the World outwardly to dye for us, and inwardly to enlighten us, no Influence on our Regeneration? Was Adam regenerated, before God gave him the Promise of the Womans Seed, after his Fall? by his Assertion it must be so, which is won∣derful Ignorance! Is he so little acquainted with the Holy Scriptures, as not to have seen the Lineaments, Steps and Progress of the New Birth, fairly delineated, and the whole manner of it, as clearly as any Coun∣try can be delineated in the fairest Map, with all the several Roads; but as the Map can be of no use; to a blind Man, though to a seeing, it is of great use; so to a Man whom the Spirit of God has in some measure en∣lightned, the Scriptures are as serviceable, as a Map to a Traveller, yea, and much more, they are really the Instrument of the Spirit, both for convincing and converting Men, and the Rule according to which the Spirit leads them, in the various steps of it. It is granted, That the Experience of Regeneration, in whom it is wrought, is much more than any verbal account of it by the best of words, and gives a Man in some respect, a more sa∣tisfactory

Knowledge of it, than any Man can have by Scripture words, or any words whatsoever, who is not himself regenerated, as the sight of a Country is more, and gives a Man a more satisfactory account of it, than all verbal Descriptions or Maps can do, to him that never was in the Country. Yet this proves not, but that the Geographical account of that Country by words and Maps, truly and accurately given, by Men of great Wisdom and Sincerety, is of great Service and Advan∣tage, both to Strangers who desire to see the Country and live in it, and also to them that already live in it. And for all the great Con∣ceit that W.P. has of his knowledge of the great Mystery of Regeneration, by his Ex∣perience, of which he denieth, That the Scrip∣tures have given him any Information: Yet he is very ignorant of it still, if he be of his former mind, as he wrote in his Preface to R.B's Works, That Regeneration is a greater Mystery than God manifest in the Flesh. Had W.P. con∣sulted Scripture, it would have better in∣formed him, and to be sure, the true Experi∣ence of Regeneration, never taught him any such horrid and extreamly false Assertion.

Page 31. He saith, The knowledge of those Pro∣phesies of Christ's Sufferings, was by extraordi∣nary Revelation, not falling within the ordinary Discoveries, that are absolutely necessary to Man's Salvation, by which he shews his Power and Faith∣fulness

that he is God, and can foretell, and will bring to pass. But therefore must there be an ex∣traordinary Light or Spirit, and not rather an ex∣traordinary Sight and Sense from one and the same Light and Spirit in them.

Answ. First, this quite overthrows his No∣tion of a general Rule, that must be one and the same to all Mankind; for if the Prophets had extraordinary Revelation, concerning Christ's Sufferings, which other Men have not that extraordinary Revelation, was the Rule of their Faith touching that matter, which could not be the Rule of Faith to them, who had no knowledge of that thing. Secondly, Though the inward extraordinary Revelati∣on, given to the Prophets concerning Christ's Sufferings, was not necessary to others of the Faithful, who were not Prophets, for their Salvation; yet the Knowledge and Faith of them was necessary to Salvation by some other means, to wit, by having the Doctrine, given to the Prophets by extraordinary Re∣velation, preached, or conveyed to the Faith∣ful by the ordinary outward means of Instru∣ction; which differing manner of convey∣ance makes not any difference in the Do∣ctrine, nor yet in the Faith of it, for Matter and Substance. Thirdly, That he makes the Faith of Christ's Sufferings, none of the ab∣solute Necessaries to our Christianity and Sal∣vation, because not given to us, as it was to

the Prophets by extraordinary Revelation. This plainly gives us a new and fresh Instance of his Deism and Paganism, appearing with open face; for if the Faith of Christ's Suffer∣ings be not necessary to our Salvation, because we have it not given us by extraordinary Re∣velation, as the Prophets had (which is a false Consequence) by the same reason, not one of the twelve Articles of the Apostles Creed, or any of the other Creeds, called the Nicene and Athanasian, nor any one of the peculiar Do∣ctrines and Articles of the Christian Faith, are necessary to our Salvation, though we hear them daily preached, or may daily read them in the Holy Scriptures, because by his false In∣ference, not given us by extraordinary Reve∣lation; and at this rate no more Faith is ne∣cessary to our Salvation, than what any Infi∣del Jew, or Mahometan, or Heathen may have, by the common Dictates of the Light in every one of their Consciences abstractly consider'd, without all means of outward Instruction by the Holy Scriptures, which is a plain under∣mining of the whole Christian Religion, and introducing Deism and Paganism in its room, and is really a degree more remote from Chri∣stianity, than any Pelagianism or Socinianism. Fourthly, Whereas he querieth, Must there be therefore an extraordinary Light or Spirit, and not rather an extraordinary Sight or Sense, from one and the same Light and Spirit in them.

I answer, Taking Light and Spirit in the high∣est sense, to signifie God, Christ, or the Holy Spirit, it will not infer another Light or Spi∣rit, but another Illumination, Inspiration and Revelation, as well as another Sight and Sense, proceeding from one and the same Spirit, and from one and the same Light, originally ac∣cording to the Doctrine of the Holy Scrip∣ture, that teacheth there is diversity of Ope∣rations, Administrations and Gifts, but one God, one Lord, and one Spirit. But the words and terms Light and Spirit sometimes in Scrip∣ture, signifie some Internal Act of Illuminati∣on, and Operation, and Gift of the Spirit; as when we read of the seven Spirits of God in Scripture, and that God is called the Father of Lights, this doth not signifie seven real di∣stinct Spirits of God, but seven Gifts or Vir∣tues, and Operations of one and the same Spi∣rit: And because there are several sorts of Illuminations, proceeding from one Light ori∣ginally, which is God, and the Divine Word, therefore they are called Lights; and in this sense (fully agreeable to Scripture) the Pro∣phets and all the Pen-men of the Holy Scrip∣tures, may be said to have had an extraordi∣nary Light and Spirit, as well as an extraordi∣nary Sight, that others of the Faithful had not, or now have not, and yet the Faith the same for Matter and Substance [for extraor∣dinary Revelation, may be called extraordi∣nary

Light well enough] and also the Faith∣ful may be said to have an extraordinary Light and Spirit, that no Infidel Jew, Mahometan, Heathen, or meer Moralist, Deist, or meer For∣mal Professor of Christianity hath, to wit, in respect of the diversity of the kinds and sorts of the Illuminations, according to the differ∣ing subjects, that of the Prophets differing from that of other Faithful Men that were not Prophets, who yet had the same Faith, though not conveyed by the same manner of Illumination, and the Illumination of the Faithful differing from the common Illumi∣nation, given in common to Mankind, which in the respects above-mentioned, may be said to be three several Lights and Spirits, accord∣ing to the three several subjects, all which are but originally one and the same; like to which we have an Example in the Beams of the Sun, that remaining the same in their nature, yet according to the differing Mediums and Sub∣jects of reception, seem wonderfully diversi∣fied, so that passing through Glasses of seve∣ral colours, as green, red, blew and yellow, the Beams or Rayes, will have these differing col∣ours, which diversity proceeds not from the nature of the Sun-beams, but the differing Me∣diums and Subjects; and thus also the same Influence of the Sun, melteth Wax and hard∣neth Clay; and operating on a Field where Barley is sown, contributes to produce a Crop

of Barley; but operating on a Field where Wheat is sown, contributes to produce a Crop of Wheat, from the differing Seeds and Sub∣jects it works upon.

Section 19▪

His Definition of the Judge of Contro∣versie, lame and fallacious, as his Defini∣tion of the general Rule and Faith; in what Sense the Spirit is the Judge of Controversie, quoad nos, i.e. as to us.

THus having gone through, and examined all that I have observed in his Book, giving his Reasons and Arguments, That the Scripture is not the Rule of Faith and Life, but the Light in every Conscience; and having shewn the Weakness, yea the Falsity of them, I thought it not necessary to take notice of his Enlargements and Amplifications on his several Arguments, but answer to the Argu∣ment it self, wherein its strength seemed to lye. I shall be brief in my Examination and an∣swer to his second part, to wit, concerning the Judge of Controversie, for, because it hath such a necessary Connexion with the former, the former being clearly discussed, the latter will easily be determined.

Page 39. He gives us his explanation, what he means by these Terms, Judge and

Controversie, A Judge (saith he) is one that has not only power to determine, but dis∣cerning to do it rightly. Controversie is a de∣bate between two parties, about the Truth or Falshood, to be determined by that Judge. But as he wrongly stated the Question in the first part, about the Rule, so here he is very short in stating the Controversie about the Judge. It is without all Question, among all that own that there is one great God Al∣mighty, that he is the Great and Supreme Judge, of what is Truth and what is not, universally, and that most perfectly and infallibly; and all that believe in Christ and in the Holy Spirit, do own that Christ and the Holy Spirit, together with the Father, are that Supreme Judge, as they are one and the same Supreme God; and not only so, but all true Christians own, that Christ, as the Son of Man, has all Judgment committed to him, and is both Head and Judge in his Church. Now that wherein W.P. is short in stating the Question here is, that he doth not assign the true Rule, whereby the Judge, to wit, God, Christ and the Spirit, doth give forth a definitive Judgment, to be un∣derstood and received, by the Members of the Church of Christ. Neither God, nor Christ, nor the Holy Spirit, need the Scrip∣ture, to give a Judgment, as to themselves, their knowledge of what is Truth, and

what is not so, is wholly independent from the Scripture, but the Question is to be thus stated, What Rule, Standard or Mea∣sure, God, Christ and the Spirit has given to the faithful, in particular, and to the whole Church in general, since the Doctrine of the true Faith was committed to wri∣ting, whereby they may understand, and know, the true Judgment and determinati∣on of God, and Christ, and the Holy Spi∣rit, the Supreme Judge of Controversie. True it is, that the Law-giver is the best interpreter of any point that may concern his own Law, and therefore as God is the Law-maker, so he is the Supreme Judge and Interpreter of his Law. But as an Earthly Law-giver, suppose an Earthly King, with the consent of the great Coun∣sel of the Nation, gives forth his Laws to his Subjects, if any Controversie arise about the true sense of those Laws, the King and his Counsel that made those Laws, is to de∣termine the Controversie by the Laws them∣selves, one part of the Law serving as a Key, to open what is hard to be understood in ano∣ther part of it. Thus it is in this Nation, and commonly in all Nations, for the Law is supposed to be such a perfect Law, Intire and Compleat, that the Sense of it needs not be given by giving forth any new Law, to give the sense of the former; nor ought

any Subject to presume to give his private Interpretation of the Law, by any private Gloss or Sense, which he cannot demon∣strate from the Law it self; and as it's thus, as to the Laws of Men, how much more is it so, as to the Laws of God? The Laws of Men indeed, receive frequently new Addi∣tions and Alterations, and yet this cannot be done, but by Publick Authority: But the Law and Rule of Faith and Life, that God has given to the Faithful, and to his Church, now under the New Testament, is so full, perfect and comprehensive, that is, fully Sufficient without any Addition; and if it can be supposed, that it may please God to give forth any new Laws to his Church, it must be allowed, that there must be the same Evidence, and ground of receiving them to be such, as was given for the Old Testament by Moses, and for the New Testament by Christ. Now had W.P. fairly stated the question, he should have stated it thus, Whither the Spirit of Christ, (whose Judgment and Determination is all one with that of Christ and the Father) doth give his Judgment to the Church, and the Members of it, by any other Law or Rule, Measure or Standard, than what is already to be-found in the Holy Scriptures, whether relating to Articles of Faith, or positive Precepts of revealed and instituted

Religion, by Christ and his Apostles in the New Testament. Or whither the Spirit gives this Judgment, not by the Doctrines and Precepts contained in the Scriptures, but by the common discoveries and Dictates of the Light within every Man's Consci∣ence, which are commonly the same, and of the same extent in all Mankind, be they Jews and Mahometans, and Painims abroad, or Deists at home here in England or else∣where: Or lastly, whither by any new par∣ticular Discoveries, Revelations or Dictates, and new Precepts of the Spirit, not former∣ly given, either to Mankind in general, or to the Church in particular. To the first, all sound Christians agree. The Second is, the sence of W.P. and those of his Bre∣thren of the Second Days Meeting that have approved his Book. The third is, the sence of some of the chief Teachers and Leaders, that first arose among the Quakers, that did affirm, they had new Commands given from the Spirit, by immediat Revela∣tion from Heaven, some of which are nei∣ther the common Dictates of the Light in every Conscience of Mankind, nor to be found in the Scriptures, either expresly, or by any necessary consequence from them. And indeed the first Teachers and Leaders amongst that People, did not think it worth while, to prove their Doctrine, or warrant

their Interpretations, by consequences from Scripture; but the general proof was, This is the Word of the Lord unto you; for G.F. (see his Journal) plainly told, that when he first came forth, he was commanded of God, to say thee and thou to every Man to whom he spoke, and not to put off his Hat to any: Also the setting up of Womens Government in their Meetings, distinct from the Men, by the more devout sort, who did think, and still think, that G.F. was a Prophet, as im∣mediately sent as Moses, or any other, is Judged to have been by a Divine Authority and Power in G.F. without any depen∣dance on Scripture Rule, or seeking to fish it by consequence from Scripture. And pray what need is there to bring Scrip∣ture proof, for any thing that Men either believe or practise, either by consequence or express words, seeing that is not the Rule of either Faith or practise, but the Light in every Conscience, as W.P. saith here in this Book, or some New Revelation, or discovery, that neither Jews nor Turks, nor other Deists have, nor all Christendom, but only and alone, the People called Quakers. But if these new Revelations be their Rule in the Case, it quite overturns W.P's Fabrick, of setting up a general Rule of Faith and Life in every Man's Conscience. For a new Revelation, that only one part of Mankind

hath, cannot be a general Rule. W.P. makes not the Light within (which he will have to be the Spirit, or God himself, or Christ in every Man,) abstractly considered from the inward discoveries, Dictates and Precepts there delivered, to be the general Rule, which he calls the Eternal Precepts of the Spirit in the Conscience, and the No∣ble precepts writ in Man's Heart, Phrases that he has borrowed from some Heathen writers, as Pythagoras and Sophocles, and which are to be owned in their place, to be such, and to be a general Rule of Moral Justice and Temperance, as is above owned; but not either the general Rule of the Chri∣stian Religion, with respect to its peculiar Doctrines, and Precepts, nor indeed so much as any Rule at all in that state; nor indeed is it at all proper to call the Spirit the Rule in his Sense, but rather the Dictates and discoveries of the Spirit, which W.P. calls sometimes Revelation, to wit, Internal, and the Internal Testimony of the Spirit, Eter∣nal Precepts and noble Laws writ in all Men's Hearts; for the Spirit abstractly considered, from all Internal and External discovery, Revelation and Testimony, teacheth Men nothing at all, and therefore can be no Rule to them, as such. And seeing W.P. hath cast away the Holy Scriptures from being the Rule of Faith and Practise even to us

Christians, that is, all and every one of the peculiar Doctrines and Precepts of Christi∣anity, that are to be sure no part of those Eternal Precepts and Laws writ in all Mens Consciences, not one of them, nor all of those peculiar Doctrines and Precepts, are so much as a part of the Christians Rule of Faith and Life; for if it were, then the Christians, the Deists, the Mahometans, and Infidel Jews, should not have one general Rule of Faith and Life, which he contends for.

Page 41. He proposeth an Objection, and pretends to solve it. Obj. But is not the Scripture the Judge of Controversie. [He should rather have made the Objection run thus, Is not the Scripture the Rule, where∣by the Spirit of Truth, who is properly the Judge, doth by his inward ordinary illumi∣nation in the Faithful, determine the Con∣troversie, in all the necessary things of Sal∣vation? Yea, and also in many other things, though not absolutely necessary, yet very profitable.] He Answers. How can that be, since the Question most times arises about the meaning of Scripture? I reply, yet still the Scripture is the proper Rule to deter∣mine the Controversie, even when the questi∣on ariseth about the meaning of the Scrip∣ture; because what seemeth obscure in some places of Scripture are, opened and made plain by other plain places of Scripture,

treating on the same Subject, that are as a Key to open them, with out any other Rule than the Scripture it self; only there is need of the Spirits Internal Illumination and assist∣ance to help us to use that Key, especially in reference to the saving knowledge of them.

He proceeds in his answer to the Objecti∣on, saying, Is there any place (to wit, in Scrip∣ture) tells us, without Interpretation, whither the Socinian or Trinitarian be in the right, in their differing Apprehensions of the Three that bear re∣cord, &c. Also the Homousian and Arian about Christ's Divinity, or the Papists or Protestants about Transubstantiation. If then things are left undefin'd and undetermined, I mean literally and expresly in the Scripture, and that the Question arises about the Sense of words, Doth the Scripture de∣termine which of these Interpreters hit the mark? From all which he concludes, that not the Scripture, but the Interpretation must de∣cide the Matter in Controversie, and that In∣terpretation must be given from the Spirit of God, to be a true and infallible Interpre∣tation.

Answ. Seeing that Interpretation, accord∣ing to W.P. cannot be given from the Spirit, without an extraordinary Revelation, the things in Controversie, being such (accord∣ing to W.P's Phrase and Confession, P. 31.) as fall not within the ordinary Discoveries, that are absolutely necessary to Man's Salva∣tion;

and that W.P. also grants, that he and his Brethren have no such extraordi∣nary Revelation, for it is not needful, being none of the absolute Necessaries to our Salva∣tion, P. 33. It evidently follows, that neither W.P. nor any of his Brethren, nor indeed any other Men now living whatsoever, have any certainty whither the Socinian or Trinitarian be in the right; that is, whither Christ is God, and whither Christ had any Existence before Mary; and whither Christ be in any of the Faithful, yea or nay; yea W.P. hath no certainty of this Fundamental Principle, that Christ is in him, or in any of his Bre∣thren; the great reason of their Assertion, that Christ is in them, being, that Christ is God; so that if it be not certain from Scrip∣ture, that Christ is God; and if the Socinian Doctrine should prove true, that Christ is only a Man, it will evidently follow, (as I think W.P. will grant) that it is utterly false that Christ is in any Men whatsoever; and that that Light that is in Men, even the most Faithful, is not Christ; for how can that, which is only a meer Man, and a meer Crea∣ture, [as the Socinians say that Christ only is] be in all Men. Again, If it cannot be deter∣mined from Scripture, without extraordinary Revelation, (which W.P. grants, neither he nor his Brethren have, as touching these Mat∣ters,) whither the Arians or the Homonsians be

in the right; it evidently followeth, that nei∣ther W.P. nor his Brethren, are certain, whi∣ther the word mentioned John 1.1. be any other than a meer Creature; and consequent∣ly they are not certain, but that they them∣selves are Idolaters, who give any Divine Worship to Christ, as he is that Word. Also if it be not certain from Scripture, whither the Papists or Protestants be in the right about Transubstantiation, without extraordinary Re∣velation, according to W.P's way of arguing, If the Papists should happen to be in the right, and W.P. by his Confession, knoweth nothing to the contrary but that they are, he and his Brethren should be guilty of hor∣rid Contempt and Blasphemy, to call that which is the Body of Christ, nothing but Bread. And is not this Assertion of W.P. a fair Inlet to Popery, that the Scripture doth not determine expresly, without Interpretation, and that Interpretation cannot be had with∣out new Revelation, whither the Papists Do∣ctrine of Transubstantiation be true? So that to him at present, it is a Matter of Indifferency; and if W.P. should turn Papist, or suppose him to be one, when he declares himself, he needs only pretend a Revelation for that and all the other Matters in Controversie betwixt Protestants and Papists, to justifie him, and prove him to be no Changeling. And at this rate of W.P's arguing, not only all the pecu∣liar

Doctrines of Christianity are wholly un∣certain, and Papists, Socinians and Arians, and other the worst of Hereticks, that oppugn the Christian Doctrine and Faith, may happen to be in the right, and these called the Orthodox to be in the wrong; but the great Funda∣mental of the Quakers is overthrown, and ren∣dred uncertain also; yea, this very Position, that he laboureth so much to establish, That not the Scriptures, but the Light in every Man's Conscience, is the Rule of Faith and Life to every Man. For this Position of his, is not literally and expresly in the Scripture; so that ac∣cording to W.P. not the Scripture, but his and his Brethrens Interpretation must deter∣mine this Controversie; and this cannot be done without extraordinary Revelation, it being none of those things that fall within the ordinary Discoveries of Men, to wit, that the Light in every Man's Conscience is Christ, and God, for then Christ would be God, and the Socinians would be Blasphemers that deny him so to be. By all which it evidently ap¦pears, that this Argument of W.P. not only renders all the peculiar Doctrines of Christi∣anity meer Scepticism and Uncertainty; but the great Fundamental of the Quakers, as con∣cerning the Light being Christ in them, and the Rule of their Faith, to be equally Scepti∣cism and Uncertainty. But that he saith, Christ's Divinity is left undetermin'd in Scrip∣ture

literally and expresly, is false; for it is in several places literally and expresly affirm'd that Christ is God, and that and many other Truths suppose not literally and expresly mentioned in Scripture, yet by good and ne∣cessary Consequences, without all extraordi∣nary Revelation from plain places of Scrip∣ture, can be certainly inferred. And if he will not allow that there is any certainty by ar∣guing from the Scriptures, by Consequences of true Reason, his whole Discourse in this his Book that I am now answering is disallow∣able, for he has not brought one place of Scripture, that literally and expresly saith, the Scripture is not the Rule of Faith, or that the Light in every Man's Conscience is; and he doth not pretend to extraordinary Revelati∣on in the Case; and if he did of shall, he must give us leave to distrust him, until he bring sufficient Evidence for it, which I believe he will never be able to do: Yea, the Falsity of his Reasonings by way of Consequence, to prove his Position, That not the Scripture, but the Light in every Man's Conscience is the Rule of Faith and Life, is evidently apparent, from the answers already given. And suppose he should pretend to extraordinary Revelation in the case, and that that is the ground of his Certainty, and Rule of his Faith, even that Pretence destroyeth his Fabrick; for seeing all Men have not that extraordinary Revela∣tion,

it cannot be a general Rule. If he say, The common discovery that every Man hath, teacheth him sufficiently without either Scrip∣ture or extraordinary Revelation, That the Light in every Man's Conscience is the Rule of Faith. I answer, How can that be, unless it were a self-evident Proposition, as that the whole is greater than the part; and if it be a self-evident Proposition, why hath W.P. taken so great pains to prove it? Men commonly think it needless, to prove any self-evident Proposi∣tion, and properly speaking, it is impossible to be proved. But if his said Position has no self-evidence of the Truth of it, how shall it be proved? not from Scripture, for that would make the Scripture the Rule; nor from Hu∣mane Reason, for that would make Humane Reason the Rule, which W.P. seems not to set up for the Rule. It is granted, that the Light in every Man's Conscience, in respect of some Moral Principles of Justice and Temperance, has a Self▪evidence, and so far is a Rule; but that it is the Rule of Faith to Christians is denied; and by whatever Medium he proveth it, that must be his Rule, by his manner of ar∣guing, which runs him into the like vitious Circle as the Papists are run into, when they prove the certainty of Tradition by the Church, and the certainty of the Church by Tradition; so W.P. proves, that the Light within is the Rule of Faith by the Scripture, and the certainty of the Scripture by the Light within.

Section 20.

His Proposal of the way, to determine all Contro∣versie destructive to the Christian Religon, lets in Deism and Heathenism to overspread the World, a Remedy worse than the Disease. His misrepresentation of sound Protestants, and false and uncharitable Judgment of them. Several Scripture places, that prove the Doctrine of the Holy Scriptures to be the Rule of Faith and Life, to all Christian People.

I Confess he hath one very notable and plausible Answer to an Objection made by himself P. 44. were it as true, as seemingly fair and plausible. The Objection is this, How will this determine Controversie, (viz, to cast away the Scriptures from being the gene∣ral Rule of Faith and Life, and to set up the Light in every Man's Conscience, according to the general Discoveries it gives to all Man∣kind) and allay the Fury of Debates that are on foot in the World. He answereth roundly, No∣thing like it, if Men adhere to it. But first were it true. it would have this mischievous and yet most necessary Consequence, that the Chri∣stian Religion would be utterly lost, so far as it hath any peculiarity, or peculiar Dignity, Worth and Advantage, above Deism or Pa∣ganism. A rare Cure indeed, that W.P. here prescribes to all Christendom, to heal their Breaches, and end the Disputes and Contro∣versies betwixt the worst sort of Hereticks, and the most Orthodox Christians; and be∣twixt

Papists and Protestants; such a Remedy here prescribed by him, is worse than the Dis∣ease. He saith, Most Perswasions (he should have come out more plainly with his Expedient, saying, most Hereticks, Arians, Nestorians, Sabel∣lians, Eutychians, and them of the opposed side called Orthodox, yea, Papists and Protestants) agree in his general Rule of Faith and Life, that is, they own the common and general Dictates of the Light in the Conscience, and so doth the civilized part of the whole World of Mankind, and agree about what he makes the absolute Necessaries, viz▪ That God is, that he is a Rewarder of them that dili∣gently seek him; that the way of God is a way of Purity, Patience, Meekness, &c. with∣out which no Man shall see the Lord. Now all Hereticks commonly (few I think excepted) own these Generals, and many of them have Moral Lives; Is this enough to their eternal Salvation, though they deny the Lord that bought them with his precious Blood, as he outwardly suffered on the Cross, on this pre∣tence, that their general Rule set up here by W.P. teacheth them nothing of any such Lord that bought them, with any Blood outwardly shed for them? Is not this the ready way to open the Flood-gate, and to let in Deism and Heathenism, to over-run not only England, but all Christendom; and not only to destroy the Protestant Christian Religion, but any re∣mains of Christian Doctrine that are in the

Popish Countries? But from this Cure of W.P. we have all great cause to pray, Good Lord deliver us. But nor would this Cure he proposeth, be successful upon the Hypothesis of his general Rule, if universally received for a Rule. The Heathen Philosophers, many of whom professed and owned the Light in every Conscience, as it did enlighten their Reason, yet how many great Controversies were there among them notwithstanding, and oft great Heats and Animosities.

And if this Cure of W.P. be so effectual, how comes it, that it has not healed the breaches and great Controversies, that have been on foot these Forty Years, chiefly about G. Foxes orders, his party contending that they were the Dictates of the Light, both in G.F. and all his followers: the other party as strongly denying it, that they were any Dictates of the true Light within; and let W.P. tell us, when any such Contro∣versie arises, which are the true Dictates of the Light and true Spirit, abstractly con∣sidered from the Scripture, what shall be the Cure in that Case? He seems indeed to give an answer to this in Page 42. Answ. By the same Spirit as well said Gualt. Cradock, the way to know, whither the Spirit be in us, is its own Evidence, and that is the way to know it in others too; and the Man that hath the Spirit, may know the Spirit in another. There is (saith he) a kind of Sagacity in the Saints to this

purpose. To this I answer, where the Spirits Doctrine, which is the Doctrine both of Christ and the Father, goeth along with the Spirit, according to Isaiah 59 21. and many other places of Scripture, there is a great Truth in it; but whatever Spirit either teacheth another Doctrine, or draweth Men away from the necessary belief of Christ's Death in the Flesh, in being a Sacrifice for our Sins, and other Fundamental Principles pecu∣liar to Christianity, is not the true Spirit of Christ, whatever Unity or Sagacity W.P. and his Brethren may think they have, to know it in one another, while he and they make no∣thing to be the Rule of Faith, but the Light in every Conscience (John 2.9.) which teacheth not this Doctrine of Faith, nor proposeth this great Object of Faith, to wit, Christ Crucified to the Conscience, they destroy all necessity of that Faith, as concerned in our Salvation: However with plausible shews, he and they will say it is necessary, where the History, as he terms it, has reached; but how? not for Salvation, but historically, as we believe the History of Alexander or Julius Cesar, or as W.P. and his Brethren pretend to believe G.F's Journal.

The Difficulty that he moves P. 41. about Interpretation of Scripture, is easily resolved, without any new material object of Faith, if the Spirit of God be acknowledged in∣wardly to enlighten the Understandings of

the faithful, and that they faithfully receive the same, it will infallibly, give to all the Faithful, so much of the true knowledge and Faith of all Scripture Doctrine, as is necessary to Salvation. Page. 46. As unfair and fallacious as he hath been, in his Definitions and Argu∣ments about the Rule of Faith and Life, no less unfair and fallacious is he, in his representing many Ortho∣dox and sincere Protestants, as if they Judged the Quakers for their asserting an unerring, certain, or in∣fallible Judgment in things necessary to Salvation. This is a very unfair representation of them: The Question lyeth not about an unerring certain and infal∣lible Judgment, given by the Spirit of God to all the faithful, in the things necessary to Salvation, which they fully assert. But the Question lyeth here, whither they have this infallible Judgment, either by the com∣mon Discoveries and Dictates of the Light in every Man's Conscience, or by any new discoveries of the Spirit, abstractly and seperately considered from the Scriptures; so that the Doctrine, as delivered in the Holy Scriptures, is not the Rule, or Instrument, whereby the Spirit works or begets this infallible Judgment in them, in all the necessary things of Salvation, [which ••et are more and others, than those assigned by W.P.] to wit, Faith in Christ crucified, and rais∣ed again, and other fundamental Doctrines of the Chri∣stian Religion.

A Second part of the question is, Whither all, or any of the Quakers, when met in their Yearly Meet∣ings, or any other Meetings, or the most enlightned among them, have an infallible Judgment given them in all things, as their chief Teachers have asserted; so that they are not only infallible in the most ne∣cessary things, but in other things; Yea, in all that they have given forth, either in Preaching or Wri∣ting, as the Word of the Lord, and with an Authority the same in kind with the Prophets, as W.P. doth in the Conclu••ion of this Book, where he pretends that he has a Message to tell them, and that from the Spi∣rit

of the Lord God of Truth, and that is, Page 48. That Men unregenerated, for all their external imitations, of the Ancients in some Temporary and figurative parts of Worship, will never be accepted. But this is no extra∣ordinary Revelation, it is a Doctrine that is daily taught, and generally believed among all true Christi∣ans, that never were under the profession of Quakers. But the fallacy is here, that all are unregenerate in his Sense, who own, that what they are taught and helped to believe know or practise, is by the Doctrine contained in the Holy Scriptures, as the Rule of their Faith and Life, and Instrument of the Spirits prepa∣ring and giving them, the Spirit himself being the principal efficient. Author and Cause, and primary principle of their Knowledge, Faith and Practise. Yet all this is Judged by W.P. here in his Conclusion, to be nothing, but a literal Knowledge, Historical Faith, and outward Religion, that is but as the Old Heaven, that are to be wrapt up as a scroul, and the Old Wine and Bottles that belong not to the Kingdom of God. For which Uncharitable and False Judgment, I heartily pray God that he may forgive him, and giving him a better un∣derstanding, and reclaim him, (if it be the blessed Will of God) from those most dangerous errors he is intangled in, and especially from this, that is the foun∣dation of his other errors, to wit, his Deism and setting up the Light within, or Spirit, or whatever he calls i••, abstractly and seperately from Christ's Doctrine and Words, even those divine Oracles and Words which the Father gave to Christ, and Christ gave them, by his Holy Spirit to the Apostles, John 17.8. And by the same Holy Spirit, by means of the Apostles wri∣ting has given to all the faithful since; thus dividing what God and Christ have Joyned together, surely this cannot be the true Light nor Spirit in him, or his Brethren, that leads away People from hearing the true Shepherds Voice, either as it is outwardly sounded in the outward Ministry of the Word, outwardly Preached, or as it is inwardly sounded and Eccho'd

by the Holy Spirit, in Teaching the faithful to believe the same Doctrine, that is outwardly delivered in the Holy Scriptures. My Sheep, said Christ, hear my Voice; they that draw from Christ's Doctrine, being the Rule of Faith and Life to every true Christian, draw from the Spirit of Christ, and from his Voice, whatever seeming pretences they fallaciously make, to exalt the Spirit, by rejecting that Instrument, to wit, the Rule of the Holy Scriptures, by which the Spirit doth both enlighten the faithful, and beget Faith and Hope, and Love in them, by the precious Oracles and Testimo∣nies therein contained; and also doth refresh, quicken and comfort them, If the Spirit, and his divine influ∣ences be the Wine that refresheth and cherisheth them; the Scripture so to speak, are the Flagons that convey it to them, according to the words in the Song, Cant. 2.5. Stay me with Flagons, comfort me with Apples, and many other plain Testimonies of Scripture, that hold forth in God's ordinary way the Doctrine of the Holy Scriptures, as outwardly delivered, to be the means (and therefore the Rule) by which the Spirit doth both Teach, and also Quicken, Comfort and strengthen them; such as these following places, which I recommend to W.P. and his Brethrens Considerati∣on, Psal. 19.7, 8, 9, 10, 11. Prov. 6.23. Psal. 119. 4, 5, 6, 18, 49, 50, 105. Psal. 147.19, 20. Isaiah 8.20.59.21. John 10.3. John 17.8, 20. John 20.31. John 5 39. Acts 10.44. Rom. 16.17. Rom. 16.25.26. Gal. 3.2. Eph. 1.13. 1 Thes. 1.5. 1 Tim. 4.16. 2 Tim. 1.13. 2 Tim. 2.20. 2 Tim. 3.15, 16, 17.

28th of the First Month, 1699.

G. K.

FINIS.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Nam cum humana mens pro sua imbecilli∣tate, pervenire ad Deum nullo modo queat, nisi sacro ejus verbo adjuta & sublevata, omnes tunc mortales, exceptis Ju∣daeis, quia Deum sine verbo querebant necesse fuit in vanitate atque errore versari. Calvin Instit. Lib. 1. c.6. S.4.