Truths defence, or, The pretended examination by John Alexander of Leith of the principles of those (called Quakers) falsly termed by him Jesuitico-Quakerism, re-examined and confuted : together with some animadversions on the dedication of his book to Sir Robert Clayton, then Mayor of London / by G.K.

The pretended Examination of the Principles of those called Qua∣kers (Falsly called Jesuitico-Quakerism) by John Alex∣ander in Leith, Re-examined and Confuted, by G. K.

CHAP. I.

IN my Answer to this pretended Examina∣tion of I. A. I intend to observe on his Answer to every Question wherein he misrepresents, or perverts the state of the Que∣stion; and wherein he hath missed to Answer ••it: Also to Answer briefly, but I hope suffici∣ently and distinctly what is necessary to the

Vindication of Truth, (not to every Word or Sentence, nor to every frivolous and weak or impertinent Argument, where the solu∣tion thereof lyeth obvious to any ordinary understanding, but) to any thing alledged by him that seemeth Material, or to require an Answer, referring the Enquiring and Truth-loving Reader to divers Treatises al∣ready published (not to mention our Friends books in England) by some here in Scotland, to wit, R. B. his Apology▪ also to his Answer in Vindication thereof to I. B. al••o his book called, Truth cleared of Calumnies, in Answer to W. M. in Aberden. And the Answer given by the said R. B. and me to the Students of Aberden; as also to divers Treatises published by me, such as my book of Immediate Reve∣lation, my book of Vniversal Grace, my book called, The Way cast up, my book called, The Rector Corrected, in Answer to T. W. who calls himself Rector of Arrow, and lastly to my book called, Quakerism no Popery. And though to this last book I. A. hath replyed in some few particulars, which I purpose, so far as may seem requisite, to Answer; yet he hath quite passed by the most material passages, and especially all the Authorities and Testimonies of Ancient Writers; and also of the Pro∣testants brought by me, as concurring with the Scriptures Testimony, to clear us of that

imputation of Popery falsly charged upon us by I. M. To none of which weighty Testi∣monies hath the said I. A. replyed one word. Now because there is little or nothing that seems Material of I. A. his Objections that is not already fully answered in these Books and Treatises above mentioned, therefore I Judge it not needful to Write a large or particular Answer to every thing; yet lest he should seem too wise in his own Eyes, or lest he and others that favour him, should think he is stronger, than really he is; and especially to prevent the stumbling of the weak, into whose hands his book may come. I purpose, through the Lords Assistance, to reply some things, which may suffice on every Head or Section.

What hath induced I. A. to Dedicate his book against us, to the Mayor of London, may seem no impertinent Query. Had he none in all his Native Country whom he had confidence in to Patronize his under∣takings? Or being Conscious of his small esteem at home, did he despair to find any Liberal Mecenas in Scotland, and therefore he must go so far as London to find out one, and that no less then the Mayor himself, to whom it may be supposed I. A. his greatest com∣mendation was his being a stranger: And that he saith in his Epistle to the said Eminent

person; His Treatise presums not to add any lustre to his Name, whereof it is uncapable: That may well be believed, that his Book is indeed uncapable of adding any lustre there∣unto. But why was he not afraid that it would detract from his lustre? It were good, that those Eminent persons in the World, who suffer men to Superscribe their Names as Patrons to their Books, did first examine them diligently, if they did deserve any such Patronage, lest Error masking it self under the name of Truth, seek the Protecti∣on, as is too common now in the World. And for my part, I have no small conjecture, that if the said Eminent person, to whom this disingenuous and impertinent piece by I. A. is Dedicated, had but taken the leisure or pains, to review but one sixth part of it, he had never suffered his Name to be super∣scribed to it. And I am very hopeful that the Mayor of London, who hath divers thou∣sands of that people, within his Precinct in that Famous City; many of whom I judge are better known to him, than I. A. ever was, hath more charity towards the people called in scorn Quakers, than to believe I. A. his description of them in his said Epistle; were he expresly alledgeth on them, That they renounce all true Principles of Religion, and stifle their very faculties of Reason; charging

them also with Absurdity: And in his Pre∣face to the Reader he calleth them, Vncir∣cumcised Philistins and reproachful Adversaries; having in their Queries and other Papers, dis∣gorged as many Lies against God and his Truth, and as many Slanders against the Church of God in Brittain, as if they had exchanged both Per∣sons and Offices with••the Father of Lies and Accuser of the Brethren. But if that Eminent person, whose Name and Favour this I. A. hath abused, shall please to look into this small Treatise, in Answer to that of I. A. I hope he shall find, that they are falsly charged with those Crimes. It seemeth no new or strange thing to us to be so falsly ac∣cused, knowing that not only our Fellow Servants and Brethren in former Generations, have been so used, but also the Head him••elf, and Captain of our Salvation, the Lord Jesus Christ, was not only numbred among trans∣gressors, but called a Blasphemer, and said to have a Devil: And the Lord forewarned his Disciples and Followers that they should be so lied upon, and all manner of evil things said against them falsly for his Name sake. But rejoyce, said he, and be glad, for great is your reward in Heaven.

Now whereas I. A. calleth his Book, A Vindication of the Church of God in Brittain, he ought to have told what Church he

meant, seeing there are divers sorts of people in Brittain, who call themselves the Church of God, and yet in divers things Dissent from I. A. And upon review of his Book, I find the said I. A. his Principles to be almost whol∣ly Calvinistical, and particularly, 1. That he denyeth the Vniversal Grace of God, or that Christ hath died for all men. 2. That he denyeth that God hath any regard to the new Creature, or work of Conversion, or Repentance to be so much as a condition requisite in order to our Iustifica∣tion. 3. That he denyeth that any can be free from actual sining in this Life by any Grace of God given them, or to be given. These and other principles alledged by him, which are whol∣ly Calvinistical, are as much disliked by many and some of those, the most considerable, of the Episcopal Church in Brittain, as by us. And I judge that I. A. should hold himself a Member of th••s Episcopal Church, seeing he himself Officiates as Reader and Presentor at at Leith, under Iohn Hamilton an Episcopal Preacher, who hath also recommended his Book. And therefore seeing I. A. hath un∣dertaken the Vindication of the Church of God in Brittain, as he alledgeth against the Quakers; he must either acknowledge, that the Episcopal Church in Brittain is not the Church of God, whereof he is a professed Member, or else have proved out of the the Episcopal

Church now in Brittain, that she avoweth and owneth such principles, all and every one, as he asserteth; and that those Eminent and Noted persons, both in England and Scotland, who dissent from him, and agree with us, in those principles already mentioned, are He∣reticks, and renouncers of true principles of Religion, stifling the faculties of reason; such as among others in England, R. Cudworth, and H. More, accounted great Doctors, also Wil∣liam Sharlock, and I. A. his Reverend and much admired Rich▪ Baxter, whom he par∣ticularly opposeth in the matter of Justificati∣on: And in Scotland, Bishop William Forbes in his Treatise called, Considerationes modestae & pacificae Controvers. As also divers other persons of Note yet living, whose Names I need not to mention; all which I suppose, and thousands more in the Episcopal Church in Brittain, of all Qualities and Ranks, will be loath to acknowledge I. A. for a Patron or Defender of their Faith; but rather find ••ault with him in those things, as an Enemy of their Faith, and in other things a be∣wrayer and betrayer of it, rather then a De∣fender. In his Preface to the Reader, he ex∣cuseth himself that he hath not Cited any humane Testimonies (meaning Authorities of Ancient and Modern Writers) against us Seeing these (saith he) they do not value, ex∣cept

when they think they make for them, especi∣ally ad hominem. And with this slender pre∣text, I suppose he thinketh to evade the many Testimonies I brought to confirm the Truth of our principles, in my Book called Quake∣rism no Popery, even out of Writters both Ancient and late, of great esteem among them; none of which he hath once so much as touched. But to Answer to his Charge, I say, we value the Testimonies of all Writers, whe∣ther Ancient or late, which are true, and agree with the Scriptures, as much as any Protestants do, or more than he doth. And seeing he imputeth it as a fault to us, that we will not own the Testimonies of others, against us; I ask him, if he would own or value any Testimonies of Authors that make against him, or his Judgment? If he say nay, then his excuse is removed, and he hath nought to say for this omission. But the matter seemeth to be in effect, that those Testimonies adduced by me in the foresaid Treatise he knew not how to Answer, unless by saying that those persons erred in those principles, as much as we, which he was loath to acknowledge, lest he should seem to weaken the Charge of his Title against us, and acknowledge his own party, and those that are more worth of Credit than himself, equally guilty of Iesuitism with the people

called Quakers, wherewith he doth falsly ac∣cuse them.

And here I shall give a List or Catalogue of divers gross Perversions and Calumnies, where∣by he seeketh to abuse his Reader, in the very Preface of his book against us: As 1. That we reject all manner of External Ordinances; Which is notoriously false, as all who have the least knowledge of us can witness; that we are for Meeting together, and that fre∣quently; and when we meet, to Preach, Ex∣hort, Pray, and give Thanks to God in Au∣dible words, as the Spirit of the Lord doth help us: And can I. A. say that none of these are External Ordinances or Appointments; and we challenge him to instance any one Ex∣ternal Ordinance or Appointment of God that is truly so, which we are against: For it is but only humane Institutions, (and Abo∣lished shadows) set up as Divine Ordinances which we oppose, as in the Sequel of this Treatise doth appear. 2. He saith, We do di∣rectly strike at the Foundation of all with one blow, overturning (so far as we can) the whole rule of Faith and Duty, setting a new one of our own Invention in the room thereof. But why doth he charge us so highly in this matter? because we cannot own the Letter or Exter∣nal Testimony of the Scriptures, as the pri∣mary Rule or Foundation of Faith; but only

Christ Jesus, the first and last; concerning whom Paul hath writ, That another founda∣tion no man can lay, then that which is laid al∣ready, which is Christ Iesus. And said the Lord, behold I lay in Zion an Elect precious Corner stone, a sure foundation: Which to be sure, is not the Letter, but Christ and his Spirit, Light and Life revealed in the heart. And I Query this Accuser I. A. whether, if to ac∣knowledge Christ in his immediate Teachings by his Spirit in mens hearts, is to set up a false Foundation or overturn the true one; the Apostles are guilty of this Charge, as to their own particulars; seeing I. A. will not deny, but that the Apostles had Christ immediatly to Teach them, and speak in them: And was it not the Apostle Paul his labour to build the Churches upon Christ, that their Faith might not stand in men, (though sent and moved of God) but in the power of God. And though I. A. blame us for setting up the Light within for the Rule, yet Christ taught people to believe in the Light, and that this Light was not the Scripture, which he bid them believe in is clear; that he said, While ye have the Light, believe in the Light, that ye may be the Children of it: This clearly Imports, that this Light should not long remain with them, if they did not believe in it, as he said in the foregoing Verse, Yet a little while is the Light

with you; walk while ye have the Light, lest darkness come upon you, see Iohn 12. 35, 36. And indeed the gracious Visitation of Light did not long after remain with them who did reject it, although the Scriptures did remain with them: And therefore the Light which he bid them believe in, was not the Letter of the Scripture, but Christ himself, who said, I am the Light of the World. 3. He saith, This Heresie (so he calleth our Faith) is a very Sink or an Vniversal System of almost all the gross Errors, which hitherto have annoyed the Church of God: And herein he doth imitate I. Brown, and the Author of the Postcript to S. R. his Epistles, who have so charged us; but how unjustly, we hope our Answers do sufficiently evince: And surely this I. A. in the Art of Slandering and false Accusing, may pass muster for a Lieutenant to those afore∣said Champions, who have led the way be∣fore him in this enterprise. It is not unknown, how the Papists loaded the Protestants, at their appearing, and do still at this day load them with such kind of Charges; and to none is it more familiar to blame others for Heresie, than those who are greatest Hereticks them∣selves. 4. He saith, In Doctrine, we trample generally upon the whole Moral Law, but more especially upon the first Table: And here very falsly he Charges our Doctrine to be contrary

to the first, second, fourth, fifth, sixth and ninth Commandments: but let us see how he maketh good his Charge in each of them. He alledgeth our Doctrine transgresseth the first Commandment, because we say, All Prayer and Worship that is performed without the Spirit of God, is Will-worship and Superstition, and consequently no wicked or unregenerate per∣sons are bound to Worship God, or indeed in any respect to obey God: And from thence he con∣cludes, They are not under any Law of God; and therefore lastly, let them do what they will, they cannot sin against God, such men (in the Quakers Principles, as he saith) may deny, disown, re∣ject, hate and contemn God, worship the Devil, and debauch at their pleasure; they may law∣fully dishonour and defame all men, Murder, commit Adultery, Steal, bear false Witness, and yet they cannot sin, because they are under no Law. Hence also he infers, That Reprobates are most unjustly condemned for their sinning against God, seeing they (not having received the Spirit) are not under Law to God, and so can∣not be guilty of sinning against him.

Now what Sober, Impartial and indiffe∣rent person that is not byassed with deep pre∣judice against us, seeth not, that these absurd consequences have not the least shadow of any Rational inference. For although we say in∣deed▪ that there is no true Worship, but that

which is in Spirit, according to the express words of Christ; and that none are true Worshippers of God, but such as Worship him n the Spirit; and that God requireth no Lifeless or Spiritless Worship; yet we still af∣firm that all mankind ought to Worship God, and Call upon him, even all the wick∣ed and unrenewed persons, as well as the renewed; so that in the thing of Worship it self, we have no Controversy, whether it be due unto God by all mankind; but the state of the Question lyeth here betwixt us, and those that dissent from us, what the Wor∣ship of God is, and what kind or sort of Wor∣ship it is that God requires of all men: And in Answer thereunto, we say, the true Wor∣ship of God is a Spiritual Worship, requiring the sincerity of the heart not as a circumstance, or accidental thing, but as the essential part thereof, which cannot be done without the Spirit of God: How much therefore more True and Rational consequence is it to argue thus. God commands all men to Worship him, therefore he hath given some measure more or less of the help of his Spirit, unto all men, whereby they may so do, which doth continue with them so long as it pleaseth God, who taketh away this help from none, but such as mightily provoke him, and sin out the day of their Visitation. And even those whom

the Lord in his Justice hath withdrawn that help or grace of his Spirit, are still bound by the Law of God, to Worship him, as much as ever; even when they neither do, or can Worship him truly, because they have brought this unpotency or inability upon themselves, by their own unfaithfulness: Even as a Servant or Steward that hath re∣ceived a sum of Money to pay his Master, and the said Servant spendeth the Money upon his Lusts, and hath not one Penny, where∣with to pay the debt; yet he is still lyable for the whole sum. Hence what I. A. saith in page 11. of his Preface, is true, that the in∣ability of unrenewed men, to perform accep∣table Worship, neither does nor can take away their Obligation to perform it. But we differ from I. A. in the cause or reason, why those who want that ability are still un∣der the said Obligation; which reason he will have only and alone mens losing it in Adam, in whom they all once had it; and the losing of it is their fault, citing Rom. 5. 12, 19.

But to this I Answer, First, Whatever loss or inability is come upon Adam's posterity by the primitive disobedience; yet now by ver∣tue of the second Adam his obedience, a new ability is conferred upon all men; So that as broad as the Sore did spread by the first sin,

even as broad is the Plaister that God hath provided to the Lame and Diseased Souls of all mankind. And this is most clear and plain from Rom. 5. 18. as also from Ioh. 3. 19. And this is the condemnation (said Christ) that Light is come into the world, and men loved dark∣ness rather than Light, because their deeds were evil: So we see, that Christ layeth not the ground of wicked mens condemnation upon Adams sin, but upon their hating the Light that did come unto them as a new and fresh discovery and visitation of Gods love. But secondly, Whether this Inability is come up∣on the wicked by reason of Adam's sin, or by their own actual disobedience since that time; yet we affirm no less than I. A. that the most wicked and ungodly are still under the obli∣gation to the whole Law of God; and their inability can be no ground of excuse unto them. But the true state of the Queston is this, Whether wicked men, not simply as men, or creatures, but as wicked, and remaining still in their wickedness, should, or are required to offer up unto God hypocritical and lifeless performances of that which men commonly call Prayer and Worship; but is no more so in the sight of God, than a dead Picture of Stone or Clay is a true living man; and so whether God did ever require any to draw near to him with their Mouths, and remove

their Hearts far away, as the manner of all wicked persons, while so remaining, always is: Now we say, God never required such sort of Prayers, but refused and forbad them, to be offered unto him, even under the Law, see Isaiah 1. 13. Bring no more vain Oblations; and v. 12. When ye come to appear before me, who hath required this at your hand to tread my Courts? Again Psal. 50. 16, 17. But unto the wicked, God saith, what hast thou to do to declare my Statutes, or that thou shouldest take my Covenant in thy mouth, seeing thou hatest in∣struction, &c. And whereas I. A. citeth some words of our Friends, That wicked men should not Pray; let the Impartial and Indifferent Reader understand these words, in the Sense of those Scriptures just now mentioned, which are as positive and full, as any that can be cited out of our Friends Books, and all occasion of mistake shall be removed. For neither the Sense of the Scripture, nor of our Friends is, That wicked men are b••und in no respect to Wor∣••ip God; for the contrary is manifest from the words cited by I. A. out of the Book called, The Principles of Truth••, where he alledgeth their words, saying, All men ought first to wait, until they receive the Spirit in Truth, then in the same Truth to Worship God in Spirit who is a Spirit. So we see by I. A. his own Confession, the Quakers teach that all

men ought to Worship God in the Spirit, and that they may indeed Worship him, they would have all men follow the Lords order, which is to wait, or watch unto Prayer; and they would have men in the first place cease or depart from their wickedness; and then by the help of the Spirit (which is never wanting in the proper season of it) to come and Pray unto God. And that this is no new or invented way of the Quakers so called; Read Isaiah 1. 16, 17, 18. where the Lord by the Prophet bids first, That they wash and be clean, and put away the evil of their doings, &c. And then said he, Come now let us reason together: Also Peter com∣manded Simon Magus to joyn Repentance with Prayer; Repent (said he) and Pray, that the Thoughts of thy heart may be forgiven thee. And for the more clear understanding of this whole matter, we are to consider, that Prayer is either simply Mental, and with the heart on∣ly, or both Mental and Vocal; to wit, both with heart and Mouth. Now as for Mental Prayer, at least in respect of the bent or frame and inclination of the Heart, God re∣quireth it always of all men; and it is pos∣sible for all men, if they but receive that help of his Spirit, which he giveth or offereth unto men always to perform it. But as for Vocal Prayer, he neither doth re∣quire it at all times, nor doth he give the help at

all times, nor the utterance whereby to per∣form it. And it is observable, that under the Gospel, no particular set or limited time is appointed for Vocal Prayer: But every one is to wait to know the times of the Spirits call and moving thereunto, which will be season∣ably and frequently afforded to such as wait singly therefore, especially when the people of God Assemble together; for then it is that Vocal Prayer is of greatest use and service, though it hath also its use and service in pri∣vate, or when one is apart.

But whereas I. A. alledgeth further, That if wicked men are not to Pray, (viz. their Hypo∣critical Prayers) because they sin when they Pray; No man on earth should offer to Pray or Worship God, seeing as he saith, There is somewhat of sin ••leaving to the best Actions of the Saints here away. To this I answer; That there is somewhat of sin cleaving to the best Actions of the Saints here away is denyed, seeing it is asserted by him without proof, for the Scriptures cited by him, viz. Prov. 20. 9. Gal. 5. 17. say no such thing, and by con∣sequence he hath not evinced it; and for a proof to the contrary, see Iob 16. 17. Malach. 1. 11. But secondly, nor doth it follow, that men, who are not yet come to a perfect state, but labour sincerely under the burden of their sins, to be delivered from them, may not

Pray unto God, because their Prayer, as they put it up unto God by the help of his Spirit is pure and without all sin, proceeding from the pure or renewed part of their hearts; for it is only the pure or renewed part of the heart, from which indeed the true Prayer doth pro∣ceed; even as on the contrary, the evil de∣sires and affections arise and spring only from the impure and unrenewed part. Therefore he that hath this unrenewed part in him, ought to watch against it, while he prayeth, that he give it no liberty to move or stir, as indeed he ought to watch against it at all other times. And though he that prayeth sincerely, being not attained to a sinless state, pray not with that degree or measure of fervency, wherewith another more perfect doth or can pray; yet God regarding that mans sincerity, he accepteth his Prayer, in Christ, and for Christs sake pardoneth him, when at any time he committeth a weakness in his Prayer, in not keeping purely to the Spirit.

Again, Lastly, Whereas I. A. objecteth, That the Plowing, Eating, Sleeping, &c. of the wicked is sin: Shall the wicked then do nothing at all, because whatever they do, they go about it in a sinful manner. I answer, This consequence doth no wise follow, because there is a great difference betwixt a wicked mans Plowing, Eating, Drinking, &c. and

his Praying, as remaining wicked and alie∣nated from the Spirit of God; for his Plowing, Eating, Drinking, or any other Corporal or Natural actions, are really these actions, and they are profitable and necessary in the Creation; and when he performeth these actions he faileth not in the substance or matter of the action required, but only in the man∣ner; for the substance or matter of a wicked mans Plowing, Eating, Travelling, is not sin, but the manner of it, viz. That it is not in Faith, but a wicked mans Prayer, as he is a wicked man, is no true Prayer at all, it hath nothing of the true substance of true and real Prayer, it is a meer picture, or dead resem∣blance of Prayer; and is rather a mocking God, than praying unto him; for it wants the life of true Prayer, which alone the Spirit of God doth give; and thus a plain difference is demonstrated betwixt the two cases: and the Unvalidity of I. A. his consequences in this whole matter is evinced. And if the Reader desire further satisfaction, in this particular, let him Read our Answer to the Students, and R. B. his Apology, where these Objections of I. A. are largely Answered, for he has brought no new matter against us; and it had been better he had both spared his own pains, and not troubled the world with his repeating o∣ther mens Arguments, long since answered. As

for his instance of our opposing the second Commandment, by our rejecting, wresting and abusing the Word of God, and avowing of Error and Blasphemy; seeing it is but a bare alledging, without any shadow of proof; it is enough as simply to deny it, as he doth simply affirm it. But another instance he giveth of our opposing the second Command∣ment, By swallowing down our Meat and Drink (as so many Beasts) without any Prayer and Thansgiving; without which (if they will believe the Apostle, 1 Tim. 4. 3, 4, 5.) they are not sancti∣ed. But how unjustly he chargeth this upon us, I can freely leave to the Judgment of all sober and true Christians. For how doth he prove that we Eat, or Drink, or receive any Creatures of God without Prayer and Thanksgivings? Because we do not always use Vocal and External Prayer, when we Eat and Drink although at other times we use it, as God is pleased to give utterance, and are most glad either to do it, or joyn with these, who do it by the help of Gods Spirit: But is I. A. so ignorant and unreasonable to think that theirs is no Prayer, or Thanksgiving, nor any use of the Word of God, but that which is Vocal and External: Do we not Read of the Prayer of the Heart in Scripture, and also of Singing and making Melody in the heart unto the Lord, as well as with the Mouth? Or

doth I. A. think that brutes can do this, as well as we, that he compares our Eating and Drink∣ing altogether to that of Brutes. However for the satisfaction of those that are sober. I futher declare, that we hold it our duty, and I hope, we can say, it is our aim, and endea∣vour in all our Eating and Drinking, and in the receiving all the Mercies of God, both Spiritual and Temporal, to reeeive them with Prayer and Thanksgiving, either both Mental and Vocal; or at least Mental, which we know is aceepted of God, if in sincerity when the Vocal is not used. And they who Pray, or seem to Pray with their Lips and Voices, when their Hearts are far away, as it is too much the general manner and custom of people; their Eating and Drinking is worse than that of Brutes, which sin not when they Eat, as all wicked persons do. But I ask I. A. doth he use Vocal and External Prayer and Thanksgiving, always when he receives any of the Creatures of God; as in the use of To∣bacco▪ or Tasting a little Wine, or Ale, oc∣casionally in a Tavern; or when walking in an Orchard, is his Conscience so scrupulous, that he cannot Taste an Aple, but he must use Vocal Prayer: I suppose he is not so scru∣pulous. And doth not I. A. know, that there is not one moment of our Life, but we are still receiving the Creatures of God, seeing

every breathing or receiving in of the Air, is a renewed Mercy and Ble••ing of God, with many others continually added unto us: And yet the Lord doth not continually require Vocal Prayer, in the continual use of t••ose Mercies. And here I shall propose a few plain Questions for I. A. to Answer, upon this whole matter. 1. Whether one that sincerely useth Prayer and Thanksgiving in his ••••art before he Eateth and Drinketh, and in his Eating and Drinking; and at a•••• other times la∣boureth to have his heart exercised in the ••ear of God, although at times he use not Vocal Prayer, before and after Meat, is not more unlike to a Brute, and more indeed a true Christian; than he, who knoweth not what it is to fear God, or Pray to God sincerely in his heart, at any time, yet always at Meal∣times useth a form of dead and lifeless words before and after Meat. 2. Whether to Pray without the Spirit and without sincerity of heart, be not a transgressing of the first, se∣cond and third Commandments. 3. Whe∣ther that Doctrine which teacheth men to Pray spiritless and hypocritical Prayers, doth not oppose these three Commandments. Fur∣ther I. A. doth alledge, that we do openly impugne the fourth Commandment, in one of the following Queries, unto which place, he referreth the Controversy. To 〈◊〉〈◊〉 I

Answer, and so he might all the rest, with∣out prepossessing his Reader with prejudice against us, until he had heard the whole matter more amply discussed.

Our opposing the fifth Commandment he instanceth; in not taking off our Hats, and bowing the body in Salutations: But seeing the fifth Commandment mentioneth no such form of Honour, nor doth he deduce it by any just consequence therefrom, It is as easily denyed by us, as affirmed by him. Nor doth it follow, as he alledgeth, that because we are to obey ehe fifth Commandment, with our Bodies, as well as with our Souls; that therefore we are to take off our Hats, in giving that honour to Parents; for the Iews to whom that command was particularly given, used no such form of honor or respect. And as for bowing the Body, although it was practised under the Law, yet we find it for∣bidden under the Gospel, as in the case of Cornelius bowing to Peter: And in the New Testament we read of no bowing that is lawful, but that which is at the Name of Jesus, and of God Almighty. Again, whereas he al∣ledgeth, that from the words of Christ, Iohn 5. 44. We Impugne the very letter of the fifth Commandment, and declare that no manner of Civil Reverence or regard is to be given to any man. I Answer, this is a false Charge like un∣to

the rest; for we deny not, that there is a civil regard and honour that is due unto all men, in their respective degrees, which is also to be signified and practised with a suit∣able outward behaviour of the body, and may very well be, without either uncove∣ring the Head, or bowing the Knee, such as to rise up before the Hoary-Head, or those that are our Superiours; also to stand before them, to speak humbly, or be silent, unless when required, or liberty is given; also to havean humble Aspect, or regard of the Eye and Face towards them, to give the Hand, if required; to be ready at a beck to Answer their Call, and to walk and run to serve them, in what is requisite; these and many such instances of External Honour and respect, may Children lawfully practice to their Pa∣rents, and Inferiors to their Superiors, with∣out either bowing the Knee, or taking off the Hat. But certainly these words of Christ, Ioh. 5. 44. Condemn all false honour which the spirit of the World hath invented: And such we have good cause to hold the uncovering of the Head to men, until I. A. can produce a better Original for it.

Lastly, His instances of our opposing the sixth and ninth Commandments; seeing they are but Allegations, I pass them.

And thus I have gone through all that I saw requisite in his Preface to answer, which may occasion me to be the more brief in the things that follow, where most of the same things do again occurr.

CHAP. II.

ANd here I give the Reader to know, that this pretended Examination of I. A. is in Answer to 17 Queries, which he saith came to him subscribed by I. S. But I believe I. S. never did Subscribe those Queries, nor was he Author of them, but some of our Friends in England; however it is possible that through a mistake, some had put the said Letters unto them. And though I. A. seemeth not a little offended that these Queries should be directed for one or all of the Ministers in Scotland to Answer, as if such a direction did argue both the Arrogance and weakness of the Authors; yet I do not believe that they all can Answer them sufficiently, holding to Scripture, without renouncing their former Principles in great part. Far less is this pre∣tended Examination of I. A. any sufficient Answer unto them, as the sequel I hope shall

make appear. In his Survey or Examination of the first Query, he alledgeth, That the Questionist doth pervert the whole state of the Question, For, saith he, who ever heard that the Church of Scotland, or any other Church, made humane Arts and Sciences an Infallible Rule to make a Minister of Christ? then they should never have required more of any man in order to his admission to that Office, but his alone sufficient skill in Grammar and Logick, which the Adversaries themselves know to be most false.

To this I Answer, That not the Questionist but I. A. doth pervert the state of the Questi∣on, for the Question was not, Whether Gram∣mar and Logick, and the many Tongues, &c. was the only infallible Rule to make a Mini∣ster of Christ: but whether it was an infal∣lible Rule, &c. Now that may be conceived to be an Infallible Ru••e, which is not the In∣fallible Rule. Nor doth I. A. his consequence follow, that then they should never have re∣quired more of any man in order to his ad∣mission to that Office, but his alone sufficient skill in Grammar and Logick, an example in other cases will show the weakness of this Consequence. It is reported that Plato made it an Infallible Rule to receive none into his School, but he who had some skill in Geome∣try, doth it therefore follow, that he required

no more of any man, in order to his admis∣sion, to be his Scholar, but that he had some skill in that Science. Another Instance may be this, in divers Incorporations and Cities it is an Infallible Rule, That none may be ad∣mitted to be a Magistrate in the said City or Incorporation, but he that is a Freeman there∣in, doth it therefore follow, that nothing is more required of any man in order to his be∣ing a Magistrate, but that he be a Freeman in that City? Now suppose the Church of Scotland make it not the one only Rule to make a Minister of Christ, that he hath Grammar, Logick, and the Languages, yet it may be very fairly Queried I hope, whether she makes it not an Infallible Rule? Seeing for many years by-gone she hath made no Mi∣nisters, but some as at least pretend to have Grammar and Logick, and Languages, and are called Masters of those Arts, (howbeit many of them have but a very small scantling of them for all the stress that seems to be laid on them.) And I Query whether it be not one of the Canons of the Church, that none be admitted into the Office of the Ministry but who have those aforesaid Arts? And if there be no infallible or absolute Rule or Canon in the case, then why do they not frequently al∣low men, wanting those Arts, who possib∣ly may have all the other Qualifications

required, to enter into the Ministry. And it is further Queried, Whether I. A. or the Church that he doth own, doth establish and avow that Doctrine of Iames Durhame, posi∣tively asserted in his Commentary on the Revelation, that Grammar Logick, or the like acquired Arts, are necessary to the esse or be∣ing of a Minister of Christ, and consequent∣ly much more necessary than true Piety and Godliness, which he maketh only but neces∣sary to his bene esse or better being, and only accidental to his being a Minister of Christ. And this Question, which is indeed the main design of the first Question, as is obvious to any ordinary understanding, I. A. for all his glorious pretence hath not in the least An∣swered, which is therefore returned upon him to be further considered.

And whereas I. A. saith, That Grammar and Logick are ordinary means of Knowledge, exceedingly requisite in a Minister. If by Gram∣mar and Logick he mean not those innate gift•• (which may be well called natural as com∣mon to all men having the ordinary use of un∣derstanding, and which I acknowledge to be in some degree necessary unto all) but the Systems of those Arts, as they are artificially composed of a great many Rules and Pre∣cepts, and commonly taught in the Schools. I ask I. A. Why are they more requisite in a

Minister, than in the rest of the Church? Ought not all the Church to have the know∣ledge of God, and of the Principles of Chri∣stian Religion as well as the Minister. And may not some of the people come to have as much true knowledge of God, as their Teachers; yea, may they not become wiser than their Teachers, as David said concerning himself? and whereby did David become wiser than his Teachers, was it by the hu∣mane Arts of Grammar and Logick? I trow not, but by the Law of God, wherein he did meditate both day and night. May not therefore people come to have as much know∣ledge of God at this day, without those aforesaid Arts, only by meditating in the said Law or Word, and praying to the Lord, as also waiting upon the Lord to have their un∣derstandings more and more opened, to un∣derstand the Scriptures, as I. A. hath, with all the help of his Arts? And if I. A. think that those Arts are necessary to attain Divine Knowledge, so as he who wants them, may not know as much of Divine things, as he who has them, I am not of his mind, nor •• hope are many others in his Church, who believe they may both know the Lord, and daily grow in the knowledge of Him till they have as much, and perhaps more of true Divine Knowledge than I. A. ever had, with∣out

all I. A. his Arts, which he doth so high∣ly magnifie.

But I. A. saith, The Infallible rule to make a Minister of Christ, is set down in 1 Tim. 3. and Tit. 1.

Answ. It is very well. But I cannot find in these places, or any where else in all the Scripture; that Artificial Grammar and Logick, are made any one part of that Infallible Rule, or that God hath any where appointed them, as ordinary means of attaining Divine know∣ledge. And if they be the ordinary means of Divine knowledge; then it must needs fol∣low, that all who have the least measure of true Divine knowledge, have also humane Arts, or else they are extraordinarily taught; none of which I judge I. A. will readily grant. Now the Infallible rule set down by the Apostle, in these places already cited, requireth, That Bishops and Deacons (and consequently Mi∣nisters) should be blameless, sober, just, holy, temperate: And I Query I: A. if this one only qualification, viz. To be Holy, be as much made an Infallible rule, to make a Minister of Christ in the Church he owneth, as to have Grammar, and Logick, and Tongues: And how is this consistent with the foresaid Doctrine, that real Holiness is not necessary to the esse or being of a Minister of Christ? For is not that which is the infallible rule, to

make a Minister of Christ necessary to his very esse or being.

In the following part of his Examination of this first Query, I. A. doth further wrong the people called Quakers, As if they did hold that Grammar, Logick, and Languages, were un∣lawful among Christians: And upon this idle and false Supposition, he disputeth for the lawfulness of those Arts, which none of these people, so far as I know, deny: And for a proof to the contrary, that people have Schools wherein Grammar, and the Langu∣ages, viz. Hebrew, Greek and Latin are Taught, and some other Arts. Nor is it the use of these things, but the abuse of them, and lay∣ing too great a stress upon them, that we op∣pose. Nor do we deny, but Grammar, Lo∣gick, and especially the knowledge of the Hebrew and Greek Languages, may be of good use and service to him that is a Minister of Christ in a subordinate and subservient way, when he hath to do with men, especially that g••ory in these Arts, and in the abuse of them, contend against the Truth; such adversaries may be lawfully redargued from their own principles, and the points of their own wea∣pons turned against them, as the Lord giveth fr••••dom fo to do; although the simple naked Truth, out of the mou••h of a man, having none of those Arts, has more prevailed

against a Letter-learned Adversary many times, than many Learned men have done, whereof a famous instance is recorded to have befallen at the Council of Nice, where a simple Lay-man convinced again-saying Philosopher so called, when the Learned Bishops and Doctors could nothing prevail upon him; the which passage is at length recorded in Lucas Osiander, his Epitome of the Church History, Centur. 4.

But the said I. A. seemeth to dispute, not only for the lawfulness of Grammar and Lo∣gick, as they are Taught in Schools, but for the absolute necessity of them, to a Minister of Christ. For he saith, Would they then have a Minister, not knowing how to Speak and Write Sense. To which I Answer, And think∣eth he that none in all the Church of Scotland knoweth how to Speak and Write Sense, but they who have Learned the Art of Grammar. I suppose there are many thousands in that Church, who never Learned any Art of Grammar, that have as good Sense, and can both Speak and Write to as good Sense; at least in their Mother Tongue, as I. A. and perhaps to better too, if that Proverb hold good, That an Ounce of Mother-wit, is worth a Pound of Clergy. And do we not commonly Learn to Speak and Write our Mother Tongue, without any Rules of Grammar;

and these who so Learn to Speak and Write, only by Reading and Hearing, without Rules of Grammar, speak well enough to be understood. And what great or intollerable defect is it, if a Minister of Christ, having suf∣ficient knowledge and Piety requisite to that Office, should Speak or Write a little Incon∣gruous Grammar; doth or should that Un∣minister him? Is not a blemish or error in Life and Conversation, much more intole∣rable; although such is the Vice of the Times, whereof some good men have formerly com∣plained, that he who breaks a Rule of Gram∣mar, is more noticed, than he who breaks the Rule of Piety.

Nor doth the Translation of the Scriptures out of Hebrew and Greek, argue the absolute nec••ssity of those Languages, unto the Ministers of Christ; seeing men who are not Ministers, might have done that: And now since the Scriptures are Translated, (which we acknow∣ledge is a great Blessing of God) the Know∣ledge of these Languages seemeth less ne∣cessary on a general account; seeing what∣ever errors or weaknesses may be found in the present Iranss∣tions, they contain the form of found words, in respect of the more ne∣cessary things: And therefore the Scriptures thus Translated to him, who is indued with that Spirit that gave them forth, may well

enough suffice, though he hath neither He∣brew nor Greek: Which for all this pretended necessity, the far greatest part of those called Ministers in these three Nations have not so much skill of, but that they are as much ob∣liged to the Translation as many others that make no such Vaunt. And it is a great que∣stion; for all this pretended necessity of He∣brew and Greek, whether many called Mi∣nisters in these three Nations, ever once in all their life Read an intire Chapter of the Bible in Hebrew, or indeed can so do: And I see no cause why there is any more abso∣lute necessity for a Preacher to have Hebrew and Greek than any ordinary true Chri∣stian; for if true Faith, Knowledge and Piety, can be attained as well without Hebrew and Greek, as with it, then why is it made abs••••lutely necessary in the one, rather than in the other. Nor do we plead against the lawful∣ness or good use that may be made of Tongues▪ because they began at Babel, as I. A. doth alledge; but seeing they began at Babel, or Babylon, we may lawfully infer, they are not absolutely necessary to give the true knowledge of God, nor to make true Preachers, seeing there were men that did both truly know the Lord, and also Preach∣ed him in Truth, before the many Lan∣guages came in. Nor is I. A. his Argument

for the necessity of School-Logick less imper∣tinent. He that knows nothing (saith he) how to define, divide, judge and Argument aright (if any such were) is in no better capacity, than the Ass speaking to his Master: Take there (saith he) the Quakers Minister, very fit for Balaam's Sadle, if he had but four Legs. Ignorance I see is the Mother of the Quakers Devotion. By this Argument I. A. (as it seemeth) concludes, that all men who want School-Logick, are no more men, and have no more the use of their Rational Faculties, to define, divide, judge and Argument aright, than Balaam's Ass; and thus he puts many thousands, and ten thousands of his Fellow-Church-Members in the same List with Balaam's Ass, and maketh them as unskilsul to define, divide, judge and Argument aright, as Balaam's Ass, only be∣cause they want School-Logick. And is this a Vindication of the Church of Brittain, so to defame the greatest part of all her Members, by comparing them to Balaam's Ass, only for want of School-Logick, which I suppose scarce the hundreth person has any knowledge of? Indeed I confess, it hath been but too fa∣miliar for such men, to repute the people as Asses▪ for want of those School-Arts; and they have but too much used them in times past as Asses, and also Rid upon them. But whether is not I. A. short of Balaam's

Ass, which saw the Angel of God, and had its mouth immediatly opened by the Lord to reprove the Prophet; to none of which I. A. hath any pretence. and why doth I. A. con∣clude, That Ignorance is the Mother of the Quakers Devotion? Because they have not commonly School-Logick, and judge it not absolutely necessary to any Christian, or Mi∣nister of Christ. Then by I. A. his Irronical and Sarcasme, none have true Devotion, but these who have School-Logick; the which re∣flection striketh as much against his own Church Members as us. And I suppose there are many thousands in the so called Church of Scotland, that may think I. A. deserves a sharp reproof, for such an idle Satyr, as to conclude, because we establish not School-Logick as necessary•• to Devotion, That therefore Ignorance (according to us) is the Mother of Devotion. When the Prote∣stants blame the Papists for holding Igno∣rance to be the Mother of Devotion, I un∣derstand they mean the ignorance of the Scriptures, and principles of Religion, and not of School-Logick, which men may either have or want, and yet be truly Devout: And for all this scorn of I. A. I shall mind him of what Augustine observed above 12 hundred years ago, Surgunt indocti, & indoctae, & ra∣piunt coelum a nobis doctis: The unlearned men

and women arise and take the Kingdom from us who are the Learned: Which may well at least be applyed against them, who glory in their Artificial Learning, and set it up higher than it doth deserve. And said Paul, to the Corin∣thians, as well to the Preachers among them as others; For ye see your Calling Brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, &c. are called. And what is a man with all his School-Logick and other Natural Sciences and Arts, but a wise man after the flesh: And yet according to Paul's Doctrine, God had not chosen many such either to be Christians or Ministers. Moreover, whereas I. A. pleadeth for the great commendation of Humane Arts and Sciences of Grammar, Logick, &c. from Isaiah 50. 4. and 2 Pet. 3. 16. It re∣maineth for him to prove, that these places are to be understood of such kind of Learning, which I deny; and on the contrary affirm, it is Divine and Supernatural Learning, which is there to be understood. As to Isaiah 29. v. 12. 14. I grant that it is meant of human∣ly Learned; but it maketh clearly against him, seeing the Vision was a Sealed Book, as well to the Learned, as to the Unlear••∣ed: And therefore none of I. A. his Arts of Grammar and Logick could open the Seals here of.

Again, whereas he saith, The Quakers have often Objected to him against the lawfulness of Logick among Christians, because it was first used among Heathens; and then he scoffingly doth inquire, But what shall we do with the Isle of Brittain, which was first used by Heathens. I Anwer, that I suppose it is I. A. his mistake, or failure of memory, that the Quakers have ever Objected against the lawfulness of true Logick, which I know none to be against; only I judge it may be well argued, that see∣ing it was a thing used among the Heathens, and yet did not bring them to the true know∣ledge of God; nor can it bring any Christi∣ans thereunto now. And it seemeth unrea∣sonable, that any Art found or used among the Heathens should be made an Infallible Rule to make a Minister of Christ. Or per∣haps, if any of those called Quakers have Disputed against Logick, it hath been only against that falsly so called, viz. a Sophistical way of contending about any thing, for or against, which is too much used in Schools at this day, and wherein too many glory, and are puffed up. But I. A. his comparison be∣twixt the Isle of Brittain and School Logick is very unequal, else let him prove that his School-Logick is as necessary, and profitable to the life of man, as the Land of Brit∣tain is.

Again, whereas in Answer to the Instances of Elisha, Amos, Peter and Iohn, who were not bred up in Grammar and Logick, and yet were true Min••sters, he alledgeth, It is no good consequence to argue from an extraordinary fact to an ordinary fixed Rule; I Answer, he hath not as yet proved that it is any ordinary fixed Rule by the Lord, that all must have those Arts of School-Logick and Grammar who are Ministers of Christ. He but here beggeth the Question, as it's ordinary for him to do in other cases. And as for us, we judge it no tempting of God, nor looking for extraordi∣naries to believe that we may receive true knowledge, and grow up in the same, so far as is requisite for a true Preacher to have, by our diligent reading and meditating on the Scriptures, by the help of God's Spirit assisting us to understand them, and withal using fer∣vent Prayer unto God, to obtain the said help of His Spirit, although we neither use the Art of Grammar or Logick; and we find not that Paul recommended Timothy to give atten∣dance to those Arts, but only to Reading, viz. the Scriptures, and not to neglect the gift that was in him, which I suppose I. A. will not be so ra••h as to say, was either Grammar or Lo∣gick. And now after diverse abuses and per∣versions of I. A. in his examination of this first Question, he concludeth with another

great calumny and false charge, in saying, The Quakers alledge that Peter and John had no Grammar and Languages, whereas the Que∣stion doth only alledge, That Peter and John were not bred up in Grammar and Languages, which doth not hinder it to be true, that God afterwards did immediately inspire them with the gift of Tongues. And yet even before they were inspired with these Tongues, they were Ministers.

In his Survey or Examination of the second Query, he continueth to play his old Game of perverting the state of the Question, which is not (as the Reader may see) whether Gram∣mar, Logick, and Philosophy, &c. were ex∣tant in the World before Christ his coming in the Flesh, for that we readily acknowledge; but the Question is, How long it was, after Christ, that those Arts were set up to make Mi∣nisters of Christ; To this he gives no Reply, but only goeth on to prove the lawfulness of Philosophy, and to tell what it teacheth. Now, as for true and genuine Philosophy the Quakers deny it not to be lawful, even that commonly called Natural Philosophy, which is a knowledge of natural things, and the ope∣rations thereof, with their effects; but that which they oppose is to make such a natural knowledge, so ••ar as it is only an Art taught in the Schools absolutely necessary to make a

Minister of Christ. Again, Secondly, We Question much, Whether that which is com∣monly taught in Schools, among those called Christians, under the name of Philosophy, be indeed the true and genuine Natural Philo∣sophy, seeing the far greatest part of it is ex∣ploded and rejected by not a few of the more knowing among your selves, and if any of us have called Philosophy, Foolosophy and Witchcraft, as I. A. alledgeth they did not mean it of any true Natural Knowledge, but in the Apostlessence, when he saith, Beware lest any spoil you through Philosophy, and vain deceit; which I. A. confesseth is Sophisticate and cor∣rupt Philosophy. And dare he say there is none of that sophisticate and corrupt Philoso∣phy taught in the Schools and Universities in Brittain. And may not sophisticate and cor∣rupt Philosophy be called Witchcraft in that sence used by Paul, Gal. 3. O foolish Galati∣ans, who hath bewitched you. And I Query what Philosophy doth I. A. mean by the true and genuine Philosophy, which he maketh so necessary to every Minister of Christ, whether Aristotle's Philosophy, or the Cartesian, or any other, seeing there are many kinds of that called Philosophy in the World, whose principles and rules directly contradict one another. And the Schools in Christend••m to this day have not agreed in the common

principles and Rules of that called Philoso∣phy, but remain at great uncertainty in the very foundations of it, as is acknowledged, by the most ingenuous Professors thereof. Now to make a thing so uncertain (as their Philosophy is in many or most things, to wit, a fallible thing) an infallible Rule to make a Minister of the Infallible Truth, is a very ab∣surd and unreasonable matter. But I. A. giveth us a number of Thirteen or Fourteen Positions, which his School-Philosophy doth teach, the truth whereof is evident as that there is a God, who is Infinite, Eternal, Omnisci∣••nt, Omnipotent, Unchangeable; that every man is a Rational Creature; that the Soul of man is Immortal; that no Brute is a Man; that no Action can be without some Subject, nor without some effect; nor any Union without some extremes. But I suppose there are few men, if any that have but the right use of their understanding as men, that do not, or may not know all this without School-Philosophy, as well as I. A. doth with it. And then what advantage giveth his Philosophy unto him? But toere are other great matters which his Philosophy teacheth; and as he particularly describeth them? they are these following, That every thing either is, or is not; that no∣thing can ••oth be, and not be at once; that of every contradiction the one part is true, and

the other false; that every whole is more than 〈◊〉〈◊〉 part, that every Cause is prior in nature to its effect, that nothing can work before it exist. But I must tell I. A. that these last mentioned Positions, are not taught by Philosophy, and are not any part of Philosophy, as is generally acknowledged by the Professors of it; because they are first Principles which Philosophy doth not undertake to teach, but presupposeth them as already known and understood, by the common dictates of understanding, that is in all men; and are called by them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 common Sentiments or Principles; and therefore we still desiderate, what peculiar Misteries I. A. his Philosophy doth teach, that men of ordinary understanding doth not already know, or at least may know very easily by a simple reflection, without his Phi∣losophy or School-Craft. Not that I deny, but that there are divers things which the true genuine Philosophy may teach, that are not obvious to common understanding; but I find nothing asserted by I. A. in all these positions, which he giveth as instances of what Philosophy teacheth, but every ordinary Tradesman knoweth as well to be true, as I. A. And therefore he might have spared his Pains in that idle and unnecessary work.

CHAP. III.

J. A. in his Survey or Examination of the third Query, doth earnestly contend, That the Words of the Scripture are, and ought to be called the Word of God: For which he useth divers Arguments and Citations of Scripture; but the true state of the Question here, is, not whether the Scriptures figurative∣ly, as by a Synecdoche, or Metonymie, may not be called the Word, for which I shall not con∣tend, finding that the Greek Word Logo••, Translated into English [the Word] is used sometimes in Scripture to signifie either Words or Writings, as Acts 1. 1. the Treatise Writ by Luke, he calleth it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which is to say in English, the first Word or Speech: Also where Paul saith, Our Gospel came unto you, not in Word only, but in Power, &c. 1 Thess: 1. 5. And some other places may be found both in the Old and New Testament to that effect, which yet doth in nothing give to I. A. nor to any of our Ad∣versaries, the least advantage against us. For the Question is, what is properly the Word God, or the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. That which is

most properly and eminently that Word of God, so much mentioned in the Scripture, with its wonderful effects; and that the Letter is not properly the Word of God, is as evidently apparent, as that the Writing or Written Letter of a mans Speech, is not pro∣perly the words of a mans Mouth; for we commonly distinguish betwixt a mans Word and his Write. How much more ought we to distinguish betwixt the outward Letter and Writing, and the Word of God in the pro∣per sense, seeing God is an invisible Spirit, and so is his Word: And what he hath spoke by his Prophets or Apostles, he spoke it first in their Hearts and Mouths, before there was any Declaration of it in Writ; and con∣sequently it was the Word of God, before the Writing: And therefore the Writing is not the Word properly, but only figuratively, as when a part is put for the whole, by a Synecdoche, or when the sign is put for the thing signified, as a Map of England and Scotland, is commonly called England and Scotland? and yet none will say, that that Map is really England or Scotland; or when we hear that England and Scotland produceth such and such Fruits, who is so ignorant as to think, that the Map or Card, produceth these Fruits, and not the Land it self. Let I. A. know therefore, that in all the places

where the Word is mentioned, he must prove that the Letter of the Scripture is meant, or he doth nothing against us; the which I am sure he shall never be able to per∣form, seeing he grants himself, That some∣times at least, by the Word is meant Christ, and not the Letter. Moreover, I ask I. A. when he saith, The Scripture is the Word of God, what he meaneth by the term Scripture Doth he mean the only bare Writing, or Characters consisting of Ink and Paper; and will he say that is properly the Word of God? Or doth he mean the Doctrine expressed and signified by the said Writing and Characters, and the true sense and meaning of the Spirit of God held forth in the same, which Meto∣nymically may be called the Scripture, putting the thing signified for the sign (and thus the Doctrine may be called the Scripture, and the Scripture the Doctrine, to wit, by a twofold Metonymie, one where the thing signified is put for the sign, the other where the sign is put for the thing ••igni••ied.)

Now we do most willingly grant that the Doctrine and true sense or mind of the Spirit declared of or expressed in the Scripture, is, and may properly be called the Word of God. But then we further affirm, that the said Doctrine or true sense of the mind or Spirit, cannot be reached or attained unto by

the meer Reading or Hearing the Letter, o the bare meditating in the Letter; and there••fore not every one that hath the Letter, Preacheth the Letter, and Heareth the Letter, hath also the true Doctrine and mind of the Spirit, and consequently nor hath he the Word of God. But he only that receiveth the Spirit of Christ, or Christ the Lord who is that Spirit, receiveth the true Doctrine when he Readeth or Heareth the Scriptures, or me∣ditateth in them, and consequently he only receiveth the Word of God: And thus also none can Preach the true Doctrine and Word of God, but he who speaketh it by the Spirit of God; and none Heareth the Word of God, but he who Heareth it, and into the Heart and inward Ears of his inward man re∣ceiveth it by the Spirit of God. To these only, I say, the Doctrine is known, and by these it is only received, as it is indeed the Word of God; and in this respect it was, that Paul commended such as received the Truth, by the same Spirit by which it was Preached unto them through him; That they received it not as the word of Man, but as the Word of God, &c. Now this comm••ndation can be given to no unbeliever, that what he receiveth in the Ministry of the true Servants of God, he re∣ceiveth it as the Word of God; for only the true Believers do so receive it, according to

Paul's Testimony, as it is indeed the Word of God. Moreover, I would have the Reader to know, that when we say, by the Word, is understood Christ; we mean not Christ abstractly, or seperately considered from the Divine Doctrine and Testimony of Life, whether in the heart or Mouth, that imme∣diately proceedeth from him, nor yet as di∣vided or seperated from any Divine opera∣tion of his Spirit, Power and Life in any of his Servants; but we take both these con∣joyned together, to be the Word of God, even as the Soul and Body is one Man, and sometimes the Soul is called the man, and sometimes the Body, and both properly enough, when the Soul is in the Body and united therewith, but the Body alone with∣out the Soul, is not properly called the man; and thus much I hope shall suffice, to satisfie the sober Reader, as concerning the Word of God, how we understand it. Now whereas I. A. citeth divers places of Scripture to prove, That by the Word of God is not understood Christ, but the outward Testimony or Writing of the Scriptures. It is very evident, and may plain∣ly appear so to be unto any having the least measure of Spiritual understanding, that by the Word of God in these Scriptures, is not understood the Letter, but Christ, together with the Divine operation and Testimony

of his Life in the Hearts and Mouthes of his Servants. And among these places by him alledged, I shall cite these following (for it is needless to cite them all) viz. Heb. 4. 12. Eph. 6. 17. Rev. 1. 16. Rev. 2. 12, 16. Rev. 19. 15. And also he citeth divers Scriptures which mention the Word of Christ, and the Word which he hath spoken. And seeing that cannot be Christ himself, it must needs ac∣according to him be the Letter. Now as to that Scripture Heb. 4. 12. For the Word of God is quick and powerful, &c. There are di∣vers Protestants that expound it of Christ, and not of the Letter; and indeed the words themselves do plainly enough evince it, seeing it is said in the next verse, concerning the same Word, That all things are bare and mani∣fest to his sight; and therefore that Word hath an Omni••cience, which I suppose I. A. when he considers, will not affirm of the Letter of the Scripture. As for Eph. 6. 17. his reason is weak, that by it cannot be understood Christ, seeing it is called, The Sword of the Spirit; as to say, an Instrument in the hand of the Spirit. But this is only I. A. his gloss, and not Paul's words; For the Sword of the Spirit, may very well be understood to be the Spirit it self, As the shield of Faith, is Faith that shield, The Helmet of Hope, is Hope that Helmet, so the City of Rome, is Rome

that City; and why not also the Sword of the Spirit, that Spirit it self: And this is further confirmed out of the Greek Article, Englished by [which] that is in the Neuter Gender, and therefore rendring this Sense, The Sword of the Spirit, which Spirit is the Word of God, so that the Article [which] being in the Neuter Gender, is Relative to Spirit, which in the Greek Language is in the same gender. Again, as to those three places in the Revelation, which mention the Word of God; its being the Sword of his Mouth, and proceeding out of the Mouth of Christ: Doth I. A. think, that this only is the Letter of the Scripture? Doth nothing but the Letter come out of his Mouth? Doth not Spirit and Life, and living vertue come out of his Mouth? And did not Christ say, The Words that I speak unto you, they are Spirit and Life, John 6. And is not this somewhat more than the Letter? But lastly, The Word of Christ, and the Word that Christ speaks, hath of the Life and Spi∣rit of Christ in it; and therefore it is still somewhat beside the External Writing or Letter, and is not divided or seperated from Christ. And I have told I. A. already, that not only Christ abstractly considered, but the immediate Testimony and influence of his Life (which can never be seperated from him, no more than the Sun Beams can be seperated

from the Son) is also acknowledged by us to be the Word of God, and to be Light and Life.

B••t, saith I. A. The whole Doctrine of the Prophets, is the Word of the Lord; To which I Answer, I have granted, and do still grant it so to be, but as is already said, that Do∣ctrine is not the bare Letter; nor hath every one that doctrine who hath the Letter; for to have the true doctrine and sence of the Spi∣r••t, is not only to have the Letter, but to have the Spirit, by which only the true doctrine can be conveyed unto us, although the true service and use of the Letter, in subordinati∣on to the Spirit is not denied.

And whereas I. A. accuseth the Quakers, That they call the Scriptures a dead Letter, I no where remember that ever I read or heard any of them simply calling it so. But only in so far as it is eventually such unto them, who are spiritually dead themselves, and are not turned to the quickning Spirit, but alie∣nated therefrom, to such only the Scripture is a dead and killing Letter, and this much di∣vers Protestants have acknowledged as well as we, and particularly Iohn Owen, in his Trea∣tise on the Scriptures, That it is so to the Iews, and other Vnbelievers. But unto all those who are spiritually alive, the Scripture is no dead nor killing Letter, but a living Testimony; as

also unto all such whom it pleased God to quicken by his Spirit in the reading, or hearing or meditating in the Scriptures. Again that he saith, A part of the Scripture, to wit, the Law considered, as strictly legal is in respect of guilty sinners called a killing Letter, but never the whole Scripture; I Answer, That not on∣ly the Old Testament, but even the Writings or Letter of the New Testament, may be cal∣led a killing Letter to those that remain alie∣nated from the Spirit that quickens. Lven as Origen hath formerly taught in his Commen∣tary on Leviticus, Not only (saith he) in the Old Testament is found the killing Letter; there is also in the New Testament the Letter which killeth him, who doth not spiritually attend unto the things which are spoken. And why was the Law called a killing Letter? only because it did curse and condemn guilty sinners. Nay, that is not the only or main reason, but ra∣ther that its Ministration could not give life, whereas the Ministration of the Gospel, be∣ing accompanied with the Spirit, doth quicken and give life; and in that respect Paul said, The Law was weak and could no make perfect, and therefore calls it, The Law of a carnal Commandment. Now if any go from the Spi∣rit, that only makes the true Gospel Admini∣stration, and set up the Letter or Writings of the Apostles, in the room of the same. These

Writings of the Apostles do eventually be∣come a killing Letter, no less than that of the Law, and can no more give life, or make perfect, than the outward Law could.

And here upon this Head, I do readily take notice what I. A. acknowledgeth concerning the Scriptures in page 16. of his Book, to∣wards the middle part, viz, That the Scrip∣tures as to the external Form and Mode, which they have from the Writers Pen, they are not the Word of God, but that as to their ennutiate doctrine and sentence they are the Word of God.

And why then doth I. A. make all this loud clamour and noise against the Quakers, seeing upon the matter he confesseth what they say, viz. That the letter or external form of the Writing is not properly the Word of God. And I suppose I may add with I. A his al∣lowance, that the external Form and Mode of the Preachers mouth, when he formeth a sound in speaking Scripture Words, is not properly the Word of God any more than the bare writing, ••seeing there is no more in the one than in the other, simply as such. Let not I. A. therefore blame us for that here∣after, which he confesseth himself; and we do as readily acknowledge, as he either doth or can do, That the ennutiate and expressed Doctrine and sense of the Spirit is indeed truly and properly the Word of God. But then is

there no difference betwixt him and us? I Answer, as to the naming the Scriptures, the Word, it seemeth there is none. But yet another great Controversie ariseth, which I doubt will not be so soon ended betwixt us, viz. Whether any man can reach unto that En∣nuti••te Doctrine and sense of the Scriptures without the Spiritual Illumination and Assistance of that Spirit that gave them forth? we say Not; and if he say Yea, we still differ; but not as it seemeth to me by his Con∣fession, in naming the Scriptures, The Word of God.

But there is yet another great Charge wherewith he loadeth us in this his Survey of the Third Query, Some Quakers, saith he, are upon this Head so grosly Atheistical, as to say, That the Scriptures are but the Saints Words and Testimony from their own particu∣lar experiences. And again he alledgeth, That according to the Quakers, they are but the meer bare Word of a Creature. Hence he inferreth, That the Pen-men of the Scrip∣turs, of all men in the World, must have been the greatest Cheats and archest Impostors, &c.

But seeing he produceth no express Testi∣monies out of the Writings of that People, for such Assertions he is not to be believed. Nor doth it follow, that because the Scrip∣tures

are the Saints Words, that therefore they are not also the Words of God, even unto all who hear or read them; at least mediately and remotely; although none but such as believe, do receive them as such, which yet is only and alone the ••ault of those unbelieving persons, because they reject the Spirit of God that doth certifie or assure unto us, That the Scriptures are proceeded from God by Divine Inspiration. And what if some have said, That the Scriptures are Testimonies of the Saints, from their experience. May not this receive a fair and charitable construction, and not presently be judged to be gross Atheism; for although the Scriptures give a narration of divers Histories, as also of Pre∣cepts, Prohibitions, and mysteries of Faith, As Christ His coming in the Flesh; His being born of a Virgin; His being Crucified, and Buried; His Resurrection, and Ascension; the which Histories, and things aforementioned, albeit they cannot properly be called the Saints Experiences, yet the Divine Inspiration and Revelation, which the Prophets and Apo∣stles had immediately of those things, was truly their Experience; and let us see if I. A. will deny it; or if he do, may it not be more justly retorted upon him, That he, and not the Quakers, deny that the Scriptures are from Divine Inspiration; or can he say, that al∣though

the Prophets and Apostles had Di∣vine Inspiration and Immediate Revelation, yet they had no Experience of the same. And that we call the Scriptures, sometimes, the Saints Words (yet not denying them in a true sense to be the Words of God) I. A. can no more justly blame us than Paul and Iohn who called their own Preaching and Writing, and that of their Brethren, the Witness and Teaching of men; so that Paul and the Apostles Words were both the words of men, and yet also the Words of God, to wit, mediately declared unto them by the Apostles. Now they whose Faith stood in the Power of God, received them, as the Words of God, but who came not to that power to believe in it, they were but un∣to such as the words of men, which, as is al••eady said, was only and alone the fault of such unbelieving Persons.

There yet remains two parts or branches of the third Query, to which I. A. for all his pretended Survey, hath given no more sa∣tisfaction, than to any of the former. The first is, Whether all that is written in the Scrip∣tures, from Genesis to Revelation, be a Rule of Faith and Manners. To this he only answer∣eth in general, That we are bound to believe all S••ripture Enunciation, from the beginning to the

e••d (which we do readily grant, and that therefore it may well be called an Historical Rule of Faith) and that the Moral Law, with whatsoever is of common equity, or whatever en∣joyning any peice of Religious Worship under the New Testament doth belong to Christians of our Calling and Condition; but that the obligation of the Ceremonial and Iudicial Law is totally abrogated: And (saith he) the Quakers must be content with these generals. To which I An∣swer, When the Nature of the Question re∣quireth a particular Answer, to Answer in general, neither can nor ought to satisfie; for notwithstanding of all he hath said, the great Question yet remains unanswered. What parts of the Scripture belong to the Moral Law, and what ••o the Ceremonial and Ju∣dicial so called. Also seeing there are divers things that were commanded and practised by the Apostles and Primitive Christians under the New Testament; whether all these do oblige us now, yea or nay; as for example, the Washing one anothe••s Feet, and Anointing the Sick with Oyl; and whether these actions were commanded by any part of the Cere∣monial or Judicial Law, or whether they be∣long to any piece of Religious Worship un∣der the New Testament. The other branch of the Question is, Whether every Title from 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to the Revelation be the Word, or Words

of God. To this he Answereth affirmatively, and seemeth, to be so offended with the Que∣stion, as if it did conclude, That the Quakers judge, that the Scriptures are interpolated and corrupted with the additions of men. But in Answer, I. A. ought to know, that to Query a thing, will not conclude that the Que∣stionist doth positively affim or deny what is Queried. Again, I hope it may without offence, not only be Queried, but also conclud∣ed, that the Translations of the Scripture (the which Translations are commonly cal∣••ed Scripture) have divers additions, which men have added, without any pretence to Divine Inspiration: The which Additions are commonly Printed in our English Bibles, in another Character than the other words. Now is it any Crime to ask if these Addi∣titions be the words of God, or only the words of man; and if such Additions be any part of the Rule of Faith and Manners? And yet those very Additions are of such conse∣quence, that they may occasion the Reader to take up another sense of the Sentences, then otherwise he would, or perhaps the Spi∣rit of God did really intend. Nor are there wanting divers, both Judicious and Learned men so accounted, and of good repute, even among Protestants, who do acknowledge, that some particular words have dropt in,

into the Greek and Hebrew Texts, since their first Writing, and what are these various Lections of many places of Scripture, especially when they contradict in one and the same place? Are not some of them at least only the words of men? All which being gran∣ted, yet do not hinder, but that the pu∣rity of the Scriptures is sufficiently pre••er∣ved (viz. in respect of the main and ne∣cessary things) for which we have cause to bless God, and acknowledge his great care and Providence, as in many other things. And thus I. A. may see how much of the weighti∣est part of his task, in giving a sufficient An∣swer to those Queries, he hath still left un∣done, for all his windy Braggings against the people called Quakers.

CHAP. IV.

IN his pretended Survey of the fourth Query, he divides it into three Sections: In the first, he laboureth by many Arguments to prove a thing, which we do not deny, to wit, That the Scriptures are a Rule of Faith and Manners: And so he might have spared himself and others, all that pains, for the state of the Question is not, whether the Scrip∣tures are not, and may not be called a se∣condary Rule; nor whether they may not in respect of all the Historical part, be called an Historical Rule: But the true Question is, whether the words of the Scripture, as they are only written and spoken outwardly, be the Principal, or only Rule of Faith and Manners.

Now seeing I. A. hath been at such need∣less pains, to prove a thing against us, which we do not deny, I need not give a particu∣lar Answer to any of his Arguments. But because there are divers of his Arguments, which have some false premisses, although the conclusion be granted; therefore I shall a little take notice of one or two of them.

In his seventh Argument, he maketh it one of the Premisses, That the more sure word of Prophecy, mentioned 2 Pet. 1. 19, 20. is the Scripture. But this is denyed by us, for we believe it to be that Word of God in the heart, by which all the true Prophets did Prophecy, and without which we cannot un∣derstand their Prophecies, nor any other part of the Scripture. Now the reasons of his Assertion are, 1. Because of the cohe∣rence of 19 and 20 Verses. But this is no suf∣ficient reason, for the coherence is as good and better, to understand it of the word in the heart, as to understand Peter saying thus, Take heed to the Word of God in your hearts, by which the Prophets gave forth the Scriptures, for it is that same word, which maketh us sure, that the Scriptures are Divinely Inspired, and also doth give unto us the true Interpretation of them: This is a good coherence and much better then that imagined by I. A. as if Peter had said, Take heed unto the Scripture, as the more sure Word, for no Scripture is of any private interpretation: The which violent and strained coherence, I for my part cannot un∣derstand, seeing Peter aimeth at something that is not the Scripture, as being necessary to give us its Interpretation: And what can that be, But that Word of ••od, which spake in the Prophets. His second reason is, That he can∣not

understand how the Dictate or Light within is more sure, than Gods immediate voice from Heaven, as that was at the Transfiguration. To which I Answer, that the inward Voice or Word of God immediately in the heart, can very well be understood to be more sure as to us, than any outward Voice of God from Heaven. 1. Because that which is imme∣diate in the Heart, is more near and imme∣diate, than that which is outward in the Air, which cometh to the Heart and Soul, but mediately through the outward Hea∣ring; however immediate may be under∣stood otherwise. 2. It was by the imme∣diate Word of God in the Heart, by which the Prophets, when at any time they heard an outward Voice or Word from God, did assuredly know that it came from God, and that it was no delusion of Satan. And they believed the Word of God in their Hearts, simply from its own self Evidence, and not from any borrowed Evidence of an outward Voice: For they oft believed, and received the Word of God in their Hearts immediate∣ly, when they heard no outward voice at all, as is generally acknowledged. And this inward or intellectual kind of speaking by the Lord unto the Prophets, is acknowledged by Thomas Aquinas and Suarez, and other School∣men, to be the most noble kind of Divine

Revelation, and consequently the most sure, at least unto us. His 3. Reason, Is the Testi∣mony of other Scriptures produced, and to be pro∣duced. But he has neither produced, nor can produce any Scripture that proveth, that Word of Prophecy, or Prophetical Word, to be only the Letter of the Scripture, and not the Word or Light of God, and of Christ in the Heart.

Again in his eighth Argument, he alledg∣eth, That it cannot be the Dictate or Light within, by which Spirits are to be tryed; be∣cause the Dictate or Light within is ••allible: And this he undertakes to prove, from some words of mine in Quakerism no Popery, where I ac∣knowledge, That it is possible for us to mistake and erre in Speaking and Writing (and consequent∣ly in Examining and Iudging) if we be not duely watchful. But how unreasonable this conse∣quence is, I leave unto sober men to judge; as to conclude, because men are infallible, that therefore the Dictate and Light of Gods Spi∣rit in men is fallible also. Was not Peter fal∣lible in some Cases; Yea, did he not fail sore∣ly, when he denyed his Master: Doth it therefore follow, that the Dictate or Light of Gods Spirit in him was fallible? Indeed if I had said, that when we follow the Dictate and Light of God within, we are fallible, he might have inferred such a consequence;

but I never said, nor thought any such thing, but on the contrary, that the Dictates and Leadings of Gods Spirit in us are infallible, and have a direct tendency to lead, guide and move us infallibly, as they are purely kept unto, the which is possible for us to do. Ano∣ther Argument he bringeth against the Dictate 〈◊〉〈◊〉; I••s being the rule to try Spirits, be∣cause then it would be both Superior and Inferior, which is Repugnant, Superior, when it tryes and examines; and Inferior, when it is tryed and examined. To which I Answer, 1. It is no Repugnancy, that one and the same thing be Superior and Inferior in different respects, and as it respecteth different Subjects. But 2. There is no necessity to understand the Dictate and Light of Gods Spirit in divers men to be Su∣perior and Inferior, when it examines, and is examined, for one equal may be a measure or rule to another; yea one thing may be said to be a rule unto it self, according unto that common Maxim or principle, Line•• recta est norma sui & obliqui, i. e. A right line is the rule of it self, and also of that which is crook∣ed. Otherwise let I. A. Answer me, How did Adam know the voice of God in his Heart and the Prophets, before the Scriptures were writ, how did they know it?

And in the close of his first Section, he con∣cludeth with a manifest Untruth, That the

Quakers are for a new Dispensation, not only in manner, but matter, contrary to the Doctrine formerly Dictated by the Holy Ghost. This I say is false, which he neither doth, nor can prove, and the Dispensation we plead for is the same, both for matter and manner, which belonged to all true and good Christians in all Ages. And as to what he saith, Of our extream In∣fatuation and Brain-sickness, and retaining the proportion and features of humane bodies, ha∣ving quite enervated our Rational Essence. These and the like scoffing and disdainful expressions are no more to be regarded by us, nor have any more weight, than when some Epicureans at Athens, called Paul a Babler We know, it hath been the Lot of Gods people in former Generations, to be reputed by Adversaries, both Fools and Mad-men. However, we hope, the sober Readers of our Books and Treatises, and these also who have any Con∣verse with us, will find that we have neither abandoned, nor lost the use of our Rational Faculties, which we acknowledge to be good Gifts of God, and for which he is to be praised; nor doth our principle and belief of Divine Inspiration, as being a more noble and ex∣cellent Gift of God, than the highest Natural Faculty of Reason, either weaken or render useless to us our Reason, but both indeed both strengthen it and make it the more useful and

comfortable, whereof to Gods praise, we are bold to say, we have true experience, not∣withstanding of what I. A. or any of his in∣sulting humour do, or can say to the contrary.

There yet remains two other things in this first Section of I. A. which I think fit to no∣tice. One is, That he alledgeth some of us understand by the more sure word of Prophecy, the Scripture, which is only to be taken heed unto, until the day dawn, and the day Star arise in the heart; that is, until the Holy Ghost be given, and that consequently, the Scriptures serve for nothing to belivers, who are born with the Spi∣rit and sealed therewith. But seeing he has pro∣duced no Names of any among us understan∣ding that more sure word of Prophecy to be the Scripture, we are not concerned to An∣swer him. It is possible that some in Discourse, has only so argued with him, ad hominem, as they use to say, and not as being their own judgment. And as for the Scriptures, we judge that they are profitable, and ought to be Read by true Believers and renewed persons, as well as others. But when doth I. A. think that the day dawneth, and the day Star ari∣seth in the hearts of believers? Whether in this mortal State, Yea or Nay, and then whe∣ther the shining of Gods day, and the day Star thereof, be not a true immediate Reve∣lation in the hearts of those who have it, and

whether it doth not more assure them who have it, than the Letter of Scripture can do? And seeing the Light of God in them, when it shines in the heart but as in a dark place, is a more sure Word, than an audible voice from Heaven, or than the Letter of the Scrip∣ture, as to us; what shall be said of that Light, when it becometh not only as the day Star, but as the day itself, for clearness in the Soul? Or can there be any greater, or more prin∣cipal rule than this? The other thing I no∣tice is, That he inferreth the Scriptures to be a rule, because Christ said to the Sadduces, Ye erre not knowing the Scriptures. Now if this Argument hold good, seeing Christ said also, Ye erre not knowing the Scriptures, nor the Power of God; It will as well follow, That the Power of God, is the Rule, and that the ra∣ther, because it was their being ignorant of the Power of God, (which quickens both Soul and Body) that made them ignorant of the Scriptures; for none know truly the Scrip∣tures, but they who know the Power of God; and therefore that Power, which is Life, Light and Spirit, is the more principal and original rule. But I. A. in citing these words of Christ, omitted the following words, which are exceeding weighty, viz. [no the Power of God,] whether this was pur∣posely done of him, to ensuare his unwary

Reader, or not, I shall not determine, but leave to his consideration.

CHAP. V.

J. A. in the beginning of his second Section, concerning the Rule, is pleased to call me an Arch-Quaker, (the which Title I no wise acknowledge) and a man too Learned, as I employ it. To which I Answer, That as to my Learning, that is but very ordinary, and a thing I neither can nor ought to glory in. However in this I rejoyce, that the Testimo∣ny of my Conscience beareth me Witness in the Holy Spirit, that any small measure I have of that called Learning, it hath been my sin∣cere aim and endeavour to employ it to Gods Honour, and serve the Truth therewith, and not in the least to use it against the Truth, so far as it was, or is made manifest unto me. Next, he blames me that I affirm, The Scriptures are only but a secondory Rule of Faith and Manners; but that the Spirit, or his Dictate within is the Principal Rule, and like Proteus, turning my self into all shapes; sometimes I de∣sign Christ himself, oftner the Spirit himself, but oftnest the Dictate of the Spirit within to be

that Rule. But he might at that ra••e have no less blamed the Apostle Paul that he turned himself into all shapes, while he affirmeth sometimes, That Christ spoke in him; and sometimes that the Spirit spoke in him; and certainly what Christ or the Spirit spoke in him, was by a certain Word or dictate. But to Answer directly, when I say Christ is the Rule: And again, when I say the Spirit is the Rule, there is no absurdness therein; for if we mean by the Spirit, the Holy Ghost, Christ and the Holy Ghost are never separated or divided in what they Speak or Witness in the souls of men, but their speech and Testimo∣ny is one and the same alwaies; and also Christ himself in Scripture is called the se∣cond Adam; the quickening Spirit, and the Lord that Spirit; and said Christ, I am the way, the Truth, and the Life; and certainly that Life is Spirit; and also the Words or di∣ctate of it is Spirit and Life, as Christ said, The words that I speak unto you are Spirit and Life. So the Reader may see that my words are sound and according to Scripture, and therefore whether I say, Christ or the Spirit, or the internal dictate and Word of the Spirit is the Rule, it is to the same pur∣pose. And to say the dictate of the Spirit is the Rule, is no other than to say, the Spirit dictating or speaking is that Rule; and do not

some of your selves use a variety of Speech, when ye speak of the Rule, one time saying, The Scripture is the Rule; another time, The Word of God contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament is the only Rule, &c. as the Westminster Confession of Faith expresly hath it. Another time, The Spirit of God speaking in the Scriptures, &c. Now ac∣cording to I. A. I may blame him and his Brethren in this case, that Proteus like, he and his Brethren turn themselves into all shapes when they speak of the Rule. And whether these phrases used by them be not more unscriptural, I leave unto sober men for to judge.

In the next place he argueth, That Christ cannot be the Rule, nor the Spirit, because the Rule of Faith must be some complex Proposition, Direction, or Precept, and the like. To this I Answer, First, That the Rule of Faith must be a complex Proposition, Direction, or Pre∣cept, formally understood in words formally conceived, I altogether deny, and I. A. hath not offered to prove it. And although the Sp••rit of Christ may, and often doth speak ex∣press words in the souls of his people, yet he doth not alwaies so do, when yet he clearly enough signifieth his mind and will unto them; for if among men, a King may signi∣fie his mind to his Subjects, or a Master to his

servants, without any formal Proposition, or direction of words, but only by some motion of his hand or face: How much more may the Lord God, who is the King of Kings, sig∣nifie his mind unto his servants by the motion of his Spirit, without any formal or express words? Again I ask I. A. if he hath not learned in the Schools, that the reasonable nature of God is the first rule of Manners? And cer∣tainly the reasonable Nature of God is not a complex Proposition consisting of many words. And hath he not read in Boetius that excellent saying? Quis legem det amantibus? major lex amor est ipse sibi, which the Author of a late Book called, The Life of God in the soul of man, doth use, to prove that some∣what more than words is a Law or Rule to Christians, and Englisheth thus:

For who shall give a Law to them that Love? Love's a more powerful Law that doth such per∣sons move.

And I further Query I. A. seeing the Scrip∣ture saith, God is Love; he that knoweth God to be Love, and hath the Love of God shed abroad in his Heart by the holy Spirit, which in Scripture is called, The Spirit of Love; shall not this man be tyed to love God, and his Brethren; yea, and all mankind, even his

very enemies. Suppose it be not said to him in formal express words, do so and so. Again, whether he that only readeth or heareth these outwardly, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy Heart, &c. and thy Neighbour as thy self; but his Heart is utterly void of the love of God; or he that hath the love of God in his heart, and feelleth the powerful con∣straint of it, is under the most powerful Law? Whether the words without, or the Spirit and Nature of Divine Love within, is the most powerful Law and Rule? There may there∣fore be a Law or Rule, which is not a complex Proposition of words, either inward or out∣ward, to wit, the Divine Love it self, which hath a Voice and Language to the souls of men, in the silence of all words, many times, and can be understood as well without words as with them. And therefore when I say the dictate of the Spirit is the Rule, I mean not, that there is alwaies a dictate of express words; but that which is either such a formal express dictate, or equivalent thereunto, which those who are acquainted with the experiences of the Saints do well understand, although it may seem to I. A. a strange Riddle or Paradox. And thus by what I have said in this particu∣lar, the intelligent Reader, I hope, shall per∣ceive, that in saying, The Spirit is the Rule, I am not beside my self, as I. A. doth alledge,

but speak the words of Truth, and soberness. And I further ask, Whether I. A. thinks that Ignatius the Martyr was beside himself, when he writ in one of his Epistles to the People, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. Vsing the Ho∣ly Ghost for a Rule? or, Whether Paul was beside himself when he said, The Law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Iesus had made him free from the law of Sin and Death. And whether that Law was not the Spirit of Life, even as the Law of sin, was sin; and the Law of death, was death. And whether the Law of the Mind, mentioned by Paul, was not a Divine Principle of Grace in his mind, even as the Law of his Members was a principle of sin and corruption, that sometime had place in him, and not any complex Proposition of words? And whether the Law that God writeth in the hearts of his people in the new Covenant, be simply a form of words, consisting of so ma∣ny letters, syllables and sentences; or, rather to speak properly is not that Law, a new and Divine Nature or substantial Life of Holiness and Righteousness and Wisdom, by which the Children of God are led and taught under the new Covenant (naturally as it were) to love God, and all men; even as the Law that God hath put in all living Creatures, or Ani∣mals to love and cherish their Off-spring (which is a shadow or figure of that more Di∣vine

Law in God's people) is not any complex Proposition of words, but an innate principle of love and affection, which he hath planted in them?

Moreover, the said I. A. digresseth here from his matter to seek an occasion against us, and to load us with down-right Blasphemy, because we do not say, that there are three Persons in the God-head. But to this Charge I have answered already to one of I. A. his Champions, in my book called, The Way Cast Vp; the which hath given content to divers-sober people, and I hope may give content to all who reads it in that particular, where I show, that it is only the unscriptural terms of a Trinity of Persons, or of three Persons in the Godhead, that we deny, and not the mysterie or thing it self, of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, being three that bear Record in Heaven, which according to the Scripture, we both believe and confess. And indeed Augustine in his Fifth and Seventh Books of the Trinity, not only saith the words, three Persons are improper, but disputeth against them; and I suppose I. A. for all his School-Logick and Philosophy, shall hardly be able to Answer his Argument, the substance of which, to my best remembrance, is this, The word Person, either it signifieth somewhat abso∣lute and simple, or somewhat relative; to say the first is absurd, otherwise there should be three

〈◊〉〈◊〉 Beings, or Essences in God, which is absurd, if somewhat relative (which is the se∣cond) then seeing every relative is referred, or is relative to another, as Father is relative to Son (and therefore Father is the Father of ano∣ther, and no man is his own Father) in this sense, to say the Father is a Person, is to say, the Fa∣ther is the Person of some other, and so of the rest, which is absurd. The which Argument, not as mine, but really Augustines, I leave I. A. to Answer; and Ierome, another ancient Doctor and Father so called, doth find fault with the words, Three Hypostasis, saying ex∣presly in the words, Three Hyposta••is, Latet aliquid veneni, There lieth hid some poyson. And La••rentius Valla, a man well esteemed among the learned, findeth fault with the words, Three Persons, why then should we be so un∣charitably charged by I. A. or such hot-head∣ed men, with Blasphemy, only for keeping close to Scripture words in so great a Mysterie, while the thing it self, so far as the Scripture declareth it, is owned by us. And whereas he urgeth us to tell what Three are they to be called, if neither Three Gods, nor Three Per∣sons, I Answer, It sufficeth us to call them, what the Spirit of God in Christ and the Apo∣stles hath called them; and to enquire no fur∣ther, nor to be curiously wise, above what they have d••••lared. Hath not I. A. heard,

That there is a Docta Ignorantia, or Learned Ignorance, which is more safe, and to be pre∣ferred, to an uncertain Knowledge or Science falsly so called. And if I. A. his definition of Person be received, viz. That it is an intelli∣gent Being, subsisting incommunicably or distinct∣ly one from another. I see not, for my part, but that Three Persons, at this rate, shall infer three intelligent Beings subsisting incommuni∣cably, and consequently Three Gods.

Lastly, That he saith, Some Quakers have called them three Manifes••ations, viz. of Mo∣ses, of Christ, and of the Spirit; he ought to have produced their names, or then we are not bound to believe him, that any have said so; for, at this rate, Moses should be the Father of Christ, which I do not believe any, called a Quaker, ever thought; perhaps some have said, there have been three Dispensations or Manifestations of God, one through Moses, and one through Christ in the Flesh, and one through the Spirit, or Christ in Spirit; and that these may after some sort have such a refe∣rence, as that the first may be called relative to the Father, yet not excluding the Son; and the second may be relative to the Son, not exclu∣ding the Father, &c. which yet doth not argue, that we understand the Dispensation, or Ad∣ministration of the Father, to be the Father himself; far less, Moses to be the Father, as I. A.

I believe very rashly and unwarrantably doth alledge, Now that there are or have been di∣versity of Administrations, the Scripture is plain, and Protestants as well as Papists do ac∣knowledge it. Yea, what saith I. A. to the common Catechism that saith, The Father hath Created us, the Son hath Redeemed us, and the Holy Ghost hath Sanctified us; which is to be understood not exclusively, nor yet without some order in the manner of working. But who will be so foollish or ignorant, for all this to say, That the Father is our Creation, the Son our Redemption (strictly or literally, and without a Figure so understood) and the Holy Ghost our Sanctification. Nor doth it follow, that because Christ bringeth in his Father and himself as two Witnesses, to prove that he was the true Messiah; that therefore there are either two or three Persons in the Godhead; for Christ speaketh these words, not simply as God, but as man: Now as Man, we acknow∣ledge that Christ is a distinct Nature or Being from God, although not divided or separated therefrom. And lastly, that he argueth, That Christ is called the express Image of the Fathers Hypostasis, and that Hypostasis should be and is truly Translated Person, and not Sub∣stance, and otherwise it would infer Arianism. I Answer, That Hypostasis should be Trans∣lated Person, he doth meerly affirm without

any proof from approved Authors, and sure I am the Etymologie of the word, hath no affinity to person, but properly signifieth Sub∣stance, being compounded of the Preposition, and Substantive Verb, which as near as pos∣sible, is in Latin substantia, and in English sub∣stance, and is so Translated, Heb. 11. 1. Now that to Translate it substance, would infer Arrianism, I. A. doth but meerly say it with∣out any proof, and so is not to be believed, And beside, Christ in Scripture is called, The Image of the Invisible God; and certainly God is a substance, and yet this, I hope, will not infer Arrianism, and may we not well under∣stand how Christ as man is the Character or Image of God's substance, without Arrianism, seeing Christ said, viz. in respect of his Man∣hood, My Father is greater than I; and it is clear that the aforesaid place, Heb. 1. 2, 3. is to be understood of Christ, not simply as God, but as man, who certainly as man is the most bright and glorious Image of God, and above all Angels or Men, or whatever can be named besides the Godhead it self.

CHAP. VI.

HAving thus traced I. A. in his unne∣cessary and impertinent digression. I shall now reply unto his Arguments, where∣by he laboureth to prove, that the Scriptures are the principal rule of Faith and manners.

And to the first, that in Isaiah 8. 10. they were sent unto the Law and Testimony, sup∣posing that were the Scripture; it followeth not, that therefore it is the principal rule, especially in Gospel times, when God writ∣eth his Law in the heart, and the Testimony of Jesus is the Spirit of Prophecy; and he that believeth hath the Testimony or Witness in himself. But that people are not sent to any dictate, Word or Light within, as I. A. doth alledge is false, and contrary to 2 Pet. 1. 19. Deut. 30. 14. Rom. 10. 8. Ioh. 3. 20, 21. Ioh. 12. 36. And doth not God and Christ, and the Holy Ghost dwell in the Hearts of be∣lievers; and must not they go to God and Christ, where they are, and doth not God and Christ speak in his people? Are they not his Temple, and as God spoke immediately in the outward Temple, under the Old Co∣venant;

the which Temple was a Figure of Christ and the Church, shall he not speak now immediately in his true Temple, as well as he did in former times: Or are we wholly to neglect God and Christ in us, and their In∣ward Teaching; and only to mind the Letter of the Scripture without us, according to I. A. And when Paul said to Timothy, Neglect not the Gift that is in thee, Hath this command no regard unto us. And when Christ saith, Behold I stand at the door and knock, if any man will hear my voice; Is this door only an outward door, or is not rather the door of the Heart, which is inward; and therefore is not that voice inward? And whence is it, that seeing Christ is so near to his people as to be in them, that he doth not speak one word to them by himself, as a man doth to his Friend, that he is present with: Is it want of power or unkind∣ness, that he doth so refrain. Doth not I. A. and those of his Principle, make God over all Blessed for ever more; like unto the dumb Idols mentioned in the Scripture, Who have a Mouth but speak not, being always dumb or silent. Oh! what an Indignity is this to the Lord of Glory; and let I. A. take heed, lest he who is so ready to charge us with Blasphemy, be not found among the Blasphemers himself, who would limit the Lord from speaking and revealing himself, in his Living Temples.

To his second Argument I Answer; Though the Scriptures are Infallible, and can∣not deceive us; yet they cannot sufficiently demonstrate unto us, their Infallibility, nor yet their true Sense, without the evidence of the Spirit, as is clear by Paul's Testimony, 1 Cor. 2. 4. where he telleth, That his Speech and Preaching was in Demonstration of the Spi∣rit and Power; And therefore without that de∣monstration of the Spirit, his words could not prevail, nor perswade them, that they were of God: And certainly if Paul's Preach∣ing needed the demonstration of the Spirit, his Writing doth as much need it at this day.

To the third, I say, It is no derogating from the Scripture, that they derive their Au∣thority from the Spirit of God, which gave them their being, even as it is no derogation from the words of a King, long ago spoken by him, That he confirmeth them a new, by a new immediate Testimony.

To the fourth, Although we may not re∣ceive any Dictate within, that agrees not with the Scripture; it doth not follow, that therefore the Scripture is above the Spirit of God, or his Dictate; for as the Spirit can ne∣ver contradict the Scripture, so nor can the Scripture ever contradict the Spirit of God; and neither can the Spirit or Scripture, ever

contradict pure and sound Reason; yet it doth not follow, that Reason is either greater, or equal to the Spirit, or to Scripture. And be∣cause that Dictate which is contrary to Scrip∣ture is to be rejected, as being none of Gods Spirit, it doth only well follow, that the Scripture is a Rule, that is to be set over all false Dictates, to judge and condemn them, which we most willingly grant.

Now I. A. perceiving that I could retort one of his Arguments, labours to guard against it, As seeing the Word of God is the principal Rule, and the Dictate or Speech of Gods Spirit within men, is the word of God; therefore that Dictate is the principal Rule: And this Argument I did use in my Book called, Quakerism no Pe∣pery. To which he Answers by denying, That there is any such Dictate of God, or the spirit in any men whomsoever, whether believers or unbelievers. But to this I Answer, 1. He will not deny, but that the Apostles had such an inward or immediate Dictate, and also the Prophets; and therefore he must allow, that the Scripture, as to the Prophets and Apostles, was but a secondary Rule, or at least no greater Rule, than that Dictate with∣in, which they had. And yet by I. A. his Logick, the Apostles did vilifie and despise the Scriptures, and it was a needless or unuseful thing unto them, seeing they had an inward

Dictate, which was greater, or at least equa unto the Scripture: Or let I. A. shew, how their having the Inward Dictate for their Rule, did not make them undervalue the Scriptures; whereas our having such a Dictate as he alledgeth, or pretending to such a Dictate makes us so to undervalue them. But secondly, he only supposeth it, without any proof, that such an Inward Dictate, which was once in the Church of God, (as is con∣fessed,) is discontinued, or ceased. And this indeed is the general manner of our oppo∣sers, who lay it down as a Principle, as need∣ing no proof, that Immediate Revelation, and Teaching of Gods Spirit is ceased. But let I. A. know, that we can receive no such Doctrine as a Principle from hims but return it as a meer idle and false supposition, which yet is the foundation of a great many of his consequences against us. Thirdly, that he saith, I should first prove, that there is such a D••ctate in every man. I Answer, that I have done already, in my Book called, Imme∣diate Revelation, published many years ago, by many Arguments; and he should first have Answered to these, before he had sought any more. Also in my Book called, Qua∣••erism no Popery, to which he has given no sufficient reply, and some of the most weigh∣ty, he hath not so much as once Named. And

whereas he objecteth the Americans, and others that cannot tell how many Gods there are: I ask him, by what shall the Americans be judged at the last day; shall it not be by the Law of God, writ in their Hearts. And do not these Americans sin against God, and those also who are most ignorant, and yet want the Scripture; now where no Law is, there is no transgression. This I hope is enough to prove, that even the Americans, and consequently all men, have a Divine Law in their Hearts; for if it were not Divine, and as really the Law of God, as any that we have, to transgress it, were not a sin against God. Hence I thus argue, a Divine Law in all men, is an Inward immediate Dictate; but there is a Divine Law in all men, and therefore, &c. And in this respect it is, that the substance of the Moral Law is generally acknowledged to be Imprinted in the Hearts of all men, even those who want the Scrip∣tures. And I well remember, that Bishop Sanderson saith in one of his Sermons, That the said Law, in the Hearts of all men, is as really the Word of God, as that Printed in our Bibles: And thus I hope I have sufficiently evinced, that there is a Dictate in all men, that is a Divine Law and Rule, at least in many or most things, belonging both to Piety, Justice, and Sobriety. Although I

do not plead, that there is a Law or Rule in them, who have not had the History of the Gospel revealed unto them to believe the same. Nor do I say, that the History of the Gospel is revealed to us immediately with∣out the Scripture; but that, having Heard or Read the said History, and all other Histo∣rical parts of the Scripture, the Spirit of God, by some Inward Dictate formal or virtual, or that which is equivalent, doth move and incline us to believe the same. And that I. A. doth plead, That Believers only have the Spirit. I Answer, They have it only so as to possess and enjoy the indwelling of it, and union with it; but that Unbelievers have it so far, at least as to reprove them, and call them to repentance, is clear from many Scriptures, especially Iohn 16. 8. Prov. 1. 23, 24.

In Answer to one Argument of mine, he saith, A Believer needs not any immediate Dictate, to assure him that he is a Child of God, seeing by the a••••istance of the Spirit effectively, he may draw a conclusion from Scripture Premisses, in applying the Scripture marks. But to this I Answer, that the Scripture only telleth him one of the Premisses, of that they call the practical Syllogism; but no Scripture in all the Bible telleth I. A. or me, that he, or I have these marks; and seeing a true Believer

may attain to a Faith of assurance, as I. A. doth not deny; and Faith must have the Word of God for its object, seeing there is not a word in all the Scripture that saith, he or I have those marks, we must seek that word somewhere else then in the Scripture; and where shall we seek it else but in our Hearts, where the Spirit himself witnesseth with our Spirits, that we are the Children of God, (if so be, that we have that witness) even as it did witness in Paul. And if the illumination of the Spirit discover the Graces of God in our Souls, certainly that is an Immediate Revelation; for Scripture doth not discover in us those Graces, but the Spirit; and he that discovers the Graces, discovereth also himself to be the true Spirit of God, and doth not hide himself from us; or else we might doubt whether the discovery were true or not, not knowing in∣fallibly the Author thereof.

Lastly, That he saith, I spurn at the di∣stinction of objective and subjective Illumination, as Anti-christian and deceitful. I Answer, I do not blame the distinction simply as in it self, but as it is illused and applyed: Whereas they say, The influence and illumination of the Spi∣rit in Believers, is meerly effective or subjective, and not at all objective: But I say it is both effective and objective; effective to help us to See or Hear; and objective, or by way of ••b∣ject,

for the Sight and Hearing, or any other perception of our Souls to stay and rest upon; but this object, can no more be the Letter of Scripture alone, than a report of Meat and Drink, can be the object to satisfie a mans Taste, or Appetite, when he is Hungry or Thirsty: And thus I do not confound the distinct considerations of objective and effective; only I affirm, that the same thing may be both, and so indeed is; as when the Sun enlightens us, its Ray or Beam helps us to see, and also it is the object of our sight: And the Heat of the Fire is both the object of our Feeling, and also when it is moderate helpeth us to feel, and effectively doth strengthen our Feeling: But when the Fire heateth a stone, it worketh in it only effective∣ly, and not objectively, or as an object; but Believers receive not the Heavenly Light and warmth of the Spirit as dead and insen∣sible stones, but as living Souls that have a real sense and perception of that which doth influence them; and therefore that influence is the proper immediate object of their per∣ception. And if there be no inward Spiritual object, that the Spirit presents to Gods Chil∣dren, then there is no inward Spiritual Eye nor Ear, nor inward Spiritual Taste or Sa∣vour, nor inward Spiritual Feeling, all which is most contrary, both to Scripture, (which

mentions all these Spiritual Senses, as I have proved at large in my Book of Immediate Revelation) and also to the Saints experiences. And doth not God promise, that his Chil∣dren shall see him under the New Covenant; and certainly all sight that is proper is imme∣diate. And to say, that the Saints only see God by the Scriptures, is but as much as to say, that we only see our Father, by a report of him, or that we only see the outward Sun by ones telling us that it shines, who hath indeed seen it; or that we only see our Native Coun∣try in which we live and dwell, by looking at the Map of it: But certainly such a remote and improper seeing do••s no wise answer to the Glory of the New Covenant, but rather falleth short of the Old: And if that be all to see God in the Scriptures, then all those that lived under the Old Covenant saw God, as clearly as Believers under the New Cove∣nant, seeing they had the Scriptures in great part. But I remember a good saying of S. R. in one of his Epistles, that I hope may have some weight with I. A. That is little (saith he) to see Christ in a Book, (which yet the Scripture is) and certainly if I. A. has seen no more of God, or Christ, but what he has had a report of, from the Letter of the Scripture; I must needs say, he is a great stranger to the New Covenant Dispensation, and is still like

so to remain, while he disputes in unbelief against so great a Blessing, that if he did be∣lieve, he might attain unto: But I wish the Lord may open his Eyes, and then he will no more contend against such a thing.

I. A. proceedeth further to dispute against the Dictate, or Witness of the Spirit within, although he saith, He hath sufficiently affronted it, yet because it is worthy of a thousand deaths, for its proud usurpation, as he saith, he will reach it some few blowes more. To this I An∣swer, that these exceeding bold and daring words, against the Blessed Dictates or Words of Gods Holy Spirit in the Hearts of his people, hath not a little moved me with Commiseration and pity, praying heartily that the Lord may forgive him.

But now let us see further, what he saith against the inward Dictate. First, he saith, It is not essentially right and infallible, because all men have not the Spirit: But to this is An∣swered already. And whether all men have the Spirit in some sense, Yea or Nay; it is agreed upon by all sober Writers, that there is an infallible and incorruptible Law planted by God in all men, even those who have not the Scriptures, which the Lawyers call Syn∣deresis, that is, the foundation of all just and good Laws; and if that were destroyed or corrupted, all Justice should utterly perish a∣mong

that part of mankind, in whom it should be destroyed or corrupted. But this I. A. like a blind man he striketh so rashly with his supposed Blowes, that he not only fighteth against our Religion, and Principle, but even against all the Lawyers and Justicia∣ries, and all other sober Writers, on these mat∣ters, who do all unanimously plead, that there is such an incorruptible Law implanted or imprinted by the Creator in all men: And certainly if that Law could be corrupted and changed from its essential rectitude and puri∣ty, to transgress it, were no sin; for a corrupt and impure Law, can be no Law of God. And doth not Paul speak of the Law that was in the Hearts of the Gentiles, which he did not say, they did or could corrupt, But that they held the Truth in unrighteousness, Rom. 2. 15 compared 1. 18. Again he ar∣gueth, That as for Believers, they need no In∣ward Dictate or Teaching of the Spirit, seeing the whole Doctrine of Salvation is abundantly made known in the Scriptures. But I Answer, That the whole Doctrine of Salvation is abun∣dantly made known in the Scriptures, that the Inward Teaching and Revelation of God by his Spirit is needless, is a thing he barely doth alledge, without proof, as his ordinary cu∣stom is: And indeed his manner of Argument is, as if one should say, the Card or Map of

the Earth, doth abundantly make the Earth known unto us, with the things therein; and therefore we need no other knowledge of the Earth, nor of any thing in it; we need not see the Earth it self, nor Taste any of the Fruits of it; and when we Hunger or Thirst, we need neither Bread nor Drink, the report of these things can satisfie our Appetite well enough: Or if one should say to a Woman that intirely loves her Husband, thou hast many of thy Husbands Letters, and Books; also thou hast his Picture very perfectly drawn, to look upon, and it cannot be better drawn than it is done already, and therefore what needs thou to hear or see thy Husband himself. The application is easie, for certain∣ly as the report of Meat and Drink, cannot satisfie one that is Hungry and Thirsty, though it be never so full, and as to hear or read of our most dear and beloved Friends, is not enough to satisfie our desire after them; but over and above all that others can tell us of them, we desire to hear and see them, and converse with them immediately; so a report of God and Christ, cannot satisfie the Souls of Gods people, but they desire a nearer knowledge of him, whom their Souls love, and which he doth also give unto them, ac∣cording to his promise, Ioh. 14. 21. He that loveth me, (said Christ) shall be loved of my Fa∣ther,

and I will manifest my self unto him. And why did Christ promise, that he would send his Spirit to Teach them all things, if the Teaching of his Spirit was a needless thing? Might they not have answered according to I. A. thou needest not send thy Spirit to Teach us, we have the Scriptures that abundantly Teach us all things needful to be known; and what is not expressly contained in the Scriptures, we can gather it by consequence from the Scrip∣ture, and therefore there is no need of sending the Spirit to Teach us, it is but a superfluous labour. But however this Lan∣guage savours to such whole persons as I. A. that need not the Physician; yet those that are truly Sick, Poor and Indigent, do need the Lord and his Spirit to Teach them, and also to speak unto them; without which they cannot be healed, refreshed and comforted, by all that they can read or hear from the Letter of the Scriptures, or what man can Preach unto them, until the Lord by his Spi∣rit syeak unto them himself.

And in the close of his Argument against the necessity of the Inward Teaching, or Dictate of the Spirit of God, he pleadeth, That it is inconsistent, to hold an infallible Dictate of the Spirit to be in any man, and yet that man in any respect, to Think, Speak, Write, or act fallibly: And 〈◊〉〈◊〉 when Peter de∣nyed

Christ, as also when Christ reproved him, for saying, be it far from thee Master: Peter ac∣cording to I. A. had no infallible Dictate in him: And seeing I. A. doth plead that the Apostles did sin in Thought, Word and Deed, so long as they lived upon Earth, and to sin is to act fallibly, it must needs follow by his doctrine, that none of the Apostles had any infallible Dictate. But why may they not err who have an infallible Dictate within, as they may err who have the Scrip∣ture without, that is infallible? May not a man have an infallible guide and way before him, and yet through unwatchfulness, not follow that infallible guide and way. Again, whereas he pleads, That there is no middle be∣twixt fallible and infallible. I Answer, to be universally fallible, and partly infallible, I grant is a contradiction, and admitteth no midst, but yet to be partly infallible, viz. so far as a man doth follow the infallible Teach∣ing and leading of Gods Spirit; and partly fallible, viz. so far as at another instant or moment, or hour, and in another thing he waiteth not for his guide, but runneth before, or turneth aside from him: I say, these two are no contradiction. And I ask I. A. hath he no infallibility nor infallible knowledge in any thing? Doth he not believe and know infallibly that there is a God, and divers

other weighty Truths? This I judge he will not deny? Well then. According to his Lo∣gick, if he be infallible, when he Thinks, Says, or Writs that there is a God, he must be infal••ible in all other things that he either Thinks, Writes, or speaks, because according to his Doctrine, there is no midle betwixt fallible and infallible. I. A. should have better remembred his School-Logick, which Teach∣eth, that contradictory propositions are not betwixt two universals, nor two particulars; but the one universal, and the other par∣ticular.

His 3d Argument against the Dictate of the Spirit of God within, is the same with his 4th Argument that is formerly Answered above▪ concerning the Scripture. And surely this re∣peating of Arguments, as if they were new ones, when they are nothing but old ones formerly used, argueth great barrenness of matter in I. A. else he would not run into such needless and idle Tautologies. But he thinks I have yeilded the cause to him, because I grant, all Doctrines, that agree not with the Scriptures, are to be rejected; therefore the Scripture is a superior rule to all such false Doctrines I grant. Therefore the Scripture is Superior to the Spirit of God and his Dictate in our Hearts, I deny it. And though we are to examine the inward Dictates of Gods Spi∣rit

by the Scriptures, yet that proves not that the Scriptures are superior; no more, than that it proves that the words of the Prophets were superior to the words of Christ and the Apostles, because the people examined the latter by the former.

His fourth Argument is built upon a Sup∣position, that the Scriptures are the principal rule, and consequently not the Spirit inward∣ly Dictating in our hearts. But he hath not proved that the Scripture is a more principal rule, then the Spirit. Although in respect of all outward rules that can be named, or con∣ceived, the Scripture is the most principal rule. Nor is it any repugnancy to say, the Scrip∣••ure is the principal external rule, by which all Doctrines and Principles of Religion are to be examined, and what is contrary to Scripture is to be rejected; and yet to say also that the Spirit himself, perswading or assuring us, of the Truth of the Scripture, is the principal inward rule, seeing these two principles are in differing kinds, the one external, or with∣out us, the other internal, and within us, which are very well consistent, and mutu∣ally bear witness one of another, even as Iohn bare witness to Christ, and Christ bare witness to Iohn: Although Christ needed not the Testimony of Iohn, as for himself.

His fourth Argument concludeth only against a thing, which we do no wise deny, viz. That every Dictate within is not the Rule: And I. A. might have spared his pains to dispute against that, which no man holdeth. For who is so absurd to think that every Dictate, suppose it be of a mans own vain and foolish mind, or of the Devil, is to be received as his rule. The Question is not con∣cerning every Dictate, nor indeed concer∣ning any other, then that alone Dictate of the Spirit of God and of Christ in men, which hath a self evidence unto him, who hath it, as I. A. must needs acknowledge it had to the Prophets and Apostles. But he objects, That the Devil may present an Imposture unto a man, with so much seeming evidence, as with the con∣currence of a deceitful heart, will make it be received for a Divine Truth, especially by that man that for the present time has no Divine Dictate. To this I Answer, That the person supposed by I. A. is either one that the Lord hath in his just judgment for some great un∣faithfulness, and abuse of Light formerly given, delivered up to Satan's delusions, such as these mentioned 2 Thess. 2. 11. And as for him, and the like sort, the Scripture cannot help him: For certainly he that is given up by the Lord, to the delusion of Satan, as a punish∣ment of his sinning against the Light he once

had, will misunderstand the Scripture, and cannot otherwise do, even as the Iews and Sadducees did of old. But as for others that are not so given up by the Lord, it ought not to be supposed, that they can altogether want some Divine Dictate, or witness of Gods Spirit, to testifie against the strongest delusion of Satan. And therefore he to whom Satan presents such a delusion, if he hath a sincere love to the Truth, by comparing the delusion with the true Dictate or Light of Christ that witnesseth against it, may readily discover it, to be a delusion; and if the said delusion be contrary to any Doctrine expresly declared in the Scripture, the Scripture will also be a se∣condary confirmation to him, that what is so presented to him, is but a delusion. But many times Satan presents delusions to men to do, or act things, that are not simply in them∣selves unlawful, or contrary to Scripture. And then I Query by what rule, shall these delusions be discovered? But I confess I. A. hath a very short way, but yet very false and unsound to resolve this question, viz. Po∣sitively to conclude, that all inward Dictates and suggestions whatsoever that any man finds in himself, are utterl•• to be rejected, as being any Command of God, or any Divine Testimony, seeing▪ there are none such in the hearts of men. They are all according to him, either a mans

own thoughts or suggestions of Satan: And therefore nothing that a man hath in him is to be relyed upon. But it is strange Doctrine, that Satan shall be so near always to Dictate evil, even unto the Children of God, im∣mediately; but God and Christ shall be at such a distance, as not once in a mans whole life time, to Dictate in him immediately that which is good. The which Doctrine of I. A. is so favourable to the Devil, and so advan∣tagious to advance and uphold his Kingdom among men, that this one consideration is enough to render it suspected that it is not of God, but of the adversary.

CHAP. VII.

IN the Third Section of his Survey upon the Fourth Query, I. A. pretends to Answer our Objections or Reasons, That there is a Word or Dictate of God in our Hearts, or Christ himself that doth Dictate or Teach in us; and who is the principal Rule of Faith and Life. All which Objections he brings them not, either in matter or form as used by us, but miserably perverts the most of them to a con∣trary sense and intent, as if we did use those Reasons to oppose an outward Ministry, or the use of outward Preaching, Hearing, Reading, Praying; none of which we op∣pose; but on the contrary, we own all these things, as both needful to be done, seeing they are commanded of God, and as profitable to men; yea, to the most advanced and expe∣rienced Saints, when duly practised. And it is an exceeding great mistake in our Adversa∣ries generally to suppose, That our Principle of Immediate Revelation, or the Immediate Teachings of the Spirit doth destroy, or make null and void the use of the Scriptures, or any other means: For by Immediate, we mean

not Immediate in opposition to those things, that are means truly appointed of God, as Reading the Scriptures, Preaching, Praying, Meditating, Singing, Waiting. But on the contrary we say, It is only by the help of the Spirits immediate Teachings and Leadings, that those and the like means are made effe∣ctual, and profitable to the People of God. For if the Prophets and Apostles their having Immediate Revelation, did not make void the use of the Scriptures unto them, nor the use of Preaching, Praying, Reading, Medi∣tating, Waiting and Watching, no more doth our having it. Again, our Adversaries grant, that God doth operate or work imme∣diately, by an immediate effective illuminati∣on of his Spirit, in the hearts of all his People, and that this immediateness doth not hinder, or make void the use of means, but make them the more profitable and useful; even so nor the i••mediate objective illumination, doth in the least made void the means, as is already said in the case of the Prophets and Apostles; and Paul said, the Scriptutes were writ for his and his Brethrens Learning, even his fellow Apostles, as well as other Christians. And to say or think the contrary, is as absurd and unreasonable, as who would say, a Scho∣lar that is taught of his Master immediately is not to read upon any Book, nor to hearken

to any of his fellow Scholars, that may be as well or better learned than himself; and on the other hand, to set up the means in opposi∣tion to the Lords immediate Teachings, is equally unreasonable as to conclude, such a man has Books whereon to learn, and there∣fore it can profit him nothing to be taught immediately, or viva voce, and by word of mouth by a l••ving Teacher. Now both these extreams, our Principle, and the Scripture, and also our good experience have taught us to shun. And the immediateness of the Spi∣rits illuminations, both effectively and obje∣ctively to work and operate in us, in the use of all the means appointed of God, (some∣times in the use of one means, and sometimes in the use of another; as now in Reading, then in Hearing; now in Preaching, then in Praying; now in Meditating, then in Sing∣ing or Praising God; now in giving Alms, then in visiting the Sick, or thos•• that are in Prison; and sometimes, as the mind is retired in pure silence to wait upon the Lord, which may be as well and as truly called a mean, as any of the former. I say the immediateness of the Spirits Communications and Illuminati∣ons, in the use of those and the like means aforesaid) do as well consist with the means, and the means with them, as the immediate Sun-shine and influence of the heat, and com∣fortable

warmth of the Sun, which worketh both effectively and objectively upon us, con∣sist with the means; when we walk or tra∣vel on the Road at noon day, or labour in the Field, Plough, Digg, Sow, Reap, and use any other manual operation, the which means are so far from hindring, or making void the necessity of the Suns immediate in∣fluence and concurrence, that none of these things can be well or comfortably performed without it. And in this large and general sense of the word means, which also is true, it may be warrantably enough said, without any prejudice to our principle of Immediate Revelation, that we have no ground to ex∣pect any Immediate Manifestation or Revela∣tion of God, but in the use of some one means or another, that God requireth us to be found in. For there is not one hour, or moment of our Life, but there is something of Duty or Obedience that we ought to be found in, ei∣ther inwardly or outwardly (if we have the use of our understandings as men) and every act of Obedience may and ought truly to be called a means of our receiving somewhat im∣mediately of God, to wit, our Faith, our Love▪ our Hope, our Holy Fear, our Care, our Watchfulness, our Praying, Meditating, and silent Waiting; and in one word, our whole Obedience, all these are as truly and

properly means, as Prea••••ing, or reading in the Scriptures. And thus every one that is most diligently exercised in the true means, has greatest access unto God, and doth most abundantly partake of the immediate Revela∣tions and Communications of God's Holy Spi∣rit, Light, Life, Love, Vertue, Power, and Wisdom. And if it be said, Why are they called then Immediate; I Answer, Because we feel or perceive them most near unto us even as near, or rather more near unto us, as the things or actions wherein we are exercised, giving Spiritual Vigour, Life, and lustre un∣to them, without which they are but as dead or lifeless. And thus even as when the soul liveth in the Body, it is said to be immediate∣ly united with it, and act immediately there∣in or therewith, although it useth the Body as its Instrument: Even so the Spirit of God and of Christ, livingly indwelling in the Saints, and united with them, and they with him, is said to act immediately in them, and with them, although the Lord useth them as means or instruments to work with him. And as for the word Immediate Revelation, seeing it is not any express Scripture phrase, no not in the case of the Prophets and Apostles, so far as I can remember, if the thing it self were grant∣ed, to wit, That God doth inwardly reveal and speak his mind, or shew his Glory, and glorious

••ower and Presence in his Children, as he did in and to his Saints of Old; so that the Saints do Hear, See and perceive, also Taste and Savour, and feel after God Himself, as he reveals him∣self in his Son, by the Holy Spirit, the Contro∣versy about the Name or Phrase should soon be at an end; for it did satisfie the Prophets and Apostles, who had it in great measure to call it simply Revelation, and Vision, or the like, without adding the word Immediate: for in those daies, it seemeth that deceitful di∣stinction of Mediate and Immediate Revelation was not found out in the World; I call it de∣ceitful and false, because, to speak properly, all Revelation is Immediate, even as all Vision is Immediate; and so is all Hearing, for I can neither see nor hear a man, unless I see and hear him immediately. And as for the Scrip∣ture, when it is called a Revelation, it should be figuratively understood, as when it is called a Vision; for none will say that Isaiah his Book is really the Vision it self which he s••w, but on∣ly a declaration of it. And as 〈◊〉〈◊〉 could not write the intellectual Vision that he saw, to speak properly, so nor could he write the in∣tellectual Voice, Word or Words, that he did only intellectually hear, but only a Report or Declaration of them, the which doth far come short of what he saw, or heard; and in this respect, Paul saith, that he heard verba inef∣fabilia,

unspeakable words, that could not be uttered or expressed, and so did all the Pro∣phets and Apostles; for indeed the words of the mouth, as they can be spoken and writ, fall short many times to express the depth of what we inwardly think or receive in natural things, and how much more to express what God doth inwardly speak or reveal, which yet is no derogation from the words of Scrip∣ture, for it is acknowledged by us to be a bles∣sed instrument, in the hand of the Spirit for our Instruction. And though we cannot be so bold as to say, That the true God is not Wor∣shipped, nor known savingly, where the Scrip∣ture is wanting, as I. A. doth alledge more daringly, I suppose, than many of his Bre∣thren that that are more sober will allow, yet we do believe and freely acknowledge that the Scriptures are ordinary means, (but yet not without the inward Direction, Revelation and Teaching of God's own Spirit) of Peoples In∣struction, in all Nations, according to Rom. 16. 26. and those Nations that want the Scrip∣tures, are, no doubt, for most part, in great darkness; But why some Nations want the blessing of the Scriptures belongeth to the se∣cret Judgments of God; and as for us, who have them, let us be thankful to God, and earnestly seek the holy Spirit that gave them forth, without which they will be a Sealed

Book unto us, whether learned or unlearned, as it is at this day unto the unbelieving Jews, and also unto many thousands of unfaithful Professors of Christ, who in works deny him. And thus, by what is said, how and in what manner we own the Word of God in our Hearts, immediately Speaking and Teaching, as our principal Rule, I. A. his Cavils, and false Charges are sufficiently Answered, which may serve to all his Third Section. Yet to Answer to some things more particularly, whereas I. A. alledgeth, That the Word men∣tioned, Deut. 30. 14. is not Christ, but the Books or Writings of Moses. To this I Answer, But whether shall we rather believe I. A. or the Apostle Paul, who, Rom. 10. doth plainly ex∣pound it of Christ; see Verse 4. compared with Verse 5, 6, 7, 8. when he distinguisheth betwixt the Law and Christ, as preferring Christ to the Law; and he saith, Christ is the end of the Law, which he proveth out of Moses's words, Deut. 30. 14. and therefore these words of Moses are to be understood of Christ, and so did Clements Alexandrinus, and others of the Fathers understand them. But saith I. A. Moses tyes them straitly to the exter∣nal written Word of the Scriptures. But what then, doth he so tye them, as that they were not to regard God, or Christ, or the Holy Spirit in their Hearts? How wild and unrea∣sonable

is this consequence? Could the people understand the true Spiritual intent and sig∣nification of the Law, without Christ and his Spirit, and inward Teaching? Was it not the fault of the people, that they stuck so close to the bare outward performances of the Law, and neglected Christ and his Spirit, which could alone give the understanding of it: And therefore when he came in the flesh, they rejected him.

Secondly, as to Ieremiah 31. v. 31, 32. we do not bring this place to overthrow the ex∣ternal Rule of the Scripture, or true outward Teaching, as I. A. falsly doth alleadge, but only to prove, that God himself doth Teach his people under the New Covenant; so that they hear God himself, and learn of him; which yet doth not hinder, yet they both also may and ought to hear all those, whom God sendeth. And certainly that Scripture expression to be Taught of God; is more, or a further thing then to be Taught by the Letter of the Scripture, or by Moses and the Prophets Writings; otherwise it might be said, that the people simply by the Old Covenant, was as much Taught of God, as under the New.

Thirdly, Nor do we bring Luke 17. 20, 21. where Christ saith, The Kingdom of God is within you, to exclude all External helps and

means, as I. A. doth again no less falsely alleadge. But only to prove that there is an inward Principle of Christs Light, Life and Grace in men, whereby he ruleth in those that are obedient unto the same; and even in them, who are disobedient, it hath its Rule and Kingdom so far as to judge and condemn them; which yet it could not do, without some inward Dictate or witness.

Fourthly, As to Iohn 16. 13. where Christ Promises to send his Spirit to guide us into all Truth: Nor do we bring this to oppose all outward Teaching, Reading, Learning, &c. But still we say, seeing it was a promise made to the Apostles, as well as unto us, it imply∣eth a real inward Teaching of God, and the Spirit; that is somewhat further, then the outward Teaching whatsomever, which if it may and ought to be called immediate in the Apostles, may and ought also to be called immediate in Gods people now, and always to the end of the World, seeing the promise is the same to both; and therefore hath the same performance at least in kind, if not in degree.

Fifthly, The same false and absurd charge he is guilty of, as to 1 Ioh. 2. 20, 27. which mentioneth, The Anointing which taught them all things, so that they needed not any man to Teach them. For we bring not this place to

oppose all outward Preaching or Teaching of men, of God truly sent and called by him; But only the bare dead and dry Teaching of men, who run, and God hath not sent them. And also the words may be understood in re∣spect of an absolute necessity; so as they who are come to that inward Anointing, and that it abide in them, they have not an absolute necessity of outward true Teachers, so as they must need perish, for want of them, if so be at any time, they could not be had, as doth at times come to pass. And thus also that of Ieremiah 31. 31, 32, 33, 34. is to be under∣stood, importing likewise that all True Be∣lievers, should have that experimental know∣ledge of God and acquaintance with him, by the inward Teachings of his Spirit, so as none should be wholly ignorant of God, but all should know him in measure; and there∣fore it should not be needful to say unto any of them, know the Lord; as if they were utterly ignorant of him, in respect of Spiri∣tual and experimental knowledge, as indeed many or most of the people under the Law were: Which yet hinders not, but that still there will be both need and great use of True Teachers in the Church to the Worlds end, though not to say, know the Lord, (as if they did not in any measure know him) yet to promote and advance them who know

him already, in more knowledge of him; and of the great and deep Mysteries of his Kingdom.

Sixthly, He saith, That engrafted word men∣tioned Jam. 1. 21. which we are bid receive, is the Scripture, and not Christ, or his Light. For he saith, We cannot in proper Speech be said to receive or hear a Dictate within, which we have already, and is not audible properly. But how weak is this Argument? Could not the Prophets and Apostles both hear and receive Christ, whom they had already? were they not still more and more to receive him. And have we not the Scripture already, and con∣sequently according to I. A. we cannot re∣ceive it. And that he saith, A Dictate within is not audible properly. But why not as pro∣perly, as a Dictate without? Seeing the Spi∣ritual Hearing and Seeing are as proper in their kind, as the Natural are in their kind. And according to this reasoning of I. A. none of the Prophets nor Apostles were to hear God, or the Spirit in them, seeing nothing within, is audible properly. And as for the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that is Englished, Engrafted, it doth most properly signifie innate, and is commonly understood of that which origi∣nally is Grafted or Implanted in us; and in this sense is used generally both by Chri∣stian and Heathen Writers, as it is contra∣distinguished▪

from that which is outwardly received. Hence the natural love or affection that is in mankind, is said to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the which is not a thing outwardly received, and consequently the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, cannot be the Letter of the Scripture, but a Divine prin∣ciple immediately grafted into our Souls, when God Created them? and in respect of which, men are said to be made in the Image of God.

Seventhly, He alledgeth, that we bring Heb. 6. 1, 2. To oppose and reject all External Ordinances out of the Church citing Principles of Truth, pag. 63, 68, 77, 80. And here he insulteth not a little, as if by the same Argu∣ment, The Quakers were obliged to reject the very Principles of the Doctrine of Christ, and the foundation of Repentance and Faith, as well as Water-Baptism. But to this I Answer, having examined these pages cited by him, I do not find, that they mention or intend any thing of rejecting the Principles of the Doctrine of Christ, or External Ordinances. And let but the Reader examine the words, and he shall find, that nothing further is intended, than this, that people should not sit down, or build their Faith upon a form of words, though never so sound, but should come further than all words; so that leaving them behind, as in respect of a foundation, they

were to come unto Christ the true foundation, and grow up in him unto perfection. And as for Water-baptism, that place of the Heb. 6. 1, 2. doth not mention it, among the principles of the Doctrine of Christ, but only the Doctrine of Baptisms, which is another thing than Water-Baptism. For although we have not Water-Baptism among us, yet we have the Doctrine of Baptisms, that is set down, with other principles of our Faith, as in divers other of our Book, so in that men∣tioned by him, called, The Principles of Truth. Now to leave a form of Words, or Articles and Propositions concerning Faith, which commonly are called Principles, so as not to set them up for the principal and only founda∣tion of our Faith, which people are but too ready to do. This is not to reject them, no more than when a man leaves his Affairs he hath been conversant in, and goeth to his Bed to rest him with moderate sleep, is to re∣ject his Affairs, for he returneth unto them again.

Eighthly, He saith, We object that Enoch, Noah, Abraham, &c. Had not the Scrip∣ture to be their Rule, and therefore nor are we to have it to be our Rule: And this he makes as ridiculous a consequence, as to say, the Scriptures were not written in the primitive World, therefore neither afterwards. But I

Answer, that to argue from thence, that the Scripture is not to be our only and principal Rule, is both safe and pertinent. For it Enoch, Noah, Abraham had the Spirit to be a Rule unto them, it is no less a rule unto all now, who have the same Faith which they had; seeing the same Spirit is given to Be∣lievers now, which they had, which Spirit is one, as Paul hath declared; and it is most Rational, that as the Faith is one, in all Ages of the World, and the Spirit one, so the Principal rule of Faith should be one also.

Ninthly, He saith, I object, (Quaker••sm no Popery, pag. 9. 13.) That the Test••mony of the Spirit within, is greater than the External Testi∣mony of the Scripture; and therefore the said Testimony of the Spirit is the Principal Rule. To which he roundly Answereth, by deny∣ing that there is any such Testimony of the Spirit within Believers; and because I say there is, he alledgeth I drive the Plough be∣fore the Oxen. But I Answer, that I have proved it sufficiently already; and now also I have Answered I hope sufficiently, all his ob∣jections against it. And here I desire the Reader to take notice, how that notwith∣standing I. A. saith elsewhere, as Pag. 44. That he and his Brethren never denyed the Spi∣rits Teaching, Yet how inconsistent that is, with denying any Testimony of the Spirit, or

Dictate thereof, in mens hearts. Is the Teach∣ing of the Spirit, only an outward thing? Is it nothing else, but to Hear or Read the Letter of the Scripture? And are they all Taught of the Spirit, who are but only and meerly Taught by the Letter? But if it be granted, that there is an inward Teaching of the Spirit, distinct from the outward Teaching of the Scripture, although not se∣parated therefrom, or without the outward, as I know some of the more sober doth ac∣knowledge; then I say, is not that inward Teaching a Testimony of the Spirit? For to affirm it to be a Teaching, and no Testimony, seemeth to me to be a great contradiction. And as for us, althogh we cannot say that the inward Teaching or Testimony of the Spirit is never in any case, without the out∣ward; yet we grant it is oft accompanied with the outward, and in that case, it is no less truly immediate, than if it were without it, as I have already shewed. And supposing, but not at all granting, that the inward Teaching of the Spirit were never without the outward of the Letter; yet seeing the outward Teach∣ing of the Letter, is oft without the inward, (for many are Taught by the Letter, who are not Spiritually Taught, all that the Letter hath outwardly Taught them) it followeth evidently that the inward Teaching of the

Spirit, and outward Teaching of the Letter are distinct things, as is manifest from that sure maxime, that when two things can be seperate, so as the one to be without the other, they are really distinct. This Argument I used in my Book called Quakerism no Popery; but I. A. hath made no reply to it. And still I say, if the inward Teaching of the Spirit be denyed, it doth follow, that in respect of any inward Speaking, or Teaching, God doth no more intelligibly or perceptibly speak to the Saints, than he speaketh to the Earth to bring forth Grass; the which consequence I. A. seemeth to allow, but how absurdly, I leave to sober men to judge.

And whereas I. A. saith, That God doth not always make use of the greater Witnesses for testifying his will to us. I Answer, In respect of men and Angels, it is true: But notwithstan∣ding God hath given himself, and his own Holy Spirit, which is one with him, to be unto us a witness of his will; and this is the greatest witness that can be given: See Rom. 8. 16. 1 Ioh. 5. 8, 9.

CHAP. VIII.

IN his pretended Survey of the Fifth Query, he begins with two false Charges against us, the First, That we deny all Scripture Inter∣pretation; the Second, That we deny all Scrip∣ture Consequences; And to refute these idle Suppositions, which are none of our Asserti∣ons, he spendeth many Pages of his Book to no purpose, and wherein we are nothing concerned to Answer: For we own both Scrip∣ture interpretation, and just and necessary con∣sequences of Scripture; but then we say, that these interpretations and consequences ought to be by the help and direction of the same Spirit that gave forth the Scriptures, immedi∣ately teaching them to interpret, and to draw such consequences therefrom; to which I. A. doth not pretend, nor any of his Brethren. For all the Interpretations and consequences which Christ or the Apostles used, were by the same Spirit that was in the Pro∣phets; and Peter saith expresly that no Pro∣phecy of Scripture is of private Interpretation; and it is said of Christ, that he opened the un∣derstandings of the Disciples that they might

understand the Scriptures, which opening was by his Spirit that he gave unto them, and see∣ing the Scripture cannot be understood without the opening of the Spirit that gave it forth, it cannot be interpreted without the same; nor can consequences be lawfully deduced from Scriptures without it; for how can a man in∣terpret what he doth not understand? or how can he deduce a consequence from that where∣of he is ignorant?

And there is yet another fault that we find in I. A. and his Brethrens interpretations of Scripture and consequences therefrom, that they keep not closely to Scripture it self, when they interpret, or draw consequences, but for most part, mingle with the Scripture words many of their false principles and Axioms of that they call their Philosophy. For as I have already said; the most part of that they call their Phi∣losophy, is utterly false or uncertain; nor are the Teachers of it agreed among themselves, in their Principles and Axioms. And yet their Consequences are commonly from one or other of these false or uncertain Maxims or Principles which they joyn with the Scripture, in which case the consequences are not purely Scriptural. For seeing in Argumentation, the Conclusion or Consequence is drawn from two Propositions or Premisses, one of which may be true, the other false. Again, the one may

be true and certain, the other although true, yet may be to us uncertain and doubtful; in which cases, the consequence or conclusion is always of the nature of the weaker premise, hence if but one of the premisses be false, the conclusion is false, although the other Premise be true: And if one of the Premisses be un∣clear or uncertain, the conclusion is also un∣certain. And again, if one of the Premisses be Scripture, and the other be but some prin∣ciple or maxime of Natural Philosophy so called, the conclusion in that case is not Scriptural, but Natural: And thus much is generally acknowledged by all the School∣men so called. And hence it is that the School-Divinity, as it is so termed is rejected by many, as a dubious and uncertain thing, because the conclusions thereof, for most part, depend not on Scripture Propositions, but uncertain and doubtful principles and maxims of that called Natural Philosophy. But again, suppose one should draw a con∣sequence from Premisses that are both Scrip∣tural; yet seeing the terms in those Premisses may have different significations, as the words, Flesh, Spirit, Life, Light, Man, and many others, that have one signification in one place of Scripture, and quite another in ano∣ther part of Scripture; the conclusion in that case doth not follow, for not only the Art of

Logick, but Common Reason it self Teach∣eth us, that in all Arguments, the word or term that is used in both Premisses, must have the same sense and signification in both. Now he who has not the direction of the same Spi∣rit that did Dictate the Scripture, hath not this discerning so as to know the true sense or signification of Scripture words, as they sig∣nify Spiritual Misteries and things; For the Natural man understands not the Things of God, as saith the Scripture, and therefore he is utterly unfit to reason about them. By which natural man I understand, any man considered as never so well furnished with all Natural helps of his Parts and Arts, but wanting the Spirit of God, or at least not making use of the help of it, but puting another thing in its room. And thus much shall suffice at present to the Intelligent Reader, how and after what manner we own both Scripture Inter∣pretations and Consequences; and yet may very well deny I. A. his Interpretations and Consequences, and all such as he is, who de∣clare themselves Enemies to that Spirit that gave forth the Scriptures, as necessary to help them in interpreting and drawing Conse∣quences from Scripture. And albeit I. A. use many Arguments to prove, that Interpreta∣tions of Scripture are lawful, and Conse∣quences therefrom; as that Christ and the

Apostles did interpr•••• the Scriptures, and draw Consequences therefrom; yet all this proves not, that I. A. his Interpretations and Con∣sequences, without the same Spirit, which they had, are as good, which is all one as to say, Christ and the Apostles did Interpret the Scriptures, and argue from them by the Spi∣rit: And therefore I. A. and his Brethren may as well do it, without the Spirit; but who having common Sense, doth not see the unreasonableness of this Consequence. Again, as for the Levites their Expounding the Scrip∣ture, which is another Argument of I. A. it remaineth for him to prove, that these Le∣vites who did rightly Interpret the Scripture, did it without the Spirit of God, and meerly by their own Natural Understanding. And what if these Levites were not in all respects Infallible? it doth not therefore follow, that they had no Infallible direction of Gods Spi∣rit, when they did rightly Interpret the Scrip∣ture. And indeed this is a third false Charge of I. A. against us, as if we did hold, that none is to Intepret the Scripture, but he who is simply and absolutely, or in all respects In∣fallible, which we affirm not. Nor is that the true state of the Question, but this, Whe∣ther any should give an Interpretation of Scrip∣ture, without he be Infallibly perswaded by the Spirit of God, that he hath received it from the

Lo••d. We say, Nay, otherwise he Preacheth not the Word of God to the people, but his own Fallible conjecture. Now it is one thing to be simply or universally Infallible, and another thing to be Infallibly directed in some particular cases of Interpreting some particular places of Scripture, as God giveth to a man the help of his Spirit so to do. And thus I. A. his two first Sections, wherein he spendeth 18 Pages are sufficiently Answered. In the be∣ginning of his third Section, concerning Bap∣tism with Water, he alledgeth falsly upon us, That wherever Bapt••sm is mentioned in the New Testament, and the word Water is not ex∣presly added; that we always deny Baptism with Water, there to be meant. This is false, for we grant, that though Water be not expres∣sed, yet in some places, Baptism with Wa∣ter is understood; as where Paul said, Christ sent me not to Baptize; here we affirm, that to Baptize signifieth to Baptize with Water. But we say further, That the words Baptism and Baptize, when Water is not mentioned, do sometimes signifie Water-baptism, and at other times not, but some other thing, as the Baptism of the Spirit, or the Baptism of Suf∣ferings; as where Christ said to two of his Disciples, Can ye be Baptized with my Bap∣tism; this was not Water-baptism, but the Baptism of his Sufferings whereof they were to be partakers.

And here in my Answer to I. A. his Ar∣guments for Water-baptism, its being a Go∣spel Ordinance, it shall suffice to take no∣tice, what is the principal defect of every one of them, and wherein he comes short in his proof as being meerly asserted, which therefore are to be returned unto him to be proved. In his first Argument he alledgeth, That John the Baptist was the first Minister of the New Testament way of Dispensation, for which he citeth, Mat. 11, 12, 13. Luk. 16. But these places prove no such thing, for they do not call him the first; and the words, viz. The Law and the Prophets was unto John; here Iohn is the term inclusive in respect of the Law and Prophets, as if I should say England reaches from I ands end in Cornwall to Berwick upon I weed; here Berwick is the term inclusive, and therefore it doth not follow, that it is any part of Scotland; again to say Scotland reach∣eth from Berwick to Orknay; here again Ber∣wick is exclusive, in respect of Scotland; and therefore when it is said, From John, the Go∣spel of the Kingdom is P••eached. It doth not inferr, that the Gospel began at Iohn in∣clusively, but exclusively, even as Scotland begins at Berwick exclusively; for Iohn was but a fore-runner of Christ, who himself be∣gan the Gospel Dis••ensation, in a peculiar way, and yet Christ also was subject to the

Law, for he was Circumcised, and did Eat the Passover, both which were but Legal Ad∣ministrations.

And here again, in the Prosecution of the first Argument I. A. abuseth us, saying, That we agree with Papists in affirming that Christs Baptism was substantially differing from the Baptism of John. But his fallacy lyeth in this, that he doth not express what the Papists mean by Christs Baptism; for they mean Water∣Baptism, even as I. A. doth; but we say, the Baptism of Christ is not with Water, but with the Holy Ghost: Now we do not say as the Papi••ts, That there were two Baptisms with Water, one of John another of Christ; but only that Iohn's Baptism with Water, and Christs Baptism with the Holy Ghost were distinct, even as Iohn and Christ have ex∣presly distinguished them. And therefore the seeond Objection he instanceth pag. 69. doth not concern us.

As to his second Argument, he taketh great pains to prove a thing which we no wise deny, viz. That the Disciples did Baptize di∣vers with Water, after Christ his Ascention, and his giving the Holy Ghost; But it is the con∣sequence that is den••ed by us, viz. That therefore Water-Baptism, is a Gospel pre∣cept, for the Disciples practised divers things after Christ his Ascension, which were not

Gospel Precepts, for Paul Circumcised Ti∣mothy long after Christ his Ascention, also he purified himself after the manner of the Law, none of which were Gospel Precepts. And the Disciples did not only abstain from Blood and things Strangled, but enjoyned it unto others, the which Abstinance continued in the Church, even in Tertullian's days, as is clear from his words; and I. A. doth not hold that to be a Gospel Precept, nor yet the Anointing with Oyl the Sick, nor the Washing one ano∣thers Feet, both which were commanded and practised in the Primitive times. And this doth also sufficiently Answer his third Argument, from Peter his saying, Repent and be Baptised, if it were granted him, that Baptism with Water is there to be understood, for Peter might see it convenient at that time, for a help to their weakness, who were much used with out∣ward Signs, to require it of them; which yet proveth not, that it is a Gospel Precept: For all Gospel Precepts reach further than unto Figures and Signs, which are but the shadows of Gospel Mysteries. And his fourth Argu∣ment hath the same defect with the former, that because Peter commanded Cornelius and others with him to be Baptized, that there∣fore it was a Gospel Precept; which doth no more follow, than that abstaining from Blood was commanded by the Apostles, that there∣fore

it is a Gospel Precept; or because Anoin∣ting the Sick with Oyl was commanded by Iames, that therefore it is a Gospel Precept.

And to his Fifth Argument, from Eph. 4. 5. that the one Baptism must be Water-Baptism, because that is the only proper Bap∣tism, according to the signification of the word, whereas there is not one but mány im∣proper or Metaphorical Baptisms. But ac∣cording to this reason of I. A. when in the same place Paul saith, There is one Body; Bo∣dy doth not signifie the Church: for, to call the Church Body, is but improper and meta∣phorical; and there are many such metapho∣rical Bodies. Also when Paul saith, There is one Spirit, I. A. I suppose, doth know that Spirit, or as it is in the Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, doth not improperly and metaphorically signifie God, as much as Baptize signifieth inward Baptism, for the Grammatical signification of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ••, is Wind, and therefore if I. A. his consequence hold good, when the Apostle saith, There is one Spirit, that Spirit must be, in the Grammatical sense, Wind, that is a material thing, and not the Spirit of God, even as the Baptism must be a material or outward Baptism. And thus we may see, whether I. A. his blind way of drawing con∣sequences doth lead him, even to the greatest impertinencies imaginable.

His sixth Argument from Mark 16. 16. hath this defect, that seeing the word Baptised cannot be meant of Conversion, or any other metaphorical Baptism, it must therefore be meant of Water-baptism. And it cannot be meant of Conversion, because of the order of the words, which requireth Faith to go be∣fore Baptism, whereas Faith cannot go be∣fore Conversion, because Faith is Conversion it self. I say his Argument hath this defect, that it confounds the part with the whole, for granting that Faith is Conversion in part, or in some degree; it doth not follow, that there∣fore it is the whole, or furthest degree of Con∣version; for the work of Conversion, or Sanctification hath its several degrees, and that high or eminent degree of the Souls puri∣fication, which may be called its Bap••ism, or through plunging, is really posterior to the Souls first believing, and is the effect or con∣sequence of it. Hence we read of purifying the heart by Faith, so as the purification is the effect and consequent of Faith. Again, whereas he laboureth to prove that the Bap∣tism that saveth, which is mentioned, 1. Pet. 3. 21. must be Water-baptism, because it is called the Anti-type, or thing signified, in respect of Noah's temporal saving by Water, and there must be some near resemblance be∣twixt a Type and its Anti-type, but he alledgeth

there is little or no resemblance betwixt Noah's temporal saving by Water, and the saving by the inward or Spiritual Baptism. But who is so blind or weak, that doth not see the falsehood of this his Assertion? Is there not the greatest and most near and infallible resemblance betwixt that temporal Salvation of Noah by Water, and the spiritual and eternal Salvation by the spiritual Baptism, which doth universally and infallibly save all Souls that are partakers of the said spiritual Baptism, whereas many thousands get the Water-baptism, who are not saved thereby? and therefore it doth much more naturally follow that not Water-bap∣tism, but the Baptism of the Spirit that doth infallibly purifie the Soul is here meant, even as the inward Circumcision of the Spirit, is the Anti-type, or thing signified by outward Circumcision.

Lastly, As to his seventh Argument; where∣as he laboureth to prove, That Water-baptism is meant, Matth. 28. 19, 20. whereof he is so confident, that he entreats his Reader, Not to believe him henceforth, if he do not prove it so to be▪ I shall briefly take his proof into con∣sideration.

〈◊〉〈◊〉 He says, The Greek Word which is Translated Teach, signifies to make Disciples, and therefore they were to be made Disciples be∣fore they were to be Baptized; but they could

not be made Disciples before Conversion, nor does Conversion pre-require Discipleship, or else no man might endeavour the Conversion of an Hea∣then, or of any man who is not before Hand a Disciple. To which I Answer, That granting the Greek word may signifie to make Disci∣ples, yet all this reasoning of I. A. doth not inferr, that by Baptizing here, cannot be meant the Spiritual Baptizing, by the effusion of the Spiritual Water upon them, which, as is already said, signifies not barely the first or lowest degree of Conversion, but an high or eminent degree thereof, even as the out∣ward Plunging or Dipping into Water, i•• more than a small Sprinkling. Now as true Faith is before this eminent degree of Con∣version, or Purification, so is also true Dis∣cipleship: Nor doth it follow, that else no man might endeavour the Conversion of an Heathen; for they were to endeavour the full and perfect Conversion of Hea∣thens, in the highest degree that was possible; but so as to do it in Gods way and order, to wit, first by Teaching and Disci∣pling them into the true Faith, and then their full and perfect Conversion, or Purification and Spiritual Cleansing, was to follow one degree after another.

His other reason is, That the Baptism of Con∣version, or the Spiritual cleansing of the Soul is but

only improper and Metaphorical; and we must 〈◊〉〈◊〉 throw about the words of any Text of Scripture, from a proper to an improper meaning, without some necessity constrain us so to do. To this I Answer, First, That we ought not to go from the proper signification of any word, to an improper, without some urgent neces∣sity, I already acknowledge. But then why doth I. A. and his Brethren frequently trans∣gress this Rule in expounding other places of Scripture; as to instance when the Scripture saith, Christ died for all men, I. A. expoundeth this all, not of all individuals of mankind but only some, and these the far less number; and yet he must needs acknowledge, that the proper signification of the word all, is all in∣dividual. Again, when the Scripture saith, Th•• Kingdom of God is within you, I. A. turn∣eth it, to among you, contrary to the proper sig••ification, and also to the common Tran∣sl••tion. Also when the Scripture speaketh frequently of Christ and the Holy Spirit being in the Saints, they commonly say, This is not to be meant properly, but figuratively understand∣ing by Christ and the Spirit, the effects and ope∣rations or Graces of the Spirit, and not Christ or the Spirit himself; And many instances of that nature can be given, to shew how I. A. and his Brethren go from the proper significa∣tion of Scripture words, to an improper,

without any necessity, unless that of their own devising.

But Secondly, I. A. doth but barely take it for granted, without any shadow of proof, that it is an improper meaning, to mean by the Baptism of Christ, the spiritual Baptism. For the proper meaning of any place or sen∣tence of Scripture, is certainly that meaning which the Spirit of God doth intend, whe∣ther there be a Metaphor used in that place or not. Nor doth the Metaphorical use of the word, hinder the meaning of it to be proper∣when it is so intended. And seeing the Scrip∣ture doth almost every whereabound with Me∣taphors and metaphorical expressions, we are not so much to consider, what is the bare Grammatical sense of any word in common Speech, as what is the most common and usual sense of it in Scripture; for what is the most, common sense of it in Scripture I judge is the most proper meaning of it, whether the word be otherwise metaphorical or not; for who will deny, but according to Scripture sense, by the word Christ is properly under∣stood the true Christ of God, to wit, His on∣ly begotten Son; and yet Grammatically, it is but metaphorical; at least, as much as the word Baptize, for Christ signifieth Anointed, even as Baptized signifieth Was••ed or Dipped; and if I. A. or any will contend, That Christ

is properly called Christ or Anointed, because the spiritual Anointing is as real and proper in its kind, as the outward and natural is in its kind; I shall not contend against them, but rather go along with them therein; but then I say also, that the spiritual Baptism is as real and proper in its kind, as the spiritual Anointing is in its kind; and thus also when Christ is called Bread in Scripture, in the Scripture sense, he is truly and properly called so; yea, why doth he call himself, The true Bread; and why said he that the Manna which Moses gave to the People in the Wilderness, was not the true Bread from Heaven. Doth not this signifie, that whatever vertue or excellency outward, Bread hath to feed the Body Christ, who is the inward and spiritual Bread hath it much more to feed the Soul, yea, and the Body al∣so, when he pleaseth so to do; and in this respect it is that some do affirm, That those names of Bread, Water, Light, Oyl, and the lik••, are more properly applyed to the spiritual than to the natural: so that the Water, Oyl, Light and Bread, that is but outward and natu∣ral is rather metaphorically so called, and the inward and spiritual, more truly and properly de∣se••ving those names. And thus the spiritual Baptism shall be the most proper in that sense also. But now let the Scripture be searched, and we shall find, that the word to Baptize,

doth no less commonly signifie the spiritual Baptism, than the outward and Elementary▪ and therefore whoever would perswade us to believe that the spiritual Baptism is not meant here in Matth. 28. 19, 20. must shew some in∣vinsible necessity, why it ought not, the which I. A. hath not as yet done; and on the con∣trary we have good ground to believe, that the spiritual only is meant, because it is the spiritual Baptism only, which is called the Baptism of Christ in Scripture, and is expresly distinguished from the Baptism of Iohn with Water; and certainly the Baptism which Christ commanded, was his own Baptism, whereof he gave the Apostles charge to admi∣nister it as servants and instruments under him, who made them Ministers of the Spirit and Power that was in him, by whose Ministry, others were partakers of the same. But if I. A. his Argument hold good, the spiritual Baptism is altogether excluded, and the Apo∣stles received no Authority to Administer the Baptism of the Spirit, but only of Water, and consequently they were no Minister of the Spirit, for how could they Minister of the Spi∣rit or the spiritual Baptism, unless they re∣ceived Authority so to do; and where re∣ceived they this Authority or Command; if not, when Christ said these words unto them. Again, if Christ had sent the Apostles to Bap∣tize

with Water, then certainly he had sent Paul a Chief Apostle, but Paul said, Christ sent him not to Baptize, to wit, with Water. But whereas I. A. doth alledge, that Paul meaneth, That Christ sent him not principally to Baptize; I ask him, Why doth he transgress his own Rule, to go from the proper to the improper, and unusual signification of the word, not which is absolutely Negative, and not Comparative, and that without any ur∣ge••t necessity, but that of his own meer de∣vising; and that he saith, Doubtless the Apo∣stles did not Baptize without a Commission; I Answer, this is barely asserted without proof, why might not Paul and others Baptize with∣out a Commission, to wit, by a permission, as well as he did Circumcise, and did other things of the Law, and that without any im∣pu••••tion of Will-worship.

Having thus Answered I. A. his Argu∣ments, I shall not need to answer his Objecti∣ons, or pretended refutation of our Argu∣ments, and that especially because some •• of them which he bringeth as our Arguments, are not really ours; and none of them he bringeth doth he fairly propose; and therefore I shall refer the Reader to our other Treatises, wherein our Arguments are more duly and fairly proposed, without rep••ating them here, because of Brevity. Only whereas he al∣ledgeth,

we argue that Water-baptism is not meant, Matth. 28. 19, 20. because not expres∣sed, I say, that Baptism with Water is not ex∣pressed, nor by any true and just consequence is proved to be meant in Matth. 28. 19. and therefore we are not bound to believe that Water-baptism is there understood. And I hope the intelligent and impartial Reader may see, that I. A. hath not proved it to be so meant, by all his endeavours, and there∣fore not of his own mouth, henceforth he is not to be believed.

As concerning I. A. his Fourth Section, which is altogether concerning Infant-Baptism, I might wave it, because it proceeds upon a bare Supposition that is not proved, viz. That Water-Baptism is a Gospel Precept. And see∣ing the Controversie is most proper betwixt him, and these called Anabaptists, wherein we are little concerned, I shall not insist to Answer every thing, only I cannot but take notice of some of his most gross and impertinent As∣sertions and Proofs.

He alledgeth Baptism under the New Te∣stament is succeeded in the room of Circumci∣sion; to this I may reply in his own language elsewhere, He putteth the Plough ••before the Oxen, because he supposeth still a thing with∣out proof, that Water-baptism is any New Testament Precept. Again he alledgeth,

That Boptism with Water is come ••n the room of Circumcision, because Paul saith, Col. 2. 11, 12. Our burial with Christ in Baptism is our Circum∣cision. But he hath not proved that the Bap∣tism, there mentioned, is Water-baptism; where is his consequence for this? And why doth he expound the Circumcision to be spi∣ritual in that place; and the Baptism out∣ward and visible? Is it not more proper to take them both spiritually, and then his Ar∣gument doth wholly vanish? And I find, ask him, Are all buried with Christ, who are B••ptized with Water; if he say Not, as he ought, then surely the Water-baptism, is not the Baptism there understood. Another Ar∣gument of his, is, That because the Infants of Believers are probably partakers of Regenerati∣on, which is the thing sealed or signified; that therefore they ought to be baptized with Water. But this Argument proves as much, that In∣fants should also have that called the Supper, because Christ who was signified thereby, doth as probably belong to Infants as Regeneration, seeing none can have Regeneration without Christ, and I would know what I. A. doth say to this; or let him shew a reason why his Argument prove the one rather than the other. And it seems, that for that, or the like reason, Augustine and others of those cal∣led the Fathers, were for giving that called

the Supper to Infants, as well as Water-bap∣tism; and in that respect was long ago really administred to them.

But seeing I. A. hath spent so much Paper on Water-baptism, why saith he nothing to sprinkling of Infants? why doth he not so much as attempt to prove that sprinkling with Water, is, or ever was the true form of Bap∣tism with Water, although the Question doth expresly mention it. Thus we see how all along hitherto, I. A. hath left the substance of the Queries unanswered.

CHAP. IX.

BEfore my Answer to I. A. his pretended Survey of the Sixth Query, which is concerning that called the Sacrament of the Supper, I shall premise these few particulars: 1. That we do not deny but own and believe that all true Christians and Believers do eat of Christ's body, and drink of his blood, and that beyond, or what is more than a figure or figurative Commemoration thereof, to wit, really and substantially, yet so as spiritually, and by Faith, and not outwardly and with the outward or bodily mouth. 2. Nor do

we deny, but that in all our Eatings and Drinkings, we are to remember the Lords Death, and so Eat with Holy Fear and Re∣verence, and Thankfulness. 3. And we deny not, but that the night wherein he was betrayed, he took Bread and brake it, after Supper, and having given Thanks, he gave it unto his Apostles, saying, Take Eat this is my Body, and likewise the Cup, saying, Drink ye all of it, for as oft as ye Eate this Bread, and Drink this Cup, ye shew forth the Lords Death until he come: So we grant, he gave them a Commandment to do the like for sometime to come: But that which is Queried is this, Where is it called a Gospel Ordinance, or standing Command of Christ unto the Worlds end, to Eat Bread and Drink Wine after Supper in a peculiar and solemn way of Commemoration, over and besides that which may and ought to be done every day? And whereas Christ said, Do this in remem∣brance of his Death, till he come again. It is Queried, Was this coming to the end of the World, or was it his coming to dwell in them? Now saith I. A. to all this, first he alledgeth, It was a meer Circumstance, the doing of it at night, and after Supper, and so is no Essential part of the Action. But he giveth no proof of this: And if men take a liberty to change one Circumstance, why may they not change

all the rest as well as that one. As for Ex∣ample, why may they not say, that Bread of Wheat, and the Wine, are but Circum∣stances also, seeing Eating and Drinking may be without either Wheat or Wine, as well as it may be any other time, then at Night. Again, why may it not be said, that the whole Action is but a Circumstance in re∣spect of the thing principally intended, which was to signifie our Spiritual Eating and Drink∣ing of Christ his Body and Blood; which may be very well without the outward Eating and Drinking, as all Protestants do generally ac∣knowledge; and thus the outward Eating and Drinking is but a Circumstance, as well as the time: And surely the time doth seem no less to have signification, than the Eating and Drinking it self had, to wit, that it was at Night; for that time when Christ suffered was the Evening, or last part of the Covenant Di∣spensation, wherein he gave them a Sign or Figure suitable to that present Dispensation, and was not to continue as a binding thing, after the Gospel day or Dispensation should clearly break up, or be dispersed. And it doth plainly enough appear, that in the primitive times, they who used that Solemnity, they laid weight upon the circumstance of the time, doing it at Night, and after Supper; which came in process of time to be changed, to the

doing of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉〈◊〉, or before Dinner: And if Christ 〈…〉〈…〉 intended some weighty significatio•• 〈…〉〈…〉 ••ircumstance of time, to wit, at 〈…〉〈…〉 the Passover, I see not, 〈…〉〈…〉 of time is so care∣fully 〈…〉〈…〉 ••angelists. Hence from the 〈…〉〈…〉 of time, I bring an 〈…〉〈…〉 Christ did at that time, and 〈…〉〈…〉 do, until he came, is no Gospel 〈◊〉〈◊〉, because it was done in the Night or Evening of the Old Covenant Di∣spensation, and consequently was to come to an end with it. Although for the weakness of some, it was continued for a time in the Primitive Church after the Night of the Old Covenant was expired, and the day of the Gospel Dispensation was clearly broke up: And another Argument we have, that the outward Bread and Wine is but a Figure of Christs Flesh and Blood, and not his real Body, as all Protestants acknowledge, and conse∣quently is no Gospel Ordinance, which con∣sists not in the Figures, Types and Shaddows, that were proper to the Law, but in the things signified by them. Again, whereas I. A. doth alledge, That Christ commanded it to be done, It is granted, he commanded it for that time, and for some time to come, un∣til the darkness of the legal Dispensation should clearly ••anish, and be dispelled from the

Eyes of the Disciples, which was not ••udde••∣ly done, but required a time: And many 〈…〉〈…〉 believe in Christ, were but 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and could not easily be weaned from 〈◊〉〈◊〉 observation of outward Figures and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and therefore Christ gave them thus 〈…〉〈…〉 to condescend to their weakness, to bring them off from the Law, and the Figures, Types and Shaddows thereof by de∣grees, as they were able to bear. But it doth not follow, that because Christ commanded it unto them, for that time, or sometime following, that therefore it is a Gospel Or∣dinance, seeing he commanded them as ex∣presly divers other things, which I. A. and his Brethren acknowledge are no Gospel Or∣dinances, As the washing one anothers Feet; also, That they should go and tarry at Jerusalem for certain days, and wait for the Promise of the Father. And he bid them, Provide neither Bag, nor Shoes, nor Money, when they went forth to Preach: But I suppose none of all these will I. A. or his Brethren plead to be Go∣spel Ordinances. And even as his comman∣ding them to tarry at Ierusalem until they re∣ceived the Promise of the Father; which was the Spirit, (to wit, in greater measure than formerly it was given unto them) did not oblige them to stay longer: So his comman∣ding them to use that solemn and peculiar

commemoration of his Death until he sh••uld come, did not oblige them longer, than un∣til that his coming. But now the Question is, What coming did Christ mean, whether his last coming at the end of the World, or his Spiritual coming to dwell in them, and feed with his real Flesh and Blood Spiritually re∣ceived, which is more than the Figure? We say it is his Spiritual coming in his Saints; but I. A. and his Brethren say, It is his outward coming, which yet he hath not proved, for all his wrangling. And instead of proving what he saith, he not only abuseth us with bad words, as calling us, Possest with a blind and deaf Spirit; but most falsly alleadgeth on us, that we hold, Christ did not dwell in his Apostles, before that time, when Christ took the Bread: For we say no such thing, nor is any thing of that sort insinuated in the Queries: Only, That Christ did promise unto them, that he would come and dwell in them, to wit, in a more abun••ant measure, and clearer way of manifestation, suitable to the Gospel Dispen∣sation, than formerly they witnessed under the Law. Nor will this argue that either the Apostles were wholly unconverted, or unre∣generated at that time; all this is but the bare imagination of I. A. his Brain, and no just or true consequence from our words. And whereas I. A. Querieth, Did not Christ dwell

in these Corinthians whom Paul writes to. I Answer, he did in some measure; but yet in diverse of them, he did not dwell in that measure or manner of clear manifestation, as was promised; for Paul said unto them, He could not write unto them as spiritual, but as carnal, and he fed them with milk, and not with meat; which plainly im∣ports that many of them was short of that measure and degree of Spirituality, which the pure Gospel state required. And as for 1 Cor. 11. 23, 24. Which I. A. bringeth to prove, That the outward Eating is a Gospel In∣stitution; I Answer, that place, 1 Cor. 11. 23, 24. contains no Institution of it at all, but only an Historical relation of what Christ did and said that night to his Disciples. Nor did Paul say, that he received a Command from the Lord, or delivered a command unto them, concerning Bread and Wine; but that which he received and delivered unto them from the Lord was, the knowledge of what the Lord did and said at that time. And though this practise was continued in the Church of Co∣rinth for that time, and perhaps in other Chruches, this proves it not be a Gospel Ordinance more than Water-baptism, or Cir∣cumcision, both which were practised by ma∣ny that did believe in those times.

And here again I. A. falls into his old trade of fal••ly accusing us, as being against all ex∣ternal Ordinances, because the Query in∣sinuates, That such who are come into Death with Christ, need not Bread and Wine to put them into remembrance of his Death; from whence he most unjustly inferreth his consequence, that we reject all outward helps and means whatsoever. But doth not I. A. know that his own brethren acknowledge there is no ab∣solute necessity of using that called the Supper, so as none can be saved but such as pa••take of it; and the like may be said of any outward helps, when people cannot have them. But yet we say still, whatever outward thing God hath Commanded us to use, be it never so small or mean, is in that respect both neces∣sary and profitable unto us, for there is none of God's Commands, but they bring along with them a real advantage to mens Souls; but I. A. hath not as yet proved it, that using Bread and Wine, as aforesaid, is any Gospel Command. Another abuse of his is, that he alledgeth, We reject the said practise of taking the Bread and Wine, from a conceited perfecti∣on; which is false, for as we do not boast of our perfections, so we do not reject that cu∣stom•• because of any perfection, that some of us may become unto beyond others, but be∣cause we cannot find it to be any Gospel Pre∣cept;

and therefore we cannot acknowledge it either to be necessary or profitable to the weakest.

Another thing he quarrelleth in the Query is, That it makes to dye with Christ, and to come to the Death with him all one. And here he insults not a little in his knowledge of Philoso∣phy above the Quakers, for a meer Gramma∣ticism of saying to for into, which perhaps was only a fault in the Transcriber; and yet we find commonly that to and into are indiffe∣rently used to signifie one thing: as to come to Town, is all one as to come into it; and to come to Christ, is all one as to come into him; and when Christ said, Come unto me, he did certainly mean that they were to come into him. Hence we read of the Saints being in Christ. And if this be I. A. his Philosophy so to quarrel at words proper enough, and according to Scripture, let the judicious and sober Reader judge, whether some of our Friends that called his Philosophy, Fooloso∣phy, had not ground so to do. And whether he has not discovered more folly than true Philosophy, from first to last, in his Book against us.

In his Answer to the reason hinted in the Query from Paul's words, to seek the things that are above, and the things that are seen are temporal, he still beggeth the Question,

That the outward observation of Bread and Wine, is a mean which God hath appointed, for the attaining the things above. And in Op∣position to his Assertion, let him read what Paul saith, Col. 2. 17. where he putteth mea•• and drink in together with the new Moons, and other legal Observations, which he cal∣leth, A shadow of things to come; but the bo∣dy is of Christ. And seeing I. A. acknow∣ledgeth that the Bread and Wine are but ex∣ternal signs, and not the real body of Christ; I ask him, wherein then differ they from Shadows. And if they be Shadows, they are no part of the Gospel Dispensation, according to Paul's Doctrine.

In the close of his pretended Survey to this Sixth Query, he chargeth us most rashly and uncharitably, as being related to the accuser of the Brethren, as if the writer of the Que∣ries had positively charged all the Ministers of Scotland, that they never intended their Hearers should come any nearer to Christs Death, than a bare Historical remembrance thereof. But doth not I. A. know, that to Query a thing is one, and positively to con∣clude it, far another. And the Enquirer had ground so to Query, because he understands, that if it were the care of Preachers to bring people into the Death with Christ, so as to be Crucified with him, they would not plead so

much for upholding a Figure or Shadow of Christ's Death, to put them in remembrance of it; when to suffer and die with Christ is much more effectual to remember them. Nor Secondly, would they plead so much for car∣rying a body of sin about with them, while they live, and that all must be under a neces∣sity of sinning daily in Thought, Word, and Deed; yea, in whatever thay think, speak, or do, for such a state is not consistent with a being Dead and Crucified with Christ. And Thirdly, If it were their work to bring people to dye with Christ, they would turn them to the Light of Christ in their Hearts, and Preach it to be unto them of a saving Na∣ture, and an effectual mean to obtain the said Death with Christ, which yet they do not, but on the contrary deny it as meerly natu∣ral insufficient. And is it not too apparent that the far greatest number of your Church Members, know nothing more of Christ's Death than the History of it? And whether the fault of this lye not in a very great part up∣on the Preachers, is no small nor impertinent Question.

And seeing I. A. pretends so much to Scri∣pture Rule, I shall ask him a few Queries more upon the former Head.

First, What Scripture hath he and his Bre∣thren to call that eating of Bread and drinking of Wine, once or twice in a year, in the Pub∣••••ck Assembly, the Sacrament?

2. What Scripture have they to instruct them how oft they should use it, as once, twice, or four times in every year? And if they have none, was it not then left to people according to the Query, at least as to the time?

3. What Scripture have they for consecrating it, or when did Christ say, Before ye eat it, con∣secrate it?

4. When did Christ give only the power to a Priest or Presbyter, or Ordamed Minister to Con∣secrate it, so as without the said Consecration by some Priest, or Ordained Minister, it is no Sa∣crament? And seeing every Christian may eat it as well as the Minister, why may he not also con∣secrate it, as well as he, seeing every true Chri∣s••ian is a Priest?

5. Where did Christ appoint, that these words, Take Eat, this is my body, should be the words of consecration, and have ye not received all this from the Papists, and not from Christ?

6. Seeing ye commonly say, that this Sacra∣•••••••• of the Supper is come in the room of the Passo••er, and under the Law, every Family had power without a Priest, to celebrate the Passover; why hath not also every Family under the Gospel 〈◊〉〈◊〉 much power, without any Ordained Priest or

Minister to celebrate that called the Supper?

7. Seeing every true Christian feeds daily by Faith upon the body of Christ, according to the Protestant Doctrine, and ought daily to re∣member the Death of Christ, in all their eating and drinking, which is also sanctified unto them by the Word of God and Prayer, what peculiar vertue or efficacy hath your sacramental eating, more than ordinary eating; when done, with godly Fear, Prayer and Thansgiving, and re∣membring the Lords Death?

8. Seeing it is clear from Luke 22. 17, 18, 19, 20. that Christ did take the cup twice; once before he gave them the bread, and once after, bidding them do the same; why take ye the cup but once? was this only a bare circumstance?

9. Is not the Apostle Paul, 1 Cor. 10. 15, 16, 17. to be understood of quite another Bread and Cup, than that which is visible and out∣ward, when he saith, I speak as to wise men, judge ye what I say (did he not say this be∣cause he was to speak of the Bread and Cup, in the mysterie, as it was altogether a spiritual and invisible thing, to wit, the real body and blood of Christ spiritually received, which none but the spiritually wise could understand) The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communi∣••n of the blood of Christ? The bread which we Break, is it not the Communion of the body of Christ? For we being many are one Bread, for

we a••e all pa••taker•• of that one Bread. Is it not clear from all this, that Paul speaks not of any visible and corruptible Bread but of Christ himself, as he is spiritually and invisibly received by Faith whom he calls the same spiritual meat and drink, which the Fathers received of old? see the same Chapter, Verse 3, 4.

10. Do any receive the Supper of the Lord, or Sup with the Lord, but such as open to him and hear his voice, according to Rev. 3. 20. And is not this Supper, or Supping with the Lord, altogether inward, spiritual and invisible.

Now whereas I. A. doth alledge that the Querist hath mistaken the second Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians for the first, because h•• citeth these words in the second Epistle, For the things that are seen, are but temporal, but the things which are not seen, are eternal; I Answer, that the Apostle Paul writeth to the same purpose, in the first Epistle, and that much more clearly, calling Christ the spiritual Meat and Drink, as he is spiritually and invi∣sibly received by Faith.

CHAP. X.

J. A. in his pretended Survey of the seventh Query, (which is concerning the Sabbath∣day) alledgeth, That the fourth Commandment requireth, to keep Holy unto God one day of seven; and seeing that fourth Commandment is Moral, it extends to all Ages of the World. But in An∣swer to this, as that the fourth Command∣ment required one day in seven, so it expresly mentions that day to be the seventh, and not any one other of the seven; for the said fourth Commandment did plainly bind the Iews to the seventh day, which was not lawful for them to change to the first. And whereas I. A. alledgeth, That the Accomodation to the particular time, or Diet to the last day of the Week is indeed Abrogated, but not the substance of the Command: By this he quite overturneth his former Assertion, That the fourth Com∣mandment was simply Moral; for if it was sim∣ply Moral, nothing of the least Circum∣stance of it could be Abrogated. But some of I. A. his Brethrem••are more wary and con∣siderate, who say, The fourth Commandment was partly Moral, and partly Ceremonial: The

Ceremonial part of it was, that it tyed to the seventh day; the Moral part of it was, and is partly that it requires some competent time to be appointed for the Worship of God, both private and publick, laying aside all World∣ly occasions for that time, as well out of our Minds as hands, without tying to any limited day of seventh or sixth: And partly again in respect of its Spiritual signification; for the outward Sabbath of the Iews, was a Type or Shadow of Christ, in whom all True Be∣lievers find rest to their Souls, from all their heavy Labours and Toils; and that Christ is the thing signified by the Sabbath, is clear from Coloss. 2. 16, 17. Again that neither I. A. nor his Brethren hold the first day of the Week, in that strickness of a Sabbath, as the fourth Commandment required is clear, be∣cause the said fourth Commandment re∣quired, That in it they should not do any work, which elsewhere in Scripture is more particu∣larly set down, That they were not to kindle a Fire on the Sabbath; and he that gathered sticks on the Sabbath-day was to be stoned to Death: All which proveth that the Sabbath of the Iews was Typical, and consequently that the Morallity of it, was principally its Spiritual signification, as it did hold forth Christ, no less than the other Types and Figures. But I. A. alloweth people to kindle a Fire on

that day, and to Boil and Roast Meat as plen∣tifully as on other days, if he be of his Bre∣threns mind, who commonly Feast on that day, and have a larger Table than at other times. And although I. A. undertake the Vindication of the Church in Brittain, yet he cannot be ignorant, that the greatest part of his Episcopal Brethren were and are of ano∣ther mind, viz. That the keeping of the First day of the Week is no Moral Command; else they would never have allowed Playes and Mar∣kets to be kept on that day. And Calvin, whose Opinions I. A. followeth but too much in other things did not hold, That the keeping of the first day, was any Command of God, but simply that the Church had agreed to it to meet on that day: And he saith plainly, They might have chused another day as well as that.

Now the Query saith, That the Saints did meet together, this is Scripture; so we ac∣knowledge that the Saints did meet together on the first day of the Week, and so we do according to their example; and also we ac∣knowledge that some considerable part of our life time is to be set apart for the solemn Wor∣ship and Service of God; and this not only the Scripture Testimony, but the Law of God in our hearts doth require. And we further judge, that rather more of our time is to be given to the Service of God, solemnly se••

apart from all worldly occasions now under the New Testament, (and that Servants and Beasts may have rest, for God requireth that mercy be shewn to them also) than was for∣merly under the Law, by vertue of the fourth Commandment. And therefore we have Meetings, and other times of Retirement, at other times of the Week, than on the first day. As also we do generally abstain from Bodyly Labour on the first day of the Week, although we cannot call it the Christian Sab∣bath, for that were to put it in the room of Christ: But what abuse and profanity is it to pretend to set apart a day only for the Service of God, and yet to spend it worse, than any other day of the Week, for most part, to wit, in Idle Communications, Playes, and Drinking, as too many of I. A. his Brethren openly do.

And now let us see further, what I. A. doth alledge for the first day of the Week, its being appointed to be kept for a Sabbath.

One Argument is, That because Christ rose on that day, and honoured it with his most fre∣quent appearings, after his Resurrection on that day, that therefore he appointed it to be kept for a Sabbath: But this inference is without any proof, and is therefore returned to him: And it is manifest, that at a certain time, when Christ did appear, some of the Dis∣ciples

were Fishing with their Nets, Ioh. 21. And if that was the first day of the Week, and appointed by Christ for a Sabbath, how was it that the Disciples did so openly trans∣gress it, and yet were not reproved by Christ, but were bidden cast out the Net by himself. Nor is his other Argument of any greater weight, That because the Primitive Christians, in the Apostles times and downwards, did con∣stantly meet on that day, and had their Col∣lections for the poor, that therefore it was ap∣pointed to be strickly observed as a Sabbath: This consequence is also returned upon him, as barely alledged without proof. And both we and many other Protestants in France and Holland, constantly meet on that day; and yet it doth not follow, that we or they hold it for a Sabbath, for many of them do not, any more than we.

Another Argument of his is, Because it is called the Lords day, Rev. 1. 10. To which I Answer I. A. hath not as yet proved it evi∣dently, that by the Lords day there is meant the first day of the Week, but giving it, that Iohn meant the first day, as I find generally that Iustine Martyn and others about his time did call the first day of the Week, the Lords day; yet it doth not follow, that therefore the Lord appointed it to be kept as a Sabbath, for it might well enough he called the Lords

day because he arose upon it, for many day•• have received Names for much less reason, according to the Ancient Tradition in Old times, which not being in Scripture is not so certain to us, as that other, viz. Of Christ his Resurrection day.

Another Argument of his is, Because that Christ Taught the Disciples to Pray that their flight might not be on the Winter, nor on the Sabbath day, when he Prophecied of the De∣struction of Jerusalem, Math. 24. 20. But to this I Answer, That the Name of Sabbath doth not infer, that any outward day is to be kept for a Sabbath, under the New Testament, more than the Name of Circumcision doth infer that there is now to be any outward Cir∣cumcision; and what Christ spoke to the Disciples, it was not to them alone, but to all the Iews, who as he did well know, would still be Zealous for the Iewish Sabbath, after his Resurrection? As indeed they were, and also for Circumcision; and therefore he knew what great an Affliction it would be to them to be put to flee on that day; and according∣ly we find, that not only them, but long after the Iews, even many of them that be∣lieved, and also our Christians, did observe the Iewish Sabbath, and some observed both, that and also the first day, until Constantine's time. What Christ therefore spoke of the

Sabbath, was not to confirm them, to keep either that or the first day of the Week for a Sabbath, but to express the great Affliction, they would be in, if they should flee on that day, which they so much did regard. And beside, some understand the Sabbath here also by way of Allegory, which I. A. hath not re••u••ed.

And whereas the said I. A. alledgeth, that Rom. 14. 5, 6. Is not to be understood of the first day of the Week, but only of other Jewish days: This is meerly alledged, without any shadow of proof; for no where doth Paul, or any other Pen-man of the Scripture make an ex∣ception of the first day: And therefore seeing Rom. 14. speaks of days indefinitely, the first day is understood as well as the rest.

CHAP. XI.

IN the pretended Survey of the eighth Que∣ry, which is concerning Singing of Psalms, I. A. is at much pains to prove a thing, which we do not deny, viz. That Singing of Psalms, is allowed and commanded under the New Testament: For this we wil∣lingly acknowledge, and those who can Sing with the Spirit and undestanding, they may use either David's words, or words of any other Holy-men, recorded in Scripture, or any other sound words, as the Lord shall move them: But all this is no Answer to the Question, which is not concerning Singing only or simply, but that way of Singing used by I. A. and his Brethren, without any pre∣tence to an immediate direction, or motion of the Spirit Infallibly Teaching or assisting them what and how to Sing. Now the Query is, where doth he find such Singing War∣ranted in Scripture, viz. without the Spirit infallibly directing them. 2. Their Singing with Meeter or Tooting Rhymes, Artificially composed by meer Natural Art and Industry; where is such Singing commanded or practi∣sed

in Scripture. And 3. it is Queried since the Apostles did not turn them into Meeter, why have others since them, done so, as if they were more wise than the Apostles, or saw further what God required of them. And whereas I. A. alledgeth, That Psalms cannot be Sung, except they be Meetered; If he mean by Meetering, putting them in Tooting Rhymes, or Rhymes ending with the like Cadencies and Sounds, he sheweth his great ignorance in Poetry, and Musick; for the best Poesies are without any such Cadencies: Nor have David's Psalms any such Cadencies of like sounds at the end of the Lines, as they are written in Hebrew. And although Davids Psalms are Penned with certain measures of Words and Sentences, yet that was by some Divine Skill, which the Spirit of the Lord Taught him, and not by bare humane Art, as I sup∣pose I. A. will not deny.

But another great abuse in I. A. is, that he excuseth wicked and proud mens Singing such words of David as these: I am not puft up in mind, I water my Couch with my Tears, &c. alledging they may be Sung as well as Read by such men. But who cannot see the ab∣surdity of this inference, for to Read, and to Pray, and also to Sing, are very differing; and one may Read the Devils words, and the words of the wickedest men Recorded in

Scripture, but when one Prayeth, or Praiseth, he expresseth somewhat of his own condi∣tion. And men may read the Creed or Ten Commands, but yet they are not proper for a Prayer, and the most of the Psalms are Prayers.

But lastly, whereas I. A. saith, He and his Brethren have the same Spirit the Apostles had, though not the same measure: We may not unfitly Query them, how he can prove or demonstrate this to us, seeing some of his Brethren have asked a proof from us, that we had the same Spirit: And if I. A. be in good earnest, and doth indeed believe that he has the same Spirit, which the Apos••les had, how is it that he doth so very frequently mock and scoff at the Infallible Inspiration of the Spirit, which we plead for, as the common priviledge of all true Christians. And was not the Spirit which the Apostles had, the Infallible Spirit? And if I. A. thinks he has the same Spirit, ei∣ther he must needs acknowledge, that he has the Infallible Spirit, and is so far infal∣lible, or then he must say, that the Spirit of God is changed, so that whereas it was Infallible in the Apostles and Primitive Christians, it is become Fall••ble in I. A. and his Brethren. And if he have the same Spirit, which the Apostles had, but in the least mea∣sure, how is it ••hat he hath said above that

the Dictate of the Spirit within is worthy of a thousand Deaths? Let I. A. extricate him∣self of these contradictions if he can. And fur∣ther I ask I. A. whether the Psalms, he and his Brethren Sing in their Meetings, be these Spiritual Songs, which the Primitive Chri∣stians did Sing; and such as we Read of par∣ticularly in the Church of Corinth, where Psalms are reckoned among the other pecu∣liar Gifts of the Spirit, such as Revelations and Interpretations; where it is manifest, that the whole Assembly did not all Sing the same words with their voice; but every one did Sing as they received it from the Lord, and as he did put it into their Hearts; and such were the Songs of Zachariah, Mary and Eliza∣beth, who Sung and Blessed the Lord by the Holy Ghost. And seeing I. A. saith, That they cannot Sing, unless what they Sing, be turned into Meeter, I ask him, whether the Songs of Zachariah, Mary and Elizabeth were Sung by them in Meeter, or Rhyme, and with Mu∣sical Dittyes and Tunes Artificially Compo∣sed, or whether they had a Precentor, or any that went before them. And whether such kind of Officers were in the Church in the time of the Apostles, as Precentors that went before the people: And whom they were all to follow, accordingly as he Sang after ••his or that Tune of Musick Artificially Com∣posed.

Or rather have ye not Learned all this from the Papists? And was it not Guido Aretinus,•• Popish Monk, that invented the Scale of Musick commonly called the Gamut according to which the Precentors are Lear∣ned to Raise the Psalms. All which is but the bare Act of Man; and such who plead for Vocal Musick in the Church, from the example of David, and the Law; they may also on the same account plead for the use of Mu∣sical Instruments in the Church; not only as lawful, but as necessary, (which yet the Epis∣copal Church here wanteth) and not only so, but Dancing also, as a part of Divine Wor∣ship, which was used in time of the Law, and especially by David. And thus by I. A. his Argument, both Instrumental Musick, and Dancing shall be necessary parts of Gospel Worship.

And as concerning wicked mens Singing, it is most clear, that as they are not to Pray, while remaining wicked, so nor are they to Sing, because all true Singing is a real part of Divine Worship, which is to be done in Spirit and Truth; but no wicked nor unre∣newed person can so do. And seeing all wicked persons professing Christianity, are Captives in Spiritual Babylon, how can they Sing any of the Songs of Zion in a strange Land? Can they Sing that new Song, which

the Redeemed from the Earth Sing? Rev. 14. was not the Lord displeased with their Singing even under the Law, when the people did degenerate and become perverse? And did he not threaten that he would turn the Songs of their Temple into Howlings? And yet ac∣cording to I. A. the most perverse and abo∣minable corrupted persons, may and ought to Sing Psalms: But what Harmony can such Singing make in the Ears of the Lord, while the Heart is so discordant to the Law of God? And although I. A. hath his best and great∣est Patrons, for his Musical Singing, with Ar∣tificial Dittyes, and Tunes, and Rhymes out of the Popish Church; as also for his pleading that wicked persons may Sing Da∣vid's words, without making a Lye; I shall here Cite a very fair acknowledgement out of a late Popish Writer, to the Truth of what we alledge against I. A. The which Writer is Iohannes Bona in his Book called, The Prin∣ciples of the Christian Life, Part 1. Sect. 44. They are ••yes (saith he) and empty words, when any com••••tteth wickedness; and singeth in a Psalm unto God: I have hated iniquity, and abominated it, Psal. 118. He that is altoge∣ther in his Dishes, and saith, I have forgot to Eat my Bread, Psal. 101. 1. He Laugheth the whole day, and exceedeth in vain joy, and saith, my Tears were my Bread day and night; he

obeyeth not the Commandments, and he Singeth They are Cursed who decline from thy Com∣mandments, Psal. 118. Such Prayers (saith he) are Accursed, provoking the wrath of God, toward such, and they deserve to be punished with severe Pains. Now albeit this Testimony is from a Papist, I hope no Sober person will call it a Popish Doctrine, but rather a Christian Truth, which the Evidence of Truth hath extorted from him. And it is a shame that I. A. should be more blind, who pretends to more knowledge.

CHAP. XII.

J. A. in his pretended Survey of the 9th, 10th, and 11th. Queries, doth ground his Discourse so much partly upon mistakes, and partly upon barely supposed alledged prin∣ciples, which he doth not prove, that I shall need to say very little directly in Answer to the whole, from his pag. 119, to pag. 131. on∣ly some of his most considerable mistakes and bare Suppositions, I shall take notice of, the which being denyed, and removed, his whole Superstructure falls of it self.

First, He blames the Queriest, or Writer of the Queries, For falsly accusing the or sl••n∣dering the Church in Brittain, as he calleth it, as if they did hold their Ecclesiastical Constitu∣tions formally, as such, for an Infallible Rule, and their Catechisms and Confessions of Faith equal to the Scriptures. But I Answer, the Query maketh no mention of those terms [formally as such.] But simply whether they hold their Directory Confession of Faith and Ca∣techism, to be an Infallible Rule, and equal to the Scripture. Again, Secondly, what is proposed in the Query is not positively con∣cluded one way or another, as the Nature of a Query doth plainly demonstrate. And yet Thirdly, he plainly affirmeth, pag. 129. That the whole Articles and Difinitions contained in the Catechism and Confession of Faith materially considered, are very Gospel Rule, and Scripture Sentence, either expresly and formally, or materially, implicitely and by good con∣sequence taught therein. How then can he have any face to accuse the Inquirer, for asking such a thing which he doth open∣ly acknowledge. And here let the Reader take notice, that the Catechism and Confession of Faith, whereof I. A. giveth so great a Commendation, is not that of the Episcopal Church, but the Presbyterian, viz. that made by the Assembly at Westminster

which is expresly cited by him, cap. 31. art. 4. it is not then as seemeth the Defence of the Epis∣copal Church and Faith, that Ioh. Alexander undertaketh, but the Presbyterian, and yet I. A. is a Member of the Episcopal Church, and Officiates therein under Iohn Hamilton, an Episcopal Preacher, who hath recommended his Book, at the Order of the Bishop of Edenburgh. But I suppose the Episcopal Church in Brittain will give Iohn Alexander, or his Patriot Iohn Hamilton little Thanks for his Service, seeing many Episcopal Teachers in Brittain differ widely in Doctrin from the said Westminster Confession. And had I. A. no other Confession of Faith, or Catechism to commend, but that of the Presbyterians, whom his Episco∣pal Brethren commonly call Fanaticks; and is it turned to that, that they commend their Confession of Faith, as the only Confession of the Church in Brittain? But I can find no mention in the said Confession, that Episco∣pacy is Iure Divino.

However since I. A. has undertaken the defence of the Presbyterian Church and Faith, in all its Articles and Definitions, as very Gospel Rule, and Scripture Sentence, he must then acknowledge that all these Definitions and Articles of his Presbyterian Brethren, are at left materially considered, infallible Oracles. ••nd seeing he confesseth they are not all ex∣presly

contained in Scripture, but many of them only deduced by consequence therefrom, by what infallible consequence can he con∣vince any rational man, that his and their con∣sequences are just and right since he laies no claim to the least measure of that kind of di∣rection of the Holy Spirit, teaching him and his Brethren to draw those consequences, which Christ and the Apostles had, whereby they argued, and did draw consequences from places of Scripture formerly writ. And seeing not only Papists and Protestants, but the Epis∣copal and Presbyterian draw contrary conse∣quences from the Scriptures, what evidence can I. A. give us, why we should receive the consequences of the one more than the other. Or can we think the Lord hath left his people so in the dark, as to give no other know∣ledge of his Will in a great many things, whi••h are Articles of Faith, but what can be searched out by long and tedious consequences, of the bare natural understanding of man, as it is left to it self, to fish and hunt in the dark, after such consequences, without any such special direction and conduct of the Holy Spi∣rit, in the least measure, which Christ and the Prophets▪ and Apostles had. Nay I do not find that I. A. doth acknowledge so much as the least absolute necessity of any sort of operation or illumination of the Spirit, so

••uch as that they call effective or subjective, order to draw their consequences from the ••cripture. But if this way of drawing conse∣quences without the help of the Holy Spirit were so safe and sure, how is it then that so many of all sorts draw contrary consequences from the same Scriptures? Is not the great reason of all this, because men are departed from that holy Spirit, which gave forth the Scriptures, and can only give the true understanding of them? And therefore is it not plain and ma∣nifest, as the Light at Noon-day, that man's natural Spirit, and Reason, and Wisdom, in its highest perfection, is altogether unable to meddle with Divine Truths, or to search after them, as it remains alone, hunting in the dark. And certainly this is no small part of that cursed self-conceit and exaltation of mind, that Rules in the degenerated nature of man, that they think they can be wise enough without God's Spirit, they need no direction, or assistance, or illumination to help them to search into the Scriptures, they can do that well enough with their natural reason, and a little School-craft of Artificial Logick, and Grammar, and Natural Philosophy; but that blessed man David was of another mind, when he prayed unto the Lord, saying, Open my Eyes, that I may see the wonderful things of thy Law. And as for consequences which men

draw, as they are directed and taught by the Spirit of God, as Christ and the Apostles were, when they drew any consequence from what was formerly writ, we do own them, and re∣ceive them, and none else. But yet as to the most weighty and necessary things, to wit, such as are the general principles of the Chri∣stian Faith and Doctrine, and which as such are generally to be received by all Christians, as well these of the meanest capacity, as others of the greatest, we see the Lord hath not left it to mans industry, to search after them by consequences long or short, but hath delivered them to us in plain express words and terms, and that many times over and over again (as in respect of many of them) in the Holy Scriptures. And why is it, that the Scriptures are so full and large in their Te∣stimony to the Doctrines and Principles of Re∣ligion, but to let us understand, that all the Principles and Doctrines of the Christian Faith, which God requireth in common of all Chri∣stians are expresly their delivered and re∣corded, and put as it were in a puplick Regi∣ster. And therefore, for my part, what I cannot find expresly delivered in Scripture, I see no reason why I should receive or believe it as any common Article or principle of the Christian Faith or Life; and for such, to whom God hath given that Divine skill to

••ive, or dip into the depth of the Scriptures, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 out of the reach of other men, who may ••e true Christians, so as to collect or gather by just and true consequences, other things that lie out of the view of their weaker Brethren, they ought not to obtrude them upon any to be received as principles of Faith, but in that case to have Faith to themselves, and receive them as peculiar discoveries or Revelations of the Spirit to them, and such others as God hath so enlightened; the which by the Apostle Paul is called, The Word of Wisdom, to wit, such a peculiar degree of Wisdom or Understand∣ing in the depth of the Scriptures, as others who yet were true Christians did not reach un∣to; and concerning such a peculiar gift of Di∣vine Wisdom, he said, We speak Wisdom among the perfect? this certainly could be no common Article of Faith, else he should have Preached it to all. And this by the same Apo∣stle is elsewhere called, The knowledge of My∣steries, as distinguished from the common Faith and knowledge of the whole Church. Now if this were but received among those called Christians, that nothing should be re∣quired by one sort from another, as an Article of Faith, or Doctrine or principle of the Chri∣stian Religion in common to be believed, but what is expresly delivered in the Scriptures, in plain express Scripture terms, of how great

an advantage might it be to bring a true re∣concilement among them, and beget true Christian Unity, Peace, Love and Concord. And as for the consequential part of peculiar Doctrines, whether true or false, to leave every one a freedom or latitude, without im∣posing upon them the affirmative or negative, as any bond or tye of Christian fellowship; for if such consequential Doctrine be false, it is most unreasonable to impose it, and there∣fore in that Case, a Dissenter should have his liberty to differ in judgment, without any breach of Brotherly Unity and Society; and if it be true, yet not being opened or revealed to another, it cannot be in justice pressed or urged upon him, where God has not given him the true freedom and clearness of mind to receive it; and to do otherwise, is to trans∣gress that Golden Rule delivered by Paul, viz. To walk by the same Rule, according to what we have attained; and if any be otherwise minded, said he, God will reveal it unto him. And if this Advice could find place, it would bring the differences among those called Chri∣stians, in point of judgment, into a very small and narrow compass, and they would understand one another far better than now they do.

But again, seeing I. A. is so absolute and peremptory, that the Presbyterian Confession

of Faith and Catechism, (and wh•• not the Pres∣byterian Directory also) materially considered is infallible, and yet is but a Book of their ma∣king, and the consequential part of it, the alone Fruit and product of their humane Spirit, since they deny all pretence to an inward Dictate or Direction of Gods Spirit in the Case; why should the said I. A. so oft Taunt and upbraid us with an Infallible Spirit, and Infallible Speaking and Writing, and Inspi∣ration; for now it seems a meer humane Spirit hath inspired those that gave forth the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechism, to write every Article and Sentence of it In∣fallibly, according to I. A. his high estimati∣on of them.

But whereas I. A. dareth us, To give any instances of any Articles and Definitions contain∣ed in the said Confession and Catechism, that are not Scripture Sentence materially or for∣mally considered. This hath been done many times over and over again by our Friends in England, and by some of us here in Scotland, particularly by R. B. in his Catechism and Apo∣logy, and by me in my Book of Immediate Re∣velation: And there was in the year 1651. an intire examination of that Confession of Faith published in Print by one W. Parker, (who was not called a Quaker, and whose words in all things we do not own) and to the said

Examination I. A. or any of his Fraternity is referred, where I am abundantly perswaded he hath said more against it, and many Ar∣ticles contained therein, viz. in the said Con∣fession, then ever I. A. or any of his Presby∣terian half Brethren shall be able to Answer; which whole Book lyeth at their door to this day (so far as I can understand) unan∣swered. Another gross mistake, or rather abuse of I. A. is, that he alledgeth, The Qua∣kers are against all Confessions of Faith and Cat••chisms whatsoever, and yet they have Confessions and Catechisms of their own. I say this is a gross abuse, for we do own, that there may and ought to be Confessions of Faith given by True Christians; and al∣so we own, that there may be Catechisms, and that they are useful in the Church, and accordingly we have such. And though the Writers of those Confessions and Catechisms, be not absolutely or universally Infallible, yet we hold that none should publish any Con∣fession of Faith, or Catec••ism, but in such things whereof they are Infallibly perswaded by the Spirit of the Lord; and as to other things that may be uncerta••n or unclear unto them, they should forbear: and so every one should Speak or Write, as they have received the ••pirit of Faith: as the Apostle Paul said, We ha••ing re••e••ved the same ••pirit of Faith,

we believe, and therefore we have spoken; bu•• I. A. thinks he may Speak and Confess his Faith, without the same Spirit of Faith which David and Paul had: And as for our Cate∣chisms and Confessions of Faith, if we cannot prove them, and all the Articles and Sen∣tences in them, to be according to express Scripture words, then let them not be re∣ceived. For we profess to urge nothing, nor to press any thing to be received, as a com∣mon Article of Faith, but what is expresly delivered and Recorded in the Scriptures. And if any should be so unbelieving and ob∣stinate, as not to believe the express Scripture words, we may not urge them, or press them thereunto by any Humane or Carnal Force and Compulsion, but only to labour to per∣swade them, according to that evidence and demonstration of the Spirit and Power, as God shall be pleased to furnish us withal.

Another great mistake or abuse of I. A. is, that he alledgeth the Tenth Query is void of Sense, as if it did import, That their Iustifi∣cation and Sanctification, Faith and Grace, were the Gifts of their Directory, Catechism, and Confession of Faith; and thus because the Query saith, The Gifts of these, whereas it is plain to any Sober and Rational Person, that by the Gifts of these, the Inquirer meaneth, the Gifts of Justification, Sanctification, Faith

and Grace; and this is a form of Speech al∣lowed by the Grammar it self, and practised by Learned Authors, I suppose far beyond I. A. who say not only the Town London, or Rome, or Edinburgh, but also the Town or City of London, the City of Rome, the City of Edinburgh; and therefore why may it not be as well said, the Gift of Faith, of Justifi∣cation, of Sanctification; and speaking of these in general, why may it not be said, the Gifts of these, which is equivalent to these Gifts: And beside, perhaps all this Quible is only raised upon a mistake of the Transcriber, wri••ing the Gifts of these, for these Gifts; but it seems I. A. is barren of matter, when he maketh a mountain of so small a matter, if so be it were an impropriety of Speech. But to deal in earnest with I. A. seeing he is so decla∣red an Enemy to Divine Inspiration in our days, we cannot think that he indeed oweth his pretended Justification, Sanctification and Faith unto God, but rather unto those Con∣fessions and Catechisms; for what Evidence or probable ground can he give us, that he hath any Divine Faith, or that which is more than barely Historical and Traditional?

Another gross abuse of his is, That because we call the Gospel the Power of God, as we are warranted by the express words of Paul, Rom. 1. 16. therefore he alledgeth, That we fain to

our selves a sort of dumb Gospel, without any Words, or Doctrine. But to remove this abuse, let the Reader know, that by the Gospel, we mean not the Power of God abstractly con∣sidered without the Doctrine, and suitable words, inwardly or outwardly Preached, nor yet the Doctrine and Wor••••▪ without the Power, and Life, and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 God, but both conjunctly. And although we do readily ac∣knowledge that the Doctrine, when it is out∣wardly Preached by the Spirit of God, and so hath the Power of God accompanying it, is and may be called Gospel; yet we cannot simply or absolutely limit or confine the Gospel to out∣ward Preaching of men; otherwise what God or Christ Preaches of his Love and Mercy to men in their Hearts, should not be the Gospel, nor should that be Gospel which God Preach∣ed unto ••braham, and also unto Adam after the Fall; seeing to none of these God did use the Mini••••ry of men. To conclude therefore, what God reveals of his Love and Mercy for mens Salvation, whether without, or by the Mi∣nistry of men Spiritually fitted and called thereunto is the Gospel, and that Gospel may be called the Power of God unto Salvation, because it is mighty and powerful in operati∣on; but yet it doth not follow, that the ••reaching of the Letter without the Spirit and Power of God, is the Gospel, as I. A. would have it.

CHAP. XIII.

IN the pretended Survey of the 12th Query, I. A. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Inspirer of the Quakers, as he sc••ffing••y 〈◊〉〈◊〉 it, as being both a great Jester, and a great Fool also, because the Inquirer asketh, Whether Original Sin be the Devil, seeing the Word Original signifieth the Beginning. But I ask I. A. why may not the Devil be called sin, or unrighteousness in a certain sense, as Christ is called righteousness frequently in Scripture? And what is it that made him that was an Angel of Light, to become a Devil, but sin; for when God first created him, he was not a Devil; but he became so, or made himself so, by his sin: And seeing sin made him become a Devil, why may it not receive his Name? And also seeing the Devil stirreth up men to sin, and is the Author of it commonly in mens Hearts, it may very well receive his Name, at least by a Metonymie.

Again, is not sin called in Scripture, The Old Man, or Old Adam, whom we are bidden to put off? According to I. A. his reasoning, Sin cannot be an Old Man, because a man is a

person, and then Sin should be a person also. Again, by his Argument, God made man, but he made not sin, therefore sin cannot be a man: And thus according to I. A. the Inspirer of the Apostle Paul, must also be a Fool and a Jester (which were very Blasphemous to think) because Paul calleth sin in men, The Old Man, and compareth it unto man, ha∣ving its various Members.

Now if indwelling sin may be called man, in any tollerable sense of a Metonymie, or Allegory; according to Scripture, why not also Devil, Serpent, Leviathan, as also it is called flesh. And whereas the Inquirer doth ask, what did Christ come to destroy? was it not the Devil and his works? To this I. A. giveth no direct Answer; for certainly that Divel whom Christ destroyeth in mens hearts; and that Serpent whose head Christ the Seed of the Woman doth bruise, is sin, which is the Serpents birth in mens hearts, and which receiveth his Name, as the Child doth the Name of its Parent.

Now as to the words Original sin, as they are no express Scripture words, so they have an Ambiguous or doubtful signification, and therefore it were better to leave those words, and to keep to express Scripture. For in one Sense, there can be no Original sin, because originally all things were good, and

sin came in not with the Creation, but some∣time after it.

But how sin hath come generally upon all men, as whether by the bare imputation of Adam's sin, without the consent of his Po∣sterity, or by and through their consenting thereunto, is the true state of the question, which I. A. hath not as yet resolved. And it seemeth most absurd that God should reckon any sinners for Adam's sin, without the least consent or concurrence on their part, which is not just among men; and certainly what is unjust with just men, is not just before the Lord, who is infinitely just and good. And seeing none are Righteous or Just by the Righteousness of Christ, the second Adam, without their Faith in him, and consenting to his Righteousness; so none are unrighte∣ous by the first Adam, but such as consent to his sin. But again, when this consenting to Adam's sin took place in his posterity, as name∣ly whether before they came into the womb, (as those who hold the pre-existence of all Souls from the beginning, do affirm, where∣of there have been and are divers among those called Christians) or whether after they are born, when they grow up to the capa∣city of discerning good from evil, is yet ano∣ther Question, which I. A. hath not touched, far less resolved. And it were well that men

were more inquisitive to find the way, how to get sin put out, than how it came in; see∣ing they are generally sensible that that it hath entred, and got too great place in them. But as to the determinate and precise time, when sin hath entred into mens Souls; as it is no part of the Query, so it is none of my present work to determine. It shall suffice enough to reply unto I. A. that all his Arguments for the in being of sin in mens hearts, fall short to prove that it came into them without their own consent; or that God doth impute sin unto any Soul, simply and barely for the Fact of another; for that is to contradict the com∣mon instinct of Justice that is placed by the Lord, the judge of the whole Earth in all men.

Another Question which I. A. raiseth on this Head, although it be no part of the Query, is, Whether that Seed of Concupiscence which is felt to move in those who are Travelling uprightly towards perfection, be really and pro∣perly their sin, or imputed unto them; for sin by the Lord, when not consented unto, in any mea∣sure or degree. And he resolveth it in the affir∣mative, but with very weak and insufficient Arguments. 1. He saith, By the sin of Adam, all were made sinners, Rom. 5. 16, 17, 18. But what then, doth it therefore follow, that they were made sinners without their own consent;

let him show us this any where in Scripture? 2. He saith, Adam was the representative Head of mankind. But I say again, it doth not thence follow, that his sin is the sin of his Posterity without their consent; no more than it doth follow, that because Christ is also the Head of every man, that his righte∣ousness becometh theirs, without their con∣sent; and their actual receiving of him, and believing in him. 3. He saith, There are mo∣tions, which are sinful, though not consented to, when they are tampered with, or listned unto. I Answer, to tamper with any evil motion, or listen thereunto, is some measure of con∣senting; but when the evil motion is not tampered with, nor listned unto, in any mea∣sure, this reason hath no place. And here he alledgeth on me, that as he was informed I did once dispute for a Professors place, which to what purpose he mentioneth this, I donot un∣derstand; however I tell him, his Information is false, for I never disputed any where in all my life, for a Professors place. 4. He argueth, That as Gracious Principles are Grace, so an evil principle is sin. I Answer, there is a Principle of Grace, in the Souls of Bad men, which is Grace in it self, and Truth and Righteousness, yet it is not their Righteousness, nor Grace, because they joyn not with it, and even so an evil Principle in a good man, though evil,

and sin is not his sin, when he doth not joyn with it. 5. He Argueth, That which inclin∣eth men to sin, must be sin. But if this Argument hold, then the Devil must be sin still, because he inclines men to sin. Again, as to what he alledges that Paul said, Sin did dwell in him, from Rom. 7. I Answer, I. A. hath not proved that Paul was at that time in that con∣dition, whereof he makes mention, and al∣though he speaks of the dwelling of sin, in him, viz. in respect of his former condition; yet he telleth, that not his mind, but his flesh, was the Subject, where it did indwell. And therefore when I. A. so insultingly in∣quireth at me, What is the Subject of that evil thing or motion; for seeing it is an accident, it must have some subject, without which it cannot exist. I Answer him from the Apostle; the Subject of it, in good men, is not the mind, or more noble part, which is immortal, but the flesh. And seeing it is not lodged in the mind of any righteous man, it cannot defile it, when it is not in any wise consented unto. Nor doth it follow, that because an evil motion may be in the flesh or mortal part, the Devil is also lodged there too; this is nothing but a foolish inference of I. A. his making; and therefore let him take home his silly Jest to himself, where he saith, It is better to lodge s••n alone, than it and the Devil too; for two such

Devi••s are worse together, than any of them it self. I say, nothing of this can be inferred from our Principle; but let I. A. take heed, lest sin and the Devil too, have not too great place in him, which so leads him forth to foolish Jesting, and reproaching the Blessed Spirit of Truth, in its Holy Inspirations, in the Hearts of Gods People. But why is I. A. so offended with the Inquirer, for ask∣ing if Sin be the Devil; seeing he calleth sin, Devil, saying, Sin and the Devil, are two worse Devils, than one alone.

To conclude this matter, I. A. doth plain∣ly acknowledge, That by Christ his destroying the Devil, is meant the destroying his Power and Kingdom in the World, pag. 137. And not the Annihilating the Devils entity and being. Is it not then clear, that I. A. his own Con∣fession, the Devils Power and Kingdom is called Devil in Scripture, and what is that but sin; and thus we see, h••w at last he is forced, at least indirectly, to acknowledge, what he hath so earnestly opposed.

CHAP. XIV.

IN the pretended Survey of the thirteenth Query, I. A. accuseth the Spirit in the In∣quirer, As being either an ignerant Blockhead, or else a Captious Sophister, and withal al∣ledging, That the Question as it is propounded cannot be Answered; and that therefore it must be purged from a plurality of Interrogations. But all this Accusation proceeds upon a wrong Supposition, viz. That Christ hath not died for all men: And therefore, although I. A. can∣not Answer the Question according to his own false Principle; yet according to Scripture it can be well Answered, viz. That Christ hath died for all the ungodly and sinners, that they should live unto him.

In the next place he offereth to give some clear demonstrations from the Scriptures, That Christ did not die for all men. But in his whole Survey of this Question, consisting of above 13 Pages, he bringeth not one place of Scrip∣ture, which saith expresly, That Christ died not for all men: And for my part, I have Read the Scriptures all over several times, but to this day I could never find any such place:

But on th•• contrary, I have found divers places of Scripture expresly affirming, That Christ hath died for all, as Isaiah 53. 6. 2 Cor. 5. 14, 15. Heb. 2. 9. and 1 Tim. 2. 6. and 1 Ioh. 2. 2. And therefore his clear demon∣strations, are but his own consequences ga∣thered not from Scripture, but from his own mistakes; and his absurd Interpretations of Scripture, the which we are not bound to re∣ceive, seeing he has renounced all claim to the Inspiration of that Spirit that gave forth the Scripture.

And because it would be too tedious, and to little purpose to Answer particularly to every frivolous Objection he maketh against the Doctrine of the Scripture, Concerning Christs dying for all men: I shall lay down some general Heads or Propositions according to Scripture, by which all his Objections shall be sufficiently Answered.

PROP. I.

ALthough Christ died for all men, and thereby gave a Testimony of Gods great Love, and also of his own to all man∣kind, according to 1 Ioh. 4. 9, 10. and 1 Ioh. 3. 16. and Rom. 5. 8. Yet it doth not follow, that Christ or God hath equally conferred up∣on

all, the Spiritual Blessings procured by his Death; for the Love of God being free, he might extend it in different measures or de∣grees to men, as it pleased him, according to his own infinite Counsel, which we cannot comprehend: And whereas Ioh. 15. 13. it is said, Greater Love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his Life for his Friends. This doth not import, as I. A. doth alledge, That Christ died only for his Friends, but it expresseth the superabundant Love of Christ above the Love of all other men, in that whereas it is the greatest Testimony of the love among men, a man to die for his Friend; yet Christ hath given a far greater, in that he died for his Enemies, Rom. 5. 10.

PROP. II.

CHrist died in so far, even for these who perish; that by vertue of his Death all such have a day of Visitation, wherein it is possible for them to be saved, during which day: Christ Jesus doth Enlighten them with his true Light, to shew them their way unto God; and also he breaths upon them in some measure, sufficient unto their Conversion, with his Spirit of Grace to draw and gather them, whereby it is possible for them within

the day of their Visitation to believe, and so to be saved: And this Grace of Illumination, which hath a Sanctifying and renewing vertue in it comes upon them, as the real effect and consequence of what Christ hath done and suffered for them, God having so ordered it, in his infinite Love and Wisdom, that this Grace, whereby he converteth Souls should flow, and run forth unto us in that way, and as it were through the Conduit of Christ his Blood; so that the Sufferings of Christ were as the opening of a great Fountain, out of which the abundant Grace of God, that formerly as it were but droped on mankind, is in the Latter days poured forth upon them, as it was promised so to be; for which read and com∣pare these following Scriptures, Isaiah 44. 3. Ioel 2. 28. Ieremiah 31. 31. Psal. 68. 18. Eph. 4. 7, 8. and Ioh. 1. 16, 17. Rom. 5. 18.

PROP. III.

WHen once the day of mens Gracious Visitation is at an end, which is possible to come to pass on many, and doth no doubt come to pass on many, even when living in the World, after they have finally rejected the Call of God in their Souls, and ••••ully resisted, and hardned themselves a∣gainst his tender dealings by his Spirit of

Grace, gently working on their hearts: I do not say that Christ hath died for the sins of all, or any one of those, after the said day of their Visitation is at an end: For although we read in Scripture, That Christ hath died for the re∣••ission of all sins past; in the time of ignorance when God winked, and for the redemption of the transgressions under the first Covenant, according to Rom. 3. 25. and Heb. 9. 15. Yet we find not that Christ hath died for all sins of men that were to come, after they were Enlightned. And although no doubt all sins, as well to come as past, are pardoned upon Repentance; and that Christ hath died for such sins, as are repented of by any men, at any time, when they truly repent; yet seeing many sins are committed, by many, that are never repented of, and wherein they die fi∣nally Impenitent and hardned against Gods tender Call and Visitation of Grace in their Souls: Also seeing some sin wilfully and fall away, after they have received the know∣ledge of the Truth, and die in that state, the Scripture is plain, That there remaineth no more Sacrifice for them. Also Iohn speaketh, Of a s••n that is unto death, of which he Writes; I do not say, that such a one is to be Prayed for: And what is such a sin, but a final impeni∣tence, even until the day of Visitation be over, and God be provoked to give them

up, even as many at this day, because they received not the Truth in Love, are given up to the strong delusions of Antichrist, to be∣lieve Lies, and die in that state.

PROP. IV.

MEn are not according to Scripture called Reprobates within that time, that God dwelleth with them by his Grace, in order to convert them, and renew them by Repentance; far less doth the Scripture speak of mens being Reprobated from all Eternity, or before the foundation of the World, as some alledge; although we read of an Electi∣on in Christ before the foundation of the World. And to say that God doth simply Reprobate men, while he is calling them to Repentance, and graciously inviting them in true Love to be reconciled with him, is an absolute inconsistency. The time therefore of any mans final Reprobation is after this day of Grace is over, and God hath wholly left striving with him in order to his Conversion. We must therefore distinguish betwixt per∣sons, and their sins and sinful state; for also ••in, and state of sin is always rejected and reprobated, yet not the persons, until their day be over. For the Scripture speaketh a∣boundantly

of a day of Grace that all men have, or are to have, wherein the Lord not only visits them, but even endures with much long suffering the Vessels of wrath fitted for destruction. These only therefore are pro∣perly Reprobates, who are finally given over to a Reprobate mind, after their day of Grace is over; and Gods fore-knowledge and pre∣ordination respecteth them only as such.

PROP. V.

ACcording to what is formerly said, it may be further concluded, that al∣though Christ hath died for all men in a day, so that within that day of Grace, all their sins past and to come as well as present, are pardon∣able for Christs sake, no man being absolutely reprobated, and finally given over, within this day of Grace; yet that day being at an end, Christs death is no more a Sacrifice for, them, nor for their sins; and because of their rejecting so great Salvation offered them by Christ, all their former sins which formerly were not imputed unto them, so as to hinder Pardon, are newly charged upon them, and that in the just Judgement of God, seeing they deny the Lord that bought them, and account his Blood, as an unholy or common

thing. And in this respect Christ hath Died for no Reprobates, to wit, as such: And he hath neither died nor Prayed for the World; in that sense, to wit, as it signifieth them, who die in the final unbelief and impenitency, and so perish, for so I find the term World sometimes to signify in Scripture. And if I. A. think that this is a contra∣diction;* 1.1 as implying that Christ hath died for all men, and yet hath not died for Reprobates, who are a great part, or the greatest part of mankind; I shall mind him of a Rule in his School-Logick, that he doth so highly magnifie, to wit, that Propositions are not contradictory, although the one be Affirmative, and the other Negative, unless they be in ordtne ad idem, in order to the same, and in regard of the same Circumstances of time, place, condition, &c.

PROP. VI.

THe Sacrifice of Christs death did truely ex∣tend, for the remission of sins past, from the beginning of the world; hence all the Believers that lived under the Law, and Prophets, and before the Law were saved by Faith in Christ, and had their sins pardoned; not by the Offering of the Blood of Bulls and Rams;

but by the Blood of Christ, who was to die for them, and in whom they believed; and died in Faith; as is clear out of many places of Scripture, and especially the Epistle to the Hebrews. And by vertue of Christ's death, and offering once for all men, have had or have, or shall have a day of Visitation, and offer of Grace through Christ, even these who lived before Christ came in the flesh, in that prepared body as well as others. And there∣fore all who finally perish, and are lost in whatever Age or time of the World they lived, they must be accountable to Christ who is judge, both of quick and dead, and Lord of both; and they shall be punished with Fire of Hell, for neglecting and despising the Salvation offered by him. And although this is a great Mistery and hard to be uttered, how this Gospel Invitation,* 1.2 and Visitation cometh unto all, and how all shall be accountable unto the man Christ Jesus, on the score or account of his dying for them; yet seeing the Scripture is so plain and clear for it,* 1.3 it is better to believe it, than curiously to dispute how, or after what manner it comes so to be: And the opening of this and other great Misteries of the Christian Religion, is ap∣proaching to many, who as yet do not see them; and when men are prepared to re∣ceive

them, God will no doubt give that; and all other Good things to those that Love and Fear him.

PROP. VII.

ANd whereas I. A. and others do urge, That either Christ has died for those that perish, absolutely or conditionally: I Answer, partly both, first he hath so far died absolute∣ly even for those, as by his death and righte∣ousness, Grace is come upon them, suffici∣ent both to Faith and Salvation, within their day of Grace; which Grace is given them absolutely for that time, and doth continue with them, until the day of their Visitation be at an end, and then it is taken away from them, the Lord ceasing to strive with them any more for their Recovery. Secondly, I say, Christ hath died conditionally, even for those that perish, that they might have been saved, within their day, upon the condition of their believing: And whereas I. A. doth object, That seeing the condition it self, to wit, Faith is the Gift of God, then he either bestowes it up∣on them absolutely or conditionally; if absolutely, then Reprobates shall thereby be made Believers, and so be saved; if conditionally, then the sense will be, that God bestowes Faith in Christ

upon Reprobates, upon condition that they fir•••• have Faith in him. To which I Answer, that Faith is indeed the Gift of God, and God is willing to bestow it upon them, and work it in them; not upon the condition of their first believing, before he give them to believe, which I confess would imply a contradiction; but the condition on which God is willing to work Faith in them is, if they do not final∣ly resist his Spirit of Grace, having offered Faith unto all men, which moveth and draw∣eth or inclineth them to believe; for to every one that doth not resist the motion of Gods Spirit of Grace, he giveth Faith, and work∣eth it in them: And though men cannot actually do any thing that is good, or accep∣table unto God, before they believe; yet when the Visitation of God's Grace is upon them, by the help thereof they may cease from resisting the Spirit of God: and where∣as I have heard it again urged by others, Ei∣ther God willeth that men should not resist the Spirit of Grace absolutely or conditionally; if absolutely, then say they, men shall not resist it; for what God willeth absolutely, must certainly come to pass, if conditionally, then the Argu∣ment may be renewed concerning that condition, and so without end. To this also I Answer, that God willeth absolutely, that men should n••t, or d•• not resist his Spirit of Grace; for

seeing God commandeth that men do not resist, it is evident that it is the absolute or positive will of God, that they do not; for whatever God commandeth is according to his wi••l. But it doth not follow, that what∣ever God willeth men to do, that must cer∣tainly be done; for how often do men act contrary to the Will of God, in some sense, although when they do so act, it is not with∣out his permissive will, whereby he suffers them so to do. Indeed I g••ant, that whatever God willeth that he do himself, that must cer∣tainly be done, and it cannot be resisted; and therefore when God punisheth the disobedient, it being his own act of Justice, and proceed∣ing from his own holy and just will, it can∣not be resisted in that respect. I have the more largely Answered this Objection, because it is judged by many of the Adversary side, to be unanswerable: But I hope by what is said, the Impartial Reader, who loveth Truth, may perceive, that there is indeed no strength in it; and it is so far from being a clear demonstration, that it is nothing else, but a Captious Sophism, and Fallacy.

Moreover, whereas I. A. classeth us with the Arminians and Iesuits, for holding this Doctrine, That Christ Died for all men. I An∣swer, seeing both Arminians and Iesuits pro∣fess

to hold many other Doctrines, which I. A. doth also profess, as that there is one God, and one Lord Jesus Christ; it is no just ground of reproach to us, to own that Doctrine, which the Scripture doth own, although Arminians and Iesuits profess to own that also: But it is the greater shame to I. A. and his party, who profess to be more Orthodox, to be guilty in denying that, which Adversaries confess; we find that not only wicked men, but the Devils also confessed unto Christ, which yet is no reproach unto Christ, nor to the true Con∣fessors of him.

And lastly, whereas I. A. pretendeth to Answer our Arguments, For Christ his dying for all men; Some of them he doth not fairly represent; and others, being some places of Scriptures, he doth only Answer, by giving us his private meanings of his own private Spirit, (without any convincing reason) of those places of Scripture, which we are no wise bound to receive: And at best, all his Answers proceed upon a bare Supposition, that his own Principle is true; which is a com∣mon Fallacy, called in the Schools Petitio Principii, which is to say, A begging of the Question.

CHAP. XV.

IN my Answer to I. A. his pretended Sur∣vey of the 14th. Query, I purpose to use the same way as in the former, viz. To lay down some Propositions, which may sufficiently Answer to any thing he objects against the Universality of the saving Light and Grace of God unto all men; and in so doing, I shall both save my self and the Reader the pains ••o follow him in every Trivial thing that is objected.

PROP. 1. In the Question concerning the Universality of Gods Grace sufficient to Sal∣vation; it were altogether wisdom in our Adversaries to forbear pressing so hard in that point, and so positively conclude against us, and not us only, but the Scripture it self, That many Nations or Kingdoms of the World are utterly excluded from all sufficiency of Saving Grace, and possibility of Salvation; and that upon the account of wanting the Gospel outwardly preached unto them, and benefit of the Scriptures. Do we not read in Scripture, That God hath given the Heathens to his Son for his Inheri∣tance,

and the uttermost ends of the Earth for his possession? And doth not Christ invite the most remote and desolate places of the Earth to come unto him, saying, Look unto me all ye ends of the Earth, and be ye saved: Mark it is not said, some ends of the Earth, but [all ye ends of the Earth;] even as well those to whom the outward Testimony of Christ by the Scriptures is not come, as those to whom it is come. And did not Christ command, That the Gospel should be preached to all Na∣tions, even those that wanted the Scriptures Testimony, and therefore the Gospel did belong unto them; even so to speak before it was outwardly Preached u••to them, for because it did belong unto them, therefore was it to be Preached unto them; and conse∣quently for the same reason the Gospel doth belong to many at this day, to whom it is not as yet outwardly Preached; and did not Paul say, Rom. 1. 14. That he was a Debter both to the Greeks, and to the Barbarians, as con∣cerning the Gospel? And how can I. A. or any of his party who dispute so fiercely against all possibility of Salvation, not only to many thousands among those called the Heathens, but to many intire Nations of them, make it appear that they are utterly and finally ex∣cluded from all sufficient means of Salvation. Have they been in Gods secret Counsel to

know this? or who hath revealed it to them? And if the outward Testimony of the Scriptures be not as yet come to divers Na∣tions of the Earth, this doth not hinder, but that the Gospel doth belong unto them, as well as unto others, to whom they are al∣ready come, Seeing God hath commanded, that the mistery which was kept secret since the World began, should now be declared or made known unto all Nations for the obedience of Faith, and that by the Scriptures of the Pro∣phets, according to Rom. 16. 25, 26. And seeing Christ hath commanded, That the Go∣spel should be Preached to all Nations, Dare I. A. or any of his party give us the Instance of any one Nation now under Heaven, to whom the Gospel ought not, or may not be Preach∣ed, suppose they altogether at present want the outward Testimony of Scripure, and knowledge of the History of the coming of Christ in the flesh. But if the Gospel may be Preached to any Nation now under Hea∣ven, then certainly it belongeth unto them, I mean the Gospel Dispensation; for because it belongeth unto them, and is the free Gift of God unto them: And because Christ Je∣sus hath procured or obtained that priviledge unto the Gentiles, by vertue of his death and blood-shed for them, Having broken down the middle wall of partition betwixt the Jews and

Gentiles; therefore i•• is to be Preached unto them: Even as because the King hath given some great favour unto his Subjects, it is to be published or declared unto them, and it is therefore published unto them, because it is given them; and is not given them, because it is published; and therefore the Gentiles have some title or claim to the Gospel, even before it be published, and consequently be∣fore the outward publication of it unto them, they are not utterly excluded from the Dis∣pensation of Gods Grace towards men. And if any shall say; The Gospel is to be Preach∣ed to all Nations indeed, (seeing Christ hath commanded it, and not one Nation is ex∣cepted) because that God hath some scattered up and down all the Nations, who are to be saved, as belonging to Gods Election. To this I Answer, that according to I. A. his way of reasoning, God hath none belonging to his Election in many Nations of the World, because they are excluded from all possibility of Salvation for want of the Scriptures.

PROP. 2. Whereas I. A. objects against the universal sufficient Light and Grace of God, because it is said, 1 Cor. 2. 14. The Na∣tural man does not discern, neither can he know the things of the Spirit of God. I Answer, By the Natural man is to be understood, the

Soul or Mind of man, as it ••••boureth to un∣derstand Divine things meerly by its Natu∣ral faculties of Natural wisdom and under∣standing, without any Divine illumination: But when it pleaseth God to shine upon man in his Natural state, by his Divine illumina∣on, then he may know something belonging to his Souls Salvation, so far as his weakness can permit, by vertue of the said illumination. For how are men converted from Natural to Spiritual? God dealeth not with men in Conversion, as with Stocks and Stones, but as with Reasonable Creatures, having some capacity of understanding.

PROP. 3. That some in Scripture are said to have neither Ears to hear, nor Eyes to see, nor Hearts to understand, And that because God hath not given it unto them, which is another objection of J. A. This doth not prove, that at no time God hath given to those people any measure of sufficient Grace for this great and extraordinary darkness and blindness may be upon them, either because the day of their Visitation is expired altogether, or be∣cause of some intermission, that is only to con∣tinue for some time; after which they are again to have a new Visitation, so that they may both see and hear, and also understand, if they will not wilfully shut their Eyes.

PROP. 4. These who are said in Scrip∣ture, as 2 Thess. 2. 11, 12. To be given up to strong Delusions, to believe Lies; Are such, who when the Truth was made known unto them, received it not in love, that they might be saved, as is clear from v. 10. And there∣fore it doth not follow, as I. A. would have it, That these who are so fearfully blinded by Antichrists delusions, never had a day of Visi∣tation, before they were so blinded: But on the contrary it is manifest they had, because their blindness is a Judgement inflicted upon them, for their wilful opposing the Light that God gave them sometime formerly.

PROP. 5. Whereas I. A. saith, That the Father draweth not all men to Christ: I Answer, As this is no where said in Scripture, so it is contrary to Christ his Doctrine, who said, After I am lifted up, I will draw all men unto me: And certainly all whom Christ draweth, the Father also draweth; for said Christ, My Fa∣ther hitherto worketh, and I work. Nor do the words of Christ cited by I. A. prove the con∣trary, Ioh. 6. 45. Every man that hath heard and learned of the Father comes to him: For Christ doth not simply say, every one that hath heard of the Father, comes to him; but every one that hath learned, as well as heard; now we do not say that every one hath Learned

of the Father, although they have heard in some sort; also there is a right and wrong hearing, some hear willingly; and this is only the right hearing; but although all hear one time or another, while their day of Grace last, yet few hear willingly so as to obey, and therefore they come not unto Christ.

PROP. 6. Whereas I. A. Argueth again, That wicked men have not the powers, principles or habits of Grace, and therefore they have not sufficient Grace; and he laboureth to prove, They have not the powers and habits or prin∣ciples of Grace, because otherwise they would be Converts and Gracious men. To this I Answer, Although wicked men have not these powers and habits, as some call them, actually, yet they have them hiddenly, to wit, in a Seed or principle of Grace, which virtually con∣taineth all these powers and faculties, even as the Seed of a Tree doth virtually contain the Fruit and tree it self. But it doth not follow, that because a wicked man hath a good Seed in him, that therefore he is a good man, no more, than because good Seed is sown in barren ground, that therefore it is fruitful.

PROP. 7. Whereas I. A. doth further al∣l••dge, That the Gentiles did the things of the

Law mentioned, Rom. 2. 14. By the meer nature of man, without the Grace of God; and this because it is not said, They did the things con∣tained in the Law by Grace, but by Nature. To this I Answer, nor is it said they did the things contained in the Law by the corrupt Nature of man, as it is corrupted in the Fall, and no wise healed or restored. And cer∣tainly corrupted Nature could not do the things contained in the Law; for the Law of God in the Hearts of the Gentiles, did require not only the outward action, but the inward purity of the heart; and if this was wanting, they did not the things contained in the Law. But that there was an uprightness of heart in some of the Gentiles, is clear from divers ex∣amples of Scripture, as from Rom. 2. 14. They show the work of the Law Writ in their Hearts; and in the Case of Cornelius, and also of Abime∣lech, Gen. 20. 6. so that God said unto him, I know that thou didst this in the Integrity of thy heart. And therefore that Nature mentioned by Paul Rom. 2. 14. is either Nature healed and restored in some measure by the Grace of God, as Au∣gustine did partly expound it, or the innate word mentioned by Iames, to wit, The Word of Life immediatly grafted, or planted in the Souls of men, which is a Divine Nature; for the Greek word used by Iames in that place, doth most properly signifie, that which is imme∣diately

planted in mens Nature, as distin∣guished from that which they receive by Edu∣cation or Industry; as when we say, innate wisdom or understanding, and innate good∣ness, we mean that which a man hath im∣mediately received from God, from his Birth, or Creation, to distinguish it from what he hath acquired by his own pains or labour, in which sense I find both the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to be used by Greek Au∣thors. Now that the Gentiles had a measure of Gods Grace bestowed upon them, which for most part they did not improve, is clear as from many other passages of Scripture, so in particular from the Parable of the Prodigal, who received of his Fathers Goods and Sub∣stance, as well as the Elder Brother, but he spent it in Riotous living, so that he was left destitute. Now I ask what was that which the Prodigal spent which his Fathers gave him, and was a Portion of his Fathers Goods and Substance; surely this was not mans own cor∣rupted Nature, nor any faculty or power thereof, for that remained still with him: And therefore it behoved to be the Grace of God.

PROP. 8. Whereas I. A. expoundeth, All men to whom the Grace of God hath appeared, Tit. 2. 11. To be all Ranks, Stations and Qua∣lities of men, &c. This his Exposition contra∣dicteth

his own Doctrine, who so fiercely doth oppose the appearing of Gods Grace, not only unto all particulars, but also to many or most of the Nations of the Earth, who be∣long to some of the Ranks, Stations and Qualities of men, such as these numerous and great Nations in the East and West-Indies, and other remote places, to whom the Doctrine of the Gospel was not in Paul's time, nor per∣haps since outwardly Preached, at least to most of them. Nor can I. A. shew where all men signifie any definit number, and that the smallest part also of mankind. And when Paul spoke of his warning and teaching every man, his sense is clear, that he excepted none, but still as he had occasion, he Preached the Gospel freely unto all, telling them, That they should repent and believe, that they might re∣ceive the remission of their sins through Iesus Christ; who had died for them, and was risen again. But I. A. saith, There are many Na∣tions as well as persons for whom Christ died not; and these for whom Christ died not, are not ex∣horted to believe that Christ died for them; ex∣cept they shall first make choice of and embrace him, for their Lord and Saviour, as the Gospel offers him. But this is a strange inconsistency and contradiction? How can they or ought they to embrace him as their Lord and Sa∣viour, if they are not to believe that he has

died for them, even when the account of Christ his dying for mankind is Preached un∣to them. It God require men to believe in Christ, it is certainly upon reasonable and equal terms; some foundation or ground for such a belief is to be made known unto them, As that God is Merciful and ready to pardon their by past sins; which yet cannot be if Christ hath not died for them.

PROP. 9. Lastly, whereas I. A. doth argue, That the Doctrine of Vniversal Grace, destroyes the Efficacy of Grace, and makes the Effectualness thereof depend upon mans will, to chuse or refuse as he pleaseth, and so the Grace of God shall be subordinate to mans will, which is absurd: To this it is easily Answered, that the Grace of God is still effectual in its Nature, even when it doth not actually work the Salvation of all; for as much as it is sufficiently able to work it, where it is not resisted, even as the Fire is effectual to Melt the hardest Mettal, if the Mettal be duely applyed to it, but if the Mettal be removed from the Fire, that the said Mettal is not Melted, is not be∣cause of the Fire, its not having efficacy enough, but because the Mettal is removed from it, so the Fire still retaineth its efficacy as it had before. Again, the efficacy of Gods Grace dependeth not on mans will, seeing the will

of man doth not influence or excite the Grace of God to make it operate; but on the con∣trary, it is the Grace of God that doth in∣fluence or excite the heart and will of man, without which it cannot do any thing to∣wards mans Salvation; and therefore the Grace of God is never subordinate to the will of man, as I. A. doth falsly inferr. And whereas I. A. upon this head, Calls the Grace of God, that can be resisted, (so as the Souls Conversion may be hindred by mans resisting it) ill natured, and false Grace; and moreover addeth, that he will have nothing to do with such Grace that can be resisted, he speaketh here too rashly and presumptuously▪ for do we not read of some in Scripture that resisted the Truth, and also the Holy Ghost? As Stephen charged the Iews, that they did always resist the Holy Ghost, as did their Fathers; and yet accor∣ding to I. A. his Principle, he might as well say, He would have nothing to do with the Holy Chest that can be resisted, and charge it as ill natured and false, which were Blasphemous to affirm. Notwithstanding the same, I. A. forgetting himself a few Lines after, saith, We may indeed resist both the means and mo∣tions of Grace, and not improve Grace, as we should and might too: But (saith he) God makes it still eff••ctual to the growth by him designed. This is a contradiction not only to his former

Assertion, but to it self, as implying that men may improve Grace further than God de∣signed they should. Another very absurd Assertion I find alledged by him, as if Grace did not incline men to perfection, and so there cannot be any resistance of it in that respect. But he may as well say, God doth not com∣mand perfection, and so not to be perfect is no sin; for certainly whatever God com∣mands, his Grace inclines men to; yea, it is his Grace in their Hearts, that is a Law, and command unto them. In the close of this Section, I. A. falleth on to dispute against the posibility of the falling away of any from real beginnings of Sanctification, the which because he doth it so overly and barely, not bringing Arguments for what he saith, but meerly giving us his own private conjectures on some places of Scripture which are alledged on both sides, as also because it is altogether a digression from the Queries, I shall not in∣sist upon particularly to refute. Only for a service unto those, who may desire Infor∣mation, as touching the thing it self; because of the seeming contrariety of some places of Scripture, which hold forth the state of some in the Grace and favour of God, as unchange∣able and not lyable to any alteration of falling away from the same, are to be understood of the State of such persons, after they have

come to such a growth in Grace, so that per∣severance in the same is a reward given them of God, with a respect to their Faithfulness and diligence, wherein they have been formerly exercised. And such especially is that place, Rev. 3. 12.

CHAP. XVI.

IN my Examination of I. A. his Survey of the 15th. and two other Queries, which are the last: I design to be very brief, finding little or nothing in all that he objecteth against us, on these heads, but meer quibbling and trifling, together with some manifest abuses and perversions, part of which I shall take notice of, leaving other things of less moment to the Readers own consideration. And indeed were it not for the worth, and serviceableness of the things themselves propo∣sed in the Queries, and to give to my Native Country, as well as unto other places, a new occasion to Read and Consider those Queries, and the weightiness of the things proposed in them, I had not taken the pa••ns to put Pen to Paper in Answer to I. A. notwithstanding his many abusive reflections against me in parti∣cular,

considering of what small repute or esteem he is among his Brethren; for al∣though he appears in his Book, as some great Pillar mightily concerned in his Brethrens Quarrel and Cause, yet so small is their esteem of him, or of his work (as it seemeth) that they have suffered him to lye in Prison in the Tolbooth of Edinburgh for want of Money to pay the Charges of his Book, as is not our to many in this place: It is like I. A. will be more provident the next time he engageth against the Quakers, to get Iohn Hamilton, who hath so highly commended his work, or some other to secure him, from the next in∣conveniency of that sort.

First of all he begins on this Query, to Quibble about the word [should] as if the In∣quirer did mean, by these words, That men should not be perfect; as if these called Mini∣sters did teach, that it was not mens duty to be perfect, or as if it were not commanded; whereas by the word should, is only meant the event or attainment, and not the duty, as sometimes the word doth signifie; a thing most common in ordinary Speech, as when one saith, if such a man had lived long, he should have been Rich, or he should have been Wise, &c.

Next he alledges, I abu••e some worthy men, because I had cited some, as holding a

Divine condescendence, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and as if the same did consist in God his remitting or nullifying his Law, in its obligation; but this is a gross perversion, for I did not mean any such thing thereby, as I. A. doth alledge, but only that God out of his infinite goodness and wisdom hath given unto men, under the Gospel Dispensation, a Law that is so Gentle and so full of Clemency, as that by the same he requires no more of any of us, but accor∣ding to the measure of Grace and Strength he doth afford unto us; and still as our Strength and Ability is Increased, the obli∣gation of the Law becomes the greater upon us. Hence it is, that he who is Faithful in every respect to the measure of Grace which he hath received, is indeed a perfect man, and doth please God, although he be not equal in his attainment unto others, who have more given them: For to whom much is given, much is required; and to whom less is given, less is required; which is most clear from the Doctrine of Christ, in his Pa∣rable of the Talents.

And whereas I. A. doth plead against the possibility of perfection in this Life, by divers Arguments deduced from a misapplication of some places of Scripture; I shall only point at the defects of his Arguments in general, which shall suffice to every one of them, if

duely applyed in particular. 1. One great de∣fect of his Arguments is, that the most they prove is, That man of himself, without the Grace and help of Gods Spirit, cannot attain to per∣fection; which we do not deny, but this hin∣ders not, that by Grace he may. 2. A se∣cond defect is, that his Arguments prove, That the Saints had their Imperfections and sins, before they were fully washed and cleansed from them, which we also acknowledge, but this doth not hinder, that some time or other, they witnessed a perfect cleansing before death. A third defect is, his confounding ••he States and Conditions of the Saints, to wit, Their weak Estate, when they are but in the war∣fare, and strugling against sin, with their Last and final Estate, wherein they have overcome, and got the Victory. And lastly, to mention no more, his misapplying the word or term perfect, when it is taken in an higher sense, to the lowest condition of a sinless state, as in the Case of Paul, when he said, Philip. 3. 12. He was not as yet perfected, where he ••eaneth, certainly, that he had not attained to the highest pitch or condition of Holiness, that was attainable in this Life; which notwith∣standing doth not hinder a sinless perfection; for although Adam was Created in a sinless perfection, yet certainly he was to have gone on to a higher state of Perfection: And we

Read of Christ who had no sin at all, that he was made perfect through Sufferings. Again, when Christ said, I work to day, and to morrow, and the third day I am perfected: This cannot signifie that he had any sinful Imperfection before that time; but his being perfected the third day, signifieth that his work was then to be done, and so that he was prepared for the Glory that he was to receive thereafter.

Again, whereas he maketh some show of bringing our Arguments or Reasons for Per∣fection, I find not my self concerned to Vin∣dicate those Arguments, as managed by him; because he doth not propose them, either in matter or form as they do require; as also that he alledgeth divers Arguments as used by us in the Case, which I know not, if indeed used by any of us. Nor is it my work at pre∣sent, to bring Arguments for our Doctrine, that being already done by others, and partly also by me; but to Answer I. A. in what he hath against the same.

He alledgeth, that Paul must needs have been in that very condition, which he there describes, Rom. 3. 14, 15, 18, 23. and consequent∣ly there can be no place for the figure called Metaschematismus, as I did alledge, except I will say, that Paul then did not with his mind serve the Law of God. But how weak and frivolous is his ••cason here? Could not

Paul in the same discourse, speak of some∣thing that was truly his present conditions, and of some other thing that was not? Is it not clear that Iames doth so in his Epistle, when he saith of the Tongue, Herewith Bless we God, and herewith Curse we men. My Bre∣thren these things ought not to be so. Now ac∣cording to I. A. his highly admired Logick, Iames behoved to be both a Blesser of God, and Curser of men at the same time, seeing he useth the first person to express both, and the like Impertinency I. A. is guilty of, in saying the word cleanseth, 1 Ioh. 1. 7. Being in the present Tense, imports the Sanctification of Be∣lievers to be imperfect in this Life; for the word is also used in the present time. And second by I. A. his reason, the word justifieth, Rom. 8. 33. importeth an imperfect Justifica∣tion, contrary to I. A. his express assertion.

Again he alledgeth, that the words in Ecclesiast. 7. 20. There is not a just man upon the Earth that doth good and sinneth not; Have the Verb in the indicative Mood, and not in the Potential signified frequently by the second future, as I did affirm. But this is a bareeva∣sion, and no direct Answer to my Assertion? And I say again, the second future, even that of the indicative, may be turned into the Potential Mood, as it is often at other times, because the Hebrew Language hath no

Potential Mood distinct by it self. Again, whereas he urgeth, That Solomon must needs understand Actual Sinning, and not a bare pos∣sibility of mens sinning, for who would be ignorant of that? To this I Answer, that Solomon did not mean a bare possibility, but such a possi∣bility as did infer the great danger and hazard that men were under to sin, if they were not duely watchful: And although all men did know this, yet they did need to be admo∣nished of it; for some parts of the Scripture are for admonition, and putting us in re∣membrance, and not barely for Information. How oft doth the Scripture tell us, that all men are Mortal, and must die, which yet none are ignorant of, although they oft for∣get that it is so, and therefore need often to be remembred. But by I. A. his Logick, either men are ignorant, that they shall die, or the Scripture saith so in vain. Who seeth not here, the weakness of I. A. his Reasons, which I am already weary to repeat, or spend my time and pains on such stuff; and there∣fore shall hast to an end of the whole. Only I cannot but take notice, with what confi∣dence I. A. doth conclude, That the Apostles and Prophets their Writing the Scriptures, was an Action surely defective and i••perfect, as to the exact and compleat degree of Love to God and men, &c. But where doth he read any

such assertion in Scripture? Or by what con∣sequence doth he prove it? Suppose they did not what they did in the highest degree, that men could attain to; this doth not prove any sinful defect in what they did. For it did sufficiently Answer to the exactness of the Law, if what they did was, with all that degree of Love to God and men, that was possible for them, at that time to perform.

CHAP. XVII.

J. A. in his pretended Answer to the 16th Query; first of all beginneth to accuse the Inquirer, As guilty of a leud Calumny, in charging his Brethren, for holding Salvation by Self-works, and Self-Righteousness; whereas they disclaim Salvation by the best works of the Saints. But I. A. in this, as in other things, doth grosly abuse his Reader, and falsly accuse the Inquirer. For doth not I. A. know, that to Query a thing is no positive conclusion, either for or against it. And albeit the Inquirer did know, that in words ye cry down all self∣works, and self-righteousness; yet he had but too much ground to question you, about them, seeing ye are generally found

so much practising them; and if they be not so much as useful means or helps of Salva∣tion, why do ye both so much practice them and plead for them, as I. A. hath done at great length, for Preaching, and Praying, and Singing without the Spirit, all which are nothing but Self-righteousness. Another fault that I. A. committeth here is, that he confoundeth the meritorious cause of Salva∣tion, with the subordinate and instrumental means thereof. For although those called Protestants deny the Saints good Works, that are wrought by the Spirit, to be strickly the meritorious cause of Salvation; yet generally, or for the most part, they deny not, that they are means of Salvation, and necessary in order thereunto, which yet I. A. seemeth here altogether to deny. And as to that place of Scripture cited by I. A. to prove, that the Saints are not saved by any work of righteousness, even wrought by the Holy Spirit in their hearts, viz. Tit. 3. 5. He could not have brought a more convincing Testi∣mony against his false Doctrine, than that very place: For after that Paul said, Not by works of Righteousness, which we had done, (viz. by any power of our own) he immediately addeth, That God saveth us according to his Mercy, by the washing of Regeneration, and re∣newing of the Holy Ghost: Which Regenera∣tion

and ••enewing of the Holy Ghost, com∣prehendeth the whole work of Sanctification in the Saints.

And here I. A. go••th on at his old rate of multiplying false accusations and perversions and perversions against us: Some of the chief∣est whereof I shall briefly mention. 1. That we hold a Popish Iustification. 2. That in one of our Books called, A Confession of Faith, p. 21. We deny to be justified by Righteousness received of us by Faith, and also by a Righteousness im∣puted unto us. All which are most gross For∣geries and Slanders, for the words in that page 21. say expresly. That acceptance with the Father is only in Christ, and by his Righteousness made ours, or imputed unto us. And the said Book denyeth not that the Righteousness of Christ is received by Faith, that is the Gift of God, but both that Faith and imputa∣tion, which is only and alone the Creatures act, or work without the Spirit of Christ, we do justly deny to have any place in our Justification. 3. Whereas in the said Book, our Friends alledge, it is not Acts of Righte∣ousness as done by us, nor as inherent in us as Acts, by which we are accepted of God, and justified before him, but by Christ the Author and worker of those Acts in us, and for us, &c. He most grosly perverteth the sober and honest intent of those words, as if

by them, they understood, only that they hold not themselves justified by all Acts, as Blas∣phemy or any other gross sin. But who seeth not that this is a most gross perversion, for cer∣tainly, all Righteous Arts of all sorts they ex∣clude, when they say, not by Acts of Righte∣ousness; and therefore when they say, it is not Righteous Acts as Acts, whereby we are justi∣fied, their meaning is most plain and obvious, as Acts being understood, to be only, even as Acts of Righteousness, and not simply and barely as Acts; though upon this meer Gram∣matical Quibble I. A. buildeth all his loud cla∣mour against them. But I. A. should know better, that when the Sense is obvious, a word may be understood, that is not expressed in the Sentence, as so it is in this present Case. A fourth gross Perversion of his, that he saith of me, in my Book called Quakerism no Po∣pery, I affirm, That we are justified by our in∣ward Graces immediately, I. A. doth under∣stand, that I mean without all respect to Christ, which is a most gross perversion; for the express words of my Book are these fol∣lowing, The Righteousness of God and Christ by which we are most immediately and nearly justified, is Christ himself, (and then I add) and his work of Righteousness in us by his Spirit, So that I am so far from excluding Christ, that I say in the first place, Christ himself is our

Righteousness. A fifth gross Perversion of I. A. is, that in my defunction of Justification, I give no other material cause of our Righte∣ousness before God, but only our Inward Graces; whereas in the said definition, I men∣tion expresly Jesus Christ, as being the ground and foundation of our Justification, both in what he hath done and suffered for us, with∣out us, and as really and truly indwelling in us. A sixth perversion of his is, that I con∣found Justification and Sanctification together, making no imaginable distinction betwixt them; and that because I say, we are justified by inward Righteousnes, and sanctified by the very same. But this proveth not, that I do not distinguish them, for one and the same thing may have a respect to different operations, as well as to different Causes. But this reasoning of I. A. is as one would argue, that when a Ma∣lefactor is both Condemned and punished for his Crime, that his Sentence of Condemnation, and his punishment are one and the same, with∣out any imaginable distinction betwixt them. As also that his Condemnation and guiltiness are the same, seeing by his Crime he is both guilty and condemned. But as to Justification and Sanctification, that they are distinguished (although sometimes in Scripture, one and the same word doth signifie both) I wil∣lingly grant, and do expresly mention them

as distinct in my Book, which I need not here repeat.

And whereas I. A. doth not only accuse me in particular, as holding a Popish Justifica∣tion, but saith further, That Bellarmine him∣self was never more Popish on that Head. Surely this his assertion proceeds either from great ignorance or something worse. For Bellar∣mine de justif. lib. 5. cap. 17. holdeth, That good works do merit Eternal Life condignly, not only by reason of Gods Covenant and acceptation, but also by reason of the work it self; so that in a good works proceeding from Grace, there may be a certain proportion and equality unto the reward of Eternal Salvation; and to the same purpose writeth Gabriel Vas••uez, a Papist: But no such thing is affirmed by any of us, nor by me; but on the contrary, in my Book called Quakerism no Popery I altogether deny the merit of the best works; as it signifieth an equality of worth to the reward of Eternal Life. Nor do I in any other case, or sense allow the word merit, with a respect to the best works of the Saints, but in that sober and qualified sense used by divers of greatest note among those called Reformers among the Protestants, as Melanction and Bucer, and also by the Fathers so called, and which is agree∣able to Scripture, which calleth Eternal Life the reward of good works, now reward and

〈◊〉〈◊〉 are relative ••••rms, as Richar•• Baxter (highly commended by I. A. elsewhere) doth acknowledge. And not only the said Richard Baxter a great English Presbyterian, but divers of the best account in the Episcopal way, as particularly H. Hammond do hold, that the Saints are justified not by Faith only, but by Repentance, Love and New Obedience, as well as by Faith, as Instruments of Justifica∣tion; and necessary conditions requisite there∣unto, and that Sanctification in the order of Causes is prior to Justification. And Iames Durham a great Scots Presbyterian, in his Com∣mentary on the Revelation, Digress. 11. saith, That such who rest upon Christ for Iustification, and acknowledge his satisfaction, ought not to be blamed as guilty of Popery; although they hold that Repentance, Love and other Spiritual Vertues and Graces are necessary to Iustification as Faith is. Seeing then we have some of the greatest note, both among those called Presbyterians and Episcopalians who agree with us, in the Doctrine of Justification; it must needs pro∣ceed from great prejudice, and untowardli∣ness in I. A. to charge us, as being guilty of Papery, in that, for which we have not only the Scriptures abundantly to warrant us, but divers also both Episcopal and Presbyterian, of the best account, to vindicate us. And as for Henry Hammond, a man of singular esteem

in the Episcopal▪ Church in Brittain, whereof I. A. is a pro••••s••ed Member; he doth not on∣ly agree with us on this Head of Justification, but also on many other very great and weighty Heads of Doctrine so fiercely op∣posed by I. A. as particularly in those follow∣ing. 1. That Christ hath died for men. 2. That there is no absolute decree of Reprobation. 3. That Gods Grace is Vniversal. 4. That be∣ginnings of Regeneration may be fallen from. 5. That these words of Paul, Rom. 7. 14, 15. concerning his being Sold under sin, are a Me∣ta••chematismus, and not the present State that Paul was in. And I. A. is extreamly igno∣rant, if he know not, that an exceeding great number, if not the greatest, of the most judicious persons of the Episcopal Church both in Britain and Ireland, are of the same mind with the said H. Hammond in these things, who therefore are so far from esteeming I. A. a Pa∣tron, or Advocate of their Church, that they cannot but judge him in so far at best, their Adversary.

Moreover, the great prejudice of I. A. against us appears in this, that because I deny all merit strictly considered, he inferreth most absurdly, that if Justice will not exact the very rigid rigour of the Law from us, and take the very summum jus, we think to merit our Justification by our Inherent Righteousness at

Gods Tribunal. This I say is an absurd infe∣rence, and smelleth ranckly of deep prejudice, and perverseness of Spirit, in I. A. in oppo∣sition to which, I say, that unless God did not only not exact in his Justice, the rigid rigour of the Law, as he terms it, but did not also pardon and forgive us freely for Christs sake, multitude of sins, so as not only to re∣mit us a Penny, but many thousands of Pounds; neither we, nor any man living could be justified at Gods Tribunal, by the greatest Holiness attainable; for all that the best of the Saints can attain unto; of Holiness or Righteousness, is but their duty, and there∣fore can be no ransom nor redemption, unto God, for the lest by past sin; far less, for many that they have formerly committed.

And whereas in my Book aforesaid, I charged. I. A. and his Brethren, to be too much one with the Papists, in the Doctrine of Justification; both of them denying that the Saints Justified by Christ indwelling in them, as Luther expresly Taught in his Commen∣tary on the Galatians: And also denying that Gods Justifying his Children is an inward Sen∣tence, or Dictate of his Spirit immediately pronounced in their hearts; to which the said I. A. can give no reply, but a meer evasion, and falleth on a fresh to accuse us of Enthu∣siasme, which being already Answered in the

former part, I need not here to repeat. Only I cannot but take notice, how ignorantly I. A. opposeth the word or term immediate, to the use of means, which I have already re∣futed, and shewed how immediate Revela∣tion, such as the Prophets and Apostles had, doth very well consist with the use of means: And so I willingly acknowledge, that true and right means, are as Vessels, whereby or∣dinarily our Spiritual Meat and Drink are con∣veyed to us, sometimes in the use of one mean, sometimes in the use of another; but I hope, when we Eat and Drink, that which is conveyed to us, we Eat and Drink it im∣mediately, See, Taste, Savour, and Handle, and Feel it immediately, and can well un∣derstand, when the Meat is indeed in the Vessel, and when it is empty; and therefore I. A. his comparison in this respect, doth al∣together halt, and is impertinent.

Another great impertinency and abuse I observe in I. A. that whereas I. A. blamed our Friends, for saying, We are not justified by Acts of Righteousness 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Acts; grosly inferring, that thereby they understand, that they are not justified by sinful Acts, as Blasphemy, Mur∣der, and the like; ye•• h•• himself 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the same kind of Expression, as to Faith; saying, The Saints are not justified by Faith, as it is a 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Act: And according to I. A. his Lo∣gick,

he means, they are not justified by all works, as Blasphemy, Murder, Unbelief, according to the maxime cited by him, A quatenus ad omne sequitur Vniversaliter. Nor is he less Impertinent to accuse me of a self contradiction, because I distinguish Faith, as it is both receptive and operative; for even the receptive Faith, I hold it to be a work, and also wrought, not only in the Soul, but in some degree by it, as a co-worker through the operation of the Holy Spirit. And I say again, to affirm that the Saints are not justi∣fied by Faith, as it is a work, is too nice, and subtle a distinction, unless they mean thereby, as work wrought by them, and as having an equal proportion to the reward of Eternal Sal∣vation. And in this sense, that may be as well said, we are justified by Love, Repentance, and all the Acts of men and Spiritual obe∣dience, but not as works done by us, and having that quality of proportion to Eternal Life.

I shall not insist to Answer particularly I. A. his pretended Arguments against Justification by Repentance, and Conversion, and in∣ward Acts of Righteousness, as proceeding from the Spirit of Christ in Believers. The whole force of his reasons being founded on a bare Assertion, that hath been often sufficient∣ly refuted both by us, and divers noted men

in the Epis••••pal Church, as if Paul did o••∣pose Faith and all works, or the inward work of Regeneration, and Renewing by the Ho∣ly Ghost, when he saith, We are not saved by Works; and the contrary is manifest from Tit. 3. 5. already cited. As for his saying, That our Souls are of great price in the sight of God, and yet do not merit Heaven, and con∣sequently nor the best Works, although they are said to be of great price with God. I grant, nei∣ther our Souls, nor our Vertues merit Hea∣ven, nor Redemption, as merit signifieth equality: But seeing God hath counted our Souls so dear, as to give so great a price for them, as the Blood of his Dear Son, they may at least be said to have some dignity or worth (which is to say merit) in them; other∣wise God would never have given so great a Ransome for them, if the Souls of men, in respect of their Nature and Being, had not been of great value, which is all I understand by the word merit, as used by any of us. And truly for our part, we very rarely, or never use the word merit, as with a respect to the Saints best works, unless, when we are con∣strained, to bear our Testimony against the ignorance and rashness of those, who so un∣dervalue, and reproach the Blessed Spirit his works in the Saints, as to call them not only unclean and underfiled with sin, but sin it self,

for which God might justly condemn them to Hell, as some have not been afraid to affirm.

I take notice also on this Head, how I. A. doth acknowledge, that Repentance, Love and Hope, are necessary to Justification, by way of presence, and existence, but not as con∣ditions or qualifications required in order to Justification, which is another frivolous and groundless distinction; for seeing the Scrip∣ture doth equally press our Repentance and Conversion, that we may obtain Forgive∣ness and Justification, as it doth Faith. The one is certainly as much the condition as the other. And it is not Faith barely considered, which hath the fitness to receive us into the Favour of God, and his acceptance, but as it is accompanied with sincere Repentance and Obedience; for as it is a most unfit and incon∣gruous thing, that any man, while remain∣ing in his unbelief, should be admitted into Friendship and Favour with God, so it is no less unfit, and unagreeable to the Wisdom and Holiness of God, to receive them into his Friendship and Favour, as his Children, who remain still Rebellious and disobedient against him.

As for I. A. his last Assertion on this Head, consisting of above three pages; wherein he only beats the Air, and fights with his own shadow, upon a gross and perverse, but alto∣gether

groundless surmise; as if the Quake••s did deny any imputed Righteousness of Christ, in what he did and suffered for us, but as it is inwardly wrought and inherent in us; for we most willingly and sincerely acknow∣ledge, that the Righteousness of Christ, in what he did and suffered for us outwardly in his own person, is imputed unto us for Justi∣fication; and so much I did acknowledge in my Book already mentioned: But we further say, that all to whom that is imputed, which Christ did and suffered for us outwardly, must witness a real and true Conformity both to the Death of Christ, and also to his Holy Life and walk, without which, all mens im∣puting it unto themselves, is but an airy Dream and Imagination.

There is yet another gross perversion used by I. A. in his pretended Survey or Answer of the sixteenth Question; as if the Quakers so called, Seem to deny that there was any Spi∣ritual Worship, in the time of the Old Testament; And thus because it is said in the Query, that Christ set up the True Worship in Spirit and in Truth above 1600 years ago; but nothing but great Ignorance or prejudice, can from this inferr, that there was not any degree of it in the World in former times. And I. A. might as well argue against the Scriptures, that because God saith in the last days, He

would make a New Covenant with the House of Israel, and Write his Law in their Hearts; That therefore nothing of this sort was for∣merly in the World. And thus I have done with I. A. his long and tedious pretended Survey of this Question, having omitted no∣thing that seemed unto me Material; and ha∣ving found in his whole Discourse consisting of about 19 pages, scarce any thing, but gross mistakes and perversions.

CHAP. XVIII

HEre again I. A. in his pretended Survey to the 17th and last Question, be∣ginneth with a most gross perversion, As if the Quakers (because they would have men to cease from all their own works, meerly acted in the strength of mans Will, and natural Power, without the supernatural and Spiritual aid and assistance of the Spirit of God) would have men, to be as senseless Trunks doing nothing; the bare Rehearsal of which is sufficient Refutation.

Another charge, little less gross is, That the Quakers hold only Babylon to be within in mens hearts, for which he citeth the aforesaid Book called, The Principles of Truth, in se∣veral

pages. To which I Answer, Although the said Book saith, That Babylon, &c. is ••ithin, yet it doth not say, it is only within, but on the contrary it plainly affirmeth, that all who are in outward Worships (without the leading and enabling of the Spirit of God) painted over with glorious Words, but in∣wardly full of Abominations, belong to the Kingdom of Babylon. And well may that un∣clean and deceitful Spirit, that acteth all such persons who are levened and governed there∣with and thereby, be called Babylon, by a Figurative Speech, even as the Soul of a man is commonly called the man, which hinders not, that the people in whatsoever Profession they may be, who are acted by that evil and Antichristian Spirit, are Babylon. And as for the Pope, and Popish Church; as we do cordi∣ally joyn with the best and most sincere Pro∣antests against them, as being the great and principal Members of that Scarlet Whore Mystery Babylon, in whom Antichrist or that Antichristian Spirit hath its chiefest or most principal residence, (and therefore in no re∣spect can be said to favour the Pope, or Popish Church, on that or any consideration, al∣though we with the Salvation of the worst,) so we most freely declare, that wherever we find any degree or measure of the same Spirit of Antichrist, and Babylon, as too much

of it is to be found in I. A. and too many of his Brethren▪ we cannot acquit them, from being Members of the same Antichristian body; although in this our upright and ho∣nest Testimony we expect neither the kindness of the Pope, nor yet of I. A. far less the Popes Wages or reward, for being so kind to him, as I. A. doth most falsly and grosly alledge: And divers of our Friends have suffered deep∣ly under the Popish Power, for bearing a Testi∣mony against him and them; which neither I. A. nor his Brethren have ever done, but sit warmly at home, without exposing them∣selves to any suffering on that account.

Having thus, as briefly as I could, given an Answer to I. A. his Book, against us, omitting nothing that seemed to be material; I shall neither trouble the Readers nor my self, with his two Postscripts, to Answer them in particular. The substance of the first Post∣script against me, being already Answered in the foregoing Sheets, as to what is any wise material. Or if he suppose any thing is omit∣ted, let him mind me of it in his next; and withall Write an intire and thorough An∣swer, to what is already said, both here, and in the Treatise called Quakerism no Popery, which he hath only but here and there nibled at: And I may, possibly (if God give me freedom and convenience) return him a ••urther Answer.

〈◊〉〈◊〉 at present I suppose he hath work enough to lye on his hand, and needs no more.

As for his Postscript against, or for Doctor Everards, Ghost, as he calleth it: I find not my self concerned to Answer him therein, nor defend every word or Opinion of his, seeing he never went under that Name or Designati∣on with us: Albeit I must needs acknowledge, both my Friends and I,(such of them I mean as have read his Book) have a great love and respect to his memory, which all I. A. his bitter Revilings against him, shall never be able to defame: And we believe the said Everard hath indeed had rare and singular gifts of Understanding and Openings of Scrip∣ture from God, and withal a good measure of Integrity and zeal for the Truth, accor∣ding to the time, and Dispensation he was in and in that respect doth truly deserve to be ac∣counted among the Witnesses of Truth in his day, whatever imperfections attended him otherwise; or suppose some mistakes of Judgment in some things, or not so warily cautioning some of his words, as could have been wished. Although I judge that I. A. doth seek to fix or fasten upon him divers errors of Judgment, of which he is not guilty, by rea∣son of deep prejudice against him: Partly, whiles he takes the said Iohn Evrard's words too Literally and Superficially, which are to

be understood more Mystically and Figura∣tively, and partly while he takes that as spoken absolutely, which is but spoken com∣parative, and by way of some Similitude, and but in some respect.

But before I make a full close, I shall only take notice of two gross and absurd Assertions, (waving others to another opportunity) in his Postscript to me. The one is, that the Pope and his Clergy had the true Power and Authority of Ordination, and calling Mini∣sters before the Reformation, neither as Chri∣stian, nor as Antichristian. Not as Christian, or else all Christians would have it, nor as Antichristian, seeing these two terms are not contradictory but contrary; for many things and persons too, are neither Christian nor Antichristian. To which I Answer, Every true Minister or Pastor hath his Anthority to Execute his Function; as Christian, as nor being a strict and formal reduplication, but taken specifically; seeing to be a Christian is as necessary to every true Minister of Christ, as to be a living Creature is necessary to be a man, or to be a man is necessary to be a Soul∣dier, or Magistrate, or Lawyer. And where∣as I. A. saith, That Christian and Antichristian are not contradictory terms, seeing many persons are neither Christian nor Antichristian I An∣swer again, as they are taken indefinitely,

they are not contradictory, but as restricted to such as bear the Name and Profession of Christianity they are perfectly contradictory, so that every one that professeth himself to be a Christian, (such as the Pope doth) is most certainly either Christian or Antichristian.

The other gross Assertion of his is, That the Church of Rome, was still a True Church, and not Babylon, until the time of Reformation, viz. about the time of the Council of Trent, or Luther's arising, with some others to witness against her; notwithstanding she did hold many fundamental errors, and thus because her errors were not so discovered and demonstrated unto her, before as since that time. But what a miserable shift and evasion this is, and how contrary to Scripture, and the Judgment of the most sound of all Protestant Writers, I leave the Sober Reader to judge. For doth not the Scripture plainly declare, That Mystery Ba∣bylon was to rule over the Nations, and deceive them, and Drink the Blood of the Martyrs and Witnesses of Iesus for many Hundreds of years? And when was it, that she deceived all Na∣tions? Was it only since the Reformation, or rather was not her chiefest tim•• before the Reformation; for since the Reformation many Nations are come to see her Abomi∣na••ions more than formerly. And when was 〈◊〉〈◊〉, That the Kings of the Earth hath committed

Fornication with her? Hath it not been for many hundreds of years bygone, rather than since the Reformation, when they have be∣gun to hate her, and burn her flesh with Fire, in some sense? And when began she to drink the Blood of the Saints? Only since Luther's days, or the Council of Trent: Surely none who hath the least knowledge of Church History, but will say the contrary, and acknowledge that she has been a Bloody Murtheress for divers hundreds of years long before the Re∣formation, and consequently was no true Church of Christ. For not only her unsound and corrupt Doctrines, but her wicked Life, and especially her slaying the Witnesses of Christ, And exalting her self over the Kings and Emperors of the Earth, above six hundred years ago (at least) with many other things to be charged against her, utterly inconsistent with a true Church, doth altogether make her to be no true Church for many hundred of years before Luther. And the Lord wanted not Witnesses sufficient to demonstrate her Errors unto her, many hundreds of years before Luther; for in every Century God raised up his Witnesses against her, as the Church History doth plainly and fully re∣late. Moreover she had both the Scriptures of Truth to Witness against her, and also Gods Holy Checks and Reproofs of his Spi∣rit

in her Conscience, that was instead of a thousand, so she wanted not demonstration of her Errors sufficient to render without excuse for many hundreds of years before Luther's time. And now let all sober Protestants judge, who doth most favour the Harlot Babylon, I. A. or we; for by I. A. his Doctrine, she is but a Young Woman, as yet, and ••carse ••ad time in the World, to bring up her Daughters of Fornication to that Age and Stature the Scripture declareth. How much more true is the Testimony of those Pro∣testants, who date her rising above a Thou∣sand years agoe, her whole time being num∣bred in Scripture to contain 1260, or 1290. days at most, signifying according to the Pro∣••hetick Stile of Scripture so many years; the period or end of which time sincere Pro∣test••ants are looking for as near approaching, when she shall fall as a Millstone cast into the Sea, and never rise again. But by I. A. his account, she began not to rise, till little more then a hundred years agoe; and consequently before her fall, more then a thousand years are yet to expire, which is too glad tydings un∣to her; but they are false, and too sad tyd∣ings to the people of God, if that they were true.

THE END.

Notes

• * 1.1

  1 Cor. 11 32.
• * 1.2

  Act. 10. 42.
• * 1.3

  Act. 17. 31.