The reviler rebuked: or, A re-inforcement of the charge against the Quakers, (so called) for their contradictions to the Scriptures of God, and to their own scriblings,: which Richard Farnworth attempted to answer in his pretended Vindication of the Scriptures; but is farther discovered, with his fellow-contradictors and revilers, and their doctrine, to be anti-Scriptural, anti-Christian, and anti-spiritual. By John Stalham, a servant of the great bishop and shepherd of souls, appointed to watch his little flock at Terling in Essex.

Section 12.

ANother Contradiction of themselves concerning the Light in every man, I noted in this Section; viz. That they magnifie it, and vilifie it in the same respect, as it is the light of the first nature, and of every man in his first state since the fall. R. F. * 1.1 takes up two of the passages to an∣swer, but takes not off their Self-contradiction.

The first, They magnifie every mans light, to be a Law written in the heart, to judge and condemn all sin, and there∣fore (they say) the day of judgement is come: and anon they vilifie the light of natural men (who are a part of man∣kinde) as filthy waters; and every man in his first state is a beast. To this, all that R. F. hath to say, is, Where judge∣ment is brought forth into victory, sin is condemned in the flesh; and there is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus, &c. and such have boldness in the day of judgement; for as some mens deeds goes before-hand to judgement, others they come after, and therefore a day of judgement is to come.

Rep. If these men would disparage every mans light, in respect of the Saints light, they would be something inge∣nuous; and if they did not put every mans light in the place of Christ, the Spirit, and his writing in the heart; and then call them waters of Babylon; nor sometimes say, upon Adams fall pure reason was destroyed, &c. and anon call every mans light, pure light; they would not be so Scri∣pture and self-contradictious as they are; nor would they confound what they ought to distinguish, as R. F. con∣founds the judgement of a natural conscience, and the Spi∣rits Gospel-conviction of sin, Righteousness and Judgement together: Justification he confounds with Sanctification, and a day of Judgement present, with the day of Judgement which is to come. Scripture-expressions he useth here as

elsewhere) but not with the Scripture-scope and meaning. The passage I quoted out of Ben. Nicholson his Returns to a Letter, Page 13. speaks of the Law written in the heart of* 1.2 every man, which (they say) doth judge and condemn all sin: R. F. tells us of a Judgement brought forth into victory; and when that is done, sin is condemned in the flesh: but, say I, according to Scripture, the Law written in the heart of every man, neither condemns all sin, nor discovers either the root of all sin, nor half the branches of it; and Judgement is far from coming forth into victory, till Christ brings it forth, not onely by Gospel-conviction, (which is far beyond and above the conviction of a meer natural conscience) but by Gospel-sanctification, and by his second writing of the Law, not in old stony hearts, but in new and softned hearts. But if natural conscience be so potent to be victorious at last, why do they call every man in his first state, a beast, his reason corrupt, but to manifest their Self-confusions?

Again, he speaks of sin being condemned in the flesh, a Scripture-expression, Rom. 8. 3. used by the Apostle, to set* 1.3 forth Christs condemning sin in his own flesh, putting of it out of office and power (to condemn believers) by his suf∣fering* 1.4 of the punishment of their sin in that flesh of his; yea, fulfilling the Law, for them, in the same flesh: Hence, no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus; but this is another kinde of condemning sin, then what comes meer∣ly by and from a natural conscience; for that,

1. Doth but condemn sin in part, not all sin, not original sin, not unbelief, &c.

2. By way of discovery, not by way of satisfaction for sin, and of justification from guilt, as is Christs maner of condemning sin.

3. Natural conscience is never victorious, as to deliver∣ance of a soul from the state of sin, though it be never so far obeyed; but Christs condemning sin in his own huma∣nity, assumed to that end, is victorious, both by merit with God, and by application in the conscience of a believer, to stop its own, and Satans accusations; and throughout the Saint, to set up reigning holiness in him, to prevail over cor∣ruption by degrees, in the state of a new creature.

Lastly, The Apostles words, 1 Tim. 5. 24. of some mens sins going before-hand to Judgement, others coming after,* 1.5 are used to another purpose, as appeareth from ver. 20. con∣cerning Gospel and Church-offences and offenders: some mens sins are discovered before-hand, these the Church may judge; others are not disclosed, these God will judge. It is well that R. F. grants a Judgement to come, I wish he could consider it better, and judge no man so deeply, as he doth me, before the time; reckoning me with the wicked, who, indeed, will finde it to be a day of torment; for he that judgeth now, shall himself be judged at that day, and he that will shew no mercy in judging others, shall then have judgement without mercy, to his little ease, joy, or re∣joycing.

The second passage which R. F. * 1.6 undertakes to defend, is that of John Cam, Every man in his first birth and state may see himself to be natural, but is not able to judge of the things of God. This is contradictious (in the first part of it) to Ben. Nicholson, who said, Every man in his first state is a beast, for then he can reflect upon himself, and judge of his state before God, no more then a beast. And the second part of it is contradictious to the first; for if every man in his first birth may see himself to be natural, (guilty, liable to sin, and the curse before God) then he may judge some∣thing of the things of God: but that is denied, why then is the other affirmed? but that the man fought with himself in the dark.

R. F. his defence is, 1. By railing and falshood, Let that Book (Particulars concerning the Law by J. Cam) be a wit∣ness to the truth, against thy ignorance and sottishness, that sees thy corruptions, and pleads for them.

Rep. This I pass by, with prayer, that the Lord may re∣buke and remit him.

2. By a truth and a falshood together, The light which doth discover the natural corruptions, is not natural, as thou says, but it is spiritual: Here is a truth in Scripture-sense, not in his meaning; that the light which discovers natural corruption is spiritual; but a falshood mixt with it, that I said, it was natural. This will no where be found in my for∣mer,

or this present piece; for I every where deny the na∣tural light of every man to be able to discover a mans cor∣rupt state: Reason cannot reach the breadth, nor fathom the depth of this fallen condition. But let R. F. compare his own words last spoken, with John Cam's, and consider if one doth not clash with the other. His brother saith, Every man in his first birth may see himself to be natural: Himself saith, The light which doth discover natural cor∣ruptions, is not natural, but spiritual. Now I ask, Is it by the light of the first birth (as in the first birth) that every man may see himself to be natural? then that light is either natural, or spiritual; It is not natural, saith R. F. It is in the first birth, saith J. Cam: either these men do agree, or not; if they do agree with themselves, it is more then we can make out by their words; onely I finde what their sense is of the word [spiritual] not after the Scripture sense: The Scripture meaneth by spiritual, that which is born of the Spirit; by spiritual light, the light of the new or second birth: but these men understand by spiritual light, that which comes with the first birth, a light in the soul of every man. We know, saith James Nayler, * 1.7 there is a light in spirit, that testifies of Christ, before Christ be known in the Creature; this light is that which the Gentiles had, whereby, saith he, they became a law unto themselves, and were Jews in spirit, whose praise was of God, and not of men. This light led them to shew the works of that Law God had written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness, and excusing them in the day, when God shall judge the world by his Gospel. This light and the fruits of it, he concludes, will stand at the day of judgement praised of God, but not of men. Which magnifying expressions of the Heathens light, are dispa∣raged by what * 1.8 another of them saith, viz. upon Adams fall, pure reason was destroyed, and corrupt reason took place, as it doth this day in every natural man: And if this man speaks the truth, as he doth, the other speaks what is false.

1. In that he boldly affirmeth, the Gentiles light made them Jews in spirit; the Apostle, Rom. 2. 29. hath no* 1.9 such meaning. He describeth a Jew in spirit, to be one who

is circumcised in heart, or who hath the circumcision of the heart; whose praise is not of men, but of God. Heart-cir∣cumcision, and the Gentiles light, are two things vastly discrepant: the Gentiles light never attained to the myste∣ry of heart-circumcision. Fond men that write and speak after this maner! their pens and tongues would be circum∣cised, and hearts also, which I shall pray for, that these ex∣travagant Errata's may be corrected.

2. In that (he saith) the Gentiles consciences will bear them witness, and excuse them in the day when God shall judge the world, &c. all which is remote from the Apostles sense, Rom. 2. 15. For,* 1.10

First, He is comparing a practical Heathen, with a bare professing Jew; and preferring the working Gentile, before the talking Jew; but how? as to matter of fact, not as to the whole state before God: For, as to the whole state be∣fore God, they are both alike, (both falling short of what the Law written in the heart, or in the book, required) one∣ly in matter of fact; the Heathen sometime did more an∣swer his light, then the Jew did; but did the Heathen an∣swer his light perfectly? No, he had accusing thoughts, as well as excusing, a dark confused state was his.

Secondly, The Apostle doth not say, the Heathens light and fruits shall excuse him so at the day of judgement, that they will stand at that day, praised of God, &c. for then* 1.11 conscience (fully awakened) will accuse more then excuse; and the accusations will bear and weigh down the excuses ten thousand fold: nay, every mouth (and the mouth of every conscience that now excuseth but from his own acts, and hath not the sprinkling of the blood of Jesus upon it) will then be stopt; where is his praise then of God?

Thirdly, The words ver. 16. In the day when God shall judge, &c. though they immediately follow, yet they have not such a connexion with ver. 15. but either refer to ver. 11. and so four verses are to be taken into a Parenthesis, or to ver. 12. and so three verses are parenthetically to be read, and the sense, with such a dependence observed, runs clear and plain; viz. ver. 11. There is no respect of persons with God, in the day when God shall judge: or, ver. 12. As

many as have sinned without the Law written, or with it, shall be judged, In the day when God shall judge the se∣crets of men by Jesus Christ: And this reading quite cuts off James Naylers plea for the Gentiles saving light.

What starting-hole R. F. will have, we may gather by what went before and what follows, in his commendation of this light, and such as love it: It is spiritual, and such as love it, bring their deeds to be tryed by it, and with it the deceit is judged, &c.

Rep. But by the light of the Spirit shining in our hearts, by the Scripture, we have found out the deceit of terms and phrases, as used by these men; and withal how they clash with themselves (as with the Scripture) even in that which R. F. addeth, Such as with the Light have the deeds of dark∣ness discovered, and hates the Light, the Light is their con∣demnation. But say I, the Gentiles never perfectly loved that light they had, therefore it was and will be condemna∣tion to them, and none of them will be excused in the day of judgement; and therefore R. F. and J Nayler are here at a difference, and contradict one another, it may be, when they consider not of it.

For a farewel R. F. concludeth, As it [the condemna∣tion] is thine, and they that are in union with corruptions, as thou art, they are not able to judge of the things of God, but erre in judgement that judgeth with evil thoughts, as thou dost, and hast done; therefore judgements is to thy head and crown of deceit, pride and vain glory.

Rep. This verdict is from R. F. as a man, (to say no more) and I pass not for mans judgement, but he that judgeth me is the Lord. Onely let me advertise the Reader, that to be in union with corruptions, is to have no division made in the Soul by a contrary principle of Grace, hating that cor∣ruption. I would be very loth to be found in the hatred of other mens errors and corruptions, and in the love of my own. The testimony of my conscience herein, is my rejoy∣cing, that I lie open to conviction, studying always to exer∣cise a clear conscience toward God and toward men.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Page 26.
• * 1.2

  The Spirits conviction of judgement, beyond the judgement of a natural con∣science.
• * 1.3

  Rom. 8. 3. cleared.
• * 1.4

  Christs con∣demning sin in his flesh, far beyond the conscience condemnation of sin.
• * 1.5

  1 ••im. 5. 24. vindicated.
• * 1.6

  Page 27.
• * 1.7

  Antichrist in man, by J. Nayler, p 7, 8
• * 1.8

  Ben. Nichol∣son, Returns to a Letter, p 16.
• * 1.9

  Rom. 2. 29. rescued.
• * 1.10

  Rom. 2. 15, 16 vindicated, and cleared.
• * 1.11

  No saving excuse, or te∣stimony from a natural con∣science.