In his Title he talks high and looks big, and would hold the world in hand that he had at once routed, broken & disban­ded all the Orthodox Churches in Christendome, and proved that they had neither Doctrine, Ministry, Worship, Constitution, Government, Sacraments, nor Sabbaths, but what are Surreptitious, and not belonging to the true Church of Christ: and truly if men would be dared out of their Religion, he hath bid as fair for it as any we know, but how farr they fall [Page 4] before his [in-words] acknowledged Test, is yet to be Tried: And be it known to all men, That we are not yet sensible of the wounds that [...] hath given, any fur­ther than as the Name of GOD is blas­phemously, abused by him, and drawn in to patronize his filthy dreams. When we read his Inscription, Benhad [...]d seems to be risen agen, who sent that confident Threat­ning, 1. King. 20. 10. and the Answer of the King of Israel is enough. ver. 11.

He had so much Pride and Gall to crowd into the Title, that he is fain to borrow a Room in the left-hand page, to put in a few Scripture Citations, maliciously abused and misapplied, which, whether they be­long to our Churches and Ministry let the Day declare: we are not to stand or fall at the menacing Praedictions of an En­thusiast.

He directs his Epistle to us, giving his word for it (so far as it will go) that the book was written in good will to us; and if to slander and calumniate with bitterest Invectives, may pass for a Demonstration, he hath proved his Love to be Extraordi­nary: any truly it is as much as we expect from one of his humour.

[Page 5] There is little observable here, but what will be met with, in the Preatise, and once to Answer such paltry stuffe is e­nough, if not to much: It may therefore be passed over with two or three Re­marks.

He calls us to turn our minds to the Light of Christ within us, for our better inform­ation; we have done it as well as we can, & it tells us, That his Assertions are bold, presumptuous, and Haeretical.

He tells us, It is the same spirit that gives to all Readers a right under standing of Scrip­ture; but if so, why then have not all the same understanding of it, but Contradicto­ry? Can it be the Spirit of God, who is alwaies the same?

He bids us to Believe in Christ, and joyn our minds to His divine Illumination, and He will anoint the eyes of our Understandings, &. we shall have our eyes open to see &c. q. d. If we will see of our selves, then He will give us Ability to see: this may be no Contra­diction in a Quakers Logick.

We have him also in a fit of Charity, (and we are beholden to him, for we shall not a alwaies find him in so good a mood) granting that some of us may be in some sense of the true Church: which how it should [Page 6] be when we have neither Doctrine, Mini­stry, Worship, &c. of a true Church among us, let him see to that: But we have him afterwards, putting on his Spectacles., and then he retracts his Charity with a witness.

We have him also nibling at the Doct­rine of Perseverance, which we shall short­ly find him beating down with Axes and Mauls, and there shall take him to task. Only It is worth the while to observe, what a notable (and no doubt inspired) Doctrine he recommended to us, viz. That the Quickning in a man, as it abides, it is im­possible it should perish: To pass the Non­sense of it (which must be allowed a Qua­ker, or you undoe him) let us note its profoundness, If Grace continue, it cannot be lost, a thing cannot be and not be at the same time; could D [...]lphos have delivered a more mysterious Oracle?

Finally he tells us plainly that his De­sign is to turn away our Hearers from us, under the Title of False-Teachers; i. e. he aims at no less than the subverting of all the Churches of Christ in New-England, yea, [...] the World: A Gygantick Es­say! [...] let him do his utmost, as long as Christ sits upon His Throne-we are not [Page 7] dismayed. As for the Imputation of be­ing False Teachers, we can (thro Grace) appeal to many of our Hearers, in Paul's words, 2. Cor. 3. beginn.

We have here a Confession of his Faith, (such as it is) concerning the Scriptures, wherein, (if he gives us his mind candid­ly, which we have cause to suspect; (and shall give our reason before we part) we are sure he doth not express the sense of his Brethren and Predecessors, except they say one thing, and mean the contrary.

Section, 132. As for the two first Para­graphs of this Chapter, we will take them as fa [...] as they will go; though the word Outward hath a Reserve in it, and intimates That God hath one Rule to direct His people by Outwardly, and another Inward­ly; or as if God taught us one thing by His Word, and another by His Spirit; we shall have Occasion afterwards to dis­course how perniciously this undermines the Christian Faith; and why he hath not made Practices as well as Doctrines liable to this left might well be enquired. How­ever there will be occasion to rubb up his [Page 8] memory, with his own Concessions, when we find that he has forgoten himself (for a quaker's spirit is not of a perfect Reminiscence) and mean while let him try how he can re­concile himself to his Friends, who have directly (as might be instanced abundant­ly) rejected the Scriptures with Scorn. Smith tells us, It is the greatest Error in the world, and the ground of all Errors, to say the Scriptures are a Rule to Christians; and many Expressions of the same import. But he will salve all with the nice Distincti­on of an outward and an inward Rule.

Sect. 3. This Paragraph might have past, had it not been for his perverse In­terpretation of it, in which the spends his Second Chapter, where we shall have it out, if our patience can but wait a little.

Sect. 4. We were afraid, when we saw him so liberal of his Concessions, that he would soon repent of it; we have him therefore here trying to get something of it back again; but stay, Friend, and be more frugal of your Largesses hencefor­ward: Well, he hath given the Scripture leave (in a good humour) to be so far a [...] at least, that No Doctrine that cannot be demonstrated and by it, layes us under any Ob­ligation [Page 9] to believe it: and so we are satisfied that it is no mortal sin to with-hold our Credit from any of their New-Revelations, that are neither Scripture, nor Scripture-Consequence, which, in Chapt. 2nd. he pleads for.

G. K. had a mind to wheadle some in­to a Compliance with his Opinions who had been taught to entertain a good Re­spect for the Scripture; For which rea­son he would insinuate, that the honest Quakers are not the men that they have been represented to be, nor are they such Enemies to the written Word, as they are reported; but why then doth he not cor­rect his friend Lucas, who hath told us, That any Quaker, if he has a mind to it, (as they are arrogant enough) may make as good himself; and they challenge us to tell them what one Scripture hath Light in it; and many like Blasphemies not to be named.

But what shall he do to satisfy his bre­thren, whose Fabrick is built upon the sandy Foundation of a New Light and new Revelations, if the Scripture hath all the Doctrines of Religion in it? He had in his youth (when he was in the Dark, as he saith we are) gotten a little of that carnal thing called Humane Learning, and, tho▪ [Page 10] one would have thought, that a dose [...] New-Light would have purged it all a way, yet there are some confused dregg [...] behind, and he will try if they may not help at a dead life; and let us see how he will manage it, Though (saith he) the Scriptures contain a full and sufficient Decla­ration of all Christian Doctrine, yet they [...] not contain the whole mind and will and coun­sil of God, as some say they do. and, pray So, who ever said so? Qui bene distingui [...] be­ne docet. If by the Mind, Will, and Coun­s [...]l of God, he intends the Eternal Decrees and Purposes (as these words are often ta­ken) then we never said nor thought that the Scriptures contain a full discovery of these they are the Secret things which belong to God; and are so far revealed in Scripture [...], & Providential Accomplishments, as God sees meet; and there are some new discoveries of them every day. But if he means the Preceptive Will of God, disco­vering to man what is his Duty, in or­der to his Happiness; then, not we only, but he also, Sect. 1, 2. saith that they do contain all, (If he saith any thing at all) and in this sense (besides which he saith nothing to purpose) here is a plain Con­tradiction; for to say that a thing con­tain [Page 11] all the parts and yet not the Whole, is so in the Letter, whatever it be in his spi­rit.

But let us see how he proves it; and here we have a Reason for it, and then a tedious Induction of diverse Instances, and they make it as plain as can be, except you be in the Darkness.

1. The Reason is Because (and if every thing that men put Because to, may stand for a Reason, his is a good one) there are many things wherein God doth reveal of His Counsel to His Children, which are not in the Scripture, either expresly or consequentially, altogether, Necessary for their peace and Com­fort. i. e. Either some new Duties which were not conteined (no not consequential­ly) in the Scriptures; or some new Pro­mises, which the Word of God referrs not to; and New Duties, & new Promises make a new Gospel, against which we are awfully cautioned, Gal. 1. 8. If there be new Duties, they must contain a new Doct­rine not revealed by the Scripture; but he gives no encouragement to believe any such; Sect. 2. If new promises, they must refer to Purgatory; for the Scripture hath given all that belong to Time and E­ternity, The life that now is, and that which [Page 12] is to come; 1. Tim. 4. 8. And if he mea [...] only that there are New Providences which contribute to their peace and Comfort; [...] it is nothing to the purpose, so he should have done well to have imparted a little o [...] his Light to us, to teach us how to ex­tract this grace and comfort, without ma­king use of the Scriptures to that end.

2. Let us see how far his Instances will help him; he gives us Five, though one to the purpose had bin worth five hundred such as these.

1. The first respects a man's Assurance of his present state of Grace, in his inward Calling; as he entitles it. The knowledge whereof, he saith, is a part of God's Counsil; i. e. it is God's will, and his duty that he be acquainted with it. That it is a duty we never denied; but that it is by the Scripture that we know it to be a duty, we believe, see 2. Cor. 13. 5. 2. Pet. 1. 10. But then, the Assurance it self cannot be infallibly gained by Scripture or Scrip­ture Consequence, but only by the Spirit of God: and for this he cites Rom. 8. 16. very unhappily for himself, if he had thought of it; for by this very Citation, he gives us another point; viz. that it is [Page 13] by the Scripture that we come to know that we must have our assistance from the Spirit alone; nay more, he grants that the Scrip­ture gives the infallible marks of such an estate; [...], but the Spirit must apply all this, or it cannot be known; that is the Mystery then, but what avails this? Why only this? the Work of the Spirit is neither Scripture nor Scripture-Consequence; and who knew not that as well as he? But if the Scriptures be the Instrument which the Spirit useth to work this Assurance in us by his instance is impertinent. We as­sert and believe,

1. That the Spirit of God is the Au­thor or Efficient of all Grace in the hearts of Believers; and therefore is called The Spirit of Grace. 2. That he [...]seth the Word of God in Scripture, [...] put­ting Men into that state upon which their Assurance is built, Jam. 1. 18. [...]. Pet. 1. 23. 3dy. That the Witness of the Spirit is Co-witnessing with our spirits, Rom. 8. 16. which is necessary to make the Evidence Au­thentick. 4thly. That the Testimo­ny of our Spirits is an Evidence that is drawn from these infallible marks, which, but for the SCRIPTURE [Page 14] we had not known to be such; and if the Spirit should apply any other evidence but what is according to Scripture, by G. K.'s own Doctrine, we are not bound to believe it.

2. The next instance refers to an In­ward Call to the Ministry; and runs upon the same foolish notion with the former, and needs no further Answer: only let it be here laid by in store, That he pretends to owne such a distinct Office in the Church, which the Practice of the Qua­kers makes a Gift Common to all they ac­count to be of the true Church, both men and women,

3. In his third Instance he begs a Prin­ciple which will never be Granted him, viz. that men are to tarry for an In­ward Call to pray or perform any religious Duty; which being Voluntary on the Spirit's part, he concludes cannot be known simply by the Scriptures. But let it be here remarked,

1. That Moral Duty depends on the Precept, and not on inward Motions: Prayer (which he refers to in particular) is to be without ceasing, 1. Thes. 5. 19. i. e. every day, and on all occasions. 2. That the Motion to do any thing, which is at a­ny [Page 15] time upon us, is to be tryed by the Scriptures, whether it be of God, for we are bidden to try the Spirits, and are direct­ed to the Law and Testimony as our Rule, and if it be not there Revealed, G. K. tells us we need not believe it. 3. We are com­manded to stir up the Grace that is in us; and how often have we David at this? yea, when we want the Spirit for Prayer, we are to pray for the Spirit.

4. As to his next instance referring to our Enquiring and discovering what is the mind of God in our Carriage under His Hand, and in the management of our weighty Affairs; when he hath said all he can, the Word of God, or the Scripture, is that which must ultimately resolve us, That, to know What is Duty, depends on Divine Revelation, we are Agreed: That God did sometimes reveal His Will extraordinarily to His Servants of Old, we deny not, but that the Word of God in Scripture is that which to us in Gospel Times, since the Canon was perfected, Answers all the other wayes of Revelation is an Article of our Creed, and we think we have Scripture-warrant for it, 2. Pet. 1. 19. &c. As to the Case of Marri­age, which he talks of, & instanceth in the [Page 16] carriage of Abraham's servant, it is quite aliene to his purpose: for who ever assert­ed that God's providence is bound to fol­low Scripture Rules, being supream & ar­bitrary? But still in our serving of this Providence, and knowing how to use it to His glory, and particularly to know what is the mind and will of God to us in this Providence, we have no other Rule to in­form our selves by, but the Scriptures; and tho' the Spirit must reveal it, yet this is the thing Revealed.

Where as he tells us, that Philip, Peter, and others, were extraordinarily called to such and such services, it is readily replied, that That was extraordinary, and without warrant for us ordinarily to expect the like: moreover, the things they were cal­led to, were such as the Scripture satisfied them to be according to God.

Finally, We deny not but that the Spi­rit of God doth still put an impulse on the spirits of His people frequently, but is it self-evident, or must not the Warrantable­ness of it be tryed by Scripture-Rules? Let G. K. if he can, give an instance of a Quaker that ever had such a self-evidence­ing extraordinary Call, as Philip Peter, &c. had in former dayes. How impertinently [Page 17] he quotes Fam. 4. 15. to prove his Assertion, [if the Lord will] may soon be seen. He in­terprets it of a Will not to be known by the Scripture, but by the Spirit without it; whereas any man of common sense may per­ceive that the sense of that Text is this; That when a man is satisfied that his design is Lawful, he is then to acknowledge that his affairs are subject to the Ruling Providence of God, who may either further or impede his Undertaking as He will; and how comes he to be satisfied in this but by the Scriptures? If Providence furthers him, he is satisfied that it was Gods Will to suffer it; if He puts a stop to it, it discovers the secret Will of God revealing it self in this particular, & how to demean himself under this he hath al­so from the Word; and what is all this to their inwardly feeling a Command or Permission, which he idly talks of?

5. Here we are told of God's Answering the returns of the Prayers of His people; A Qua­kerism! i. e. Nonsense. And we have him at length concluding his impertinent fourth Paragraph, with Assuring us, That the Scrip­ture promises applied by the Spirit are the inward Voice of God to His children: but why hath he been all this while fighting with his own shadow, if this be all he intends?

[Page 18] Sect. 5. Now he draws his Conclusion, Therefore the Scripture doth not contain all the Word or Words of God: whereas we thought that if he had concluded from the premises, he should have said, Therefore it doth, be­cause all these are nothing but Scripture, ei­ther expresly or consequentially. He brings in Act. 12. 24. The word grew & multiplied to prove his Assertion; but we might ask him, whether he intends its multiplying by new Inspirations or Revelations, or by mul­tiplied Efficacy? Did not he himself resolve us, that there was no new Doctrine? and thence we infer that there was no new Word, in the sence we are disputing.

Sect. 6. What have we here? Christ & His Apostles expounded the scriptures by Inspiration, & yet taught no new Doctrine. Sure he forgets himself, was not the whole frame of the Gos­pel Dispensation a New Model? And hence there were new Institutions; see Heb. 7. 12. Chapt. 8. 7, 8. & 13. 10. for which things there was required extraordinary Inspiration; & therefore to his Demand, Why may it not be so now? we answer, Because the Canon is perfected; and whereas he asserts that it is so, because some do at this day expound the scrip­ture by the same spirit; though it be imperti­nent, for if it be the Scripture it is not a [Page 19] new thing revealed; yet we have also to charge him with a Fallacy purposely used, in the word Spirit, if taken personally, for the Holy Ghost, it is beside the case, if for His Gifts, or the manner of His dispensing of Himself to & by His servants, we have but his word for it, and that not very well agreeing to 1. Cor. 12.4, 5, 6. and if his own Rule be true, viz. that such mens Exposition as have no infallible spirit cannot be the word of God, he hath thrown himself as well as us, and his book is to be little regarded, being full of Mistakes, Nonsense, & Lies: had he been in­fallible, he would not in his 12th Article a­gainst us, have charged that upon us which we never believed, much less professed.

Sect. 2. Here we have a great stir about the word (Logos,) but indeed a meer Logo­machy, and lest he should not have senses e­nough to lose it in, he falls into Tautolo­gies: Somebody might do well to ask him, what different fense he finds between, Com­munication, Words, Talk, & Speech? But the knack is, it signifies the Scripture only in a thirteenth rare & improper sense; and yet this is more than some of his friends will allow it.

But let that pass. He hath two or three Queries to puzzle us withal; though he takes upon him to answer them himself.

[Page 20] His first Quaery is, Whether the Scripture contains all the Word or Words of God? and that he denies, for the reasons already giv­en, which are none at all: Well, if they will not set us down, he will try what Scripture. Metaphors will do; and now we must observe that The Word is compared to the Rain & Dew, De [...]t. 32. 2. and to Bread, [...]. 15. 16. Now the drops of Rain & dew, and the small grains of flower, in bread cannot be numbred; ergo the Scripture contains not all the Word of God. But let us ask him (if he may be spoken to after such a profound Revelation as this) whether he allows it to be a good Interpre­tation of Scripture Allusions, to apply all that is in the thing alluded to, to that which it is compared with? or is it more safe to restrain it to that particular thing for which the Comparison was made? Why then may not the Word be Resembled to the Rain & Dew, for the fruitful Efficacy of it on the hearts of God's people? and to Bread, from the spiritual Nutriment it affords? wiser men than G. K. have thought so.

As to his 2nd, Q [...]stion, it is meer Quibling, We directly say, That The Scriptures are pro­perly the revealed Will of God, which was Metaphorically, and Anthropopathos called His Words, because God by them doth [Page 21] signifie to us His Mind, as we do ours to o­thers by words, and this belongs to the Scriptures as they are written, or spoken.

To his last Question We only say, Let him first tell us, whether he intends the Grammatical sense of the words, or the Gra­cious sense of them upon the heart, and we shall know what to say to him. As for the sense in which he yields the Scripture to be the Word of God, he talks idly, confound­ing a Metonym. Efficientis with a Metonym. Signi.

The Fancy of New Divine Revelations and Inspirations, being the Pillar of Quakerism, it concerned him to treat the Scriptures with such caution, as to leave room to intro­duce this Figment, else he had undone his whole Cause: and yet it will be found that he hath granted so much there, that he must needs contradict himselfe here, as will be made evident.

In this Chapter the Dispute is, Whether [...] divine Revelations & Inspirations of the Spi­rit of God he now ceased? He undertakes the Negative against us: but indeed the whole is nothing [...] but meer Legerdemain.

The right Stating of the Controversie be­tween [Page 22] us, will abreviate and facilitate our work, in animadverting on this tedious and i [...]significant Chapter. In order to that, these three Terms, Inspiration, Revelation & New, must be rightly understood. Words are used to express our minds by, & are to be taken in the sense commonly used among men; and when any are used aequivocally, such as use them must have Liberty to interpret their own meaning.

As to the Word [Inspiration] it is vul­garly understood (in Divinity) to intimate an Inward, extraordinary Discovery of the mind of God, made by the Holy Ghost in the hearts of His servants; so, 2. Tim. 3. 16. and so we difference it from those ordinary and mediate wayes in which we come to this acquaintance. [Revelation] is applicable indeed to any way in which a thing is made known to us which we knew not before: and so the word may be (as sometimes in Scrip­ture) applied to any Discovery which is made to us of the Will of God. But this word hath also attained a particular Appro­priation to such a Knowledge of Divine Truths, as would never have been attained by the best Improvement of natural light or reason, without the Manifestation of the Spi­rit: and this is either Immediate or Mediate, [Page 23] the Immediate is the same with Inspiration: the Mediate is that which is commonly cal­led Illumination, the Spirit of God helping us with His Influences, whenever we are in the Use of meanes. The word [New] may be ap­plied either to the kind of the things revealed or to the Act of Revealing. Here then our Bele [...]f in this matter may be reduced to these Heads. We do believe, 1. That Sav­ing Illuminations of the Spirit, influencing the hearts of His people with the knowledge of Christ and His Truths, are common & need­ful to all Believers in all ages, Rev. 8. 9. 2ndly. That in this sence, there are new Re­velations made from time to time to God's Children, i. e. subjectively, 2. Pet. 3. 18. 3dly. That such inspirations as the Prophets and Apostles of old had, by which God dis­covered His mind to them immediately, en­abling them to declare these things to others, were not common to believers in these times. 1. Cor. 12. 29. & vers. 10. 4thly. That the Scriptures do so fully contain the mind of God in all things necessary for Faith and Sal­vation, that there need no such Inspirations to be afforded to any and therefore they are now ceased. 2. Tim. 3. 16. 17. with H [...]b. 1. 1,2. 5thly. That therefore there are no new Revelations made, since the Canon was [Page 24] perfected, of things or Doctrines which are not contained in the Scriptures, we are therefore directed hither for our establish­ment against Seducers 2. Tim. 3. 13, 14. and not to abide by this, is to make it appear that they have no light in them, Isa. 8. 20. If now we examine what he opposeth to this Doctrine, we shall find nothing but Fallacy and Foolery.

Sect. 1. His first charge here is upon the Assemblies Confession, in the very first Article, and truly, If men lay the first stone wrong, the whole Fabrick must be weakned thereby. That which he alledgeth against them, is, they are admirably blind in their bringing in particular Citations of Scripture; and we may retort, that he is admirably base in per­verting their sense, and design in Citing of them. They had asserted several things in this paragraph, for proof whereof they di­rected to the Scriptures printed in the Mar­gent, which he perversly reflects upon, as brought only to prove that one Assertion (which is not to [...]idem verbis made by them) That all new Revelation is ceased. They had said that God had pleased to commit His decla­red and revealed will of things which concern man's salvation, wholly to Writing; for which they alledge, Prov. 2. 19,20,21. and do not [Page 25] these Texts assure us, that God has written His Word to us, and that this Word tells us what God saith, yea, and to speak other­wise is an evidence that men have no saving light in them? Which, by the way, tells us what to judge of the Quakers light; and one would think this is to purpose, and hath something of proof in it, and to the same purport are Luc. 1.2,3,4. Rom. 15. 4. Ma [...]. 4. 4. & 7. 10. They had again told us, That God had made Scriptures necessary; and for the Evidence, direct us to, 2. Tim. 3. 15, and can Impudence deny the Inference from that Text? Finally they tell us, That the Scripture being thus given to be a Rule for Faith and Manners, and being com­pletely sufficient to its ends, The former ways of Gods revealing Himself are ceased, for which they cite, Heb. 1. 1, 2. 2. Pet. 1. 19. which one would think, if joined with the former, especially 2. Tim. 3. 15, 16, 17. might prove it. Doth not the Apostle Heb. 1. 1, 2. re­nounce the former ways in the times of the Law, to give place to this one and better in Gospel times; and what can be do that [...] after the King? And does not the Apostle Peter in the fore cited place, tell us there is a surer way than an Immediate voice from heaven? and what have stars to do when the Sun is ri­sen? [Page 26] In summe, all these Scriptures, are brought to prove what G. K. confesseth, Cap. 1. Sect. 1, 2, 3. nor do we see what absurdi­ty would follow, upon our granting that New revelations of any truth, not before made known, ceased, before John the Apostle de­ceased, though his other extraordinary gifts did continue.

Sect. 2. And pray what do we assert, but what he seems plumply to grant here viz. That the rule to try all doctrines is compleatly contained in the Scriptures: only the business is, that this must in no wise prove the ceasing of new revelations, or inspirations, or prophecying. Let it for the present suffice to say, that he who goes about to confound terms which are used for distinction, has some cheating trick to impose upon us: it hath therefore been the guise of Hereticks in all ages; but possi­bly he will interpret himself more fully in the next.

Sect 3. Here therefore he furnisheth us with a Distinction, which if he will give security that he will stand by, & make it appear that he intends no more, we will try for an ac­commodation. We have already told the world, that we deny not new Revelations, sub­jective and mediate, i. e. that the Spirit of God blesseth the Use of means, Reading, [Page 27] Hearing, &c. with His Influence, opening the eies of their minds, and giving them a spiri­tual Illumination; and if that be all he would have, he might have let us alone.

But when he comes to interpret himself, he pleads for the Immediate & extraordinary way of Revelation of these things▪ such as the Apostles had, whose understandings Christ opened at once, to understand the Scriptures, without ordinary helps, and upon whom the Holy Ghost came in cloven tongues, &c. which is far another thing, and of which the Qua­kers can make no proof.

Sect. 4. The Fallacy of this Paragraph (& indeed of the whole Chapter) lies in his con­founding Inspiration, Revelation, & Illumina­tion, which ought warily to be distinguished. That Christ by His Spirit doth give to His Children another sense of the Excellency, sweetness and Glory of divine Truths than natural men have, we believe, and experience confirms; but what is this to Inspiration? Here therefore for once, let us observe the main differences between Inspiration and Illu­mination: Illumination is common to all Be­lievers: Inspiration is peculiar to some, as Prophets, Apostles, &c. as hath already been observed and proved. Illumination ordinari­ly accompanies the diligent Use of the means; [Page 28] Rom. 10. 17. Inspirations usually came upon men immediately, and without using any means for them. Illumination becomes ha­bitual; Inspiration was transient, off and on Illumination encreaseth gradually, Inspirati­ons were greater or lesser, as God saw meet. Finally. Illumination is alwaies understood, whenas Inspirations sometimes are not under­stood by such as had them. Dan. 12. 8.

His inference, viz. that on suposal of Ill­lumination, or mediate Revelation, we must needs grant it to be the same in kind with what the Saints had of Old, is dubious. We ask him what saints he intends? If he means ordinary Believers, we grant it; if in­spired Prophets, we deny it; for such Inspira­tions differ specifically from ordinary Revela­tions: and his spirit misinformed him, when he cited Cant. 2. 4. He brought me into his ban­queting house & again, He brought me into his [...]. What again is there, when it is the same Text, and the same word, diversly rendred?

His following Rhapsody in commendation of the Quakers silent Meetings we leave to them­selves; for our own parts we have no such way of the Communion of saints, and yet let not any think that we deny the sweetness of retired Communion between God and the [Page 29] fouls of His People in secret prayer, medita­tion &c. his language therefore about it toucheth us not.

To what purpose he (p. 16.) concludes this long Section with a Comparison taken from humane sciences, which are taught only to such as have innate principles in them upon which Teachers build, we know not, if it be (as it seems) to prove that men have the seeds of all Divine Truths in their natu­ral light, and therefore the Revelations of God's Spirit are only the drawing out of these Principles into exercise, by the meet improvement of their Reason, and discover­ing only that the knowledge whereof they had in them seminally before; it labours of two faults, Falshood and Impertinency. Fals­hood, inasmuch, as, tho' the light of nature hath in it the Remains of many Theological notions, and tho' man, as a reasonable Crea­ture, is a Subject capable of receiving the impression of Revelations, yet there are no feeds of Evangelical Truths in the hearts of men; nor is there, any witness antecedently in the Consciences of men, to assert to the Truth of them; the credit of them wholly depending upon divine Testimony. Imper­tinency, because it serv's not to prove now In­spirations, but rather to prove them needless; [Page 30] the meer Excitation of the light within, by his inward Teachings, being (on this princi­ple) sufficient; we hope he will not deny a manifest difference to be between Inspirati­on and Excitation: nor is the Text he alled­geth (Act. 17.) any thing to his purpose, if he would prove new Revelation from it; for the Apostle is there only endeavouring to convince 'em, that the light of Nature would (if attended) inform them of the vanity of Idolatry, of the Being of the eternal God, of the incongruity of their manner of worshipp­ing Him; & this in order to his preparing of them to hearken to the Revelations of the Gospel.

Sect. 5. How arrogantly and falsly he char­geth Nonsense upon the Reverend Assembly, for acknowledging Illumination, and denying of New Revelation, will be gathered from the premises, and needs not to be here agen in­sisted on; for indeed, inward Illumination is not Revelation in the sense wherein we de­ny it; nor do his Texts cited help him; for we still deny that every one who is taught of God is inspired, and he hath not proved it.

When he saith (p, 19.) to be taught of God, &c. as the Prophets & Apostles, what is it but to be taught by Divine inward Revelati­on? It it is a meer Sophism. We consider [Page 31] the Prophets and Apostles, either as such ex­traordinary Officers, or as they were Believ­ers, for they had this double Capacity: to say that all were or are taught as they were, in the former sense is utterly false, as has bin proved; to acknowledge them so in the lat­ter sense, proves not such Revelations; yea, Paul himself, was not alwaies inspired, but sometimes gave his Judgment as one illumi­nated. 1. Cor. 7. 40. Nor can he prove, that 1. Cor. 2. 10. is applicable to all Believers in the same sense; the Revelation or Inspi­ration belonged to the Apostles, the Applica­tion, or discovery by Illumination belonged to all believers in their measures: how un­groundedly therefore does he here assert, that Paul holds forth that his Illumination was Re­velation? must he not so contradict himself in 1. Cor. 12. 29, 30.?

Nor can we altogether pass the scurrilous Title, he puts on the Reverend Assembly, calling them Faith-Makers; who never pre­tended to any new Revelations of any Article of Faith more than is contained in Scripture, and therefore have little Reason to be char­ged for making a new Faith. But if it were enough for the Archangel to say to the De­vil, we content ourselves with so saying to one of his Emissaries, The Lord rebuke thee.

[Page 32] Sect. 6. Here he makes a Clutter between Subjective and Objective Illumination; he has no great matter to say against the Distincti­on it self; but he finds fault with us for de­nying Objective Illumination; but he might have spared his labour and heat, for if he will be patient, we will not deny that nei­ther; i. e. That the Spirit of God reveals the Object to the soul, as well as enlightens the Subject, & if this will do, let him be qui­et: only we say, He reveals no new object besides what is revealed in the Scripture, & we thought that he had said so too in this very Chapter, S. 3. But now he would in­sinuate (p. 21. which he dares not speak out) that he would have new Truths, or Objects, besides what are revealed in the Scripture, i. e. either expresly or consequentially, o [...] he saith nothing; let him but reconcile his third and sixth Paragraph, and we shall know where to have him.

As for the Comparison by which he doth illustrate (or rather scandalize) our Doct­rine, as if we acknowledged No other sight of the Truth, but as one that sees England in a map, but never saw the land, or one that heares and reads of meat, but never saw and tasted it: it is altogether aliene: we believe with the Apostle, that all our sight here is in a glass, [Page 33] and that darkly or aenigmatically, I. Cor. 13. 12. and that we walk by faith, and not by sight. 2. Cor. 5. 7. and yet we believe that here is a spiritual feeling, & tasting, and satisfacti­on in all this, Heb. 11. 1. we are not there­fore concerned in this peice of Raillery, with which his 22nd page is stuff'd; only we observe his spirit, like that of the primitive Persecutors, who clothed Christians in skins of beasts, and then worried them.

Sect. 7. We dissalow not his Distribution of the knowledge of God into Discurssive & In­tuitive; but how poorly he improves it to his purpose, let the Reader judge: for if in the mean while our Intuitive Knowledge brings no new truths to us, but what are contained in the Word of God, he hurts not our Doctrine in the least. That Intuitive as well as Discurssive Knowledge may be in di­verse Christians in different degrees, we never questioned; but when he hath made all the splutter he can about his intuitive knowledge, he can never prove it to be any other than that inward Satisfaction which the Spirit of God affords to the minds of His people about the things that are contained in the Holy Scriptures, by the particular and personal Application of them to their hearts, and let G. K. or any other of his friends (if they [Page 34] can) produce any once instance to evidence that ever they had any Intuitive Knowledge of one divine Truth, whereof they had not a discursive knowledge before.

And how much he vilifies the Word of God by comparing it only to the Cup which reveal­eth the wine, and the Spirit to the Wine in the Cup, is plaine, David had another Opinion of the word, Ps. 19. 7 &c. and Christ giv­eth it another Encomium, Joh. 6. 63.

Sect. 8. He introduceth an Hypothesis, If they say, &c. but who of us ever said so? make a Castle in the Air, and then discharge pot-Guns at it: but we do say, that all this makes nothing for his New Revelations, al­though it affords glad Tidings to the fouls o [...] God's Children.

Had he any Fore-head left him, he would never have here affirmed, that we preach altogether an absent Christ; we alwayes pro­fessed our selves to believe, That Christ is really and properly present with His people i [...] His Ordinances and Application of Himself to them, only we say, He is so spiritually & not corporally, and it is strange that such pre­tenders to spirit, should deny a Reality and Property to it.

Sect. 9. What little Reason he hath to charge us with Nonsense, will be seen in what [Page 35] hath been already said at the beginning of this Chapter: to which we refer the Reader. But how comes G. K. by so much modesty as to grant, That there is both ordinary and ex­traordinary Revelation, and that theirs is but ordinary and protends not an equality to that of the Apostles, either in degree or variety? Some Quakers have been otherwise perswaded; else had their Lucas never said, If thou hast a mind to a Scripture, thou maist write as good an one thy self. But if he meanno other Revela­tion but what Christ did Joh. 5. 25. we allow it; only that differ'd more than in degree from what the Apostles had as such officers.

Let us not wrangle before we know what it is for. The Dispute here is about the Judge or Rule of Controversies in Religion: and observe, 1. That it is only about Matters of Religion 2. That Judg, and Rule here in­tend one and the same thing, viz. the Stan­dard by which things are to be tryed and judged. 3. It refers to Controversies, i. e. where princi­ples are in debate. Now wee'll suppose two kinds of Controversies, one between men & men. one party and another, each pretending to have truth on their side. The other be­tween a man & himself, having a debate in his [Page 36] own mind, and not being as yet settled: The Question then is, What (as a Rule) is to set men down, & put an end to these Debates? and let us go together as long as we can.

Sect. 1. He seems here to bid fair for an Agreement, at least in the first sort of the Controversy, i. e. between men & men, for we have only outwardly to deal one with a­nother; and he assures us that the Scripture is the Touchstone by which the Doctrine is to be tri­ed; and then surely it must judge and deter­mine, or what is the Advantage of Trying? Only he spoils all by telling us. They have a greater proof, viz. the inward Testimony of the Holy Ghost. We would only for the present ask him, (though that is not all we have to say to him) whether this inward Testimony be greater (as a rule) to judge another by, & set him down? and this because his words import that we are to judge by the Scripture whether the Testimony be from the Spirit or no; for in what other way can the Spirit of the Prophets be subject to the Prophets? else when a Quaker comes to tell us he hath a Re­velation, and this is a Testimony above the Scriptures, it would be impudence in us to search the Scripture, if the thing revealed be so or no.

What though the Spirit witnesseth in us that this is the Rule, doth it hereby become [Page 37] no Rule, or an inferior one? how absurd!

Sect. 3. Here also he begins fair, and would make us believe he is good natur'd, for he gives the Scripture a preference to all other Writings, and for that reason allows it to be a sufficient outward Standard; and one would think that were enough to try Contro­versies between men and men, and deter­mine them, though his Reason is but awk; viz. Because Scripture-Writers had greater Measures of Wisdome &c. so that he allows them a gradual difference of Revelation, and not specifical, which may be judged of by what hath been already said, and what is it to us how or in what measures God revealed Himself extraordinarily to His Prophets, who pretend to no such Revelation at all? It sufficeth, that the lowest degrees of these Re­velations were infallible, and therefore one Scripture is not less so than another: Nor shall we trouble our selves to prevesti­gate his Rabbinical Fopperies about the differ­ent degrees of Revelation, by which (no doubt he hath raised his credit much with the poor blind Quakers; whereas indeed, if a man had studied to make himself a Fool in print, he could not easily have done it more effectually; and though we grant, That God revealeth Himself gradually to His servants, [Page 38] and to some more than to others; yet his Cita­tation of Exod. 6. 3. proves not what he brings it for; it intends not that the Fathers did not know the Name Jehovah, (we find the Contrary, Gen. 22. 14. 26. 24. 27. 20.) but that He did in His providence rather ex­emplifie Himself by the name of Almighty, in Protecting and defending of the Patriarchs, but now He would most eminently display that of Jehovah in the compleating of the promises which He had made unto them.

In fine, he confesseth (p. 32.) That the Quakers degrees are so low that they are not in the state of Perfection, but they may by humane frailty in some measure or way, more or less (tread softly) decline or depart from the pure infallible teachings of the spirit; and then we hope this kind of spirit is not superior to that which spake infallibly in the Scripture; and from which we are assured that the Prophets, and Apostles in their Dictating or Writing the Scripture, did not decline in any measure or way more or less.

When he infers from hence, that their Doctrine is to be tryed by the Scripture; and their spirit by the Spirit of Truth: We would ask him what Difference he here puts between Doctrine and Spirit; and let him (if he can) shew how their spirit is to be tried but by [Page 39] their Doctrine, or what Spirit they can be tryed by which will carry Conviction, but only that which breathes in the Scriptures: and it would be a great stroke he would drive, if he could reconcile our being led in­fallibly by the Spirit, to our being mean while in the same things left to mistakes; which is the very sense of his Words.

Sect. 3. Here also he will grant the Scrip­ture (or the Spirit speaking in it) to be a Su­preme Judge in a figurative sense, so we do not restrain it hither, but allow Him to speak some­thing without Scripture: But this hath been already detected of vanity, for how shall we jugde of the Spirit, but by the Scripture? That the Spirit of God must open our Un­derstandings to discern the spiritual mean­ing of the word of God, we never doubted; and that Prayer and Meditation are helps to it, who questions? But what's this to the purpose? In summe, the Spirit is the In­terpreter, but to call Him the Rule is Non­sense.

Sect. 4. We had waited long to know the Reason why, Cap. I. S. I. he calls the Scrip­ture the Outward Rule, and now he fairly tells us, viz. Because the Spirit is the inward rule. i. e. To determine all Controversies, at least such as we have in our selves a debate about. [Page 40] The Text alledged is impertinent, for the Testimony of God there spoken of is the Scripture witnessed to by the Spirit: and we must distinguish between the Testator & the Testimony, the latter of which only can in any proper sence be called the Rule, and let it here be well observed, That the Scripture is a Judge in it self, and doth alwaies carry the Determination in it, whether we under­stand it or no, so as to be able to make use of it as such. And further, That it is not necessary that we have a saving Illumination for the meer Doctrinal improvement of it, since the Scripture is delivered in humane Language, and there is a logical knowledge of it to be attained by Industry, so far as to decide Controversies in Religion, by such as are not savingly illuminated, nor is it the spirit of the Disputant, but the convincing light of the word of God it self, which is to sway our Judgements and set them down sa­tisfied as to the Doctrine.

It will be superfluous to quarrel with him about his method, since we are necessitated to follow him in his own path.

Sect. 1. He hath cased us of some Trou­ble [Page 41] by acknowledging, that the things contained in this Chapter have a close connecti­on with the matter of the pr [...]ceding, i. e. if his Doctrine about Revelation & Inspiration will not hold, neither will the ensuing: there will therefore (having already detected the Fal­lacy of those) be need of little more than brief touches at the things here asserted.

His Charge in this Section, that we assert, Natural and acquired gifts of letter Learning (without a divine Inspiration) to be sufficient to qualifie a Gospel Minister, and that Grace or true Piety is only accidental; may look black at the first view: but let our Judgement in that point be fully weighed, and we shall have no reason to be ashamed of it.

That a man may be so Qualified, as to be capable of being Called to the Office of a Minister by a Gospel Church, and yet not tru­ly pious, we fear not to assert, but still we believe that no man can discharge any Office of Trust acceptably to God, without saving Grace. We here presume (and shall have occasion to prove it anon) That there's a mediate Call necessary to introduce a man in­to the work of the Ministry; since the Apo­stles times; and they who are to call them, must have some rule of discerning to regu­late their Call by, which must be something [Page 42] discernible; that their piety cannot be dis­cerned as such, he will anon put us upon proving: If therefore this were necessary to the Essence of the Officer, we could never know who is, or who is not a Minister. But de facto, Christ Himself, condemns the Scribe and Pharisees for Hypocrites, and yet acknow­ledgeth their Office, Mat. 23. 2, 3. Chri [...] Himself made Judas, not only a Minister, but an Apostle; we shall shortly see what he ha [...] to say against this. As for his Asserting tha [...] by divine Revelation a Quaker can infallibl [...] know a mans spiritual estate, it is precari­ous, presumptuous and false: for tho' Go [...] knowes all mens hearts, yet that He gives infallible Rules to know them by, ordinary [...] or immediately cannot be evidenced: the A­postles themselves never pretended to it, but were often mistaken: Judas was not sus­pected by his fellow-Apostles; Simon Ma­gus past for a while, till he discovered him­self; Demas went long unsuspected, & w [...] in high credit with Paul: We acknowledge that men may discover themselves by such things as are inconsistent with saving Grace and by this way we have too much Cause to be perswaded by Scripture Rules, that G. K is an Apostate and an unsanctified man but all mens sins do not (like his) go before [Page 43] to Judgement.

His Inference then, That Hence a man cannot be known to be a true Minister without [...] discovery, is vain: he can by our Doctrine. which is according to Scripture, tho not by him which is altogether unscriptural; our people therefore are left in no perplexity a­bout it.

Sect. 2. His Assertion, That No man can be a true Christian without Divine Inspiration, [...] hither-to unproved by him, and disproved by us: and were it true (as it is otherwise) his Consequence, viz. That without the same none can be a Gospel Minister, is inconsequent: nor is it any absurdity to say, That a man may be a true Minister, and yet not a true Christian, i. e. he may be orderly called to the Office of the Ministry, though yet he may not be savingly brought home to God: There is therefore an Ambiguity in the word [True] which may be applied either to the Professors [...] to the Profession.

Sect. 3. He mistakes the Apostles mean­ing, when he distinguisheth between the mi­nisters of the letter and of the spirit, 2. Cor. 3. 3, 6. for that whole Context assures us, that by the Letter he means the Old Te­stament, by the Spirit the New Testament, and the Reason of his so Calling them, is [Page 44] thence easie to be gathered.

His arguing the Necessity of Saving Grace because, Spiritual gifts are requisite, is altoge­ther illogical, nor doth it at all help him, be­cause these also were purchased by Christ for he hath purchased other things for us be­sides Grace. That there is a specifical Dif­ference between Gifts and Grace, is certain (though both may meet in the same man, & we seek for both in every Minister, to the best of our discerning) that these are sepa­rable of beyond doubt; that a man may have Grace, and yet not spiritual gifts G. K. (im­plicitly at least) acknowledgeth; yea Christ purchased Gifts for men, not meerly for their Salvation, but mainly for the Edifying of the body, so we are told eph. 4. 10, 11. that there­fore because a man must have spiritual gifts to make him a Minister, he must have saving Grace, is a Non Sequitur.

Sect. 4. And that these spiritual Gifts were discernible we deny not. There is a fair & easie Tryal to be made of them: but his in­ference that therefore They could discern whe­ther men were true or false Aopstles & Teachers, sincere or Hypocrites, is to be better weighed: That false Apostles might be proved by their false Doctrine. is nothing dubious: That Hypocrites might discover themselves [Page 45] by their fruits is also easy to acknowledge; but that in themselves, without any such Ef­fects, and meerly by their looks, there was or is a spirit of immediate discerning them, [...] utterly untrue, neither hath he given us one Rule to direct us in it. As to his Cita­tion of 1. Cor. 4. 19. to prove this discern­ing, it helps him not, for the Apostle speaks not there of their inward Grace, but of the fruits and effects of their Ministry, or of the Conformity of their Conversation to their Doctrine.

And whereas he censures us for Limiting one man to preach only, it is not true; we ad­mit of one to preach one part of the day, and another on the other part, where they are to be had: only we require that they be such as are fit for the Ministry; and we would not have others to do it. Nor did the Apostle intend that there should be any Confusion in this Affair, 1. Cor. 14. 29. & and to very little purpose doth he quote [...] Tim. 3. 5,6,7. (though we see what he [...]ould be at) for that is not appropriated to Teachers, but applicable to all Professors; nor did we ever plead that Scandalous Mi­nisters whose Conversation is contradictory to their Profession & Doctrine should be con­tinued in that Function, when once they are [Page 46] discovered to be such. We therefore con­cede to him, that there ought to be a Try [...] of men, and (if he will too) that it is n [...] meerly whether what they preach be true Doct­rine, but a great deal more; yet it must necessity, be either of his Doctrine, his Mi­nisterial gifts, or his Life, or rather all thr [...] beyond which we are to seek of what Try can be made by men; for man judgeth and must judge, according to what can be know [...] and the Searching of the heart is GOD's Pre­rogative.

Sect. 5. That because we pretend not t [...] Inspiration, therefore we lay no claim to the spiritual gifts, is an Argument as vain as th [...] author: Are there no Spiritual gifts but In­spirations? are there not diversities of them see 1. Cor. 12. 4, 5. Rom. 12. 6,7,8. H [...] Inference, That hence We plainly confess th [...] we have no infallible Discerning who is gracious we assent unto; and yet we do believe w [...] can discern of this as much as G. K. or any of his friends: and his Charge that we please that all spiritual gifts are ceased, is notorious­ly, false, for we try men by them; and [...] are sure that these may continue, notwith­standing the Cessation of Inspirations; nor can he inferr the Contrary, till he prove (which he never will) that all spiritual Gifts be­long [Page 47] to the head of Inspirations: Hence neither doth it follow, that we must d [...]ny an Inward Call to the ministry; since there are other Criteria by which it may be judged of, [...] sufficient Directory for which, we have in the Scriptures, and have a power of Reason­ing & Judging without immediate Revelation. for him therefore to urge, That All that is not by Inspiration [Church, Ministers, Ordin­ances, Worship] must needs be of man's making, is insolent: Must every thing that is not by Inspiration be Man-made? Hath not Christ left Institutions for His Church in His Gospel, that may sufficiently inform them in their Duty? It is the Quakers that make Church­es, and Ordinances, silent-meetings &c. under a deluded pretence of Inspiration, without any Scripture Warrant.

On the same blind and perverse notion it is that he chargeth us with plainly confessing that we have no Assurance, or Infallible Know­ledge that we have the Spirit of God, or any of that Grace which is the operation of the Holy Ghost. For, First the Charge is false, and all the world knows that we stand to main­tain Infallible Assurance, against both Papists and Quakers and who ever deny it. And 2ly. We are satisfied this may be had with­out Immediate Revelation: A man may have [Page 48] the perception of such Operations in hi [...] which by Scripture Rules he may be able [...] judge of, that they are of the Spirit of God he himself aiding them in this Examen: a [...] for what other end were all these Rules gi­ven but to help us herein? Rom. 8. 3. H [...]. 12. 14. 1. Joh. 3. 14. and many others.

His Cavil about Effective and Objective il­lumination is already answered, and it is an [...] ­dious Aspersion that he casteth upon us, That we make men stones, that have no inward percep­tion of what is acted upon their hearts; we beleeve that Grace hath a spiritual sense; and when the Spirit of God Influenceth it, i [...] can feel it: only there is Corruption i [...] us too, and the Spirit of Delusion some­times excites that, under close pretences which requires our Application to the Word of God for a Determination, Isa. 8. 2 [...]. His abuse of Heb. 12. 27. interpreting the A­postle, by things made to intend things o [...] men's making is most gross, For it is certain these things were of God's making, viz. th [...] Old Testamnt-Ordinances which were now t [...] be taken away to give place to Gospel Institu­tions of Christ's Appointment; and these are the Church, Ministry &c. which we main­tain. But let any man pursue him in the Paragraph, and he shall perceive, that hi [...] [Page 49] very design is to take away all Gospel Ordi­nances and worship and reduce all to Inspira­tions; the Tendency whereof, to subvert the whole designe of Christ in his Gospel, is sufficiently Observable; for that all these were there instituted is undeniable, That therefore must be antiquated if this take place, contrary to Heb. 12. 28. and let serious souls beware of such as would rob them of the Gospel.

His Sophisms in Charging us of Blasphe­my, for saying, We have the Spirit of God, and yet saying, we have no infallible spirit; as if therefore we charged the Spirit of God Himself of being fallible, may seem to have some in­fluence upon weak minds, (see pag. 41) it may therefore need a little Discussion: Ob­serve then, that the Evidence which we have within us of the Certainty of our spiritual State, or of any spiritual motions in us, is confirmed by two witnesses, God's Spirit, and [...] own, Rom. 8. 16. and these are two di­ [...]ct witnesses, (the Quakers, indeed, have blasphemously confounded them, and made them but one) now we acknowledged & be­lieve that the witness of the spirit of God is Infallible, He cannot be deceived, neither [...] He deceive by witnessing to a falshood; [...] the witness of our own spirit is Fallible; [Page 50] because we are persons liable to mistakes Now, tho' the Spirit when He witnesseth doth it Infallibly, yet He doth not make our spirits Infallible; and more than so, the Spi­rit of God witnesseth as He will: sometimes He withdraws His Testimony, and His Wit­ness is commonly mediate, it is with our spi­rits: Now, the way in which our spirits witness is rational, i. e. by searching our state. or examining the Suggestions in us, & bringing these things to the Rules of Tryal given in Scripture, 2. Cor. 13: 5. In both the Examination and Tryal we may be mis­taken, for we know but in part, and yet so far as the Spirit of God confirms [...]s by His Witness, we are infallibly assured.

We find also, that the inspired men of old (such as Paul) did not declare all things to the people by Immediate Revelation, but some things as they were skilful understanding Christians, influenced with the ordinary Assistances of the Spirit of God, and ra­tionally Judging of things: Hence Paul's di­stinction, I. Cor. 7. 12,—25. and therefore the words alledged, verse, 40. I think, &c. (for all his Railery) speaks thus much, That he did not suggest these Advices by immedi­ate Inspiration, but by the Common Assistan­ces that God affords His faithful Ministers.

[Page 51] Sect. 6. How blasphemously doth he in this Section ascribe the effects of the Scrip­ture to the Ministers? he would have no Mi­nister but such through whom grace, spirit and life do emanate to the souls of the hearers; making them more than meerly instrumental in Converting and Edifying. We deny not but that a gracious Minister is more likely to do good than another, but not by any power of his own, but because, as he will be more faithful, so he may expect more of Gods Assist­ance and Blessing: but that he can by any Virtue of his own, any more heal a Soul, than those Apostles could the body of a Crip­ple, (who utterly disclaim it Act. 3. 12.) we believe not, and we are confirmed by the Scripture, Joh. 1. 13. And truly the Qua­kers want Charity, if they have such a vir­tue to Convert and save all the world, and do not.

His Similitude of Ministers being called Flames of Fire (if it intend Ministers, and not rather Angels) is not Argumentative, they may be so compared, for their Activi­ty, and Zeal, and not from the Efficacy in themselves. And as little Cogent is his Instance of the Disciples, Luc. 24. 32. for he forgat that Christ Himself was then the Preacher, who had a Divine Power; and [Page 52] yet we deny not but that the same may be said of the preaching of another, but then it is the Spirit of God coming in between the mouth of the Speaker, and the hearts o [...] the hearers who doth it, yea, though Christ had the Spirit without measure, yet how of­ten did He preach without such Efficacy hence His Complaint, Isa. 49. 4. Yea there were more plentiful Conversions after His Ascention, by His Apostles, when th [...] Holy Ghost was given, Act. 2. The Scrip­ture by which he would prove this, 1. Pet. 4. 11. is nothing to his purpose; For th [...] Ability there spoken of, is an outward estate enabling them to give Alms, and more es­pecially concerneth the office of the Deaco [...] in Relieving the poor out of the Church Treasure, which must be done according to the stock in hand; and what is this to a [...] in ward Power of Converting souls?

Nor doth he more exalt his Ministry tha [...] he degradeth the Word of GOD, denying it to be the Milk, which is to nourish us; making it nothing but a Bottle that carries this Milk; and yet the Scripture he alludes to, calls it the Milk. However, let it be the Bottle, still we must go to that for our Nourishment, and draw it out of those breasts, and then there is no need of Imme­diate [Page 53] Inspirations.

His Comparing Ministers to Fathers is Scriptural; but the Improvement of the Si­militude is his own, and like him. There are some things in which there is a likeness between these, which gave occasion to the Comparison, but yet they are far unequal Causes. A natural Father is a Father proper­ly, for all G. K. denies it, and is something more than an Instrument, he is a natural Ef­ficient, a procreant cause, but the Minister is not so in the spiritual Regeneration, but meer­ly instrumental (which he also grants) and the new-born Christian derives no part of his new Nature from him, Joh. 1. 13. And as unhappy is his improvement of the Metaphor of Seed, 2. Cor. 9. 10. Isa. 55. 10. The former of which Texts only intends, that God hath given them an estate to be able to believe others withal; the latter is of the Word it self; (which is likened to grain, which the Minister only soweth) and which [...]keth rooting in the heart; and fructifies; and what is all this to the Ministers being a­ble to convert? or what Force will it give to his Inference, Viz. How then can a graceless man have any fruit or success; seeing all fruit [...] success belongs not to the instrument as proceeding from it? It's easily retorted, [Page 54] Why may not God (if he will) make use o [...] such men to convert others by, since it de­pends not on them but Him? Herein He may make His power the more to appear tho' we have already said, we beleeve the God ordinarily blesseth the labours of th [...] faithful with the greatest success. But [...] limit Him not.

Sect. 7. Nor are we pinched or narrowed (as he insultingly if not triumphantly boasts to prove our Call to the Ministry, notwistanding we deny it to be immediate: nor yet are w [...] necessitated to prove it mediate by deriving from the Pope, who is Antichrist. We are no [...] straitned about a Succession, as if that only would make a Call mediate; (tho' we be­leeve that Christ hath had a Church, and Ministry continued alwaies ever since the A­postles.) A man's Call to the Ministry either Inward or Outward; neither of the is Immediate: not the Inward Call, or th [...] persuasion which a man has that God callet him; he hath it not by Revelation, but by in­vestigation, for which (besides his Inclinati­on to it) he must prove his own Fitness so it, which must be by the mediate Applicati­on of himself to Scripture Rules, and judgin of himself by them. His Outward Call also mediate, Viz. by men, on whom he ha [...] [Page 55] no warrant to impose himself; and should he say he hath a Revelation for it, yet if he cannot prove it by Scriptures, G. K. beleev's they have no Obligation to Credit him; whereas an immediate Call is neither of men nor by men. Gal. 1. 1.

Sect. 8. Having routed the Ministers (in his arrogant Opinion) now to pulling down the Ordinances: and good reason they should go together: and here (because Preaching is ipso facto cashier'd with the Preacher) he on­ly levels his Canon against Praying & Singing without Inspiration: and that both publick & private. and,

1. For Prayer, he sends a Challenge to produce one Instance in Scripture, where Praying without the Spirit is commanded. We discover his Dilemma, and shall avoid the Horn: If being commanded to pray without the Spirit be taken in sensu Composito, i. e. to live content in a Graceless, Spiritless state, and yet pray; or to rest in our natural A­lities without seeking the Aids of the Spi­rit of God; we beleeve there's no such Com­mand in the Word of God: But if it be ta­ken in sensu Diviso, i. e. that aswel men without the Spirit, as such as have the Spirit are under a Command to pray, we affirm it, & can give both Proof and Instance for it. [Page 56] Prayer is a moral Duty, and Want of Grace dischargeth none from moral Obligations; for if it did, none of the apostate Race of A­dam would come under Condemnation. That Simon Magus had not the Spirit, or sa­ving Grace, we are sure, and yet Peter com­mands him to pray for Grace and Conversi­on. He is also much mistaken in saying, Do they not grant that all the prayers recorded in Scripture proceeded from Divine Inspiration and Revelation? We never granted it, never will. The Scriptures themselves were written by Inspiration; but all the things there writ­ten of were not so. Abraham prayed for Ishmael, by a natural affection sanctifyed: and Paul's Praying thrice against his thorn, was from a Sence of the Affliction, and a Religious Per­suasion that he was to go to God as Him who only could help him, which he knew without Inspiration.

2. As for Singing: he doth not Condemn the thing, for fear he should provoke his Friends the Singing Quakers: but two Things he has to Charge us guilty of, Singing with artificial musick, & Notes or Tones, and sing­ing on a Book: To the first, 'tis so foolish, that it is not worth a Reply; for would he have singing without singing? What Melo­dy can there he without Notes, & Tones mea­sured [Page 57] measured by Art? Doth he think Singing is only making a confused Noise? or doth the Spirit tune mens voice by immediate Inspirati­on? or are men only to sing in the Spirit, i. e. sing and not sing? To the 2nd. Sing­ing on a book pleads nothing for praying on a book, having different Reasons. In prayer there is but one speaks, and the other are only to join their Amen; but in Singing there is to be a joint Expressing themselves, by all the Community; there must therefore be a known matter that is to be sung, and that in such a Meeter as is accommodable to the Tune sung by them; the very nature of the thing calls for this: and sure he will not say all this will come at once to all a­like by immediate Inspiration. Till therefore we can find better, we may make use of David's which are suited to all Conditions of Gods people. These Christ Himself with His Disciples made use of, and that at the Sacrament, Ma [...]. 26. 30. When they had sung a Hymn, which is a Scripture Title of some of David's Psalms, which are distributed in­to Psalms, Hymns and Songs, to which the Apostle adviseth Christians, Col. 3. 16. and these we are sure were given by Inspiration; That any now made by men are so, there is nothing to prove.

[Page 58] Sect. 9. It is a pure peice of trifling where­by he would bass [...]e the Plea which some make Viz. That their Ministers have their Call of the Church, and therefore it is mediate; by telling us that Ministers were before Churches, an [...] that this is to run in a Circle: for though we place not the whole of a Ministers Ca [...] in this, yet his Cavil is empty, In order the Calling of a Church, we grant that Mi­nisters are before it, and are Helps under Christ in the Calling of it and such Christ used in the beginning of the Gospel, be these were called extraordinarily & immediate­ly by Christ Himself: but such Ministers o [...] not live for ever, and the Church abide when they are gone; and is now in a Capaci­ty of Supplying it self, and so there is room for a [...] Call; and what Circle is there i [...] this? There are Planters, & there are Wi [...] ­terers; and both Ministers.

Sect. 10. One blow more at the Minister to make sure work. These are Eye-sores Quakers and all Hereticks▪ if they were out of the way, who discover all their abuse detoct all their Fallacies & deceits, and esta­blish people in the Truth; what might the not do? If then they cannot perswade the [...] to lay down their Preaching, they will try they can perswade the people that they [...] [Page 59] them no Maintenance, and if they can starve them out, the business is done.

His first proof that Ministers can require no Maintenance but what is voluntary and of Charity, is from 1. Cor. 9. 14. It would make any man of Reason out of Love with the Quakers Spirit, if it interprets Scripture so Diametrically opposite to the Letter; his Argument must needs run thus; If God hath positively ord [...]ined that Ministers of the Gos­pel shall have maintenance, then the people may chuse whether they will maintain them or no: and it is observable, that the Apostle prov­eth this from the Ordinances of the Old Pesta­ment, relating to the Ministers of the Taber­nacle, concerning whom we find, that God not only ordeined that they should be main­tained, but what they should have. And whereas he inferrs from hence, that they must only have necessary Maintenance, and that but if they are poor, just to relieve them and no more; it plainly contradicts the Apostle's Argument; for he pleads from the Care of God for the maintenance of the Old Testa­ment Worship, and argues from the lesser to the greater: Now what Provision God made for the Priests & Levites, is to be con­jectured by what is recorded in the Leviti­cal Law. For, (as judicious men have com­puted, [Page 60] and see particularly, Reinolds on Psal. 115. page 477, 478.) the Tribe of Levi was not a fourtieth part of the people, & yet had as much maintenance allowed them as three of the other Tribes. Nor is the Ministers Maintenance an Alms of Mercy, but a Debt in Justice, as the New-Testament fully clear­eth, Gal. 66. 1. Tim. 5. 17, 18. 1. Cor. 9. per totum: in which Chapter the Apostle proves it by many Arguments. And if it be due in Justice, how poorly doth he plead a­gainst the Care of the Magistrate, by Lawes to provide, that it shall be duly defrayed? All Acts of Justice come under the Cognizance of the Civil Magistrate, who is to see that all have their dues: nor does it prove any thing to the Contrary, that Christ sent forth His di­sciples, prohibiting them from taking any thing, and yet they wanted nothing: It was a Speci­al Precept, and when Christ bids others to to do so, they may rely on His providence; till then it would be to tempt, and not to trust it. Whereas therefore he saith, that there should be no bargaining in this case; it is built on the same mistake. There is a due, and it is lawful to use wayes of prudence to obtain it: his Example of Paul is aliene: What tho' he laboured with his hands, not to make the Gospel a Charge? yet we find I. [Page 61] Cor. 9. that he there so states the case, that no other should suffer because of his Exam­ple: proving that it was his due, if he should require it, that he did it for a peculiar Rea­son. Nay we find that though he took no wa­ges of the Churches of Achaia, yet he did else where. 2. Cor. 11. 8, 9, 10. Nor for all his railing (will the Ministers in New­England be ever Charged with oppressing the people: and what though Paul and other [...] extraordinarily gifted in the new planting of the Gospel, and in times of Persecution sometimes laboured, and in part maintained themselves; must they therefore who must industriously use the meanes to help them in their work, who live in times and places of the peaceable Settlement of the Gospel, and among those that profess it, do so too? If they then did it voluntarily, alwaies asserting their own liberty to do otherwise, must we do it of Constraint?

Sect. 11. Once agen, he must have a fling at our saying that true piety is not essential to a Gospel Minister: What our Judgement is in this point, is already declared: he here on­ly labours to enervate some of our Scripture proofs by Example.

1. For Judas; he cannot deny but he was Minister, but tells us we cannot prove but he [Page 62] had some measure of piety: if his popish Doct­trine of Falling from saving Grace may hold, we may be at a loss, but if it be otherwise, (as we shall have occasion afterwards to dis­cuss) it will be evident he never had any, for he died a graceless wretch.

2. For the Pharisees, whom Christ advised His followers to hear, as sitting in Moses's Chair; he saith, their teaching belonged to the Law, and what's that to Gospel-times? We reply, Whether G. K. or Paul were most in­fallible, judge ye; sure he insinuates that they were Gospel-Preachers, for he tells us the Gospel was preached to the people then, Heb. 4. 2. and by whom but by the Preachers?

3. That Paul rejoiced at the Gospel's preach­ing, though they had ill ends that Preached it, Phil. 1. 15,—18; and Consequently they were ill men: he saith, 'tis nothing to the purpose, it justifies not their Preaching but commends the power and wisdom of God. And we say too, that it justifies not their so preaching; but it at least holds out thus much, That they were Preachers, and might do good by preaching else he would not have rejoiced in it: his Comparison therefore from Persecutors is im­pertinent; for though God's people rejoice to see Truth to spread and flourish under Persecution, yet they do not therefore re­joice [Page 63] for persecution; whereas Paul not on­ly rejoiced that there was good done by their preaching, but that Christ was preached by them.

Sect. 1. He introduceth this Chapter with a sad Complaint of abuse offered by the Presbiterian and Independent Teachers to the poor innocent Quakers, and that for no­thing else but their using of Scripture words to express the Mystery of God, the Father, Son & Holy Ghost by. We should be sorry if any had so done: But before we are gotten over this Chapter, there will something else ap­pear, for which they are not abused, but deal't justly with.

But there's more still; they not only abused them in word, but persecuted them to Death, for nothing else but this, and some other things of like nature; & them too, precious men-servants and maid-servants of the Lord. Sure they [...]ere irreligious and barbarous people that did this; only there is a bold im [...]dent Lye in the story. The persons he intends were Quakers; and what precious saints they are, we leave others to judge, and the Crime which occasioned their suffering was. They came purposely to undermine the Civil Go­vernment [Page 64] and perswade the people to Re­nounce it; which is every where accounted Sedition, and a Capital Offence: nevertheless the Rulers used utmost Lenity towards 'em, and all fair perswasions to have 'em depart yea, they banished and sent them away, but they willfully returned, yea, resolutely and daringly affronted them. Now this seem to be a diverse Case from what he pretends but a Quaker sticks at nothing that serv's his cause.

And now he pretends to give an account of their faith about the Trinity;

But it is a new Quakers Creed, nor is h [...] so ignorant as to believe, that that was their faith in those times, or for many years after.

Sect. 2. But all this Harangue was for no­thing else, but to introduce the Discourse about God's being Light, and vent a few light-headed Notions about it. First he find [...] fault that in our Confession we omitted the At­tribute of Light, and smells an ill design in it. Truly the Intreague was meerly this, The Reverend Divines intended only to ex­press such Attributes as were proper and not metaphorical; and unto which all such Me­taphors might be reduced: of this nature is that of Light, and is included in their say­ing, He is most Wise: and for G. K. to say, [Page 65] it is no figurative or Tropical Expression, argues him either of grossest ignorance, or boldest Confidence.

And now he hath gotten the Notion of Light in his head, how strangely doth he plead for Immediate Revelations and Illumina­tions in such Seraphical terms as must needs transport his Reader. Well then, we are all in the Light as well as he. GOD is an Im­mense Light, and then, Hell it self dwells in His Light, and Devils must needs be full of Immediate Inspirations: and 'tis a Contradict­ion for a Quaker to tell us that we are in the dark for we live and move and have our being as much in the Light as he. But all this is Burlesque; a good distinction would cure him, were he capable of receiving it. Dist­inguish between Divine Light & natural, and their different way of Communicating themselves. The Sun is a natural Light, & [...]minates all the things that it shines upon: the Divine light, is the Infinite Omniscience & Wisdom of God; but though in Him it be in­finite, yet He derives of it to the Creature, not naturally but voluntarily, not to all alike, Job. 35. 10. And He chuseth what Medium [...]e sees meet to communicate it by.

We thought he would soar till he grew [...]dy, his brains turn'd, and so speaks Non­sense; [Page 66] and let it come out; Light, he tells us, is immediate though it comes thro' a Medium [...] i. e. its immediate, though it be mediate: but let that pass Whereas he cites Plato (who is with him little inferiour to Moses) to prove that It is man's Inselitity to converse with Images of things; we accept not the Testimony; for Man was made to Con­verse with the Images of things, and shall so Converse for ever in his perfect state of glory; this being the nature of his under­standing, to receive the Knowledge of things by taking in the Images.

And what he seems to insinuate, p. 62. viz. That the Word of God hath no more of God i [...] [...] than a glass window hath of the Sun, is in [...] wise to be admitted: Its true, we are said to see in a glass, 1. Cor. 13. 12. which com­prehends the Scripture, but then it is not Perspective glass, but a Looking-glass that i [...] alluded to: and it is certain, that God hath imprinted the image of His preceptive will there: and the Scripture is adapted to dis­cover much of God to us by its own light, else all the Encomiums given to it Psal. 19. 119. Prov. 6. 23. and else-where, are Hy­perbolical.

Sect. 3. The Blasphemy charged upon us for Calling (as he saith) the light of God [...] [Page 67] His people, [...] stinking vapour from hell; will light upon their side, who call the poor im­perfect light of nature, God & Christ, as they have done in many of their books: but more of this afterwards.

He here arraigns the Assembly for that in Confess. cap. 26. sect. 3. they say, that the Communion of saints with Christ doth not in any wise make them partakers of the substance of His God-head; and endeavours to prove the con­trary to be true. But observe, the Assem­bly in this Artitle oppose the Swenkfieldian Doctrine, that a beleever is Godded with God, and Christed with Christ: and this is the thing that G. K. is here to prove, or he does no­thing. That we are made partakers of the di­vine nature, that we have near and intimate Communion wish God and Christ; that we re­ceive grace out of Christs fulness, and that God is our portion, we beleeve.

But a right Conception of the Mystery of our Union and Communion with God and Christ, will soon detect his Fallacies: Uni­on is the ground of Communion; and there­fore, such as is the Union: such is the Com­munion. Now this Union is one of the Gos­pel Mysteries, Eph. 5. 32. only this much we know to our present purpose; 1. That it is an Union between two, Viz. Christ and [Page 68] Beleevers. 2. That these two are made one by this Union, Joh. 17. 21. 3. That they are so one, as that they are still two Persons, two distinct in nature; It is an Union, b [...] not a Confusion; they are so one, as the Husband and Wife are one, who are two per­sons, but one in Relation, and the fruits of it, Eph. 5. 32. God is God, & man is man still. 4. That this Union is made by Faith on our part, by which we take possession of Christ: and His Spirit on His part, by which He dwells in us, Gat. 3. 26. 1. Cor. 6. 7. 5. That by Virtue of this Union God [...] Christ becomes the Beleevers Portion, La [...] 3. 24. 6ly. That God in Christ communi­cates Himself to them according to their Ca­pacity, and that is by way of Efficacy and In­fluence. Hence, 1. All His Divine Attributes are employed for their Benefit, Deut. 33. 27. Exod. 34 6, 7. 2ndly. the Spirit of Christ dwells in them by His Influence. Rom. 8. 1 [...]. 3dly. Christ as a Fountain of Grace derive streames down to them, having a stock put into His hands as Mediator, Joh. 1. 1 [...]. 4thly. They are made to share with Him in His Mediatorial Glory. cap. 17. 24. But what is there in all this of our being Deified or Christed? which if he intend not, he hath said nothing to the purpose.

[Page 69] When he saith, If they partake neither in His God-head nor manhood, they partake not in Him substantially; wants Logick. We say they partake in His graces, and they are sub­stantial things: and then he chargeth us for saying, that Graces are nothing but Accidents, we utterly deny it, we say they are neither the soul nor the body, but they are Adjuncts: and he might have learn'd to distinguish be­tween Adjuncts and Accidents. Graces are Adjuncts to men, because they are separa­ble without destroying their Humanity; this G. K. beleeves, and all that deny perseve­rance must believe it: they are not meer Accidents because Accidents cannot receive Accidents nor Qualities as Adjuncts may, and Graces do; hence the Epithetes put upon them in Scripture. But he goes about to make Graces to be the very Divine Sub­stance, because they proceed from GOD; When as if he had studied the Doctrine of God's Efficiency, he would have known bet­ter. Nor doth the Doctrine of Dr. Owen, or Mr. Rutherford, in the words of theirs which he Cites, at all run into the Quakers Blasphemy; for who doth not acknowledge the Person of the Holy Spirit, and the Per­son of Christ in their Operations, for they are personal acts, and therefore the Person [Page 70] of the Holy Ghost dwells in us by his Opera­tions, &c. And in summe, we beleeve that that there is a Divine Act or Influence on us, [...]s in Creating so in assisting our grace; but, our reaction of that grace is not God, but an exercise of that principle which is crea­ted in us, for Grace it self is a Creature Eph. 4. 24.

Sect. 4. Here he chargeth our Doctrine referring to the Divine Decrees, to be the same with that of Ranters; which is an abusive slander and we shall make it appear to be far otherwise; for, supposing them to agree with us in one principle, viz. That God doth all, & hath unchangeably ordered all things good & bad; are we therefore Ranters? We deny not every thing that G. K. sales, but that does not make us Quakers. May there not, (may, is there not) a vast difference between their Interpretation & Improvement of this Article and ours? But had he well studied the Doctrine of Divine Concurse, he would never have said, either, That If God decrees all things, He must needs be the Doer of them, or, that hence he must needs be the Author of Sin, for all our denying any such Consequences. This Doctrine is so fully handled by all that have written Systems of Divinity, or that have waded in Controversies between us and [Page 71] the Jesuits & Arminians, that it would be superfluous here to search into it. Let only two or three Conclusions that are to our pre­sent purpose be observed, Viz. That, firstly All creatures depend absolutely upon God, as in respect of their Being, so of all their Actions, Act. 17. 28. 2ndly. That this de­pendance is not only for a general sustenta­tion of the Being & powers of the Creature, but for influence into every individual Acti­on, Joh. 19. 11. 3dly. That Notwitstand­ing this Influence upon the creature, in re­spect of its Action, the Creature hath its Action of its own, subordinate to, and assist­ed by this Influence, 1. Cor. 3. 9. 4thly. That Sin is a moral respect which the Action bears as it is done by the creature, who is under the Law, 1. Joh. 3. 4. and therefore it can­not touch God. And his interpretation of that Eph. 1. 11. that [all things] intends on­ly all things that He doth, is true; but his In­ference, Viz. That when we say a man doth all things by Wisdom, none will be so foolish as to infer that he doth all foolish things, is a foolish Similitude: for to argue from a particular Agent to an Universal Efficient, by making them paralel, is Folly. Besides, tho' they are Follies of second Causes, yet there is the wise Conduct, even of these things, by the [Page 72] First Cause; and it is none of the least dis­coveries of His Wisdom, that He conducts the follies of creatures to the Exaltation of His own Glory: but any man may here per­ceive, that he is restoring Manacheism to the world, as if there were two principles or first Causes, the one of good the other of evil.

That we have him (page. 72.) making a large Concession of the Substance of what we beleeve, seems to intimate that he labours between Conscience and Interest; exeept it be, that he would perswade silly souls to think that we have some strange Mysteries in our Doctrine that others cannot see.

But this hath been but a Digression from the matter in hand, Viz. the Universal De­cree, and now he will glance at it agen: endeavouring to enervate our plea from Act. 2. 23. (where he joins us agen with Ranters) by a distinction between Delivering & Stay­ing; but we so distinguish too, and yet that God only exposed Christ to them, is not the whole meaning of the Text; for it certifies us that this was done according to an eternal purpose of God, who had appointed in that way to bring about mans Redemption, using them as Instruments (tho wickedly abusing their free will) in these sufferings of Christ, by which we were Redeemed. Compare [Page 73] Chapt. 4. Vers. 27, 28. and it will clearly appear, that God hath certainly decreed all things from Eternity, which come to pass in time, to him that shall consider.

1. That God is the Supream Efficient or Wor­ker of all things, according to His Counsil, Eph. 1. 11. 2ndly. That God foreknew from all Eternity what should be done by all Crea­tures in time: this G. K. pretends to be­leeve: and let him or any of his Company tell us how He did so in respect of voluntary Agents, unless he had p [...]determined them.

What he faith of Gods Hardning of men, That it is by His withdrawing of His Spirit from them, is a Truth, but not the whole Truth, there is more contained in it; some­times it is by denying them softning meanes, sometimes by presenting before them Ob­jects, sometimes by a judicial delivering 'em up to Satan, & their own hearts lusts; and all these wayes are according to Scripture.

Sect. 5. Here we are told that the honest Quakers believe all that the Scriptures say, con­cerning Election; and who would desire more? But if they believe not the things which the Scripture necessarily intends, they prevari­cate, for the mind of the Word is the Word▪ and now see how it will appear, he present­ly tells us, that We no-where find in Scripture [Page 74] that God reprobated any part of mankind before the foundation of the world. That He made 'em on purpose to damn them, is none of our Doc­trine, but Scandalously imputed to us: We say He made them for the glory of his Justice, which is exalted in their Damnation, procured by their own fault; and for proof follow him but three or four lines, and he confesseth as much himself, or else he speaks he knows no [...] what; for he acknowledgeth an everlasting connsel about them that Perish yea, (P. 76.) that Christ in His infinite Just­ice permits such to resist grace; and had he understood himself, what could he say more His saying that God considers them in his erer­nal counsil as having resisted all grace, & having hardned themselves finally, helps him not, for he must grant (and does) that if God had done as much for them, as He doth for his elect, it had been otherwise, but because He decreed not to do it, they naturally ly and dy in sin; and certain­ly He could not fore-see all this but in his own purpose.

And his Assertion is extreamly ridiculous, Viz. That Election and Reprobation are not con­tradictory, and that Election signifies a pr [...]fer­ence of some before others, it doth not argue [...] total reprobation of others. Certainly, if it be to glory that some are elected and others are [Page 75] not, then they are reprobated i. e. God hath not seen meet to chuse them, which necessa­ [...]y argues His purpose to leave them to pe­rish in their sins, and what is this but Repro­bation? He himself therefore grants, that in the end they shall be sound Reprobates; and how is that, but by appearing not to have been chosen of God? Especially if it be well pondered what he saith concerning God's E­lect, p. 76.

There is a great fallacy lurks in his saying, (p. 76.) that as God hath provided grace where­by some shall certainly be saved; so by the same all are put under a possibility: and that they are not, is not for want of Sufficiency or Efficacy in this grace of its own nature. We grant there is a sufficiency in the meanes that God affords to save all such as enjoy the Gospel, i. e. a sufficiency of means Isa. 5. 4. there need no more: nor doth He use more with them that are saved than with them that pe­rish, 2. Cor. 2. 10. 16. But that He hath put a sufficient efficacy into these meanes in respect of all that enjoy them, is a para [...] whence is it then that they are not efficaci­ous? The Efficacy is not in the meanes themselves, but in the Concomitancy of the Spirit with them to give it, and that is vo­luntary: and the very notion of a suf­ficient [Page 76] Efficacy of meanes used, without [...] Effect wrought in them with whom they are used, is an unintelligible Quakerism.

In p. 77. he tells us that Election goes be­fore Reprobation, and is not [...]aetanous with it and yet a little before (pag. 75.) he own Reprobation (though Conditionally) to be e­ternal; and who taught him to make Peri­ods in Eternity? Yea, Reason it self tell us that in the very nature of Chusing some before others, these others are in that very Act and instant, necessarily left out, which is Reprobation.

Sect. 6. Here he undertakes the Patro­nage of poor Infants, (and it is pitty but they who cannot speak for themselves should have somebody to speak for them) whom he finds sadly exposed by this Doctrine of abso­lute Reprobation: and is in no little passion for them, to think that we should insinuate that some of these are by the decree left finaly to perish: but though we may and ought to commiserate them, yet we cannot help them, beyond what God hath purposed concerning them.

His main Labour in this paragraph is to free Rom. 9. 11, 12, 13. from a true inter­pretation, and force it to accept of a false one: and let us see what he hath to say a­gainst [Page 77] our glosses upon it.

He tells us that the Apostles design is to shew that God had chosen the line of Jacob before the line of Esau, and that only to be His Church in the peculiar dispensation of the Mosaical law. That Paul is here treating of the Doctrine of Election and Reprobation, hath been fully evinced by many learned Orthodox. That he makes way to this by asserting the Sove­raignty of God, is cleer in the Chapter: That his Instance of Jacob and Esau, did hi­storically intend what G. K. alledgeth we de­ny not: But here it is to be noted, that there was a Typical Representation of greater things in these instances: & it is the Apostles manner to argue from the Type to the thing signified, see Gal. 4. 24. &c. but what fur­ther needs? G. K. (p. 79.) acknowledgeth that this was a figure of another thing to be spi­ritually fullfilled, and this is it that the Apo­stle useth it for; so that we may safely argue the thing Typified from the Allegation, it therefore hurts not our case, that he saith (ibid.) that this doth not infer Esau's personal Reprobation as to his eternal state; it is enough that there was a Reprobation in the same sense that there was an Election. If therefore he grants an eternal Election to be typified in it, (as he seems to do) the Reprobation must [Page 78] be of the same kind, else there is no paral­lel. It therefore concerns not us to dispute whether Esau himself were saved or not though his Text cited, Heb. 11. 20. Prove [...] it not, for there were temporal, as well as spiritual & eternal blessings: but this whole discourse is aliene, and makes nothing to the purpose. and whereas (p. 84.) he asserts that, the whole passage of Jacob and Esau, is [...] figure of two seeds, none of which were reprobate but the other preferred is a contradiction, for there can be no Election without Reprobati­on, chusing it out of diverse, and necessari­ly argues a Leaving.

Sect. 6. p. 84. Here we are challenged to prove that there are Reprobate Infants, or such as go to hell for Adam's sin only: to which we reply. 1. He himself grants (p. 88.) that men generally (and why not universally?) are Children of wrath by nature: and he will not deny but that by Nature is intended that natural condition they were born into the world in. (and then it must needs concern Infants as well as others) and this too is by Adam's sin transferred upon them, and his corrupt Image communicated to them. 2. That hence Chil­dren in their natural birth are under a sen­tence of Condemnation to dye, is a necessary Consequence. 3. That God hath no where [Page 79] revealed to us that He hath accepted of the Satisfaction of Christ for all that dy in their [...]fancy; and where there is no Revelation, there is no ground for Faith. 4. That there [...] merit enough for Damnation in them, else it would be unjust that they should be under Condemnation. 5. That this Sentence hath [...]een actually excecuted upon some Infants, Rom. 5. 14. they never sinned actually, and yet they died, and it was the same death spoken of vers. 12. If therefore the Text which some of ours use, 1. Cor. 7. 14. should not prove it, it follows not that no other can: and yet we suppose there is thus much [...] that too, Viz. that till Parents do openly profess the Gospel and submit to it, or as long as they abide in their Gentilism, their Children were also unclean, and so apparent­ly lying under guilt, and lyable to eternal Death. And then he chargeth some of our Church Covenant, for glorying that none of their children were Reprobates while Infants; we declare it to be a slander: we never affixed section to a visible Relation to the Church of Christ.

And how strangely doth he prevaricate, when he tells us (p. 85.) That it is plainly revealed and declared in Scripture, that the Condemenation is not simply because Adam had [Page 80] sinned, because of what Christ saith, Joh. 3 [...]. 1 [...]. he might have read vers [...]3 that he that beleeveth not, is condemned already. The Case stands plainly thus; In the first Covenant we stand condemned for the breach of the Law, either as Adam's sin is ours by impu­tation, or as we have actually broken the Law. Where the Gospel comes, Christ is offered, a way is discovered to life by Him. Now this is the proper Gospel Condemnation▪ that men despise Him and will not follow this Light; and this is added to the former they were before condemned by the Law, and now the Gospel condemns them too.

What he saith, (p. 8 [...].) That All have an Opportunity or Possibility to be converted and become the Children of God, is ambiguous; is the word Possibility be exegetical of the for­mer, viz. Opportunity, it is Nonsense, for these two are Dispartes, if he intends them disjunctively, we deny not a possibility, for all Mankind are salvable; but for an Op­portunity we renounce that, for where the meanes of Salvation are not, there is no op­portunity. But what is all this to the pur­pose? or what doth it make against the Re­probation of Infants? We must be led a wild-goose chase if we follow him in all his absurd Digressions.

[Page 81] As for the Contempt which in the same page he casts upon Foederal Holiness, it ar­gues his ignorance; and as little as he counts the Interest of Children in the visible Covenant worth, we shall not cease to bless God that ours stand so related: and when he grants an Holiness, i. e. a capacity of holi­ness, in time to come, in some (not all) of our children, we believe if we had talked so wild­ly, nonsensically, and Self-contradictorily; we should have heard of him. To call a Possibility of Holiness, Holiness, is scarce sense, and to acknowledge a capacity of Holiness but in some, and yet but one page before, to lead a possibility of Conversion in all, would have been a Contradicting himself, if it had [...]ot been G. K.

Sect. 7. We have G. K. here speaking the Scripture fair. The Scripture is a rich trea­sure, and he is for Scripture Words, and it is not safe to leave them: and what is all this for [...] [...]hy, the Scripture indeed acknowledgeth all [...] be born in sin; but what then? Why, the [...]ed or principle of sin and Corruption is, but it is not imputed, till men join their Consent to it, and actually obey it; and its as clear as mid­night from Rom. 5. 13. and thus he inter­prets it; ‘The time of Infancy is the time [...] wherein there is no Law, and therefore [Page 82] (tho children are dead in law) there is no imputation.’ Excellently well expounded. Paul is there proving that there was a law antecedent to the edition of the law of Moses and his argument is because there was sin in the world before: and that it is imputed he might have found, if he had read the follow­ing verse, for there we find the sentence ex­ecuted, which necessarily presupposeth impu­tation; nay, the very calling it Sin is [...] charge or imputation, and a supposition of a Law condeming men for it: nor do his ma­ny Citations at all prove that none dye and fi­nally perish for the first sin, but for actual sins of their own; which was now to be proved; for they only intimate that all mens actions are liable to the Judgement, and shall be tried and sentenced; but deny not that man's state in Adam shall be so too: Because the Scripture saith, that men shall perish for act­ual sin, doth it thence follow that men shall not so for original sin?

But the knack is, they died in Adam, [...] Christ by His death for all that died in Adam hath dischared all of that Imputation; which a perfectly Arminian principle, and hath [...] enough confuted by all that have written a­gainst them: That therefore he concludes that none do suffer final Distraction bar for Re­jection [Page 83] the Physitian, makes the condition of Pagans better than that of Christians: for these are certain to escape destruction; being incapable of rejecting the Physitian who is ne­ver offered to them, whereas Millions of those do reject Him, and perish for it. The Gos­pel then opens a door to man's Undoing, which else he had been out of the danger of, if Christ had but died for us and never told us of it.

His wild Assertion (p. 91.) That all the children of Adam and Noah, have a foederal Holiness, i. e. a seed of holiness in them, i. e. a capacity of being made holy (not to call the Coherence of it in question) seems to contra­dict the Apostle, who, 1. Cor, 7. 14. assures us that Unbeleevers children are unclean, i. e. not holy; and he there treats directly about foederal holiness.

He concludes this Paragraph and Chapter with two Insinuations (how true, let any Judge) 1. That Grace is propagated by our natural parents. (how this is, it may be he will tell us next time.) 2. That there is habitu­al Sanctification in all men by nature. As to [...]he first, David was of another mind, Psal. 1. 5. For the latter, Paul was not acquaint­ed with this principle, Rom. 7. 18. But he speaks as yet but in the clouds, we shall have [Page 84] him a little more open in the next Chapter.

In this Chapter he proceeds more particu­larly to urge and maintain the Doctrine of Universal Redemption, and we might dismiss him for his Answer to the writitings of the Anti-Remonstrants, but because many may not be advantaged with those discourses, we shall make a few brief Remarks upon his Ab­surdities.

Sect. 1. His first and main plea is from the words of Scripture, which express it in Universal terms, viz, All, all men, every man, the world, the whole world: (as for that of the Body, Eph. 5. 23. Paul himself there in­terprets it of the Church, and its strange that the World and the Church should be of e­qual extent) some of ours (whom he calls the Adversaries of Truth) have answered, (though it is not our whole Answer) that by All, is not meant all particulars, (i. e. In­dividuals) but some of all sorts, all the Elect. His Reply is, that the word [All] must needs be as full and universal with respect to Christ's death and the benefit of it, as it is with respect to Adam's Fall: and who denies it? But it is not so in his sense, except he will plead [Page 85] for universal Salvation, as well as Redempti­on, else the benefit is not parallel to the da­mage; and so he indeed seems to plead, by Citing 1. Tim. 4. 10. for the proof of his Assertion; but yet this he afterwards denies. We are here to consider, that Adam & Christ are in Scripture made parallel in many Re­spects: as Adam is a common Head, so is Christ: hence, as Adam hath a natural seed, so hath Christ a spiritual seed: as Adam ru­ined all his seed, so Christ Redeemed all His: as Adam's seed are called the world, because they comprize all the men and women com­ing into the world by natural Generation; so Christ's Seed are called the world, because they comprize all the men and women that belong to the world to come. But then we must remember; that Christ's Seed are a number selected out of the other; and there­fore, though they are all because He loseth none of His Elect, yet not all the Individuals of Adam's posterity; for there are they of whom Christ saith, They are none of my sheep. Nor doth he interpret but pervert that in, 2. Cor. 5. 14. If one died for all, then were all dead: for the Apostles intention there, is to prove that all God's Elect were dead, because Christ died for them all: The word [All] therefore, doth not signifie [Page 86] some, but all that come under that denomi­nation.

Sect. 2. Whereas Christ, Joh. 17. 9. makes a Difference between His Redeemed and the world, and [...]aith, I pray not for the world, he would perswade us, that world i [...] there meant of final Impenitents, or such as have finally rejected the meanes of Grace, and with whom the Spirit hath ceased to strive. But not to call over what hath been already of­fered. Viz. That all have not the meanes of Grace, and therefore cannot resist them; it is plain that he excludes only the damned from Christ's prayer: and hence he inferrs that Christ died only for their sins past: Well then, He died for those sins, and prayed for those men: he then owns His death and prayer to be lost, and His Re­demption void. Did Christ dye to condemn men, or to save 'em? see Joh. 3. 17. why then are they not saved for whom He came to dye? Was He not able to draw them to Him or to save them that come, to the ut­termost?

That he saith, Many are guilty of final Impenitency a considerable time before they dy; seems to be a Contradiction, though he saith it is none. We believe indeed that ma­ny are left of God to persist in impenitency [Page 87] till they dye; but then they are none of those for whom Christ died, Joh. 6. 37.

But we have him acknowledging, (pag. 96.) That He dyed not for all, with equal in­tention or degree of Love, and thereupon con­fessing, that they that are saved have more a­bundant cause to bless God for His abundant mercy than the other; though they have no rea­son to complain. We grant, the damned have no cause to complain, because they suffer justly: but we would fain know where he placeth the inequality, since (at the bottom of the same page) he tells us, That God gi­veth no greater measure of inward grace to one than to another. Oh! but he suits Provi­dences eminently: And is this all the diffe­rence? We thought there had been differ­ent dispensations of grace cleerly intimated in Rom. 11. 7. and one would surmise that what G. K. saith (ibid.) that God drawes, moves, enclines, perswades (and that is more than meer swasion) them to come, and when they fall infallibly reclaims them, &c. had been grace, and more than meer Suiting of Providences; especially, when he there also tells us, That He and not they made them to differ from others: and here against Scrip­ture doth he bring that to prove his Assertion 1. Tim. 1. 14,—16. And the grace of our [Page 88] Lord was exceeding abundant with faith & [...]. We thought heretofore that Faith and Love had been graces: and that God's giving one more abundant grace than another, proves that one hath no more grace given him than another, is not very clear to us as yet. Nay, (p. 93.) he tells us, That God by His infal­lible perswasions of love and grace, prevails in­fallibly with the Elect; and is not the Ef­fect of grace grace, yea more grace than where there is no such Effect?

That it is every mans Duty to improve all the meanes of salvation, notwithstanding he is not sure of his Election, is true, but that he can use grace to that end, before he hath any, is hard to understand; he should first seek for grace, for that universal grace he speaks of is a meer Non-entity. Nor doth our Doct­rine of Reprobation (as he chargeth it, pag. 99.) make the effectual use of meanes absolute­ly impossible [...] any, so as to leave them under dis­couragement: for he himself tells us, that it is the Duty of all men to use the means, and yet he saith, that there are elect, and that none but these shall be saved: and we say the others are the Reprobate: and if all are to use meanes, and are not discharged, though but some (viz. the Elect) shall obtain, what discour­agement is their more in our Tenet than in his?

[Page 89] Sect. 3. He well knew that Universal Re­demption, without sufficient help, would render his Doctrine ridiculous; here there­fore he tells us, how a sufficiency of meanes is afforded to all men; and First, That Christ by His Death procured for all men an in­ward principle of divine grace, light, life, &c. the Contrary to which is true; He purchas­ed these only for his Elect, for whose sakes He died. The Scripture makes a difference between his being head of the Church, Eph. 5. 23. and his being head over all things to the Church, Cap. 1. 22. But supposing a pur­chase, what benefit can they have by it if it be not applyed? Well, he will give an account of that too, as good as he can, (p. 100) Where outward meanes fail, God supplies this with inward teachings, and some other se­cret wayes of Providence: and are these suffi­cient to lead men to Salvation, or bring men to Christ? The Apostle then must use a fal­lacious Enthymeme, Rom. 10. 14, 15. And how perversly doth he interpret Christ to be the word spoken of, Rom. 10. 8. which is evi­dent by the Context to mean the Scriptures? called the Word of Faith, because it is an in­strument of begtting it, vers, 17. he inter­prets it of Christ coming in the flesh, both of Jews and Gentiles; and is that all the Incar­nation [Page 90] which he allows to Christ? He seem [...] to be of another mind, (pag. 59.) but in­deed we know not when they own any thing. And it was once the received Doctrine of the Quakers, That there is no other Incarnation of Christ, but only as He dwells in us; which how subversive it is to our hopes of Salvati­on, let the serious judge.

He mistakes the meaning of the word Re­probates, 2. Cor. 13. 5. endeavouring to prove that Christ is in all but Reprobates, and they are such as are given up to final impenitency whenas the word there used, intends not Re­probation in our sense, but only that all Un­beleevers, are at present unapproved by God and in a state of Perditon.

Sect. 4. A further proof of this universal grace, is, that Christ both commanded that His Gospel be preached to all nations; and he tells us that so it shall before the end of the world; this is no proof of what it is brought for; the many generations past have no advantage by that, being ended and gone before that time comes: that therefore all mankind shall be accountable for not obeying it, because once in the end of the world it shall be reveal'd to them that are then living, is a slender way of reasoning; but his Salvo is that though not outwardly at the present, yet iwardly to be [Page 91] sure it is preached to all: but how this is, he hath not satisfyed us in the premises, what he may do in the sequel we must wait for.

Sect. 5. This Paragraph is but Nausea his [...]cta, asserting, but neither expounding not proving, that all men have had more or less, and all sufficient means of salvation: sure it will be some great thing, which has so much prepa­ration made to introduce it.

Sect. 6. Here he begins with a good Con­fession, viz. that, Never any were saved but by Jesus of Nazareth; but he seldome spake Truth without a design, and hath frequent­ly some Errour in a readiness to graft up­on it. He knowes it would be asked him, how any could be saved by Christ, who ne­ver heard of him? and how shall they hear without the Gospel? He therefore antici­pates it, and answers with Railing in­stead of Reason: only he puts in a Quibble, and thinks he hath tied a knot upon us that is indissoluble: We plead for the Salvation of Infants by Christ; and why may not he with as good reason, plead for that of the [...]? The paralel looks but odd; viz. If Infants may be saved by the working of the Spirit in them, wi [...] may not the Gentiles he so by giving [...] light in them? We might only say, they are not causes equally [Page 92] powerful. But let us a little commora [...] here? Observe then: 1. That we de [...] not the power of God to save without out­ward meanes; but to argue meerly fro [...] His power to His Will, without His own Revelation, is to give laws to the Almighty. 2. That the Infants of Believers are under t [...] visible meanes of Grace, viz. the Covenant & Baptisme, and so are not the Heathen Isa. 63. 19. 3. That Christ hath assure us that some Infants are saved, Mat. 19. 14. 2. Sam. 12. 23. but we have no assurance concerning Heathen or Pagans, but the con­trary, Prov. 29. 18. 4. That the different capacity of Infants and grown persons, in re­gard to the means, requires a different man­ner of the dispensation of grace to the o [...] and the other: that therfore is asserted con­cerning all adult persons, Rom. 10. 14. For him therefore to assert that All honest else gentiles are saved in some other way, is [...] meer Begging of principles that will ne­ver be conceded. That moral Honesty is a meritorious Cause either of Salvati­on, or of any further Discoveries of sav­ing grace to men, is a Jesu [...]tical princi­ple; That there are any Elect among Pa­gans, who never had the gospel offered them, is not only without Scripture-Warrant, but [Page 93] against its Testimony, as hath been agen and agen made evident. And his pleading for New Revelation of things not contained in scripture, because Infants are saved by ano­ther manner of Application to them than A­dult persons, is meerly precarious; for it is [...]he same grace which is revealed in Scrip­ture, which is reveled to them, if G. K. has said true,viz. That, None are saved but by Jesus of Nazareth.

Sect. 7. How perversly doth he here state the Question! viz. Whether any are or can be saved without the express knowledge of Christ cru­cified, is one question, and whether without all bearing of Christ outwardly preached, is another. We believe that God did not reveal Christ so clearly at first, as afterwards; nor had they, all of them in former times, the same distinct Conceptions about Christ, which are now made clear in the Gospel: but we also believe, that they had so much knowledge of [...] Saviour, as led them to place their trust in Him for Salvation; and these Truths were extraordinarily revealed to some; and gra­dually too: But that All honest Gentiles who did by nature the things contained in the law, had an express knowledge & faith of Christ cru­cified (as he asserts) is not credible to us; and when he bids us to disprove it, he for­gets [Page 94] all laws of disputation; for Affirmant­est probare; it sufficeth for us to deny it, [...] say there is no Scripture to prove it, till he produce it; the Spirit's working When & Where He will, is no evidence for it.

A gross Errour it [...] him to say (p. 110.) That the knowledge & faith of Christ belongs to the finishing work of Salvation, but not universal to the beginnings of it: for how shall they beleeve &c. Rom. 10. 14, 15. his instances in Nathaniel & Cornelius give him no relief, & its his ignorance (if not his malciousness) to say that they were Unbelievers when that testimony was given o [...] them Joh. 1. 47. Act. 1. 2. They had believe­ed in a Christ to come, tho' at present they knew not that He was come in the flesh, till it was further revealed to them: And it would do well to observe concerning th [...] latter, that though he had an Angel sent t [...] him to direct him how he might be acquaint­ed with that necessary Truth, yet Peter must come and preach it to him: and whereas he saith (p. 112.) that he had not faith in a cru­cified & raised Christ, but in God, and in the Word of God in his heart; We answer, that Faith in the word of God in the heart, with­out Christ, is not Saving, Act. 4. 12. Nor is Faith in God without Christ so, Joh. 14. 6. And he is greatly mistaken, when he saith, [Page 95] The mystery of Christ crucifyed was not firstly ne­cessary to be known, as not being fully preached. It was preached from the Beginning, Gen. 3. [...]5. tho' more clearly in Gospel-time. All the Rites and Ceremonies of Moses's Law preached Christ; though the Veil is now [...]aken off, and the glory of the Truth is [...] manifest and resplendent: he there­fore concludes before he has prov'd his Ass­ertion, That the express knowledge of Christ crucified, is not of absolute necessity, especially (he is very cautious) where it hath not been preach'd, to the beginning of a man's salvation, though indispensibly necessary to the finishing of it: And surely, I. Cor. 4,3. & Heb. 12. 2. [...]and much against him: And his so often­ [...]erated Assertion, That there are honest Gen­tiles stills, that have no, Christ outwardly preach­ed, and yet dy in Salvation, is nothing else but [...] magisterial Assertion, without any one proof at all to command our Beleef. What then shall we say to his new Doctrine (pag. 115.) That they may receive it after Death? If he thinks to Father such a thing upon the Assembly of Divines, Cap. 32. S. I. Confes. Its a bold untruth, for they say no such thing there, but beleeve that in the instant of dying, Believers are made perfect in holiness, [...]ee Shorter [...], Quest. 37.] we shall [Page 96] have a new Quakers purgatory erected e [...]long; Christ revealed to men for Salvation after death, who died ignorant of Him! And now what Reason hath he to conclude this Section with a Triumph! That he hath de­monstrated from Scripture, that men have been in a state of salvation, that have not had the Mystery of Christ made known to them! unless perverting of the Scripture may pass for De­monstration.

Sect. 8. But what needs more then? would he out-do Demonstration? Fain would he draw in Paul, I. Cor. 12. 4,5,6. to speak of the different degrees and modes of God's re­vealing Himself before Christ, under the Law and after Him under the Gospel. Though we are satisfyed that Paul aims at another thing, Viz. the distribution of gifts in the dayes of the Gospel variously: yet, supposing the o­ther, what is this to mens knowing of Christ where the Law was not: or to the Gentiles being illuminated with saving knowledge? and where does he find three Baptisms in Scrip­ture, especially, such as that the First only reveals the Father, the Second, the Father and the Son, the third, the Three Persons? or had he this mystery by Revelation? if so, he might have kept it to himself, for he hath discharged us from believing him: and [Page 97] wherein it serves to his purpose we see not, except it be to prove that man might under the first be saved without Christ; and that will contradict his own profession.

Sect. 9. Now at length, after a deal of te­dious waiting, we are come to the thing which he hath all this while been making way for, and this will salve all the [...], remove all doubts! The Light within! the Quakers God, and Christ, and Holy Ghost, and Word, and what not?

What particular thing this Light is, they [...]em to be in the dark about; very likely, [...]s beames are so languid, that they are not self-evidencing: However, something it is, a [...]d it is in all men; yea, so great a thing, that it may be blasphemed; for he tells us, [...] is no less than real Blasphemy (though we thank him, that he that hath made it blas­phemy, hath made it pardonable too) to say that the Light in man is not sufficient to give him [...] knowledge of God that i [...] necessary to Sal­vation: But how can we plead Guilty or not [...]ilty, till we know what it is that we have [...]fered such an affront to? Let us therefore [...]e if we may not find it out by some meanes, and whether he hath not help [...] us in the search. He tells us, the Assembly twise call it the light [...] nature, & the Expression he can allow, but [Page 98] not in our sense: Thus far we suppose he will grant it in our sense; viz. That the Light within, is that Discovery of divine Truths which is made to men inwardly, as they came into the world, whereby they are able to know something of God, without outward meanes to acquaint them; or something within them, which doth make these disco­veries in them: and this is not any special, extraordinary Indulgence to some, but it is common to all men, belonging to Humanity. Only herein we differ, and are not to be re­conciled: We say, That it is nothing but some remaines of the Law of nature in the Hearts of men, Rom. 2. 14. which they are capable by their Reasoning Faculty of im­proving for the making a Discovery of many Truths by, which will suffice to leave men without excuse, Rom. 1. 20. [he mistakes] when he thinks we reckon it any distinct fa­culty, the Understanding indeed, and in that the Conscience, is the subject of it, but it is something there imprinted.] He on the o­ther hand tells us that It is Christ Himself in the man, and that it is he who quickens [...] sanctifies nature in all men; and this he un­derstands to be the Emphutos Logos, in Jam. 1. [...]. which he fasly renders Innate word it properly signifies, Engrafted, as our tran­slation [Page 99] renders it; and is a Metaphor from a Stene that is grafted into another stock than at first it grew upon; intimating that the word (whatever it be) is not natural to us, but is ingraffed in us supernaturally, and therefore is not put into the nature of all men, and that this word is not Christ, ap­pears from vers. 22. and those that follow▪ it is a word that we are to be the Learners and Doers of, it is a Law of Liberty that we are to be looking into, which cannot be appli­ed, to Christ: no, not by any tolerable Cata­ [...]esis.

There are Three things, which we will here not only assert, but also give Scripture proof for. 1. That Christ is not the Light of nature in all men. Is it the light in men that was born of a Virgin, hanged on a tree, [...]ried in a grave, all which he else-where confesseth of Christ? Besides the Apostle expresly saith, that men in their natural est­ate are without Christ, Eph. 2. 12. and that except men be in the faith, Christ is not in [...]em. 2. Cor. 13. 5. and he tells us that All have not faith, 2. Thes. 3. 2. 2. That the Light of Nature left in fallen man, is not sufficient to point him out the way to Hap­piness; had not they the Light of Nature of whom it is said, Deut. 29. 4. that the Lord [Page 100] has not given them eyes to see to that day? & they to whom Christ gave that warning, Luc. 11. 35? Doth not the Apostle describe the na­tural estate by this, Eph. 5. 8. and what sales he, 1. Cor. 2. 14.? but we have him confessing this amply in p. 120. That man in his state of integrity had Light sufficient to have guided him to felicity, we believe; but all the Light of nature in fallen man, will not objectively reveal the truths necessary to be known in order to salvation. It had never told men of Christ, and the Satisfaction that is made to the Law by his Righteousness. 3. That God hath not any way imparted such a light universally to all men; which the fore­cited Scriptures do prove. Besides if this Light be connate with men, what needed G. K. to make such a splutter about Immedi­ate Revelations? and if it be only by Revela­tions, where will he find evidence that God hath so reveal'd Himself to all?

Sect. 10. That from the Law written in mens hearts, he goes about to prove that man has such a sufficient light, is weak, for the Apostle speaks plain, in Rom. 2. 14. (which we are turned to) of the law given to man at the first, which is become weak through the flesh, and cannot give life; Rom. 8. 3. Gal. 3. 21. And his pleading from our Con­cession [Page 101] That it is sufficient to make them inex­cusable, that it is therefore sufficient to make them excusable that frame their lives to it, fol­lows not. The fall of man hath left him without strength to obey it. Rom. 5. 6. The Light of Nature discovers to man that Duty which he doth not, and, by reason of Sin, cannot do; which leaves him inexcu­sable, Rom. 1. 18, 19, 20. but it is Christ only that can take off guilt, and remove Condemnation; and the light of nature nei­ther discovers His person, nor the way how to get pardon by Him.

His arguing (pag. 121) That Because for mens not glorifying God, He gave them up to a reprobate mind, therefore they were not Re­probates from the beginning, hath no face of a reason in it; for, besides that (if we should take the word Reprobate in Rom. 1. 28. in such a sense) a man may be reprobated before he be left up to make the open discoveries of it: the meaning of that place is, that God left them to a mind that chose dross rather than Silver, preferred wickedness before Ho­liness, and so was a mind disapproved God.

And when He tells us that The light the Gentiles had is a new gift and grace of God to them, he saith nothing at all till he can [Page 102] prove that there is such a gift common to all men; nor do all his alledged Scriptures speak one word that way: inward convicti­ons and warnings of wrath to come (which we deny not to have been in heathen) will not amount to it, being only the Actings of a natural Conscience under legal Convicti­ons, which indeed shew to man some of his Misery, but nothing of his Remedy: and that place on which he puts a peculiar Re­mark, Luc. 12. 20. God said, thou fool, &c. is as little to his purpose as any; for, if we cannot tell how God said so to him, yet it is enough that He did it by awakening of his Conscience, may, that he did it Providenti­ally; and what's this to a sufficient Light, telling men how they may be saved; it is a meer Wheadling and not Arguing.

It is therefore impudence in him to assert (pag. 122.) That though God's Dispensations of grace be various, and the Gospel Dispensations (fine words!) be best; yet whoever is faith­ful in any one of these is accepted of God; and yet none is accepted but in Christ, or for His sake; and give no other proof for it, but his ipse dixit, which is of no value among sober men: and hence to conclude, That the inward Dispensation that is among the Gen­tiles that have not Christ outwardly preached, [Page 103] hath its glory, and great service to those that are faithful in it, is to talk at liberty himself, and deny to all others a liberty to judge.

The Doctrine of Justification is one prin­cipal pillar of our Faith, we cannot forego one clause of it without greatest hazzard: let him not then think to wheadle us out of it, his attempts so to do must be detected & defeated.

Sect. 1. When he saith, God doth not just­ifie men in their Ungodliness, but from it, would be true, if he had not perverted it afterwards. To justifie a man is to uphold and defend him in such a way, and to say to the wicked, thou art righteous; this is far from God. But to justifie a man from his ungodli­ness, may admit of a double Interpretation, if it intend that He absolves a man from his ungodliness by a gracious act of pardon & ac­quittance, it is true: but if it intend a ta­king away of his sin from him by cleansing him from his filthiness▪ and purging the cor­ruption of it out of him, (as he after inter­prets himself) this is no Justification at all, but belongs to Sanctification.

Sect. 2. He saith, They are only the sancti­fied that are justified; if he intends that [Page 104] whom God doth justifie, He doth also sancti­fie, it is a great truth; but if he puts Sancti­fication (which is a Concomitant) to be a cause of Justification, yea, the material cause, (as his following Discourse evidently insi­nuates) it is a deceit: and here he mistak­eth when he saith, That we are the seed of Christ by Sanctification: which is only a be­nefit which Christ bestowes on His seed, and not a cause of their being so. And when he tells us, That Christ bestowes Adoption only on His brethren, it is as much as if he had said that Christ only Adopts the Adopted.

Sect. 3. Here he falls into down-right Popery confounding those two great benefits of Justification and Sanctification, which (tho' inseparable) are to be distinguished. All Protestant Writers of Controversies against papists, have abundantly Confuted this mis­take, only he will force us in the Sequel to make some brief Remarks on this matter.

Sect. 4. One Errour begets another: a false principle will afford mistakes for De­ductions; and here we see it: he took Justi­fication and Sanctification for one thing, and so he tells us, that God justifies not only by faith in Christ, but by a real inward righteousness too: though Paul thought that these two ways of having a justifying Righteousness were in­consistent [Page 105] Rom. 11. 6. but herein he follows his Fathers the Papists; and whereas he sales That The graces of Sanctification are the in­struments of obtaining Justification from Christ; he mistakes the order of Christ's Benefits; for its certain that there is none of these graces in the man habitually, much less the Exercise of them, before Justification: for, in & with the souls applying it self to Christ by Faith, it is justified; and it is to be re­membred that Paul tells us, it is the justi­fication of the ungodly, Rom. 4. 5. Such God finds them in themselves, when He comes to justifie them. And when he saith, Jesus Christ cannot be applied to men for justification, unless the man be made righteous; its either a Contradiction or a Sophism. If they be made righteous for their justification, the Application of Christ for their Righteousness is superfluous: If he intends, that the Ap­plication of Justification makes them righte­ous, it is fallacious: it makes them so in a Law sense, but not in a moral sense, not justification, but Sanctification doeth that: his Similitude is from that which hath no Likeness; his Scripture Citations are not to the purpose, that in 1. Job. 3. 7. Speakes of Sanfictication; that in Rev. 22. 15. speaks of the visible Right to Church-Communion, [Page 106] which men are to prove by their Obedience or if he will not admit of that, let him Re­member that Faith, which layes hold on the Righteousness of Christ, is the great Gospel Command, 1. Joh. 3.23.

Sect. 5. 'Tis a great mistake in him to say, that Faith is one hand to receive Christ, & Love is another; the Office of Love is another and quite different thing: by faith we re­ceive Christ, by Love we serve him, or tes­tifie our Thankfulness in our Obedience to Him, Joh. 14. 15. and it is by Faith that we derive from Christ all that virtue which nourisheth the graces of Love, whereby we may serve Him, Gal. 5.6. And whereas he here applies the putting on of Christ to Justifi­cation, we that esteem Justification and San­ctification two things, reckon it to Sanctifica­tion, and that according to Scripture; for what else is the Righteousness and true Holi­ness by which it is interpreted, Eph. 4. 22. 23, 24.

Sect. 6. In this Paragraph he gives up the whole Cause, if he speakes sincerely; if not, let him answer it to his Judge.

Sect. 7. That because Pardon of Sin is a part of Justification: therefore Repentance is a necessary instrument to obtain it, has no Con­sequence in it. Repentance being an inse­parable [Page 107] Concomitant of Faith, and influ­enced by it, Act. 5. 31. 11. 18. & else­where. Only let it be observed that we se­parate not Repentance from Justification, [...]ut deny it to have any causal Influence into [...]. His proof from Tit. 3. 5. is impertinent: he never denied Sanctification to be necessary [...] Salvation. But we suppose there is more equisite to Salvation than there is to Justifi­cation; not only must we be adjudged to the inheritance, but we must be made meet or [...]itable for that happy state, Col. 1. 12. and that is by Sanctification, Hebr. 12. 14. [...]is therefore is one of the Gospel Conditi­ons of Salvation, but not of Justification. [...]hen he saith that Paul in saying that men are not justified by the works of the Law, only includes the legal performances in which the Jews [...]ed, who had not faith in Christ, he labours [...] a double mistake; for, both, all the Jews [...]d not rest in them, but some had faith in Christ, and yet they did these works, and were not justified by them; and Paul re­ [...]unceth his own works both before & after believing, distinctly, Phil. 3. 7. 8.

Sect. 8. Whereas he saith, that when Paul takes of Justification by faith, he useth the [...] faith by a Synechdoche; it is gratis dict­ [...] we have only his word for it; and how [Page 108] much the word of one guilty of so much He­resy and Blasphemy is worth on this account let any judge. We grant that the word Faith is sometimes used for the Gospel Doctrine, but when the Scripture mention it as the instrument of justification, it is ne­ver so intended, and it belongs to him to prove it if he can.

Sect. 9. We understand not the meaning of his Rant in this Section about a Christ divided; a Christ without and a Christ within a Christ in heaven and a Christ in the heart [...] we believe that there is but One Christ, and that He is in Heaven as to His humane na­ture, infinite as to His Divine Nature, and that by His Virtue, Influence, and Grace, He dwells in the hearts of all His people, and that they live upon Him by Faith.

Sect. 10. None of us ever doubted that Faith hath true Assurance in it, and infallible too: he therefore abuseth us in saying that we deny that faith hath assurance in the being & nature of it: only he must give us leave (on we will take it) to distinguish between the Assurance of the Object, & of the Subject by the Assurance of the Object, we under­stand the full Security which a believer is put into of enjoying eternal life, in the very in­stant of belaeving: this Assurance we say, [Page 109] belongs to faith of its own nature, i. e. it can­not be without it. but the Assurance of the Subject is, that Knowledge or Discerning, whereby a Believer reads the Evidence, and has it infallibly confirmed to his knowledge; this we say is not of the nature of Faith, but belongs to inchoate Glorification; and that Beleevers may be safe, and yet want the Dis­cerning of it, Isa. 50. 10. tho' we still believe (and have formerly proved) that this Assu­rance may be had without extraordinary Re­velation: and the argues foolishly, that be­cause no place of Scripture tells us that we have these infallible marks, therefore we cannot know them infallibly without such Revelation; for the marks are knowable, men have understandings and can know what they mean, & apply 'em; and the Spirit can and doth in this way set His seal to the Confirmation hereof,

Sect. 11. The poison conteined in this Section, will be more fully discovered in the next Chapter, to which we refer the Reader to prevent the nauseous Tautologies which his book labours of.

Its worth the observing, that all those that stand for Justification by works, deny the Do­ctrine of Perseverance; and great reason might be assigned for it. Wonder not then that we [Page 110] have him chopping at this Pillar too; [...] this Doctrine is a Cordial of such worth, that we believe that none who have re­received it in the promise, will readily part with it; let us then vindicate it from his false Comments.

Sect. 1. Real and true beginnings of faith and Sanctification (saith he) may be fallen from: What means he by this? There are some previous and preparatory common works that are wrought in men; such as Conviction of sin and misery by the law, and the terrours of the Lord that make men affraid, and may put a stop to their lewd courses, yea, and work a reformation in many things, and make a natural Conscience to act more strongly than before: if he meanes these, we deny not but they may be lost; but then we deny them to be the beginnings of true justifying or saving faith, called the Faith of God's elect, to distinguish it from other faith, and those which he instanceth in Heb. 6. 4, 5, 6. belong to this head; they had through these arrived to a Temporary Faith, but not to that which is saving; and therefore the Apostle charitably exempts his Hebrews from any such danger; as having other things in them, vers. 9. His instance from Rom. 11. relates only to a visible Church state, which [Page 111] all that stand in are not true Believers. That of the Angels fall, is impertinent, for they were under a Covenant of Works. Their Faith in the thorny and stony ground was but a temporary Faith, it had not a saving root­ing, and for that Reason abode but a while. And we must distinguish between a false faith and one that is not saving: it is there­fore blame-worthy for men to lose some things, the keeping whereof will not save them; such are all the moral principles which men have imbibed, such as the young man had, Mat. 19. And it is to be observed, that the good ground is differenced from the o­ther three, by the epethete good, to shew that the other were not so in a spiritual sense: and though God's children feel many thorns & stones in their hearts after Conversion, yet their hearts being in saving measures softned and broke-up, they receive their Denomination from the better part, according to Scripture. Nor will the Parable of the Virgins, Mat. 25. begin. help him at all: we grant, the oyl there signifies true saving grace; but then by Lamps we are to understand an outward pro­fession: by Vessels, the heart; the foolish Virgins had oyl in their Lamps, i. e. they pre­tended to, and made a profession and show of Grace, though they had none really; the [Page 112] wise virgins had it in their lamps, i. e. professi­on, and vessels too, i. e. hearts; and it is no new thing for the Scripture to express things which men seem to have, as if they had them, because they hold others in hand, and often deceive themselves into a beliefe that they have them, see Luc. 8.18. compare Mat. 13.20. His allegation from Ezek. 18.24. &c. may at first seem to have a face of a plea in­it, but it only seems so. Other Scriptures assure us that no true believer shall finally & totally fall away from grace; and Scripture doth not contradict it self. Several things might here be offered; briefly Consider, 1. This is but a conditional expression, and therefore asserts nothing to his purpose. 2. God is pleased sometimes, to curb in His people's Corruptions by such Conditional Threatnings, see Rom. 8. 13. Heb. 12, 14. for they have nothing in themselves, but what they might lose if God did not secure it; & God so preserves His People as to stir up fear and care in them. 3. And what if we say, That God speaks to them in respect of the typical part of the typical Covenant, to whom the promises and threatnings concerning the typical blessings of Canaan were made on these conditions, which they might either keep or break, and by breaking fall from them, and [Page 113] forfeit their lives and Land.

That David is a clear instance of one that to­tally fell from grace, he proves not: the sins he committed were great, the Aggravations heinous, but if he had totally lost his grace, why doth he pray, Psal. 51. 11. take not thy holy Spirit from me! Nor doth it follow (as he intimates,) that because a justified man may fall into Murder and Adultery, therefore the worst of men may believe that they are true & real Sain [...]s; for they never had the work of Conversion past upon them, as David had: and besides, such horrid falls break their bones, defile their hearts, wound their grace, and consequently be-cloud, their Evidences, what plea is there for such as never had any Evidence? Nor doth it follow that if these men dy in their sins they shall go to heaven immedi­ately: For tho' God suffer (for holy ends) His Children to fall far, yet as not to fall totally, so He will give them Repentance: tho' the just fall, yet he shall rise again: Nor will God suffer them to dy, before He hath recovered them. Neither yet doth our Doctrine en­courage to any hope of such who so defile themselves, and dy without Repentance. It is therefore a vile Aspersion to call our Doct­rine Poisonous. We believe that sin of its own nature kills the sinner, that its wages is [Page 114] death: that the soul that sins shall dy: but we believe that he may dy in his surety, that God can pardon and justifie him for Christ's sake; and that if He doth, He will sanctifie him too; and what poison is there in all this? the foun­dation of a sinners hope is laid in this; and but for this hope, the least sin of thought is mortal; all the gall therefore that he vents in these three pages hurts us not, being meer false Aspersions, or deceitful insinuations; (and doth not he himself say, that if God suffers those whom he hath drawn, at any time to depart, they shall certainly be reclaimed, P. 46. [...]ay, that they shall infallibly be called, & at last glorified, P. 76.) Nor could he have said, that this makes God a respecter of persons in the worst sense, if he had not been ignorant of what that Respect of persons is: there is no respect of persons in gratuiti [...]; for that is only when Justice is perverted, for some [...]i­nister consideration: the owner may do with his own what he will. Besides there is in the bestowing of the Recompence of glory, a vast difference between them that receive it and such as miss of it. Mat. 25, tho' still it's God that makes them to differ.

Sect. 2. That God hath laid duty upon His people to use endeavours for their standing, we deny not, but constantly urge; but that [Page 115] alwaies where the promise of preserving ▪em in faith is mentioned, this condition is under­stood; is warily to be taken up; if he in­tends that God will keep them, by fulfill­ing the Condition in them, it hurts us not: but if he mean, that the promise depends on our performing the condition, and so is meerly Hypothetical, its an errour; for i [...] is certain that the very keeping of His people from utterly falling, belongs to the promise of the New Covenant, under which they are by Beleeving, Psal. 84. 11. Jer. 32.40.

Sect. 3. G. K. knowing that there were some Scriptures that did so fully assert the Perseverance of God's People; that he could with no face deny the truth in them, begins, in this Paragraph, to concede, yet so as not to favour our principle at all, who say, that Its the priviledge of every true Beleever to persevere. He therefore makes it a particu­lar state of Holiness, which only some of these arrive unto; and then they commit no gross sins, but only Peccadillo's (and thus, with the Papists he introduceth the distinction of mortal and venial sins, which hath been suffi­ciently confuted by ours; who have made it evident that all sins are mortal by the law, Ezek. 18.4. That all sin, excepting that a­gainst the Holy Ghost, is venial by the Gos­pel, [Page 116] Mat. 12.31.) but when he comes to de­scribe who these are that are thus indulged) he wofully prevaricates. In p. 46. he tells us they are, 1. such as are born of the free woman, and not of the bond woman; Well, this is not a peculiar priviledge of some, but is common to all Believers, even the Galatians, who were so weak and foolish, Cap. 4. ult. 2. They are throughly renewed. If by being throughly renewed, he meanes so sanctified as to have no dreggs of sin remaining; then there are no such; for he grants of these he speaks of, that they do commit little faults, & that must be because there is something of the old man in them. If by throughly, he meanes in all the parts, then it belongs to every Beleever, 2. Cor. 5. 17. 3. They are such as are born of God: and that belongs to Faith where ever it is, Gal. 3. 36, Joh. 1.12. When he saith that, those who commit any gross sins, as Forni­cation, Murder. Adultery &c. never arrived to to the pure state of sonship, he doth, 1. Mistake the notion of the difference between servants and sons; true beleevers are both, sons by A­doption, servants by being devoted to the Obe­dience of the Gospel. How often doth Paul call himself the servant of Jesus Christ? and so does James, Cap. 1. 1. & Peter, 2. Ep. 1. 1. & Jude, vers. 1. Its true, Paul distinguish­eth [Page 117] between the outward servile Condition of Beleevers under the Old Testament Dis­pensation, and the more free and son-like Condition of them under the New Testa­ment, Gal. 4. begin. but he assures us that they were children, tho' but in their Nonage. 2. Contradict the Scripture; David fell into some of those sins, and the worst of them, and yet before that, he had the highest Test­imony of his Sonship. Solomon had his amaz­ing falls, and yet God witnessed before & af­ter that he was His son, & that He lov'd him; called him Jedediah, 2. Sam. 12. 24, 25. 1. Chron. 22. 9, 10. He seems in all this di­scourse to lay the stress upon the strength of Inherent Grace, and the Beleevers own At­tainment, whereas the Scripture assures us that it is of God, and depends upon His pow­er, Rom. 5. 2. 14.4. 1. Pet. 5. 12. 1. 5. and God hereby perfects strength in weakness, 2. Cor. 12. 9.

In p. 147. he strangely confounds the two Covenants; and yet really grants the whole Case: He saith, The first Covenant may be fal­len from; the Angels and Adam fell totally; but the new Covenant cannot be fallen from? & thus we say; but the knack we were not a­ware of is, a man may be a Believer, and yet [...]e but in Adam's covenant, than which there [Page 118] can be no greater Contradiction, or, a man may be in a middle state between both; which is the greatest confusion; or finally, he will have none to be in the new Covenant till they come to Glory, and then they shall sin no more; and this is directly against Scripture.

Pag. 148. He saith, There may be infallible marks and signs of such given, and yet God only knows them, and such to whom He reveals it. We thought that Marks had been given pur­posely to know by, but the Folly of this hath been already detected.

Sect. 4. We are now come to the Qua­kers Doctrine of Perfection of which they boast: and here he first rails at ours that denyes it, and then tries to prove his own, tho' that very Essay will prove him to be ve­ry imperfect.

That the best Dutyes of the best Saints in this life are imperfect, and that by reason of sinful mixtures in them; and that daily the most holy come short of perfect legal Obedi­ence, & might be charged with sin for their best, if God should be strict, we beleeve; & can appeal to the sensible complaints of ho­ly men in Scripture; but for him hence to infer, that we say, that, the good works of God's Holy Spirit are defiled in & by the saints; and [Page 119] to print it in another Character, as our very words, is cheating. But how far our Duties are the work of the Spirit, and how far they are our own, has been already discussed. Its be that makes the [...]. and not we; we never say, that One & the same thing is a per­fect. an & a perfect dog: We say, that e­very Believer in this life, hath a new nature & an old in him; a body of Grace, & a body of Corruption: the one increasing & the other decaying; imperfect grace, but growing; a body of death, but dying; and he is as it were two men: and so Paul distinguisheth of himself, Rom. 7. 15 17. Nor do we say that the work is totally perfect, and totally sin; but we say, that the work it self is imperfect, by reason that, though it be influenced by grace, it is also defiled by sin, being done by one in whom there is both sin, & the Influ­ence of it into his best performances. Nor do we any whit misinterpret God, when we say, He accepts of these works in Christ, tho they be defiled: and if he shall say, that we do therefore suppose that God accepts of the defilement that is in them, he mistakes: In all the gracious Actings of Gods people there is Imperfection (now all moral Imperfection is defilement) and God accepts of the since­rity, & pardons the imperfection, and both in [Page 120] Christ. And this indeed is the priviledge of the Covenant of Grace, above that of works: why else was the High-Priest to make an At­tonement for the Sanctuary, &c. Lev. 16. 33. but that the Services, notwithstanding the pollutions (but for which no attonement was needed) might be acceptable? and this was Typical. No doubt but that God sees sin in whomsoever it is, and where He sees it, He con­demns it; but in respect of Imputation to the person. He does not alwaies see it, i. e. charge it. Num 23. 21. and why? but be­cause CHRIST hath made Satisfaction and Attonement for it.

In his Examen of the Scriptures alledged by the Assembly, he plays foul with them: he first points to three places, where he saies they speak of this matter: Confess. cap. 16. fect. 5. Larger Cat [...]ch. Q. 149. 89. tho' this last is on another subject. Secondly, he ga­thers up diverse matters in one, endeavouring to express; them in as harsh words & sense as he can. Thirdly in p. 155. 156. he gathers [...]o the the whole, and saith, they expresly so word it in Q. 39. which is utterly false, & in­deed, he hath so worded it for them, that there are two things Charged on them which they say not: viz. 1. That that they must sin as long as they live; as if there were a fatal [Page 121] necessity that God laid them under of so do­ing. 2. That they are only free from finning after death; whereas they say At their death. 3. he mischievously perverts the design of the scriptures alledged by them. All the Scrip­tures he animadverts upon, are only those which they annex to Q. 49. (omitting those aided in the other places.) Let us observe, There were two things they had to prove, 1st. That no man can in himself perfectly keep the law, 2. Nor by the Grace of God; and from these principles they infer these Conclusions, That they daily break the Commands in thought, word [...]d deed: and how pertinent these Scrip­tures are to prove these two Positions may be [...]dged. That Man cannot do it in himself, [...] wou'd think that the description given of [...]is natural state, Rom. 3. 9. &c. & Gen. 6. [...] is sufficient to demonstrate. That (as to [...]e latter) he cannot do it by Grace receiv­ed, doth not intend that God cannot give them grace enough, but that He doth not, & therefore their imperfect grace cannot attain [...]. And surely that is sufficiently proved by [...]ch Scriptures as. 1. tell us, That in many things all do [...] for which, Jam. 3. 2. Ezek. 7. 20. 2. That every Beleevers grace depends for its exercise upon the help of christ, without which they can do no graci­ous [Page 122] thing, for which, Joh. 15. 5. And th [...] Consectary is not forced, if we consider, that the Nature of man being so corrupt, unre­generate men can do no other than daily break the Command; that because Beleev­ers are renewed but in part, and yet are act­ive beings in thinking, speaking, doing, there will be an Influence of remaining Corruption into these actions, which will make 'em short­coming in point of the strictness of the Law; and consequently breakers of it. In the o­ther place cited, Confess. cap. 16. sect. 5. they quote, Isa. 64. 6. Joh. 5. 17. Rom. 7. 15; 28. and certainly Paul had as much grace as any now can Pretend to.

As to his particular Reflections on the fore­cited Texts, they are scarce worth minding. What he observes on Jam. 3. 2. is a mistake of what they brought it to prove, and i [...] doth prove against him, the Imperfection of any in this life. For that in Ezek. 7. 20. his observation, that the word is in the future, makes against him, intimating that they can do no other as long as they live; and his [...] it for the [...], is precarious, his applying it to the times of the Law, which made [...], is fond; for they had the Gospel as well as we, and were perfect in an Evangelical sense, Gen. 6. 9. Joh. 1. [...] [Page 123] Psal. 37. 37. For that in Gen. 6. 5. when [...] saith it only speakes of that generation of [...]en so degenerate, he errs; it shews the na­tural state of man by the Fall, and we have as Parallel after that generation was gone, Gen. 8. 21. Nor was Noah, so perfect, but that he was afterwards drunken. For that [...]om. 3. 9. &c. we grant it expresseth the na­tural state of men as they are (not only) gene­rally, (but universally) under the Law; & it was brought by the Assembly for that pur­pose: nor is it any Contradiction to say, Righteous men sin: we must distinguish be­tween such as are righteous legally, and them that are so evangelically; and between such as are free from the Dominion, and them that [...]re free from the Presence of sin.

Sect. 5. When therefore he cites, Rom. 3. 8. to prove that Perfection, because they are [...]ree from sin, it will not do; that is to be un­derstood of freedom from the [...] of it, [...] v. 14. And his Application of Ezek. 35. [...]5. & Jer. 33. 33. is confused for want of di­tinguishing of what it there referred to Just­ification, and what to Sanctification; That Justification is perfect we acknowledge, (tho [...] before denied it.) that Sanctification is imperfect, we plead (tho he saith it is per­fect). Now the making them clear from all [Page 124] their filthiness, belongs to Justification: putting the Spirit in them: giving them an heart of flesh, &c. belongs to Sanctification, and this con­firms them in perseverance; for they shall not depart, but doth not wholly deliver them from sin.

His plea for perfection from Matth. 11. 29 because Christ's yoke is easy, and from 1. Joh. 5. 3. the commands not being grievous, is too far fetch't; we are to distinguish between Legal and Evangelical Obedience: the Gos­pel hath abated of the Law, and provided strength for us to obey Evangelically, and made the command grateful to our new na­ture; and Christ's grace is sufficient for what he intends by it; but what is that to the Power of exact performing the law in its latitude?

And its his ignorance in the Gospel which transports him into the following blasphemy against God, calling Him Cruel and Tyranni­cal, and worse than Pharaoh; his friends the Arminians do the like: and why? because He requires of some, that which He gives them no a­bility to perform: Had man had none in A­dam it would have look't harder; but since he had, and wickedly lost it, and cares not for having it agen; shall God now lose His Glory because man hath by his own [Page 125] [...] lost his power, or must He otherwise be said to be cruel? Certainly if we cannot see into the depth of His providence, an Holy God is not thus to be treated by a vile worm: Nor is it (as he pretends) injurious to mens pressing after perfection, and his Similitudes to illustrate it by are fopperies, and no way quadrate. Death is but Catacrestically (or worse) said to heal all bodily diseases: but Grace is then properly perfected, and sin abo­lished; and that is a great comfort, that when we remove hence we shall sin no more. the City we are going to lies beyond Death and the Grave, & so it is no discouragement that we cann't reach it in this world, Heb. 13. 14. Christ hath provided sufficiently to keep his people from sloth, & make them press to the park. Who of us ever said that if a man dy in his sins, his faith shall save him, tho he live and [...] in his sins? what's this but to slander? We say, that Believers shall not dy in their [...]ns, but God will give them Repentance, [...] at any time they fall: and yet that they [...] more or less till they dy, we say, [...]OD saith so too: but it's one thing [...] have Sin in us, another thing to be [...] our Sins: And when he saith (pag. [...]59.) That, It is an ill sign that we plead earnestly for sin; We Demand, Is a [Page 126] saying that we have sin in us, which calls [...] our humbling, end plying the work of mor­tification, and going daily to Christ the foun­tain, a pleading for sin? surely they tha [...] Cover, and not they that Confess their sins are pleaders for it: and then we are sure that sin never had such Attourneys as the Quakers.

Sect 6. Now for the positive proof of Per­fection: and he is at a loss how to define it or where to state it: he seems to deny ab­solute or perfect Perfection, & yet challenge [...] as much as Christ or Adam ever had. nay 2ndly. He grants that It is not in all, bu [...] [...] some; and that not at first conversion, but after­wards. Nay, 3dly. He further conceives th [...] It is not in the most perfect without Infirmity ( [...] that must be in a moral sense) and then there must be some sin: and that is almost as much as we say. Yea, 4thly. he yeilds all that [...] pretend to, though he will not acknowledge [...] it to be sin. Viz. Motions to sin, not only from the devil without, but from the mortal part with in: and that is it which Paul often calls sin in Rom. 7. and whereas 5thly he pleads tha [...] tho' it be, yet it is not imputed; that is ano­ther question. It sufficeth that it is imputa­ble, and it is on Christs account that it is not actually imputed. and 6thly. To wind u [...] [Page 127] the whole, he comes to a fair acknowledg­ment, that he pleads for no more perfection [...]n faints than we do. It is a Faithfulness to God, in that degree of Grace and assistance that He affords, according as he sees meet, some more, some less, I, but in them that have least, it is safe dying for them in that state [...] and all this we plead and preach for. And now let any man judge how he hath gone thro [...] and cleared the charges that he made against us in his blasphemous letter. If to ly, slander, pervert Scripture, magisterially dictate Hae­ [...]esies, is to be acknowledged for conviction, we are gone to all intents and purposes.

We have already seen what little Reason there is to indulge the Doctrine of Immediate Revelation: Allow but a Quaker this Engine, and he will do wonders with it: beat down the foundations of many generations, un­ [...] Church all Christendom, make the Scripture to intend just contrary to what it speaks; & who shall question him, if he tells us he sees all this in the Light, & hath it immediately revealed? G. K. hath hitherto discharged this against the fundamental Articles of Sal­vation; endeavouring to set GOD against Himself, and shamm us out of our faith: Nor hath he done yet, but will a fresh essay [Page 128] to remove all that is visible of Christianity in the world, and if he can blow up Churches, take away Sacraments, and wrest our Sabbath out of our hands, what would Beelzebub him­self have desired more? But the Church is built upon a Rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Sect. 1. His first Essay is against the Church considered as visible: and here he cavils at the description of the visible Church given by the Assembly; Viz. That it consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true Religi­on, together with their Children: insinuating that we hold that nothing of grace, or of the power of godliness is requisite to constitute a mem­ber of our visible Church: but this is all Rail­ing, not understanding what we mean by Vi­sible, nor what by Profession.

1. It is the visible Church they speak of, and he also after grants that there is such a thing: and what is it that makes it visible? it must be something that makes it discerni­ble to others: Here then observe, 1. That there is inward Grace required absolutely to make any one a living member of Christ, &c. so of the Church of the first-born. 2. That this sincerity of heart is to give its evidence to o­thers by an answerable life and conversation: There is a confession of the mouth, as well as a [Page 129] beleeving in the heart, Rom. 10. 9. 3. These Fruits are they by which others are to judge of mens Sincerity, and accordingly to declare them to be visible members of the Church: this rule the Apostles themselves followed in their owning of men. 4. That such a pro­fession may, be, where sincerity is not; and thus Hypocrites may belong to the visible Church; there were such in the primitive times, Simon Magus, Demas, & those, 1. Joh. 2. 19. were such. 5. There may be many Irregularities in the Conversation of such, which yet do not presently unchurch them; such there were in the Churches of Corinth & Galatia. 6. That when such are become scandalous, there are Church-censures appoin­ted by Christ; and these can be administred to none but under the consideration of their being Members of the Church visible: thus Paul delivered Hymeneus &c. to satan.

2. Profession, as it is understood by the Assembly, is not a meer verbal thing, but prac­tical too: it containes in it an Orthodoxy in the principles professed, and a Conversa­ion framed thereto, a professing in words, & not-denying in works, else men are not visi­ble Christians, but to be turned from. 2. Tim. [...] 5. and yet we believe that men may do all [...]is, and be close Hypocrites; and that they [Page 130] may afterwards fall away, G. K. himself con­sesseth: and now let us trace him.

He infers, that Notoriously-scandalous per­sons, liars, deceivers, drunkards, &c. are qual­ified members of our Church; but without rea­son; if he should essay, he would find is to reject him for some of the qualifications he mentions: We acknowledge not such for professors; and if any in our Churches aft­erward prove so, we censure them.

And it is grosly untrue, that Independents require no more than such a profession as he talks of, to make them members of their church: for they whom he calls Independents, distinguish be­tween the Church visible, or Christianity at large, & Membership, or Fellowship in a con­gregational Church, and have not been wont to be charged for their Lawness, but rather Strictness in Admission. Nor doth it argue them of Hypocrisy, or contradiction, because they separated from another Church, viz. the Episcopal, it being well known that they did it mainly because their terms of Commu­nion were such as they could not in Consci­ence comply with; tho' also their promis­cuous Admission of all sorts of ignorant & scandalous persons to the Lords Table, added to the incitement: as for the Presbiteri­an Churches, we did not separate from them [Page 131] but have held Communion with them, and have admitted their members to Communion with us; although by reason of some points of Church Administration, which they differ from them in, in principle, they thought they might without any just offence do so in pra­ctice too.

Sect. 2. How daringly doth he here assert that we find no such Church in all the Scripture, owned to be the church of Christ, that the out­ward form or profession of religion makes such; when the whole New Testament acquaints us with no other, if he keep to his subject, viz. a visible Church? For indeed it is nothing else but such a profession as we have descri­bed, that can make them so; nothing else can give them the visibility of a Church: and how strangely do's he talk, when he sa [...]es, We nowhere find in scripture any society called the church of Christ, that had nothing but the professon of the true religion? who ever said that they had nothing but so? We say, if the profession be right, its a making sincerity visible as far as may be: but yet let us tell him, there are such owned for Churches, in which the major part were such as he menti­ons, Sardis was so, had a name to live, & was dead, had but a few names, Rev. 3. 2. and La­ [...]dicea was so, vers. 15. But the [...] is, [...] [Page 132] aequivocates about the word [True]: If by a true Church he intends such as are uni­ted to Christ in truth & sincerity, we plead it not: but the word also signifies that there is really such a thing; and that there is re­ally such a thing, is visible: there may be a true visible Church, tho many in it are not of the true invisible Church.

Sect. 3. Men that talk of two things, may thwart one another strangely, but we thought he had been discoursing of the visible Church: and if so, then he is deceived when the saith, that every member of Christ is a living member: Christ hath said otherwise, see Joh. 15. 2. & how in Christ but by profession? their be­ing fruitless proves them dead: and they might be taken away, which they could not be if they were not first in him: and he did well to instance in the Church of Corinth, 1. Cor. 3. 6. there was the old Leaven in this Church which was to be purged out; there were fearful divisions, there were that would ea [...] in the Idols Temples, that horridly profaned the Lord's Table, that denied the resurrection of the body, &c. Such a mixture there was in this Church, & yet see what a glorious En­comium Paul gives them, on the account of their being a visible Church. cap. 1. begin.

His finding fault with us for using an Hour­glass, [Page 133] to know how the time spends, and a Belt to gather our Assemblies together order­ly, is worse than ridiculous: That God's people should have their Meetings to wor­ship GOD, is undeniable, to neglect it is a sin, Heb. 10. 25. as for his inward spiritual Bell (which he calls the Gospel-bell, ringing in their hearts) serving for such a use, it is a Fancy more fabulous than any thing in AEsop: as if the Light-within were a Clock to tell the hour of the day. Besides, it is certain that God's people in all ages have had a known time of meeting, and some ci­vil sign to give notice, that they might meet together, as in one place, so at one Time: and he knows that we place no holiness in Bells: yea, the very Scripture which he ab­useth, to prove a Gospel bell, is directly a­gainst him, Psal. 89. 15. which intends the Silver Trumpets which God appointed for such an end, as ancient & modern interpreters a­gree: yea the Quakers themselves give no­tice of their meetings.

Sect. 4. He makes The work of conversion wrought by the Spirit in the hearts of God's E­lect, to be the true gathering of a visible Church (for of that he must speak or he is distract­ed) and let any man of sense judge, whether this be any gathering of a visible Church at [Page 134] all; or whether this makes a man so much as a visible Christian; it being a thing se­cret, and that which no man knows but he in whom it is wrought. As for his Banter here about new-made things, it is but a second Dis­gorging of the vomit, which he hath licked up after he had once before spewed it, in p. 36. where he is animadverted upon, & once is too much.

Sect. 5. Here he agen confounds the myst­ical invisible Church, which the visible, and gives the encomiums proper to the one, un­advisedly to the other: which mistake led him to draw that blasphemous Inference (p. 172.) that the Religion which we profess is not the Religion of Jesus Christ, and that in the foundation it self which is Jesus Christ: hence we do (without any breach of charity) in­fer that G. K. bids the world to take notice that he utterly renounceth the religion we profess, even in the very foundation of it, which is JESUS CHRIST, and of which he himself (if we are not misinform'd) once made no mean profession in the University of Aberdeen; and say if Julian the Apostate did worse!

Sect. 6. He contradicts himself here in the same Paragraph; at the beginning he saith, that Christ is but one both in heaven [...] and in us [...] [Page 135] and before the end he tells us, that by the Spirit the man is joined both to Christ in him, & to Christ in Heaven: and if two Unions, then two Christs.

Sect. 7. Now he afresh sets upon us for our Qualifications required in our Mini­stry; but it hath been already canvass'd in cap. 4. Only towards the latter end of this Section, he tells us of Two spirits that guid men on earth, the Spirit of God, and of the devil, & he gives three Criteria of men's being guid­ed by the latter; Viz. he is fallible, false, & continually given to Errors, by which he clear­ly detects himself to be under the devil's leading; for he hath before acknowledged himself to be fallible; and we have proved him to be false, and continually leading into Error.

Sect. 8. The fault which (in this para­graph) he finds with our Ministry is, that they are not itinerary, as the Apostles, whose Successors they pretend themselves to be; [truly better sit still in a place; than go up & down, seeking whom to devour] But may we not succeed the Apostles in their Ministry, tho' not in their Apostleship: And do we not find, that though they went about to gather Churches, where there was none, yet when they had gathered them, they ordeined El­ders, [Page 136] among them to he settled Ministers, such as were Over seers of particular Church­es, see Act. 14. 23. 20. 27. with 28.

The Scandal he reflects upon us, in respect of the Endeavours for the Conversi­on of the Indians, is sufficiently confuted by the printed accounts that are published to the world of this affair; and what if they he not all sincere? its God's work, and not in our power to make any so: We say of our selves as Paul, 1. Cor. 3. 5. 6.

Sect. 9. It seems strange to us, that some­thing invisible should make a Church visible, as having alwaies thought, that a thing was visible when it might be seen. The Inward Light in a man then cannot be the visibility of a Church to men. But we find no end of such foolish Contradictions.

The last Mine he has to spring is to demo­lish our Sacraments and Sabbaths,

Sect. 1. That the word [Sacrament] is not to be found in the New-Testament, we grant: but it hath obtained to be a Word used in the Church, for many ages to ex­press that by, which is evidently enough laid down in Scripture, nor doth he dispute us about the Lawfulness of using such words. [Page 137] But when he saith, there is no word in Scrip­ture to answer that word, except the word [Mystery,] we cannot go along with him; that the word [Mystery] is at all used in this sense, we suppose cannot be proved; but there are two other that are; and imply as much as we intend by a Sacrament, viz. a Sign and a Seal, which are both used of the Sacrament of Circumcision, Rom. 4. 11. and by parity of Reason are applicable to the New-Testament-Sacrments: that Baptism is such a sign: is evident from, 1. Pet. 3. 21. that the Lord's Supper is so too, see1. Cor. 11. 26. for how is the Lord's death shewed forth in it, but by an instituted sign? And when the Church of Rome can shew as good a plea for their other five, as we can for these two, we will then confess the injury we have done in denying them.

Sect. 2. Now for Baptism! What need he to combat Infant-Baptism? If there be no Baptism, then none of Infants: only he loves to be wrangling. and what Cavil against Sprinkling, if neither that nor Dipping be of force by Divine Institution? Thus some must be meddling.

As for Sprinkling, we plead not for it; we say Baptism is a Gospel-Ordinance; that Water is the Element to be applied, that it [Page 138] may be done either by Dipping into, or Pour­ing on of water, there being no express Pre­cept for the one more than the other; that, it being a sign, it hath no other Efficacy than by the Blessing upon the Institution, that as a sign. It may signifie, by pouring upon one part of the Body; that the Face is most ready and convenient, and why may we not allude to that of Christ to Peter, Joh. 13. 10. that we do it on the Forehead particularly, is a slander. When be asks us, Why John bap­tized Christ by Dipping Him in Water? We think his first Question should have been, Whether he did so or no? and it is certain he cannot prove that he did. Our Conse­quence from infant Circumcision to infant Bap­tism is good: for, it was the same Cove­nant, and the same promises that Abraham and we had, Circumsion was a sign of the Righ­teousness of Faith; and so is Baptism; and Infants are as capable of the one as of the o­ther: and the promise is still to our Chil­dren.

That the Baptizing of Infants was not the practice of the Church during the first century, is arrogantly affirmed by him, against Anti­quity: Orig [...]n and Cyprian tell us that the Apostles gave order for the Baptizing of Infants: and Augustin tells us, Baptism of Infants had [Page 139] been universally practised in the Church ever since the Apostles.

And sure he mistakes when he saith that in Col. 2. 11, 12. Neither circumcision nor Bap­tism there mentioned is outward: Whereas the Apostle is arguing from the sign, to the thing signified by it, in respect of Cir­cumcision; & then mentions Baptism it self intimating that it signified the same thing, & therefore laid them under the same obligati­on to Holiness: there is therefore a sacramen­tal Dying with Christ; because in this Ordi­nance there is an engagement laid upon us to dye to the world. And what a poor shift is he put upon, when to evade Mat. 28. 19. he acknowledges the Institution of Baptism, but tells us it saith nothing of water? doth not the very Word imply it, and the Gospel assure us that Water was the Element? Furthermore, We have two Baptisms men­tioned, Mat. 3. 11. it must then be one of these two, but the Disciples could not bapt­ise with the latter, it being Christ's alone prerogative. In citing of Luk. 18. 15, 16. he fraudulently omits that clause, for of such is the Kingdom of God: and G. K. assures us that that Kingdom is on earth, as well as in Heaven; and if so, then they are Subjects of the priviledges of this Kingdom, as far as [Page 140] capable: and of the same import is that, Rom. 11. 16. for all his cavil against it? nor doth it follow that they may receive the Lords supper as well; because that is above their Capacity at present: a Child may be an Heir, and yet not be put into actual possession of all that he hath a right to: and though Christ Himself baptized not, yet His Disciples did by His Authority.

Sect. 3. That Baptism with water properly belonged to John's Ministry, is easier said than prov'd: that It is expresly contra-distinguish'd from Christ's baptism, by John and Christ Him­self; is an errour; the outward Admini­stration is distinguished from the Efficacy, which depends upon Christ, and not on the Minister: but not contra-distinguished, for these are two, but not contraries, but conco­mitants, as being indeed, two parts of the same Sacrament. And that it belonged not limitatively to John's Dispensation appears, because Christ gave order for the Continu­ance of it, Mat. 28. 19, 20. Philip baptiz­ed the Eunuch with water, Act. 8. Paul baptized, 1. Cor. 1. 15. Nor will he ever disprove the Baptizing with water, being ap­pointed, Mat. 28. 19. till he can prove that there is some other ministerial Baptism, for which he must run to his Revelations, Ten [Page 141] thousand of which are worth nothing. And what an infatuation is it to tell us, there are no other words of institution, but the words of Institution? What more would he have? Nor doth he evade by telling us, they could baptize with the Spirit as well as beget sons and daughters to God; for this was done minist­erially by dispencing the Ordinances, which Christ only can bless to that end, though He own His servants as workers-together with him in their place; but they ever renounced their doing any of these things by their own virtue. Yea, also Baptism is signified in Mat. 28. 19. to be one way in which they made disciples of them: But he fore-saw that we would tell him, that the disciples un­der Christ's Dispensation, and after the Re­surrection of Christ, baptized with water; & has provided a fine Evasion, viz. It was done by Toleration, as many things else by the Law; but we suppose that Infant-Baptism was not of the Law, but of the preparation of the Gospel: yea, an Institution which Christ Himself confirmed by his commands, and so, not a meer Toleration. And when Paul saith, he was sent to baptize, it is meant not so much to baptize as to preach; he was an A­postle & had diverse Ministers waiting upon him, who were ordinarily imployed in bap­tizing [Page 142] such as by his Ministry were prepared for it: his Thanking of God therefore that he baptized so few, was not because the Or­dinance it self was not Authentick, and ho­nourable, but because as there was no neces­sity ordinarily for him to do it personally, so it eventually prevented occasion of their naming themselves from Paul: this Reason he gives 1. Cor. 1. 14. if G. K.'s pretended reason had any weight, he had broken his Commission in baptizing of any.

Somebody ows him thanks for his Chari­ty, that allows Babes and children their Ima­ges, &c. provided they are cordially zealous for spiritual Baptism; and he grants there are some few such (only Christ is little beholden to him for making a sacred Institution of His a George-on-horseback to invite children to their books) but for us, we are not thus ob­liged, for we are not so much as babes, but meer Hypocrites, and Formalists: did he ever read, 1. Cor. 4. 8. and Rom. 14. 10. we have alwaies professed our zeal for the inward Baptism, & our whole Ministry is a witness to it, only we are for both Baptism with wa­ter and the Holy Ghost, and the Quakers pretend to be only for the latter; and which is most agreeable to the mind of Christ, let the Scripture determine: and indeed they [Page 143] thus take away the very means appointed by Christ for enjoying that other.

Sect. 4. Nor doth he treat the sacred Supper with any better language. He grants That Christ had an outward supper of the Pascal Lamb: i. e. that He had the sign without the thing Signified; i. e. that Christ are the passover hypocritically, which is prodi­gious Blasphemy. When he saith, Our sa­crament hath no inward spiritual signification to us, he arrogates God's Prerogative, who on­ly can judge the heart immediately: and his reason is groundless, for we never denied a real and spiritual partaking in Christ, though we allow it not in the Quakers carnal sense, but spiritually.

When he takes notice of Christ's drinking first, and drinking twise at the Sacrament; he bewrayes his ignorance or perverseness; if that place be more obscure, it is to be inter­preted by such as are more clear: the other Evangelists mention the order of the Institu­tion; By Christ's first blessing and giving the Bread, and after that the Cup; and Paul tells us he received the Order from Christ Himself thus, 1. Cor. 11. 23. &c. Christ in­deed kept two Sacraments at one Meeting, the Passover which He now antiquated, and the Supper which he now instituted; the for­mer [Page 144] Cup belonged to the Passover, which also re­presented Christ, and Jewish Antiquity tell us, it was their custom to conclude that Sa­crament with such a Cup.

In pag. 188. we have him there introducing a new Sacrament, which he tells us they have at their ordinary Meals, and the Ministers do consecrate them, sometimes by Praying, sometimes by silence, (a new way of Consecration) and to this he shrinks up this Gospel Ordinance; which is pure Familism, endeavouring to ba­nish all instituted Worship out of the Church, under a pretence of continued holiness, a fine way to extirpate Religion out of the world, by Evacuating the Appointments of Jesus Christ. We beleeve that there is a spiritu­al Feeding on Christ, which beleevers are to practise daily by the exercise of Faith; and are Satisfied that our Eating &c. should be alwais to the glory of God, and might possibly say as much of that as, and with more truth than he. But Christs institution is some­thing beyond that, and is appointed as a spe­cial help of our Faith in these exercises, here­in therefore they are behind us, they pretend to no more than we do, and in our measure endeavour, whereas we are also for the Sa­cred Institutions of Christ, to help us in all other duties; and we think that our Sup­per [Page 145] is beyond theirs, as being an holy Ordin­ance of Gospel Worship, and theirs is only the Common duty of all men: we believe that outward eating is but a sign of the inward, and therefore not to be rested in, but because it is a sign: and Christ hath enjoined the use of it, we dare not omit it.

That all outward Eating and Drinking is a natural and necessary sign of the Inward, we utterly deny; that it is accommodable to it by way of resemblance, we acknowledge, else Christ would not have chosen it for this end: but we use them for figures upon the ac­count of His institution, and not because of a natural Analogy; else we might multiply Sacraments at Pleasure; and yet we grant it to be as much a natural sign, as the outward world is a figure of the inward, which he saith Paul expresly calls it. I. Cor. 7. 31. when there is not one syllable expresly or conse­quentially intimating any such thing.

Sect. 5. But if the Sabbath may but be ca­shier'd, the other Ordinances will fall. Here then, his first cavil is against the first day of the week, but if he decries any outward Sab­bath at all (as he calls it) the First day needs no more Vindication than any other: touching the Change of the Sabbath, such as acknowledge the Sabbath to be moral & per­petual [Page 146] by divine precept, may find it made good by many, Sheppard, Owen and others. His Cavil also against Rev. 1. 10. hath been fully answered by the fore-cited Authours, and he seems himself to grant the cause, for he tells us (p. 103.) It is commendable in Christians to set apart the first day of the week for rest from Employments and to help the mind in its spiri­tual exercises: now, they must set this day apart rather than any other, either because the day it self hath some Betterness in it, or because Christ hath put an Excellency upon it; the former cannot be proved, the lat­ter can be only by His sanctifying of it; to be a Day of Rest.

Nor is the Changing of the Seventh Day, which was the Jewish Sabbath, into the First which was the Christian-, to put the first day of the week in the Room of Christ; for not to say, that it is hard to prove that the Seventh Day was meerly a Jewish Type of Christ, for it was appointed before there was any Revelation of Christ, or occasion for Him; (viz. in Innocency;) but if it were, yet the Sabbath it self was not so, but a time ap­pointed by Divine positive precept for the performing of natural and instituted Duties to God in, and is therefore of a natural and perpetual consideration, & cannot cease to be [Page 147] necessary, till such duties cease, or men can do them without taking time to do them in.

And is he not run quite out of breath, when he tells us that, Exod. 20. 8, 9. saith nothing of one day in seven, but only of a seventh day, we thought that had been one day of seven: but suppose him to mean, that it left it not arbitrary, but fixed it; we may in part grant it, viz. that it fixed it to the Seventh day, which God saw meet to appoint, but that it necessitated it to the last of the Seven, so that God could not alter it to the first of the seven, there is no need to con­clude, and the Scripture will prove the con­trary, because He did afterwards change it.

And whereas he so often pleads that, The Sabbath is Christ and nothing else, he poorly proves it from. Heb. 4. 9. 10. it is there said that Christ entred into His rest, and doth that mean, that he entred into Himself? his As­serting that in the New-Testament there is no outward day is nonsence; what inward day did he ever hear of? He thinks the words outward and inward, may be applied to every thing, but he must run up the folly a lit­tle further; we cannot prove (saith he) that the fourth Command enjoined the Jews to keep an outward seventh day: we know that it was a Seventh day, it is expresly so [Page 148] said, and if he can find out an inward one, it will be a rare invention: we are sure that it was a day to be celebrated from the Even­ing to the Evening. Nor is his allusion to the tenth Command of any strength; that that only enjoins inward duty & not outward, is a grand mistake: every Command of the De­calogue respects the actions as well as the heart, and so do the fourth & tenth.

He hath now done with his Doctrinal part, and shutts up all with a thing which he stiles, A Call & a warning to the people of Bos­ston in New-England to Repent, &c. in which, by his language he arrogates to himself as much as any of the Prophets of old had of an imme­diate Mission from God. We shall not trou­ble our selves with the reviling Language he here useth, (Jesus Christ will call him to account for that ere long) but only endeav­our to make it evident by his own manner of expressing himself, that he is no true Prophet.

1. The true prophets do not use to ly, es­pecially in delivering their Messages; and that he doth egregiously, there hath been more than once observed in his book; and what doth he less when he here tells us that God hath enlightned us all to turn from darkness to light &c.?

[Page 149] 2. True prophets do not use to Slander, and how often he hath done so by us, we have seen throughout the pamphlet, & here also, p. 200. in saying, that We profess to own Christ without, but do not own him within, an horrid abuse!

3. Prophets are not wont to rail and re­vile, and that he doth; as if he had been e­ducated to it, particularly p. 198. and all this he chargeth upon strangers, whom he had no knowledge of.

4. Prophets use not to deliver false Doct­rine & Heresy, & such is his whole Pamphlet stuff'd withal, in particular, that of the Light-within, which he here chargeth us for Blaspheming, P. 198.

5. Prophets use not to speak Nonsense, and that he is notoriously guilty of, and a Specimen of it he gives in the warning it self, which he tells us he had in the Light, p. 201. where he chargeth us for calling our duties, & tells us not what we call them; though possiby he could not tell, for we call them, dirt, & durg, & nothing..

6. Prophets don't use to call men to repent of their holding the Truth as it is in JESUS, and his Call is nothing else.

7. Prophets are wont to shew some Proof of their Call, but he hath shown none; he [Page 150] tells us indeed that it is by Immediate Revela­tion, but withal hath told us, that if it can­not be proved by Scripture, we are not bound, [...]o believe him: and so we dismiss him, only wishing him at leisure to read, Jer. 23. 31, 32. Ezek. 13. 6.—10.