THE Quakers Folly Made manifeſt to all men: Or a True RELATION of what paſſed in Three DISPUTATIONS at Sandwich, April, 12, 13, 19, 1659. between three Quakers, and a Miniſter, viz. Mr. Samuel Fiſher, George Whithead, Richard Hubberthorn, and Thomas Danſon. Wherein many Popiſh Tenents were by them Maintained, and by him Refuted. OCCASIONED By an imperfect and (in many things) falſe Relation of the ſaid Diſputations, Publiſhed by R. Hubberthorn, one of the Three Quakers, which ſaid Relation is alſo Cenſur'd and amended. Together with a brief Narrative of ſome remarkable Paſſages.
By Tho. Danſon, late Fellow of Magd. Coll. Oxon, and now Miniſter of the Goſpel at Sandwich in Kent.
The Second Edition.
London, Printed by J. H. for John Allen at the Riſing Sun in Pauls Church-Yard, 1659.
Imprimatur,
PErhaps thou wilt wonder, that I ſhould meddle with ſuch a Generation, as the Quakers, and thou maiſt be apt to think, that my time hangs on the Lug (as we ſay) and will not off at any conſiderable rate: But that thy wonder may ceaſe, and thy miſtake be rectified, I refer thee to the Narrative hereto annexed; which I hope will give thee ſatisfaction: The reaſon of my appearance in Print, the Title Page does truly inform thee of. I can aſſure thee, it never was my ambition to appear ſo publickly, and had I conſidered the likelihood of the Quakers Printing, which would neceſſitate mine, I think I ſhould have waved any diſcourſe with them. But repentance is now too late, and perhaps unmeet, for God can ſerve himſelf by the meaneſt Inſtruments, among which I willingly rank my ſelf: I verily hope thou wilt ſee the men out of their diſguiſe, and wilt find cauſe ſufficient to think and ſpeak of them with pity and compaſsion; and of their opinions, with hatred and deteſtation. I promiſe thee Reader, no more then ſhall be performed (viz.) a true account of our diſcourſes, I mean ſo much of them as was Argumentative, and pertinent to the Queſtions under debate. For thou muſt know, that the Quakers, like wantons, would have their vagaries ever and anon, and then I muſt ſay ſomwhat to them, or let them have all the talk, which by the ignorance of common people, would have been a prejudice to the cauſe of God which I defended. And I therefore choſe rather to out-word them (which is the reaſon why my Anſwers are oftentimes ſo large and laxe.) Many excurſions they made into Arminian points, which I was fain to permit, and to defend the Truths they oppoſed: All which I ſhall either wholly omit, or mention very ſparingly; becauſe they are not Errours of ſo high a nature, as thoſe which are the natural Members of that deformed Monſter, we call Quakeriſm.
The Names of Gentlemen, Miniſters, and others in the Margin, are a few (of very many) witneſses of the Terms of the Queſtions agreed to by the Quakers, and of other remarkable paſſages, and matters of fact, who will free me from the ſuſpition of a partial Relator. That theſe men may proceed no further, but that their folly may be manifeſt to all men, 2 Tim. 3.9. And that we henceforth be no more children, toſſed to and fro with every wind of Doctrine, by the ſleight of men, and cunning craftineſſe, whereby they lie in wait to deceive, but ſpeaking the Truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the Head, even Chriſt, is the earneſt Prayer of,
AFter a brief account of the occaſion of our meeting, and a ſhort prayer for a bleſſing upon it, we began with this Queſtion, Whether every man that cometh into the world be enlightened by Chriſt?
I bear witneſs to the Truth.
But what light is it you intend? we grant that every man hath ſome light, by which he diſcerns (though dimly) many ſins, and duties, and ſeveral Divine attributes, but the myſtery of godlineſſe, as it is ſumm'd up, 1 Tim 3. ult. God manifeſt in the fleſh, juſtified in the ſpirit, &c. we deny that all men have the knowledge of.
The light is but one, and that I teſtifie.
The lights mentioned, viz. natural and ſupernatural light, are two, and though all have the one, yet but few have the other.
Thou ſpeakeſt out of thy dark mind, becauſe the true light hath not come over and comprehended thee.
Your judgement of me I value not, but pray forbear your cenſures, and let us ſpeak to the buſineſſe. If your meaning be that the knowledge of the Goſpel is vouchſafed by Chriſt to every man, I ſhall either expect your proof, or ſhall prove the contrary my ſelf.
I take your ſilence for conſent to my offer of proving againſt your Doctrine. And thus I prove it falſe, Pſal 147.19, 20. He ſheweth his Word unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgements unto Iſrael: He hath not dealt ſo with any Nation, and as for his judgements they have not known them. 'Tis plain from Scripture that by the Word and Statutes and Judgments, are meant the ſupernatural light or knowledge of the Goſpel. And the Pſalmiſt does aſſert that no Nation beſides the Jews had this knowledge at that time; which overthrows your aſſertion, for you ſpeak of a light which every man hath in all ages and generations. And I ſhall add another plain Scripture, Eph. 2.12. where ſpeaking of the ſtate of the whole body of the Gentiles before Chriſts coming in the fleſh, he ſaies, they were without Chriſt, ſtrangers from the Covenant of promiſe, having no hope, and without God in the world. Obſerve, they who had no hope, that is, no ground o•hope of ſalvation, were ignorant of the promiſes the g•ound of hope, and ſo of God in Chriſt the object of hope, and ſo of the ſumme of the Goſpel, or light of Chriſt.
Thou bringeſt a place out of Eph. 2.12. to pr•ve that Chr•ſt enlightens not every man that cometh into the world, and thou haſt given us thy meaning co•trary to the Scripture, which ſaies the Gentiles have the Law in their hearts, Rom. 2.15.
You prove not my interpretation of either of the Scriptures I urged unſound, but bringeſt me another Scripture, and I muſt let you go your own way. As for that Scripture, Rom. 2.15. 'tis ſpoken of the natural light, for 'tis oppoſed to the knowledge of the Jews. And the words are not the law, but the work or effects of the law written in their hearts, ſuch as accuſing and excuſing mentioned in the latter end of the verſe; and there is a great deal of difference between the law and the work of it, though you do not (it ſeems) underſtand it. And it is beſides my buſineſſe to inform you.
Thou ſayeſt 'tis meant of a natural light, whereas 'tis ſaid to be the knowledge of whatſoever might be known of God, Rom. 1.19.
The Apoſtle intends that what might be known of God, without the preaching of the Goſpel, was known to the Gentiles, v. 16, 17. 'tis by the Gospel that the righteouſneſſe of God is revealed, and John 4.22. Chriſt tels the Samar•tan woman, that the Jews (excluſively) knew what they worſhipped, and that ſalvation was of the Jews. And in reſpect of this knowledge revealed by the Goſpel, the Scripture ſaies that the Gentiles have their understandings darkned, Eph. 4.18.
That place ſaies that the Gentiles were not ſo enlightened as afterwards: For 'tis ſaid that Chriſt was given for a light to the Gen•iles.
You give your meaning of the Scripture which you will not allow us to do. But as for that Scripture which is Iſa. 49.6. it proves not that Chriſt was a light to the Gentiles in every age and generation, but the contrary, in that Chriſt was not to be a light to them till his coming in the fleſh, and it was fulfilled, Acts 13.46, 47. Lo, we turn to the Gentiles. For ſo hath the Lord commanded us ſaying, I have ſet thee to be a light of the Gentiles. As for the place in the Epheſians, it denies that4 the Gentiles had been at all enlightened by Chriſt (unleſſe you mean as God) ch. 2.13. The Apoſtle ſaies in that eſtate before Chriſts coming, they were afarre off, viz. from God and Chriſt ſpoken of, v. 12. and the knowledge of them. And Eph. 4.18. he ſaies that they were alienated from the life of God, which imports that their underſtandings were no more capable of the knowledge of God, then creatures of one kind of life to converſe with thoſe of another. Gods underſtanding is his life, as he is a reaſonable being, and theſe Gentiles wanted what ſome have by eſpecial gift, 1 John 5.20. an underſtanding to know him that is true; and could no more converſe with ſpiritual objects, than bruit beaſts can with ſuch rational objects as mans underſtanding does: So that thoſe Scriptures put together do aſſert that the body of the Gentiles, for ages and Generations wanted the light of the Goſpel, and light in their underſtandings, the difference of which you may conceive by the light of the Sun which is external light (and ſo the Goſpel) and the light in the eye to which anſwers an underſtanding to know him that is true, and both of them are neceſſary, or elſe a blind man might ſee when there is light, and the ſeeing man when there is none.
Thou makeſt the Goſpel to be an outward light (in the darkneſſe of thy own reaſoning) but the Scripture ſaies 'tis an inward light, 2 Cor. 4 6. the Apoſtle ſaies it ſhines out of darkneſſe in their hearts.
You ſhew much ignorance in your interpretation. The Apoſtle ſpeaks of material light, and argues from the effect of one creating word to another, that by the like word of command he had the light or knowledge of Chriſt in his underſtanding, which was given not for his own uſe only, but to be communicated to others. As for the phraſe in their hearts, it imports but the ſame thing with that expreſſion, Eph. 1.18. The eyes of your5 underſtanding being enlightened. The light by which the Goſpel is diſcerned is inward, but that makes not againſt the Goſpels being an outward light. But what's this to the enlightning of every man by Chriſt? Reply to the Scriptures brought againſt that aſſertion.
The Apoſtle ſaies the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Chriſt ſhined in their hearts, 2 Cor. 4.6.
In whoſe hearts? nor of all mankind, but of the Apoſtles, and ſome others, a ſmall number in compariſon of the reſt who were not enlightned; and therefore the Apoſtle ſaies, that the Goſpel was hid to them that are loſt, v. 3. and that there are ſome, to whom the light of the Goſpel doth not ſhine, v. 4. And 'tis elſewhere ſpoken of as a diſtinguiſhing mercy to know the myſteries of the Kingdom of Heaven, Mat. 13.11. It was given to the Diſciples, not to others. And to the ſame effect, Luke 10.21. Chriſt gives thanks to his Father, that whilſt he hid the ſecrets of the Goſpel from Scribes and Phariſees, he revealed them to others.
The Scripture ſaies that the Kingdom of God was in the Phariſees, Luke 17.21. and therfore it denies not but that they did know the myſteries of the Kingdom.
That expreſſion may import that the Kingdom which they did upon miſtake look for without them, was indeed a Kingdom within them. [To which I ſhall adde, that upon ſecond thoughts, I judge the moſt genuine interpretation to be〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉among you (ſo the prepoſ. may be rendred) Mat. 21.43. meaning of the preaching of the Goſpel by Chriſt in perſon and his Diſciples, and this threat of taking away the Kingdom of God from them, is directed againſt the Phariſees, v. 45. The Phariſees perceived that he ſpake of them.]
The form of•ound words is, that6 Chriſt enlightens every man that cometh into the world, John 1.9.
The mean•ng of thoſe words cannot be as the letter of them does import, for then the Scripture would contradict it ſelf; but it muſt be either that Chriſt inl•ghtens every man that is inl•ghtened, or elſe that he inlightens ſome of every Nation, kindred, tongue and people, as the phraſe is, Rev. 5.9.
The Scripture ſaies every man, and thou ſaieſt but ſome, who ſhall be believed, thou or the Apoſtle? Thou makeſt John a liar.
No ſuch matter, I make not the Apoſtle a liar. For the indefinite phraſe hath a reſtrained ſenſe, as elſewhere in the Scripture, Chriſt taſted death for every m n, Heb. 2.9. when as he died but for a certain number, as appears by that very place, v. 10. In bringing many ſo•s to glory. Thoſe whom Chriſt brings to glory are thoſe for whom he taſted death, but the former are but many ſons, and therefore not the latter: the every man for whom he died muſt be limited by the many ſons whom he brings to glory.
Then it ſeems thou denieſt that Chriſt died for all.
Yes, that I do, and 'tis more than you can prove.
I witneſſe according to the Scripture, that Chriſt died for all, 2 Cor. 5.14. If one died for all, then were all dead.
'Tis ſpoken of thoſe who were converts and believers, whoſe ſanctification was the end of Chriſt's death, and for whom Chriſt roſe, and who therefore did ri•e with him. As for the meaning of the words 'tis this, that the neceſſity of Chriſt's dying imported the miſery of their condition, in that they were dead ſpiritually, and obnoxious to eternal death, and the love of Chriſt which7 made him come in at a pinch, to help when none elſe could, is a great conſtraint to obedience upon all the dead for whom Chriſt died. That place is fully parallel and opens this (putting but Chriſt in ſtead of God into the former clauſe) God commendeth his love toward us (ſpeaking of believers, v. 1, 2.) in that while we were yet ſinners, Chriſt died for us, Rom. 5.8.
Still thou perverteſt Scripture by thy meanings.
I pervert it not, but I reconcile the Scripture to it ſelf.
The Scripture is at unity with it ſelf, and needs not thy reconciling. 'Tis ſaid, the Scripture cannot be broken.
I ſay ſo too, that the Scripture is at unity with it ſelf, but withall that it ſeems to diſagree, and cannot approve it ſelf to our underſtandings, without the mediation of a meaning or interpretation. It was an uſual thing with Chriſt to ſpeak words of a doubtful ſenſe, as John 3.19. Destroy this Temple, which they underſtood of the material Temple (he being in it at the time, v. 15. and likely enough ſpeaking with his eye as well as his tongue) v. 20. but he meant of the temple of his body, v. 21.
Thou art ſuch a giver of meanings as they were, who gave it contrary to Chriſts meaning
Whether I be ſuch a one or no is not for you to judge in your own cauſe,•leave it to the underſtanding hearers. But in the mean while the place ſerves my purpoſe, viz. to prove that Chriſt's meaning may be miſtaken, when his words are taken in the moſt ordinary and literal ſenſe, and ſo it would be, if by every man, we ſhould underſtand every individual man; ſo that 'tis your ſelf, and not I that am ſuch a giver of meanings as the Jews.
How canſt thou prove that thou art to give meanings to Scripture?
I do not pretend to power to give meanings to Scripture (as your phraſe is) if you mean thereby, adding any thing to the Scripture which is not in it, but to find out what already is, by cauſing the Scriptures with the Cherubims to face one another; that is my duty and all other mens. This the Scripture warrants, Neh. 8.8. So they read in the Book, in the Law of God diſtinctly, and gave the ſenſe, and cauſed them to underſtand the reading. And I ſhould be glad to know of any of you who are againſt meanings, how you can underſtand ſuch Scriptures as theſe without a meaning, God is not a man that he ſhould repent. It repenteth me that I have made man. God tempted Abraham. God tempts no man. Anſwer not a fool according to his folly. Anſwer a fool according to his folly. And once more, Paul and James ▪ The former ſaies, that a man is juſtified by Faith without the works of the Law, Rom. 3.28. And the other flatly contradicts him in terms, that by works a man is justified, and not by Faith only, Jam. 2.24. When as any of theſe do ſweetly conſent, if the ambiguity of phraſes be once removed: As for inſtance in Paul and James, the one ſpeaks of being formally juſtified, the other declaratively. Juſtification in Paul is oppoſite to the condemnation of a ſinner in general, and juſtification in James is oppoſite to the condemnation of an hypocrite in particular. In Pauls ſenſe a ſinner is abſolved, in James's ſenſe a believer is approved. [So Diodat whoſe words I uſed, but forgot to name him in the diſcourſe] Here the two diſputants had nothing to ſay, but what was abſurd and impertinent; and thereupon I deſired we might leave what had been ſpoken to the hearers judgment, and to go on to another Queſtion, which at length was agreed to.
The Second Queſtion was, Whether in this life the Saints attain to a ſtate of perfection or freedom from ſin? 9This they held in the affirmative.
Your Doctrine of perfection is againſt the tenour of the Scripture, let us hear what you can ſay for the proof of it.
1 John 3.9. Whoſoever is born of God doth not commit ſin.
That cannot be meant of freedom from ſin; but either there is an emphaſis in the word ſin, intending under that general term one kind or ſort of ſin, which is ſpoken of, 1 John 5.16. There is a ſin unto death. Or if not on the Subſtantive, on the Verb〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉which notes to make a trade or buſineſſe of ſin, as 'tis explain'd, v. 8. where he uſes the ſame verb, for the Devil ſinneth from the beginning. He hath never ceaſed to ſinne ſince he began, thus indeed the Saints ſin not, but a courſe of ſin is broken of•, and there is not ſuch a free trade between the ſoul and ſin, as in the ſtate of unregeneracy, whereof this is given for one character, that cannot ceaſe to ſin, 2 Pet. 2.14.
Thou wreſteſt the Scriptures to thy own deſtruction.
No, I wreſt them not, if I do, ſhew wherein. And if you will obſerve, either it muſt be meant of all Saints or none, for the New birth agrees to all, if then the phraſe excludes the being of ſin in ſome, it muſt in all; and mark the reaſon given, becauſe his ſeed remaineth in him, and he cannot ſin, becauſe he is born of God: Now the ſeed remains in all, as well as any; now leſt you ſhould be ſo mad as to aſſert all Saints to be free from ſin, pray read 1 John 1.8. If we ſay that we have no ſin, we deceive our ſelves, and this is ſpoken of ſuch perſons, as of whom it is denied that they commit ſin, perſons that had fellowſhip with the Father and his Son Jeſus Chriſt, v. 3.
Pray do not multiply words to no purpoſe,10 but read, v. ult. If we ſay that we have not ſinned, we make him a liar. The born of God ſhould lie if they did deny themſelves to have ſinned, before they were in the new birth.
Sir, you muſt not think to put us off ſo, v. 8. 'tis〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and the other is,〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Suppoſe the latter verſe were to be underſtood of the ſin, which preceded the new birth, yet the former is expreſly de praeſenti, that we have (not have had) no ſin; and yet I ſee nothing to the contrary, but that we hav•not ſinned, v. ult. may relate to particular acts of ſin in the ſtate of the new birth, denied either in whole or in part.
Phil. 3.15. As many as he perfect let us•e thus minded.
For the phraſe upon which you ground your notion, 'tis uſed in a comparative ſenſe, 1 Cor. 2.6. ſpeaks of grown Chriſtians, who could fancy the Goſpel in a plain dreſs, whom he cals perfect in compariſon of others, as he cals Babes in Chriſt, carnal in reſpect of thoſe who are more ſpiritual, Ch. 3.1. And often in Scripture perfect is put for upright, and made ſynonymous, or of the ſame import, Job 1.1. that man (mean•ng Job) was perfect and upright; that perfect is not meant in your ſenſe, appears by c. 9.20. If I ſay I am pe•fect〈◊〉(his mouth) ſhall alſo prove me perverſe. Sinceri•y Job all along avouched, but perfection ſuch as he m•ght j•ſtifie h•mſelf by, he denies. But to return to the place, Phi•. 3.12. He denies that he was yet perfect, whilſt in a breath he affirms himſelf ſo. The perfection he denies, is the reſurrection of the dead, v. 11. that is by an uſual Metonymy of the ſubject for the adj•nct, that meaſure of holineſſe which accompanies tha•ſtate, wh•ch we ſhall find to be excluſive of ſin, 1 John 2.2. We ſhall be lik•him, meaning Chriſt, when he appears. 11But how ſhall Chriſt appear, Heb. 9. ult. appear the ſecond time without ſin. Put it together, and the perfection Paul denies, is the ſtate of the reſurrection, which is to be without ſin. The perfection he•ffirms, is comparative, in reſpect of Chriſtians of lower attainments, who could not aſſent to all the Doctrines of the Goſpel, v. 15. If in any thing ye (i. e. ſome of you) be otherwiſe minded.
I will prove from the Scripture ſuch a ſtate of perfection, Pſal. 119. Bleſſed•re the undefiled in the way, v. 1. They alſo do no iniquity, v. 2. Do you mark every word?
Yes Sir, we mark the words, but I might expect a reply to what I have urged againſt the Scriptures brought by your friend. As for the phraſes, they are hyperbolical, v. 6. Then I ſhall not be aſhamed when I have respect to all thy Commandm•n•s, in reſpect of deſign and endeavour, though falling ſhort in accompliſhment, that v. explains the other two you brought. [I ſhall add, that David excludes himſelf out of a bleſſed ſtate, if undefiled, and doing no iniquity be meant ſtrictly. His wiſh, verſ. 5. and other paſſages•n the Pſalms, ſhew, that he was not free from ſinne, which ſu•e David did not intend; for Pſal. 32 2. he pronounces the man bleſſed which hath no guilt in his ſpirit, or ſincere, which himſelf was at that time, though under th•guilt of a great ſinne, verſ. 5. which is by interpreters ſuppoſed to be the ſame ſins, for which Pſal. 51. was compoſed.] But Mr. Fiſher can you produce one ſingle example of a perfect Saint in your ſenſe.
Yes (Thomas Danſ•n) that I can. 'Tis in Luke 1.6. And they (Zachary and Elizabeth) were bo•h righteous before God (not before man only, but bef•re God) walk•ng in all the Commandments (nor in ſ•me few o•many, but all) and O•dinances of the Lord blameleſs.
Methinks Sir, you bring in this Scripture with pomp and ceremony, yet it will not do: For firſt, how doth it appear that righteous before God, is meant a perfect inherent righteouſneſſe? ſeeing a believers perſon with his works are accepted with God, though his works be not perfect, Heb. 11.4. By Faith Abel offered to God a more excellent Sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witneſs that he was righteous, &c. And ſecondly, how do you prove blameleſſe to be meant otherwiſe than comparatively, Phil. 2.15. Blameleſs, without rebuke in the midst of a crooked and perverſe Nation, among whom ye ſhine as lights in the world. In the ſame ſenſe may Luke underſtand the phraſe. And if you mark, the very ſame phraſe is uſed of Pauls external conformity to the Law; when he was ſo far from perfect, that he had no Grace at all, Phil. 3.6. Touching the righteouſneſſe which is in the Law blameleſſe. v. 5. Touching the Law a Phariſce. Now how they were blameleſſe, you find by inſtance, Luke 18.10, 11. Not as other men are, I faſt twice in the week, &c. I bring this inſtance to let you know that the phraſe ſimply conſidered, will be ſo far from importing perfection of Grace, that it will not import any Grace. But in a word, to put it out of doubt, Zacharias of whom theſe words are uſed, whence you gather him to be free from ſin, is found guilty at the very time that this deſcription agreed to him, of unbelief, and was with dumbneſſe puniſhed for it, Luke 1.10. Behold thou ſhalt be dumb, and not able to speak, until the day that theſe things be performed, becauſe thou believeſt not my words, &c. 'Tis the meſſage of Gabriel the Angel to Za•harias, v. 19. You ſee Mr. Fiſher, your pomp in the bringing in of this Scripture was meer waſt.
But Tho. Danſon, there is no ſuch thing m•ntioned of Elizab•th, and if there be one inſtance, it ſufficeth.
But Sir, your Argument is drawn from the import of the phraſes, and if the phraſes are applicable to him though guilty of actual ſin, then they will not argue her to be more free from ſin than him, though there be no mention of any of her ſins. — Pray Sir, ſeeing you have nothing to reply, but God has ſtopped your mouth, let me hear what anſwer you can give to that Scripture which hath run much in my mind againſt this Doctrine, Eccleſ. 7.20. There is not a juſt man upon earth that doth good and ſinneth not.
It cannot be meant as thou wouldſt have it, for the man Chriſt then were not a juſt man, which I think thou wilt not ſay.
I deſir'd Mr. Fiſhers anſwer, and not yours. But ſeeing he is ſilenced, I will anſwer you: What a wretch are you to make ſuch an Inference? was not Chriſt God as well as man? And could a nature tainted with ſin be taken into a perſonal union with the Divine Nature? The place I urge excludes any meer man from perfection in this life.
I will give thee an anſwer Tho. Danſon, We grant the truth in that Scripture, the juſt man there ſpoken of, is not on earth, for he is redeemed from the earth, and in the Revelation he is ſaid to be a dweller in Heaven, whereas the wrath of God is ſaid to come upon the Inhabitants of the earth.
Mr. Fiſher you run very low at laſt, this is a meer evaſion, I verily believe in your own judgment and intention, becauſe you think you muſt ſay ſomwhat. Can you poſſibly think that the j•ſt mans being in Heaven in reſpect of his diſpoſition and affection, and in his Head Chriſt, excludes his local abode on earth? We ſay indeed that no ſuch juſt man as Solomon ſpeaks of, is to be found on earth, but in Heaven, which is a place of abode, as well as a ſtate of bliſſe.
In Heb. 12.23. Spirits of juſt men made perfect; this is ſpoken of them to whom the Apoſtle writes.
The pl•ce doth not import the perfection of any men on earth, but ſp•aking of the ſtate we are advanced to under the Goſpel by Chriſt, he ſaies we are one body with them in Heaven, and have the ſame title with them in poſſeſſion.
Thus with thy meanings thou perverteſt Scripture.
I leave it to the judgement of judicious hearers, whether I have perverted Scripture or no, and ſo pray do you.
The third Qu•ſtion debated on was (though with much ado) at length ſtated in theſe terms; Whether our good works are the meritorious cauſe of our juſtification? And Mr. Fiſher held it in the Affirmative.
Thus I prove that our good works are the meritorious cauſe of our juſtification, by a rule that you own, Contraria contrariorum ratio, whence I argue thus; If our evil works are the meritorious cauſe of our condemnation, then out good works are the meritorious cauſe of our non-condemnation or juſtification; But our evil works are the meritorious cauſe of our condemnation, therefore our good works are the meritorious cauſe of our non-condemnation or juſt•fication.
Now you ſhew your ſelf a rank Papiſt indeed. We deny your conſequence, becauſe our evil works are perfectly evil, but our good works are but imperfectly good, and any one evil is a violation of the Law, and deſerves the penalty of the Law, but any one or more, good work is not the fulfillin•of the Law. [Let me add, that there is no conſequence in that Popiſh Argument, notwithſtand•ng that Canon, becauſe our good and evil works are not abſolute contraries, the one being perfectly15 evil, the other but imperfectly good, Mulum oritur ex quolibet defectu, Bonum fi••ex integris cauſis, which latter appears by Iſa. 64.6. All our righteouſneſses (not our unrighteouſneſſes only) are as filthy rags. And again, thus the rule will allow to argue; Evil works which are the violation, of the Law deſerve damnation; Ergo, good works which are the fulfilling of the Law deſerve ſalvation. And we know no good works ſuch, but Chriſt's. And once more in reſpect of the ſubject, the Rule will not hold, being one who owes all his good works to God, and is a finite creature, now thoſe works which merit muſt not be due, and they muſt be of infinite value, or elſe there is no proportion between them and the reward. And thus we might argue à contrariis. If his evil works from whom only good works are due, as from a finite creature, to an infinite Creator, do truly deſerve damnation, then his good works who owes none, and is an infinite perſon, do truly deſerve non-condemnation. But verum prius, ergo et poſterius. And to underſtand this, we muſt know that the deſert of diſobedience ariſes chiefly from the dignity of the Object againſt which ſin is committed; when as the deſert of obedience ariſes from the dignity of the ſubject by which it is performed.]
I will prove my conſequence from Gal. 5.18. But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the Law. Whence I argue, If they who are led by the Spirit are not under the Law, then the leading of the Spirit is the meritorious cauſe of their not being under the Law, but they who are led by the Spirit, are not under the Law, Ergo.
Sir, you are very ſilly your ſelf, or take your hearers to be ſo, that you think this to be a proof of your former conſequence, or that there is any conſequence in this Argument. You ſhould have proved that there is par ratio for the merit of good and of evil works. 16And ſurely Sir, the leading of the Spirit, or Sanctification is a fruit and effect, not a meritorious cauſe of not being under the Law, that is obliged to its penalty.
I will prove by another Scripture that leading by the Spirit is the meritorious cauſe of our Juſtification, 1 Cor. 6.11. And ſuch were ſome of you, but ye are waſhed, but ye are ſanctified, but ye are juſtified in the Name of the Lord Jeſus, and by the Spirit of our God. Obſerve, here the Co inthians are ſaid to be justified by the Spirit.
I might ſay that perhaps the clauſe ſhould be referred to Sanctification, which is in a more appropriate manner attributed to the Spirits efficiency, as if the order of the words had been, but ye are ſanctified by the Spirit of our God, and ſuch tranſpoſitions are not without inſtance in the Scripture, as, Mat. 7.6. Give not that which is holy to dogs, neither caſt ye your Pearls before ſwine, leſt they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rent you, where turn again and rent you, is to be joyned to the dogs, for as ſwine do trample under their feet, ſo dogs do fly upon a man, and tear him down. Or elſe juſtified by the Spirit may be meant of the Spirits application; I mean the third Perſon in the Trinity, not of the work of Grace, whereof we are the Subject
In the 8th of the Rom. v. 2. The Law of the Spirit of life in Chriſt Jeſus hath made me free from the Law of ſin and death. Now 'tis the ſame Law of the Spirit of life that is in Chriſt and the Saints.
That place is much againſt you: For the Apoſtle aſſerts the Holineſſe of mans Nature as a work of the Spirit conforming it to the Law, to be the merito•ious cauſe of ou•freedom from ſin and death; but mark withal, 'tis not that which is in us, but in Chriſt. 17And though 'tis true that the ſame ſpirit is in Chriſt and the Saints, yet neither does the ſpirit in us conform us fully to the Law (notwithſtanding your vain aſſertion of perfection) nor if it did, were that conformity the merit of J•ſtification. [Let me add, that the Law of the Spirit of life here ſpoken of, is not only the meritorious cauſe of our freedom from death, but from the Law of ſin, or obeying of ſin as a Law; now I would fain know what precedent holineſſe in the Saints merits ſubſequent holineſſe; or whether the exerciſe of what they have, is the meritorious cauſe of what they have not, or of perfection, eſpecially if the law of ſin intends the corruption of nature, as the Law of the Spirit of life does holineſs of nature: I would be inſtructed how a nature in part corrupted can deſerve total freedom; and I am ſure the firſt work of the Spirit renews our natures but in part.]
Pray read on, Rom. 8.4. That the righteouſneſs of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the fleſh, but after the Spirit. This place ſaies the righteouſneſſe of the Law is fulfilled in the perſons of the Saints.
Sure Sir, you never read v. 3. which tells us that the Law was weak through the fleſh; that is unable to juſtifie us, in regard of our inability (through corruption) to fulfill it which were untrue, if we are able to fulfill it; and what follows, God ſent his own Son to give us what we could not attain to by our own obedience to the Law; and as for the 4th v. it imports the end for which God ſent Chriſt, that the righteouſneſſe of the Law might be fulfilled in us; not in our own perſons, but in Chriſt, his righteou•neſſe imputed to us, as if it had been inherent in our ſelves.
That is thy meaning, but not the meaning of the Apoſtle.
Yes, but it is the Apoſtles, as I have proved. But pray Sir, let me ask you a queſtion (though it may ſeem beſides, yet it will be to the purpoſe) 'tis this: whether there be any true believers who are not perfect?
I muſt acknowledg that there are degrees among believers, as the Apoſtle ſaies, 1 John 2.13, 14. Little children, Fathers, Young men.
I ſuppoſe you mean, that ſome of theſe have a mi•ture of ſin with their Grace. But let me ask you but one queſtion more, whether the children (for inſtance b•in a juſtified eſtate or not?
I'le tell thee Tho. Danſon, there are but two eſtates. Juſtification, and condemnation.
Now Sir, you are caught in a manifeſt contradiction and abſurdity, for before you maintain'd that our juſtification was by a perſonal fulfilling of the Law, and now you grant ſome perſons to be juſtified who never did fulfill it perſonally. That end I propoſed in asking you the queſtions, and I have obtain'd it to make your folly manifeſt to all men. [Reader, obſerve that though it concern'd Mr. Fiſher to wind himſelf out of this contradiction, yet he did not reply, but ſate down on the top of the ſeat like a man aſtoniſh'd, and under the Hereticks judgement, I mean ſelf-condemned, Tit. 3.11.] After a while we fell upon an Arminian point, whether a man that is juſtified may be unjuſtified? which Mr. Fiſher affirmed, and I would have omitted all the diſcourſe, but for the ſtrangeneſſe of one medium, by which he endeavoured to confirm it.
Take the inſtance of David, Pſalm 51.4. That thou mighteſt be juſtified when thou speakeſt, and clear when thou judgeſt. Whence I argue, if David was unjuſtified in his own conſcience, he was unjuſtified before God, (and conſequently a man may become unjuſtified19 after he hath been juſtified before God) But David was unjuſtified in his own Conſcience, Ergo, he was ſo before God.
I might deny your minor, for it does not appear to me, that David was at this time unjuſtified in his own Conſcience, but the contrary, for he ſpake theſe words after the Prophet Nathan had come to him, Title of Pſ. 51. And we find, 2 Sam. 12.13. The Prophet told him, the Lord hath put away thy ſin. He might loſe much of his joy, and yet retain the ſenſe of his intereſt. And for the words, David either acknowledged Gods righteouſneſs in the temporal evils threatned againſt him, 2 Sam. 12 11. or the deſert of condemnation. But I chuſe to deny your Sequel.
I prove it, 1 John 3.20. If our hearts condemn us, God is greater than our hearts, and knoweth all things. Here the Apoſtle argues to Gods condemnation, from that of our own hearts, which is alwayes according to the light of the Spirit.
Your place proves nothing about Davids ſtate; but to take it as it comes, nor does it prove your aſſertion in the general; the place ſpeaks of ſuch a ſentence as is paſſed by a Conſcience not erroneous, but rightly guided. [I ſhall add to what was ſpoken, but theſe Scriptures againſt that tenent, Pſal. 77.8, 9, 10. Joh. 8.54. Compared with v. 44. T t. 1.15. Their conſcience is defiled. Of which latter Scripture, I ſay but this, that one of Conſciences Offices being a Witneſſe, its defilement as ſuch ▪ in the wicked, is to lead them into a wrong opinion of their eſtares, and Conſcience in the Saints, being but in part cleanſed, as a witneſſe, it teſtifies falſhood to them alſo, in that th••eſtate is bad, when it is good, as to the wicked, that it is good, when it is nothing leſſe.]
Mr. F•ſher, becauſe you urged ſo hard for another Conference, I have granted your deſire, yet not for your ſake, ſo much as the hearers, that they may be convinced of the damnableneſſe of your Doctrine, and may loath and deteſt you, as you well deſerve. And againſt it, I ſhall urge one irrefragable Scripture, which I ſhould be glad to hear your anſwer to, or elſe you ſhall oppoſe, and I will anſwer, which I rather deſire: The place is, Rom. 11.6. And if by Grace, then it is no more of works, otherwiſe Grace is no more Grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more of Grace, otherwiſe work is no more work. The Apoſtle having ſpoken of the efficient cauſe of Election, and effectual calling, he here excludes works from being any cauſe of them. And this he does by an argument taken from the oppoſition between immediate contraries: And I apply it to the caſe in hand, thu•, that if Juſtification be of wo•ks, as you aſſert, then Grace is excluded from any hand in Juſtification, which is contrary to the Scripture, which ſays, we are Juſtified by Grace. Our Juſtification cannot be a debt and a free gift, I mean not both in reſpect of us. [To this no reply was made.]
I will name another Scripture, Rom. 10.3.4. 21For they being ignorant of Gods righteouſneſs, and going about to establiſh their own righteouſneſs, have not ſubmitted themſelves to the righteouſneſſe of God. For Christ is the end of the Law for righteouſneſs to every on•that believeth. The Apoſtle here makes a diſtinction between our own righteouſneſſe and Gods, and finds fault with them, who neglect•ng Gods, went about to eſtabliſh their own. And be makes our own righteouſneſſe to be a perſonal conformity to the Law, and Gods righteouſneſſe to be Chriſt made ours by faith, you are therefore guilty of this ſin, who make your own righteouſneſs your juſtification.
We do not make our own righteouſneſſe our juſtification, but the righteouſneſſe of God is that we teſtifie, being made manifeſt in us.
Do not ye delude your hearers with doubtful words? Ye did yeſterday aſſert that the righteouſneſſe which we are enabled to perform, or our good works are the meritorious cauſe of our juſtification.
We witneſſe to the righteouſneſſe of God according to the Scripture, Phil. 3.9. Not having mine own righteouſneſs which is of the Law, but that which is through the Faith of Chriſt, the righteouſneſs which is of God by Faith.
You could not have brought a Scripture more full againſt you. The righteouſneſs which is of Chriſt, and of God by Faith, is cal'd Chriſt, verſ. 8. That I may win Chriſt. And how he is our righteouſneſs, 2 Cor. 5. ult. tells us, as Chriſt was made ſin for us, ſo are we the righteouſneſs of God in him, but the former was by imputation, not inherence, and therefore ſo the other. So that the Apoſtle by his own righteouſneſs underſtands his perſonal conformity to the Law, and by Chriſts righteouſneſs that which is in Chriſt, made his by Faith.
Then it ſeems you make two righteouſneſſes22 of Chriſt, whereas the righteouſneſs of Chriſt is but one.
Yes, ſo I do, what of that? Do you think that the ri•h•eouſneſs which the Apoſtle calls his own, was not Chriſts? Had he any righteouſneſs which he had not received? and yet that righteouſneſs which was in the Apoſtle, never was in Chriſt as the ſubj•ct, but was wrought in him by Chriſt, as an efficient cauſe. And Chriſt had an inherent righteouſneſs, in reſpect of which he is ſaid to know no ſin, and to be a Lamb without ſpot and blemiſh. Are not here then two righteouſneſſes? and they ſerve for two different ends, the one for our juſt•fi•ation, the other for our ſanctification; the one gives us a right to the inheritance of the Saints in light, and the other makes us meet for poſſeſſion.
Let me ask thee a queſtion then, are not we juſt•fied by Chriſt within us?
I anſwer, no, but by Chriſt without us.
If we are not juſtified by Chriſt within us, then by another Chriſt, and ſo thou preacheſt two Chriſts, whereas Chriſt is not divided, and thou doſt that which thou chargeſt upon us, preach another Goſpel.
I did foreſee the catch you intended•n your queſtion, and anſwered you the more careleſly, that I might ſee how you could improve your ſuppoſed advantage by i•. But now I will anſwer you more punctually. The Scripture by Chriſt w thin us, underſtand•not the p•rſon of Chriſt, but h•s operat•ons, the cauſe is put for the effect by a Metonymy (a word too hard for your capac•ty) Compare Col. 1.26. •r ſt in you, w•th Eph. 3.17. That Christ m•y dwell in your hearts by Faith. And therefore it follows not that we make two Chriſts. For we acknowledge that one and the ſame perſon juſt•fi•s us by a righteouſneſs inherent in himſelf, and ſanct•fies us by23 a righteouſneſſe which he works in us by his Spirit. So that when I deny juſtification by Chriſt within us, however the words may ſound to your ears, yet to the judicious the meaning is obvious (viz.) that we deny our juſtification by that righteouſneſſe in us, whereof Chriſt is the author, but not that I make two Chriſts. Two things are indeed expreſſed by the name of Chriſt, his perſon, and his operations in us, and I deny the latter, but aſſert the former for our righteouſneſſe to juſtification [The Scripture ſpeaks of two Chriſts, Chriſt perſonal, and Chriſt myſtical, if I ſhould ſay, not Chriſt myſtical, but Chriſt perſonal is our Saviour, would you not ſpeak wiſely think you, to ſay, oh you make two Chriſts. This diſtinction you may find, Ch•iſt pe•ſonal, Col. 2.8, 9. — not after Chriſt. For in him dwelleth all the fulneſſe of the Godhead bodily. Chriſt myſtical, 1 Cor. 12.12. As the body is one, and hath many members, &c. ſo is Chriſt; meaning the Church, which v. •7. he calls the body of Chriſt.]
I will prove by the Scriptures that we are juſtified by our ſanctification, whi•h thou ſaieſt does but make us meet, not give us a•itle, which thou ſhalt ſee it does to the i•heritance, Acts 20.32. And now Brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are ſanctified. Gods grace gives an inheritance. [Here there was ſome diſturbance among the people, which occaſioned VVhiteheads addreſſe to them, and though I call'd to him often to take an anſwer, he would not; but at length Mr. Fiſher ſtarted up, and urged another Scripture, and ſo this was omitted; to it therefore I ſhall now return a brief anſwer, That the Participle〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, cannot refer to grace as this man would have it, (or if it did, yet grace in•ends not ſanctification, but the favour of God, which is the ſubject24 matter of the word which the Apoſtle cals, v. 24. the Goſpel of the Grace of God) but it refers to〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉God, and ſhould be read, who is able, &c. and ſo it is nothing to his purpoſe.]
I will prove we are juſtified by grace or ſanctification, Tit. 3.7. that being juſtified by his grace, we ſhould be made heirs according to the hope of eternal l fe. The grace by which we are ſaid to be juſtified, is the ſame with that which is called waſhing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghoſt, v. 5.
You are much miſtaken Sir, the grace v. 7. is not meant of ſanctification, but of the favour of God, which is manifeſted in the donation of his Son to us, imputation of his r•ghteouſneſſe, and acceptance of us as righteous in him.
I ſhall prove that we are juſtified by Faith as the cauſe of our juſtification, by the plain words of the Apoſtle, Rom 4.3. Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteouſneſs.
But pray obſerve how well this agrees with your former Doctrine, that we are juſtified by a perſonal conformity to the whole Law, and now you will prove that a conformity to one part will ſuffice. You interferr and cut one leg againſt t'other, and are not ſenſible of it, Does not the Apoſtle oppoſe Faith and Works? Now if Faith be conſidered as a work, there's no oppoſition between them. And does not that oppoſition exclude Faith as a work? Yes ſurely; and is boaſting excluded in juſtification by Faith as a work? no but there is more ground of boaſting in the vertue of Faith, were that equivalent to univerſal obedience. Read Rom. 3.27. Where is boaſting then? it is excluded. By what Law? of works? nay but by the Law of Faith; and chap. 4.5. To him that worketh not, but believeth, &c. which plainly int•mates, that Faith is oppoſed to it ſelf as a work, in the25 buſineſſe of Juſtification; and as for the words of the Text, the act is put for the object to which it relates, as if it had be•n in expreſſe terms. Chriſt whom his Faith laid hold upon, was imputed to him•or righteouſneſſe; But that Faith is imputed to us, a•be•ng nſtead of a perfect righteouſneſſ•perſonal, or that 'tis the meritorious cauſe of our juſtification; I utterly deny.
Thou doſt darken counſel by words without knowledge; and perverteſt the Scripture by thy meanings.
That's your uſual charge, but I deny it; the Scriptures attribute our juſt•fication to the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt, in the ſame ſ•nce that th•y deny it to works. Receiving of Chriſt, and remiſſion of ſins, is the Office of Faith, and not to merit them. _____[Here we fell into a diſcourſe very abruptly, about ſeveral Arminian points, which for the Reaſons mentioned in the Epiſtle, I omit.]
THe firſt Queſtion debated on was, Whether the Scriptures are the VVord of God?
Mr. F. You promiſed to diſcourſe upon this Queſtion, I deſire to know what you hold about it.
if you mean by the Scripture the〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉the writing,26 or the paper and ink, we deny it to be the Word of God.
Sir you cannot believe us ſo ſimple (ſurely) as to affirm the Scriptures in that ſenſe the Word of God, but we mean the matter contained in the writing, whether that be our rule of faith and life.
This I affirm, that there are ſeveral Books which are as much a rule (as thoſe you call the Scripture) which are not bound up in your Bibles.
This is not to the purpoſe, yet I ſhould be glad to hear your proof.
1 Cor. 5.9. I wrote unto you in an Epiſtle, &c. But now I have written unto you, v. 11. Here you find an Epiſtle of Paul, which was written before this which in your books is called the firſt.
Sir, you fall ſhort in your proof, you ſhould prove that the Epiſtle there mentioned was intended as much for our rule, as theſe we have in our books, and you prove only that ſuch an Epiſtle was written by Paul.
If this Epiſtle was written to the ſame end with this you have, viz. to inſtruct the Corinthians how to carry themſelves toward groſſe ſinners, then it was intended as much for a rule as this; But it was written to the ſame end, Ergo.
I deny your conſequence; Sermons, private religious diſcourſes have the ſame common end with the written Scriptures, yet the latter only are our ſtanding-rule, the former our rule, but ſo farre as they agree with the latter in the Scriptures.
VVhat other evidence or character have you of this Epiſtles being a rule, which the other wants, that is not in your books.
Pray let me ask you one Queſtion, and I will anſwer yours. Have you or any of your friends this firſt27 Epiſtle to the Corinthians, or do you know that it is exſtant?
No.
Then I have a ſignal diſtinction between that and theſe we have, viz. that God hath preſerved theſe two for our uſe, but not the firſt, whereas had God intended the firſt for a ſtanding rule to us, as he hath the other two, his providence which watched over theſe, would alſo have watched over that.
But I will give you an inſtance of a Book which ye have not, but we have, Col. 4.16. And that ye likewiſe read the Epiſtle from Laodicea.
Though it is certain that God intended not that for a ſtanding rule, which is loſt yet all that was written by holy men, and preſerved for our uſe, is not therefore our ſtanding rule, for then the diſcourſes of holy Miniſters in former and latter times ſhould be our Rule, which they are not, but to be brought to the written Word, as the Rule and Teſt. But pray Sir, what is the Title of that Epiſtle you have?
The Epiſtle of Paul to the Laodiceans.
So I thought; ſuch an Epiſtle I know there is that go•s under the name of Paul, but the place you bring ſpeaks not of an Epiſtle to Laodice•, but from Laodicea: And for ought you can prove to the contrary, we have the Epiſtle Paul did intend, 1 Tim. Poſtſc•ipt. The firſt to Timothy was written from Laodicea.
Doſt thou own the Poſtſcripts to be Canonical (as ye call it.)
As Canonical for ought•ppears yet to me, as your Epiſtle to the Laodiceans. W•know well enough that your Brethren of the Popiſh party, have laid many ſuch brats at the Apoſtles doors, wh•ch they will not father. And you ſhew what you a•e, in abetting their wickedneſs. [I ſhall add, that ſome learned men judge28 that Epiſtle mentioned from Laodicea, Col. 4.16. to be not an Ep•ſtle written by Paul either from or to Laodicea, but by th•Laodiceans, to Paul, which he would have read amon•the Colloſſians, that they might underſtand the caſe of their Si••e•Church, and how ſutable the matter of the Epiſtle to them, was alſo to the Laodiceans. Vid. Rev. Daven. in locum.] And to make the buſineſſe ſhort, Mr. Fiſher, ſuppoſe we ſhould grant you there were ſuch an Epiſtle legitimate, yet it will not follow that it was intended for a rule to us. For we have already as much as God thought ſufficient, read John 20.30, 31. And many other ſigns truely did Jeſus in the preſence of his Diſciples, which are not written in this book, but theſe are written that ye m•ght believe, &c. Suppoſe that we had the ſigns which are not in the Goſpel, faithfully recorded in writing, yet were they not our Rule, becauſe God did not give order for them, but has aſſured us as much as is ſufficient to create and preſerve Faith in the Goſpel which we have. Let us come to the Queſtion, which I propoſe to you in theſe terms, Whether the Books commonly called the Old and New Teſtament, were appointed by God for a ſtanding Rule of Faith and life?
I deny thoſe books to be a ſtanding Rule of Faith and life.
Now you have ſpit your venom, which I knew you were big with. And I will ſay to you (as the Apoſtle) If any man bring any other Goſpel than what we have received, let him be accurſed.
I am ſure the Goſpel you preach will never bring men to heaven. Indeed people it will not.
Then friends, you hear his acknowledgement, and how well he deſerves the curſe denounced againſt him.
If there be another ſtanding Rule, then the Scripture is not it, but there is another ſtanding Rule,29 therefore the Scripture is not it.
I deny your Minor; there is no other ſtanding rule but the Scripture.
I prove there is, from Gal. 5.16. This I ſay then, walk in the ſpirit: We are commanded to walk in or by the Spirit, and therefore that is our rule. The Scripture it ſelf ſends us to another for our rule.
That phraſe does note the principle, not the rule of our obedience in that place.
You ſuppoſe the Letter to be antecedent to the Spirit, whereas the Spirit is antecedent to the Letter, and none can walk in the Letter, till they walk in the Spirit.
The Spirit is antecedent to the Letter in reſpect of the revelation of the Letter, but the Spirit is ſubſequent to the Letter in reſpect of aſſiſtance and ability which he gives to obedience. And whereas you affirm, none can walk in the Letter, till they walk in the Spirit, if walking in the Spirit be meant of ſpecial aſſiſtance 'tis falſe, for many walk in many things according to the Letter, without the Spirits in-dwelling, as Paul, while a Phariſee ▪ was touching the righteouſneſse of the Law blameleſse, Phil. 3.6.
I will prove the Lette•of the Scripture is not our Rule: if there was a rule before the Scripture was written, then that is not our rule; but there was a rule before the Scripture, Therefore.
Your Argument concludes nothing againſt us, for we aſſert the matter contained in the Scripture is a ſtanding Rule, your argument proves but that there was a rule before this writing, we grant that God reveal'd himſelf by viſions, dreams, &c. yet it was the ſame matter: Since the Goſpel preached to Adam, there have not been any increaſe of truths quoad eſſentiam, ſed tantum quoad explicationem (as the Learned ſpeak of the30 Articles of our Faith) The manner of conveyance is different then and now, but the matter or doctrines conveyed ſtill the ſame. All this while you go about to delude the ſimple, as if you denied only this way of writing to have always been the onely way of conveyance, and you magnifie the Spirit, that with more ſecurity you may throw down the Letter of the Scripture. And if you would ſpeak out plainly, as ſome of your friends (as you call them do) that which you call the Spirit would be found to be the dictates of your own Conſcience (blind and corrupt, as they are the Lord knows) and you are no further bound to obey the Letter of the Scripture than you are willing to obey it.
I am ſure your Scripture is not the Word of God, for that is within, but your Scripture is without. This I prove out of R•m. 10.8. The Word is nigh thee, even in thy heart.
You read not all, 'tis in thy mouth too, ſo that 'tis without as well as within.
This is meant of the Light which is in eve•y mans Conſcience. 'Tis a word which every man ha•h heard, v. 18. But I ſay have they not heard? yes verily, their ſound went into all the earth.
It ſeems then the Light within is the Spirit you pleaded for to be the Rule, in oppoſition to the Scriptures. But 'tis plain enough that v. 18. ſpeaks of the Goſpel, for it relates to the Preacher ſpoken of v. 14, 15. who were Prophets and Apoſtles. And though the words are taken out of Pſal. 19.4. yet they intend not that n•tu•al knowledge of God which David ſpeaks of, but the Apoſtle would intimate that the knowl•dge of Chriſt by th•Goſpel ſhould be of as large extent in the publication, as the knowledge of God by the Miniſtry of the heavens and Firmament, which are Davids Preachers, Pſal. 19.1. And 'tis evident that the word ſpoken of in the heart,31 Rom. 10.8. is meant of the matters contained in the Scriptures, for the Apoſtle ſaies•xpreſly, That is the word of Faith which we preach, and Acts 26.22. VVe ſay none other things than thoſe which Moſes and the Prophets did ſay ſhould come; which ſayings are contained in the Old Teſtament. And as for your odd notion of the Words being within not without, I ſay but this, that it remains without when it is within, as the matter in a Book does to inſtruct others, when the Reader hath throughly digeſted it in his memory and unde•ſtanding. And that as to the Saints ſomewhat of the word is alwaies without, when ſome is within, that is, the Word prevails but in part over their corruption, and ſo far as it does prevail, it is within, ſo far as it prevails not, it is without.
In Col. 3.16. Let the word of Chriſt dwell in you richly; that which is the word of Chriſt dwells within, whereas that which ye call the VVord is without.
The VVord ſpoken of was without, or it was the Letter of the Scripture, and his exhortation was to get acquaintance therewith, and he preſcribes means to that end, in teaching and admoniſhing one another, and ſinging Pſalms which were part of the Word of Chriſt, as the ſubject matter and author of them.
Now thou talkeſt of ſing•ng Pſalms, it is a fond cuſtom you get to make the people ſing Davids conditions, who have not his ſpirit, as to make a proud man ſing, O Lord I am not puff'd in mind.
Though it be beſides our buſineſſe, yet I ſhall anſwer to your cavils againſt our practice in a word. Your objection holds as ſtrongly againſt the uſe of them in the times of the Old Teſtament, as againſt our uſe of them; for the matter of them was no more all the ſingers conditions then than now, and yet they were part of publique Temple-worſhip, 2 Chron. 29.25, 30. and the32 matter of many of them is doctrinal, and prophetical, and ſuch as cannot be ſung with particular application; and I know no particular application neceſſary to ſinging that 131 Pſal. more than to reading of it, nor is it more a lye to ſing than to read them.
VVhereas thou ſayeſt Thomas Danſon that the teaching and ſinging was a means of the words dwelling in them; therein thou art out (as in many other things) for the word of Chriſt dwelt richly in them, and thence they teached, admoniſhed, and ſung.
The words are an exhortation to get the word of Chriſt dwell richly in them, or to grow in the knowledge of Chriſt (as elſewhere 'tis expreſſed) and there is none that hath ſo much of the knowledge of the word, but it may admit of encreaſe; and therefore though they might teach and admoniſh from a ſtock of the word, that hinders not but that the uſe of it in thoſe duties might be the means of adding to it.
In the next place Richard Hubberthorn undertook to prove his Call in a diſcourſe wh•ch you have in his own Book, to which I referre you; the main thing he inſiſted on was his Infallibility in teaching, and the falſehood of our Miniſtry, who are not Infallible.
You are much miſtaken in thinking you are infallible, it appears otherwiſe to us by the falſe doctrines which you teach; and as for your participation of the infallible Spirit (if that were granted, which we cannot grant) that infers not a participation of the ſpirits infallibility, for that is as incommunicable, as omniſciency or omnipotency.
The Apoſtles had a power of working miracles in them.
That i•d•nyed; God himſelf was the ſole ſubject of that power by which they were wrought, and their33 faith was the means or ſign of exerting it, Acts 3.16. His Name, through faith in his Name hath made this man strong, &c. Matth. 21.21. If ye have faith and doubt not, &c. ye ſhall ſay to this mountain be removed, and it ſhall be done.
The man Chriſt Jeſus whom ye call Godman, was omniſcient, Joh. 2.24. Jeſus did not commit himſelf to them, becauſe he knew all men, &c.
Pray ſir, Do not you call the man Chriſt Jeſus God-man too? — Your ſilence is not conſent, but diſſent. Omniſciency agreed not to Chriſt as man (for he ſays elſewhere, the ſon of man knows not when the day of judgement ſhall be) but as God. You know well enough what communication of Idioms means. And the Apoſtles themſelves did not partake of that divine property of Infallibility, for then they would have been infallible at all times, and in all things, which they were not, as appears by the inſtance of Peter, Gal. 2.11. But in the delivery of what was to be a ſtanding rule to us, they were ſo guided that they d•d not erre, as you may find. 2 Pet. 1. ult. The prophecy came not in old time by the will of man, but holy men of God ſpake as they were moved by the holy Ghoſt. — As for our want of infallibility 'tis no valid plea againſt our Miniſtry, Acts 20.30. the Apoſtle ſpeaking to the Elders of Epheſus,•.17. Alſo of your own ſelves ſhall men ariſe, ſpeaking perverſe things, to draw away Diſciples after them. And yet he ſaies the holy Ghoſt had made theſe fallible men Overſeers over the Church, v. 28. 1 Thef. 5. Quench not the Spirit, verſ. 19. Deſpiſe not prophecying, verſ. 20. Prove all things, hold faſt that which is good, v. 21. The connexion of theſe verſes imports, that that prophecying muſt not be deſpiſed, nor can be, without neglecting the Spirit in it, which may teach us ſomewhat which is not good, an•not to be received. And both theſe inſtances are of an ordinary Miniſtry, which is ſet in the ſame univerſal Church with34 the extraordinary, 1 Cor. 12.28. and for the ſame end, viz. to convert and build up, Eph. 4.12. [Note that when we had gone thus far, I gave a brief account of my Call, for which you are referred to Hubberthorns account of the Conference, and my anſwer hereto annexed.]
IN the Epiſtle to the Reader, the Queſtions debated on are falſly ſtated, as will appear by the Narrative hereto annexed.
In the Book it ſelf, you have his Call to the Miniſtry, which is not worthy a further Reply than I made by word of mouth. And an account of my Call, which except two or three paſſages, was the ſumme of what I ſpake.
One paſſage is, He ſaid, I ſaid 'tis non ſence to ſay that a man is made a Minister by the gift of grace.
Reply. My words were, that he had ſpoken a great deal of non-ſence in his diſcourſe, not that that particular paſſage was non ſenſe. Yet I ſaid, and do ſtill ſtand to it, that if by gift of grace he means qual•fications for the Miniſtry, more is r•quired to a miſſion than them.
Another paſſ•ge is, That I ſaid, my qualifications were ſuch, that I might have been cloathed in Scarlet.
35Reply. I ſaid not ſo of my ſelf particularly, but in general, that many of us who had choſen the Miniſtry for our calling, were capable of other callings, and had opportunities of entring into them, which might have cloathed us with ſcarlet, as they did other men who followed them.
VVhereas he ſaies, that T. D. provoked his Church to laughter, rudeneſs, &c.
Reply. I confeſs the Aſſembly did laugh oftentimes at their ſorry ſhifts, and poor evaſions in our diſcourſe, but that I did compoſe them, I have many witneſſes: And I deny not but that now and then I could not forbear ſmiling at them, which I preſume as juſtifiable in me, as Elijah the Prophets ſcoffing at Bauls Prieſts, 1 Kings 18.27.
Whereas he ſayes, that none of my people can ſet to their ſeal that my Miniſtry hath brought them to a perfect man, &c.
Reply. 'Tis readily granted, nor was the Miniſtry intended for that end, but only to br•ng the Saints to that degree of Grace in this life, which might make them immediatly capable of perfection in the next life
Note that R. H. brings in ſeveral paſſages as mine, ſome of which I own, and others which I own not, I ſhall name them briefly.
That every individual man is not enlightened by Chriſt; and he complaines that I brought two meanings of that Scripture, and know not which is the meaning of the holy Ghoſt.
Reply. I ſtill affirm the Propoſition mentioned; and I would have him to know, that both the meanings are the Holy Ghoſts, though but one is intended in that place: the phraſes will bear either ſenſes, and either of them croſs his Interpretation.
That the whole body of the Gentiles was not enlightned.
36Reply. He leaves out what I added, viz. by Chriſt, or with the knowledg of ſalvation. As for his anſwer, I refer you to the diſpu•e upon that principle.
That the Gospel is an external Light, and not inviſi•le, and that it is not the Light within.
Reply. My wo•ds were that the Goſpel is an external L•ght, as that of the Sun, and that there is an inward Light created in the ſoul (c•ll'd an underſtanding g•ven us &c. 1 John 5.20. ) which is as the Light in the eye; and that the light of the Goſpel is not the light which every man naturally hath with in him.
That Chriſt is a propitiation but for the world of believers intend•d, 1 John 2.2.
Reply. I expla•n'd my meaning when I ſo interp•eted the ph•aſe, by c•mparing it with Rom. 3 25. Whom God hath ſet for•h to be a Propitiation through Faith in his blood; the ph•aſe Prop•tiation intends not the price, but the actual atton•ment, and this latt•r is not without the intervention of Fa•th: So th•t John intends as Paul, that the terms of actual reconciliation w•th God are the ſame to all the world, viz. beli•ving in the blood of Chriſt.
T•at we muſt reconcile Scriptures, and he ſaies I gave two contrary meanings of one Scripture.
Reply. I have ſaid enough to this in the D•ſpute, the Scriptures are not at variance among themſelves, but they ſ em ſo to be, and 'tis part of our wo•k to l•t p•ople ſee how well they are agreed. And I dare leave it to any Reade•s j•dgement, whe•h r theſe two interpretations which R. H. intends be contrary to one another, viz. that Chriſt enl•ghtens every man who is (ſpi•itually) enlightened, or that he enlightens a number of every Nation, which were the two meanings (to uſe his phraſe) of John 1.8.
That the Law of the Spirit of life in Chriſt, was not the37 Law of the Spirit in the Saints, but that they were two Laws, &c.
Reply. My words were, that by the Law of the Spirit of life in Chriſt Jeſus, Rom. 8 2. was not meant our perſonal righteouſn•ſſe, but Chriſts imputed to us, and that though the righteouſneſſe in Chriſt, and in us, are of the ſame kind yet they have not the ſame uſe, the former being alone our juſtification, the latter our ſanctification.
That there are two righteouſneſſes of Chriſt, the one without the Saints to juſtifie them, and the other within the Saints, that did ſanctifie them.
Reply. My words were, that there is a righteouſneſs whereof Chriſt is the ſubject and the efficient (viz. that of his Humane Nature) and a righteouſneſſe whereof he is the efficient, but not the ſubject, nor was it ever formally exiſtent in him (as the ſpirits were in the brain, which are communicated thence to other parts of the body) and that is the righteouſneſſe in the Saints, and that theſe are two righteouſneſſes (though of one ſpecies) in reſpect of the ſubjects, and uſe of them.
That I denyed, that the Saints were justified by that Chriſt hat was in them.
Reply I may ſay to thee, R. H. as David to Doeg, Thou lovest lying rather than to ſpeak righteouſneſs, Pſal. 52.3. I denyed that the Saints are juſtified by Chriſt within them (i. e. by the works of Chriſt within them, which have in that phraſe the name of the efficient given to them by a metonymy) but not that they are juſtified by that Chriſt that was in them; and when one of the Quakers prated to the ſame purpoſe with this man, that I made two Chriſts, I expreſly told him my meaning to be not by Chriſt as in the Saints; but as far were the words from my mouth, as the thoughts from my heart, to ſay that it was not one and the ſame Chriſt that juſtifies and ſanctifies.
38That David when he was guilty of adultery and murder, was not in a condemned ſtate, but in a juſtified eſtate.
Reply. I grant the whole, and have ſaid more for the proof of it, than this man or any of his Brethren can anſwer.
That I ſaid the paſſage Heb. 12.23. Spirits of juſt men made perfect, was meant of them in Heaven, not on earth; which ſaies R. H. cannot be, becauſe the Apoſtle wrote to them on earth, and did not write to men after they were deceaſed.
Reply. The Apoſtle intends, that 'tis the priviledge of the Saints on earth, who are unperfect, to be one body and ſociety with them in Heaven, who are perfect, and this he might ſay, though the perſons he wrote to were living.
That any creature that holds that principle of being Juſtified by a righteouſneſs within, living and dying in that principle, cannot come to Heaven.
And againſt this R. H. urges that Chriſt is the Juſtifier of them that believe, and his Doctrine is I in them, and they in me, ſo Chriſt and his Righteouſneſſe is in the Saints.
Reply. Put in any man inſtead of any Creature which was not my phraſe, and add to within, but us, and I acknowledge the whole ſentence, and to your argument from the union between Chriſt and the Saints, I ſay but this, that if it makes us to be the ſubject of whatever Chriſt was the ſubject, becauſe he is in us, then I hope it will make Chriſt the ſubject of whatever we are, becauſe we are in him: and then Chriſt is a ſinner by inherent defilement, (unleſſe all who are united to him, be from the fi•ſt moment of that union free from ſin) which is a Doctrine as falſe as falſhood can make it.
That that which fitted men for the inheritance of the Saints in Light, did not entitle to the inheritance, which39 ſaies R. H. is contrary to the Apoſtles Doctrine, Col. 1.12. And the Father both fitted them for the inheritance, and did entitle and give them a part in the inheritance.
Reply. See the baſeneſs of this man, he would make the Reader believe, that I denied the Fathers giving right and poſſeſſion, and making meet for it, when as I ſpake of things, not of perſons, of the cauſe of our title, and of that which made us meet for poſſeſſion (without which Heaven would not be a place or ſtate of bliſſe) and that the righteouſneſſe in Chriſt as a ſubject, was the cauſe of our title, and the righteouſneſſe wrought in us by Chriſt, makes us meet for poſſeſſion.
That we cannot contain an infinite righteouſneſs in us. To which R. H. replies, then you cannot contain the righteouſneſs of God, for it is infinite, and then you cannot contain Chriſt in you, who is Gods righteouſneſſe, and who is infinite.
Reply. The righteouſneſſe whi•h God works in us, is but finite, as well as other effects, and the myſtical union between Chriſt and the Saints by Faith, does no more conclude their participation of incommunicable attributes, than the hypoſtatical union between Chriſts humane and Divine Nature does infer that what was before ſuch union proper to one, ſhould be common to both natures; as Omnipotency, Omniſcience to the humane, weakneſs, mortality to the Divine Nature.
That it was falſe Doctrine to ſay that a man must firſt partake of the righteouſneſs which justifies, before it can be imputed to him as his. To which R. H. replies, that the Saints did partake of Gods righteouſneſs through Faith, except that this Dr. would count that to be a mans, which he hath no right to, nor part in.
Reply. Mark the juggling of this fellow, who would intimate that I denied a participation of Gods righteouſneſſe40 through Faith, when as that was the thing I contended for, and which they denied, that we did partake of Gods righteouſneſſe by Faith to juſtification. That which I affirmed to be falſe Doctrine, was, that the righteouſneſſe which juſtifies is in us, and I aſſerted that we being juſtified by the righteouſneſs of another, there can be no way of conveying ſuch ri•hteouſneſſe, but by imputation, and thereby the benefit of anothers righteouſneſſe may redound to us, as if we were the ſubjects of it.
That God offers ſalvation to all men, but he intends it onely to a few, which Doctrine ſaies R. H. makes the offers to no purpoſe to thouſands, and is a belying of God, and makes God a reſpecter of perſons, and how then is Chriſt given to be ſalvation to the ends of the earth, &c.
Reply. I did not affirm that God offers ſalvation to all men, for many ages and generations never had one offer of it, 1 Tim. 3. laſt. The Apoſtle makes Chriſt preached to the Gentiles, one part of the myſtery of godlineſs; but I affirmed, and do, among thoſe who hear the Goſpel, ſalvation is offered to more than to whom it is intended. And as for your cavils, I anſwered them in my diſcourſe with Mr. Fiſher: The offer is to ſome purpoſe, to the ſame with natural light (viz.) to leave men without excuſe, Rom. 1.20. So that they cannot ſay (as we may ſuppoſe Heathens might) had we known of a remedy for our miſery, we would have uſed it; and to other purpoſes, but one inſtance ſhall ſuffice; you bely our Doctrine, in ſaying 'tis a belying of God, for God does not pretend, to intend the benefit offered to all to whom it is offered, R•m. 11.7. The El•ction hath obtained it, and the reſt were blinded. And beſides, he offers it to all upon condition of acceptance, and could you ſuppoſe that all would take him at his word, and accept his offer, they41 ſhould have the benefit thereof. And this laſt anſwer will ſuffice (though other conſiderations might be added) to that Objection of making God a reſpecter of perſons. Did God give ſalvation to ſome who accept not of it out of particular fancy to them, but exact of others that acceptance, and for default of it deny them ſalvation, then there might be ſome ground for the cavil; but now that 'tis offered upon equal terms, there is none. And for Chriſt being given for ſalvation to the ends of the earth, that imports not ſo much as that the offer, much leſſe the benefit ſhould be of ſu•h extent in all ages and generations (as I ſhewed before) but the fulfilling of that prophecy bears date from the Apoſtolical Commiſſion, Mat. 28.19. and it intends that no Nation how remote ſoever from Judea, ſhould want the offer, nor ſome of it the benefit of ſalvation.
That a Miniſter of the Goſpel doth not know who are elected. And to this R. H. ſays, there he hath belied the Miniſters of the Goſpel, for they could diſcern the elect from the world, as 'tis written, Ye ſhall diſcern between him that ſerveth God, and him that ſerveth him not, and theſe Teachers who know not the elect, and yet exhort all their hearers to believe, their preaching is in vain.
Reply. I ſee you are hard put to it for a Scripture, to bring that Mal. 3. ult. I could have fitted you with one that would have been more ſpecious, 1 Theſ. 1.4. Knowing Brethren beloved your Election of God. As for Mal. 3. ult. 'tis not ſtrictly true till the day of judgement: Solomon ſays, No man knows love or hatred by all that is before him. I ſhould rather think our preaching is to more purpoſe becauſe we know not who are elect, for the ignorance of that gives us a ground to hope well of any man; and indeed it were to no purpoſe to preach to thoſe who are not elected (unleſſe that of leaving them inexcuſable) did we certainly know who are elect, and ſo42 who are not, for the latter would have no ground of hope (which now they have in the indefinite promiſe, made of none effect through their unbelief) did we let them know they were excluded out of Gods purpoſe of ſalvation.
That the ſword of the Spirit is ineffectual without the Letter. To which R. H. ſays the ſword of the Spirit is the Word of God, which was effectual before the Letter was.
Reply. This man is ſo uſed to ſpeak non-ſenſe himſelf, that he can underſtand it as well or better than good ſenſe. I did not ſay as he relates, but that the Spirit was not wont to be•ff ctual without the Letter, or that he wrought upon the ſouls of men in and by the Letter of the Word, and I gave that inſtance, Rom. 10.17. Faith (which is the Spirits work) comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God. As for what he ſayes, that the ſword of the Spirit is the Word of God, if he means like a man in his oppoſitions, he muſt mean Chriſt (who but once is called the Word of God) Rev. 19.13. And Chriſt cannot be intended, Eph. 6.17. becauſe he is not the ſword of the Spirit, but the Spirit his ſword rather, for by the Spirit he works in the hearts of men, and therefore Gen. 6.3. he ſayes, My Spirit ſhall not alwayes ſtrive with man, which is meant of the holy Ghoſt, as will appear by comparing it with, Act. 7 51. where Stephen tells the Jews, Ye do alwayes reſiſt the holy Ghost. Chriſt by the common operations of his Spirit ſtrives with men, and by the ſpecial operations thereof prevails with them.
That there was no Scripture written, but what is extant, and in the Bible. Againſt which aſſertion R. H. produces the book of Nathan, Iddo, &c. mentioned in the Bible, which he ſayes were written for the ſame end and uſe.
Reply. It does not appear that any of the Books mentioned43 in the Old Teſtament and to which we are referr'd for further ſatisfaction in hiſtorical matters, were of Divine Inſpiration, but we may rather conclude, that the Holy Ghoſt mentioning no more of Hiſtory than was neceſſary for our Inſtruction, refers us for the reſt, which was not of the like neceſſity to books of humane original. And though they are the Books of Prophets, yet it follows not that they were divinely inſpir'd: For they might as well write from their own ſpirits, or upon humane credit, as ſometimes ſpeak from their own ſpirits, 2 Sam. 7.3. Nathan told David, when he ſpake of building a Temple, Go, do all that is in thine heart, for the Lord is with thee, whenas God for bad him by the ſame Prophet, which prohibition is call'd, the word of the Lo d that came to Nathan, v. 4.5. plainly enough intimating that the incouragement he gave David before, was but the word of man. And indeed 2 Pet. 2. laſt. ſpeaking of the motion of the Holy Ghoſt to write the Scriptures, ſeems to limit it to that which was intended for a ſure word of prophecy, wherunto we ſhould do well to take heed, &c. v. 19.
That there was no Scripture appointed of God to be a Rule of Faith and manners, but what is bound up in the Bible.
Reply. That was my aſſertion, and beſides what I ſpake I ſhall adde, that 'tis not enough, if it could be proved that other writings beſides thoſe we have were of Divine Inſpiration: For beſides ſuch Inſpiration, to make a Rule, is neceſſary Gods appointment of a writing to that end. Hence 'tis obſervable that John is bidden to write what he ſaw and heard in the Book of Revelation, no leſſe than twelve times; and ſome things of the like inſpiration he was forbidden to write, becauſe not intended for the ſame end, Rev. 10.4. And when the ſeven thunders had uttered th•ir voices, I was about to write, and I heard a voice from Heaven ſaying unto me, ſeal up, &c. and write44 them not. John 20.30.31. A•d many other ſigns truly did Jeſus in the preſence of his Diſcipl•s, which are not wri•ten in•his book, but theſe are written that ye might bel•eve, &c. Thoſe things which were not written might have b•en uſ•ful if they had been wr•tten, for th•y were done for the ſame end with tho•e which are left u•, yet becauſe God thought that ſuffi•ient which we have, we can look upon no more wi•h ſuch regard as we do upon that.
That the letter doth antecede the Spirit in all that walked in the Spirit.
Reply I opened my own meaning (as you may find in the diſpute about the Scriptures,) and 'tis this, that the Spirits act of r•veal•ng the letter of the Scriptures, antecedes the Spirits aſſiſtance, in walking according to it.
That the works of Chriſt in ſome reſpect are not perfect. To which R. H. ſaies that is falſe, for every gift of God is perfect.
Reply. I ſpake thoſe words with reference to the work of ſanc•ification, which I affirmed to be imp•rfect in this life, in compariſon of what it is in the life to come. For which I produced Phil. 3.12. Not as though I had already attained either, were already perfect, which he•ntends of the reſurrection from the d•ad, v. 11. (as he calls the holin•ſſe of that ſtate by a Metonymy of the ſubject for the adj•nct.) I alſo quoted 1•or 13.10. When that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part ſhall be done away. And for the Scripture he quotes, intending I ſuppoſe, James 1.17. Every good and perfect gift is from above, are the words of the Holy Ghoſt, not every g•ft of God is perfect; and I ſuppoſe 'tis ſpoken of ſpecial grace, which is ſtill in g•owth; every leaſt degree of grace tending to perfection.
That the Law requires more ſtrict and exact obedience then the Gospel. To whi•h R. H. replies nay, the Law ſaith,45 Thou ſhalt not commit adul ery, but the Goſpel ſaith, Thou ſhalt not luſt, &c and ſo the Goſpel r•q•ires more ſtrict obedience than the Law.
Reply. I ſpake thoſe words with reference to what the Law req•ires of us, as 'tis a Covenan•of works, and to what the•oſp•l accepts of us as 'tis a Covenant of grace; though the Law g ves not life without perfect obedience, the Go•pel gives it upon imperfect ob dience. The words were not intended of the Leg l and Ev ngelical diſp•nſations, as R. H. ſeems to underſtand them in his Socinian interp etat•on. And as for his interpretation, I affirm that Chriſt intended not to adde any th ng to the ſpirituality of t•e Law, for that under Moſ•s was ſpiri•ual, as Paul ſpeaks. Rom 7.14. for under the prohibition of the outward act, was alſo prohibit•d inward aff ct•ons, deſires, wh•ch appears by Gods p•omiſe, of ci•cumciſing the heart, D•ut 30.6. and his comm•nd to w•ſh their hearts from wick•dn•ſſ•that they might be ſav•d. But our Lord Chri••v••d•cates the Law from the cor•upt gloſſes of the Phariſees, who interpreted thoſe proh•bitions to extend no fu•ther than the letter, which is but to the outward act, as w•ll appear by the contex•, eſpecially v. 18.19.
That Chr•ſt choſe a devil to be one of his Miniſters in chuſing Judas; and his pro f, ſaies R. H. was, That the Divine nature did not ſee it good to commu•icate the knowl•dg of all things to the hum•ne nature,•n••herefore al hough he was a devil when he choſe him, yet he k•ew it not, which ſaies R. H. is a charging of Chriſt with•gnorance, contrary to John 2.24 25. and Chriſt ſaies Judas had the ſpirit of the Fa•her in him M•t. 10.20.
Reply The oc•aſion of my words was a little diſcourſe I had with Mr. F ſher about falling from grace; who urged that Judas had the Spirit of the Father in him, as well as the reſt. To which I anſwered, that ſeeing he appeared to be a devil in the end, he was ſo from the beginning,46 according to 1 Joh. 2.19. ſpeaking of Chriſtians, They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, no doubt they would have continued with us; but they went out, that they might be made manifeſt that they were not all of us And that Chriſt ſpake ſo to him, becauſe he was a viſible Chriſtian; and it app•ars not that from the firſt moment of Chriſts choice he knew him to be a Devill, and thereupon I urged the principle above-named, and inſtanced in the Son of mans ignorance of the day of judgement. But whether Chriſts humane Nature did know him or not, he was not openly ſcandalous, as appears by the Diſciples ſuſpition of themſelves rather than him, and therefore might be treated as one that had the Spirit.
That the Spirit of God may•ccompany a Miniſtry, and the Miniſter not have the Spirit. Which R. H. ſaies he never read in the Scriptures, and bids me prove it when and where it was ſo at any time.
Reply. It is no great matter what you read in the Scriptures, for it appears by the diſpute about them, that you care not for them, but only to beat us (as you think) with our own weapon; and to obey your command, I have an inſtan•e, Mat. 23. The Scribes and P•ariſees ſit in Moſ•s ſeat, (i. e. ſuſtain the place of Teachers) all therefore whatſoever they bid you obſerve, that obſerve, and do; but do not ye after their works, for they ſay and do not, v. 2, 3. This command imports as much as the Apoſtle elſewhere expreſſes, viz. to obey from the heart the form of Doctrine which was delivered to them, Rom. 6.17. and to be ſure the Phariſees had not the ſpirit of holineſſe, though they had his bleſſing upon their Miniſtry.
That the power that went forth in the Apoſtles Miniſtry, was in God, not in them, but as they have it communicated to them by the exerciſe of faith.
47Reply. You abuſe me in the repetition of what I ſpake, either through ignorance or wilfulneſſe, for my words were, that the power by which the Apoſtles wrought Miracles, was not inherent in them, but that their exerciſe of Faith upon the promiſe of•x•rting it for confirmation of the Goſpel, was the ſign of the time when God put forth act, of Omn•potency. This appears by the places before quot•d, Mat. 21.21. •cts 3.16. To which I add, v. 12. Why look ye ſo earneſtly on us, as though by our own power, or holineſſ•we had made this man to walk? He calls the power their own, not in reſp•ct of the Original (for all things are of God) but in reſpect of the ſubject of it.
Thomas Rumſey ſaid, that we preach a Doctrine of Devils, in ſaying, that men may be free from ſin in this life. To which R. H. anſw•rs that the Apoſtle Paul then preached a Doct•ine of Devils, Rom. 6.2, 7, 18, 22. And Chriſt preach•d the Doctrine of perfection, Mat. 5.48. 1 Pet. 1.16. And Paul preached wiſdom among them that were perf•ct, 1 Cor. 2.6. And David pr•ached that Doctrine, Mark the perfect man, Pſal. 3•37. Now David did not bid them mark ſuch a man as•here was not.
Reply. You Quakers a•e an unmannerly Generation. You might have given a Magiſtrate the Title of Mr. As for Mr. Rumſey's ſpeech he deſires me to let you know that he is confirm'd in his Opin•on, notwithſtanding the Scriptures you alledge (which being unlearned and unſtable, you wreſt to your own deſtruction) and he deſires me to return you an anſwer to each. As for Rom. 6. The expreſſions of freed from ſin, do not note freedom from the being, but the dominion, verſ. 14. Sin ſhall not have dominion over you, v. 12. Let not ſin reign in•our mortal bodies, &c. And that it cannot be meant ſimply, will appear by c. 14.10. Why doſt thou judge thy Brother? or why doſt thou ſet at nought thy Brother? The48 Apoſtle ſpeaks of judging as the ſin of weaker Chriſtians, and ſetting at nought his brother, as the ſin of ſtronger Chriſtians. And if ſin was conſiſtent with that freedom from ſin before affirmed of them, then the phraſe denotes not freedom from the being of ſin, as I have told you. As for Mat. 5. ult. The command intends the rule, not the degree of Grace attainable in this life, for this is reſerved for our reward in Heaven, (as I have proved in the diſpute) 1 Pet. 1.16. urges Gods Holineſſe as an argument to enforce our endeavors after it; but that is no proof of your aſſertion. As for 1 Cor. 2.6. I have already anſwered it in the diſpute And for Davids Doctrines, the ſecond clauſe, and behold the upright, is exegerical, or explanative of the firſt. Had David bid them mark a perfect man in your ſenſe, he had bid them mark a man that was not (as you ſpeak) for he himſelf was a Saul for ſpiritual ſtature in his generation (as appears, becauſe he is made a pattern to new Teſtament Saints, Zech. 12.8. ) and yet he was not free from the being of ſin, but a ſad inſtance of the power of it in real Saints. But take the meaning of it as I have given, himſelf was one of the men he ſpake of.
THou maiſt pleaſe to underſtand, that theſe Quakers, who like the Scribes and Phariſees, compaſſe ſea and land to make one Proſelyte, came to our Town, March 15, 1658. and made a challenge to the Prieſts (as they term Miniſters of Chriſt) to defend their own Doctrine and Call, which they came to oppugn; whereupon I was much urged by ſome good people, Inhabitants of the Town, to appear at their place of meeting, which at firſt I was ſomwhat unwilling to, partly becauſe I was informed that the men who intended to ſpeak were ſuch as the Apoſtle deſcribes, unreaſonable and wicked men, 2 Th. •2. and partly becauſe of the uſual unſucceſsfulneſſe of50 diſputes, eſpecially with men who cannot feel the ſtreſſe of an argument. But at length I reſolved to gratifie good peoples deſire, having given this ſolution to my own obj•ctions; to the firſt, that though the men would not admit of any orderly diſpute, yet ſomwhat might in a more looſe diſcourſe be ſpok•n, which might be an antidote to preſerve from the malignity of their venom caſt abroad at a venture, and ſo the devil might be beat at his own weap•n, and out-ſhot in his own bow, and a leſſe rational way of argu•ng might God uſe for good, as the Devil did fo•hurt. And I did hope that•f I did thus anſwer a fool•cco ding to his folly, I ſhould eſcape the cenſure of being alſo like him, P•ov 26.4. To the ſecond Objection I replied, that want of ſucceſſe was no more cogent an argum•nt againſt diſputing than preaching; and I added, that God had not left diſputes without witneſſe of his approb•tion (if that muſt needs be meaſured by the event) Acts 6.9, 10. Then there aroſe certain of the Synagogue, which is call•d the Synagogue of the Libertines, &c, dispu•ing with Stephen, and they were not able to reſiſt the wiſdom and spirit by which he ſpake. And ſeeing the Quakers were Libertines (or worſe) though I was not Stephen for like meaſure of wiſdom and ſpirit, I need not altogether deſpair of his ſucceſſe. And beſides theſe, other conſiderations offer'd their ſervice, viz. that they are a people who triumph and brag when we decline diſpute, forgetting the wiſe caution of King Ahab, a favourer of their way (I mean enmity againſt the true Prophets) Let not him that girdeth on his harneſſe, boaſt himſelf as he that putteth it off, 1 King•20.21. And many ſimple people are apt to ſuſpect our Call and Doctrine, when we ſeem unwilling openly to m••ntain them againſt oppoſers. And me thought that Scripture (which came to mind) did import a liberty, if not a duty. Anſwer a fool according to his folly, leſt he be wiſe in51 his own conceit, Prov. 26.5 And I mu•t confeſſe that the example of ſo R•verend and Lea•n•d a perſon, as Mr. Richard Baxte•, who yi•lded to a v•rb•l d••courſe with an unreaſonable railing fell•w, wa•not w•thout its influ•n•e upon me, betwe•n whom and the Quakers, I was to deal with (though i•norant and un•e•rned men) the inequality is very inconſiderable, in c mpariſon or what it is between him and them. But eſp•cially the rea•ns which he gives of printing againſt them, in his Epiſtle to the Quak•rs Cat•ch••m, as al•o aga•nſt other like wr•tches, in the Preface to the Defence of t e Wo•c••terſhire Petition, did maſter my underſtanding, and he•p•d to fix my wavering thoughts, in a reſolution to diſcourſe with them. When I came among them, they aſſer•ed that there is a Light in every man, which is Christ; th•t in this life men may be perfect, and free from ſin, that m•n are•u•tified not by Christ without, but wi hin them. Th•y al o urg•d ſeveral trivial arguments againſt our Miniſt•y, as,•ki•g hire, being call'd Maſters, wearing lo••robes, add•ng meanings to the Scripture. To eve•y wh•ch aſſertions I ſaid ſomwhat, and•eplied to•hei•a guments againſt our Miniſtry (as their unmannerly clamour would give leave) for they would•ndeavour to drown my vo•ce by theirs, when I ſp•ke anything that pinched them; and parti•ularly when I urged 2 Cor. 5. ult. That look as Chriſt was made ſin for us, ſo were we made the righteouſneſſe of God in him, but the former was by im•utation, not by inherence, Chriſt knowing no ſin (by•xperience of its working•n himſelf) and therefore ſo th•latter: I was interrupted by the two•peakers, Luke Ho••rd, and Stephen Hubberdy, with ſuch rude langu•g•, as thou lie•t, thou l•eſt, and they did not once offer any other confutation, though I u•ged th•m to the attempt, and•eld my tongue in exp•ctation, but in ſtead of a reply, lo•ked upon one another like men aſtoniſh•d, and made ſo long•pauſe52 that many of the hearers cried out, they are ſilenced, they have nothing to ſay. At length they recovered themſelves, and talked on in a diſcourſe ſo impertinent and independent, that I began to admire the men, for ordering their words ſo warily, as that they were all birds of a feather, and not one bird of another feather ſuch as reaſon and pertinency to be found in the whole flock. At the end of the day, the former of the two men above mentioned (being conſcious to himſelf how little he had done for his cauſe) made an open challenge of diſpute between me and other of their friends (meaning their fellow-Quakers) to whom I replied that I would not appoint a time for diſcourſe with ſuch ignorant and railing men as himſelf and his companion, but if Mr. Fiſher would undertake it, I would enter the liſts with him. This Mr. Fiſher (leſt thou be ignorant Courteous Reader of the reaſon why I ſingled out him from the reſt) was ſometime a Miniſter, and well reputed of for his gifts in this County. And I had a little hope, that ſeeing he had more reaſon than the reſt of that way, he would not let it lie dormant, but awaken it into exerciſe, and make ſome uſe of it. And according to my deſire the chalenger promiſed to procure Mr. Fiſher to come and debate their Tenents that day moneth, being the 12th of April, 1659. (a time which he pitched, becauſe his friends occaſions (as he pretended) would not admit them to come ſooner. The day being come,Witneſses, Mr. Oldfield, Mr. Foxton, &c. Mr. Fiſher appeared at Peters Church in our Town, but pretended that he knew not whether the Lord would open or ſhut his mouth, and therefore declined any diſcourſe; and I was fain to wait his leiſure, and to talk with one Richard Hubberthorn, who needed a bridle as much as the other53 did a ſpur, and made good the Proverb, whoſo bold as blind Bayard? A right Quaker, whoſe diſcourſe wanted all the ingredients that ſhould have made it ſavoury, viz. truth, ſenſe, and pertinence. And when he was ſilenced, came in for a reſerve one G•orge Whitehead, a man that ſeemed to have more mother wit, than the other, but as little of the Spirit of God (unleſſe that be a Spirit of errour and contradiction, and then I judge he had a plentiful meaſure.) At length Mr. Fiſher came in to help him at a dead lift, and with him I diſcourſed till night. And though they had made themſelves naked to their ſhame, eſpecially by the Doctrines of perfection and juſtification by works, yet to ſet a good face on the matter, they urged for another diſpute, which I granted them the next day at the School houſe. And the Saturday following, April 16. I received a challenge from Hubberthorn (who looked upon himſelf as contemned the other two dayes, becauſe the people after they had heard him a while, cried out to him to hold his tongue, or ſpeak to the purpoſe) to defend my own Call to the Miniſtry, and hear the proof of his, which I would not anſwer, but upon condition, that Mr. Fiſher would alſo debate thoſe two queſtions, Whether the Scriptures he the Word of God? and whether the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt God-man be ſatisfactory to the Juſtice of God for the ſin of man? Which I confeſſe I deſired the people might hear their judgement in, that they might ſee them in their colours, and not miſtake them for better men than they are. And accordingly we agreed to m•et at the Schoolhouſe the Tueſday following April 19. I preſume thou art now liſtning to hear the iſſue, and I will tell thee truly what it was, that many bleſſed God for the caution they received againſt their Principles, which now they underſtood plainly (though not without much ado, did54 I get them to ſpeak, as that every one might know their meaning.) And ſome good people who formerly had a favourable opinion of them, and thought that they and we differ'd but in terms, in the Doct••ne of Juſtification, and the Scripture•being the Word of God, do now loath a•d d•reſt th•m, as men that preach another Gospel, which y is not•nother, and would p••vert the Goſpel of Chriſt, Ga. 1•. 7 8. And the truth is, we have reum confitentem, the Malefactors own Confeſſion, for Mr. Fiſher did op•nly declare to the people,Mr. S yli•rd,〈…〉D••le, Mr. Fox on Jur•••. the•aſt day of our diſpute, that the Goſpel which I preached, w•uld never br•ng th•m to H•aven plainly enough intimating ther•by, that he preached another Go pel. And 'tis a paſſage not to be omitted, that as often as Mr. Fiſh••had occaſion to mention the N•me of our Lord Chriſt,Mr S•yli••d. Mr. A••••y Oldfield. Mr. Fox•on. h•wo•ld call him The man Chriſt Jeſus•hom you call (ſpeaking to me) God-man; and being o•ten a•ked whether he did not call him lo too, I could never g•t an anſwer, and truly hi•ſi•nce may well be interpreted conſent to the horrid A•ian Blaſphemy. 'Tis al•o obſervable that Mr. Fiſher would not diſcourſe the point of Chriſts ſatisfaction,M•. Seyli•rd, Mr. Rumſey. but put me off w th general terms, that all that Chr•ſt did was pleaſing to God, and ſo ſ•te down, and•ave way to his comp•nion. And we h•v•j•ſt ground to b•liev•that he denies it, for many o•them do (as we find•n m•ny of their printed Papers) and they p•etend to have no d•fferences in opinion among themſelves. And thou c•nſt not be ignorant that the denial of it in conjunction with their juſtification by55 works, does not only lop the branches, but grub up by the very roots the Goſpel, which thou haſt received. I cannot omit another remarkeable paſſage, and 'tis this, that in the midſt of our diſcourſe, April 13. one of the Quakers (whoſe name I cannot learn) cried out for audience,Mr. Domſel, Mr. Tho Foxton, Mr. Tho. Rumſey. pretending that he had ſomwhat to ſay from the Lord, and varying h s phraſe, In the Name of the Lord, but he was denied liberty, becauſe he was none of the Diſputants, but the man was ſo o•ſtreperous, that upon promiſe of ſpeaking br efly, we were glad for quietneſſe ſake to hear him. But what wouldſt thou think was his meſſage from the Lord? It was to accuſe a godly Miniſter there preſent, of ſl•ndering Samuel Fiſhe•,Mr. Peter Domſell, by affi•ming that the ſaid S. Fiſher had been at Rome, and received•Penſion from the Pope, and the accuſer pretended to have a witneſſe ready to prove it. The Miniſter ſtood up at the accuſation, and demanded when and where he ſpake theſe words? It was anſwered, the laſt night (meaning April 12.) between Sandwich and Staple (a Countrey•ariſh about 4 miles diſtant.) To the anſwer, the Miniſter replied, that he was at that time in Sandwich, and was not out of Town that night. And (to ſave further trouble ab•ut defending and proving) the Quakers witneſſe of his own accord cried out that it was not th•Miniſter accuſed,Mr. Rob. Wilkinſon. but the Miniſte•of Staple, that ſpake the words a•the time and place mentioned. 〈◊〉ſuppoſe good Reader, thou wilt be ready to•xcuſe the accuſer, and to ſay, it was but a miſtake of one man for another, and truly I ſhould joyn with thee, if the man were of any other perſwaſion56 then Quakeriſm, for theſe men pretend to be immediately ſent by God about trivial things, which if they really were, they could no more miſtake in the perſons to whom, than the meſſage whereabout they are ſent. And ſurely had God ſent this Quaker to convince a man of ſlander, he would have ſent him to the right man. And I think we may well conclude them as ſar from infallibility in Doctrine, as in matters of fact. And 'tis worthy thy conſideration, that when the accuſer had nothing to ſay for himſelf,Mr. Foxton, Mr. Oldfield, Mr. Rumſey, Jurates. but ſlunk down among his fellow Quakers, M. Fiſher holp him with a Lie, and told us that the man did not ſay from the Lord, or in the Name of the Lord, but in the fear of the Lord, which the man hearing, pluck'd up his Spirits, and ſtood up again, boldly affirming the latter words to be his. When as he had no ſuch plea for himſelf, till it was put into his mouth; and the generality of the people did then hout at Mr. Fiſher, for a lyar, and did then and do ſtill affirm that the man ſpake the former words. And as for the matter whereof Mr. Fiſher was accuſed, part of it he denied not, namely, that he had been at Rome, but that he received a Penſion from the Pope, he utterly denied, which yet that is probably as true, for I have it from very good hands, that in his late travel to Conſtantinople and thence to Rome, he had as good Bills of exchange, as moſt Gentlemen that travel, and yet 'tis well known that he hath no viſible eſtate. And the Quakers who came to hear the diſpute (who I ſuppoſe would not bely him) did report, that he did bear his witneſſe againſt the Pope and Cardinals at Rome, and yet they ſuffered him not to be meddled with, which how unprobable it is, let all men judge, but how much more probable, that57 the true cauſe of his ſafety was his compliance with them, the Doctrines which he broaches among us, and (as he ſaies) in all other places, being theirs, and a fair inlet to their Bag and Baggage. And to aſſure the Reader of the likelihood of his compliance with the Antichriſtian Faction, thou maiſt pleaſe to know, that the 12. inſtant (Engliſh account) two honeſt, and credible men of Sandwich had ſome diſcourſe with Mr. Fiſher at Dunkirk,Mr. Tho. Foxton Jurate, Tho. Barber, Cooper. and he told them that he looked upon the Jeſuits and Friars there, to be ſounder in Doctrine than thoſe we call the Reformed Churches. This they are ready to teſtifie at any time upon call.
Another paſſage I have to acquaint thee with, viz. that the aforeſaid Mr. Fiſher, in conference with the above-named Sandwich men at Dunkirk,Mr. Tho. Foxton, Jurate, Tho. Barber, Cooper. May 12. Engliſh ſtile, did affirm that he himſelf is above Ordinances, and that there is no more uſe of them in this life, to many perſons, than there is of a Candle-light, when the ſun ſhines, and he gave inſtance in the uſeleſneſſe of Baptiſm, and the Lords Supper.
And the ſame witneſſes were credibly informed at Dunkirk, that Mr. Fiſher hath great Bills of Exchange from a Quaking London Merchant, and may take up four hundred pound if he will.
And hundreds of people can teſtifie how light he made of the charge of Popery, on the firſt day of the Diſpute,John Boys Eſq; Mr. Ch. Nichols, Mr. Th. Foxton, &c. when I pluck'd Ameſius 4 Tome againſt Bellarmine, and offer'd to read part of it out of the Latine into Engliſh; and with58 a geſture of deriſion he replyed, that Bellarmine held many Truths which muſt not be rejected becauſe he held them, and he gave for inſtance that Chriſt was the Son of God. And as for the ſtate of the Qu•ſtions, two of them, viz. The light of Nature, and Perfection, I need not produce any witneſſes to prove, becauſe they conſtantly affi•m them, but as for the reſt, they are wont to juggle & equivocate about them. Henry Oxenden, John Boys, Eſq; M. Nath. Barry, Mr. Tho Seyliard, Mr. Ch. Nichols, Miniſters.The terms of the third Queſtion were, Whether good works be the meritorious cauſe of our Juſtification? which was expreſly affirmed by them.
And this being ſo groſſe and Popiſh, Luke Howard one of the Quakers preſent at the diſpute,Mr. Nath. Barry. hath ſince denied that they did ſo affirm. And in the Fourth queſtion Mr. Fiſher denied that the Books commonly called the Old and N•w Testament were appointed of God for a ſtanding Rule of Faith and Life. Henry Oxenden, Eſq; M•Tho. Seyliard, Mr. Ch. Nichols, Min. Mr. Antho. Oldfield, Mr. Tho. Foxton, Mr. Tho. Rumſey. Jurates.
And for the laſt, the infallibility of their Miniſtry the three Jurates of Sandwich in the Margin, will teſtifie that they did affirm their Miniſtry to be infallible.
To conclude all, I ſhall give thee a taſt of the craft even of the female Sex, in evading Scriptures. One of them was challenged for breaking the rule, 1 Cor. 14.34. Let your women keep ſilence in the Church, for it is not permitted to•hem to speak, &c. To which challenge ſhe replied, that is ſpoken of the women that have husbands at home to learn of, v. 38. but I have none, but am a maid.
59Another (who was a wife) being alſo challenged for preaching publickly,Mr. Tho. Foxton. and that Scripture urged againſt her, I ſuffer not a woman to teach, nor to uſurp authority ov•r the man, &c. 1 Tim. 2.12. She readily replied, that was ſpoken of the woman who was in the tranſgreſſion, but I am not one of them, (meaning it ſeems that women who are perfect, had the liberty of teaching, which was denied to other women.) And I had ſome private diſcourſe with a Gentlewoman a Quaker,Mrs. Dor. Gudderſon. and•ging her with that Scriptur•, M•rk 7.13. M•king the Word of God of none eff•ct, which is ſpoken of the fifth Commandment, v 9, 12. (part of the wri•ten Word) to prove that the Scripture cals it ſelf by the name of the Word of God; and perceiving her at a loſſe, I p•eſſ'd her for an anſwer, in ſtead whereof ſhe put me a queſtion,Mrs. Mary Paramour. wouldſt thou not have•e imitate the man Chriſt in•ll things? To which when I anſwered, yes, in ſuch things as are intended for our imitation, ſhe replies, the man Chriſt did not alwaies anſwer ſuch cavilling queſtions as were asked him, neither will I•nſwer thee. And when ſhe was urged with thoſe Scriptu•es, Rom. 16 and other Epiſtles, which enjoyn Saluta•ions, ſhe pretended that ſhe not being a Roman, nor Corinthian, what Paul wrote to them, was nothing to her, unleſſe the Spirit within her did prompt her to do the ſame things. And that thou maiſt ſee how great a ſtr•ſſe they lay upon ſmall matters, I will tell thee a true ſtory (which perhaps may move thy laugh•er) that a Kinſman by marriage of the ſame Gentlewomans making offer to ſalute her at his own houſe, April 12, 1659.60 ſhe went two or three ſteps back with theſe words, I have renounced the Devil and the Fleſh long ſince, prethee forbear that custom of the World.
Theſe things I thought good to add (at the deſire of ſome worthy perſons) which elſe I had omitted, that the world may take notice not onely of the wickedneſſe, but of the abſurdity of theſe peoples Principles.
Mr. Caryl's
on Job.
Beza Novum Teſtamentum. Fol.
Mr. Allens Scripture Chronologie. 4o
Mr. Baxters Call to the unconverted. 12o.
Mr. Lukins practice of Godlineſſe. 12o.
A Catechiſm of the chief Heads of Chriſtian Religion, by Mr. Davenport & Mr. Hooke of New-England. 8o
The Faith and Order owned and practiſed in the Congregational Churches in England, agreed upon and conſented unto by their Elders & meſſengers at their meeting at the Savoy, Octob. 12, 1658.
Mr. Cottons Treatiſe on the Covenant of Grace.
Johannes Becoldus Redivivus, the Engliſh Quaker, the German Enthuſiaſt revived.
A Defence and Juſtification of Miniſters Maintenance by Tythes, and of Infant-Baptiſm, Humane Learning, and the Sword of the Magiſtrate, which ſome Anabaptiſts falſly call four ſandy Pillars, and Popiſh Foundations of our Miniſtry and Churches; written by Immanuel Bourne Paſtor to the Congregation at Waltham in the County of Leiceſter.
Pre•bytery and Independency vindicated in anſwer to Mr. John Tympſons Treatiſe of a free admiſſion to the Lords T•ble. Its now in the Preſs.
Mr. Gatt ker againſt judi ial Aſtrology.
The vanity of judicial A••rology, written by Gaſſandus Mathemetical Prof•ſſor to the Ki•g of France.
Several Caſe•of Conſcience concerning ASTROLOGY, and ſeekers unto Aſtrologers anſwered, bo•h from the VVord of God, and from the Teſtimony of our moſt godly and eminent Divines; publiſhed by a Friend to the Truth, in which Book Judicial Aſtrologie is proved to be
1. Expreſly fo•bidden by the VVord of God as a grand offence, and ought not to be practiſed, countenanced, nor tollerated, D•u. 18.10, 11. Lev. 20.6. Iſai. 47.13, 14. Jer. 10.2.
The Reaſons why it is ſo expreſly forbidden, are:
1. It is a practice whereby men do aſſume to themſelves that which is peculiar unto God, viz. Judgement concerning future events either concerning Kingdoms or Perſons, Iſai. 41.22, 23.
2. Becauſe it draws the hearts of men from God the Father, and Chriſt his Son, from conſidering the VVorks of the one, & hearking to the words of the other, Iſai. 5.12. Col. 1.8, 18, 19. Deut. 18.10, 16.
3. Becauſe it is falſe, deluſive, and uncertain, Iſai. 44.15.
4. Becauſe it nouriſheth vain and forbidden hopes and fears, Jer. 10.2.
All which Conſiderations publiſhed are to this end.
1. As an alarum, that the Conſciences of thoſe that ſtudy it may be awakened, that they may be fully convinced of the great evill that is in it, that abhorring ſuch an abominable evil that is ſo hateful to God, and a reall trouble to the Conſciences of good men; by leaving the ſin, they may avoid the puniſhment.
2. That Conſcientious Magiſtrates may know how nearly it concerns them to do their duties, in vindicating the Glory of God, by putting a period to the ſtudy of Judicial Aſtrology, a practiſe indeed that brings the honour of God into ſo much contempt in the world.
3. Laſtly, That all thoſe that have a deſire to learn it, and thoſe who enquire of Aſtrologers what good or ill Fortune (as they term it) ſhall happen to them in the courſe of their lives may through Gods Grace ſtifle ſuch unlawful deſires; all which through the Grace of God ſhall be the prayers and ſupplications of him (put up in the name of the Lord Jeſus) who is their friend to his power,
He that converteth a ſinner from the errour of his way, ſhall ſave a ſoul from death, and ſhall hide a multitude of ſins, James•.20.
(EEBO-TCP ; phase 2, no. A81734)
Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 124811)
Images scanned from microfilm: (Thomason Tracts ; 244:E2255[3])
Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford.
EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO.
EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org).
The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source.
Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data.
Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so.
Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor.
The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines.
Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements).
Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site.
This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. Searching, reading, printing, or downloading EEBO-TCP texts is reserved for the authorized users of these project partner institutions. Permission must be granted for subsequent distribution, in print or electronically, of this EEBO-TCP Phase II text, in whole or in part.