Innocency above Impudency: OR, The ſtrength of Righteouſneſs exalted, Above the QƲAKERS Weakneſs and Wickedneſs.
THe Apoſtle in his Catalogue of the evils of the latter times, 1 Tim. 4.2. reckons up ſuch as ſpeak lyes in hypocriſie, having their Conſciences ſeared with a hot iron, to be none of the leaſt, who by a ſhew of Selfdenial in Marriage and Meats, &c. ſhould introduce (by their heeding ſeducing ſpirits) Doctrines of Devils; and ſurely this Propheſie aimed much at the men call'd Quakers; which I ſhall make appear (God aſſiſting me) by what2 follows, in anſwer to their Book, call'd Weakneſs above Wickedneſs.
And for the more orderly proceeding herein, I ſhall firſt ſpeak to the Title-page of it, where they are pleaſed to call their book, THE QUAKERS DEFENCE, &c. Here I do obſerve one thing, That my book hath made theſe men own themſelves Quakers; for they were aſhamed of their Names before, and uſually call'd themſelves, Such as were NICK-NAMED Quakers; yet now they call their book, The QUAKERS Defence. So that here they did tell a notorious Lye,His firſt LYE. in ſaying, The WORLD did Nick-name them Quakers, when they give that Name to themſelves.
I now come to the book it ſelf, where he begins, and ſayes, pag. 1. That the Apoſtle well knew what he ſaid, when he deſired the Saints prayers, That he might be delivered from men without faith, &c.
Truly, the Devil ſpeaks truth ſometimes, and ſo do you, in ſaying, The Apoſtle well knew what he ſaid; but ſurely, you are no Apoſtles, that ſpeak things you know not, and are vainly puft up with a fleſhly minde, as appears by what I have ſaid in my laſt, and ſhall yet further make manifelt in due place.
Thou telleſt me,His 2. LYE. That I deny the Faith of God, which is the gift of God in his Saints, &c. This I never did, either by word or writing: And though he ought to have proved, that I denied the Faith, being he chargeth it upon me, yet he brings no proof at all, but his bare aſſertion. I ſhall therefore give the Reader ſome ſayings of mine, and leave him to judge, whether they look like the words of a man that did deny the Faith of God, and ſet up a Faith of his own, as he falſly accuſeth me. As firſt, in my Epiſtle to the Churches, I3 call upon them, to take heed that they were not ſpoiled of their joy and confidence they had in CHRIST JESUS; and, that they would let none of the words of OUR LORD JESUS ſlip out of their minde; and, that they would have high and honourable thoughts of the SCRIPTURES; and, that they would prize the Ordinances of GOD; and pag. 16. of my book, I do exhort, that men would take heed of turning the Truth of GOD into a Lye: Nay, doth not he tell me, That I did confeſs, that Chriſt lighteth every man that comes into the world, in his anſwer, pag. 5? And do not I all along through my book, profeſs Chriſt to be the SAVIOUR OF THE WORLD, and JUDGE of the World? and is not this the Faith of God? and yet this man ſayes, I deny the Faith of God.
In the ſecond page he inſiſts upon ſome things, which (he ſaith) I ſpake at Gerrard Roberts houſe, which I ſhall take notice of hereafter; becauſe he is ſo full of Tautalogies, and ſpeaks very often in his book, of ſomething relating thereto, and therefore it will be loſt labour to ſpeak to any thing, till I come to ſpeak to the whole. The reſt of the ſecond page hath little beſides, but a pack of ſwelling words of vanity; as Vain Philoſophy, Deceitful Craft, Unreaſonable blaſphemous Doctrines, Curſed Art, charging me with ſetting up the ſpirit of the Devil; and, that I had muſtered up a heap of Lyes, and a heap of Subtilty, &c. Let me tell thee, James, theſe words had done well, when thou hadſt proved me ſo; and then they would better have become the Concluſion, then the Preface of thy book.
Thou goeſt on, and ſayeſt, in the latter end of p. 2. that thou wilt not trouble thy ſelf to anſwer every particular of my vain ſtories, &c. Truly, I do believe, that thou wouldſt be as much troubled to anſwer to them,4 and prove them ſo, as ever thou waſt in thy life; and therefore it was cunningly thought on by thee, to eaſe thy ſelf of the trouble, and call them Lyes, vain ſtories, and ſlanders: Here thou haſt done like thy ſelf.
Thou goeſt on, and quarrelſt with my Epiſtle to the Churches, and ſayeſt, If my brethren, with me, have denied the Faith of Chriſt, and ſet up a Faith of their own, it is like my work will be welcome. To this I have anſwered already in my Reply to thy firſt Page: and becauſe I will not call this another Lye, I ſhall onely ſay it is the former Lye reiterated the ſecond time.
Thou leapeſt over my Epiſtle to the Reader, and ſayeſt nothing to it, though therein thou waſt more concerned, then in the Epiſtle to the Churches: and from thence comeſt to ſpeak a little, to little purpoſe, in pag. 3. of thy book, and that is, That you ſhall not contend whether the world call you that which is true, or that which is falſe, when they call you Quakers. If ſo, then why haſt thou troubled thy ſelf ſo farre, as to call them Iſhmaels Brood, that call you ſo? Your jugling and lying at this turn, which I charge you with in the ſecond and third pages of my book, thou ſayeſt nothing to, but that thou wilt not trouble thy ſelf whether the world truly or falſly call you ſo. Oh ſhameleſs wretch! doſt thou ſay thou art Nick-named, when thou art call'd Quaker? And when I have uſed arguments to prove thee a Lyer, in ſaying, The world Nick-names thee, becauſe thou nameſt thy ſelf ſo; thou ſhakeſt all off with this, that thou wilt not contend whether they call'd thee truly or falſly. His 3. LYE.But by the way, if they did call thee truly, then thou art a Lyer, in ſaying they Nick-named thee.
5Thou goeſt on, and in page 3. of thy book, thou telleſt me, that I lyed, in ſaying you foamed at the mouth in your tremblings, &c. But James, remember, that it is not thy bare ſaying I lye, that proves it ſo: and thou doeſt pretend (that ſo I may repent) to inform me better. But am I better informed that you did not foam, becauſe you ſay I lye, in charging you with foaming? Reade, and judge: and yet this is all you bring to inform me better. And whereas you ſay. That though it was caſt upon you in the Weſtmerland Petition, and you did not anſwer to it; it doth not follow (you ſay) that the Charge was therefore true. To this I reply, That if you had overlooked thoſe paſſages in the Charge, then indeed there might be ſomewhat in what you ſay: But you printed thoſe particular paſſages, how that you were charged with ſwellings and foamings, and that in young children, and yet ſay nothing to the untruth of them. And though I have again urged the ſame things, yet you ſay nothing to your ſwelling and roaring, though it be charged to be in young children.
And whereas in your Anſwer you deny foamings, yet you do not deny any other part of my Charge. By this the world may ſee thy wickedneſs, that thou waveſt the moſt material things, and ſaiſt nothing to them.
And whereas thou ſayeſt, I lyed, and the Petitioners lyed, in ſaying, you foamed: I demand, why both my ſelf and the Petitioners have not better ground to ſay thou lyeſt, in denying it, ſeeing thou haſt waved anſwering to it, both when your ſelves did print the Charge, and alſo when I did charge you with it afreſh in my book? But I do think, that this was one thing that James was not willing to TROUBLE himſelf6 with anſwering: for I perceive, and ſo may the Reader, if he mindes my book and his Anſwer, That he could not tell how to deny what I and the Petitioners of Weſtmerland did charge againſt them.
You now proceed, and in the latter end of page 3. and page 4. you ſay, that I can finde nothing of the TRUTH you preach that I dare accuſe you of. Well ſaid, James, thou wilt ſpeak Truth ſometimes, though it be againſt thy Father the Devils will: for tou ſayeſt, That I can finde nothing of the TRUTH you preach that I dare to accuſe you of. Indeed that's true; for I dare not accuſe any for holding Truth: But then it ſeems, if I have accuſed you of any thing that you preach, it is of the Lyes you preach. This muſt needs follow; for if (as thou ſayeſt) I dare not accuſe thee of the Truths you preach, and yet do accuſe you of many things that you preach, as my book declares at large; then it follows, that all that I accuſe you with, is of the Lyes you preach; for you have juſtified me, that I did not dare to accuſe you of the TRUTHS you preach.
But in the 3 and 4 pages of thy book, thou ſayeſt, That I do accuſe you of ſomewhat that you never preached; viz. That you ſay, Nothing muſt be called Gods Word, but Chriſt: This (you ſay) is none of your Doctrine. His 4. LYE.But I wonder who hath ever heard you (unleſs it be ſuch as are deeply drenched in hypocriſie, and have learned your art of Equivocation, but will ſay the ſame thing that I ſay of you.)
You ſay alſo, That I lye, in ſaying you deny the Scriptures to be the Word of God,His 5. LYE. &c. But have not I proved it from your own writings, pag. 6. of my book? And do you not reprove in many places of your books7 the People and Prieſt, for calling the Writings The Word. Oh ſhameleſs man! to call me a Lyer, for ſaying nothing of them, but what I have under their own hands. And where my arguments againſt thee are of that force, that thou knoweſt not how to anſwer them; Thou telleſt the Reader, That it is falſe in my ſenſe, to ſay thou denieſt the Scriptures to be the Word of God. James, do not juggle; for I did not ſay you denied the Scriptures to be the Word of God in my ſenſe, but in your own words, that may be found in the books I have cited, and which are owned by you.
But to proceed: James jumps through the 7 and 8 pages of my book, where I make it appear, That they give thoſe Titles to their own Pamphlets, that they will not give to the Scriptures; and thereupon do demand a queſtion: To all which James anſwers not a word. Reader, remember what James ſaid at firſt, namely, That he would not trouble himſelf to anſwer all; and by this he frees himſelf very cunningly from anſwering to the moſt material things I urge againſt him.
He comes now to ſpeak to the third Error I charge them with, and that is, That they preach they are infallibly ſent, and cannot prove it. To this he makes his Defence, by ſaying, If he had come in his own name, I would have received him. But how doth this appear true?His 6. LYE. for what though I will not believe a man that comes in Gods name, when God never ſent him; doth it therefore follow, that I muſt needs believe one that comes in his own name?
And whereas he ſaith in this fourth page of his book, That it is plainly ſeen of what ſpirit I am of, becauſe8 I ſet it down as an Error, that he preacheth, viz. That they are ſent immediately of God: Now here he playes the Serpents part, for he leaves out that which is moſt material: for I never ſaid it was an Error for men to ſay they were ſent of God, if they could prove it; but, that it was Error and Preſumption for one to ſay it that could not prove it: which words, AND COULD NOT PROVE IT, though that be the ſcope of the Charge, as any one may ſee, that reades the Conferences contained in the 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 pages of my book: For I never denied, but a man that could prove his ſending, might ſay God ſent him; but the thing I denied, was, That it was Error and Preſumption to ſay it, when it could not be proved, as I have largely declared in the laſt fore-cited pages, which James leaps over, and ſaith nothing to, though therein the two chiefeſt of our Conferences are publiſhed, with the Arguments and Anſwers, to which he ſaith nothing.
He now comes to tell us, That the Apoſtles ſaid they were ſent of God, who did not work Miracles in the ſight of all they preached to, page. 4. See this mans deceit: I challenge him to tell us he did a Miracle at any time for to prove his Miniſtery, and he anſwers, That the Apoſtles did not work Miracles before ALL they preached to. But James, canſt thou prove thou haſt wrought a Miracle before ANY thou haſt preached to? Now I ſee thou art put to thy ſhifts: for thou didſt ſay in thy Letter to me, and alſo in thy Conference at Beech-lane, That there were many ſent immediately of God, that did no Miracle. And now my book hath put thee upon ſaying, that they that were ſent immediately of God, did not do Miracles at all times, before all9 they preached to. But how doth this juſtifie thee, who canſt not ſay thou haſt done a Miracle at any time?
Thou goeſt on ſtill in page 4. and ſayeſt, That I call that an Error, which all the Miniſters of Chriſt did own, p. 4. and thou alſo ſayſt, That that which I call Error, thou owneſt: and yet but a little before, thou ſayeſt, That I can finde nothing of the Truth you preach, that I dare accuſe you of, page 3. Now if I dare not (as you ſay) accuſe you of any Truth you preach; then it muſt needs follow, that thou art an Heretick condemned in thy ſelf, and that thoſe are Errors that I charge upon thee; for I dare not (thou ſayeſt) accuſe any of the Truth you preach.
You go on, and ſay, page 4. That you make proof of your Miniſtery as the Apoſtles did, in partience, in affliction,His 7. LYE. and neceſsities, &c. For ſhame, James, hold thy tongue at this turn, and let ſome-body elſe ſpeak: for, where is thy patience, who fil'ſt thy mouth with great ſwelling words of vanity againſt all that oppoſe thee? when the Saints did not give railing for railing, but (like Chriſt) they when they were reviled, reviled not again: But I am ſure, for railing, thou exceedeſt any of the Society of Billingſgate, and art fitter to converſe with Oyſter-women, then about the things of God: For Fool, and Sor, and Devil, and Traſh, are thy frequent language to any that oppoſe thee. And though you ſay, You are perſecuted; I do challenge thee to ſhew me any that have opened their mouths againſt you in print, that have given you worſe language then you have given them; and yet you brag of your patience: for it is no better then bragging, when your perſecutors (as you call them) have better words in their mouthes then your ſelves.
10But further, you tell us, That you make proof of your Miniſtery by afflitions and neceſsities, &c. I pray what affliction have you ſuffered, but others, whom you cry down, have ſhared in, as deep, if not more deep then your ſelves? But as for your neceſſities, ſurely thou lyeſt at this turn; for thou didſt never go ſo well when thou followedſt the Plough (in point of Apparel) as thou doeſt ſince: and it is believed (and that upon good ground) that thy neceſſities were more before thou waſt a Quaker, then they have been ſince.
You go on, and ſpend the moſt part of the fifth page, to recite ſome things that thou ſayeſt I left out at a Meeting at Gerrard Roberts,His 8. LYE. and this thou call'ſt, A diminiſhing Truth to cover Lyes. If this be true that thou ſayeſt, then thou art fearfully guilty of diminiſhing Truth to cover thy Lyes with: For pray conſider, if I had printed any part of the Conference at Gerrard Roberts, and had left out other part of it, that had made moſt againſt me; then he might have had a ground of complaint: but I printed not a word of it. And muſt a man every time he prints, print every Conference he hath been at, or elſe if he leaves out one, and makes no mention of it, be counted a man that diminiſheth Truth to cover Lyes? See the wickedneſs of this man! when himſelf undertakes to anſwer my book, he leaves out whole pages, and many Arguments of great importance, together with many things that paſſed at our ſeveral Conferences, that were of moſt weight; but this muſt not be call'd a diminiſhing of Truth to cover Lyes: but he excuſeth himſelf (as I have told you) by ſaying he would not trouble himſelf with them.
11Again, the things which himſelf ſaid at that Meeting, he hath left out, and ſpake not a word to the chief thing in controverſie, and upon which the Meeting was occaſioned, to wit, about Water-baptiſm; and yet this man ſaith, That I leave out Truth to cover Lyes, when he hath left out the whole buſineſs of that Conference, and pick'd up ſomewhat that he thinks makes againſt me, and chargeth me with other things that I never ſaid, as ſhall appear in due place.
He goes on in this 5 page of his book, and repeats ſome things which (he ſaith) I ſaid at that Meeting. About this he ſpends a great part of this page; and yet for all that (as though he thought he could not repeat his Lyes faſt enough) he ſpends three pages more to repeat the ſame things, which he ſaith he ſent in a Letter to me; as any one may ſee, that ſhall compare the 5 page with the 6 and 7 of his book. And though in his Letter, he ſaith ſomething about Water-baptiſm; yet that Letter was not the Conference, but a Letter ſent after the Conference; and that appears, becauſe he mentions not one Argument brought by me at that time in favour to it, but in ſtead thereof charges me with ſomething that I never ſaid: Whereas if that Letter were the ſum of the Conference, as poſſibly he may make ſome believe, why then did not he write the Arguments I brought for the proof of what I then ſaid, and his Anſwers to them, which the Letter ſpeaks nothing of?
And as touching the particulars charged in his Letter, and ſo often repeated by him, as though he wanted matter; I ſhall firſt ſpeak to the firſt, and that is, That I ſaid a man might underſtand the Scriptures12 without the Spirit of God. To this I anſwer, and that as I then told him, That though all the Myſteries of the Kingdom of God and Chriſt could not be underſtood without Gods Spirit, which the Scripture ſaith ſhall lead into all truth; yet much of the Scripture might be underſtood by men that had not the Spirit; as, Thou ſhalt not kill; and, Thou ſhalt not ſteal, and the like: and the Scribes and Prieſts, Mat. 2.4. underſtood by the Scripture, that Chriſt ſhould be born in Bethlehem, as it was written by the Prophet, though they had not the Spirit: and ſurely they underſtood that Scripture right; for accordingly he was born in the ſame place. This I did anſwer at that time, though he hath left it out; and yet omiſſion of any thing that he ſaith, is counted an evil.
The next thing is, that I ſaid, The Faith by which a man is ſaved, is not the gift of God. To this I did anſwer then, and ſo I do now, That it is not ſo the gift of God, as you imagine by your Enthuſiaſtical dotages; as, That men ſhould meet together, and neither ſay nor do towards the work of Faith, till they are immediately inſpired with your quaking dotages: in this ſenſe I do ſtill deny Faith to be Gods gift; yet in the ſenſe that all thoſe Scriptures ſay Faith is the gift of God, I do freely own it, as my book doth declare, page 37. wherein I have theſe words, That men have nothing but what they have received, eſpecially any light or knowledge of Jeſus Chriſt, according to 1 Cor. 4.7.
The next is, that I ſaid, The obedience of Believers was not the gift of God. To this I anſwer, as before, That we being at that time diſcourſing about the point of Baptiſm, and I then aſſerting, That God13 was to be obeyed in that, as well as others of his Commands: Thou didſt anſwer, That they muſt wait till obedience was given them. To which I did reply, That God did not give obedience to his people, in the way that thou didſt expect it, as to ſit ſtill and do nothing, till men were immediately inſpired to it: And in this ſenſe I do ſtill deny, That obedience is the gift of God; though I do believe (and am generally known to teach) that to him that hath improved his talent, God will give more; and that he that doth his will, ſhall know of his Doctrine. And in this ſenſe I do believe obedience to be the gift of God, according to thoſe Scriptures by you alledged; and yet I ſay, None of thoſe Scriptures prove your obedient actions (which you ſo call) to be Gods gift.
You go on, and ſay that I ſaid, Whoſoever ſpeaks that which men underſtand not, is a Fool, and a Barbarian. His 9. LYE.Theſe were not the words, James: but indeed, when thou hadſt ſpoke a great while to us, and then at laſt, when I made ſome Reply upon thy words, thou didſt anſwer, That thou ſpakeſt in a language that I could not underſtand; and ſo thou ſaidſt upon the like occaſion, at our Meeting in Beech-lane, before many witneſſes, as I have ſhewed in page 10. of my book, call'd Quakers quaking: Hereupon I did anſwer, according to that of the Apoſtle, That he that ſpeaks in an unknown tongue, is a Barbarian; and if I ſaid a Fool, I think I might〈◊〉prove it: Not but that I did then, and do ſtill believe, That Chriſt ſpake many things, and ſo did his Apoſtles, that the world could not underſtand, becauſe of their hardneſs of heart.
You charge me further with ſaying, That none was baptized with the holy Ghoſt, but they wrought Miracles. I ſaid not ſo, but that none were baptized with the holy Ghoſt14 but they COULD work Miracles;His 10. LYE. and ſo I do ſay ſtill, till thou canſt prove it: for not one Text by thee alledged proves the contrary.
You tell me that I ſaid,His 11. LYE. All good was not of God. This is another of thy Lyes, and I leave it to thee to prove: Though it may be I might ſay, That All the good you glory in, is not of God; and ſo I ſay ſtill: For you are of the Generation that call good evil, and evil good; but otherwiſe, I believe with all my heart, that God is the Fountain of all good, according to the Scriptures.
You go on, and tell me that I ſaid, Chriſt was not a Miniſter of Circumciſion: And ſo I ſay ſtill, till thou canſt prove it. And though in thy Letter thou chargeſt this for an Error; yet thou doſt not bring one Text, to prove he was a Miniſter of Circumciſion. See thy deceit!
Again, thou chargeſt me with Error in thy Letter, in ſaying, The Law was not given by Chriſt: and yet doſt not give me one Text, to prove that it was given by Chriſt: for the Scripture ſaith, The Law was given by Moſes; but Grace and Truth came by Jeſus Chriſt, Joh. 1.17. and yet thou haſt the face to call this one of my blaſphemous Doctrines.
Thou tell'ſt me in thy Letter,His 12. LYE. that I ſaid, The wilderneſs where John preached, was in Jeruſalem. James, this is like thee and thy Father: for what man in his right wits ever ſaid, a Wilderneſs was in〈◊〉, unleſs there be one at the Bull and Mouth at Alderſgate, which is the likeſt one, of any place in a City that ever I heard of?
He further ſaith,His 13. LYE. That I ſaid the River Jordan was in Jeruſalem. This is falſe: for I know that Text well in Mat. 3. that ſaith Ieruſalem went OUT to be baptized of John15 in Jordan; therefore I could not think Jordan was in Jeruſalem. But however, it is as reaſonable to think that Jordan ſhould be in Jeruſalem, as it is for you to teach, That Jeruſalem is IN YOU.
You go on, and tell me that I ſaid,His 14. LYE. I could foretell things to come, without the Spirit: This (thou ſayeſt) is Witchery. To this I anſwer, That this is another of thy Lyes, to ſay, that this is Witchery: for the Phariſees did foretel things to come, and had not the Spirit, when they ſaid, Matth. 16.2. Luk. 12.54, 55. They knew when it would be heat and rain, before it came to paſs; and Chriſt bare them witneſs that this was true: and the Prieſts & Scribes by the Scriptures did know, that Chriſt ſhould be born in Bethlehem, though they had not the Spirit: Was not this to foretel a thing to come? and yet this is not Witchcraft, though thou art pleaſed to call it ſo. The reſt of your Letter conſiſts of Baptiſm: For anſwer thereto, I ſhall refer the Reader to my book, call'd Quakers quaking, pag. 25, 26, and 38.
Thus much as touching thy Letter, and thy Charge going before it, which is the ſame with the Letter, except ſome things which thou chargeſt me for omitting, which were ſpoken at our Conference at the Bull and Mouth near Alderſgate; and them thou ſayeſt are, Firſt,His 15. LYE. That (I ſhould ſay) Chriſt lighteth every one that comes into the world, and yet deny, that this Light was within every one that comes into the world. This thou ſayeſt I have omitted, to cover Lyes: But let me tell thee, James, That if this Light ſpoken of in Joh. 1. had been in thee, thou wouldſt have been aſhamed to tell thy Reader, That I did diminiſh this from the Diſcourſe, to16 make my ſelf a cover with a Lye, when theſe very words are once and again repeated, as page 49. of my book, call'd Quakers quaking, and page 51. in page 49. I have theſe words, viz. That I did not oppoſe the ſaying of Joh. 1. (which is) that Chriſt inlightens every one that comes into the world, but your ſaying (which is) that every one in the world hath the Light within him, ſpoken of in that Text. Again, in page 51. I have theſe words, In like manner he (viz.) Chriſt lighteth every one that comes into the world (inaſmuch as he uſeth means for the bringing the world to the Light) THOUGH ALL HAVE NOT THIS LIGHT WITHIN THEM. James, I have put it into Capital Letters, that thou mayeſt (without a Pair of Spectacles) ſee thy ſelf a Capital Lyer: for thou art ſo impudent, as to tell me, If I had been honeſt, I would have publiſhed the whole Truth; and this fore-mentioned paſſage, is one of the ſayings thou lyingly tell'ſt thy Reader that I did diminiſh, to make a cover for a Lye, when I printed it word for word. See his Anſwer to my book, page 5.
The next Lye he tells his Reader, is, That I omitted to print another paſſage that I ſpake in the Conference;His 16. LYE. which was, That the Heathen had a Light that convinced them of ſin, but this Light was not within them. James, ſurely thou canſt not forbear lying: for do not I ſay, page 52. that they might have a Light among them, that might not be within them? What is this leſs, then what thou ſayeſt I omitted? and is this falſe Doctrine? may not God uſe means, and ſend his Light among people to convince them of ſin, that they may reject, and not receive into their hearts? Was not the great Light, Jeſus Chriſt, among many, who did not receive him within them by believing? And yet thou art ſo ignorant17 and ſhameleſs, as to call this a deceit, and falſe Doctrine.
The next thing thou chargeſt me with, is, That I did omit the printing of that ſaying, which, thou ſayeſt,His 17. LYE. I ſpake at the Bull and Mouth, viz. That Chriſt pardoneth the ſins of every one that comes into the world. Now James, thou haſt fearfully diminiſhed the Truth, to make thee a cover for thy Lye: for thou leaveſt out theſe words that I ſaid, namely, That Chriſt was ſaid to be the Light of the world, or to lighten every one that came into it, as he was ſaid to take away the ſin of the world, inaſmuch as he did graciouſly afford meanes for the pardoning the ſins of the world, though every man ſhould not have his ſins pardoned. This indeed I ſaid, and to this purpoſe I ſpake in page 51. of my book; which is juſt contrary to what thou chargeſt: for I ſay, He doth not pardon the ſins of every one; thou ſayeſt that I ſaid, Chriſt did pardon the ſins of every one.
He now proceeds in his 10 page, to attempt an anſwer to the fourth Error I charge upon them, and ſaith,His 18. LYE. I count it an Error that they bear Teſtimony to the Light of Chriſt, which lighteth every one that comes into the world; and, That I count it an Error in them, for holding, That the Spiritual Light of Chriſt is ſufficient to teach in all the wayes of God, &c. and, That their Error is, for ſaying the light of Chriſt is Spiritual, and within. To all this I anſwer, 1. That the Reader may ſee that in thy fore-going Letter thou haſt laid to my charge things that I never ſaid: for thou that wilt adde to, and diminiſh from my words that are publiſhed in print, wilt not ſtick to do the like unto words that were ſpoken more privately: For where do I charge any of18 the fore mentioned things upon you for Error? I challenge thee to ſhew it me in any page of my book; or elſe confeſs thy wickedneſs before God and men: and that thy ſin may appear at this turn, I ſhall deſire the Reader to peruſe the fourth Error I charge upon you, in page 18. of my book, where I do not charge it as Error, That you teſtifie to the Light of Chriſt that is ſpoken of Joh. 1. but the words are, that (you ſay) Every man hath a Light within him, that will teach him to worſhip God rightly: And thereupon it is, that I do ground my twelve Quaeres, page 19, 20, 21. of my book; and not whether it be an Error to teſtifie to the Light of Chriſt, as thou falſly ſuggeſteſt: for though it be a Truth, as I often declare in my book, That Chriſt is the Light of the world; yet it is an Error, and an unwritten Conceit, to ſay, That EVERY MAN hath a Light within him, that will teach him to worſhip God aright, without any other means vouchſafed.
And in what page of my book do I count it an Error in you, for ſaying, The Spiritual Light of Chriſt is ſufficient to teach in all the wayes of God, as thou falſly ſaith I have? His 19. LYE.Nay, do not I ſay (and doeſt not thou confeſs in page 10. of thy book, that I ſay) It is ſufficient? &c. And where canſt thou ſhew me, that I charge it upon you as Error, for ſaying, The Light of Chriſt is ſufficient, as thou falſly haſt declared?
Again, where do I charge it upon you as Error, for ſaying,His 20. LYE. The Light of Chriſt is ſpiritual, and within, as you ſay I do? Do I ſay any ſuch thing in my whole book? No, no, I have not ſo learned Chriſt; and yet this you ſay is the Error I charge upon you. For ſhame, James, leave off lying, and ſpeak truth from19 thy heart; for my charge is not, That you ſay the Light of Chriſt is Spiritual and within, but that you ſay it is WITHIN EVERY MAN that comes into the world; that's the Error I charge: and in ſtead of anſwering that which I object, thou anſwereſt that which I never objected, as my book at large will manifeſt.
You proceed in page 11. to anſwer my Quaeres, and therein thou anſwereſt to that I never asked: For 1. I ask, What need there is of the Scripture to declare the minde of God, if it may be known without it every whit as well: And you ſay I ask,His 22. LYE. What need there is of the Scriptures to declare the minde of God; importing to the Reader, (as all may perceive) both in the Queſtion and Anſwer, That I was a man that judged them needleſs. But might he not as well have accuſed Paul for ſaying, Preaching was vain, when he he ſaith, If there be no Reſurrection, THEN is our preaching vain; as tell his Reader, that I ask what need there is of Scripture, when I ſaid, What need is there of Scripture to declare the minde of God, if it may be known without it every whit as well, as they pretend? So that this fills up the meaſure of his Lyes.
Again, I ask, Whether by the Light which is in EVERY man, ALL men may come to know a Virgin had a Son, &c. And you ſay I quaere, Whether THAT Light will ſhew a Virgin had a Son: which was not my quaere; for I know that THAT Light (which is Chriſt) will ſhew this and all other Truths: But what's this to the queſtion I ask, viz. Whether this Light be in every man, &c. Which term, EVERY MAN, ALL NATIONS, and THE WHOLE WORLD, thou deceifully leaveſt out of moſt of20 my quaeres, and ſo makes them ſpeak another thing, and then goeſt about to anſwer them, as any one may ſee that reades my book, and compares thy Anſwer to it; and therefore let theſe inſtances ſuffice for the reſt, wherein the Reader may ſee thy deceit, and alſo what-ſnuffling anſwers thou giveſt to the Twelve Quaeres, viz. That all thoſe things I quaere (thou ſayeſt) and much more, were made known by the Light within, &c. This is the ſubſtance of thy Anſwer. But James, how doth this anſwer the Quaeres, which asketh thee, Whether EVERY MAN hath a Light WITHIN him, that will bring him to know that a Virgin had a Son, and that Chriſt roſe from the dead in three days, & c? We believe, That by a Light within, theſe things were revealed to ſome men, but that's not our queſtion; but this, viz. Whether there be in EVERY MAN a Light, that will ſhew him theſe things propoſed in the Quaeres, page 19. And when I ask you, What need there is of your preaching and writing to inform the world, if the Light within the world can do it without you? You anſwer in page 11. That there is need of preaching, to direct people to the Light. Oh miſerable darkneſs! what can the Light within, without any other means, direct people to the whole will of God, and cannot this Light direct people to it ſelf without you? Is not this juſt as if a man ſhould ſay, That the light of the Sun will ſhew men every thing but it ſelf?
You anſwer the fifth Error I charge, which was, That one John Lawſon ſaid, The Day of Judgement was paſt already: ſaying, It may be ſeen whether he own it or no, by them that reade the book: And ſo it may, if they reade but the 35 page of Sauls Errand21 to Damaſcus, which is the book I cited for that purpoſe.
To the 6 and 7 Errors I charge, which is againſt one George Fox, for ſaying, That he was the Eternal Judge of the World, and the VVay, the Truth, and Life: You anſwer, That I prove this like the reſt, viz. as I did foamings at your Meetings, becauſe you did not deny it: See page 12. of your anſwer. To this I reply, (and that as I have ſaid, viz. That if any ſhall print to the world, that they are charged with ſwellings, foamings, quakings, and roarings; and alſo that theſe things are found among them in little children; and when they come to anſwer it, ſhall onely deny to be guilty of one of theſe, and ſay nothing to the reſt; may not a man rationally conclude theſe men guilty of all the reſt, eſpecially conſidering it is teſtified by many witneſſes, who are better to be believed then themſelves? In like manner I ſtill ſay, That the Petitioners of Lancaſter did witneſs this againſt Fox, and he did not deny it; viz. That he ſaid he was the Eternal Judge of the VVorld, and the VVay, Truth and Life. Now what clearer proof can be made of any thing among men, then to witneſs what is charged, and the perſon charged deny it not? and yet James ſays this is no proof. I pray if this muſt not go for proof, how will you prove any thing to be true, that one doth not ſee?
The eighth Error I charge, is, That George Fox ſaid, He that took a place of Scripture, and made a Sermon of it or from it, is a Conjurer. This thou wouldſt excuſe, by ſaying, Theſe were not Georges words, but the Accuſers. Indeed this is like the reſt: But how doſt thou know they were not Georges words? Canſt22 thou have the face to ſay, that they are NOT his words, when he, though he prints the Charge, and Anſwer to it, doth not deny it himſelf. Here thou exceedeſt Fox himſelf for impudency: Nay, doth not Fox anſwer in page 7. of Sauls Errand to Damaſcus, that he that raiſeth the Spirit out of the Letter, is a Conjurer? And how far doth this differ from the charge? But however, is it not more reaſonable to believe the men that witneſs this againſt him, ſeeing he denies it not, then thee, who wilt deny that for George, which he denies not for himſelf?
The tenth Error I charge, is upon George Fox, for ſaying, The Scriptures are carnal; and thou tell'ſt me, That this is a Lye. But James, how dareſt thou ſay it is a Lye, when George himſelf, in his printed anſwer to it, would not tell the Petitioners that charged him with it, They lyed; but in ſtead thereof, evades the charge, by ſaying, The Letter of the Scripture is carnall?
The eleventh Error I charge, is upon one Leonard Fell, which through the PRINTERS miſtake, is printed Hill: and that was, That he ſaid Chriſt had no Body but his Church. To this thou repliedſt, That thou doeſt not know that name, and therefore thou makeſt no anſwer to the charge. Herein thou waſt glad to be ignorant, elſe thou mighteſt have looked into the book and page I cited for the proof of it, and eaſily have found it was the Printers miſtake.
The eleventh Error I charge, is againſt one John Lawſon, who ſaid, He had been in Hell, but was now in Heaven: Thou ſayeſt, It is plain, the Saints have witneſſed being in Hell and Heaven alſo. VVhat jugling is here! I charge him with ſaying HE had been23 in Hell, but was now in Heaven; and you tell us of the Saints of old, that ſome of them had been in Heaven and Hell, as Jonah was in Hell, when he was in the belly of the Whale, and Paul was in the third Heaven, 2 Cor. 12.2, 4. Is not this thy Logick, James? viz. Jonah was in the Whales belly, and Paul was in the third Heaven; Ergo, John Lawſon was in Hell, but is now in Heaven. And you ſay, This was not an Error in them that witneſſed this, nor in Lawſon, IF HE SAID TRUE. Now ſee if this anſwers the charge: For how haſt thou proved he ſaid true, when he ſaid ſo?
The twelfth Error I charge, is, That you ſay you are perfect, and ſin not. This you tell me is a Lye: and yet in the next words you ſay, You own perfection; and you ſay, Perfection is not that that you never had, as (you ſay) I falſly accuſe you. But James, if thou haſt perfection, what Lye is it to ſay thou art perfect, any more then it is a Lye to ſay one is rich, when he ſaith he hath Riches?
The thirteenth Error that I charge, is, That James Nayler ſaid, None could come to God or Chriſt, but they that come to perfection. By this (he ſaith) it ſeems I deny perfection to be in God or Chriſt; but (ſaith he) if that be granted, then they that come to them, come to perfection. To this I anſwer, That it is one thing for men to come to perfection, and another thing for them to come before a God that is perfect: for Paul was not come to perſection, when he himſelf ſaith, Not as though I had ALREADY ATTAINED: Now he had attained to come to God and Chriſt, as I plainly ſhew in page 33. of my book; and therefore this cunning evaſion will not ſerve thy turn: for who is there ſo ſottiſh, as to think, that when they come to God24 or Chriſt, that they come to a God or Chriſt that is imperfect? and therefore if that ſhould be thy meaning, then thou waſt but beating the air, and fighting and contending where none oppoſed thee. But by this the world may ſee, how Janus-fac'd thy Oracles are, that look two wayes at once: Nay, and doth not the latter end of thy anſwer to this particular, in page 14. of thy book, plainly ſhew, that thou didſt intend perfection in men, rather then God or Chriſt, inaſmuch as thou ſayeſt, The children of God never pleaded for ſin dwelling in them? and ſo ſay I too.
The fourteenth Error I charge, is, that James Nayler ſaid, That whenſoever they did eat or drink, they could have communion with the Body and Blood of the Lord in eating and drinking, though it were at the Gentiles Table. This he denies not, but ſaith, It muſt needs be counted an Error with the Belly-gods of this world, &c. But what is this to prove, That God doth anywhere require you to have communion with the Body and Blood of the Lord, though it were at the GENTILES Table? And if he do not require it, how dareſt thou ſay thou canſt do it? and how dareſt thou blame me for calling this an Error, when thou haſt not brought one Text to prove it is a Truth?
And whereas thou ſayeſt, Thou CANST have communion with the Body and Blood of Chriſt at the Gentiles Table: Doth not the Scripture ſay, That the things which the Gentiles ſacrifice, it is to Devils? And doth it not alſo ſay, That we CANNOT partake of the Table of the Lord, and the Table of Devils? and yet this man ſaith, He can have communion with the Body and Blood of Chriſt, at the Gentiles Table.
The fifteenth Error I charge, is, That James Parnel25 did deny all Baptiſm, but of the holy Ghoſt. To this thou replieſt, That to own the Baptiſm of Chriſt, and to deny all elſe, is counted an Error by me; and if ſo, then the Apoſtles did erre alſo. How doth this follow? when they did aſſert pluralities of Baptiſms, and did nowhere deny (as you do) all Baptiſms but that of the Spirit.
James now proceeds to tell me, page 14. That I go about to prove Water-baptiſm by Queſtions and crooked Conſequences; and (he ſaith) that I cannot finde a Command for it, after Chriſts ſufferings; and, That we cannot finde a plain Scripture for that which we worſhip, &c. And he further ſaith, That Moſes in all his houſe did leave his Ordinances not to be proved after this manner; and therefore (he infers) we are not to think that Chriſt will leave his Ordinances with ſuch kinde of proof.
To all which I anſwer, Firſt, that I have aſſerted proof for Water-baptiſm, in the queſtions propounded by me upon that occaſion: See my book, page 25, 26. which thou canſt not anſwer.
But ſecondly, how canſt thou reject Conſequences and Queſtions, when none have more Queſtions and conceited Conſequences, to prove what they hold, then your ſelves?
As for inſtance (to give the Reader a few among many:)
1 Queſt. Where have you a plain Text, without a conſequence, that ſaith, That the Light ſpoken of in Joh. 1. is IN every man that comes into the world? which you confidently affirm.
2. Where have you a plain Text, that ſaith, Chriſt was the Miniſter of Circumciſion? which, thou ſaidſt, was one of my blaſphemous Doctrines to deny, pag. 5. of thy book.
263. Where have you a plain Text, that ſaith, The Law was given by Chriſt? the denyal of which, thou ſayeſt, is another of my blaſphemous Doctrines, page 5.
4. Where have you a plain Text, that ſaith, God ſent ſome immediately, that could not work Miracles, or to whoſe Miniſtery he did not witneſs from heaven, ſince you boldly affirm, that you are ſo ſent, though you can work none?
5. Where haſt thou a Text, that ſaith, One may have communion with the Body and Blood of the Lord at the Gentiles Table, as you affirm?
6. Where have you a plain Text, that ſaith, He that raifeth Spirit out of the Letter, is a Conjurer?
7. Where have you a plain Text, that ſaith, The Scriptures may not be call'd, The Word of God?
8. Where have you a plain Text, that ſaith, There is no Baptiſm but of the Spirit; which you alſo affirm?
9. Where have you a plain Text, that ſaith, John Lawſon was in Hell, but is now in Heaven?
10. Where have you a plain Text, that ſaith, Chriſt was not born after the fleſh, but after the Spirit?
James, either give me expreſs Scriptures that do affirm theſe things in the words, as thou layeſt them down, or elſe be aſhamed to accuſe others for bringing Conſequences, when they bring the plain Text; whereas thou haft neither Text nor Conſequence for any of theſe thy fond conceits.
And now I cannot but give the Reader to take notice that thou ſayeſt, I have not found one Text that doth command Water-baptiſm after Chriſts ſufferings;His 22. LYE. when, whoever looketh over the 25, 26 pages of my book, ſhall finde ſeveral Texts to that purpoſe; and nine27 ſeveral Queſtions upon that ſubject, to which James makes no anſwer at all, as any-body may perceive, that reades the 14 page of his book, where he anſwers all, by calling what I propoſe, Crooked Conſequences. See if the man be not here at a Nonplus! or elſe, how could he have the face to intitle his book an Anſwer to mine, when he firſt leaves out the firſt two pages of my book, where I ſhew their jugling about their Name Quakers; and that they have lyed in ſaying, The world Nick-names them ſo: and to this he ſaith nothing, but That he ſhall not contend whether the world call them truly or falſly, when they call them ſo?
Again, I ſpend other two pages to prove, that they do give ſuch Titles to their Pamphlets, as they will refuſe to give to the Scriptures: And this I prove by their own books, as the Reader may perceive; and to this he ſayes not one word.
Again, I do print the ſubſtance of two Conferences, where he is ſo miſerably Nonplus'd, that he cannot tell what to ſay to them, but onely tells his Reader, that I do adde words that were never ſpoken, and diminiſh Truth, to make my ſelf a cover with a Lye. This is all that he ſaith touching the two Conferences, contained in the 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 pages of my book, as any one may ſee, that reades the fifth page of his book: and yet he hath got ſuch a ſtock of impudence, as to call his book an ANSWER to mine.
Again I propound twelve Quaeres in the 19, 20, 21 pages of my book: And to theſe, in ſtead of anſwering them, he propoſeth queſtions of his own, for ſo I call them, becauſe he hath left out the moſt material terms of mine in his tranſcribing them, by which they become28 his own queſtions, and not mine: and to theſe twelve Quaeres he ſaith as little as to the other.
Again, the like anſwer he gives to the nine Quaeres in page 25, 26 of my book; and the ſum of his anſwer is, That they are crooked Conſequences: See page 14 of his book.
He now comes to anſwer the ſixteenth Error I charge upon them, which was, that one of their Scribes did ask a Miniſter of the Nation, Whether he had the Light that did inlighten every one that comes into the world? when he had before told him, That every one HAD that Light within him. This I charge as a piece of inconſiſtency in theſe, that would be counted perfect. To which he replies, That Chriſt did ask the diſciples who they ſaid he was, and yet they had the Light within them, that revealed him to be the Son of God. But what's this to the caſe in hand? the caſe in hand is not, whether a man may ask a queſtion for the further confirmation of a thing that is in queſtion, as our Lord did his Diſciples, in a time when there was various opinions of him: But, whether after a man hath preached a thing that concerneth EVERY man, whether it be not very ridiculous to ask the ſame man to whom he hath preached, whether it concerns him? Where doth Chriſt, or any wiſe man, ask ſuch a queſtion? Again, Chriſt demands this queſtion of them that owned him, what their opinion was of him; but he asked the queſtion of a man that diſowned the Light to be in every one: So that this being conſidered, I demand, Whether Chriſt ever asked a man that did diſown him and his Light, whether his Light was within them, or no? as this man hath done: for he asked the queſtion of29 one that was a Miniſter of the Nation, whom they all ſay diſown the Light of Chriſt.
He paſſeth over the ſecond inſtance of their inconſiſtency, and ſaith not a word to it: I do ſuppoſe, as he ſaid at firſt, that theſe were ſome things he would not TROUBLE himſelf with anſwering; and indeed, I think it would trouble him to anſwer them, and therefore he cunningly lets them alone.
He comes to ſay ſomething to the third in ſtance I bring of their inconſiſtency; and that is, that though they pretend to own the Scriptures, yet one of them ſaid to Parſon Camelford of Staveley-Chappel, That he might as well have burnt the Scriptures, as his Quaeres: He anſwers, That it doth not prove all my falſe accuſations caſt upon them, &c. To this I reply, That I have not ſpoke or writ any ſyllable of untruth concerning you; and further, it doth prove all that I charge againſt you, about the caſe in hand, and all that I do urge in the foregoing pages, about your ſlighting the Scripture: For, for any one to ſay that a man might as well burn the Scriptures, as his Quaeres, doth not this prove, that your deſign is to eat out the honour of the Scriptures, and build up the honour of your contradictious ſtories?
And whereas in a Parentheſis, you queſtion if there was any ſuch that ſaid ſo: Fie James, do not I in p. 29. of my book, cite thoſe paſſages, and tell thee, That they are in a book call'd Truths Defence, which is owned by you all? and yet you queſtion if there be any ſuch: Doſt thou think that book did write it ſelf? and if not, why ſhouldſt thou queſtion whether there be ſuch a man as ſaith thoſe words in his book? for the words are there aſſerted, as I have tranſcribed30 them. But James, thou wouldſt willingly be ignorant of this ſtory, becauſe it doth ſo much lay open your hypocriſie and double-dealing about the Scriptures. And further, is not this book bound up, and owned by you, among the reſt of your Works? and yet thou wouldſt fain make the Reader believe, that there was no man among you that publiſhed ſuch a thing.
Thou paſſeſt over my fourth inſtance of your inconſiſtency, and ſayeſt not a word to it, which would trouble thee too much to anſwer it; and that is, That one Tomlinſon in his book call'd A word of Reproof, p. 11. did blame the Miniſters of the Nation for doing that they had no Rule for, when they prayed before or after Sermon (this book is alſo owned by you, and bound up with the reſt of your ſtories) and yet Edward Boroughs did pray after Sermon, before hundreds of people, at the Bull and Mouth near Alderſgate.
To this inconſiſtency among themſelves he ſays not a word, but leaps over it.
He proceeds, and ſaith, The fifteenth Error I charge is a Lye, which is, That they ſtudy deceitful terms, that look with two faces, &c. James, it is not thy ſaying, I Lye in charging you, that proves it to be a Lye, as any one may ſee in page 30 of my book. And for all thou ſayeſt, A man may affirm a Negative, yet that will not ſerve thy turn, for that is not the queſtion, but, Whether a man being charged with ſpeaking a thing that is Negative (for that's the caſe) doth not equivocate, in ſaying, He ſpake no ſuch Affirmative?
He comes now to anſwer the eighteenth Error I charge, and that is, Their Lying: Firſt, in ſaying, They are perfect, and ſin not: This (he ſaith) is a Lye of31 mine own, and ſhall reſt upon my head, till I prove they have ſaid ſo. To this I anſwer, That I could prove this largely, if I ſhould trouble the Reader to look over many of your writings: But however, to ſave that labour, I ſhall cite that paſſage in page 28. of this thy book:
Where you make this your ninth Quaere that you would have me anſwer, viz. What Faith is that which pleads for ſin, and preacheth againſt perfection? and that believes that they can never be free from ſin, and come to perfection while they are in this world? ſhew the Saint that ſo believed, and ſo practiſed. Let me tell thee, James, that if this be true, that men may be free from ſin in this world, as one branch of the queſtion doth plainly import; then if none of you are free from ſin, you do not do that which you MAY do; and then you are ſelf-condemned ſinners, if you may be free from ſin, and will not: is it not a ſhame for you to cry out againſt thoſe that live in ſin, (who, it may be, do think that they cannot live without ſin) and for you that believe you may live without ſin, to live in ſin? Oh the deceit of theſe men!
But if any-body ſhall ſay, That the Quakers do not live in ſin: I anſwer, Then what lye have I told, in charging them with ſaying, That they profeſs to be perfect? And doth not John Lilburn call Nayler once and again (in his Book lately publiſhed, call'd his Reſurrection) that TALL MAN in Chriſt? and yet Nayler ſaith, I Lye, in ſaying, They profeſs to be perfect. Now how can he be truly call'd a TALL MAN in Chriſt, that believes a man MAY be free from ſin in this world, and yet is not free from it himſelf?
Again, may not a man believe that TALL men in32 Chriſt ſhould be free from ſin in this world, if anybody may? and yet James ſaith, I Lye, in ſaying they profeſs to be perfect: Indeed, this is ſuch a bundle of imperfection, that if I had ſaid they had been perfect, I had lyed indeed.
The ſecond Lye I charge, is, that they ſaid, They were immediately ſent of God. To this he anſwers, that it is a Truth in them who are ſo ſent, to ſay ſo; and the Lye (he ſaith) is my own, till I prove the contrary. To this I reply: Firſt, that this is no anſwer to the Charge, but a meer evaſion, to ſay it is truth for a man that is ſo ſent to ſay ſo: and I wonder when James heard that denied by me, or any-body. But though it be a truth for a man to ſay that God ſends him, when indeed God hath ſent him; yet it is a Lye for a man to ſay, God ſent him, when he never did: And that he never ſent theſe Quakers, I prove at large, in pag. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 of my book; to which (as I have ſaid) he makes no anſwer: where I ſhew at large, that the Turk can ſay as much for his Alcoran, and the Pope for his Infallible Chair, as they can for their immediate ſending.
The third Lye I charge, is, that Fox ſaid, The world did not know his Name; and yet afterwards ſaith, He is known by the Name of George Fox. He anſwers, That the Saints that overcome have a new Name, &c. But what is this to George Fox? unleſs we ſhould take it for granted, That he was an overcoming Saint? is not this a ridiculous Argument, viz. Every one that overcomes, hath a new Name; Ergo, George Fox hath overcome, and hath a new Name?
Again, he doth not ſay, The world did not know his NEW Name, but HIS NAME, without any ſuch diſtinction.
33Again, did ever any of the Saints of old ſubſcribe themſelves as theſe do? but ſurely ſuch kinde of canting hath never been about ſubſcribing names; unleſs it were among Thieves, that would be known in the City by one name, and the Country by another.
The fourth Lye I charge, is, that Edward Burough ſaid, his book was ſealed with the Spirit of the eternal God: to this he anſwers, that this is call'd a Lye, but not proved. But ſurely if any ſhall preſume to utter ſuch a ſaying, it is more rational for him to prove the thing affirmed, then for his reſpondent to prove what he denyes: for, if God had ſcaled Burough his book, we ſhould have had more for the proof of it, then his bare ſay ſo.
The fifth and ſixth Lyes I charge, is about ſome paſſages that were in a letter that James ſent me; where he ſaith, that I did tempt him to deny the Lord; and that I did tell him, that if he came in his own name, I would have received him. Theſe were both falſe, as many can witneſs; for I bid him either prove he was ſent of God, or elſe diſown his preſumptions in ſaying ſo: and for my telling him, I would have received him, if he had come in his own name, &c. ſurely if I had been of that mind, I ſhould have received him at that time, for I did then, and ſo I do ſtill, believe, that he never came in any bodies name but his own, as our whole diſcourſe doth make manifeſt; though with the falſe Prophets of old, they boaſt of their being ſent of God.
And where as he adds at the bottome of his letter in Page 18. of his book, that I ſaid, if he were ſent of God, it were to no purpoſe to put my faith upon tryal with him, for he would overturn all my proofs: James, thou needeſt34 not witneſs this; but then this doth ſhew thy Lyes in thy letter: Which was, that I did tempt thee to deny the Lord; when I did at that time ſay, that if God ſent thee, we would not ſtand to contend with thee, if thou couldeſt but prove that: I further added, that then I would fall down under all that he ſaid; doth this look like tempting one to deny the Lord?
The ſeventh Lye that I did charge upon them, was, that he being charged with thoſe two fore-mentioned Lyes writ in the letter, did deny that there was any ſuch paſſages in the letter.
And whereas he ſaith, that he did not know of the fetching the letter, &c. this is no anſwer to the charge; the charge is, that he denyed he writ any ſuch paſſages: and it is not his now printing them, that proves he did not then deny them; which is all he urgeth to prove it.
And as for his running away, while the letter was fetching for to prove him a Lyer; that, I did urge as an aggravation of his ſin of lying; and that he did ſo, though he knew the letter was gone for, (though he now denyes it) will appear by certificate at the end of this book.
He proceeds in the 19. Page of his book, and ſaith, that I make a boaſt of ſomthing I will prove,His 25. LYE. and that is (ſaith he) that I ſaid, I would prove the writings of the Scriptures to be the Word of God. For ſhame James hide thy face: did I ever ſay any ſuch thing? nay, do not I ſay, Page 34. the writings may be burned, but the Word of God contained in them, cannot; And, That the Tables might be broken, but the Commands contained in them did remain like Mount Sion? &c.
And yet this man hath the Impudence to tell his35 Reader, that I ſay, I would prove the writings of the Scripture to be the Word of God.
But at this turn the Devil makes him ſpeak nonſence as well as falſities; for is it not non-ſence to ſay, the writings of the Scriptures? What is that, but in plain Engliſh to ſay, the writings of the writings? which is abſurd, and therefore the more like the Author that deviſed it: for my words are theſe, that the written precepts and promiſes of God, together with his threatnings of Judgements, and exhortations to amendment of life, they are, and ought to be called, the Words of God: and this I have uſed arguments to prove, to which he ſays little.
His next Lye, is, that he ſaith in Page 14.His 26. LYE. of his Book, that I would prove that the letter of that roll is the Word of God which Baruch read; VVhen there is no ſuch paſſage in my whole book: and having thus ſet up a man of ſtraw, he valiantly goes to fight with him; and ſaith, that Baruchs roll might be burned, but the VVord of God cannot. See if this man hath not belyed me in his letters, that will thus bolye me about things that are publiſhed in print, charging that to be in my book which is not in it, and then go about to confute it; for I ſay nothing of Baruch, but the very words of the text, Jer. 36.2, 5.
He proceeds in Page 20. and calls the next proof of mine AS CONFUSED AS THE REST; becauſe I charge them to deny the Scriptures to be the Word, and yet ſay, I will prove the Scriptures to be the Word of God out of their own mouths. But what confuſion is this? doth not Chriſt prove God to be juſt, and judge the unprofitable Servant out of his own mouth? And yet the unprofitable Servant ſaid, God was not juſt; for he ſaid,36 that he did reap where he ſowed not: ſo may I judge you out of your own mouths, that deny the Scriptures to be the word, who at ſome turns, to ſave your credit, own them: and becauſe I prove from your own words, as doth appear by my Book, page 35. that the Scriptures muſt be call'd Gods Word, becauſe you ſay, nothing can declare Gods VVill, but Gods VVord; you from hence would prove that Balaams Aſs was Gods VVord, becauſe he declared Gods VVill; and this you would faſten as an abſurdity upon me, which is an Argument that I raiſed upon your own principles; and therefore the abſurdity lights upon your own head, who ſay, nothing can inform into the Will of God, but the Word; and yet at another time ſay, the Scriptures declare Gods VVill, but are not his VVord.
You go on ſtill in Page 20. of your book, and ſay, That I confeſs Christ is the light that lightens every man that comes into the World; and yet ſay, it is an error for you to ſay, that THIS light will teach people to worſhip God rightly.
Now James, when did I count it an error in you to ſay, that the light of Chriſt is ſufficient to teach people to worſhip God rightly? this is another of thy lyes. Indeed, I have often ſaid that every man hath not the light of Chriſt in him; and that, that light which every man hath, is not ſufficient to teach him to worſhip God rightly: but did I ever ſay the light of Chriſt was not ſufficient? Do I not ſay the contrary, (viz) that the light of Chriſt is ſufficient, Page 36. of my book?
Thou goeſt on, glorying in lyes, and ſayeſt, Page 21. of thy Book, that I do apply that text of Gods purging Iſrael, Ezek. 24.14. to the light of Chriſt, to prove it37 was not ſufficient. See thy falſe tongue! when I do bring thoſe words to parallel with Joh. 1. to prove. That that Light is ſufficient to inlighten all, though all have not this Light within them: See my book, page 36.
You go on, and call this, The next piece of my divination, becauſe I ſay, that if every man have received the Light, then every man hath received Chriſt, &c. All thou ſayeſt to take off the edge of the Argument, is, That becauſe Chriſt is that Light, I would make that Light Chriſt. And James, what haſt thou ſaid to the contrary? for (is it not the ſame) Chriſt is THE Son of God, Ergo, THE Son of God is Chriſt? and how canſt thou deny this? And yet the like Argument to this, thou calleſt Divination.
You anſwer the Scripture I bring, Joh. 11.10. where it is ſaid, He that walks in the dark ſtumbleth, becauſe there is NO LIGHT IN HIM, by telling us, There is no Light in his WAY: For ſhame man, leave off thy adding to Scriptures! Doſt not thou adde to the words of the book? doth not the Text ſay, There is no light in him, and thou ſayeſt, There is no light in his WAY?
But may not a man as well interpret Joh. 1. and ſay, That when the Text ſaith, He lightens every one that comes into the world, that it is to be underſtood, of his lightning the worlds way, and not as you notion it, That every one hath this Light in him? This is the man that would have nothing proved by Conſequences; and yet when we have a plain Text for what we ſay, viz. That they that walk in the dark ſtumble, becauſe there is no Light in them; he ſhuffles it off, by telling us, He hath no Light in his way. So that James, it ſeems we muſt believe thy conceited38 Conſequences, by which thou wouldſt prove every man hath the Light within him, ſpoken of in Joh. 1. and not the plain Text, that ſaith, He that is in the dark, hath no light in him.
You come to the next thing, and that is, that I ſay, The day of Judgement is not paſt: This thou ſeemeſt to own to be a truth, by bidding me prepare for it, &c. But if with Lawſon, thou didſt not believe it paſt, thou wouldſt never tell thoſe untruths, as I have made appear thou haſt told in thy book: For, didſt thou believe Judgement to come, thou wouldſt tremble after another manner, then ever thou haſt done in Quaking Deluſions, and fear to lye at this rate.
You go on ſtill in page 22. and touching what I have aſſerted about Baptiſm and the Lords Supper, in page 38, 39 of my book, you ſay, You have ſpoken ſomewhat already, and that muſt ſtand till it be diſproved. I ſee a ſhort Anſwer ſerves your turn, or elſe you might have told us where we might have found it, that ſo it might be diſproved: but though thou didſt finde ſomething propoſed by me about baptiſm, thou leapeſt over it, as though thou waſt afraid to look on it, and ſaith nothing to ſeveral Texts alledged, and nine Queſtions propoſed, but that I brought crooked Conſequences, and no plain Text, &c. The next work is (he ſaith) TO PROVE RESPECT OF PERSONS, which are none of my words.
And he ſaith,His 28. LYE. I pervert that Text in Lev. 19.32. becauſe I reade it (as Beza renders it) Thou ſhalt honour the PERSON of the old man: But why is this a perverſion of the Text, when I have as good reaſon to follow his tranſlation as any? But 2. is not that which is done to the face of a man, done to his perſon,39 be it honour or diſhonour? And 3. are not theſe terms, FACE and PERSON convertible; as Iſa. 3.15. where it is ſaid, that The FACE of the poor was grinded; was not this the perſon of the poor?
And whereas you charge me with lying, in ſaying, you deny reſpect due to Parents, Maſters, Husbands, Wives, &c. I cannot but wonder at you: for I did not ſay ſo in any place of my book; I ſay, you did deny reſpect to perſons, which I prove ought to be, becauſe I am commanded to honour my Father and Mother, &c.
I brought this to prove, we ought to honour ſome more then others; and you ſay, I charge you with denying honour to Father and Mother, &c. But ſure James, thy Conſcience is very guilty at this turn, or elſe thou wouldſt never have ſaid, becauſe I brought thoſe Scriptures to prove what I laid down, that therefore I ſaid you were guilty: But hadſt thou done fairly, thou ſhouldſt have ſpoke to the Scriptures and Arguments alledged, and have ſhewed us in what ſenſe the unjuſt Judge was blameable, in not reverencing man; and many other Texts, which may be ſeen in page 39, 40. To all which thou ſayeſt nothing, but quarrell'ſt about that I never ſaid.
You go on, and ſay, That I Lye, becauſe I ſay, Not one in ten ſhall give the ſame anſwer to a queſtion, if it be ask'd them ſeverally: and this thou ſayeſt is a lye, becauſe (thou ſayeſt) I never proved ten of you therein. But James, this is as true as the reſt; for I have proved twenty of you herein: and to make it appear, I will meet thee at any time, and ask thee a queſtion appertaining to the things of God, and not one of ten ſhall give the ſame anſwer with thee, the queſtion40 being asked apart; if they do, I will be content to be call'd a Lyer, but not before.
You ſay, the next thing I would prove, is, That Chriſt had two Bodies. But James, why couldſt not thou as well lay down the Propoſition in my words, as thine own? my words are, That Chriſt had a Body beſides his Church; and to the Arguments and Texts alledged, thou ſayeſt nothing, but tell'ſt us a few of your own Notions; as, That thou wilt not diſpute with me, but ſayeſt, It ſerveth thee to know he is thy head, &c. But why didſt not thou anſwer my Arguments alledged to prove what I urged in the caſe?
You go on, and ſay, You do not deny Chriſt taking fleſh, &c. James, I did draw thy veil from before the face of the people, which thou hadſt caſt upon them, and made thee ſpeak ſomewhat plainly at the Bull and Mouth; and now thou wouldſt fain ſpeak ſomewhat to cover over thy vile ſayings: but to this I ſhall ſpeak anon.
And as touching the next thing, which is, that one of them ſaid, Chriſt was but a figure: This he ſaith is a Lye, becauſe of the PRINTERS Errata, who put page 54 of Sauls Errand to Damaſcius, in ſtead of page 8. in which page he hath the words I charge, though he ſaith there is no ſuch ſaying in the book; for this very thing was objected againſt him, and he anſwers, That Chriſt in the fleſh was a figure.
And whereas I ſhew you, that you have affinity with Gnoſticks, Manichees, and Familiſts, &c. you anſwer in page 24. that it is not worth anſwering; a cunning ſhift indeed! but if I ſhould ſay ſo to your queſtions by and by, you were well enough ſerved.
41You go on, and tell me, that I have perverted the Scriptures, &c. but haſt not ſhewed one Text wherein, unleſs it be that of Lev. 19. which I have already ſhewed to be no perverting of it.
He goes on: and becauſe I ſay in page 45 of my book, that all that I have writ againſt you, is either from your own Mouthes or Writings; you ſay, This is a Lye: but James, in the ſame page, about the middle of it, you might have found theſe words, namely, That the Errors I charge you with, are either ſuch as fell from your own Mouthes, or elſe ſuch as your ſelves being charged with, could not deny. Now put all this together, and what untruth have I told? for did you deny any of thoſe things that I ſay you did not deny? And though you ſay the men were bloody perſecuting Prieſts, &c. that charged you, the more ſhame for you, that you ſhould call your book an Anſwer to their Petition, and withall print their Objections your ſelves, pretending to anſwer them; and when all comes to all, never deny the charge in the particulars I mention, but ſay ſomewhat elſe in ſtead thereof, which is nothing to purpoſe, as you have done by me, as any may ſee, that reades your Anſwer both to my book, and the Weſtmerland Petition, which is a thing I never ſaw, any further then as your ſelves did tranſcribe and print it.
He now comes to the Poſtſcript at the end of my book, and ſaith, that becauſe ſome ſaw my murtherous minde, they did write down what he ſaid. Though that which they have writ to cover thy Aſſertion, was not ſpoken at that time, as many can witneſs that came out with me, whatever you ſpake after I was gone:42 And though you ſeem to carry it by witneſs, you muſt know, That your Witneſſes are Parties, being of the ſame faith with thy ſelf, viz. That Chriſt was not born after the fleſh: and it doth behove them to make a cloak for thee, leſt thy deeds & ſayings ſhould be made manifeſt. But whatever they have ſaid, that matters not, ſince you confeſs all that I charge, which is, That Chriſt was not born after the fleſh: And how have you anſwered the thing I charge in the Poſtſcript, which is, That it is all one to be born after the fleſh, as it is to be born according to the fleſh? and though I prove it all one in the 52, 53 pages of my book, yet thou makeſt no kinde of anſwer; which ſhews, that thou haſt pick'd up this Letter, to keep thee from the laſh of the Law, becauſe thou ſayeſt, Some ſaw I had a murtherous deſign, or elſe thou wouldſt have anſwered what I ſay in the Poſtſcript, but that you did fear the light.
You proceed, and in page 26. ſay, that I ſay, The Scriptures make no ſuch diſtinction, as born after the fleſh, and after the Spirit. His 29. LYE.This is another of thy Lyes: Where do I ſay any ſuch thing in all my book? but this I ſaid, That the Scriptures made no diſtinction between a being born after the fleſh, and born according to the fleſh.
And you ſay again, That Chriſt, as he was born of Mary, was not born after the fleſh, but begotten and brought forth by Promiſe. To this I anſwer, Firſt, that this is nothing to the queſtion; for though he was begotten and brought forth by promiſe, doth this prove, that therefore he was not borne after the fleſh? for Iſaac was borne according to the promiſe, yet he was borne after the fleſh likewiſe; So Gods promiſe concerning43 Chriſts Birth, doth not prove, that therefore he was not borne according to the fleſh. And whereas thou ſay'ſt, he that was borne after the fleſh, perſecuted him that was born after the Spirit; I ſay, that though this be true in ſinfull unregenerate men, that have no other Birth and generation, then what was after the fleſh: yet it is not true in Chriſt, and his being borne after the fleſh; for he being without ſin, did not perſecute him that was borne after the Spirit, as ſinfull men do. And therefore James, becauſe thou ſay'ſt Chriſt was not borne after the fleſh, ſhew me a plain text for ſuch a Doctrine, without any of theſe conceited conſequences; or elſe take ſhame to thy ſelf, for finding fault with proofs that others bring, when they do not give the expreſs text.
Thou telleſt me of my promiſe to repent, if I ſhould be better informed, &c. to this I anſwer, that thou haſt rather ſtrengthened my former opinions of thee, then any way better informed me, except I will take thy bare ſaying I lye, for a better information.
Thou now comeſt upon me with a pack of queſtions, to which I ſhall anſwer.
His firſt queſtion is, whoſe Spirit that is which men underſtand the Scriptures with, and try Spirits with, who are without the Spirit of God? Seeing thou affirms, that a man may underſtand Scriptures without the Spirit of God? or whether God hath ſet up ſuch a tryer, yea or no.
Anſw. The greateſt part of this queſtion, is grounded upon a falſe bottome, (viz.) (ſomething that I ſaid) which is moſt part falſe; for I did never ſay thoſe words: yet I have anſwered to them, ſo far as I am concerned, in my anſwer to thy letter which thou44 ſent'ſt to me, after our meeting at Gerard Roberts, in the former part of this book: but yet if by underſtanding the Scriptures, thou doeſt mean all things contained in them; I ſay, this he cannot do without Gods Spirit: and if by trying Spirits, thou meanſt, to try between your Spirits, and the Spirit of Chriſt; I can ſay again, that a man without the Spirit of God, may by his own Spirit underſtand, that you are not guided by the Spirit of truth, that have told ſo many untruths.
His ſecond Queſt. Seeing thou confeſſeth Chriſt to be the true light, and that he lighteth every man that comes into the World, but denyes that light to be within; ſhew in plainneſs, where he doth inlighten every man that comes into the World, and not within; and how they come by it: and ſeeing thou ſay'ſt every man hath it; how have they it, and not within?
This is anſwered already in Page 51. of my book, called Quakers quaking. The later part of the queſtion is a lye: for I never ſaid, that every man hath the light of Chriſt, though Chriſt hath uſed means to bring the World to the light, that their deeds may be reproved. But leſt both my books ſhould not come to the readers hand, I do again anſwer, that Chriſt is ſaid to inlighten the World, as he pardoneth their ſins; though none but them that believe ſhall receive remiſſion of ſins, yet he pardoneth their ſins, by propoſing a way for the pardon of them; So Chriſt inlightens every man (I, and that within too, if you will have it) by giving them means to be inlightened within, though thouſands (like your ſelves) ſtumble, becauſe there is no light in them.
453. Queſt. Seeing thou confeſſeſt, that the heathen have a light that reproves them of ſin, but not within, ſhew where it is, and what it is; whether the light of Chriſt or no, and how they came by it?
Anſw. That the heathen may have a light among them, that may not be in them, I have already ſhewn in my former book, Page 52. but further, did not Chriſt tell the Phariſees, Luke 17.2. that the Kingdome of God was within them, when indeed it was but among them? and ſo the margent reads it: for they were far enough from having his Kingdome erected in their inward man. In like manner may God ſend light among the heathen, which may not be within every individial man of them. And whereas you ask me, what light it is? I ſay, it is the light of nature, which taught them to do by nature the things contained in the Law. And whereas you ask, how they came by it? I anſwer, that, that manifeſtation they have, is from God, for God hath ſhewed it to them, Rom. 1.19.
4. Queſt. Whether that which reproves the heathen when they ſin, be the ſame that reproves thee when thou ſinneſt, and the reſt, who call your ſelves believers? and whether it be in the ſame place? and wherein doth it differ, as to place, nature, and operation?
Anſw. To which I anſwer, Firſt, that, that which reproves the heathen of ſin, doth reprove us and you too. And as touching the place, I confeſs it is an odd term: yet I anſwer, that it is the conſcience that muſt be reproved of ſin, according to Rom. 2. but yet this light may differ in the nature of it, as the light of the Moon differs from the Sun; and as a man may46 ſee further by the light of the Sun, then he can by the light of the Moon; even ſo may them that have the light of Chriſt, have a further inſpection into the things of Chriſt, then the Gentiles who walk by the light of nature: yet that light of nature we have (together with the light of the Goſpel) which will convince us of ſins againſt nature; but for ſins in the particular circumſtances, relating to Gods worſhip, the light of nature will not convince: and here theſe lights differ in operation alſo.
5. Queſt. The fifth Queſtion is, whether your light, who call your ſelves believers, be within you? and if within you, how came you by it, when you were in darkneſs, as the moving cauſe? and if without, how doth it inlighten, and not within? and where doth it abide for you, that is not in you?
Anſw. To this I anſwer, that God which commanded the light to ſhine out of darkneſs, is he which hath ſhined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of God in the face of Jeſus Chriſt, 2 Cor. 4.6. this being anſwered, there is no need of anſwering the later part of this quaere, for the light that is in believers doth abide in their hearts.
6. Queſt. Whether that light which is not within, can inlighten the heart and underſtanding? Whether the Goſpel be not hid to all who have their hearts and minds blinded? and whether it be not the work of the God of this World, to blind hearts? whether ſuch as deny the light within, and preach againſt it, leſt people ſhould believe in it, be not in his work and Miniſtry, yea or no?
Anſwer. To the former part of this Queſtion, I Anſwer by conceſſion: to the later part, if by preaching47 againſt Light within, you mean preaching againſt the Light of Chriſt in his Saints, we make one minde with you; but if you mean preaching againſt your notion, viz. That every one hath the light of Chriſt in him; then I ſay, that a man may preach againſt this, and ſay with John, He that walks in the dark, hath no Light in him.
7 Queſt. VVhat kinde of Faith thine is, who haſt denied the Faith that is the gift of God? and how thou cameſt by it, which God did not give thee? and whether that Faith which is not of God, he not of the Devil, yea or no?
Anſw. This queſtion is grounded upon another of thy falſe ſuggeſtions, as I have ſhewed already: For though I deny thy Faith to be Gods gift, yet I did never tell thee that my Faith was not his gift: and though I do ſay, That no Faith is the gift of God as you fancy it, to wit, that men muſt do nothing towards the obtaining it, but wait till they are puft up with your quaking dotages; yet I do ſay, that we ought to contend for that Faith that was once GIVEN to the Saints.
8. Queſt. Did ever any of the Saints profeſs a Faith which they received not of God? and whether thy contention be for the Faith once delivered to theſe Saints? and if ſo, from whom hadſt thou it, ſeeing thou denieſt it to be the gift of God?
Anſw. This queſtion is the ſame with the former, and therefore the ſame anſwer will ſerve to it, as to the former. However, I cannot but take notice, that thou multiplieſt words without knowledge, or elſe thou mighteſt have ſeen this queſtion to be the ſame with the former, and grounded upon the ſame falſity.
9 Queſt. What Faith is that which pleads for ſin,48 and preacheth againſt perfection? that believes they can never be free from ſin, nor come to perfection, while they are in this world? ſhew the Saints that ſo believed, and ſo preached.
Anſw. This I have in part anſwered already, ſome pages before, when I proved, that by the import of this queſtion, that you profeſt to be perfect men; which you were forced to deny, when I laid ſo many imperfections and inconſiſtencies upon you, that you leaped over many, and did not anſwer them; yet I ſhall adde this further, That the Faith which pleads for ſin, is of the Devil (if ſuch a thing may be call'd Faith) and from beneath: but where didſt thou learn this dialect, as to call a pleading for ſin, Faith? whereas the Scripture notes it for unbelief.
10 Queſt. Is not the end of Chriſts Miniſtery for the perfecting of the Saints? and is not that Antichriſt, whoſe Miniſtery is againſt it? or is Chriſts Miniſtery now changed from what it was?
Anſw. The end of Chriſt Miniſtery, is for the perfecting the Saints; and that is Antichriſts Miniſtery that is againſt it; and Chriſts Miniſtery is not changed from what it was.
11 Queſt. Whether that Faith which is not of God can receive the things of God, or can be imputed for righteouſneſs to him that hath it? And is not his righteouſneſs of himſelf, whoſe Faith is of himſelf? or can it be otherwiſe, if it be the righteouſneſs of Faith?
A. This queſtion is confuſed like the qerent that made it, or elſe he would never ask, whether the Faith which is of God, can receive the things of God? and, Is not his righteouſneſs of HIMSELF, whoſe FAITH is of49 HIMSELF? and yet ask in the latter end of the ſame Quaere, If it can be OTHERWISE, if it be the Righteouſneſs of Faith? Therefore till he underſtand better how to make a queſtion, I ſhall forbear to anſwer any otherwiſe, but that he that hath not the Faith of God, is not of God; neither can any other Faith be imputed for Righteouſneſs, then that which is of Faith in Chriſt Jeſus.
12 Queſt. Whether he that hath not received the Faith, be not an infidel? or is he to be believed in matters of God and Chriſt? And being of a falſe Faith, is it ſafe to believe what he ſaith againſt the children of Light?
Anſw. If by the Faith of God, you mean the Faith that you do profeſs, which is, That Chriſt was not born after the fleſh; then I ſay, That this Faith is not the gift of God, neither is he an infidel that hath not received it; neither is he to be believed in matters of God and Chriſt, whatſoever he talks and prates of, if he have ſuch a falſe Faith Neither is it ſafe to believe what a man of ſuch a•aith ſaith, either againſt the children of Light, or••y body elſe.
13 Queſt. Whether it be not plain Non-ſenſe to ſay, that Chriſt doth inlighten every one that comes into the world, (as thou doſt confeſs in thy book) and then to deny that Light to be in that inlightens?
Anſw. Thou mighteſt as well ask, whether John did not ſpeak Non-ſenſe, in ſaying, Joh. 1. That Chriſt is the true Light, that lightens every one that comes into the world; and yet afterwards in Joh. 11.10. ſayes, If a man do walk in the night he ſtumbles, becauſe there is no Light IN HIM. But to this I have ſpoke once and again, in my laſt and this alſo.
5014 Queſt. Whether Paul was rightly call'd and endued to the Miniſtery, who was not ſent to baptize? and whether it was not a ſign that John was decreaſing, and Chriſt increaſing, that being left out in Pauls Command, who was call'd after Chriſt was offered up? And cannot a man now be a Miniſter of Chriſt, and not ſent to baptize?
Anſw. I anſwer, firſt, Paul was rightly call'd and endued, though (he ſaith) he was not ſent to baptize. But James, how canſt thou prove, that this relates to his not baptizing with water; ſince thou wilt not have that Text in Matth. 28. ſo underſtood? but tell'ſt me, our underſtanding the Text to be meant of water, is a crooked Conſequence, becauſe the word WATER is not expreſt: though thereupon I have ſaid ſo much, that it would trouble thee to anſwer; and therefore thou cunningly ſlipſt it over, and ſayſt nothing to it. And now James, how canſt thou, without the like Conſequence, prove this was meant of water, ſince the word water is not here expreſt? But 2. if that be granted, that it is meant of water, doth this prove (becauſe it is ſaid, He was NOT ſent to baptize) that therefore he was not in any ſenſe commanded to it? Doth not the Scriptures ſometimes lay down ſuch ſayings, that are to be underſtood chiefly and eminently, and not excluſively? as, Labour NOT for the meat that periſheth; doth this therefore prove, that believers are not to labour for earthly bread at all, but eat the bread of idleneſs, as you do? in like manner is this ſaying of Pauls to be underſtood, who though he was not chiefly and eminently ſent to baptize, but to preach the Goſpel, yet he alſo did baptize, as the ſame place, 2 Cor. 1.14, 16. doth declare. Now if Paul did baptize,51 it was either in the Name of God and Chriſt, or his own Name; but it was not in his own Name, for this he denies, ver. 13. when he ſaith, Either were you baptized in the Name of Paul? Well then, if he did baptize in the Name of Chriſt, then I quaere, Whether it be not great wickedneſs to do a thing in the Name of God or Chriſt, that Chriſt never commanded? and therefore I ſay, Pauls ſaying, he was not ſent to baptize, doth not prove, that therefore John was decreaſing; if by decreaſing you mean, that the things that John was a Preacher of ſhould decreaſe; for, John was a Preacher of Repentance, as well as Water-baptiſm: And may you not as well ſay, That he decreaſed in one thing, as well as another? And to the laſt branch of the quaere, I ſay, That in the ſenſe Paul was a Miniſter of Chriſt, and was not ſent to baptize, a man may be a Miniſter of Chriſt now: But did you ever finde a Miniſter of Chriſt in all the New Teſtament, that did not baptize at all, or that ſaid as you do, That Baptiſm with water is not Gods Command?
15 Queſt. Your next queſtion is, ſeeing the laſt of Matthew is your ſtrength for Water-baptiſm, I ask, Whether one may not be baptized into the Name of Father, Son, & Holy Ghoſt, without being dipt in carnal water? alſo, whether all you dip in water, you baptize into the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoſt? if the firſt of theſe be Yea, and the later No, then I conclude, that carnal dipping is not the thing.
Anſw. As for thy word carnal water, it is a word of thy own; and therefore I have nothing to ſay to it. But as touching the reſt of the queſtion, I ſay, That the former is Nay, and the latter Yea, to uſe your own52 phraſes; for none were ever baptized into the Name of Father, Son, and Holy Ghoſt, that were not baptized with water; and do thou prove it if thou canſt, without a crooked Conſequence, and I will believe all you ſay: and the latter is Yea, for we do not baptize any, but we do it in the Name of Father, Son, and holy Ghoſt.
16 Queſt. Doth every one that reades the Bible, hear the Word of God? or hath every one the Word that hath a Bible? and what difference is there between the miniſtration of the letter now, and that in the Jews time, BOTH denying the Faith which is the gift of God? and will that ſave now more without the miniſtration of the Spirit, then in their dayes?
Anſw. Firſt, every one that reads the Bible, READS the VVord; though it is true, that many can reade, that do not hear. Again, 2. every one that hath the Bible, hath the VVord; if by VVord you mean the written Commands of God, and his Promiſes to them that obey, and his Threatnings to them that obey not. And whereas you ask me, what difference is between the miniſtration of the letter now, and that in the Jews time, ſince both denied the Faith which is the gift of God, &c. I wonder at thy ignorance, James; doth not Paul ſay, 2 Cor. 3.7. that the miniſtration written with Letters, was glorious? and was not that to the Jews in the Jews time? and yet thou haſt the face to ſay, That the miniſtration of the letter in the Jews time, did deny the Faith of God; and ſo thou ſayeſt now: But where haſt thou a text for this, that proves the miniſtration of the letter to deny the Faith of God at any time? is not this one of thy brain-ſick Notions? And whereas you ask, if it would ſave now53 without the Spirit, more then in their dayes? I ſay, That queſtion is needleſs; for, neither then nor now can men be ſaved, without Gods Spirit: But what's this to thy purpoſe, who ſaith, That the miniſtration of the letter in the Jews time, and now, do both deny the Light and Faith, which is the gift of God? For ſhame man leave off thy talking of God, without thou couldſt ſpeak more to purpoſe, and leſs to his diſhonour!
17 Queſt. VVhether that righteouſneſs that a man reades in the letter, ſets him to do the like without Faith, which is the gift of God, or the leadings of the Light of Chriſt, the miniſtration of the Spirit, be the righteouſneſs of Faith, or Self-righteouſneſs?
Anſw. The letter no where ſets men to do the righteouſneſs which it calls for, without the Faith of God and Chriſt. 2. To the latter part of your queſtion, I anſwer, That the righteouſneſs of Faith which men have by the Light of Chriſt, and the miniſtration of the Spirit, is not ſelf-righteouſneſs.
Thus have I plainly and faithfully tranſcribed thy queſtions, and anſwered them; which in reaſon thou couldſt not expect, ſince thou haſt left mine unanſwered: And were it not but that thou wouldſt have been wiſe in thy own conceit, I ſhould ſcarce have taken the pains; and if thou ſhouldſt joy in the ſtrength of thy Quaeres, know, That the joy of the hypocrite will be but for a moment, till my Anſwer can overtake them.