An Antidote Against the Quakers, Postscript
Postſcript.
THere is a Pamphlet printed by Chriſtopher Taylor, a Quaker, Entituled A true and faithful Witneſs to the Light. At the end whereof there is a Poſt ſcript charging me with baſe Lies and Reflections; the weakneſs and impertinency whereof is a ſufficient Confutation of it ſelf to any judicious Reader, and I have been counſelled by my Friends to ſlight it by ſilence, as that which hath nothing in it that is worthy of Animadverſion. But not to gratifie that boaſting humour that this Man, C. T. and all others of them are highly prone to, when any thing of theirs lyeth at our door unanſwered, though to this day my whole Book is at their door unanſwered, I thought good to give this brief Reply.
There are Five Principal things [to wave all the bitter Invectives againſt me] that are mentioned.
1. That I charged Chriſtopher Taylor, that he ſaid, That the Doctrine of Election was a Deviliſh, Damnable and Blaſphemous Doctrine: This be this a notorious Lie.
Anſw. I offer at any time two ſubſtantial Witneſſes to prove that he ſaid it, if he dares come to the tryal, and that no ſuch thing was affirmed by me, viz. That God ordained men to be wicked before they were born. God ordaineth to effect nothing but what is good; He willeth to permit evil by denying Grace, which would prevent it, yet this evil is from a mans ſelf, and God is not the author of it, becauſe he doth not effect it. How can God be the Efficient Cauſe of that which is a privation? Can the Sun be the cauſe of Darkneſs, yet Darkneſs is the Conſequent of the Suns with drawing. If Chriſtopher Taylor pleaſeth I will enter the Liſts with him to make good this Aſſertion, That there is no Evil in the World but the Lord willeth to permit it.
The ſecond thing is, viz. Chriſtopher T. with others contended againſt Original ſin. To which he ſaith, That the Devil is the Original of ſin in Mankind, and that be underſtands not how Infants can be guilty of ſin in the Womb. Nay he ſaith, That it is a cruel unnatural Doctrine to condemn Innocents (as be calls them) yea, an ungodby uncharitable Doctrine, &c.
Anſw. That the Devil is the Original of ſin in Mankind (i.e.) the firſt tempter to ſin, is a Doctrine we learned from Moſes, not from the Quakers. But what is this ad rem? Ergo, There is no Original ſin except it be the Devil, A ſtrange Argument. By Original ſin we mean, the Birth-ſin, that which man brings with him into the world, is from his firſt beginning and Original, and contracted from him that was the Original of Mankind, the firſt Man Adam, and is the Original of all actuall ſin. That all Infants have this ſin upon them, I will prove from the Scriptures againſt C. T. and the reſt of the Quakers, only let it be obſerved, that my Charge is true by his own Confeſſion there in Print; I give but three Scriptures: Rom. 5.12. In whom, (i.e. the firſt Man) all have ſinned: Then Infants they are in him naturally. Nevertheleſs Death reigned from Adam to Moſes, even over them that had not finned ofthe ſimilitude of Adams Tranſgreſſion, Verſe 14. Theſe are Infants here ſpoke of, that had not actually finned as Adam, yet Death reigned over them though they had not actually tranſgreſſed Moſes Law, as in the Verſe before is implied. How cometh it to paſs that Death is inflicted upon Infants, if they have no ſin? Nay, violent Death. Is there any unrighteouſneſs with God? in Rom. 5. And Death by ſin. Were there any Infants drowned in the Deluge? or, any burned in the fire in Sodom and Gomorrah? The third Scripture is Epheſ. 2.3. And were by nature Children of wrath even as others. If Paul and all the Corinthians were Children of wrath by Nature (i.e.) by Birth [as in another place he ſaith, We who are Jews by Nature, Gal. 2.15. (i.e.) by Birth, Parent, Original;] then were they ſinners by Nature, Birth, Original, from their Parents, otherwiſe they could not be righteouſly the Objects of wrath: but by this Scripture it appears, they were by Nature ſuch, Ergo. Let Chriſtopher Tailor anſwer this. If he ſaith that Chriſt took away this ſin from all Infants, then none are Children of wrath by Nature, and this Scripture is made a lye, then are all Children of Grace, as they come into the world, till by actual tranſgreſſion they render themſelves obnoxious to wrath. Whereas, he ſaith we condemn the Innocent, is a begging of the Queſtion in hand: And let the Reader judge, if in this he writes not too much like an Innocent? But this is the fruit of following the Light within, and forſaking the Scriptures; Nature will never diſcover its own guile and defilement, and the Light within, that every man hath, is no more than Nature.
3. I charge him for preaching the Covenant of Works in oppoſition to the Goſpel, by frequent repeating in his Diſcourſes to the People that ſaying, viz. Do this and live. He ſaith to this, That be directed to Chriſt Jeſus when he ſaid ſo, and to his Light within, that through Faith in him, the true Light, People might be ſaved.
Anſw. Obſerve, that firſt he doth diſtinguiſh Chriſt Jeſus and the Light, and then immediately makes them one and the ſame: Chriſt Jeſus and his Light within. It follows, that through Faith in him, the true Light that lighteh every man, &c. Now then this Light within every Man is Jeſus Chriſt, according to this man's Divinity, and Jeſus Chriſt is nothing elſe but this Light, (if any thing beſides, let them declare what.) But the Scripture ſaith, this Light within every Man, is nothing but the Law of Moſes written in the heart of Man, Rom. 2.15. Which ſhew the work of the Law written in their hearts. So then it remaineth good what I ſaid, That C. T. did preach the Law in oppoſition to the Goſpel, in uſing that expreſſion ſo much, Do this and Live. It will not ſerve to ſay as he doth, that he did not preſs People to the obſervance of the Law of Moſes, in the Letter, only for Life; implying, that obſervance to Moſes Law, in the Letter and Spirit both, is ſufficient for Juſtification unto Life in the fight of God; which is the Quakers falſe Doctrine, and another Goſpel; and renders Chriſt's perſonal Righteouſneſs, his Obedience and Suffering altogether in vain. It is not our obſervance of Moſes Law in the Spirit, that is the matter of our Juſtification in God's fight, but that obſervance that the perſon of Jeſus Chriſt ſixteen hundred years ſince yeilded to the will of the Father in doing and ſuffering in the behalf of the Elect, in their room and ſtead, being imputed to them. May not I ſay, Are not the Quakers willingly ignorant of this, going about to ſet up their own Righteouſneſs? That Abraham, the Father of the faithful, obſerved Moſes Law in the Spirit as well as the Letter, yet this did not juſtifie him unto Life in the ſight of God. Rom. 4.2. If Abraham was juſtified by works he had whereof to glory, but not before God, his works done in the Spirit were not ſufficient. Rom. 4.6. Even as David alſo deſcribeth the bleſſedneſs of the Man unto whom God imputed Righteouſneſs without Works, what Works? Done by the Spirit ſurely, for ſuch were Davids Works; he places this bleſſedneſs of Man, with all his obſervance of the Law of Moſes, in the Spirit, in Forgiveneſs of Sin. Implying this, that there is need of non-imputation of ſin in the obſervance of Moſes Law in the Spirit in our beſt works. Did not Iſaiah obſerve Moſes Law in the Spirit? And yet in that place of Iſaiah 64.3. (which Chriſtopher T. produceth in a jeer) calls it, fiilthy Raggs, as to Juſtification. Did not Paul obſerve Moſes Law in the Letter and Spirit when a Chriſtian? An Apoſtle Rim. 7. 22. I delight in the Law of God after the inward man. Was not this to keep it in the Spirit? He kept it in the Letter before his Converſion; Phil. 3. Touching the Law, Blameleſs; and this he counted Loſs for Chriſt, Verſ. 7. when he was converted to Chriſt: Nay, not only ſo, but he counted all things loſs for the Excellency of the knowledge of Jeſus Chriſt; and then ſurely his obſervance of the Law of Moſes, in the Spirit, in the point of Juſtification, for this is but his own Righteouſneſs, not the Righteouſneſs of him that is God, the perſonal Righteouſneſs of Chriſt, God and Man, which is to be received by Faith. I call Chriſtopher to anſwer to theſe things, and not to uſe that expreſſion any more in that manner to the People, thinking it enough to ſay, that he preached the obedience of Faith; whereas the obedience of Faith taken in a found ſence, is quite contrary to that Doctrine that is held forth in that Phraſe, it is twice quoted by the Apoſtle, in the 5th. of the Rom. and 10th. v. and Gal. 3.12. and in both as oppoſed to the obedience of Faith, yea, in the latter, it is written plainly, the Law is not of Faith, they are contrary in the buſineſs of Juſtification. To that which he chargeth me with, viz. that I ſhould ſay, Though a man was regenerate, yet this was not ſufficient. I own it, do but add that which we were certainly ſpeaking of, viz. in Juſtification. He askes me what elſe muſt be added? I anſwer, The perſonal Righteouſneſs of Jeſus Chriſt imputed, yea, and this alone, and ſingly nothing but this, hath any merit in it for my pardon and acceptance in Gods ſight. The other of Regeneration, is but the making me meet for the Inheritance and Kingdom, which is given for the ſake of Chriſt's Righteouſneſs, and this making meet is alſo for the Righteouſneſs-ſake of Chriſt: To this very thing, and why I call inherent Righteouſneſs the Righteouſneſs of the Law, at which the Quakers ſtorm, I have given ſufficient Reaſons in the Books I have written, which the Reader may enquire for, remaining ſtill in the ſame mind, That the holy Law of God requires all the Righteouſneſs that the beſt of the Saints have within them, or without them; therefore no more but the Righteouſneſs of the Law, by which we are not juſtified in God's ſight.
4. He writes, That I told him, Will. Pen affirmed to a friend of mine, That George Fox was as good a Prophet as Iſaiah the Prophet: and that Chriſtopher Taylor being asked, likewiſe affirmed the ſame. Here my charge remaineth, for he doth not deny it, but pleads for it, only ſaith, That Will. Pen, to the beſt of his knowledge, ſaid no ſuch thing.
Anſw. If Will. Pen pleaſeth, I will produce my Friend, who ſhall teſtifie it to his face; and let C. T. and the Quakers in the mean time pleaſe themſelves, making ſuch wife and juſt Compariſons, concluding that George Fox, and Iſaiah, are equal: G. as good a Prophet as Iſaiah.
To the Laſt he writes, that I askt him, Whether the Man Jeſus Chriſt were in him, and that he anſwered affirmatively: which he doth not deny, only puts his own Interpretation upon it: That by the Man Chriſt, he underſtands not the Body of Chriſt, but the Spiritual appearance of Chriſt.
Anſw. I have in theſe Lines of C. T. obſerved much deceit, as here and elſe-where: in that he doth not truly repeat my Words, but rather adds ſomething of his own, or curtails and cuts off ſome of mine, or changeth ſome for others. The Queſtion was, Whether the whole Chriſt was within him, and he anſwered it affirmatively: My aſſumption was, Then the Man Chriſt, to which he replied, The Man Chriſt was, then what is this Anſwer of his but meer evaſion? neither is the Godhead alone ſimply conſidered, the whole Chriſt, nor the Manhood alone, but both together: The whole Chriſt is God and Man; Now if the whole Chriſt be in Chriſtopher Taylor, not only Chriſt in his Spiritual Appearance, but as to his Manhood, that Soul and Body that is in Union with the Godhead. But why may not this be aſſerted by him without any abſurdity, while the Quakers deny that Chriſt hath any true real Manhood. There is a Jeſuitical inſinuation in the end of all: as if he had more againſt me than he had writ, or was willing at preſent to write. You may read the Kidney of this man by this: O how tender have the Quakers been of mine, Mr. Faldo's, and Mr. Hicks's Credit: How much engaged we are to them, that by their Tongues and Pens, they do not take our good Names from us; but they are known to be a ſelf-denying People in this thing, witneſs C. T's. dreadful curſing me when in Priſon, and his railing upon me openly in the Street at Hartford, calling me Dagon, an Enemy to God, &c. I know the modeſty of this man, that he would think no pains too much to ſcrape in the Kennels and Dunghills of mine and my Brethrens daily Infirmities, that he might have but a little Dirt to throw upon us but the Lord pardon him; for, he knoweth not what he doth, nor what he writes; and bring him to the ſound knowledge of the Man Chriſt Jeſus, and his perſonal imputed Righteouſneſs for Juſtification, which I know he and all the Quakers are Enemies unto.
2 Timothy 3.
Now as Jannes and Jambres withſtood Moſes, ſo do theſe alſo reſiſt the Truth: Men of corrupt Minds, of no Judgement concerning the Faith.
FINIS.
End of the text · William Haworth, An Antidote Against the Quakers (1676)