Further Discovery of the Quakers, Reply · Position 14
Poſition 14. That the Spirits are not to be tryed by the Scriptures, &c.
This Poſition is not denyed by Nayler; we proved it from three teſtimonies, and Nayler in his anſwer addes his owne defence thereof, without exception, againſt any of our proofes. VVe ſhall take his arguments for defence thereof in order.
Excep. 1 The infallible ſpirit, which is the originall of all Scriptures, is the tryall of all ſpirits, and that ſpirituall man judgeth all things, and by that ſpirit the Saints was to judge of all ſpirits, and gave thoſe up to Sathan that was for that end; as is plaine, 1 Cor. 5 4.
Reply 1 The ſpirit not to be ſet in oppoſition to Scripture.The force of this argument by which he would prove that ſpirits are not to be tryed by Scripture, lyeth thus; The infallible ſpirit is the tryall of all ſpirits; therefore ſpirits are not to …e tryed by Scriptures. To which we reply, That this is no conſequence at all and ſhall demonſtrately prove it from theſe ſeverall arguments.
1. To ſet the minde and will of the ſpirit in oppoſition to the ſpirit it ſelfe, can be no Goſpel argument. For the Scriptures are the infallible will of the ſpirit, layd downe as the rule of Saints beleeving, judging, and walking. What a reproach had it been, when the ſpirit of God ſent the Prophets to reveale his will? or when Jeſus Chriſt ſent the Iewes to ſearch the Scriptures, what a reproach had it been to the living God, for them to have anſwered, We will not be judged, not will we judge of ſpirits or doctrines by that Word or Scripture, we will ſtand to the judgement of the ſpirit it ſelfe, oppoſing the ſpirit it ſelfe to its owne will? How wicked a thing had it been in them? and how ridiculous an anſwer is this in Nayler?
2. How is this to undervalue the wiſedome of the holy Ghoſt himſelfe,Bereans commended for trying ſpirits by Scriptures. Acts 17.11. who judgeth and pronounceth the Bereans more Noble then thoſe of Theſſaloniea in that they ſearched the Scriptures dayly, whether thoſe things that were ſpoken by Paul and Silas were ſo, or no; in that they ſearched the Scriptures; the Spirit prizeth them, for trying the Doctrines of Paul and Silas by the Scrip…u…es the written Word. And how wicked a thing is this in the Quakers to cry downe this trying of ſpirits, and Doctrines of Scriptures, which the ſpirit expreſſely ownes with ſuch a ſignall teſtimony, as ſpeaking out in the ſoule ſuch a ſpirituall nobleneſſe.
3. It is confeſſed on all hands, that the eternall Spirit is the originall of Scriptures, and the tryer of Spirits; who ever queſtioned that? But our queſtion is, what the Saints are to try the ſpirits by? not whether the ſpirit can try the Doctrines; No. But we affirme, that this eternall Spirit, hath left the written Word, as that which ſhall be the diſcovery, touchſtone, and tryall of ſpirits, and Doctrines by authority and divine warrant from himſelfe. See 2 Pet. 1.21. Holy men of God ſpake as they were moved by the holy Ghoſt. 2 Tim. 3 16. All Scripture is given by inſpiration of God, &c. John 5.99. Search the Scriptures. Iſay 8.20. &c. So that our aſſerting the Scriptu…es to be tryall of ſpirits, is but ſetting up the ſpirit in his owne authority and throne, over the ſpirits and conſciences of men, and pleading with men that the ſpirit may rule in his owne way, and that they will try Doctrines by that Scripture which the holy Ghoſt commands them to try the Doctrines by. And he that refuſeth that touchſtone which the ſpirit hath layd d…wne for tryall, doth deſtroy the authority of the holy Ghoſ, …et h…m ſpeake fantaſtically of trying by the ſpirit what he will. But this reaſoning of Naylers, is as if when the Lo…d Protector ſhould declare what is treaſon by Law in publique Procl…mations, a Juſtice of Peace ſhould, when a Perſon were proved before him guilty of treaſon, according to that Law; yet ſhould ſay, he is not to judge what is treaſon according to that Law, but he would appeale from the Law, to himſelfe for what is treaſon, though the Law had determined it before.
But in this caſe, to exclude the Scriptures, becauſe the holy Ghoſt is the originall of them, is to deſtroy that plaine truth, Subordinate: non pugnant, things that act in a ſubordination, though about the ſame thing, doe not deſtroy one anothers uſefulneſſe or cauſality. Nay, the ſpirits being the Originall of all Scripture, this being confeſſed, doth neceſſarily confeſſe their divine authority, for that trying of ſpirits for which they were given forth by the inſpiration of God.
2. As to that expreſſion, the ſpirituall man judgeth all things, we have fully ſpoken before in pag. 79. We know there is a ſpirit of diſcerning which Beleevers have of Goſpel myſteries; but what abſurdity is this to inferre, therefore ſpirits are not to be tryed by Scriptures? For that light which a ſpirituall man hath, is a Scripture light.
1 Cor. 5.4. opened.3. How ignorantly is that 1 Cor. 5.4. produced to prove this aſſertion, when Paul ſayes, In the name of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt when you are gathered together, and my ſpirit, to deliver ſuch an one to Sathan, &c. Paul is not trying of ſpirits, or judging of Doctrines, but exhorting the Church to excommunicate the inceſtuous Perſon, and tells them, That his Apoſtolicall power ſhall goe along with them in that ſentence. The verſe going before, tells you what is the meaning of his ſpirit, where he ſayes, I as abſent in body, but preſent in ſpirit, have judged already, as though I were preſent, concerning him that hath done this deed; that is, I in this Epiſtle doe ſend you my mind and my judgement, what you ought to doe with this man that hath committed Inceſt, as fully as if I were preſent with you, and ſo you may goe on at your meeting to excommunicate him, having for ſo doing, not onelyonly the authority of the Lord Jeſus, but alſo the conſe…t and iudgement of me his Apoſtle. This is that in thoſe words, In the name of the Lord Jeſus, and my Spirit. How doth this man heape up quotations, without any underſtanding of the minde of the ſpirit in them; and with what exceeding ignorance doth he apply ſuch Texts to his abſurdities, as neither prove them, nor ſpeake a tittle concerning them.
Excep. 2 By this ſpirits were the ſpirits tryed, before the letter was; therefore ſpirits are not to be tryed by Scriptures.
Reply. What a miſerable non ſequitur is here. There was a time when the ſpirit had not given forth the Written Word; therefore when the ſpirit doth give forth a written Word, it is not to be regarded. There was a time when the Law was not engraven in Tables of Stone, therefore when it was engraven, the Iſraelites muſt not looke upon it as a rule of life, or judgement. There was a time when the will of God was not written, was not Scripture; therefore when Chriſt bids you ſearch the Scriptures, you need not heed them at all. But we leave the Reader to laugh at this abſurd conſequence The Bereans judged by another light then James Nayler doth who though they knew there was a time when Scripture was not written, yet they tryed the ſpirits and doctrines of Paul and Salas by the Scriptures. And the Spirit it ſelfe inſpired and moved holy men of God to write the Scriptures, to leave them as a tryall and touchſtone of ſpirits, though once there was a time when there was no written word. But oh! how doth God infatuate men, when they will not ſubmit to the authority of his Word.
Excep. 3 He falls a rayling exceedingly, and ſayes, We have no guide but the letter (becauſe we aſſert the authority of Scripture) and addes, how many minds, how many formes, how many gods doe ye worſhip? and all pretend Scripture. If it be poſſible to rake up a reaſon out of a heape of rayling, this it is; Thoſe that doe uphold the Scriptures to be the tryall of Doctrines, doe yet differ amongſt themſelves; therefore the Spirits or Doctrines are not to be tryed in Scriptures.
Reply. Quakers Popiſh argument.This, as many other of their anſwers, is a knowne threadbare Popiſh argument: they ſay, You Proteſtants cannot agree in your Diſcipline, and therefore, the Scriptures are not to be the judge of Doctrines, but the infallible ſpirit of the Pope. We hope God will diſcover them ere lon… to be men meerely acted by the ſpirit of Anti-chriſt; but we ſhall give you a full anſwer under theſe two conſiderations.
Difference in non-fundamentals, no prejudice to the Scriptures being judge of ſpirits.1. Firſt, as it reflects upon our ſelves: We ſay, to differ in diſcipline, is not to worſhip ſeverall gods (as Nayler rayles) while it is knowne we hold the head the Lord Jeſus: but this we looke upon as the ſpitting of his venome. When Peter was for Circumciſion, and Paul was againſt Circumciſion, Gal. 2.13.14. did they worſhip ſeverall gods? So thoſe Acts 15. that conteſted in different judgements, did they worſhip ſeverall gods? But this man cares not what he ſayes, ſo be may throw his dirt upon us, though he bewray his exceſſive ignorance in it before the world.
2. As it fights againſt the Scriptures, being the judge and tryall of ſpirits, we ſhall ſhew there is no ſtrength in this exception at all. For the Scripture loſeth not its authority for the tryall of ſpirits by reaſon of the darkeneſſe and different apprehenſions of ſpirits. How darke were the Apoſtles in the Propheſies of Chriſts Reſurrection? Luke 24 25. Fooles and flow of heart, to beleeve all that the Prophets have ſpoken &c. yet the Scriptures loſt not their touchſtone authority upon the account of their darkeneſſe, though Chriſt ſaw th…t truth of the Reſurrection in the Scriptures ſpoken of, which they could not apprehend: ought not Chriſt. ver. 26. to have ſ…ffo…ed theſe things and to enter into his glory. Doth not Peter ſay plainely, that in the writings of Paul. there are 2 Pet 3.10. difficult things, and hard to be underſtood, and ſuch as the unſtable and unlearned reſt; and yet thoſe Writings and Epiſt es doe not loſe their authority, becauſe of the diverſities and darkeneſſe of Beleevers thoughts. Scripture rightly underſtood will clearely diſcover every ſpirit, and every Doctrine, though the beſt of men, knowing but in part, 1 Cor. 13.9. and ſo not fully taking in the genuine ſenſe of Scripture, may have, through their darkeneſſe difference of judgement in things leſſe fundamentall But we may be weary in following ſuch triviall arguments, onelyonly we would not have the ſaints entrapped in any of Satans ſnares nor the bleſſed word, that's ſweeter then hony, and the hony combe▪ ſubjected to the deluſions of evill men.
Thus we have given thee the ſtrength of his anſwer; onelyonly he addes his falſe gloſſe upon that of Iſay 8.20.Iſay 8.20. vindicated. by us objected againſt them in the Perfect Phariſee: the gloſſe is this, Whereas you quote that place, To the Law and to the teſtimony; it is true, the Law of the new Covenant is written in the heart by God, and the teſtimody of Jeſus is the ſpirit of Propheſie, and if any be not guided by and ſpeake according to theſe, it is becauſe they have no light in them but without them. But we anſwer, As he plainly by this overturnes all Scripture, and leaves no rule but the Law written upon mens hearts, (which we have confuted in the Perfect Phariſee, pag. 25.) ſo it is a groſſe perverting of the text and truth: for it is clearely ſpoken of the Written Word, and the very next words expreſſeth it clearely; If they ſpeake not according to this Word, the Hebrew is full beyond exception, [cedabar hazzeh] according to this Word: ſo that that text is no reference, that God makes to the Law written upon mens hearts, but to the Law written in Tables of ſtone, which tables, were called the teſtimony, and the Arke thereof called, the Arke of the teſtimony, Exod. 25.22. becauſe the Tables of ſtone in which the Law was written, called Exod. 31.18. the tables of the teſtimony were layd up there.
We have fully ſhowne in the Booke called the Perfect Phariſee, pag. 26. the ſad fruits of this Doctrine of denying the Scripture to be the rule of trying doctrines and ſpirits, that it is to open a gap to all the deluſions of Satan, and we inſtanced ſin the knowne caſe of Iohn Gilpin, who was ſometimes a Quaker, to which Nayler replyes onelyonly thus, It is no more then if the chiefe prieſts ſhould have cited Iudas to confute Chriſt, &c. as he conſulted with the prieſts to betray the truth; ſo Iohn Gilpin hath done now, who ſhall receive his reward, and you prieſts alſo, as Nayler ſayes. To which rayling we thus anſwer.
Shaking off the S…ripture t…e … ler to Satans deluſions.1. That Iohn Gilpin was thus acted by the Devill, is a known truth beyond queſtioning. 2. That he did verily beleeve he was acted by Chriſt, when yet the Devill acted him, is very apparant. Nay Atkinſon, the boy that pretends to anſwer that re…ation of Gilpin, doth all along confeſſe, that he was acted by the Devill, is plaine to any that reades that his childiſh …nd non-ſenſicall piece of rayling. 3. Iohn Gilpin himſelfe, …ee the Lord hath delivered him in mercy out of the ſnares of Satan, hath fully confeſt, that it was the ſpirit of Satan, and not the Lord Ieſus that then acted him. 4 And that all this grew …ut of his caſting off the Scriptures ſearching to a light within: Take his owne words, pag. 15. of a Booke called, The Quakers ſhaken. It was moſt juſt with God to give me over to ſtrong deluſions to beleeve lyes &c. as for other provocations. ſ… eſpecially for rejecting the revealed will of God in his Word, and hea…kning onelyonly to a Voyce within me; nay, not onelyonly to l ſten to the Devils ſuggeſtions, but to embrace his Voyce for the Voyce of Chriſt. Thou ſeeſt now Reader what reaſon we had to ſay, this rejecting the Scriptures from being the tryer of Doctrines doth open an unavoydable gap to Satans deluſions.
2. But what reaſon hath the man to ſay, in this, both Iohn Gilpin and we have conſulted againſt Chriſt? Nay, have we not been pleading for Chriſt againſt Iudas, the deſperate betrayen of his truth and Goſpel? while we have been diſcovering …he ſubtilties of Satan in thoſe that are acted by him, and pleading for the authority of Chriſt in his word, againſt all the deluſions of the Devill. And as we can thankefully and comfortably looke upon it, that God hath engaged us in ſo good a work; ſo we can looke for our reward, not what Nayler we beleeve could wiſh us (but how can he defie, when God hath not defied) but what Chriſt hath promiſed to them that can forſake their names and comforts, &c. for his teſtimony. It is no ſmall ſland… to ſay we have conſulted with John Gilpin, whoſe face none of us ever ſaw to our knowledge, till after the Printing of his confeſſion; but there is a day wherein God will call every id…e word to an account, and then Naylers conceit of his perfection will not take off the guilt of ſuch apparant lyes.