A Sober Answer, Tract · Part

A Sober Answer · Tract · Part

p. 45[The Quakers Doctrines.]

1. That they are equall with God, as holy, juſt, and good, as Sect. 54 God himſelf. Affirmed by G. Fox, and J. Nayler, before Witneſſes Perfect Phariſee, p. 3. See alſo the Relation of the irreligion of the Northern Quakers.vvho atteſt it, in a Book called the perfect Phariſee, publiſhed by five Miniſters of Newcaſtle.

2. Suitable hereunto vvas the blaſphemy of one of your Shee-Quakers lately in hold in this Towne, vvho being convented before the Major of this Corporation, and asked what ſhe was, and what was her name, roundly anſwered (and ſtood to it againe the next day) I AM THAT I AM, which will be atteſted upon Oath, by the Major and one of the Conſtables.

3. Suitable to this was the blaſphemy of another of your Brethren, who meeting with a godly Londiner occaſionally being in this Town on a Lords day lately, and asking him the way, as he met him, to one of our Churches, anſwered him in theſe words, The Church is in God, and the Church is God.

4. That the being of God is not diſtinct from them that are begotten by him. [Sword of the Lord by James Atkinſon Quaker.]

5. That the Nature and Glory of the Elect, differ not from the Nature and Glory of the Creator. For the Elect are one with the Creator in his Nature, enjoying his Glory. That the Elect is not diſtinct from the Creator. [Howgill and Burroughs two Quakers in an anſwer to Reeve.]

6. And that God is not diſtinct from living Creatures; for in him living (reatures lives, moves, &c.

7. That God is three perſons, or ſubſiſtences (they ſay) is a lye. That there is no diſtinctions of perſons in the Godhead. [Sword of the Lord by J. Atkinſon: G. Fox Errand to Damaſcus.

8. That the Soul is a part of the Divine Eſſence. [See perfect Phariſee, p. 6.]

9 That Jeſus Chriſt is God and man in one perſon (they ſay) is a lye.

10. They deny and deteſt this Doctrine, That Chriſt being the only God and man in one perſon, remaines for ever a diſtinct perſon p. 46from all Saints and Angels, notwithſtanding their Ʋnion and communion with him. [Sword of the Lord by James Atkinſon.]

11. That the perſon that Son of God which died at Jeruſalem, is not the Redeemer of man from ſin; but the Redeemer is in every man, that light by which he is given to ſee him, &c. [The diſcourſe of a Quaker vvith Jo: Toldervy. Foot out of the ſnare, p. 7.]

12. That Chriſt is in every man, even Heathen Indians, and in the Reprobates he is held under corruption. [J. Nayler. See perfect Phariſee; p. 7

13. That Chriſt was a man, had his failings, for he diſtruſted God upon the Croſſe. [Rob. Colliſon. See Gilpins Book, p. 2.]

14. That we are not juſtified by that Righteouſneſſe of Chriſt which he in his own perſon did fulfill without us. And that whoſoever expects to be ſaved by him that died at Jeruſalem, ſhall be deceived: For Chriſt in the fleſh was in all, that he died and ſuffered a Figure, and nothing but an example.

15. That we are (therefore) to be ſaved not by the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt imputed to us, but by the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt inherent in us. [See both theſe in the perfect Phariſee, with their Teſtimonies, p. 9, 10, 11. And Howgill and Burroughs Anſw. to Bennet Q. 9.]

And another to the ſame purpoſe ſaith, That the faith and juſtification which ſtands in the comprehenſion of Chriſt without, will ſtand us in no ſtead. [Fr. Gawler to Mr. Miller of Cardiff.]

16. That God and man cannot be perfectly reconciled till he be brought into the ſtate of the firſt Adam, and able in his own power to ſtand perfect. And that holy workes and lives of Saints are not excluded from juſtification. [Howgill, &c. Anſw. to Bennets 11, 12. Quaeries.]

17. That no man that is not perfectly holy, or commits ſin, can ever enter into the Kingdome of Heaven, except there be a Purgatory. And there is no Saint but he that is ſo perfectly holy in this life without ſin. [Nayler perfect Pharſee, p. 1. 112. 13.]

18. That to preach the impoſſibility of ſuch a freedome here on earth is to preach up ſin while the world ſtands, and to bring men into Covenant with the Diuill for term of life. [See alſo J. Parnell p. 47Shield of faith. p. 29. to both theſe Nayler in his anſwer to Mr. Baxter, p. 28.]

19. That Chriſt took not humane fleſh upon him at any time, otherwiſe then he daily doth; and that Chriſt is now converſant on earth among men ſince his aſcenſion, as he was in the Apoſtles times. It is the ſumme of Howgills and Burroughs anſwer to two Quaeres of Mr. Bennet. [See Howgill, &c. in their anſwer to Benéts 18, and 19. Qu.]

20. That the Scriptures are not the word of God. This is their conſtant judgment though they dare not profeſſe it for feare of the Law, as one of the moſt eminent in theſe parts, confeſſed before the Magiſtrates here, in the hearing of one of us; asking Whether if the Bible were burnt, the word of God were burnt? or words fully to this purpoſe. [See the proof, Perfect Phariſee, p. 23. T. C. Parnells book, p. 10. ſaith, He that ſaith, the Letter is the word, is a deceiver.]

21. That they had a light in them ſufficient to lead them to ſalvation, if they had never ſeen or heard of the Bible. The ſubſtance of this was affirmed before ſome Magiſtrates of this Towne, and one of us by the ſame party. And this light extended to Heathen Indians, by him. Suitable to the aſſertions of James Nayler in a diſcourſe of his in the book quoted here. [And he that ſaith, the Letter is the rule and guide of the people of God, is without, feeding upon the Husk, &c. p. 11. See way to the Kingdome, p 8. See perfect Pariſee, p. 17. 18]

22. That the Scriptures are not the Saints Rule of knowing God, and living unto him, but that which was before the Scriptures were written. This is alſo your owne, concerning which, anon, more at large. [Atkinſon ubi ſupra., p. 1. Parnell, p. 11.

23. That there is no need of outward teachings by reading or hearing of the Scriptures opened and applied. [See perfect Phariſee, p 20.]

24. That no mens interpretations of the Scripture, or Arguments from them are to be received, except thoſe that give them be infallible. [See Quakers Cat. publiſhed by Mr. Baxter, where the Quaeriſts require Infallibility in a Miniſter. And Perfect Phariſee, p. 27.]

This is generally their ſtraine. We renounce and deny all your meanings, interpretations, arguments, calling them adding to the p. 48Scriptures. And concerning it we muſt have a bruſh or two with you anon.

25. That the light in them is the Goſpell, and the more ſure word of Prophecy; ſo ſure, that ſome of them ſay, That it is a like for to take a ſentence out of their Letters, and preach from it, as to take a ſentence out of Pauls Epiſtles. [Diſcovery of myſticall Antichriſt diſplaying Chriſts Banners, p. 15. and 33.]

26. That there is no call to the Miniſtry but an immediate Call, which is generally proclaimed by them. [See perfect Phariſee, p. 29. J. Parnell, p 16.]

27. There is no Baptiſme of Chriſt, but with the H. Ghoſt and fire. And no Supper of the Lord, but in the ſpirituall part: for as for the viſible part, The bread which the world breaks is carnall and naturall. See perfect Phariſee, p. 28. and J Parnell, p. 12. 13.]

28. That ſinging Davids Pſalmes in Engliſh Meeter, is to ſing the Ballads of Hopkins and Sternhold King James his Fidlers. And to ſing them is to turn the Scriptures into lyes and blaſphemies. [One of them in a Letter here at Reading. Henry Clark in his diſcription of the Prophets, p 9.]

29. That God made not man to be Lord over man, but over other Creatures; and therefore amongſt them there are no Superiours after the fleſh. But are there any Superiours over them (then) that are not among them? See in the next article. [J. Parnell, p. 22, 23.]

30. That Chriſt comes to fulfill and end all outward Lawes and Ja. Parnell p. 18, 19.Government of man. The righteous are from under the outward Law, for they are a Law to themſelves. Eſpecially if Magiſtrates be wicked (that is, not of them) the Author quoted in the Margin denies them utterly.

31. That there is no Sabbath now, but an everlaſting Sabbath, and that our Sabbath is but a ſhadow of which they have the ſubſtance. Ja. Parnell p. 37.And that the firſt day in the week is no Sabbath.

32. That we may not pray before and after Sermons, or at ſet times, daies, and houres, becauſe theſe things were in the Generation which were enemies to Chriſt. [Quaeres ſent to the Congregation at Stopport, printed in a Book of Mr. Eaton.]

33. That the Ranters themſelves had a pure convincement which did convince them. And what their convincements were, p. 49moſt men know. To wit, that there is no Heaven, Hell, Reſurrection, Judgment to come; that there is no ſin, but what a man thinks to be ſo; that all that they did was done by the Eternity in them, &c. [G. Fox, and J. Nayler in a book called A word from the Lord, p. 13.]

34. That that word, 1 Jo. 1. 8. If we ſay we have no ſin we deceive our ſelves, was ſpoken by the carnall man. [Fr. Gawler. See Antichriſt in man by Mr. Miller of Cardiff. p. 7. Idem. ibid.]

35. That if a man hath ſin in him he hath none of Chriſt.

36. They will not acknowledge that Chriſt aſcended with his body into Heaven. [Idem. ibid.]

THus you ſee, Sir, how much paines we have been at to ſatisfie you, that thoſe men you joyne your ſelfe unto, have matters of greater moment, then thoſe you mention, juſtly chargeable upon them: So that we are no way in feare of the judgment you pronounce againſt the Offenders of Chriſts little ones in your next lines. For if ſuch as theſe be Chriſts little Ones, we know not who are the Devills great Ones. And when you have any ſuch things juſtly to charge upon us, we ſhall not cry out of hard meaſure, although we ſuffer more then any of you yet do. Let the Magiſtrate do ſo to us, and more alſo, if we thus deſerve it.

As to what we lay to your charge, whether he will take notice of it or no, we have learned not to be over ſollicitous, ſeeing we are not out of hope that deliverance will ariſe for Gods reproached Miniſters, Truths and Ordinances, ſome way or other: And yet we cannot but deſire he would vouchſafe this honour to thoſe that are now in Authority over us, that Truth and peace might flouriſh together in our daies under their wings. And truly, Sir, did you know our hearts (whatſoever Monſters of perſecution and blood you judge us to be) you would ſee, that as it is no private intereſt of our own, that drawes us out to appeare againſt you, but the meer concernments of Gods Glory, and precious Truth; ſo we deſire nothing more then the conviction and reduction of you, in a Goſpel-way. And this we can clearly ſay, that of all thoſe that have ſuffered any thing, in, or neer the places where we live, we know none p. 50of them, but have drawn it upon themſelves, by firſt making ſuch publick diſturbances, as brought them within the reach of the Law, and then refuſing to give bayle, out of a fond ambition they had to be impriſoned, when they might have avoided it.

And yet we cannot but wonder, how an handfull of you, Sect. 55 bidding defiance to whatever of publick Religion is profeſſed in this Nation, ſhould think, or with any reaſon expect to be protected in the diſturbance of all others, who, as the preſent conſtitution of affaires ſtands, are under an equall liberty with your ſelves; and if you be denied to perſecute all others, or by proceſſe of Law reſtrained from it, complaine of perſecution. So that indeed, if the Magiſtrate grant you ſuch a protection, walking by the principles you do, he denies it to all elſe; ſeeing no ſociety of Chriſtians whatſoever would enjoy the freedome of their Worſhip, without diſtraction from you. And to perſwade the Magiſtrates to give you liberty of tearing up all the profeſſed Religion in England, and blaſpheming it publickly where ever you come, we ſuppoſe it will in reaſon be required, that you ſhew ſome extraordinary Authority or commiſſion from God, teſtified by ſome reall ſigne to convince them that it is not counterfeit; and yet even then, as you ſhall ſee anon (your Doctrines being ſuch as they are) they may ſee juſt cauſe to lay ſome reſtraint upon you therein.

In the mean while, we muſt tell you, that however you may pleaſe your ſelves in your ſufferings, and vent your paſſions againſt the men from whom you conceive they ariſe, as ſo many Sauls and bloody Perſecuters, yet God judgeth not Martyrs by the ſuffering, but the cauſe; and you had need examine in whoſe Errand you go, when you run your ſelves upon ſuffering, as well as others to examine upon what Warrant they inflict it upon you. If every one be a Martyr, who makes a loud cry of Perſecution, ſurely the Jeſuite will not be behind hand, in putting in for his ſhare, as well as you; and if every one be a Perſecutor that curbs and reſtraines unruly and diſorderly Conſciences, wo be to thoſe Judges who arraigne, and condemne Fauxes and Ravilliac's, who plead conſcience for what they do, as well as your ſelves. The truth is, both you, and we, and all p. 51perſons, muſt be able to plead, that we ſuffer not as evill doers, and then ſuffering will be a comfort and a crown; otherwiſe what we ſuffer we ſuffer in our owne wrong, and ſhall when we have ſuffered our Eſtates out of our Purſes, and Soules out of our bodies, meet with no other entertainment, then an Who hath required theſe things at your hands? And we deſire you particularly to conſider what the Apoſtle Paul tells you, that if a man give up his very body to be burned, and have not charity, 1 Cor. 13. 3.1 Cor 13:3it profits him nothing: And ſurely if your generation be ſufferers, you are the moſt uncharitable ſufferers that ever were; and Martyrs, that have been in the World, from Chriſts time till the ſtarting up of your new Apoſtles, within theſe 3. or 4. years; & are ſo far from that charity w^ch other ſufferers in Scripture have had to their bloodieſt Perſecutors, that your mouthes are full of rayling, reviling, curſing, and bitterneſſe, to thoſe that do not meddle with you further then it concernes them in their places, to preſerve others under their charge from the infection of ſuch abominations as thoſe fore-mentioned. However We have not ſo learned Chriſt, as to render evill for evill, but deſire to ſuffer under the ſharp Arrowes of your tongues, as he gave us an example, not reviling againe when we are reviled by you, but committing our Cauſe, Callings, and Maintenance to him that judgeth uprightly. And to inſtruct even the worſt of Oppoſers in meekneſſe, trying if God will at any time give them repentance, to 2 Tim. 2. 25. 26.2 Tim 2:252 Tim 2:26the acknowledgment of the Truth; and that they may recover them out of the ſnare of the Devill, who are taken captive by him at his will, which we yet (with pity towards, and prayer for you) are aſſured to be the condition of your ſelfe, and your Clients in this Cauſe.

ANd now, Sir, after a tedious purſuit of you, through all Sect. 57 the windings and turnings of your ſubtle inſinuating Epiſtle, it may be expected we ſhould proceed to your Book it ſelfe; But we ſhall wave it, as we before told you, for theſe reaſons.

Firſt, Becauſe a great part of it hath been once ſerved up in the Epiſtle, and becauſe we found it not ſeaſoned with ſalt, by p. 52us already diſcovered and rejected as unſavoury. So that we ſhall not cloy the Reader with a ſecond courſe of it.

Secondly, Becauſe that we find that it is wholly made up of perſonall conteſts with Mr Thomas, and inſolent reflexions and reproaches upon him, into whoſe harveſt we deſire not to thruſt in our Sicle; beſides that we are advertiſed, that he intends to take that task in hand himſelfe, and we are aſſured that he will not need any aſſiſtance from us, or any other, to anſwer it as it deſerves. OnelyOnly becauſe you ſo often call the Scriptures (in ſcorne) [our Rule] in your Epiſtle, and therein expreſly reject all Interpretations and deductions which we draw from them in preaching, or diſpute; we will here ſubjoyne theſe two queſtions.

Q. 1. Whether the holy Scriptures be the Saints ground, and rule of faith, and practiſe?

Q. 2. Whether it be lawfull without an infallible ſpirit, to interpret Scripture, or draw conſequences and deductions thence?

In both theſe you defend the Negative, we the Affirmative.

As to the firſt of them in your Book, you ſtand only upon Sect. 58 your defence againſt ſome Texts quoted by Mr. Thomas; concerning which we leave you to his ſecond charge, wherein we doubt not but he will fetch them off without loſſe. Mean while, we cannot but take notice of the Artifices of your ſelfe, and others of the generation you cloſe withall.

(1.) We obſerve, that in moſt or all matters of difference betwixt us, you put us upon the proof of our Principles and practiſes, and offer none for your owne; which is a ſlye way of hiding your owne weakneſſe, and diſcovering our ſtrength, that ſo you may make your advantages of it: Which is, as if a man ſhould ſue another at Law, to produce his evidences by which he holds his Land, to be canvaſſed by his owne Counſell, without exhibiting any thing in his owne behalfe, to juſtifie his claime to it.

(2.) We obſerve alſo, that you reſerve to your ſelves a liberty of excepting againſt the Juriſdiction of the Court, in which the cauſe is depending; not allowing it a power to decide the caſe, if you ſee you ſelves likely to be caſt in Judgment, although p. 53you will owne it ſo far as you ſuppoſe it may ſerve your turne againſt us. For you call us forth to a tryall by the Scriptures, and yet will not allow them to be the rule to decide the controverſie.

(3.) We obſerve thirdly, that you will have the choice of the Weapons in this encounter, not only for your ſelfe, but us alſo, ſetting up a Star-chamber Court of your own firſt, to damne our Evidences, and then, forſooth, you will fight with us when you have diſarmed us. You will diſpute with us from the Scripture, and yet will allow us no Arguments to diſpute withall. A valiant undertaking, and worthy peice of Chivalry, for which you deſerve to be recorded among the chiefe Champions of the Quaking Knight Errantry.

But we hope, upon ſecond thoughts, you may be perſwaded Sect. 59 not to diſparage your owne atchievements upon us, by keeping your ſelfe within the ſecurity of an Iriſh bogg, where it is harder to come at you, then conquer you, and come forth into the plain field, where we may encounter you upon even termes. If otherwiſe, we ſhall take it as an Argument of your Cowardize, and yet rather ſwallow any inconvenience, then not diſlodge you, and ſet up the Banners of Truth upon your owne ground.

And firſt we will try you with a few Quaeries, which (ſeeing Sect. 60 they are your owne familiar way of arguing) we hope you will admit into your conſideration.

Q. 1. Whether you will receive the Scriptures Teſtimony concerning it ſelfe, or no? If you will, then Q. 2. Is it not the rule of faith by your owne confeſſion? For it is that to which you ſubmit your ſaith in this queſtion. If you will not, then Q. 3. To what purpoſe do you require of Mr. Thomas to produce a Scripture P. 4.that ſaith, in Terminis, it is the rule; when if he do, the queſtion is as far from being decided as before?

In the next place, we will ſtate the queſtion between us, that Sect. 61 we may underſtand one another.

Firſt therefore the queſtion betwen us is not, Whether the Scriptures, or written word, have been the ground and rule of faith and practiſe, in all ages of the World, but whether in every age of the World, ſince any part of them was written, ſo much as was written in any age, were not the rule by which thoſe of that age p. 54were to be regulated? and conſequently, whether to the ages that have been, and ſhall be, ſince the whole was compleated, the whole be not ſo, and to continue ſo to the Worlds end? So that you are quite beſides the Cuſhion and the Queſtion, in the inſtances of Abel, Enoch, and Ahraham, and all the Patriarchs before Moſes, who wrote the firſt Scripture. We are not ſo ſilly as to affirme the word as written, to have been a rule before it was written. Although we ſhall not doubt to prove, that thoſe Patriarchs had the ſame foundation to build on, and the ſame Law or Rule to walk by, though they were not then committed to writing. The Apoſtle tells us, Gal. 3. 8. that the Scripture preached the Gospel to Abraham; where it is obſervable, that Abrahams light was Scripture light, before the Scriptures were written.

2. The queſtion between us, is not, whether the Scriptures be the perſonall or reall ground of faith; but whether (as Mr. Thomas well diſtinguiſheth) it be the Doctrinall or declarative ground, or foundation of faith? This diſtinction, whether you will admit or no, we muſt premiſe, becauſe we would not be engaged to fight with a meer ſhadow. If you will own the Scriptures to be a doctrinall foundation or ground of faith, i. e. to hold forth from God thoſe Doctrines, which, and which onelyonly we are bound to beleive, our diſpute is at an end, for we are of a mind; we owne Chriſt alone to be the foundation or ground of faith, perſonall or reall; that is, to be the perſon, or thing, that our faith is built on; and the Scriptures to be the onelyonly ground and foundation, by way of Doctrine or declaration, what we are to beleive concerning Chriſt, and how to beleive on him. We hope you will underſtand us, we ſpeak as plaine as we can to avoid cavills about termes.

All therefore that we are to prove in this queſtion is, that all things which vve beleive and do, as neceſſary in order to ſalvation, are to be ſuch as are contained in the Scripture, and to be judged by it, whether they be ſo or no.

We ſay, All things which we beleive and do as neceſſary in order Sect. 62 to the ſalvation of our Soules, are to be ſuch as are contained in Scripture.

If not (becauſe to pleaſe you, we muſt not argue from Scripture) we deſire you to ſatisfie us.

p. 55Q. 1. What thing neceſſary to be beleived or done, in order to ſalvation there is, which we may or muſt receive from any other Rule, or build on any other foundation, and what is that Rule or foundation. We ſuppoſe you are bound either to allow our rule, or ſhew us a bettor. Or,

Q. 2. Whether what the Scriptures containe, be ſufficient to guide us to ſalvation, or no? If you affirme it; then we ſhall think our ſelves well enough with our old Rule, ſeeing vve may be ſaved, and yet admit no other.

If you deny it, you muſt out-ſtare theſe plaine Texts, 2 Tim. 3. 15, 16, 17. From a Child thou hast knowne the holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wiſe unto ſalvation. And all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for Doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteouſneſſe. That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furniſhed unto every good work. And that of John, wherewith he cloſeth his twentieth Chapter. Theſe (ſpeaking of the ſignes which Chriſt did) are written, that yee might beleive that Jeſus is the Chriſt the Son of God, and that beleiving, yee might have life through his name. Say not, that this concernes onelyonly the Goſpel of John, or if more, onelyonly the Hiſtories of the Evangeliſts. For then we ſhall make bold to conclude our Poſition à fortiori. If there be enough in one, or at moſt four Bookes to work faith, and thereby bring us to ſalvation, much more in all the Scriptures.

Q. 3. Whether the Scriptures of the old and new Teſtament be the word of God, or no? or do you owne no word of God, but Chriſt? We ſuppoſe here you will anſwer us, as your brethren here do: We dare not deny it for feare of the Law; we dare not affirm it, for then we deny our own principles.

We know not how you will anſwer it: But we muſt tell you, if you deny it, we are ſure the Scriptures affirme it of themſelves; elſe we deſire to know, what it is that is called the Word of God in the places following Mar. 7. 13. 2 Cor. 2. 17. 4. 2. What it is that David ſo often calls by the name of thy word, Pſ. 119. whether Chriſt ſpake himſelfe, or the declarative word of God, Lu. 5. 1. If you affirme it, We ask further;

Q. 4. Whether it be not the duty of the Creature to beleive p. 56and be guided by the declared word of God, rather then by any others word whatſoever?

Q. 5. Whether there be any ſuch thing in the World as Hereſie, or Errour? If there be not, to vvhat purpoſe are all thoſe Propheſies that foretell, and Cautions that forewarne Gods people againſt them in the Scripture? If there be, may they be diſcovered, or no? If they may not, how can it be a duty incumbent upon Saints to avoid them? is there any avoiding of an undiſcoverable evill? If they may, by vvhat rule but the written Word?

Q. 6. Whether there be any duty, or ſin in the World, or no? The affinity your Sect hath vvith the Ranters in Principles (vvhichwhich G. Fox acknowledgeth) makes us beleive, that ſome of you, vvould they ſpeak out, muſt anſwer, No, but what a man thinkes to be ſo. We vvill not judge the thoughts: But if you be more ſober, vve onelyonly ask you?

Q. 7. What rule vve have to judge of vvhat is Duty, or Sin, but the vvritten Law of God?

Is it the light of every mans private boſome? This is the forementioned Ranting Principle.

Is it immediate Revelation? For to this your brethren incline (as may be ſeen in the Quaeries ſent to Mr. Baxter of Kiderminſter, one of vvhichwhich vvas, Whether he owned Revelations, or no? And Naylers Anſwer to his Quakers Catechiſme) and that very ſtrongly; yea, they pretend to the ſame miſſion from God to this or that place, to do this or that errand, which the Prophets had of old, and to be limited in their ſtay in, and departure from ſuch places, by the immediate commands of God**See Deuſberies diſcovery, and his owne confeſſion therein, That at Derby he anſwered the Major, that he would ſtay there till the Lord ordered him to go out of Towne, and when he was put out, returned, and ſtaid till he was free in his ſpirit to depart, p. 8, 9.

If you be of their mind, vve further enquire.

Q. 8. What certaine token you have to know the commands of God from the commands of Satan, ſeeing he can eaſily inſinuate his ſuggeſtions by inward voices, as commands of God. According to the old Law of God to his people the Jewes, Pretenders p. 57to a Spirit of Propheſie, though they gave evidence of their pretended miſſion from God by ſignes and wonders (and thoſe coming to paſſe too) yet were to be diſcovered and judged by the written word, Deut. 13. 1, 2, 3. &c. And in the new Teſtament, the Doctrine of an Angell from Heaven is ſubmitted (under a curſe) to the Doctrine preached by the Apoſtles, Gal. 1. 8. And we deſire to know whether you vvill ſubmit your Revelations to this Touchſtone, or no? If ſo, you yeild the queſtion: If not, then whatever Commands or Prohibitions you receive in the way of revelation, you muſt obey, vvhether agreeing, or diſagreeing to the written Law of God. And then how far the examples of Abraham offering up his Son, and Phinehas executing vengeance; yea (and vvhen time ſerves) Ehuds meſſage from God to Eglon, may be witneſſed in you (as you ſpeak) we know Judg. 3. 19Judg 3:19not, and ſhall pray vve never may, by experience.

Q. 9. Whether the Scriptures do not eſtabliſh it ſelfe as the rule of Faith, in referring all pretenders to new light, to the Law and the Teſtimony, and telling us expreſly, That if they ſpeak not according to this word, it is becauſe there is no light in Iſa. 20. 8.Isa 20:8them. And whether the light in you and in your companions be not darkneſſe, that will not undergo this tryall?

Q. 10. Whether the phraſes of walking in the Law of the Lord, keeping Gods Teſtimonies, taking heed to a mans, way according to Gods word, not wandering from Gods Commandements, Pſ. 119, 1, 2. 9, 10. 21. 30. 35. 51. 102. 110. 133. 157.Ps 119:1Ps 119:2Ps 119:9Ps 119:10Ps 119:21Ps 119:30Ps 119:35Ps 119:51Ps 119:102Ps 119:110Ps 119:133Ps 119:157laying Gods Jugdments before him, going in the path of Gods Commandements, not declining from Gods Law, not departing from Gods Judgments, not erring from his Precepts, ordering his ſteps in Gods word, not declining from his teſtimonies; Are not cleare evidences, that David made the written word that then was, his Rule? And you owne Davids Rule for yours, p. 8.

Q. 11. Whether you think in your conſcience, that Deut. 5. 32, 33. doth not convincingly prove the Scripture to be the Saints rule? The words are, Yee ſhall obſerve to do therfore, as the Lord your God hath commanded you (and before vve have the repitition of the written Law) You ſhall not turn aſide to the right hand or to the left, &c. Your anſwer in your book, is in ſumme, P. 7.that all the Scripture was not then written. But did not Moſes therein eſtabliſh as much as was then written, for the rule the p. 58Saints of thoſe times were to walk by. Beſides theſe words immediatly refer to the Morall Law, before repeated in the ſame Chapter. And will you exclude that from being the Saints rule, as well as other Scriptures? Then indeed there vvill be no duty or ſin, but as a man thinks.

Q. 12. Whether you deale honeſtly with Calvin in that P. 20.Scripture, Eph. 2. 20. whileſt you tell your Readers that he ſaith in Terminis, That the Apoſtle doth in that Scripture intend Jeſus Chriſt to whom the Prophets and Apoſtles did beare witneſſe. Whereas Calvin ſaith expreſly, It is without doubt that the [foundation] in this place is taken for the [Doctrine] of the Prophets and Apoſtles. And therefore Paul teacheth, that the Quin fundamentum hic pro doctrina ſumatur minime dubium eſt. Et ita que docet Paulus, fidem eccleſiae, in hac doctrina debere eſse fundatam Calv. in l.Churches faith ought to be founded on this Doctrine. And there is not any mention at all of thoſe vvords in Calvin, vvhichwhich you quote from him. To ſay the truth, vve much vvonder how you could have the brazen face to father a ſaying upon Calvin vvhichwhich he never ſaid: till vve looked upon Marlorate, whoſe miſ-quotation, or rather the fault of his Printer (it ſeemes) deceived you, for there vve find among other things there aſcribed to Calvin, this paſſage you mention. But it concerned a man of your acuteneſſe, not to have taken up a report from another, vvhen Calvins vvorks are ſo common in every Shop and Study, that vvith a little paines more, you might have converſed vvith the Originall Author, whence Marlorate makes his collections. But it ſeemes you vvere vvilling to ſnatch at any thing that ſeemed to ſupport your cauſe, vvhere ever you found it. And yet you ſhewed no part of ingenuity in your uſage of Marlorate himſelf, vvho together vvith that paſſage vvhichwhich you quote, and under the ſame note by which he diſtinguiſheth Calvins vvords, cites Calvin point blank againſt you, ſaying, that the Apoſtle ſhewes in that place how the Epheſians vvere made fellow Citizens vvith the Saints, Nempe ſi fundati ſint in Prophetarum & Apoſtolorum Doctrinâ, to wit, If they be founded on the Doctrine of the Prophets and Apoſtles.

Theſe words and others to the ſame purpoſe immediatly precede your owne quotation, vvhichwhich renders your diſ-ingenuity the more culpable, as ſhewing a vvilfull deſigne of abuſing p. 59ſo reverend a name to delude your Readers.

Q. 13. In a vvord, tell us ingenuouſly, Whether we muſt, or muſt not beleive the Doctrines which the Scriptures lay downe upon their owne authority? If vve muſt, vvhy do you quarrell at thoſe that call them the rule, ground, foundation of faith; ſeeing every intelligent man will tell you, that it is the ſame thing, to beleive the Doctrines of the Scripture upon the Scriptures authority, and to make the Scriptures the ground, rule, foundation of faith.

If vve muſt not, then tell us, what, ſuperadded to the Scriptures owne Authority, renders their Doctrines more credible? We obſerve the Papiſts ſtate this queſtion as you do. But they vvill anſwer us ingenuouſly, That they beleive the Scriptures, becauſe the Church hath confirmed them. And the Socinians are of your mind alſo; but they deale fairely too, and ſpeak out, That they will beleive the Scriptures as far as reaſon votes with them. Would you ſpeak out, vve doubt you muſt confeſſe you are very neer theſe laſt in your judgment: Why do you not tell us plainly; that you beleive the Doctrines laid down in the Scripture, as far as the light within you concurs with them? And then vve ſhall know vvhat you mean, in denying the Scriptures to be the rule and ground of faith, Viz. That as much as pleaſeth you you vvill beleive, and vvhat diſlikes you, ſhall be caſhiered as an old Declarative, or an Almanack out of date, as ſome of your Cater-coſins, the Familiſts have blaſphemouſly called the Bible.

Q. 14. Laſtly, Whether God vvill not judge every man, vvho lives within the ſound of the Goſpell, by the written word? If not, what meanes the Apoſtle Paul, when he ſaith, that as many as have ſinned in the Law, ſhall be judged by the Law, in the day when God ſhall judge the ſecrets of men by Jeſus Chriſt according to my Gospel, Rom. 2. 12. 16.

And ſeeing we are upon this ſubject, give us leave to enquire yet a little further; what are thoſe Books out of which the dead ſhall be judged, and whence one day God will draw the rule of his proceedings in the day of Judgment, as you may find, Apoc. 2. 12.

If God vvill judge us out of the written word after death, p. 60ſurely, we are not to be blamed, if we ſtudy that Statute-Law, and labour to conforme our beleif, and practiſe thereunto whileſt we live, which muſt judge us when we dye. Or elſe, we pray you tell us, whether we muſt live by one rule here, and be judged hereafter by another?

In your anſwer to theſe Quaeries, we muſt deſire you not to play Childs play with us, and endeavour to put us off with trifling fallacies, which every Sophiſter can diſcerne, as you do frequently in your particular conteſts with Mr. Thomas, which we doubt not you will here of with both eares, when he is at leaſure to reply upon you: but deale candidly and poſitively as becomes a Scholar, and a Chriſtian, with thoſe who aſſure you they will with all poſſible faireneſſe examine whatſoever of that nature you ſhall think neceſſary to rejoyne hereunto.

And here we ſhall put a period to our firſt debate with you, Sect. 63 concerning the Rule, ground, or foundation of faith: Which we ſay is the Scriptures, you (that we can find) yet ſay not, what it is, but say roundly it is not they.

Our next friendly collation is about the way of drawing thoſe Doctrines from the Scripture, which are to be beleived and practiſed. Concerning which, your declared judgment is (as P. 5, 6. 19. &c.well as vve can gather it from your own expreſſions) That it is unlawfull to interpret, or give any meaning of Scripture, or to draw any deductions and concluſions from it; but that we muſt reſt ſatisfied with the bare words of Scripture, inſomuch that nothing (according to you) is proved from the Scripture, but what is there in ſo many words.

Concerning vvhichwhich Tenet vve have a little knockt Shins with you before at armes end, but vve ſhall now wreſtle a faire fall, and come as cloſe as we can, to give you a down-right Corniſh hugg.

Firſt, therefore we muſt informe you, that your Generation Sect. 64 are not the firſt that have ſtarted the queſtion, or ſo held it. We know not vvhether you underſtand French, or no, but if you do, vve refer you to a diſcourſe of Mr. Daillé, as learned a French man as any this latter age hath bred; who in a Book Lafoy fondee ſur les S. Eſcritures, par Jean Daille.printed about ſixteen yeares ſince, hath a large diſpute vvith certaine Popiſh Methodiſts, vvho undertook to teach their deluded p. 61Proſelites, the ſame way of confuting the French Proteſtants, which you now principle your Diſciples withall, to gravell thoſe of this Nation. They deem (ſaith he) that there needs no more ado to baffle us, but to demand of us an expreſſe formall Text for every Article of our confeſſion. This facile way (ſaith he further) hath produced a rabble of Disputants among them: and whereas at firſt they fled and declined all conferences of Religion, and permitted none but their Clergy to ſpeak of it; now all ſorts of people will adventure to engage with us, even Seamſters, and Carters Boyes, being created Doctors in an inſtant by this handſome Method.

The ſame Author derives the riſe of it higher then that age too: But from ſuch a Family, as neither they nor you have much cauſe to boaſt of. Eutiches the Heretick, that confounded the Natures of God and man in the Lord Jeſus Chriſt, **Act Concil. chalcedon foreign, Athanaſ. Ep. de Synod. Arim. & Seleuc. foreign. Et Dialog cont. Arianum. foreign. Aug. Ep. 174. & 178. Id. Contra maxim? T. 6. fol. 144. G.required an expreſſe Scripture to affirm, that in Chriſt there are two Natures. The Arians in Athanaſius his time and after, denied the conſubſtantiality of the Son of God; Viz. That he was of the ſame ſubstance with the Father (aſſerted by the Councill of Nice, to expreſs the Eternall Deity of the Son) as you do the word Sacrament, becauſe it is not in ſo many Letters found in the Scripture. And concerning the very Godhead of Jeſus Chriſt, in a Dialogue between Athanaſius and an Arian, Let alone Syllogiſmes, ſaith the Arian, and ſhew it us written that the Son is the true God.

So Paſcentius an Arian requires of Auguſtine to ſhew him the word conſubſtantiall in Scripture, without Argument. And in a like diſpute between him and Maximinus, concerning the Godhead of the H. Ghoſt, when the Father proved it from the Scripture, that tels us, He hath a Temple, the proper adjunct of Divinity; the Heretick replies, Truth is not concluded by Argument, but proved by certaine Teſtimonies. Theſe things we have the more largely tranſcribed out of that learned Author, to let you know, out of what Forge that Weapon is hammered wherwith you encounter us. Follow you now (if you pleaſe) the ancient Hereticks, and moderne Papiſts. For our parts, we are glad that we inſiſt upon the ſame way and method of diſputing, which the ſounder part of the Church hath ever uſed to encounter them withall.

p. 62Surely our Saviour Chriſt better knew the way of proving Sect. 65 concluſions from Scripture, then you or we: And yet he never thought it neceſſary to tye himſelf up to expreſſe Texts, but allowed himſelf the liberty of the interpretations and deductions. When Satan tempted him to turn ſtones into bread, he thought it ſufficient to repell the Tentation, by that Text of Moſes, Man liveth not by bread alone, but by every word that Mat. 4. 4. Deut. 8. 3.Matt 4:4Deut 8:3proceedeth out of the mouth of God. The force of which Anſwer lies in this Syllogiſme.

If God be able to ſupply the want of ordinary food, that a mans life ſhall be ſuſtained without it, whileſt God hath work for him to do, then ſhould I do ill, if (in diſtruſt of him) I ſhould command theſe ſtones to be made bread.

But God is thus able; for man lives not, &c. Therefore I ſhould do ill, if I ſhould command theſe ſtones to be made bread.

Had one of your Brethren been at the Devills elbow, he would have taught him more wit then to take ſuch an anſwer, and have turned him to put our Saviour upon the producing of an expreſſe Text of Scripture that forbad Jeſus the Son of Mary to command ſtones to be made bread.

So in the ſecond Tentation, both our Saviour and the Devill Sect. 66 alſo (if no meanings or deductions be allowable in urging of Scripture) might have gone to School to you. The Devill urgeth Scripture to our Saviour, to conclude the lawfulneſs of his caſting himſelf down from the Pinnacle: For (ſaith he) it is written, He ſhall give his Angels charge concerning thee, &c. We do not find our Saviour ſo well verſed in your way of diſputing, as to deny his proof, becauſe it was not expreſly, God ſhall give his Angels charge over Jeſus the Son of Mary, and in their hands ſhall they beare him up, &c. But anſwers by another Scripture, to ſhew that that Text was not to be underſtood of protection in waies of tempting God, by running our ſelves upon unneceſſary dangers.

Nay, when our Saviour had anſwered him with that place, Deut. 6. 16. Thou ſhalt not tempt the Lord thy God, Satan alſo was to ſeek of that plea which you could have ſuggeſted to him, Viz. That that Scripture did not expreſly forbid Jeſus of Nazareth to throw himſelf down from the Pinnacle.

p. 63And in the third Tentation (according to your Tenet) our Sect. 67 Saviour had been hard put to it, to prove that it was unlawfull to worſhip the Devill himſelfe; had Satan been diſciplined by your principles, and required of him an expreſſe Text, That it is not lawfull to worſhip the Devill. Whereas it ſeemes for want of your Artifice, the ſilly Tempter was put off with a Scripture that requires us to worſhip and ſerve God onelyonly, and concludes the unlawfulneſſe of Devill-worſhip by this Argument,

If we muſt worſhip and ſerve God only, ergo not the Devill.

But we muſt worſhip and ſerve God only, therefore not the Devill.

And the Sadduces afterwards were very ſilly animalls, that Sect. 68 they would let our Saviour go away in triumph for putting Mat. 22. 32. Exod. 3. 6.Matt 22:32Exod 3:6them to ſilence, by ſo weak a proof of the Reſurrection, as the words of God to Moſes in the Buſh, I am the God of Abraham, the God of Iſaac, and the God of Jacob. Why had they not required (in ſo fundamentall an Article of faith eſpecially) a poſitive and expreſſe Scripture, affirming in ſo many words, that the dead ſhall riſe againe.

But you think our Saviours example will not beare us out in Sect. 69 our interpretations and deductions, becauſe he was infallible in P. 6.what he ſpake, and neither did nor could erre in what he ſaid; which, you ſuppoſe, cannot be ſaid of us, or our meanings, and arguments. To which we anſwer, we do not compare our ſelves with our Saviour in point of infallibility (although your generation do, who account themſelves equally perfect with him.) But this we ſay, that our Saviour in theſe places and others, where he argues from the Scriptures, doth not urge his owne infallibility, as the ground upon which he requires beleif, neither did Satan or the Sadduces acquieſce in the acknowledgment thereof, but in the conviction wrought in them by the ſtrength of his Arguments. And we muſt tell you, that any one who can draw an Argument rightly from Scripture, is no leſſe infallible in the concluſions ſo deduced thence, then our Saviour was in his. The queſtion therefore will be, Whether any perſon in interpreting and arguing from Scripture be infallible? but whether ſuch interpretations and deductions be truly, and bona fide p. 64according to the mind of the H. Choſt in Scripture, whether they be drawn by a perſon that is fallible or infallible? For be the perſon never ſo fallible that gives the interpretation, or drawes the argument, yet if the interpretation be ſound, and the argument rightly concluded, he is therein infallible: For you cannot be altogether ignorant of that common Maxime, That nothing Ex veris poſsunt non niſi vera ſequi.but truth can rightly follow from truth, and a falſe concluſion can never be regularly drawn from true premiſſes.

So that all that flouriſh which you afterwards make, is but a meer rhetoricall vapour, and ſignifies juſt nothing to an underſtanding Sect. 70 Reader. For whereas you bid us either tell the people P. 6.plainly, that we are infallible, that they may receive our deductions from Scripture, for true Doctrine, nay Scripture it ſelf; or elſe ſay, that we are fallible, that ſo they may take liberty of proving our actions and doctrine.

We anſwer, we need not tell the people we are infallible; and yet they are no leſſe bound to receive our deductions (if rightly drawne from Scripture) then if we were indeed ſo. Becauſe although we be not infallible, yet ſo far as we regularly argue from Scripture, we are not deceived, nor can deceive them. The authority of our deductions from Scripture, depends not on our fallibility or infallibility, but upon the evidence they carry in them, of their neceſſary connexion with the truth we argue from. And this becauſe we owne our ſelves fallible, we allow our hearers to uſe their owne judgments, and conſciences to prove and try whether it be ſo or no. God forbid but they who (as you ſay) muſt dye for themſelves, and account to the Lord for themſelves, ſhould interpret for themſelves and beleive for themſelve? But what then? will it therefore follow that they muſt not receive our interpretations, or beleive our deductions? Or that we may not help them to interpret, or draw deductions, which they cannot ſo well do themſelves? They interpret for themſelves, that by the light of the Scriptures, and their owne Judgments led by them, ſee cauſe to owne our interpretations. And they beleive for themſelves, who are (upon a ſerious weighing of our Arguments) convinced that they ought to admit them as juſt and lawfull deductions from Scripture.

What you add in the cloſe of that Paragraph, that it may ſo Sect. 71 p. 65fall out, that ſix of thoſe that eſteem themſelves the ableſt Doctors, if ſhut aſunder, ſhall ſo vary in the interpretation of one Scripture, that ſcarce two of the ſix ſhall agree in the ſame interpretation; Whence you would infer how little credit is to be given to our deductions: we might take for an unſavoury ſcoff. and ſo paſſe it by. But we ſhall forgive you this, and many more ſuch, if it will do you any good, and vouchſafe to anſwer, even where you deſerve no anſwer but ſilence and ſcorne. Be it therefore as you ſay (which yet in Scriptures that containe matter of ſaith and practiſe, we cannot ſuppoſe; moſt of us, we conceive, in ſuch, are, at leaſt (till the new-fangled conceits of theſe times infected ſome of the Miniſtry, as well as others) were, of the ſame mind in moſt of them) yet herein we are no more to be blamed then the Apoſtles and other primitive Teachers themſelves, who differed as much in thoſe times of cleareſt light about the Scriptures that enjoyned the obſervation of Jewiſh Ceremonies; whileſt ſome of them earneſtly contended, that they extended to converted Gentiles, and others affirmed the quite contrary. And will you thence conclude, that there is little credit to be given to any of their deductions, becauſe they diſagreed among themſelves? All that can be hence ſolidly inferred, is no more but this, that therefore it concernes Gods people to ſearch (with the Noble Beroeans) whether the things, the one or the other ſaith, be moſt conſonant to the Scriptures.

But you that will not beleive our interpretations, or deductions, Sect. 72 becauſe we are not in all things agreed; will you beleive them in thoſe things wherein we are all, or the greateſt part of us of a mind: Surely, if ſo, moſt of the quaking Doctrines will fall to the ground; for very few, if any of us, ſhall dare to interpret Scriptures to the countenance of thoſe horrid Doctrines before mentioned.

In a word, this whole diſcourſe about infallibility, and differences Sect. 73 among our ſelves in interpretation of Scripture (as one hath very well obſerved before us) ſmells rank of your Popiſh Baxtet, Quakers Catechiſm.Tutors. For are they not the very ſame things which they object againſt us? That we have not an infalliable Spirit to interpret Scriptures, and that we differ among our ſelves in our interpretations; and therefore when we appeale to Scripture, as the only p. 66Judge of Controverſies between us; they (as you do) deny it upon this account, becauſe we have no infallible Spirit to interpret the Scriptures controverted, and thereby give an Authoritative deciſion of them. And what we anſwer to them, we therefore ſay to you in a word, The Scripture we owne as our onelyonly Rule, and Judge in matters of faith; and we owne no interpretation of Scripture, nor deſire others to owne any, but ſuch as hold proportion with other Scriptures; and ſuch interpretations and deductions are ſo far infallible, as they do neceſſarily agree to them, or follow from them.

But (ſay you further) You have ſome of you been Teachers in Sect. 73 this Nation, ten, twenty, thirty yeares: were thoſe things that you have taught ſo many yeares together, neceſſarily deduced from Scripture? What then? If not (ſay you) then by your owne confeſſion you have taught falſehood. But ſtay, Sir, every deduction that is not neceſſarily drawne from Scripture, is not falſehood. A true concluſion may have but a probable conſequence ſometimes to infer it from the premiſſes. Its truth is never the leſſe for that, but its evidence. But ſuppoſe we ſhould confeſſe (for once) that all which we deduce from Scripture is not true? We know not what uſe you will make of it, except this, that thoſe that do not alwaies ſpeak truth, are not to be thought at any time to do ſo. And if ſo, we know whom this inference will hit as well as our ſelves. What think you of the Apoſtle Peter, whom Paul withſtood to his face, Gal. 2. 11. for countenancing the falſe brethren in the Doctrine and practiſe of the Moſaicall Ordinances among the Gentile Churches, and compelling the Gentiles to live as the Jewes? was he never in the right, or not to be beleived to be ſo, becauſe he was then in the wrong? Nay, doth not God himſelfe ſuppoſe a poſſibility of being deceived in the beſt of his Miniſters, when he bids hearers prove all things, 1 Theſ. 5. 21. and commends the Beroeans for ſearching the Scriptures, whether the things that Paul and Silas preached, were ſo or no? Act. 17. 11. We ſuppoſe that no godly Miniſter will preach that, which he knowes to be falſe. But if without his knowledge (yea, or with his knowledge) any one ſhould do ſo; it is the hearers fault if he be deceived thereby, becauſe he hath a certain rule whereby to examine what he teacheth; and p. 67we profeſſe we deſire no further to be credited then the Scripture will beare us out in what we ſay.

But ſuppoſe there be ſome of us poſſibly to be found, who Sect. 74 will juſtifie all that they have preached for ſo long time, to be truth neceſſarily deduced from Scripture: What of that? Why? then (ſay you) all that is ſo taught is infallible. True; And what then? Forſooth, then (you add) why do you not then adjoyn all your Sermons to the Scripture; for if neceſſarily deduced from Scripture, they are Scripture, and a part of the Saints rule: And ſo (you go on) it would become ſo voluminous a Book, that many poore Soules Eſtates would not buy a Bible. We ſhall give you a breif account why we do not, if it may do you ſervice, And that is, becauſe we do not judge our ſelves ſo immediatly inſpired in our Sermons (although we deliver the ſame truths) the holy Pen-men of God were in penning of the Scriptures. The ſacred Writers of Scripture, did not onelyonly write the things they left upon record to the Church, by immediate inſpiration, but the words and phraſes in which they expreſſed them. Whereas the beſt Miniſters that ſince have been, have been faine to expreſſe thoſe truths in notions and tearmes of their owne; yea, and the Apoſtles themſelves in their popular Sermons. And therefore, we ſuppoſe, the H. Ghoſt thought not fit to record all the popular Sermons which were preached by the Apoſtles themſelves, but only appointed them to draw up the ſumme of the Doctrine they generally taught in expreſſions of their owne, into a forme of ſound words of his owne inſpiration, to be a Standard of Doctrine and expreſſion to ſucceeding ages.

And yet, ſuppoſing the Apoſtles alwaies preached as they Sect. 75 wrote (by immediate inſpiration) as to matter and forme; then we ask you, Why they did not bind up all their Sermons with the Canonicall Scriptures, ſeeing all they taught was infallible? Whatever you anſwer hereunto, will be applied to our caſe. But we ſuppoſe John gives you a ſufficient reaſon in the cloſe of his Goſpel, There are many other things (ſaith he) which Jeſus Jo. 21. 25.John 21:25did, which if they ſhould be written every one, I ſuppoſe that even the World it ſelfe would not containe the Bookes that ſhould be written. So that God therefore thought fit to keep from after Ages, part of the Hiſtory of Chriſt, that the Bible might not be p. 68too voluminous. And we hope, the ſame reaſon will ſerve for us, if we do not bind up our neceſſary and infallible deductions with the Bible.

In a word, this queſtion is propoſed with no greater meaſure Sect. 76 of diſcretion, then if you ſhould ask, Whether all the Buſhells, and Yards, and Pints in every mans houſe or ſhop in Briſtoll be exact meaſure, or no? If all, ſay yee: then you further enquire; Why they do not all bring them into the Market-houſe, or publick place appointed for that purpoſe, and chaine them all to the common Standard, ſeeing they are all alike exact with it? Surely to ſuch a wiſe queſtion, the anſwer will be eaſie, Viz. Becauſe one publick Standard is enough to meaſure private Meaſures by; and the ſeverall Tradeſmen according to their ſeverall imployments, having once had their private Meaſures tryed by that, can make profitable uſe of them at home. We ſhall leave you to make the application to the Queſtion in hand.

But before we diſmiſſe this captious Argument of yours, Sect. 77 you ſhall give us leave to retort it upon you, and then ſee whether you can give a wiſer anſwer to your owne question in your owne caſe, then we have done in ours. We ask therefore. Is all that George Fox, James Nayler, or your ſelfe teach, write, and pronounce as from God (For from Scripture you will not ſay you ſpeak, ſeeing that it is not your rule of Doctrine) neceſſarily true, or no? If not, then (by your owne confeſſion) you have (if your owne Argument be good) taught falſehood; if ſo; then all you and they have taught is infallible; for you ſay, it is dictated by the ſame Spirit that indited the Scriptures, and ſo equall to them (your Epiſtles are as good as St. Pauls is before-ſaid by ſome of you.) And then why do you not adjoyne all your Preachments and Pamphlets to the Bible? &c.

Thus you ſee the practiſe of our Saviour Chriſt (notwithſtanding Sect. 78 his infallibility, which we pretend not to) is and ought to be herein our example. But we need not defend our practiſe with ſo great a name, having the examples of ſo many Apoſtles, and other primitive Teachers to plead for us. We pray you tell us (otherwiſe) how the Apoſtles proved by the Scriptures that Jeſus was the Chriſt? Did they, or could they bring any one Text in all the old Teſtament that ſaith ſo in terminis, p. 69That Jeſus the Son of Mary, berne in Bethlem, is the foreign. Act. 17. 2.Acts 17:2Meſſiah? No, but the Text tells us; that they opened the Scriptures, and laid them one by another in a way of reaſoning, (as the word rendred alledging ſignifies in the Originall) and ſo convinced the Jewes. How will you diſpute with a Jew, that ownes not the infallibility of the Pen-men of the New Teſtament, and ſo will queſtion the truth of what is there affirmed, that this Jeſus is the Chriſt? you have no Weapon to encounter him withall, but Argument and deductions from the old Teſtament: For did the old Teſtament expreſly ſay ſo any where, the queſtion were at an end between us and him.

We intreat you further to tell us, how the Apoſtle Paul Sect. 79 makes good his aſſertion concerning the lawfulneſſe of his and Barnabaſſes requiring, and receiving maintenance out of the Law, 1 Cor. 9. 8. Say I theſe things as a man, i. e. by mine own private judgment, or ſaith not the Law the ſame alſo. We pray you tell us where the Law ſaith in ſo many words, that Paul and Barnabas might lawfully forbeare working, & expect to eat the fruit of the Vineyard they planted? &c. Sure we are, the place quoted by him out of the Law, ſaith no more but this, Thou ſhalt not muzzle the mouth of the Oxe that treadeth out the Corne, v. 9. Here is not a word of Paul and Barnabas, except Paul and Barnabas be Oxen (would a Quaker reply.) But though the Text ſpeak expreſly of Oxen, yet the Apoſtle finds Paul and Barnabas, in the reaſon and equity of that Law; and ſo makes a ſtrong Argument of it, verſ. 10.

And ſurely it will prove an hard matter to your ſelf, or your Sect. 80 Companions, to draw forth to any rationall man the Dectrines of election and reprobation, out of Gen. 25. 23. & Mal. 1, 2, 3. quoted for the proof thereof by that Apoſtle, Rom. 9. 11, 12, 13. and the righteouſneſſe of theſe decrees out of Exod. 33. 19. and many other Doctrines of affinity with them, in that Chapter, out of the reſt of the old Teſtament Texts there alledged, without conſequences; We are ſure none of them all are in expreſſe termes in thoſe Scriptures brought to prove them. We might add the proofes that the Author to the Hebrews brings for the Godhead of Chriſt, from Pſa. 45. 6, 7. 102. 25. & 110. 1. p. 70quoted, Chap. 1. 8. 9. 10. 13. and the Eternity of Chriſts Prieſthood from the Hiſtory of Melchizedek, and Pſa. 110. 4. quoted Chap. 7.

But we foreſeee, that the queſtion will ſtill be between us, Sect. 81 Whether we be infallible (as the Apoſtles are ſuppoſed to have been) in our interpretations and deductions? For anſwer whereto, we refer you to what was even now ſaid on this point. Only here we crave leave to add, that we have reaſon to think our infallibility and yours is much at a rate: And yet we find you very frequently taking that liberty which you deny us. For how do you conceive the Propheſies of Micha againſt thoſe that taught for hire, and the woes of our Saviour, againſt thoſe that do their workes to be ſeen of men, and ſtand praying in the Synagogues, and love the uppermoſt roomes at Feaſts, and greetings in the Markets, &c. and the commands given to the Apoſtles of Chriſt that then were ſent by him upon a ſpeciall errand, of giving freely what they freely received, &c. concerne us, whoſe names are not expreſly mentioned in thoſe Texts, but by deduction or argumentation, ſuch as it is? Nay, how do you bring downe the prohibitions of calling men Maſters, respecting of perſons, &c. to be obliging to you, and your Proſelites, but by conſequence? Were it not eaſie for us (were we minded to play the ſame Childs play with you which you do with us) to require of you an expreſſe place of Scripture, forbidding Thomas Speed by name, to do thus and thus: or at leaſt every Chriſtian or Diſciple? and yet then you would need a deduction to bring downe the prohibition to your ſelfe in particular, ſuch as this,

No Chriſtian, or Diſciple of Chriſt muſt call men Maſters. But T. S. is a Chriſtian. We wiſh he were.

Therefore T. S. muſt not call men Maſters.

Nay (to go yet further with you) we might very well require Sect. 82 of you an expreſſe Scripture for your two fundamentall Articles, That Chriſt is the light that enlightens every one that comes into the World; and that Chriſt is the word of God, and not to the Scriptures. A good friend of yours in a diſcourſe T. C.with one of us, having before denied all conſequences and deductions from Scripture, as you do; was pittifully gravelled, when p. 71he was required to produce expreſſe Scriptures to prove theſe propoſitions, and was told that the Texts he produced, which were Jo. 8. 12. I am the light of the World, and Jo. 1. 9. That was the true light which enlightneth every one that comes into the World, had not the name of Chriſt in them, but it was to be concluded by Argument, that thoſe words are ſpoken of Chriſt; and that the place, Jo. 1. 1. did not expreſly affirme that Chriſt is the word: but is onelyonly inferred thence by deductions. And (as for meanings and interpretations) it was none of the beſt, which the ſame party gave of that Scripture, which forbids the Diſciples to carry ſhooes, as well as a Purſe or Scrip (whence he was told, that it as much concerned G. Fox to go without ſhooes, as us without Purſe or Scrip) Viz. That the Text forbids to carry ſhooes, but not to weare them. A learned interpretation, and ſuch as becomes your infallibility! And your ſelfe, however unlawfull you judge it in us to interpret Scripture, yet Sect. 83 more then once undertake it very Dictator-like; as p. 8. where you interpret the word Rule, Gal. 6. 16. for the rule of the new Creature, not the Scriptures (as if the Scripture, and the rule of the new Creature were oppoſites:) and ſo p. 19. where you interpret the Record ſpoken of 1. Jo. 5. 10. to be eternall life, not the Scriptures: and againe, p. 20. you interpret the foundation ſpoken of, Eph. 2. 20. to be that ſame Jeſus, who was preached by the Prophets and Apoſtles. So hard a matter it is for men that undertake to give Law to others, not to tranſgreſſe it themſelves; and not to conceit the caſe altered in their own concernments, from what they rigorouſly pronounce concerning others!

We have not yet quite done with you, and therefore we muſt Sect. 84 crave your patience a little longer, whileſt we ask you a few plaine Queſtions upon this ſubject now at hand.

Q. 1. Sir, you will admit of no interpretations of Scripture, we entreat you therefore to tell us. Chriſt ſaith, he is the true Vine, and his Father an Husbandman, Jo. 15. 1. Are they properly ſo, or Metaphorically? If you ſay metaphorically, or improperly, you interpret; for the Texts expreſſe words are not, I am a metaphoricall Vine, and my Father a metaphoricall Husbandman. If you ſay properly, you blaſpheme.

p. 72Q. 2. Chriſt ſaith, I am the door, Jo. 10. 9. You beleive, you Epiſtle, p. 7.ſay, that Chriſt meanes as he ſpeakes, and therefore you deny our meanings and interpretations as needleſſe. Is Chriſt then that which we in propriety of ſpeech call a door? If you ſay, he is in a ſpirituall ſence a door; who interprets now? Do we offend, if we interpret this Text, of a ſpirituall door to a myſticall building, and you though you give the ſame ſenſe, not ſo?

Q. 3. Nay, what ſay you further to thoſe two places of Paul and James, which in words flatly contradict one another. Yee ſee, ſaith James, that by workes a man is juſtified, and not by faith onelyonly, Ja. 2. 24. But we know, ſaith Paul, That a man is not juſtified by the workes of the Law, but by the faith of Jeſus Chriſt, Gal. 2. 16. You will allow (vve hope) that the Scriptures are truth, though they be not the word of God. Now truth, and truth, contradict not each other; ſo that vve muſt find a different ſenſe from the contexts of both places, wherein the one affirmes that works juſtifie not, and the other that they do.

This reconciliation is uſually made by our Divines thus; St. Paul denies works to conſtitute any perſon juſt before God, and James affirmes, that workes declare a perſon juſt. How you (without interpretation) vvill reconcile them, we know not; eſpecially when vve conſider that you are a greater friend to conſtitutive juſtification by workes (if you be of the mind of your fellow Quakers then vve believe James was, and ſo are more concerned to ſtudy how to come off fairely with Paul then vve.

Q. 4. And now vve are upon the point of reconciling Scriptures, vve ſhall make you a little more work in this kind. Chriſt ſaith, The Father is greater then I, and yet he ſaith againe, I and the Father are one: And Paul ſaith of him, That he accounted it no Robbery to be equall with God, Phil. 2. 9. The Apoſtle John ſaith, There are three that heare record in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the H. Ghoſt, and theſe three are one. Shew us (without interpretation) how Chriſt can be equall with the Father without robbery, and one with him, and yet the Father greater then he, how the Father, the word, and the H. Ghoſt can be three and yet one.

And we might here alſo put you the queſtion that our Saviour p. 37put to the Phariſees. Mat. 22. 41. How Chriſt, is Davids Son, and yet Davids Lord? and we ſuppoſe with the ſame ſucceſſe that you will never be able to Anſwer us a word, if you hold your Principle of denying all interpretations, but that your forehead poſſibly may be harder then the Phariſees.

Q. 5. What will you ſay to a Papiſt, (but that you owne not the Scripture, as a rule of Doctrine, which indeed is a quick way of Anſwering all difficult Texts) when he tells you that he finds Tranſubſtantiation in this is my body? Is the expreſſion proper, or figurative? was the bread his body indeed, or a Signe of it? if you ſay his body indeed, you are a Papiſt, if not you interprete.

Sir to be ſhort, we ſhall take leave to mind you of theſe particulars, and we have done.

1. As to that un-chriſtian paſſage of yours [viz. a righteouſneſſe beyond the Stars, a Righteouſneſſe far above us] as you call the Righteouſneſſe of Chriſt in a ſlighting manner (and we have juſt ground to feare, ſome of thoſe you plead for ſpeake to that purpoſe in a ſpighting way) we heartily adviſe you to take heed what you doe, that you may not be found in the number of thoſe who by wicked hands labour to pull the Crowne from the Head of Jeſus, and deſtroy the very being of Holyneſſe amongſt men, for all the workes of ſuch Perſons at the beſt are but beautifull deformities, and although they may be highly eſteemed amongſt men, yet they are abomination before the Holy God; for our parts we are not aſhamed of the Goſpell of Chriſt, and have (through mercy) determined not to know any thing amongſt our People but Jeſus Chriſt, and him crucified: and we judge it a ſpeciall duty in this ſeaſon (the Lord helpe us in it) that the more you and your complices doe either wretchedly reflect upon, or downe right Blaſpheme and ſpeake againſt that Glorious Righteouſneſſe, the more to exalt, and make mention of that Righteouſneſſe, even that only.

2. Whereas you ſay [could the Scripture be a rule before it was Scripture?] We anſwer, the word now written, even the ſelfe ſame word was the very ſame, and had the ſame Office viz. to be a Divine ground of faith and rule of life before it was written; as for inſtance, Enochs Prophecie quoted by Jude 14. 15 concerning the judge, the attendants, the Perſons to be judged, the judgement it ſelfe, the deeds and words for which they are judged, is the very ſame with the written word; and Gods p. 74word to Abraham Gen 17. 1. I am God al-ſufficient, waelke before me, and be upright, is the ſame with, nay is the ſumme of the written word, yet this was ſpoken foure hundred yeares before a word was committed to writing, it being generally agreed upon, that Moſes was the firſt holy man that did write by the inſpiration of the Holy Ghoſt Pray Sir tell us what difference was there between the Law as ſpoken by the mouth of God, and afterwards written by the finger of God? When Moſes being provoked in the buſineſſe of the Golden Calfe had broken the two Tables, God commanded him to make two Tables of Stone more, and the Text tells us that God did write the very ſelfe ſame words that he had written before in the firſt Tables Exod. 34. 1. the Truth is you doe but trifle in your Quaerie, yet we feare you border not far from Blaſphemy, you nuſle up your quaking freinds in their horrid rejecting of the Scriptures to be the rule, and ſo make them liſten after inſpirations, you would make void the word of God through your pretended Revelations, and pull that pure and perfect clear Light out of the Firmament of Aſſembleis, that men might follow the ignis fatuus of their darkned minds, and deceitfull hearts.

3. You quaere, Whether our Sermons are infallible, and if ſo, why they are not bound up with the Bible, and if ſo, how huge a Volume would it make, and how few could buy it? we reply, the Doctrine which we Preach is not ours, but Gods, and therefore infallible, but muſt they therefore be bound up with the Bible. what think you of the Sermons of Jeſus Chriſt Luke 4. 21. Luke 5. 3. were they not infallible? or the Sermon Philip Preached to the Eunuch out of Eſay 53. Acts 8. 53. or that Paul Preached at his farewell Acts 20. 7. were they not infallibly true? yet theſe were not bound up with the Bible, why doe you thus from your inward darkneſſe cavill at outward Light? we call it your darkneſſe, hoping that you doe not knowingly oppoſe the truth.

4. As for Miniſters Maintenance, upon which you harpe ſo much, as knowing the ſound to be very welcome to the eares of your gang and others, we deſire this favour at your hands, either ſoberly to anſwer our reaſons, or elſe to be ſo ingenuous as to forbeare your ſcoffings.

5. As for your defence of the Language [thee and thou] we referr you to what is ſaid a bove, we ſhall only add this, we cannot p. 75think it to be any ſuch great Crime to ſpeake in this one caſe the plural you for thou, for the ſingular, as when Saint Paul ſaies we for I, as Heb. 6. 9 we are perſwaded better things of you, and though we thus ſpeake, and againe, we deſire v. 11. foreign.

Laſtly, wheras as you ſay in favour of your deare Quakers [theſe are the Practices for which they are hated] as though they were ſo innocent: we reply, beſides their Blaſphemies, of which before, and their railings, curſings, ſlanders, untruths, we deſire to know what you think of foure or five inſtances we ſhall propoſe; firſt, what doe you think of the Quaker that acted that moſt abominable, unnameable ſin with a Mare? what doe you think of it, was it not from his light within? or what is your opinion of another poore wretch, that hanged himſelfe? theſe two you may find at large added to the relation of Gilpin of Kendall, and confeſſed by the Prime of that way to be true; what may be your thoughts of thoſe Quakers that killed their Mother? it was thus, they were taught to harken to, and follow after the Light within them, this Light taught them they ought to deſtroy the Originall of Sin, and by the ſaid Light they apprehended their Mother to be the Originall, and from thence ſtill by the ſaid Light they moſt wickedly embrued their hands in the blood of their Mother, this you may read in Mr. William Keyes Miniſter of Stokeſly his Anſwer to eighteen Quaeries who was with them in Priſon.

What may be your judgement of Nicholas Kate of Harwell in this County of Berks? who about ten months ſince came into Newberry between eight and nine in the Morning on the Lord; day, ſtarke naked in a moſt immodeſt manner, even beyond the Pagans, and ſo walked through a long Street, only with an inchanted belt about him (which belt we have ground to call inchanted,) this man did not converſe or live as a Husband with his wife for many months before this, we will tell you what his Doctrines were.

1. That Marriage was made by man.

2. That Chriſtians were worſe then Beaſts.

3. That any woman was as free to him as his Wife:

4. That his wife was no wife of his, ſhe was a limb of the Devil.

5. That he was holy, and all things that he toucht were holy, as his very Hatchet, his pot, his knife.

p. 766. That when the fulnes of time was come he ſhould work miracles.

This man hath left his owne family his Land and ſtock of a very conſiderable value, entred upon by Perſons whom the Country eſteemeth Ranters, his wife a weake diſeaſed woman, who brought him a valuable portion, left to the mercies of theſe Perſons, which are cruell enough to her, the farmer Kate himſelfe ſince his departure was never heard of by his wife or any of her freinds, if any Perſon can tell where he is, or what is become of him, they may doe a charitable Chriſtian Office to informe his much diſtreſſed Wife. Laſtly, what doe you think of one of your neighbours of Briſtoll who lately even the 29. of Aprill laſt at Marleborough in the County of Wilts in a diſcourſe with a Godly, diſcreet, and Learned freind, held out this Light,

1. He knew no ſuch thing as the reſurrection of the body.

2. That the body of Chriſt was not in Heaven, neither ſhould he come thence with a body.

3. He defended thoſe that went naked, but as yet, he had no command to doe ſo.

4. That of late he went to bed with a woman who was not his wife, and that he did it without Sin.

5. That that very Chriſt crucified at Jeruſalem, was indwelling in him.

6. That he was confident of his perfect holineſſe, and on that account went to bed with the woman, and yet afterwards excuſed himſelfe ſaying, there was a neceſſity for it, there was no other ſpare bed in the Houſe.

Sir, theſe, with thoſe before recited, are the Doctrins and Practiſes that we according to the meaſure received contend againſt; all the hurt we wiſh you is this, that God would give you the ſpirit of truth love, and of a ſound mind, that you may not go on to vilify the Lord of Glory, to ſlight the word of life, truth and ſalvation, and ſhoot your Tart, indeed bitter ſpeeches like darts againſt men that feare God, and deſire to prize and keep cloſe to the word of his grace; for our parts we have a witneſſe within, that what we have done, is for the truth, which we pray, that you and we may receive in the love of it, and in ſo doing, we ſhall ſubſcribe our ſelves,

Reding this 12 of May 1656. Your Freinds,

Chriſtopher Fowler.

Simon Ford.

FINIS.

End of the text · Christopher Fowler, A Sober Answer (1656)