The Reviler Rebuked, Treatise · Part 1 · Head 20
(20▪ Head of their Scripture-contradiction) Concerning Queſtions.
Section 48.
I Am very well contented to read a Recantation about Queſtions; if it prove ſo practically, that they will as well allow of our queſtioning them, as they expect we ſhould attend, or anſwer any of their Queries. In Scotland, as I ſaid, Queſtions were cryed down, as of the Devil, and as ſo many ſnares: R. F. owneth Queſtions in their place, he ſaith *Page 23., But ſuch as are of the Devil, we deny. Agreed thus far: But to hold our agreement, we had need know what are the Queſtions that are ſet in due place, or what is the due place for Queſtions, and what are the Queſtions that are of the Devil, what not? I gave forth ſome information in my former Collection, touching the perſons queſtioning, and queſtioned, the principle, and end, maner, as matter of the Queſtion. In Reply to R. F.
1. As to owning Queſtions in their place, I muſt tellFit place for Queſtions and Anſwers. him, (if he be a member of a Family) it is a fit place, for ſuperiors to ask, and inferiors to anſwer Queſtions; and alſo for wives, lovingly, to ask Queſtions (as the Apoſtle ſaith) of their husbands at home, (whatſoever tropical gloſs R. F. would put upon the words, 1 Cor. 14. 35.) as for children and ſervants, humbly and dutifully, to propound their doubts, and deſire reſolution of their parents and governors, Exod. 12. 26. And it ſuteth my place of a Replicant, to ask him, whether he, and others of his way, do own catechizing, and inſtructing by way of Queſtion and anſwer, in the Family? Again, I muſt tell him, it is a fit place for him and his fraternity, to anſwer to the Queſtions of Magiſtrates, but I have known ſome of them refuſe to anſwer unto ſuch things as have been propounded in the purſuit of truth and peace. It was alſo a fit place for one of them to have anſwered, when he had asked a godly Paſtor of a Church in Suffolk, Art thou for trembling? and the Miniſter had told him, he would anſwer him that Queſtion, if he would anſwer him another; to which propoſal he made a promiſe, but performed it not▪ for when the Miniſter had told him, he did own trembllng; but withal added, to this effect; I read of Moſes trembling at the foot of mount Sinai; and of Sauls trembling when the Devil appeared in the ſhape of Samuel; and of the Devils trembling; and of the Saints working out their Salvation with fear and trembling; the Queſtion was, which of theſe ſorts of trembling he owned; at which, the man turn'd his back, and went his way diſcontented and ſpeechleſs, as if he had been ſtrangled, as ſometime Chriſt put the Sadduces to ſilence, Mat. 22. 34. the Greek word isforeign. as much as haltered; alluding to beaſts that have bits or halters put in their mouths, or muzzles upon their chaps, to keep them from biting or doing miſchief. I asked J. Parnel once, whether he was not bred and educated among ignorant Papiſts, but could have no anſwer: it is fit that Queſtion ſhould be anſwered by ſome, but it was a ſilencing Queſtion to him. If I ſhould ask R. F. as I have reaſon ſo to do, whether he be not employed (with ſome others) by Satans Engineers, as a cane, for ſome Jeſuit or Socinian to blow through, and fly-blow the truths of God, about the Scriptures, the Spirit, the Miniſtery of Chriſt, &c. It is a dubious caſe whether he will candidly anſwer to it; or, what he meant by his anſwer to his late maſters Queſtion, Art thou Chriſt? whereto he ſaid, I am, how he can, without blaſphemy, make it out: Or, if I ſhould ask him, whether he writes any Scripture truth, in love of the Scripture, or onelyonly to catch and cavil, I doubt whether I ſhould not have ſome of his old ware vended; for all his pack is not yet emptied, unleſs God reſtrain and ſtop his mouth, and dry up his pen and inkhorn terms.
2. As to his, and his fellows denying ſuch Queſtions as are What Queſtiona are of the Devil.of the Devil, I wiſh they would make good this denial: But ſince I heard in Scotland, that Queſtions were of the Devil, I have read of many Queſtions of theirs, which come from no better ſpirit, then the old Serpent and Satan: The Queſtion is, whether R. F. will own them as of God, or deny them as being of the devil? I read in one *A Declaration againſt Popery, Quere 6.of their Pamphlets, to this purpoſe, Whether you, that ſay bread and wine (i. e. in our Lords Supper) is the body and blood of Chriſt, be not they that minde earthly things, and are carnal and natural? In my poor judgement, this Queſtion is from ignorance of the Lords purpoſe in his inſtituted Supper, which calls upon us to minde ſpiritual and heavenly things, by what are earthly and natural, i. e. bread and wine in their ſubſtance, but ſpiritual in their ſignification and uſe, during the celebration: and unſavory this Queſtion is to ſuch as truly own the remembrance of Chriſt in that Ordinance. Again they Quere *Quere 10., Whether every one may not purchaſe bread and wine, and whether any can purchaſe the body and blood of Chriſt for money? Now, if ignorant, unſavory, vain, needleſs, and unprofitable Queſtions come of the Devil, and R. F. denieth ſuch, will he deny this to be any other? If he ſaith, he yields it to be vain, &c. his fellows do not, he muſt then, herein at leaſt, deny them; if he maintains it for good, he muſt ſo prove it: I judge it to be (as the former) ignorant and unſavory; in that it ariſeth from the not diſtinguiſhing between the inward and outward part of the Lords Supper; and needleſs, vain, and unprofitable, becauſe not tending to edification, but meerly to ſtrife and vain jangling. Another tempting and upbraiding Queſtion *Quere 21.there is, Whether ever any of you received the ſubſtance ſince that which you called the ſign was practiſed by you, and ſo bear witneſs to the ſubſtance, and deny the ſign, yea, or nay? The ſcope of this indeed is diabolical, to throw off the ſign of Chriſts appointment, when they come to feel the ſubſtance; whereas, the true method of Chriſtians, is firſt to receive the ſubſtance, Chriſt in the promiſe, before they joyn with the Church to receive the ſign (becauſe the Ordinance of the Supper is not a converting Ordinance, if we ſpeak of the true initial work) for confirming and carrying on of the work of faith, and love, holineſs, &c. And, if none ſhould receive the ſign and memorial of Chriſts death, after they have by faith in the Goſpel-promiſe received the ſubſtance, they ſhould, orderly, never receive the ſign at all. How inſolent and ignorant a Queſtion is that? *Quere 27.Whether do you wait and believe to be made heirs with Chriſt, yea, or nay? and to have the ſame minde which was alſo in Jeſus Chriſt, who thought it no robbery to be equal with God? whether you witneſs this, yea, or nay? Will R. F. acknowledge the ſubtilty and wickedneſs of this Quere (ſay I) yea, or nay? For the bleſſed Apoſtle, Phil. 2. 5, 6, 7. preſſeth to the ſamePhil 12. 5. &c vindicated. humble minde that was in Jeſus Chriſt, who, being in the form of God (that is left out in the Queſtion) thought it no robbery, &c. But made himſelf of no reputation, &c. all that in ver. 7, and 8. ſhould have been added, if the Queſtion had not been ſnarling, and contradictious to the Apoſtles ſcope; which is far from teaching Chriſtians (as is the intent of the Queſtion) to aſpire after any ſuch thought, as to be equal with God: we may know and believe our heir-ſhip and coheir-ſhip with Chriſt in glory, and yet ſtoop to mean eſtates and conditions, with low mindes here on earth, and carry no ſuch proud thought to heaven, as the Queſtion doth inſolently dictate. Is this the perfection theſe men talk of, to harbor proud thoughts in their boſoms, of being equal with God, becauſe Chriſt thought it no robbery ſo to be? Oh ye deceived profeſſors! lift not up your horns on high; ſpeak not with a ſtiff neck, beyond the Donatiſts of old, or as the Familiſts of later times, but remember thoſe who were nick-named Puritans in Queen Elizabeths days, and ſince, for their ſincere endeavors after Purity; be humble (in the midſt of failings) as they were, and forſake the tents of theſe Corahs, Dathans, and Abirams, or worſe; who not onelyonly think themſelves as perfect as Saints in heaven, but hope hereafter (if they be not here) to be equal in perfection and glory with God. Lord, rebuke this Blaſphemy in all thine, and convince all obſtinate gain-ſaying Queſtioniſts, which is not in our power to do, but inſtrumentally we deſire to be ſubſervient in the work, according to thy word, Titus 1. 9. To proceed,foreign. I ſhall inſtance but in another Pamphlet, (for their Queſtions are endleſs, and to attend the Anſwers would be a needleſs endleſs work) As R. F. denies Queſtions that are of the Devil, I hope he will not deny moſt ignorant and proud Queſtions to be of the Devil, (as from old Adam alſo) as that for one, *Fruits of a Faſt. pag. 19.What rule have you in Scripture for putting off the Hat? That this Queſtion ariſeth from pride, appeareth by another, Queſt. 20. in the ſame Book, Page 20. Whether is it for the Lords ſake, that a man would have his fellow-creature ſtand with his Hat off before him, or for his ſelfſake? Fellow-creatures, they think, muſt be all alike in honor. This might be the thought of thoſe creatures that are now Devils, which made them Devils; and by the 21. Queſt. He that for the Lords ſake, &c. cannot bow to a creature, whether ought he to be impriſon'd for miſ-behavior, or a contemner of Authority, yea or nay? The firſt Queſtion bewrayeth ignorance, which if R. F. juſtifies, he muſt be ſent to the Catechiſm, out of Exod. 20. 12. and asked, what is the fifth Commandment, and what it meaneth? and what Rom. 13. 7. Render honor to whom honor is due. I hope R. F. will grant that quarrelling Queſtions are of the Devil, as was that, Job 1. 9. Doth Job ſerve God for nought? ſuch is that in the fore-mentioned Pamphlet *page 22., Whether is your Goſpel free and without charge, as the Apoſtles was, yea or nay?
For, 1. To clear God; He will not let his ſervants ſerve him for nought.
2. To clear his ſervants; This I ſay again (as before, Sect. 44.) they may ſerve with a free ſpirit, yet take wages, (whereof the Laborer is worthy) for they ſerve not the Lord in the miniſtery for wages. It is one thing (as I have ſaid elſewhere) to take hire for preaching, another thing to preach for hire. By the Scripture, that Queſtion alſo *page 22. Qu. 4.may be judged proud and malitious, as of the Devil; What rule have you in Scripture to take a Text, &c. If R. F. juſtifies this (as 'tis likely he will) we muſt bid him go and learn, and what that meaneth, Luke 4. 17. our humble Saviour took up the Bible, and pitcht upon a Text; let us learn, at laſt, of him to be lowly in heart, Matth. 11. 29. If it be ſaid, it followeth in the Queſtion, and to ſpeak from it what you have ſtudied, with your Ʋſes, Points, Tryals, Motives, and Applications? We muſt ſend them again to 2 Tim. 3 16, 17. The Scripture is given ſo to be improved, whether men will hear or forbear. Let R. F. conſider, if the ſcope of that *Qu. 24.Queſtion [Whether that Light which comes from Chriſt be natural, yea or nay?] be not to make all Light-given alike for kinde? as appeareth by Quere 29. Whether the Light of the world (or of every man) be not a ſaving Light in the leaſt meaſure, yea or nay? and how can that be ſaid to be natural? Theſe Queſtions come from the Devils envy againſt the Saints peculiar light, who ſee all things after another maner then natural men can do. The Gentiles did things by nature, or power of natural conſcience, and the light of it; which yet they periſht in; their light and their works were neither of them ſaving, Rom. 2. 12, and 14. This light of nature comes from Chriſt as God, not as Mediator: he that is the true Light, enlightneth every man, but not with ſaving Light; I muſt ſend back R. F. to Sect. 10. and the ſuperadded Concluſions, in the end thereof. If any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant, 1 Cor. 14. 38. But yet if we examine thoſe Queſtions, *Qu. 44 and 45.Where had you this Doctrine, to tell people they could never be wholly cleanſed, or be ſet free from ſin, ſo long as they are upon the earth? And, whether this be not in oppoſition to the Doctrine of Chriſt, who ſaith, Be ye perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect? What ſhall we finde here but ignorance and confuſion? for want of will or skill, to diſtinguiſh between Juſtification and Sanctification, which, according to the Scripture, I have deſired R. F. and others, to perpend and weigh in Sect. 23. And I muſt ſend all Novices ſtill to that Scripture, Eccleſ. 7. 20. There is not a juſt man upon earth that doth good, and ſinneth not; which hath no oppoſition to the Doctrine of Chriſt, Mat. 5. 48. where the Lord (as all along the Chapter)Mat. 5 48. vindicated. urgeth ſincerity and integrity of obedience upon his Diſciples (in oppoſition to the Phariſees counterfeit and partial expoſitions of the ten Commandments) with further growth and endeavour after more conformity to their heavenly pattern; ſtill keeping perfection in all degrees, as the white in their eye, unto which the Lord will bring his children at their diſſolution, and time of their ſouls immediate entrance into heaven, and not before, as hath been demonſtrated in Sect. 29. As to that Queſtion, *Qu 48.What is your own righteouſneſs, and what is the righteouſneſs of Chriſt, and how do you diſtinguiſh betwixt the one and the other? He that did propound it, tells us (at the foot of Page 25.) It was not as if he knew them not, (even all that he enquired of) but for the ſatisfaction of the ſimple, and for the clearing of the truth, and manifeſting our deceit to the world. But that which is a thorough good Queſtion indeed, not coming from Satan, and a corrupt heart, muſt ariſe from a ſound and good principle, and be propounded to as good an end: Now, this Quere, 1. proceeds not from a good principle, becauſe their judgements are vitiated, and in their Doctrine they confound (as do the Papiſts) our inherent righteouſneſs-ſanctifying, with Chriſts righteouſneſs which juſtifieth. Chriſts righteouſneſs, which juſtifieth a believing ſinner, is not the eſſential righteouſneſs of his God-head, but that obedience of his, Active and Paſſive, which in the humane nature (that he aſſumed, and united to his divine perſon) he wrought out in the room and ſtead of others; and which, he preſenting to Gods Juſtice, as a price and ranſom for them, God accepteth, and reckoneth to every one that believeth for his perfect Juſtification. That righteouſneſs which is in Scripture called our own, as inherent in us; is, either what is done by the power of natural conſcience, without the written word; or, what is done according to the bare letter of the written command; or, from a common gift of the Spirit; or, in a Goſpel-way, from a living principle of grace, habits and acts of holineſs, by the holy Spirit and faith, given, ſtirred up, actuated, and improved; this alſo (with all the former) is a righteouſneſs of ours, that men would eſtabliſh in the room of Chriſts imputed righteouſneſs, for their juſtification: But though it be wrought by the ſtrength of Chriſt in us, and be found in us, that are ſanctified; yet, as to juſtification of his perſon, Paul would not be found in it for a world; but, ſaith he, Phil. 3. 8, 9. I do count all things but loſs (even what he had done and ſuffered, ſince converſion, and what he was now a doing) and dung, that I may win Chriſt; and be found in him, not having mine own righteouſneſs, which is of the Law, (or done in my perſon, from the beſt principles in obedience to the Law) but that which is through the faith of Chriſt, the righteouſneſs which is of God by faith; this is every true Believers vote and reſolution. If R. F. be otherwiſe minded, and belong to God, God ſhall reveal even this unto him.
2. The above mentioned Quere, by the bare propounding doth not attain the ends pretended: our anſwer may ſatisfie ſome ſimple ones, ſome wiſe, not all: This Quere (and other of the like ſtamp) doth but obſcure the truth, and help to ſtagger and ſeduce Gods ſervants; as for our deceit, in this great buſineſs of a ſinners juſtification; if J. Parnell ſhould ariſe from the dead, or R. F. ſhould tell us he hath been in the third Heaven; nor one, nor other ſhall be able to manifeſt that which is not. To conclude, whence came that*Quer. 3…. queſtion, quarrelling more with God, then with us? How doth it ſtand with the impartial God, to give to one man a meaſure of grace, and not to another, and yet require obedience from all? If R. F. thinketh, there is ground for ſuch a Queſtion, he muſt be ſent to Rom. 9. 18. 20. for his Anſwer; God hath mercy on whom he will have mercy &c. and, O man, who art thou that replyeſt againſt God?