THE QUAKERS WISDOM descendeth not from Above. Or a Brief VINDICATION Of a Small TRACT, Entitled, The Quakers Folly made manifest to all men, As also of its Author, from the Exceptions made against It, and Aspersions cast upon Him. In a PAMPHLET CALLED The Voice of Wisdom, etc. Published by GEORGE WHITHEAD, Quaker. By THO. DANSON, M. A. Late Fellow of Magd. Coll. Oxon. And now Minister of the Gospel at Sandwich in Kent. And if it be not so now, who will make me a Liar, and make my speech nothing worth? Job 24. ult. What have I now done? Is there not a cause? 1 Sam. 17.29. London, Printed for J. Allen, at the Rising Sun in Paul's Churchyard, 1659. THE EPISTLE to the READER. Reader, I Am once more come upon on the Stage, not without a Blush; yet not because I am unwilling to have my Doctrines brought to Light, (as G. W. G. W. voice of wisdom, p. 3. would make thee believe.) For I am so far from being ashamed of them, that could the whole world be brought within the reach of my voice, upon a due call, I would make a Confession of my Faith. Nor yet because I am conscious to myself, of wronging the Quakers▪ in my relation of the Disputes between us; either by laying down things in their Names, which they never spoke, or diminishing from their words, or making false constructions (to use the very words of G. Whithead's Charge) For let any understanding man peruse the Book, In Epist to the Reader. (which occasions this Reply) and he will find, that either I am charged with falsehood, in such passages as have many and credible witnesses to attest the●r truth; or else in particular words, as in putting Sanctification for righteousness w thin, by which alteration (if any such there were) no wrong was done to their meaning. And as for any false construction of their words, if thou thinkest it worth the while to compare my false, and this man's true construction, either thou seest not with my eyes, or thou wilt see that they have no cause of complaint. I have followed my present Antagonist step by step, and omitted nothing that hath the least colour of Scripture, or ●eason, (unless where I make a reference to my former Book, to avoid repetition) lest he should say, that like a child, I Skip what I cannot read. Only I confess, I am not able to match him at his Billingsgate Rhetoric, nor wo●ld I with Jonah, be as hot as the Sun that scalds me. For I make account (as once a Learned man said) that so much as there is of undue passion, so much of nothing to the purpose For there Reason spends upon a false sent, and forsakes the Question started. I trust that thou wilt be more confirmed in thy bad opinion of the Quakers, and that the dust which they raise with their feet, I shall blow away, I mean, cross their endeavours to hid their meaning in doubtful words, either out of ignorance, not being Masters of their own Notions, or (which I rather believe) out of design, it being true of them, which Job speaks of the Thief, If one know them, they are in the terrors of the shadow of death, Job 24.17. I hope thou wilt not be biased by their seeming humility, for pride may be the root that bears that Branch. The Apostle speaks of a voluntary humility, which was the effect of being vainly puffed up by a fleshly mind, Col. 2.18. And sure I am, that if one part of the character which the Bishop of Alif in the Council of Trent, gave of the Protestants, (viz.) that they had Orthodoxos Mores, i. e. an Orthodox Conversation, be as true of the Quakers, as it was of the Protestants; yet the other part, (viz.) that withal they had Haereticam Fidem, i. e. an Hetorodox or Heretical Belief, is as true of these men, as it was false of those. And thou wilt find, In the ●●●ep. that particularly G. W. lays the most innocent Truths under the odious imputation of Anti-christs' deceits. That thou mayst not know the depths of Satan as they speak, Rev. 2.24. But mayst hold fast that Doctrine which thou hast already, v. 25. is the Prayer of Thy Servant in the work of the Gospel Tho. Danson. Sandwich, Aug. 15, 1659. QUESTION 1. Concerning the Light of Christ. THO. Darson saith, the Lights mentioned, viz. natural and supernatural are two, and though all have the one, yet but few have the other. G. W. Ans. The life of Christ is the Light of men, and that is not natural, but spiritual, and thou might as well count the Life of Christ natural, as count it (the Light) so. T. D. Reply 1. The distinction of natural or supernatural or spiritual Light we have, Rom 1.17, 20. Where the revelation of righteousness in the Gospel is opposed to the knowledge of the Godhead, which men attain to by the Creation, Changed 2.14 The Gentiles are said by nature to do the things contained in the Law, and are said to be a Law to themselves; when yet withal 'tis affirmed that they had not the Law (viz. revealed) or the Oracles of God, for they were committed to the Jews only at that time, ch. 3.2. 2. And to that silly Argument, that I might count the life of Christ natural, as well as the light, I answer, that there is a life of Christ natural, (viz. whereof Christ is the author as God) as well as spiritual (whereof he is the author, as God-man) John 1.3. All things were made by him, with all their qualities and properties, and whatsoever goes to the making them what they are, wh●ch so far as it intends life, may be explained by Acts 17.25. He (God) giveth to all life and breath. Or if there be not such a natural life, than Plants, Bruits, and all Mankind have a spiritual life (an absurdity to gross to lodge in the brain of any other man, but a Qua●er.) T. D charged R.H. with saying the true Light hath not co●e over and comprehended thee. G W. Ans. That's false, he said no such thing, for the Light hath comprehended thee, but thou art not come into it, nor hast comprehended it T. D. Reply. My credit will go further than thine, G W. R. H did say as was related, but perhaps he meant as thou sayest, that I was not come over to comprehend the true Light. Tho. D. charged us with consenting that the knowledge o● the Gospel is vouchsafed to every man. G.W. Ans. No such thing d●d we consent to, but that there were some in darkness, so that their ignorance of the Gospel does not argue that they had not that light in them, that was able o b●ing them to know the Gospel but rather that they disobeyed the l●ght of God in them, and liked not to retain God in their k owledge. T.D. Reply. My words are, If you meaning be that the Gospel is vouchsafed by Christ to every man, I expect your proof: And R. H. by silence consented tha● that was their meaning, Quakers' Folly, p. 2. If your meaning be that all men have th● Light of the Gospel within them, only all do not obey it, 'tis contrary to the Scripture. Eph. 5.8. H opposes the state of darkness in wh●ch they were, to their present state of light; or if you● meaning be (for the words are doubtful) that all men have a spiritual capacity to understand the Gospel when preached to them that's false, as appears by 1 Cor. 2 14 The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit o● God, nei●her can he know them, etc. no more than the blind eye can discern a visible Object. T. D. brought Psal. 147.19, 20. and that by the statutes and judgements are meant the supernatural light or knowledge of the Gospel. G.W. Ans. That makes for what I said, for that may be showed to a people which they know not: And this Priest hath confuted himself, for if these statutes were the knowledge of the Gospel, Why did I●rael not know them who had them? T.D. Reply. If the Intent of the phrase, showing, be no more than that the Gospel was preached, yet even that the Gentiles wanted at that time. The light of the Gospel did not shine to them (as we may suppose the Sun might do, if all the world were bl●nd) He hath not dealt so with any Nation, (i. e. not showed them as to Israel) Psal 147 20. To the Question, Why Israel did not know the Statutes, who had them? I answer, Ignorance of them is not here attributed to the Jews, but to any other Nation except them. The Relative they hath for the Antecedent any Nation, not Jacob and Israel. T.D. saith, Rom. 2.15. is spoken of natural light opposed to the knowledge of the Jews. G. w. Ans. 'Tis spoken of the work of the Law, which Law was written in their hearts, and this Law was spiritual, and not a natural light. T.D. Reply. Seeing you do not understand the difference between the Law, and work of the Law in the heart, I'll teach you: By the Law in the hea●t, is meant an inward and spiritual conformity thereunto, which is called the Law, as the impression of the Seal upon a Letter or Bond, is called the Seal; which conformity lies in these, among other things; viz A consent to the Law that it is good, Rom. 7. 1●. A readen sse to obedience, Heb. 10.9. And a bringing into captivity ●very thou●ht to the obedience of Christ, as the Apostles expression is, 2 Cor. 10.5. But by the work of the Law is m●ant, the knowledge of sin, which is by the Law, Rom. 3 20 And the effects of th●t knowledge in Con c● nce, viz. a testimony to their obedience or disob●dienc● together w th' approbation or censure, Rom. 2 15 And hough the Law b● spiri val, yet the work of it in the Gentiles is but natural, v. 14. The Gentiles do by nature (ma●k the exp essenesse of the phrase) the things co●●●ned in the Law. T. D. Christ was not to be a light to the Gentiles till his coming in the flesh. G.W. Ans. What then was Christ's presence in the flesh among all the Gentiles whom he did enlight n? What darkness is this? Seeing h●s outgoing h●ve b ●n from of old. And what became of all th● G ntiles that died before the days of Christ in the Flesh? Were they condemned because they had no light of Christ given them, or because they disobeyed the light which th●y had? T. D. Reply. 1. Till the time of Ch●ist in the ●●●sh, the Gospel was not preached to the G●ntile-world; but I did not say (as you ●mply) that Ch●●st did preach it in his own person to them: Christ did honour the Ministry of the Apostles above his own, by the larger extent of their Commission. As for Christ's outgoings from of old, that passage taken out of M cah 5 2. intends Christ's eternal generation and eternal designation to the Office of Mediator, not any knowledge of Changed is't vouchsafed throughout all ages to the whole world. To your last Question I answer, that the Gentiles before Christ perished for disobeying the L●ght th●y had, Rom. 2.12. But yet their ignorance of Christ was the occasion of their condemnation for that disobedience, Acts 4.12. Neither is there salvation in any o her, for there is none other Name under Heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. Thei● disobeying that light d d damn them, but their obedience to it could not have saved them without Christ, and Christ saves n●ne but those who know him. [What follows in p. 11, 12, 13, 14. of G W. Books, is nothing but what hath b n answered in Qu. Folly, and therefore I shall omit them] QUESTION 2. Of the Doctrine of Perfection. T. D Says, p 9 your Doctrine of Perfection is against the Tenor of the Scripture, and to prove it, he b●●ng● Job 9.20 and he saith, p 11. the Perfection Paul denies is th● state of the resurrection, which is to be widow h●ut sin. G. W Ans. Here he hath wronged the Scriptures, for th●y do not say that Perfection is against the Tenor of them, for God commands Perfection. And Paul denied not the state of the resurrection, for he said, If you be risen with Christ, &c And he denied not freedom from sin, Rom. 6.18, 22. Job 9 20, 21 proves not, that Job was not without sin, when God had delivered him out of that affliction, wh rain he had said, If I say I am perfect, etc. but after this Job was perfect. T.D. Reply. All the Scriptures which require repentance and mortification during this life, do deny the possibility of Perfection. For they and it are incompatible. As for the commands they are the measure of our duty, not of our ability to obedience. there's no reason to the contrary, but that God's commands should run in the old stile, though we are unable to fulfil them. As for Col. 3.1. which he quotes, 'tis plain that that resurrect, with Christ, was consistent with sin, v. 5. Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; By members we are to understand inordinate desires, motions and actions of corrupt nature (such as are reckoned up in the verse) By mortifying them, a constant endeavour to repress and subdue them. And the Argument to enforce the duty of mortification is drawn (as from their death with Christ, and life with him,) so from their first and spiritual resurrection with him. But the state of the resurrection which Paul denies, is of that perfection of holiness (as I told you G.W.) which accompanies the last and bodily resurrection. As for Rom. 6.18 22. I answered it in my Book, p. 47. The Apostle explains himself, that he means from the dominion of sin, v 14. And for Job 'tis plain enough, that the Character given of Job, viz. a perfect man, was before his afflictions, and not after (as G W. would make the Reader believe) for God's commendation of him for his perfection and uprightness, v. 8. was the occasion of the Devils desiring leave of God to afflict him, v. 11. and of God's grant, (that his words might be found true) v. 12. T.D. p. 12. A Believers person with his works are accepted with God, though his works be not perfect. G.W. Ans. Here he would have believers like the Priests, who sin in the best of their performances (as they confess) But I say the Believers works are wrought in God, and God works them in them, and these works of God are perfect. T.D. Rep●y, As for our confeossin, 'tis agreeable to Scripture, Eccles. 7.20 There is not a just man upon earth, that doth good, and sinneth not, i. e. that sinneth not in doing good. Exod 28.38. In●quity of holy things is there spoken of, Duties which are holy for the matter, are in●quity for the manner of performance. Your argument doth no more conclude for the perfection of Grace, than it does that every child should be a man the first day of his birth, for that is one of God's works, as well as Grace. As for Saints, they may be said to be perfect in regard of parts (as a child is a perfect man) 1 Thes. 5.23. Sanctified in soul, and body, and spirit, and in regard of their aims and intendments, but not as to degrees of Grace. Sin and Grace in this life are together in the same subject, as Esau and Jacob in th● same womb. As for the name of Priests, which throughout you give me, and other Ministers of Christ, I count it no disparagement (however you intent it) seeing Christ is called by the Holy Ghost, the High Priest of our Profession, Heb. 3 1. [The answer of G. W to Eccles. 7.20. is no other than what M. Fish r gave, which is v●ry absurd, and not worthy any further reply, see Qu●k ●s Folly, p. 13. T.D. We (the Saints) are one body with them in Heaven, and have the same title with th' m in possession, p 14, 38. G.W. Ans This confutes his former words, for they that are one body with them in Heaven, are members of the Body of Christ which is perfect, and its members complete, ●ol 2.10 Eph. 3 15 T D. Reply. The Body of Christ is not yet perfect, for the e are great numbers of elect belonging to it, yet u bo n. Christ gives a commission to preach, and a promise of b●●ssing to the Apostles, and their successors, M●t 28.19 20. And the Apostle says, that Pastors and Teachers are for the edifying of the Body of Christ, till we all come in the unity of the Faith, etc. Eph. 3 12, 13. Put both places together, and they inform us that Christ's Body is not built up (i. e. all the Elect not converted, and so not actual members of Christ's body, for such men are by Faith) till the end of the world. As for Col. 2.10. 'tis plain enough that the Apostle calls the Saints complete, in reference to the Doctrine of Christ, which shown them all things necessary to salvation, so that they needed not the addition, which natural reason, humane tradition, or Judaical ceremonies could make. As for circumcision, we find expressly that it was urged as necessary to salvation, Acts 15 1. This the Apostle denies. They are also said to be complete in Christ, in respect of Ordinances, and outward privileges, as particularly of Baptism, which rendered circumcision useless, because it signified the same thing which circumcision did, in a more large and emphatical manner, v. 11, 12. As for Eph. 3.15. there's nothing in that v. to his purpose, but I suppose he means v. 19 That ye might be filled with all the fullness of God. Fullness of God intends not equality, but quality, a divine and spiritual fullness. And the Apostle prays that they m●ght be filled with it all (and so they should be in Heaven) but he asserts not that either they were, or should be filled in this life. QUESTION 3. Concerning Justification. T.D. Whereas S. Fish ● spoke of our good work being a m●● to ●ou cause of our justification, this P●iest hath M●●l● much ado to p ove th●t S. F. 〈◊〉 a rank Papist, and ●●i●h our good wo●ks are but imperfectly good, and Isa 64.6. All our righteousn●ss●s are as filthy rags G. A●s. S. F. never affirme● that imperfect works and the righteousness which is as i'll hy rags do deserve Justification, as this P●● hath w●●nged him, but good works wh●ch are the fulfilling of th' ●aw T.D. Reply. Whether I have w●●nged S. F I leave to the Readers judgement, that shall peruse Quakers' Folly, p. 14, ●5. I urged against him, ●●r though our evil works did condemn, yet ou● g●●d work● could not justify; because none of ou● good wor●●●n this life are perfect, and so not the fulfis l●ng of the Law, as evil works are the violation or breaking of the Law. And to prove the imperfection of our righteousness. I brought Isa. 64 6. To which G.W. hath nor, nor indeed can answer. 'Tis an express place, The Chu ch casparis all her righteousnesses to the garments of a per●on legally unclean, which by the Law were unclean, and to be washed, because his body had touched them. T.D. hath confessed, p. 15. that ●ood works which are the fulfilling of the Law, deserve salvation, and that the desert of obedience arises from the dignity of the Subject, by which it is performed. G.W. Ans. So then this makes for what S.F. declared, for here it appears then that obedience to God is deserving. T.D. Reply. I did not directly affirm that good works which are the fulfilling of the Law deserve salvation, but that from the rule of contraries (which Mr. Fisher urged) we might so argue. For upon supposition that any mere man could fulfil the Law, yet he could not be justified, unless he had undergone the penalty of his former disobedience, and so made reparations to the Justice of God for damages sustained. And again, though I asserted the desert of obedience from the dignity of the Subject, yet withal I affirmed that the Subject must be an infinite person, and one from whom no obedience is due, Quakers Folly, p. 15. T D. gives the explication of 1 Cor. 6.11. Where by the Spirit of our God, is interpreted of the Spirits application, i● referring to justification, or else it may relate to Sanctification, spoken of in the former clause. G.W. Ans. He would divide the Spirit of God, from the Name of Jesus; when as his Name and Spirit are one. And where doth he prove that justified by the Spirit, (which he ignorantly calls the third Person in the Trinity) is not the work of Grace? Here he would divide the Grace of God from the Spirit, for the Saints were justified freely by his Grace, which was one with the Spirit. T. D Reply. Though Jesus and the Spirit are one God, yet they have distinct operations, or manner of working about our Justification. 'Tis Jesus alone, and not the Spirit (nor the Father) who merits and makes satisfaction for our sins. The Spirit gives Faith to lay hold on Christ for Justification, and seals the souls interest when obtained. I have proved that we are not justified by the work of Grace, or good works, in the discourse upon Justification, Quakers Folly, p. 15. etc. And so that the work of Grace cannot be meant in that place (if by Spirit must be meant the meritorious cause of Justification, as you assert) I do not divide the Grace of God from the Spirit. But I affirm, that the G ●ce wrought in us by the Spirit is no meritorious cause o● Justification. As for that passage, justified freely by his Grace, which is in Rom. 3.24. It intends not grace 〈◊〉 us, but the grace or favour of God in giving Christ for our propitiation, v. 25. As for your accusation of ignorance, I value it not, but look upon it as a justifiable ground 〈◊〉 account you a blasphemer, for 'tis an implicit denying of what I expressly affirmed, (viz) Persons in the Godhead. T. D. p. 16. The Apostle asserts ●he holiness of man's nature as a work of the Spirit conforming it to the Law, to be the meritorious cause of our freedom from sin. G.W. Ans. And yet he hath d●al d good works of obedience to be a deserving cause o● justification. What is not justification a freedom from in? Acts 13.39. And where doth he prove the holiness' o● man's nature is a meritorious cause of our freedom from sin? T D. R ply I see G. W. thou art so far from perfect, that thou wantest moral honesty. Thou shouldst have added, what I did in the same period, to make up my sense? but mark withal, 'tis not that [holiness of man's nature] which is in us, but in Christ. And then thou mightst have answered thy own Questions. The righteousness of Christ's humane nature or active obedience, as we usually call it, in opposition to passive, is asserted to be the cause of our freedom from sin and death, Rom. 8.2. But not righteousness inherent in the same nature, as it subsists in our persons. As for Acts 13.39. I find nothing to the purpose; it asserts not your Popish Doctrine, that justification is sanctification, or that the righteousness whereby we are justified, is infused or inherent. The words are, And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the Law of Moses, And it proves that by Faith men are freed from the guilt of all their sins. And what of that? T. D. says, Rom. 8.4, 5. It imports the end for which God sent Christ, that his righteousness might be imputed to us, as if it had been inherent in ourselves. G. ●. Ans. If the Apostle had not meant the righteousness of the Law fulfilled in their own persons, he would not have said, fulfilled in us, neither would he have counted Christ's righteousness inherent in themselves, if he had not counted it ●● h●m, nor needed he to speak of the righteousness of the Law being ●o be fulfilled in Christ (as if it had not been fulfilled in him) T. D. R●●ly. Bold man! Who art thou that teachest the Apostle how to speak, who canst not speak sense thyself? (as appears by the middle clause of this thy answer.) If thou didst understand thyself, thou wouldst say that the Apostle would not account that righteousness in the Saints, which was not in them. Nor indeed do●s the Apostle so mistake, but he asse●ts that the righteousness of Christ redounds to their benefit, as if it had been their own inherent righteousness As the principal is discharged from the debt, when the surety paid it, though the creditor cannot, nor does say that the principal did make payment. Nor does the Apostle speak of Christ's fulfilling the Law as i● he had not done it, but he tells of what Christ ha●h already done, and to what end, (viz) that we might have the benefit of it, as if it had been our personal act. T. D. Supposed S. F. to mean, when he acknowledged degrees among Believers, that some of these (Believers) have a mixture of sin with their Grace. G.W. Ans. This is a false supposition, grace is pure, the mixture of sin is in that which goeth from the grace. T.D. Reply. Reader, If thou dost not judge this latter clause in the answer to be unintelligible nonsense, thy judgement and mine must part her●. Mixture doth suppose at least two ingredients, but what ●hat is which goes f●om grace to mingle with sin, I cannot divine. He should mean, that when grace decreas●s, corruption increases, and gathers strength. As for my words, they intended but that sin and grace are in the same subject, or in each faculty of the soul, not successively, but together, at the same time, which Paul expresses by another Law in his members, rebelling against the Law of his mind, Rom 7.23. [Reader, G.W. quotes a passage, p. 18. l. 17. of my Book, wherein he says, I wronged S. F. But I ref●r you to the place, where you may read it, and judge as thou seest cause.] T. D. says, p. 19 Conscience in the Saints being but in part cleansed, as a witness it te●tifies falsehood ●o them also. G. W. Ans. This man lays falsehood and badness to the charge of the Saints Consciences, ●he●eas they witnessed truth to them, Sanctification throughout, 1 Thes. 5.23. and holiness perfected in the fear of God T. D. Reply. I do still affirm that no faculty in the Saints ●s sanctified wholly, but only in part (And that place you bring, 1 Thes. 5.23. is a distribution of the subjects of Grace, it intends not perfection of degrees in each subject) And if no faculty, ●he● no● Conscience, As for 2 Cor. 7 1. which you f●●m ●o quo●●, y●● wrong that Scripture. The words are not 〈◊〉 s●● perfected, but perfecting holiness And the Apostle ●o not suppos● th●ir holiness to be perfected, but exhort them to endeavour after degrees of Grace, nearer perfection, which he expresses by cleansing from all filthiness of flesh and Spirit, in the former clause of the verse, which supposes that there was filthiness remaining in both, and then in Conscience, for that is partly intended under Spirit, See Quakers folly, p. 19 T. D. saith, p. 21. As Christ was made sin for us, so are we the righteousness of God in him, but the former was by imputation, not inherence, and therefore so the latter. G.W. Ans. If our being made the righteousness of God in Christ be but like Christ's being made si● for us, than this Pr. might as well say, that we shall have no righteousness in us at all, for Christ was made s●n for us, who knew no sin. T.D. Reply. There is not the same reason G.W. for saying the one, as for saying the other. For 2 Cor. 5. ult. asserts such a proportion as I mentioned, but no Scripture such a one as you vainly suppose. Yet this I say, that as there was no necessity of inherent sin in Christ, in order to the imputation of our sin to him, so nor of inherent righteousness in us, to the imputation of his righteousness to us. But our Justification is as independent upon our inherent righteousness, as if we had none. The Surety (though he never contracted penny of the debt) is as much obliged to payment as the Principal; and the Principal is as truly discharged by the Surety s payment, though he pay nothing out of his own estate. T.D. said, do you think that the righteousness which the Apostle calls his own, was not Christ's? G.W. Ans. He might as well say, that the Apostle desired no● to have Christ's righteousness, which is but one. T. D. Reply. The Apostle asks a question wh●ch implies an affirmation? Who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive? 1 Cor. 4.7. And 'tis as true of righteousness inherent, as of common gifts, which are there spoke of. The righteousness of his personal conformity to the Law Paul desired not to be found in, but in Christ's imputed to him. But I have said enough, which G.W. takes no notice of, because he cannot reply to it Quakers Folly, p. 21. ●2. [Note Reader, that G.W. spends two Pages, 27, 28. of his Book, about my explication of Col. 1.26. and the distinction I make between Christ personal and myst●cal; for answer whereto, to save the trouble of repetition, I refer you to Quakers Folly, p. 22, 23. Only whereas he replies to the distinction, that Christ is but one, I say so too, yet the Name of Christ is applied sometimes to the Head, and at other times to ●he Body. And they are though one in respect of Union, yet of distinct consideration in the business of salvation, Eph. 5.23. Christ the Head is the Saviour, Christ the Body the Saved.] And whereas G.W. denies, that he said, we are justified by Sanctification, I am confident that was his word, however, if it was righteousness within, it comes all to one: 'Tis evident that the drift of his discourse was to maintain that assertion. QUESTION 4. Concerning the Scriptures. T D THE Scriptures are the Word of God and the said R●le of Faith and life, and that there is n● oth●● st●n●ing R●le b●t th● Scriptures. G ● Ans. What then was their Rule who spoke 〈◊〉 the Scriptures? And what was the Gentiles Rule? And what must be their R●le who cannot read th●●criptures? M●st they be condemned, because they cannot read th●m? The Word o● God is in the hea●ts of Believers, and of this Word the Scriptures are a true declaration but a●t not the Word T D. R●●ly I must ag●in refer the Reader for an answer to th●● Qu●●ie●, to Quakers' Fo●●y, p. 29, 30, 43, 44. And 〈…〉 matter contained ●n the Scriptures is a Rule to 〈…〉 (so for as 'tis revealed to them) and w●s 〈…〉 ●●●re it wa● put into w●iting. And so much of it as 〈…〉 up●n the hearts of Heathens, is a rule to th●● R●m 2.12 And since they a●e in a body presented 〈◊〉, th● whol● o● h●m are our Rule. And for those who cannot r●a●, though th●y shall not be condemned for a ●●●ur●l ●ncapacity, yet they shall for not walking according to the Scriptures, as they a●●ain the knowledge of them by some other way a● hea●●ng, etc. To that Not on, tha● the Sc● pours are but a true declaration of th● Wo●d of ●od ●n the h●a●ts of Believers. I rep●y, that th●●●●p u●●s are al●o a declaration of what ought to 〈◊〉 th● hea●●s of Bel●ev●●s, ●nd unbelievers. If you m●●● (a● most of you do) that they are only a declaration of their conditions who spoke them, read, 1 Pet. 1.10, 12. and that place alone will confute you. T D. John 20.30, 31. Suppose we had the signs faithfully recorded, yet were they not our Rule, because God did not g●ve order for them, but ha●h assured us as much as is ●uffic●ent to create and preserve Faith in the Gospel wh●ch we have. G ●. Ans. Faith is the gift of God, not created and preserved by the Scriptures, but by Christ the author of Faith And again, this Priest in affirming no other Rule, but what we have in Scripture, hath contradicted himself, p 44 he says, that those things that were not written, might have ●een useful, if they had been written, for they were done for the very same end, with those (signs) which are l●ft us. So then many things that are not written, might have been as useful, as that which is written in the Scriptures. T. D. Reply. I see thou art a man of depth, G.W. to make an opposition where there is ● subordination, between the efficient and instrumental cause. The second creation doth not exclude (though the first did) instruments or second causes, James 1.18. Of his own will begat he us with the 〈◊〉 of Truth. Rom. 10.17. Faith comes ●y hearing, and hearing by the ●o●d of God. Which Word is the repo●t o● the Gospel. v. 16. I am not sensible of any contradiction in the passages G●● quotes. Q. Folly, p. 26. I told Mr. F sher, Sermons hav● the same common end with the Scriptures, yet they are not a Rule any further than they agreed with the Scriptures, And hence the Bere●●s are commanded for examining Paul's sermons, by the Scriptures, Acts 17.11. Yet God blesses them so far as that the Word preached is the usual means of conversion, whereas the written Scriptures ar● more rarely such. You add, as useful, which I did not affirm, for that which was delivered to us by Divine Authority, hath God's promise of blessing, that it shall be instrumental to beget a Divine Faith, John 20.21. These [signs] are written that ye might believe, etc. But from such signs as are handed by humane authority only an humane Faith may be expected, which is useful in its kind to prevent or take off prejudice against what is of Divine Authority, which the carnal reason of man is apt to cavil at●●f you say (as you seem to do) tha● if all the signs were done for the same end, then being written they must reach the same end. I deny the consequence, for the difference lies in Gods arbitrary dispensation. H● wrought them all for the end mentioned, but hath thought fit to transmit only some s●w by writing to posterity, and they shall be in stead of all the rest. [G.W. cavils at my denial o● their infallibility, which I judge answered sufficiently, Queen Folly, p. 39 l. 20.] T. D. As for our want of infallibllity, 'tis no valid plea against our Ministry, p. 33. and the Spirit of God may accompany a Ministry, and the Minister not have the Spirit. See for proof, Acts 20 30. Mat. 23.23. G.W. A●s. Th●y that want infallibility are out of the Truth. The Scribes and Pharisees th●t spoke perverse things against the Apostles, the Spirit did not then accompany what they m nistr●d. T. D. R ply. Why do you not reply to Acts 20.30. Which proves clearly that the Gospel-ministers are not infallible? As also 1 Thes. 5.19, 20, 21. Which I improved, Q. Folly. p. 33. we may m●s●●ke in some things, yet ordinarily we preach infallible Truths. Hence the Church is called t●e Pillar and Ground of Truth, 1 Tim. 3.15. Pillar, non se●su a●c●i●●ctonico, sed forensi; as upon the Exchange in London, are Pillars upon which hang Tables of Proclamations. And Ground, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Seat of Tru●h, or place of its residence, and the gates of Hell shall no more prevail against the publication, than the profession and practice of infallible Truths in the Church universal, though they may against particular Ministers and Churches, by damnable Heresies (such as yours, G.W.) And as for your instance of the Scribes and Pharise ●s. I answer, that though the Spirit did not accompany their Ministry, when they spoke against Chr●●t yet h● d d accompany it, when they taught the people to ●b e●v● such things as Christ enjoyn●d And this they d●d oftentimes, as I shown, Mat. 23.3. What they hi● you observe, that observe, and do. Chr●st did then approve of their Doctrine in those things wherein he would have it practised. And if so, than the Spirit was in their Minist y, and yet he was not in themselves, for t●ey sa●●, and did not, (i. e. practised not their own Doctrine.) [Reader, note that G.W. having answered after his fashion some o the arguments in ●he Dispute, he pretends also to reply to several things, which I wrote against R.H. but G. Whith●●●s replies are so ● j●ne, that I need but desi●e you to compare them (if you judge them worth your reading, for I shall not stand to transcribe them) with the places in my Book, to which I shall refer you, and I dare stand to your judgement. [G.W. p. 34. T. D. p. 35. G. W p. 35. T. D p. 36, 37. G. W p. 37. T. D. p. 40, 41. G W. p. 40. T.D. p. 44.] Only four passages I shall briefly reply to. T. D. The righteousness which God wo●ks in us, is but finite, as well as other effects, p. 39 G.W. Ans. And yet this Pr p. 37. hath owned that the righteousness whereof Christ is th● subject, and that whereof he is the efficient are of one p●cies or kind; then I say, the righteousness which God effects in us, is not finite, but infinite, for Christ is God's righteousness, and Christ is form in us. T.D. Reply. A pitiful cavil! The righteousness in Christ which I asserted to be of the same kind with that in us, must be understood of the righteousness of Christ's humane Nature, John 1.16. & of his fullness have we received Grace fo● Grace, (viz.) As the essential and integral parts of the child answer to the Parents, or as the Paper receives the impression of the stamp. Christ indeed is God's righteousness, in respect of God's donation and acceptance of him for man's righteousness, 1 Cor. 1.30. Who (Christ) of God is mad● unto us righteousness. But the righteousness of the Divine Nature or Godhead is not our Justification. No, but the righteousness of Christ's Humane Nature, as it receives an infinite value from the Divine Nature, to which the Humane is united in one person. T D said, the Spirit was not wont to be effectual without the Letter of the Word, and gave instance, Rom. 10.17. G.W. Ans. He might as well have said, the Apostles Ministry wa● not wont to be effectual, for P●ul was not a Minister of the Letter (or writing) but of the Spirit, or thing declared of. 2 Cor. 3.6. Rom. 10.17. is against his principle, for there is a difference between the Word and the Letter, for the Word abideth for ever. 1 Pet. 1.23. So doth not the Letter. How would Pr. convince Heathens of Christ, i● the Spirit be not effectual without the Letter▪ T. D. Rep●y. I had thought Paul had been a Minister of the Letter, (if you mean the writing) for did not he minister (as you phrase it) many Epistles to the Churches, and command the Letter to be read, Col. 4.16. 2 Cor. 3.7. intends that Paul did not only show them their duty, and the happiness to be had in Christ, but his Ministry was a means of conveying strength to do it, and putting them into an happy estate. Your d stinction between Word and L●tter is frivolous, the Letter abideth for ever in the s●n●e there intended, ●●z. in the impressions of it upon the hearts of the regenerate, v. 2, 3. 'Tis not true of the new creature, that he is bo●n to die. To your fond Question, I answer, The Apostle makes preaching ordinarily necessary to the conversion of Heathens, Rom. 10.14. How shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? Preaching, without the Spirits efficacy, brings but the Letter of the Word, yet 'tis as necessary by God's ordination, as ploughing, with the influence of the Heavens, to make the earth bring forth. T. D. The Gospel gives life upon imperfect obedience. G.W. Ans. And yet before he denied our good works to be a deserving cause of justification, when now 'tis so far deserving, that the Gospel gives li●e upon it. T. D. Reply. Fair and softly goes a great way in a day, G W. you make too much hast to have good speed, to find out a contradiction where there is none. I did not say that imperfect obedience deserves life, though I did, that the Gospel gives life upon it. Thus your Catholic Brethren, when I mes says, This man shall be blessed in his de●d, Jam. 1.25. cry out, here is a clear place to prove, that we are blessed for our d●eds, but alas, they ma●k not the wariness of the Scripture phrase, which is not for, but in his deed. Our deeds may be Arguments or Evidences of our blessed state, but no deserving cause. And hadst thou had any ingenuity, thou wouldst have taken in the who●● period, which was necessary to understand my meaning, which was thus, Though the Law gives not life without perfect obedience, the Gospel gives it upon imperfect obedience, i. e. Though the L●w exacts perfect personal obedience to Justification, 〈◊〉 the Gospel does not, but by believing we obtain int●●●st in Christ's righteousness for that end. T. D. David was not free from th● b●ing o● sin in this life, but a sad instance of the power of it in real Saints, and yet he is made a pattern to New-Testament-Saints, Zach. 12.8. p. 48. G.W. Ans That Scripture proves his Doctrine false, for the words are, He that is f●e●●le among them shall be as David, and the House o● Dav●d sh●ll be as God, as the ●ngel of the Lord ●efore them. So that David and the New-T●stament-Saints were free f●om sin, for in God is no sin T. D. Reply▪ The words are intended in the Letter, of the H●●o●ch Fortitude and Strength which the people should have in ●he t●me of danger, like to David's. And of ●e ●ngelik● a●d Divine pitch of both, which the Ruler's (intended by the House of David, which was the Royal Family) ●●ould be raised to through Faith in Christ. And so they give us two sizes of strength and fortitude, and not one only (as G●● interpre●s them.) Some shall be as David, & others as God. Now look as Omnipotency is not Literally promised to David's House, but by an excess of spe●ch, or Hyperbole, a greater measure of strength than others against bodily enemies, so nor can we understand it (spiritually) b●t of a greater measure of spiritual strength against ●p●●itu●l enemies. To conclude this discourse, I shall not refuse to imitate an adversary (though I shall be more ingenuous than to wrong h●m as he hath done me) but shall briefly sum up his principles, and assertions, with the place in his Book, where they are to be found. The Spirit was eff ctual among the Gentiles, who had not the Letter of the Word, p. 39 The works of God which true Believers witness, are perfect, p. 18. He (meaning myself) would have the Believers like the Priest's who sin in the best of their performances (as they conf sse) p. 18. Th●t our good works are the meritorious or deserving cause of our Justification, p. 19 G. W. finds fault with me for holding that the Scriptures are the Word of God, and the only standing Rule of Faith, and life, p. 29. Those Teachers that want infallibility, are out of the Truth, p. 33. G. W. calls it Ignorance in me, to call the Spirit the third Person in the Trinity, p. 22. FINIS. A NARRATIVE. Reader, MY rejoinder to G.W. having been finished a good while since (as the date of the Epistle will inform thee) and the Bookseller having thought fit to delay the publication, after it was off the Press, (upon a consideration not necessary to be mentioned) I have been persuaded by some worthy Friends to annex a Narrative, the materials whereof lay by me; and are of undoubted credit. To most of them thou shalt have the Witnesses names (persons of much integrity) and where they are wanting in the rest (the Witnesses not judging it advisable in some respects to be publicly named) I shall be accountable to any man that desires it for a punctual proof. Thou canst not be so much a stranger in England, as not to know how frequently the Quakers decry the present Ministry, with their Doctrine and Worship, under the Notion of Antichristian. But how little reason have they so to do? considering how much themselves do symbolise with Antichrist, particularly in that grand Doctrine of Justification by works, which as they hold in the Principle, they reduce it to Practise. Witness. Mr. Davis Min. of Dover. For one of them lately at Dover, when he came to die, upon the question put to him, made answer, that he expected salvation only by his own works, and not by Christ. And dying men may usually be presumed to speak their hearts. And I am out of doubt that they are acted by the antichristian Faction. A Gentleman of good credit assured me that he met with an English Jesuit in London, the first Lord's day in June last; one who was bred in Cambridge, and had been formerly of his acquaintance, who after some shyness to be known, at length confessed that he came over to propagate the Romish Faith, and told him, that there was a good honest people called Quakers, whom we jeered at, that did their work at the second hand; and he boasted much of the numbers that turned Catholics immediately, or medily, by becoming Quakers. And another Gentleman that came this Spring from St. Omars, did avouch that he saw the Jesuits there, about four a Clock every evening throw off their Gowns, and put on aprons, and betake themselves to the exercise of Handicraft callings; some played the Shoemakers, others sat at the Loom, others killed and dressed sheep, and they did not stick to boast, that under the disguise of such callings (working as Journeymen, and changing place as they listed) they served the Romish Church. And the Head of the College told him, that England never was in so fair a way of return to the Romish See, since it broke off, as now. And what hopes the Papists can have, unless from the increase of Quakers, I leave Reader to thy determination. And the truth is, the Quakers now declare their intentions to propagate their persuasions by the sword, whereas they were w●nt to pretend to so much meekness & peaceableness▪ that they would bear neither staff nor sword. At ●●●t Meeting of the Quakers, in Hurst-Peir-point in Sussex, he that undertook to be the Speaker, called out to the Min● of the Parish (who then accidentally passed by) saying, We will have you all down, for now our day is come▪ and another Quaker in the Parish of Nuthurst in the same County, did say to a Godly person of good quality in that Parish, that he no more cared to kill one of the Priests, (as he styled the Ministers) than he would to kill a dog. And another Quaker waylaid the Minister of Covewold, (a very worthy and reverend man▪ at his return from a Fast) and justled him upon the high way, (as he kept it; having his Wife behind him) and drew out a sword, which he had by his side, about half way, which was a shrewd presumption that he intended the Minister mischief; but that some Neighbours that came from the Fast, coming up to them, prevented it. And they do usually give out threatening speeches against the Ministry, and their Friends. Mr. Wingfield. One Instance you may take, as it was formally attested to me, under the hand of a Godly minister of a Town within one mile of Sandwich. I do testify that Luke Howard of Dover Quaker, did say in my hearing on the 25 day of July 1659. upon the road, near Dover Castle, that it was revealed to him by the eternal God that the Priests shall be destroyed, and by the people who are called Quakers. In testimony whereof, I set my hand, Aug. 3. 1659. Will. Wingfield. Min. at Word. And in a late Pamphlet, called a Word of advice to the Soldiers, by E.B. Quaker, p. 2. (he speaking to the Soldiers, of the Ministers) uses this passage, Oh give the Priest's blood to drink, for they are worthy. I myself read the whole Book through, and can therefore attest it upon personal knowledge. And what affronts these wretches offer to the Worship of God, is notoriously known: On the Lord's day (being the 18 of Sept. 1659.) one Will. Naylor Brother to James Naylor, (a Quaker) came into the Savoy Church, when Mr. Hooke was in the Pulpit preaching, and made such a bellowing noise, that it seemed to be rather the Devil speaking within him, than his own natural voice; insomuch that the Minister was necessitated for a time to hold his peace; and many of the people were sadly affrighted at the dreadfulness of the noise, that some ran one way, some another, to secure themselves from the danger which they apprehended was near them. This is testified by credible Witnesses, as Mr. and Mrs. Hooke, and divers others. And at Aldermanburic, on a Lords day, June 12, 1659. whilst the Psalm was singing, a Quaker got up into the Pulpit, with his Hat on his head, and setting his Breech upon the Cushion, fell to sewing. Another example as remarkable as the former, was in Christ-Church, Octob. 6, 1659. It being a Day of public Thanksgiving, the Parl. L. Major, Aldermen, Com. Coun. & Officers of ●he army, being there met together, to hear Dr. Homes and Mr. Caryl, who were appointed by the Parl. to preach before them. Mr. Caryl being the last that preached, it so fell out, that when he was in his last Prayer, there were two Quakers made a very great disturbance in the public assembly, in the very presence of authority: This will be testified by many Witnesses that were present. And they seem to regard their own Worship as little as they do ours. For March 6 1659., one Mary Todd of Southwark, Quaker, at the Bull and Mouth in Aldersgate-street, an usual Meeting place, whilst her Friends (as they call one another) were speaking, pulled up all her above her middle, Mr. Tho. Cresset, Chirurgeon. exposing her nakedness to the view of all that were in the Room, and walked so up and down a while, using several expressions about her practice, as suitable to a state of innocency and perfection: This I had from an eye and ear-witness who is named in the Margin: and what a beastly and abominable practice this was; especially in a woman, besides the unseasonableness of it, being in the time of their Worship, (such as it is) I leave to thee to judge. And whereas 'tis an usual thing for the Quakers to call Ministers of the Gospel Liars, it is well enough known, that besides the Lies of their Doctrine, they have not so much moral honesty, as to speak Truth in matters of Fact. In May last, there having been some discourse one day between one Howard of Dover Quaker, Mr. Russel, Min. in the Marsh. and a Minister in Rumney Marsh, the next day was appointed for further discourse between them two, but overnight the said Howard sent his horse and man for Mr. Fisher (sometime a Minister, now a Quaker, and suspected to be a Jesuit.) and going with him to the place of meeting, told the people, that seeing S. Fisher came accidentally thither, he would now leave the discourse to him; whereupon one among the people stepped out, and told Howard that he lied, for he did see his horse and man go out overnight, and see the said Fisher ride into the Town on the morning upon the same horse, by which it was manifest that he sent for him on purpose. All that they could say in justification of themselves, was, that the said Fisher came accidentally in respect of the people or Minister who was to discourse, they knowing nothing of his coming. To conclude, I desire thee Reader, to peruse the Quakers answer to certain questions proposed to them, hereto annexed, wherein thou wilt find them denying the Scriptures to be the Rule for judging matters of Faith; asserting that they should have had knowledge of God sufficient to salvation, if they had never heard of the Bible; and their words and writings are as infallible as the Scriptures; and again, denying the Persons in the Godhead, the Humane, Nature of Christ, and that Christ is a distinct Person from the Saints, and that there hath been a true Church since the Apostles, till now, and that one day is more holy than another. And surely by these Principles in conjunction with the rest which thou hast an account of in the Book itself, to which this Narrative is annexed, the Quakers have for ever forfeited the name of Christians, and are to be reputed Heathens. Sandwich, Octob. 10 1659. Questions proposed to, and answered by Joseph Fuce, Quaker. Quest Whether the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament be the Rule of trying and judging all matters of Faith and obedience towards God? Answ. And now I shall set down these Proofs to prove the Scriptures are not to be the Rule for to try and judge all things or matters of Faith, John 5.22 etc. Q. Whether the Light within, you so much speak of, be sufficient to guide you to Salvation, if you had never heard of the Bible? Ans. I do believe if I had never seen the Bible, yet believing the Witness which God hath given, which is Christ, the Light & hope and Glory in us, which we so much speak of, and preach freely as we have received, to the offending of those deceivers that preach for hire, and so make merchandise of the people, I say, I should have attained to the knowledge of God, if I had never heard of the Bible. Q Whether the teachings or writings of any of your way be infallible or of equal authority with the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament? Ans. I say, we do not err in speaking or writing the Truth as it is in Jesus, and that of God in all Consciences shall one day witness this to be true and infallible: and the Scriptures and our writings hath and will most certainly come to pass. Q. Whether the Father, the Word, and the Spirit be three distinct Persons in the selfsame Godhead? Ans. As for thy words, three distinct Persons, that I deny, till thou provest them by plain Scripture. It is like the Bishops in Rome may own thee in them, for that is some of their unfruitful works of darkness. Qu. Whether J●sus Christ hath a Divine and Humane Nature in one person? Ans. Thy words, Humane Nature, I return them with those words, Three Persons, into the Pit of confusion, from whence they came. Qu. Whether Jesus Christ remains for ever a distinct Person from all the Saints? Ans. But as for being a distinct Person from all the Saints, he is not. Qu. Whether the true Church hath failed upon earth since the death of the Apostles of Jesus Ch●ist, mntil these times? if not, in what age or ages, or among what people hath it continued? Ans. He caused all both small and great, rich and poor, bond and free, to receive a mark in their foreheads, or in their right hand. Read, Rev. 13. And thus the true Church ceased or failed upon earth, since the death of the Apostles of Christ, until ●he raising up of Gods own seed out of the earth, to stand a witness against wicked murderers, and Persecutors of the Saints, and true Church of Christ. Qu. Whether the first day of the Week be more holy than any other day of the Week. Ans. All the days of the Week as the Lord created them, are holy unto the Saints, who are redeemed from observing days and months, and times, and years. These things are expressly asserted and subscribed by Joseph Fuce. FINIS.