The Quakers Wisdom Descendeth not from Above

Darson saith, the Lights mentioned, viz. natural and supernatural are two, and though all have the one, yet but few have the other.

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.

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 God-head, which men attain to by the Creation, Ch 2.14 The Gentiles are said by nature to do the things con • ained 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 answ • r, 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 n •• ural life, then Plants, Bruits, and all Man •• nd have a spiritual life (an absurdity to gross to lodge in the brain of any other man, but a Qua • er.)

charged R.H. with saying the true Light hath not co • e over and comprehended thee.

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

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 c • mprehend the true Light.

charged us with consenting that the knowledge o • the Gospel is vouchsafed to every man.

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.

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, Quak • rs Folly, p. 2. If your mean • ng be that all men have th • Lig • t of the Gospel w • thin 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 na • ural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit o • God, nei • her can he know them, &c. no more than the blind eye can discern a visible Object.

brought Psal. 147.19, 20. and that by the statutes and judgments are meant the supernatural light or knowledge of the Gospel.

Ans. That makes for what I said, for that may be shown to a people which they know not: And this Priest hath confuted himself, for if these statutes were the knowl • dge of the Gospel, Why did I • rael not know them who had them?

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 shown 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.

saith, Rom. 2.15. is spoken of natural light opposed to the knowledge of the Jews.

Ans. 'It is spoken of the work of the Law, which Law was written in their hearts, and this Law was spiritual, and not a natural light.

Reply. Seeing you do not understand the difference between the Law, and work of the Law in the heart, I will teach you: By the Law in the he • 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 read • n sse to obedi • nce, Heb. 10.9. And a bringing into captivity • very thou • ht to the obedience of Christ, as the Apostles exp ssion is, 2 Cor. 10.5. But by the work of the Law is m • ant, the knowl • dge of sin, which is by the Law, Rom. 3 20 And the eff • cts of th • t knowl dge in Con c • nce, viz. a t • stimony to t • eir obedience or disob • dienc • tog • there w th approbation or censure, Rom. 2 15 And hough the Law b • spiri ual, 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.

Christ was not to be a light to the Gentiles till his coming in the flesh.

Ans. What then was Christ's presence in the flesh among all the Gentiles whom he did enl • ght 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?

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 honor 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 ge • e • ation and e •• rnal designation to the Office of Mediator, not any knowledge of Ch ist 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 salv • tion in any o her, for there is none other Name under Heaven given among men, where • by we must be saved. Thei • disobeying that light d d damn them, but their obed • ence to it could not have saved them without Christ, and Chr st 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]

SAi • h, p 9. your Doctrine of Pe • fection is against the Tenour of the Scripture, and to prove it, he b •• ng • Job 9.20 and he saith, p 11. the Perfection Paul d • nies is th • state of the resurrection, which is to be wi h • ut sin.

Ans. Here he hath wronged the Scriptures, for th • y do not say that Perf • ction is against the Tenour of them, for God commands Pe • fection. And Paul denied not the state of the resu • rection, 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 rein he had said, If I say I am perfect, &c. but after this Job was perfect.

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. Ther's no reason to the contrary, but that God's commands should run in the old style, 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 c • nstant endeavor 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 affl • ctions, 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.

p. 12. A Believers person with his works are accepted with God, though his works be not perfect.

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.

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 pe • formance. 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 subj • ct, 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 intend 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.

We (the Saints) are one body with them in Heaven, and have the same title with th m in possession, p 14, 38.

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 c • m • leat, • ol 2.10 Eph. 3 15

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, &c. 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, human 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 ci • cumcision 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. Ther'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.

WHereas S. Fish • spoke of our good work being a m •• to • ou cause of our justification, this P • jest hath M •• l • much ado to p ove th • t S. F. 〈◊〉 a rank Papist, and •• i • h our good woe • ks are but imperfectly good, and Isa 64.6. All our righteousn • ss • s are as filthy rags

A • s. S. F. never affirm • that imperfect works and the righteousness which is as il hy rags do dese • ve Just • fication, as this P •• hath w •• nged him, but good works wh • ch are the fulfilling of th • awe

Reply. Whether I have w •• nged S. F I leave to the Readers judgment, that shall peruse Qu • kers Folly, p. 14, • 5. I urged against him, •• r though our evil works did cond • mn, yet ou • g •• d work • could not justify; because none of ou • good wor •• • n this life are perfect, and so not the fulfi l • ng of the Law, as evil works are the violation or breaking of the Law. And to prove the imp • rfection of our righteousness. I brought Isa. 64 6. To which G.W. hath nor, nor indeed can ans • er. 'It is an express place, The Chu ch c •• par • s 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.

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.

Ans. So then this makes for what S.F. declared, for here it appears then that obedience to God is deserving.

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 justifi • d, 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.

gives the explication of 1 Cor. 6.11. Where by the Spirit of our God, is interpreted of the Spirits application, i • referring to Just fication, or else it may relate to Sanctification, spoken of in the former clause.

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 just • fied freely by his Grace, which was one with the Spirit.

Reply. Though Jesus and the Spirit are one God, yet they have distinct operat • ons, or manner of working about our Justification. 'It is 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. &c. 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 free • lie by his Grace, which is in Rom. 3.24. It intends not grace 〈◊〉 us, but the grace or favor of God in giving Christ for our propitiation, v. 25. As for your accusation of ignoran • e, 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.

p. 16. The Apostle asserts • he holiness of man's nature as a work of the Spirit confo • ming it to the Law, to be the meritorious cause of our f • e • dom from sin.

Ans. And yet he hath d • all 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 merito • ious cause of our freedom from sin?

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 mightest have answered thy own Questions. The righteousness of Christ's human nature or active obedience, as we usu • lly 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 beli • ve 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?

sai • h, Rom. 8.4, 5. It impo • ts the end for which God sent Christ, that his righteousness might be imputed to us, as if it had been inherent in ourselves.

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 • ighteousnesse of the Law being • o be fulfilled in Christ (as if it had not been fulfilled in him)

R •• lie. 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 creed • tor cannot, nor does say that the principal did make payment. Nor does the Apostle speak of Christ's fulfill • ng 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.

Supposed S. F. to mean, when he acknowledged degrees among Believers, that some of these (Bel • evers) have a mixture of sin with their Grace.

Ans. This is a false supposition, grace is pure, the mixture of sin is in that which goeth from the grace.

Reply. Reader, If thou dost not judge this latter clause in the answer to be unintelligible non-sense, thy judgment 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 subj • ct, or in each faculty of the soul, not successively, but together, at the same time, which Paul expresses by anot • er 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.]

says, p. 19. Conscience in the Saints being but in part cleansed, as a witness it te • tifies falsehood • o them also.

Ans. This man lays falsehood and badness to the charge of the Saints Consciences, • he • ease they witn • ssed truth to them, Sanctification throughout, 1 Thes. 5.23. and holiness perfect • d in the fear of God

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 pe • fection of deg •• es in each subject) And if no faculty, • he • no • C • nscience, As for 2 Cor. 7 1. which you f •• m • o quo •• , y •• w • ong that Scripture. The words are not 〈◊〉 s •• p •• f • cted, but perf • cting holiness And the Apostle • o not suppos • th • ir holiness to be perfected, but exho •• them to end • avour 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.

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.

Ans. If our being made the righteousness of God in Christ be but like Christ's being made si • for us, then 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.

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 Just • fication 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 Princ • pal; and the Principal is as truly discharged by the Su • ety s payment, though he pay nothing out of his own estate.

said, do you think that the righteousness which the Apostle calls his own, was not Christ's?

Ans. He might as well say, that the Apostle desired no • to have Christ's righteousness, which is but one.

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 Savior, 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: 'It is evident that the d • ift of his discourse was to maintain that assertion.

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 • Sc •• ptu • es.

Ans. What then was their Rule who spoke 〈◊〉 the Sc • iptu • es? 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 he • ts of Believ • rs, and of this Word the S • riptures are a true declara •• on but a • t not the Word

R •• lie I must ag • in refer the Reader for an answer to th •• Qu •• ie • , to Qu • kers Fo •• y, p. 29, 30, 43, 44. And 〈…〉 matter c • n • a • ned • 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 • whole • o • h • m are our Rule. And for those who c • nnot r • a • , though th • y shall not be condemned for a ••• ur • l • ncapacity, yet they shall for not walk ng acc • rding to the Scriptures, as they a •• ain the knowl •• ge of them by some oth • r way a • he •• ng, &c. To that Not on, tha • the Sc • p • ures are but a true d • claration of th • Woe • d of • od • n the h • a • ts of Beli • verse. I rep • y, that th • ••• p u •• s are all • o a d • claration of what ought to 〈◊〉 th • he •• s of Bel • ev •• s, • nd unbe •• evers. If you m ••• (a • most of you do) that they are only a declaration of their conditions who spake them, read, 1 Pet. 1.10, 12. and that place alone will confute you.

John 20.30, 31. Suppose we had the signs faithfully r • co • ded, 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.

Ans. Faith is the gift of God, not created and preserved by the Sc • iptures, but by Christ the author of Faith And again, this Priest in affirming no other Rule, but what we have in Scr • pture, hath contradicted himself, p 44 he says, that those things that were not written, migh 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 Sc •• ptures.

Reply. I see thou art a man of depth, G.W. to make an opp • sition where there is • subordination, between the efficient and instrumenta • 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 hear • ng, and hear • ng 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 forth • r than they ag • ee with the Scriptures, And hence the Bere •• s are commanded for • xam • ning Paul's sermons, by the Sc • iptures, Acts 17.11. Yet God blesses them so far as that the Word preached is the usua • 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, &c. But from such signs as are handed by human autho • ity only an human 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 cons • quence, for the difference lies in God's arbitrary dispensation. H • w • ought them all for the end mentioned, but hath thought fit to transmit only some s • w by writing to po •• erity, and they shall be instead of all the rest.

cavils at my denial o • their infallibility, which I judge answered suffic • ently, Qu Folly, p. 39. l. 20.]

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 Spi • it. See for proof, Acts 20 30. Mat. 23.23.

A • s. Th • y that want infallibility are out of the Truth. The Scribes and Pharisees th • t spoke perverse things against the Ap • stles, the Spirit did not then accompany what they m nistr • d.

R ply. Why do you not reply to Acts 20.30. Which proves clearly that the Gosp • l-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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 infall • ble 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 Pharisee • s. I answer, that though the Spirit did not • ccompany 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 enjoin • d And this they d • d o ••• ntimes, 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 practiced. And if so, then the Spirit was in their Minist y, and yet he was not in themselves, for t • ey sa •• , and did not, (i. e. practiced not their own Doctrine.)

[Reader, note that G.W. having answered after his fashion some o the a • guments in • he Dispu • e, he pretends also to reply to s • veral 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 judgment.

[ 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 bri • fly reply to.

The righteousness which God woe • ks in us, is but finite, as well as other effects, p. 39

Ans. And yet this Pr p. 37. hath owned that the righteousness wh • reof Christ is th • subject, and that whereof he is the efficient are of one p • cies or kind; then I say, the righteou • ness which God e • f • cts in us, is not finite, but infinite, for Christ is God's righteousness, and Christ is formed in us.

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 human Natu • e, 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 righteousn • ss, 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 Human Nature, as it receives an infinite value from the Divine Nature, to which the Human is united in one person.

said, the Spirit was not wont to be effectual without the Letter of the Word, and gave instance, Rom. 10.17.

Ans. He might as well have said, the Apostles Ministry wa • not wont to be effectual, for P • ul was not a Min • ster 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 forever. 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▪

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 happin • ss 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 forever in the s • n • e there intended, •• z. in the impressions of it upon the hearts of the regenerate, v. 2, 3. 'It is not true of the new creature, that he is bo • n to die. To your fond Question, I answer, The Apo • tle 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 plowing, with the influence of the Heavens, to make the earth bring forth.

The Gospel gives life upon imperfect obedience.

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.

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 J 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 Arg • ments or Evidences of our blessed state, but no deserve ng cause. And hadst thou had any ingenuity, thou woul • st have taken in the who •• period, which was necessary to understand my meaning, which was thus, Thoug • the Law gives not life without perfect obedience, the G • sp • l gives it upon imperfect obedience, i. e. Thou • h the L • w exac • s per • ect personal obedience to Justification, 〈◊〉 the Gosp • l does not, but by believing we obtain int ••• st in Christ's righteousness for that end.

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.

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

Reply▪ The words are intended in the Letter, of the H •• o • ch Fort • tude and S • rength 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 • (intend • d by the House of David, which was the Royal Fam •• y) •• old be rais • d to through Faith in Christ. And so they give us two sizes of strength and for •• tude, and not one only (as G •• interpre • s them.) Some shall be as David, & others as God. Now look as Omnipotency is not Literally promise • d to David's House, but by an • x •• sse of spe • ch, or Hyp •• bole, a greater measure of strength than others against bodily enemies, so nor can we understand it (sp • ritua • lie) 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 b • i • fly 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 P •• ests 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 infallib • lity, 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.