I now come to take notice of a Postscript, written by G.F. in these words, Here follows the Epistle that hath so touched William Rogers which he makes all this Work and Writing about, who would make me inconsistent with my self; and so he might have done the Apostle, who one while {Fifth Part 73} Circumcised; and then again forbid it: and one while said, They should not judge one another about dayes, and meats and drinks, and afterward Judged them for it, who made it their Principle. But in William Roger’s Charges, he hath not proved me inconsistent with my self, but rather himself is inconsistent with what he was formerly.
To this I thus Answer, These few lines do manifest to me, that G.F. doth not divide and distinguish as he ought to do, if he be not ignorant of the Scriptures, and of what I have written; and of what his name is too: The Consideration whereof leads me to observe, that he hath not quoted any Scripture, whereby he pretends to prove his Assertion, and so no need to write very large for Disproof of that, which he pretends not to prove; yet for the sakes of same on this Occasion I shall thus add, That the Scripture no where testifies, that the Apostle did forbid Circumcision in the same Case where he practiced Circumcision; and that when the Apostle said any thing to this purpose, by way of Exhortation to any amongst the Churches of Christ, that they should not judge one another about Dayes and Meats and Drinks, it was (as I have always taken it) with a tender Regard only to such who made Conscience (which could not be unless they were principled) either to observe or not to observe a Day, Meats, or Drinks; and such the Apostle (when they acted from a Principle so to do) at no time judged (as ever from the Scriptures of Truth, I could understand) though in the Observations of some things legal, not having so far received the Spirit, as to be led therefrom; and yet G.F. saith, And afterward judged them for it, who made it their Principle; as if the day was, wherein they might observe a day, when they were not principled so to do; but when they became principled to observe a day, then it became Sin and Matter worthy of Judgement and Condemnation by the Apostle; and not only so, but as if acting according to ones Principle, in Matter of Conscience, {Fifth Part 74} were Condemnable, when practicing things not according to ones Principle, in matters of Conscience might be justified. This I dare not conclude to have ever been the Apostle’s Meaning; but I am well satisfied is agreeable to the Practice of G.F. (or some taken to be of his Adherents, who have publisht their Papers and Judgements against many) and the real Cause (as to me is evident) is because they are found, practicing according to their Principle, and cannot act (for fear of Threats and Frowns of Man) against it.
And forasmuch as G.F. hath made use of the aforesaid Instance relating to Circumcision, Days, Meats, and Drinks on such wise, as if the Practice or not Practicing of such things, were grounded meerly on the Apostle’s Permission, and so by that Example, G.F. may do the like; I think it needful to add, that when Contention arose about the Practice of Circumsision, Acts 15. it doth not appear that the Apostles assumed themselves a Power to permit or not to permit, nor yet to judge the Case Without the Assent of Parties differing; for it appears the differing Parties agreed to go up to Jerusalem about the Question and at that time, the Apostles did agree, That Circumcision was not fit to be laid on the Gentiles, which were Believers (who never were principled to practice the same) neither did they endeavour to oblige those who practiced Circumcision, after they believed, to forbear the same, before by the Spirit they were led from it; and the Reason hereof (undoubtedly) was, because ‘twas safest both for the Jew and Gentile, to act according to Faith, that so they might not sin: for the Apostle saith, Whatsoever is not of Faith is Sin; which Assertion answers to the Light of Christ in the Conscience at his day, as well as is agreeable to the Apostle’s Doctrine.
And now that the meaning of the Apostle, as to the matter relating to Circumcision, Dayes, Meats and Drinks may be {Fifth Part 75} a little further explained, I think it needful to cite a Passage out of my Manuscript in answer to Part of Robert Barclay’s Book of Government, which may be pertinent on this Occasion.
We find that many of the Believing Jews were not come from under Circumcision, and that those Jews, who say beyond it, did not condemn such their Brethren; but we do not find that the Apostles (as person that has Power to permit or not permit such a Practice in the Church) did approve of it, until by Faith they saw beyond it; for, as on the one hand, ‘twas not in their Commission to preach up Circumcision; so on the other hand, 'twas not in their Power to be a Bond on any to forbear, who through faith were not first led therefrom.
For though the Apostle saith, Gal. 5. 2. I Paul say unto you, if ye be Circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing; and Gal. 4. 9, 10, 11. But now after ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the Weak and Beggarly Elements? Ye observe Dayes and Months, &c. I am afraid of you. Yet this did not at that time condemn that Christian Liberty and Forbearance, which the Apostle before approved in and with respect unto such as made Conscience of Circumcision, an the Observing of Dayes, before they had so received the Spirit as to be led out of it; for it plainly appears, he spoke to a People who were redeemed out of those beggarly Elements, and were come past those Rudiments, which is evident by those his words, how turn ye again? and so he might well exhort such, neither to Circumcise, nor yet be in the Observation of Dayes; for that God hath not usually led into those things, which he hath led out of; and this might well consist with the truth even at such a time and season, when others through a consciencious scruple, might in a Plea for both, with respect to themselves (respectively {Fifth Part 76} according to their differing Faith) be Uncondemned.
I shall now leave it to the Consciences of unprejudiced Readers, whether what G.F. hath said touching Circumcision and Observation of Dayes, Meats and Drinks is sufficient to justifie his advising Mary Penington to secure her Estate from the Spoilers (when she durst not remove her moveable goods, nor made it as her principle) and condemned others that are principled so to do; querying of such, Whether ‘tis not from the Spirit of the World, that lusteth to Envy?
With this Testimony I shall conclude this my reply to G.F. that I certainly know him to be a Man guilty of many things, which he hath condemned in others; and forasmuch as he, under the form of Government, hath prescribed the giving forth of Papers of Condemnation, as a proper means whereby such as in his sense are departed from the Truth, may be received into Fellowship with some others again, so he must expect that some (at least) of his known Errors and Failings must lie on Record, unless he repent and manifest such his Repentance by an Acknowledgment so publickly spread, as his Errors and Failings have been; not but that an Acknowledgement unto, and Repentance before the Lord, in some Cases, may be sufficient; but because, as he hath been an Instrument to lay Stumbling-Blocks in the Way of many, so he may (even as James Naylor did before him) by candid Acknowledgement unto the Lord’s People, be an Instrument (as much as in him lyes) to remove such Stumbling-Blocks, and so come into Unity again with the Lord, and his People in the Truth, form which he hath departed.
William Rogers.
No comments:
Post a Comment