of the Spirit of Truth to imbrace a Doctrine that is not the Rule this is liker to be an evidence of the contrary Or How shall it be an evidence of the Spirit of Error to reject such Doctrine this also is rather an evidence of the contrary providing the Rule be retained Lastly God denounces all the plagues mentioned in the Scriptures quake that dreads then against every Man that shall presume to add in matters of Faith and Duty for of these its meant to the Doctrine and Rules written in the Scriptures Therefore the Scriptures do certainly contain the Rule and whole Rule of Faith and Manners The antecedent is laid down Rev. 22.18 where it is peremptorily said That if any Man shall add unto these things that are written in the Scriptures for there is the like reason and no other or more reason against adding to this Book of the Revelation and the rest of the holy Scriptures after the Canon is compleated and this Sanction is added here in the close of this Book as the close of the whole Scriptures God shall add to him all the plagues written in the Book The consequence is also evident For if not the Scriptures but some other Doctrine were the Rule then we not only might add to the Scriptures in matters of Faith and Duty but we ought of necessity to set up that other Doctrine as the Rule and Directory of both which is much worse methinks than any partial adding and so we could not be liable to such a doom for a partial adding And hence by a few arguments of many that may be produced we see that the Scriptures are the infallible Rule of our Faith and Manners that sure Word of Prophecy whereunto we ought to take heed and if an Angel from Heaven shall preach another Gospel to us than that which Christ and the Apostles did let him be accursed Every new Dispensation of the Covenant by the Ministery of Men though it were but only new in the manner was confirmed by Miracles and Wonders Exod. 4.28.30 Deut. 34.11 12. 2 Cor. 12.12 Heb. 2.4 much more need hath the Quakers Doctrine of such confirmations being new not only in the manner but also in the matter contrary to the Doctrine formerly dictated by the Holy Ghost and left upon Record unto us nor heard we ever of so great a company of Inspired Teachers as all the Doctors of the Quakers pretend to be and never one Miracle or Wonder to be had amongst them all excepting only their extream Infatuation and Brain-sickness or that they still retain the proportion and features of Human bodies having quite enervated their rational essence SECT II. Proving the Scriptures to be the principal Rule and overthrowing the Light within George Keith an Arch Quaker and a Man too learned as he imploys it doth here distinguish our Arguments yielding us That the Scriptures are the most compleat external Rule of Faith that is in the World but That they are not for all that the Principal Rule of Faith but only a Secundary Rule thereof and that the Spirit or his Dictat within is the Principal Rule in his Quakerism no Popery pages 9.13 25 59 108 109 110 111. and like Proteus turning himself into all shaces 〈…〉 â—mes designs Christ himself oftner the Spirit 〈…〉 he 〈…〉 of the Spirit within to be 〈…〉 oftnest the dictat◠〈…〉 But I am sure if George Keith be in earnest while he would have Christ himself or the Spirit himself to be our Rule he is beside himself For a Person cannot be a Rule of Faith for that must be some complex Proposition Direction or Precept and the like but Christ and the Spirit are Persons and so they cannot be a Rule of Faith The Major is already proved nor will the Quakers deny it But George Keith as many of his Brethren to my hearing doth flatly refuse the Minor as an uncertain unscriptural notion and a barbarous heathenish term to speak of a Person in the Godhead in his Quakerism no Popery page 97.104 and so according to him there are no Persons at all in the Godhead ah Blasphemy for if there be I am sure we may say there are and if Men believe that there are Three Persons in the Godhead they will not refuse to say the same The Quakers then do reject both the thing and notion and believe not there are Three Persons in the Godhead And therefore that there are I shall shortly prove First The Father Son and Holy Ghost are each of them an Intelligent Being subsisting incommunicably or distinctly from another Ergo each of them is a Person The consequence being from the Definition to the thing defined cannot be denied without a broad contradiction for if they grant the Antecedent that is the thing which all the World understands by a Person The Antecedent I prove for that each of them is an Intelligent Being Subsisting the Quakers dare not deny and their great Works declare it and that they subsist Incommunicably or distinctly from one another though in the same Godhead I prove because one and the same Subsistence cannot beget it Self or be begotten by it Self nor proceed from it Self as is palpable but the Father begets the Son the Son is begotten by him and the Holy Ghost proceeds from both and so they must be distinct Subsistences or subsist distinctly Secondly There are Three that bear Record in Heaven the Father Son and the Holy Ghost 1 John 5.7 Ergo they must either be Three Persons or Three Gods which is the beight of impossibility or let the Quakers shew how they will call them Three for though they also be one viz. one God yet the same Text cited says they are Three too I could never get any other answer to this from a Quaker but That they are three Manifestations viz. of Moses of Christ and of the Spicit But if these were the Father Son and Holy Ghost the World is much elder than they and then Who made it Thirdly While Christ proves Himself the Light of the World against the Jews who denied it He says John 8.17 18. It is also written in your Law That the Testimony of two Men is true I am one that bears Witness of my Self and the Father that sent Me beareth Witness of Me. Now Christ and the Father could not have been two Witnesses according to their Law except they be two distinct Persons for their Law admitted the Testimony of two Men proof enough because it was the Testimony of two Persons and otherwise the Testimony had not been admitted as proof enough Christ then clearly teaches Himself and the Father to be two Persons while he asserts that their Witnessing was proof enough according to their Laws demand Lastly Christ is said to be the express Image in the Original Language Character of the Fathers Person Heb. 1.3 Therefore the Father is a Person and Christ also and distinct Persons for the Father is plainly called so and
the Son being the very express of his Person and exact transumpt must be one also and distinct from the Fathers Person They answer The Word is wrong turned here and that it s turned right in Heb. 11.1 where it 's called Substance But contrariwise the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Original which properly signifies a Subsistence or Person and in an Intelligent Being subsisting distinct it always signifies a Person and so the Union of Christs two Natures in one Person is usually called the Hypostatical Union and to turn the word Substance here would be guilty of Arianism and would infer that Christ is not the same in Substance with the Father but another Substance like his Substance It is then no unscriptural Notion but these things by the way Now to the main point I assert against George Keith and his Complices That the Scriptures are the principal Rule of Faith and Manners and not any Dictat within and I prove it first that the Scriptures are and next that the Dictat within is not First then The Scriptures we have seen already are by Divine Authority ordained to be the Rule of our Faith and Manners and there is no Divine Authority ordaining any other Rule either above them or of equal Authority with them or else let it be shewed and till then let them consider that we are still sent to the Scriptures as the Rule of all matters of Faith and Duty Isai 8.20 Luk. 16.29.31 2 Pet. 1.19 but never to any Dictat within they do not say To the Dictat within but to the Law and Testimony to Moses and the Prophets c. Therefore the Scriptures are infallibly the principal Rule seeing there is none above them or equal with them Secondly The Scriptures are the Rule ruling of Faith and Manners and not ruled by any other Rule or else they are a Rule ruling thereof and themselves ruled by another superior Rule there cannot be a third thing said for the members of the distinction are contradictory But the Scriptures are not a Rule ruling and ruled seeing a Rule is therefore ruled by another Rule because it is not essentially right but fallible and may deceive or else it needed no Rule to rule it but I hope the Quakers will not say That the Scriptures are fallible and may deceive seeing they are of Divine Inspiration and the Word or Words as the Quakers yield of the most High God Therefore the Scriptures are the Rule ruling and not ruled of Faith and Manners and so the principal Rule thereof Thirdly The Scriptures have Intrinsecal and Essential Authority within themselves without derivation from any other Rule contradict who dare seeing they are the Word of God and he deeds not I judge derive Authority to his Word from any other Rule Humane or Divine Ergo they are the Supream and Principal Rule of Faith and Manners George Keith will may be indeavour to retort this Argument as inferring That the Dictat of the Spirit within is the principal Rule as well as the Scriptures seeing that is the Word of God as well as they But by his favour An sit is before Quid sit and Prius est esse quam tale vel tale esse he should first prove that there is such an infallible immediate objective Dictat as he calls it in every Man and then he says something For I deny that there is such a Dictat of the Spirit in every Man to be his Rule seeing every Man hath not the Spirit but Believers only Rom. 8.9 1 Joh. 4.13 Jude 19. and if every Man have the Rule of Faith revealed to him by a Dictat within Why have not Americans as much knowledge of that Rule as we Christians nor do I believe that any Man hath such an immediate Dictat for revealing to him the Doctrine of Salvation who can read or hear for others I am not concerned nor means of nor is there any necessity thereof that being so abundantly manifested in the Scriptures And whatever particular event a Man may have immediately revealed to him and he therefore bound to believe it This concerns not our Argument concerning the Doctrine of Salvation and the Scriptures wherein that was not contained more than the particular commands of a Prince to one two or three of his Subjects will infer that not his publick Laws but his private immediate commands must be the rule to all Nor needs a Believer an immediate objective Dictat to assure him that he is a Child of God as George Keith would have it seeing an effective illumination of the Spirit upon our understanding which is also called Subjective in regard of us opening and enlightning it's eyes to behold the Scripture-marks and inabling it to reflect upon and discern the graces of the Soul in their gracious actings will do the business infallibly though not immediately but per medium for having these Premises and that assistance and the mind not diverted it will be forced to the consequence by the clearness of the objective connexion seeing the meanest Saint cannot resist such evidence of consequence nor can a thousand Dictates within meerly objective make a Man one whit the wiser without subjective light to perceive them more than a Man pur-blind can see the Sun-shining till his eyes be opened albeit George Keith spurns at this distinction between Objective and Subjective which in regard of the Spirit is called Effective as Antichristian and deceitful in his Quakerism no Popery pages 83.84 as if he would for ever confound an Object with an Efficient Cause or a Subject Fourthly A Rule that hath authority over all other Rules and none over it must inevitably be the Principal and Supream Rule But the Scriptures are such a Rule Ergo they are the Supream Principal Rule I prove the Minor the Major needs not because we may not receive any Rule from without or Dictat within which agrees not with the Scriptures as George Keith seemingly also confesses in his Quakerism no Popery pag. 28. to the Law and Testimony if they agree not with that there is no light in them he is Cursed that Preaches another Gospel and not agreeing with that we have and so cannot be Blessed that receives it The Plagues are added to them that add to the Scripture-Rule much more to such as Teach or receive a contrary Rule on the other hand we may nay we are bound to receive the Scripture-Doctrine though it do not agree with the Dictate within or any other pretended Rule as is clear from many things foresaid and the Quakers will not deny sure These things hold firm Again it does not hold that we must not receive the Scriptures if they agree not with the Dictat within but may receive the Dictat within tho it disagree with the Scriptures And so the Scriptures have Authority over all other Rules and none else hath Authority over them Now albeit we have sufficiently already affronted the Dictate within yet
Christ was under the Law as man yet he was never under it as God or else so should the Father and Spirit also seeing they are all one and the same God though they be distinct persons Therefore God cannot be said to obey God in any proper speech and the Doctor we see by his expressions above rehearsed means properly Lastly the Doctor here contradicts himself for if God requires our Sabbath and not working as he affirms and the regenerate and good man does so lay aside all works as he no more thinks sees speaks goes wishes wills c. as he affirmeth too then the good man obeys God In doing that which God requires of him and yet the Doctor denies that any thing obeys God but God himself But the Doctor may be would object that the good works of the Saints are in the Scripture ascribed to God and said to be done by his power Ephes 1.19 Philip. 1.6 and 2.13 2 Thes 1.11 Ans God is indeed a very special Title the principal efficient cause of all our good works and the Scriptures ascribe that unto him But no Scripture saith that in our works of obedience only God obeyeth himself in us for the reasons given that could not be Nor can it be said that it is God that in us wishes wills prays believes desires c. Seeing these actions are not Immanent in God but are meerly transient as to him and its Impossible for any person to will wish desire c. by any act not Immanent in it self â—s any man knows But these good works and actions whereunto we are quickened and determined by God and his grace and Spirit are Formally subjected in us and Immanent and so being Intrinsecally united and Informing us cannot but give us their Intrinsecal and formal denomination for an act of love being Immanent or united to my will or affections cannot but denominate me as loving some object and it cannot so denominate any other person as is manifest Though God therefore workes in us the acts of obedience faith repentance yet it is not God that obeys believes repents c. The Quakers afford us another objection from Gal. 2.20 where Paul denies himself to live viz. Spiritually but that Christ lived in him Ans Paul does not there deny himself to live Spiritually or vitally to exerce the operations of a Spiritual life or else if that were Then Paul was then Spiritually as dead a man as before he was converted which is most false and in the very next words he declares himself to live viz. Spiritually When therefore he denies himself to live Spiritually but Christ in him he plainly means of the fountain and source or stock and supply of his Spiritual life viz. That that was not in himself or in nature but in Christ the redeemer and so the objection proves not their point The Doctor teaches also in that same book Pag. 16.17.299.361 part first And Pag. 27.29.259.264.265 part second That take but off all accidents from every creature and that which remains is Christ and God as if we take away all height and depth greatness and littleness weight and measure heat and cold matter and form for says he these are all accidents and then that which is left is Christ is God God is the substance of all things and all the creatures are but meer accidents and they are not only Gods workmanship as most men teach and believe but also God is their very substance and Being he is their very Essence and Being Thus he But if these things were so God would be the most passive Being in all the world for so he should be the passive subject whereinto all creatures should inhere as meer accidents and he should be the passive and changed subject in all their mutations and alterations This would make a very changeable God more changeable then the Moon or Wind. 2ly If God be the very Being and Essence of every creature then every creature is Essentially God Almighty Infinite Eternal c. for that whose Being and Essence is God must in respect of its Essence or Essentially be God or else in respect of its Essence it will be both God and not God which is a Contradiction 3ly If God be the Being and Essence of every creature then the Being and Essence of every creature is an uncreated Being seeing God is such and so every creature as to its Essence or Essentially is not a creature that is to say it is Essentially not it self 4ly Every evil action is a creature if then God be the being of every creature then he is the being of every evil action too and so the sin inhering into every evil action shall inhere into God absit Blasphemia who is the being of the action Lastly If all creatures be but meer accidents and if God be the very Essence and Being of every creature then God shall also be an accident meerly he being the very essence and Being of these created accidents as the Doctor will Blasphemous Absurd and Repugnant The Doctor also teaches pag. 83.84.343 part first that if we speak of God Abstractedly from all creatures so the Father Son and Spirit are all one But if we come to speak of any thing created then we divide the Godhead into Persons and there is Immediatly Father Son and Spirit When God puts forth himself in the creating of any creature here now the Word is spoken and came forth from the bosom of his Father before there was any creature made there was neither Father Son nor Spirit in the Godhead as divided for the Trinity is expressed only in relation to creatures Thus he But by the Oneness or Unity of the Father Son and Spirit as God is spoken of Abstractedly from Creatures the Doctor either means of the Oneness of their Essence and Godhead and thus they are still one what ever way we speak of them seeing they are still but one God or else he thereby means of the Unity and Oneness of their persons and this way which is the way he doth mean which appears by his opposing the distinction of their persons in the second member of his Antithesis to the unity mentioned in the first the Doctor teaches meer blasphemy in denying that there was any distinction of persons in the Godhead before God made any creature and except in relation to creatures for so if God had never made any creature which might easily have been seeing he did not create by necessity or impulsion there should never-have been three persons in the Godhead nay nor any person for before God made any creature there was neither Father Son nor Spirit in the Godhead and the Trinity is expressed only in relation to creatures says the Doctor So also the three distinct persons in the Godhead must be meerly temporary created within time if there was no distinct person in the same before the creatures were made Yea so the persons in the Godhead shall be debitors to
spread in otherwise most pleasant and beautyful Gardens perpending also the meaning and Intention of the particular Providence conveying these Queries to my hand which by the prospect and veiw of its contexed Method and inferiour Circumstances seemed to call me either to give answer thereunto or else in so far betraying Truth by my silence to have been Interpreted either a Tacit consenter to the Doctrine 〈◊〉 the Adversaries which my Soul abhorrs or at least a Distruster of the Cause Professed by us and Impugned by them I could not but contribute my endeavors for vindication of the Truth and stopping of the Mouths of the reproachful Adversaries who like so many Rhabshakehs have in these Queries and others of their Blasphemous Papers disgorged as many lies against God and his Truth and as many slanders against the Church of God in Britain as if they had exchanged both Persons and Offices with the Father of lies and Accuser of the Brethren And who are these uncircumcised Philistines recouncing Baptism which is in the room thereof that they should defie the Camp of the Lord and Armies of Israel Is it because there is neither Sword nor Spear in our Israel that the Quakers have given so proud a Challenge and windy Defiance to all the Ministers in Scotland Nay I hope few of these are so ill provided or unworthy of their name and place but that without Reserves they dare sustain the Quarrel against the chiefest Luminaries and First-Magnitude Stars in the new Excentrick Quaking-world And whether I be a Minister or not its all a matter I hope by perspicuous and convincing Demonstration of the irresistible Truth in the following Survey so to detect their Fallacies explode their Errors and exterge their Calumnies as they shall not henceforth be so extravagant in their Challenges or prodigal of their Cartels against such a Party having all the Protestant Sister-Churches engaged in the same Quarrel Or if because a Fool beaten in a Mortar will not be wise they shall hereafter dare us with such another bragging appeal they shall but so much the more discover their own Nakedness to the world and that though with much Impudence they will still be Babling yet how Cowardly and Mightless they are for doing leaving thereby to our Cause the glory of Victory and to their own the due Infamy of an overthrow except they shall first dissolve and undo the Knots of my demonstrative Arguments in the following Survey In this ensuing Treatise I have endeavoured as much Brevity as may consist with Perspicuity having no where stood on inlarging Amplifications except where the right handling of the purpose doth necessarily require it nor have I Cited any humane Testimonies against the Adversaries seeing these they do not value except when they think they make for them especially ad hominem and therefore I would not have the work by the unprofitable accession of these to swell neither have I adduced any Argument lying far remote from the Principles because such long Deductions are by the unlearned more hardly perceived But after a brief state of the Question which the disingenuous Quakers almost every where pervert I have delivered a few evident Arguments thereby irresistibly establishing our Doctrine and overthrowing the contradictory Doctrine of the Adversaries and thereafter I propose and answer their Objections where except in some few Questions that under the same dress have been handled formerly betwixt our Writers on the one part and the Papists Anabaptists Arminians c. on the other part where the Objections are long ago abundantly answered by our Writers though even in these also I propose and and answer some of the chiefest together with these lately devised by the Quakers I adduce and Answer all that so far as I can learn they have to say against us or for themselves in defence of their Heretical Doctrine whereunto their following Queries relate which indeed comprehend the very Cardinal hinges and essential Principles wherein the very Life and Soul of Quakerism consists and wherewith it stands and falls The Scripture hath indeed fore-told us that in the latter days men shall bring in damnable Heresies even denying the Lord that bought them 2 Pet. 2.1 and that they shall give heed to seducing Spirits and Doctrines of Devils 1 Tim. 4.1 and shall not endure sound Doctrine but after their own lusts heap up Teachers to themselves and turn away their ears from the Truth and hearken unto Fables 2. Tim. 4.3.4 and that Heresies must be that these who are approved may be made manifest 1 Cor. 11.19 But as Christ says that offences must come but wo to that man by whom they come Mat. 18.7 So we may well say that though Heresies must be yet wo and a heavy wo to the Authors thereof for whatever Innocency some impious Fools Atheistically Sceptick in matters of Faith and the Principles of Religion do ascribe unto Heresie yet the Scripture doth far otherwise pronounce thereof calling it a work of the flesh Galat. 5.20 and a thing that overthroweth the Faith 2 Tim. 2.18 and a Doctrine of Devils 1 Tim. 4.1 and knitting and connecting Damnation swift Destruction and the Lake of Fire and Brimstone unto Hereticks false Teachers and false Prophets 2 Thes 2.11 12. 2 Pet. 2.1 Rev. 19.20 nor is there any Censure in Scripture more peremptory then that against Hereticks Tit. 3.10 and the Followers of false Prophets and blind Guides are in the same danger with the Leaders Jer. 14.15 16. Mat. 15.4 2 Thes 2.11.12 and surely Quakerism is one of the chiefest Heresies and most damnable Delusions that ever set foot in the Christian world For beside that by their rejecting of all manner of external Ordinances their denying the Scriptures to be the Rule and setting up the Light within for the Rule they do directly strike at the Foundation of all with one Blow overturning so far as they can the whole Rule of Faith and Duty and setting a New one of their own Invention in the room thereof Beside this I say this Heresie is a very Sink or an universal System of almost all the grosse Errors which hitherto have annoyed the Church of God as cannot be unknown to such as know the Errors which heretofore have troubled the Church and have occasion of Converse with the Quakers or of reading their Books And therefore people had need to beware of them Mat. 7.15 for their word eateth as doth a Canker 2 Tim. 2.17.18 Yet we do not look upon all of the Profession of Quaking in the same manner or as Constituted in the same Category of Degrees for we know that some of them are through simplicity and weakness seduced who may as yet peradventure obtain repentance to the acknowledging of the Truth and be recovered out of the snare of the Devil whose Recovery as it is one of the special designs of this small Treatise so we heartily pray God to make it successful for that end Others of them are
because it is worthy of a Thousand Deaths for its proud Usurpation we shall reach it some few Blows more in particulari Specie First therefore the principal Rule of Faith and Manners must be Essentially right and Infallible or else we can trust nothing to it with any assurance and all were gone it would mislead and deceive us But the Dictate within every man is not Essentially Right Ergo it is not the principal Rule I prove the Minor because many men have not the Spirit as all unrenewed men Rom. 8.9 1 Joh. 4.13 Jud. 19. and so their Dictate within not proceeding from the Spirit cannot be Essentially Right or the principal Rule of Faith and Manners and this destroys the Quakers Principle that the Dictate within every man is the principal Rule Nor doth the Spirit Teach even Believers by an inward immediate objective Dictate seeing God and Nature do nothing in vain and Beings ought not to be multiplied without some necessity which here there is none that can be shewed for seeing the whole Doctrine of Salvation is abundantly made known in the Scriptures so that our understandings being subjectively Enlightened and our Eyes in any measure opened we may plainly see therein the exactness and purity of the Law the Riches of the Promises and in fine our whole Rule by the good help of other means and Ordinances appointed to further our Instruction and Knowledge in these by opening up and explaining their Doctrine and Sence and so clearing the Object quoad nos or in order to our understanding And what needs then I pray another objective Rule Neither is there any reason for the continuance of the immediate Inspiration of the Doctrine of Salvation in the Church more than all the other extraordinary Gifts which are gone long since the Intire Rule of Faith and Manners being now compleated and publickly Recorded which is as Infallible as any immediate Dictate seeing it is the Word of God that cannot Lie and it is more sure for us than any in regard of the Devils Cunning who can and often does bear in a strong Delusion with so much of seeming Evidence as makes it be received for a Divine Dictate And what needs more George Keith who pleads that the Dictate within is the principal Rule and Touchstone of all Doctrines in his Quakerism no Popery pag. 59. albeit most inconsistently as I think he grants the same Authority to the Scriptures pag. 28 thereof does yield that for all their Infallible Dictate yet its possible for them and that is much indeed both to Speak and Write and so to think too in a mixture Quakerism no Popery pag. 33 that is to say Fallibly for if he means of a Mid-way betwixt Fallibly and Infallibly which I am not yet acquainted with nor ever read it he speaks like a man in a mixture Infallible Contradiction For all the World cannot find me a midst betwixt Fallible and Infallible George Keith then it seems is not Infallibly or immediately Inspired for he can both Speak and Write in a mixture which a man immediatly Inspired cannot be Guilty of Habernus confitentem reum Secondly that cannot be the principal Rule of Faith and Manners which hath no Divine Institution to Warrant it or else it is but an Usurper But the Dictate within every I or any man hath no Divine Institution to Warrant it to be the principal Rule of these or else produce it if they can for all they have hitherto produced shall be Confuted and Answered too when I come to to their Objections Therefore the Dictate within every man or any man is not the principal Rule of Faith and Manners Thirdly a Rule to be examined by another Rule cannot be the principal Rule of Faith and Manners I am sure But the Dictate within all men is such Therefore it is not the principal Rule of Faith and Manners The Minor I prove from Isai 8.20 To the Law and to the Testimony says the Text if they speak not according to this Word it is because there is no Light in them where all Dictates or Doctrines of Faith and Manners are very expresly commanded to be Tryed and examined by the Scripture and if they agree not with that not to receive them seeing so there is no Light in them they are but Dictates of Darkness And again George Keith Confesses that all Doctrines and Principles of Christian Religion are to be applyed to the Scriptures as a Test and Touchstone in all external Debates and Disputations whatsoever and if they agree not therewith to be denied and disowned for ever Quakerism no Popery pag 28. and so the Scriptures are a Superiour Rule to the Dictate within if it be a Doctrine of the Christian Religion seeing it must be examined by these as a Test and Touchstone and rejected if it agree not therewith I can say no more than is dropt twixt sleeping and waking perhaps from the Pen of an Adversary Fourthly the Scriptures we have seen before are the principal Rule of Faith and Manners positively Ergo the Dictate within cannot be such a Rule The Consequence is plain seeing two Rules each of them positively principal are repugnant for so each of them should be above and below the other Fifthly if the Dictate within be the principal Rule of Faith and Manners then we must either follow its Directions absolutely and without Questioning or Trying them or else conditionally only that they be right if conditionally only then we must examine them by some other Rule to know if they be right or not and so they are not the principal Rule against the supposition nor Infallible seeing an Infallible Rule needs no Superior Rule to be examined by being it self Essentially right If then we must follow the directions of the Dictate within absolutely and without any Tryal then he whose Dictate within prompts him to think that Christ has not two distinct Natures or that he has two distinct Persons aswel as Natures or that he is not Co-eternal Co-equal and Co-substantial with the Father or First person or that his Sufferings and Death was not a Satisfaction for our Sins or that God is a Corporeal Being subject to all humane Passions or that in the Eucharist the Bread is substantially Changed into the Body of Christ or that the Pope is Infallible and so a great Quaker or else each of them a small Pope or that we are not Justified by the Righteousness of the Redeemer I say all of these and other such deluded Hereticks must absolutely follow these Principles as their principal Rule And if the Dictate within bid a man Worship the Sun and Moon and Idols of Gold and Silver worship the Devil and cut his own Throat too he is bound to obey his Rule There is nothing can be answered to these things but this viz. That these and such like evil Directions cannot proceed from the Spirit of God but allanerly from a mans own self and the Devil But
They object That Christ promises to send his Spirit to guide us into all Truth Joh. 16.13 Therefore there is no need of External Rules and Ordinances to guide us yea in their Confession where they propound this Objection they contend That all External Ordinances ought to be rejected because of this promise of the Spirit See their Confession pages 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82. Where they so triumph in this Argument as if now they had incontrollably gained the day and for ever banished all External Ordinances out of the Church and had no more to do but sing Te Deum Victory We have won But he that Reckons without his Host may come to Reckon twice Therefore I answer first That this promise is only made to Believers Joh. 7.38 39. and 14.17 and so it will not serve their turn for absolving all Men from External Rules and committing them to the conduct of their Dictate within Secondly Though they should crack and rent their Brains to do it they will never prove from hence that the Spirit is to guide us without the Word and External Rule of Scripture which yet is the very thing in Controversie and which they must either prove or else lose the Cause for all their boasting for Christ does not promise here nor any where in Scripture That the Spirit shall guide us without the written Word and so from this Text they can never prove their point Thirdly I proved at the Survey of their third Query above and in my Answer to their second Objection here That the written Word of God is an Organ and Instrument whereby the Spirit of God worketh upon our hearts enlightning converting renowing and quickening us thereby and so the Spirit is not here promised to guide us without the written Word but with it Lastly We have the word of that same Spirit for it and that since he was poured out in the largest measure That it is not he but a Spirit of Error that leads men when they hearken not to the Doctrine of the Apostles which is written in the Scripture 1 Joh. 4.6 He exhorts us to take heed to the Scriptures 2 Pet. 1.19 20. He affirms the Scriptures were written for our learning and that we might have hope Rom. 15.4 He affirms that the Scriptures are profitable for Reproof Doctrine Correction and Instruction in Righteousness 2 Tim. 3.16 He threatens to take away their part out of the Book of Life that diminish from the Scripture-rule Rev. 22.19 He pronounces them blessed that read hear and keep the Doctrine of the Scripture Rev. 22.7 and 1.3 Whoever then rejects the Scripture-Rule he intends not to learn or have hope or profit any more in the way of Righteousness or be blessed but to have his part taken out of the Book of Life Will not that Man be a good Christian and a happy Saint no doubt Christ then means nothing less than to absolve us from the External Rule of Scripture in this Text of John which the Quakers here wrest to that purpose Vaunting themselves of an Abortive Victory which shall never see the Sun like so many windy Bravadilloes Et preterea nihil Fifthly They object from the first Epistle of John 2.20 27. where Saint John says But ye have an Unction from the holy One and ye know all things and the anointing which ye have received abideth in you and ye need not that any Man Teach you Therefore there is no need of External Rules and Teaching seeing there is an Unction within that teaches all things Answ First The Apostle does not say That all men whatsoever have that Unction to teach them but only such as he writes to viz. Believers and so this Text will not serve their turn for all men Secondly He does not say That that anointing teaches without the External written Word yea in this same Epistle Ch. 4.6 Ch. 5.13 He plainly shews the contrary where he affirms That those that are of God hearken to and so are taught by for there is no other end of their hearkening but to be taught their External Doctrine which is written in the Scriptures and that he wrote this same Epistle of purpose to be an Instrument of Faith and Knowledge unto them And would they then force an Argument from this Epistle against Scripture-Rule nay there is in this Epistle evident demonstrations establishing it Thirdly We have before shewed That the Spirit teaches us by the External written Word and the Quakers with all their wranglings can never make it appear that he teaches us without it For all the Texts which they produce or can produce prove no more but only that the Spirit teaches us which we never denied but heartily acknowledge but not one Text in all the Scriptures can prove that the Spirit teaches us without the External Word which is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and yet the Quakers by a new sort of Logick invented by their Alogical Spirit for the abuse of Mankind do from every Scripture-Text where it is said That the Spirit teaches us very bruto-rationally infer Ergo he teaches us without any External Mean or Rule As for that of their knowing all things it is not to be understood of all things whatsoever without exception or else they had been too wise and their knowledge too infinite but it is meant of all things Essential to Salvation which they knew in some measure though not perfectly 1 Cor. 8.2 and 13.9.12 and therefore still needed Scripture-Rule to teach them more knowledge And therefore that part of the Text That they needed not that any man should teach them is the same with that of Jeremiah whereof before and hath the same comparative meaning That the knowledge of Christ and of the Covenant was now so manifest and clear that having received the anointing for opening the eyes of their understanding viz. Effectively which is therefore called Eye-salve Rev. 3.18 which an inward objective Dictate cannot well be called that they might be able to behold it They in regard of and compared with their Fathers living under the Old Testament Dispensation did scarce seem to need a Teacher which is most true For though they needed still Teaching yet in comparison of them they might all rather have been Teachers of others and so the Scope of the place is to commend the New-Testament Dispensation above that of the Old and to decry External Ordinances and Rules or Teaching by Men Yea and if it were meant so then the Apostle did here by his Practice contradict his Doctrine and by his Doctrine condemned his Practice as needless and idle for which he had a sad Accompt to make according to Christs Doctrine Matth. 12.36 and if the Quakers think that this Text overturneth all Teaching by Men we again Charge them in their own Principles and by the Law they live on to give over their Teaching and spreading of their damnable Delusions by Word or Writ for I am sure the
and in all the Texts that I have named which here I advertise that this evident Argument may be cumulatively applied to every one of them is Baptism with Water Because we may not throw about the words of any Text of Scripture from a proper to an improper meaning except some necessity either of the Analogy of Faith in general which is the constant and perpetual sentence of many perspicuous and bright shining Scriptures concerning things essential to Salvation or else of the particular scope and circumstances of the Context it self constrain us so to do otherwise we may without any necessity constraining us at our alone will and meer pleasure without any other ground imaginable moving us throw about from a proper to an improper meaning the most properly meant saying in all the whole Scriptures and reject the proper sence and meaning of every Text and make them every where at our meer pleasure to speak improperly but that is utterly absurd and would enervat and turn to nothing the very body of the Scriptures as needs no Demonstration I am sure but there is no such necessity in this or any Text we have Argued from to throw about the word Baptism from being meant properly of Baptism with Water to be meant of any of the fore-mentioned improperly so called Baptisms Or else we charge the Quakers to shew and make good that necessity if they can which we defie them and a whole Legion of their Inspirers ever to do Therefore by this irrefragable Argument from the Analogy of Faith Baptism with Water which alone is properly so called is both meant here in Matthew and in all the Texts that we have named Analogum per se positum stat pro principali Analogato Having so demonstrated that Baptism with Water is meant in that Text of Matthew hence it is manifest that Baptism with Water is an Ordinance which God hath appointed to be continued to the end of the World for the promise there subjoyned of Christs presence with his Ministers there Commissionated alway even unto the end of the World for their encouragement in the Execution of that their Commission doth most plainly shew their Commission to be of that continuance Secondly I have shewed that Baptism with Water was once in the New Testament Church necessary unto Salvation as was explained and due in the Churches Court to all who probably had received the Spirit of Grace Let the Quakers shew us if they can when it became unnecessary and when or where that Bond and Tie was taken off the New Testament Church Thirdly seeing by all our preceeding Arguments it is evident that Baptism with Water was once of Divine Institution under the New Testament the Quakers must either yield the continuance thereof to be to the end of the World or else they must say That it is since the Institution repealed again Let them shew us then where the repealing thereof is Recorded or to be found in the Scriptures which are the Supream Rule of Faith and Manners for the Quakers bare word spoken may be in a mixture when the Moon was at the Full is not enough for it And if they can shew us nothing for it which is sure and yet will say It is repealed they may upon the same ground that is to say without any ground say that the Commandments to repent believe fear and love God and all the rest of them are repealed and then we may do what we please and follow the Light within at the top-speed But now because in Justice we are bound to give the Quakers fair Game we must hear what they have to say against our preceeding Doctrine and we need not doubt but their Infallible heads are furnisht with forcible Arguments Therefore first because from thence they fear their greatest danger albeit I have proved the business by many other convincing Arguments and could without that Argument irresistibly make good the point they assault the Argument from Matthew with several devices First then They alledge that Baptizing in that Text is the same with Disciple-making which is not meant of Baptizing with Water and so neither is that Ans First They ought to shew us some necessary ground for this Metaphorical Commentary upon the word Baptize which we have not seen as yet Secondly Unto this conceipt we shall oppose our second and last Arguments whereby it is proved that Baptism with Water is meant in the Text in despight of this Exception Consider the Arguments for we need not repeat them Thirdly All their grounds for this Exception is because when it is said Go make Disciples c. the word Baptize is subjoined in the Present Tence of the Participle Baptizing but by this ground if good Teaching which presently follows too and in the same manner shall also be the same with Disciple-making and so the whole Commission shall consist of one and the same thing thrice repeated which is most absurd and no Man though as absurd as a Quaker will say it For who shall think or why that Christ committed such a three-fold Tautology in delivering so short a Commission that would neither have suited the wisdom of the Person nor the nature of the thing Secondly They except against the same Text with their old Friend Socinus that the Apostles dispensed their Baptism with Water only in the Name of the Lord Jesus whereas the Baptism mentioned in this Text of Matthew is to be dispensed in the Name of Father Son and Holy Ghost and so they cannot be one and the same Ans By this Argument they might as well prove that Paul Preached not in the Name of any other Person of the Trinity but of the Lord Jesus only because he only is mentioned Act. 9.27 29. or that he and Timothy served no other Person of the Trinity because he only is mentioned Philip. 1.1 Secondly I shall oppose unto this Exception my first second and fourth Arguments whereby maugre this exception Baptism with Water is proved to be meant in this Text of Matthew Thirdly The rest of the Trinity are omitted in the History though it follows not that so they were in the action partly for shortening the Narration which is usual and partly because it being the great doubt and controversie of the time If Jesus was the true Messias for that cause his name is more frequently mentioned than the rest of the Trinity in the whole New Testament Thirdly They except against the same Text that the Apostles are therein commanded to Baptize in the Name of the Lord which sort of Baptizing is with the Spirit say they not at all with Water Ans Unto this Exception I shall first oppose all my Arguments whereby over the belly thereof I have proved Baptism with Water to be meant in the Text. Secondly Was not Baptism with Water say ye dispensed in the Name of the Lord See it done I pray and commanded to be done that ye may not pretend ignorance hereafter Act.
the Church and to be by Her observed till Christs coming again at the day of general Judgment and that for shewing forth his Death until then which notwithstanding is not a Gospel-Ordinance Instituted by Christ it's a horrid contradiction to say so Is this the Spirit of Revelation I should say of occaecation and fascination that the Quakers boast of Oh miserable Guide and grand Cheat who instead of a plain Path as he pretends doth thus conduct them continually into the dark mists of Cimmerian Clouds or rather into the Chimerical Desarts of Utopia where all their Principles seems to concenter in the common place of Contradiction But say the Quakers here Is that a standing Command or is left to People seeing it 's said As oft as ye eat this Bread and drink this Cup do it in Remembrance of his Death and for shewing forth his Death till he come again Was this Coming to the end of the World Or was it till his coming to dwell in his Apostles c. See their Heretical Confession of Faith where they harp the same string page 26 27 77 78 79 80. Ans O miseri Quae tanta Insania cives Quis furor here is a whole heap of Romantick Fictious and Phantastick Dreams For first here they alledge that Christ did not dwell in his Apostles when the first Gospel-Supper was Celebrated and the same they also largely insinuate in their Confession pages 72 74 75. and so they behoove to be all at that time unregenerated Men meerly in Nature seeing Christ by his Spirit dwells in all Regenerated Persons and Believers as these Scriptures witness Rom. 8.9 10. 2 Cor. 13.5 Galat. 4.6 1 Joh. 3.24 But it is most false that Christ did not dwell in his Apostles when the first Gospel-Supper was Celebrated and that they were then unregenerated Men seeing Christ plainly declares that they were clean though not all Joh. 13.10 by this meaning of Judas the Traitor And again he affirms that they were clean through the Word that he had spoken unto them Joh. 15.3 and again he says that they had received the Word of God and kept it and knew surely that he came out from God and that the Father had sent him Joh. 17.6 7 8. and these are things which Flesh and Blood never revealed unto them and the natural Man cannot discern Matth. 16.17 1 Cor. 2.14 It is indeed true God had not at that time when the first Gospel-Supper was Celebrated furnisht the Apostles with the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit to accomplish them for their extraordinary work that ensued but that was done at the Pentecost but that Christ did not Spiritually dwell in them before the Pentecost the Scriptures cited declares to be false And as for that which Christ says to Peter Luk. 22.32 When thou art Converted strengthen thy Brethren it is not meant of the Conversion of his state as if he had been at that time unregenerated but it is meant of his Conversion from a particular Fact or his Rising after a Fall as beside what is already said is clear in the Text it self for Christ there tells him that he had prayed for him that his Faith might not fail which intimates that he then had Faith and that it should not be totally extinguisht by the temptation he was to meet with seeing Christs prayers were always heard Joh. 11.42 Secondly They thereby insinuate That the Gospel-Supper should be allowed to none but unregenerated Persons in whom Christ dwells not who will surely take it unworthily and eat and drink their own Damnation therein 1 Cor. 11.29 for they do not here deny but acknowledge that the Apostles were by Christ admitted to the Gospel-Supper before he came as they would have it to dwell in them but they will not have them partaking of it after Christ is once come to dwell in them alledging that to be its period and term day but Christ dwells in all Regenerated Persons as is proved Therefore they allow the Gospel-Supper to none but Unregenerated Persons who cannot discern the Lords Body nor shew forth his Death which is not a bare Historical Remembrance of a thing past but consists in our Spiritual feeding by Faith upon Christ Crucified and the application by Faith of him and all the benefits of his Redemption to our selves in our thankfulness to him for so great benefits and in our love towards him and each other which things Unregenerated Men meerly Carnal cannot do Rom. 8.7 8. 1 Cor. 2.11 14. So then the Quakers in this point do directly contradict the Holy Ghost who requires 1 Cor. 11.25 26 29. that none come to the Gospel-Supper that cannot discern the Lords Body and shew forth his Death Thirdly They thereby alledge That there is not a standing Command left to the Church for Celebrating the Lords Supper which I have shewed to be most false from Luk. 22.19 and 1 Cor. 11.23 24. in both which places we have a clear Command set down Do this in Remembrance of Me which Command seeing it was never to this day repealed or else let the Quakers shew where that is Recorded must be as yet standing still in force otherwise they may as well say that all the Commands are repealed together without any ground as that this is repealed and not standing when they can shew us no ground for it from the whole Word of God Fourthly They thereby alledge that the coming again of Christ mentioned 1 Cor. 11.26 and which is no where else in all the Scriptures mentioned upon this purpose is meant of Christs coming to dwell in his Apostles viz. at the pouring forth of the Spirit at the Pentecost after which time they will not deny that Christ dwelt in them as their Confession of Faith owns pages 72 73 74 75. albeit they plainly teach that he did not dwell in them before that time But it 's impossible that Christs Coming again mentioned there 1 Cor. 11.26 should be meant of Christs pouring forth of the Spirit or coming at the Pentecost seeing Christs coming at the Pentecost was already past long before the writing of that Epistle to the Corinths whereas his coming there mentioned is held forth as a thing meerly future and not past now it 's a flat contradiction to say a thing meerly future and not past is already past and so his coming again mentioned in the Text of the Corinths cannot be meant of his coming at the Pentecost Again The Eucharist was Celebrated by the Apostles and the Church after the Pentecost when Christ either dwelt in the Apostles or else never Act. 2.42 and 20.7 1 Cor. 10.16 and 11.28 Therefore the period of the Gospel Eucharist could not be at the pouring out of the Spirit at the Pentecost What Did not Christ dwell in these Corinthians whom Paul writes to seeing they were sanctified in Christ Jesus and justified in the Name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God and they were Temples to the