Joh. 2.19 where the Apostle says That such Persons of the same sort that Peter here speaks of went out from them that they might be made manifest but were not of them where he teaches that these never were of the number of the truly Redeemed but that before their Apostasie they were not discerned from them and had the same Judgment of Charity with them Seventhly The promises of the Gospel are universal to all Therefore Christ Died for all men whatsoever Ans They are universal to all Believers Whosoever believes shall be saved not unto all men it 's no where said whosoever is a man shall be saved Eighthly They object That except Christ have died for all men whatsoever many to whom the Gospel is preached and are exhorted to Believe shall have nothing that they can Believe or if they believe they shall believe a falshood But these things are absurd Ans It is false that they shall have nothing to Believe for they shall have to believe that Christ is a sufficient Saviour able to save to the utmost all that come unto God by him Heb. 7.25 and that he will also save all that come to God by him Joh. 3.36 and 5.24 and 6.37.47 and so they have also to believe that Salvation is offered to themselves in particular and that they shall surely be saved if they will receive and embrace Christ as he is offered in the Gospel and while they believe these things they shall believe no falshood but a most certain and sure truth And if thereupon they shall flee unto Christ for refuge and resolutely cleave unto him it shall be a clear evidence to them that they are of the number of these for whom Christ died seeing no Reprobate did ever truly flee unto Christ as his only Refuge and cordially adhere unto him Joh. 10.26 Lastly They object That every man is bound to believe that Christ died for him Therefore Christ died for all men whatsoever seeing we cannot be bound to believe falshoods and lies Ans I utterly deny the Antecedent seeing many in the world never had any means to hear of Christs Death who therefore are not bound to believe so much as that he died for any man seeing no man is bound to believe that which was never held forth unto him nor could he in any Moral diligence know of Secondly Neither are all who hear and profess the Gospel bound to believe that Christ died for them but only such as have embraced Christ on his own Gospel-terms whose Faith in Christ and Repentance towards God are Infallible evidences that Christ hath Died for them Nor can there be any thing more absurdly said than that every man even that hears the Gospel preached is bound to believe that Christ died for him whether he have embraced Christ or not for then every man that hears the Gospel should be also bound to believe that he shall be saved whether he embrace Christ or not seeing for whomsoever Christ Died he also saves them Rom. 5.10 and 8.32 1 Thes 5.9 10. Thou wilt say Why then are these for whom Christ Died not Exhorted to believe in Him Ans They are not exhorted to believe that Christ died for them except they shall first make choice of and embrace him for their Lord and Saviour as the Gospel offers him Secondly They are exhorted to believe in Christ or to accept of him as their alone Lord and Saviour upon his own terms to shew them what is their Duty and to make them without excuse in that there was so much pains and means bestowed upon them to shew them their Duty and the way to Salvation and yet they would not obey and embrace but rejected the Mercy of God and Life Eternal when it was offered to them upon condition of their believing in Christ Jesus But thou wilt say They cannot believe in Christ How then can they be unexcusable for not doing it seeing they could not help it Ans But it 's their own fault that they cannot believe in him their inward sinful Corruption is the cause thereof Secondly They are unwilling as well as unable and therefore they are capable enough to become unexcusable seeing they are both unwilling and it 's their own fault that they are unable Fourteenth QUERY What makes a Believer Whether or not is it by believing in the Light according to Christs Doctrine who says He is the Light of the World and doth enlighten every one that comes into the world that all men through him might Believe and who follows him shall not walk in darkness for he is the Light and says That he that believes is saved Then is not the Light saving which he believes and he that does not believe in the Light is damned already Then is not the Light or his disobedience to it his Condemnation Yea or Nay SVRVEY It is one of the chief Articles of the Quakers Creed that all men whatsoever are sufficiently enlightned for Conversion and Salvation as their Confession also asserts pag. 5 15 16 32 33 34. as also that they have sufficient Grace to be Converted and Saved Quakerism no Popery pag. 66 67 68 69 71. Therefore I shall divide this Survey into two Sections the first concerning Universal Light the second concerning Universal Grace SECT I. Concerning Vniversal Sufficient Light The Question here is plain viz. Whether or not there is a sufficient Light for Conversion and Salvation in all men whatsoever without exception The Quakers affirm that there is I deny it and albeit the Affirmer is still obliged to prove not the Denier yet I prove my Negative Therefore first The Natural Man does not discern neither can he know the things of the Spirit of God 1 Cor. 2.14 Ergo Natural Men are not sufficiently enlightned for Conversion or Salvation The Quakers expound this Text sometimes of the unrenewed part in a Man and sometimes of Natural Reason which say they is here meant by the Natural Man But Contrariwise it is plain that Paul does there compare distinct Persons of Men. Secondly I appeal the Analogy of Faith for this their Figurative Gloss Thirdly Though we give them their own Gloss they profit nothing seeing many yea most of men are not renewed and have no other Light but of Natural Reason being destitute of the Spirit and not having the light of the glorious Gospel shining in unto them 2 Cor. 4.3 4. Jud. 19. and so these men cannot discern Spiritually or with a Spiritual evidence seeing a Spiritual act cannot be produced without a Spiritual Principle proportioned thereunto more than a Horse can produce acts of Reason for nothing can act above it's Sphere and Capacity Secondly There are many in the World that are covered with gross darkness Many have their understanding darkened and are alienated from the Life of God through the ignorance that is in them because of the blindness of their hearts Isai 60.2 Ephes 4.18 Believers themselves in their unrenewed state were
supposed are all satisfied for misbelief and all I cannot stand no longer upon this But who so pleases may see this universal Conditional Redemption very solidly and yet very breifly Confuted in worthy Mr. Durhams Exposition of the Book of the Rev. from pag. 299 the pag. 326. Objections Answered But now we must hear what our Adversaries have to say for themselves Therefore First they instance that Scripture 1 Joh. 2 2. where it s said that Christ was a Propitiation for the sins of the whole World that is as they will for the sins of all Men whatsoever Ans By the whole World John does not mean all Men whatsoever without exception but his meaning is that Christs death was not only a Propitiation for the sins of the Jewes and Men of their Nation but also of the Nations of the Gentiles throughout the whole World and for that cause he calls it the whole World because the benefit of Christs death was not any more restricted and limited to the Nation of the Jewes with their few Proselyts as it was before but was extended to any Nation throughout the World as well as to them And that this must be the meaning of this Text the Scripture arguments which are already produced against universal Redemption from which the Adversaries can make no evasion as is shewed by the confetation of their Chiefest devices and answers doe Evidently prove seeing this Text of the Scripture does not contradict these but is explained by them Beside the whole world and all Men doe not always in the Scriptures signifie all Men whatsoever without exception as may be easily seen Isai 40 5 Joel 2 28 Joh. 12 32. Rev. 13 3. Secondly they object from 1 Cor. 15 22. where its said For as in Adam all die even so in Christ shall all be made alive Say they Christ died for all men whatsoever Ans If they will have this Scripture to be meant of all men whatsoever without exception it will prove that all men whatsoever shall be made eventually to live in Christ for the sence of this Text is plainly eventual They shall be made alive in Christ says it But the Adversaries themselves know that all men whatsoever are not made eventually alive in Christ and so they cannot urge this Text as meant of all men whatsoever but only of these who eventually are made partakers of Life The meaning thereof is That all that Dye Dye in Adam and he by his fall is the Author of their Death So all that again get Life they get it in Christ and he is the Author thereof unto them seeing out of him there is no Life Act. 4.12 Thirdly They object That Christ is the Saviour of all Men especially of them that believe 1 Tim. 4 1◠Therefore Christ Died for all men whatsoever The Text cited for answer is meant only of Gods general providence which he hath over all men in this Life in preserving them and providing for them which is chiefly extended towards Believers otherwise in the sence of the Adversaries who mean it by the objection of Eternal Salvation it will prove that all men whatsoever are Eternally saved especially Believers which I am sure the Adversaries will acknowledge to be false and absurd too Fourthly They object That if Adam hath lost more than Christ hath restored then Adam was stronger than Christ which is most absurd Ans This Argument endeavours to prove that the number of them that are eventually saved is greater than of the eventually damned contrary to the Scriptures Matth. 7.13 14. and 20.16 for as long as the number of the eventually lost is more than that of the saved Adam hath still lost more than are by Christ restored Secondly Christs Death was indeed sufficient to have expiated the sins of all men and to have restored all that Adam lost but it was not appointed to expiate all mens sins whatsoever but only of the Elect and so the Argument reaches not that which it aims at Lastly It is an act of much greater power to quicken one dead man than to kill many Millions of living men for Adam was able to destroy many Millions but not to restore one man and so still the Consequence comes short Fifthly God will have all men to be saved 1 Tim. 2.4 Therefore Christ died for all men whatsoever Ans The Apostle by all men means not of all men whatsoever but of all Sorts Ranks and Degrees of men as the word all is frequently in the Scripture understood as I partly before shewed and as it is expresly explained Revel 13.16 and so the word all is meant of Genera singulorum that is all kinds of Men Not of Singula generum that is every Individual man An answer of the same kind may be given to the Objection which they draw from Heb. 2.9 where we have it turned Christ tasted Death for every Man But the truth is there is no more in the Original in this Text but that Christ tasted Death for all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the word Men is not in the Original and so it may be as well supplied in our Language with the word Elect or Believers as with the word Men or albeit it be supplied with the word Men yet it must be understood as is said of men of every Sort Station Condition Calling Quality and Degree not of every Individual Man seeing by our foregoing Arguments that would be utterly false Sixthly We are forbidden to destroy him for whom Christ Died Rom. 14.15 and again there are some 2 Pet. 2.1 that deny the Lord that bought them Therefore Christ Died for some who for all that may be destroyed and damned Ans The Apostle in the first cited Text means plainly of laying a scandal before a weak Brother of whom he there speaks whereby we destroy him as much as in us and gives him an occasion and temptation to destroy himself if that could be but it is not meant that any for whom Christ Died do or can eventually perish yea in that same Chapter Ver. 4. the Apostle expresly says the contrary where he confidently affirms That he shall be holden up The second place cited does not mean of these mens being bought and redeemed from Hell but of their being bought redeemed or delivered from the ignorance of the World in a Moral or Historical sence through some common Illuminations and from the external pollutions of the World through some common Operations from all which they did once seem to the Church to be also bought and redeemed from Hell and were so in her Judgment of Charity according to which respects the Apostle there speaks most part whereof may be seen in that same Chapter Ver. 18.20.21 where the Apostle says That these men had escaped the Error of the World and the Pollutions thereof and had got some knowledge of the way of Righteousness viz. an External Moral and Historical knowledge and the rest of it is declared by John 1
exempting But the Quakers object that all worshipping of Creatures is Idolatry but all external Reverencing of Creatures with bowing c. is a Worshipping of them Ergo c. Ans But why shall external Civil Reverence be Idolatry and not the internal also which the Quakers have often said to me they own and practise Is it only the Body that is capable of Idolatry Or is not the Soul as much capable of it Why then do they condemn or allow the one more than the other half an eye may see the Inconsistency and confusion of these Principles Ans Secondly that all worshipping of Creatures with Religious worship is indeed Idolatry Exod. 20.5 Mat. 4.10 But worshipping of Creatures with a Civil worship is not so but on the contrary God commands and approves it Exod. 20.12 Levit. 19.32 Luk. 14.10 and will they say that Abraham committed Idolatry when he bowed to the Children of Heth Gen. 23.7 or that Jacob committed Idolatry when he bowed himself to the ground seven times to his Brother and that immediately after such a manifestation of God to him Gen. 33.3 or did Solomon commit Idolatry when he bowed himself to his Mother 1 King 2.19 Solomon was no Idolater at that time me-thinks Again the Quakers alledge that Christ condemns all Honouring of Creatures Joh. 5.44 where he says how can ye believe who receive honor one of another and seek not the honour that cometh from God only Ans Hereby they Impugn the very letter of the Fifth Commandment and declare that in their Opinion no manner of Civil Reverence or regard is to be given to any man Secondly if Christ here condemns all Civil honoring of men then he condemns that same Duty here which he himself elsewhere Mat. 19.19 Luk. 18.20 Eph. 6.2 1 Pet. 2.17 and his Apostles commands which is most false Therefore thirdly I answer that the honor that Christ there speaks of is meant of the approbation and applause of one another as to their Life and Actions which these Pharisaical Jews Inordinately gaped after and meerly relied upon without seeking therein to be approved of God This is confirmed to be the meaning from other Parallel Scriptures where Christ says that these Pharisaical Jews did all things for to be seen of men and that they might have glory of men Mat. 6.2 5. Mat. 23.5 that is to say as is plain in all their works they hunted after the meer applause and approbation of men And again the Text it self shews this to be the meaning in holding forth the receiving of the honor there meant as inconsistent with true Faith which cannot agree to the receiving of that Civil honor injoyned in the Fifth Commandment but it well agrees with that honor Taxed by Christ in the Pharisees both Negatively and Positively We shall stand here no longer Only it is too too notour what regard the Quakers have unto the Sixth and Ninth Commandments while by opprobrious Railings and lying Calumnies as witness all their Printed Pamphlets they bear most false witness against and endeavour to Murther the good Name and Reputation of all men who will not Dance unto their Tune and cry a Confederacy unto their Soul-damning Delusions These are the avowed Principles and open Practises of the Quakers by which Christian Reader I thought it not amiss to give thee a small hint of the Superlative measures of Piety whereunto the Quakers shrewdly pretend that thou mightest from the Claw as we say discern the Lion and mightest not be soon shaken in mind or suddenly carried away with the specious pretences of the Quakers who by their huge claims unto Godliness empty Casks and shallow Streams make most noise and their dropping in of their Principles especially among their younger Proselytes under a number of Enigmatical Riddles wrapt up in the chiefest Clouds of Darkness or a misrepresenting and transforming Vail whereby they are Metamorphosed into another likeness and the Snare is hid until the Prey be Catched and the Poison till the Morsel be swallowed down They have so Blind-folded the eyes and misled some simple and ignorant people that having once Espoused their Cause they are hard to be regained Some are of mind that it is in vain and to no purpose to offer to reason with or redargue the Quakers in regard of the unstayedness and mutability of their Principles proceeding from the variableness of their new pretended Revelations But I am more Charitable to the Quakers For I am sure though their Principles were as changeable as the Moon and unstayed as the Weather-cock they must hold one of the parts of the Contradiction and so they must either acknowledge and yield our Doctrine and Thesis and then we are agreed or else they must contradict our Doctrine and Thesis and then let them answer our irresistable Arguments For they cannot hold both parts of the Contradiction otherwise they shall contradict themselves and be bound to hold and maintain our doctrine as well as their own and so their Principles shall consist of an Hodg-podge of Self-murthering contradictions each of them cutting anothers throat Nor can they hold none of the parts of Contradiction but proclaim both of them to be together false otherwise they shall proclaim all their own Principles and Positions to be false as well as ours like the Witches destroying a Friend for a Foes sake for each of their Principles and Positions is one of the parts of a Contradiction and sometimes both viz. when they assert formal Repugnances and I can easily give a contradictory Proposition to every one of them or to any Proposition imaginable yea if none of the parts of the Contradiction were true then there would be no true saying in the world seeing every true saying is one of the parts of a Contradiction But here I must cut off and crave thy Pardon Courteous Reader for presuming so far upon thy good humour with so Large a Preface albeit I hope I have lost no time to thee or my self either with Idle Self-Apologies or otherwise vain and needless Complements but have been Travelling in matters both pertinent to the purpose in hand and in themselves Important That thou mayest be throughly Established in the Truth of Jesus and mayest hold fast the mystery of Faith in a pure Conscience being fruitful in every good work receiving in end the Crown of Life is the earnest Prayer of the Author who is Thy unworthy Servant in all Christian Duty John Alexander THE QUAKERS QUERIES THe Quakers Queries here follow to be represented to one view in the same Order as they were directed and sent unto me from a Convent of that Profession though but Signed with one of their hands where the Reader may see that in my Surveys I alter their Method as to order and place that I might bring together such Queries as are Homogeneous and of one or like Nature though without the least mutation of either their Matter or Expression or changing of the order of
have got a better Imployment with the Quakers it seems than he had with his unthankful Master But say the Quakers the Apostle bids Christians beware lest any man spoil them through Philosophy Colos 2.8 and we are commanded to avoid Prophane and vain Bablings and oppositions of Science falsly so called 1 Tim. 6.20 Ans The Apostle does not in these Texts condemn true Philosophy subsisting within its own Sphere neither can that be condemned for the reasons now given But that which he condemns is sophisticate and corrupt Philosophy which we call Sophistry and Philosophy extended beyond its Sphere to the measuring of an Object not included within its Principles This the Apostle shews to be his meaning by adding Exegetically in the first Text cited the Term Vain deceit after the Tradition of men that is of mens own meer Dreaming and Devising having no ground in the light of Nature and reason and so whereof God is not the Author and by calling it in the last place Science falsly so called none of which can be said of true Philosophy moving within its own Orb and not transgressing the Sphere of its activity as is before demonstrated The thing then that we are there commanded to avoid is Sophisticate and corrupt Philosophy as Aristotles Eternity of the world or Democritus's opinion of the worlds being made by the Concourse of Atoms Manicheus's two supreme Causes of all things the Platonick and Manichean conceit about the making of the Soul of man of the Divine substance Epicurus's mortality of the Soul of man Pithagoras's Transmigration of the Soul out of one Body into another The Fate of the Stoicks That and the like corrupt Philosophy we are commanded to avoid and beside this we are also commanded to beware of Philosophy diverted from its own proper use and object in considering the works of Nature and God as the Author of Nature to the measuring of Gospel truths which the Heathen Philosophers in these times foolishly did according to their Inclusion in or Exclusion from Natural Philosophical Principles upon which they do not depend but upon a Principle of an higher Order viz. Divine Revelation Beside these two things there is nothing else in Philosophy that can be Condemned and so there is nothing here against true and genuine Philosophy only which I defend which for our Demonstations given is neither Foolosophy nor Witchcraft as the Quakers in bitter Contempt have often called it in my hearing Third QUERY Whether or not the Scriptures are the Word or the Words of God Seeing the Scriptures say themselves God spake all these words Exod. 20. and he that adds to the words in the last of the Revelation Plagues are added to him And what doth the Scripture signifie Doth it not signifie Writings and whether all that is Written in the Scriptures from Genesis to Revelation be a Rule for your Faith and Manners and every tittle of it from the one end of the Book to the other both in the Old and new Testament If not Distinguish what part is to be obeyed and what not And whether every tittle from the beginning of Genesis to the end of the Revelation is the Word or the Words of God SVRVEY The principal Position of the Quakers upon this Head is that there is not another Word of God beside Christ the Co-substantial and Eternal Word and this they assert of purpose that they may elude all the Testimonies of Scripture which Tie us to the external written Word of God as our Rule and whereby the Efficacy thereof is commended for all these Scripture-Testimonies they will have to be understood of Christ the Eternal Co-substantial Word dwelling within them and all men as they alledg and teaching them immediately by himself present within them without an external written Platform which they are pleased to reproach with the Nick-name of a Dead Letter contrary to Joh. 20.31 Act. 7.28 Rom. 15.4 2 Tim. 3.15 16 17. which places declare the written Word of God to be lively Oracles and an excellent instrument of Faith Growth Comfort and Life unto us See also Heb. 4.12 where the Word of God is said to be Quick and Powerful and compared to a Two-edged Sword and that by the Word of God here is not meant Christ the Co-substantial Word but the external Word of God spoken within time which Word is written in the Scriptures as shall presently be shewed appears from many other Parallel places of Scripture where the Efficacy of the external Word is held forth in most Parallel expressions and by the very same Comparison for which see Ephes 6.17 which place we shall presently prove to be meant of the external Word and Rev. 1.16 Rev. 2.12 16. Rev. 19.15 In which places by the Sword of Christs Mouth and the Two-edged Sword going out of his Mouth which are the Expressions there can be no other thing meant but the external Word of Christ spoken by his Mouth nor do I ever read that Christ himself is compared so but his Word only It is true the Law or legal Covenant considered as strictly legal but never the whole Scriptures which pray observe is in respect of guilty Sinners such as we all are called a Killing Letter but not at all a Dead Letter dead Dogs neither Bark nor Bite and a Ministration of Death and Condemnation 2 Cor. 3.6 7 9. because it Accuseth Curseth and Condemneth such as are Guilty of the Breache thereof though yet the same be a notable Mean to shew Sinners their lostness without a Redeemer and their absolute need of Christ and to Whip and lash them home unto him These things are evident Now for clearing the state of the main Question we must premise first that the Quakers acknowledge the Scriptures to be Gods Testimony and Gods Words they do not as yet at least all of them openly deny the Scriptures to have been given by Divine Inspiration only they do generally deny them to be the Word of God for say they only Christ is the Word of God Secondly we must premise that we do not say that there is another Eternal Co-substantial or Co-equal Word of God beside Christ But that beside Christ the Co-substantial Word there is another Word of God which was spoken within time written in the Scriptures which we call the external written Word These things being premised We assert that beside Christ the Co-substantial and Co-equal Word there is another Word of God which is written in the Scriptures For first the Commandments of God are not Christ the Eternal Son of God as is clear but the Commandments of God are the Word of God therefore there is a Word of God which is not Christ the Co-substantial Word and that Word of God is written in the Scriptures seeing Gods Commandments are written there undeniably I prove the Minor from Psal 119.172 where David calls the Commandments of God his Word and from Mark 7.9 10. with 13. where that which Christ calls the Commandment
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
greater or not the Scriptures we see are Divinely appointed to be the Rule and principal Rule and nothing can Infer against that that the utmost of racked Invention is able to devise Nor did or does God always make use of the greater Witnesses for Testifying his Will to us or else he had still imployed Angels and not men to Teach us and Christ had continued to this day and the worlds end in his Ministery upon the Earth instead of giving us men of like Passions to Teach us It is plentiful security unto us that we have a Rule of Faith and Duty altogether Infallible and an Evidence Written Sealed and Sworn to Heb. 6.17 18. delivered into our hand for our more chearful assurance to be perused by us upon all occasions for resolving our doubts directing our Duty and confirming our Faith George Keith uses a number of more Arguments in his Quakerism no Popery pages 108 109 110 111. indeavouring to prove the Dictate within and sometimes the Spirit himself and sometimes Christ himself as his Arguments run to be a better Rule than the Scriptures But in general they are all Guilty of the same very Impertinence that his Argument now Discussed was liable to and therefore the very same Answers that are given to this Argument destroy them every one so that we need not Arraign them particularly But George Keith brings one Argument to prove that God Teaches us by an immediate Dictate within viz. because its absurd to say that God Speaks no more Intelligibly and perceptibly in an immediate way to the Souls of his people than to the Earth to bring forth Grass or to the Fish to Vomit out Jonah Ans That he speaks more Intelligibly or perceptibly to his people than to such unreasonably Creatures as these is granted But that he does it in an immediate way to us I deny it let George prove it He does indeed immediately inlighten us with a Divine Beam of Light in our understandings Effectively opening our Eyes yea he always works with his Word made by himself effectual as the immediate principal efficient of its gracious effects in us that we may understand what is written in the Scriptures and know assuredly that it is he that speaks to us therein and so speaks to us much more Intelligibly than to unreasonable Creatures whom he never dealt so with But that it is absurd if he do it not by an Objective immediate inward Dictate I utterly deny let him prove it if he can But does not George Keith think it absurd to say that a man is Taught by an unerring immediate Dictate within who cannot upon his Life tell how many Gods there are or who is the Redeemer And so much for the Rule of Faith and Manners shall suffice Fifth QUERY Whether is there any Scripture or Command in all the New Testament for the Sprinkling of Infants Let us see Scripture without Adding or Diminishing for it that ye do not bring the Plagues upon you for it for the Plagues are Added to them that Add for we do expect plain Scripture from you for this without any Shuffling Meanings or Consequences or else never pretend Scripture Rule more but acknowledge that it hath been your Meanings and Consequences that hath been your Rule SVRVEY This Query very well Homologates with their Confession of Faith often forementioned pag. 25 77 79 96 126. where they deny not only Infant-Baptism but moreover all Baptism with Water to be any Divine Ordinance belonging to the New Testament But they here impose upon us two Conditions or Laws of our Disputation being the absurd fruit of their foolish Dictate within which before we handle the main Subject of the Query which is Baptism it will not be amiss to Discuss These two Conditions are That we neither interpret Scripture nor draw Consequences there-from for Establishing of our Doctrine or Thesis or else that we never pretend Scripture Rule more This Certification is so Important and Peremptory that it will not be unworthy of the while to enquire into their Demands whereunto it is annexed Therefore we must divide our Survey of this Query into four parts The first shall be concerning Scripture-Interpretation The second concerning Scripture-consequence or Consequential Scripture The third concerning Baptism with Water and the fourth concerning Infant-Baptism SECT I. Concerning Scripture-Interpretation While the Quakers here oppose Scripture-Interpretation they are indeed very like themselves and Speak in their own Language for what external Ordinance can a Quaker taking his Dictate within for his Rule like to hear of Therefore when they cannot get the Scriptures overthrown from being our Rule their next indeavour is that at least they may render useless and unedifying to the Bulk and Body of the people asmuch of them as they can even all the Texts thereof and these are not a few which without the help and labours of a Gifted Interpreter they cannot understand and all the Doctrine thereof which is not explicitly and formerly Enunciat therein though yet it be materially really and truly therein contained and by sound Consequence Infallibly follows there-from One thing I shall here promise to the Quakers and more no man can demand and that is that whatever Scripture I shall bring for proving of our Doctrine the meaning thereof which I shall alledge shall either be undeniably even to a Quaker clear of it self or else I shall evidently and irresistibly prove and make good the same and manifestly overthrow the forged meaning of the Quakers thereupon and I think that is very fair But that we may come to the Questions to be here handled I must premise first that the Scriptures ought not to be Expounded according to any mans fore-conceived private Judgment and Opinion that is 〈…〉 2 Pâ—â— 1.20 But they are to be Expounded according to the Analogy of Faith in general and by Comparison with other Scriptures that Speak more clearly to the matter or by the Scope Connexion and Dependence of the purpose in the place it self compared with its Antecedents and Consequents Thus the Apostle Paul says Let us Prophesie according to the proportion in the Original Analogy of Faith Rom. 12.6 and I think it is proved before that the Scriptures are the Rule of all Doctrines of Faith and Manners Secondly I must premise that the Scriptures are in several places so plain and easie especially in respect of things Essential and simply necessary to Salvation that men of very common Capacities may even without an Interpreter attain in some measure to understand them as is clear both in the Scripture Deut. 30.11 Psal 19.7 and 119.130 and also from Experience For thus we see that the attentive Reading or Hearing of the Scriptures though without Commentaries does beget some measure of Knowledge especially of the most Important and Essential Truths which are therein with most frequency and plainness delivered in men of very ordinary and common Capacities yea and otherwise we could expect no more
and with submission is manifest from the Scriptures for which instead of many see only Matth. 6.11 1 Tim. 5.8 and if any Man would have us no ways looking after our Corporal necessaries either he would have us to live without them which a Quaker may try upon himself or else to use no means at least for the obtaining of them and then we shall Plow and Sow no more but be supplied by Miracles The passage of Scripture which they cite from 2 Cor. 4.18 will no ways Patronise their Erroneous Cause though they also cite it to the same very purpose in their Confession page 79. For the Apostle in that place is speaking of his afflictions troubles and the loss of worldly things which he endured for the Gospel and these he opposes there unto Eternal Life calling these the things that are seen and this the thing that is not seen and these troubles and the loss of these enjoyments he counted but a small business and a light affliction as it is there ver 17. But will any Man say that he counted it but a light affliction to be deprived of the Gospel-Supper This would not have become Paul But I need not Apologize for him he purges himself sufficiently of this for the whole purpose of that Chapter shews his meaning to be of the things that I have said Again the External Signs in the Lords Supper rightly considered as signifying and exhibiting Christ and his benefits are so far from turning our Eyes or hearts to things that are below and seen that on the contrary they are an excellent means of of elevating them unto and setting them upon the things that are above and not seen That the Corinthians were jangling and in a disorder when Paul wrote the second Epistle to them from which the Quakers cite this passage I truly perceive not yea the Seventh Chapter thereof witnesses the contrary and so the Quakers have mistaken the second Epistle for the first In the Close of this Query the Quakers shew themselves related to the Accuser of the Brethren for glory to God there are many Ministers amongst us who have intended not without success that both themselves and their Hearers should come nearer Christs Death than the eating and drinking of Bread and Wine for a bare Historical Remembrance of his Death as the Quakers here insinuate it to have been whom because their Epistles of Commendation are written upon the hearts of many Thousands we shall not need here further either to vindicate or commend them Seventh QUERY Whether or not Christ and the Apostles gave forth a Command that they should keep the Sabbath-day let us see where it is written in the Scriptures but the first day of the Week the Saints did meet together this is Scripture but let us see the Scripture for a Sabbath-day in the New-Testament which speaks for a rest for the People of God But is this a day yea or nay SVRVEY The Quakers Position here is That there is no day under the New Testament appointed to be kept as an External Christian Sabbath-day more than another but that all days are of equal Condition and Holiness as beside what they here say they also teach more plainly in their Confession of Faith page 42. against which I assert that there is an External Christian Sabbath-day appointed to be observed under the New Testament distinct from all other days whatsoever For proving of this Conclusion I need not bring the ordinary Argument from the light of Nature concerning some portion of our time and days to be set apart from all civil and worldly Imployments to the exercise of Gods Publick Worship which none but a profest Atheist will deny knowing that the party I have to deal with scarce both of Religion and Reason do but little value it But first We are commanded in the fourth Commandment to keep holy unto God one day of seven and this Commandment is Moral and so perpetual extending to all Ages of the Church Therefore there is a command for keeping an External Sabbath-day under the New-Testament as well as the Old The consequence is of it self clear to any Man The first part of the Antecedent is also clear from Exod. 20. Chap. I prove the second part thereof viz. that this Commandment is Moral and so perpetual because God proclaimed it with his own Voice from Mount Sinai to the whole Assembly of Israel he wrote it with his own Finger he inserted it into the midst of the rest of the Moral Precepts he wrote it upon the Tables of Stone shewing its perpetual duration and he caused put it into the Ark of the Testimony with the rest of the Moral Precepts all which is clear from Exod. 20. Chap. throughout and 25.16 and 31.18 and 32.15 16. Deut. 9.10 and 10.4 But God never conferred the like honour upon any Precept meerly Ceremonial as is plain from the Scriptures Again all the reasons of this Commandment are intirely Moral and stand upon common and perpetual equity Ergo so must the Command it self be The reasons chiefly are seeing he himself rested after six days work finished and he allows us six days to our work Therefore in all reason and equity we ought to rest after so many days allowed to our work and give God a seventh Lastly If this Command were not Moral then there should not be Ten but only Nine Commandments of that Law which is plain contrary to Deut. 4.13 and 10.4 where Moses manifestly speaks of the Moral Law which God spake in the Mount out of the midst of the Fire and plainly affirms that there are Ten Commandments thereof from which Law Christ shews us that one jot shall not pass away till Heaven and Earth pass and that the least Commendment thereof must be perpetually observed Matth. 5.18 19. But the Quakers answer That the Sabbath commanded in the fourth Commandment was the last day of the week which is abrogated Unto this I reply that the accommodation of the particular time or dyet to the last day of the week is indeed abrogated but not the substance of the Command which for the convincing reasons now given is plainly Moral and so perpetual and as yet in force and so it doth no less now injoyn the first day of the week to be observed the accomodation of the particular Dyet being made unto the first day then it did then injoyn the last day of the week to be observed by reason of the then-accommodation made unto the last day seeing it still retains its Authority for a seventh day or one day of seven to be kept holy unto God wherein the substance of the Precept consists which of them soever he shall pitch upon and determine As for the change of the particular day from the last to the first of the week doubtless Christ himself in his own Person is the Author thereof seeing beside that he Rose thereupon and rested from the great work of Redemption which is
the great ground of the change he gives it the honour of his most frequent appearings thereafter to his Disciples Luk. 24.13 15. Joh. 20.19 26. and again of that glorious manifestation of himself in the pouring forth of the Spirit at the Pentecost Act. 2.1 2 3 4. and again it was on this day as shall be shewed that he made that glorious appearance to John in the Isle of Patmos Revel 1.10 again the first day of the week was by the Apostles and the Church following their Masters Example which is binding in things imitable and that by Divine Precept Ephes 5.1 observed for the Celebrating of Gods Publick Worship as a day set apart for that work as appears from Act. 20.7 1 Cor. 16.1 2. where we have not a meer bare Example or instance of the Churches meeting for once or twice to Gods Publick Worship on that day set down but also we have their constant custom of so doing clearly in both places imported yea further the last of these two Texts shews that that day was set apart for the Publick Divine Worship while it expresly requires the publick Collections of Charity for the Poor a Pendicle of the Publick Worship to be made on that day and shews that the same order was also given to other Churches as well as to them of Corinth And lastly the Holy Ghost hath recorded to us these singular Priviledges and peculiar Honour bestowed by Christ upon this first day of the week above all other days as also the Churches observing of it for Gods Publick Worship and that constantly and as a day set apart for that use and the like he doth not mention of any other day which is very observable What is all this for then for some reason uncontrovertibly and yet no other can be given or fall under imagination or else I intreat the Quakers to shew us it if they can But that the first day of the week is a day peculiarly set apart and sanctified by Christ for the Exercise of his Publick Worship and which he would have his Church peculiarly to regard as designed for that holy use beyond and above all other days as was accordingly done by the Apostles and Church in the pure Primitive times The change of the day then is most surely by Divine Authority But Secondly when Christ foretels the Disciples of the Destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple by Vespasian Matth. 24.20 which was fourty years and upwards after Christs Ascension and so it was long after the planting of the Gospel-Church and exautorating of the Ceremonial Law He bids them pray that their flight might not be in the Winter nor on the Sabbath-day There is a Sabbath-day both name and thing under the New Testament which Christ wills his Disciples to pray that their flight might not be thereupon because it would be grievous to them to be forced to travel for preservation of their natural Lives on that day which was Instituted for Gods Publick Worship and their Spiritual comfort Neither is it possible to get the Sabbath-day here mentioned meaned of every day seeing then they behooved either to flee on the Sabbath-day or else never Nor yet can it be meant of an uncertain day or some day Indeterminately for then the Disciples could not have known what day to pray that their flight might not be upon and Christs Exhortation had been vain and to no use or purpose which is most absurd and false This one Scripture proves a Christian External Sabbath-day against all Contradicters and that the first day of the week must be this Christian Sabbath-day appears from the Claim and Interest above declared which it hath under the New Testament unto that honourable Title and peculiar Denomination above all other days and that by Divine Warrant Thirdly There is a particular determinate day under the New Testament which hath by the mind and sentiments of the Scripture a peculiar relation unto the Lord Christ above all other days whatsoever and so it is separated from the common condition of all other days having a peculiar Divine relation which no other hath and thereby a preheminence and dignity before all of them and so it must be an Holy Day seeing common days are not separated from the condition of common days except we please to speak plain contradiction That there is such a particular determinate day under the New Testament is clear from Revel 1.10 where John says He was in the Spirit on the Lords-day which cannot be meant of every day seeing then he could not have been in the Spirit but on the Lords-day whereas it is most evident that John distinctly points at a particular day having some peculiar relation to Christ above all others But the Quakers like Dictators say that the Lords-day here is meant of an uncertain time called the Lords-day because of the Lords special appearing thereupon But their Commentary is most false and cannot agree with the Apostles Scope which is as to shew the certain Person Who received the Vision viz. John and the certain place of the World Where In the Isle of Patmos and the certain kind of frame Wherein While he was in the Spirit so also the certain kind of day or the certain day of the week whereupon he received the Vision and so an uncertain time cannot stand with the Scope Secondly Let the Quakers if they can prove that an uncertain time is here meant or else their Gloss upon the Text will be justly thought uncertain Thirdly Our Adjective does not very perfectly turn the word which in the Original Language is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying Dominick or more clearly pertaining to the Lord which plainly imports a particular determinate day adding 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with it which is in the Text having a peculiar and stated relation to the Lord above others which by common right are his also Having dispatched the Quakers uncertain time I affirm that the Lords-day here is meant of the first day of the week determinately seeing it hath a peculiar interest into that Denomination above all other days whatsoever for it is the day of Christs glorious Resurrection and ceasing from the great work of Redemption whereof it is a Remembrance it is the day of his frequent appearings to his Disciples thereafter it is the day of his glorious pouring forth of the Spirit and enduing the Apostles with Power from on High it is the day set apart for his Publick Worship and observed also for that use by the Apostles and Church in the pure Primitive time and finally it is the day which the Holy Ghost hath particularly noted unto us as alone honoured by Christ and his Church with such peculiar Priviledges all which is before proved Seeing then the first day of the week hath upon so many special accompts so peculiar an Interest into that Denomination which no other can pretend to The Lords day here mentioned must be inevitably understood of the same seeing the
Salvation whereas these men there spoken of were before of old Ordained to Condemnation says the Text. Fifteenth QUERY Whether or not the Prophets Christ and the Apostles and holy Men of God did preach down Perfection and said that Men should not be perfect while they were on Earth but that they should carry about a Body of Death with them while they were on this side of the Grave Let us see where this is written by any of them all SVRVEY The Quakers here are fighting with their own Shadow and however this mock-Inspirer drops in the Quakers own Principles sure I am he is a base Traducer of other mens Doctrine for What Minister of ours did ever preach that Men should not be perfect here in this Life sure enough they should be perfect but the Question is not what is their Duty and what they should be but what is their Reach and Attainments The Saints are indeed perfectly justified here-away Rom. 8.1 nor can a Remission or Pardon of Sins or an Imputation of Righteousness be understood except it be a full Pardon and a full Imputation The Question therefore is only concerning the Saints their Sanctification in this Life in regard of which I must distinguish a Perfection of Parts which is when we have a degree of every Grace and are renewed in some measure in every power and faculty of the whole Man though we be not come to the just and due measure in any of them And a Perfection of Degrees which consists in the compleat measure of our Conformity and our exact Correspondence to the Law of God in respect of all whatsoever it requires But George Keiths Divine Condescension or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wherein he abuses some worthy Men does not consist in Gods remitting or nullifying of his Law in it's Direction and Obligation as our Rule which cannot be Matth. 5.18 19. but in the Divine acceptance of the Righteousness of a Redeemer and Surety instead of our own Personal Righteousness of Works The first kind of Perfection I willingly yield to the Saints in this Life seeing every true and real Saint hath some measure of every Grace and is in some degree renewed in every power and faculty of the whole Man Ephes 4.24 Colos 3.10 But that any man is Perfect in this Life in the second sence of Perfection which yet is the most proper so as to be altogether sinless as George Keith would have it in his Quakerism no Popery pag. 37. 38. I utterly deny and albeit the Affirmer be still obliged to prove not I the Denier yet I prove it First Because David says Psal 19.12 Who can understand his Errors and he prays Psal 143.2 That God would not enter into judgment with him for in thy sight says he no man living shall be justified viz. by his own Righteousness and Goodness and so he intreats not to be Examined or Judged according to what he was in himself and I still believe that he was as perfect as any Quaker or George Keith an Antesignanus or Banner-Bearer amongst them Secondly Solomon who was as wise as any Quaker says Prov. 20.7 Who can say I have made my heart clean I am pure from my sin The Quakers answer him forsooth that they can say it Let them be doing then and contradict him and the holy Spirit too by whose Inspiration he was ordered in writing of that for I cannot hinder them Their Moon is at the Full. Thirdly The Apostle tells us Galat. 5.17 That the Flesh lusteth against the Spirit and the Spirit against the Flesh in Believers for he speaks not of others who are all Flesh or wholly Carnal and have no Spirit or Renewed part so that they cannot behold how peremptory the Expression is do the things that they would Such men are not perfect then albeit the Quakers may possibly differ from the Apostles Judgment Fourthly The Apostle John says most peremptorily 1 Joh. 1.8 That if we say we have no Sin we deceive our selves and the truth is not in us The Quakers answer That the same Apostle says Chap. 3.9 That whosoever is born of God doth not commit Sin for his Seed remains in him and he cannot sin because he is born of God But first This Text cannot be meant of a full and compleat Perfection seeing every Man hath Sin and he deceives himself that thinks otherwise by the former Text and he that hath any Sin cannot be compleatly Perfect Secondly If this last Text were meant of Perfection it would prove every true Convert from the very first new breath in him seeing even then he is born of God which is the Apostles ground why he cannot commit Sin in the manner that he means to be compleatly Perfect and exempted from Sin which yet I think the Quakers themselves will not say The Apostle therefore in the first Text means of Sin dwelling in the best of Saints here away and therefore he expresses it by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying to have sin and in the second Text he means of sin not only dwelling but reigning in us and made as it were a trade of and acted with full consent which Renewed Men cannot do and therefore he expresses this by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying to make and devise or contrive Sin as it were by Trade George Keith answers That though we have Sin in us yet it is not our Sin but our Temptation Quakerism no Popery pag. 38. 39. and that this does not infer Actual Sin however Contrariwise The Apostle calls it Sin and that peremptorily certifying us That we deceive our selves if we say we have it not How then does George Keith call it only a Temptation to Sin and Whether shall we believe him or the Apostle that calls it expresly Sin Secondly If it be not our Sin whose Sin I pray is it it's not the Devils seeing not he but we have it says the Text and I am sure they will not be so impudently Blasphemous as to ascribe it to God Therefore it is certainly ours seeing it must be some bodies and it will also mud and defile our actions Fifthly The Apostle Paul who was I believe more perfect than any Quaker most heavily complains Rom. 7.15 ver to the end of his Corruption Imperfection and Sin dwelling in him against his will his heart and his strong Inclinations to the contrary and therefore certainly he was not perfect and I know not who dare pretend beyond him But George Keith replies Quakerism no Popery pag. 39. 40. That the Apostle is not there describing his then-present-Condition but the Condition of himself and others as they were in the strugling and warfare Estate before the Victory was attained But Contrariwise he is describing his then-present-Condition for he was not then perfect nor long after it when he wrote the Epistle from Rome to the Philippians compare Philip. 3.12 with Rom. 1.11 13 15. and 15.22 23. which was several years after his writing of the
for that which is before clean needs no more cleansing Fifthly They object That the Apostle says 1 Cor. 7.28 That though a Woman Marry she hath not sinned Therefore there are some actions at least free of all sin Ans If this objection proved any thing it would prove that Reprobates and Pagans also have perfect works Secondly I answer that Paul there means of the action of Marriage considered in respect of it's nature and kind and in order to its proper object as abstracted from all particular circumstances which may attend it which way the action hath no evil in it otherwise it could not be lawful to Marry whereas to forbid Marriage is a Doctrine of Devils 1 Tim. 4.1 2 3. Nevertheless albeit the action of Marriage so considered be not sinful yet seeing every particular action is necessarily exercised in several Circumstances wherewith it ought or ought not to be cloathed it may easily be defiled and become sinful by the Vesture of evil Circumstances instead whereof it should have been cloathed with good ones especially adding the impurity and uncleanness of the Agent which exerts it self in every particular action Sixthly The Quakers object and hereby they endeavour to prove the perfection both of the Saints and of their good works in this life The Saints say they have in this life perfect good works Therefore the Saints in this life must be perfect They prove the Consequence because perfect Effects crave perfect Causes They prove the Antecedent because they are acceptable to God and because if they be not perfect then they are sinful but sinful they cannot be seeing God commands them who commands not things sinful Ans Our good works are acceptable to God thorow Christ into whom all believers are by Faith Ingrafted and thorow whom alone both their persons and good works are accepted but none of aur good works here-away ore in themselves acceptable to God seeing they are still Imperfect Again God accepts them as they are good that is Sincerely done not as they are Imperfect and so evill and so from their acceptation their perfection follows not To the Second I Answer that God Commands our good works not as we perform them but as we ought to perform nor yet as they are defective as to the Degree he does not Command their gradual defect but he Commands them as they are good in respect of their Nature and kind So the objection perishes Seventhly they endeavour to prove that Christians have at least some perfect Actions in this Life and for that purpose they Inquire of us if the Apostles sinned in writing the Scripures Ans First this will not prove the perfection of any Action of any man now living except they can first prove him to have as large a measure of grace and of the Spirit 's Influence and Assistance as the Apostles had when they wrote the Scriptures which will be hard enough I think for them to get done Secondly the writing of the Scriptures wherein the Prophets and Apostles were but Pen-men for the Holy Ghost dictated all may consist with some Degree of imperfection as the Action is considered Morally and as lyable to the Law of God David and Asaph wrote Scriptures when they were not perfect Psal 51 10. and 73 22. or else beside the Instances given what will they say of an Hypocrites writing over in whole or in part the whole Scriptures and of every Action of Printing while our Printers print them over But Thirdly for full satisfaction I Answer that in that Action the Apostles did not at all sin upon the matter which yet is the most Formal sense of the objection which thus proposed directly imports the matter seeing the matter of the Action did perfectly agree with the Law of God as also the Action of an unrenewed man may doe Secondly there was much good in it compared with all the rest of the causes and so it was sincere and of another nature and kind then any Action of an unrenewed man is or can be seeing the principles thereof love to God and men The ends thereof the glory of God and good of Souls the form and manner wherein it was done in obedience to God were all certainly good Yet considering it as a Moral Action lyable to God's Law it was surely for the reasons given Defective and Imperfect as to the exact and compleat Degree of love to God and men and respect to the glory of God and good of Souls and Acting in it in pure obedience to Gods Command wherewith every perfect Action is to be qualified They will may be say that then the Scriptures would be in danger to Contract some Impurity from the Impurity of the Agent and Action of writing Ans That is false as appears from our Instances of an Hypocrite and Printer and of David and Asaph when they were not pure or perfect And if the Doctrine written did necessarily Contract any impuritie from the impurity of the writer by the same Reason and with more Reason seeing the Tongue is a more Immediat Instrument of the Heart then the Hand the Doctrine Preached should Contract some Impurity from the Impurity of the Preacher which is manifestly false to the Worlds eye Christ was the external object of the persecutive Actions of the Jews yet he Contracted no Impurity from thence But the Quakers urge saying though we cannot do all we ought to do yet that which we do we may do it perfectly Ans This reply must either be understood of diverse Actions so that the sense shall be though we cannot do all the good Actions we ought to do yet that Action or these Actions which we do we may do it or them perfectly which seeing by Perfectly they must mean the perfection of Degrees and otherwise it would be nothing to their purpose of a sinless perfection which they plead we must deny because of these and many other Scriptures Prov. 20 9. Eccles 7 20. Galat. 5 17. Rom. 7 21. or else that reply must be understood of one and the same Action And so the sense is though we cannot do an Action in that perfect degree of goodness that we ought yet in that degree of goodness wherein we do it we may do it perfectly where it being the perfection of degrees which is here Controverted and by the Adversaries pleaded for and otherwise we should have no debate with them here their reply involves a strong Contradiction viz. that any Action performed below that degree of goodness which it ought to have should notwithstanding be performed perfectly in respect of the perfection of Degrees seeing so it would both want and yet not want some Degree of goodness which it ought to have For these reasons I justly deny the latter part of their proposition Sixteenth QUERY Can any man be saved by his own works Self-righteousness will worship And are not all men in Self-righteousness that are not in the righteousness of Christ Jesus And
are not all of their own works that be out of the light and the Faith that is the gift of God And are not all in their will-worships that are not in the worship that Jesus Christ the Heavenly man set up above Sixteen hundred years Since that is in the Spirit and the truth So must not every man come to the truth and to the Spirit in their own hearts if they come to the worship Jesus Christ Set up And are not your Catechisms Confession of Faith and Directories your own works and your own worship which ye have set down for People to fall down and do worship to and be Saved by And have ye not set up this since the Apostles days and since Christ set up his worship SVRVEY Because this Survey will divide it self into three Subjects and it would be too long together therefore I shall order it into three Sections The First shall Vindicat us from a Popish Salvation or justification by works or Inherent Righteousness and shall fix a Popish justification upon the Quakers The Second shall very breifly confuted their Popish justification The Third shall overturn an exception made by the Quakers against the charge of a Popish justification which we justly lay to their door SECT 1. Vindicating us from a Popish Salvation and Justification and fixing a Popish Justification upon the Quakers The great scope of this Querie is to make us seem guilty of holding a Popish Salvation by works albeit the whole Christian World knoweth what a lewd Calumny this is It having been the constant Doctrine of ours and all other Protestant Churches against the Papists that the good works of the Saints are not the causes or Meritorious procurers of their Salvation and it is founded upon Scripture-Testimony as clear as the Sun For eternal Life is none of our merit and due but is the Free gift of God Rom. 6 23. And by grace not by works we are Saved Ephēs 2 5 8 9. not by works of Righteousness which we have done but according to his mercy he Saveth us Tit. 3.5 And the best of our works are in this Life imperfect as is proven and so they cannot merit any good but Contrarily every defect and short coming of our Duty Merits Damnation and the Curse Deut. 27 26. Galat. 3 10. And if our good works could merit then we might trust to them which the Apostle dare not do Philip. 39 Nor is there any proportion betwixt our best works and eternal Life Rom. 8 18. And therefore they cannot merit it The whole Protestant Church hath no less always abhorred the Doctrine of justification by our own Inherent Righteousness and good works from the same clear Evidence of the Scripture for which see Rom. 3 Chap. from Vers 20. to the end and the whole Chap. following As also Galat. 2 16 21. and 3 10 11. and 5 4. Philip. 3 9. and seeing that is still imperfect in this life it can neither be the cause nor Condition of our justification before God in whose sight no man living shall be justified Psal 143 2. viz. by any Righteousness inherent or inward in himself Nevertheless albeit our inherent Righteousness and good works be not necessary to Salvation as Efficient or Meritorious causes thereof yet they are necessary indispensably thereunto by necessity of presence or as pure Antecedents without which no man is Saved excepting these that Die Immediately after Conversion and Infants from the Actual performance of good works For which see Mat. 3.10 and 5.20 and 25. from vers 34. to the end and Rom. 2.9 10. and 8.13 1 Cor. 6.9 10. Galat. 5.21 and 6.8 Heb. 12.14 And albeit our inherent or inward Righteousness be neither the Cause nor Condition of our justification before God yet it is still an inseparable Concomitant of justifying Faith For which see Rom. 8.1 9 10. 2 Cor. 5.17 Jam. 2.17.20 1 Joh. 3.3 But what if the Quakers be Guilty of a Popish justification Do not the Quakers hold justification by a Righteousness wrought within them and formally inward and inherent in themselves in this they joyn hands with the Papists in one of their most Fundamental Errors which does indeed contradict the very Design and Current of the Gospel which is to Teach us to seek Righteousness for justification in Christ and not in our selves yea and the very plain Design of Christs Death See Rom. 3.25 and 10.4 Galat. 2.16 21. and 5.4 But the Quakers endeavour to elude this our Charge pretending that they are far from holding justification by their own Inherent Righteousness with the Papists but by the alone Imputed Righteousness of Christ Thus they pretend in their Confession of Faith pag. 4.21 22. But the Quakers will not so Cheat and deceive the Christian world for first in that 21. pag. Cited where they purposely handle this Question and pretend as is now said they deny us to be justified by a Righteousness received of us by Faith calling that but an Act of the Creaturely skill and an Imputation which is an Act of mans Spirit and forging and a Fiction and Imagination in the Creaturely will and power Hence then they deny us to be justified by the Righteousness received of us by Faith and so consequently by the Imputed Righteousness of Christ seeing the Righteousness of his Obedience and Sufferings Imputed to us in Justification is not a diverse Righteousness from the Righteousness of Faith but is one and the same as is clear from Rom. 3.21 22 24 25. and 4.6 11 13 22 23 24. and 9.30 and 10.4 10. Galat. 2.16 and 3.8 and 5.5 Secondly this justification held by the Quakers must either be by the Righteousness received by Faith or else by the Righteousness of the Law and its works for there is no other third sort of Righteousness known to compet in this point but these are always stated as the only two Members of the Distinction for which see Rom. 3.28 and 4.2 3 4 5. and 9.30 31 32. and 10.3 5 6. Galat. 3.11 12. But the Quakers plainly deny the Justification held by them to be by the former yea they Scoff and Mock at that more than ever Papist did as is evident from their preceeding Language Therefore they do inevitably hold Justification by the latter wherein they manifestly joyn hands with the Papists for all their pretexts to cover it Again in the fore-Cited 22. page of their Confession they have these words and because say they we are against the latter viz. Justification by a Righteousness received by Faith whereof they were last speaking we are Clamoured upon as if we denied the Imputation of Christs Righteousness when it is only to these that are not made Righteous by it to walk as he also walked Here they hold Justification by a Righteousness Making their walk Righteous which is the plain inherent Righteousness of our Life and Conversation But the Quâkers in that last Cited pag. of their Confession go on and add that it
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
the creatures for their Subsistences and Persons without whom if we will believe the Doctor they would never have been It s all Blasphemous Again the Doctor teaches pag. 284.285 part first that throughout the Old Testament from the beginning of Genesis to the last of the Prophets there runs an Allegory and pag. 86. part second all the Scriptures says he are Figurative But in the Old Testament it is said That there is a God that we ought to worship him that God created man That man fell and sinned That we ought to repent and believe that God will be merciful to returning penitent sinners that he is a blessed man whose sins are forgiven Are these and many the like expressions to be Allegorically understood If the Doctor denyed the things asserted by these expressions and we to prove the affirmatives thereof against him urged these Scripture-sayings would he distinguish with an Allegorically true Properly false If that distinction were valid or relevant then all were gone And are the whole Scriptures Figurative Then beside what is just now said That Christ was born suffered satisfied Justice is risen again Ascended That there is a life to come a Heaven a Hell a day of General judgment that believers shall be saved and the rest damned these I say shall be all Figurative sayings and to be understood Figuratively And what can be said worse for so the whole foundations are destroyed if these sayings be Improperly meant Lastly for I will stand no longer that Allegoricall Doctor teaches also pag. 289.294.318.320 322.323.334.342.347.348 part first That the whole Scriptures have two meanings one whereof he calls Outward Grammatical and Literal The other Inward Hidden and Spiritual Where if he had said that one and the same meaning of the Scripture may be understood with two sorts of Evidences one of them External Historicall and Grammatical only The other Internal Supernatural and Spiritual he had not aberred from the truth Or if he had said that there may be sometimes in one text two meanings the one subordinate to and typified by the other which yet is not Properly two meanings but one and the same compounded meaning or meaning compounded he had likewise said truth But so he neither says nor can be meaned for in the places cited he often affirms that the Outward and Literal meaning of the Scripture is but Excrements good for nothing can give no nourishment is not only dead but killing and destructive yea in some of these places he denies the literal sense to be Gods mind and affirms it to be but humane Nay he flatly also denies the Scriptures to be the Word of God or that ever any man did as yet see hear or read the truth The other sense of the Scriptures he calls saving and an excellent mean of life to us These things declare that the Doctor means of two Co-ordinate and Inconnexed meanings and not of Subordinate meanings seeing these meanings devised by him have no Respect Connexion or Relation with one another seeing the one is but dead Destructive Excrements and the other is Saving and nourishing But it is not so with causes Subordinate which joyntly concur to produce the effect each in their own sphere and order as is known Now to affix two Co-ordinat Inconnexed meanings upon the Scriptures is to make the true meaning thereof utterly uncertain and to make them a clear Fraud and a Cheat put upon the World to deceive with their uncertain and Ambiguous senses and consequently their Author to be an Impostor and deceiver Absit Blasphemia with his Doubtful and two-fac'd meanings and his variable and Proteus-like Intended senses for they can have no more meanings then their Author intended therein seeing a meaning affix'd on the Scriptures which there Author never intended therein is not the meaning of the Scriptures or else every wrested meaning would be their meaning But Secondly more particularly against the Doctor Is the literal sense of the Scriptures that teach us very plainly Christs Incarnation Death Resurrection Ascension and the use and ends thereof good for nothing but a non-nourishing and destroying Excrement He seems indeed to say so pag. 52. part first where he affirms that we must first wave the knowledge of the History of Christ Externally before we come to the knowledge of the true Christ hereby he Insinuats that the External Christ is no true Christ that is able to save our Souls But if these things asserted by the Doctor be true Then it s no matter or harm to us Albeit the letter and History of the knowledge of Christ were all false seeing that is good for nothing can give no nourishment as he will and must be waved before we come to know the true and saving Christ What can it matter to us then though it were all false seeing it can do us no good is but non-nourishing and destructive Excrements nay it hinders us to know the true and saving Christ for we cannot know him as the Doctor alleadges until it be first waved and so it s an opposit enemy to the knowledge of him Secondly If it be true that the literal sense of the Scriptures is not Gods mind as the Doctor affirms then we may Counter-act the whole Scriptures in their literal sense and yet be guiltles seeing though we do so yet we do nothing against the mind and meaning of God in his Word according to the Doctors doctrine and then we may commit Idolatry Adultery and what not Thirdly If the Literal sense of the Scriptures be not Gods meaning how comes the Doctor to call it Scripture-sense at all or Scripture-meaning The Doctor herein manifestly contradicts himself seeing the Scripture can never have any sense or meaning beside the mind and meaning of its Author therein by him intended as is both clear in it self and just now I proved Fourthly For his denying the Scriptures to be the Word of God I shall oppose unto this the Survey of the Quakers Third Query above where I have discussed that question But when he denies that ever any man as yet heard or read the truth he speaks a little too Transcendentally for if he means of the truth of Proposition or Enunciation which is only to the purpose for we are not concerned with the Metaphysical Incomplex truth of Being but with the Complex truth of Oration here then he either takes truth in the Abstract form and so never man henceforth shall hear or read it more then heretofore seeing in the Abstract form it is not a thing Legible or Audible or else he takes truth Concretively and as it denominats some particular Enunciation or Enunciations true so that the means that never man as yet heard or read a true saying or Enunciation to this day and then he denies that himself ever spake or wrote a true word to any mans hearing or reading and cuts his own Throat and I cannot help it But which is much worse so he denies the Scriptures which many man hath read and heard to be true It s a very strange and a sad business too if we never heard a word of truth But the Doctor I know will say that only Christ is the truth Ans Christ cannot be the Formal truth of any Enunciation or Oration which is nothing but a meer relation of Conformity betwixt it and its Object but Christ is called the truth because he is the Author and Revealer the Object and End of the Divine truth for he makes it known it treats of him as the main Subject and it leads unto him Albeit the Doctor makes many wranglings to clear himself of being thought a contemner and vilifier of the Literal sense of Scripture yet all comes to this at the last and most which he never parts with that the literal sense of the Scripture can do no good but will kill and destroy us except we reach another sense beyond that and hidden under it having no connexion therewith or relation thereunto The absurdity whereof I have very briefly shewed And beside we see he refuses to own the literal sense as Divine but as a thing meerly Humane denying it to be the mind of God And so no Apology can bring him fairly off But the Doctor objects pag. 52.318 part first that the Literal sense of the Scripture is not saving nor the mind of God seeing the Devil and natural men can reach that Ans But the Doctor supposes here a manifest falshood viz. that the Scriptures have one sense reached by the Devil and natural men and another which they know nothing of and cannot reach which I have shewed to be most absurd the Devil and some men unrenewed know as many senses of Scripture as the Doctor does But the difference betwixt a Natural and Spiritual mans knowledge of the Scripture is not that the one of them knowes a sense of the Scripture more than the other and which the other cannot reach but that the one knows the same sense of Scripture with an Internal Spiritual Supernatural and saving evidence which the other knows only with an Historical Grammatical External and Common evidence and so there are very diverse kinds of evidences in their acts of knowledge proceeding from Essentially diverse principles of light and Eyes to see with But the Object known is the same I have therefore here Inserted and briefly confuted these principles of the Doctor which indeed are a considerable part though not all of the substance of that his foresaid book because the Quakers know and I in sure experience too by the necessary and Inevitable though Involuntary converse I have had with them who are deeply concerned with the same principles and as I hinted before I never almost knew any and I have known too many that once became the Disciples and Proselyts of that book but in end they became professed Quakers and therefore I judged it very convenient here though shortly to give an Antidote against it FINIS