the Quakers Ergo not the Doctrine of the Quakers The Ten Commands are the Moral Laws Ergo not the Moral Law Is not that well Argued without Logick But what are not whole Sermons and Predictions of the Prophets and Christs whole Doctrine called by them and him the Word of the Lord and his Word as may be seen in almost all our preceeding Arguments Is not the whole Doctrine of the Scriptures called a Word of Prophecy 2 Pet. 1.19 20. Does not Paul call the whole Revealed Truths of God Sound Doctrine and the Doctrine of God 1 Tim. 1.10 and 6.1 Tit. 1.9 and 2.10 And must the Prophets and Apostles Christ and the Holy Ghost learn from the Quakers how their Doctrine should be named will they not allow the Scriptures their Essential Attribute which these gives them that they are the Word of God or albeit we very well know that there are many more words in the Scripture than one why will they not admit of that common Unity here which is not denied in other common Natures and a denomination conformable By these things the objection is both answered and overthrown Again they insinuate another Argument whereby they indeavour to wrest the Title of the Word of God from the Scriptures The Scriptures say they signifies Writings Therefore they mean to infer they are not the Word of God Ans It doth equally follow therefore they are not the Words of God as the Word of God as all may see and so the consequent of their present Argument contradicts the Antecedent of their former Objection and so we may see that the Quakers are but Jugling while they yield the Scriptures the Title of Gods Words whereof their present Argument again indeavours to rob them Secondly our Question is not what the word Scripture signifies but what the Doctrine written in the Scriptures is which the signification of that Word cannot Define But lastly for clear satisfaction I distinguish their Consequent thus viz. That because the Scriptures signifies Writings therefore as to the external Form and Mode which they have from the Writers Pen they are not the Word of God be it so therefore as to their enunciat Doctrine or Sentence they are not the Word of God it follows not For in the Scripture there are two things to be considered viz their Doctrine and Sentence which is the Word of God and their external Form or Mode which they have from the Pen of the Writer which gives the Word of God the Denomination of Written and therefore we call the Scriptures The Written Word Because we said that the Quakers by indeavouring to Wrest the Title of the Word of God from the Scriptures do strike at their Divine Authority therefore I shall here give a short Touch of the Notes and Arguments whereby the Scriptures are clearly Demonstrated to be from God and of Divine Inspiration such as are the Majesty of the Style of the Scriptures above all other Writings under great simplicity of words the Divine purity of the Doctrine savoring wholly of holiness and vertue The Divine Scope of the Doctrine which is to give all glory to God The Efficacy of the Doctrine in the hearts of men above all other Doctrines in the world The Infallible accomplishment of the Predictions therein contained as they were fore-told the wonderful consent of all the parts thereof being written by so many diverse Pen-men so far distant from one another both in time and place which was never to be seen in any other Book in the World especially of divers mens Writing The manifold Miracles whereby God hath born Witness thereunto which Satan could never so much as Counterfeit The irreconcilable hatred of Satan and the World against it more than against all other Books in the World The firm stability thereof and the special hand of God which appears in the preserving and transmitting thereof from Age to Age notwithstanding all the Malice of Satan and the Devices of him and his wicked Instruments against it The miserable end of the greatest Persecutors and enemies thereof The Testimony of the many Martyrs Sealing their Witness thereunto with their Blood and the Testimony of the whole Church thereunto which have a piece of weight in their own Order The Scriptures cannot be from evil men or Angels seeing they shew their villany denounce their Doom which Galls them and prescribe a Method of living quite contrary to their Inclination Nor can good Angels or Men be their Author for upon the one hand they durst not have so usurped upon God as to feign his Authority and Commission to so many Laws Ordinances Threatnings and Promises of their own meer Invention and upon the other hand if they had done it they could not have been good Angels or Men Therefore the Scriptures must be from God himself These things put together which I have but named are sufficient to convince that the Scriptures are from God and of Divine Authority and are enough irresistibly to stop the Mouths of all Contradicters Notwithstanding for the full assurance and through persuasion of Faith that the Scriptures are from God and of Divine Inspiration the Spirit is requisite by his effectual Working in with and by the same upon our hearts and minds to Seal up their Divine Authority unto us And yet this makes nothing in the least for the Quakers who Teach to follow a Spirit abstracted and separated from the Scriptures For beside that we shall shew at the following Query that the Spirit speaking in the Scriptures most straitly Ties us to the Scriptures as our Supreme Rule in all matters of Faith It is also evident that it is in with and by the Word of God written in the Scriptures that the Spirit manifests himself unto and in our hearts both in the enlightning of our Minds and renewing of our Wills and Affections as these Scriptures following Witness Psal 19.7.8 Joh. 4.41 Joh. 14.26 Joh. 15.3 Joh. 17.20 Act. 17.11.12 Rom. 15.4 Ephes 6.17 Heb. 4.12 Isai 59.21 These and a Thousand places more that I might instance do manifestly convince that the written Word of God is an Organ and Instrument in the Spirits hand whereby he Enlightens Renews and Sanctifies us more and more himself also as a Physical Cause does immediately influencing the Effect seeing all Effects must depend immediately upon God if they include any real being But say the Quakers whether or not is all that is written from Genesis to Revelation a Rule for your Faith and Manners Ans No doubt we are bound to believe all Scripture Enunciation from the beginning to the end seeing all of it was given by Inspiration of God and written for our Learning 2 Tim. 3.16 2 Pet. 1.21 Luke 24.25 Act. 24.14 1 Cor. 10.11 There is no more doubt we are bound to obey all the Commands of the Moral Law seeing that is of a perpetual binding force Mat. 5.18.19 with whatsoever is of common equity Philip. 4.8 9. or whatever injoyning any piece
Questions within the limits of one and the same Query or separating any part thereof from another that it may be seen that I have not in the least injured the Adversaries but have only sometimes for a distincter Method alter'd the place of a Total Query The Quakers also Inscribed their Queries all which here follows and first the Inscription Quakers Inscription Some Queries as followeth from the People called Quakers for one or all of the Ministers in Scotland to Answer First QUERY Whether or not Grammar or Logick and the many Tongues and Languages which began in Babylon is an Infallible Rule to make a Minister of Christ And whether or not Elisha the Plow-man Amos the Herdsman Peter and John the Fishermen who could hardly read a letter with many others who were not bred up in these things Logick and Grammar and the many Languages if they could not be Ministers of Christ Jesus Yea or Nay Second QUERY Whether or not the Scriptures were the Rule of Enochs Faith Noahs Faith and holy men in the old world and second world Whether or not they were a Rule to Abrahams Faith Isaacs and Jacobs Faith and Moses 's Faith and all the Patriarchs And whether or not they had Scriptures till Moses did write them Answer these things by plain Scripture Third QUERY Or how long was it after Christ and the Apostles days That that Grammar Logick and Philosophy and Schools of learning were set up to make Ministers of Christ Jesus Fourth 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 title 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 title from the beginning of Genesis to the end of the Revelation is the Word or the Words of God Fifth 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 said men 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 Sixth QUERY Whether or not your singing of Davids Psalms his Prayers Prophesies Fastings Reproaches Weepings Mournings Lamentations and Complaints how he was Mocked have any Warrant in the Scripture and you bring all these together in Meeter without distinction Have ye not done this your selves Or did the Apostles it to the Saints in the Primitive times Or have ye the same Spirit the Apostles had Or a larger measure of it than the Apostles had by which ye have turned these into Meeter since the Apostles days And what was the Psalms Hymns and Spiritual Songs they sang in the Primitive times Answer these things by plain Scripture Seventh QUERY Whether or not your Directory Confession of Faith and Catechisms be an Infallible Rule for you and your people to walk by Or whether or not equal with the Scriptures or above the Scriptures And whether of them is the better Book And whether or not have ye an Infallible Spirit to give forth such a Directory or Catechism or Confession of Faith as ye have done And whether or not the Scriptures are not a better Directory than any ye can make which were given forth by the Holy Ghost by the holy men of God who had the Infallible Spirit Eighth QUERY Whether or not is your Sanctification your Justification and your Faith and Grace the Gifts of these without sin as they are Manifested within you Yea or Nay Ninth 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 Tenth 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 adds 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 Eleventh QUERY Whether doth the Scriptures say in the New Testament that eating of Bread and drinking of Wine after Supper was an Ordinance of Christ And whether do ye practise this as Christ and his Apostles did after Supper Do not ye take it before Dinner Did Christ or his Apostles do so What Scripture have ye for your Rule for this for they took it in the night And Christ says as oft as ye eat of this Bread and Drink of this Wine c. is that a standing Command Or is it left to people seeing it s said as oft as ye Eat this and Drink this do it in remembrance of his Death and shewing his Death until he come again Was this coming to the end of the world Or was it until his coming to dwell in his Apostles who said he would come and dwell and walk in them Need they then Bread and Wine to put them in Remembrance of him And doth not Christ say Eat this and Drink this in remembrance of his Death And doth not the Apostle say that they must die with Christ and to die with him is to come to the Death with him And they that be in the Death of Christ and die with Christ must they have Bread and Wine to put them in remembrance of his Death Yea or Nay And doth not the Apostle say that they must Die with Christ and be Buried with him And when the people are Dead and Buried with Christ must they have Bread and Wine to put them in remembrance of Christs Death Answer this yea or nay And the Apostle says they must rise with Christ Jesus and if they be risen with him then seek these things that are above And is not Bread and Wine from below and if the Apostle puts them to seek these things that are above then he brought them off these things that are below for he says to the Corinthians the things that are seen are Temporal but the things that are not seen are Eternal This he spake when they were Jangling and in a disorder about
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
of Religious worship under the New Testament doth belong to Christians of our Calling and condition The Quakers must here be content with these clear generals But as far the Ceremonial Law of the Jews that is indeed totally Abrogated as to its Obligation albeit yet the same be many ways useful for our Instruction but especially to convince us of our Natural uncleanness and by the exact Accomplishment of its manifold Types in Jesus of Nazareth to assure us that he is our Saviour and the True Messias together with their Judicial Law which in so far as it particularly respected that State is exspired therewith though in so far as it is of common right it still obliges all men as is easie to be understood Lastly the Quakers inquire whether every tittle from Genesis to the Revelation be the Word or the Words of God Ans It cannot be that this member of the Query is the same with the first already discussed or else they have foolishly proposed it twice to us But to be short they seem here to inquire if any new thing at all whether every enunciation and sentence of the Scripture be of Divine Inspiration and from God Whereunto I answer affirmatively for first the main substantial Texts of Scripture cannot be doubted because of the Notes and Arguments before given most part whereof are Intrinsical and do brightly shine in these with their inlightening Beams to full conviction Secondly for other Sentences of lesser importance if the Quakers will say that some ill Seed-sower hath Inserted them or any of them since the Writing of the Scriptures and so that they are not of Divine Inspiration but a corruption of the Scripture we shall first desire them to prove their affirmative and until then we shall confirm our assertion For seeing they were found in the same original Language inserted with the rest seeing they have still some Connexion with or Relation to the rest seeing the Scriptures were by the Providence of God kept pure in the time of the Old Testament as appears in that that Christ and his Apostles in all reproofs to the Scribes and Pharisees never Taxed them for such a thing nor at any time touches such a Question seeing even the Writings of men may continue pure through many Ages and if they be vitiated it can hardly escape discovery seeing the Scriptures as they now are were transmitted to us by the Church unto whom the Oracles of God were committed and against whom the Gates of Hell shall not prevail Rom. 3.2 1 Tim. 3.15 Mat. 16.18 and attested by her to be the true Word of God seeing the very end of Gods committing his Word unto writing is for our Learning and Instruction and that we might have hope and be Saved Joh. 20.31 Rom. 15.4 1 Cor. 10.11 seeing God cares for the feeding of Ravens clothing of Lilies and for our Food and Raiment how much more to use Christs own Argument in a matter of smaller moment Luke 12.28 will he care for the purity of his own Word which is of so weighty concernment to his Glory and his peoples Salvation These things with Gods special Providence over his Church duely considered do sufficiently secure our assertion especially seeing the Quakers cannot prove any corruption in the Scriptures which if they affirm they are obliged to do But the Quakers will may be say that there are several mistakes of men yea and lies written of in the Scriptures such as the lies of Rahab the Gibeonites Sarah c. I and there are several Blasphemies written of in the Scriptures too But what shall follow from hence That any enunciation of the Scripture doth Lie or Blaspheme Nay by no means seeing these Lies and Blasphemies are not Taught and Enunciat by the Scripture or Enunciations and Doctrines thereof but the Narration and History of them is the thing Enunciat and Taught by the Scripture for the Scriptures do not affirm what these persons said and affirmed but only they affirm that such persons said and affirmed so which is no Lie nor Blasphemy as is clear These Lies therefore are not Scripture Enunciations but are only meer complex Predicats thereof which the Scripture Attributes to their Authors that said them as the subjects of its Enunciations in all such Cases Some Quakers are upon this Head so grosly Athiestical as to say that the Scriptures are but the Saints words and Testimony from their own particular Experiences unto which horrid Atheism their forementioned Confession of Faith called The Principles of Truth me-thinks in Derision and Scorn doth also positively subscribe pag. 100 101 102 103 127. But this impudent assertion of the Quakers cannot stand For first these foresaid Notes and Arguments that we above named do convince the Scriptures to be of Divine Inspiration and Authority and not the meer bare word of any Creature Secondly this Assertion of the Quakers involves a violent contradiction for the Pen-men of the Scriptures deliver their Doctrine in the Name and Authority of the Lord asserting it to be his Word his Will his Command whereof the Scriptures are every where so full that we need not stand to instance If then it was but their own meer Word and Testimony these Pen-men of the Scripture are so far from being Saints that of all men in the world they must have been the greatest Cheats and Archest Impostors and Villains seeing they have delivered us so many meer humane Precepts and Principles for the Rule of our Faith and Duty towards God and man promising Eternal Life and Glory to the Obedient and threatning Hell and Damnation to the Disobedient a terrible Presumption for them to do by their own meer Authority and that for Obedience or Disobedience to their meer Commands and beside have wickedly Fathered all this upon God To be Saints and yet live and die such Impostors and Villains is Incurably repugnant Thirdly except the Quakers shall proceed further in their Distraction and Atheism and Assert the Scriptures to be a Book of Falshoods Fictions and Lies they must acknowledge the Scriptures to be somewhat more than the meer bare Word and Testimony of any Saint seeing the Old Testament almost every where Asserts it self to be the Sayings of God and in the New Testament the Doctrine and Miracles declared in the four Evangels is expresly therein ascribed unto Christ who is God aswel as Man The Apostles also often Assert the Divine Authority of their Doctrine Except then they will conclude these Scriptures to be all meer Fictions and Lies they must yield the Scriptures to be the Word of the Living God either immediately declared by himself or mediately by his Servants by him unerringly directed Fourthly the Scriptures are full of Precepts Prohibitions Promises and Threatnings But the Relation or Narration of an experience is none of all these Ergo the Scriptures are not universally at least a Narration of Saints experiences Lastly there is much Doctrine Taught in the Scriptures that
granting all this to be most true yet the Knot is not untied For how shall I know and discern an Imposture of the Devil meeting with my deceitful heart from the Dictate of the Spirit without some Rule to trie it by Thou wilt answer that the Dictates of the Spirit have a Self-evidence in themselves to assure that they are his Dictates and hereby they shall be known But first the Spirit does not now adays Inlighten us in that measure as to make us immediately Inspired and Infallible seeing George Keith himself may possibly both Speak and Write and so think too in a mixture for all his Spirit Secondly all men have not the Spirit to direct them Infallibly though he did do it to them that have him by an immediate Dictate Thirdly let the Dictate within have a Self-evidence unto him to whom it is actually presented yet the Devil a cunning Serpent and subtil Sophister and a great pretended Saint too when he transforms himself into an Angel of Light can present an Imposture unto another man that wants that Dictate or to him that had it at another time but now he at the time present actually hath not that Dictate with so much seeming Evidence as with the concurrence of a deceitful heart will make it be received for a Divine Truth for he had strong Delusions in his Treasury 2 Thes 2.11 or Efficacious as the word is which mainly consists in their seeming Evidence What shall we do now if we want a Rule to discern the one from the other by viz. we 'l fall into the Devils Catch-net as before the Scriptures were Written they were but very few that escaped his Snare whereas with the spreading of the Scriptures into the World the Worship of the true God and Religion grew also nor is the true God at this day Worshipped where the Scriptures are wanting SECT III. Answering the Quakers Objections First therefore they Object from Deut. 30.11 12 13 14. Where Moses affirms that the Commandment which he Commanded the Israelites was not hidden from them or far off but was nigh them in their Mouth and in their Heart Therefore the Light within in the heart is the Rule See this Objection in the Quakers Confession of Faith above-named pag. 136. Ans It is so manifest how straitly Moses Ties the Israelites to the external written Word of the Scriptures for which see Deut. 17.18 19 20. and 28.58 and 30.10 and 31.9 10 11. 12 13 26. and 32.46 That it is a wonder that any man can be so impudently Effronted as to urge this Text against Scripture-Rule and for Establishing the Light within for the Rule It is sure by the Scriptures Cited and by the Context of the place Objected that Moses straitly Ties them to the Scripture-Rule and so he cannot mean in the Text objected to absolve them from it or send them to the Light within as the Rule Therefore they cannot gain their point here Secondly Moses Means as Paul expounds him Rom. 10.6 7 8 9. compared with vers 5. of the easiness of the conditions of the Covenant of Grace in regard of the conditions of the Covenant of Works which both in themselves are more hard and difficult and also want that Promise and Efficacy of the Spirit which is joyned with the Covenant of Grace to make it effectual In which Sence it can make nothing at all for the Quakers Thirdly I grant that this Text further Imports that the Doctrine of the Scriptures Written by Moses was in regard of things necessary to Salvation in some where or other so perspicuous and plain that it was not hidden to these Israelites to whom he there Speaks but that they in some measure understood it viz. some of them with an External Historical and Grammatical Evidence only as men unrenewed others of them with a Spiritual Internal and saving Evidence also as renewed men who albeit the Object be the same yet they see with other eyes and another Evidence then the other But is there any thing here for the Government of the Dictate within Nay neither less nor more but on the direct contrary comparing 9 10. Verses there with 15 16 17 18. he ties them to the Scriptures as their chief Rule under the pain of Death and Perishing But the Quakers are so exact at consequences that they can infer from any Text a flat and direct contradiction to it self Their Spirit hates Logick Secondly They object from Jerem. Chap. 31. Vers 31 32 33 34. where God says He will make a new Covenant with the House of Israel and Judah not according to the Covenant he made with their Fathers when he brought them out of Egypt which Covenant they brake but this is the Covenant says he that I will make with the House of Israel after those days I will put my Law in their inward parts and write it in their hearts and they shall no more teach every Man his Neighbour and Brother saying Know the Lord for they shall all know me saith the Lord Therefore say the Quakers What needs Scripture-rule under the New Testament seeing the Law is written on peoples hearts See this objection in their foresaid Confession of Faith page 112. Ans First This Text will not serve the Quakers turn for all men whatsoever for these on whose hearts the Law here is to be written are also to have all their iniquities forgiven and to know the Lord as the Text says But these things come not to pass in all men whatsoever and so it cannot prove that the Dictat within is to be the Rule for all men whatsoever Secondly The Law was written in some measure upon the hearts of Gods People in Old Testament times and yet they were straitly tied to the external Scipture-rule as was even now shewed and so the writing of the Law upon our hearts does not absolve us from Scripture-rule more than them or establish the Dictat within for the Rule Thirdly The Law is never perfectly written upon our hearts in this Life as shall be proved at their Query concerning Perfection and the Scriptures are an effectual Instrument whereby God doth more and more write his Law upon the hearts of his People Psal 119.93 98 99. 104. Joh. 14.26 Joh. 20.31 Act. 17.11 12. Rom. 10.14 Eph. 6.17 2 Tim. 3.16 Seeing then the Word of God written in the Scriptures is an Instrument by which God writes his Law upon our hearts enlightning instructing renewing correcting us albeit he can work without Instruments if so he pleases it is evident that this Text of Jeremiah is so far from overthrowing the External Rule of Scripture that on the contrary it includes it 's subordinate influence in the writing of the Law upon the hearts of People as a thing requisite seeing the Instrument of any work is requisite to the work till it be finished Therefore Fourthly We say that the Prophet is there comparing the new Dispensation of the Covenant under the Gospel
Quakers are but Men at the most and I think scarce that by the forfeiture they have made of their Reason Sixthly They object from Jam. 1.21 where the Apostle Exhorts us That laying aside all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness we would receive with meekness the Ingrafted Word which is able to save our Souls Therefore say they the Word which we are to receive is an Ingrafted Word within us Ans First The Original word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be as well rendred Apt to be Ingrafted and then where is the Argument I pray Secondly The context will not allow the Quakers Gloss for it 's a Word that we are to receive and hear and which is able to save our Souls a Character not given to the Light or Dictate within any whereof Scripture but to the Scripture it is expresly given 2 Tim. 3.15 and we cannot in proper speech be said to receive or hear a Dictate within which we have already and is not audible properly Therefore they cannot gain their point here without diverting the words from a proper to an improper sence for which they must shew some necessity of the Analogy of Faith or else it cannot be granted then Thirdly The Apostle does not here Exhort us to commit our selves to the conduct of the Light and Dictate within as our Rule but he exhorts us to receive the Word of God the length of Ingrafting that is so as it may take root and so grow and become fruitful in us and that we let it not pass out at one ear as it comes in at the other being forgetful and negligent hearers and so the meaning clearly is Receive the word not forgetfully and negligently but receive it Ingrafted and rooting-wise Any Man by reading the context downward may see that James there opposes receiving of the Ingrafted Word or Word Ingrafted to the receiving of the Word forgetfully superficially and carelesly and not to the receiving of an External Word as the Quakers here expound taking the grounds of their Gloss out of their own Brain-sick heads alone being no ways grounded on the Context or agreeable to any other place of the Scripture whereas our Exposition is clearly founded on the Context and evidently arises therefrom and hath also the warrant of other Scriptures Nothing here then for the Quakers Seventhly They object wonderfully but it 's a lying wonder like the rest from Heb. 6.1.2 where the Apostle Exhorts these Hebrews That leaving the Principles of the Doctrine of Christ they would go on towards perfection not laying again the foundation of Repentance from dead works and of Faith towards God of the Doctrine of Baptisms and laying on of hands of the Resurrection of the Dead and of Eternal Judgment See the Quakers Confession page 63 68 77 80. where they urge this Text against the Law so they call the whole Scriptures and against the Priests so they call the Ministers of the Gospel as all know and against Baptism with Water and the Lords Supper Answ But so abusing and wresting the Text for banishing of External Ordinances out of the Church they with the same breath infer That there ought or needs not be any of the Principles of the Doctrine of Christ in the Church for the Apostle Exhorts to leave these also and that in the first branch of the Exhortation And did Paul in earnest Exhort them to reject these Did he Exhort them to reject the Foundation of Repentance and of Faith towards God which here he calls these Principles The Building will surely go to Ruine then when the Foundation is gone Is not that a brave Doctrine come from an immediate Dictate Any Man though half blind may see that the Apostle means that they should not stick always at the learning of the first common Catechetical or Rudimental Principles of Religion which he taxes them for ignorance of in the close of the former Chapter but that having laid the Foundation of these not thrown them away as the Quakers here expound they should aspire and indeavour after a further Proficience and Growth in the Knowledge of Christ and Gospel Mysteries Eightly The Quakers object in this Query That in the Primitive World Enoch Noah Abraham Isaac and Jacob c. had not any written Word to be the Rule of Faith and Manners and therefore they mean to infer and George Keith explains it fully in his Quakerism no Popery page 109. 111. neither now is the written Word our Rule Answ A brave consequence forsooth as if I should say Christ was not come in the Flesh in the Primitive World Ergo neither as yet is he come Or in the Primitive World there were no Scriptures written Ergo neither afterwards I was not born in the Primitive World am not I born as yet then I can hardly believe so for Non-entities cannot act and write as I am doing just now The External manner of Dispensation used with those of the Primitive World can do nothing to the Quakers now who live not in the Primitive World except perhaps by conceipt and fancy but in the last times after the word of God is committed to writing and we commanded to observe that as our Rule George Keith a Man more cunning than his Neighbours albeit he acknowledges the Scriptures for a compleat External Rule yet he contends with all his might That the Dictate within is the Principal Rule and the Scriptures but a Secondary Rule he will allow the second Room or the Footstool to the Scriptures but the Throne in the Palace and chief Seat in the Quakers Synagoue must be reserved for their great Diana the Dictate within Therefore though this great Dagon hath broke his neck already before the Ark yet to defend his Honour lying in the Dust He objects Ninthly Quakerism no Popery page 9. 13. That the Testimony of the Spirit within is greater than the External Testimony of the Scripture and therefore the Dictate within must be the Principal Rule not the Scriptures But first I Answ That George Keith drives the Plough before the Oxen for he must first prove or else nothing to his point that every Man is furnisht with an immediate Dictate of the Spirit within him which we deny any Man to have and he shall never prove to reveal to him Infallibly the Doctrine of Salvation and then and not till then it may be to the purpose to prove it 's Mens principal Rule by its Greatness for be it great or small it can be no Rule to them who have it not more than the Sun can enlighten me when he Shines not in my Hemisphere and so the Argument is a meer impertinence For An sit is before Quid sit Let him prove then and he shall be great Apollo that every man hath such an immediate Dictate within him and then he comes time enough to prove that it and not the Scriptures is his greater and more principal Rule Secondly let the Testimony of the Light within be
that we plead for Lastly It is too clear in experiencce that Men of corrupt minds through addictedness to their own fore-conceived private Opinions or through ignorance which by docility and diligence might have been prevented or removed or through malice against the Truth or for advancing some Carnal design c. do frequently by false Glosses and wrested Sences and none busier than Quakers by violence indeavouring to make them speak the language of their Interest abuse and cast a mist upon very clear Scriptures in order to Peoples understanding especially of meaner capacities Therefore it is in this case necessary by the Context the Analogy of Faith and comparison with other Scriptures c. That these Scriptures be vindicated from such false Glosses and their Genuine and true Sence demonstated and cleared The Antecedent needs no more proving for alas it is too manifest in experience that every Erronious Teacher violently wrests and perverts the Sence of the Scriptures as much as he can in favour of his Heretical Doctrine and thereby leads many into damnable Delusions The Consequence is also manifest seeing when the Scriptures are abused and wrested it is necessary for the preservation of their true meaning and so of the truth in the Church and for preventing of black Soul-damning Errors and the manifest ruine of poor Souls to say nothing of the Glory of God which all Men are bound to defend according to their place and means that they be vindicated and their true sence and meaning demonstrated and cleared and this work is especially called for from such as labour in the Word and Doctrine who must be able to convince the Gain-sayers of the Truth and stop their Mouths Tit. 1.9 11. Secondly I Assert against the Quakers who we see from their Query deny it That the true Genuine and sound Interpretation of the Scriptures is an Ordinance of Divine appointment reaching even to the end of the World I prove it First To teach People the Mind and Will of God from the Scriptures is an Ordinance of Divine Institution reaching to the end of the World But to Interpret the Scriptures truly is to teach People the Mind and Will of God from the Scriptures Therefore to Interpret the Scriptures truly is an Ordinance of Divine Institution reaching to the end of the World I easily prove the Major because that God hath appointed Teachers and teaching in his Church and that unto the end of the World till that day when all the Saints shall come to a state of compleat Perfection is clear from Matth. 28.19 20. Ephes 4.11 12 13. and that it is the Mind and Will of God they are appointed to teach I am sure no man can deny and that it is from the Scriptures they ought to teach Gods Mind and Will is most evident seeing these are the Rule of our Faith and Manners and the Word of God as is proved before wherein Gods Mind and Will concerning our Faith and Manners is revealed And the immediate Inspiring of the Doctrine of Salvation is long since ceased in the Church as all the other extraordinary Gifts and George Keith himself may both speak and write in a mixture The Minor of the Argument is also manifest seeing to bring forth shew clear and demonstrate the Genuine and true meaning of the Scriptures or of the Spirit speaking therein is to teach the Mind and Will of God from the Scriptures or else we are not 〈…〉 the wiser concerning the Mind and Will of God in the Scriptures by knowing the true meaning thereof which is ◠flat contradiction But to Interpret the Scriptures truly is to bring forth shew clear and demonstrate the Genuine and true meaning thereof or of the Spirit speaking therein or else a true Interpretation does not make known the true meaning which again is a contradiction Therefore to Interpret the Scripture truly is to teach the Mind and Will of God from the Scriptures Secondly The Levites Expounded the Scriptures to the People Nehem. 8.7 8. and their doing thereof is Recorded there as highly commendable Therefore Scripture-Interpreting had certainly a Divine Institution at that time The Antecedent is clear in the place cited I prove the Consequence because if it had not been at that time of Divine Institution that practice and deed of these ordinary Officers of that Church would not have been commendable but most blameable as an Innovating an◠up-setting of a publick Office and Ordinance in Gods House of their own meer Invention and wanting a Divine Institutio◠to warrant it See Levit. 10.1 2. Deut. 5.32 Jerem. 19.5 6. I hope the Quakers will not say that that Practice and Dee◠of these Officers was extraordinary and done by a particula◠command relating only to that one single action of these Officers or only to these Individual Officers For first there is no ground can be given of such an Assertion and so it is altogether groundless Secondly if these had any particular Command let it be shewed Thirdly these were but ordinary Officers and there is no footstep of their acting extraordinarily in any thing can be be shewed Lastly I have shewed before that Scripture-Interpretation is ordinarily needful in the Church for her Instruction and Edification and so that practice of these Levites could not be of such an extraordinary nature as is pretended seeing practices of that nature are not wont to be ordinarily needful Having proved that Scripture-Interpreting had a Divine Institution under the Old Testament the Quakers must either yield it to be an Institution still as yet in force which we plead for or else they must say that Scripture-Interpreting was an Ordinance meerly Jewish and Ceremonial all which kind of Religious Ordinances are indeed abrogated But it 's most false that Scripture-Interpreting was a Jewish Ceremony for there can no ground be given for this and so it must be reckoned a groundless Fable Secondly Scripture-Interpretation is as yet needful in the Church we see but Jewish Ceremonies are not so as all know Thirdly The Apostles still continued and constantly retained Scripture-Interpretation in the New-Testament Church even while they were bending their Doctrine against the continuance and retaining of Jewish Ceremonies for an instance whereof see Pauls Epistles to the Romans Galatians and Hebrews where much of his work is the citing and explaining several Scripture-Texts of the Old-Testament But sure it is the Apostles did not still continue and constantly retain Jewish Ceremonies in the New Testament Church and even while they were bending their Doctrine against the doing thereof by others for though the Apostles might sometimes condescend to the practice of a smaller Ceremony for the weaks sake yet this was not a constant retaining of them but only done upon some occasional emergencies Therefore surely Scripture-Interpreting cannot be a Jewish Ceremony Thirdly If Scripture-Interpreting be not an Ordinance of Divine Institution and that to continue under the New Testament to the Worlds end Then though all
67. R COnditional redemption refuted pag. 143. External Reverence by signs and gestures warrantable vid. Courtesie and Capping Lawful and how The Righteousness whereby we are justified not inward in us pag. 181. The imputed Righteousness of Christ not inward in us ibid. The Righteousness of our good works do not merit life to us p. 186. S THe Christian Sabbath of Divine Institution pag. 104. The Christian Sabbath by whom and by what reasons proved to be changed pag. 106. Jewish Sabbaths abolish'd infer nothing against our Christian Sabbath pag. 105. The Scriptures of Divine Inspiration pag. 18. The Scriptures not a dead Letter pag. 11. The Scriptures the Word of God explained and proved pag. 12. The Scriptures pure pag. 16. The Scriptures a complete rule of Faith and Manners proved pag. 18. The Scriptures not meer Saints words proved pag. 20. The Scriptures a more sure way quoad nos then any Revelation how immediate soever explained pag. 25. The Scriptures have but one sense and no more pag. 216. The Scriptures are not every where Figurative pag. 215. Original sin in all men proved pag. 132. Original sin not the Devil pag. 131. Original sin not our punishment or temptation only but our sin also pag. 133. Swearing in due Circumstances lawful necessary religious p. 204. God not the substance of any Creature proved pag. 213. The Lords Supper of Divine Institution pag. 95. The Gospel-Supper described ibid. The Gospel-Supper not from below pag. 102. The Gospel-Supper to continue to the end of the world pag. 99. T TRuth distinguished and explained pag. 217. Christ how said to be the Truth pag. 218. W THe great Whore not our Wisdom sitting upon our will vid. the great Beast c. The Unction 1 Joh. 2.20 how said to teach all things p. 43. The title of the Word of God bereft from the Scriptures enervates their Authority and use pag. 16. The engrafted Word Jam. 1.21 how and whereof understood pag. 45. Works the condition of the first Covenant or the differencing Character of Law-righteousness pag. 183. None of our good works meritorious of Salvation pag. 186. Salvation by works denied by Protestants and how pag. 174. Rewarding of good works infers not merit proved pag. 187. Worthiness of the Saints to walk with Christ c. in Scripture-sense does not infer the merit of their works ibid. Gods esteem of the Saints vertues of meekness c. infers not their merit pag. 188. A Believers ceasing from his own works Heb. 4.10 how meant pag. 194. QUAKERS DISARM'D OR A Short Survey of some Queries lately Emitted by the Quakers where in the first place follows their Inscription INSCRIPTION Some Queries as followeth from the people called Quakers for one or all of the Ministers in Scotland to answer SVRVEY IT is indeed a Beautifying Ornament for sumptuous Buildings to have comely Frontispieces but for an empty Shop to have a rich and splendid Sign it is but small glory This Fore-runner advances with such a shew of Courage and Resolution that one would conjecture each of his Followers to be Companion to Achilles but they resembling nothing less than that which they were pretended to be it cannot but Coargue both the Arrogance and weakness of the Authors What great reason was there to have Bravado'd all the Ministers in Scotland with these Impious Queries Pray let not him that putteth on his Armour boast as he that putteth it off Do the Quakers think that all the Ministers in Scotland yea or that any of them shall be so amuzed with these Queries or puzled to answer them Nay then tell it not in Gath publish it not in Askelon lest the Daughters of the uncircumcised triumph We hope there are few Ministers in Scotland so daunted or consternat with the presumptuous bravery and windy Bravadoes of the Insolent Quakers but that if the Eagle might catch Flies they durst without Seconds undertake the cause against all the Quakers in Britain But because the Quakers are distemper'd with an high Feverish Fit of Intoxicating Delusion therefore I shall pass by the Insolence of their supercilious and haughty Inscription and proceed to their Queries which I shall not only answer but according to the brevity of my Scope shall perspicuously overthrow and refel the Heretical Positions of the Adversaries upon the several Heads therein contained to the stopping of the mouth of the reproachful Gainsayer If the Quakers then desire to be Instructed Let them not be as the Horse or as the Mule which have no understanding Psal 32.8 9. First QUERY Whether or not Grammar or Logick and the many Tongues and Languages which began in Babylon is an Infallible Rule to make a Minister of Christ and whether or not Elisha the Ploughman Amos the Herdsman Peter and John the Fishermen who could hardly read a Letter with many others who were not bred up in these things Logick and Grammar and the many Languages if they could not be Ministers of Christ Jesus yea or nay SVRVEY Very well does the Scope of this Query agree with their forenamed Book Entituled The principles of Truth wherein pag. 56. and 125. they condemn all humane Learning But the Questionist here doth either through malice or ignorance pervert the whole state of the Question for who ever heard that the Church of Scotland which here he endeavours to Slander or any other Church made humane Arts and Sciences an Infallible rule to make a Minister of Christ Then they should never have required more of any man in order to his admission to that Office but his alone sufficient skill in Grammar and Logick which the Adversaries themselves know to be most false and therefore we must hold them for malicious Slanderers The Infallible rule is set down in the first Epistle to Timothy Chapter third and to Titus Chapter first and not in Despauter or Aristotle's School Nevertheless Logick and Grammar are ordinary means of Knowledge exceedingly requisite in a Minister whose lips should preserve Knowledge Malac. 2.7 and should be apt to Teach and able to convince the gainsayers 1 Tim. 3.2 Tit. 1.9 and the Quakers should have distinguished betwixt that which is requisite and useful for a Minister and that which is sufficient to make a Minister seeing a rational faculty is requisite and useful for a Minister for Beasts and irrational Creatures would be but bad Ministers me-thinks and yet a rational faculty is not sufficient to make a Minister But what just ground of Quarrel can any man have against Learning Is it not commended in Daniel Dan. 1.4.17 and in Moses Act. 7.22 may they not see the excellency of Christs Ministery held forth by a comparison with the Tongue of the Learned as an high commendation thereof Isai 50.4 and may they not see the loss and disadvantage of the want of it from Isai 29.12 14. 2 Pet. 3.16 But more particularly Grammar is an Art teaching how to Speak or Write a Language right so as it may be Sence and
of God ver 9. he calls it the Word of God ver 13. Secondly the Predictions Doctrine and Sayings of the Prophets which are written in the Scriptures are in Scripture most expresly called the Word of the Lord and yet these are not Christ the Co-substantial Word therefore there is another Word of God and which is written in the Scriptures beside Christ the Co-substantial Word The Antecedent I prove from 1 King 16.12 2 King 9.36 2 King 23.16 2 Chron. 36.22 Ezra 1.1 In all these places the Predictions and Doctrine of these Prophets are most expresly called the Word of the Lord. Thirdly it is said Isai 28.13 that the Word of the Lord was unto Israel Precept upon Precept and Line upon Line where the Precepts and Doctrine contained in the Scripture-lines are called the Word of the Lord But sure it is Christ himself is not these written Precepts or Doctrine therefore there is beside Christ the Co-substantial Word another Word of God which is written in the Scriptures Fourthly Hosea calls the beginning of his Prophecies and Doctrine The beginning of the Word of the Lord by Hosea which cannot be the beginning of Christ the Son of God by Hosea I am sure but it must be the beginning of the Doctrine and Prophecies taught and Prophesied and there written by him therefore there is beside Christ the Eternal Word another Word of God which is written in the Scriptures Fifthly to be a Word that the Lord hath spoken and to be the Word of the Lord is all one thing me-thinks but there is a Word which the Lord hath spoken which is not Christ and which is written in the Scriptures Therefore there is a Word of the Lord beside Christ and the same is written in the Scriptures The Minor is clear from Isai 37.22 where the Prophet says This is the Word that the Lord hath spoken concerning Senacherib and this Word is there written The Virgin the Daughter of Sion hath despised thee c. But surely that Word is not Christ Christ is not a complex Oration or saying Sixthly the whole Doctrine of the Prophets if the Quakers will trust them is the Word of the Lord and yet it is not Christ the Son of God seeing they always ascribe it to him with a Thus saith the Lord and what God saith must certainly be his Word for to speak and not say a word is pretty repugnant and may pass for a good Jest amongst men that are merry therefore there is a Word of the Lord beside Christ and the same is written in the Scriptures seeing the Doctrine of the Prophets is written there Seventhly there is a Word of God which is the Sword of the Spirit and an Instrument in his hand Ephes 6.17 But Christ the Son of God is not the Sword of the Spirit nor an Instrument in his hand seeing the Second person of the Godhead cannot work from the Third because so their Order of working would quite contradict their Order of Subsisting which is utterly repugnant much less can the Second person be the Instrument of the Third and if by the Spirit here be meant the New man in us Christ in his Person cannot be an Instrument thereof either nor of any Creature whatsoever that ever had a Being or Existence Therefore there is another Word of God beside Christ the Son of God Lastly for we need stand no longer in a matter so manifest The Word of Christ spoken by him within time is the Word of God seeing Christ is God as well as man and yet it is not Christ himself as needs no Proof But there is a Word of Christ spoken by him within time and it is written in the Scriptures Joh. 5.24 and 8.31 37. and 12.48 and 15.3 Colos 3.16 Rev. 3.8 Therefore there is beside Christ the Eternal Word another Word of God which is spoken within time and written in the Scriptures Thou wilt say perhaps seeing most part of the Quakers are content to yield to the Scriptures the Title of Gods Words and almost all of them of Gods Testimony it would seem that this Debate is only about the naming of the Scripture What then were the hazard to gratifie the Quakers in this point as Wise men use to please Children and Fools sometimes Answer Though all the Quakers without exception should yield the Scriptures the Titles of Gods Words and Gods Testimony and yet some of them do it not as we shall see ere we end the Survey of this Query yet there is a manifest hazard in denying the Title of the Word of God to the Scriptures For let it once be denied with the Quakers that the Scriptures are the Word of God and then grant what they will to get their Negative once admitted it plainly follows that they have never been spoken by the Mouth of the Lord seeing what any person speaks must needs be his Word or else he speaks and holds his peace as the Jest is and this puts the Scriptures into the same condition with the Doctrine and Dreams of false Prophets and brangles their Divine Authority See Deut. 18.20 21. Jerem. 23.16 21. Ezek. 13.7 and 22.28 Again let it once be granted that the Scriptures are not Intituled The Word of God and have no Interest to be so called and then all the Exhortations given in the Scriptures for hearkening to the Word believing and obeying the Word c. and all the commendations of its efficacy and sweetness must be transferred from the Word of God written in the Scriptures unto Christ the Co-substantial Word immediately who as he is Jealous of his own Glory so he will not have his Word rob'd of its due Authority and Excellency which he had Communicated thereunto And so that which the Quakers design and this is their Formal aim in this Affair is to take all men off from the written Word of God as their rule for grant that such a thing hath not such a name and then whatever is spoken under that name must be applyed unto some other Subject so named and not unto a Subject which was never so named And thus again they indeavour to overthrow the Use End and Repute of the Scriptures so far as they can And thus to deny the Scriptures the Title of The Word of God strikes at their Divine Authority and overthrows their use and regard And therefore we are Commanded to hold fast the Form of sound words 2 Tim. 1.13 But say the Quakers the Scriptures are the Words of God Exod. 20. Therefore they infer they are not the Word of God Ans But so by the Antecedent the Quakers destroy their own Cause and contradict themselves for if the Scriptures be the Words of God then I am sure there are Words of God beside Christ and yet they deny there is any seeing the written words of the Scripture are not Christ the Son of God Again this consequence is as if I should say Such a Book contains the Doctrines of
could never be acquired by Experience such as the Doctrine of Predestination of the Hypostatical union of God and man in one Person of Justification by the Righteousness of Christ of the general Judgment of the three persons in the Godhead And what think the Quakers of the Prophetical part of Scripture Infallibly foretelling things at a great distance to come Are these Narrations of Saints Experiences Or was the knowledge of them got by Experience O learned Divines Hence we may see that at least some of the Quakers prefer themselves and their Doctrine to the Prophets and Apostles and their Doctrine which is say they but the Saints Words and Testimony from their own particular Experiences but the Quakers Doctrine must be Divinely Inspired forsooth Fourth QUERY Whether or not the Scriptures were the Rule of Enochs Faith Noahs Faith and Holy men in the Old World and Second World Whether or not they were a Rule to Abrahams Faith Isaac and Jacobs Faith and Moses 's Faith and all the Patriarchs And whether or not they had Scriptures till Moses did Write them Answer these things by plain Scripture SVRVEY This Query comprehends the great controversie with the Quakers concerning the Rule of Faith and Manners and therefore because my Survey will be large I shall divide it into three Sections In the first I shall prove the Scriptures to be the Rule of Faith and Manners In the Second I shall confute an exception or distinction which some of the more subtil of our adversaries offer to our Arguments In the third I shall answer their Objections SECT I. Proving the Scriptures to be the Infallible Rule The thing that the Quakers drive at in this Query is that because Enoch Noah and others in the Primitive world had not a written Word of God for the Rule of their Faith That therefore neither should the Written Word of God be the Rule of our Faith This beside that it is their known Principles as Witnesseth their foresaid Confession of Faith called The Principles of Truth wherein they most frequently cry up the Light within every man as his only Rule and decry the Scriptures and all external Ordinances to their utmost Breath as may be seen pag. 5 78 79 80 92 102 103 124 133 136 140 Is either the Scope of this their present Query or else it hath no Scope at all and so it must be the fruit of some Distraction they having thereby intended nothing Well then the Quakers must either acknowledge Scripture-Testimony for Truth as I hope they will seeing they here require us to answer by Scripture and then we shall soon see an end of the Question from the Scripture or else they must deny Scripture-Testimony to be true and shall proclaim God a Lyar whose Testimony the Scriptures are and by whose Inspiration they were given as is proved in the former Queries Survey which is the height of Blasphemy These things premised I Assert against the Quakers that the Scriptures are the Infallible Rule of our Faith and Manners That the Scriptures are Infallible is sufficiently proved at the Survey of their former Query where we proved them to be of Divine Inspiration and the Word of the Living God and not of any meer Creature and so they cannot deceive so that for their Infallibility we need say no more That therefore the Scriptures are the Rule of Faith and Manners I prove For first That must be the Rule of Faith and Manners by which every matter of Faith and Manners ought to be examin'd seeing every thing that is examined must be examined by its Rule or else it will be done by Guess and Rule of Thumb as the Jest is But every matter of Faith and Manners ought to be examined by the Scriptures Ergo the Scriptures are the Rule of Faith and Manners The Major is proved already I prove the Minor from Isai 8.20 Where we are expresly Commanded to go to the Law and the Testimony with every matter of Faith and Manners and it is positively declared that if it be not according to these there is no Light in it which is a sufficient Prohibition to receive it And the Law and Testimony are the Scriptures Exod. 32.15 and 34.29 Deut. 31.24 26. 2 King 22.8 Neh. 8.1 3 8. Psal 78.5 Secondly Christ says to the Sadducees upon a great Article of Faith that ignorance of the Scriptures caused them to err therein Ergo the Scriptures are the Rule of Faith The Antecedent is Taught by Christ himself Mat. 22.29 Mark 12.24 Ye err saith he not knowing the Scriptures and because ye know not the Scriptures I prove the Consequence because if the ignorance of any other Doctrine except the Rule of Faith should cause a man to err upon an Article of Faith then though a man did perfectly know the Rule of Faith yet he might err in the Faith through ignorance But the Consequent inferred is repugnant for then he knows all the Articles of his Faith and yet he believes wrong through ignorance that is because he knows not what to believe Therefore the Antecedent from which it is inferred is also repugnant Thirdly Christ sends all men to the Scriptures for the Rule of Faith and Duty Ergo the Scriptures are certainly the Rule of both The consequence is Infallible seeing Christ did not mistake himself The Antecedent is clear from Luke 16.28 29 30 31. Where while Christ is delivering his Doctrine for all men in the parable of the Rich Glutton he sends all men to the Scriptures for their Direction and Rule in the intire business of Repentance and Salvation and that they may not be Eternally Damned and so he shews we must stand to them upon pain of Damnation and delcares that if they listen not to the Scriptures there is no more hope of them and he 'l give them no other Rule to Guide and Direct them They have Moses and the Prophets says he that is the Scriptures written by them let them hear them and if they will not hear them one arisen from the Dead which he refuses to grant them will not get them perswaded There is a bundle of Arguments in one Text proving the Scriptures to be our Rule Fourthly the Jews at Berea are highly commended for examining by the Scripture the Doctrine of Grace Preached to them even by a Paul Act. 17.11 12. that they might know if the things which he Taught were so as the Text says for albeit Paul was an infallibly-inspired Apostle yet seeing they knew not that and he being but newly arrived unto them they had no proof of his Doctrine and there being great danger from abounding false Teachers they are therefore highly commended for putting his Doctrine to the Test and Tryal of the Fore-constitute Scriptures wherewith every Doctrine of Religion was in substance and matter to consent and agree and they otherwise not to receive it Isai 8.20 Therefore the Scriptures are the undoubted Rule of Faith and Duty The Consequence
is plain seeing they would never have been commended for examining and trying his Doctrine by the Scriptures except the Scriptures were the Rule or for making that a Rule for examining and receiving of Doctrines of Faith which is no Rule of matters of Faith Nay for this they would have been deservedly discommended Fifthly The Scriptures are able to make us Wise unto Salvation 2 Tim. 3.15 Therefore they contain the Rule of Faith and Duty The Consequence is easie seeing without the Rule of these we cannot be wise unto Salvation but plainly ignorant of the way thereunto having no Rule to direct us Sixthly the whole Scriptures were given by Inspiration of God and they were written purposely for the Churches Instruction and Learning as is before shewed Therefore they must surely be the Rule of Faith and Duty for I am sure there is nothing wanting here that is requisite to the Constituting of them for a publick Rule or else let the Quakers if they can shew us what that is for I can not perceive it without the Spectacles of their Eagle-eyed Inspirer Seventhly That Doctrine must be the Rule of Faith and Manners which in all matters of Faith and Manners we ought to observe and take heed to as a Doctrine full of shining light for our instruction and direction but that is the Scriptures Therefore the Scriptures are the Rule of Faith and Manners The Major is clear nor do the Quakers deny it The Minor is laid down in 2 Pet. 1.19 20. where Peter after his rehearsing of the glorious Revelation on the Mount at the Transfiguration which was as glorious a Revelation as any else he addeth That they had a more sure Word of Prophecy whereunto they did well to take heed as unto a light shining c. knowing this first that no Prophecy of the Scripture is of any private Interpretation here it is clear that it is the Scriptures which he calls the more sure Word of Prophecy and prefers before all transient Revelations not as if the Scriptures were more certain in themselves Quoad se than Gods immediate voice from Heaven but because they are a more sure way in regard of us Quoad nos they being a Written yea Sealed and Sworn Evidence and Contract of the whole Bargain and Terms of Salvation and Life delivered into our custody to be perused by us upon all occasions and this gives more assurance in regard of our weakness than a passing Revelation and is more ready for our constant direction than a transient Revelation which we cannot always command nor retain often in our memory till we understand nor are all men able to bear them That on the Mount made the Disciples roave and mistake exceedingly Mark 9.6 The Quakers answer in their Confession of Faith or Principles of Truth page 135 136 140. That by the more sure Word of Prophecy the Apostle means the Light within us and so they deny our Minor But contrariwise the 20 Verse there where he cautions the interpreting of the Scripture-Prophecy clearly coheres with the 19 Verse as a caution subjoyned concerning the same thing which he had there called The more sure Word of Prophecy and so by the more sure Word of Prophecy must be meant the Scriptures because of the clear coherence Secondly I must demand of the Quakers to shew if they can How the Dictat or Light within is more sure than Gods immediate Voice from Heaven such as that was at the Transfiguration I have shewed how the Scriptures are called and are so in regard of us but I cannot understand how the Light within can be or be called so Thirdly The Testimony of other Scriptures produced and to be produced will not permit this violent Gloss Again They ordinarily answer to this Scripture That in it we are only appointed to take heed to the Scriptures until the day dawn and the day-Star arise into our hearts that is as they expound till the Holy Ghost be bestowed on us but no longer But contrariwise First by this answer they retract their former Gloss upon the Text and confess the more sure Word of Prophecy here to be meant of the Scriptures and not the Light within Secondly By this answer they overturn one of their own chiefest Principles viz. That all men ought to follow the Light within for now they yield That such as have not received the Holy Ghost and these are not few are exhorted here to follow the Scriptures and not the Light within them Thirdly Hereby they insinuate That the Scriptures in their Opinion serve for nothing to Renewed Men and Believers who are born of the Spirit and Sealed therewith Joh. 3.5 Rom. 8.9 Eph. 1.13 and so the Scriptures as they will are recommended only to Men unrenewed and so that blessing pronounced upon the Readers Hearers and Keepers of the things written in the Scriptures Revel 1.3 and 22.7 is designed and belongs only to unrenewed Men seeing the reading hearing and keeping of the things written therein whereunto the blessing is annexed belongs only to them as the Quakers will What Does not Paul Peter and John direct all their Epistles and the Book of the Revelation to the Churches the Saints and them that had obtained like precious Faith with them delivering them many Rules of Faith and Manners therein See their Inscriptions I pray and these will inform you better Eightly That must be the Rule of Faith by which we are commanded to try the Spirits 1 John 4.1 seeing we cannot try the Spirits or Doctrines without the Rule for that were to try them by guess But that whereby we are commanded to try the Spirits must certainly be the Scriptures seeing the Quakers do not as yet openly profess the Popish Lesbian Rule of Believing as the Church of Rome does and it cannot be the dictat or light within that we are to try them by seeing that is as fallible as their Light whose Doctrines I try and George Keith a Ring-leading Quaker confesses the possibility of their declining from Infallibility both in Speaking and Writing and consequently in Examining or Judging too in his Quakerism no Popery page 33. and beside the Dictat within hath no Divine Institution to be the Rule and if it were the Rule then the Dictat within every diverse Man would be the Rule to try the Dictat or Dectrine proceeding from the Dictat in another which would make the Dictat of every Man both Superior and Inferior to the Dictat of another Superior when it tries and examines and Inferior when it or its Doctrine is tried and examined which is repugnant Ninthly John shews us 1 John 4.6 That the true and sound imbracing of their Doctrine now written in the Scriptures is a manifest evidence of the Spirit of Truth and the rejecting of it a manifest evidence of the Spirit of Error and so their Doctrine written in the Scriptures must be the Rule of Faith and Manners For How shall it be an evidence
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
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
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
the black Hereticks that ever were in the World should at once arise from the dead and alass there are too many of them still alive in their Successors and should in favour of their accursed Delusions most grosly abuse and wrest the holy Scriptures as all Hereticks do and pervert invert and deprave the meaning thereof and so of God speaking therein Yet no man even the most eminently gifted Ministers of Christ were bound by vertue of any standing Appointment or Law of God otherwise Scripture-Interpreting will clearly have a standing Divine Institution to step out and by the grounds of Context the Analogy of Faith or comparison with other Scriptures more clear c. to refute these false wrested meanings vindicate the Texts abused and clear and demonstrate their Genuine and true meaning But that is most false absurd and impious For then the most eminently gifted and able Ministers of Christ whose special Office is to labour in the Word and Doctrine and are bound to their utmost or else to nothing at all to preserve and promote the purity of the meaning of the Scriptures among the people and to convince and stop the mouths of the Gainsayers thereof Tit. 1.9 11. might lawfully without the breach of any standing Divine Appointment or Law stand and look on and see the Scriptures abused perverted and depraved in their meaning and instead of their true meaning horrible falshoods fictions and blasphemies fathered upon them and so on God whose Word they are to the highest dishonour of God imaginable the treading under foot of the precious Truth the over-flowing of the Christian World with Soul-damning Errors and the manifest ruining of poor Souls without indeavouring to prevent remedy or hinder the same by the exercise of a talent that God hath given them If that be not absurd false and impious nothing can be such Nay it involves a contradiction to say that Ministers who are required to convince the Gainsayers of the Truth and so of the true meaning of the Scriptures and to stop their mouths might lawfully suffer these things to be done and not oppose themselves for the defence of Gods truth according to their abilities and occasions The Quakers being beaten from their former standing and being loth to allow us the benefit of Scripture-Interpretation as thereby fore-seeing the danger of their Heretical Interest do betake themselves to another shift and alledge that however necessary or Divinely appointed Scripture-Interpretation may be yet Men that are Fallible may not Interpret the Scriptures Therefore it will be necessary for us to prove the contrary which before we do that the state of the Question may be cleared I grant that these whose Explications formally as such and as raught by them are Authentical and Faith-worthy must of necessity be Infallible or immediately Inspired The Quakers must seek after such Explications as these in the Canonical Writings of the Prophets and Apostles For it is not so with the ordinary Ministers of the Church whose Explications are not formally as such and as taught by them Authentical and Faith-worthy nor is it lawful for any Man so to receive them but allanerly upon the accompt of their agreement with and demonstration from the Scriptures whose Infallible Testimony is sufficient to warrant and assure the meaning delivered Secondly I grant that in the matter of Scripture-Interpretation the Supream and Magisterial Authority from which there is no appeal but it ought to be simply stood to resideth in the Scriptures themselves or in the Spirit their Author speaking therein seeing their Verdict and Sentence in places speaking to the purpose more clearly and such means as reside in them are the alone Rule and Directory of our Interpretations thereof in places more dark and obscure as appears from many things aforesaid The Authority therefore which our Ministers have for Interpreting Scripture is only a Ministerial Authority for Interpreting the Scriptures by their own Verdict and Sentence as the Rule and Judge of their Interpretations whereunto they are Subjected and by whose determination they stand or fall as true Interpretations or forged wrestings seeing the Scriptures are the Rule of Faith by which we are to try and judge Mens Doctrines in matters of Faith having premised these things for clearing our mind and preventing mistakes I Assert that Men who are not endued with an Infallible gift and so are not Infallible but Fallible may Interpret the Scriptures And I prove it For first These Levites that expounded the Scriptures Neh. 8.8 were not Infallible in their Gift seeing there is no proof or evidence thereof possible to be produced nor had they any other extraordinary thing accompanying them in their Birth Call Doctrine or Works or else let it be shewed nor was it any Priviledge of the Ordinary Officers of that Church to be Infallible and yet their Practice thereof is there Recorded to their high Commendation and as Edifying to the People Therefore Teachers that are not Infallible may Interpret Scripture Or else their practice thereof should have been condemned as unlawful instead of being commended Secondly A Fallible Teacher may have a far greater and more distinct knowledge of the meaning of the Scriptures than many other Men also Fallible seeing it is his special Office to labour in the Word and Doctrine and if he does his Duty he is much more in searching of the Scriptures than Men of other particular Callings and hath many more helps and means for it than the commoner sort of Christians and bulk of the People neither have all Men an equal knowledge in any thing Therefore a Fallible Teacher may Interpret the Scriptures The consequence is easie seeing whatever measure of Scripture-meaning such a Man discerneth beyond others he may I hope seasonably make it known to them for their Instruction and Edification May he not Nay I do not see so well how he may not Thirdly if all that Interpret the Scriptures must necessarily upon that accompt be Infallible then no man now adays may presume to Interpret them seeing there is no man now adays Infallible as is before often shewed But that is most false seeing it is now proved that Scripture-Interpretation is an Ordinance of Divine Institution reaching to the end of the world and so it binds and obliges all according to their ability and the Churches exigency whose Office it is to labour in the Word and Doctrine and from the Word to Teach people the mind and Will of God even to the end of the world albeit they be not Infallible but fallible Nor heard I ever of a Divine Institution reaching to the end of the world and yet obliging no body and if this oblige any man it cannot miss the Teachers Lastly seeing the Quakers affirm that Scripture-Interpreting doth necessarily require an Infallible Gift we must require them to exhibit the grounds of their affirmation or else it will be readily thought that they affirm so without any ground and so it must be
accompted a meer blind conjecture and a groundless Fable All the ground that ever I learned from them is this viz. Because a man of a fallible Gift cannot assure people of the meaning Ans It is true there can no assurance thereof arise unto them from such a mans Infallibity which he hath not and as little from a Quaker pretending to it but can give no evidence to make it appear But what then can he not give them assurance thereof from the clear Infallible Scriptures by whose Testimony the meaning is to be Demonstrated we are not to Build our Faith upon the mans Gift but upon the Scriptures that can give as great assurance as any Infallible Gift seeing they are the Infallible Word of God To the Law and to the Testimony if mens Doctrines agree not with these receive them not Lastly I assert against the Quakers who with peremptory Certifications seem to deny it in this Query That when the Scriptures are explained by the Scriptures the meaning held forth and delivered is Scripture-Rule and so it is no addition as the Adversaries here alledge nor is it our meaning but the meaning of the Scriptures and so we may still pretend Scripture-Rule for all that I prove it First the meaning of the Scriptures represented and Taught by themselves is certainly Scripture-Rule for seeing the Scriptures are our Rule as is proved the meaning Taught by them is the very Enunciat Doctrine the Soul and Sentence of that Rule as is palpable But when the Scriptures are explained by the Scriptures the meaning held forth and delivered is the meaning of the Scriptures represented and Taught by themselves and the contrary involves an incurable Contradiction Therefore when the Scriptures are explained by the Scriptures the meaning held forth and delivered is certainly Scripture-Rule Secondly Scripture-Doctrine Taught by the Scriptures is Scripture-Rule or else nothing can be such if that be not But when the Scriptures are explained by the Scriptures the meaning held forth and delivered is Scripture-Doctrine Taught by the Scriptures seeing the meaning of the Scripture is surely Scripture-Doctrine nor can these be diverse or else the Scriptures should mean what they Teach not and Teach what they mean not which is repugnant Therefore when the Scriptures are explained by the Scriptures the meaning held forth and delivered is manifestly Scripture-Rule Lastly if when the Scriptures are explained by themselves the meaning held forth by them be not Scripture-Rule then the Scripture-Rule is some other thing really distinct from the meaning of the Scriptures held forth thereby But that is impossible to be or to be explained for so the Scripture-Rule should by it self mean nothing seeing another meaning then that which is held forth by the Scriptures it can never have Ergo when the Scriptures are explained by themselves the meaning held forth is Inevitably Scripture-Rule But say the Quakers in this Query Interpreting of the Scriptures is an adding to them against which the Plagues are Denounced Rev. 22. Chap. Ans This Objection proves if it prove any thing that all Scripture Expounding by men fallible or not so is utterly unlawful as an adding to the Scripture-Rule But I deny that Interpreting of the Scriptures is an adding to the Scripture-Rule let the Quakers Try if they can prove it for their big Assertion is not current for Proof for I have shewed before that Scripture-Expounding is necessary in the Church and of Divine Institution to the Worlds end such as adding to the Scripture Rule is not and so they cannot be the same thing To add to the Scriptures is to impose some false meaning upon them disagreeing therewith or to set up any other Doctrine as of equal Authority with them I wish the Quakers would notice this who continually impose false meanings on the Scriptures and have set up a new Doctrine contrary to the Scriptures not only as of equal Authority with the same but above them O impudent wickedness But by the Scriptures to unfold clear and Demonstrate their own Genuine and true meaning hath not a shadow into it of adding to the Scripture-Rule seeing as is proved so the meaning delivered is the Scriptures own true meaning which therefore cannot be any addition thereunto But blind Arguments are all that can be expected from Brain-sick Doctors whom we find frequently speaking like men indeed in a mixture SECT II. Concerning Scripture-Consequence or Consequential Scripture I come now to the second Imperious condition which the Quakers like Dictators demand of us and that is that we do not draw Consequences from the Scriptures for Establishing our Doctrine otherwise that we never pretend Scripture-Rule more This I confess is a very unjust Cowardise That they should require us to throw down our Arms and then they will fight us I see the Quakers would fight a Dead man even out of Breath They 'l go to Wars in time of Peace I like the Jest well If the Quakers be so dastardly why did they not send their Queries to some Brute where they should have found a Party sutable to their mind which would not have troubled them with Consequences But as for us we must crave their Pardon seeing by our Creation and Essence we are Rational which chiefly consists in a Discursive or Illative Faculty fitted for discerning of Consequences of purpose that being furnisht with the principles of Nature or Grace we might be capable to perceive the particular Conclusions which they implicitly really and truly contain I shall not need to be long in Discussing this Question concerning Scripture-Consequence nor shall I need many words for clearing the state of the Question but in one word it is Whether or not that which by good Consequence is deduced and drawn from the Scriptures be Scripture-Rule We see by the Certification of the Quakers demand that they deny and take the Negative of the Question But I Assert that whatsoever by good Consequence follows or is deduced from the Scriptures is Infallible Scripture-Rule And I prove it For first Scripture-Doctrine is Scripture-Rule or else nothing can be such Now whatever by good Consequence follows or is deduced from the Scriptures must be Scripture-Doctrine otherwise a good Consequence might infer from the Scriptures that which is not Scripture-Doctrine or that which they Teach not or a Consequence inferring from the Scriptures that which they Teach not and is not their Doctrine should be a good Consequence which involves a direct Contradiction seeing so a Consequence manifestly evil should be a good Consequence Hence then whatever by good Consequence follows or is deduced from the Scriptures is evidently Scripture-Rule Secondly Christ plainly affirms Luk. 20.37 that that Scripture principle I am the God of Abraham the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob does shew and Teach the Resurrection of the Dead Now it does not expresly and formally Teach that it says not expresly that the Dead shall Rise again but only it follows therefrom by
Consequent which way it is indeed requisite yea so Reason is requisite for perceiving every word of God and without it we should not be capable of the Principles of Religion more than Brutes are So also our Ears are a necessary Instrument for hearing the Word Preached or Read and our Eyes for Reading of it Thirdly It uses to be objected That the Gospel is above Reason Answ The Gospel is above Reason in regard of the matter and mysteries which it teaches which Reason cannot reach or understand but not in respect of the manner how it teaches them which is suited and accommodated to human capacity Or else no Man upon the accompt that he is endued with Reason should be one whit more capable so much as Grammatically and Historically to understand any one saying of the Gospel than his Sheep and Oxen which is beyond all measure absurd for then Brutes should be no less capable of the Gospel Doctrine than Men and Men no more than Brutes Lastly It is objected That the Learned only are able to perceive Consequences Answ That is most false seeing not only the Learned but also the unlearned have a rational discursive faculty and some measure of the use thereof except they be Distracted or in meer Infancy and so being furnisht with the Principles are capable to discern their evident Consequences both in things Natural and Supernatural albeit the Learned are indeed able more promptly to perceive Consequences and to perceive more Consequences lying far remote from the Principles and therefore they are ordinarily more knowing than the unlearned Now by the Quakers grudging of Grammar Logick and Philosophy unto Ministers of the Gospel and by their opposition to the Scripture-Rule and Scripture-Consequence a Man may if he be curious learn the Description of a Minister of the Quakers choice viz. He must neither have Grammar Logick nor Philosophy he must reject the Rule at least the Supremacy of the Rule of Scripture both Express and by good Consequence That is to say He must not know how to speak Sence nor how to Define Divide Judge or Argument he must abandon the Light of Nature and throw by the Word of God at most being but a Secondary-Rule and a Subservant to their Queen Regent the Light within That the Quakers may not think I wrong them this Description is their Principles clearly explained by me in the foregoing Queries And will not such a Man be a rare Minister a worthy Messenger an Interpreter among a Thousand he is very like to have more feet than hands methinks SECT III. Concerning Baptism with Water Being now arrived at the main Subject of the present Query which is Baptism before I handle the Question concerning Infant-Baptism I must here inquire whether Baptism with Water be an Ordinance of Divine Institution under the New Testament and to continue to the end of the World for albeit the the Quakers have here omitted it yet it is the main and most proper debate concerning Baptism betwixt us and them wherein the Quakers take the Negative yea and George Keith charges Baptism with Water upon us as a Popish Doctrine forsooth in his Quakerism no Popery page 100. Wherever Baptism is mentioned in the New-Testament and the word Water is not expresly added the Quakers do always deny Baptism with Water to be there meant sometimes alledging it to be meant of the Baptism of Doctrine which is when the Word is Preached to People sometimes of the work of Regeneration and sometimes of enduing with the extraordinary Gifts of the Spirit all which are in the Scriptures Metaphorically and Improperly sometimes called Baptism Matth. 21.25 Joh. 1.33 Act. 1.5 And this they do that if success would answer they may not be forced to acknowledge Baptism with Water to be an Ordinance of Divine Institution under the New Testament We shall therefore as we proceed clear every Text that we make use of where need is from the false Glosses of the Adversaries This premised I Assert against the Quakers that Baptism with Water is an Ordinance of Divine Institution under the New Testament and an Ordinance which it shall be evident is appointed to continue to the end of the World I prove it First The Baptism of John was an Ordinance of Divine Appointment belonging to the New Testament but that was with Water Matth. 3.11 Mark 1.8 Therefore Baptism with Water is an Ordinance of Divine Institution belonging to the New Testament The Scriptures cited prove the Minor I prove the Major For that the Baptism of John was of Divine Appointment is clear from Matth. 21.25 Luk. 7.30 Joh. 1.33 And that it belonged to the New Testament appears seeing John was the very first Minister of the New Testament way of Dispensation for which see Matth. 11.12 13. Luk. 16.16 Together with the breaking forth whereof and never till then God appointed this Ordinance of Baptism with Water to be dispensed by John Secondly The Baptism with Water dispensed by the Disciples or Apostles of Christ was an Ordinance of Divine Appointment under the New Testament as we shall presently see But the Baptism of John was substantially one and the same therewith for their Author or Efficient cause was the same by comparing Luk. 7.30 Joh. 1.33 with Matth. 28.19 Joh. 4.1 2. Act. 10.48 Their External Matter or outward Element was the same by comparing Matth. 3.11 with Act. 10.47 Their Internal Matter or the thing signified and their ends and so also their Internal form which results from their Institution and Ends were the same by comparing Mark 1.4 Luk. 3.3 with Act. 2.38 and 22.16 So then they being one and the same as to all their causes are undeniably the same Baptism Substantially and I defie any Man to shew any substantial point wherein they differ and so the one being an Ordinance of the New Testament so must the other But say the Quakers with Papists The Baptism of John was substantially different from Christs Baptism seeing John Baptized only with Water but Christ Baptized with the Holy Ghost and with Fire Ans This objection cannot prove the Baptism of John to be substantially different from the Baptism dispensed by Christs Apostles at his Order seeing theirs so dispensed was no less with Water than his and they could no more Baptize with the Holy Ghost and with Fire than he Therefore John does not there viz. Luke 3.16 distinguish his Baptism from Christs External Baptism Administred by his Apostles but he distinguishes his own Work and Office and of all Ministers in Baptism from the Work and Office of Christ viz. That he and other Ministers do Administer the Water and External Sign but that its Christ that bestows the inward Grace and thing signified Secondly It is objected here That these who were Baptized with Johns Baptism were again Baptized with Christs by Paul Act. 19.3 4 5. Ergo Johns Baptism did substantially differ from Christs or else these would not have needed to be Baptized over
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.
2.38 and 8.16 and 10.48 Lastly It must be a desperate cause that forces it's Patrons to such contrary defences presently they affirmed that Baptism with Water was dispensed in the Name of the Lord now they cry About Ship and deny that Baptism in the Name of the Lord is Baptism with Water Are not these Men indeed in a mixture who in the unjust defence of falshood thus run upon such desperate 〈◊〉 of splitting Contradiction But fourthly They except against the same Text that Baptism with Water cannot be meant therein because the Apostles say they had no commission to Baptize with Water seeing Paul says 1 Cor. 1.17 that Christ sent him not to Baptize but to Preach the Gospel Ans But in despight of this Exception all our forementioned Arguments do plainly prove the Baptism mentioned in the Text to be Baptism with Water and so also that the Apostles had a Commission to Baptize with Water Secondly The Quakers are bound by this their reasoning to acknowledge the Baptism there mentioned viz. 1 Cor. 1.17 to be Baptism with Water or else they will lose the whole ground pretended for their exception which acknowledged as we have also before proved it truly to be it presently appears from the Context of the same place that the Apostles had a Commission for Baptizing with Water seeing Paul plainly there declares that he Baptized some of these Corinthians which doubtless he did not without Commission or else he had been a manifest Intruder and Usurper of an Office in the Church and Worship of God for which he had no Order or Warrant which must be false I answer therefore lastly that the meaning of these words of Paul is plainly Comparative viz. that Baptism was not the principal and chief work that he was sent for but the Preaching of the Gospel such as is the meaning of that expression Hos 6.6 I desired Mercy and not Sacrifice and such as is the meaning of that Joh. 15.22 If I had not come and spoken unto them they had not had sin that is nothing compared to what they now have Lastly They except against the same Text that Baptism with Water cannot be meant therein because say they it is not therein expresly mentioned Ans First A Man might upon this ground much rather argue against Christs demonstration Luk. 20.37 that the rising of the dead is not expresly taught Exod. 3.6 from whence he brings his Argument where God says I am the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob and that therefore such a thing cannot be there meant Or that Circumâ—sion of the flesh of the Foreskin is not expresly mentioned under every distinguishing Character thereof Galat. 5.2 3. where the flesh of the Foreskin is omitted and that therefore it cannot be that which is there meant but our Spiritual Circumcision in Christ that is our Regeneration must be the thing which Paul there disputes against and condemns and is not that well argued Secondly As Baptism with Water is not here expresly named in respect of every punctilio of its designation So far less is any of the forementioned improper Baptisms here expresly mentioned seeing the name Baptism is proper to that of Water and not to the other Therefore by the Quakers own Rule none of these is meant here either and so if the Rule be good no sort of Baptism is here meant but the word Baptizing is set down here for an impertinent Cipher signifying nothing Thirdly I have shewed before that there is much Doctrine meant in the Scriptures which is not therein expresly taught but implicitly only and so this Rule of the Quakers is most false I answer therefore lastly that albeit the word Water be not here Matth. 28.19 formally exprest yet the circumstances of the Text the Analogy of Faith and other Scriptures that I have compared it with in my Arguments do manifestly and irresistibly demonstrate the Baptism here mentioned to be Baptism with Water Let the Quakers answer my Arguments if they can I mean at the Greek Calends All the particular exceptions of the Quakers against our Argument from that Text of Matthew being so overthrown and answered The Quakers have as yet one general Argument whereby they hope to overturn Baptism with Water viz. Baptism with Water say they was but a figure that Christ might be made manifest to Israel who had diverse Baptisms imposed on them till the time of Reformation but Christ the Substance being come the shadows must flee away This Objection they lay down in their Confession of Faith page 25. Ans Whether Baptism with Water be a Figure or not I have now abundantly proved it to be an Ordinance of the New Testament Divinely Appointed due in the Churches Court to all the visible or appearing Disciples of the New Testament and necessary to Salvation under the same and to continue to the end of the World And what then dare the Quakers say against it Or how dare they oppose their own meer Brain-sick fancies to the Word of God and Dictates of the Holy Ghost Secondly Let Baptism with Water be a Figure manifesting Christ to Jews and Gentiles too that is to say a sacred Symbol of Christs blood shed not to be shed and so not a shadow of a thing to come on the Cross and a Seal of Remission of Sins there through Yet Christ by his Incarnation Death and Resurrection did not cancel all manner of Figures universally seeing the Bow in the Cloud is still a Figure to us or a Symbol and Pledge rather that God will no more destroy the World by Water Gen. 9.11 12 13. Nor did he thereby cancel all manner of Figures I would rather call them sacred Signs and Symbols if the Quakers would too representing Christ and his Passion and Blood Shed for we shall moreover prove at the Survey of their next ensuing Query that Christ hath Ordained Bread and Wine to be in the Eucharist a Sacred Sign and Symbol of his Body and Blood to the Worlds end But he hath only cancelled thereby Old Testament Figures shadowing forth Him and His Death and Passion to come Thirdly If Baptism with Water was only a Figure to manifest unto Israel Christ Jesus why then did the Apostles dispense it afterwards to the whole Disciples of the Gentile Church without ever cashiering it and with so much speed and diligence after the appearing of their Discipleship Lastly Gospel Baptism which is done with Water as the External Symbol is so far from being a shadow that should have fled away when Christ came in the Flesh and Dyed and the time of Reformation was come that on the direct contrary it then first received its Institution after Christ was come and together with the breaking forth of that Reformation viz. the New Testament way of Dispensation and is by Christ put into the Commission of the Ministers of that Reformation as an Ordinance to be continued to the Worlds end and was thereafter accordingly carried along
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
which is the beginning of the rest For the last words of their Query we must not think that Christ came to destroy or annihilate the Devils Entity and Being as the Adversaries seem to mean for the Devil is not dead yet and the Scripture tells us Matth. 25.41 46. Jud. 6. That Hell Fire is prepared for him and his Angels Christs coming therefore to destroy the Devil through Death Heb. 2.14 is meant of the destroying of his Power and Kingdom in the World which yet will not be fully perfected until the Day of Judgment as the Book of the Revelation throughly witnesseth Thirteenth QUERY Whether or not did Christ Dye for all the Vngodly in the World and Sinners that they should live and dye in their Vngodliness and Sins or live unto Him and VVhether or not did Christ Shed his Blood for all Men and was a Propitiation for the Sins of all Men and VVhether or not these that do not hold this are these that make Sects and are out of the same Spirit and Doctrine of the Apostles SVRVEY This Inspirer of the Quakers is either an ignorant Blockhead or else a captious Sophister for here we have a disjunctive Question or Problem proposed by him in such a manner that whatever Member thereof we yield we are absurdly fanged for whether we say that Christ Died for all the Ungodly and Sinners in the World that they should live and dye in their Ungodliness and Sins or whether we say that he Died for all the Ungodly and Sinners in the World that they should live to him we still speak falsly and absurdly too for the first way we should say that Christ Died for all these that they might live and dye in their ungodliness and sins than which nothing could be said worse and the last way we should say that Christ Died for all Men in the World Elect and Reprobate which is also both false and absurd We must therefore purge the Question from a Plurality of Interrogations which is the true vice of every Member thereof and propose it thus Whether did Christ Dye for all the Ungodly and Sinners in the World or only for the Elect That this is the true state of their present Question their scope and the rest of the Query declares albeit the Adversaries either through ignorance could not or for wickedness would not rightly propose it It is the known Doctrine of the Quakers with Arminians and Jesuits that Christ Died for all Men whatsoever without exception as also they do insinuate in their Confession page 16. and 42. I shall not be prolix upon this Question or else I should transgress my scope of Brevity only I shall give a few clear Demonstrations from the Scriptures whereby it shall be evident that Christ did not Dye for all Men whatsoever Elect and Reprobate but only for the Elect and this is the Assertion Therefore first for whomsoever Christ Died and shed his Blood God loves them with a special love yea the greatest measure of love but he loves not so all Men whatsoever therefore Christ did not Dye and Shed his Blood for all Men whatsoever The Major shall be evident by these plain and clear Scripture-Testimonies 1 Joh. 4.9 10. In this was manifested the love of God towards us because he sent his only begotten Son into the World that we might live through him Herein is love not that we loved Him but that he loved us and sent his Son to be a Propitiation for our Sins 1 Joh. 3.16 Hereby perceive we the love of God because he laid down his Life for us Rom. 5.8 But God commendeth his love to us in that while we were yet Sinners Christ Died for us John 15.13 Greater love hath no Man than this that a Man lay down his Life for his Friends These Scriptures make the Major as clear as Noon-day The Minor is no less evident for God had never any special love to any Reprobate and especially the greatest measure of Love Depart from me says Christ to Reprobates Matth. 7.23 I never knew you viz. with a knowledge attended with love for it is otherwise sure that he was not ignorant of them but the meaning is plain that he never knew them with any special love or kindness for them which way it is often meant in the Scriptures as Psal 1.6 Jer. 1.5 Hes 13.5 Amos 3.2 Rom. 8.29 2 Tim. 2.19 Again these whom God so dearly loves he quickens them together with Christ and makes them sit in Heavenly places in him Eph. 2.4 5 6. But he doth not these things to all Men whatsoever as needs no proof Secondly These for whom Christ Died God freely with him bestows all things upon them Rom. 8.32 and it cannot be otherwise as the Text plainly imports but God does not bestow all things upon all Men whatsoever without exception seeing he never bestows any Saving Grace Life Eternal or Glory upon any Reprobate Therefore certainly Christ did not Dye for Reprobates Thirdly These for whom Christ Died cannot come into Condemnation but all Reprobates come Eternally into Condemnation as the Adversaries will not I think deny Therefore Christ Died not for any Reprobate I prove the Major from Rom. 8.34 where the Apostle Argues thus Who is he that Condemneth It is Christ that Died c. here the Apostle brings Christs Dying for a Man as an Infallible Proof and Argument that that Man shall not come into Condemnation but shall surely be justified for seeing Christ hath Died for him says he who then shall Condemn him Now if Christ had Died for all Men whatsoever Pauls Argument had been quite void and utterly null seeing the most part are for all Christs Death Eternally Damned and the Arminians plainly contradict this Text affirming that Christ Died for Reprobates who are Eternally Damned Fourthly Christ did not Dye for these for whom he would not pray seeing it 's much less to pray for one and to lend him but a good wish than to Dye for him nor can it be conceived that he who will not bestow a small Intreaty for me will ever bestow his Life for me But Christ would not so much as pray for all Men whatsoever John 17.9 I pray not for the World says Christ but for them which thou hast given me Therefore certainly Christ did not Dye for all Men whatsoever but only for the Elect whom God had given him out of the World Fifthly All whose iniquities Christ bare that is Died for shall surely be justified Isai 53.11 But all Men whatsoever will never be justified as will not be denied Therefore Christ did not bear the iniquities of or Dye for all Men whatsoever The Major is clear in the place cited where the Prophet peremptorily and positively argues from Christs bearing of the iniquities of a Man that therefore he shall justifie him and he gives this as the ground why he shall justifie many viz. Because He shall bear their iniquities and so whose iniquities
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
under the power of darkness Ephes 5.8 Colos 1.13 and even within the pale of the Visible Church there are many to whom it is not given to know the Mysteries of the Kingdom of God and God hath not given them a Heart to perceive Eyes to see nor Ears to hear but their Eyes are shut that they cannot see and their Hearts that they cannot understand there is a Vail thereupon Matth. 13.11 Deut. 29.4 Isai 44.18 Rom. 11.7 8. Are these then sufficiently enlightned for Conversion and Salvation then black ignorance blindness and darkness sufficiently enlightens But the Quakers reply in their Confession page 8. That it is not the brain-knowledge that is blinded in any man but only the sensible knowledge of feeling But the reply signifies nothing For first I inquire if the brain-knowledge without the sensible knowledge of feeling be sufficient to Salvation if it be then they who are quite stupid and have no conscience or sence of sin at all but are past feeling as it is 1 Tim. 4.2 Ephes 4.19 are sufficiently enlightned to Salvation which I do not believe If then the brain-knowledge alone without somewhat of the other be not sufficient to Salvation then with the Adversaries own grant all men whatsoever are not sufficiently enlightned to Salvation seeing they grant the sensible knowledge of feeling to be blinded in many Secondly All men have not even the brain-knowledge of Christ Crucified and the New Covenant as is clear in experience for How many Americans and others can tell us one word of Christ and the Scriptures also declares it Psal 147.20 Rom. 10.14 and 15.20.21 Ephes 2.12 how then are such men utterly ignorant of Christ and so of the way to Salvation Joh. 14.6 Act. 4.12 and are not within the Covenant as Believers Children are who though they be not capable of actual knowledge yet they belong to the Covenant but are Strangers to the Covenants of Promise and Aliens to the Church of God Eph. 2.12 How I say are these sufficiently enlightned to Salvation If these be sufficiently enlightned thereunto then not a small whisper of Christ or the Covenant can be needful And I am sure if they never heard of Christ they can neither know Him believe in Him love Him nor obey His Gospel Lastly There are many even who have heard of Christ that instead of brain-knowledge are given up to strong brain-Delusions to believe black Errors and Lies that bring on their Eternal Damnation 2 Thes 2.11 12. It is therefore most false that the brain-knowledge is not blinded in any man But the Quakers here object from Joh. 1.9 where it 's said That Christ enlightens every one that comes into the World which they expound of a Light sufficient to Salvation Ans I deny their Exposition which they shall never prove for the Text only says That he enlightens every one that comes into the World which indeed is most true in regard of whatsoever kind or degree of Light any man in the whole world hath for every man is enlightned with some kind of Light viz. either the Light of Natural Reason or else both with that and the Supernatural Light of Grace also all which they have from Christ who is the Eternal Son of God by whom all things were made John 1.3 Colos 1.16 Heb. 1.2 and is also our Spiritual enlightner Matth. 11.27 John 1.16 17. and 8.12 and 12.46 But that he enlightens every man that comes into the World with a light sufficient to Salvation is neither said in this Text of John nor any where else of Scripture but is on the contrary therein strongly contradicted some few Testimonies whereof I have produced That which the Quakers add here viz. That he enlightens every man that comes into the World That all men through him might believe is not so written in the Text but only in the Seventh Verse there preceeding it 's said That John bare witness of the Light That all men through him might believe but the truth is the word men is not in the Original but only the word all which may be as well supplied with the word Elect as the word Men and albeit it were in the Original yet for the reasons before given it behooved to be understood of all Sorts Stations and Degrees of Men or Genera singulorum not of every Individual Man or Singula generum and surely Johns witness was neither then nor yet is come to every mans ears in the whole World Secondly It uses to be objected That that which may be known of God was manifest to the Gentiles Rom. 1.19 Therefore even the Gentiles were sufficiently enlightened Ans The knowledge that the Apostle there speaks of was only a natural knowledge of God from the light of Natural Reason and the works of Creation which was common with them to the Devil and therefore was no ways sufficient for Salvation considering also how small a portion we have retained of it since the Fall albeit it is indeed sufficient for conviction and to make unexcusable They should therefore prove that these knew God in Christ or God as Redeemer and his new Covenant or else they profit not Thirdly They object That the Gentiles had a light in their Consciences accusing or else excusing them Rom. 2.15 Ans If that light of a Natural Conscience which the Gentiles had be sufficient to Salvation as the Quakers strongly insinuate in their Confession of Faith pag. 6 15 16 32 33 34. then the Devil also who wants not the Light of a Natural Conscience is sufficiently enlightened to Salvation Secondly If that light of a Natural Conscience which the Gentiles had be sufficient to Salvation then the meer light of Nature and Reason and that when it is corrupted and darkened without the Supernatural light of Grace or so much as one Gospel-promise which the Gentiles knew not is sufficient to Salvation which who says is a deep-dyed Atheist They sometimes have said to me That the Gentiles were sufficiently enlightned even in respect of the Covenant of Grace when it was manifested to Adam or any other of their fore-Fathers Ans We were once sufficiently enlightned in Adam in order to the Covenant of Works but we are not still so now our understanding is darkened by the Fall But in respect of the Covenant of Grace Adam was never our head and undertaker and so his enlightning is nothing to us Secondly Will their fore-Fathers enlightning at a great distance of time worn out and extinct prove that the Gentiles had still a sufficient light Nay then let them prove for it 's as easie that a blind man sees sufficiently to read because his Father who had Eyes saw to do it or that all men are sufficiently innocent and able to do their Duty perfectly because Adam was once so and then we shall need no Saviour But Say the Quakers is not the light then saving which he believes Ans Christ Jesus who is meant in the Scriptures pointed at
Isaac was born Comparing Rom. 4.10 with Gen. 17. chap. But of the Solemn Declaration thereof before the world by the clear Fruits and Evidences of one in that State and that it cannot be meant of his justification before God is sure seeing the Scriptures Cited shew very peremptorily that he was a justified man before he offered that work by which James there says he was justified And the Apostles clear Scope in the place is to hold forth that justifying Faith cannot be alone but must and will be accompanied with other graces and vertues and good works which give Lustre and Glory thereunto which there he calls the perfecting of it and without which it will be found but a dead Faith And when thirdly it is objected that men will be judged according to or by their words and works as the Scriptures often say the same answer is to be given viz. they will be judged according to or by them Declaratively as Solemn Witnesses and Testimonies of the State they are in manifesting before all the Equity of Gods procedure not as Causes or Conditions except in the Damned whose evil works are indeed the Meritorious Cause of their Misery An Appendix concerning the Merit of our good Works George Keith in his Quakerism no Popery page 55 56 57. Teaches also that the good works of the Saints are Meritorious of the Reward of happiness though not in the strictest sort of merit which he calls Condignity or deserving a Reward so as the Merit is equal in worth and dignity to the Reward yet so as to obtain viz. Meritoriously for positively he pleads for their merit here from God by promise as he out of his Infinite bounty hath seen fit to bestow viz. unto such a merit and though he refuses all Condign merit both here and likewise in the 72 page of the book as that signifies an equality betwixt the Merit and the Reward yet he still sticks though subtilly to a Condignity below an equality page 57 and in all his Arguments he still aims to prove a worth and merit in the very works themselves But I must Assert that there is no merit in any of our good or best works in any sense of merit that 's proper whatsoever to obtain from God any good thing much less the Reward of Heaven I shortly prove it Therefore first the best of our works in this life are imperfect as we have before now proved and comes far short of that which we owe Ergo they can never merit any good at the hands of God but upon the contrary the Curse and Damnation Eternally which is due to them who do not exactly in all things keep the Law of God Deut. 27.26 Galat. 3.10 Secondly Eternal Life is the Gift of God says the Apostle Rom. 6.23 therefore it is no ways merited by any good work of ours for that which a man merits is not Gifted to him but it is his due George Keith answers to this that both the Works and Merits are a free Gift and the Reward too But I rejoyn how can I merit at a mans hand by his free Gift unto me Can I merit at his hand because he hath obliged me and made me his Debtor viz. I merit from him because I owe him When I give a Beggar a Farthing then I become his Debtor and must give him another in payment of my Debt to him and then we are free and if I give him a third because now this is a free Gift again I over again become his Debtor Is not that fine Non-sense and strong Contradiction Thirdly the Apostle says Ephes 2.5.8 that by Grace we are saved and not by works Therefore our good works do not merit the Reward of Heaven in any proper signification of merit be it never so moderate and remote from strictness especially seeing the same Apostle tells us Rom. 11.6 that that which is of works cannot be of grace nor that which is of grace be of works because of a clear contradiction and the destroying of both their Natures which he their shews The Quakers then with their dear Friends the Papists must either confess Salvation not to be by any merit of our Works or else they must deny it to be by Grace flat contrary to the Scriptures George Keith's Answer that as the Reward is of Grace so the Merit is of Grace is already destroyed for I cannot merit by a free Gift of Grace seeing I can never merit by becoming a Debtor to a man for then the more I receive from him he should be the more my Debtor not I his whereas in all sense and reason I must owe him the more instead of meriting Now when George Keith yields this merit not to be equal in dignity and worth unto the Reward I cannot but commend his Modesty for its very much that the Quakers cannot merit above Adams merit if he had stood in his Obedience for nothing that he could have done all being still due to his great Sovereign could have merited properly nor could it ever have been equal to the Reward of happiness And the difference betwixt the two Covenants is not that under the first good works would have Merit Condignly not so under the Second for as to the First that is false But it lies here that under the First good works behooved to be compleatly performed as the Condition before we got or had a right unto the reward but in the Second Covenant we have right upon our first Entering into and closing of the Covenant by Faith unto the Inheritance before the performance of good works But George Keith objects there pag. 56 that the Saints are said to be worthy of the Kingdom of God and of walking with Christ in white 2 Thes 1.5 Revel 3 4 which Infers at least a suitableness Ans First their worth is not reckoned in themselves but in Christ Secondly a sutableness doth not Infer a dignity and merit A poor man in great need yea though no good man is a sutable object of an Alms though he does not merit it from us he hath no Jus personae into it Again he objects that God rewards our good works and therefore they must have some worthiness in them Ans God's rewarding so far beyond any worth that dare be pretended in our good works proves that it is not for their worth but upon some other account that we obtain the reward viz. upon Christs account in whom by his free grace we have obtained Redemption and Salvation Thirdly he objects that a meek and quiet Spirit is in the sight of God of great price 1 Pet. 3 4. Ans First our Souls also are of great price in the sight of God yet we do not for that merit Heaven Secondly doubtless God has a great esteem of vertues of one of which the Apostle here speaks in the abstract consideration from vice but in us they are mixed with Relicks of vice and imperfect and so cannot merit Thirdly
others since had been quite unchurched when yet they were not for their Consequential fundamental Errors But Sir the Case is now hugely alter'd and the Scene changed after that our Reformers have by vive Demonstration shewed the Papists their Clergy at least the unavoidable Consequence who yet still pertinaciously hold the principle which it cannot be conceived how they can do it in such Circumstances of shining Light without allowing the Consequence also There is also a vast difference betwixt the Papist-Church now and before the Council of Trent when many Errors that were before that but taught or held by some particular persons greater or smaller but not turn'd into a Law are now by publick Consent and Constitution of their Canon or Church-law become their universal and Church-profession as she is such a Church viz. Popish And this makes her Guilty now in her very publick and stated Notion of such a Church and the Errors if Fundamental which now I meddle not with because I need not quite Unchurches whereas the other of particular persons cannot do it or else no Church could be long in safety It may be ye will retort this in what I said concerning Consequential-Scripture above viz. that if the Terms Material and Consequential be diminutive as here is said then Consequential-Scripture will not be of equal Authority with that formally and expresly Taught But there is no parity of reason for this Consequence seeing men do not always see or perceive what follows from the Principles they hold nor frequently would they if they saw it hold or own such Principles But God cannot be Guilty of Ignorance but sees most perfectly all that follows from every Principle and therefore every Consequence of his Word is as much by him intended and so is as much of Divine Authority as that which is most expresly and formally therein Enunciated There is no place here then for a Retorsion Having Discussed this head I come to your following Libel of Popery against us charged in your Twelfth Section of that Book of yours often named Where first ye charge us with Popery in Asserting the three Persons in the Godhead and a Trinity But in this the Scriptures are as Popish from which I have proved the three Persons in the Deity And the Concrete also of the word Trinity is in the Scripture 1 Joh. 5.7 and it is the only abstract thereof But the Quakers are herein Blasphemous and quite off the Foundation too for if the Attributes of God and persons in the Godhead be not Fundamental nothing can be such Your Ordination would surely be a meer Nullity Secondly ye alledge we are Popish in affirming of Original Sin in Infants who have not sinned Actually and Thirdly because we deny your universal Grace Ans Indeed your Principles in both these are Jesuitically Popish and Jesuits are the worst of Papists both in their Erroneous Principles and Bloody Practices for ye and they both joyn exactly in these against the Scripture as I have before fully proved Fourthly ye say we are Popish in affirming that humane Learning and Natural Parts are more essential qualifications of a Minister then the Grace of God Ans Sir I described a Minister for these of your Profession before and ye needed not have done it over again for still I see ye would have an ignorant nay unnatural Dunce I have known men but moderately Learn'd be Ministers with us because of their Piety and fit Faculty for exhorting But a man utterly void of Learning and Natural Parts too that 's an Idiot I think cannot in an ordinary Method and we cannot now upon any ground of Scripture look for extraordinary Inspiration to supply such wants be fit to Teach for how shall a man Teach others that which he knows not himself a man of great Gifts though really wanting Grace may be able to Instruct and Teach others as Judas and many others have done but a man void of Gifts and Knowledge though he have Grace cannot do it And herein we are not Popish seeing the Scriptures shew that some without Grace have been Ministers and called by Christ himself to that Office but requires that none without Gifts be admitted thereunto 1. Tim. 3.2 Tit. 1.9 Fifthly ye say we are Popish because our Ministerial Authority is transmitted by external Ordination from Age to Age and that this makes a Minister though he have no Inward call who is thereby Authorized Ans The first was in the Apostles time practised viz. The transmitting of Ministerial Authority by Ordination Act. 14.23 1 Tim. 4.14 2 Tit. 1.5 and for the second it gives him Ministerial Authority and so makes him a Minister surely nor is the Church obliged or capable to know his Inward Call without which his Ministerial Acts are still valid None of these are any ways Popish I am sure not the first for the Scriptures Cited nor yet the second for the reason given Sixthly ye alleadge we are Popish in affirming that Clergy-men ought to be distinguisht from others by their Black Coats so that it is not Lawful for honest Tradesmen such as the Apostles were to Preach who have not past their Apprenticeship at the University Ans For the Clergy their wearing of Black Coats I never learnt that our Church made it necessary and another Garb not Gaudy unlawful but that they accounted it the Gravest and most sutable I acknowledge and I do not think it Popish to be Grave As for the Apostles Preaching who were some of them before Tradesmen they were immediately Called and Inspired which now adays cannot be look'd for as is shewed in our Survey Nor is it Popish to refuse men the Pulpit who can do no good in it for they must be apt to Teach that get that by Scripture Command Seventhly ye alleadge we are Popish because we study our Sermons before we come to the Pulpit and does not wait till the Spirit come Ans do ye think Sir that a Minister of the Gospel should not both by prayer reading and serious meditation prepare himself before he come to Preach to the people And is it Popish if he do viz. Paul exhorted Timothy to be a Papist 1 Tim. 4.13 14 15. When he enjoyned him to read much and meditate much for the increase of his gifts that his profiting might appear to all But Sir what makes your Spirit Study so much for they say to me he will Study sometimes a whole day almost for the wrabling out of a quarter of an hours non-sense It may be he is a Papist and I very much fear it be too true Eightly ye alleadge we are Popish because our Ministers have a modified or set stipend for their maintenance Ans But pray you Sir was the Law of God ordaining the Tenths for the Tribe of Levi Popish too It s true that Law as peculiar to that Church is expired but the Common equity thereof is still a binding example and pattern for the Peoples incouraging of
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
straight contradicts the Apostle Secondly Adam is not to be considered as a single Person in the matter in hand but as the Scriptures last cited proves as a Common undertaker for and representative head of all mankind and so his deed in Law was the deed of all men albeit they did not personally consent even as the Publick transactions and deeds of the representatives of a Kingdome State or City are in Law the fact and deed of all Thirdly George Keith who as I am informed did dispute once for a Professors place should have remembred whatever be said of primo primi that there are motus secundo primi in us preceeding our actual consent which when towards evil are sinful as when a temptation is tampered with or somewhat listened unto though in end it be rejected and the consent not given Fourthly gracious Principles and gracious Inclinations are truly grace or else a man is not gracious though he be graciously principled and inclined therefore sinful principles and inclinations that is principles and inclinations bending to sin and evil must be sin by the rule of Contraries yea the worst of sin being the bitter Fountain and Source of all the rest Fifthly George Keith grants in the pages of his Book cited that this natural Concupiscence in men is an evil thing and inclines to evill and sin and so by a Metonymie he allowes it to be called Sin Therefore it must be properly and formally sinful and not by a Motonymie only seeing if it were not properly sinful it would not incline so for grace cannot incline to sin nor can that which is neither good nor evil or sinful incline more to evil than to good That which he says of our natural Concupiscence it s not indwelling without our actual consent and kindly reception I cannot but think he was in a strange mixture when he dropt it from his ill-inspired pen. For I am sure St. Paul says in a Text often handled and by George Keith abused too as shall after appear that there was sin and corruption dwelling in him when he hated it disallowed it and gave no consent thereunto nor kindly reception Rom. 7 Chap. from Ver 15 to 23. and certainly our natural Concupiscence which George Keith denys not to be in us but there confesses that it is and it would be repugnant to be otherwise as is clear though he deny it to indwell in us or to be our sin till we actually consent to it being an accident must indwell into and have union with some subject of dependence seeing it cannot exist without some vehicle nor move one nails-breadth by it self In whom then dwels it when it is not consented unto If he says in the Devil and he can say no other thing then when he does not consent unto it he has the Devil and it both to lodge seeing if it be Subjected and dwels in the Devil it cannot be in him without its Subject with it And in my opinion he had better lodge it alone as it and the devil too for two such Devils are worse together then any of them it self These are the dictats of a witty Inspirer However George here objecteth from Ezekiel 18 Chap Ver 4. where its said the Soul that sinneth it shall die To prove that without an actual consent unto our natural Concupiscence we are not held guilty of death Ans The whole Chapter is concerning the sins of nearest Parents as is clear by reading it and so makes nothing against original sin derived from our first Parent Adam Secondly the manifest scope of the Chapter is to give assurance to every man of mercy upon his repentance and turning to God whatever his Parents or himself have been before But will that infer that such a man who findes mercy upon his Repentance never had original sin O brave consequence again there is not the same reason of Adam and of our other nearer Parents for he was our common representative not they and therefore we may be involved into his sin though not into theirs before we were capable actually to consent for we do not stand and fall in any of them but in him we did as the Scriptures cited plainly proves But having dispatched George Keith albeit I will not stand upon all the objections here which are commonly brought seeing this Controversie hath been much handled betwixt our Writers and the Papists where it may be seen they have one great Objection which I must answer and that is That if our Nature be Originally sinful that sin must either be propagated by the Soul or by the Body or by both Not by the Soul for seeing God alone creats that so God should be the Author of Sin which cannot be Not by the Body for so the Soul should be free of it seeing the Body being a dull thing cannot propagate it into the Soul Not by both for the first reason given especially Ans Whatever way it be propagated I have shewed from the Scripture that it is propagated and therein we ought to acquiesce though we could no ways comprehend the manner how it is propagated Secondly I answer that there is not a sufficient Enumeration of the Parts for our Natural Corruption is neither Originally propagated into the Body by the Soul nor into the Soul by the Body but by our Impure Natural Generation into both which is evident seeing abstracting from and laying aside our Natural Generation and our dependence thereby upon Adam neither our Souls nor our Bodies had been naturally infected with that Plague It descends therefore most clearly by our Natural Generation not unto the Soul alone or the Body alone but unto the whole Compound consisting of both united which is the direct Effect of Generation seeing it is not Souls or Bodies separated but Men consisting of both united that Men begets in their generative actions In the following part of the Query they begin to use Grammar against their Profession Original say they signifies the beginning and therefore Original Sin must be the Devil forsooth A brave Consequence indeed which must stand upon the verity of this proposition viz. the beginning is the Devil which if they hold for truth then they must say that God Created Heaven and Earth in the Devil Gen. 1.1 and let them see to these Texts Colos 1.18 Revel 1.8 where the beginning is attributed to Christ but I never heard it ascribed Intransitively as they call it and in the Nominative Case unto the Devil till now Origo for I have learnt my Latin signifies a Root Birth Fountain as well as a beginning why then may it not signifie when the term Sin is joyned with it the Sin which we have from our Root of Mankind Adam or the Sin we are born in or which is the Fountain and source of the rest But let it only signifie a beginning why may not Original Sin signifie the Sin of our beginning to come into the World or that Sin in us