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
knowledge of these Truths amongst men of such Capacity though they should never so much Peruse the Scriptures than amongst Americans that never heard of them and in vain should such men be appointed to take heed to the Scriptures Isai 8.20 Luk. 16.29 Joh. 5.39 2 Pet. 1.19 if the Scriptures were every where so difficult and obscure that they could no ways understand them Thirdly I must premise that for Gods Holy and Wise ends for a view whereof see Mr. Durhams excellent Key presixed to his Exposition of the Song of Solomon pages 32 33 34. the Style of the Scriptures are in many other places so difficult and dark I mean in respect of our understanding that until they be Interpreted by men called of God though mediately and furnisht with Gifts for that end their particular meaning cannot be reached by men of no mean understanding yea even those of the greatest gift do not without much diligence joyned with great capacity nor yet fully as to all particulars understand them as is evident by the Song of Solomon and the many Mystical Prophecies contained in the Books of Ezekiel Daniel Zechariah Revelation c. And yet these same obscure places if they be skilfully Interpreted according to the Analogy of Faith in general and by comparison with other parallel places of Scripture more perspicuous and plain or by the scope connexion dependance and circumstances of the place it self will without difficulty be understood and the sence delivered from the foresaid grounds understood to be the true meaning of the Text by Men of very ordinary Judgment for many can discern the truth of an Exposition when the clear grounds thereof are represented distinctly before their eyes who cannot by themselves search out the methods to find these grounds and apply them thereunto as is both clear in all experience and also the one work in reason is much easier than the other Yea the Doctrine and grounds of a Scripture-Text not a little perspicuous being skilfully compared which a well gifted Interpreter and whose daily work it is is much more able to do than Men of ordinary reach common Endowments and other Imploys with the Doctrine and grounds delivered in other parallel places of Scripture in any measure clear though none of the clearest they do by their consociated beams and united rays more powerfully shine and more copiously send forth their light than any one of them apart could ever have done even as a number of bright shining Stars being placed into one Constellation do more powerfully shine than any one of them apart could have done Lastly I shall add that the whole Scriptures were written for our Learning and are useful for Edification as appears from Rom. 15.4 2 Tim. 3.16 These things premised I Assert against the Quakers who both here and many a time to my face have denied it That Scripture-Interpretation is necessary in the Church for Peoples understanding or better understanding of the Scriptures and Edification or further Edification by them and I prove it because If there be many Scriptures profitable for Edification and written for the Churches Learning which at least a great part yea the far most part of the Church cannot without Interpretation particularly understand or so fully understand and so be edified or so far edified by them and with the help of Interpretation may in some measure particularly understand or more fully understand and so receive edification or a further edification by them then Scripture Interpretation is needful in the Church that such People may understand or further understand these Scriptures and so be edified or further edified by them as is most evident But the former is true by our premised Discourse preceeding therefore the latter also must be true Secondly The Levites Expounded the Scriptures to the People Nehem. 8.7 8. Philip Expounded them to the Eunuch Act. 8.30 31 34 35. Christ Expounded his Parables which are now a part of the Scriptures to his Disciples Mark 4.34 He Expounded the Scriptures to the two Disciples Luk. 24.27 and albeit this was Christ Expounding them as the Quakers impertinently use to reply unto our Argument yet his expounding of them shews that Scripture-Interpretation is useful and necessary in the Church otherwise his Expounding had been a needless and idle work which is a piece of Blasphemy Matth. 12.36 Therefore Scripture-Interpretation is needful in the Church otherwise the Expounding thereof by the foresaid Persons had been a meer needless and idle work and the need thereof is yet further evident seeing it is plainly shewed Neh. 8.8 that Exposition is a mean for peoples understanding the Scriptures Nor did Christs own Disciples frequently understand his Parables until he Expounded them Matth. 13.36 Luk. 8.9 nor did the Eunuch understand what he read Act. 8.30 31. until it was Expounded to him Thirdly Peter affirms 2 Pet. 3.16 That there are some things in Pauls Epistles which are Scripture hard to be understood which the unlearned and unstable wrest together with several other Scriptures to their own destruction Therefore there is need of Scripture-Interpretation in the Church seeing Scriptures hard to be understood do need explaining that they may be understood and People instructed and edified by them for which purpose they were written and it 's needful to prevent as much as can be the mistaking and wresting of them and Peoples falling into Soul-destroying Errors thereby though all this happens through Mens ignorance and wavering humor as the Text says and is not the Scriptures fault Nor can it be answered as some do That by some things here Peter does not mean some of the Doctrine taught by Paul but some of the Extrinsecal Objects represented thereby seeing the things hard to be understood here mentioned are such as are liable to wresting which therefore must be understood of the Doctrine it self seeing that may be wrested but the Extrinsecal Objects cannot for wresting is a changing of the Sence which belongs to Discourse and Sayings Again where Peter says That the unlearned wrest these things hard to be understood as also they do the other Scriptures he plainly intimates that these things hard to be understood are themselves Scriptures too otherwise the Sence runs very ill I think viz. the unlearned wrest some of the External Objects of Pauls Doctrine as also they do the other Scriptures Fourthly I must enquire of the Quakers if in their Principles Men of mean capacities understand the Scriptures every where as for example all that is written in the Canticles Ezechiel Daniel Zechariah Revelation c. which yet was written and is useful for our Learning and Instruction if they say Yea I shall need no more to bring their Principles in discredit with all Men seeing the whole Christian World knoweth the contrary If they say Nay then there is need of Scripture-Interpretation in the Church for explaining such Scriptures by the foresaid means that People may understand them and be edified by them which is
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
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
for that which is before clean needs no more cleansing Fifthly They object That the Apostle says 1 Cor. 7.28 That though a Woman Marry she hath not sinned Therefore there are some actions at least free of all sin Ans If this objection proved any thing it would prove that Reprobates and Pagans also have perfect works Secondly I answer that Paul there means of the action of Marriage considered in respect of it's nature and kind and in order to its proper object as abstracted from all particular circumstances which may attend it which way the action hath no evil in it otherwise it could not be lawful to Marry whereas to forbid Marriage is a Doctrine of Devils 1 Tim. 4.1 2 3. Nevertheless albeit the action of Marriage so considered be not sinful yet seeing every particular action is necessarily exercised in several Circumstances wherewith it ought or ought not to be cloathed it may easily be defiled and become sinful by the Vesture of evil Circumstances instead whereof it should have been cloathed with good ones especially adding the impurity and uncleanness of the Agent which exerts it self in every particular action Sixthly The Quakers object and hereby they endeavour to prove the perfection both of the Saints and of their good works in this life The Saints say they have in this life perfect good works Therefore the Saints in this life must be perfect They prove the Consequence because perfect Effects crave perfect Causes They prove the Antecedent because they are acceptable to God and because if they be not perfect then they are sinful but sinful they cannot be seeing God commands them who commands not things sinful Ans Our good works are acceptable to God thorow Christ into whom all believers are by Faith Ingrafted and thorow whom alone both their persons and good works are accepted but none of aur good works here-away ore in themselves acceptable to God seeing they are still Imperfect Again God accepts them as they are good that is Sincerely done not as they are Imperfect and so evill and so from their acceptation their perfection follows not To the Second I Answer that God Commands our good works not as we perform them but as we ought to perform nor yet as they are defective as to the Degree he does not Command their gradual defect but he Commands them as they are good in respect of their Nature and kind So the objection perishes Seventhly they endeavour to prove that Christians have at least some perfect Actions in this Life and for that purpose they Inquire of us if the Apostles sinned in writing the Scripures Ans First this will not prove the perfection of any Action of any man now living except they can first prove him to have as large a measure of grace and of the Spirit 's Influence and Assistance as the Apostles had when they wrote the Scriptures which will be hard enough I think for them to get done Secondly the writing of the Scriptures wherein the Prophets and Apostles were but Pen-men for the Holy Ghost dictated all may consist with some Degree of imperfection as the Action is considered Morally and as lyable to the Law of God David and Asaph wrote Scriptures when they were not perfect Psal 51 10. and 73 22. or else beside the Instances given what will they say of an Hypocrites writing over in whole or in part the whole Scriptures and of every Action of Printing while our Printers print them over But Thirdly for full satisfaction I Answer that in that Action the Apostles did not at all sin upon the matter which yet is the most Formal sense of the objection which thus proposed directly imports the matter seeing the matter of the Action did perfectly agree with the Law of God as also the Action of an unrenewed man may doe Secondly there was much good in it compared with all the rest of the causes and so it was sincere and of another nature and kind then any Action of an unrenewed man is or can be seeing the principles thereof love to God and men The ends thereof the glory of God and good of Souls the form and manner wherein it was done in obedience to God were all certainly good Yet considering it as a Moral Action lyable to God's Law it was surely for the reasons given Defective and Imperfect as to the exact and compleat Degree of love to God and men and respect to the glory of God and good of Souls and Acting in it in pure obedience to Gods Command wherewith every perfect Action is to be qualified They will may be say that then the Scriptures would be in danger to Contract some Impurity from the Impurity of the Agent and Action of writing Ans That is false as appears from our Instances of an Hypocrite and Printer and of David and Asaph when they were not pure or perfect And if the Doctrine written did necessarily Contract any impuritie from the impurity of the writer by the same Reason and with more Reason seeing the Tongue is a more Immediat Instrument of the Heart then the Hand the Doctrine Preached should Contract some Impurity from the Impurity of the Preacher which is manifestly false to the Worlds eye Christ was the external object of the persecutive Actions of the Jews yet he Contracted no Impurity from thence But the Quakers urge saying though we cannot do all we ought to do yet that which we do we may do it perfectly Ans This reply must either be understood of diverse Actions so that the sense shall be though we cannot do all the good Actions we ought to do yet that Action or these Actions which we do we may do it or them perfectly which seeing by Perfectly they must mean the perfection of Degrees and otherwise it would be nothing to their purpose of a sinless perfection which they plead we must deny because of these and many other Scriptures Prov. 20 9. Eccles 7 20. Galat. 5 17. Rom. 7 21. or else that reply must be understood of one and the same Action And so the sense is though we cannot do an Action in that perfect degree of goodness that we ought yet in that degree of goodness wherein we do it we may do it perfectly where it being the perfection of degrees which is here Controverted and by the Adversaries pleaded for and otherwise we should have no debate with them here their reply involves a strong Contradiction viz. that any Action performed below that degree of goodness which it ought to have should notwithstanding be performed perfectly in respect of the perfection of Degrees seeing so it would both want and yet not want some Degree of goodness which it ought to have For these reasons I justly deny the latter part of their proposition Sixteenth QUERY Can any man be saved by his own works Self-righteousness will worship And are not all men in Self-righteousness that are not in the righteousness of Christ Jesus And
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-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
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
may be understood for it shews the Etymology and Gender of words and how they are Declined Conjugated Constructed c. Would they then have a Minister not knowing how to Speak and Write Sence It s like that so he would be somewhat more related to the Quakers but I am sure he would be the less worthy of his Charge Would they have me saying like Highland-men learning English They is man for these are men or put she for he as they do Alass what Non-sense should the world then be troubled with All men that know how to Speak any Language aright have either Artificial Grammar or else experience equivalent to Artificial Grammar from my Cradle for example I have a long experience teaching me how to speak English and that is a sort of experimental Grammar but for learning how to speak Latin Greek c. I was taught Rules of Grammar as a much more expedite ready and accurate method of Learning But it would seem the Quakers here by Grammar mean Foreign Languages or their Grammar and so their Quarrel is that Ministers should learn Foreign Languages or the Grammar thereof But this is also most easie to refell for any man may Lawfully learn a Foreign Language therefore he may Lawfully learn the Grammar thereof seeing whatever Language a man may Lawfully learn to speak he may learn I hope to speak it right and so as it may be Sence or else it shall be Lawful for a man to learn to speak a Language in which it is not Lawful for him to learn to speak Sence which is ridiculous The Antecedent I prove If a man may not Lawfully learn Foreign Languages then who should have Translated the Scriptures into our Mother-Tongue for Hebrew and Greek the original Languages wherein the Scriptures were first Written are not our Mother-Tongue Again how should the Churches of divers Nations speaking divers Languages Communicate their Gifts and Knowledge one with another or have any Correspondence together or how should such Kingdoms have any Commerce if none of them might learn anothers Language or else both or all of them a third and how should Americans and those places of the World that have not as yet heard the Gospel ever hear it if they should not learn some bodies Language that have the Gospel or some body that hath the Gospel theirs These things prove it both Lawful and necessary that some men especially Ministers may learn Foreign Languages But say the Quakers the many Languages began in Babylon therefore they mean to infer they are not Lawful among Christians Ans But why then do the Quakers speak English for sure it is that Language is no Ancienter than Babylon When the Quakers shall have Taught all men to speak the one Primitive Language again then it shall be time to lay aside the many Languages which began in Babylon But what was not the knowledge of divers Tongues one of the Gifts of the Spirit which he bestowed at the Promulgation of the Gospel to all Nations for the more speedy and easie publishing thereof Acts. 2.4 1 Cor. 12.10 and do they think that the day of Pentecost when the Disciples began to speak with divers Tongues was a day of Babels Confusion if the Quakers did not wilfully shut their Eyes they might easily see that albeit the Division of Tongues at Babel was a Judgment making each of them ignorant of anothers menaing yet the knowledg of Tongues and Grammar are a blessing causing people to understand one another and so their effects are direct contrary As for Artificial or School-Logick it is an Art or practical Science directing our understanding how to Define Divide Judge and Argument aright For all the rules of Logick are concerning these foresaid operations of our understanding and they proceed practically by way of direction shewing us how to do them both which are evident to all that know any thing of School-Logick and we could easily prove it if that were the business here controverted betwixt us and the Quakers but it is none of their present controversie with us and if they shall offer to controvert that I shall provoke them to instance if they can any rule of Logick which is not concerning these foresaid operations of our understanding and which does not proceed practically and by way of Direction which we defie them to do These things then being so it is infallibly manifest that if the rules of School-Logick be true they cannot but direct us how to Define Divide Judge and Argument aright seeing they are all concerning these operations of our understanding and all of them proceed practically by way of direction so that if their Dictate and direction be true they cannot direct us the wrong way but must direct us aright otherwise their direction should be false and not true But if the Quakers will accuse them of falshood I must conjure them to exhibit their reasons for these Rules of Logick being derived from and established upon the uncontrovertible and Supreme principles of the Light of Nature of themselves evident and being also approved by manifold experience we cannot be such Traitors to the Light of Nature and reason and such enemies to all experience as upon the bare say of any Brain-sick Quaker to reject them A very great Novice at Logick can easily demonstrate the truth of any rule thereof irresistibly Well then seeing School-Logick directeth our understanding to Define Divide Judge and Argument aright it cannot but be very requisite for a Minister he that knows not how to do these things wants a piece of fitness that ought to be in a Minister or if one utterly ignorant how to do them be no less fit than he who is exquisitly skilful in them all then Balaams Ass should be as fit to be a Minister as any of the Sons of men the meanest of whom hath some portion of Logick either Artificial or at least Natural because he is born essentially Rational He that knows nothing how to Define Divide c. if any such were is in no better capacity than the Ass speaking to his Master Take there the Quakers Minister very fit for Balaams Sadle if he had but four legs Ignorance I see is the Mother of the Quakers Devotion Ye know my meaning I hope But the Quakers have often objected to me against the very Lawfulness of Logick among Christians because say they it was first used among Heathens Ans Whether School-Logick was first used among Heathens or not is not fully certain but be it so or not the consequence is void enough of Logick as if nothing first used among Heathens were Lawful among Christians forsooth and so it shall not be lawful for Christians to speak Greek Latin Dutch French or English or any other Language but Hebrew which few have and so they must speak nothing at all What shall we think of these merry principles that would make weeping Heraclitus to change his humour and laugh to Death almost
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.
Covenant hath a Divine right unto Baptism under the New Testament but Children of believing Parents are by God Adopted and received within the Covenant as is plain from Gen. 17. ch Mat. 19.14 Act. 2.39 1 Cor. 7.14 Therefore Children of believing Parents have a Divine right unto Baptism under the New Testament The Minor is Evident by the Scriptures Cited I prove the Major because Baptism under the New Testament is the Initiating Seal and Symbol belonging and appended to our Entry and Reception into the Covenant as was before proved under the New Testament and so it belongs to every person that is received into the Covenant upon the accompt of their Reception or else it shall belong to their Entry and Reception as is supposed and above proved and yet not to them as Entered and Received which involves a manifest Contradiction Thirdly all who are probably Partakers of the Spirit of Grace and Regeneration have a Divine Right under the New Testament unto Baptism in the Churches Court and she ought to admit them thereunto as was before proved from Act. 10.47 48. But the Children of believing Parents are probably Partakers of the Spirit of Grace and Regeneration under the New Testament Therefore they have a right unto Baptism in the Churches Court and she is bound to admit them thereunto The Major was evidently proved before I prove the Minor for Gods taking them in within the Covenant Gen. 17. chap. makes it probable His promising to Circumcise the hearts of the Children as well as the Parents Deut. 30.6 makes it probable Gods Sanctifying some of the Children of believers from the Womb Jerem. 1.5 Luk. 1.15 makes it probable Pauls calling them Holy 1 Cor. 7.14 viz. federally and externally makes it probable And if it were not probable that the Children of Believers did partake of the Spirit of Grace and Regeneration then it could not be probable that any of them Dying in Non-age should be Saved seeing none but such as are Born of Water and of the Spirit can enter into the Kingdom of God Joh. 3.5 And lastly for I am sure I need no more Christs declaring and asserting their Interest into the Kingdom of Heaven Mat. 19.14 Luk. 18.16 whereunto they cannot enter without being Regenerated makes it probable These things make it Infallibly certain as to the Kind or Quoad Speciem and probable as to particular persons or Quoad Individua But against this Last the Quakers except with the Aâ—abaptists That Christ does not in these Texts say that the Kingdom of Heaven pertained to these Infants that were brought to him and such other Natural Infants but unto Spiritual Infants whom he means of when he says Of such is the Kingdom of Heaven Ans But then Christs reasoning runs thus suffer little Children these were true Natural Infants that were brought to Christ as we shall presently see wanting Interest in the Kingdom of Heaven to come unto me for the Kingdom of Heaven belongs to mature persons regenerated which are Spiritual Infants and Infants Improperly so called This would have been so bad a Consequence that it would have bereft the Discourse of all Sence Secondly hereby they shew that in their opinion there are no Infants that have Interest into the Kingdom of Heaven otherwise they should have granted Christs words in respect of Infants properly so called and then farewel to the Objection Thirdly we here appeal the Analogy of Faith without some necessity from which the words must not be detorted from a proper to an Improper Sence Secondly they except that these were not young Infants that were brought to Christ but grown to some pretty Age because Christ says Suffer them to come intimating that they themselves could Walk Ans But when I Marvel did Come begin so necessarily to signifie walking on ones own Feet A man is said to Come from America albeit he should lie all the while in a Ships Cabin The Text shews that these Children came not on their own Feet For in the Text of Luke they are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Sucking Infants And in all the Texts there is a word used for their bringing that signifies to bear or carry 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Again Christ took them in his Arms and Blessed them but never a word of his Teaching them These that brought them spoke as the Texts Intimate but never a word in their head And if they had been in any small measure capable of Christs Doctrine the Disciples it seems would not have forbidden their coming Lastly they except against the Body of the Argument that it cannot be discerned if Infants have received the Spirit or not Ans I have shewed before how as to the Kind quoad Speciem it may be Infallibly discerned and probably as to Individuals Now probable Evidences are sufficient for the Baptism of particular persons Old or Young or else none at all should be admitted to Baptism seeing heart-searching is Gods Prerogative Jer. 17.9 10. nor did the Apostles themselves Infallibly discern peoples hearts as may be seen Act. 8.13 with 23. and 9.26 27. 1 Joh. 2.19 Fourthly all the visible or appearing Disciples of Christ ought to be Baptized under the New Testament as is evident from Mat. 28.19 Where Christ commands to make all Nations his Disciples Baptizing them c. From which Text it is as clear as Noontyde that whoever is once visibly or appearingly become Christs Disciple for the Church cannot go beyond probabilities here ought to be Baptized and that forthwith assoon as it can be conveniently done as the Expression imports Go make them Disciples Baptizing as if they should be Baptized in the very same instant that their Interest and Discipleship appears without requiring or expecting any further that as being the Condition being once probably discovered But the Children of believing Parents are visible Disciples of Christ Therefore they ought to be Baptized under the New Testament The Major needs no more proving I prove the Minor for all the visible Members of Christs School are his visible Disciples seeing to be a Member of ones School and to be his Disciple are both one thing as is undeniable but the Children of believing Parents are visible Members of Christs School seeing Christs School is his Church whereof the Children of believers are certainly Members seeing they were Members thereof in the time of the Old Testament and doubtless Christs coming in the Flesh when the Grace of God was enlarged hath not deprived them of so merciful a Priviledge surely not and since God received them into the Covenant we never heard of his putting them out again and they are Holy viz. federally and in order to Church-membership and of such is the Kingdom of Heaven all which iâ— already declared The Anabaptists use to urge this Text of Matthew against Infant-Baptism reading the words as they are in our Translation Go ye therefore and Teach all Nations Baptizing them c. From whence they
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
Epistle to the Romans and certainly he had got the Victory over his Corruption then I mean in the very time that he points at whether it were present or past seeing it was thrown out of his affection and he hated it ver 15. and he was come the length of delighting in the Law of God after the Inward Man ver 22. and with the mind he served the Law of God ver 25. all which import a great Victory although the Enemies were not all utterly destroyed and gone yet their force was broken And albeit the Law in his Members was still drawing him into or towards captivity which George Keith thinks absurd to say of the Apostle at that time yet this expresses only the endeavours of his Natural Corruption not it's success for his unrenewed part was Carnal sold under Sin and no good thing dwelt in it and what absurdity is there here and when the Apostle summs all into one Conclusion ver 25. that with the mind then he himself served the Law of God c. I see not a possibility for George Keiths Metaschematismus except he will say that the Apostle did not at that time when he wrote this Epistle to the Romans with the mind serve the Law of God but that he did it only before when he was in the strugling and warfare-Estate before he had got the Victory which will both be false enough and absurd enough as I judge Sixthly There is not a just man upon Earth says Solomon Eccles 7.20 that doth good and sinneth not Ergo there is no man upon Earth Perfect George Keith answers to this Quakerism no Popery pag. 40. That the Verb being in the second future may be turned in the Potential Mood There is not a just man upon Earth that doth good and may not Sin But first The Verb is in the Indicative Mood and therefore our Translation has the advantage Secondly Solomon is explaining something that people might be ignorant of which was not a bare possibility of mens sinning for who could be ignorant of that but it must be meant of their actual sinning and short-coming and that even in their best performances in regard of the manner Thirdly No man can say he is pure from his Sin Prov. 20.9 and the Apostle Paul was not fully pure from it when he wrote to the Romans and Philippians Rom. 7.23.24 Philip. 3.12 and as long as a man is not pure from his Sin he is not perfect nor can his actions morally considered be perfect either a Fountain not fully pure sends not forth perfect pure water and still proportionably the goodness and perfection of the Fruit follows upon the goodness and perfection of the Tree Matth. 7.17 and that it can no ways exceed Add also these three Scriptures 1 King 8.46 Isai 64.6 Jam. 3.2 Lastly I canot but admire that any man should so far lose all sence of sin and short-coming in his Duty as to think that he is come up to the full measure required in Gods Law to love the Lord his God with all his Heart Soul and Mind and his Neighbour as himself Surely there is no man that dare pretend to an exact performance hereof and therefore there is no man compleatly perfect and exactly sinless But the Adversaries object That all the works and gifts of God are perfect and that therefore our Sanctification being a work and gift of God must be perfect Ans This objection endeavours to prove that our Sanctification is perfect in the very first moment of our Conversion and Regeneration seeing even then it is a work and gift of God as well as afterwards and this undoes the Argument Secondly All Gods works and gifts are perfect if they be considered Abstractively and meerly as flowing and depending from him for Who can impute evil unto him Not so always if they be considered Concretively and as inhering and existing into us who are impure and in whom they are mixed with the remainders of Corruption as water that is pure as it comes from the Fountain may be mudded by running through a miry place and so the Argument proves nothing Secondly They object That David pleaded often with God upon the account of his Righteousness praying that God would judge him according thereunto Therefore his Righteousness behooved to be perfect Ans David meant of the Righteousness of his Cause compared with his Enemies Cause who wrongfully Persecuted him but not of the inherent Righteousness of his Person before God Psal 19.12 and 143.2 and when sometimes in confidence of his Sincerity he desires God to judge him he does not mean of being judged by him according to the severity and strictness of the Law Secundum justitiam districtam which sincerity without perfection cannot satisfie as may be understood from the Scriptures last cited but he means of being judged according to the lenity and compassion of a merciful Father in Christ Thirdly They object That the heart of several of the Kings of Judah is in Scripture expresly said to have been perfect 2 King 20.30 2 Chron. 15.17 Ans Perfection is there meant of the Perfection of Parts or sincerity which are both one not of the Perfection of Degrees for that none of these were gradually perfect may be seen from 2 Chron. 16.7.10 and 32.25 26. Isai 38.17 the same is to be said of that large Commendation given to good Josias 2 King 23.25 for that he was not gradually perfect is also clear from 2 Chron. 35.22 In this sence Job is also called perfect Job 1.8 and yet he peremptorily denies himself to be gradually perfect Job 9.20 and sometimes again Perfection is taken in the Scriptures comparatively for a greater growth in the knowledge of God and his ways than others have reached to as 1 Cor. 2.6 Philip. 3.15 where the Original word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will render Adult or Grown and so it is rendred Heb. 5.14 where the whole Context which I may not stand upon shews it to be meant comparatively and so also it best agrees with the Scope and Context of the particular places themselves and where Paul claims unto himself that comparative Perfection Philip. 3.15 he for all that denies himself to have reached an absolute gradual perfection ver 12. there Fourthly They object from 1 Joh. 17 9. Quakerism no Popery pag. 39. where it 's said He is faithful upon our Confession to forgive us our Sins and that the blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all Sin Ans As to justification I yield this cleansing to be perfect as to all sins past and a sure ground thereby laid for pardon of future Sins seeing the gifts and calling of God are without Repentance and whom he justifies he glorifies Rom. 8.39 and 11.29 But of sanctification it must be understood only Inchoatively not perfectly and the Verb Cleanseth in the Present Tense imports the work not to be ended in this life but still adoing albeit George Keith would infer the contrary
any reproof from Christ or his Apostles though most material when they are reproving all the other vices of that Old-Testament-Church We may clearly see that these Apocryphal books are no part of Scripture-Canon or rule place them in what degree ye will next for that I care not but a part or all of these things misses none of these books As for what ye object Sir of many books wanting that might be useful as ye say in the Scripture-Canon I must tell you to cut short that I am not here concerned what books are wanting that is none of the present controversie but it is concerning some books viz. these called Apocryphal which ye will have added to the Canon with the rest that are known to be Canonical and which we deny to be Canonical and requires you the affirmers to prove that they are such and though not obliged as being the denyers yet we have proved they are not such And hereby I cut off your tedious rapsody of confused arguments whereby ye have wasted more paper in your Quakerism no Popery pag. 60.61.62.63 then all your work was worth But the Quakers have one grand principle of following the Dictate within as the principal rule at least which it would seem and George Keith also insinuates Quakerism no Popery pag. 49.59 103. will never reconcile with that other grand principle of Popery to believe as the Church of Rome believes But unto this I Answer that a great number we see of the direct principles of the Quakers are but meer Popish doctrines disguised nay all of their principles almost except some that are much worse being more Blasphemous then ever a Papist held and that of following the dictate within is but a reflex principle obliging them the more to follow their direct principles which we see are generally Popish And so when their great doctors teach their disciples to follow their Dictate within they do in effect teach them to believe as the Church of Rome does yet not so as to discover their design and make every man wise of their secret but subtilly under a disguise They are no fools Albeit they can desipere in loco Sir I have vindicated our Church from the Intire frivolous charge of Popery Calumniously cast upon her by you in your Quakerism no Popery and upon the other hand I have libelled against your eighteen real Popish principles from which ye can make no evasion or tergiversation they are all so clear in the preceeding survey And therefore I must here tell you that your Quakerism no Popery should have been called Quakerism no Verity for there is hardly one true word in it all which I do'nt say to irritate or exasperate you but rather with a desire from my heart if it be possible to convince you for I know you are a Scholar but alace your gifts and parts are ill Imployed against the truths laws and ordinances of Jesus which his dear purchase of them teaches their great value Be no more a stated Enemy to these or else dreadful and terrible shall the event be unto you and all who thus tread upon his truths and Blaspheme his Person as you do and trample under foot also his whole Institutions and ordinances A Second Postscript for Doctor Everards Ghost There is one Doctor Everard I wish he had been never heard who hath published a book which he calls Gospel Treasury opened up or the Holiest of all Un-vailing and this Book he hath divided into two parts In the first part whereof Pag. 150.206.347 he asserts that after we are regenerated it is no more we that think see speak goe wish will rejoyce but that it is God that does them and that it must be Christ the Son of God in us that loves God fears God obeys God and believes in God and says he though that may seem a Paradox yet it is a truth for Indeed and in truth says he there is nothing fears God but God nothing obeys God but God nothing loves God but God And again he affirms Pag. 442.443.444 part second that the good man is so swallowed up in God that wanting sense will desire he now as the word requires covets nothing but now God in him wills knows desires reads writes preaches gives prays hears and is all things for God says he desires not our works but our Sabbath and that himself in us without hindrance may work know praise pray hear crown and reward himself in us Thus the Doctor teaches the great sum of all which is That nothing obeys God but God only The Quakers seem to joyn with the Doctor in this his wild principle while at the last of their Queries here they seem to require our resting or not working and condemn our Confessions Catechisms c. upon that very ground because they are our works and to my sure experience I do know that this book of Doctor Everard hath predisposed several persons and been their preamble unto Quaking and therefore that this treatise may be somewhat compleat I resolve here to answer this principle of the Doctor and to confute it and two or three more of his positions that have some alliance with the principles of the Quakers Therefore first against the Doctors foresaid principle it is not God that believes in Christ crucified accepts and receives his righteousness for justification that looks for salvation through his merits It is not God that loaths himself for sin sorrows for his sin confesses his sin and denies himself c. And these are all works of obedience commanded of God and exercised in the godly and therefore the Doctors principle here is most false 2ly Angels and men are either obliged to obey God or not if not then they may doe what they please they cannot sin and so also fallen Angels and reprobate men are all most unjustly damned for their disobedience wherewith they cannot be justly charged seeing as is supposed they are not obliged to obey If then they be obliged to obey God then the holy Angels that stood obeys God or not if they do then something obeys God that is not God against the Doctors principle seeing Angels are not God I am sure if not then the holy Angels that stood are disobedient to God seeing they are obliged to obey God and yet does it not and that is to say the Angels that stood are fallen Angels 3ly If nothing obeys God but God then never any of all the creatures obeyed God to this day seeing none of them is God and all the creatures are equally guilty or not guilty of disobedience to God seeing not one of them ever obeyed him But these things are absurd Romances Fourthly whatever obeys God must be commanded to obey him seeing all obedience is to some command and Law But God is not commanded to obey seeing all the commandments are directed to creatures and God is not under the Law he hath given to them nor hath he any superior soveraign and though