<!DOCTYPE ETS PUBLIC "-//UMDLPS//DTD EEBOPROOF 2.0//EN">
<ETS>
<TEMPHEAD>
<REVDESCR>
<CHANGE>
<DATE>2013-04-18</DATE>
<RESPSTMT>
<NAME>Sarah Wingo</NAME>
<RESP>MURP</RESP>
</RESPSTMT>
<ITEM>Checklist: x *Add TEMPHEAD, change DATE, validate x*Review over all structure: FRONT,BODY, BACK, DIV or rarely GROUP x*Add DIV TYPEs, make sure that @types makes sense as a navigational aide, and work in the context of the whole text, validate x*Survey book for troublesome formats of all kinds, including lists, illustrations, tables, music, math, end-notes, quasi-tabular arrangments, and marginalia. x*Proof title page(s) x*Examine marginalia. Is it all best tagged as NOTE? x*Observe divtop and divbottom material marking beginnings and ends of divisions, check that they are correctly tagged as HEAD, HEADNOTE, CLOSER, OPENER, ARGUMENT, EPIGRAPH, SIGNED, DATELINE, BYLINE, etc. x*Check for GAPs - MISSING and BLANK, MUSIC, MATH, FOREIGN, SYMBOL, INTRUDER x*Check PB placement and completeness, ensure sequence of N="" x*Check ^, oe, italic I / J, _Initals, space between &amp;c., -- x*Check for illustrations and correct usage of FIGURE. Add FIGDESCs if necessary. x*Check q; startq endq Q x*If appropriate, check for yoghs. x*If appropriate, check for Latin problems, e.g. oe and ae digraphs x*If appropriate, check for abbreviation and brevigraph problems. x*If appropriate, check for units of measure, symbols (alchemical, astronomical, etc.) and the like. x*Correct illegibles from proofsheet x*Check illegible page, para, line, span, word, dollar signs x*Final validate Corrected [ ] illegible groups out of [ ]. Converted [ ] illegible groups to GAP DESC="illegible". DONE</ITEM>
</CHANGE>
</REVDESCR>
</TEMPHEAD>
<EEBO>
<IDG S="marc" R="UM" ID="A26655">
<STC T="W">A916</STC>
<STC T="C">R21198</STC>
<BIBNO T="oclc">12226444</BIBNO>
<VID>56523</VID>
</IDG>
<TEXT LANG="eng">
<FRONT>
<DIV1 TYPE="approbation">
<PB REF="1">
<P>MY Lord Bi&s;hop of <HI>Edinburgh</HI> laving appointed me to reveiw and examine a Book Compiled by Mr. <HI>John Alexander</HI> Preacher of the Go&s;pel, Intituled <HI>Je&s;uitico Quakeri&s;m Examin'd,</HI> or <HI>Quakers Confuted.</HI></P>
<P>The&s;e are a&s;&s;uring that it not only Con|tains, nothing contrary to the Chri&s;tian Re|ligion, to the Doctrine, Wor&s;hip, or Govern|ment of the Church of <HI>Scotland;</HI> but that it exactly (though briefly) compri&s;eth the Mar|row of many great Truths, in order to the vindication of tho&s;e &s;olid Articles of our Faith, ignorantly and unrea&s;onably invaded by that Heretical fry of <HI>Quakers:</HI> and that with know|ledge and care the Author hath Refuted their Irreligious and Bla&s;phemous Po&s;itions; &s;o that it may prove a very u&s;eful Book; And therefore I humbly judge it very de&s;erving to be Imprinted. This is Te&s;tified by</P>
<CLOSER><SIGNED>John Hamilton.</SIGNED>
<DATELINE><HI>Leith</HI>
<DATE><HI>Octob.</HI> 16. 1679.</DATE></DATELINE></CLOSER>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 TYPE="title page">
<PB REF="1" MS="y">
<P>Je&s;uitico-Quakeri&s;m Examined, OR A CONFUTATION OF The Bla&s;phemous and unrea&s;onable Principles of THE QUAKERS; With a Vindication of the Church of God IN BRITAIN, FROM Their Malicious Clamours, and Slanderous A&s;per&s;ions.</P>
<P><HI>By</HI> John Alexander, <HI>Preacher of the Go&s;pel.</HI></P>
<Q><BIBL><HI>I&s;aiah 8.20.</HI></BIBL>
<P>Te the Law and to the Te&s;timony: if they &s;peak not according to this word, it is becau&s;e there is no light in them.</P></Q>
<Q><BIBL><HI>Luk. 16.29, 31.</HI></BIBL>
<P>They have <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> and the Prophets, let them hear them. If they hear not <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> and the Prophets, neither will they be per&s;waded, though one ro&s;e from the dead.</P>
<Q><BIBL><HI>1 John 4.1.</HI></BIBL></Q>
<P>Beloved, believe not every Spirit, but trie the Spirits, whether they are of God: becau&s;e many fal&s;e Prophets are gone out into the world.</P></Q>
<P><HI>LONDON,</HI> Printed for <HI>Dorman Newman</HI> at the Sign of the Kings Arms in the <HI>Poultry.</HI> 1680.</P>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 TYPE="dedication">
<PB REF="2">
<PB REF="2">
<HEAD>To the Right Honorable Sir <HI>Robert Clayton</HI> Knight, Lord Mayor of the Famous City of <HI>London,</HI> the Author wi&s;heth Grace, Mercy and Peace.</HEAD>
<P>_MY Lord, this en&s;uing Treati&s;e comes to Salute the World, and appear upon the publick Stage under the Honorable Shade and Patrociny of your name, not pre&s;uming to add any Lu&s;tre thereunto, where|of it is uncapable, and whereof your Lord&s;hips Prudence and Vertues have been &s;uch publick Heraulds to the World, that I &s;hall rather im|po&s;e a Ce&s;&s;ation to my Pen, and enjoyn my &s;elf a nece&s;&s;ary &s;ilence, as my highe&s;t <HI>Encomium,</HI> than be Guilty, with <HI>Apelles</HI> in forming of the Image, of interweaving the con&s;trained Fail|zeurs of my be&s;t Rhetorick with your Lord&s;hips de&s;erved Commendation.</P>
<P>But knowing the hazard of the&s;e publick Scenes, and the Worlds view, where there is always a <HI>Momus</HI> ready to carp, it comes to &s;eek
<PB REF="3">&s;helter under your Lord&s;hips favorable Pro|tection, whereunto it is al&s;o encouraged with good hopes of obtaining the cheerful Countenance of your Authority, becau&s;e of your Pious and Lau|dable Zeal again&s;t all the enemies of our Ortho|dox Faith, and the Divine Truth; e&s;pecially the&s;e pernicious and (beyond all Heathens) mo&s;t inhumane Proto-pla&s;ta's of <HI>Quakeri&s;m</HI> (I mean the <HI>Je&s;uits</HI>) unto whom the latter Profe&s;&s;ion owes the Founding of their Order, and a great many of their Principles, be they never &s;o &s;hie and nice to Confe&s;s it.</P>
<P>It doth al&s;o with Mode&s;t humility lay claim to one intere&s;t into your Lord&s;hips Tutelage be|cau&s;e, albeit it was el&s;ewhere conceived, and had the form of one <HI>Embryo,</HI> yet it hath re|ceived its ju&s;t mea&s;ures for a regular Birth with|in the precinct of your Honorable Juri&s;diction, and though of <HI>Scotti&s;h</HI> Parentage, yet it is truly <HI>London</HI> Born.</P>
<P>I know very well there are many in this de|clining Age of Chri&s;tianity, who account all Di&s;|putations about Principles of Religion, how ne|ce&s;&s;ary &s;oever, providing men live well, to be but vain Jangling (wherein they exactly Homo|logate the <HI>Quakers</HI> (as I well know) but their provi&s;ion, though it were granted to be enough (which it is not) is impo&s;&s;ible, if people be
<PB REF="3">mi&s;led in nece&s;&s;ary Principles; &s;eeing no man can live well who mi&s;takes his Rode-way; and follows wrong directions and lies) and therefore as we are very heartily willing to Di&s;charge all Debates a|bout Opinions which yield no fruit to Edification, and make us no &s;ounder Chri&s;tians; &s;o their great care is to have all the other Ca&s;hiered al&s;o.</P>
<P>But when the mo&s;t nece&s;&s;ary Truths are bold|ly invaded, and our common Faith in danger to be &s;upplanted, it looks not like Chri&s;tian Courage, or Zeal, but is rather a plain betray|ing of Truth, for us to hold our peace, and &s;uffer the enemy how contemptible &s;oever they may &s;eem, by their real Triumphs, though but counterfeited Trophees of a pretended Victory, erected meer|ly upon our Cowardi&s;e and Sloth, not the over|throw of our Cau&s;e, or their Strength, to gather Pro&s;elytes, and increa&s;e their numbers. This is not to be valiant for the Truth upon the Earth. Chri&s;t did not &s;o let the <HI>Sadduces</HI> (a contempti|ble and fooli&s;h people) pa&s;s without a demon|&s;trative Confutation. <HI>Paul</HI> al&s;o fought with Bea&s;ts at <HI>Ephe&s;us,</HI> and his Epi&s;tles declare what care he took, at the Spirits direction too, to re|dargue the Errors of his time.</P>
<P>This Tractate &s;hall not much value the obloquy and Sarca&s;ms of the&s;e men, nor of any other whom nothing can plea&s;e, which is not either the fruit of
<PB REF="4">their proper Invention, or el&s;e, at lea&s;t, adequately adju&s;ted to their prejudicate apprehen&s;ions, and foreconceived Opinions; if it be but (which is its great ambition) acceptable to your Lord&s;hip, and Edi|fying to &s;uch as de&s;ire to know and love the Truth.</P>
<P>And though, reflecting upon the Bruti&s;h ab&s;ur|dity of the party again&s;t whom I have Embarqu'd in this Province, not only renouncing all true Prin|ciples of Religion, but al&s;o &s;tifling their very fa|culties of rea&s;on, my adopting of this piece &s;o high may almo&s;t &s;eem un&s;utable, yet when I contemplate the great Worth and Excellency of the Subject, Matter, and Theme I am to treat upon, being no le&s;s then the whole Divine Ordinances of the Go&s;pel, and the mo&s;t precious, and many of them mo&s;t nece&s;&s;ary Truths of Je&s;us, I hope my Nuncu|pation &s;hall no ways be thought incongruous, if I have but been &s;o happy, as rightly to encounter the Adver&s;aries, and dextrou&s;ly to vindicate and di&s;|play the Standard of the Sacred Truth, which with what force and evidence I have done I &s;ubmit to your Lord&s;hips &V;mpirage and Judgment, whom that God may ble&s;s, and make pro&s;perous here, and eternally happy hereafter, is the earne&s;t Prayer of your Lord&s;hips mo&s;t Obedient Servant,</P>
<CLOSER><SIGNED>John Alexander.</SIGNED></CLOSER>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 TYPE="to the reader">
<PB REF="4">
<HEAD>TO THE READER.</HEAD>
<P>_THe&s;e &s;eventeen following Queries of the <HI>Quakers,</HI> having come to my hand with a direction bearing my Name, I did for &s;ome time &s;tand in <HI>Bivio,</HI> doubting with my &s;elf if it &s;hould be worth the while to bring them to the Anvil; one while fearing le&s;t Truth through my weakne&s;s &s;hould be at a di&s;ad|vantage; and another while accounting it almo&s;t an un|nece&s;&s;ary undertaking to offer to redargue &s;uch di&s;tract|ed and Bruti&s;h Errors, the very Gro&s;&s;ne&s;s whereof might alone be &s;ufficient to overthrow and Cru&s;h their Repu|tation with every man not depriv'd of &s;en&s;e, and rob'd of a &s;ound mind. But after more mature and due con|&s;ideration, that an undervalued and neglected enemy proves ordinarily the mo&s;t dangerous, and that un&s;avo|ry Hemlock except it be digged out and Exfundat, may grow and &s;pread in otherwi&s;e mo&s;t plea&s;ant and beauty|ful Gardens, perpending al&s;o the meaning and Inten|tion of the particular Providence conveying the&s;e Que|ries to my hand, which by the pro&s;pect and veiw of its contexed Method and inferiour Circum&s;tances, &s;eemed to call me, either to give an&s;wer thereunto, or el&s;e, in &s;o far betraying Truth by my &s;ilence, to have been In|terpreted, either a Tacit con&s;enter to the Doctrine <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 word">
<PB REF="5">the Adver&s;aries (which my Soul abhorrs) or at lea&s;t a Di&s;tru&s;ter of the Cau&s;e Profe&s;&s;ed by us, and Impug|ned by them; I could not but contribute my endeavors for vindication of the Truth, and &s;topping of the Mouths of the reproachful Adver&s;aries, who, like &s;o many Rhab&s;hakehs, have in the&s;e Queries, and others of their Bla&s;phemous Papers di&s;gorged as many lies again&s;t God and his Truth, and as many &s;landers again&s;t the Church of God in <HI>Britain,</HI> as if they had exchanged both Per&s;ons and Offices with the Father of lies and Accu&s;er of the Brethren. <HI>And who are the&s;e uncir|cumci&s;ed Phili&s;tines</HI> (recouncing Bapti&s;m which is in the room thereof) <HI>that they &s;hould defie the Camp of the Lord, and Armies of</HI> I&s;rael? Is it becau&s;e there is neither Sword nor Spear in our <HI>I&s;rael,</HI> that the <HI>Quakers</HI> have given &s;o proud a Challenge and windy Defiance to all the Mini&s;ters in <HI>Scotland?</HI> Nay, I hope, few of the&s;e are &s;o ill provided, or unworthy of their name and place, but that, without Re&s;erves, they dare &s;u&s;tain the Quarrel again&s;t the chiefe&s;t Luminaries and Fir&s;t-Magnitude Stars in the new Excentrick Quaking-world. And whether I be a Mini&s;ter or not (its all a matter) I hope by per&s;picuous and convincing Demon&s;tration of the irre&s;i&s;tible Truth in the following Survey &s;o to de|tect their Fallacies, explode their Errors, and exterge their Calumnies, as they &s;hall not henceforth be &s;o ex|travagant in their Challenges, or prodigal of their Cartels again&s;t &s;uch a Party, having all the <HI>Prote&s;tant</HI> Si&s;ter-Churches engaged in the &s;ame Quarrel. Or if (becau&s;e a Fool beaten in a Mortar will not be wi&s;e) they &s;hall hereafter dare us with &s;uch another bragging appeal, they &s;hall but &s;o much the more di&s;cover their own Nakedne&s;s to the world, and that though with much Impudence they will &s;till be Babling, yet how
<PB REF="5">Cowardly and Mightle&s;s they are for doing (leaving thereby to our Cau&s;e the glory of Victory, and to their own the due Infamy of an overthrow) except they &s;hall fir&s;t di&s;&s;olve and undo the Knots of my de|mon&s;trative Arguments in the following Survey.</P>
<P>In this en&s;uing Treati&s;e I have endeavoured as much Brevity as may con&s;i&s;t with Per&s;picuity, having no where &s;tood on inlarging Amplifications, except where the right handling of the purpo&s;e doth nece&s;&s;arily re|quire it; nor have I Cited any humane Te&s;timonies again&s;t the Adver&s;aries, &s;eeing the&s;e they do not value, except when they think they make for them, e&s;pecially <HI>ad hominem,</HI> and therefore I would not have the work by the unprofitable acce&s;&s;ion of the&s;e to &s;well; neither have I adduced any Argument lying far remote from the Principles, becau&s;e &s;uch long Deductions are by the unlearned more hardly perceived: But after a brief &s;tate of the Que&s;tion (which the di&s;ingenuous <HI>Quakers</HI> almo&s;t every where pervert) I have delivered a few evident Arguments thereby irre&s;i&s;tibly e&s;tabli&s;hing our Doctrine, and overthrowing the contradictory Doctrine of the Adver&s;aries, and thereafter I propo&s;e, and an&s;wer their Objections, where (except in &s;ome few Que&s;tions that under the &s;ame dre&s;s have been handled formerly betwixt our Writers on the one part, and the <HI>Papi&s;ts, Anabapti&s;ts, Arminians,</HI> &amp;c. on the other part, where the Objections are long ago abundantly an&s;wered by our Writers, though even in the&s;e al&s;o I propo&s;e and and an&s;wer &s;ome of the chiefe&s;t, together with the&s;e lately devi&s;ed by the <HI>Quakers</HI>) I adduce and An&s;wer all that (&s;o far as I can learn) they have to &s;ay again&s;t us, or for them&s;elves, in defence of their Heretical Doctrine whereunto their following Queries relate, which in|deed comprehend the very Cardinal hinges and e&s;&s;ential
<PB REF="6">Principles wherein the very Life and Soul of <HI>Quakeri&s;m</HI> con&s;i&s;ts, and wherewith it &s;tands and falls.</P>
<P>The Scripture hath indeed fore-told us that in the latter days men <HI>&s;hall bring in damnable Here&s;ies, even denying the Lord that bought them</HI> (2 <HI>Pet.</HI> 2.1.) and that they &s;hall <HI>give heed to &s;educing Spirits, and Doctrines of Devils</HI> (1 <HI>Tim.</HI> 4.1.) and <HI>&s;hall not endure &s;ound Doctrine, but after their own lu&s;ts heap up Teachers to them&s;elves, and turn away their ears from the Truth, and hearken unto Fables</HI> (2. <HI>Tim.</HI> 4.3.4.) and <HI>that Here&s;ies mu&s;t, be that the&s;e who are approved may be made manife&s;t</HI> (1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 11.19.) But as Chri&s;t &s;ays, <HI>that offences mu&s;t come, but wo to that man by whom they come (Mat.</HI> 18.7.) So we may well &s;ay, that though Here&s;ies mu&s;t be, yet wo, and a heavy wo, to the Au|thors thereof: for whatever Innocency &s;ome impious Fools Athei&s;tically Sceptick in matters of Faith, and the Principles of Religion do a&s;cribe unto Here&s;ie, yet the Scripture doth far otherwi&s;e pronounce thereof, calling it a work of the fle&s;h (<HI>Galat.</HI> 5.20.) and a thing that <HI>overthroweth the Faith</HI> (2 <HI>Tim.</HI> 2.18.) <HI>and a Doctrine of Devils</HI> (1 <HI>Tim.</HI> 4.1.) and knitting and connecting Damnation, &s;wift De&s;truction, and the Lake of Fire and Brim&s;tone unto Hereticks, fal&s;e Teachers, and fal&s;e Prophets (2 <HI>The&s;.</HI> 2.11, 12. 2 <HI>Pet.</HI> 2.1. <HI>Rev.</HI> 19.20.) nor is there any Cen&s;ure in Scripture more peremptory then that again&s;t Hereticks (<HI>Tit.</HI> 3.10.) and the Fol|lowers of fal&s;e Prophets and blind Guides are in the &s;ame danger with the Leaders (<HI>Jer.</HI> 14.15, 16. <HI>Mat.</HI> 15.4. 2 <HI>The&s;.</HI> 2.11.12.) and &s;urely <HI>Quakeri&s;m</HI> is one of the chiefe&s;t Here&s;ies and mo&s;t damnable Delu&s;ions that ever &s;et foot in the Chri&s;tian world. For, be&s;ide that by their rejecting of all manner of external Ordinances, their denying the Scriptures to be the Rule, and &s;etting
<PB REF="6">up the Light within for the Rule, they do directly &s;trike at the Foundation of all, with one Blow over|turning (&s;o far as they can) the whole Rule of Faith and Duty, and &s;etting a New one of their own Inven|tion in the room thereof; Be&s;ide this (I &s;ay) this Here&s;ie is a very Sink, or an univer&s;al Sy&s;tem of almo&s;t all the gro&s;&s;e Errors which hitherto have annoyed the Church of God, as cannot be unknown to &s;uch as know the Errors which heretofore have troubled the Church, and have occa&s;ion of Conver&s;e with the <HI>Quakers,</HI> or of reading their Books. And therefore people had need to beware of them (<HI>Mat.</HI> 7.15.) for their word eateth as doth a Canker. 2 <HI>Tim.</HI> 2.17.18.</P>
<P>Yet we do not look upon all of the Profe&s;&s;ion of Quaking in the &s;ame manner, or as Con&s;tituted in the &s;ame Category of Degrees: for we know that &s;ome of them are through &s;implicity and weakne&s;s &s;educed, who may as yet (peradventure) obtain repentance to the acknowledging of the Truth, and be recovered out of the &s;nare of the Devil, who&s;e Recovery, as it is one of the &s;pecial de&s;igns of this &s;mall Treati&s;e, &s;o we heartily pray God to make it &s;ucce&s;sful for that end. Others of them are wilful Seducers and malicious Oppo&s;ers of the Truth, who&s;e Bla&s;phemous Mouths mu&s;t be &s;topt, and their Heretical fury repre&s;&s;ed, that the Truth may not be Troden under foot, and the &s;imple Seduced, who are ea&s;ily en&s;nared where &s;uch men get way, and are not Redargued.</P>
<P>That which hath deceived and been a Snare unto many &s;imple and ignorant people is &s;ome hairy Garments of a few (and but a few) external Duties of the &s;econd Table of the Law wherewith the&s;e In&s;truments of <HI>Sa|tan</HI> have Clothed them&s;elves. But &s;uch &s;hould remem|ber, that fal&s;e Apo&s;tles and Mini&s;ters of <HI>Satan</HI> do
<PB REF="7">Transform them&s;elves into the Apo&s;tles of Chri&s;t and Mini&s;ters of Righteou&s;ne&s;s, even as <HI>Satan</HI> al&s;o Tran&s;|forms him&s;elf into an Angel of light (2 <HI>Cor.</HI> 11.13, 14, 15.) and fal&s;e Prophets being inwardly Wolves do notwith&s;tanding come in Sheeps Clothing (<HI>Mat.</HI> 7.15.) and even Re&s;i&s;ters of the Truth put on a form of Godline&s;s (2 <HI>Tim.</HI> 3.5, 8.) and however the&s;e Doctors of the <HI>Quakers</HI> Mask and Vizorn them&s;elves with &s;ome few externals of the &s;econd Table; yet how even in Doctrine they trample generally upon the whole Mo|ral Law, but more e&s;pecially upon the fir&s;t Table there|of, which yet in rea&s;on ought to have the fir&s;t room, is not ob&s;cure.</P>
<P>For, as for the Fir&s;t Commandment, it is notour to all acquaint with the Principles of the <HI>Quakers</HI> how ma|nife&s;tly even in Doctrine, they contradict and oppo&s;e the &s;ame, while they Impudently deny that any man who hath not received the Spirit ought to Wor&s;hip God.</P>
<P>This is &s;o known a Tenet of the <HI>Quakers</HI> that we need hardly to produce Te&s;timonies thereof, but it may be &s;een in a Book of theirs Publi&s;hed in the year 1668, entituled <HI>The Principles of Truth, or a Declaration of their Faith,</HI> in the 81, 82, and 92 pages whereof they expre&s;ly Teach (and I &s;hall repeat their very words) That all men ought <HI>Fir&s;t</HI> to wait <HI>&V;ntil</HI> they receive the Spirit in Truth, <HI>Then</HI> in the &s;ame Truth to wor|&s;hip God in Spirit, who is a Spirit. In plain Terms that is to &s;ay, men mu&s;t fir&s;t wait until they receive the Spirit before they offer to meddle in wor&s;hipping of God. The &s;ame al&s;o may be &s;een in a mo&s;t virulent Printed Pamphlet of theirs Intituled in the beginning of the Chapters or Sections thereof (for I had it without a Title page) <HI>The Principles of the Prie&s;t</HI> (&s;o they
<PB REF="7">call the Mini&s;ters of <HI>Scotland</HI> of whom they there &s;peak) <HI>of &s;uch a Place, and &s;uch a Place,</HI> in the 14. and 15 pages whereof they directly Impugn and oppo&s;e this Po&s;ition and Principle alledged by them to have been Taught by Mr. <HI>John Car&s;tairs</HI> Mini&s;ter at <HI>Gla&s;gow, viz. That all men what&s;oever ought to Wor&s;hip God.</HI></P>
<P>Unto this their Athei&s;tical Doctrine is Subalternate that other impious Principle of theirs, <HI>That no man ought to Pray to God till he be actually moved thereunto, and Influenced by the Spirit;</HI> otherwi&s;e Mr. <HI>George Keith</HI> one of their Chief Apo&s;tles affirms it is but Will-wor&s;hip and Super&s;tition, in his <HI>Quakeri&s;m no Popery,</HI> page 99. and 100. Good Reader allow me to take a &s;mall word of the&s;e Mad Principles, and I &s;hall do it very briefly.</P>
<P>Therefore fir&s;t, all men what&s;oever they be are bound to Fear, Reverence, Love, and prai&s;e God; &s;ay the Contrary who dare: but the&s;e are all mo&s;t principal Arts or parts of the Wor&s;hip of God: Therefore this Principle of the <HI>Quakers</HI> is both Fal&s;e and Prophane.</P>
<P>Secondly, Obedience to God E&s;&s;entially and In|di&s;pen&s;ably includes wor&s;hipping of God, &s;eeing it in|cludes a &s;ubjecting and &s;tooping to his Yoke and Sove|raignity, and a doing of Homage and Honour unto him, and this al&s;o includes Reverence, all which are no mean parts of his mo&s;t Sub&s;tantial and Moral wor&s;hip. Well then, if no man ought to Wor&s;hip God until fir&s;t he receive the Spirit, then no man ought to obey God until fir&s;t he receive the Spirit, &s;eeing obedience E&s;&s;en|tially includes Wor&s;hip and cannot be performed with|out it, as is &s;hewed: but it is utterly Athei&s;tical, Profane, and Ab&s;urd to &s;ay, that no man ought to obey God until fir&s;t he receive the Spirit: for then no unre|newed man ought to obey God, &s;eeing &s;uch men have not received the Spirit (<HI>Joh.</HI> 14.17. <HI>Rom.</HI> 8.9.) if
<PB REF="8">then unrenewed men ought not to obey God, then they are not under any Law of God, and he requires no obedience of them (for if they be under any Law of his, and if he requires any Duty of them, I am &s;ure, the <HI>Quakers</HI> will never get them exempted from it) Well then, if unrenewed men be not under any Command or Law of God, and he requires no Duty of them, then it follows Infallibly, fir&s;t, that let unrenewed men do what they will they cannot &s;in again&s;t God, &s;eeing &s;uch as are not under any Command or Law of God cannot tra&s;gre&s;s any Law of his, and &s;o &s;in again&s;t him (&s;ee <HI>Rom.</HI> 4.15. 1 <HI>Joh.</HI> 3.4.) Such men then (in the <HI>Quakers</HI> Principles) may deny, di&s;own, reject, hate, and Contemn God, Wor&s;hip the Devil, and Debauch at their plea&s;ure; and yet they cannot &s;in again&s;t God for all that, &s;eeing they are not under any Law of God. Secondly, it follows thereupon that Reprobates are all mo&s;t unju&s;tly Condemned for their &s;inning again&s;t God, &s;eeing they (not having received the Spirit) are not under Law to God (as is &s;uppo&s;ed) and &s;o cannot be Guilty of &s;inning again&s;t him. Thirdly it follows there|upon that unrenewed men cannot &s;in albeit they &s;hould never &s;o much Counte-ract and Contraveen all the Pre|cepts of the &s;econd Table of the Law al&s;o, &s;eeing the&s;e that Tran&s;gre&s;s no Law of God nor any Command of his cannot be &s;inners, &s;eeing <HI>Sin is a Tran&s;gre&s;&s;ion of the Law,</HI> and where no Law is there is no Tran&s;gre&s;&s;ion, they are not capable of Trangre&s;&s;ng a Law who are not under it and bound to obey it. Hence then (in the <HI>Quakers</HI> Principles) unrenewed men may Lawfully Di&s;honour, and Defame all men, Murder, commit Adulte|ry, Steal, bear fal&s;e Witne&s;s, and what not?</P>
<P>Is not that a &s;weet Doctrine that tends &s;o directly to all mi&s;chief and wickedne&s;s, lo&s;ing all men that have
<PB REF="8">not received the Spirit from all Bonds of God, and cutting a&s;under all the Divine Cords of their Duty? are not the Sage Doctors of the&s;e black My&s;teries of <HI>Satan</HI> very Divinely In&s;pired? Do they not &s;eem to be very Pious? Would it not be a &s;weet world if the&s;e Principles were put in practi&s;e? God pre&s;erve us from from &s;o Impious a Piety, and &s;uch &s;tark Mad In&s;pira|tions, which (I am &s;ure) are the very quinte&s;&s;ence of the Devils whole Trea&s;ury, and the utmo&s;t of his &s;trength and endeavour.</P>
<P>Hence falls that other Lewd and Prophane Principle of the <HI>Quakers</HI> &s;ubalternate to their Doctrine here pre|&s;ently Confuted, <HI>viz.</HI> That no man ought to Pray to God until he be actually moved and influenced there|unto by the Spirit, &s;eeing calling upon God is a part of Moral Wor&s;hip, or of our Obedience to the Moral Law, whereunto all men are obliged. <HI>Pour out thy wrath upon the Heathen that know thee not, and upon the Kingdoms that call not on thy name.</HI> P&s;al. 79.6. Jer. 10.25.</P>
<P>But the <HI>Quakers</HI> have &s;omewhat to &s;ay in defence of this their impious Doctrine, <HI>viz.</HI> unrenewed men (&s;ay they) cannot but &s;in in their Wor&s;hip to God: <HI>Ergo</HI> they ought not to Wor&s;hip him.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> By this Quaking-Argument no man on Earth &s;hould offer to Wor&s;hip God, &s;eeing there is &s;omewhat of &s;in cleaving to the be&s;t Actions of the Saints hereaway, being &s;till defective in the mea&s;ure, and de|grees of goodne&s;s pre&s;cribed by the Law, and coming from an heart that is not perfectly clean (<HI>Prov.</HI> 20.9.) but the Fle&s;h &s;till lu&s;ting again&s;t the Spirit, &s;o that we cannot do the things that we would (<HI>Gal.</HI> 5.17.) much le&s;s can we reach the whole Dimen&s;ions of our Duty. Again, even the Plowing, and &s;o the Eating, Sleeping, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> of the wicked is &s;in (<HI>Prov.</HI> 21.4.) &s;hall the wicked
<PB REF="9">then do nothing at all, becau&s;e whatever they do, they will go about in a &s;inful manner? I think not. And hence we deny the Con&s;equence of their Argument.</P>
<P>Secondly, no man indeed is obliged to &s;in, but yet all men are obliged to wor&s;hip God, which is another thing, and is (I am &s;ure) no thing, but a Duty; and that unrenewed men &s;in in the manner of performance it is their own fault proceeding from the corruption of their hearts, which can never excu&s;e them from their Duty. Does mens Faults that they are Guilty of ab|&s;olve them from their Duty, and Di&s;charge their obli|gation to the Law? &s;ay it not for &s;hame. And hence again we deny the Con&s;equence.</P>
<P>La&s;tly, the wor&s;hip and obedience performed by un|renewed men (&s;uch as it is, or may be called: for it is not &s;imply obedience, but it is only &s;uch, and &s;o called in re&s;pect of the matter and &s;ub&s;tance of the Act, which is according to the Law, though the Principles, Man|ner, and End are not) is much better than a total re|jection of the Commandment, &s;eeing that is good in re&s;pect of the matter and &s;ub&s;tance of the Act which agrees with the Law, as for example, when an unre|newed man gives a poor man an Alms, or does any other Action commanded by the Law: But the total rejection of the Commandment, is upon all accounts and every way evil. And hence again we defie the Con&s;equence. See this objection in the <HI>Quakers</HI> Pam|phlet fore-mentioned called the <HI>Prie&s;ts Principles</HI> in the 14 and 15 pages thereof.</P>
<P>Again they object, that no wor&s;hip is acceptable to God but that which is in the Spirit; and that therefore no man ought to wor&s;hip God that hath not received the Spirit.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> Albeit no obedience or wor&s;hip which unre|newed
<PB REF="9" MS="y">men are in that &s;tate able to perform, be accepta|ble to God, yet they are &s;till obliged to wor&s;hip God, and that with an acceptable wor&s;hip; nor does or can their Inability to perform acceptable wor&s;hip; take away their obligation to perform it, &s;eeing we did all once re|ceive ability in our common Parent and repre&s;entative head <HI>Adam,</HI> and the lo&s;ing of it is our fault whereof we are Guilty (<HI>Rom.</HI> 5.12.19.) and whereby we can never be excu&s;ed from our Duty, or God and his Law lo&s;e their Authority over us. And hence the Con|&s;equence peri&s;hes. Secondly, we have &s;hewed already that the wor&s;hip and obedience of unrenewed men (&s;uch as it is, as was explained) is better than their total di&s;obedience and utter rejection of the Commandment (its better to live Cha&s;te, though neither Principles, Manner, nor End be good, than to commit Adultery with our Neighbours Wife.) And hence again falls the Con&s;equence. See this Objection in their forementioned Book called, <HI>The Principles of Truth, or a Declaration of their Faith,</HI> pag. 81, 90, 91.</P>
<P>The <HI>Quakers</HI> while they are handling this head in their Book called, <HI>The Principles of Truth</HI> in the pages Cited, are &s;o extreamly confident of victory to their Heretical &s;entiments thereupon, That they provoke and appeal all the prudent Orthodox and Learned Divines in <HI>Europe,</HI> and every Quarter of the world, with the wi&s;e&s;t of the Sons of men to produce their &s;trong rea&s;ons, and encounter them in this point, as if, for&s;ooth, they had intended to out-&s;trip the Devil, not only in the de|fence of lies, but al&s;o in his Arrogance and Pride, in daring &s;o many learned and worthy Champions of the Truth. But they mu&s;t needs run whom the Devil drives.</P>
<P>As for the <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 word"> Commandment, it is mo&s;t mani|fe&s;t how they do oppo&s;e them&s;elves thereunto, by their
<PB REF="10">rejecting, wre&s;ting, and abu&s;ing the word of God, which is a mo&s;t glorious peice of his name, and in their oppo&s;ing and trampling upon his precious Truth, and avowing of Error and Bla&s;phemy; yea it is evident how lightly they regard this Commandment by their very &s;wallowing down of their Meat and Drink (as &s;o ma|ny Brutes) without Prayer and Thanksgiving, with|out which (if they will believe the Apo&s;tle 1 <HI>Tim.</HI> 4.3, 4, 5.) they are not &s;anctified. Let them &s;eriou&s;ly con&s;ider the Text: for the Apo&s;tle does there expre&s;ly &s;ay that God hath created our Meat to be received with Thanksgiving (and &s;o the receiving of it without that is contrary to Gods appointment) and that every Creature of God is good, and nothing to be refu&s;ed, up|on this condition taken in (and &s;o no otherwi&s;e, <HI>viz.</HI> to us) if it be received with Thanksgiving, and he adds a rea&s;on to prove that its good, <HI>viz.</HI> becau&s;e it is Sancti|fied by the Word of God (allowing us the u&s;e of it) and Prayer, which asketh Gods ble&s;&s;ing thereupon. And albeit the &s;ame Apo&s;tle &s;ays (<HI>Tit.</HI> 1.15.) <HI>&V;nto the pure all things are pure,</HI> yet he does not &s;ay that without Prayer and Thanksgiving they will be &s;o, or ble&s;&s;ed in their u&s;e; nor does he in this Text contradict or retract what he &s;ays in the fore-cited Text where he explains how they are Sanctified and made pure to us, <HI>viz.</HI> by the Word of God and Prayer; and &s;o the one Text &s;upplies and explains the other.</P>
<P>The Fourth Commandment they do openly impugn in one of their following Queries, unto which place we refer the Controver&s;ie.</P>
<P>The <HI>Quakers</HI> re&s;pects unto the Fifth Commandment is &s;ufficiently known by their denying to all men that external Civil Reverence which it plainly enjoyns, and their oppo&s;ing and condemning the practice thereof in
<PB REF="10">others as unlawful and Idolatrous. Thus Mr. <HI>George Keith</HI> one of their chiefe&s;t <HI>Ante&s;ignani</HI> declares all bow|ing and taking off of Hats unlawful, in his <HI>Quakeri&s;m no Popery,</HI> page 100, 101.</P>
<P>Now that this command enjoyns us to give Civil Reverence to men is mo&s;t manife&s;t, &s;eeing it enjoyns to give Civil honour to men: <HI>Ergo</HI> Civil Reverence, &s;ee|ing honour void of all Reverence is a plain contra|diction, honour being nothing el&s;e but a paying of Re|verence and regard. And that this command enjoyns the external part, as well as the internal, cannot be doubted, &s;eeing the Precept is given unto the whole man, not the Soul only; nor can the Body (being capable of the Duty) be exempted from the Law of God more than the Soul, they being equally liable to his Soveraignity, and the Law and the Law-giver not di&s;tingui&s;hing or exempting.</P>
<P>But the <HI>Quakers</HI> object that all wor&s;hipping of Crea|tures is Idolatry: but all external Reverencing of Crea|tures with bowing, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> is a Wor&s;hipping of them: <HI>Ergo, &amp;c.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> But why &s;hall external Civil Reverence be Idolatry, and not the internal al&s;o, which the <HI>Quakers</HI> have often &s;aid to me they own and practi&s;e? Is it only the Body that is capable of Idolatry? Or is not the Soul as much capable of it? Why then do they condemn, or allow the one more than the other? half an eye may &s;ee the Incon&s;i&s;tency and confu&s;ion of the&s;e Principles.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> Secondly, that all wor&s;hipping of Creatures with Religious wor&s;hip is indeed Idolatry (<HI>Exod.</HI> 20.5. <HI>Mat.</HI> 4.10.) But wor&s;hipping of Creatures with a Civil wor&s;hip is not &s;o, but on the contrary God com|mands and approves it (<HI>Exod.</HI> 20.12. <HI>Levit.</HI> 19.32. <HI>Luk.</HI> 14.10.) and will they &s;ay that <HI>Abraham</HI> com|mitted
<PB REF="11">Idolatry when he bowed to the Children of <HI>Heth (Gen.</HI> 23.7.) or that <HI>Jacob</HI> committed Idolatry when he bowed him&s;elf to the ground &s;even times to his Bro|ther, and that, immediately after &s;uch a manife&s;tation of God to him (<HI>Gen.</HI> 33.3.) or did <HI>Solomon</HI> commit Idolatry when he bowed him&s;elf to his Mother (1 <HI>King.</HI> 2.19.) <HI>Solomon</HI> was no Idolater at that time me-thinks.</P>
<P>Again, the <HI>Quakers</HI> alledge that Chri&s;t condemns all Honouring of Creatures (<HI>Joh.</HI> 5.44.) where he &s;ays, how can ye believe who receive honor one of another, and &s;eek not the honour that cometh from God only.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> Hereby they Impugn the very letter of the Fifth Commandment, and declare that (in their Opinion) no manner of Civil Reverence or regard is to be given to any man.</P>
<P>Secondly, if Chri&s;t here condemns all Civil honor|ing of men, then he condemns that &s;ame Duty here which he him&s;elf el&s;ewhere (<HI>Mat.</HI> 19.19. <HI>Luk.</HI> 18.20. <HI>Eph.</HI> 6.2. 1 <HI>Pet.</HI> 2.17.) and his Apo&s;tles commands, which is mo&s;t fal&s;e. Therefore thirdly I an&s;wer that the honor that Chri&s;t there &s;peaks of, is meant of, the approbation and applau&s;e of one another as to their Life and Actions which the&s;e <HI>Phari&s;aical Jews</HI> Inordinately gaped after, and meerly relied upon, without &s;eeking therein to be approved of God.</P>
<P>This is confirmed to be the meaning from other Pa|rallel Scriptures where Chri&s;t &s;ays, that the&s;e <HI>Phari|&s;aical Jews</HI> did all things for to be &s;een of men, and that they might have glory of men (<HI>Mat.</HI> 6.2, 5. <HI>Mat.</HI> 23.5.) that is to &s;ay (as is plain) in all their works they hunted after the meer applau&s;e and approbation of men. And again the Text it &s;elf &s;hews this to be the meaning, in holding forth the receiving of the honor there meant as incon&s;i&s;tent with true Faith, which can|not
<PB REF="11">agree to the receiving of that Civil honor injoyned in the Fifth Commandment; but it well agrees with that honor Taxed by Chri&s;t in the <HI>Phari&s;ees</HI> both Ne|gatively and Po&s;itively.</P>
<P>We &s;hall &s;tand here no longer. Only it is too too notour what regard the <HI>Quakers</HI> have unto the Sixth and Ninth Commandments, while by opprobrious Rail|ings and lying Calumnies (as witne&s;s all their Printed Pamphlets) they bear mo&s;t fal&s;e witne&s;s again&s;t, and endeavour to Murther the good Name and Reputation of all men who will not Dance unto their Tune, and cry a Confederacy unto their Soul-damning Delu&s;ions.</P>
<P>The&s;e are the avowed Principles and open Practi&s;es of the <HI>Quakers,</HI> by which (Chri&s;tian Reader) I thought it not ami&s;s to give thee a &s;mall hint of the Superlative mea&s;ures of Piety whereunto the <HI>Quakers</HI> &s;hrewdly pre|tend, that thou mighte&s;t from the Claw (as we &s;ay) di&s;cern the Lion, and mighte&s;t not be &s;oon &s;haken in mind, or &s;uddenly carried away with the &s;pecious pre|tences of the <HI>Quakers,</HI> who by their huge claims unto Godline&s;s (empty Casks and &s;hallow Streams make mo&s;t noi&s;e) and their dropping in of their Principles, e&s;pecially among their younger Pro&s;elytes, under a num|ber of Enigmatical Riddles wrapt up in the chiefe&s;t Clouds of Darkne&s;s, or a mi&s;repre&s;enting and transform|ing Vail (whereby they are Metamorpho&s;ed into another likene&s;s, and the Snare is hid until the Prey be Catched, and the Poi&s;on till the Mor&s;el be &s;wallowed down) They have &s;o Blind-folded the eyes, and mi&s;led &s;ome &s;imple and ignorant people, that having once E&s;pou&s;ed their Cau&s;e they are hard to be regained.</P>
<P>Some are of mind, that it is in vain and to no purpo&s;e to offer to rea&s;on with, or redargue the <HI>Quakers,</HI> in regard of the un&s;tayedne&s;s and mutability of their Principles
<PB REF="12">proceeding from the variablene&s;s of their new pretended Reve|lations. But I am more Charitable to the <HI>Quakers.</HI> For, I am &s;ure, though their Principles were as changeable as the Moon, and un&s;tayed as the Weather-cock, they mu&s;t hold one of the parts of the Contradiction; and &s;o they mu&s;t either acknowledge and yield our Doctrine and <HI>The&s;is,</HI> and then we are agreed; or el&s;e they mu&s;t contradict our Doctrine and <HI>The&s;is,</HI> and then let them an&s;wer our irre&s;i&s;table Arguments. For they cannot hold both parts of the Contradiction, otherwi&s;e they &s;hall contradict them|&s;elves, and be bound to hold and maintain our doctrine, as well as their own; and &s;o their Principles &s;hall con&s;i&s;t of an Hodg-podge of Self-murthering contradictions each of them cutting anothers throat. Nor can they hold none of the parts of Contradiction, but proclaim both of them to be together fal&s;e; otherwi&s;e they &s;hall proclaim all their own Principles and Po&s;itions to be fal&s;e, as well as ours (like the Witches de&s;troying a Friend for a Foes &s;ake) for each of their Principles and Po&s;itions is one of the parts of a Contradiction (and &s;ometimes both, <HI>viz.</HI> when they a&s;&s;ert formal Repugnances) and I can ea&s;ily give a contradictory Propo&s;ition to every one of them, or to any Propo&s;ition imaginable; yea, if none of the parts of the Con|tradiction were true, then there would be no true &s;aying in the world, &s;eeing every true &s;aying is one of the parts of a Contradiction.</P>
<P>But here I mu&s;t cut off, and crave thy Pardon (Courteous Reader) for pre&s;uming &s;o far upon thy good humour with &s;o Large a Preface, albeit (I hope) I have lo&s;t no time to thee, or my &s;elf, either with Idle Self-Apologies, or otherwi&s;e vain and needle&s;s Complements, but have been Travelling in matters both pertinent to the purpo&s;e in hand, and in them&s;elves Important.</P>
<P>That thou maye&s;t be throughly E&s;tabli&s;hed in the Truth of Je&s;us, and maye&s;t hold fa&s;t the my&s;tery of Faith in a pure Con|&s;cience, being fruitful in every good work, receiving in end the Crown of Life is the earne&s;t Prayer of the Author who is</P>
<CLOSER><SIGNED>Thy unworthy Servant in all Chri&s;tian Duty <HI>John Alexander.</HI></SIGNED></CLOSER>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 TYPE="queries">
<PB REF="12">
<HEAD>THE QUAKERS QUERIES.</HEAD>
<P>THe <HI>Quakers</HI> Queries here follow to be repre&s;en|ted to one view, in the &s;ame Order as they were directed, and &s;ent unto me, from a Convent of that Pro|fe&s;&s;ion, though but Signed with one of their hands, where the Reader may &s;ee that in my Surveys I alter their Method as to order and place, that I might bring together &s;uch Queries as are Homogeneous, and of one, or like Nature; though without the lea&s;t mutation of either their Matter, or Expre&s;&s;ion; or changing of the order of Que&s;tions, within the limits of one and the &s;ame Query, or &s;eparating any part thereof from another, that it may be &s;een that I have not in the lea&s;t injured the Adver&s;aries, but have only &s;ometimes, for a di&s;tincter Method, alter'd the place of a Total Query. The <HI>Quakers</HI> al&s;o In&s;cribed their Queries, all which here follows, and, fir&s;t the In&s;cription.</P>
<DIV2 TYPE="introduction to queries">
<HEAD><HI>Quakers</HI> In&s;cription.</HEAD>
<P><HI>Some Queries, as followeth, from the People called</HI> Qua|kers, <HI>for one, or all of the Mini&s;ters in</HI> Scotland <HI>to An&s;wer.</HI></P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="1" TYPE="query">
<HEAD>Fir&s;t QUERY.</HEAD>
<P><HI>Whether or not Grammar, or Logick, and the many Tongues and Languages, which began in</HI> Babylon, <HI>is an Infallible Rule to make a Mini&s;ter of Chri&s;t? And whe|ther or not</HI> Eli&s;ha <HI>the Plow-man,</HI> Amos <HI>the Herd&s;man,</HI>
<PB REF="13">Peter <HI>and</HI> John <HI>the Fi&s;hermen, who could hardly read a letter, with many others who were not bred up in the&s;e things, Logick and Grammar, and the many Languages; if they could not be Mini&s;ters of Chri&s;t Je&s;us? Yea, or Nay.</HI></P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="2" TYPE="query">
<HEAD>Second QUERY.</HEAD>
<P><HI>Whether or not the Scriptures were the Rule of</HI> Enochs <HI>Faith,</HI> Noahs <HI>Faith, and holy men in the old world, and &s;econd world? Whether or not they were a Rule to</HI> Abra|hams <HI>Faith,</HI> I&s;aacs <HI>and</HI> Jacobs <HI>Faith, and</HI> Mo&s;es<HI>'s</HI> Faith, <HI>and all the Patriarchs? And whether or not they had Scriptures, till</HI> Mo&s;es <HI>did write them? An&s;wer the&s;e things by plain Scripture.</HI></P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="3" TYPE="query">
<HEAD>Third QUERY.</HEAD>
<P><HI>Or how long was it after Chri&s;t and the Apo&s;tles days, That that Grammar, Logick, and Philo&s;ophy, and Schools of learning were &s;et up to make Mini&s;ters of Chri&s;t Je&s;us.</HI></P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="4" TYPE="query">
<HEAD>Fourth QUERY.</HEAD>
<P><HI>Whether or not the Scriptures are the Word, or the words of God? &s;eeing the Scriptures &s;ay them&s;elves,</HI> God &s;pake all the&s;e words, <HI>Exod.</HI> 20. <HI>And he that adds to the words, in the la&s;t of the</HI> Revelation, Plagues are added to him. <HI>And what doth the Scripture &s;ignifie? doth it not &s;ignifie Writings? And whether all that is written in the Scriptures from</HI> Gene&s;is <HI>to</HI> Revelation <HI>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 Te&s;tament? If not; di&s;tingui&s;h what part is to be obeyed, and what not. And whether every title from the beginning of</HI> Gene&s;is <HI>to the end of the Revelation is the Word, or the Words of God?</HI></P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="5" TYPE="query">
<PB REF="13">
<HEAD>Fifth QUERY.</HEAD>
<P><HI>Whether or not the Prophets, Chri&s;t, and the Apo&s;tles, and holy men of God did Preach down perfection, and &s;aid that men &s;hould not be perfect while they were on Earth, but &s;aid men &s;hould carry about a body of Death with them, while they were on this &s;ide of the Grave? let us &s;ee where this is written by any of them all.</HI></P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="6" TYPE="query">
<HEAD>Sixth QUERY.</HEAD>
<P><HI>Whether or not your &s;inging of</HI> Davids P&s;alms, <HI>his Prayers, Prophe&s;ies, Fa&s;tings, Reproaches, Weepings, Mournings, Lamentations, and Complaints how he was Mocked have any Warrant in the Scripture? and you bring all the&s;e together in Meeter, without di&s;tinction. Have ye not done this your &s;elves? Or did the Apo&s;tles it to the Saints in the Primitive times? Or have ye the &s;ame Spi|rit the Apo&s;tles had? Or a larger mea&s;ure of it, than the Apo&s;tles had, by which ye have turned the&s;e into Meeter &s;ince the Apo&s;tles days? And what was the P&s;alms, Hymns and Spiritual Songs they &s;ang in the Primitive times? An&s;wer the&s;e things by plain Scripture.</HI></P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="7" TYPE="query">
<HEAD>Seventh QUERY.</HEAD>
<P><HI>Whether or not your Directory, Confe&s;&s;ion of Faith, and Catechi&s;ms 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 &s;uch a Directory, or Catechi&s;m, or Confe&s;&s;ion of Faith, as ye have done? And whether or not the Scrip|tures are not a better Directory than any ye can make, which were given forth by the Holy Gho&s;t, by the holy men of God who had the Infallible Spirit?</HI></P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="8" TYPE="query">
<PB REF="14">
<HEAD>Eighth QUERY.</HEAD>
<P><HI>Whether or not is your Sanctification, your Ju&s;tification, and your Faith and Grace the Gifts of the&s;e, without &s;in, as they are Manife&s;ted within you? Yea, or Nay.</HI></P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="9" TYPE="query">
<HEAD>Ninth QUERY.</HEAD>
<P><HI>Whether or not Chri&s;t and the Apo&s;tles gave forth a Command that they &s;hould keep the Sabbath-day? Let us &s;ee where it is written in the Scriptures.</HI> But the fir&s;t day of the week the Saints did meet together. <HI>This is Scrip|ture. But let us &s;ee the Scripture for a Sabbath-day in the New Te&s;tament, which &s;peaks for a re&s;t for the people of God. But is this a day? Yea, or Nay.</HI></P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="10" TYPE="query">
<HEAD>Tenth QUERY.</HEAD>
<P><HI>Whether is there any Scripture, or Command in all the New Te&s;tament for the Sprinkling of Infants? Let us &s;ee Scripture, without adding, or dimini&s;hing 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 &s;huffling Meanings, or Con&s;equences; or el&s;e never pretend Scripture-Rule more; but acknowledge that it hath been your Meanings and Con|&s;equences that hath been your Rule.</HI></P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="11" TYPE="query">
<HEAD>Eleventh QUERY.</HEAD>
<P><HI>Whether doth the Scriptures &s;ay in the New Te&s;tament, that eating of Bread, and drinking of Wine, after Supper, was an Ordinance of Chri&s;t? And whether do ye practi&s;e this, as Chri&s;t and his Apo&s;tles did, after Supper? Do not ye take it before Dinner? Did Chri&s;t, or his Apo&s;tles do &s;o? What
<PB REF="14">Scripture have ye for your Rule for this? for they took it in the night. And Chri&s;t &s;ays, as oft as ye eat of this Bread, and Drink of this Wine,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>is that a &s;tanding Command? Or is it left to people? &s;eeing its &s;aid,</HI> as oft as ye Eat this, and Drink this, do it in remembrance of his Death, and &s;hewing his Death, until he come again. <HI>Was this coming to the end of the world? Or was it, until his coming to dwell in his Apo&s;tles, who &s;aid, 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 Chri&s;t &s;ay, Eat this, and Drink this in remembrance of his Death? And doth not the Apo&s;tle &s;ay, that they mu&s;t die with Chri&s;t? and to die with him is to come to the Death with him. And they that be in the Death of Chri&s;t, and die with Chri&s;t, mu&s;t they have Bread and Wine to put them in remembrance of his Death? Yea, or Nay. And doth not the Apo&s;tle &s;ay, that they mu&s;t Die with Chri&s;t, and be Buried with him? And when the people are Dead, and Buried with Chri&s;t, mu&s;t they have Bread and Wine to put them in remembrance of Chri&s;ts Death? An&s;wer this, yea, or nay. And the A|po&s;tle &s;ays, they mu&s;t ri&s;e with Chri&s;t Je&s;us; and if they be ri&s;en with him, then &s;eek the&s;e things that are above. And is not Bread and Wine from below? and if the A|po&s;tle puts them to &s;eek the&s;e things that are above, then he brought them off the&s;e things that are below: for he &s;ays to the</HI> Corinthians, the things that are &s;een are Tempo|ral, but the things that are not &s;een are Eternal. <HI>This he &s;pake when they were Jangling, and in a di&s;order about outward things. Doth he not bring them off things that are &s;een, to things that are not &s;een? And whether or not ye ever intend, ye your &s;elves called Mini&s;ters, or your hearers &s;hall come any nearer to Chri&s;ts Death, and Die, and be Buried with him, but only to take Bread and Wine
<PB REF="15">in remembrance of Chri&s;ts Death, le&s;t ye, and they &s;hould come to forget Chri&s;ts Death? An&s;wer us plainly the&s;e things, Yea, or Nay.</HI></P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="12" TYPE="query">
<HEAD>Twelfth QUERY.</HEAD>
<P><HI>What is Original &s;in? Whether it be not the Devil? yea, or nay. For doth not the Original &s;ignifie the begin|ning? And what did Chri&s;t come to De&s;troy? Was it not the Devil, and his works?</HI></P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="13" TYPE="query">
<HEAD>Thirteenth QUERY.</HEAD>
<P><HI>Whether or not did Chri&s;t die for all the ungodly in the world, and Sinners, that they &s;hould live and die in their ungodline&s;s and &s;ins, or live unto him? and whether or not did Chri&s;t &s;hed his blood for all men, and was a Propitiation for the &s;ins of all men? and whether or not the&s;e that do not hold this, are the&s;e that make Sects, and are out of the &s;ame Spirit and Doctrine of the Apo&s;tles?</HI></P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="14" TYPE="query">
<HEAD>Fourteenth QUERY.</HEAD>
<P><HI>What makes a Believer? Whether or not is it by believing in the Light, according to Chri&s;ts Doctrine, who &s;ays, He is the Light of the World, and doth en|lighten every one that comes into the world, that all men through him might Believe? and who follows him &s;hall not walk in darkne&s;s: for he is the Light, and &s;ays, That</HI> he that believes is &s;aved. <HI>Then is not the Light &s;aving which he believes? and he that does not believe in the Light is damned already. Then is not the Light, or his di&s;obedience to it, his Condemnation? Yea; or Nay?</HI></P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="15" TYPE="query">
<PB REF="15">
<HEAD>Fifteenth QUERY.</HEAD>
<P><HI>Can any man be &s;aved by his own works, Self-righteou&s;|ne&s;s, Will-wor&s;hip? and are not all men in the Self-righ|teou&s;ne&s;s that are not in the Righteou&s;ne&s;s of Chri&s;t Je&s;us? and are not all of their own works that be out of the Light, and the Faith that is the Gift of God? and are not all in their Will-wor&s;hips that are not in the wor&s;hip that Je&s;us Chri&s;t, the heavenly man, &s;et up above Sixteen hundred years &s;ince, that is in the Spirit, and the Truth? So mu&s;t not every man come to the Truth, and to the Spirit in their own hearts, if they come to the wor&s;hip Je&s;us Chri&s;t &s;et up? and are not your Catechi&s;ms, Confe&s;&s;ions of Faith, and Directories your own works, and your own wor&s;hip which ye have &s;et down for people to fall down, and do wor&s;hip to, and be &s;aved by? and have ye not &s;et up this &s;ince the Apo&s;tles days, and &s;ince Chri&s;t &s;et up his wor&s;hip?</HI></P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="16" TYPE="query">
<HEAD>Sixteenth QUERY.</HEAD>
<P><HI>Whether or not your Directory, and Catechi&s;m, and Confe&s;&s;ion of Faith be Go&s;pel? yea, or nay. And if &s;o; whether it be not another Go&s;pel, then that which the Apo&s;tles Preached, who &s;aid the Go&s;pel was the power of God.</HI> Rom. 1.16.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="17" TYPE="query">
<HEAD>Seventeenth QUERY.</HEAD>
<P><HI>Whether or not the Scriptures do not &s;ay, that</HI> he that believes hath cea&s;ed from his own works as God did from his, and entred into his re&s;t? <HI>and whether or not your Directory, and Church-maid Faith, and Catechi&s;ms, and Confe&s;&s;ions be not your own works? and ye follow them, and wor&s;hip them, and not cea&s;e from them. And
<PB REF="16">whether or not in &s;o doing, ye keep people and your &s;elves in your own works, and from the Re&s;t? or we de&s;ire you &s;hew us what difference their is betwixt Spiritual</HI> Babylon <HI>and</HI> Sodom, <HI>and</HI> Egypts <HI>works of their hands, and Temporal</HI> Babylon <HI>and</HI> Sodom, <HI>and</HI> Egypts <HI>works of their hands, and their wor&s;hip. Of each di&s;tingui&s;h, I de&s;ire you, Di&s;tingui&s;h the my&s;tery from a plain out|ward Idol.</HI></P>
<P>The&s;e Queries were Sub&s;cribed <HI>[I. S.]</HI> and I could fill up his Name at length, but I forbear, for &s;ome rea&s;ons that I think more pertinent to Conceal, than Divulge unto the world.</P>
<P>This is the true Tran&s;cript of their Queries which were directed unto me, as is &s;aid, which I can Atte&s;t by many others that &s;aw, and read them before they came to my hand; and &s;ome after, that knows they owned them; and they are al&s;o the true Pourtraiture of their known Principles; and be&s;ide, I have in this Controver&s;ie carried along two of their mo&s;t famous Books yet extant, the Po|&s;itions whereof (which I always Cite) do exactly agree with the Scope and Import of the&s;e Queries, <HI>viz.</HI> their <HI>Confe&s;&s;ion of Faith</HI> Sub&s;cribed by Eight, or Nine of their mo&s;t famous Ring-leaders in <HI>England</HI> (by them called <HI>The Principles of Truth,</HI> or <HI>a Decla|ration of their Faith</HI>) and their <HI>Quakeri&s;m no Popery,</HI> written by Mr. <HI>George Keith,</HI> and Sub&s;cribed both by him, and Mr. <HI>Robert Barclay,</HI> two of their chiefe&s;t Luminaries and greate&s;t Apo&s;tles (for&s;ooth) in <HI>Scotland.</HI> This Book Mr. <HI>Keith</HI> writes again&s;t Reverend Mr. <HI>Menzies</HI> Profe&s;&s;or of Theology at <HI>Aberdeen,</HI> a man of &s;o great Veneration and Learning, that it may be ju&s;tly thought a daring boldne&s;s for him to have meddled again&s;t him. So that no man knowing the <HI>Quakers</HI> Principles, or &s;earching the&s;e grounds, will, in the lea&s;t, doubt the faithfulne&s;s of my Tran|&s;cription; be&s;ide what Credit may be allowed unto my own Inge|nuity, who never loved the &s;training of any mans Principle too &s;ore, in Con&s;equences unclear and remote; much le&s;s the fixing of Principles fal&s;ly upon &s;uch as di&s;claimed them. But of this I need &s;ay no more: for the <HI>Quakers</HI> Principles are known, and the&s;e Queries they will own.</P>
</DIV2>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 TYPE="table of contents">
<PB REF="16">
<HEAD>An Alpha<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="3 letters">ical TABLE.</HEAD>
<LIST>
<HEAD>A</HEAD>
<ITEM><HI>GRacious Acts nece&s;&s;arily require gracious Principles proved.</HI> pag. 157.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Adam <HI>a common Repre&s;entative head of Mankind.</HI> pag. 134.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>The Analogy of Faith, what it is.</HI> pag. 78.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Apocryphal Books not Canonical, or of immediate In&s;piration.</HI> pag. 209.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Apo&s;tacy of the Saints confuted.</HI> pag. 162.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Chri&s;tian a&s;&s;urance needs not immediate Dictates.</HI> p. 32.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Authority of the Scripture-rule over all other Rules proved.</HI> ibid.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>The Pope (before the Reformation) had Church-Authority, and how.</HI> pag. 199.</ITEM>
</LIST>
<LIST>
<HEAD>B</HEAD>
<ITEM><HI>THe Bapti&s;m of</HI> John <HI>and the Apo&s;tles the &s;ame in &s;ub&s;tance.</HI> p. 69.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Bapti&s;m with Water of Divine In&s;titution under the Go&s;pel.</HI> p. 68.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Bapti&s;m with Water only properly called Bapti&s;m.</HI> p. 78.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Bapti&s;m with Water meant in the Text of</HI> Matthew (Matthew 28.19.) <HI>proved.</HI> p. 76.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Bapti&s;m with Water nece&s;&s;ary to Salvation, and how.</HI> p. 74.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Bapti&s;m with Water not an Old-Te&s;tament Ceremony.</HI> p. 68.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Bapti&s;m &s;ucceeded in the room of Circumci&s;ion.</HI> p. 86.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Bapti&s;m of Believers Infants a Divine In&s;titution under the Go&s;pel.</HI> ibid.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Bapti&s;m the Initiating Seal proved.</HI> ibid.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Probable Evidences enough for admi&s;&s;ion to Bapti&s;m.</HI> p. 88.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>The great Bea&s;t mentioned in the</HI> Revel. <HI>not our will.</HI> pag. 195.</ITEM>
<PB REF="17">
<ITEM><HI>Bilocation pregnant with Contradictions.</HI> p. 191.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Bla&s;phemies reported in Scripture not Scripture-&s;entence.</HI> p. 20.</ITEM>
</LIST>
<LIST>
<HEAD>C</HEAD>
<ITEM><HI>EXtraordinary calls attended with extraordinary Furniture.</HI> pag. 7.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>An inward call not nece&s;&s;ary to the validity of Mini&s;terial Acts.</HI> pag. 202.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>A Catechi&s;m requi&s;ite in a Church, and why.</HI> pag. 123.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Our</HI> We&s;tmin&s;ter <HI>Catechi&s;m (aimed at) materially Scripture|&s;entence.</HI> pag. 129.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>How the Command is &s;aid to be nigh unto us.</HI> Deut. 30.14. p. 37.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Chri&s;ts coming again mentioned</HI> (1 Cor. 11.26.) <HI>not meaned of his coming at the</HI> Penteco&s;t, <HI>but at the day of general judg|ment.</HI> pag. 99.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Conditions of the two Covenants de&s;cribed and di&s;tingui&s;hed.</HI> pag. 187.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>A Confe&s;&s;ion requi&s;ite in a Church, and why.</HI> pag. 123.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Our Confe&s;&s;ion of</HI> We&s;tmin&s;ter <HI>materially Scripture-&s;entence.</HI> p. 128.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Con&s;equential fundamental errors do not Phy&s;ically and Entita|tively unchurch.</HI> pag. 200.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Con&s;equential Scripture is Infallible Scripture-rule.</HI> p. 63.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Con&s;equential Scripture nece&s;&s;ary to prove Je&s;us the true Me&s;&s;ias.</HI> pag. 64.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Con&s;equential Scripture nece&s;&s;ary again&s;t Idolatry.</HI> pag. 65.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Con&s;equential Scripture not founded upon Principles of meer hu|mane rea&s;on.</HI> pag. 66.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Con&s;equential Scripture no addition to the Scripture.</HI> ibid.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Conver&s;ion wherein it e&s;&s;entially con&s;i&s;ts.</HI> pag. 157.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>The Di&s;ciples converted before the fir&s;t Go&s;pel Supper.</HI> pag. 97.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>The Covenant the &s;ame in &s;ub&s;tance under both Te&s;taments.</HI> p. 85.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Courte&s;ie and Capping lawful among Chri&s;tians.</HI> pag. 205.</ITEM>
</LIST>
<LIST>
<HEAD>D</HEAD>
<ITEM><HI>ONe day of &s;even a Sabbath-day Moral and perpetual.</HI> pag. 104.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Every day not a Chri&s;tian Holy-day proved.</HI> pag. 111.</ITEM>
<PB REF="17">
<ITEM><HI>The Lords day (mentioned Revel.</HI> 1.10.) <HI>not meant of any inde|terminate day.</HI> pag. 108.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>The Lords day meant determinately of the fir&s;t day of the week.</HI> ibid.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Death de&s;cribed.</HI> pag. 100.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>The Decrees of God are eternal.</HI> pag. 141.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Conditional Decrees in God depending upon conditions not by him determined vain and repugnant.</HI> pag. 143.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>The Dictate in all men not the principal Rule.</HI> pag. 33.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>The Dictate in all men not E&s;&s;entially right.</HI> ibid.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>The Dictate in all men &s;ubjected to the Scriptures.</HI> pag. 35.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>A Dictate of the Spirit Immediate and Objective in no man.</HI> p. 49.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>A Dictate within Immediate and Objective not needful.</HI> pag. 32.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Chri&s;t died not for all men, but only for the Elect proved.</HI> p. 138.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>A Directory of a Church di&s;tingui&s;ht into two Notions.</HI> pag. 120.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>A Directory warrantable in a Church.</HI> pag. 122.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Church Directories not Infallible.</HI> pag. 123.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>A Directory formed rightly of a mixed nature, depending partly upon Scripture general Precepts, and partly flowing from Chri&s;tian prudence.</HI> pag. 128.</ITEM>
</LIST>
<LIST>
<HEAD>E</HEAD>
<ITEM><HI>EFfective enlightning of the Spirit di&s;tinct from Objective.</HI> p. 32.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Effective enlightning of the Spirit &s;ufficient, without Imme|diate Objective.</HI> ibid.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Efficacy of grace not dependent on mans free will.</HI> pag. 159.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Efficacy of grace, from whence.</HI> pag. 161.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>The</HI> Quakers <HI>alternative Efficacy of grace confuted.</HI> pag. 160.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Chri&s;ts enlightning of every man that comes into the world, how to be under&s;tood.</HI> pag. 154.</ITEM>
</LIST>
<LIST>
<HEAD>F</HEAD>
<ITEM><HI>FAith the only condition of the new Covenant.</HI> pag. 181.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Faith not con&s;idered as a work in ju&s;tification.</HI> pag. 183.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Fighting lawful for Chri&s;tians again&s;t unju&s;t Invaders.</HI> pag. 204.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Free will to Convert not in any unrenewed man.</HI> pag. 159.</ITEM>
<PB REF="18">
<ITEM><HI>Free will in unrenewed men to gracious actions incon&s;i&s;tent with the Efficacy of grace.</HI> pag. 160.</ITEM>
</LIST>
<LIST>
<HEAD>G</HEAD>
<ITEM><HI>EXtraordinary Gifts not an Infallible evidence of &s;aving grace.</HI> pag. 74.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>The Go&s;pel not Properly, but only Synecdochically called the power of God.</HI> pag. 130.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Grace without light proportionable can do nothing.</HI> p. 156.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Grammar de&s;cribed, and explained.</HI> pag. 3.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Grammar lawful among Chri&s;tians, and nece&s;&s;ary for &s;ome men.</HI> pag. 4.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>How the Spirit Guides us into all truth.</HI> pag. 42.</ITEM>
</LIST>
<LIST>
<HEAD>H</HEAD>
<ITEM><HI>INward habits nouri&s;hed and maintained by external means.</HI> p. 41.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Supernatural habits &s;imply nece&s;&s;ary, for &s;upernatural actions.</HI> pag. 157.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Holine&s;s of Believers Children</HI> (1 Cor. 7.14.) <HI>what it does import.</HI> pag. 85.</ITEM>
</LIST>
<LIST>
<HEAD>I</HEAD>
<ITEM><HI>SInning by meer Imitation confuted.</HI> pag. 133.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Infants have intere&s;t into the Kingdom of Heaven.</HI> pag. 88.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Immediate In&s;piration of the Doctrine of grace cea&s;ed in the Church and not now, upon any ground of promi&s;e, to be lookt for.</HI> p. 55.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Interpretation of Scripture is needful in the Church.</HI> pag. 52.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Interpretation of Scripture is of Divine In&s;titution, and explained what it is.</HI> pag. 55.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Scriptures may be Interpreted by men who&s;e gifts are fallible.</HI> p. 59.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Scriptures are the rule of Interpreting Scriptures.</HI> pag. 58.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>The meaning of Scripture Interpreted by Scripture is Scripture|rule.</HI> pag. 61.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Interpreting of Scriptures is no adding to the Scriptures.</HI> ibid.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Ju&s;tification how it is held by</HI> Prote&s;tants. pag. 174.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Ju&s;tification how it is held by the</HI> Quakers. pag. 175.</ITEM>
<PB REF="18">
<ITEM><HI>Ju&s;tification by inherent or inward Righteou&s;ne&s;s either as a cau&s;e, or condition refuted.</HI> pag. 181.</ITEM>
</LIST>
<LIST>
<HEAD>K</HEAD>
<ITEM><HI>KIlling in ju&s;t defence again&s;t the unju&s;t Invaders of a King|dom lawful.</HI> vid. <HI>fighting lawful for Chri&s;tians.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>How the kingdom of God is &s;aid to be within us</HI> (Luk. 17.2.) p. 40.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Knowledge in Divine things how it differs in renewed, and unre|newed men.</HI> pag. 37.</ITEM>
</LIST>
<LIST>
<HEAD>L</HEAD>
<ITEM><HI>LAnguages how nece&s;&s;ary to be learnt, and why.</HI> pag. 4.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Chri&s;t as God was never under the Law.</HI> pag. 212.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>How the Law is &s;aid to be written upon our hearts</HI> (Jer. 30.33.) pag. 38.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Learning how nece&s;&s;ary for a Mini&s;ter.</HI> pag. 5.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Sufficient light in all men to Salvation confuted.</HI> pag. 151.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Light within all men not the principal Rule.</HI> pag. 33.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Chri&s;t how &s;aid to live in a true Chri&s;tian explained.</HI> pag. 213.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Logick de&s;cribed and divided.</HI> pag. 5.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Logick a gift of God.</HI> pag. 6.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Logick lawful and nece&s;&s;ary among Chri&s;tians.</HI> ibid.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Lies reported in the Scripture not Scripture-&s;entence.</HI> pag. 19.</ITEM>
</LIST>
<LIST>
<HEAD>M</HEAD>
<ITEM><HI>MErit of good works pregnant with contradictions, and con|futed.</HI> pag. 186.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>An External Mini&s;tery to continue to the worlds end in the Church.</HI> pag. 60.</ITEM>
</LIST>
<LIST>
<HEAD>N</HEAD>
<ITEM><HI>BY Nature all men are corrupt.</HI> pag. 132.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Natural men are not &s;ufficiently enlightened to Conver&s;ion or Salvation.</HI> pag. 151.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Natural parts are nece&s;&s;ary for a Mini&s;ter.</HI> pag. 202.</ITEM>
</LIST>
<PB REF="19">
<LIST>
<HEAD>O</HEAD>
<ITEM><HI>IT is not God that obeys God in us.</HI> pag. 212.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Ordination of our fir&s;t Reformers in time of</HI> Popery <HI>was valid</HI> quoad &s;ub&s;tantiam. pag. 199.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Ordination in the time of</HI> Popery, <HI>before the Reformation did not nece&s;&s;arily make the&s;e Ordained, the</HI> Popes <HI>Emi&s;&s;aries.</HI> p. 198.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Mini&s;terial Authority received by external Ordination.</HI> pag. 202.</ITEM>
</LIST>
<LIST>
<HEAD>P</HEAD>
<ITEM><HI>A Great difference betwixt</HI> Papi&s;ts <HI>now, and before the Council of</HI> Trent. pag. 200.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Perfection di&s;tingui&s;hed and de&s;cribed.</HI> pag. 165.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Perfection of degrees in this life confuted.</HI> ibid.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Perfection in a Moral &s;ence not inferred upon the agent, or action by Scripture writing.</HI> pag. 171.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Perfection not inferred from the acceptance of our good works.</HI> ibid.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Paul <HI>not perfect when be wrote to the</HI> Romans. pag. 167.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>The per&s;ons in the God-head proved.</HI> pag. 29.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>The per&s;ons in the God-head Eternal.</HI> pag. 214.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Philo&s;ophy de&s;cribed and explained.</HI> pag. 8.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Philo&s;ophy among Chri&s;tians lawful.</HI> pag. 9.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Philo&s;ophy a gift of God.</HI> ibid.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Philo&s;ophy how rightly u&s;ed, and how not.</HI> ibid.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>The Dictate within the principal rule of Faith according to the</HI> Quakers. pag. 28.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>The principal rule the Scriptures, not the Dictate within.</HI> pag. 30.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>P&s;alms-metring requires not immediate In&s;piration.</HI> pag. 118.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>P&s;alms-&s;inging of Divine In&s;titution.</HI> pag. 112.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>P&s;alms made upon &s;ad lots may be Sung.</HI> pag. 115.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>P&s;alms that are not our ca&s;e may be Sung.</HI> pag. 116.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>P&s;alms threatning Cur&s;es again&s;t notorious wicked men may be Sung.</HI> pag. 117.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>What P&s;alms were &s;ung in the Primitive Church.</HI> pag. 118.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Puni&s;hing of evil doers a duty incumbent to the Magi&s;trates.</HI> p. 205.</ITEM>
</LIST>
<PB REF="19">
<LIST>
<HEAD>Q</HEAD>
<ITEM>QUakers <HI>Je&s;uitical and Popi&s;h in their Principles.</HI> pag. 206.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Quakers <HI>&s;mell deeply of Supererogation.</HI> pag. 208.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Quakers <HI>great Slanderers.</HI> pag. 206.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>A</HI> Quakers <HI>Mini&s;ter de&s;cribed, according to their own Principles</HI> pag. 67.</ITEM>
</LIST>
<LIST>
<HEAD>R</HEAD>
<ITEM><HI>COnditional redemption refuted.</HI> pag. 143.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>External Reverence by &s;igns and ge&s;tures warrantable.</HI> vid.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Courte&s;ie and Capping Lawful, and how.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>The Righteou&s;ne&s;s whereby we are ju&s;tified not inward in us.</HI> pag. 181.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>The imputed Righteou&s;ne&s;s of Chri&s;t not inward in us.</HI> ibid.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>The Righteou&s;ne&s;s of our good works do not merit life to us.</HI> p. 186.</ITEM>
</LIST>
<LIST>
<HEAD>S</HEAD>
<ITEM><HI>THe Chri&s;tian Sabbath of Divine In&s;titution.</HI> pag. 104.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>The Chri&s;tian Sabbath by whom, and by what rea&s;ons pro|ved to be changed.</HI> pag. 106.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Jewi&s;h <HI>Sabbaths aboli&s;h'd infer nothing again&s;t our Chri&s;tian Sab|bath.</HI> pag. 105.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>The Scriptures of Divine In&s;piration.</HI> pag. 18.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>The Scriptures not a dead Letter.</HI> pag. 11.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>The Scriptures the Word of God explained and proved.</HI> pag. 12.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>The Scriptures pure.</HI> pag. 16.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>The Scriptures a complete rule of Faith and Manners proved.</HI> pag. 18.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>The Scriptures not meer Saints words proved.</HI> pag. 20.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>The Scriptures a more &s;ure way</HI> (quoad nos) <HI>then any Revela|tion how immediate &s;oever explained.</HI> pag. 25.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>The Scriptures have but one &s;en&s;e and no more.</HI> pag. 216.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>The Scriptures are not every where Figurative.</HI> pag. 215.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Original &s;in in all men proved.</HI> pag. 132.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Original &s;in not the Devil.</HI> pag. 131.</ITEM>
<PB REF="20">
<ITEM><HI>Original &s;in not our puni&s;hment, or temptation only but our &s;in al&s;o.</HI> pag. 133.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Swearing in due Circum&s;tances, lawful, nece&s;&s;ary, religious.</HI> p. 204.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>God not the &s;ub&s;tance of any Creature proved.</HI> pag. 213.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>The Lords Supper of Divine In&s;titution.</HI> pag. 95.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>The Go&s;pel-Supper de&s;cribed.</HI> ibid.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>The Go&s;pel-Supper not from below.</HI> pag. 102.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>The Go&s;pel-Supper to continue to the end of the world.</HI> pag. 99.</ITEM>
</LIST>
<LIST>
<HEAD>T</HEAD>
<ITEM><HI>TRuth di&s;tingui&s;hed and explained.</HI> pag. 217.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Chri&s;t how &s;aid to be the Truth.</HI> pag. 218.</ITEM>
</LIST>
<LIST>
<HEAD>W</HEAD>
<ITEM><HI>THe great Whore not our Wi&s;dom &s;itting upon our will.</HI> vid. <HI>the great Bea&s;t,</HI> &amp;c.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>The Unction</HI> (1 Joh. 2.20.) <HI>how &s;aid to teach all things.</HI> p. 43.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>The title of the Word of God bereft from the Scriptures, enervates their Authority and u&s;e.</HI> pag. 16.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>The engrafted Word</HI> (Jam. 1.21.) <HI>how, and whereof under&s;tood.</HI> pag. 45.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Works the condition of the fir&s;t Covenant, or the differencing Cha|racter of Law-righteou&s;ne&s;s.</HI> pag. 183.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>None of our good works meritorious of Salvation.</HI> pag. 186.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Salvation by works denied by</HI> Prote&s;tants, <HI>and how.</HI> pag. 174.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Rewarding of good works infers not merit proved.</HI> pag. 187.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Worthine&s;s of the Saints to walk with Chri&s;t,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>in Scripture|&s;en&s;e does not infer the merit of their works.</HI> ibid.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Gods e&s;teem of the Saints vertues of meekne&s;s,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>infers not their merit.</HI> pag. 188.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>A Believers cea&s;ing from his own works</HI> (Heb. 4.10.) <HI>how meant.</HI> pag. 194.</ITEM>
</LIST>
<PB N="1" REF="21">
</DIV1>
</FRONT>
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="book">
<HEAD>QUAKERS DISARM'D. OR, <HI>A Short Survey of &s;ome Queries lately Emitted by the</HI> Quakers, <HI>where in the fir&s;t place fol|lows their In&s;cription.</HI></HEAD>
<HEAD TYPE="sub">INSCRIPTION. <HI>Some Queries, as followeth, from the people called</HI> Qua|kers <HI>for one, or all of the Mini&s;ters in</HI> Scotland <HI>to an&s;wer.</HI></HEAD>
<DIV2 TYPE="survey">
<HEAD TYPE="sub">S&V;RVEY.</HEAD>
<P>_IT is indeed a Beautifying Ornament for &s;um|ptuous Buildings to have comely Fronti&s;|pieces, but for an empty Shop to have a rich and &s;plendid Sign it is but &s;mall glory. This Fore-runner advances with &s;uch a &s;hew of Courage and Re&s;olution, that one would con|jecture each of his Followers to be Companion to <HI>Achilles;</HI> but they re&s;embling nothing le&s;s than that which they were pretended to be, it cannot but Coargue both the Arrogance and weakne&s;s of the Authors. What great rea&s;on was there to have Bravado'd all the Mini&s;ters in <HI>Scotland</HI> with the&s;e Impious Queries? <HI>Pray, let not him that putteth on his Armour boa&s;t as he that putteth it off.</HI> Do the <HI>Quakers</HI> think that all the Mini&s;ters in <HI>Scotland,</HI> yea, or that any of them &s;hall be &s;o amuzed with the&s;e Queries, or puzled to an&s;wer them? <HI>Nay,
<PB N="2" REF="22">then tell it not in</HI> Gath, <HI>publi&s;h it not in</HI> Askelon, <HI>le&s;t the Daugh|ters of the uncircumci&s;ed triumph.</HI> We hope there are few Mi|ni&s;ters in <HI>Scotland</HI> &s;o daunted or con&s;ternat with the pre&s;umptuous bravery and windy Bravadoes of the In&s;olent <HI>Quakers,</HI> but that (if the Eagle might catch Flies) they dur&s;t, without Seconds, un|dertake the cau&s;e again&s;t all the <HI>Quakers</HI> in <HI>Britain.</HI> But becau&s;e the <HI>Quakers</HI> are di&s;temper'd with an high Feveri&s;h Fit of Intoxi|cating Delu&s;ion, therefore I &s;hall pa&s;s by the In&s;olence of their &s;upercilious and haughty In&s;cription, and proceed to their Que|ries, which I &s;hall not only an&s;wer, but (according to the bre|vity of my Scope) &s;hall per&s;picuou&s;ly overthrow and refel the Heretical Po&s;itions of the Adver&s;aries, upon the &s;everal Heads therein contained to the &s;topping of the mouth of the reproachful Gain&s;ayer. If the <HI>Quakers</HI> then de&s;ire to be In&s;tructed, <HI>Let them not be as the Hor&s;e, or as the Mule which have no under&s;tanding,</HI> P&s;al. 32.8, 9.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="1" TYPE="query">
<HEAD>Fir&s;t QUERY.</HEAD>
<P><HI>Whether or not Grammar, or Logick, and the many Tongues and Languages which began in</HI> Babylon, <HI>is an Infallible Rule to make a Mini&s;ter of Chri&s;t? and whether or not</HI> Eli&s;ha <HI>the Plough|man,</HI> Amos <HI>the Herd&s;man,</HI> Peter, <HI>and</HI> John <HI>the Fi&s;hermen, who could hardly read a Letter, with many others who were not bred up in the&s;e things, Logick, and Grammar, and the many Lan|guages; if they could not be Mini&s;ters of Chri&s;t Je&s;us? yea, or nay.</HI></P>
<DIV3 TYPE="survey">
<HEAD>S&V;RVEY.</HEAD>
<P>Very well does the Scope of this Query agree with their fore|named Book, Entituled <HI>The principles of Truth;</HI> wherein (pag. 56. and 125.) they condemn all humane Learning. But the Que&s;tioni&s;t here doth, either through malice or ignorance, per|vert the whole &s;tate of the Que&s;tion: for who ever heard that the Church of <HI>Scotland</HI> (which here he endeavours to Slander) or any other Church, made humane Arts and Sciences an Infallible rule to make a Mini&s;ter of Chri&s;t? Then they &s;hould never have required more of any man in order to his admi&s;&s;ion to that Office, but his alone &s;ufficient skill in Grammar and Logick, which the Adver&s;aries them&s;elves know to be mo&s;t fal&s;e, and therefore we
<PB N="3" REF="22">mu&s;t hold them for malicious Slanderers. The Infallible rule is &s;et down in the fir&s;t Epi&s;tle to <HI>Timothy</HI> Chapter third, and to <HI>Titus</HI> Chapter fir&s;t; and not in <HI>De&s;pauter,</HI> or <HI>Ari&s;totle's</HI> School.</P>
<P>Neverthele&s;s Logick and Grammar are ordinary means of Knowledge, exceedingly requi&s;ite in a Mini&s;ter, who&s;e lips &s;hould pre&s;erve Knowledge (<HI>Malac.</HI> 2.7.) and &s;hould be apt to Teach, and able to convince the gain&s;ayers (1 Tim. 3.2. Tit. 1.9.) and the <HI>Quakers</HI> &s;hould have di&s;tingui&s;hed betwixt that which is requi&s;ite and u&s;eful for a Mini&s;ter, and that which is &s;ufficient to make a Mini&s;ter, &s;eeing a rational faculty is requi&s;ite and u&s;eful for a Mi|ni&s;ter (for Bea&s;ts and irrational Creatures would be but bad Mi|ni&s;ters, me-thinks) and yet a rational faculty is not &s;ufficient to make a Mini&s;ter.</P>
<P>But what ju&s;t ground of Quarrel can any man have again&s;t Learning? Is it not commended in <HI>Daniel? (Dan.</HI> 1.4.17.) and in <HI>Mo&s;es (Act.</HI> 7.22?) may they not &s;ee the excellency of Chri&s;ts Mini&s;tery held forth by a compari&s;on with the Tongue of the Learned as an high commendation thereof (<HI>I&s;ai.</HI> 50.4?) and may they not &s;ee the lo&s;s and di&s;advantage of the want of it from <HI>I&s;ai.</HI> 29.12, 14. 2 <HI>Pet.</HI> 3.16?</P>
<P>But more particularly, Grammar is an Art teaching how to Speak or Write a Language right, &s;o as it may be Sence, and may be under&s;tood; for it &s;hews the Etymology and Gender of words, and how they are Declined, Conjugated, Con&s;tructed, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> Would they then have a Mini&s;ter not knowing how to Speak, and Write Sence? Its like that &s;o he would be &s;omewhat more related to the <HI>Quakers;</HI> but (I am &s;ure) he would be the le&s;s worthy of his Charge. Would they have me &s;aying (like <HI>Highland-men</HI> learning <HI>Engli&s;h) They is man,</HI> for <HI>the&s;e are men?</HI> or put &s;he for he, as they do. Ala&s;s! what Non-&s;en&s;e &s;hould the world then be troubled with? All men that know how to Speak any Lan|guage aright, have either Artificial Grammar, or el&s;e experience equivalent to Artificial Grammar; from my Cradle (for example) I have a long experience teaching me how to &s;peak <HI>Engli&s;h,</HI> and that is a &s;ort of experimental Grammar; but for learning how to &s;peak <HI>Latin, Greek, &amp;c.</HI> I was taught Rules of Grammar, as a much more expedite, ready, and accurate method of Learning.</P>
<P>But it would &s;eem, the <HI>Quakers</HI> here by Grammar mean Foreign Languages, or their Grammar, and &s;o their Quarrel is
<PB N="4" REF="23">that Mini&s;ters &s;hould learn Foreign Languages, or the Grammar thereof.</P>
<P>But this is al&s;o mo&s;t ea&s;ie to refell; for any man may Lawfully learn a Foreign Language: therefore he may Lawfully learn the Grammar thereof, &s;eeing whatever Language a man may Law|fully learn to &s;peak, he may learn (I hope) to &s;peak it right, and &s;o as it may be Sence; or el&s;e it &s;hall be Lawful for a man to learn to &s;peak a Language, in which it is not Lawful for him to learn to &s;peak Sence, which is ridiculous. The Antecedent I prove. If a man may not Lawfully learn Foreign Languages, then who &s;hould have Tran&s;lated the Scriptures into our Mother-Tongue? for <HI>Hebrew</HI> and <HI>Greek</HI> (the original Languages wherein the Scriptures were fir&s;t Written) are not our Mother-Tongue. Again, how &s;hould the Churches of divers Nations, &s;peaking divers Lan|guages, Communicate their Gifts and Knowledge one with another, or have any Corre&s;pondence together? or how &s;hould &s;uch King|doms have any Commerce, if none of them might learn anothers Language, or el&s;e both, or all of them a third? and how &s;hould <HI>Americans,</HI> and tho&s;e places of the World that have not as yet heard the Go&s;pel, ever hear it, if they &s;hould not learn &s;ome bodies Language that have the Go&s;pel, or &s;ome body that hath the Go&s;pel, theirs? The&s;e things prove it both Lawful and nece&s;&s;ary that &s;ome men, e&s;pecially Mini&s;ters, may learn Foreign Languages.</P>
<P>But, &s;ay the <HI>Quakers,</HI> the many Languages began in <HI>Babylon;</HI> therefore (they mean to infer) they are not Lawful among Chri&s;tians.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> But why then do the <HI>Quakers</HI> &s;peak <HI>Engli&s;h?</HI> for, &s;ure it is, that Language is no Ancienter than <HI>Babylon.</HI> When the <HI>Quakers</HI> &s;hall have Taught all men to &s;peak the one Primitive Language again, then it &s;hall be time to lay a&s;ide the many Lan|guages which began in <HI>Babylon.</HI> But what? was not the know|ledge of divers Tongues one of the Gifts of the Spirit, which he be&s;towed at the Promulgation of the Go&s;pel to all Nations, for the more &s;peedy and ea&s;ie publi&s;hing thereof (<HI>Acts.</HI> 2.4. 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 12.10?) and do they think that the day of <HI>Penteco&s;t,</HI> when the Di&s;ciples began to &s;peak with divers Tongues, was a day of <HI>Babels</HI> Confu&s;ion? if the <HI>Quakers</HI> did not wilfully &s;hut their Eyes they might ea&s;ily &s;ee that, albeit the Divi&s;ion of Tongues at <HI>Babel</HI> was a Judgment, making each of them ignorant of anothers
<PB N="5" REF="23">menaing; yet the knowledg of Tongues and Grammar are a ble&s;&s;ing, cau&s;ing people to under&s;tand one another, and &s;o their effects are direct contrary.</P>
<P>As for Artificial or School-Logick, it is an Art or practical Sci|ence directing our under&s;tanding how to Define, Divide, Judge, and Argument aright. For all the rules of Logick are con|cerning the&s;e fore&s;aid operations of our under&s;tanding, and they pro|ceed practically by way of direction, &s;hewing us how to do them, both which are evident to all that know any thing of School-Logick, and we could ea&s;ily prove it, if that were the bu&s;ine&s;s here controverted betwixt us and the <HI>Quakers;</HI> but it is none of their pre&s;ent controver&s;ie with us; and if they &s;hall offer to con|trovert that, I &s;hall provoke them to in&s;tance (if they can) any rule of Logick which is not concerning the&s;e fore&s;aid operations of our under&s;tanding, and which does not proceed practically and by way of <HI>Direction,</HI> which we defie them to do. The&s;e things then being &s;o, it is infallibly manife&s;t that if the rules of School-Logick be true, they cannot but direct us how to Define, Divide, Judge, and Argument aright, &s;eeing they are all concerning the&s;e operations of our under&s;tanding, and all of them proceed practically by way of direction, &s;o that if their Dictate and direction be true, they cannot direct us the wrong way, but mu&s;t direct us aright; other|wi&s;e their direction &s;hould be fal&s;e, and not true. But if the <HI>Qua|kers</HI> will accu&s;e them of fal&s;hood, I mu&s;t conjure them to exhibit their rea&s;ons: for the&s;e Rules of Logick being derived from, and e&s;tabli&s;hed upon the uncontrovertible and Supreme principles of the Light of Nature, of them&s;elves evident, and being al&s;o ap|proved by manifold experience, we cannot be &s;uch Traitors to the Light of Nature and rea&s;on, and &s;uch enemies to all experi|ence, as upon the bare &s;ay of any Brain-&s;ick <HI>Quaker</HI> to reject them. A very great Novice at Logick can ea&s;ily demon&s;trate the truth of any rule thereof irre&s;i&s;tibly.</P>
<P>Well then, &s;eeing School-Logick directeth our under&s;tanding to Define, Divide, Judge, and Argument aright, it cannot but be very requi&s;ite for a Mini&s;ter; he that knows not how to do the&s;e things, wants a piece of fitne&s;s that ought to be in a Mini&s;ter; or if one utterly ignorant how to do them be no le&s;s fit, than he who is exqui&s;itly skilful in them all, then <HI>Balaams</HI> A&s;s &s;hould be as fit to be a Mini&s;ter as any of the Sons of men, the meane&s;t of
<PB N="6" REF="24">whom hath &s;ome portion of Logick, either Artificial, or at lea&s;t Natural, becau&s;e he is born e&s;&s;entially Rational. He that knows nothing how to Define, Divide, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> (if any &s;uch were) is in no better capacity than the A&s;s &s;peaking to his Ma&s;ter. Take there the <HI>Quakers</HI> Mini&s;ter very fit for <HI>Balaams</HI> Sadle if he had but four legs. Ignorance I &s;ee, is the Mother of the <HI>Quakers</HI> Devotion. Ye know my meaning, I hope.</P>
<P>But the <HI>Quakers</HI> have often objected to me again&s;t the very Lawfulne&s;s of Logick among Chri&s;tians, becau&s;e (&s;ay they) it was fir&s;t u&s;ed among Heathens:</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> Whether School-Logick was fir&s;t u&s;ed among Heathens or not, is not fully certain, but be it &s;o or not, the con&s;equence is void enough of Logick, as if nothing fir&s;t u&s;ed among Heathens were Lawful among Chri&s;tians, for&s;ooth; and &s;o it &s;hall not be lawful for Chri&s;tians to &s;peak <HI>Greek, Latin, Dutch, French,</HI> or <HI>Engli&s;h,</HI> or any other Language but <HI>Hebrew,</HI> which few have; and &s;o they mu&s;t &s;peak nothing at all. What &s;hall we think of the&s;e merry principles that would make weeping <HI>Heraclitus</HI> to change his humour, and laugh to Death almo&s;t? But what &s;hall we do with the I&s;le of <HI>Britain,</HI> which (I believe) was fir&s;t u&s;ed by Heathens? mu&s;t we therefore leave it? let the <HI>Quakers</HI> be fir&s;t gone then. Again, if Artificial or School-Logick be a gift of God, and he its Author, then it cannot be unlawful among Chri&s;tians wherever it was fir&s;t u&s;ed, &s;eeing the Gifts of God are not unlawful among Chri&s;tians; Now that it is a gift of God is evident, &s;eeing it mu&s;t either be a gift of God, or el&s;e a fruit of <HI>Adams</HI> Fall and mans corruption, for there is no other thing to be &s;aid: But its again&s;t all Religion, rea&s;on and &s;en&s;e, to &s;ay that <HI>Adams</HI> Fall or mans corruption &s;hould cau&s;e us to under&s;tand how to Define, Divide, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> therefore it mu&s;t be a gift of God.</P>
<P>But &s;ay the <HI>Quakers, Eli&s;ha</HI> the Ploughman, <HI>Amos</HI> the Herd&s;|man, <HI>Peter</HI> and <HI>John</HI> the Fi&s;hermen, were not bred up in Gram|mar and Logick; and yet they were Mini&s;ters of Chri&s;t.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> What then I pray? mu&s;t all Mini&s;ters be exactly in every point &s;uch as the&s;e were? or is it good con&s;equence to argue from an extraordinary Fact to an ordinary fixed Rule? let them go on then, and argue from all the extraordinary works that God hath at any time done in the fir&s;t publi&s;hing of the Law and Go&s;pel, unto ordinary fixed Rules; for the &s;ame rea&s;on carries all. The&s;e men
<PB N="7" REF="24">being extraordinarily called of God to an extraordinary work, were by him extraordinarily furni&s;ht with whatever was needful for their work; and &s;o though by their education they acquired no Logick or Grammar, yet (be&s;ide natural Logick, and experi|mental Grammar in their Native Tongue, which they wanted not) by extraordinary In&s;piration or Infu&s;ion, they had a&s;much of them as was requi&s;ite for their work. Mu&s;t God then be Temp|ted, or can they tie him to do that &s;ame thing ordinarily, which he hath &s;ometimes done extraordinarily? This is a proud pre&s;crib|ing of Laws to God, not to men. We mu&s;t therefore wait for the ble&s;&s;ing of God upon our diligent u&s;e of the ordinary means of knowledge, and not with the <HI>Quakers</HI> (tempting God) look, without ground, for extraordinaries every day, whereof they are as &s;carce as any Society in the world be&s;ide, for all their vain boa&s;ting.</P>
<P>Behold here al&s;o the <HI>Quakers</HI> Blindne&s;s, they alledge that <HI>Peter</HI> and <HI>John</HI> had no Grammar and Languages, whereas it is mani|fe&s;t that God at the <HI>Penteco&s;t</HI> (among other things) be&s;towed the gift of Tongues upon them before he would &s;end them forth to publi&s;h the Go&s;pel to the world, which notably enervats the adver&s;aries po&s;ition, and highly commends the u&s;e of Grammar and Tongues.</P>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="2" TYPE="query">
<HEAD>Second QUERY.</HEAD>
<P><HI>Or how long was it after Chri&s;t and the Apo&s;tles days, that that Grammar, Logick, and Philo&s;ophy, and Schools of learning were &s;et up to make Mini&s;ters of Chri&s;t Je&s;us?</HI></P>
<DIV3 TYPE="survey">
<HEAD>S&V;RVEY.</HEAD>
<P>It &s;eems the <HI>Quakers</HI> are in a perpetual Dream; for Schools of learning were &s;et up before <HI>Mo&s;es</HI>'s time, &s;eeing <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> was learned in all the wi&s;dom of the <HI>Egyptians (Act.</HI> 7.22.) and the Scien|ces taught at <HI>Babylon</HI> were long before Chri&s;ts days (<HI>Dan.</HI> 1.4.) and they were &s;et up for the increa&s;e of Knowledge, maintaining of Equity, and the pre&s;ervation of humane Societies. But where|in (I pray) can it be liable to cen&s;ure, that every man ca&s;t in his mite of the &s;mall Reliques of Natures yet &s;parkling light into the common Trea&s;ury for the good and benefit of Mankind? for every man hath not all knowledge (to need no help of his Neigh|bors gifts) but every one his &s;everal portion, which when it is
<PB N="8" REF="25">communicated, it is profitable to others, but when it is &s;uppre&s;&s;ed and kept up, it is a &s;park of light held Pri&s;oner, and a portion of knowledge concealed in unrighteou&s;ne&s;s. This abundantly ju&s;ti|fies Schools of learning.</P>
<P>But what do the <HI>Quakers</HI> feign Philo&s;ophy to be? Is it not an Habit or Doctrine teaching us to know God and his works, &s;o far as by the light of Nature and rea&s;on we can reach them? Is it unlawful then to Study to know God and his works? Then an Athei&s;t and a bruti&s;h fool (&s;uch as is de&s;cribed <HI>P&s;al.</HI> 32.9. <HI>P&s;al.</HI> 92.6.) will be fitte&s;t to be a Mini&s;ter to the <HI>Quakers.</HI> Or is it unlawful to Study to know God and his works by means of the light of Nature and rea&s;on: Then the Heathen world could never law|fully Study any knowledge of God and his works, &s;eeing they had no other or better means. Nay, then the light of Nature and rea&s;on mu&s;t be rejected and abandon'd as an unlawful and &s;inful means for that purpo&s;e, and (certainly) good for no other pur|po&s;e imaginable, if not for that.</P>
<P>Now that Philo&s;ophy teaches us to know &s;omewhat concerning God and his works is mo&s;t manife&s;t. For it teaches us to know that there is a God; that he is Infinite, Eternal, Omni&s;cient, Omni|potent, Unchangeable, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> that every thing either is, or is not; that nothing can both be, and not be at once; that of every con|tradiction the one part is true, and the other fal&s;e; that every whole is more than its part; that every cau&s;e is prior in Nature to its effect; that nothing can work before it exi&s;t; that all Creatures are changeable; that every man is a rational Creature; (the <HI>Quakers</HI> I fear &s;hould be excepted) that the Soul of man is immor|tal; that no action can be without &s;ome Subject, nor without &s;ome Effect, nor any Union without &s;ome extremes; that no brute is a man, nor darkne&s;s any po&s;itive being. The&s;e things (and a Thou&s;and times more that I may not here &s;tand to reckon) Phi|lo&s;ophy teaches us to know concerning God and his works, the truth whereof is evident, which if the Adver&s;aries que&s;tion, let them come forward with &s;harp-edged Arguments, and not dare us al|ways with meer blunt a&s;&s;ertions. The&s;e things prove that Phi|lo&s;ophy teaches us to know &s;everal things concerning God and his works. And I am &s;ure, tho&s;e that have the greate&s;t knowledge and deepe&s;t reach into the&s;e, and other Philo&s;ophical principles, may lawfully communicate the &s;ame to others for their In&s;truction,
<PB N="9" REF="25">nay, they may not lawfully conceal it in unrighteou&s;ne&s;s, as is before &s;hewed.</P>
<P>Again, Philo&s;ophy (as I argued of Logick) is either a gift of God, and then it cannot be unlawful among Chri&s;tians; or el&s;e it is a fruit of <HI>Adams</HI> Fall and mans corruption (&s;eeing God is the Author of all we have be&s;ide) But it cannot be an effect or fruit of the&s;e; for what ignorant Dunce or impudent face will or dare &s;ay, that <HI>Adams</HI> Fall, or mans corruption hath taught men the fore&s;aid Principles and Conclu&s;ions of Philo&s;ophy which were in&s;tanced.</P>
<P>What? Is it unlawful for Chri&s;tians to endeavour after &s;ome knowledge of God and his works? let them con&s;ider and an&s;wer the&s;e Scriptures then. <HI>Job.</HI> 37.14. <HI>P&s;al.</HI> 77.12. <HI>P&s;al.</HI> 92.5, 6. <HI>P&s;al.</HI> 3.2. <HI>Rom.</HI> 1.19, 20. Every man hath &s;ome Philo&s;ophy, either Natu|ral, or el&s;e both that and Artificial al&s;o. Its a &s;trange Doctrine that Teaches, that the more ignorant A&s;s a man is, he is the more fit to be a Chri&s;tian, or a Mini&s;ter. <HI>Balaams</HI> Sadle-bearer would have got a better Imployment with the <HI>Quakers</HI> (it &s;eems) than he had with his unthankful Ma&s;ter.</P>
<P>But, &s;ay the <HI>Quakers,</HI> the Apo&s;tle bids Chri&s;tians beware le&s;t any man &s;poil them through Philo&s;ophy (<HI>Colo&s;.</HI> 2.8.) and we are commanded to avoid Prophane and vain Bablings, and oppo|&s;itions of Science fal&s;ly &s;o called, 1 <HI>Tim.</HI> 6.20.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> The Apo&s;tle does not in the&s;e Texts condemn true Phi|lo&s;ophy &s;ub&s;i&s;ting within its own Sphere, neither can that be con|demned, for the rea&s;ons now given. But that which he condemns is &s;ophi&s;ticate and corrupt Philo&s;ophy (which we call Sophi&s;try) and Philo&s;ophy extended beyond its Sphere to the mea&s;uring of an Object not included within its Principles. This the Apo&s;tle &s;hews to be his meaning, by adding Exegetically in the fir&s;t Text cited, the Term, <HI>Vain deceit, after the Tradition of men</HI> (that is, of mens own meer Dreaming and Devi&s;ing, having no ground in the light of Nature and rea&s;on, and &s;o whereof God is not the Author) and by calling it in the la&s;t place, <HI>Science fal&s;ly &s;o called;</HI> none of which can be &s;aid of true Philo&s;ophy moving within its own Orb, and not tran&s;gre&s;&s;ing the Sphere of its activity, as is before demon|&s;trated. The thing then that we are there commanded to avoid, is Sophi&s;ticate and corrupt Philo&s;ophy, as <HI>Ari&s;totles</HI> Eternity of the world; or <HI>Democritus</HI>'s opinion of the worlds being made by
<PB N="10" REF="26">the Concour&s;e of <HI>Atoms; Manicheus</HI>'s two &s;upreme Cau&s;es of all things; the <HI>Platonick</HI> and <HI>Manichean</HI> conceit about the making of the Soul of man of the Divine &s;ub&s;tance; <HI>Epicurus</HI>'s mortality of the Soul of man; <HI>Pithagoras</HI>'s Tran&s;migration of the Soul out of one Body into another; The Fate of the <HI>Stoicks.</HI> That and the like corrupt Philo&s;ophy we are commanded to avoid, and be|&s;ide this, we are al&s;o commanded to beware of Philo&s;ophy divert|ed from its own proper u&s;e and object in con&s;idering the works of Nature, and God as the Author of Nature, to the mea&s;uring of Go&s;pel truths (which the Heathen Philo&s;ophers in the&s;e times fooli&s;hly did) according to their Inclu&s;ion in, or Exclu&s;ion from Natural Philo&s;ophical Principles, upon which they do not depend, but upon a Principle of an higher Order, <HI>viz.</HI> Divine Revelation. Be&s;ide the&s;e two things, there is nothing el&s;e in Philo&s;ophy that can be Condemned; and &s;o there is nothing here again&s;t true and genuine Philo&s;ophy (only which I defend) which, for our De|mon&s;tations given, is neither Foolo&s;ophy, nor Witchcraft, as the <HI>Quakers</HI> in bitter Contempt have often called it in my hearing.</P>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="3" TYPE="query">
<HEAD>Third QUERY.</HEAD>
<P><HI>Whether or not the Scriptures are the Word, or the Words of God? Seeing the Scriptures &s;ay them&s;elves God &s;pake all the&s;e words</HI> (Exod. 20.) <HI>and he that adds to the words (in the la&s;t of the</HI> Revelation) <HI>Plagues are added to him. And what doth the Scripture &s;ignifie? Doth it not &s;ignifie Writings? and whether all that is Written in the Scriptures from</HI> Gene&s;is <HI>to</HI> Revelation <HI>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 Te&s;tament? If not; Di&s;tingui&s;h what part is to be obeyed, and what not. And whether every tittle from the beginning of</HI> Gene&s;is <HI>to the end of the</HI> Revelation <HI>is the Word, or the Words of God?</HI></P>
<DIV3 TYPE="survey">
<PB N="11" REF="26" MS="y">
<HEAD>S&V;RVEY.</HEAD>
<P>The principal Po&s;ition of the <HI>Quakers</HI> upon this Head is, that there is not another Word of God be&s;ide Chri&s;t the Co-&s;ub&s;tantial and Eternal Word; and this they a&s;&s;ert of purpo&s;e, that they may elude all the Te&s;timonies of Scripture which Tie us to the external written Word of God as our Rule, and whereby the Effi|cacy thereof is commended: for all the&s;e Scripture-Te&s;timonies they will have to be under&s;tood of Chri&s;t the Eternal Co-&s;ub&s;tan|tial Word dwelling within them, and all men (as they alledg) and teaching them immediately by him&s;elf pre&s;ent within them, without an external written Platform, which they are plea&s;ed to reproach with the Nick-name of a Dead Letter, contrary to <HI>Joh.</HI> 20.31. <HI>Act.</HI> 7.28. <HI>Rom.</HI> 15.4. 2 <HI>Tim.</HI> 3.15, 16, 17. which places declare the written Word of God to be lively Oracles, and an excellent in&s;trument of Faith, Growth, Comfort and Life un|to us. See al&s;o <HI>Heb.</HI> 4.12. where the Word of God is &s;aid to be Quick and Powerful, and compared to a Two-edged Sword; and that by the Word of God here, is not meant Chri&s;t the Co-&s;ub|&s;tantial Word, but the external Word of God &s;poken within time (which Word is written in the Scriptures, as &s;hall pre&s;ently be &s;hewed) appears from many other Parallel places of Scripture, where the Efficacy of the external Word is held forth in mo&s;t Parallel expre&s;&s;ions, and by the very &s;ame Compari&s;on, for which &s;ee <HI>Ephe&s;.</HI> 6.17. (which place we &s;hall pre&s;ently prove to be meant of the external Word) and <HI>Rev.</HI> 1.16. <HI>Rev.</HI> 2.12, 16. <HI>Rev.</HI> 19.15. In which places by the Sword of Chri&s;ts Mouth, and the Two-edged Sword going out of his Mouth (which are the Expre&s;&s;ions there) can be no other thing meant, but the ex|ternal Word of Chri&s;t &s;poken by his Mouth, nor do I ever read that Chri&s;t him&s;elf is compared &s;o, but his Word only.</P>
<P>It is true, the Law or legal Covenant con&s;idered as &s;trictly le|gal (but never the whole Scriptures, which, pray ob&s;erve) is in re&s;pect of guilty Sinners (&s;uch as we all are) called a Killing Letter (but not at all a Dead Letter, dead Dogs neither Bark nor Bite) and a Mini&s;tration of Death and Condemnation (2 <HI>Cor.</HI> 3.6, 7, 9.) becau&s;e it Accu&s;eth, Cur&s;eth, and Condemneth &s;uch as are Guilty of the Breache thereof; though yet the &s;ame be a
<PB N="12" REF="27">notable Mean to &s;hew Sinners their lo&s;tne&s;s without a Redeemer, and their ab&s;olute need of Chri&s;t, and to Whip and la&s;h them home unto him. The&s;e things are evident.</P>
<P>Now for clearing the &s;tate of the main Que&s;tion, we mu&s;t premi&s;e fir&s;t, that the <HI>Quakers</HI> acknowledge the Scriptures to be Gods Te&s;timony and Gods Words; they do not as yet (at lea&s;t all of them) openly deny the Scriptures to have been given by Divine In&s;piration; only they do generally deny them to be the Word of God: for (&s;ay they) only Chri&s;t is the Word of God.</P>
<P>Secondly, we mu&s;t premi&s;e that we do not &s;ay that there is ano|ther Eternal, Co-&s;ub&s;tantial, or Co-equal Word of God be&s;ide Chri&s;t. But that, be&s;ide Chri&s;t the Co-&s;ub&s;tantial Word, there is another Word of God which was &s;poken within time written, in the Scrip|tures, which we call the external written Word. The&s;e things being premi&s;ed,</P>
<P>We a&s;&s;ert that, be&s;ide Chri&s;t the Co-&s;ub&s;tantial and Co-equal Word, there is another Word of God which is written in the Scrip|tures. For fir&s;t, the Commandments of God are not Chri&s;t 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 Chri&s;t the Co-&s;ub&s;tantial Word, and that Word of God is written in the Scriptures, &s;eeing Gods Commandments are written there undeniably. I prove the Minor from <HI>P&s;al.</HI> 119.172. where <HI>David</HI> calls the Commandments of God his Word; and from <HI>Mark.</HI> 7.9, 10. with 13. where that which Chri&s;t calls the Com|mandment of God (<HI>ver.</HI> 9.) he calls it the Word of God <HI>ver.</HI> 13.</P>
<P>Secondly, the Predictions, Doctrine, and Sayings of the Pro|phets (which are written in the Scriptures) are in Scripture mo&s;t expre&s;ly called the Word of the Lord, and yet the&s;e are not Chri&s;t the Co-&s;ub&s;tantial Word: therefore there is another Word of God (and which is written in the Scriptures) be&s;ide Chri&s;t the Co|&s;ub&s;tantial Word. The Antecedent I prove from 1 <HI>King.</HI> 16.12. 2 <HI>King.</HI> 9.36. 2 <HI>King.</HI> 23.16. 2 <HI>Chron.</HI> 36.22. <HI>Ezra.</HI> 1.1. In all the&s;e places the Predictions and Doctrine of the&s;e Prophets are mo&s;t expre&s;ly called the Word of the Lord.</P>
<P>Thirdly, it is &s;aid (<HI>I&s;ai.</HI> 28.13.) that the Word of the Lord was unto <HI>I&s;rael</HI> Precept upon Precept, and Line upon Line, where the Precepts and Doctrine contained in the Scripture-lines are
<PB N="13" REF="27">called the Word of the Lord: But (&s;ure it is) Chri&s;t him&s;elf is not the&s;e written Precepts or Doctrine: therefore there is be&s;ide Chri&s;t the Co-&s;ub&s;tantial Word, another Word of God which is written in the Scriptures.</P>
<P>Fourthly, <HI>Ho&s;ea</HI> calls the beginning of his Prophecies and Doctrine, The beginning of the Word of the Lord by <HI>Ho&s;ea,</HI> which cannot be the beginning of Chri&s;t the Son of God by <HI>Ho&s;ea,</HI> I am &s;ure; but it mu&s;t be the beginning of the Doctrine and Pro|phecies taught and Prophe&s;ied and there written by him: therefore there is, be&s;ide Chri&s;t the Eternal Word, another Word of God which is written in the Scriptures.</P>
<P>Fifthly, to be a Word that the Lord hath &s;poken, and to be the Word of the Lord is all one thing, me-thinks; but there is a Word which the Lord hath &s;poken, which is not Chri&s;t, and which is written in the Scriptures: Therefore there is a Word of the Lord, be&s;ide Chri&s;t, and the &s;ame is written in the Scriptures. The Minor is clear from <HI>I&s;ai.</HI> 37.22. where the Prophet &s;ays, This is the Word that the Lord hath &s;poken concerning <HI>Senache|rib</HI> (and this Word is there written) <HI>The Virgin the Daughter of Sion hath de&s;pi&s;ed thee,</HI> &amp;c. But &s;urely, that Word is not Chri&s;t, Chri&s;t is not a complex Oration or &s;aying.</P>
<P>Sixthly, the whole Doctrine of the Prophets (if the <HI>Quakers</HI> will tru&s;t them) is the Word of the Lord (and yet it is not Chri&s;t the Son of God) &s;eeing they always a&s;cribe it to him with a, <HI>Thus &s;aith the Lord,</HI> and what God &s;aith mu&s;t certainly be his Word; for to &s;peak, and not &s;ay a word, is pretty repugnant, and may pa&s;s for a good Je&s;t among&s;t men that are merry: therefore there is a Word of the Lord, be&s;ide Chri&s;t, and the &s;ame is writ|ten in the Scriptures, &s;eeing the Doctrine of the Prophets is writ|ten there.</P>
<P>Seventhly, there is a Word of God, which is the Sword of the Spirit and an In&s;trument in his hand, <HI>Ephe&s;.</HI> 6.17. But Chri&s;t the Son of God is not the Sword of the Spirit, nor an In&s;trument in his hand, &s;eeing the Second per&s;on of the Godhead cannot work from the Third, becau&s;e &s;o their Order of working would quite contradict their Order of Sub&s;i&s;ting, which is utterly repugnant, much le&s;s can the Second per&s;on be the In&s;trument of the Third; and if by the Spirit here be meant the New man in us, Chri&s;t in his Per&s;on cannot be an In&s;trument thereof either, nor of any
<PB N="14" REF="28">Creature what&s;oever that ever had a Being, or Exi&s;tence: There|fore there is another Word of God, be&s;ide Chri&s;t the Son of God.</P>
<P>La&s;tly (for we need &s;tand no longer in a matter &s;o manife&s;t) The Word of Chri&s;t &s;poken by him within time is the Word of God, &s;eeing Chri&s;t is God as well as man; and yet it is not Chri&s;t him&s;elf, as needs no Proof: But there is a Word of Chri&s;t &s;poken by him within time (and it is written in the Scriptures) <HI>Joh.</HI> 5.24. and 8.31, 37. and 12.48. and 15.3. <HI>Colo&s;.</HI> 3.16. <HI>Rev.</HI> 3.8. Therefore there is, be&s;ide Chri&s;t the Eternal Word, another Word of God which is &s;poken within time, and written in the Scrip|tures.</P>
<P>Thou wilt &s;ay perhaps, &s;eeing mo&s;t part of the <HI>Quakers</HI> are con|tent to yield to the Scriptures the Title of, Gods Words, and al|mo&s;t all of them of, Gods Te&s;timony, it would &s;eem that this Debate is only about the naming of the Scripture. What then were the hazard to gratifie the <HI>Quakers</HI> in this point, as Wi&s;e men u&s;e to plea&s;e Children and Fools &s;ometimes?</P>
<P><HI>An&s;wer.</HI> Though all the <HI>Quakers</HI> without exception, &s;hould yield the Scriptures the Titles of, <HI>Gods Words,</HI> and <HI>Gods Te&s;timony</HI> (and yet &s;ome of them do it not, as we &s;hall &s;ee ere we end the Survey of this Query) yet there is a manife&s;t hazard in denying the Title of the <HI>Word of God</HI> to the Scriptures. For let it once be denied (with the <HI>Quakers</HI>) 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 &s;poken by the Mouth of the Lord (&s;eeing what any per&s;on &s;peaks mu&s;t needs be his Word, or el&s;e he &s;peaks and holds his peace, as the Je&s;t is) and this puts the Scriptures into the &s;ame condition with the Doctrine and Dreams of fal&s;e Prophets, and brangles their Divine Authority. See <HI>Deut.</HI> 18.20, 21. <HI>Jerem.</HI> 23.16, 21. <HI>Ezek.</HI> 13.7. and 22.28. Again, let it once be granted that the Scriptures are not Intituled, The <HI>Word of God,</HI> and have no Intere&s;t to be &s;o called, and then all the Exhortations given in the Scriptures for hearkening to the Word, believing and obeying the Word, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> and all the commendations of its efficacy and &s;weetne&s;s, mu&s;t be transferred from the Word of God written in the Scriptures, unto Chri&s;t the Co-&s;ub&s;tantial Word im|mediately, who as he is Jealous of his own Glory, &s;o he will not
<PB N="15" REF="28">have his Word rob'd of its due Authority, and Excellency which he had Communicated thereunto. And &s;o that which the <HI>Qua|kers</HI> de&s;ign (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 &s;uch a thing hath not &s;uch a name, and then whatever is &s;poken under that name mu&s;t be applyed unto &s;ome other Sub|ject &s;o named, and not unto a Subject which was never &s;o named. And thus again they indeavour to overthrow the U&s;e, End, and Repute of the Scriptures, &s;o far as they can. And thus to deny the Scriptures the Title of, <HI>The Word of God,</HI> &s;trikes at their Di|vine Authority, and overthrows their u&s;e and regard. And there|fore we are Commanded to hold fa&s;t the Form of &s;ound words. 2 <HI>Tim.</HI> 1.13.</P>
<P>But, &s;ay the <HI>Quakers,</HI> the Scriptures are the Words of God, <HI>Exod.</HI> 20. Therefore (they infer) they are not the Word of God.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> But &s;o by the Antecedent the <HI>Quakers</HI> de&s;troy their own Cau&s;e, and contradict them&s;elves; for if the Scriptures be the Words of God, then, I am &s;ure, there are Words of God, be&s;ide Chri&s;t (and yet they deny there is any) &s;eeing the written words of the Scripture are not Chri&s;t the Son of God. Again, this con|&s;equence is as if I &s;hould &s;ay, Such a Book contains the Doctrines of the <HI>Quakers: Ergo</HI> not the Doctrine of the <HI>Quakers.</HI> The Ten Commands are the Moral Laws: <HI>Ergo</HI> not the Moral Law. Is not that well Argued without Logick? But what? are not whole Sermons and Predictions of the Prophets, and Chri&s;ts whole Doctrine called by them and him the Word of the Lord, and his Word, as may be &s;een in almo&s;t all our preceeding Arguments? Is not the whole Doctrine of the Scriptures called a Word of Pro|phecy? 2 <HI>Pet.</HI> 1.19, 20. Does not <HI>Paul</HI> call the whole Reveal|ed Truths of God, Sound Doctrine, and the Doctrine of God? 1 <HI>Tim.</HI> 1.10. and 6.1. <HI>Tit.</HI> 1.9. and 2.10. And mu&s;t the Pro|phets and Apo&s;tles, Chri&s;t and the Holy Gho&s;t learn from the <HI>Qua|kers</HI> how their Doctrine &s;hould be named? will they not allow the Scriptures their E&s;&s;ential Attribute which the&s;e gives them, that they are the <HI>Word of God?</HI> 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
<PB N="16" REF="29">the&s;e things the objection is both an&s;wered and overthrown.</P>
<P>Again, they in&s;inuate another Argument whereby they indea|vour to wre&s;t the Title of the Word of God from the Scriptures. The Scriptures (&s;ay they) &s;ignifies Writings: Therefore (they mean to infer) they are not the Word of God.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> It doth equally follow; therefore they are not the Words of God, as the Word of God, as all may &s;ee; and &s;o the con&s;e|quent of their pre&s;ent Argument contradicts the Antecedent of their former Objection; and &s;o we may &s;ee that the <HI>Quakers</HI> are but Jugling while they yield the Scriptures the Title of Gods Words, whereof their pre&s;ent Argument again indeavours to rob them. Secondly, our Que&s;tion is not what the word <HI>[Scripture]</HI> &s;ignifies, but what the Doctrine written in the Scriptures is, which the &s;ignification of that Word cannot Define. But la&s;tly (for clear &s;atisfaction) I di&s;tingui&s;h their Con&s;equent thus, <HI>viz.</HI> That becau&s;e the Scriptures &s;ignifies Writings, therefore, as to the ex|ternal Form and Mode which they have from the Writers Pen, they are not the Word of God, be it &s;o; therefore as to their enun|ciat Doctrine, or Sentence they are not the Word of God, it fol|lows not. For in the Scripture there are two things to be con&s;i|dered, <HI>viz,</HI> 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 Denomi|nation of, <HI>Written,</HI> and therefore we call the Scriptures <HI>The Written Word.</HI></P>
<P>Becau&s;e we &s;aid that the <HI>Quakers,</HI> by indeavouring to Wre&s;t the Title of the Word of God from the Scriptures, do &s;trike at their Divine Authority, therefore I &s;hall here give a &s;hort Touch of the Notes and Arguments whereby the Scriptures are clearly De|mon&s;trated to be from God, and of Divine In&s;piration; &s;uch as are the Maje&s;ty of the Style of the Scriptures above all other Writings, under great &s;implicity of words; the Divine purity of the Doctrine, &s;avoring wholly of holine&s;s 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 accompli&s;hment of the Predictions therein contained, as they were fore-told; the wonderful con&s;ent of all the parts thereof, being written by &s;o many diver&s;e Pen|men &s;o far di&s;tant from one another both in time and place, which
<PB N="17" REF="29">was never to be &s;een in any other Book in the World, e&s;pecially of divers mens Writing; The manifold Miracles whereby God hath born Witne&s;s thereunto, which <HI>Satan</HI> could never &s;o much as Counterfeit; The irreconcilable hatred of <HI>Satan</HI> and the World again&s;t it, more than again&s;t all other Books in the World; The firm &s;tability thereof, and the &s;pecial hand of God which appears in the pre&s;erving and tran&s;mitting thereof from Age to Age, not|with&s;tanding all the Malice of <HI>Satan,</HI> and the Devices of him and his wicked In&s;truments again&s;t it; The mi&s;erable end of the greate&s;t Per&s;ecutors and enemies thereof; The Te&s;timony of the many Martyrs Sealing their Witne&s;s thereunto with their Blood, and the Te&s;timony of the whole Church thereunto, which have a piece of weight in their own Order. The Scriptures cannot be from evil men, or Angels, &s;eeing they &s;hew their villany, denounce their Doom (which Galls them) and pre&s;cribe a Method of living quite contrary to their Inclination.</P>
<P>Nor can good Angels; or Men be their Author; for, upon the one hand, they dur&s;t not have &s;o u&s;urped upon God, as to feign his Authority and Commi&s;&s;ion to &s;o many Laws, Ordinan|ces, Threatnings, and Promi&s;es 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 mu&s;t be from God him&s;elf. The&s;e things put together (which I have but named) are &s;ufficient to convince that the Scriptures are from God, and of Divine Authority, and are enough irre&s;i&s;tibly to &s;top the Mouths of all Contradicters.</P>
<P>Notwith&s;tanding, for the full a&s;&s;urance and through per&s;ua&s;ion of Faith, that the Scriptures are from God, and of Divine In&s;pira|tion, the Spirit is requi&s;ite by his effectual Working in, with, and by the &s;ame upon our hearts and minds to Seal up their Divine Authority unto us. And yet this makes nothing in the lea&s;t for the <HI>Quakers,</HI> who Teach to follow a Spirit ab&s;tracted and &s;eparated from the Scriptures. For, be&s;ide that we &s;hall &s;hew at the following <HI>Query,</HI> that the Spirit &s;peaking in the Scriptures, mo&s;t &s;traitly Ties us to the Scriptures as our Supreme Rule in all matters of Faith; It is al|&s;o evident that it is in, with, and by the Word of God (written in the Scriptures) that the Spirit manife&s;ts him&s;elf unto, and in our hearts, both in the enlightning of our Minds, and renewing of our Wills and Affections, as the&s;e Scriptures following Witne&s;s. <HI>P&s;al.</HI> 19.7.8.
<PB N="18" REF="30" MS="y"><HI>Joh.</HI> 4.41. <HI>Joh.</HI> 14.26. <HI>Joh.</HI> 15.3. <HI>Joh.</HI> 17.20. <HI>Act.</HI> 17.11.12. <HI>Rom.</HI> 15.4. <HI>Ephe&s;.</HI> 6.17. <HI>Heb.</HI> 4.12. <HI>I&s;ai.</HI> 59.21. The&s;e, and a Thou&s;and places more that I might in&s;tance, do manife&s;tly con|vince that the written Word of God is an Organ and In&s;trument in the Spirits hand, whereby he Enlightens, Renews, and Sancti|fies us more and more, him&s;elf al&s;o (as a Phy&s;ical Cau&s;e does) immediately influencing the Effect, &s;eeing all Effects mu&s;t depend immediately upon God, if they include any real being.</P>
<P>But, &s;ay the <HI>Quakers,</HI> whether or not is all that is written from <HI>Gene&s;is</HI> to <HI>Revelation</HI> a Rule for your Faith and Manners?</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> No doubt we are bound to believe all Scripture Enun|ciation from the beginning to the end, &s;eeing all of it was given by In&s;piration of God and written for our Learning. 2 <HI>Tim.</HI> 3.16. 2 <HI>Pet.</HI> 1.21. <HI>Luke.</HI> 24.25. <HI>Act.</HI> 24.14. 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 10.11. There is no more doubt we are bound to obey all the Commands of the Moral Law (&s;eeing that is of a perpetual binding force <HI>Mat.</HI> 5.18.19.) with what&s;oever is of common equity (<HI>Philip.</HI> 4.8, 9.) or whatever injoyning any piece of Religious wor&s;hip, under the New Te&s;tament, doth belong to Chri&s;tians of our Cal|ling and condition. The <HI>Quakers</HI> mu&s;t here be content with the&s;e clear generals. But as far the Ceremonial Law of the <HI>Jews,</HI> that is indeed totally Abrogated as to its Obligation (albeit yet the &s;ame be many ways u&s;eful for our In&s;truction, but e&s;pecially to convince us of our Natural uncleanne&s;s, and by the exact Ac|compli&s;hment of its manifold Types in Je&s;us of <HI>Nazareth,</HI> to a&s;&s;ure us that he is our Saviour and the True <HI>Me&s;&s;ias</HI>) together with their Judicial Law, which, in &s;o far as it particularly re|&s;pected that State, is ex&s;pired therewith, though, in &s;o far as it is of common right, it &s;till obliges all men, as is ea&s;ie to be un|der&s;tood.</P>
<P>La&s;tly the <HI>Quakers</HI> inquire, whether every tittle from <HI>Gene&s;is</HI> to the <HI>Revelation</HI> be the Word, or the Words of God?</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> It cannot be that this member of the Query is the &s;ame with the fir&s;t already di&s;cu&s;&s;ed; or el&s;e they have fooli&s;hly propo|&s;ed it twice to us. But to be &s;hort, they &s;eem here to inquire (if any new thing at all) whether every enunciation and &s;entence of the Scripture be of Divine In&s;piration, and from God? Whereunto I an&s;wer affirmatively: for fir&s;t, the main &s;ub&s;tantial Texts of Scripture cannot be doubted, becau&s;e of the Notes and Arguments before
<PB N="19" REF="30">given, mo&s;t part whereof are Intrin&s;ical, and do brightly &s;hine in the&s;e with their inlightening Beams to full conviction. Secondly, for other Sentences of le&s;&s;er importance, if the <HI>Quakers</HI> will &s;ay that &s;ome ill Seed-&s;ower hath In&s;erted them, or any of them, &s;ince the Writing of the Scriptures, and &s;o that they are not of Divine In&s;piration, but a corruption of the Scripture; we &s;hall fir&s;t de&s;ire them to prove their affirmative, and until then we &s;hall confirm our a&s;&s;ertion. For &s;eeing they were found in the &s;ame original Language in&s;erted with the re&s;t; &s;eeing they have &s;till &s;ome Connexion with, or Relation to the re&s;t; &s;eeing the Scriptures were by the Providence of God kept pure in the time of the Old Te&s;tament, as appears in that, that Chri&s;t and his Apo&s;tles in all reproofs to the Scribes and Phari&s;ees never Taxed them for &s;uch a thing, nor at any time touches &s;uch a Que&s;tion; &s;eeing even the Writings of men may continue pure through many Ages, and if they be vitiated it can hardly e&s;cape di&s;covery; &s;eeing the Scriptures as they now are were tran&s;mitted to us by the Church, unto whom the Oracles of God were committed, and again&s;t whom the Gates of Hell &s;hall not prevail (<HI>Rom.</HI> 3.2. 1 <HI>Tim.</HI> 3.15. <HI>Mat.</HI> 16.18.) and atte&s;ted by her to be the true Word of God; &s;eeing the very end of Gods committing his Word unto writing is for our Learning and In|&s;truction, and that we might have hope and be Saved (<HI>Joh.</HI> 20.31. <HI>Rom.</HI> 15.4. 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 10.11.) &s;eeing God cares for the feeding of Ravens, clothing of Lilies, and for our Food and Raiment, how much more (to u&s;e Chri&s;ts own Argument in a matter of &s;maller moment, <HI>Luke.</HI> 12.28.) will he care for the purity of his own Word, which is of &s;o weighty concernment to his Glory and his peoples Salvation. The&s;e things, with Gods &s;pecial Pro|vidence over his Church, duely con&s;idered, do &s;ufficiently &s;ecure our a&s;&s;ertion; e&s;pecially &s;eeing the <HI>Quakers</HI> cannot prove any corruption in the Scriptures, which if they affirm, they are obliged to do.</P>
<P>But the <HI>Quakers</HI> will (may be) &s;ay, that there are &s;everal mi&s;takes of men, yea and lies written of in the Scriptures, &s;uch as the lies of <HI>Rahab,</HI> the <HI>Gibeonites, Sarah, &amp;c.</HI> I, and there are &s;everal Bla&s;phemies written of in the Scriptures too. But what &s;hall follow from hence? That any enunciation of the Scripture doth Lie or Bla&s;pheme? Nay by no means, &s;eeing the&s;e Lies and Bla&s;phemies are not Taught and Enunciat by the Scripture, or Enunciations
<PB N="20" REF="31">and Doctrines thereof; but the Narration and Hi&s;tory of them, is the thing Enunciat and Taught by the Scripture: for the Scriptures do not affirm what the&s;e per&s;ons &s;aid and affirmed; but only they affirm that &s;uch per&s;ons &s;aid and affirmed &s;o, which is no Lie nor Bla&s;phemy, as is clear. The&s;e Lies therefore are not Scripture Enunciations, but are only meer complex Predicats thereof, which the Scripture Attributes to their Authors that &s;aid them, as the &s;ubjects of its Enunciations in all &s;uch Ca&s;es.</P>
<P>Some <HI>Quakers</HI> are upon this Head &s;o gro&s;ly Athie&s;tical as to &s;ay, that the Scriptures are but the Saints words, and Te&s;timony from their own particular Experiences, unto which horrid Athei&s;m their forementioned Confe&s;&s;ion of Faith called, <HI>The Principles of Truth</HI> (me-thinks in Deri&s;ion and Scorn) doth al&s;o po&s;itively &s;ub&s;cribe, pag. 100, 101, 102, 103, 127. But this impudent a&s;&s;ertion of the <HI>Quakers</HI> cannot &s;tand. For fir&s;t, the&s;e fore&s;aid Notes and Arguments that we above named, do convince the Scrip|tures to be of Divine In&s;piration and Authority, and not the meer bare word of any Creature.</P>
<P>Secondly, this A&s;&s;ertion of the <HI>Quakers</HI> involves a violent con|tradiction; for the Pen-men of the Scriptures deliver their Doctrine in the Name and Authority of the Lord, a&s;&s;erting it to be his Word, his Will, his Command, whereof the Scriptures are every where &s;o full that we need not &s;tand to in&s;tance.</P>
<P>If then it was but their own meer Word and Te&s;timony, the&s;e Pen-men of the Scripture are &s;o far from being Saints, that of all men in the world they mu&s;t have been the greate&s;t Cheats, and Arche&s;t Impo&s;tors and Villains, &s;eeing they have delivered us &s;o many meer humane Precepts and Principles for the Rule of our Faith and Duty towards God and man, promi&s;ing Eternal Life and Glory to the Obedient, and threatning Hell and Dam|nation to the Di&s;obedient (a terrible Pre&s;umption for them to do by their own meer Authority, and that for Obedience or Di&s;o|bedience to their meer Commands) and be&s;ide have wickedly Fathered all this upon God. To be Saints, and yet live and die &s;uch Impo&s;tors and Villains is Incurably repugnant.</P>
<P>Thirdly, except the <HI>Quakers</HI> &s;hall proceed further in their Di&s;traction and Athei&s;m, and A&s;&s;ert the Scriptures to be a Book of Fal&s;hoods, Fictions and Lies, they mu&s;t acknowledge the Scriptures to be &s;omewhat more than the meer bare Word and
<PB N="21" REF="31">Te&s;timony of any Saint, &s;eeing the Old Te&s;tament almo&s;t every where A&s;&s;erts it &s;elf to be the Sayings of God; and in the New Te&s;tament the Doctrine and Miracles declared in the four Evan|gels is expre&s;ly therein a&s;cribed unto Chri&s;t who is God, a&s;wel as Man; The Apo&s;tles al&s;o often A&s;&s;ert the Divine Authority of their Doctrine. Except then they will conclude the&s;e Scriptures to be all meer Fictions and Lies, they mu&s;t yield the Scriptures to be the Word of the Living God, either immediately declared by him&s;elf, or mediately by his Servants, by him unerringly directed.</P>
<P>Fourthly, the Scriptures are full of Precepts, Prohibitions, Pro|mi&s;es, and Threatnings: But the Relation or Narration of an ex|perience is none of all the&s;e: <HI>Ergo</HI> the Scriptures are not univer|&s;ally (at lea&s;t) a Narration of Saints experiences.</P>
<P>La&s;tly, there is much Doctrine Taught in the Scriptures that could never be acquired by Experience, &s;uch as, the Doctrine of Pre|de&s;tination, of the Hypo&s;tatical union of God and man in one Per|&s;on, of Ju&s;tification by the Righteou&s;ne&s;s of Chri&s;t, of the gene|ral Judgment, of the three per&s;ons in the Godhead. And what think the <HI>Quakers</HI> of the Prophetical part of Scripture, Infallibly foretelling things at a great di&s;tance to come? Are the&s;e Narra|tions of Saints Experiences? Or was the knowledge of them got by Experience? O learned Divines! Hence we may &s;ee that, at lea&s;t, &s;ome of the <HI>Quakers</HI> prefer them&s;elves and their Doctrine to the Prophets and Apo&s;tles and their Doctrine, which is (&s;ay they) but the Saints Words and Te&s;timony from their own particular Experiences; but the <HI>Quakers</HI> Doctrine mu&s;t be Divinely In&s;pi|red, for&s;ooth.</P>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="4" TYPE="query">
<HEAD>Fourth QUERY.</HEAD>
<P><HI>Whether or not the Scriptures were the Rule of</HI> Enochs <HI>Faith,</HI> Noahs <HI>Faith, and Holy men in the Old World, and Second World? Whether or not they were a Rule to</HI> Abrahams <HI>Faith,</HI> I&s;aac <HI>and</HI> Jacobs <HI>Faith, and</HI> Mo|&s;es<HI>'s Faith, and all the Patriarchs? And whether or not they had Scriptures till</HI> Mo&s;es <HI>did Write them? An&s;wer the&s;e things by plain Scripture.</HI></P>
<DIV3 TYPE="survey">
<PB N="22" REF="32" MS="y">
<HEAD>S&V;RVEY.</HEAD>
<P>This Query comprehends the great controver&s;ie with the <HI>Qua|kers</HI> concerning the Rule of Faith and Manners; and therefore becau&s;e my Survey will be large, I &s;hall divide it into three Secti|ons. In the fir&s;t I &s;hall prove the Scriptures to be the Rule of Faith and Manners. In the Second I &s;hall confute an exception, or di&s;tinction which &s;ome of the more &s;ubtil of our adver&s;aries offer to our Arguments. In the third I &s;hall an&s;wer their Ob|jections.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="1" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. I. <HI>Proving the Scriptures to be the Infallible Rule.</HI></HEAD>
<P>The thing that the <HI>Quakers</HI> drive at in this Query, is, that be|cau&s;e <HI>Enoch, Noah,</HI> and others in the Primitive world had not a written Word of God for the Rule of their Faith; That therefore neither &s;hould the Written Word of God be the Rule of our Faith. This, be&s;ide that it is their known Principles (as Witne&s;&s;eth their fore|&s;aid Confe&s;&s;ion of Faith, called, <HI>The Principles of Truth,</HI> wherein they mo&s;t frequently cry up the Light within every man as his only Rule, and decry the Scriptures and all external Ordinances to their ut|mo&s;t Breath, as may be &s;een pag. 5, 78, 79, 80, 92, 102, 103, 124, 133, 136, 140) Is either the Scope of this their pre|&s;ent Query, or el&s;e it hath no Scope at all, and &s;o it mu&s;t be the fruit of &s;ome Di&s;traction, they having thereby intended nothing. Well then, the <HI>Quakers</HI> mu&s;t either acknowledge Scripture-Te&s;timony for Truth (as I hope they will, &s;eeing they here re|quire us to an&s;wer by Scripture) and then we &s;hall &s;oon &s;ee an end of the Que&s;tion from the Scripture; or el&s;e they mu&s;t deny Scripture-Te&s;timony to be true, and &s;hall proclaim God a Lyar, who&s;e Te&s;timony the Scriptures are, and by who&s;e In&s;piration they were given (as is proved in the former Queries Survey) which is the height of Bla&s;phemy.</P>
<P>The&s;e things premi&s;ed, I A&s;&s;ert, again&s;t the <HI>Quakers,</HI> that the Scriptures are the Infallible Rule of our Faith and Man|ners.</P>
<P>That the Scriptures are Infallible is &s;ufficiently proved at the
<PB N="23" REF="32" MS="y">Survey of their former Query; where we proved them to be of Di|vine In&s;piration, and the Word of the Living God, and not of any meer Creature, and &s;o they cannot deceive; &s;o that for their Infallibility we need &s;ay no more. That therefore the Scriptures are the Rule of Faith and Manners I prove.</P>
<P>For fir&s;t, That mu&s;t be the Rule of Faith and Manners by which every matter of Faith and Manners ought to be examin'd &s;eeing eve|ry thing that is examined mu&s;t be examined by its Rule, or el&s;e it will be done by Gue&s;s and Rule of Thumb, as the Je&s;t is. But every matter of Faith and Manners ought to be examined by the Scriptures: <HI>Ergo</HI> the Scriptures are the Rule of Faith and Manners. The <HI>Major</HI> is pro|ved already. I prove the <HI>Minor</HI> from <HI>I&s;ai.</HI> 8.20. Where we are ex|pre&s;ly Commanded to go to the Law and the Te&s;timony with eve|ry matter of Faith and Manners, and it is po&s;itively declared, that if it be not according to the&s;e, there is no Light in it, which is a &s;uffi|cient Prohibition to receive it. And the Law and Te&s;timony are the Scriptures. <HI>Exod.</HI> 32.15. and 34.29. <HI>Deut.</HI> 31.24, 26. 2 <HI>King.</HI> 22.8. <HI>Neh.</HI> 8.1, 3, 8. <HI>P&s;al.</HI> 78.5.</P>
<P>Secondly, Chri&s;t &s;ays to the <HI>Sadducees</HI> upon a great Article of Faith, that ignorance of the Scriptures cau&s;ed them to err therein: <HI>Ergo</HI> the Scriptures are the Rule of Faith. The Antecedent is Taught by Chri&s;t him&s;elf, <HI>Mat.</HI> 22.29. <HI>Mark.</HI> 12.24. <HI>Ye err</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>not knowing the Scriptures, and becau&s;e ye know not the Scriptures.</HI> I prove the Con&s;equence, becau&s;e if the igno|rance of any other Doctrine, except the Rule of Faith, &s;hould cau&s;e 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 Con&s;equent inferred is repug|nant (for then he knows all the Articles of his Faith, and yet he believes wrong through ignorance, that is, becau&s;e he knows not what to believe:) Therefore the Antecedent from which it is inferred is al&s;o repugnant.</P>
<P>Thirdly, Chri&s;t &s;ends all men to the Scriptures for the Rule of Faith and Duty: <HI>Ergo</HI> the Scriptures are certainly the Rule of both. The con&s;equence is Infallible, &s;eeing Chri&s;t did not mi&s;take him&s;elf. The Antecedent is clear from <HI>Luke.</HI> 16.28, 29, 30, 31. Where while Chri&s;t is delivering his Doctrine for all men in the parable of the Rich Glutton, he &s;ends all men to the Scriptures for their Direction and Rule in the intire bu&s;ine&s;s of Repentance and
<PB N="24" REF="33">Salvation, and that they may not be Eternally Damned (and &s;o he &s;hews we mu&s;t &s;tand to them upon pain of Damnation) and delcares, that if they li&s;ten 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 <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> and the Prophets (&s;ays he) that is the Scriptures written by them, let them hear them, and if they will not hear them, one ari&s;en from the Dead (which he re|fu&s;es to grant them) will not get them per&s;waded. There is a bundle of Arguments in one Text proving the Scriptures to be our Rule.</P>
<P>Fourthly, the <HI>Jews</HI> at <HI>Berea</HI> are highly commended for examin|ing by the Scripture the Doctrine of Grace Preached to them even by a <HI>Paul (Act.</HI> 17.11, 12.) that they might know if the things which he Taught were &s;o, as the Text &s;ays; for albeit <HI>Paul</HI> was an infallibly-in&s;pired Apo&s;tle, yet &s;eeing 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 fal&s;e Teachers, they are therefore highly commended for putting his Doctrine to the Te&s;t and Tryal of the Fore-con&s;titute Scrip|tures, wherewith every Doctrine of Religion was in &s;ub&s;tance and matter to con&s;ent and agree, and they otherwi&s;e not to re|ceive it, <HI>I&s;ai.</HI> 8.20. Therefore the Scriptures are the undoubted Rule of Faith and Duty. The Con&s;equence is plain, &s;eeing 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 de&s;ervedly di&s;commended.</P>
<P>Fifthly, The Scriptures are able to make us Wi&s;e unto Salva|tion. 2 <HI>Tim.</HI> 3.15. Therefore they contain the Rule of Faith and Duty. The Con&s;equence is ea&s;ie, &s;eeing without the Rule of the&s;e, we cannot be wi&s;e unto Salvation, but plainly ignorant of the way thereunto, having no Rule to direct us.</P>
<P>Sixthly, the whole Scriptures were given by In&s;piration of God, and they were written purpo&s;ely for the Churches In&s;tructi|on and Learning, as is before &s;hewed: Therefore they mu&s;t &s;urely be the Rule of Faith and Duty; for, I am &s;ure, there is nothing wanting here that is requi&s;ite to the Con&s;tituting of them for a publick Rule; or el&s;e let the <HI>Quakers</HI> (if they can) &s;hew
<PB N="25" REF="33">us what that is; for I can not perceive it, without the Spectacles of their Eagle-eyed In&s;pirer.</P>
<P>Seventhly, That Doctrine mu&s;t be the Rule of Faith and Manners, which in all matters of Faith and Manners we ought to ob&s;erve and take heed to, as a Doctrine full of &s;hining light for our in&s;truction and direction: but that is the Scriptures: Therefore the Scriptures are the Rule of Faith and Manners. The <HI>Major</HI> is clear, nor do the <HI>Quakers</HI> deny it. The <HI>Minor</HI> is laid down in 2 <HI>Pet.</HI> 1.19, 20. where <HI>Peter,</HI> after his rehear&s;ing of the glorious <HI>Revelation</HI> on the Mount; at the Transfiguration (which was as glorious a <HI>Revelation</HI> as any el&s;e) he addeth, That they had a more &s;ure Word of Prophecy, whereunto they did well to take heed as unto a light &s;hining, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> knowing this fir&s;t, that no Prophecy of the Scripture is of any private Inter|pretation; here it is clear, that it is the Scriptures which he calls, the more &s;ure Word of Prophecy, and prefers before all tran&s;ient Revelations; not as if the Scriptures were more certain in them|&s;elves <HI>(Quoad &s;e)</HI> than Gods immediate voice from Heaven; but becau&s;e they are a more &s;ure way in regard of us; <HI>(Quoad nos)</HI> they being a Written, yea Sealed and Sworn Evidence and Contract of the whole Bargain and Terms of Salvation and Life, delivered into our cu&s;tody to be peru&s;ed by us upon all occa|&s;ions; and this gives more a&s;&s;urance, in regard of our weakne&s;s, than a pa&s;&s;ing <HI>Revelation,</HI> and is more ready for our con&s;tant direction, than a tran&s;ient <HI>Revelation,</HI> which we cannot always command, nor retain often in our memory till we under&s;tand; nor are all men able to bear them; That on the Mount made the Di&s;ciples roave and mi&s;take exceedingly, <HI>Mark.</HI> 9.6.</P>
<P>The <HI>Quakers</HI> an&s;wer, (in their Confe&s;&s;ion of Faith, or Prin|ciples of Truth, <HI>page</HI> 135, 136, 140.) That by the more &s;ure Word of Prophecy, the Apo&s;tle means the Light within us, and &s;o they deny our <HI>Minor.</HI> But contrariwi&s;e the 20 Ver&s;e there, where he cautions the interpreting of the Scripture-Prophecy, clearly coheres with the 19 Ver&s;e, as a caution &s;ubjoyned con|cerning the &s;ame thing which he had there called, The more &s;ure Word of Prophecy; and &s;o by the more &s;ure Word of Prophecy mu&s;t be meant the Scriptures, becau&s;e of the clear coherence. Se|condly, I mu&s;t demand of the <HI>Quakers</HI> to &s;hew, (if they can) How the Dictat or Light within is more &s;ure than Gods immediate
<PB N="26" REF="34">Voice from Heaven, &s;uch as that was at the Tran&s;figuration? I have &s;hewed how the Scriptures are called, and are &s;o in regard of us; but I cannot under&s;tand, how the Light within can be, or be called &s;o. Thirdly, The Te&s;timony of other Scriptures pro|duced, and to be produced, will not permit this violent Glo&s;s.</P>
<P>Again, They ordinarily an&s;wer to this Scripture, That in it we are only appointed to take heed to the Scriptures, until the day dawn, and the day-Star ari&s;e into our hearts, that is (as they ex|pound) till the Holy Gho&s;t be be&s;towed on us, but no longer. But contrariwi&s;e; Fir&s;t, by this an&s;wer, they retract their former Glo&s;s upon the Text, and confe&s;s the more &s;ure Word of Pro|phecy here, to be meant of the Scriptures, and not the Light within. Secondly, By this an&s;wer, they overturn one of their own chiefe&s;t Principles, <HI>viz.</HI> That all men ought to follow the Light within: for now they yield, That &s;uch as have not receiv|ed the Holy Gho&s;t, (and the&s;e are not few) are exhorted here to follow the Scriptures, and not the Light within them. Thirdly, Hereby they in&s;inuate, That the Scriptures (in their Opinion) &s;erve for nothing to Renewed Men and Believers, who are born of the Spirit and Sealed therewith, (<HI>Joh.</HI> 3.5. <HI>Rom.</HI> 8.9. <HI>Eph.</HI> 1.13.) and &s;o the Scriptures (as they will) are recommended only to Men unrenewed; and &s;o that ble&s;&s;ing pronounced upon the Readers, Hearers, and Keepers of the things written in the Scrip|tures, (<HI>Revel.</HI> 1.3. and 22.7.) is de&s;igned and belongs only to unrenewed Men, &s;eeing the reading, hearing, and keeping of the things written therein, whereunto the ble&s;&s;ing is annexed, belongs only to them, as the <HI>Quakers</HI> will. What? Does not <HI>Paul, Peter,</HI> and <HI>John</HI> direct all their Epi&s;tles, and the Book of the <HI>Revela|tion</HI> 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 In&s;criptions (I pray,) and the&s;e will inform you better.</P>
<P>Eightly, That mu&s;t be the Rule of Faith by which we are commanded to try the Spirits, (1 <HI>John</HI> 4.1.) &s;eeing we cannot try the Spirits or Doctrines without the Rule; for that were to try them by gue&s;s: But that whereby we are commanded to try the Spirits, mu&s;t certainly, be the Scriptures, &s;eeing the <HI>Quakers</HI> do not as yet openly profe&s;s the <HI>Popi&s;h Lesbian</HI> Rule, of Believing as the Church of <HI>Rome</HI> does; and it cannot be the dictat or light
<PB N="27" REF="34">within, that we are to try them by, &s;eeing, that is as fallible, as their Light who&s;e Doctrines I try; and <HI>George Keith</HI> (a Ring|leading <HI>Quaker</HI>) confe&s;&s;es the po&s;&s;ibility of their declining from Infallibility, both in Speaking and Writing, (and con&s;equently in Examining or Judging too) in his <HI>Quakeri&s;m no Popery, page</HI> 33. and be&s;ide, the Dictat within hath no Divine In&s;titu|tion to be the Rule; and if it were the Rule, then the Dictat with|in every diver&s;e Man would be the Rule to try the Dictat or De|ctrine 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 repug|nant.</P>
<P>Ninthly, <HI>John</HI> &s;hews us, (1 <HI>John</HI> 4.6.) That the true and &s;ound imbracing of their Doctrine, (now written in the Scrip|tures) is a manife&s;t evidence of the Spirit of Truth, and the rejecting of it, a manife&s;t evidence of the Spirit of Error; and &s;o their Doctrine written in the Scriptures, mu&s;t be the Rule of Faith and Manners: For, How &s;hall it be an evidence of the Spirit of Truth, to imbrace a Doctrine that is not the Rule? this is liker to be an evidence of the contrary; Or, How &s;hall it be an evidence of the Spirit of Error, to reject &s;uch Doctrine? this al&s;o is rather an evidence of the contrary, providing the Rule be retained.</P>
<P>La&s;tly, God denounces all the plagues mentioned in the Scrip|tures (quake that dreads then) again&s;t every Man that &s;hall pre|&s;ume to add in matters of Faith and Duty, (for of the&s;e its meant) to the Doctrine and Rules written in the Scriptures. Therefore the Scriptures do certainly contain the Rule and whole Rule of Faith and Manners. The antecedent is laid down, <HI>Rev.</HI> 22.18. where it is peremptorily &s;aid, <HI>That if any Man &s;hall add unto the&s;e things that are written in the Scriptures,</HI> (for there is the like rea&s;on, and no other, or more rea&s;on, again&s;t adding to this Book of the <HI>Revelation,</HI> and the re&s;t of the holy Scriptures, after the Canon is compleated; and this Sanction is added here in the clo&s;e of this Book, as the clo&s;e of the whole Scriptures) <HI>God &s;hall add to him all the plagues written in the Book.</HI> The con|&s;equence is al&s;o evident: For, if not the Scriptures, but &s;ome o|ther Doctrine were the Rule, then we not only might add to the
<PB N="28" REF="35">Scriptures in matters of Faith and Duty, but we ought, of nece&s;&s;ity, to &s;et up that other Doctrine, as the Rule and Directory of both, which is much wor&s;e, methinks, than any partial adding; and &s;o we could not be liable to &s;uch a doom for a partial adding.</P>
<P>And hence by a few arguments of many that may be produced, we &s;ee, that the Scriptures are the infallible Rule of our Faith and Manners, that &s;ure Word of Prophecy whereunto we ought to take heed; and if an Angel from Heaven &s;hall preach another Go&s;pel to us, than that which Chri&s;t and the Apo&s;tles did, let him be accur&s;ed. Every new Di&s;pen&s;ation of the Covenant by the Mini&s;tery of Men, though it were but only new in the manner, was confirmed by Miracles and Wonders, (<HI>Exod.</HI> 4.28.30. <HI>Deut.</HI> 34.11, 12. 2 <HI>Cor.</HI> 12.12. <HI>Heb.</HI> 2.4.) much more need hath the <HI>Quakers</HI> Doctrine of &s;uch confirmations, being new, not only in the manner, but al&s;o in the matter contrary to the Doctrine formerly dictated by the Holy Gho&s;t, and left upon Record unto us; nor heard we ever of &s;o great a company of In&s;pired Teachers, as all the Doctors of the <HI>Quakers</HI> pretend to be, and never one Miracle or Wonder to be had among&s;t them all, excepting only their extream Infatuation and Brain-&s;ickne&s;s, or that they &s;till retain the proportion and features of Human bodies, having quite enervated their rational e&s;&s;ence.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="2" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. II. <HI>Proving the Scriptures to be the principal Rule, and overthrowing the Light within.</HI></HEAD>
<P><HI>George Keith</HI> an Arch-<HI>Quaker,</HI> and a Man too learned as he imploys it, doth here di&s;tingui&s;h our Arguments, yielding us; That the Scriptures are the mo&s;t compleat external Rule of Faith that is in the World; but, That they are not for all that, the Principal Rule of Faith, but only a Secundary Rule thereof; and that the Spirit, or his Dictat within, is the Principal Rule, (in his <HI>Quakeri&s;m no Popery,</HI> pages 9.13, 25, 59, 108, 109, 110, 111.) and, like <HI>Proteus</HI> turning him&s;elf into all &s;haces, <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 span"> <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter">mes de&s;igns Chri&s;t him&s;elf, oftner the Spirit <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 span"> he <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 span"> of the Spirit within, to be <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 span"> oftne&s;t the dictat<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter"> <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 span"></P>
<PB N="29" REF="35">
<P>But, I am &s;ure, if <HI>George Keith</HI> be in earne&s;t while he would have Chri&s;t him&s;elf, or the Spirit him&s;elf to be our Rule, he is be&s;ide him&s;elf; For a Per&s;on cannot be a Rule of Faith, for that mu&s;t be &s;ome complex Propo&s;ition, Direction, or Precept, and the like: but Chri&s;t and the Spirit are Per&s;ons, and &s;o they cannot be a Rule of Faith. The <HI>Major</HI> is already proved, nor will the <HI>Quakers</HI> deny it. But <HI>George Keith</HI> (as many of his Brethren, to my hearing) doth flatly refu&s;e the <HI>Minor,</HI> as an un|certain un&s;criptural notion, and a barbarous heatheni&s;h term to &s;peak of a Per&s;on in the Godhead, in his <HI>Quakeri&s;m no Popery,</HI> page 97.104. and &s;o, according to him, there are no Per&s;ons at all in the Godhead; (ah <HI>Bla&s;phemy!</HI>) for if there be, I am &s;ure, we may &s;ay there are; and if Men believe that there are Three Per&s;ons in the Godhead, they will not refu&s;e to &s;ay the &s;ame. The <HI>Quakers</HI> then do reject both the thing and notion, and believe not there are Three Per&s;ons in the Godhead: And therefore that there are, I &s;hall &s;hortly prove.</P>
<P>Fir&s;t, The Father, Son, and Holy Gho&s;t are each of them an Intelligent Being, &s;ub&s;i&s;ting incommunicably, or di&s;tinctly from another: <HI>Ergo,</HI> each of them is a Per&s;on. The con&s;e|quence, being from the Definition to the thing defined, cannot be denied without a broad contradiction; for, if they grant the Antecedent, that is the thing which all the World under&s;tands by a Per&s;on. The Antecedent I prove, for that each of them is an Intelligent Being, Sub&s;i&s;ting, the <HI>Quakers</HI> dare not deny, and their great Works declare it; and that they &s;ub&s;i&s;t Incommuni|cably, or di&s;tinctly from one another, (though in the &s;ame Godhead) I prove, becau&s;e one and the &s;ame Sub&s;i&s;tence cannot beget it Self, or be begotten by it Self, nor proceed from it Self, as is palpable: but the Father begets the Son, the Son is begotten by him, and the Holy Gho&s;t proceeds from both; and &s;o they mu&s;t be di&s;tinct Sub&s;i&s;tences, or &s;ub&s;i&s;t di&s;tinctly.</P>
<P>Secondly, There are Three that bear Record in Heaven, the Father, Son, and the Holy Gho&s;t, 1 <HI>John</HI> 5.7. <HI>Ergo,</HI> they mu&s;t either be Three Per&s;ons, or Three Gods, (which is the beight of impo&s;&s;ibility) or let the <HI>Quakers</HI> &s;hew, how they will call them Three; for, though they al&s;o be one, <HI>viz.</HI> one God, yet the &s;ame Text cited, &s;ays they are Three too. I could never get any other an&s;wer to this from a <HI>Quaker,</HI> but, That they are
<PB N="30" REF="36">three Manife&s;tations, <HI>viz.</HI> of <HI>Mo&s;es,</HI> of Chri&s;t, and of the Spi|cit. But, if the&s;e were the Father, Son, and Holy Gho&s;t, the World is much elder than they, and then, Who made it?</P>
<P>Thirdly, While Chri&s;t proves Him&s;elf the Light of the World again&s;t the <HI>Jews,</HI> who denied it, He &s;ays, (<HI>John</HI> 8.17, 18.) <HI>It is al&s;o written in your Law, That the Te&s;timony of two Men is true; I am one that bears Witne&s;s of my Self, and the Father that &s;ent Me beareth Witne&s;s of Me.</HI> Now Chri&s;t and the Father could not have been two Witne&s;&s;es according to their Law, except they be two di&s;tinct Per&s;ons: for, their Law admitted the Te&s;timony of two Men proof enough, becau&s;e it was the Te&s;timony of two Per&s;ons, and otherwi&s;e the Te&s;timony had not been admitted as proof enough. Chri&s;t then clearly teaches Him&s;elf and the Father to be two Per&s;ons, while he a&s;&s;erts that their Witne&s;&s;ing was proof enough according to their Laws demand.</P>
<P>La&s;tly, Chri&s;t is &s;aid to be the expre&s;s Image (in the Original Language <HI>Character</HI>) of the Fathers Per&s;on; (<HI>Heb.</HI> 1.3.) Therefore the Father is a Per&s;on, and Chri&s;t al&s;o, and di&s;tinct Per&s;ons; for the Father is plainly called &s;o, and the Son being the very expre&s;s of his Per&s;on, and exact tran&s;umpt, mu&s;t be one al&s;o, and di&s;tinct from the Fathers Per&s;on. They an&s;wer. The Word is wrong turned here, and, that its turned right in <HI>Heb.</HI> 11.1. where it's called Sub&s;tance. But contrariwi&s;e, the word is [<GAP DESC="foreign">] in the Original, which properly &s;ignifies a Sub&s;i&s;tence, or Per&s;on, and in an Intelligent Being &s;ub&s;i&s;ting di&s;tinct, it always &s;ignifies a Per&s;on; and &s;o the Union of Chri&s;ts two Natures in one Per&s;on, is u&s;ually called, the Hypo&s;tatical Union; and to turn the word Sub&s;tance here, would be guilty of Ariani&s;m, and would infer, that Chri&s;t is not the &s;ame in Sub&s;tance with the Fa|ther, but another Sub&s;tance like his Sub&s;tance. It is then no un|&s;criptural Notion: but the&s;e things by the way. Now to the main point.</P>
<P>I a&s;&s;ert again&s;t <HI>George Keith</HI> and his Complices, That the Scriptures are the principal Rule of Faith and Manners, and not any Dictat within: and I prove it fir&s;t, that the Scriptures are, and next, that the Dictat within is not.</P>
<P>Fir&s;t then, The Scriptures (we have &s;een already) are by Divine Authority ordained to be the Rule of our Faith and Man|ners,
<PB N="31" REF="36">and there is no Divine Authority ordaining any other Rule, either above them, or of equal Authority with them; or el&s;e, let it be &s;hewed, and till then, let them con&s;ider, that we are &s;till &s;ent to the Scriptures as the Rule of all matters of Faith and Duty, (<HI>I&s;ai.</HI> 8.20. <HI>Luk.</HI> 16.29.31. 2 <HI>Pet.</HI> 1.19.) but never to any Dictat within; they do not &s;ay, To the Dictat within; but to the Law and Te&s;timony, to <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> and the Prophets, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> Therefore the Scriptures are infallibly the principal Rule, &s;eeing there is none above them, or equal with them.</P>
<P>Secondly, The Scriptures are the Rule, ruling of Faith and Manners, and not ruled by any other Rule; or el&s;e, they are a Rule ruling thereof, and them&s;elves ruled by another &s;uperior Rule; there cannot be a third thing &s;aid, for the members of the di&s;tinction are contradictory: But the Scriptures are not a Rule ruling and ruled, &s;eeing a Rule is therefore ruled by another Rule, becau&s;e it is not e&s;&s;entially right, but fallible and may deceive, (or el&s;e it needed no Rule to rule it:) but, I hope, the <HI>Quakers</HI> will not &s;ay, That the Scriptures are fallible and may deceive, &s;eeing they are of Divine In&s;piration, and the Word or Words (as the <HI>Quakers</HI> yield) of the mo&s;t High God: Therefore the Scriptures are the Rule ruling, and not ruled of Faith and Manners, and &s;o the principal Rule thereof.</P>
<P>Thirdly, The Scriptures have Intrin&s;ecal and E&s;&s;ential Autho|rity within them&s;elves, without derivation from any other Rule, (contradict who dare?) &s;eeing they are the Word of God, and he deeds not (I judge) derive Authority to his Word from any other Rule, Humane or Divine: <HI>Ergo,</HI> they are the Supream and Principal Rule of Faith and Manners.</P>
<P><HI>George Keith</HI> will (may be) indeavour to retort this Argu|ment, as inferring, That the Dictat of the Spirit within is the principal Rule, as well as the Scriptures, &s;eeing that is the Word of God, as well as they. But, by his favour, <HI>An &s;it,</HI> is before <HI>Quid &s;it,</HI> and <HI>Prius e&s;t e&s;&s;e, quam tale, vel tale e&s;&s;e;</HI> he &s;hould fir&s;t prove, that there is &s;uch an infallible immediate objective Dictat (as he calls it) in every Man, and then he &s;ays &s;omething. For I deny that there is &s;uch a Dictat of the Spirit in every Man to be his Rule, &s;eeing every Man hath not the Spirit, but Believers only; (<HI>Rom.</HI> 8.9. 1 <HI>Joh.</HI> 4.13. <HI>Jude</HI> 19.) and if every Man have the Rule of Faith revealed to him by a Dictat within, Why
<PB N="32" REF="37">have not <HI>Americans</HI> as much knowledge of that Rule as we <HI>Chri&s;tians?</HI> nor do I believe, that any Man hath &s;uch an imme|diate 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 nece&s;&s;ity thereof, that being &s;o abundantly ma|nife&s;ted in the Scriptures.</P>
<P>And whatever particular event a Man may have immediately revealed to him, and he therefore bound to believe it, This con|cerns 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 mu&s;t be the rule to all.</P>
<P>Nor needs a Believer an immediate objective Dictat to a&s;&s;ure him that he is a Child of God; (as <HI>George Keith</HI> would have it) &s;eeing an effective illumination of the Spirit upon our under|&s;tanding, (which is al&s;o called Subjective in regard of us) open|ing and enlightning it's eyes to behold the Scripture-marks, and inabling it to reflect upon and di&s;cern the graces of the Soul in their gracious actings, will do the bu&s;ine&s;s infallibly, though not immediately, but <HI>per medium;</HI> for, having the&s;e Premi&s;es, and that a&s;&s;i&s;tance, and the mind not diverted, it will be forced to the con&s;equence by the clearne&s;s of the objective connexion, &s;ee|ing the meane&s;t Saint cannot re&s;i&s;t &s;uch evidence of con&s;equence; nor can a thou&s;and Dictates within meerly objective, make a Man one whit the wi&s;er, without &s;ubjective light to perceive them, more than a Man pur-blind can &s;ee the Sun-&s;hining, till his eyes be opened; albeit <HI>George Keith</HI> &s;purns at this di&s;tinction between Objective and Subjective, (which in regard of the Spirit, is called Effective) as Antichri&s;tian and deceitful, (in his <HI>Quakeri&s;m no Popery,</HI> pages 83.84.) as if he would for ever confound an Object with an Efficient Cau&s;e, or a Subject.</P>
<P>Fourthly, A Rule that hath authority over all other Rules, and none over it, mu&s;t inevitably be the Principal and Supream Rule. But the Scriptures are &s;uch a Rule: <HI>Ergo,</HI> they are the Supream Principal Rule. I prove the <HI>Minor</HI> (the <HI>Major</HI> needs not) becau&s;e we may not receive any Rule from without, or Dictat within, which agrees not with the Scriptures, (as <HI>George Keith</HI> &s;eemingly al&s;o confe&s;&s;es in his <HI>Quakeri&s;m no Popery,</HI> pag. 28.) to the Law and Te&s;timony, if they agree not with that, there is
<PB N="33" REF="37">no light in them; he is Cur&s;ed that Preaches another Go&s;pel and not agreeing with that we have, and &s;o cannot be Ble&s;&s;ed that re|ceives it; The Plagues are added to them that add to the Scripture-Rule, much more to &s;uch 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 fore&s;aid, and the <HI>Quakers</HI> will not deny, &s;ure. The&s;e things hold firm. Again, it does not hold, that we mu&s;t not receive the Scriptures if they agree not with the Dictat within, but may receive the Dictat within, tho it di&s;agree with the Scriptures. And &s;o the Scriptures have Authority over all other Rules, and none el&s;e hath Authority over them.</P>
<P>Now albeit we have &s;ufficiently already affronted the Dictate within; yet becau&s;e it is worthy of a Thou&s;and Deaths for its proud U&s;urpation, we &s;hall reach it &s;ome few Blows more <HI>in par|ticulari Specie.</HI></P>
<P>Fir&s;t therefore, the principal Rule of Faith and Manners mu&s;t be E&s;&s;entially right and Infallible; or el&s;e we can tru&s;t nothing to it with any a&s;&s;urance, and all were gone, it would mi&s;lead and deceive us: But the Dictate within every man is not E&s;&s;entially Right: <HI>Ergo</HI> it is not the principal Rule. I prove the <HI>Minor,</HI> be|cau&s;e many men have not the Spirit, as all unrenewed men (<HI>Rom.</HI> 8.9. 1 <HI>Joh.</HI> 4.13. <HI>Jud.</HI> 19.) and &s;o their Dictate within, not proceeding from the Spirit, cannot be E&s;&s;entially Right, or the principal Rule of Faith and Manners; and this de&s;troys the <HI>Qua|kers</HI> Principle, that the Dictate within every man is the princi|pal Rule. Nor doth the Spirit Teach even Believers by an in|ward immediate objective Dictate, &s;eeing God and Nature do nothing in vain, and Beings ought not to be multiplied without &s;ome nece&s;&s;ity, which here there is none that can be &s;hewed; for &s;eeing the whole Doctrine of Salvation is abundantly made known in the Scriptures, &s;o that our under&s;tandings being &s;ubjectively Enlightened, and our Eyes in any mea&s;ure opened, we may plain|ly &s;ee therein the exactne&s;s and purity of the Law, the Riches of the Promi&s;es, and, in fine, our whole Rule by the good help of other means and Ordinances appointed to further our In&s;tructi|on and Knowledge in the&s;e, by opening up and explaining their Doctrine and Sence, and &s;o clearing the Object, <HI>quoad nos,</HI> or in order to our under&s;tanding. And what needs then (I pray) another objective Rule?</P>
<PB N="34" REF="38">
<P>Neither is there any rea&s;on for the continuance of the immedi|ate In&s;piration of the Doctrine of Salvation in the Church, more than all the other extraordinary Gifts (which are gone long &s;ince) the Intire Rule of Faith and Manners being now compleated, and publickly Recorded, which is as Infallible as any immediate Dictate, &s;eeing it is the Word of God that cannot Lie; and it is more &s;ure for us than any, in regard of the Devils Cunning, who can, and often does bear in a &s;trong Delu&s;ion with &s;o much of &s;eeming Evidence, as makes it be received for a Divine Dictate. And what needs more? <HI>George Keith</HI> who pleads that the Dictate within, is the principal Rule and Touch&s;tone of all Doctrines (in his <HI>Quakeri&s;m no Popery,</HI> pag. 59. albeit mo&s;t incon&s;i&s;tently (as I think) he grants the &s;ame Authority to the Scriptures, pag. 28 thereof) does yield that, for all their Infallible Dictate, yet its po&s;&s;ible for them (and that is much indeed) both to Speak and Write (and &s;o to think too) in a mixture (<HI>Quakeri&s;m no Popery,</HI> pag. 33) that is to &s;ay, 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 &s;peaks, like a man in a mixture, Infal|lible Contradiction. For all the World cannot find me a mid&s;t betwixt Fallible, and Infallible. <HI>George Keith</HI> then (it &s;eems) is not Infallibly, or immediately In&s;pired: for he can both Speak and Write in a mixture, which a man immediatly In&s;pired can|not be Guilty of. <HI>Habernus confitentem reum.</HI></P>
<P>Secondly, that cannot be the principal Rule of Faith and Man|ners which hath no Divine In&s;titution to Warrant it; or el&s;e it is but an U&s;urper. But the Dictate within every, I or any man, hath no Divine In&s;titution to Warrant it to be the principal Rule of the&s;e; or el&s;e produce it (if they can) for all they have hither|to produced &s;hall be Confuted and An&s;wered 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 Man|ners.</P>
<P>Thirdly, a Rule to be examined by another Rule cannot be the principal Rule of Faith and Manners, I am &s;ure: But the Dictate within all men is &s;uch; Therefore it is not the principal Rule of Faith and Manners. The <HI>Minor</HI> I prove from <HI>I&s;ai.</HI> 8.20. To the Law and to the Te&s;timony (&s;ays the Text) if they &s;peak not according to this Word, it is becau&s;e there is no Light in them;
<PB N="35" REF="38">where all Dictates, or Doctrines of Faith and Manners are very expre&s;ly commanded to be Tryed and examined by the Scripture, and if they agree not with that, not to receive them; &s;eeing &s;o, there is no Light in them, they are but Dictates of Darkne&s;s. And again, <HI>George Keith</HI> Confe&s;&s;es, that all Doctrines and Principles of Chri&s;tian Religion are to be applyed to the Scriptures, as a Te&s;t and Touch&s;tone in all external Debates and Di&s;putations what&s;o|ever, and if they agree not therewith, to be denied and di&s;owned for ever (<HI>Quakeri&s;m no Popery,</HI> pag, 28.) and &s;o the Scriptures are a Superiour Rule to the Dictate within (if it be a Doctrine of the Chri&s;tian Religion) &s;eeing it mu&s;t be examined by the&s;e as a Te&s;t and Touch&s;tone, and rejected, if it agree not therewith. I can &s;ay no more, than is dropt (twixt &s;leeping and waking per|haps) from the Pen of an Adver&s;ary.</P>
<P>Fourthly, the Scriptures (we have &s;een before) are the prin|cipal Rule of Faith and Manners po&s;itively: <HI>Ergo</HI> the Dictate within cannot be &s;uch a Rule. The Con&s;equence is plain, &s;eeing two Rules, each of them po&s;itively principal, are repugnant; for &s;o each of them &s;hould be above, and below the other.</P>
<P>Fifthly, if the Dictate within be the principal Rule of Faith and Manners, then we mu&s;t either follow its Directions ab&s;olutely, and without Que&s;tioning or Trying them; or el&s;e conditionally only that they be right, if conditionally only, then we mu&s;t examine them by &s;ome other Rule, to know if they be right, or not; and &s;o they are not the principal Rule (again&s;t the &s;uppo&s;ition) nor Infallible, &s;ee|ing an Infallible Rule needs no Superior Rule to be examined by, be|ing it &s;elf E&s;&s;entially right. If then we mu&s;t follow the directions of the Dictate within ab&s;olutely, and without any Tryal, then he who&s;e Dictate within prompts him to think that Chri&s;t has not two di&s;tinct Natures, or that he has two di&s;tinct Per&s;ons a&s;wel as Na|tures, or that he is not Co-eternal, Co-equal, and Co-&s;ub&s;tan|tial with the Father, or Fir&s;t per&s;on, or that his Sufferings and Death was not a Satisfaction for our Sins, or that God is a Corpo|real Being &s;ubject to all humane Pa&s;&s;ions, or that in the <HI>Euchari&s;t</HI> the Bread is &s;ub&s;tantially Changed into the Body of Chri&s;t, or that the <HI>Pope</HI> is Infallible (and &s;o a great <HI>Quaker,</HI> or el&s;e each of them a &s;mall <HI>Pope</HI>) or that we are not Ju&s;tified by the Righteou&s;ne&s;s of the Redeemer; I &s;ay, all of the&s;e, and other &s;uch deluded Here|ticks mu&s;t ab&s;olutely follow the&s;e Principles as their principal Rule.
<PB N="36" REF="39">And if the Dictate within bid a man Wor&s;hip the Sun and Moon, and Idols of Gold and Silver, wor&s;hip the Devil, and cut his own Throat too, he is bound to obey his Rule. There is nothing can be an&s;wered to the&s;e things but this, <HI>viz.</HI> That the&s;e and &s;uch like evil Directions cannot proceed from the Spirit of God, but allanerly from a mans own &s;elf and the Devil. But granting all this to be mo&s;t true, yet the Knot is not untied. For how &s;hall I know and di&s;cern an Impo&s;ture of the Devil meeting with my deceitful heart, from the Dictate of the Spirit, without &s;ome Rule to trie it by? Thou wilt an&s;wer, that the Dictates of the Spirit have a Self-evidence in them&s;elves to a&s;&s;ure that they are his Dictates, and hereby they &s;hall be known. But fir&s;t, the Spirit does not now adays Inlighten us in that mea&s;ure as to make us immediately In|&s;pired and Infallible, &s;eeing <HI>George Keith</HI> him&s;elf may po&s;&s;ibly both Speak and Write (and &s;o 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 im|mediate Dictate. Thirdly, let the Dictate within have a Self|evidence unto him to whom it is actually pre&s;ented, yet the Devil, a cunning Serpent and &s;ubtil Sophi&s;ter, and a great pretended Saint too when he transforms him&s;elf into an Angel of Light, can pre&s;ent an Impo&s;ture unto another man that wants that Dictate, or to him that had it at another time, but now, he at the time pre|&s;ent actually hath not that Dictate, with &s;o much &s;eeming Evi|dence as, with the concurrence of a deceitful heart, will make it be received for a Divine Truth: for he had &s;trong Delu&s;ions in his Trea&s;ury (2 <HI>The&s;.</HI> 2.11.) or Efficacious, as the word is, which mainly con&s;i&s;ts in their &s;eeming Evidence. What &s;hall we do now, if we want a Rule to di&s;cern the one from the other by? <HI>viz.</HI> we'l fall into the Devils Catch-net, as before the Scriptures were Writ|ten they were but very few that e&s;caped his Snare, whereas with the &s;preading of the Scriptures into the World, the Wor&s;hip of the true God, and Religion grew al&s;o; nor is the true God at this day Wor&s;hipped where the Scriptures are wanting.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="3" TYPE="section">
<PB N="37" REF="39">
<HEAD>SECT. III. <HI>An&s;wering the</HI> Quakers <HI>Objections.</HI></HEAD>
<P>Fir&s;t therefore they Object from <HI>Deut.</HI> 30.11, 12, 13, 14. Where <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> affirms, that the Commandment which he Com|manded the <HI>I&s;raelites</HI> 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 <HI>Quakers</HI> Confe&s;&s;ion of Faith above-named, pag. 136.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> It is &s;o manife&s;t how &s;traitly <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> Ties the <HI>I&s;raelites</HI> to the external written Word of the Scriptures (for which &s;ee <HI>Deut.</HI> 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 &s;o impudently Effronted, as to urge this Text again&s;t Scripture-Rule; and for E&s;tabli&s;hing the Light within for the Rule. It is &s;ure by the Scriptures Cited, and by the Context of the place Objected, that <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> &s;traitly Ties them to the Scripture-Rule; and &s;o he cannot mean in the Text objected to ab&s;olve them from it, or &s;end them to the Light within as the Rule. Therefore they cannot gain their point here.</P>
<P>Secondly, <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> Means (as <HI>Paul</HI> expounds him, <HI>Rom.</HI> 10.6, 7, 8, 9. compared with ver&s;. 5.) of the ea&s;ine&s;s of the conditions of the Covenant of Grace, in regard of the conditions of the Co|venant of Works, which both in them&s;elves are more hard and difficult, and al&s;o want that Promi&s;e 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 <HI>Quakers.</HI></P>
<P>Thirdly, I grant that this Text further Imports that the Doctrine of the Scriptures Written by <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> was, in regard of things nece&s;&s;ary to Salvation, in &s;ome where or other &s;o per&s;picu|ous and plain, that it was not hidden to the&s;e <HI>I&s;raelites,</HI> to whom he there Speaks, but that they in &s;ome mea&s;ure under&s;tood it, <HI>viz.</HI> &s;ome of them with an External, Hi&s;torical, and Grammatical Evi|dence only, as men unrenewed; others of them with a Spiritual, Internal, and &s;aving Evidence al&s;o, as renewed men, who albeit the Object be the &s;ame, yet they &s;ee with other eyes and another Evidence then the other. But is there any thing here for the Go|vernment
<PB N="38" REF="40">of the Dictate within? Nay, neither le&s;s nor more; but, on the direct contrary, (comparing 9, 10. Ver&s;es there with 15, 16, 17, 18.) he ties them to the Scriptures as their chief Rule under the pain of Death and Peri&s;hing. But the <HI>Quakers</HI> are &s;o exact at con&s;equences, that they can infer from any Text a flat and direct contradiction to it &s;elf. Their Spirit hates Logick.</P>
<P>Secondly, They object from <HI>Jerem. Chap.</HI> 31. <HI>Ver&s;.</HI> 31, 32, 33, 34. where God &s;ays, He will make a new Covenant with the Hou&s;e of <HI>I&s;rael</HI> and <HI>Judah,</HI> not according to the Covenant he made with their Fathers when he brought them out of <HI>Egypt,</HI> which Covenant they brake: but this is the Covenant (&s;ays he) that I will make with the Hou&s;e of <HI>I&s;rael,</HI> after tho&s;e days I will put my Law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts, and they &s;hall no more teach every Man his Neighbour and Bro|ther, &s;aying, Know the Lord: for, they &s;hall all know me, &s;aith the Lord: Therefore, (&s;ay the <HI>Quakers</HI>) What needs Scripture|rule under the New Te&s;tament, &s;eeing the Law is written on peoples hearts? See this objection in their fore&s;aid Confe&s;&s;ion of Faith, <HI>page</HI> 112.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> Fir&s;t, This Text will not &s;erve the <HI>Quakers</HI> turn, for all men what&s;oever: for the&s;e on who&s;e hearts the Law here is to be written, are al&s;o to have all their iniquities forgiven, and to know the Lord, as the Text &s;ays: But the&s;e things come not to pa&s;s in all men what&s;oever; and &s;o it cannot prove that the Dictat within is to be the Rule for all men what&s;oever.</P>
<P>Secondly, The Law was written in &s;ome mea&s;ure upon the hearts of Gods People in Old Te&s;tament times, and yet they were &s;traitly tied to the external Scipture-rule, as was even now &s;hewed; and &s;o the writing of the Law upon our hearts does not ab&s;olve us from Scripture-rule, more than them, or e&s;tabli&s;h the Dictat within for the Rule.</P>
<P>Thirdly, The Law is never perfectly written upon our hearts in this Life, (as &s;hall be proved at their Query concerning Per|fection) and the Scriptures are an effectual In&s;trument, whereby God doth more and more write his Law upon the hearts of his People, (<HI>P&s;al.</HI> 119.93. 98, 99. 104. <HI>Joh.</HI> 14.26. <HI>Joh.</HI> 20.31. <HI>Act.</HI> 17.11, 12. <HI>Rom.</HI> 10.14. <HI>Eph.</HI> 6.17. 2 <HI>Tim.</HI> 3.16.) Seeing then, the Word of God written in the Scriptures
<PB N="39" REF="40">is an In&s;trument by which God writes his Law upon our hearts, en|lightning, in&s;tructing, renewing, correcting us; (albeit he can work without In&s;truments, if &s;o he plea&s;es) it is evident, that this Text of <HI>Jeremiah</HI> is &s;o far from overthrowing the External Rule of Scripture, that on the contrary, it includes it's &s;ubordi|nate influence in the writing of the Law upon the hearts of Peo|ple, as a thing requi&s;ite, &s;eeing the In&s;trument of any work is requi&s;ite to the work till it be fini&s;hed.</P>
<P>Therefore Fourthly, We &s;ay, that the Prophet is there com|paring the new Di&s;pen&s;ation of the Covenant under the Go&s;pel, with the old Di&s;pen&s;ation thereof under the Law, and he pro|mi&s;es in the Name of the Lord, That the new Di&s;pen&s;ation of the Covenant &s;hall be attended with a greater mea&s;ure of the Spirit for writing the Law upon Mens hearts, than was be&s;towed under the old. This Commentary agreeth with other Scriptures, (2 <HI>Cor.</HI> 3.6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11.) whereas the <HI>Quakers</HI> Glo&s;s is mo&s;t fal&s;e and contrary to the &s;ame, as appears from what is above &s;aid in the Survey of this Query.</P>
<P>As for that part of the Text, They &s;hall not teach every Man. his Neighbour, it is al&s;o a comparative expre&s;&s;ion, holding forth, that the Light under the Go&s;pel Di&s;pen&s;ation &s;hall be &s;o great and clear, and &s;o far exceed that under the Old Te&s;tament, that, in compari&s;on with the&s;e under it, we &s;hall &s;carce &s;eem to need a Teacher, which is mo&s;t true in the event. See the like expre&s;&s;ion, <HI>Ho&s;.</HI> 6.6. <HI>I will have Mercy, and not Sacrifice;</HI> that is, (as needs no proof) he required Mercy more than Sa|crifice; for he required Sacrifice al&s;o.</P>
<P>Secondly, This part of the Text, as it is urged by the <HI>Qua|kers,</HI> again&s;t all external Teaching by the Scripture and a publick Mini&s;tery, doth much rather overthrow all Chri&s;tian mutual Teaching and Neighbourly Exhortation, than Teaching by Scripture-Rule, or a Publick Mini&s;tery, &s;eeing the Teaching whereof it &s;peaks is, of Brother with Brother, and Neighbour with Neighbour. And &s;eeing the <HI>Quakers</HI> urge this Text again&s;t all external Teaching under the New Te&s;tament, (as I in expe|rience know they do, and their Principles of following the Dictat within leads them to it) we charge them in their own Principles, and as they would not go over the belly of their Light, to give over teaching of their Bla&s;phemous Errors: for there is none
<PB N="40" REF="41">bu&s;ier to teach Truth, than they (alas!) are to broach and &s;pread the&s;e.</P>
<P>Thirdly, They object from <HI>Luk.</HI> 17.20, 21. where Chri&s;t being asked of the Phari&s;ees, <HI>When the Kingdom of God</HI> (that is the <HI>Me&s;&s;ias</HI> Kingdom: for the Que&s;tion is plainly concerning that) <HI>&s;hould come,</HI> He an&s;wers them, <HI>That the Kingdom of God comes not with ob&s;ervation: for behold</HI> (&s;ays He) <HI>the Kingdom of God is within you.</HI> See this objection in their <HI>Confe&s;&s;ion of Faith,</HI> pages 124, 133, 134, 135.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> As to the fir&s;t part of the Text here alledged, it is not much different from, or rather it is a con&s;equent of that which Chri&s;t &s;aith before <HI>Pilate,</HI> (<HI>Joh.</HI> 18.36.) <HI>My Kingdom is not of this World,</HI> and the meaning clearly is that, becau&s;e the King|dom of Chri&s;t is Spiritual, (which that Text of <HI>John</HI> a&s;&s;erts) therefore it comes not with worldly, Pomp, and Shew, and is not con&s;picuous for worldly Splendor, (which is the meaning of this Text of <HI>Luke</HI>) &s;o as Men of the World can always di&s;cern it, as other Kingdoms: for, though it cannot be denied that Chri&s;t had a Kingdom even at that time among&s;t the <HI>Jews;</HI> yet the&s;e Phari&s;ees did not di&s;cern it.</P>
<P>But if the <HI>Quakers</HI> would have the meaning of that &s;aying to be, that the Kingdom of Chri&s;t hath no external Laws, Rules, and Ordinances in, or with it, (unto which &s;cope they do indeed wre&s;t it in the pages of their Confe&s;&s;ion la&s;t cited, and in which &s;ence alone, and none el&s;e, it would &s;erve the <HI>Quakers</HI> purpo&s;e a|gain&s;t external Ordinances, or for E&s;tabli&s;hing their inward un|warrantable Dictat, as all &s;ee) their Commentary &s;hall be mo&s;t fal&s;e; &s;eeing Chri&s;t had a Kingdom in the World in the days of the Old Te&s;tament, and a much larger in the days of the A|po&s;tles under the New, and yet there were external Laws, Rules, and Ordinances in, or with it at both the&s;e times, &s;ee <HI>Deut.</HI> 30.10. and 31.9, 10, 11, 12, 24, 26. <HI>Nehem.</HI> 8.8. 2 <HI>King.</HI> 23.2, 3. <HI>I&s;ai.</HI> 8.20. <HI>Matth.</HI> 28.19, 20. <HI>Luk.</HI> 16.29. and 22.19. <HI>Joh.</HI> 5.39.46, 47. and 20.31. <HI>Act.</HI> 8.35. and 17.11. and 18.28. and 28.23. <HI>Rom.</HI> 15.4. 1 <HI>Tim.</HI> 4.13. 2 <HI>Tim.</HI> 2.2. and 3.15, 16. and 4.2. The&s;e Te&s;timonies, and a thou&s;and more that might be in&s;tanced, do irre&s;i&s;tably prove again&s;t all Contradictors, that there were External Ordi|nances of Scripture, Sacraments, Preaching, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> in, or with
<PB N="41" REF="41">the Kingdom of Chri&s;t, not only under the Old Te&s;tament, but al&s;o under the New; and &s;o the <HI>Quakers</HI> Glo&s;s upon this Text of <HI>Luke</HI> is mo&s;t fal&s;e, That would have the Dictat within to be the Rule of Faith and Manners, becau&s;e the Kingdom of God comes not with ob&s;ervation, that is, as they infer, it is all within, there is nothing external in it. As for the &s;econd part of the Text alledged, <HI>(Behold the Kingdom of God is within you)</HI> it may be as well, yea much better tran&s;lated, Behold the King|dom of God is in the mid&s;t of you, or among&s;t you: for the Ori|ginal word <GAP DESC="foreign"> will read any of the ways, (as it is marked on the Margin of our Bibles, <HI>among you</HI>) and the nature and condition of the Party to whom Chri&s;t there &s;peaks, being wick|ed Enemies of Chri&s;t and his Kingdom, cannot &s;o well admit of our vulgar tran&s;lation: <HI>(The Kingdom of God is within you)</HI> and in tran&s;lating it the other way, it will be as much, if not more unto Chri&s;ts Scope; for, becau&s;e the&s;e Phari&s;ees expected that the Me&s;&s;iahs Kingdom &s;hould come with worldly Pomp and Grandure, (of which conceipt neither were Chri&s;ts own Di&s;ciples free, <HI>Matth.</HI> 20.21.) Therefore to confute that fancy, He tells them, <HI>That the Kingdom of God comes not in that manner with worldly Pomp and Splendor: for behold,</HI> (&s;ays He) <HI>the Kingdom of God is even now among&s;t you, though ye perceive it not, becau&s;e ye look for a Kingdom with worldly Pomp and Grandure.</HI></P>
<P>Secondly, The Kingdom of God, that is, the Me&s;&s;iahs Kingdom, was certainly come in the Apo&s;tles days after the powring forth of the Spirit, and the Go&s;pel &s;pread through the Gentile-world, (as the <HI>Quakers</HI> dare not, I think, deny) and yet it was accom|panied with External Laws and Ordinances, whereunto the Church was &s;traitly tied, (as I have many times before proved) and it was as much within Gods People then as now: Therefore this Text can afford them no ground for overturning of External Laws and Ordinances in the Church, and E&s;tabli&s;hing their Dictate within for the Rule.</P>
<P>Thirdly, Let the Kingdom of God be within us, what then? Will that nece&s;&s;arily infer the exclu&s;ion of all External helps and means for the inchoating, promoting, and maintaining thereof in us? Nay, by no means; For how many things are there in|ward in us, which yet are inchoate, nouri&s;hed and maintained
<PB N="42" REF="42">by external helps and means, as the habits of Grammar, Logick, Mathematicks, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> and have not all Trade&s;men their External Rules, for all their inward habit of the Art? yea, our very Lives (that are inward enough, I think) are upheld and nouri&s;hed by the help of things External. Why do not the <HI>Quakers</HI> nouri&s;h their Lives, that are E&s;&s;entially inward, with &s;ome inward di&s;h of meat, and let alone External meat and drink? The&s;e things da&s;h the Argument in pieces, which runs with a pur-blind con|&s;equence from an infirm Antecedent.</P>
<P>Fourthly, They object, That Chri&s;t promi&s;es to &s;end his Spirit to guide us into all Truth, <HI>Joh.</HI> 16.13. Therefore there is no need of External Rules and Ordinances to guide us; yea, in their Confe&s;&s;ion where they propound this Objection, they contend, That all External Ordinances ought to be rejected, becau&s;e of this promi&s;e of the Spirit. See their <HI>Confe&s;&s;ion,</HI> pages 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82. Where they &s;o triumph in this Argument, as if now they had incontrollably gained the day, and for ever bani&s;hed all External Ordinances out of the Church, and had no more to do, but &s;ing, <HI>Te Deum, Victory,</HI> We have won. But he that Reckons without his Ho&s;t may come to Reckon twice.</P>
<P>Therefore I an&s;wer fir&s;t, That this promi&s;e is only made to Believers, (<HI>Joh.</HI> 7.38, 39. and 14.17.) and &s;o it will not &s;erve their turn for ab&s;olving all Men from External Rules, and committing them to the conduct of their Dictate within.</P>
<P>Secondly, Though they &s;hould 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 Controver&s;ie, and which they mu&s;t either prove, or el&s;e lo&s;e the Cau&s;e, for all their boa&s;ting) for Chri&s;t does not promi&s;e here, nor any where in Scripture, That the Spirit &s;hall guide us without the written Word; and &s;o from this Text, they can never prove their point.</P>
<P>Thirdly, I proved at the <HI>Survey</HI> of their third <HI>Query</HI> above, and in my An&s;wer to their &s;econd Objection here, That the written Word of God is an Organ and In&s;trument whereby the Spirit of God worketh upon our hearts, enlightning, converting, re|nowing, and quickening us thereby; and &s;o the Spirit is not here promi&s;ed to guide us without the written Word, but with it.</P>
<PB N="43" REF="42">
<P>La&s;tly, We have the word of that &s;ame Spirit for it, and that &s;ince he was poured out in the large&s;t mea&s;ure, That it is not he, but a Spirit of Error that leads men when they hearken not to the Doctrine of the Apo&s;tles, (which is written in the Scripture) 1 <HI>Joh.</HI> 4.6. He exhorts us to take heed to the Scriptures, 2 <HI>Pet.</HI> 1.19, 20. He affirms the Scriptures were written for our learning, and that we might have hope, <HI>Rom.</HI> 15.4. He af|firms, that the Scriptures are profitable for Reproof, Doctrine, Correction, and In&s;truction in Righteou&s;ne&s;s, 2 <HI>Tim.</HI> 3.16. He threatens to take away their part out of the Book of Life, that dimini&s;h from the Scripture-rule, <HI>Rev.</HI> 22.19. He pronounces them ble&s;&s;ed, that read, hear, and keep the Doctrine of the Scripture, <HI>Rev.</HI> 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 Righteou&s;ne&s;s, or be ble&s;&s;ed, but to have his part taken out of the Book of Life. Will not that Man be a good Chri&s;tian, and a happy Saint, no doubt? Chri&s;t then means nothing le&s;s than to ab&s;olve us from the External Rule of Scripture in this Text of <HI>John,</HI> which the <HI>Quakers</HI> here wre&s;t to that purpo&s;e, Vaunting them&s;elves of an Abortive Victory which &s;hall never &s;ee the Sun, like &s;o many windy Bravadilloes, <HI>Et pre|terea nihil.</HI></P>
<P>Fifthly, They object from the fir&s;t Epi&s;tle of <HI>John</HI> 2.20, 27. where Saint <HI>John</HI> &s;ays, <HI>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:</HI> Therefore there is no need of External Rules and Teaching, &s;ee|ing there is an Unction within that teaches all things.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> Fir&s;t, The Apo&s;tle does not &s;ay, That all men what|&s;oever have that Unction to teach them, but only &s;uch as he writes to, <HI>viz.</HI> Believers, and &s;o this Text will not &s;erve their turn for all men.</P>
<P>Secondly, He does not &s;ay, That that anointing teaches without the External written Word; yea, in this &s;ame Epi&s;tle, (<HI>Ch.</HI> 4.6. <HI>Ch.</HI> 5.13.) He plainly &s;hews the contrary, where he affirms, That tho&s;e that are of God hearken to (and &s;o 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 &s;ame Epi&s;tle, of purpo&s;e, to be an In&s;tru|ment
<PB N="44" REF="43" MS="y">of Faith and Knowledge unto them. And would they then force an Argument from this Epi&s;tle again&s;t Scripture-Rule? nay, there is in this Epi&s;tle evident demon&s;trations e&s;tabli&s;hing it.</P>
<P>Thirdly, We have before &s;hewed, That the Spirit teaches us by the External written Word, and the <HI>Quakers</HI> 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 Exter|nal Word, which is the <GAP DESC="foreign">; and yet the <HI>Quakers</HI> by a new &s;ort of Logick invented by their Alogical Spirit for the abu&s;e of Mankind, do from every Scripture-Text where it is &s;aid, That the Spirit teaches us, very bruto-rationally infer: <HI>Ergo,</HI> he teaches us without any External Mean, or Rule.</P>
<P>As for that of their knowing all things, it is not to be under|&s;tood of all things what&s;oever, without exception, or el&s;e they had been too wi&s;e, and their knowledge too infinite: but it is meant of all things E&s;&s;ential to Salvation, which they knew in &s;ome mea&s;ure, though not perfectly, (1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 8.2. and 13.9.12.) and therefore &s;till needed Scripture-Rule to teach them more knowledge. And therefore that part of the Text, That they needed not that any man &s;hould teach them, is the &s;ame with that of <HI>Jeremiah,</HI> (whereof before) and hath the &s;ame comparative meaning, That the knowledge of Chri&s;t and of the Covenant was now &s;o manife&s;t and clear, that having received the anoint|ing for opening the eyes of their under&s;tanding, <HI>viz.</HI> Effectively, (which is therefore called Eye-&s;alve, <HI>Rev.</HI> 3.18. which an in|ward 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 Te&s;tament Di&s;pen&s;ation, did &s;carce &s;eem to need a Teacher, which is mo&s;t true. For, though they needed &s;till Teaching, yet in compari&s;on of them, they might all rather have been Teachers of others; and &s;o the Scope of the place is to commend the New-Te&s;tament Di&s;pen&s;ation above that of the Old, and to decry External Ordinances and Rules, or Teach|ing by Men; Yea, and if it were meant &s;o, then the Apo&s;tle did here by his Practice contradict his Doctrine, and by his Do|ctrine condemned his Practice as needle&s;s and idle, for which he
<PB N="45" REF="43">had a &s;ad Accompt to make, according to Chri&s;ts Doctrine, <HI>Matth.</HI> 12.36. and if the <HI>Quakers</HI> think that this Text over|turneth 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 &s;preading of their damnable Delu&s;ions by Word or Writ: for, I am &s;ure, the <HI>Quakers</HI> are but Men at the mo&s;t, and I think, &s;carce that, by the forfeiture they have made of their Rea&s;on.</P>
<P>Sixthly, They object from <HI>Jam.</HI> 1.21. where the Apo&s;tle Exhorts us, <HI>That laying a&s;ide all filthine&s;s and &s;uperfluity of naugh|tine&s;s, we would receive with meekne&s;s the Ingrafted Word, which is able to &s;ave our Souls:</HI> Therefore, (&s;ay they) the Word which we are to receive is an Ingrafted Word within us.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> Fir&s;t, The Original word [<GAP DESC="foreign">] may be as well rendred, <HI>Apt to be Ingrafted,</HI> and then where is the Argument, I pray?</P>
<P>Secondly, The context will not allow the <HI>Quakers</HI> Glo&s;s: for it's a Word that we are to receive, and hear, and which is able to &s;ave our Souls, (a Character not given to the Light or Dictate within, any whereof Scripture, but to the Scripture it is ex|pre&s;ly given, 2 <HI>Tim.</HI> 3.15.) and we cannot in proper &s;peech be &s;aid 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 im|proper &s;ence, for which they mu&s;t &s;hew &s;ome nece&s;&s;ity of the Ana|logy of Faith; or el&s;e it cannot be granted then.</P>
<P>Thirdly, The Apo&s;tle does not here Exhort us to commit our &s;elves 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, &s;o as it may take root, and &s;o grow and become fruitful in us) and that we let it not pa&s;s out at one ear as it comes in at the other, being forgetful and negligent hearers; and &s;o the meaning clearly is, Receive the word, not forgetfully and negligently, but receive it Ingrafted and rooting-wi&s;e. Any Man by reading the context downward may &s;ee, that <HI>James</HI> there oppo&s;es receiving of the Ingrafted Word, or Word Ingrafted, to the receiving of the Word forgetfully, &s;uperficially and carele&s;ly; and not to the receiving of an External Word, as the <HI>Quakers</HI> here expound, taking the grounds of their Glo&s;s out of their own
<PB N="46" REF="44">Brain-&s;ick heads alone, being no ways grounded on the Context, or agreeable to any other place of the Scripture; whereas our Expo&s;ition is clearly founded on the Context, and evidently ari&s;es therefrom, and hath al&s;o the warrant of other Scriptures. No|thing here then for the <HI>Quakers.</HI></P>
<P>Seventhly, They object wonderfully (but it's a lying wonder like the re&s;t) from <HI>Heb.</HI> 6.1.2. where the Apo&s;tle Exhorts the&s;e <HI>Hebrews, That leaving the Principles of the Doctrine of Chri&s;t, they would go on towards perfection, not laying again the foundation of Repentance from dead works, and of Faith to|wards God, of the Doctrine of Bapti&s;ms, and laying on of hands, of the Re&s;urrection of the Dead, and of Eternal Judgment.</HI> See the <HI>Quakers Confe&s;&s;ion,</HI> page 63, 68, 77, 80. where they urge this Text again&s;t the Law, (&s;o they call the whole Scrip|tures) and again&s;t the Prie&s;ts, (&s;o they call the Mini&s;ters of the Go&s;pel, as all know) and again&s;t Bapti&s;m with Water, and the Lords Supper.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> But &s;o abu&s;ing and wre&s;ting the Text for bani&s;hing of External Ordinances out of the Church, they with the &s;ame breath infer, That there ought, or needs not be any of the Principles of the Doctrine of Chri&s;t in the Church; for, the Apo&s;tle Exhorts to leave the&s;e al&s;o, and that in the fir&s;t branch of the Exhortation; And did <HI>Paul</HI> (in earne&s;t) Exhort them to reject the&s;e? Did he Exhort them to reject the Foundation of Repentance and of Faith towards God, which here he calls the&s;e Principles? The Building will &s;urely go to Ruine then, when the Foundation is gone. Is not that a brave Doctrine come from an immediate Dictate?</P>
<P>Any Man, though half blind, may &s;ee, that the Apo&s;tle means, that they &s;hould not &s;tick always at the learning of the fir&s;t common Catechetical, or Rudimental Principles of Religion, (which he taxes them for ignorance of, in the clo&s;e of the for|mer Chapter) but that, having laid the Foundation of the&s;e, (not thrown them away, as the <HI>Quakers</HI> here expound) they &s;hould a&s;pire and indeavour after a further Proficience and Growth in the Knowledge of Chri&s;t and Go&s;pel My&s;teries.</P>
<P>Eightly, The <HI>Quakers</HI> object in this Query, That in the Primitive World, <HI>Enoch, Noah, Abraham, I&s;aac,</HI> and <HI>Jacob,</HI> &amp;c. had not any written Word to be the Rule of Faith and Manners;
<PB N="47" REF="44">and therefore, (they mean to infer, and <HI>George Keith</HI> explains it fully in his <HI>Quakeri&s;m no Popery,</HI> page 109. 111.) neither now is the written Word our Rule.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> A brave con&s;equence for&s;ooth; as if I &s;hould &s;ay, Chri&s;t was not come in the Fle&s;h in the Primitive World: <HI>Ergo,</HI> neither as yet is he come. Or, in the Primitive World there were no Scriptures written: <HI>Ergo,</HI> neither afterwards. I was not born in the Primitive World, am not I born as yet then? I can hardly believe &s;o: for, <HI>Non-entities</HI> cannot act and write, as I am doing ju&s;t now. The External manner of Di&s;pen&s;ation u&s;ed with tho&s;e of the Primitive World, can do nothing to the <HI>Quakers</HI> now, (who live not in the Primitive World, except perhaps by conceipt and fancy) but in the la&s;t times, after the word of God is committed to writing, and we commanded to ob&s;erve that as our Rule.</P>
<P><HI>George Keith,</HI> 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 &s;econd Room, or the Foot&s;tool to the Scriptures; but the Throne in the Palace, and chief Seat in the <HI>Quakers</HI> Synagoue mu&s;t be re&s;erved for their great <HI>Diana,</HI> the Dictate within. Therefore, though this great <HI>Dagon</HI> hath broke his neck already before the Ark, yet to defend his Honour lying in the Du&s;t,</P>
<P>He objects Ninthly, (<HI>Quakeri&s;m no Popery,</HI> page. 9. 13.) That the Te&s;timony of the Spirit within is greater than the Ex|ternal Te&s;timony of the Scripture; and therefore the Dictate within mu&s;t be the Principal Rule, not the Scriptures.</P>
<P>But fir&s;t I An&s;w. That <HI>George Keith</HI> drives the Plough before the Oxen: for, he mu&s;t fir&s;t prove, (or el&s;e nothing to his point) that every Man is furni&s;ht with an immediate Dictate of the Spirit within him (which we deny any Man to have, and he &s;hall never prove) to reveal to him Infallibly the Doctrine of Salva|tion, and then, and not till then, it may be to the purpo&s;e, to prove, it's Mens principal Rule, by its Greatne&s;s: for be it great or &s;mall, it can be no Rule to them who have it not, more than the Sun can enlighten me, when he Shines not in my Hemi&s;phere; and &s;o the Argument is a meer impertinence: For, <HI>An &s;it,</HI> is be|fore
<PB N="48" REF="45"><HI>Quid &s;it.</HI> Let him prove then, (and he &s;hall be great <HI>Apollo</HI>) that every man hath &s;uch an immediate Dictate within him, and then he comes time enough to prove that it, and not the Scrip|tures, is his greater and more principal Rule.</P>
<P>Secondly, let the Te&s;timony of the Light within be greater, or not, the Scriptures (we &s;ee) are Divinely appointed to be the Rule and principal Rule, and nothing can Infer again&s;t that, that the utmo&s;t of racked Invention is able to devi&s;e. Nor did, or does God always make u&s;e of the greater Witne&s;&s;es for Te&s;tifying his Will to us; or el&s;e he had &s;till imployed Angels, and not men to Teach us, and Chri&s;t had continued to this day, and the worlds end in his Mini&s;tery upon the Earth, in&s;tead of giving us men of like Pa&s;&s;ions to Teach us. It is plentiful &s;ecurity unto us, that we have a Rule of Faith and Duty altogether Infallible, and an Evi|dence Written, Sealed, and Sworn to (<HI>Heb.</HI> 6.17, 18.) deli|vered into our hand for our more chearful a&s;&s;urance, to be peru&s;ed by us upon all occa&s;ions for re&s;olving our doubts, directing our Duty, and confirming our Faith. <HI>George Keith</HI> u&s;es a number of more Arguments (in his <HI>Quakeri&s;m no Popery,</HI> pages 108, 109, 110, 111.) indeavouring to prove the Dictate within (and &s;ome|times the Spirit him&s;elf, and &s;ometimes Chri&s;t him&s;elf, as his Ar|guments run) to be a better Rule than the Scriptures. But in ge|neral they are all Guilty of the &s;ame very Impertinence that his Ar|gument now Di&s;cu&s;&s;ed was liable to; and therefore the very &s;ame An&s;wers that are given to this Argument de&s;troy them every one, &s;o that we need not Arraign them particularly.</P>
<P>But <HI>George Keith</HI> brings one Argument to prove that God Teaches us by an immediate Dictate within, <HI>viz.</HI> becau&s;e its ab|&s;urd to &s;ay, that God Speaks no more Intelligibly and percepti|bly in an immediate way to the Souls of his people, than to the Earth to bring forth Gra&s;s, or to the Fi&s;h to Vomit out <HI>Jonah.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> That he &s;peaks more Intelligibly or perceptibly to his people, than to &s;uch unrea&s;onably Creatures as the&s;e, is granted; But that he does it in an immediate way to us, I deny it, let <HI>George</HI> prove it. He does indeed immediately inlighten us with a Divine Beam of Light in our under&s;tandings. Effectively opening our Eyes (yea he always works with his Word, made by him&s;elf effectual, as the immediate principal efficient of its gracious effects
<PB N="49" REF="45">in us) that we may under&s;tand what is written in the Scriptures, and know a&s;&s;uredly that it is he that &s;peaks to us therein; and &s;o &s;peaks to us much more Intelligibly, than to unrea&s;onable Crea|tures, whom he never dealt &s;o with.</P>
<P>But that it is ab&s;urd if he do it, not by an Objective immediate inward Dictate, I utterly deny, let him prove it, if he can. But does not <HI>George Keith</HI> think it ab&s;urd to &s;ay, 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 &s;o much for the Rule of Faith and Manners &s;hall &s;uffice.</P>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="5" TYPE="query">
<HEAD>Fifth QUERY.</HEAD>
<P><HI>Whether is there any Scripture or Command in all the New Te&s;tament for the Sprinkling of Infants? Let us &s;ee Scripture, without Adding or Dimini&s;hing 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 Con&s;equences; or el&s;e never pretend Scrip|ture Rule more, but acknowledge that it hath been your Meanings, and Con&s;equences that hath been your Rule.</HI></P>
<DIV3 TYPE="survey">
<HEAD>S&V;RVEY.</HEAD>
<P>This Query very well Homologates with their Confe&s;&s;ion of Faith often forementioned (pag. 25, 77, 79, 96, 126.) where they deny, not only Infant-Bapti&s;m, but moreover all Bapti&s;m with Water to be any Divine Ordinance belonging to the New Te&s;tament. But they here impo&s;e upon us two Conditions or Laws of our Di&s;putation (being the ab&s;urd fruit of their fooli&s;h Dictate within) which, before we handle the main Subject of the Query (which is Bapti&s;m) it will not be ami&s;s to Di&s;cu&s;s. The&s;e two Conditions are,</P>
<P>That we neither interpret Scripture, nor draw Con&s;equences there-from for E&s;tabli&s;hing of our Doctrine, or The&s;is, or el&s;e
<PB N="50" REF="46">that we never pretend Scripture Rule more. This Certification is &s;o Important and Peremptory, that it will not be unworthy of the while to enquire into their Demands whereunto it is an|nexed.</P>
<P>Therefore we mu&s;t divide our Survey of this Query into four parts. The fir&s;t &s;hall be concerning Scripture-Interpretation; The &s;econd concerning Scripture-con&s;equence, or Con&s;equential Scripture; The third concerning Bapti&s;m with Water; and the fourth concerning Infant-Bapti&s;m.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="1" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. I. <HI>Concerning Scripture-Interpretation.</HI></HEAD>
<P>While the <HI>Quakers</HI> here oppo&s;e Scripture-Interpretation they are indeed very like them&s;elves, and Speak in their own Language: for what external Ordinance can a <HI>Quaker</HI> (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 in|deavour is, that, at lea&s;t, they may render u&s;ele&s;s and unedifying to the Bulk and Body of the people, a&s;much of them as they can, even all the Texts thereof (and the&s;e are not a few) which, with|out the help and labours of a Gifted Interpreter, they cannot un|der&s;tand; 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 &s;ound Con&s;equence Infallibly follows there-from.</P>
<P>One thing I &s;hall here promi&s;e to the <HI>Quakers</HI> (and more no man can demand) and that is, that whatever Scripture I &s;hall bring for proving of our Doctrine, the meaning thereof, which I &s;hall alledge, &s;hall either be undeniably (even to a <HI>Quaker</HI>) clear of it &s;elf; or el&s;e I &s;hall evidently and irre&s;i&s;tibly prove and make good the &s;ame, and manife&s;tly overthrow the forged meaning of the <HI>Quakers</HI> thereupon; and, I think that is very fair. But that we may come to the Que&s;tions to be here handled.</P>
<P>I mu&s;t premi&s;e fir&s;t, that the Scriptures ought not to be Expound|ed according to any mans fore-conceived private Judgment and Opinion (that is, <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 span"> 2 <HI>P<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="2 letters">.</HI> 1.20.) But they are to
<PB N="51" REF="46">be Expounded according to the Analogy of Faith in general, and by Compari&s;on with other Scriptures that Speak more clearly to the matter, or by the Scope, Connexion, and Dependence of the purpo&s;e in the place it &s;elf, compared with its Antecedents and Con|&s;equents. Thus the Apo&s;tle <HI>Paul</HI> &s;ays, Let us Prophe&s;ie according to the proportion (in the Original Analogy) of Faith <HI>(Rom.</HI> 12.6.) and (I think) it is proved before, that the Scriptures are the Rule of all Doctrines of Faith and Manners.</P>
<P>Secondly, I mu&s;t premi&s;e, that the Scriptures are in &s;everal places &s;o plain and ea&s;ie, e&s;pecially in re&s;pect of things E&s;&s;ential, and &s;imply nece&s;&s;ary to Salvation, that men of very common Capacities, may even without an Interpreter, attain in &s;ome mea|&s;ure to under&s;tand them, as is clear both in the Scripture (<HI>Deut.</HI> 30.11. <HI>P&s;al.</HI> 19.7. and 119.130.) and al&s;o from Experience. For thus we &s;ee that the attentive Reading, or Hearing of the Scriptures (though without Commentaries) does beget &s;ome mea&s;ure of Knowledge, e&s;pecially of the mo&s;t Important and E&s;&s;en|tial Truths (which are therein with mo&s;t frequency and plainne&s;s delivered) in men of very ordinary and common Capacities; yea, and otherwi&s;e, we could expect no more knowledge of the&s;e Truths, among&s;t men of &s;uch Capacity, though they &s;hould never &s;o much Peru&s;e the Scriptures, than among&s;t <HI>Americans</HI> that never heard of them; and in vain &s;hould &s;uch men be appointed to take heed to the Scriptures (<HI>I&s;ai.</HI> 8.20. <HI>Luk.</HI> 16.29. <HI>Joh.</HI> 5.39. 2 <HI>Pet.</HI> 1.19.) if the Scriptures were every where &s;o difficult and ob&s;cure, that they could no ways under&s;tand them.</P>
<P>Thirdly, I mu&s;t premi&s;e, that for Gods Holy and Wi&s;e ends (for a view whereof &s;ee Mr. <HI>Durhams</HI> excellent Key pre&s;ixed to his Expo&s;ition of the Song of <HI>Solomon,</HI> pages 32, 33, 34.) the Style of the Scriptures are in many other places &s;o difficult and dark (I mean in re&s;pect of our under&s;tanding) that until they be In|terpreted by men called of God (though mediately) and furni&s;ht with Gifts for that end, their particular meaning cannot be rea|ched by men of no mean under&s;tanding; yea even tho&s;e of the great|e&s;t gift do not, without much diligence joyned with great capaci|ty, nor yet fully as to all particulars under&s;tand them, as is evi|dent by the Song of <HI>Solomon,</HI> and the many My&s;tical Prophecies contained in the Books of <HI>Ezekiel, Daniel, Zechariah, Revelation, &amp;c.</HI> And yet the&s;e &s;ame ob&s;cure places, if they be skilfully Inter|preted
<PB N="52" REF="47">according to the Analogy of Faith in general, and by compari&s;on with other parallel places of Scripture more per&s;pi|cuous and plain, or by the &s;cope, connexion, dependance, and circum&s;tances of the place it &s;elf, will, without difficulty be under&s;tood, and the &s;ence delivered from the fore&s;aid grounds, under&s;tood to be the true meaning of the Text, by Men of very ordinary Judgment; for many can di&s;cern the truth of an Ex|po&s;ition, when the clear grounds thereof are repre&s;ented di&s;tinct|ly before their eyes, who cannot by them&s;elves &s;earch out the methods to find the&s;e grounds, and apply them thereunto, as is both clear in all experience, and al&s;o the one work (in rea&s;on) is much ea&s;ier than the other. Yea the Doctrine and grounds of a Scripture-Text not a little per&s;picuous, being skilfully compared (which a well gifted Interpreter, and who&s;e 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 mea&s;ure clear, though none of the cleare&s;t, they do by their con&s;ociated beams and united rays more powerfully &s;hine and more copiou&s;ly &s;end forth their light, than any one of them apart could ever have done, even as a number of bright &s;hining Stars being placed into one Con&s;tellation, do more powerfully &s;hine, than any one of them apart could have done.</P>
<P>La&s;tly, I &s;hall add, that the whole Scriptures were written for our Learning, and are u&s;eful for Edification, as appears from <HI>Rom.</HI> 15.4. 2 <HI>Tim.</HI> 3.16. The&s;e things premi&s;ed;</P>
<P>I A&s;&s;ert again&s;t the <HI>Quakers,</HI> (who both here, and many a time to my face have denied it) That Scripture-Interpretation is nece&s;&s;ary in the Church for Peoples under&s;tanding, or better un|der&s;tanding of the Scriptures, and Edification, or further Edifi|cation by them, and I prove it becau&s;e,</P>
<P>If there be many Scriptures profitable for Edification, and written for the Churches Learning, which, at lea&s;t, a great part, yea, the far mo&s;t part of the Church cannot without Interpreta|tion particularly under&s;tand, or &s;o fully under&s;tand, and &s;o be edified, or &s;o far edified by them; and with the help of Inter|pretation may in &s;ome mea&s;ure, particularly under&s;tand, or more fully under&s;tand, and &s;o receive edification, or a further edification by them; then Scripture Interpretation is needful in
<PB N="53" REF="47">the Church, that &s;uch People may under&s;tand, or further under|&s;tand the&s;e Scriptures, and &s;o be edified, or further edified by them, as is mo&s;t evident: But the former is true, by our premi&s;ed Di&s;cour&s;e preceeding: therefore the latter al&s;o mu&s;t be true.</P>
<P>Secondly, The <HI>Levites</HI> Expounded the Scriptures to the People, (<HI>Nehem.</HI> 8.7, 8.) <HI>Philip</HI> Expounded them to the <HI>Eunuch, (Act.</HI> 8.30, 31, 34, 35.) Chri&s;t Expounded his Parables (which are now a part of the Scriptures) to his Di&s;|ciples, (<HI>Mark.</HI> 4.34.) He Expounded the Scriptures to the two Di&s;ciples, (<HI>Luk.</HI> 24.27.) and albeit this was Chri&s;t Ex|pounding them, (as the <HI>Quakers</HI> impertinently u&s;e to reply unto our Argument) yet his expounding of them &s;hews, that Scripture-Interpretation is u&s;eful and nece&s;&s;ary in the Church, otherwi&s;e his Expounding had been a needle&s;s and idle work, which is a piece of Bla&s;phemy; (<HI>Matth.</HI> 12.36.) Therefore Scripture-Interpretation is needful in the Church; otherwi&s;e the Expounding thereof by the fore&s;aid Per&s;ons had been a meer needle&s;s and idle work; and the need thereof is yet further evi|dent, &s;eeing it is plainly &s;hewed, (<HI>Neh.</HI> 8.8.) that Expo&s;ition is a mean for peoples under&s;tanding the Scriptures. Nor did Chri&s;ts own Di&s;ciples frequently under&s;tand his Parables, until he Expounded them, (<HI>Matth.</HI> 13.36. <HI>Luk.</HI> 8.9.) nor did the Eunuch under&s;tand what he read (<HI>Act.</HI> 8.30, 31.) until it was Expounded to him.</P>
<P>Thirdly, <HI>Peter</HI> affirms, (2 <HI>Pet.</HI> 3.16.) That <HI>there are &s;ome things in</HI> Pauls <HI>Epi&s;tles</HI> (which are Scripture) <HI>hard to be under|&s;tood, which the unlearned and un&s;table wre&s;t, together with &s;e|veral other Scriptures, to their own de&s;truction:</HI> Therefore there is need of Scripture-Interpretation in the Church, &s;eeing Scriptures hard to be under&s;tood do need explaining, that they may be under&s;tood, and People in&s;tructed and edified by them, for which purpo&s;e they were written; and it's needful to prevent (as much as can be) the mi&s;taking and wre&s;ting of them, and Peoples falling into Soul-de&s;troying Errors thereby: though all this happens through Mens ignorance and wavering humor, (as the Text &s;ays) and is not the Scriptures fault. Nor can it be an&s;wered, (as &s;ome do) That by <HI>&s;ome things</HI> here <HI>Peter</HI> does not mean &s;ome of the Doctrine taught by <HI>Paul,</HI> but &s;ome of the Extrin&s;ecal Objects repre&s;ented thereby, &s;eeing the things
<PB N="54" REF="48">hard to be under&s;tood here mentioned, are &s;uch as are liable to wre&s;ting, which therefore mu&s;t be under&s;tood of the Doctrine it &s;elf, &s;eeing that may be wre&s;ted, but the Extrin&s;ecal Objects cannot: for wre&s;ting is a changing of the Sence, which belongs to Di&s;cour&s;e and Sayings. Again, where <HI>Peter</HI> &s;ays, <HI>That the unlearned wre&s;t the&s;e things hard to be under&s;tood, as al&s;o they do the other Scriptures,</HI> he plainly intimates, that the&s;e things hard to be under&s;tood, are them&s;elves Scriptures too; otherwi&s;e the Sence runs very ill, (I think) <HI>viz.</HI> the unlearned wre&s;t &s;ome of the External Objects of <HI>Pauls</HI> Doctrine, as al&s;o they do the other Scriptures.</P>
<P>Fourthly, I mu&s;t enquire of the <HI>Quakers,</HI> if (in their Prin|ciples) Men of mean capacities under&s;tand the Scriptures every where; as for example, all that is written in the <HI>Canticles, Eze|chiel, Daniel, Zechariah, Revelation, &amp;c.</HI> which yet was written and is u&s;eful for our Learning and In&s;truction: if they &s;ay, Yea, I &s;hall need no more to bring their Principles in di&s;credit with all Men, &s;eeing the whole Chri&s;tian World knoweth the contrary; If they &s;ay, Nay; then there is need of Scripture-Interpretation in the Church for explaining &s;uch Scriptures by the fore&s;aid means, that People may under&s;tand them, and be edified by them, which is that we plead for.</P>
<P>La&s;tly, It is too clear in experiencce, that Men of corrupt minds, through addictedne&s;s to their own fore-conceived private Opinions, or through ignorance, (which by docility and dili|gence might have been prevented or removed) or through ma|lice again&s;t the Truth, or for advancing &s;ome Carnal de&s;ign, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> do frequently by fal&s;e Glo&s;&s;es and wre&s;ted Sences, (and none bu&s;ier than <HI>Quakers</HI>) by violence indeavouring to make them &s;peak the language of their Intere&s;t, abu&s;e and ca&s;t a mi&s;t upon very clear Scriptures, in order to Peoples under&s;tanding, e&s;pecially of meaner capacities: Therefore it is in this ca&s;e nece&s;&s;ary by the Context, the Analogy of Faith, and compari&s;on with other Scriptures, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> That the&s;e Scriptures be vindicated from &s;uch fal&s;e Glo&s;&s;es, and their Genuine and true Sence demon&s;tated and cleared. The Antecedent needs no more proving; for (alas!) it is too manife&s;t in experience, that every Erronious Teacher violently wre&s;ts and perverts the Sence of the Scriptures, as much as he can, in favour of his Heretical Doctrine, and thereby leads
<PB N="55" REF="48">many into damnable Delu&s;ions. The Con&s;equence is al&s;o mani|fe&s;t, &s;eeing when the Scriptures are abu&s;ed and wre&s;ted, it is ne|ce&s;&s;ary for the pre&s;ervation of their true meaning, and &s;o of the truth in the Church, and for preventing of black Soul-damning Errors, and the manife&s;t ruine of poor Souls, (to &s;ay 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 &s;ence and meaning demon&s;trated and cleared; and this work is e&s;pecially called for from &s;uch as labour in the Word and Do|ctrine, who mu&s;t be able to convince the Gain-&s;ayers of the Truth, and &s;top their Mouths, <HI>Tit.</HI> 1.9, 11.</P>
<P>Secondly, I A&s;&s;ert, (again&s;t the <HI>Quakers,</HI> who (we &s;ee from their Query) deny it) That the true Genuine, and &s;ound Inter|pretation of the Scriptures is an Ordinance of Divine appoint|ment, reaching even to the end of the World. I prove it,</P>
<P>Fir&s;t, To teach People the Mind and Will of God from the Scriptures, is an Ordinance of Divine In&s;titution, 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 In&s;titution, reaching to the end of the World. I ea&s;ily prove the <HI>Major,</HI> becau&s;e 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 &s;hall come to a &s;tate of compleat Perfection, is clear from <HI>Matth.</HI> 28.19, 20. <HI>Ephe&s;.</HI> 4.11, 12, 13. and that it is the Mind and Will of God they are appointed to teach, (I am &s;ure) no man can deny; and that it is from the Scriptures they ought to teach Gods Mind and Will is mo&s;t evident, &s;eeing the&s;e 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 In&s;piring of the Doctrine of Salvation is long &s;ince cea&s;ed in the Church, as all the other extraordinary Gifts, and <HI>George Keith</HI> him&s;elf may both &s;peak and write in a mixture. The <HI>Minor</HI> of the Argument is al&s;o manife&s;t, &s;eeing to bring forth, &s;hew, clear, and demon&s;trate the Genuine and true meaning of the Scriptures, or of the Spirit &s;peaking therein, is to teach the Mind and Will of God from the Scriptures; or el&s;e we are not <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 span"> the wi&s;er concerning the Mind and Will of God in the
<PB N="56" REF="49">Scriptures, by knowing the true meaning thereof, which is <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter"> flat contradiction: But to Interpret the Scriptures truly, is to bring forth, &s;hew, clear, and demon&s;trate the Genuine and true mean|ing thereof, or of the Spirit &s;peaking therein; or el&s;e 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.</P>
<P>Secondly, The <HI>Levites</HI> Expounded the Scriptures to the People, (<HI>Nehem.</HI> 8.7, 8.) and their doing thereof is Recorded there as highly commendable: Therefore Scripture-Interpreting had certainly a Divine In&s;titution at that time. The Antecedent is clear in the place cited: I prove the Con&s;equence, becau&s;e if it had not been at that time of Divine In&s;titution, that practice and deed of the&s;e ordinary Officers of that Church would not have been commendable, but mo&s;t blameable, as an Innovating an<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter"> up-&s;etting of a publick Office and Ordinance in Gods Hou&s;e of their own meer Invention, and wanting a Divine In&s;titutio<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter"> to warrant it. See <HI>Levit.</HI> 10.1, 2. <HI>Deut.</HI> 5.32. <HI>Jerem.</HI> 19.5, 6. I hope the <HI>Quakers</HI> will not &s;ay, that that Practice and Dee<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> of the&s;e Officers was extraordinary, and done by a particula<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter"> command relating only to that one &s;ingle action of the&s;e Officers, or only to the&s;e Individual Officers. For fir&s;t, there is no ground can be given of &s;uch an A&s;&s;ertion, and &s;o it is altogether ground|le&s;s. Secondly, if the&s;e had any particular Command, let it be &s;hewed. Thirdly, the&s;e were but ordinary Officers, and there is no foot&s;tep of their acting extraordinarily in any thing can be be &s;hewed. La&s;tly, I have &s;hewed before, that Scripture-Inter|pretation is ordinarily needful in the Church, for her In&s;truction and Edification; and &s;o that practice of the&s;e <HI>Levites</HI> could not be of &s;uch an extraordinary nature, as is pretended, &s;eeing practices of that nature are not wont to be ordinarily needful.</P>
<P>Having proved that Scripture-Interpreting had a Divine In|&s;titution under the Old Te&s;tament, the <HI>Quakers</HI> mu&s;t either yield it to be an In&s;titution &s;till as yet in force, which we plead for; or el&s;e they mu&s;t &s;ay, that Scripture-Interpreting was an Ordinance meerly <HI>Jewi&s;h</HI> and Ceremonial; (all which kind of Religious Ordinances are indeed abrogated) But it's mo&s;t fal&s;e that Scrip|ture-Interpreting was a <HI>Jewi&s;h</HI> Ceremony: for there can no ground be given for this; and &s;o it mu&s;t be reckoned a groundle&s;s
<PB N="57" REF="49">Fable. Secondly, Scripture-Interpretation is as yet needful in the Church we &s;ee: but <HI>Jewi&s;h</HI> Ceremonies are not &s;o, as all know. Thirdly, The Apo&s;tles &s;till continued and con&s;tantly retained Scripture-Interpretation in the New-Te&s;tament Church, even while they were bending their Doctrine again&s;t the conti|nuance and retaining of <HI>Jewi&s;h</HI> Ceremonies, (for an in&s;tance whereof, &s;ee <HI>Pauls</HI> Epi&s;tles to the <HI>Romans, Galatians,</HI> and <HI>Hebrews,</HI> where much of his work is the citing and explaining &s;everal Scripture-Texts of the Old-Te&s;tament.) But, &s;ure it is, the Apo&s;tles did not &s;till continue and con&s;tantly retain <HI>Jewi&s;h</HI> Cere|monies in the New Te&s;tament Church, and even while they were bending their Doctrine again&s;t the doing thereof by others; for though the Apo&s;tles might &s;ometimes conde&s;cend to the practice of a &s;maller Ceremony for the weaks &s;ake, yet this was not a con&s;tant retaining of them, but only done upon &s;ome oc|ca&s;ional emergencies. Therefore, &s;urely, Scripture-Interpreting cannot be a <HI>Jewi&s;h</HI> Ceremony.</P>
<P>Thirdly, If Scripture-Interpreting be not an Ordinance of Divine In&s;titution, and that to continue under the New Te&s;ta|ment to the Worlds end, Then though all the black Hereticks that ever were in the World &s;hould at once ari&s;e from the dead, (and ala&s;s! there are too many of them &s;till alive in their Succe&s;|&s;ors) and &s;hould, in favour of their accur&s;ed Delu&s;ions, mo&s;t gro&s;ly abu&s;e and wre&s;t the holy Scriptures, (as all Hereticks do) and pervert, invert, and deprave the meaning thereof, and &s;o of God &s;peaking therein; Yet no man, even the mo&s;t eminently gifted Mini&s;ters of Chri&s;t were bound by vertue of any &s;tanding Appointment, or Law of God, (otherwi&s;e Scripture-Interpret|ing will clearly have a &s;tanding Divine In&s;titution) to &s;tep out, and by the grounds of Context, the Analogy of Faith, or com|pari&s;on with other Scriptures more clear, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> to refute the&s;e fal&s;e wre&s;ted meanings, vindicate the Texts abu&s;ed, and clear and de|mon&s;trate their Genuine and true meaning: But that is mo&s;t fal&s;e, ab&s;urd, and impious. For then the mo&s;t eminently gifted and able Mini&s;ters of Chri&s;t, who&s;e &s;pecial Office is to labour in the Word and Doctrine, and are bound to their utmo&s;t (or el&s;e to nothing at all) to pre&s;erve and promote the purity of the mean|ing of the Scriptures among the people, and to convince and &s;top the mouths of the Gain&s;ayers thereof, (<HI>Tit.</HI> 1.9, 11.) might
<PB N="58" REF="50" MS="y">lawfully, without the breach of any &s;tanding Divine Appoint|ment or Law, &s;tand and look on, and &s;ee the Scriptures abu&s;ed, perverted, and depraved in their meaning, and in&s;tead of their true meaning, horrible fal&s;hoods, fictions, and bla&s;phemies father|ed upon them, and &s;o on God who&s;e Word they are, (to the highe&s;t di&s;honour of God imaginable, the treading under foot of the precious Truth, the over-flowing of the Chri&s;tian World with Soul-damning Errors, and the manife&s;t ruining of poor Souls) without indeavouring to prevent, remedy, or hinder the &s;ame, by the exerci&s;e of a talent that God hath given them. If that be not ab&s;urd, fal&s;e, and impious, nothing can be &s;uch. Nay, it involves a contradiction to &s;ay, that Mini&s;ters who are required to convince the Gain&s;ayers of the Truth, (and &s;o of the true meaning of the Scriptures) and to &s;top their mouths, might lawfully &s;uffer the&s;e things to be done, and not oppo&s;e them&s;elves for the defence of Gods truth, according to their abilities and occa&s;ions.</P>
<P>The <HI>Quakers</HI> being beaten from their former &s;tanding, and being loth to allow us the benefit of Scripture-Interpretation, as thereby fore-&s;eeing the danger of their Heretical Intere&s;t, do betake them&s;elves to another &s;hift, and alledge that however nece&s;&s;ary, or Divinely appointed Scripture-Interpretation may be, yet Men that are Fallible may not Interpret the Scriptures. Therefore it will be nece&s;&s;ary for us to prove the contrary, which before we do, that the &s;tate of the Que&s;tion may be cleared, I grant that the&s;e who&s;e Explications formally as &s;uch, and as raught by them are Authentical and Faith-worthy, mu&s;t of ne|ce&s;&s;ity be Infallible, or immediately In&s;pired. The <HI>Quakers</HI> mu&s;t &s;eek after &s;uch Explications as the&s;e, in the Canonical Writings of the Prophets and Apo&s;tles. For it is not &s;o with the ordinary Mini&s;ters of the Church, who&s;e Explications are not formally as &s;uch, and as taught by them Authentical and Faith|worthy, nor is it lawful for any Man &s;o to receive them; but al|lanerly upon the accompt of their agreement with, and demon|&s;tration from the Scriptures, who&s;e Infallible Te&s;timony is &s;uffi|cient to warrant and a&s;&s;ure the meaning delivered.</P>
<P>Secondly, I grant, that in the matter of Scripture-Interpreta|tion, the Supream and Magi&s;terial Authority from which there is no appeal, but it ought to be &s;imply &s;tood to, re&s;ideth in the Scriptures them&s;elves, or in the Spirit their Author &s;peaking
<PB N="59" REF="50">therein, &s;eeing their Verdict and Sentence in places &s;peaking to the purpo&s;e more clearly, and &s;uch means as re&s;ide in them, are the alone Rule and Directory of our Interpretations thereof in places more dark and ob&s;cure, as appears from many things a|fore&s;aid. The Authority therefore which our Mini&s;ters have for Interpreting Scripture, is only a Mini&s;terial 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 who&s;e determination they &s;tand or fall, as true Interpretations, or forged wre&s;tings; &s;eeing the Scriptures are the Rule of Faith by which we are to try and judge Mens Doctrines in matters of Faith: having premi&s;ed the&s;e things for clearing our mind, and preventing mi&s;takes,</P>
<P>I A&s;&s;ert, that Men who are not endued with an Infallible gift, and &s;o are not Infallible, but Fallible, may Interpret the Scrip|tures. And I prove it.</P>
<P>For fir&s;t, The&s;e <HI>Levites</HI> that expounded the Scriptures (<HI>Neh.</HI> 8.8.) were not Infallible in their Gift, &s;eeing there is no proof or evidence thereof po&s;&s;ible to be produced, nor had they any other extraordinary thing accompanying them in their Birth, Call, Doctrine or Works; (or el&s;e let it be &s;hewed) 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 Scrip|ture; Or el&s;e their practice thereof &s;hould have been condemn|ed as unlawful, in&s;tead of being commended.</P>
<P>Secondly, A Fallible Teacher may have a far greater and more di&s;tinct knowledge of the meaning of the Scriptures, than many other Men al&s;o Fallible, &s;eeing it is his &s;pecial Office to labour in the Word and Doctrine, and (if he does his Duty) he is much more in &s;earching of the Scriptures than Men of other particular Callings, and hath many more helps and means for it, than the commoner &s;ort of Chri&s;tians and bulk of the People, neither have all Men an equal knowledge in any thing: Therefore a Fallible Teacher may Interpret the Scriptures. The con&s;equence is ea&s;ie, &s;eeing whatever mea&s;ure of Scripture|meaning &s;uch a Man di&s;cerneth beyond others, he may (I hope) &s;ea&s;onably make it known to them for their In&s;truction and Edi|fication,
<PB N="60" REF="51">May he not? Nay, I do not &s;ee &s;o well how he may not.</P>
<P>Thirdly, if all that Interpret the Scriptures mu&s;t nece&s;&s;arily upon that accompt be Infallible, then no man now adays may pre|&s;ume to Interpret them, &s;eeing there is no man now adays Infal|lible, as is before often &s;hewed: But that is mo&s;t fal&s;e, &s;eeing it is now proved, that Scripture-Interpretation is an Ordinance of Divine In&s;titution reaching to the end of the world, and &s;o it binds and obliges all (according to their ability and the Churches exi|gency) who&s;e 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 fal|lible; Nor heard I ever of a Divine In&s;titution reaching to the end of the world, and yet obliging no body; and if this oblige any man, it cannot mi&s;s the Teachers.</P>
<P>La&s;tly, &s;eeing the <HI>Quakers</HI> affirm that Scripture-Interpreting doth nece&s;&s;arily require an Infallible Gift, we mu&s;t require them to exhibit the grounds of their affirmation; or el&s;e it will be readily thought that they affirm &s;o without any ground; and &s;o it mu&s;t be accompted a meer blind conjecture, and a groundle&s;s Fable. All the ground that ever I learned from them is this, <HI>viz.</HI> Becau&s;e a man of a fallible Gift cannot a&s;&s;ure people of the meaning.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> It is true, there can no a&s;&s;urance thereof ari&s;e unto them from &s;uch a mans Infallibity which he hath not, and as little from a <HI>Quaker</HI> pretending to it, but can give no evidence to make it appear. But what then? can he not give them a&s;&s;urance thereof from the clear Infallible Scriptures, by who&s;e Te&s;timony the mean|ing is to be Demon&s;trated? we are not to Build our Faith upon the mans Gift, but upon the Scriptures, that can give as great a&s;&s;u|rance as any Infallible Gift, &s;eeing they are the Infallible Word of God. To the Law and to the Te&s;timony; if mens Doctrines agree not with the&s;e, receive them not.</P>
<P>La&s;tly, I a&s;&s;ert (again&s;t the <HI>Quakers,</HI> who with peremptory Certifications &s;eem 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 &s;o it is no addition (as the Adver&s;aries here alledge) nor is it our meaning, but the mean|ing of the Scriptures; and &s;o we may &s;till pretend Scripture-Rule, for all that. I prove it.</P>
<PB N="61" REF="51">
<P>Fir&s;t, the meaning of the Scriptures repre&s;ented and Taught by them&s;elves is, certainly, Scripture-Rule; for &s;eeing the Scrip|tures 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 repre&s;ented and Taught by them&s;elves, 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.</P>
<P>Secondly, Scripture-Doctrine Taught by the Scriptures is Scripture-Rule, or el&s;e nothing can be &s;uch, 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, &s;eeing the meaning of the Scripture is, &s;urely, Scrip|ture-Doctrine, nor can the&s;e be diver&s;e, or el&s;e the Scriptures &s;hould 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, manife&s;tly, Scripture-Rule.</P>
<P>La&s;tly, if when the Scriptures are explained by them&s;elves the meaning held forth by them be not Scripture-Rule, then the Scrip|ture-Rule is &s;ome other thing really di&s;tinct from the meaning of the Scriptures held forth thereby: But that is impo&s;&s;ible to be, or to be explained; for &s;o the Scripture-Rule &s;hould by it &s;elf mean nothing, &s;eeing another meaning then that which is held forth by the Scriptures it can never have: <HI>Ergo,</HI> when the Scriptures are explained by them&s;elves, the meaning held forth is, Inevitably, Scripture-Rule.</P>
<P>But &s;ay the <HI>Quakers</HI> in this Query, Interpreting of the Scrip|tures is an adding to them, again&s;t which the Plagues are De|nounced, <HI>Rev.</HI> 22. Chap.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> This Objection proves (if it prove any thing) that all Scripture Expounding by men fallible, or not &s;o, is utterly un|lawful, as an adding to the Scripture-Rule. But I deny that In|terpreting of the Scriptures is an adding to the Scripture-Rule (let the <HI>Quakers</HI> Try if they can prove it; for their big A&s;&s;ertion is not current for Proof) for I have &s;hewed before that Scripture-Expounding is nece&s;&s;ary in the Church, and of Divine In&s;titution
<PB N="62" REF="52">to the Worlds end, &s;uch as adding to the Scripture Rule is not; and &s;o they cannot be the &s;ame thing. To add to the Scriptures is to impo&s;e &s;ome fal&s;e meaning upon them di&s;agreeing therewith, or to &s;et up any other Doctrine as of equal Authority with them (I wi&s;h the <HI>Quakers</HI> would notice this, who continually impo&s;e fal&s;e meanings on the Scriptures, and have &s;et up a new Doctrine con|trary to the Scriptures, not only as of equal Authority with the &s;ame, but above them. <HI>O impudent wickedne&s;s!</HI> But by the Scriptures to unfold, clear, and Demon&s;trate their own Genuine and true meaning hath not a &s;hadow into it of adding to the Scrip|ture-Rule, &s;eeing (as is proved) &s;o the meaning delivered is the Scriptures own true meaning, which therefore cannot be any addi|tion thereunto. But blind Arguments are all that can be expected from Brain-&s;ick Doctors, whom we find frequently &s;peaking like men indeed in a mixture.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="2" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. II. <HI>Concerning Scripture-Con&s;equence, or Con&s;equential Scripture.</HI></HEAD>
<P>I come now to the &s;econd Imperious condition which the <HI>Qua|kers,</HI> like Dictators, demand of us, and that is, that we do not draw Con&s;equences from the Scriptures for E&s;tabli&s;hing our Doctrine; otherwi&s;e that we never pretend Scripture-Rule more. This, I confe&s;s, is a very unju&s;t Cowardi&s;e, That they &s;hould require us to throw down our Arms, and then they will fight us. I &s;ee the <HI>Quakers</HI> would fight a Dead man even out of Breath. They'l go to Wars in time of Peace. I like the Je&s;t well. If the <HI>Quakers</HI> be &s;o da&s;tardly, why did they not &s;end their Queries to &s;ome Brute, where they &s;hould have found a Party &s;utable to their mind, which would not have troubled them with Con&s;equences. But as for us, we mu&s;t crave their Pardon, &s;eeing by our Creation and E&s;&s;ence we are Rational, which chiefly con&s;i&s;ts in a Di&s;cur&s;ive or Illa|tive Faculty fitted for di&s;cerning of Con&s;equences, of purpo&s;e, that being furni&s;ht with the principles of Nature, or Grace, we might be capable to perceive the particular Conclu&s;ions which they implicitly, really and truly contain.</P>
<P>I &s;hall not need to be long in Di&s;cu&s;&s;ing this Que&s;tion concern|ing Scripture-Con&s;equence, nor &s;hall I need many words for
<PB N="63" REF="52">clearing the &s;tate of the Que&s;tion; but, in one word, it is, Whe|ther or not that which by good Con&s;equence is deduced and drawn from the Scriptures, be Scripture-Rule? We &s;ee by the Certifica|tion of the <HI>Quakers</HI> demand, that they deny and take the Nega|tive of the Que&s;tion. But,</P>
<P>I A&s;&s;ert that what&s;oever by good Con&s;equence follows or is de|duced from the Scriptures is Infallible Scripture-Rule. And I prove it.</P>
<P>For fir&s;t, Scripture-Doctrine is Scripture-Rule, or el&s;e nothing can be &s;uch. Now whatever by good Con&s;equence follows, or is deduced from the Scriptures mu&s;t be Scripture-Doctrine; other|wi&s;e a good Con&s;equence might infer from the Scriptures that which is not Scripture-Doctrine, or that which they Teach not; or a Con&s;equence inferring from the Scriptures that which they Teach not, and is not their Doctrine, &s;hould be a good Con&s;e|quence, which involves a direct Contradiction, &s;eeing &s;o a Con|&s;equence manife&s;tly evil &s;hould be a good Con&s;equence. Hence then, whatever by good Con&s;equence follows, or is deduced from the Scriptures is evidently Scripture-Rule.</P>
<P>Secondly, Chri&s;t plainly affirms (<HI>Luk.</HI> 20.37.) that that Scripture principle, <HI>I am the God of</HI> Abraham, <HI>the God of</HI> I&s;aac, <HI>and the God of</HI> Jacob, does &s;hew and Teach the Re&s;urrection of the Dead.</P>
<P>Now it does not expre&s;ly and formally Teach that, it &s;ays not expre&s;ly that the Dead &s;hall Ri&s;e again; but only it follows there|from by good Con&s;equence, and no otherways, becau&s;e God, who is the God of the Living, being their God, their Du&s;t (which is their one half, albeit the meaner half) behooved to be Rai&s;ed and Quickened again, as being a part of their E&s;&s;ences. Here then Chri&s;t Teaches that that which by good Con&s;equence may be In|ferred from Scripture-principles, the &s;ame the Scripture &s;hews and Teaches, and &s;o it is Scripture-Doctrine; and &s;o it is, uncontro|lably, Scripture-Rule.</P>
<P>Thirdly, if that which by good Con&s;equence is inferred from the Scriptures be not Scripture-Rule, then there was no Scripture-Rule in all the Old Te&s;tament Ordaining <HI>David,</HI> or <HI>Solomon,</HI> &amp;c. to be Circumci&s;ed; and &s;o the Circumci&s;ing of them behooved to be a meer Will-wor&s;hip wanting Scripture-Warrant, contrary to <HI>Joh.</HI> 7.22, 23. My Propo&s;ition which I propounded I ea&s;ily
<PB N="64" REF="53">prove, for in no where of all the Old Te&s;tament it is in Formal and Expre&s;s Terms &s;aid [<HI>David</HI> &s;hall be, or ought to be Cir|cumci&s;ed] but only by &s;ure Con&s;equence it follows from the univer&s;al Command for Circumci&s;ing every Male (<HI>Gen.</HI> 17.) That therefore <HI>David</HI> &s;hall be, or ought to be Circumci&s;ed; nor is it otherwi&s;e to be found in all the Old Te&s;tament.</P>
<P>The <HI>Quakers</HI> then mu&s;t admit that particular Conclu&s;ion by good Con&s;equence following from the univer&s;al Command to be Scripture-Rule (and &s;o that which by good Con&s;equence follows from Scripture-principles to be Scripture-Rule) or el&s;e they mu&s;t deny that there was any Scripture-Rule in all the Old Te&s;tament Ordaining <HI>David</HI> to be Circumci&s;ed; for its impo&s;&s;ible there &s;hould be any Scripture-Rule Ordaining <HI>David</HI> to be Circum|ci&s;ed, except it be a Scripture-Rule that <HI>David</HI> ought to be Circum|ci&s;ed; or el&s;e he was both Ordained to be, and yet ought not to be Circumci&s;ed at once.</P>
<P>Fourthly, if that which by good Con&s;equence is inferred from the Scriptures be not Scripture-Rule, then there is no Scripture-Rule in all the Old Te&s;tament Te&s;tifying and Witne&s;&s;ing that, <HI>Je&s;us the Son of</HI> Mary <HI>is the Saviour of the world,</HI> which is mo&s;t fal&s;e, and contrary to the Scriptures, <HI>Joh.</HI> 5.39, 46. <HI>Act.</HI> 10.43. and 18.28. and 28.23. My Propo&s;ition which I laid down I prove, becau&s;e it is no where of all the Old Te&s;tament in expre&s;s Terms &s;aid that <HI>Je&s;us the Son of</HI> Mary <HI>is the Saviour of the world;</HI> But by Infallible Con&s;equence it follows, and may be inferred from many of the Old Te&s;tament Scripture-principles; nor is it otherwi&s;e but by good Con&s;equence therein to be found. It mu&s;t therefore be granted, that that particular Conclu&s;ion, which by good Con&s;equence follows from the&s;e Old Te&s;tament Scripture|principles, and is no otherwi&s;e to be found therein, is Scripture-Rule, which is that we plead for; or el&s;e they mu&s;t deny that there is any Scripture-Rule in all the Old Te&s;tament, Te&s;tifying and Witne&s;&s;ing that <HI>Je&s;us the Son of</HI> Mary <HI>is the Saviour of the world;</HI> for there cannot be Scripture-Rule Witne&s;&s;ing and &s;hewing that <HI>Je&s;us the Son of</HI> Mary <HI>is the Saviour,</HI> except it be a Scripture-Rule that <HI>Je&s;us the Son of</HI> Mary <HI>is the Saviour;</HI> otherwi&s;e the Scriptures Te&s;tifying that, &s;hall be Scripture-Rule (as is &s;uppo|&s;ed) and yet the very &s;ub&s;tantial Doctrine of their Te&s;timony &s;hall not be Scripture-Rule, which is repugnant.</P>
<PB N="65" REF="53">
<P>La&s;tly, If that which by good con&s;equence follows from Scripture-Principles be not Scripture-Rule, then we are no where in all the Scriptures forbidden to wor&s;hip a Dog, or Cat, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> which is a mo&s;t ab&s;urd fal&s;hood, &s;eeing then the wor&s;hip|ping of the&s;e things could be no tran&s;gre&s;&s;ion of the Law of God; for the whole Law of God is delivered to us in the Scrip|tures; otherwi&s;e the Scriptures would be defective, and not ma|nife&s;t our whole Duty in order to Salvation, which is contrary to <HI>Deut.</HI> 5.32. <HI>I&s;ai.</HI> 8.20. <HI>Luc.</HI> 16.28, 29. 2 <HI>Tim.</HI> 3.15. <HI>Rev.</HI> 22.18. My propo&s;ition laid down, I evidently prove: for it is not in formal and expre&s;s Terms &s;aid in all the Scriptures, Thou &s;halt not wor&s;hip a Dog, or Cat, albeit it is expre&s;ly &s;aid, That we &s;hall have no other Gods but the true God, and &s;hall Wor&s;hip and Serve him only, (<HI>Exod.</HI> 20.3. <HI>Matth.</HI> 4.10.) from whence by evident con&s;equence it follows, (but not without a con&s;equence in all the Scriptures) that we may not Wor&s;hip a Dog, or Cat. Will the <HI>Quakers</HI> then deny the Wor|&s;hipping of the&s;e Creatures to be forbidden in the Scriptures, and &s;o to be unlawful, becau&s;e without a Con&s;equence we cannot get any Scripture forbidding it, and whereby to prove it unlaw|ful? If they &s;tand to their Principles here, of nece&s;&s;ity they mu&s;t do it, as the Argument irre&s;i&s;tibly infers upon them.</P>
<P>The <HI>Quakers</HI> may hence &s;ee how ju&s;tly we may as yet pretend Scripture-Rule, notwith&s;tanding our con&s;equences, &s;eeing we have unan&s;werably proved, that that which by good con&s;equence is inferred from Scripture-Principles is Scripture-Rule; and we have convinced their wild Principles in this point to da&s;h and run upon contradictions, to di&s;agree from the Doctrine and Practice of Chri&s;t, to make way for denying Je&s;us the Son of <HI>Mary</HI> to be the Saviour of the World, (for the Scriptures of the Old Te&s;tament do by clear con&s;equence, though not without a con|&s;equence, mightily witne&s;s and a&s;&s;ure that great Article of Faith) and to lead the way to Will-Wor&s;hip in the Church, yea, for the gro&s;&s;e&s;t of Idolatry. We &s;ee then how little rea&s;on we have to grant the&s;e impious demands of the <HI>Quakers.</HI></P>
<P>But the <HI>Quakers</HI> here object, That to draw con&s;equences from the Scriptures, is to add to the Scripture-Rule, again&s;t which all the plagues in the book of God are denounced.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> By this Objection, the <HI>Quakers</HI> &s;hew how unlawful they
<PB N="66" REF="54">think Scripture-Con&s;equences to be. But I have abundantly &s;hew|ed, that that which by good con&s;equence is inferred from Scripture-Principles, is no addition to the Scripture-Rule, but is it &s;elf very Scripture-Rule; and how &s;hould it be an adding to Scripture-Rule to draw forth more expre&s;ly and di&s;tinctly, by con&s;equence, the &s;ame Doctrine which it really and truly teaches, though more Implicitly? Is it an adding to the Scripture to &s;hew more expre&s;ly it's own Doctrine? Then the Scriptures own Doctrine &s;hould be an addition to the Scripture-Rule: they have a great dexterity in &s;peaking of Contradictions.</P>
<P>Secondly, It u&s;es to be objected, That if that which by good con&s;equence is inferred from Scripture-Principles be Scripture-Rule, and &s;o a Rule of Divine Faith, then our Divine Faith whereby we believe that Scripture-Rule &s;o inferred, &s;hall &s;tand upon rea&s;on, (which is mo&s;t ab&s;urd) &s;eeing the inferring of a con&s;equence is an act of rea&s;on.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> I deny the Sequel, or con&s;equence of the <HI>Major</HI> pro|po&s;ition; becau&s;e when a conclu&s;ion is by good con&s;equence in|ferred from Scripture-Principles, Rea&s;on is not the Argument or Motive wherefrom the conclu&s;ion follows and is inferred, and moves and con&s;trains us to a&s;&s;ent thereunto, &s;eeing the Conclu&s;ion is not inferred from the natural Principles or Premi&s;es of Rea&s;on, but from Supernatural Scripture-Principles, as is mo&s;t manife&s;t.</P>
<P>Rea&s;on therefore is only requi&s;ite here as a nece&s;&s;ary In&s;tru|ment for perceiving and di&s;cerning the con&s;equence, or connexion of the Antecedent with the Con&s;equent, which way it is indeed requi&s;ite; yea, &s;o Rea&s;on is requi&s;ite for perceiving every word of God, and without it we &s;hould not be capable of the Principles of Religion more than Brutes are. So al&s;o our Ears are a ne|ce&s;&s;ary In&s;trument for hearing the Word Preached, or Read, and our Eyes for Reading of it.</P>
<P>Thirdly, It u&s;es to be objected, That the Go&s;pel is above Rea&s;on.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> The Go&s;pel is above Rea&s;on, in regard of the matter and my&s;teries which it teaches, which Rea&s;on cannot reach or under&s;tand; but not in re&s;pect of the manner how it teaches them, which is &s;uited and accommodated to human capacity; Or el&s;e no Man, upon the accompt that he is endued with Rea&s;on, &s;hould be one whit more capable, &s;o much as Grammatically and
<PB N="67" REF="54">Hi&s;torically to under&s;tand any one &s;aying of the Go&s;pel, than his Sheep and Oxen, which is beyond all mea&s;ure ab&s;urd: for then Brutes &s;hould be no le&s;s capable of the Go&s;pel Doctrine than Men, and Men no more than Brutes.</P>
<P>La&s;tly, It is objected, That the Learned only are able to perceive Con&s;equences.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;w.</HI> That is mo&s;t fal&s;e, &s;eeing not only the Learned, but al&s;o the unlearned have a rational di&s;cur&s;ive faculty, and &s;ome mea&s;ure of the u&s;e thereof, (except they be Di&s;tracted, or in meer Infancy;) and &s;o, being furni&s;ht with the Principles, are capable to di&s;cern their evident Con&s;equences, both in things Natural and Supernatural; albeit the Learned are indeed able more promptly to perceive Con&s;equences, and to perceive more Con&s;equences lying far remote from the Principles, and therefore they are ordinarily more knowing than the unlearned.</P>
<P>Now by the <HI>Quakers</HI> grudging of Grammar, Logick, and Philo&s;ophy unto Mini&s;ters of the Go&s;pel, and by their oppo&s;ition to the Scripture-Rule and Scripture-Con&s;equence, a Man may (if he be curious) learn the De&s;cription of a Mini&s;ter of the <HI>Quakers</HI> choice, <HI>viz.</HI> He mu&s;t neither have Grammar, Logick, nor Philo&s;ophy, he mu&s;t reject the Rule (at lea&s;t the Supremacy of the Rule) of Scripture, both Expre&s;s, and by good Con&s;e|quence. That is to &s;ay, He mu&s;t not know how to &s;peak Sence, nor how to Define, Divide, Judge, or Argument; he mu&s;t abandon the Light of Nature, and throw by the Word of God, at mo&s;t be|ing but a Secondary-Rule, and a Sub&s;ervant to their Queen Regent, the Light within. That the <HI>Quakers</HI> may not think I wrong them, this De&s;cription is their Principles, clearly ex|plained by me in the foregoing Queries. And will not &s;uch a Man be a rare Mini&s;ter? a worthy Me&s;&s;enger? an Interpreter among a Thou&s;and? he is very like to have more feet than hands, methinks.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="3" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. III. <HI>Concerning Bapti&s;m with Water.</HI></HEAD>
<P>Being now arrived at the main Subject of the pre&s;ent Query, which is Bapti&s;m, before I handle the Que&s;tion concerning In|fant-Bapti&s;m;
<PB N="68" REF="55">I mu&s;t here inquire, whether Bapti&s;m with Wa|ter be an Ordinance of Divine In&s;titution under the New Te&s;ta|ment, and to continue to the end of the World; for albeit the the <HI>Quakers</HI> have here omitted it, yet it is the main and mo&s;t proper debate concerning Bapti&s;m betwixt us and them, wherein the <HI>Quakers</HI> take the Negative, yea, and <HI>George Keith</HI> charges Bapti&s;m with Water upon us, as a <HI>Popi&s;h</HI> Doctrine, for&s;ooth, in his <HI>Quakeri&s;m no Popery,</HI> page 100.</P>
<P>Wherever Bapti&s;m is mentioned in the New-Te&s;tament, and the word Water is not expre&s;ly added, the <HI>Quakers</HI> do always deny Bapti&s;m with Water to be there meant, &s;ometimes alledging it to be meant of the Bapti&s;m of Doctrine; (which is, when the Word is Preached to People) &s;ometimes of the work of Re|generation, and &s;ometimes of enduing with the extraordinary Gifts of the Spirit; all which are in the Scriptures Metaphorically and Improperly &s;ometimes called Bapti&s;m, <HI>Matth.</HI> 21.25. <HI>Joh.</HI> 1.33. <HI>Act.</HI> 1.5. And this they do, that (if &s;ucce&s;s would an&s;wer) they may not be forced to acknowledge Bapti&s;m with Water to be an Ordinance of Divine In&s;titution under the New Te&s;tament. We &s;hall therefore, as we proceed, clear every Text that we make u&s;e of (where need is) from the fal&s;e Glo&s;&s;es of the Adver&s;aries. This premi&s;ed,</P>
<P>I A&s;&s;ert, (again&s;t the <HI>Quakers</HI>) that Bapti&s;m with Water is an Ordinance of Divine In&s;titution under the New Te&s;tament, and an Ordinance which (it &s;hall be evident) is appointed to continue to the end of the World. I prove it;</P>
<P>Fir&s;t, The Bapti&s;m of <HI>John</HI> was an Ordinance of Divine Ap|pointment belonging to the New Te&s;tament: but that was with Water, <HI>Matth.</HI> 3.11. <HI>Mark</HI> 1.8. Therefore Bapti&s;m with Water is an Ordinance of Divine In&s;titution belonging to the New Te&s;tament. The Scriptures cited prove the <HI>Minor;</HI> I prove the <HI>Major:</HI> For that the Bapti&s;m of <HI>John</HI> was of Divine Ap|pointment, is clear from <HI>Matth.</HI> 21.25. <HI>Luk.</HI> 7.30. <HI>Joh.</HI> 1.33. And that it belonged to the New Te&s;tament appears, &s;eeing <HI>John</HI> was the very fir&s;t Mini&s;ter of the New Te&s;tament way of Di&s;pen&s;ation, (for which, &s;ee <HI>Matth.</HI> 11.12, 13. <HI>Luk.</HI> 16.16.) Together with the breaking forth whereof (and never till then) God appointed this Ordinance of Bapti&s;m with Water to be di&s;pen&s;ed by <HI>John.</HI> Secondly, The Bapti&s;m with Water
<PB N="69" REF="55">di&s;pen&s;ed by the Di&s;ciples or Apo&s;tles of Chri&s;t, was an Ordi|nance of Divine Appointment under the New Te&s;tament, as we &s;hall pre&s;ently &s;ee: But the Bapti&s;m of <HI>John</HI> was &s;ub&s;tantially one and the &s;ame therewith: for their Author, or Efficient cau&s;e was the &s;ame, (by comparing <HI>Luk.</HI> 7.30. <HI>Joh.</HI> 1.33. with <HI>Matth.</HI> 28.19. <HI>Joh.</HI> 4.1, 2. <HI>Act.</HI> 10.48.) Their External Matter, or outward Element was the &s;ame, (by comparing <HI>Matth.</HI> 3.11. with <HI>Act.</HI> 10.47.) Their Internal Matter, or the thing &s;ignified, and their ends (and &s;o al&s;o their Internal form, which re&s;ults from their In&s;titution and Ends) were the &s;ame, (by comparing <HI>Mark</HI> 1.4. <HI>Luk.</HI> 3.3. with <HI>Act.</HI> 2.38. and 22.16.) So then they being one and the &s;ame as to all their cau&s;es, are, undeniably, the &s;ame Bapti&s;m Sub&s;tantially; and I defie any Man to &s;hew any &s;ub&s;tantial point wherein they differ; and &s;o the one being an Ordinance of the New Te&s;tament, &s;o mu&s;t the other.</P>
<P>But, &s;ay the <HI>Quakers,</HI> (with <HI>Papi&s;ts</HI>) The Bapti&s;m of <HI>John</HI> was &s;ub&s;tantially different from Chri&s;ts Bapti&s;m, &s;eeing <HI>John</HI> Baptized only with Water, but Chri&s;t Baptized with the Holy Gho&s;t and with Fire.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> This objection cannot prove the Bapti&s;m of <HI>John</HI> to be &s;ub&s;tantially different from the Bapti&s;m di&s;pen&s;ed by Chri&s;ts Apo&s;tles at his Order, &s;eeing theirs &s;o di&s;pen&s;ed was no le&s;s with Water than his, and they could no more Baptize with the Holy Gho&s;t and with Fire, than he. Therefore <HI>John</HI> does not there (<HI>viz. Luke</HI> 3.16.) di&s;tingui&s;h his Bapti&s;m from Chri&s;ts Exter|nal Bapti&s;m Admini&s;tred by his Apo&s;tles; but he di&s;tingui&s;hes his own Work and Office, and of all Mini&s;ters, in Bapti&s;m from the Work and Office of Chri&s;t, <HI>viz.</HI> That he and other Mini&s;ters do Admini&s;ter the Water and External Sign, but that its Chri&s;t that be&s;tows the inward Grace and thing &s;ignified.</P>
<P>Secondly, It is objected here, That the&s;e who were Baptized with <HI>Johns</HI> Bapti&s;m, were again Baptized with Chri&s;ts by <HI>Paul, Act.</HI> 19.3, 4, 5. <HI>Ergo, Johns</HI> Bapti&s;m did &s;ub&s;tantially differ from Chri&s;ts; or el&s;e, the&s;e would not have needed to be Baptized over again with Chri&s;ts.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> The Antecedent is mo&s;t fal&s;e: for that would depre&s;s the dignity of the Bapti&s;m wherewith Chri&s;t was Baptized, (being that of <HI>John</HI>) far below the dignity of that wherewith <HI>Simon
<PB N="70" REF="56">Magus</HI> was Baptized; and would infer, that Chri&s;t entertained a more ab&s;olute and compleat Communion with the Church of the Old Te&s;tament, (all who&s;e ordinary Covenant-Seals he par|taked of) than with the Church of the New; and that, though he &s;anctified in his own Per&s;on all the other ordinary Seals of both Te&s;taments, yet he denied that Honour and Priviledge to his own External Bapti&s;m di&s;pen&s;ed under the New Te&s;tament. Nor is the Antecedent any ways proved by that place of the <HI>Acts</HI> cited: for the &s;ence of that Fifth Ver&s;e, (which is wre&s;ted for a ground to this Objection) is not, that the&s;e Men were Baptized over again by <HI>Paul;</HI> but the &s;ence is, that after they had heard that Doctrine from <HI>John,</HI> the &s;um whereof <HI>Paul</HI> repeats in the preceeding Ver&s;e there, they were Baptized by the &s;ame <HI>John</HI> when he Preached it to them, and not by <HI>Paul</HI> now when he Re|peats it.</P>
<P>Secondly, The Apo&s;tles after Chri&s;ts A&s;cention, and the powring forth of the Spirit, did with great diligence and &s;tudious care Baptize the New Te&s;tament Di&s;ciples with Water, and were very forward in promoting that Ordinance among&s;t them: Therefore Bapti&s;m with Water mu&s;t, certainly, be an Ordinance of the New Te&s;tament Divinely In&s;tituted. The Con&s;equence is clear, &s;eeing, if it had not been an Ordinance of Divine In&s;ti|tution belonging to the New Te&s;tament, they would never have been &s;o diligent and forward for promoting the Intere&s;t thereof in the New-Te&s;tament Church among&s;t the Di&s;ciples after Chri&s;ts A&s;cention, and the powring forth of the Spirit; otherwi&s;e they had manife&s;tly betrayed their tru&s;t in &s;uch a &s;tudious and diligent promoting of an Ordinance in the Church, which was not al|lowed of God, and they had no Commi&s;&s;ion for; which cannot be &s;aid they did, and &s;o much the le&s;s, becau&s;e all this pa&s;&s;es on without any reproof from God, or &s;hadow of alteration in them. The Con&s;equence being &s;o clearly proved, I next prove the An|tecedent from the Apo&s;tles con&s;tant and &s;peedy di&s;pen&s;ing of Bap|ti&s;m with Water to the New-Te&s;tament Di&s;ciples, after the fore|&s;aid Events, and that pre&s;ently without delay, after their ap|pearing to be Di&s;ciples, as appears from &s;everal Scripture-Texts of the New Te&s;tament.</P>
<P>Fir&s;t, From <HI>Act.</HI> 8.36, 38. and <HI>Act.</HI> 10.47. in which two Texts, Water is &s;o expre&s;ly mentioned, that I need not prove
<PB N="71" REF="56">it to be Bapti&s;m with Water that is meant, and where they were mo&s;t &s;peedy in di&s;pen&s;ing it at the fir&s;t appearance of the parties Di&s;ciple&s;hip.</P>
<P>A &s;econd Text is, <HI>Act.</HI> 2.41. where the Di&s;ciples were Bap|tized a&s;&s;oon as ever their Di&s;ciple&s;hip appeared. And that this Bapti&s;m here is not meant of any of the&s;e forementioned impro|perly &s;o called Bapti&s;ms, and con&s;equently that it mu&s;t be meant of Bapti&s;m with Water, which only is properly called Bapti&s;m, as we &s;hall afterwards &s;ee, I prove; Becau&s;e the Bapti&s;m here mentioned pre-requires Conver&s;ion and Regeneration (<HI>ver.</HI> 38. and 41.) to the partaking thereof; and &s;o it cannot be meant of the work of Conver&s;ion or Regeneration; other|wi&s;e it &s;hould pre-require it &s;elf before partaking of it &s;elf, that is, it &s;elf without it &s;elf, which is a &s;trong contradiction. Again, It pre-&s;uppo&s;es hearing, yea receiving of the Go&s;pel Doctrine in &s;uch Adult Per&s;ons as the&s;e were, (as may be &s;een <HI>ver.</HI> 41.) which the Bapti&s;m of Doctrine cannot do: for that were it &s;elf pre-&s;uppo&s;ed to it &s;elf, and a contradiction &s;till.</P>
<P>And la&s;tly, the Bapti&s;m here mentioned, is in the Text (<HI>ver.</HI> 38.) plainly di&s;tingui&s;ht from the miraculous Gifts of the Spi|rit. And moreover is enjoyned as a nece&s;&s;ary &s;acred Pledge of the Remi&s;&s;ion of Sins, (<HI>viz.</HI> by nece&s;&s;ity of precept, and when it can be had) &s;uch as never were the&s;e Gifts of the Spirit; and &s;o Bapti&s;m here, mu&s;t be meant of Bapti&s;m with Water, or the word, Baptize, razed out of the Text.</P>
<P>A third Text is, <HI>Act.</HI> 8.12, 13. where the&s;e Di&s;ciples were quickly Baptized after their Di&s;ciple&s;hip appeared. And neither can Bapti&s;m here be meant of the work of Conver&s;ion, or Re|generation, &s;eeing <HI>Simon Magus</HI> participated of it, who yet was no true Convert or Regenerated Per&s;on, as is there clear. Nor can it be meant of the Bapti&s;m of Doctrine; for it is there plainly declared, That they believed the things concerning the Kingdom of God and Chri&s;t (whether &s;avingly, or meerly hi&s;to|rically, really, or in profe&s;&s;ion only, it matters nothing to our pre&s;ent Argument) before they partaked of the Bapti&s;m there mentioned: but they could not believe the&s;e things, before they in &s;ome mea&s;ure partaked of the Go&s;pel Doctrine, which reveals them. Nor la&s;tly, can it be meant of their enduing with the miraculous gifts of the Spirit, &s;eeing it is there expre&s;ly denied,
<PB N="72" REF="57">that any of the&s;e Baptized <HI>Samaritans</HI> were for a time after endued with the&s;e.</P>
<P>A fourth Text is, <HI>Act.</HI> 18.8. where many of the <HI>Corinthians</HI> pre&s;ently, upon their Di&s;ciple&s;hip appearing, were Baptized; and this Text can neither be meant of the Bapti&s;m of Doctrine, nor the work of Conver&s;ion or Regeneration, &s;eeing the Bapti&s;m therein mentioned pre-&s;uppo&s;es in Adult Per&s;ons, &s;uch as the&s;e were (we &s;hall &s;peak afterwards of Infants) the hearing of the Go&s;pel-Doctrine, and believing: But the Bapti&s;m of Doctrine cannot pre-&s;uppo&s;e the fir&s;t of the&s;e; nor yet the work of Con|ver&s;ion, the la&s;t of them; or el&s;e they &s;hould pre-&s;uppo&s;e them&s;elves to partaking of them&s;elves. And to mean it of enduing with the miraculous gifts of the Spirit were mo&s;t of all impertinent, nor were the&s;e be&s;towed upon every Believer, as the Bapti&s;m there mentioned is plainly imported to have been.</P>
<P>A fifth Text is, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 1.13. with 17. Where the Apo&s;tle asks the&s;e <HI>Corinthians,</HI> if they were Baptized in the name of <HI>Paul?</HI> and affirms, that Chri&s;t &s;ent him not to Baptize, (that is, it was not his principal Work; for the Expre&s;&s;ion is comparative) but to preach the Go&s;pel. Now Bapti&s;m here cannot be meant of the Bapti&s;m of Doctrine; for the Apo&s;tle plainly di&s;tingui&s;hes it from that. Nor can it be meant of the work of Conver&s;ion; for then <HI>Paul</HI> denies that it was his main Errand to Convert People, which is fal&s;e and contrary to his very Commi&s;&s;ion, (<HI>Act.</HI> 26.17, 18.) and he &s;hould contradict him&s;elf in this fir&s;t Chapter of the Epi&s;tle, where he thanks God he Baptized &s;o few of them, and in the fourth Chapter of this &s;ame Epi&s;tle, Ver&s;e 15. where he affirms, that through the Go&s;pel he had converted &s;o many of them. Nor can it be meant of enduing with the miraculous gifts of the Spirit: for the Bapti&s;m here mentioned is intimated to have been common to all of them, &s;uch as the&s;e gifts were not.</P>
<P>The la&s;t Text &s;hall be <HI>Act.</HI> 22.16. <HI>And now why tarrie&s;t thou? ari&s;e, and be Baptized,</HI> &s;ays <HI>Ananias</HI> to <HI>Paul.</HI> Now he needed not ari&s;e to be Converted, or to hear the Go&s;pel (which <HI>Ananias</HI> could Preach to him Sitting) nor yet that he might re|ceive the Miraculous Gifts of the Spirit; albeit there was &s;ome nece&s;&s;ity for his ari&s;ing to be Baptized with Water, that he might go where there was Water.</P>
<PB N="73" REF="57">
<P>Seeing then the Circum&s;tances of the&s;e Texts will not permit the&s;e improperly &s;o called Bapti&s;ms to be meant therein, and its certain that &s;ome &s;ort of Bapti&s;m is meant therein (or el&s;e the word, Baptize, mu&s;t be razed out of them) It inevitably fol|lows, that Bapti&s;m with Water mu&s;t be therein meant; or el&s;e no Bapti&s;m at all, which Impudence it &s;elf dare not &s;ay, and &s;o much the le&s;s, &s;eeing the Circum&s;tances of the&s;e Texts do very well agree with the Circum&s;tances of Bapti&s;m in other Texts where the word, Water, is expre&s;ly added. And in the&s;e Texts we &s;ee what care the Apo&s;tles took for the &s;peedy Admini&s;tration of the Bapti&s;m therein mentioned to the Di&s;ciples appearing &s;uch, and to all appearing &s;uch. And the&s;e things evidently prove our Ante|cedent of this &s;econd Argument.</P>
<P>Thirdly, our third principal Argument for proving Bapti&s;m with Water to be an Ordinance of Divine In&s;titution under the New Te&s;tament is taken from <HI>Act.</HI> 2.38. (which Text I have now proved to be meant of Bapti&s;m with Water) where <HI>Peter</HI> Injoyns Bapti&s;m with Water to all the&s;e New Te&s;tament Di&s;ciples, as a nece&s;&s;ary Sacred Symbol or Pledge (for Sacred it mu&s;t be, in regard of its Sacred and Spiritual &s;ignification of a Spiritual Benefit) of the Remi&s;&s;ion of Sins. For his Injoyning them to be Baptized for the Remi&s;&s;ion of Sins doth plainly hold forth &s;ome nece&s;&s;ity thereof, though not by nece&s;&s;ity of Mean, yet by nece&s;&s;i|ty of Precept.</P>
<P>Therefore Bapti&s;m with Water mu&s;t be an Ordinance of the New Te&s;tament Divinely In&s;tituted. For, certainly, Cancelled <HI>Jewi&s;h</HI> Ceremonies (much le&s;s Humane inventions, or any thing not appointed of God) could never thereafter be nece&s;&s;ary for Ju&s;tification, or Remi&s;&s;ion of Sins; though &s;ometimes they might be nece&s;&s;ary for avoiding the Offence, and &s;tumbling of weak brethren, as <HI>Act.</HI> 15.29. and 16.3.</P>
<P>Fourthly, whoever under the New Te&s;tament hath probably received the Spirit of Grace hath a right, in the Churches Court, unto Bapti&s;m with Water, and &s;he is bound to admit them there|unto: Therefore Bapti&s;m with Water is, &s;urely, an Ordinance of the New Te&s;tament Divinely In&s;tituted; or otherwi&s;e the&s;e could never have any Right thereunto, in her Court, nor &s;he be bound to admit them into it, without a Divine appointment making it due unto them; but, on the contrary, they &s;hould be
<PB N="74" REF="58">Bound to ab&s;tain from it, and &s;he to Di&s;charge them therefrom, as unwarrantable Will-wor&s;hip in the Scriptures Condemned, <HI>Colo&s;.</HI> 2.20, 21, 22. The&s;e things clearly prove the Con&s;equence. The Antecedent is proved by <HI>Peter (Act.</HI> 10.47.) where he &s;ays, <HI>Can any man forbid water, that the&s;e &s;hould not be Baptized, which have received the Holy Gho&s;t, as well as we?</HI> where, by the Holy Gho&s;t (as often el&s;e where, <HI>Act.</HI> 1.5. and 8.16, 17. and 19.6.) is meaned the Miraculous Gifts of the Holy Gho&s;t, as is clear from the Context.</P>
<P>So then <HI>Peter</HI> Argues here from the&s;e Gifts of the Spirit be&s;towed on them as a probable Evidence (though not an Infallible one. See <HI>Mat.</HI> 7.22.) of the Spirit of Grace be&s;towed on them, That therefore they had a Right unto Bapti&s;m with Water, and no man could Debar them from it; for that were ab&s;urd, as the Ex|pre&s;&s;ion bears, <HI>Can any man forbid,</HI> &amp;c. So then, according to the Apo&s;tle, a probable Evidence of the Spirit of Grace received doth immediately infer a Right, in the Churches Court (to which his Di&s;cour&s;e is here directed) unto Bapti&s;m Water; and &s;o who|ever hath probably received the Spirit of Grace hath that Right, and the Church is bound to admit them to it, and they are as ab|&s;urd as <HI>Quakers,</HI> that would Debar them from it. The&s;e things plainly prove the Antecedent.</P>
<P>Fifthly, there is one Bapti&s;m mentioned <HI>Ephe&s;.</HI> 4.5. which is, certainly, an Ordinance of Divine In&s;titution, and belongs to the New Te&s;tament, as can never be gotten denyed: But that mu&s;t be Bapti&s;m with Water, and can be no other: for when <HI>Paul</HI> &s;ays, <HI>There is one Bapti&s;m,</HI> either he means of one properly &s;o called, which is Bapti&s;m with Water, &s;eeing the &s;ignification of the Word <HI>[Baptize]</HI> Primarily and properly agrees unto it; or el&s;e he means, there is one Bapti&s;m Improperly and Metaphorically &s;o called: but that cannot be, &s;eeing there is not one, but many of the&s;e &s;orts of Bapti&s;ms, as we have already &s;een, whereof therefore to mean it would be a contradiction to the Text.</P>
<P>Sixthly, Bapti&s;m with Water is nece&s;&s;ary to Salvation under the New Te&s;tament, <HI>viz.</HI> by nece&s;&s;ity of Precept, and &s;o as not the &s;imple privation of it when it cannot be had, but the Con|tempt of it when it may be had is Damnable: Therefore Bapti&s;m with Water mu&s;t be an Ordinance of Divine In&s;titution under the New Te&s;tament. The Con&s;equence is manife&s;t, &s;eeing a material
<PB N="75" REF="58">piece of Divine Wor&s;hip nece&s;&s;ary to Salvation, not appointed of God, is a Will-wor&s;hip nece&s;&s;ary thereunto, which is repug|nant to the Scriptures. I prove the Antecedent. The Bapti&s;m mentioned (<HI>Mark.</HI> 16.16.) is there made a nece&s;&s;ary Antece|dent of Salvation under the New Te&s;tament by the plain Sentence of the Text: But the Bapti&s;m there mentioned is Bapti&s;m with Water: Therefore Bapti&s;m with Water is nece&s;&s;ary to Salvation under the New Te&s;tament. The <HI>Major</HI> needs no more proving. I prove the <HI>Minor,</HI> becau&s;e the Bapti&s;m mentioned in that Text of <HI>Mark</HI> doth in adult per&s;ons (we &s;hall &s;peak afterwards of In|fants) pre-require Faith in Chri&s;t (as the Text &s;hews) without which &s;ome way appearing by external Signs they have not a vi&s;ible Intere&s;t, and cannot be accompted Di&s;ciples by the Church: but the Bapti&s;m of Doctrine does not pre-require that; or el&s;e no man might be admitted to partake of the Go&s;pel-Doctrine, but &s;uch as before-hand probably believe; and &s;o it &s;hould never have been Preached to the Gentile-world. Nor does the work of Conver&s;ion pre-require Faith in Chri&s;t to a mans partaking of it &s;elf; otherwi&s;e it &s;hould pre-require it &s;elf (without which there can be no &s;uch Faith) before partaking of it &s;elf, that is, it &s;elf without it &s;elf, which is repugnant. Nor yet can it be meant of enduing with the extraordinary Gifts of the Spirit, &s;eeing the&s;e were never nece&s;&s;ary to Salvation, as this Bapti&s;m mentioned in the Text is. And, I am &s;ure the <HI>Quakers</HI> will not &s;ay, that Bapti&s;m here is meant of the Bapti&s;m of the Cro&s;s (under which they do not u&s;e to &s;eek &s;helter) or in any other Text that we have named, &s;eeing the Apo&s;tles, and other Mini&s;ters of Chri&s;t, are the immediate Admini&s;trators of the Bapti&s;m mentioned here, and in all of the&s;e; but were not &s;o of the Cro&s;s, they had no Com|mi&s;&s;ion for that. Seeing then there is a Bapti&s;m meant herein <HI>Mark.</HI> 16.16. And it cannot agree with any of the&s;e Impro|perly &s;o called Bapti&s;ms, but only with Bapti&s;m with Water, which is properly &s;o called, it mu&s;t Inevitably, be meant of Bap|ti&s;m with Water wherewith it agrees; or let the <HI>Quakers</HI> prove that it di&s;agrees with that too, and then, I am &s;ure, it &s;hall agree with none at all, and we mu&s;t raze the word <HI>[Baptize]</HI> out of the Text.</P>
<P>Secondly, I prove the Antecedent of this Argument, from the fir&s;t Epi&s;tle of <HI>Peter,</HI> 3.21. where the Apo&s;tle &s;hews Bapti&s;m
<PB N="76" REF="59">with Water to be nece&s;&s;ary to Salvation under the New Te&s;tament, while he &s;ays, <HI>The like Figure whereunto, even Bapti&s;m, doth al&s;o now Save us.</HI> And that Bapti&s;m here is meant of Bapti&s;m with Water, appears by the compari&s;on which he u&s;es, comparing our Saving by Bapti&s;m to <HI>Noahs</HI> Saving by Water, as being, the la&s;t the Type, and the fir&s;t the Anti-type (for the word which we have here turned [like Figure] is in the Original Language [<GAP DESC="foreign">, Anti-type.] Now there mu&s;t be &s;ome near re&s;emblance betwixt a Type and its Anti-type, which is very little, or rather none here, betwixt <HI>Noahs</HI> Temporal Saving by Water and any of the&s;e Improper Bapti&s;ms; but very great betwixt that and our Eternal Saving by Bapti&s;m with Water, which may be under&s;tood by comparing them, which we may not &s;tay to do. Secondly, the explication which he &s;ubjoyns, in place of a Caution, &s;hewing how Bapti&s;m now Saves us, <HI>viz.</HI> that its not by putting away the filth of the Fle&s;h, or by the meer external wa&s;hing of the Body (which Water had a fitne&s;s to do) or by the very work wrought (as <HI>Papi&s;ts</HI> would) but by its object which it &s;ignifies and Seals, <HI>viz.</HI> the Blood of Chri&s;t which cau&s;eth the An&s;wer of a good Con|&s;cience towards God, will not allow it to be meant of any other Bapti&s;m, but Bapti&s;m with Water, which he &s;o carefully explains; nor can any man make Sence of the explication, applying it to any of the&s;e Improper Bapti&s;ms.</P>
<P>La&s;tly, Chri&s;t gives mo&s;t expre&s;s Commi&s;&s;ion to his Apo&s;tles, and other &s;ucceeding Mini&s;ters of the New Te&s;tament (for the Apo&s;tles were not to live to the worlds end, which is the duration of the Commi&s;&s;ion) to Baptize with Water all the Di&s;ciples that &s;hould come unto him under the New Te&s;tament to the end of the world. <HI>Mat.</HI> 28.19, 20. Therefore Bapti&s;m with water mu&s;t, uncontrolably, be an Ordinance of the New Te&s;ta|ment Divinely In&s;tituted, and to continue to the end of the world. The Con&s;equence hereof is beyond the exception of all the world. The Antecedent will al&s;o be clear, if I can but prove, that by Bapti&s;m here is meant Bapti&s;m with Water, which if I do not (good Reader) I Intreat thee believe me not henceforth.</P>
<P>Therefore fir&s;t, the Bapti&s;m here mentioned in this Text of <HI>Matthew</HI> pre-requires Di&s;ciple&s;hip in the party to be Baptized (for the Words in the Original Language are, <HI>Go make Di&s;ciples all Nations, Baptizing them, &amp;c.</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">). But the Bapti&s;m
<PB N="77" REF="59">of Doctrine does not pre-require that; or el&s;e a man might not Preach the Go&s;pel to any that is not beforehand a Di&s;ciple; and &s;o it &s;hould never have been Preached to the Gentile, or Heathen world. Nor does Conver&s;ion pre-require Di&s;ciple&s;hip; or el&s;e no man might indeavour the Conver&s;ion of an <HI>Heathen,</HI> or <HI>Pagan,</HI> or of any man who is not before-hand a Di&s;ciple. Nor can the Mi|raculous Gifts of the Spirit be here under&s;tood by Bapti&s;m, &s;eeing the Bapti&s;m here mentioned is to continue to the end of the world, which the&s;e Gifts were not, as no man, even a <HI>Quaker,</HI> will deny. Therefore, &s;eeing none of the&s;e Improper Bapti&s;ms are here meant, and &s;ome Bapti&s;m is meant, it mu&s;t be meant of Bap|ti&s;m with water, &s;eeing the Text cannot agree with any other.</P>
<P>Secondly, the Bapti&s;m mentioned here in <HI>Matthew,</HI> is the &s;ame with that mentioned in <HI>Mark (Mark.</HI> 16.16.) &s;eeing <HI>Matthew</HI> here, and <HI>Mark</HI> there are manife&s;tly giving a Narration of the &s;elf-&s;ame thing, and Commi&s;&s;ion, as needs no proof: But that Bapti&s;m mentioned in <HI>Mark</HI> is Bapti&s;m with Water, as is before proved: Therefore &s;o al&s;o is this mentioned here in <HI>Mat|thew,</HI> &s;eeing they are the very &s;ame, as &s;aid is.</P>
<P>Thirdly, the whole Tenor and Circum&s;tances of the Commi&s;&s;i|on for Bapti&s;m in this Text of <HI>Matthew</HI> do agree with the Bap|ti&s;m with Water thereafter di&s;pen&s;ed by the Apo&s;tles, and other Mini&s;ters in their times, at their Order, and can agree with no other: Therefore the &s;ame mu&s;t be here meant, and no other. The Con&s;equence is &s;o ea&s;ie that, except we re&s;olve utterly to abandon and renounce our Rea&s;on, and turn ab&s;olute Brutes, we mu&s;t un|der&s;tand every Saying of that wherewith it agrees, and not of that wherewith it di&s;agrees. I prove the Antecedent. For this Com|mi&s;&s;ion in <HI>Matthew</HI> for Bapti&s;m pre-requires the Di&s;ciple&s;hip of the Party [<HI>Go make Di&s;ciples, Baptizing,</HI> &amp;c.] or it requires that they fir&s;t be made Di&s;ciples before they be Baptized, or none to be Baptized but Di&s;ciples, as is mo&s;t clear. 2dly. It requires them to Baptize all the Di&s;ciples of what&s;oever Nation (if they appear to be &s;uch <HI>viz.</HI>) as the Connexion of this Bapti&s;m with the Condition required, whereupon it is to be di&s;pen&s;ed, declares; and the Relative word <HI>[Them]</HI> not being re&s;tricted with any limitating Circum&s;tance, does &s;till repeat its whole Antecedent, and is of the &s;ame full extent therewith. 3dly. It requires them without delay, with the fir&s;t convenience after the appearing of
<PB N="78" REF="60">their Di&s;ciple&s;hip to Baptize them, <HI>[Go make them Di&s;ciples, Baptizing]</HI> as if it &s;hould in&s;tantly be done, there being no more now to be waited for, after di&s;covery of the condition; and by this all needle&s;s delays are cut off. And la&s;tly, It requires the Bapti&s;m therein mentioned, to be di&s;pen&s;ed in the Name of the Lord, as is plainly expre&s;t in the Text. The&s;e things expre&s;s the tenor and circum&s;tances of this Commi&s;&s;ion, &s;uch as are any ways Intrin&s;ecal. Now all the&s;e things do plainly agree unto the Bapti&s;m with Water, thereafter di&s;pen&s;ed by the fore&s;aid Per&s;ons, and (as is already proved) cannot agree with any other. That they agree unto that, I prove; for the Bapti&s;m with Water di&s;pen&s;ed by them, pre-required Di&s;ciple&s;hip, or it was di&s;pen&s;ed to none but Di&s;ciples. Secondly, It was di&s;pen&s;ed to all that became Di&s;ciples, (and appeared &s;uch to the Church) of whatever Nation. Thirdly, It was without delay di&s;pen&s;ed to them, upon the appearing of their Di&s;ciple&s;hip. Fourthly, It was di&s;pen&s;ed to them in the Name of the Lord. All which ap|pears from our &s;econd, third, and fourth Arguments before, and the many Scriptures cited therein. See <HI>Act.</HI> 2.41. and 8.12, 13, 36, 37. and 10.47. and 18.8. and 22.16. and 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 1.13.</P>
<P>La&s;tly, All the Bapti&s;ms, except Bapti&s;m with Water, that can be alledged or pretended to be meant in this Text of <HI>Mat|thew,</HI> (as the Bapti&s;m of Doctrine, of Conver&s;ion, of the miraculous Gifts of the Spirit, and let the Bapti&s;m of the Cro&s;s be added too) are only Improperly and Metaphorically &s;o called, as needs little demon&s;tration, (I think) &s;eeing pouring, dipping, &s;prinkling, and wa&s;hing (which the word, Baptize, &s;ignifies in the Original Language, being <GAP DESC="foreign">) cannot be proper to any of the&s;e, and to that any of them agreeth in a proper &s;ence, as any Man, without pre&s;erves, may &s;ee. Having premi&s;ed this ground, I again prove, that the Bapti&s;m mentioned in this Text of <HI>Matthew,</HI> and in all the Texts that I have named, (which here I adverti&s;e, that this evident Argument may be cumula|tively applied to every one of them) is Bapti&s;m with Water; Becau&s;e we may not throw about the words of any Text of Scrip|ture from a proper to an improper meaning, except &s;ome ne|ce&s;&s;ity, either of the Analogy of Faith in general, (which is the con&s;tant and perpetual &s;entence of many per&s;picuous and bright
<PB N="79" REF="60">&s;hining Scriptures concerning things e&s;&s;ential to Salvation;) or el&s;e of the particular &s;cope and circum&s;tances of the Context it &s;elf, con&s;train us &s;o to do; otherwi&s;e we may, without any ne|ce&s;&s;ity con&s;training us, at our alone will and meer plea&s;ure, with|out any other ground imaginable moving us, throw about from a proper to an improper meaning, the mo&s;t properly meant &s;ay|ing in all the whole Scriptures, and reject the proper &s;ence and meaning of every Text, and make them every where at our meer plea&s;ure, to &s;peak improperly: but that is utterly ab&s;urd, and would enervat and turn to nothing the very body of the Scrip|tures, as needs no Demon&s;tration, I am &s;ure: but there is no &s;uch nece&s;&s;ity in this or any Text we have Argued from, to throw about the word, Bapti&s;m, from being meant properly of Bapti&s;m with Water, to be meant of any of the fore-mentioned improperly &s;o called Bapti&s;ms; Or el&s;e, we charge the <HI>Quakers</HI> to &s;hew and make good that nece&s;&s;ity, (if they can) which we defie them and a whole Legion of their In&s;pirers ever to do. Therefore, by this irrefragable Argument from the Analogy of Faith, Bap|ti&s;m with Water (which alone is properly &s;o called) is both meant here in <HI>Matthew,</HI> and in all the Texts that we have named. <HI>Analogum per &s;e po&s;itum &s;tat pro principali Analogato.</HI></P>
<P>Having &s;o demon&s;trated, that Bapti&s;m with Water is meant in that Text of <HI>Matthew;</HI> hence it is manife&s;t, that Bapti&s;m with Water is an Ordinance which God hath appointed to be continued to the end of the World; for the promi&s;e there &s;ub|joyned of Chri&s;ts pre&s;ence with his Mini&s;ters there Commi&s;&s;ion|ated alway even unto the end of the World, for their encourage|ment in the Execution of that their Commi&s;&s;ion, doth mo&s;t plainly &s;hew their Commi&s;&s;ion to be of that continuance. Secondly, I have &s;hewed, that Bapti&s;m with Water was once in the New Te&s;tament Church nece&s;&s;ary unto Salvation, (as was explained) and due in the Churches Court, to all who probably had receiv|ed the Spirit of Grace. Let the <HI>Quakers</HI> &s;hew us, (if they can) when it became unnece&s;&s;ary, and when, or where that Bond and Tie was taken off the New Te&s;tament Church. Thirdly, &s;eeing by all our preceeding Arguments, it is evident that Bapti&s;m with Water was once of Divine In&s;titution under the New Te&s;tament, the <HI>Quakers</HI> mu&s;t either yield the continuance thereof to be to the end of the World; or el&s;e, they mu&s;t &s;ay, That it is &s;ince
<PB N="80" REF="61">the In&s;titution repealed again. Let them &s;hew 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 <HI>Quakers</HI> bare word (&s;poken (may be) in a mixture when the Moon was at the Full) is not enough for it. And if they can &s;hew us nothing for it, (which is &s;ure) and yet will &s;ay, It is repealed, they may upon the &s;ame ground, (that is to &s;ay, with|out any ground) &s;ay, that the Commandments to repent, be|lieve, fear, and love God, and all the re&s;t of them, are repealed, and then we may do what we plea&s;e, and follow the Light within at the top-&s;peed.</P>
<P>But now, becau&s;e in Ju&s;tice we are bound to give the <HI>Quakers</HI> fair Game, we mu&s;t hear what they have to &s;ay again&s;t our pre|ceeding Doctrine; and we need not doubt, but their Infallible heads are furni&s;ht with forcible Arguments.</P>
<P>Therefore fir&s;t, becau&s;e from thence they fear their greate&s;t danger, (albeit I have proved the bu&s;ine&s;s by many other con|vincing Arguments, and could without that Argument irre&s;i&s;tibly make good the point) they a&s;&s;ault the Argument from <HI>Matthew</HI> with &s;everal devices.</P>
<P>Fir&s;t then, They alledge that Baptizing in that Text is the &s;ame with Di&s;ciple-making, which is not meant of Baptizing with Water; and &s;o neither is that.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;,</HI> Fir&s;t, They ought to &s;hew us &s;ome nece&s;&s;ary ground for this Metaphorical Commentary upon the word, Baptize, which we have not &s;een as yet. Secondly, Unto this conceipt we &s;hall oppo&s;e our &s;econd and la&s;t Arguments, whereby it is proved, that Bapti&s;m with Water is meant in the Text, in de&s;pight of this Exception. Con&s;ider the Arguments; for we need not repeat them. Thirdly, All their grounds for this Exception is, becau&s;e when it is &s;aid, <HI>Go make Di&s;ciples, &amp;c.</HI> the word, Baptize, is &s;ubjoined in the Pre&s;ent Tence of the Participle, Baptizing: but by this ground (if good) Teaching, which pre&s;ently follows too, and in the &s;ame manner, &s;hall al&s;o be the &s;ame with Di&s;ciple-making; and &s;o the whole Commi&s;&s;ion &s;hall con&s;i&s;t of one and the &s;ame thing thrice repeated; which is mo&s;t ab&s;urd, and no Man, though as ab&s;urd as a <HI>Quaker,</HI> will &s;ay it. For, who &s;hall think, or why, that Chri&s;t commit|ted &s;uch a three-fold Tautology in delivering &s;o &s;hort a Com|mi&s;&s;ion? that would neither have &s;uited the wi&s;dom of the Per|&s;on, nor the nature of the thing.</P>
<PB N="81" REF="61" MS="y">
<P>Secondly, They except again&s;t the &s;ame Text, (with their old Friend <HI>Socinus</HI>) that the Apo&s;tles di&s;pen&s;ed their Bapti&s;m with Water only in the Name of the Lord Je&s;us, whereas the Bapti&s;m mentioned in this Text of <HI>Matthew</HI> is to be di&s;pen&s;ed in the Name of Father, Son, and Holy Gho&s;t; and &s;o they cannot be one and the &s;ame.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> By this Argument they might as well prove, that <HI>Paul</HI> Preached not in the Name of any other Per&s;on of the Trinity, but of the Lord Je&s;us only, becau&s;e he only is mentioned, (<HI>Act.</HI> 9.27, 29.) or that he and <HI>Timothy</HI> &s;erved no other Per&s;on of the Trinity, becau&s;e he only is mentioned, <HI>Philip.</HI> 1.1. Se|condly, I &s;hall oppo&s;e unto this Exception my fir&s;t, &s;econd, and fourth Arguments, whereby, maugre this exception, Bapti&s;m with Water is proved to be meant in this Text of <HI>Matthew.</HI> Thirdly, The re&s;t of the Trinity are omitted in the Hi&s;tory, (though it follows not, that &s;o they were in the action) partly for &s;horten|ing the Narration, (which is u&s;ual) and partly becau&s;e, it be|ing the great doubt and controver&s;ie of the time, <HI>If Je&s;us was the true Me&s;&s;ias;</HI> for that cau&s;e his name is more frequently mentioned, than the re&s;t of the Trinity, in the whole New Te&s;tament.</P>
<P>Thirdly, They except again&s;t the &s;ame Text, that the A|po&s;tles are therein commanded to Baptize in the Name of the Lord, which &s;ort of Baptizing is with the Spirit, (&s;ay they) not at all with Water.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> Unto this Exception I &s;hall fir&s;t oppo&s;e all my Argu|ments, whereby, over the belly thereof, I have proved Bapti&s;m with Water to be meant in the Text. Secondly, Was not Bap|ti&s;m with Water (&s;ay ye) di&s;pen&s;ed in the Name of the Lord? See it done, (I pray) and commanded to be done, that ye may not pretend ignorance hereafter, <HI>Act.</HI> 2.38. and 8.16. and 10.48. La&s;tly, It mu&s;t be a de&s;perate cau&s;e that forces it's Patrons to &s;uch contrary defences; pre&s;ently they affirmed, that Bapti&s;m with Water was di&s;pen&s;ed in the Name of the Lord; now they cry, About Ship, and deny that Bapti&s;m in the Name of the Lord is Bapti&s;m with Water. Are not the&s;e Men indeed in a mixture, who in the unju&s;t defence of fal&s;hood thus run upon &s;uch de&s;perate. <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 word"> of &s;plitting Contradiction?</P>
<PB N="82" REF="62">
<P>But fourthly, They except again&s;t the &s;ame Text, that Bap|ti&s;m with Water cannot be meant therein, becau&s;e the Apo&s;tles (&s;ay they) had no commi&s;&s;ion to Baptize with Water, &s;eeing <HI>Paul</HI> &s;ays, (1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 1.17.) that Chri&s;t &s;ent him not to Baptize, but to Preach the Go&s;pel.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> But in de&s;pight of this Exception, all our forementioned Arguments do plainly prove the Bapti&s;m mentioned in the Text to be Bapti&s;m with Water, and &s;o al&s;o that the Apo&s;tles had a Commi&s;&s;ion to Baptize with Water. Secondly, The <HI>Quakers</HI> are bound by this their rea&s;oning to acknowledge the Bapti&s;m there mentioned, (<HI>viz.</HI> 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 1.17.) to be Bapti&s;m with Wa|ter, (or el&s;e they will lo&s;e the whole ground pretended for their exception) which acknowledged, (as we have al&s;o before proved it truly to be) it pre&s;ently appears from the Context of the &s;ame place, that the Apo&s;tles had a Commi&s;&s;ion for Baptizing with Water, &s;eeing <HI>Paul</HI> plainly there declares, that he Baptized &s;ome of the&s;e <HI>Corinthians,</HI> which (doubtle&s;s) he did not without Commi&s;&s;ion; or el&s;e, he had been a manife&s;t Intruder and U|&s;urper of an Office in the Church and Wor&s;hip of God, for which he had no Order, or Warrant, which mu&s;t be fal&s;e. I an&s;wer therefore la&s;tly, that the meaning of the&s;e words of <HI>Paul</HI> is plainly Comparative, <HI>viz.</HI> that Bapti&s;m was not the principal and chief work that he was &s;ent for, but the Preaching of the Go&s;pel; &s;uch as is the meaning of that expre&s;&s;ion, (<HI>Ho&s;.</HI> 6.6.) <HI>I de&s;ired Mercy, and not Sacrifice:</HI> and &s;uch as is the meaning of that, (<HI>Joh.</HI> 15.22.) <HI>If I had not come and &s;poken unto them, they had not had &s;in,</HI> that is, nothing compared to what they now have.</P>
<P>La&s;tly, They except again&s;t the &s;ame Text, that Bapti&s;m with Water cannot be meant therein, becau&s;e (&s;ay they) it is not therein expre&s;ly mentioned.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> Fir&s;t, A Man might upon this ground much rather argue again&s;t Chri&s;ts demon&s;tration, (<HI>Luk.</HI> 20.37.) that the ri&s;ing of the dead is not expre&s;ly taught, (<HI>Exod.</HI> 3.6. from whence he brings his Argument) where God &s;ays, <HI>I am the God of Abraham, I&s;aac,</HI> and <HI>Jacob;</HI> and that therefore &s;uch a thing cannot be there meant. Or that Circum<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter">&s;ion of the fle&s;h of the Foreskin is not expre&s;ly mentioned under every di&s;tingui&s;hing Character thereof, (<HI>Galat.</HI> 5.2, 3.) where the fle&s;h of the
<PB N="83" REF="62">Foreskin is omitted; and that therefore it cannot be that which is there meant, but our Spiritual Circumci&s;ion in Chri&s;t, that is, our Regeneration, mu&s;t be the thing which <HI>Paul</HI> there di&s;putes again&s;t and condemns: and is not that well argued? Secondly, As Bapti&s;m with Water is not here expre&s;ly named, in re&s;pect of every punctilio of its de&s;ignation; So far le&s;s is any of the fore|mentioned improper Bapti&s;ms here expre&s;ly mentioned, &s;eeing the name Bapti&s;m, is proper to that of Water, and not to the other: Therefore, by the <HI>Quakers</HI> own Rule, none of the&s;e is meant here either; and &s;o (if the Rule be good) no &s;ort of Bapti&s;m is here meant, but the word <HI>Baptizing,</HI> is &s;et down here for an impertinent Cipher &s;ignifying nothing. Thirdly, I have &s;hewed before, that there is much Doctrine meant in the Scrip|tures, which is not therein expre&s;ly taught, but implicitly only; and &s;o this Rule of the <HI>Quakers</HI> is mo&s;t fal&s;e. I an&s;wer there|fore la&s;tly, that albeit the word <HI>Water,</HI> be not here (<HI>Matth.</HI> 28.19.) formally expre&s;t; yet the circum&s;tances of the Text, the Analogy of Faith, and other Scriptures that I have compared it with in my Arguments, do manife&s;tly and irre&s;i&s;tibly demon&s;trate the Bapti&s;m here mentioned, to be Bapti&s;m with Water. Let the <HI>Quakers</HI> an&s;wer my Arguments if they can, I mean at the <HI>Greek</HI> Calends.</P>
<P>All the particular exceptions of the <HI>Quakers</HI> again&s;t our Argu|ment from that Text of <HI>Matthew,</HI> being &s;o overthrown and an&s;wered; The <HI>Quakers</HI> have as yet one general Argument, whereby they hope to overturn Bapti&s;m with Water, <HI>viz.</HI> Bap|ti&s;m with Water (&s;ay they) was but a figure, that Chri&s;t might be made manife&s;t to <HI>I&s;rael,</HI> who had diver&s;e Bapti&s;ms impo&s;ed on them, till the time of Reformation; but Chri&s;t the Sub&s;tance being come, the &s;hadows mu&s;t flee away. This Objection they lay down in their <HI>Confe&s;&s;ion of Faith, page</HI> 25.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> Whether Bapti&s;m with Water be a Figure, or not, I have now abundantly proved it to be an Ordinance of the New Te&s;tament, Divinely Appointed, due in the Churches Court to all the vi&s;ible, or appearing Di&s;ciples of the New Te&s;tament, and nece&s;&s;ary to Salvation under the &s;ame, and to continue to the end of the World. And what then dare the <HI>Quakers</HI> &s;ay again&s;t it? Or, how dare they oppo&s;e their own meer Brain-&s;ick fancies to the Word of God and Dictates of the Holy Gho&s;t?
<PB N="84" REF="63">Secondly, Let Bapti&s;m with Water be a Figure manife&s;ting Chri&s;t to <HI>Jews</HI> and <HI>Gentiles</HI> too, (that is to &s;ay, a &s;acred Symbol of Chri&s;ts blood &s;hed (not to be &s;hed, and &s;o not a &s;hadow of a thing to come) on the Cro&s;s, and a Seal of Remi&s;&s;ion of Sins there through;) Yet Chri&s;t, by his Incarnation, Death, and Re|&s;urrection did not cancel all manner of Figures univer&s;ally, &s;eeing the Bow in the Cloud is &s;till a Figure to us, or a Symbol and Pledge rather, that God will no more de&s;troy the World by Water, (<HI>Gen.</HI> 9.11, 12, 13.) Nor did he thereby cancel all manner of Figures, (I would rather call them &s;acred Signs and Symbols, if the <HI>Quakers</HI> would too) repre&s;enting Chri&s;t and his Pa&s;&s;ion and Blood Shed; (for we &s;hall moreover prove at the Survey of their next en&s;uing Query, that Chri&s;t hath Or|dained Bread and Wine to be in the Euchari&s;t a Sacred Sign and Symbol of his Body and Blood to the Worlds end.) But he hath only cancelled thereby Old Te&s;tament Figures, &s;hadowing forth Him, and His Death and Pa&s;&s;ion to come. Thirdly, If Bapti&s;m with Water was only a Figure to manife&s;t unto <HI>I&s;rael</HI> Chri&s;t Je|&s;us, why then did the Apo&s;tles di&s;pen&s;e it afterwards to the whole Di&s;ciples of the Gentile Church, without ever ca&s;hiering it, and with &s;o much &s;peed and diligence after the appearing of their Di&s;ciple&s;hip? La&s;tly, Go&s;pel Bapti&s;m, which is done with Wa|ter as the External Symbol, is &s;o far from being a &s;hadow that &s;hould have fled away, when Chri&s;t came in the Fle&s;h and Dyed, and the time of Reformation was come, that, on the direct con|trary, it then fir&s;t received its In&s;titution after Chri&s;t was come, and together with the breaking forth of that Reformation, (<HI>viz.</HI> the New Te&s;tament way of Di&s;pen&s;ation) and is by Chri&s;t put into the Commi&s;&s;ion of the Mini&s;ters of that Reformation, as an Ordinance to be continued to the Worlds end, and was thereafter accordingly carried along therewith, as a Sacred Symbol due to all the vi&s;ible Di&s;ciples; all which we have before proved. The pa&s;&s;age of Scripture here cited by the <HI>Quakers</HI> out of the Epi&s;tle to the <HI>Hebrews,</HI> (<HI>Heb.</HI> 9.10.) will not help their Erroneous Cau&s;e: for the Apo&s;tle does not there &s;peak of the Go&s;pel-Bapti&s;m for the evident grounds now given, and as is clear from the Context it &s;elf, (where he &s;peaks of Old Te&s;tament Ordinances only) nor was that impo&s;ed on the <HI>I&s;raelites</HI> in Old Te&s;tament times, but began with the New: But the Bapti&s;ms he there
<PB N="85" REF="63">&s;peaks of, are the legal wa&s;hings and purifications that were im|po&s;ed upon the <HI>I&s;raelites</HI> in the time of the Old Te&s;tament, &s;uch as are de&s;cribed in <HI>Numb.</HI> 19. <HI>Chap. Levit.</HI> 11, 12, 13, 14, 15. <HI>Chapters.</HI></P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="4" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. IV. <HI>Concerning Infant-Bapti&s;m.</HI></HEAD>
<P>Being now come to Infant-Bapti&s;m, upon which, I am &s;ure, I &s;hall need to &s;ay very little, in regard that Reverend and Worthy Mr. <HI>Baxter</HI> hath in his Book again&s;t <HI>Tombs,</HI> &s;o fully and ex|cellently di&s;cu&s;&s;ed the Point, that I can hardly expect that ever any Man &s;hall add to him; but only becau&s;e this may come into the hands of &s;ome Per&s;ons who have not &s;een that, Therefore (though very briefly) I &s;hall not altogether &s;eem to &s;ay nothing, but &s;till referring the Reader to the fore&s;aid excellent Book.</P>
<P>The Que&s;tion therefore is, Whether the Infants of Believing Parents, or Profe&s;&s;ing to believe, (which is all one to the Church) ought to be Baptized, or not? Whereunto I an&s;wer affirmatively, that they ought be Baptized. I prove it. But fir&s;t I mu&s;t Premi&s;e, that the Covenant is the &s;ame in Sub&s;tance under the Old Te&s;tament and the New. For which &s;ee <HI>Rom.</HI> 4.11, 12, 13. and 11.17, 24. <HI>Galat.</HI> 3.8, 9. and 4.28. <HI>Heb.</HI> 6. from <HI>Ver.</HI> 12. to the end.</P>
<P>Secondly, I mu&s;t Premi&s;e, That the Children of Believers have the &s;ame Intere&s;t into the Covenant with the Parents: for which &s;ee <HI>Gen.</HI> 17. <HI>ch. Act.</HI> 2.39. <HI>Matth.</HI> 19.14. <HI>Luk.</HI> 18.16. and for that cau&s;e <HI>Paul</HI> calls the Children of Believers Holy, (1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 7.14) <HI>viz.</HI> Externally, Federally, and in regard of Church-Member&s;hip, and not becau&s;e they were not Ba&s;tards, (for &s;o the Children of meer <HI>Pagans</HI> might as well have been called Holy) but becau&s;e they were de&s;cended of Believing Pa|rents (though but on the one &s;ide) which is the very rea&s;on that he gives in the Text, why they are Holy.</P>
<P>Thirdly, I mu&s;t premi&s;e, that Circumci&s;ion was the initiat|ing Seal under the Old Te&s;tament, which is evident by the early Admini&s;tration thereof upon the Eight Day, and that by Divine Appointment, <HI>Gen.</HI> 17. Having premi&s;ed the&s;e things, I prove my Conclu&s;ion.</P>
<PB N="86" REF="64">
<P>Fir&s;t, Children of Believers were by a Divine Right Circum|ci&s;ed under the Old Te&s;tament: but Bapti&s;m under the New Te&s;tament is &s;ucceeded in the room of Circumci&s;ion under the Old: Therefore the Children of Believers ought to be Baptized under the New Te&s;tament. Only that needs proving, that Bapti&s;m under the New Te&s;tament is &s;ucceeded in the room of Circumci&s;ion under the Old: which I prove, Fir&s;t, becau&s;e they both Seal the very &s;ame thing; and Secondly, becau&s;e as Cir|cumci&s;ion was the initiating Seal under the Old Te&s;tament, &s;o is Bapti&s;m under the New. That they both Seal the &s;ame thing is clear by comparing <HI>Rom.</HI> 4.11. with <HI>Mark.</HI> 1.4. <HI>Act.</HI> 2.38. where Circumci&s;ion is declared to be a Seal of the Righteou&s;ne&s;s of Faith, and Bapti&s;m is held forth to be a Symbol, or Pledge of the Remi&s;&s;ion of Sins: now the Imputation of Chri&s;ts Righteou&s;ne&s;s is really one and the &s;ame thing with Remi&s;&s;ion of Sins (as al&s;o may be &s;een <HI>Rom.</HI> 4.6, 7, 8.) albeit the re&s;pects be divers. And again, as Circumci&s;ion under the Old Te&s;tament was a Symbol of inward Mortification and Repentance, &s;o is Bapti&s;m under the New, for which compare <HI>Deut.</HI> 10.16. and 30.6. and <HI>Jer.</HI> 4.4. and <HI>Rom.</HI> 2.28, 29. with <HI>Mark.</HI> 1.4. and <HI>Act.</HI> 2.38. and 19.4. from all which it is clear that Bapti&s;m is a Symbol and Seal of the &s;ame things whereof Circumci&s;ion was.</P>
<P>Secondly, that as Circumci&s;ion was the Initiating Seal under the Old Te&s;tament, &s;o is Bapti&s;m under the New. I prove, Fir&s;t, becau&s;e the Apo&s;tles Di&s;pen&s;ed it &s;o early to the Di&s;ciples at the fir&s;t appearing of their New Breath and Intere&s;t into the Covenant, as we &s;hewed before. Secondly, becau&s;e by Bapti&s;m we are &s;aid to put on Chri&s;t. <HI>Galat.</HI> 3.7.</P>
<P>Thirdly, the Lords Supper (which I &s;hall prove to be of Di|vine In&s;titution at the Survey of their next Query) is a Symbol or Seal of our Growth and Nouri&s;hment into the Covenant: There|fore Bapti&s;m, which is the other Seal, mu&s;t be the Seal of our New Birth and Entry into the Covenant. For it were ab&s;urd to &s;ay, we had two &s;orts of Seals for our Growth and Confirmation there|of, and our Birth and Entry into the Covenant left altogether without Seal: nay we have much more need to be Confirmed concerning this, than that; and &s;o it ought far rather to be Sealed.</P>
<P>We &s;hall add, as the Epilogue of this Argument, that the
<PB N="87" REF="64">Apo&s;tle Teaches (<HI>Celo&s;.</HI> 2.11, 12.) that our Burial with Chri&s;t in Bapti&s;m is our Circumci&s;ion in Chri&s;t, which &s;hews that Bap|ti&s;m is &s;ucceeded to us in the Room of Circumci&s;ion.</P>
<P>But the Anti-pedobapti&s;ts except again&s;t the Argument, that Bapti&s;m is not &s;ucceeded in the Room of Circumci&s;ion, becau&s;e Circumci&s;ion was Di&s;pen&s;ed to none but Males, and on the eighth day exactly, and becau&s;e Circumci&s;ion was not a Figure of Bapti&s;m.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> But our preceeding Arguments prove that Bapti&s;m is &s;uc|ceeded in the Room thereof, &s;eeing it exactly acts the Part and Office that Circumci&s;ion formally acted as the Initiating Seal, which &s;hews it to be come in the Room and place thereof.</P>
<P>As for that, that Bapti&s;m is not Tyed to the Circum&s;tance of the eighth day, as Circumci&s;ion was, that &s;ays nothing; for albeit Bapti&s;m be &s;ucceeded in the Room of Circumci&s;ion in the &s;ub&s;tance of its work, yet it does not therefore follow that it &s;hould &s;ucceed to the external Circum&s;tances of Circumci&s;ion: for &s;o, not Bapti&s;m, but the Circum&s;tances thereof &s;hould have &s;ucceeded to the Circum&s;tances of Circumci&s;ion, which is not the Que&s;tion, nor any thing we plead for. Again, Circumci&s;ion in the In&s;titution was re&s;tricted to the eighth day, which Bapti&s;m is not, and &s;o it is not Tyed to that Circum&s;tance.</P>
<P>That Circumci&s;ion was Di&s;pen&s;ed only to Males &s;ays, nothing neither, &s;eeing women by Nature were not capable thereof; and therefore it &s;tood in the Room thereof to them to be the Daughters of Circumci&s;ed Fathers. But they are capable of Bapti&s;m, and are not excepted from it, as they were from Circumci&s;ion; but, on the contrary, women are Baptized, as well as men. <HI>Act.</HI> 8.12. and 16.15.</P>
<P>For that, that in the matter of Succe&s;&s;ion they require the Ce|dent to be a Figure of the Succe&s;&s;or, I believe it is &s;poken in Je&s;t; otherwi&s;e they will have every Cedent a Figure of his A&s;&s;igny, and every Servant removing at the Term to be a Figure of the other that comes in his place, which is Ridiculous.</P>
<P>Secondly, who&s;oever is Adopted and received within the Co|venant, hath a Divine right unto Bapti&s;m under the New Te&s;ta|ment: but Children of believing Parents are by God Adopted and received within the Covenant, as is plain from <HI>Gen.</HI> 17. ch. <HI>Mat.</HI> 19.14. <HI>Act.</HI> 2.39. 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 7.14. Therefore Children of believ|ing
<PB N="88" REF="65" MS="y">Parents have a Divine right unto Bapti&s;m under the New Te&s;ta|ment. The <HI>Minor</HI> is Evident by the Scriptures Cited. I prove the <HI>Ma|jor,</HI> becau&s;e Bapti&s;m under the New Te&s;tament is the Initiating Seal and Symbol belonging and appended to our Entry and Reception into the Covenant (as was before proved) under the New Te&s;ta|ment; and &s;o it belongs to every per&s;on that is received into the Covenant upon the accompt of their Reception; or el&s;e it &s;hall belong to their Entry and Reception (as is &s;uppo&s;ed and above proved) and yet not to them as Entered and Received, which involves a manife&s;t Contradiction.</P>
<P>Thirdly, all who are probably Partakers of the Spirit of Grace and Regeneration have a Divine Right under the New Te&s;ta|ment unto Bapti&s;m, in the Churches Court, and &s;he ought to ad|mit them thereunto, as was before proved from <HI>Act.</HI> 10.47, 48. But the Children of believing Parents are probably Partakers of the Spirit of Grace and Regeneration under the New Te&s;tament: Therefore they have a right unto Bapti&s;m, in the Churches Court, and &s;he is bound to admit them thereunto. The <HI>Major</HI> was evidently proved before. I prove the <HI>Minor;</HI> for Gods taking them in within the Covenant (<HI>Gen.</HI> 17. chap.) makes it probable. His promi&s;ing to Circumci&s;e the hearts of the Chil|dren, as well as the Parents (<HI>Deut.</HI> 30.6.) makes it probable. Gods Sanctifying &s;ome of the Children of believers from the Womb (<HI>Jerem.</HI> 1.5. <HI>Luk.</HI> 1.15.) makes it probable. <HI>Pauls</HI> calling them Holy (1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 7.14.) <HI>viz.</HI> federally and externally, makes it probable. And if it were not probable that the Chil|dren of Believers did partake of the Spirit of Grace and Regene|ration, then it could not be probable that any of them Dying in Non-age &s;hould be Saved, &s;eeing none but &s;uch as are Born of Water and of the Spirit can enter into the Kingdom of God, <HI>Joh.</HI> 3.5. And la&s;tly (for, I am &s;ure, I need no more) Chri&s;ts declaring and a&s;&s;erting their Intere&s;t into the Kingdom of Hea|ven (<HI>Mat.</HI> 19.14. <HI>Luk.</HI> 18.16.) whereunto they cannot enter without being Regenerated, makes it probable.</P>
<P>The&s;e things make it Infallibly certain as to the Kind, or <HI>Quoad Speciem,</HI> and probable as to particular per&s;ons, or <HI>Quoad Indi|vidua.</HI></P>
<P>But again&s;t this La&s;t the <HI>Quakers</HI> except (with the <HI>A<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter">abapti&s;ts</HI>) That Chri&s;t does not in the&s;e Texts &s;ay, that the Kingdom of
<PB N="89" REF="65">Heaven pertained to the&s;e Infants that were brought to him, and &s;uch other Natural Infants; but unto Spiritual Infants, whom he means of when he &s;ays, <HI>Of &s;uch is the Kingdom of Heaven.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> But then Chri&s;ts rea&s;oning runs thus, &s;uffer little Children (the&s;e were true Natural Infants that were brought to Chri&s;t, as we &s;hall pre&s;ently &s;ee) wanting Intere&s;t in the Kingdom of Hea|ven to come unto me: for the Kingdom of Heaven belongs to mature per&s;ons regenerated, which are Spiritual Infants; and In|fants Improperly &s;o called. This would have been &s;o bad a Con|&s;equence, that it would have bereft the Di&s;cour&s;e of all Sence. Secondly, hereby they &s;hew that, in their opinion, there are no Infants that have Intere&s;t into the Kingdom of Heaven; other|wi&s;e they &s;hould have granted Chri&s;ts words in re&s;pect of Infants properly &s;o called; and then farewel to the Objection. Thirdly, we here appeal the Analogy of Faith, without &s;ome nece&s;&s;ity from which, the words mu&s;t not be detorted from a proper to an Im|proper Sence.</P>
<P>Secondly they except, that the&s;e were not young Infants that were brought to Chri&s;t, but grown to &s;ome pretty Age, becau&s;e Chri&s;t &s;ays, <HI>Suffer them to come,</HI> intimating that they them&s;elves could Walk.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> But when (I Marvel) did, <HI>Come,</HI> begin &s;o nece&s;&s;arily to &s;ignifie walking on ones own Feet? A man is &s;aid to Come from <HI>America,</HI> albeit he &s;hould lie all the while in a Ships Cabin. The Text &s;hews that the&s;e Children came not on their own Feet. For in the Text of <HI>Luke</HI> they are called <GAP DESC="foreign">, that is, Sucking Infants. And in all the Texts there is a word u&s;ed for their bring|ing that &s;ignifies to bear, or carry, <GAP DESC="foreign">. Again, Chri&s;t took them in his Arms and Ble&s;&s;ed them, but never a word of his Teaching them. The&s;e that brought them &s;poke (as the Texts Intimate) but never a word in their head. And if they had been in any &s;mall mea&s;ure capable of Chri&s;ts Doctrine, the Di&s;ciples (it &s;eems) would not have forbidden their coming.</P>
<P>La&s;tly, they except again&s;t the Body of the Argument, that it cannot be di&s;cerned, if Infants have received the Spirit, or not.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> I have &s;hewed before, how as to the Kind <HI>(quoad Speciem)</HI> it may be Infallibly di&s;cerned, and probably as to Individuals. Now probable Evidences are &s;ufficient for the Bapti&s;m of particu|lar
<PB N="90" REF="66">per&s;ons, Old, or Young; or el&s;e none at all &s;hould be admitted to Bapti&s;m, &s;eeing heart-&s;earching is Gods Prerogative (<HI>Jer.</HI> 17.9, 10.) nor did the Apo&s;tles them&s;elves Infallibly di&s;cern peoples hearts: as may be &s;een <HI>Act.</HI> 8.13. with 23. and 9.26, 27. 1 <HI>Joh.</HI> 2.19.</P>
<P>Fourthly, all the vi&s;ible, or appearing Di&s;ciples of Chri&s;t ought to be Baptized under the New Te&s;tament, as is evident from <HI>Mat.</HI> 28.19. Where Chri&s;t commands to make all Nations his Di&s;ciples, <HI>Baptizing them, &amp;c.</HI> From which Text it is as clear as Noon|tyde, that whoever is once vi&s;ibly, or appearingly become Chri&s;ts Di&s;ciple (for the Church cannot go beyond probabilities here) ought to be Baptized, and that forthwith, a&s;&s;oon as it can be con|veniently done, as the Expre&s;&s;ion imports, <HI>Go make them Di&s;ci|ples, Baptizing,</HI> as if they &s;hould be Baptized in the very &s;ame in&s;tant that their Intere&s;t and Di&s;ciple&s;hip appears, without requiring or expecting any further, that, as being the Condition, being once probably di&s;covered: But the Children of believing Parents are vi&s;ible Di&s;ciples of Chri&s;t: Therefore they ought to be Baptized under the New Te&s;tament. The <HI>Major</HI> needs no more proving. I prove the <HI>Minor;</HI> for all the vi&s;ible Members of Chri&s;ts School are his vi&s;ible Di&s;ciples, &s;eeing to be a Member of ones School, and to be his Di&s;ciple are both one thing, as is undeniable; but the Children of believing Parents are vi&s;ible Members of Chri&s;ts School, &s;eeing Chri&s;ts School is his Church, whereof the Children of be|lievers are, certainly, Members; &s;eeing they were Members thereof in the time of the Old Te&s;tament, and (doubtle&s;s) Chri&s;ts coming in the Fle&s;h, when the Grace of God was enlarged, hath not deprived them of &s;o merciful a Priviledge; &s;urely not; and &s;ince God received them into the Covenant, we never heard of his putting them out again; and they are Holy, <HI>viz.</HI> federally and in order to Church-member&s;hip; <HI>and of &s;uch is the Kingdom of Heaven,</HI> all which i<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter"> already declared.</P>
<P>The <HI>Anabapti&s;ts</HI> u&s;e to urge this Text of <HI>Matthew</HI> again&s;t Infant-Bapti&s;m, reading the words as they are in our Tran&s;lation, <HI>Go ye therefore, and Teach all Nations, Baptizing them, &amp;c.</HI> From whence they Infer that all that are to be Baptized ought fir&s;t to be Taught, whereof Children are not capable; and there|fore ought not to be Baptized. But, be&s;ide that the <HI>Jews</HI> Chil|dren were admitted to the Initiating Seal, who were as uncapable of Teaching as ours, The truth is, the word in the Original Lan|guage
<PB N="91" REF="66">is <GAP DESC="foreign">, which doth not &s;ignifie to Teach, but to <HI>Make Di&s;ciples,</HI> which all know that know the Language; and it is plainly di&s;tingui&s;ht in the Text from <GAP DESC="foreign">, which follows in the beginning of the very next Ver&s;e, and in the Native Ety|mology &s;ignifies to Teach; and &s;o this Text is &s;o far from favor|ing their Error, that it clearly overthrows it, as we have now &s;hewed.</P>
<P>But the <HI>Anabapti&s;ts</HI> &s;till object, that Chri&s;t, after he had Com|manded his Apo&s;tles and Mini&s;ters to go and Preach the Go&s;pel to all the world, adds, that he that believes, and is Baptized &s;hall be Saved, <HI>Mark.</HI> 16.16. Therefore Chri&s;t pre-requires Faith unto Bapti&s;m: but Children cannot believe, therefore they ought not to be Baptized. Some an&s;wer to the <HI>Minor</HI> of this Argument, that, though Children cannot actually believe, yet they are ca|pable of the Seeds and Principles of Faith, or of a Seminal and Inclinative Faith; which I grant is true, but &s;eeing the Argu|ment urges actual Faith (which they have not adverted to) it belongs not to the an&s;wer thereof.</P>
<P>I an&s;wer therefore, and grant that actual believing is pre-required unto Bapti&s;m in adult per&s;ons come to &s;ome years of di&s;cretion (according to the&s;e Scriptures, <HI>Mark.</HI> 16.16. <HI>Act.</HI> 2.38. and 8.12, 13. and 18.8.) and therefore they mu&s;t give a &s;erious Profe&s;&s;ion thereof, or &s;ome probable Evidence thereof mu&s;t be had before the Church admit them to Bapti&s;m, &s;eeing (as is &s;uppo&s;ed) they are either before, Strangers unto the Cove|nant; or el&s;e, if that be not, yet, if they refu&s;e the Go&s;pel-offer, they fore-fault their Intere&s;t; and &s;o without the Profe&s;&s;ion of their Faith, or &s;ome probable evidence thereof, they have not a vi&s;ible Intere&s;t. But the&s;e things are not pre-required of the Children of believing Parents, who have an Intere&s;t (not fore|faulted by any refu&s;al) upon the accompt of their de&s;cent from Chri&s;tian Parents Profe&s;&s;ing the Faith, who&s;e Children are with them&s;elves taken in within the Covenant (as is before &s;hewed) and it &s;tands in the room of a Profe&s;&s;ion to them, that they are by God taken in within the Covenant, and born within the Church of Chri&s;tian Parents profe&s;&s;ing the Faith. All which is &s;till further clear in the Circumci&s;ion of the <HI>Jews</HI> Children, nor can any thing be &s;aid again&s;t the one which does not with equal force a&s;&s;ault the other.</P>
<P>Again they object, that Bapti&s;m is a perfect Ordinance; and
<PB N="92" REF="67" MS="y">that therefore it ought to be Di&s;pen&s;ed to none but Folk that are perfect, &s;uch as Children are not.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> If this Con&s;equence of the <HI>Anabapti&s;ts</HI> be but good, we mu&s;t &s;end all Gods Ordinances away to Heaven, &s;eeing there are no perfect Folk upon Earth, as &s;hall be made appear afterwards; and by the &s;ame Argument none but perfect Folk &s;hould be ad|mitted to any Ordinance of God, and then (I'le warrant) the Churches &s;hall be Scant enough. But how can Bapti&s;m which Seals to us the Remi&s;&s;ion of our Sins require us to be before-hand perfect, and &s;o have no Sin to be Remitted? But they urge, that, Bapti&s;m being a perfect Ordinance, does at lea&s;t require &s;uch as are capable of perfection, which Children are not.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> Our perfection is not ab&s;olved in the very In&s;tant of our Bapti&s;m, but is carried on by degrees while we live in this world, and not ab&s;olved till we go hence to the other world; Therefore Bapti&s;m does not require that we be capable to be perfected that very In&s;tant of its Admini&s;tration to us: for it will be enough if we by degrees become capable of perfection, according as by de|grees our perfection is to be carried on. This di&s;tingui&s;hes the <HI>Major,</HI> which I po&s;itively have denyed, and they could never have proved with all <HI>John</HI> of <HI>Leidens</HI> Logick. Again, Perfection is oppo&s;ed either to a Negative Imperfection, which is the want of any thing, which if we had it, we would be the more perfect, but it is not competent to us, nor is it our fault to want it; and this &s;ort of Imperfection all Creatures mu&s;t be content to be for ever liable unto, and they &s;hall never be perfect in the Sence of Perfection oppo&s;ite to this kind of Imperfection; and &s;o Perfection in this Sence cannot be pre-required to Bapti&s;m, &s;eeing it will not be required to Heaven it &s;elf. Or Secondly, Perfection is oppo&s;ed to a Privative and Culpable Imperfection, which is the want of a thing that by the Law we are obliged to have, and it is our fault to want it; and of Perfection oppo&s;ite to this kind of Imperfection Infants are capable, as well as adult per&s;ons, &s;eeing if <HI>Adam</HI> had &s;tood in his Obedience, there had been no Privative, or Culpable Imperfection in any of his Children how young &s;oever, more than in him&s;elf, which, if Infants were not capable of the Perfection we now &s;peak of, as well as adult per&s;ons, could not have been. Any that would &s;ee Infant-Bapti&s;m more largely and accurately handled, I refer them to that fore-named Excellent piece of Learned
<PB N="93" REF="67">and Worthy Mr. <HI>Baxter</HI> again&s;t <HI>Tombs,</HI> which through Gods Ble&s;&s;ing has been a great means of putting a &s;top to that wild Error among&s;t us.</P>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="6" TYPE="query">
<HEAD>Sixth QUERY.</HEAD>
<P><HI>Whether doth the Scriptures &s;ay in the New Te&s;ta|ment, that, Eating of Bread, and Drinking of Wine, after Supper, was an Ordinance of Chri&s;t? and whether do ye Practice this as Chri&s;t and his Apo&s;tles did after Supper? Do not ye take it before Dinner? Did Chri&s;t and his Apo&s;tles do &s;o? What Scripture have ye for your Rule for this? for he took it in the night. And Chri&s;t &s;ays, as oft as ye Eat of this Bread, and Drink of this Wine,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>Is that a &s;tanding Command? or is it left to people? Seeing its &s;aid, as oft as ye Eat this and Drink this, do it in Remembrance of his Death, and &s;hewing his Death till he come again. Was this coming to the end of the world? or was it until his coming to Dwell in his Apo&s;tles, who &s;aid 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 Chri&s;t &s;ay, Eat this, and Drink this in Remembrance of his Death? and doth not the Apo&s;tle &s;ay, that they mu&s;t Die with Chri&s;t? and to Die with him is to come to the Death with him. And they that be in the Death of Chri&s;t, and Die with Chri&s;t, mu&s;t they have Bread and Wine to put them in Remem|brance of his Death? Yea, or Nay? and doth not the Apo&s;tle &s;ay, that they mu&s;t Die with Chri&s;t, and be Buried with him? and when the people are Dead and Buried with Chri&s;t, mu&s;t they have Bread and Wine to put them in Remembrance of Chri&s;ts Death? An&s;wer this, Yea; or Nay. And the Apo&s;tle &s;ays, they mu&s;t Ri&s;e with Chri&s;t Je&s;us. And if they be Ri&s;en with him, then &s;eek
<PB N="94" REF="68">the&s;e things that are above. And is not Bread and Wine from below? and if the Apo&s;tle puts them to &s;eek the&s;e things that are above, then he brought them off the&s;e things that are below; for he &s;ays to the</HI> Corinthians, The things that are &s;een are Temporal, but the things that are not &s;een are Eternal. <HI>This he Spoke when they were Jangling and in a Di&s;order about outward things. Doth he not bring them off things that are Seen to things that are not &s;een? and whether or not ye ever intend, ye your &s;elves called Mini&s;ters, or your Hearers &s;hall come any nearer to Chri&s;ts Death, and Die, and be Buried with him, but only to take Bread and Wine in Remem|brance of Chri&s;ts Death, le&s;t ye and they &s;hould come to forget Chri&s;ts Death? An&s;wer us plainly the&s;e things, Yea; or Nay.</HI></P>
<DIV3 TYPE="survey">
<HEAD>S&V;RVEY.</HEAD>
<P>Their Doctrine here doth very well agree with <HI>George Keiths Quakeri&s;m no Popery, (page</HI> 100.) where he flatly denies the Supper of the Lord to be any &s;tanding Ordinance of Chri&s;t, and will have it (for&s;ooth) a <HI>Popi&s;h</HI> Principle and Practice: as al&s;o with their Heretical <HI>Confe&s;&s;ion of Faith,</HI> wherein they deny all manner of External Ordinances, <HI>pages</HI> 24, 25, 26, 27, 77, 78, 79, 92, 93, 102, 103, 104, 105, 122, 130, 133, 135.</P>
<P>Before we come to a particular Di&s;qui&s;ition upon this Query, we mu&s;t expunge that re&s;trictive Clau&s;e <HI>[After Supper]</HI> out of the principal Que&s;tion which is fir&s;t in order, as not being any part of the Sacrament In&s;tituted having any my&s;tical mean|ing, neither being any where of Scripture commanded, but be|ing only an External Circum&s;tance of that fir&s;t Supper of our Lord meerly occa&s;ional, becau&s;e of the Pa&s;&s;over taken before it, which according to its In&s;titution (<HI>Exod.</HI> 12.) was to be Cele|brated at Even: In the room whereof, becau&s;e Chri&s;t was to In&s;titute the Go&s;pel-Supper, it behooved to be taken after it, and not before it, being thereby to aboli&s;h and Antiquat the Pa&s;&s;over. And if we were tied to every circum&s;tance of that fir&s;t Go&s;pel-Supper,
<PB N="95" REF="68" MS="y">then we behooved always to take it in an Upper Room, and with Twelve only in Company, yea, and after a Pa&s;chal Lamb too; And albeit a <HI>Quaker</HI> &s;hould an&s;wer, that this la&s;t named Circum&s;tance would be again&s;t Sciripture abrogating the <HI>Jewi&s;h</HI> Ceremonies; yet, it is hard to reply that all matters of Faith, and parts of Religious Wor&s;hip, mu&s;t be, not only not again&s;t Scripture, but according thereunto, and having Divine Appointment therein, (&s;ee <HI>I&s;ai.</HI> 8.20. <HI>Jer.</HI> 7.31, 32. and 19.5, 6. <HI>Matth.</HI> 15.9. <HI>Mark</HI> 7.7. <HI>Colo&s;.</HI> 2.20, 21, 22.) When therefore the <HI>Quakers</HI> &s;hall be able to prove, that that Circum|&s;tance of time when the fir&s;t Go&s;pel-Supper was Celebrated is any Con&s;tituent part of the Sacrament with my&s;tical &s;ignification In|&s;tituted by Chri&s;t Je&s;us, or, that it is any where of Scripture Commanded, then, and not till then, we &s;hall acknowledge that we are in the wrong in taking it before Dinner; and this they are obliged to do, if they hold the Affirmative, (as here they pretend to do) &s;eeing all parts of Religious Wor&s;hip mu&s;t have po&s;itive Scripture-Warrant, which if they want, they will be plain contrary to Scripture general Precepts, forbidding all Will-Wor&s;hip after the commandments of Men.</P>
<P>Having thru&s;t out that limitating Clau&s;e <HI>[After Supper]</HI> from the &s;tate of the Que&s;tion, we find the &s;tate thereof to be yet Vitious: for it may either be under&s;tood of common eating of Bread and drinking of Wine; and &s;o it is no Go&s;pel Ordi|nance, &s;eeing Drunkards and Heathens can do that unto exce&s;s in a Tavern. But Secondly, It may be under&s;tood (though with much ado, as it is propo&s;ed) of Sacramental eating and drink|ing of Bread and Wine Con&s;ecrated, Sanctified, and &s;et apart for a &s;acred Symbol of Chri&s;ts Death, for &s;ignifying and &s;ealing all the benefits thereof to the worthy Receivers, their Spiritual nouri&s;hment in Chri&s;t, and Communion with him and with each other.</P>
<P>In this &s;ence, I confidently a&s;&s;ert the eating of Bread and drinking of Wine (as the <HI>Quakers</HI> mockingly term it) to be an excellent Go&s;pel-Ordinance In&s;tituted by Chri&s;t Je&s;us, to be ob|&s;erved in his Church to the Worlds end. This conclu&s;ion is &s;o clear from <HI>Matth.</HI> 26. <HI>Chap.</HI> and <HI>Luk.</HI> 22. that nothing can be more clear. For fir&s;t, We have in both places Chri&s;ts Fact and Deed &s;et down, that he took Bread and Wine and ble&s;&s;ed them,
<PB N="96" REF="69">that he brake the Bread, and put the Wine into the Cup, and that he di&s;tributed it to the Di&s;ciples, and did eat and drink there|of with them. Secondly, We have Chri&s;ts expre&s;s Command|ment, (albeit the blind <HI>Quakers</HI> cannot &s;ee it) injoyning the whole action to be, in like manner, done by his Church and People afterwards, <HI>This do,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>Luk.</HI> 22.19. Thirdly, We have his Word of Promi&s;e Sacramentally enunciating the thing &s;ignified, or Internal matter of the External Signs and Symbols by a Metonimy, attributing the name of the thing &s;ignified to the Sign, expre&s;&s;ing the Sacramental Union and Relation of the one to the other, wherein con&s;i&s;ts the Internal form of the Sa|crament; <HI>This is my Body given for you; This Cup is the New Te&s;tament in my Blood &s;hed for you, Luk.</HI> 22.19, 20. La&s;tly, We have the Explication of the end of this Sacred Ordinance, which is, that it &s;hould be for a memorial of Chri&s;t Death, <HI>This do in Remembrance of Me, Luk.</HI> 22.19. Now what blindne&s;s is happened to the <HI>Quakers,</HI> that they cannot here read Chri&s;ts In&s;titution of the Go&s;pel-Supper, con&s;i&s;ting of his own Fact, and a Commandment to his Church to do the like thereafter, with a rich Promi&s;e annexed, and the End of the work declared? Can any thing be devi&s;ed more clear than this? Or, Can the <HI>Quakers</HI> number their own Fingers? What &s;hall we think of them, when they can neither Read, nor hear when it is Read by others this clear In&s;titution of the Euchari&s;t, but that they are po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ed with a blind and deaf Spirit that deprives them both of &s;ight and hearing?</P>
<P>Secondly, For a further a&s;&s;urance (if need were) that the Euchari&s;t is a Go&s;pel Ordinance of Divine In&s;titution, we have the Practice of the Apo&s;tles, and the whole Church after the pouring forth of the Spirit, <HI>Act.</HI> 20.7. 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 10.16. in which places there is, not only the Example of the Churches Practice &s;et down; but al&s;o further, we have their accu&s;tomed u&s;e thereof clearly imported, as any Man, by reading and con&s;idering the places, may &s;ee.</P>
<P>Thirdly, The Apo&s;tle in the fir&s;t Epi&s;tle to the <HI>Corinthians,</HI> eleventh Chapter, while he is correcting &s;everal abu&s;es that were crept in into the Wor&s;hip there, among&s;t the re&s;t, calls them to the fir&s;t In&s;titution of the Lords Supper; where in the 23. Ver&s;e he affirms, that it was an Ordinance he had received of the Lord,
<PB N="97" REF="69">and delivered unto them; and in the 26. Ver&s;e he &s;hews the du|ration of it to be until Chri&s;ts coming again. Now what an ex|tream di&s;traction &s;hall it be to &s;ay, That Chri&s;t delivered an Or|dinance unto <HI>Paul</HI> to be by him delivered unto the Church, and to be by Her ob&s;erved till Chri&s;ts coming again at the day of general Judgment, and that for &s;hewing forth his Death until then, which notwith&s;tanding is not a Go&s;pel-Ordinance In&s;ti|tuted by Chri&s;t? it's a horrid contradiction to &s;ay &s;o. Is this the Spirit of Revelation (I &s;hould &s;ay of occaecation and fa&s;cina|tion) that the <HI>Quakers</HI> boa&s;t of? Oh mi&s;erable Guide and grand Cheat, who, in&s;tead of a plain Path, (as he pretends) doth thus conduct them continually into the dark mi&s;ts of <HI>Cimmerian</HI> Clouds, or rather into the Chimerical De&s;arts of <HI>Utopia,</HI> where all their Principles &s;eems to concenter in the common place of Contradiction!</P>
<P>But, &s;ay the <HI>Quakers</HI> here, Is that a &s;tanding Command? or is left to People? &s;eeing it's &s;aid, <HI>As oft as ye eat this Bread and drink this Cup, do it in Remembrance of his Death, and for &s;hewing forth his Death till he come again.</HI> Was this Coming to the end of the World? Or was it till his coming to dwell in his Apo&s;tles, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> See their Heretical <HI>Confe&s;&s;ion of Faith,</HI> where they harp the &s;ame &s;tring, <HI>page</HI> 26, 27, 77, 78, 79, 80.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> O <HI>mi&s;eri, Quae tanta In&s;ania, cives? Quis furor?</HI> here is a whole heap of <HI>Romantick</HI> Fictious and Phanta&s;tick Dreams. For fir&s;t here they alledge, that Chri&s;t did not dwell in his Apo&s;tles, when the fir&s;t Go&s;pel-Supper was Celebrated, (and the &s;ame they al&s;o largely in&s;inuate in their <HI>Confe&s;&s;ion, pages</HI> 72, 74, 75.) and &s;o they behoove to be all at that time unregenerated Men meerly in Nature, &s;eeing Chri&s;t by his Spirit dwells in all Regenerated Per&s;ons and Believers, as the&s;e Scriptures witne&s;s, <HI>Rom.</HI> 8.9, 10. 2 <HI>Cor.</HI> 13.5. <HI>Galat.</HI> 4.6. 1 <HI>Joh.</HI> 3.24. But it is mo&s;t fal&s;e, that Chri&s;t did not dwell in his Apo&s;tles when the fir&s;t Go&s;pel-Supper was Celebrated, and that they were then unregenerated Men, &s;eeing Chri&s;t plainly declares, that they were clean, though not all, (<HI>Joh.</HI> 13.10) by this meaning of <HI>Judas</HI> the Traitor. And again he affirms, that they were clean through the Word that he had &s;poken unto them; (<HI>Joh.</HI> 15.3.) and again he &s;ays, that they had received the Word of God, and kept it, and knew &s;urely that he came out from God, and that the
<PB N="98" REF="70">Father had &s;ent him, (<HI>Joh.</HI> 17.6, 7, 8.) and the&s;e are things which Fle&s;h and Blood never revealed unto them, and the natu|ral Man cannot di&s;cern, <HI>Matth.</HI> 16.17. 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 2.14. It is in|deed true, God had not at that time when the fir&s;t Go&s;pel-Supper was Celebrated, furni&s;ht the Apo&s;tles with the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, to accompli&s;h them for their extraordinary work that en&s;ued, but that was done at the <HI>Penteco&s;t;</HI> but, that Chri&s;t did not Spiritually dwell in them before the <HI>Penteco&s;t,</HI> the Scrip|tures cited declares to be fal&s;e: And as for that which Chri&s;t &s;ays to <HI>Peter, (Luk.</HI> 22.32.) <HI>When thou art Converted, &s;trengthen thy Brethren,</HI> it is not meant of the Conver&s;ion of his &s;tate, as if he had been at that time unregenerated; but it is meant of his Con|ver&s;ion from a particular Fact, or his Ri&s;ing after a Fall, as (be|&s;ide what is already &s;aid) is clear in the Text it &s;elf: for Chri&s;t 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 &s;hould not be totally extingui&s;ht by the temptation he was to meet with, &s;eeing Chri&s;ts prayers were always heard, <HI>Joh.</HI> 11.42.</P>
<P>Secondly, They thereby in&s;inuate, That the Go&s;pel-Supper &s;hould be allowed to none, but unregenerated Per&s;ons in whom Chri&s;t dwells not, who will &s;urely take it unworthily, and eat and drink their own Damnation therein, (1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 11.29.) for they do not here deny, but acknowledge, that the Apo&s;tles were by Chri&s;t admitted to the Go&s;pel-Supper before he came (as they would have it) to dwell in them; but they will not have them partaking of it after Chri&s;t is once come to dwell in them, alledg|ing that to be its period and term day: but Chri&s;t dwells in all Regenerated Per&s;ons, as is proved: Therefore they allow the Go&s;pel-Supper to none, but Unregenerated Per&s;ons, who cannot di&s;cern the Lords Body, nor &s;hew forth his Death, which is not a bare Hi&s;torical Remembrance of a thing pa&s;t, but con&s;i&s;ts in our Spiritual feeding by Faith upon Chri&s;t Crucified, and the application by Faith of him, and all the benefits of his Redem|ption to our &s;elves, in our thankfulne&s;s to him for &s;o great benefits, and in our love towards him, and each other; which things Un|regenerated Men meerly Carnal cannot do, <HI>Rom.</HI> 8.7, 8. 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 2.11, 14. So then the <HI>Quakers</HI> in this point do directly contra|dict the Holy Gho&s;t who requires, (1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 11.25, 26, 29.)
<PB N="99" REF="70">that none come to the Go&s;pel-Supper that cannot di&s;cern the Lords Body, and &s;hew forth his Death.</P>
<P>Thirdly, They thereby alledge, That there is not a &s;tanding Command left to the Church for Celebrating the Lords Supper, which I have &s;hewed to be mo&s;t fal&s;e from <HI>Luk.</HI> 22.19. and 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 11.23, 24. in both which places we have a clear Com|mand &s;et down, <HI>Do this in Remembrance of Me;</HI> which Com|mand, &s;eeing it was never to this day repealed, (or el&s;e, let the <HI>Quakers</HI> &s;hew where that is Recorded) mu&s;t be as yet &s;tanding &s;till in force; otherwi&s;e they may as well &s;ay, that all the Com|mands are repealed together, without any ground, as that this is repealed and not &s;tanding, when they can &s;hew us no ground for it from the whole Word of God.</P>
<P>Fourthly, They thereby alledge, that the coming again of Chri&s;t mentioned, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 11.26. and which is no where el&s;e in all the Scriptures mentioned upon this purpo&s;e, is meant of Chri&s;ts coming to dwell in his Apo&s;tles, <HI>viz.</HI> at the pouring forth of the Spirit at the <HI>Penteco&s;t,</HI> after which time they will not deny that Chri&s;t dwelt in them, (as their <HI>Confe&s;&s;ion of Faith</HI> owns, <HI>pages</HI> 72, 73, 74, 75.) albeit they plainly teach that he did not dwell in them before that time. But it's impo&s;&s;ible that Chri&s;ts Coming again mentioned there, (1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 11.26.) &s;hould be meant of Chri&s;ts pouring forth of the Spirit, or coming at the <HI>Penteco&s;t;</HI> &s;eeing Chri&s;ts coming at the <HI>Penteco&s;t</HI> was already pa&s;t long before the writing of that Epi&s;tle to the <HI>Corinths,</HI> whereas his coming there mentioned is held forth as a thing meerly fu|ture, and not pa&s;t; now it's a flat contradiction to &s;ay, a thing meerly future, and not pa&s;t, is already pa&s;t; and &s;o his coming again mentioned in the Text of the <HI>Corinths,</HI> cannot be meant of his coming at the <HI>Penteco&s;t.</HI> Again, The Euchari&s;t was Cele|brated by the Apo&s;tles, and the Church after the <HI>Penteco&s;t,</HI> (when Chri&s;t either dwelt in the Apo&s;tles, or el&s;e never) <HI>Act.</HI> 2.42. and 20.7. 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 10.16. and 11.28. Therefore the period of the Go&s;pel Euchari&s;t could not be at the pouring out of the Spirit at the <HI>Penteco&s;t.</HI> What? Did not Chri&s;t dwell in the&s;e <HI>Corinthians</HI> whom <HI>Paul</HI> writes to? &s;eeing they were &s;anctified in Chri&s;t Je&s;us, and ju&s;tified in the Name of the Lord Je&s;us, and by the Spirit of our God, and they were Temples to the Holy Gho&s;t that dwelt in them, (1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 1.2. and 6.11, 19.) and
<PB N="100" REF="71">yet they did Celebrate the Go&s;pel-Supper among them, and that, by Divine Appointment, (1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 10.16. and 11.21, 23, 24, 28.) and &s;o the Go&s;pel-Supper was appointed to be Celebrated by People in whom Chri&s;t doth already and previou&s;ly dwell, yea none el&s;e but &s;uch are allowed to partake of it, as is &s;hewed before.</P>
<P>But need they then Bread and Wine (&s;ay the <HI>Quakers</HI>) to put them in Remembrance of him, after Chri&s;t is come to dwell in them?</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> Now the <HI>Quakers</HI> begin to di&s;pute and prove their The&s;is again&s;t the Go&s;pel-Supper, and their Argument is a fruit of their conceipted perfection in this life, from whence they infer, that they need no Ordinances; albeit the Apo&s;tle affirms, (1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 8.2. and 13.9.12.) that our knowledge in this life is &s;till &s;hort of that which it ought to be, and is but in part, and that all of it, is but dark and through a Gla&s;s; which &s;hews that we have need of Means and Ordinances, as &s;o many Per&s;picils or Gla&s;&s;es to help our weak and dim-&s;ighted Eyes, without which we cannot take up the object. This conceipted Perfection of theirs I &s;hall di&s;cu&s;s at the Fifteenth Query, when I come to it. But, wha<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter">? Do the&s;e in whom Chri&s;t dwells need nothing to put them in Remembrance of him, (for the Argument carries as much again&s;t every &s;uch thing, as again&s;t the Go&s;pel-Supper, as is manife&s;t?) indeed this very well Homologates with their <HI>Confe&s;&s;ion,</HI> where they decry all manner of External Ordinances, calling them Un|clean, Carnal, Dead, Babyloni&s;h, Heatheni&s;h Ob&s;ervations, and the Whores Cup of Abominations in &s;everal places thereof, for which &s;ee it, <HI>pages</HI> 10, 24, 77, 79, 87, 92, 102, 104, 105, 108, 111, 122, 130, 133, 135. But, I am &s;ure, it &s;uits not with the Scriptures any where, that &s;hews us many Ordinances and Means appointed of God to keep us in mind of him, and our duty unto him, and particularly of the Sacred Supper, as a Me|morial of what Chri&s;t hath done and Suffered for us; and our memories that are e&s;pecially weak in Spiritual things, have great need of Remembrancers, <HI>Joh.</HI> 14.26. <HI>Philip.</HI> 3.1. 2 <HI>Pet.</HI> 1.13. and 3.1, 2. The Divine In&s;titution of the Go&s;pel-Supper, and the Commandment given to the Church to Celebrate the &s;ame, is enough to warrant our practice of it, (methinks) and our Imperfection in this life proclaims our need of it, and other helps
<PB N="101" REF="71">and means; yea, <HI>Adam</HI> in Innocency had a Tree of Life allowed him of God to eat of, as a Symbol and Pledge of Life as long as he &s;tood in his obedience, much more need have we of a Pledge to &s;trengthen our weak Faith.</P>
<P>In the next place, to &s;hew us their good skill in Phy&s;ical Phi|lo&s;ophy, they give us a very learned, and no le&s;s true definition of Death. To Dye with Chri&s;t (&s;ay they) is to come to the Death with him. But, is it &s;o? Then never a Malefactor Died upon a Gibbet, but they Died always by the way while they were coming to it, &s;eeing they were coming to their Death while they were by the way, and to Dye, and come to the Death is all one by this definition. <HI>Hezekiah</HI> &s;hewed him&s;elf more expert in Phy&s;icks, when he di&s;tingui&s;hed betwixt the Birth and coming to the Birth, (<HI>I&s;a.</HI> 37.3.) but he did not learn his Philo&s;ophy at the <HI>Quakers</HI> School, it &s;eems. They would have defined Death much better with <HI>Ari&s;totle,</HI> that it is the lo&s;s of heat and moi&s;ture, becau&s;e the lo&s;s of the&s;e infers it; or if they will &s;tand to my Judgment, Death is the &s;eparation of Soul and Body, be|cau&s;e it is the very di&s;&s;olution of their Union. But I &s;hall pa&s;s this, only I behoove to notice the ignorance of their In&s;pirer in Naturals; as well as Spirituals.</P>
<P>In the next place they do again vainly repeat, that their fooli&s;h Argument now refuted and an&s;wered, <HI>viz.</HI> That they that are in the death of Chri&s;t, and buried with him, need not Bread and Wine to put them in Remembrance of his Death, the contrary whereof is abundantly &s;hewed already, and we will not repeat; only I cannot but with a&s;toni&s;hment wonder, that &s;eeing Chri&s;t &s;o peremptorily commands it, (whether it were needful for us, or not) <HI>This do in Remembrance of Me,</HI> they dare with their Brain-&s;ick fancies directly contradict Divine Commands. Oh! who (but the <HI>Quakers</HI> that have gotten a new Chri&s;t of their own to be &s;aved by) would refu&s;e any Token that Chri&s;t had appointed for a Memorial of his Death, who wrote his love to us, which many waters could not quench, in the Characters of his Blood in the day that he was wounded for us in the Hou&s;e of his friends?</P>
<P>But (&s;ay the <HI>Quakers</HI>) the Apo&s;tle &s;ays, they mu&s;t ri&s;e with Chri&s;t Je&s;us; and if they be ri&s;en with him, then &s;eek the&s;e things that are above; and is not Bread and Wine from below?</P>
<PB N="102" REF="72">
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> Here is another Argument again&s;t the Lords-Supper, and whereby they reproach and condemn all the Ordinances that ever God appointed from the beginning of the World, whereof any External Element was from below, as well as the Go&s;pel-Supper. Secondly, I an&s;wer, That the &s;eeking of things that are above does not exclude, but on the contrary, includes the u&s;e of the means which God hath appointed for attaining them; &s;eeing then the Lords-Supper is one of the means appointed of God for our better attaining things above, the u&s;e thereof is not there (<HI>viz. Colo&s;.</HI> 3.1.) di&s;allowed, more than the u&s;e of Water is in Bapti&s;m, of which before. Thirdly, Let the Elements be from whence they will, yet I have &s;hewed that the Go&s;pel-Supper Celebrated under the&s;e External Elements, as the Symbols is an Ordinance In&s;tituted by Chri&s;t to be ob&s;erved by the Go&s;pel Church, till his coming to the la&s;t Judgment. And what then can the <HI>Quakers</HI> &s;ay to enervat Chri&s;ts In&s;titution? Fourthly, There is nothing in the Go&s;pel-Supper that is from below, excepting the meer External Elements materially and entitatively con&s;idered; for the In&s;titution, the Internal Sub&s;tance, the My&s;tical Signification, the Ends, and Effects thereof are all of them things Heavenly and from above; and &s;o, though Bread and Wine Entitatively con&s;idered be from below, yet, the Sacrament of the Supper, and Bread and Wine taken Sacramentally are not from below; for Bread and Wine &s;imply, or in them&s;elves do not make a Go&s;|pel Euchari&s;t, more than a Body without a Soul makes a Man, as is palpable from many things above &s;aid.</P>
<P>The &s;eeking therefore of the&s;e things, above (mentioned <HI>Colo&s;.</HI> 3.1.) is meant only in oppo&s;ition to the &s;eeking of Cor|poral commodities belonging to this Life, and that, not in every re&s;pect either; but as the chief &s;cope of our Actions, (<HI>Mat.</HI> 6.33.) or to fulfil our Lu&s;ts, (<HI>Rom.</HI> 13.14.) or with inordinate care and affection, (<HI>Colo&s;.</HI> 3.2. <HI>Luk.</HI> 12.22.) or with anxious di&s;tru&s;t, (<HI>Luk.</HI> 12.29.) or by unlawful means, or without &s;ubmi&s;&s;ion to God: for, that we may &s;eek our worldly nece&s;&s;aries al&s;o, as Secundary means, moderately, without anxious care, by lawful means, for the right u&s;e, and with &s;ubmi&s;&s;ion; is manife&s;t from the Scriptures, for which, in&s;tead of many, &s;ee only <HI>Matth.</HI> 6.11. 1 <HI>Tim.</HI> 5.8. and if any Man would have us no ways looking after our Corporal nece&s;&s;aries, either he would have us
<PB N="103" REF="72">to live without them, (which a <HI>Quaker</HI> may try upon him&s;elf) or el&s;e to u&s;e no means (at lea&s;t) for the obtaining of them; and then we &s;hall Plow and Sow no more, but be &s;upplied by Miracles. The pa&s;&s;age of Scripture which they cite from 2 <HI>Cor.</HI> 4.18. will no ways Patroni&s;e their Erroneous Cau&s;e; (though they al&s;o cite it to the &s;ame very purpo&s;e in their <HI>Confe&s;&s;ion, page</HI> 79.) For the Apo&s;tle in that place is &s;peaking of his afflicti|ons, troubles, and the lo&s;s of worldly things which he endured for the Go&s;pel, and the&s;e he oppo&s;es there unto Eternal Life, calling the&s;e the things that are &s;een, and this the thing that is not &s;een; and the&s;e troubles, and the lo&s;s of the&s;e enjoyments he counted but a &s;mall bu&s;ine&s;s and a light affliction, (as it is there <HI>ver.</HI> 17.) But will any Man &s;ay, that he counted it but a light affliction to be deprived of the Go&s;pel-Supper? This would not have become <HI>Paul.</HI> But I need not Apologize for him; he purges him&s;elf &s;ufficiently of this; for the whole purpo&s;e of that Chapter &s;hews his meaning to be of the things that I have &s;aid. Again, the External Signs in the Lords Supper, rightly con&s;idered as &s;ignifying and exhibiting Chri&s;t and his benefits, are &s;o far from turning our Eyes, or hearts to things that are below and &s;een, that on the contrary, they are an excellent means of of elevating them unto, and &s;etting them upon the things that are above and not &s;een?</P>
<P>That the <HI>Corinthians</HI> were jangling, and in a di&s;order when <HI>Paul</HI> wrote the &s;econd Epi&s;tle to them; (from which the <HI>Quakers</HI> cite this pa&s;&s;age) I truly perceive not; yea, the Seventh Chap|ter thereof witne&s;&s;es the contrary: and &s;o the <HI>Quakers</HI> have mi&s;taken the &s;econd Epi&s;tle for the fir&s;t.</P>
<P>In the Clo&s;e of this Query, the <HI>Quakers</HI> &s;hew them&s;elves re|lated to the Accu&s;er of the Brethren: for (glory to God) there are many Mini&s;ters among&s;t us, who have intended, not without &s;ucce&s;s, that both them&s;elves and their Hearers &s;hould come nearer Chri&s;ts Death, than the eating and drinking of Bread and Wine for a bare Hi&s;torical Remembrance of his Death, (as the <HI>Quakers</HI> here in&s;inuate it to have been) whom, becau&s;e their Epi&s;tles of Commendation are written upon the hearts of many Thou&s;ands, we &s;hall not need here further, either to vindicate or commend them.</P>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="7" TYPE="query">
<PB N="104" REF="73">
<HEAD>Seventh QUERY.</HEAD>
<P><HI>Whether or not Chri&s;t and the Apo&s;tles gave forth a Command that they &s;hould keep the Sabbath-day? let us &s;ee where it is written in the Scriptures, but the fir&s;t day of the Week the Saints did meet together: this is Scripture; but let us &s;ee the Scripture for a Sabbath-day in the New-Te&s;tament, which &s;peaks for a re&s;t for the People of God. But is this a day? yea, or nay?</HI></P>
<DIV3 TYPE="survey">
<HEAD>S&V;RVEY.</HEAD>
<P>The <HI>Quakers</HI> Po&s;ition here is, That there is no day under the New Te&s;tament appointed to be kept as an External Chri&s;tian Sabbath-day more than another, but that all days are of equal Condition and Holine&s;s, as (be&s;ide what they here &s;ay) they al&s;o teach more plainly in their <HI>Confe&s;&s;ion of Faith,</HI> page 42. a|gain&s;t which I a&s;&s;ert, that there is an External Chri&s;tian Sabbath-day appointed to be ob&s;erved under the New Te&s;tament, di&s;tinct from all other days what&s;oever. For proving of this Conclu&s;ion, I need not bring the ordinary Argument from the light of Na|ture concerning &s;ome portion of our time and days to be &s;et apart from all civil and worldly Imployments to the exerci&s;e of Gods Publick Wor&s;hip, (which none, but a profe&s;t Athei&s;t will deny) knowing that the party I have to deal with (&s;carce both of Religion and Rea&s;on) do but little value it.</P>
<P>But fir&s;t, We are commanded in the fourth Commandment to keep holy unto God one day of &s;even, and this Command|ment is Moral, and &s;o perpetual, extending to all Ages of the Church: Therefore there is a command for keeping an External Sabbath-day under the New-Te&s;tament, as well as the Old. The con&s;equence is of it &s;elf clear to any Man. The fir&s;t part of the Antecedent is al&s;o clear from <HI>Exod.</HI> 20. Chap. I prove the &s;econd part thereof, <HI>viz.</HI> that this Commandment is Moral, and &s;o perpetual, becau&s;e God proclaimed it with his own Voice
<PB N="105" REF="73">from Mount <HI>Sinai</HI> to the whole A&s;&s;embly of <HI>I&s;rael,</HI> he wrote it with his own Finger, he in&s;erted it into the mid&s;t of the re&s;t of the Moral Precepts, he wrote it upon the Tables of Stone &s;hewing its perpetual duration, and he cau&s;ed put it into the Ark of the Te&s;timony with the re&s;t of the Moral Precepts; all which is clear from <HI>Exod.</HI> 20. Chap. throughout, and 25.16. and 31.18. and 32.15, 16. <HI>Deut.</HI> 9.10. and 10.4. But God never con|ferred the like honour upon any Precept meerly Ceremonial, as is plain from the Scriptures. Again, all the rea&s;ons of this Com|mandment are intirely Moral, and &s;tand upon common and per|petual equity: <HI>Ergo,</HI> &s;o mu&s;t the Command it &s;elf be. The rea&s;ons chiefly are, &s;eeing he him&s;elf re&s;ted after &s;ix days work fini&s;hed, and he allows us &s;ix days to our work: Therefore in all rea&s;on and equity we ought to re&s;t after &s;o many days allowed to our work, and give God a &s;eventh. La&s;tly, If this Command were not Moral, then there &s;hould not be Ten, but only Nine Commandments of that Law, which is plain contrary to <HI>Deut.</HI> 4.13. and 10.4. where <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> manife&s;tly &s;peaks of the Moral Law which God &s;pake in the Mount out of the mid&s;t of the Fire, and plainly affirms that there are Ten Commandments thereof; from which Law Chri&s;t &s;hews us, that one jot &s;hall not pa&s;s away till Heaven and Earth pa&s;s, and that the lea&s;t Com|mendment thereof mu&s;t be perpetually ob&s;erved, <HI>Matth.</HI> 5.18, 19.</P>
<P>But the <HI>Quakers</HI> an&s;wer, That the Sabbath commanded in the fourth Commandment was the la&s;t day of the week, which is abrogated. Unto this I reply, that the accommodation of the particular time or dyet to the la&s;t day of the week is indeed abro|gated; but not the &s;ub&s;tance of the Command, which (for the convincing rea&s;ons now given) is plainly Moral, and &s;o perpe|tual, and as yet in force; and &s;o it doth no le&s;s now injoyn the fir&s;t day of the week to be ob&s;erved, the accomodation of the particular Dyet being made unto the fir&s;t day, then it did then, injoyn the la&s;t day of the week to be ob&s;erved, by rea&s;on of the then-accommodation made unto the la&s;t day, &s;eeing it &s;till retains its Authority for a &s;eventh day, or one day of &s;even to be kept holy unto God, (wherein the &s;ub&s;tance of the Precept con&s;i&s;ts) which of them &s;oever he &s;hall pitch upon and determine.</P>
<PB N="106" REF="74">
<P>As for the change of the particular day, from the la&s;t to the fir&s;t of the week, (doubtle&s;s) Chri&s;t him&s;elf in his own Per&s;on is the Author thereof, &s;eeing (be&s;ide that he Ro&s;e thereupon, and re&s;ted from the great work of Redemption, which is the great ground of the change) he gives it the honour of his mo&s;t fre|quent appearings thereafter to his Di&s;ciples, (<HI>Luk.</HI> 24.13, 15. <HI>Joh.</HI> 20.19, 26.) and again of that glorious manife&s;tation of him&s;elf in the pouring forth of the Spirit at the <HI>Penteco&s;t, (Act.</HI> 2.1, 2, 3, 4.) and again, it was on this day (as &s;hall be &s;hewed) that he made that glorious appearance to <HI>John</HI> in the I&s;le of <HI>Patmos, (Revel.</HI> 1.10.) again, the fir&s;t day of the week was by the Apo&s;tles and the Church (following their Ma&s;ters Ex|ample, which is binding in things imitable, and that by Divine Precept, <HI>Ephe&s;.</HI> 5.1.) ob&s;erved for the Celebrating of Gods Publick Wor&s;hip as a day &s;et apart for that work, as appears from <HI>Act.</HI> 20.7. 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 16.1, 2. where we have not a meer bare Example or in&s;tance of the Churches meeting for once or twice to Gods Publick Wor&s;hip on that day &s;et down, but al&s;o we have their con&s;tant cu&s;tom of &s;o doing clearly in both places import|ed; yea further, the la&s;t of the&s;e two Texts &s;hews, that, that day was &s;et apart for the Publick Divine Wor&s;hip, while it expre&s;ly requires the publick Collections of Charity for the Poor, (a Pendicle of the Publick Wor&s;hip) to be made on that day, and &s;hews that the &s;ame order was al&s;o given to other Churches, as well as to them of <HI>Corinth.</HI> And la&s;tly, the Holy Gho&s;t hath recorded to us the&s;e &s;ingular Priviledges and peculiar Honour be|&s;towed by Chri&s;t upon this fir&s;t day of the week above all other days, as al&s;o the Churches ob&s;erving of it for Gods Publick Wor|&s;hip, and that con&s;tantly, and as a day &s;et apart for that u&s;e; and the like he doth not mention of any other day, which is very ob|&s;ervable. What is all this for, then? for &s;ome rea&s;on, uncontro|vertibly; and yet no other can be given, or fall under imagi|nation; (or el&s;e I intreat the <HI>Quakers</HI> to &s;hew us it, if they can) But, that the fir&s;t day of the week is a day peculiarly &s;et apart and &s;anctified by Chri&s;t for the Exerci&s;e of his Publick Wor&s;hip, and which he would have his Church peculiarly to regard, as de&s;igned for that holy u&s;e, beyond and above all other days, as was ac|cordingly done by the Apo&s;tles and Church in the pure Primitive times. The change of the day then is mo&s;t &s;urely by Divine Au|thority.</P>
<PB N="107" REF="74">
<P>But Secondly, when Chri&s;t foretels the Di&s;ciples of the De|&s;truction of <HI>Jeru&s;alem</HI> and the Temple by <HI>Ve&s;pa&s;ian, (Matth.</HI> 24.20.) which was fourty years and upwards after Chri&s;ts A&s;cen&s;ion, and &s;o it was long after the planting of the Go&s;pel-Church, and exautorating of the Ceremonial Law; He bids them pray, that their flight might not be in the Winter, nor on the Sabbath-day. There, is a Sabbath-day both name and thing under the New Te&s;tament, which Chri&s;t wills his Di&s;ciples to pray, that their flight might not be thereupon, becau&s;e it would be grievous to them to be forced to travel for pre&s;ervation of their natural Lives on that day which was In&s;tituted for Gods Publick Wor&s;hip, and their Spiritual comfort. Neither is it po&s;&s;ible to get the Sabbath-day here mentioned, meaned of every day, &s;eeing then they be|hooved either to flee on the Sabbath-day or el&s;e never: Nor yet can it be meant of an uncertain day, or &s;ome day Indeterminately; for then, the Di&s;ciples could not have known what day to pray, that their flight might not be upon, and Chri&s;ts Exhortation had been vain, and to no u&s;e or purpo&s;e, which is mo&s;t ab&s;urd and fal&s;e. This one Scripture proves a Chri&s;tian External Sabbath-day again&s;t all Contradicters; and that the fir&s;t day of the week mu&s;t be this Chri&s;tian Sabbath-day, appears from the Claim and Intere&s;t above declared, which it hath under the New Te&s;tament unto that honourable Title and peculiar Denomination above all other days, and that by Divine Warrant.</P>
<P>Thirdly, There is a particular determinate day under the New Te&s;tament which hath, by the mind and &s;entiments of the Scripture, a peculiar relation unto the Lord Chri&s;t, above all other days what&s;oever; and &s;o it is &s;eparated from the common condition of all other days, having a peculiar Divine relation, which no other hath, and thereby a preheminence and dignity before all of them; and &s;o it mu&s;t be an Holy Day, &s;eeing common days are not &s;eparated from the condition of common days, ex|cept we plea&s;e to &s;peak plain contradiction. That there is &s;uch a particular determinate day under the New Te&s;tament, is clear from <HI>Revel.</HI> 1.10. where <HI>John</HI> &s;ays, He was in the Spirit on the <HI>Lords-day,</HI> which cannot be meant of every day, &s;eeing then, he could not have been in the Spirit but on the Lords-day, whereas it is mo&s;t evident, that <HI>John</HI> di&s;tinctly points at a particular day having &s;ome peculiar relation to Chri&s;t above all others.</P>
<PB N="108" REF="75">
<P>But the <HI>Quakers</HI> (like Dictators) &s;ay, that the Lords-day here is meant of an uncertain time, called the Lords-day, becau&s;e of the Lords &s;pecial appearing thereupon. But their Commentary is mo&s;t fal&s;e, and cannot agree with the Apo&s;tles Scope, which is, as to &s;hew the certain Per&s;on Who received the Vi&s;ion, (viz. <HI>John</HI>) and the certain place of the World Where, <HI>(In the I&s;le of Patmos)</HI> and the certain kind of frame Wherein, <HI>(While he was in the Spirit)</HI> &s;o al&s;o the certain kind of day, or the certain day of the week whereupon he received the Vi&s;ion; and &s;o an uncertain time cannot &s;tand with the Scope. Secondly, Let the <HI>Quakers</HI> (if they can) prove that an uncertain time is here meant, or el&s;e their Glo&s;s upon the Text will be ju&s;tly thought uncertain. Thirdly, Our Adjective does not very perfectly turn the word, which in the Original Language is <GAP DESC="foreign">, &s;ignifying Domi|nick, or (more clearly) pertaining to the Lord, which plainly imports a particular determinate day, (adding <GAP DESC="foreign"> with it, which is in the Text) having a peculiar and &s;tated relation to the Lord above others, which by common right are his al&s;o. Having di&s;patched the <HI>Quakers</HI> uncertain time, I affirm, that the Lords-day here is meant of the fir&s;t day of the week determinately, &s;eeing it hath a peculiar intere&s;t into that Denomination above all other days what&s;oever; for, it is the day of Chri&s;ts glorious Re|&s;urrection, and cea&s;ing from the great work of Redemption, (whereof it is a Remembrance;) it is the day of his frequent appearings to his Di&s;ciples thereafter; it is the day of his glo|rious pouring forth of the Spirit, and enduing the Apo&s;tles with Power from on High; it is the day &s;et apart for his Publick Wor&s;hip, and ob&s;erved al&s;o for that u&s;e by the Apo&s;tles and Church in the pure Primitive time; and finally, it is the day which the Holy Gho&s;t hath particularly noted unto us, as alone honoured by Chri&s;t and his Church with &s;uch peculiar Privi|ledges; all which is before proved. Seeing then the fir&s;t day of the week hath, upon &s;o many &s;pecial accompts, &s;o peculiar an Intere&s;t into that Denomination, which no other can pretend to; The Lords day here mentioned, mu&s;t be inevitably under&s;tood of the &s;ame, &s;eeing the be&s;t right mu&s;t and ought to gain the Cau&s;e, except we re&s;olve utterly to abandon our Rea&s;on, or el&s;e determine again&s;t clear Ju&s;tice. Let the <HI>Quakers</HI> then &s;hew us &s;ome other day with a better, or as good right; or el&s;e, prove
<PB N="109" REF="75">from the Text, or otherwi&s;e, that &s;ome other day, certain or un|certain is meant, (which I defie them to do) otherwi&s;e the&s;e clear Scripture-grounds mu&s;t bear more weight, than their meer bare word and naked a&s;&s;ertions.</P>
<P>But the <HI>Quakers</HI> will object again&s;t an External Sabbath-day under the New-Te&s;tament, that the Apo&s;tle condemns the ob&s;ervation of days and Sabbath-days, <HI>Galat.</HI> 4.10. <HI>Colo&s;.</HI> 2.16.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> The Apo&s;tle does not there or any where el&s;e, condemn the ob&s;ervation of the Chri&s;tian Sabbath-day, but only of the <HI>Jewi&s;h</HI> Sabbath-days, (with any others that never had Divine Warrant, again&s;t which the Argument infers a <HI>Fortiori</HI>) where|of, be&s;ide their ordinary weekly Sabbath-day, they had a great many, &s;uch as were the fir&s;t and la&s;t days of every one of their three Solemn Fea&s;ts, <HI>viz.</HI> of the Pa&s;&s;over, of Penteco&s;t or Weeks, and of Tabernacles; as al&s;o their Fea&s;t of Trumpets on the fir&s;t day of the &s;eventh Month, and the Fea&s;t of Expia|tion or Attonement on the tenth day of the &s;eventh Month; and be&s;ide all the&s;e, their New Moons, their Sabbath of Years, and great Jubilies; all which may be &s;een <HI>Levit.</HI> 23. and 25. <HI>Chap.</HI> and <HI>Numb.</HI> 10. <HI>Chap.</HI> And that it is &s;uch days as the&s;e, and not our Chri&s;tian Sabbath-day, the ob&s;erving whereof the Apo&s;tle condemns, is clear in the very Context of the&s;e two cited places; for in the fir&s;t Text, he expre&s;ly names Months and Years, that is, New Moons and Sabbaths of Years, and the intire &s;cope of the Epi&s;tle is bent again&s;t <HI>Jewi&s;h</HI> Ceremonies, pertaining to the then-Bondage-&s;tate of the Infant-Church under the Old-Te&s;ta|ment, as any man reading it may &s;ee. And in the la&s;t Text, he ranks the&s;e Sabbaths which he rejects, with Meats, and Drinks and New Moons, and calls them &s;hadows of things to come, of which kind our Chri&s;tian Sabbath-day is not. Nor is all di&s;tinction of days, without exception, taken away here, more than the di&s;tinction of the Elements in the Lords-Supper from other common Meat and Drink, (which, that it is not taken away, I have proved at the Survey of the la&s;t Query) &s;eeing, both Meats and Drinks and Days are here equally condemned, or not &s;o. What? Does <HI>Paul</HI> here condemn the ob&s;ervation of the Chri&s;tian Sabbath-day, which Chri&s;t teaches we &s;hall
<PB N="110" REF="76">have under the New-Te&s;tament? or, Does he re&s;cind the fourth Commandment? or, Condemns he the ob&s;ervation of the Day which him&s;elf and the whole Church ob&s;erved, as &s;et apart for Gods Publick Wor&s;hip? &s;ay not &s;o, I pray.</P>
<P>Again, they will Object that the &s;ame Apo&s;tle holds forth the Indi&s;tinction and equal Condition of all days, <HI>Rom.</HI> 14.5.6.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> That is mo&s;t fal&s;e, for the unan&s;werable rea&s;ons now given. Secondly, by the Context it &s;elf, the days there Treated of, are &s;uch as are in the &s;ame order with Ceremonial Meats and Drinks of <HI>Jewi&s;h</HI> ob&s;ervation, the e&s;timation whereof above others was an Infirmity in the weaker &s;ort to be born with by the &s;tronger, until their better Information and Per&s;ua&s;ion: But the Chri&s;tian Sabbath-day is not of that &s;ort, as is &s;hewed. Nor does <HI>Paul</HI> here any more overturn the di&s;tinction of the Chri&s;tian Sabbath-day from other common days, then of the Elements in the Lords-Supper from other common Meat and Drink, which it is certain he does not overturn, &s;eeing the&s;e in the Lords-Supper are of a very far different Condition from all common Meat and Drink, in regard of their In&s;titution, Signification, Ends, Effects, <HI>&amp;c.</HI></P>
<P>In the Clo&s;e of their Query they tell us, that the Scriptures &s;peaks for a Re&s;t for the people of God. But is this Re&s;t (&s;ay they) limited to a day?</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> What then, I pray? the Scriptures promi&s;e the Eternal Re&s;t of Heaven to all true Believers, whereof al&s;o their Grace and Sanctification is an Earne&s;t and Degree inchoat and begun here, though not perfected. But will this prove that there &s;hould not be, or is not an external Sabbath-day under the New Te&s;ta|ment? then neither &s;hould there have been any under the Old either, &s;eeing the Re&s;t of Heaven was promi&s;ed to Believers then, as well as now. And all true Believers had &s;ome mea&s;ure of Grace and Sanctification then, as well as now. Or will our re&s;ting from &s;in in &s;ome mea&s;ure begun in this Life, or our Eternal Re&s;ting in Heaven in the next Life infer, that we &s;hould re&s;t from our Duty in this Life? For&s;ooth &s;uch Con&s;equences are very &s;utable to the <HI>Quakers</HI> Logick.</P>
<P>But, &s;ay the <HI>Quakers</HI> (which is their la&s;t Gun) every day is a Holy day to a Chri&s;tian.</P>
<PB N="111" REF="76">
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> I grant a Chri&s;tian &s;hould be Holy every day, and keep an Internal Sabbath, as they call it. But it will not from thence follow, that we have not an External Sabbath-day al&s;o; for <HI>Adam</HI> in Innocency when he maintained, and was bound to main|tain a continual Internal Sabbath of Sanctification, had, for all that, an External Sabbath-day al&s;o (<HI>Gen.</HI> 2.3.) and the <HI>Jews</HI> under the Old Te&s;tament were bound to maintain an Internal Sab|bath of Sanctification every day, and yet they had an External Sabbath-day al&s;o. For an External Sabbath-day requires, not only that we cea&s;e from &s;in and be holy, but al&s;o that we cea&s;e from all our Civil and worldly Imployments, and Works that on other days are Lawful (excepting works of nece&s;&s;ity and mer|cy which are every day Duties) and in that ab&s;traction from the world, &s;pend the whole day in the publick and private Exerci&s;e of Divine Wor&s;hip; which things could not be done every day even by <HI>Adam</HI> in Innocency. And if every day were a Holy day to us, we behoove either to Plow and Sow on Holy day, or el&s;e not do &s;uch things at all; both which are utterly ab&s;urd.</P>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="8" TYPE="query">
<HEAD>Eighth QUERY.</HEAD>
<P><HI>Whether or not your Singing of</HI> Davids P&s;alms, <HI>his Prayers, Prophecies, Fa&s;tings, Reproaches, Weepings, Lamentations, and Complaints how he was Mocked have any Warrant in the Scripture? and you bring all the&s;e together in Meeter, without di&s;tinction. Have ye not done this your &s;elves? or did the Apo&s;tles it to the Saints in the Primitive times? or have ye the &s;ame Spirit the Apo&s;tles had? or a larger mea&s;ure of it, then the Apo&s;tles had, by which ye have turned the&s;e into Meeter &s;ince the Apo&s;tles days? and what was the P&s;alms, Hymns, and Spiritual Songs they Sung in the Primitive times? An|&s;wer the&s;e things by plain Scripture.</HI></P>
<DIV3 TYPE="survey">
<PB N="112" REF="77">
<HEAD>S&V;RVEY.</HEAD>
<P>The State of the Que&s;tion here is very plain. The <HI>Quakers</HI> deny our Singing of <HI>P&s;alms</HI> to be an Ordinance of the Go&s;pel, or of Divine In&s;titution under the New Te&s;tament. Contrary unto this,</P>
<P>I A&s;&s;ert that Singing of <HI>P&s;alms</HI> is an Ordinance of the New Te&s;tament Divinely appointed. I prove it. Therefore fir&s;t, Singing of <HI>P&s;alms</HI> was an Ordinance of Divine In&s;titution under the Old Te&s;tament, 1 <HI>Chron.</HI> 16.9. <HI>P&s;al.</HI> 95.2. and 105.2. Therefore it mu&s;t be &s;o &s;till under the New. The Scriptures Cited prove the Antecedent. I prove the Con&s;equence, becau&s;e Singing of <HI>P&s;alms</HI> was no <HI>Jewi&s;h</HI> Ceremony, and if the Adver&s;a|ries will &s;ay &s;o, let them prove their Affirmative, as they are obliged; and until then I &s;hall confirm the Negative, <HI>viz.</HI> that Sing|ing of <HI>P&s;alms</HI> is no <HI>Jewi&s;h</HI> Ceremony, becau&s;e fir&s;t, I cannot think that Chri&s;t joyned a <HI>Jewi&s;h</HI> Ceremony after the Go&s;pel-Supper, when he Sung a Hymn, or <HI>P&s;alm</HI> (as it is on the Margine of &s;ome of our Bibles) <HI>Mat.</HI> 26.30. <HI>Mark.</HI> 14.26. Nor that <HI>Paul</HI> and <HI>Silas</HI> u&s;ed any <HI>Jewi&s;h</HI> Ceremony, e&s;pecially there not being any fear of Offence and &s;tumbling of weak Brethren there, when in Pri&s;on they Sung Prai&s;es unto God, <HI>Act.</HI> 16.25. Again, the Apo&s;tle does very plainly Exhort the Chri&s;tians of the New Te&s;tament (<HI>Ephe&s;.</HI> 5.19. and <HI>Colo&s;.</HI> 3.16.) to &s;peak unto them|&s;elves in <HI>P&s;alms,</HI> Hymns, and Spiritual Songs, Singing and making Melody in their hearts unto the Lord; and Teaching and Admoni&s;hing one another in <HI>P&s;alms,</HI> and Hymns, and Spiritual Songs, Singing with Grace in their hearts unto the Lord; In which Texts he &s;hews, that that piece of Wor&s;hip is edifying both to our &s;elves, and al&s;o to others that joyn with us, while he &s;ays, &s;peaking to our &s;elves in <HI>P&s;alms,</HI> and Admoni&s;hing one another in <HI>P&s;alms.</HI> And Secondly, that it is a comfortable and Heart-chearing Duty, while he &s;ays making Melody in your hearts. And Thirdly, that it glorifies God, while he &s;ays, doing it unto the Lord: Therefore Singing of <HI>P&s;alms</HI> can be no <HI>Jewi&s;h</HI> Ceremony, having the&s;e Examples and Precepts for it to the Church of the New Te&s;tament.</P>
<P>Secondly, In the fir&s;t Epi&s;tle to the <HI>Corinthians</HI> (<HI>Chap.</HI> 14.15.26.)
<PB N="113" REF="77">The Apo&s;tle, in the one place of the Chapter and Ver&s;es Cited, &s;harply reproves the <HI>Corinthians</HI> for their Di&s;order and Confu&s;ion in Singing in the publick A&s;&s;emblies, becau&s;e every one of them had a <HI>P&s;alm</HI> by them&s;elves, and did not all joyn toge|ther; and in the other place he directeth them how to Sing <HI>P&s;alms</HI> aright, <HI>viz.</HI> with the Spirit and with the under&s;tanding al&s;o, that is, not only with the Breath, or voice (which there he calls the Spirit; and the &s;ignification from the Original word, <GAP DESC="foreign">, mo&s;t properly &s;ignifies the Breath, or Wind) but al&s;o in a known Tongue, which the whole Context there declares he means when he &s;ays, with the Under&s;tanding; and &s;o the Apo&s;tle does here Reform the abu&s;e that was crept in into their publick Singing of <HI>P&s;alms,</HI> and directs them how to do it aright. But a Super&s;ti|tious Will-wor&s;hip (&s;uch as Singing of <HI>P&s;alms</HI> mu&s;t be, if it be not of Divine In&s;titution) can never be performed aright, it involves a plain Contradiction to &s;ay &s;o. What? did <HI>Paul</HI> direct men how to Wor&s;hip God aright by a Super&s;titious Will-wor&s;hip? Nay, &s;urely not. Singing of <HI>P&s;alms</HI> then mu&s;t undeniably be an Ordinance of Divine In&s;titution under the Go&s;pel.</P>
<P>Thirdly, the Apo&s;tle <HI>James</HI> &s;ays (<HI>Jam.</HI> 5.13.) <HI>Is any man afflicted? let him pray, is any man merry? let him Sing P&s;alms:</HI> Therefore Singing of <HI>P&s;alms</HI> hath a Divine Warrant under the New Te&s;tament. The <HI>Quakers</HI> an&s;wer, that he bids us Sing <HI>P&s;alms</HI> only when we are merry. But, it &s;eems then, that the <HI>Quakers</HI> are never, never Merry, but are a number of Sullen, Dull, and Melancholick Hypocondriack Drones, who cannot at all Sing <HI>P&s;alms.</HI> Secondly, there is no &s;uch exclu&s;ion in the Text, as is pretended; otherwi&s;e the Apo&s;tle bids us pray only when we are afflicted al&s;o, &s;eeing both the&s;e are pronounced with one Breath, and the manner of the Expre&s;&s;ion and extent of the Terms are the &s;ame in both; and the <HI>Quakers</HI> can &s;hew no ground for exclu&s;ion in the one, more than the other, notwith&s;tanding they may &s;ee how frequently and continually we are commanded to pray, <HI>Ephe&s;.</HI> 6.18. <HI>Phil.</HI> 4.6. 1 <HI>The&s;.</HI> 5.17.</P>
<P>They may al&s;o &s;ee Chri&s;t and his Di&s;ciples Singing when by all Circum&s;tances it appears they were Sorrowful, &s;eeing they were &s;o both pre&s;ently before and after, as appears from <HI>Mat.</HI> 26.22. <HI>Mark.</HI> 14.26. compared with <HI>Mat.</HI> 26.30.38. <HI>Mark.</HI> 14.19.34. <HI>Joh.</HI> 13.21. The Apo&s;tle therefore by Merrine&s;s and
<PB N="114" REF="78">Affliction points at the frame and ca&s;e unto which the&s;e Duties are mo&s;t e&s;pecially &s;uited, no ways excluding the excerci&s;e of them in other frames and ca&s;es. But let us give them for once (not granting) that the Apo&s;tle does there appoint us to Sing <HI>P&s;alms</HI> only when we are Merry; yet Singing of <HI>P&s;alms</HI> &s;hall by this Text (even in the Adver&s;aries own Sence) be of Divine In&s;titu|tion under the New Te&s;tament; or el&s;e (in their Principles) we may in our Merry and Joyful frames offer a Super&s;titious Will|wor&s;hip unto God, which I have not yet learnt to believe.</P>
<P>The <HI>Quakers</HI> applying this Text of <HI>James</HI> in the 130 page of their Confe&s;&s;ion of Faith an&s;wer us, that there is none Merry, but the Ran&s;omed of the Lord; and therefore they mean to infer (for that is their Scope in the place) that none &s;hould Sing <HI>P&s;alms,</HI> but the&s;e.</P>
<P>But Fir&s;t, then certainly the <HI>Quakers</HI> are Convict, that they them&s;elves are none of the Ran&s;omed of the Lord, &s;eeing they here allow the Ran&s;omed of the Lord to Sing <HI>P&s;alms,</HI> which yet they cannot be per&s;uaded to do.</P>
<P>Secondly, all the Members of the vi&s;ible Church profe&s;&s;ing Faith in Chri&s;t, and &s;ubjecting to his Ordinances, are by vi&s;ible Profe&s;&s;ion, and in &s;ome degree of the judgment of Charity, the Ran&s;omed of the Lord: Therefore the <HI>Quakers</HI> (by their own principles) ought to allow them to Sing <HI>P&s;alms.</HI></P>
<P>Thirdly, others al&s;o, be&s;ide the Ran&s;omed of the Lord, are bound to Wor&s;hip God, except &s;ome &s;pecial piece of Wor&s;hip, by &s;ome &s;pecial Conditions which it requires, doth exclude them, as the Lords Supper excludes all that do not, or cannot Examine them&s;elves, di&s;cern the Lords Body, and &s;hew forth his Death (albeit the Church in admitting per&s;ons mu&s;t walk by probabili|ties, and can reach no further) and both it and Bapti&s;m excludes all that want a vi&s;ible Intere&s;t into the Covenant: But Singing of <HI>P&s;alms</HI> is a piece of Gods appointed Wor&s;hip (as is &s;hewed) and there is no &s;pecial condition Recorded in all the Scripture that debars any man from Singing and joyning therein; or el&s;e let the <HI>Quakers</HI> &s;hew it, if they can. If they &s;hall &s;ay (as we &s;ee they do &s;ay) that the Unran&s;omed by this Text are excluded from Singing <HI>P&s;alms,</HI> they &s;hall &s;peak fal&s;ly: for (be&s;ide our former rea&s;ons given already to this exception) the Text exhorts any man (What&s;oever he be) unto that duty, but e&s;pecially when
<PB N="115" REF="78">he is in a joyful frame. And giving (without granting) the Ran&s;omed only to be meant, yet P&s;alms-&s;inging will &s;till be of Divine In&s;titution, if the&s;e be allowed, and in the judgment of Charity the&s;e will be all the profe&s;&s;ing Members of the Church &s;ubjecting to Divine Ordinances. And whereas they here alledge, that the Ran&s;omed only are Merry, or joyful, that is al&s;o fal&s;e, for others, be&s;ide the&s;e, are &s;ometimes joyful (<HI>Mat.</HI> 13.20. <HI>Luk.</HI> 8.13.) and &s;o the exception is to no purpo&s;e.</P>
<P>But the <HI>Quakers</HI> in&s;inuate here an Argument again&s;t P&s;alms|&s;inging, <HI>viz.</HI> that its very un&s;uitable to make Songs of <HI>Davids</HI> &s;ad Ca&s;es of Mourning, Weeping, Lamenting, <HI>&amp;c.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> But its much more un&s;uitable for the <HI>Quakers</HI> to pre&s;ume them&s;elves Wi&s;er than God and <HI>David,</HI> who have cau&s;ed make, and made Songs on <HI>Davids</HI> &s;ad Ca&s;es, as the Title which (almo&s;t) every where they get, and which Chri&s;t gives them (<HI>Luk.</HI> 20.42. and 24.44.) &s;ufficiently declares. If then they cen&s;ure it as a fault in us to Sing <HI>Davids</HI> &s;ad Lots, much more do they Tax God and <HI>David</HI> for making Songs of them, and ordaining them to be Sung.</P>
<P>Secondly, this proves only (if any thing) that we &s;hould not Sing <HI>P&s;alms</HI> made upon &s;ad Ca&s;es. Why will not the <HI>Quakers</HI> Sing other <HI>P&s;alms?</HI></P>
<P>Thirdly, if the reading of the&s;e &s;ad Lots of <HI>David</HI> can yield any Edification (which is certain) the Singing of them may yield the &s;ame, &s;eeing Singing is nothing el&s;e but a Melodious kind of reading, a reading with a Tune.</P>
<P>Fourthly, the Singing of <HI>Davids</HI> Weepings, Lamentings, Complaints, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> is not therefore un&s;uitable to us, becau&s;e the Ca&s;es were afflicting to <HI>David</HI> while he was under them: for albeit the&s;e were afflicting to him for the time; yet the after Memory of them is very comfortable to us (and to him&s;elf when they were over. <HI>For&s;an &amp; haec olim memini&s;&s;e juvabit,</HI> &s;aid the Poet) unto whom the like Ca&s;es are al&s;o incident; for its comfortable to us to &s;ee the Path beaten by &s;o worthy a Saint as <HI>David,</HI> and it would be &s;ad to us to think that our Lot in &s;uch a Ca&s;e never befel any Saint.</P>
<P>Fifthly, the making Songs upon, and Singing of the&s;e &s;ad Ca&s;es Teaches us, that even in our &s;adde&s;t Lots there is &s;till &s;ome matter of prai&s;e to God, and for which we ought to Sing unto his Name, yea and al&s;o that we ought therein to chear up our hearts rejoycing
<PB N="116" REF="79">in God, and not give our &s;elves over to be &s;wallowed up of heart|le&s;s de&s;pondency. Thus far, be&s;ide the Divine In&s;titution, (which is enough again&s;t all they can bring) I have &s;atisfied the Ex|ception.</P>
<P>But, &s;ay the <HI>Quakers,</HI> With what confidence can a Man &s;ing &s;uch pa&s;&s;ages as the&s;e, <HI>viz. We have not dealt fal&s;ly in thy Co|venant, neither have our hearts turned back, P&s;al.</HI> 44.17, 18.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> This will only prove, (if it could prove any thing) that back&s;lidden Chri&s;tians may not &s;ing &s;uch pa&s;&s;ages, and yet it hinders them not to &s;ing other <HI>P&s;alms.</HI> The <HI>Quakers</HI> then are certainly convict, (as the truth is) that them&s;elves are a back|&s;lidden People, &s;eeing they have no confidence to &s;ing &s;uch pa&s;&s;ages.</P>
<P>Secondly, Whither now is the <HI>Quakers</HI> Perfection gone? per|fect folk may &s;ing them, or el&s;e none may.</P>
<P>Thirdly, We may &s;ing the&s;e as our &s;incere and con&s;tant adhe|rence to God, (which is all their meaning) albeit we be not perfect in our obedience; and the greate&s;t Saint in <HI>I&s;rael</HI> could do no further.</P>
<P>Fourthly, We may &s;ing them as through grace, both po&s;&s;ible and hoped for by us, though we be not as yet come that length.</P>
<P>Fifthly, We may &s;ing them as other Mens attainments (for which we are bound to prai&s;e God) on their behalf, or putting our &s;elves in their room, though they be not our own attain|ments. Some of the&s;e ways any Man may &s;ing them.</P>
<P>But, &s;ay the <HI>Quakers,</HI> its &s;aid, <HI>We have not dealt fal&s;ly, &amp;c.</HI> which, if it be not &s;o with us, we lie, &s;eeing its &s;aid, We.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> But then we may not read &s;uch pa&s;&s;ages either, if the Ar|gument be good: for when we read them, we mu&s;t read We, as well as &s;ing We; again, this hinders us not to &s;ing them as the attainments of others putting our &s;elves in their room, and acting in their behalf, which is ordinary in other things.</P>
<P>Thirdly, Albeit it be not &s;o with us at pre&s;ent, yet we may &s;ing them in hope, fore-acting (as it were) the ca&s;e wherein upon good grounds we hope to be Con&s;tituted, &s;eeing we may prai&s;e God for things hoped for, and (as it were) pre-occupy the po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion of them. See the&s;e two objections propo&s;ed in like terms and like in&s;tances, in the <HI>Quakers Confe&s;&s;ion of Faith,</HI> pages 129, 130.</P>
<PB N="117" REF="79">
<P>Again they object, That there are &s;everal places wherein there are many Cur&s;es pronounced, (as <HI>P&s;al.</HI> 109.) which therefore ought not to be &s;ung, becau&s;e thereby People are made to Cur&s;e.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> We cur&s;e no le&s;s in reading &s;uch pa&s;&s;ages, than in &s;inging of th<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter">m: if the Argument be good then, we may not read &s;uch <HI>P&s;alms.</HI> Secondly, I grant, we may not wi&s;h evil to any Man for his private Injuries or Enmity again&s;t us; (<HI>Matth.</HI> 5.44. <HI>Rom.</HI> 12.19, 20.) but where God hath in his Word pronounced Cur&s;es again&s;t notorious wicked M<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter">n and Enemies of his Work and Intere&s;t, and hath ordained the&s;e Cur&s;es again&s;t them to be publickly &s;ung, (for the Churches Triumph, and their terror) we may very lawfully &s;ing them, nor &s;hould we refu&s;e to obey, God appointing it. Thirdly, We may not indeed rejoyce in any mans mi&s;ery, as &s;uch; yet, when God is glorified by his Righteous Judgments upon &s;uch Per&s;ons, we may rejoyce upon that account, <HI>P&s;al.</HI> 58.10. <HI>Revel.</HI> 19. <HI>Chap.</HI> to <HI>Ver.</HI> 6. La&s;tly, Seeing God him&s;elf hath cau&s;ed make <HI>P&s;alms</HI> of the&s;e Cur&s;es, again&s;t &s;uch notorious Enemies to him, and hath ordained them to be &s;ung, (&s;eeing (as is now proved) he hath ordained us to &s;ing the <HI>P&s;alms,</HI> and he hath no where excepted any <HI>P&s;alm</HI> from that ge|neral Rule) we may &s;urely, &s;ing &s;uch <HI>P&s;alms;</HI> Nay, we may not make exceptions at our own hand from Divine Rules, where the Rule it &s;elf excepts not. Who dare pre&s;ume, without Gods Authority, to dimini&s;h and re&s;trict his Laws? Nay, they might as well make his whole Laws null and void, as &s;o to retrench them, without his Authority. An&s;wer my Arguments if they can.</P>
<P>But, &s;ay the <HI>Quakers,</HI> Have ye not turned the <HI>P&s;alms</HI> into Meeter your &s;elves?</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> What then? Did not al&s;o &s;ome of our &s;elves turn the Scriptures into our Mother Tongue? Mu&s;t we ca&s;t them away for that? I, that's the bu&s;ine&s;s. But will ye tell me, Does not &s;ome of your &s;elves preach (if it might be called &s;o) when your Spirit, (that often takes a long time to &s;tudy his Sermon, (though ye your &s;elves take none, ye &s;ay, and condemns them that do, (<HI>Quakeri&s;m no Popery,</HI> page, 99.) or el&s;e he has the Pal&s;ie in his Tongue) comes upon you? &s;eeing we are appointed to &s;ing <HI>P&s;alms,</HI> and we cannot do that, except they be Meetered, and the turning of <HI>P&s;alms</HI> into Meeter requires a good Mu&s;itian,
<PB N="118" REF="80">or good Poet, rather than an immediatly In&s;pired Apo&s;tle; we may &s;ing <HI>P&s;alms,</HI> though by others than Apo&s;tles they be put into a Metral form to us. Yea, &s;eeing the Apo&s;tles did not Meeter them in our Language, and yet we are Ordained to &s;ing them, which requires that they be Meetered in the &s;ame, they mu&s;t be put into Meeter by &s;ome of our &s;elves, or el&s;e we cannot obey the command to &s;ing them.</P>
<P>But, &s;ay the <HI>Quakers,</HI> Have ye the &s;ame Spirit the Apo&s;tles had, or a larger mea&s;ure of it than they had, by which ye have turned the&s;e into Meeter &s;ince the Apo&s;tles days?</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> The &s;ame Spirit we have, though not the &s;ame mea&s;ure: for, albeit there are diver&s;ities of gifts among&s;t Believers, yet they have all the &s;ame Spirit, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 12.4, 13. But behold here a rare fan&s;ie: The <HI>Quakers</HI> require either (at lea&s;t) the &s;ame mea&s;ure, or el&s;e a larger mea&s;ure of the Spirit, than the Apo&s;tles had, for turning the <HI>P&s;alms</HI> into Meeter. What? will no le&s;s mea&s;ure of the Spirit, than the Apo&s;tles had, &s;erve to un|der&s;tand Poetry and the Notes of Mu&s;ick? Mu&s;t we be immedi|atly In&s;pired for the&s;e two? O brave Morology! The <HI>Quakers</HI> (it &s;eems) will not allow a Boy to &s;ing a Song, nor a Min&s;treller to play his Tune, (both which requires &s;omething of Mu&s;ick) without immediate In&s;piration, for&s;ooth. <HI>Spectatum admi&s;&s;i ri&s;um teneatis amici?</HI> The <HI>Quakers</HI> (it &s;eems) do not like to be Precenters, le&s;t (perhaps) they get little Salary.</P>
<P>La&s;tly, They ask, what the <HI>P&s;alms</HI> were that were &s;ung in the Primitive times?</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> They were certainly, the &s;ame that we now &s;ing, &s;eeing the&s;e only are written in the Scriptures, (though the <HI>Quakers</HI> may have other <HI>P&s;alms</HI> in their wild Scripture-Book within) and appointed by God to be &s;ung, as (be&s;ide that, we are Or|dained to &s;ing <HI>P&s;alms,</HI> and there is no other to choo&s;e upon) is clear from 2 <HI>Chron.</HI> 29.30. where the Church of <HI>I&s;rael</HI> &s;ang prai&s;es to God with the words of <HI>David</HI> and <HI>A&s;aph,</HI> &s;ays the Text, by the command of the good King and great Reformer. The&s;e that would &s;ee any further concerning &s;ome &s;cruples about <HI>P&s;alms</HI>-&s;inging, let them read worthy Mr. <HI>Durhams</HI> Expo&s;ition of the <HI>Song of Solomon,</HI> from <HI>page</HI> 48. to <HI>page</HI> 53. where they may find &s;ome doubts re&s;olved, which I purpo&s;ely here omit, becau&s;e there they may be found, though little, or nothing here medled with, be there touched.</P>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="9" TYPE="query">
<PB N="119" REF="80">
<HEAD>Ninth QUERY.</HEAD>
<P><HI>Whether or not your Directory Confe&s;&s;ion of Faith, and Cathechi&s;ms 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 &s;uch a Directory, or Catechi&s;m, or Confe&s;&s;ion 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 Gho&s;t, by the holy Men of God who had the Infallible Spirit?</HI></P>
<DIV3 TYPE="survey">
<HEAD>S&V;RVEY.</HEAD>
<P>This In&s;pirer of the <HI>Quakers</HI> is &s;urely no Spirit of Truth, but a manife&s;t Devi&s;er of Lies, &s;eeing almo&s;t in every Sentence, that drops from his mouth, he impudently &s;landers the Church of God in <HI>Britain:</HI> for, who ever heard that any <HI>Prote&s;tant</HI> Church did hold any thing of Eccle&s;ia&s;tical Con&s;titution formally as &s;uch, for an Infallible Rule; But, on the contrary, it hath always been the Doctrine of all <HI>Prote&s;tant</HI> Churches, and as much of the Church of <HI>Britain</HI> as any other, (as may be &s;een in the fourth Article of the 31. Chapter of her Confe&s;&s;ion of Faith) that all Synods and Councels &s;ince the Apo&s;tles days are liable to Error; and that therefore their Con&s;titutions formally as &s;uch, are not to be made the Rule of Divine Faith and Religious Practice: and yet there is much more hope of an unerring Spirit in a whole Synod of Orthodox Church-Guides, than in any Brain&s;ick <HI>Quaker</HI> fal&s;ly pretending thereunto.</P>
<P>The <HI>Quakers</HI> do not here quarrel with our Directory Confe&s;|&s;ion, or Catechi&s;m as to their &s;ubject &s;entence, and the particular definitions which they contain; or el&s;e, they &s;hould have in|&s;tanced the particulars which they judge to be wrong, and not
<PB N="120" REF="81">agreeable to the Stripture, (that we might have known what to vindicate) which until they do, I cannot gratifie them with par|ticular defences.</P>
<P>Their quarrel therefore here is at the very common form of a Directory, Confe&s;&s;ion, or Catechi&s;m in a Church, and that Church-Guides &s;hould pre&s;ume to Con&s;titute the&s;e; and &s;o all Churches are concerned in this affair, &s;eeing all of them have their Confe&s;&s;ions, Catechi&s;ms, and Directories; and yet (no doubt) this quarrel is chiefly intended again&s;t the Directory, Confe&s;&s;ion, and Catechi&s;m of the Church of God in <HI>Britain.</HI> Therefore, that we may in the general vindicate the&s;e, we &s;hall begin with the Directory.</P>
<P>Therefore fir&s;t, a Church-Directory may be taken in a large and improper &s;ence, as comprehending rules concerning parts of the publick Wor&s;hip of God it &s;elf, and the religious manner thereof, as their immediate object directly regarded; and if the&s;e Rules teach and direct no other Wor&s;hip, nor any other religious manner of the Wor&s;hip, but the very &s;ame which the Scripture directs and teaches, then they can never be found fault with, &s;ee|ing even every particular Mini&s;ter hath authority, and is obliged by his Office to teach and enjoyn his Flock the Wor&s;hip of God, and the religious manner thereof from the Scripture; yea, that is his chief work, and I mu&s;t &s;till think, that a Synod of Mini|&s;ters conveened in Chri&s;ts name have no le&s;s authority, nor can be any le&s;s obliged. Such Rules there are in our Directory, as the Rules appointing the Sabbath-day to be kept holy, <HI>P&s;alms</HI> to be &s;ung, Mini&s;ters to do their work faithfully, diligently, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> all which are very Scripture-Rules particularly taught therein, and their immediate objects are con&s;tituent parts, or religious manners of the Wor&s;hip.</P>
<P>But Secondly, a Church-Directory may be taken in a more &s;trict and proper &s;ence, as re&s;tricted to, and meerly comprehend|ing Rules, or Directions, concerning the External Circum&s;tances of the Publick Wor&s;hip, and Government of Gods Hou&s;e. And for vindicating our Directory, (in the general, as was explained) taken in this proper notion; We mu&s;t ob&s;erve fir&s;t, that, as it is utterly impo&s;&s;ible to exerce any action, except under the ve&s;ture of &s;everal circum&s;tances; So likewi&s;e the publick Wor&s;hip of
<PB N="121" REF="81">God cannot be performed, except under the ve&s;ture of various Circum&s;tances, as needs no demon&s;tration.</P>
<P>Secondly, I mu&s;t ob&s;erve that, as the ve&s;ture of unbe&s;eeming undecent, and di&s;orderly circum&s;tances in the exerci&s;e of Gods Publick Wor&s;hip, doth very much deform and di&s;grace the work, (as all may know) and &s;o cannot but very much hinder Edifica|tion, and beget Scandals; So the Ve&s;ture of comely, decent, and orderly circum&s;tances therein, doth greatly beautifie and adorn the work, (by the Rule of Contraries) and &s;o doth promote and advance Edification and Growth, which by the contrary are exceedingly letted and hindered.</P>
<P>Thirdly, I mu&s;t ob&s;erve, that the&s;e External Circum&s;tances of Gods Publick Wor&s;hip, are not in the Scripture particularly defined and determined, &s;eeing it is no where of Scripture par|ticularly defined, what time of the day, or night the publick Wor&s;hip &s;hall begin; how long it &s;hall la&s;t; what order &s;hall be ob&s;erved in reading, preaching, praying, &s;inging, hearing, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> But only they are therein determined in the general, as to their common form of order and decency, that, decency and order mu&s;t be ob&s;erved therein, &s;eeing all things mu&s;t be &s;o done in the Church, (1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 14.40.) which command is manife&s;ty tran&s;|gre&s;&s;ed by the undecency and di&s;order of one &s;mall Circum&s;tance; and &s;o it plainly injoyns to maintain order, and decency, in all the Circum&s;tances of Gods Publick Wor&s;hip.</P>
<P>La&s;tly, I mu&s;t ob&s;erve, that it properly belongs to the Church-Guides, and, they are bound to &s;ee to the maintaining of de|cency, and order, in the Circum&s;tances of Gods Publick Wor&s;hip: for, &s;eeing God commands to maintain decency and order there|in, and they are the Watchmen and Rulers who have the Care and Over&s;ight of the Church, (<HI>Act.</HI> 20.28. <HI>Rom.</HI> 12.8. 1 <HI>The&s;.</HI> 5.12. 1 <HI>Tim.</HI> 3.5. and 5.17. <HI>Heb.</HI> 13.7, 17. 1 <HI>Pet.</HI> 5.2.) it mu&s;t, of nece&s;&s;ity, belong unto them, and they mu&s;t be thereunto obliged.</P>
<P>Having ob&s;erved the&s;e things, I hope, I may a&s;&s;ert, that Church-Officers and Judicatures have Divine Warrant and Au|thority to make and &s;et forth Church-Directories for regulating the External Circum&s;tances of Gods Publick Wor&s;hip in a decent and orderly way, or &s;o as they may be decent and orderly. This
<PB N="122" REF="82">a&s;&s;ertion is clear from our preceeding Ob&s;ervations, whereunto I &s;hall add an Argument, or two.</P>
<P>Fir&s;t therefore, God commands Church-Officers and Judica|catures, to maintain Decency and Order in the whole Circum|&s;tances of his Publick Wor&s;hip, (as is clear from our preceeding Ob&s;ervations) and yet he hath no where particularly conde&s;|cended upon, or defined the&s;e Circum&s;tances, as is before &s;hewed al&s;o: Therefore, the Church-Officers and Judicatures have, certainly, Divine Warrant and Authority particularly to conde&s;|cend upon, define, and determine them. The Con&s;equence (which now only needs proving) is ea&s;ily proved: for, &s;eeing God hath commanded Church-Officers and Judicatures to main|tain Decency and Order in the&s;e Circum&s;tances, and yet hath not him&s;elf particularly defined and determined them, either he hath given them Warrant and Authority particularly to de|fine and determine the &s;ame, which is the thing we plead for; or el&s;e, he hath commanded them to maintain Order and De|cency in Circum&s;tances never to be defined or ordered; but left &s;till to be confu&s;ed, unde&s;ined, and unordered; and &s;o they mu&s;t do it by random and blind chance. Which is extream|ly ab&s;urd, &s;eeing, &s;o, he &s;hould have commanded Contradictions, <HI>viz.</HI> order in Circum&s;tances never to be ordered.</P>
<P>Secondly, Church-Directories rightly regulating the External Circum&s;tances of Gods Publick Wor&s;hip; &s;o that they may be decent and well ordered, according to the Scripture do conduce and contribute to &s;et forward a Spiritual Good and Edification, as is mo&s;t clear from our preceeding Ob&s;ervations: But, it's beyond all doubt, that Church-Officers and Judicatories have Warrant and Authority to do &s;uch things as may conduce and contribute to &s;et forward the Spiritual Good and Edification of the Churches of their Over&s;ight; or el&s;e, they cannot have Warrant to do any thing: Therefore, &s;ure it is, Church-Officers and Judica|tories have Authority and Warrant to make &s;uch Directories, rightly regulating the External Circum&s;tances of Gods Publick Wor&s;hip in the Churches of their Over&s;ight.</P>
<P>Thou wilt (may be) &s;ay, that men can have no Authority to determine any part of Gods Wor&s;hip not determined in the Scripture. Therefore men can have no Authority particularly to determine the&s;e Circum&s;tances not &s;o determined in the Scriptures.</P>
<PB N="123" REF="82">
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> The Antecedent I willingly yield; but I utterly deny the Con&s;equence, &s;eeing the things we now &s;peak of, and which alone are the immediate object of a Church-Directory in this &s;trict and proper acception, are no part of the Wor&s;hip in their particular nature, but are meer External Circum&s;tances of that which is the Wor&s;hip, as is evident from all before-&s;aid.</P>
<P>The&s;e common Rules made by Church-Authority according to the general Precepts and Rules of Scripture, do not of them|&s;elves bind Con&s;cience; nor doth the Authority from whence they immediately proceed of it &s;elf bind Con&s;cience; neither is their immediate object in its particular nature, any part of Gods Wor&s;hip, as &s;aid is. Neverthele&s;s, they being formed according to the general Precepts of Scripture for Order and Decency, the&s;e bind Con&s;cience; and the general End of Edification it binds Con&s;cience; and Con&s;cience is al&s;o bound not to de&s;pi&s;e, but reverence lawful Church-Authority, it being Gods Ordinance, and we cannot contemn any of his Ordinances, and be guiltle&s;s; and therefore we may not in wilful conceit reject &s;uch Con&s;titu|tions of the Church; albeit out of the ca&s;e of Scandal-giving, and if it do not proceed from a contempt of Church-Authority, or from &s;ome unruly Humor of Spirit, we may upon cau&s;es ju&s;t and rea&s;onable, lawfully &s;ometimes intermit and forbear the ob|&s;ervation of them. The&s;e things I have &s;aid to prevent Ob|jections.</P>
<P>And hence, I hope, it appears, that Church-Officers have an Authority to Make and Con&s;titute Church-Directories for order|ing the External Circum&s;tances of Gods Publick Wor&s;hip, ac|cording to the general Precepts of the Scripture; albeit I grant that &s;uch Directories are not Infallible, and &s;o of them&s;elves no Bond of Con&s;cience, nor Rule of Divine Faith.</P>
<P>As for our Confe&s;&s;ion and Catechi&s;m, if the <HI>Quakers</HI> judge them to be un&s;ound in any of their particular Definitions, when the <HI>Quakers</HI> &s;hall in&s;tance them, it &s;hall be time enough to make their Apology. But while they declare them&s;elves Enemies to the very common form of a Confe&s;&s;ion and Catechi&s;m in a Church; herein they proclaim their Ho&s;tile mind again&s;t Mini|&s;ters, their feeding of the Flock, and Edifying of the Body of Chri&s;t; &s;eeing the&s;e Compendious Breviaries of the mo&s;t funda|mental points of Scripture Doctrine and Chri&s;tian Principles,
<PB N="124" REF="83">do exceedingly conduce for a method of ea&s;ier learning, and more di&s;tinct under&s;tanding of the &s;ame; and that partly be|cau&s;e of their &s;uccinct and compendious form, &s;hortly repre&s;ent|ing to us, and quickly conducting and directing us to the mo&s;t principal &s;ub&s;tance of the whole Scripture-Doctrine, which is methodically &s;ummed in them, and which by our own private Indu&s;try we could neither &s;oon, nor ea&s;ily di&s;tinctly gather out of the whole body of the Scriptures; and partly, becau&s;e of their greater Explication, each of their Definitions or Enunciations being the per&s;picuous &s;entence of many parallel Scriptures com|pared together, and &s;o by their Con&s;ociated Beams and United Rays more powerfully Shining, like &s;o many Stars and Lumina|ries placed together into one Con&s;tellation; and, la&s;tly, becau&s;e of their chained Conjunction, being united, placed, and joyned together in a di&s;tinct and continual method. The&s;e things do very much contribute, not only to the more &s;peedy learning, but al&s;o to the more di&s;tinct under&s;tanding of the mo&s;t nece&s;&s;ary points of Scripture-Doctrine; and &s;o of the re&s;t al&s;o, as having &s;ome connexion with, or relation unto the&s;e. And hence al&s;o the&s;e methodized Models of the mo&s;t E&s;&s;ential Principles of Scripture-Doctrine wi&s;ely formed from the Scriptures, are a no|table mean to guard people again&s;t Delu&s;ions and Errors which Corrupt Men, are continually broaching in the Church; &s;eeing they being in that manner Succinctly and Methodically &s;ummed, and &s;o quickly learned, and more di&s;tinctly under&s;tood, are, as it were, a Mea&s;uring Line in every &s;erious Mans hand to find out the truth, or fal&s;hood of every Mans Doctrine.</P>
<P>What? Ought not Mini&s;ters, and have they not Authority to publi&s;h from the Scripture the Principles of Religion to the People? and that in the mo&s;t per&s;picuous and ready way they can? have they not Authority to feed the Flock and edifie the Body of Je&s;us from his own Word in the neare&s;t method? and have they not Authority to furni&s;h and guard their People again&s;t damnable Delu&s;ions, and Soul-ruining Errors in the mo&s;t ea&s;ie and &s;ucce&s;sful manner they can? If they have not Authority for, and be not bound to do the&s;e things, then they have not Authority for, nor are they bound to do any thing: Let all the <HI>Quakers</HI> in <HI>Britain</HI> an&s;wer but one mouthful of &s;ence to it, if Mini&s;ters (who&s;e Office mu&s;t continue in the Church to the end of the World, and
<PB N="125" REF="83">till that day when all the Saints &s;hall be compleatly perfected, <HI>Matth.</HI> 28.19, 20. <HI>Ephe&s;.</HI> 4.11, 12, 13.) be not given to the Church for the very forementioned ends, and if the&s;e be not the Incumbent Works of their Office. But it's vain to demand an an&s;wer which can never be found, or &s;ence from the&s;e who (Impugning Grammar) declare them&s;elves Enemies to Sence|&s;peaking: And have not the <HI>Quakers</HI> al&s;o publi&s;hed a Confe&s;&s;i|on of their black Faith, Entituled, <HI>The Principles of Truth, (viz. Per Antiphra&s;in;</HI> for they &s;hould have &s;aid, of Fal&s;hood, Fiction, Error, Bla&s;phemy, and Calumnies) printed in the year 1668. and we have al&s;o &s;een &s;everal of their &s;weet <HI>Catechi&s;ms.</HI></P>
<P>But, &s;ay the <HI>Quakers,</HI> Is not the Doctrine of Chri&s;tian Re|ligion as good in the Scriptures, as in any Confe&s;&s;ion or Cate|chi&s;m?</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> Yes, no doubt, but what of that? will that infer any thing again&s;t a Confe&s;&s;ion or Catechi&s;m in a Church, whereby that good Doctrine of the Scriptures may be more &s;peedily and di&s;tinctly learned? I would rather think, that the better the Do|ctrine of the Scriptures is, the means contributing to our more ready and di&s;tinct learning thereof &s;hould be the more u&s;eful and warrantable. So unfortunate are the <HI>Quakers,</HI> that their own Weapons turns upon them&s;elves. Ob&s;erve, that this Objection of the <HI>Quakers</HI> (if it could have proved any thing at all) would have Militated as much again&s;t all Preaching, as again&s;t a Con|fe&s;&s;ion or Catechi&s;m.</P>
<P>Hence, though the Scriptures be a better Book than any Confe&s;&s;ion or Catechi&s;m in the World, as formally Con&s;tituted by Eccle&s;ia&s;tical Authority; yet a Confe&s;&s;ion or Catechi&s;m are not therefore unlawful or unwarrantable in a Church, as, I think, is clear enough from what I have &s;aid.</P>
<P>But, &s;ay the <HI>Quakers,</HI> Whether or not have ye an Infallible Spirit to give forth &s;uch a Directory, Confe&s;&s;ion, and Catechi&s;m as ye have done?</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> Hereby, the <HI>Quakers</HI> refu&s;e that any Man may direct according to the Scripture, the External Circum&s;tances of Gods Publick Wor&s;hip, or that any Man may Catechize, or give an Account or Confe&s;&s;ion of his Faith, (which every Man in due Circum&s;tances is bound to do, (<HI>Matth.</HI> 10.32, 33. <HI>Rom.</HI> 10.9, 10. 1. <HI>Pet.</HI> 3.15.) but much more a Church; partly for
<PB N="126" REF="84">&s;atisfaction to other Churches; partly for di&s;tingui&s;hing Ortho|dox Churches from Heretical Synagogues; and partly for a &s;hort and clear publick Te&s;t of the Principles of her own Mem|bers) except he be Infallible, which any Man may &s;ee to tend to the bani&s;hing of all the&s;e Duties out of the World, &s;eeing there is no Man now adays Infallibly In&s;pired for &s;uch things. But what great need (I pray) is there of Mens Infallibility in this Affair; They are not to a&s;&s;ure their Doctrine from their own Infallibility, but from the Infallible Scripture: &s;hall not that be &s;ufficient to a&s;&s;ure it? I cannot but think &s;o: To the Law, and to the Te&s;timony then, in&s;tead of your In&s;pired Parts.</P>
<P>What &s;hould be an&s;wered to the la&s;t Article of their Query, is manife&s;t from what we have &s;aid already concerning a Directory, and it's needle&s;s to repeat.</P>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="10" TYPE="query">
<HEAD>Tenth QUERY.</HEAD>
<P><HI>Whether or not is your Sanctification, your Ju&s;tifica|tion, and your Faith, and Grace, the gifts of the&s;e, with|out &s;in, as they are manife&s;ted within you? Yea, or Nay?</HI></P>
<DIV3 TYPE="survey">
<HEAD>S&V;RVEY.</HEAD>
<P>Here is an ob&s;cure Riddle, a dark Aenigma, which where to find the &s;ence of, is a little difficult; but, if it hath any &s;ence, they &s;eem to Query, Whether or not our Ju&s;tification, Sancti|fication, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> be the gifts of our Directory, Confe&s;&s;ion, and Ca|techi&s;m, whereof they were la&s;t &s;peaking in the preceeding Query. But what that term <HI>[Without Sin]</HI> &s;tands for, here is not ea&s;ily Divined; nor can it have any Errand or Connexion with the pre&s;ent Que&s;tion; and therefore I mu&s;t throw it by as an in&s;igni|ficant, and no le&s;s impertinent Cipher.</P>
<P>I an&s;wer therefore to their pre&s;ent Que&s;tion, That our Ju&s;ti|fication, Sanctification, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> are the Gifts of God only, (<HI>Rom.</HI> 8.32, 33. <HI>Ephe&s;.</HI> 2.8. <HI>Jam.</HI> 1.17.) and that the Que&s;tion is void of &s;ence, &s;eeing the be&s;towing of a gift is an action pro|perly relative to an Intelligent Being; for we do not receive
<PB N="127" REF="84">gifts from Stocks, Stonee, or Brutes. Notwith&s;tanding this does not pre&s;ently exclude the u&s;e of all ordinary means; (for their meaning in this Query is plain, that our Ju&s;tification, Sanctifi|cation, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> cannot be the gifts of God, but mu&s;t be the gifts of our Confe&s;&s;ion, Catechi&s;m, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> becau&s;e for&s;ooth, we make u&s;e of the&s;e as ordinary means allowed of God for their proper ends above de&s;cribed.) For albeit our Corns be not the gifts of our Ploughs and Harrows, nor the continuance of our Lives the gifts of our Food and Raiment, but all the&s;e things are the gifts of God; yet we may not lay a&s;ide all Ploughing and Harrowing, and the <HI>Quakers</HI> (I believe) will not reject Food and Raiment. Let them therefore either permit us the u&s;e of Confe&s;&s;ions, Di|rectories, and other inferior helps and means conducible in their own order; or el&s;e by their own example, per&s;uade the world, if they can, never to Plough or Sow more, never to Eat or Drink more. This is enough for An&s;wer to this Query, which comes in but by way of Objection and Cavillation.</P>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="11" TYPE="query">
<HEAD>Eleventh QUERY.</HEAD>
<P><HI>Whether or not your Directory, and Catechi&s;m, and Confe&s;&s;ion of Faith be Go&s;pel? Yea, or Nay? and if &s;o; Whether it be not another Go&s;pel than that which the Apo&s;tles Preached, who &s;aid the Go&s;pel was the Power of God?</HI> Rom. 1.16.</P>
<DIV3 TYPE="survey">
<HEAD>S&V;RVEY.</HEAD>
<P>I have above at the Survey of the Ninth Query abundantly ju&s;tified our Directory, (in the general, as was there explained) and proved that God hath given Warrant and Authority to Church-Guides and Judicatories for Making and Con&s;tituting the&s;e according to the general Precepts of Scripture, for main|taining Order and Decency, and promoting Edification in the Church; and therefore I &s;hall not here needle&s;ly repeat any thing to that purpo&s;e. Only I &s;hall take notice, that &s;eeing the <HI>Quakers</HI> oppo&s;e the&s;e things, they therefore declare, that it is
<PB N="128" REF="85">their mind, that Church-Officers and Judicatories &s;hould not give Obedience to Gods Commands, &s;hould &s;light Order and Decency, and the Churches Edification. There is the new-coined Directory of the <HI>Quakers;</HI> let all Men judge if it be not an In&s;trument of the Devil.</P>
<P>But, for An&s;wer to their Query, I &s;ay, That there are &s;everal Rules in our Directory, that materially con&s;idered, are very Scripture-Rules particularly delivered therein, (as I &s;hewed be|fore at the Survey of the Ninth Query) and it is evident that the&s;e are not another Go&s;pel, but are In&s;titutions of the &s;ame Go&s;pel preached by the Apo&s;tles.</P>
<P>But &s;econdly, taking our Directory in a more &s;trict and pro|per notion of a Church-Directory, as that is re&s;tricted to, and meerly contains Directions concerning the External Circum|&s;tances of the Publick Wor&s;hip and Government of Gods Hou&s;e; I mu&s;t for An&s;wer to their pre&s;ent Query concerning it, fir&s;t &s;uppo&s;e the particular Directions thereof to be materially right and conform to the Scripture general Precepts above mentioned, (which here once for all I warn) &s;eeing I will not here &s;tand to vindicate every particular Direction thereof in particular. If the <HI>Quakers</HI> had quarrelled any particular Direction thereof, I be|hooved to have vindicated it particularly: but &s;eeing they have held them&s;elves in the general, &s;o mu&s;t I.</P>
<P>The&s;e things &s;uppo&s;ed, and taking our Directory in the fore|&s;aid &s;trict notion, I an&s;wer, that our Directory thus taken, is not &s;imply Go&s;pel, or Scripture-Rule, but partly Eccle&s;ia&s;tical Con|&s;titution; it is Go&s;pel or Scripture-Rule in re&s;pect of its funda|mental ground and chief con&s;ideration, which con&s;i&s;ts in the In&s;titution and Rule for maintaing Order and Decency, and pro|moting Edification, &s;eeing that is Scripture-Rule; it is Eccle|&s;ia&s;tical con&s;titution in re&s;pect of the particular definition and accommodation of the&s;e Circum&s;tances, which is an Act elicited by the habit of Chri&s;tian Prudence, conform to the general Rules and In&s;titutions of the Scripture forementioned.</P>
<P>Hence it appears, that though the directions of our Directory thus taken, be not &s;imply Go&s;pel-Rules, yet, neither are they ano|ther Go&s;pel, &s;eeing in re&s;pect of their fundamental ground and chief con&s;ideration, they are In&s;titutions of the &s;ame Go&s;pel preached by the Apo&s;tles, (as is &s;hewed) and in &s;o far as they
<PB N="129" REF="85">are Eccle&s;ia&s;tical Con&s;titutions, they are warranted by the Go&s;pel preached by the Apo&s;tles, as in regard of particulars, I &s;uppo&s;e, until the <HI>Quakers</HI> particularly quarrel, and in the general I have proved it above at the Survey of their Ninth Query. But ano|ther Go&s;pel hath no warrant in the Go&s;pel preached by the A|po&s;tles, but is contrary thereunto, and condemned therein. Again, another Go&s;pel is &s;ome Doctrine be&s;ide, or contrary to the Go&s;|pel preached by the Apo&s;tles, urged as nece&s;&s;ary to Salvation, and an ab&s;olute bond of Con&s;cience and Rule of Divine Faith, and &s;o a Doctrine in its matter only be&s;ide, being thus urged becomes contrary. But our Church-Directory (be&s;ide its agreement with the Scripture general Rules) was never &s;o urged, as the Practice of our Church &s;ufficiently atte&s;ts.</P>
<P>As for our Confe&s;&s;ion of Faith and Catechi&s;m, I affirm, that albeit, as to the formal Con&s;titution which they have from Eccle|&s;ia&s;tical Authority, they be not Infallible, or Canonical; other|wi&s;e all Eccle&s;ia&s;tical Con&s;titutions would be &s;uch; yet, con&s;i|dering them Materially, as to the whole Articles confe&s;&s;ed in the one, and the whole Definitions delivered in the other, (and for the que&s;tionary part it is no matter, &s;eeing that affirms nothing, nor denies) they are univer&s;ally, and throughout, very Scripture-Sentence, very Go&s;pel-Rule, and Law together, either expre&s;ly and formally, or materially, implicitly, and by good con&s;equence, taught therein. Let the <HI>Quakers</HI> conde&s;cend upon any Article, or Propo&s;ition believed or taught in the one, or the other, that is not either expre&s;ly, or implicitly, and by good con&s;equence con|tained in the Scriptures, which until they do, I mu&s;t &s;uper&s;eed particular Apologizing for them. Only I have already &s;uffi|ciently defended them in the general, (according as they have impugned them) and &s;o many of their particular Enunciations as the <HI>Quakers</HI> el&s;ewhere in the&s;e Queries have particularly im|peached, I have al&s;o particularly maintained and vindicated in my Surveys. The <HI>Quakers</HI> then may &s;ee, that I affirm the whole Enunciations of our Confe&s;&s;ion and Catechi&s;m materially taken to be very Go&s;pel and Law Rules together; and &s;o they are not another Go&s;pel, &s;eeing another Go&s;pel does not teach and con|fe&s;s the &s;ame Truths, which the Go&s;pel preached by the Apo&s;tles does. And I have told them before, that as to their formal Con&s;titution by Eccle&s;ia&s;tical Authority, they have not the &s;ame
<PB N="130" REF="86">Authority which the Go&s;pel preached by the Apo&s;tles had, we do not equalize them therewith. Let the <HI>Quakers</HI> &s;ee to their own <HI>Confe&s;&s;ion of Faith,</HI> (and a black Faith, I am &s;ure) wherein there is &s;carce a Sentence that is not contrary to the Go&s;pel preached by the Apo&s;tles, a good part of which we have already &s;een, and &s;hall &s;ee more hereafter.</P>
<P>As for the Sentence of Scripture here Cited from the Epi&s;tle to the <HI>Romans,</HI> a man would wonder to what purpo&s;e it is here Quoted. But here is the bu&s;ine&s;s, the <HI>Quakers</HI> feign to them|&s;elves a &s;ort of a Dumb-Go&s;pel, without any words, or Orations, and this they &s;eem to alledge to have a real and &s;trict Identity with the power of God; which is as &s;en&s;ele&s;s a Dream as can well be faln upon, which the very Context of the place Cited over|throws, while it calls the Go&s;pel the power of God to Believers only, intimating, that it is not &s;uch unto unbelievers, on who&s;e hearts it does not &s;o powerfully work, whereas the power of God properly taken, is &s;till the &s;ame in re&s;pect of all the world.</P>
<P>The Go&s;pel is called the Word of Truth, and the word preached (<HI>Ephe&s;.</HI> 1.13. <HI>Colo&s;.</HI> 1.5. <HI>Heb.</HI> 4.2.) Which cannot be &s;aid of the power of God. The Go&s;pel was committed to <HI>Pauls</HI> tru&s;t (1 <HI>The&s;.</HI> 2.4. 1 <HI>Tim.</HI> 1.11.) But the power of God was never committed to the tru&s;t of any meer Creature.</P>
<P>The Apo&s;tle therefore calls the Go&s;pel the power of God by a Figure called <HI>Synecdoche,</HI> attributing the name of the Principal Cau&s;e to the In&s;trument, becau&s;e it is an effectual In&s;trument of the power of God. So the Preaching of the Cro&s;s is called the power of God to them that are Saved (1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 1.18.) not by way of Identity, but thus <HI>Synecdochically,</HI> as is declared. So al&s;o the <HI>Samaritans</HI> reputed <HI>Simon Magus</HI> the great power of God (<HI>Act.</HI> 8.10.) not by way of Identity (for, I think, they were not <HI>Quakers</HI>) but they called him &s;o <HI>Synecdochically,</HI> becau&s;e in their conceit he was a great In&s;trument thereof.</P>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="12" TYPE="query">
<HEAD>Twelfth QUERY.</HEAD>
<P><HI>What is Original Sin? Whether it be not the Devil? yea; or nay? for doth not the Original &s;ignifie the be|ginning?
<PB N="131" REF="86">and what did Chri&s;t come to de&s;troy? was it not the Devil, and his works?</HI></P>
<DIV3 TYPE="survey">
<HEAD>S&V;RVEY.</HEAD>
<P>This In&s;pirer of the <HI>Quakers</HI> (it &s;eems) mu&s;t be a great Je&s;ter; but, I think him a great Fool too, to &s;ugge&s;t in his &s;port &s;uch Romances and Fictions unto &s;imple Men void of under&s;tand|ing, who, to his infamy and di&s;grace, thus report them in Earne&s;t.</P>
<P>The Devil is indeed a very &s;inful Creature; but that he &s;hould be very Sin it &s;elf is a horrible Fiction. For fir&s;t then, Original Sin mu&s;t be a Per&s;on, &s;eeing the Devil is a Per&s;on. Secondly, God made the Devil: but God made not Original Sin, &s;eeing he cannot be the Author of &s;in: therefore Original Sin is not the Devil. The <HI>Minor</HI> is proved already: I prove the <HI>Major;</HI> God made all Creatures, otherwi&s;e they could not be Creatures: but the Devil is a Creature: therefore, certainly, God made him.</P>
<P>Secondly, If God made not the Devil, then the Devil is an Un|created Independent Being, (for a Being he is) exi&s;ting from him&s;elf; and &s;o there is not one, but two Uncreated Independent Beings, the one of them E&s;&s;entially Good, the other E&s;&s;entially Evil, being the very &s;ame thing with Sin, as the <HI>Quakers</HI> would, (which is the demented Gho&s;t of old <HI>Manicheus,</HI> before the time ari&s;en from the dead:) but that is mo&s;t ab&s;urd Bla&s;phemy.</P>
<P>Thirdly, If Original Sin be the Devil, then the Original Sin of all Mankind was exi&s;tent before any Man had Sinned, and would have been to this day, though never Man had Sinned, &s;ee|ing Mankinds continuance in Obedience would not have de&s;troy|ed the Devils Being; but the&s;e things are ridiculous: and yet that which is aimed in this Query, hath been often &s;aid by <HI>Quakers</HI> in my face and hearing.</P>
<P>La&s;tly, If Original Sin be the Devil, then there can be no Original Sin inherent in any Man, but we mu&s;t be all born as Innocent and Spotle&s;s as ever <HI>Adam</HI> was Created; for, the Devil being a compleat Sub&s;tantial Being, can never inhere as an acci|dent into any other Subject. But, it's mo&s;t fal&s;e, that we have no Original Sin, but are born Innocent and Clean, which by the&s;e few Scriptures I prove, <HI>Rom.</HI> 5.12. <HI>Death hath pa&s;&s;ed upon all
<PB N="132" REF="87">Men, becau&s;e all have Sinned,</HI> but all have not &s;inned actually, <HI>viz.</HI> Infants have not: Therefore it mu&s;t be meant of Original Sin, &s;eeing of one of the two it mu&s;t be meant; or el&s;e the Apo&s;tle ignorantly mi&s;takes the rea&s;on why Death pa&s;&s;es upon all Men, (<HI>viz.</HI> becau&s;e of Sin) but that cannot be &s;aid, <HI>John</HI> 3.6. <HI>That which is born of the Fle&s;h is Fle&s;h,</HI> Job 4.14. <HI>Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? no not one, viz.</HI> naturally and in an ordinary cour&s;e. Again, I have proved that God Or|dains Infants to be Baptized, which is given us for the Remi&s;&s;ion of our Sins, as is &s;hewed: Infants then mu&s;t have Sin to be Re|mitted; otherwi&s;e there needed no Remi&s;&s;ion of Sin: but they have no actual Sin: Therefore Original Sin. Again, <HI>Except a Man be born again, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God, John</HI> 3.5. But Infants, as well as others, partake of the Kingdom of God, as is before proved: Therefore there are Infants born again; and &s;o they mu&s;t, &s;urely, be &s;inful naturally, or el&s;e they could not be born again, or Regenerated. Again, <HI>David</HI> for the deeper &s;ence of his own Vilene&s;s, a&s;cends to the fountain, and &s;ource, of all the Evil and Uncleanne&s;s that he was liable unto, confe&s;&s;ing that in iniquity he was formed, and in &s;in his Mother conceived him, <HI>P&s;al.</HI> 51.5. where, what (I pray) would it have done to <HI>Davids</HI> deeper &s;ence, and further acknowledgment of his Vilene&s;s, (which, undeniably is his &s;cope) that his Mo|ther being in &s;in, (as <HI>Pelagianizers</HI> have learned to an&s;wer) did conceive him &s;potle&s;s and without &s;in? Nay, &s;urely, the want|ing of Original Sin would have made him to be the le&s;s vile, not the more; and be&s;ide, it was his own Sin, not his Mothers which he came to confe&s;s: and again la&s;tly, <HI>We are by Nature Children of Wrath, (Ephe&s;.</HI> 2.3.) therefore by nature we mu&s;t be &s;inful, which mu&s;t be Original Sin, &s;eeing we have no other Sin by na|ture, and that we are born in. The Con&s;equence is Infallible, &s;eeing, we cannot be Children of wrath in that very re&s;pect, and under that very con&s;ideration, in which re&s;pect, and under which con&s;ideration, we are &s;inle&s;s and pure: for then as we are &s;inle&s;s and pure we &s;hould be heirs of wrath, which is an ab&s;urd Bla&s;|phemy: and cannot &s;tand with the ju&s;tice of God to cur&s;e a Man when he is Innocent: tell me not the in&s;tance of Chri&s;t Je&s;us, who though he was altogether &s;potle&s;s in him&s;elf inherently, yet, he &s;tood in our room as our Cautioner, and all our &s;ins were laid upon him, <HI>I&s;a.</HI> 53.6.</P>
<PB N="133" REF="87">
<P><HI>Pelagianizers</HI> an&s;wer us, that the Po&s;terity of <HI>Adam</HI> Sins only by Imitation, of their Predece&s;&s;ors. But Contrariwi&s;e, then we are only by Imitation, and not by Nature Children of wrath, (contrary to the Apo&s;tles Doctrine.) For we can|not by nature be Children of wrath, and yet by nature be pure and &s;inle&s;s. Secondly, I have &s;hewed that Infants have &s;in in them; but not by imitation (&s;urely) &s;eeing they are not capable to imitate therein: Therefore they mu&s;t be &s;inful by nature, not by imitation. Thirdly, if we were made &s;inners only by Imitation, then &s;ome men might e&s;cape from that; for, we are not &s;uch perfect Apes, as to imitate nece&s;&s;arily what we &s;ee in others. La&s;tly, if <HI>Adams</HI> &s;in be propagat to us only by Imitation, then we &s;hall be made righteous in Chri&s;t only by imitation, of his righteou&s;ne&s;s al&s;o. But the con&s;equent is utterly fal&s;e: Therefore &s;o is the antecedent from which it followes. The connexion of the <HI>Major</HI> (which only needs proving,) I prove from <HI>Rom.</HI> 5, 19. Where the Apo&s;tle declares that, <HI>as by one mans di&s;obedience many were made Sinners: &s;o by the obedience of one, &s;hall many be made righteous.</HI> Which compari&s;on requires &s;ome &s;pecial proportion betwixt the&s;e members, &s;o exactly compared, whereof there is &s;carce any &s;hadow betwixt the imitation, and true and real Communication.</P>
<P><HI>Pelagianizers</HI> again an&s;wer that, though we be by nature corrupt, yet that corruption is not our &s;in, but our affliction and puni&s;hment only. Contrariwi&s;e, as the habit, principle, and &s;eed of grace is grace (and &s;o al&s;o all habits are &s;till of the &s;ame nature with their acts) &s;o al&s;o the &s;eed and principle of &s;in mu&s;t be &s;in. <HI>Rom.</HI> 7.23. is called the <HI>Law of &s;in, Warring again&s;t the Law of the mind;</HI> and &s;o its an enemy to grace, and the Image of God. <HI>Rom:</HI> 8.7. its called in the very ab&s;tract (to &s;hew its wicked nature) <HI>Enmity again&s;t God,</HI> and that <HI>it is not, neither can be Subject to this Law. Galat.</HI> 5.17. <HI>Paul</HI> &s;ayes, <HI>it lu&s;teth again&s;t the Spirit,</HI> and is contrary thereunto. Shall that then which is the &s;ource, principle, and &s;pring of all our ac|tual &s;ins; is enmity again&s;t God, his whole Image, and his Laws, and a contrary enemy to the Spirit; &s;hall that (I &s;ay) not be &s;inful? nay, then, &s;urely, there is no &s;in in the World, nor is it po&s;&s;ible to render a definition of &s;in, if that be not &s;in.</P>
<PB N="134" REF="88">
<P><HI>George Keith (in his Quakeri&s;m no Popery, page</HI> 75, 76) an|&s;wers that our natural concupi&s;cence doth not infer any real guiltine&s;s upon us, nor makes us guilty of death, without our ac|tual con&s;ent thereunto, and (which is more &s;trange) that it doth not indwell in any, except where it is kindly received and obey|ed; and, that therefore (which is his direct &s;cope) our natural corruption is none of our &s;in, untill we con&s;ent actually unto it. But contrariwi&s;e, the Scripture (which I beleive much better) &s;hews, that by the &s;in of <HI>Adam</HI> all were made &s;inners, and guil|ty of death (<HI>Rom.</HI> 5.16, 17, 18, 19.) and, that <HI>by nature we are Children of wrath (Eph.</HI> 2.3.) and &s;o <HI>George Keith</HI> &s;traight contradicts the Apo&s;tle. Secondly <HI>Adam</HI> is not to be con&s;idered as a &s;ingle Per&s;on in the matter in hand, but (as the Scriptures la&s;t cited proves) as a Common undertaker for, and repre&s;en|tative head of all mankind; and &s;o his deed in Law was the deed of all men, albeit they did not per&s;onally con&s;ent, even as the Publick tran&s;actions, and deeds, of the repre&s;entatives of a Kingdome, State, or City, are in Law the fact and deed of all. Thirdly, <HI>George Keith</HI> who (as I am informed) did di&s;|pute once for a Profe&s;&s;ors place, &s;hould have remembred (what|ever be &s;aid of <HI>primo primi</HI>) that there are <HI>motus &s;ecundo primi,</HI> in us preceeding our actual con&s;ent, which, when towards evil, are &s;inful, as when a temptation is tampered with, or &s;omewhat li&s;tened unto, though in end it be rejected and the con&s;ent not given. Fourthly, gracious Principles, and gracious Inclinations are truly grace; or el&s;e a man is not gracious, though he be graciou&s;ly principled and inclined: therefore &s;inful principles and inclinations, (that is, principles and inclinations bending to &s;in and evil) mu&s;t be &s;in (by the rule of Contraries) yea the wor&s;t of &s;in, being the bitter Fountain and Source of all the re&s;t. Fifthly <HI>George Keith</HI> grants (in the pages of his Book cited) that this natural Concupi&s;cence in men, is an evil thing, and inclines to evill and &s;in (and &s;o by a Metonymie, he allowes it to be called Sin.) Therefore it mu&s;t be properly and formally &s;inful, and not by a Motonymie only, &s;eeing if it were not properly &s;inful, it would not incline &s;o; for grace cannot in|cline to &s;in; nor can that which is neither good, nor evil, or &s;inful, incline more to evil, than to good.</P>
<P>That which he &s;ays of our natural Concupi&s;cence, its not
<PB N="135" REF="88">indwelling without our actual con&s;ent, and kindly reception; I cannot but think, he was in a &s;trange mixture, when he dropt it from his ill-in&s;pired pen. For I am &s;ure, St. <HI>Paul</HI> &s;ays in a Text often handled (and by <HI>George Keith</HI> abu&s;ed too, as &s;hall after appear) that there was &s;in and corruption dwelling in him when he hated it, di&s;allowed it, and gave no con&s;ent thereunto, nor kindly reception, <HI>Rom.</HI> 7 <HI>Chap.</HI> from <HI>Ver:</HI> 15, to, 23. and, certainly, our natural Concupi&s;cence (which <HI>George Keith</HI> denys not to be in us, but there confe&s;&s;es, that it is (and it would be repugnant to be otherwi&s;e, as is clear) though he deny it to indwell in us, or to be our &s;in, till we actually con&s;ent to it) being an accident, mu&s;t indwell into, and have union with &s;ome &s;ubject &mdash; of dependence, &s;eeing it cannot exi&s;t without &s;ome vehicle, nor move one nails-breadth by it &s;elf. In whom then dwels it, when it is not con&s;ented unto? If he &s;ays, in the Devil (and he can &s;ay no other thing) then when he does not con&s;ent unto it, he has the Devil and it both to lodge, &s;eeing if it be Subjected and dwels in the De|vil, 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 &s;uch Devils are wor&s;e together, then any of them it &s;elf The&s;e are the dictats of a witty In&s;pirer.</P>
<P>However, <HI>George</HI> here objecteth from <HI>Ezekiel</HI> 18, <HI>Chap: Ver:</HI> 4. where its &s;aid, <HI>the Soul that &s;inneth, it &s;hall die.</HI> To prove, that, without an actual con&s;ent, unto our natural Concupi|&s;cence, we are not held guilty of death.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> The whole Chapter is concerning, the &s;ins of neare&s;t Parents, as is clear by reading it, and &s;o makes nothing a|gain&s;t original &s;in, derived from our fir&s;t Parent <HI>Adam.</HI> Se|condly, the manife&s;t &s;cope of the Chapter, is to give a&s;&s;u|rance to every man, of mercy upon his repentance and turn|ing to God, whatever his Parents, or him&s;elf have been before. But will that infer, that &s;uch a man, who findes mercy upon his Repentance, never had original &s;in? O brave con&s;equence! again, there is not the &s;ame rea&s;on of <HI>Adam,</HI> and of our other nearer Parents; for he was our common repre&s;entative; not they; and therefore, we may be involved into his &s;in, though not into theirs, before we were capable actually to con&s;ent: for we do not &s;tand and fall in any of them, but in him we did, as the Scriptures cited plainly proves.</P>
<PB N="136" REF="89">
<P>But, having di&s;patched <HI>George Keith,</HI> (albeit I will not &s;tand upon all the objections here which are commonly brought, &s;eeing, this Controver&s;ie hath been much handled betwixt our Writers and the <HI>Papi&s;ts,</HI> where it may be &s;een) they have one great Ob|jection which I mu&s;t an&s;wer, and that is, That if our Nature be Originally &s;inful, that &s;in mu&s;t either be propagated by the Soul, or by the Body, or by both. Not by the Soul; for &s;eeing God alone creats that, &s;o God &s;hould be the Author of Sin, which cannot be. Not by the Body; for &s;o the Soul &s;hould be free of it, &s;eeing the Body being a dull thing, cannot propagate it into the Soul. Not by both, for the fir&s;t rea&s;on given e&s;pecially.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> Whatever way it be propagated, I have &s;hewed from the Scripture that it is propagated, and therein we ought to ac|quie&s;ce, though we could no ways comprehend the manner how it is propagated.</P>
<P>Secondly, I an&s;wer, that there is not a &s;ufficient 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, &s;eeing, ab&s;tracting from, and laying a&s;ide our Natural Generation, and our dependence thereby upon <HI>Adam,</HI> neither our Souls, nor our Bodies had been naturally infected with that Plague. It de&s;cends therefore, mo&s;t clearly, by our Natural Generation, not unto the Soul alone, or the Body alone, but unto the whole Compound con&s;i&s;ting of both united, which is the direct Effect of Generation, &s;eeing it is not Souls, or Bodies &s;eparated, but Men con&s;i&s;ting of both united, that Men begets in their generative actions.</P>
<P>In the following part of the Query, they begin to u&s;e Gram|mar again&s;t their Profe&s;&s;ion. Original (&s;ay they) &s;ignifies the beginning; and therefore Original Sin mu&s;t be the Devil, for|&s;ooth. A brave Con&s;equence indeed, which mu&s;t &s;tand upon the verity of this propo&s;ition, <HI>viz.</HI> the beginning is the Devil; which, if they hold for truth, then they mu&s;t &s;ay, that God Creat|ed Heaven and Earth in the Devil, (<HI>Gen.</HI> 1.1.) and let them &s;ee to the&s;e Texts, (<HI>Colo&s;.</HI> 1.18. <HI>Revel.</HI> 1.8.) where the be|ginning is attributed to Chri&s;t; but I never heard it a&s;cribed Intran&s;itively, (as they call it) and in the Nominative Ca&s;e unto the Devil, till now. <HI>Origo</HI> (for I have learnt my <HI>Latin</HI>) &s;ig|nifies
<PB N="137" REF="89">a Root, Birth, Fountain, as well as a beginning; why then may it not &s;ignifie (when the term Sin, is joyned with it) the Sin which we have from our Root of Mankind, <HI>Adam?</HI> or the Sin we are born in? or, which is the Fountain and &s;ource of the re&s;t? But let it only &s;ignifie a beginning, why may not Ori|ginal Sin &s;ignifie the Sin of our beginning to come into the World? or, that Sin in us which is the beginning of the re&s;t?</P>
<P>For the la&s;t words of their Query, we mu&s;t not think that Chri&s;t came to de&s;troy or annihilate the Devils Entity and Being, (as the Adver&s;aries &s;eem to mean) for the Devil is not dead yet; and the Scripture tells us, (<HI>Matth.</HI> 25.41, 46. <HI>Jud.</HI> 6.) <HI>That Hell Fire is prepared for him and his Angels:</HI> Chri&s;ts coming therefore to de&s;troy the Devil through Death, (<HI>Heb.</HI> 2.14.) is meant of the de&s;troying 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 <HI>Revelation</HI> throughly witne&s;|&s;eth.</P>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="13" TYPE="query">
<HEAD>Thirteenth QUERY.</HEAD>
<P><HI>Whether or not did Chri&s;t Dye for all the &V;ngodly in the World and Sinners, that they &s;hould live and dye in their &V;ngodline&s;s and Sins, or live unto Him? and, VVhether or not did Chri&s;t Shed his Blood for all Men, and was a Propitiation for the Sins of all Men? and, VVhether or not the&s;e that do not hold this, are the&s;e that make Sects, and are out of the &s;ame Spi|rit and Doctrine of the Apo&s;tles?</HI></P>
<DIV3 TYPE="survey">
<HEAD>S&V;RVEY.</HEAD>
<P>This In&s;pirer of the <HI>Quakers</HI> is either an ignorant Blockhead, or el&s;e a captious Sophi&s;ter: for here we have a disjunctive Que&s;tion, or Problem propo&s;ed by him in &s;uch a manner, that whatever Member thereof we yield, we are ab&s;urdly fanged: for, whether we &s;ay that Chri&s;t Died for all the Ungodly and Sinners in the World, that they &s;hould live and dye in their Un|godline&s;s
<PB N="138" REF="90">and Sins; or, whether we &s;ay that he Died for all the Ungodly and Sinners in the World, that they &s;hould live to him, we &s;till &s;peak fal&s;ly and ab&s;urdly too: for the fir&s;t way, we &s;hould &s;ay, that Chri&s;t Died for all the&s;e, that they might live and dye in their ungodline&s;s and &s;ins, than which, nothing could be &s;aid wor&s;e; and the la&s;t way, we &s;hould &s;ay, that Chri&s;t Died for all Men in the World, Elect, and Reprobate, which is al&s;o both fal&s;e and ab&s;urd. We mu&s;t therefore purge the Que&s;tion from a Plurality of Interrogations, (which is the true vice of every Member thereof) and propo&s;e it thus. <HI>Whether did Chri&s;t Dye for all the Ungodly and Sinners in the World, or only for the Elect?</HI> That this is the true &s;tate of their pre&s;ent Que&s;tion, their &s;cope, and the re&s;t of the Query declares; albeit the Adver&s;aries either through ignorance could not, or for wickedne&s;s would not rightly propo&s;e it.</P>
<P>It is the known Doctrine of the <HI>Quakers,</HI> (with <HI>Arminians</HI> and <HI>Je&s;uits</HI>) that Chri&s;t Died for all Men what&s;oever, without exception, as al&s;o they do in&s;inuate in their <HI>Confe&s;&s;ion,</HI> page 16. and 42. I &s;hall not be prolix upon this Que&s;tion, or el&s;e I &s;hould tran&s;gre&s;s my &s;cope of Brevity: only I &s;hall give a few clear Demon&s;trations from the Scriptures, whereby it &s;hall be evident, that Chri&s;t did not Dye for all Men what&s;oever, Elect, and Re|probate, but only for the Elect, and this is the A&s;&s;ertion.</P>
<P>Therefore fir&s;t; for whom&s;oever Chri&s;t Died and &s;hed his Blood, God loves them with a &s;pecial love, yea, the greate&s;t mea&s;ure of love: but he loves not &s;o all Men what&s;oever: there|fore Chri&s;t did not Dye and Shed his Blood for all Men what&s;o|ever. The <HI>Major</HI> &s;hall be evident by the&s;e plain and clear Scripture-Te&s;timonies, 1 <HI>Joh.</HI> 4.9, 10. <HI>In this was manife&s;ted the love of God towards us, becau&s;e he &s;ent 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 &s;ent his Son to be a Propitiation for our Sins,</HI> 1 Joh. 3.16. <HI>Hereby perceive we the love of God, becau&s;e he laid down his Life for us,</HI> Rom. 5.8. <HI>But God commendeth his love to us in that while we were yet Sinners, Chri&s;t Died for us,</HI> John 15.13. <HI>Greater love hath no Man than this, that a Man lay down his Life for his Friends.</HI> The&s;e Scriptures make the <HI>Major</HI> as clear as Noon-day. The <HI>Minor</HI> is no le&s;s evident; for God had never any &s;pecial love to
<PB N="139" REF="90">any Reprobate, and e&s;pecially the greate&s;t mea&s;ure of Love: <HI>Depart from me,</HI> (&s;ays Chri&s;t to Reprobates, <HI>Matth.</HI> 7.23.) <HI>I never knew you, viz.</HI> with a knowledge attended with love; for, it is otherwi&s;e &s;ure that he was not ignorant of them; but the meaning is plain, that he never knew them with any &s;pecial love or kindne&s;s for them, which way it is often meant in the Scriptures, as <HI>P&s;al.</HI> 1.6. <HI>Jer.</HI> 1.5. <HI>He&s;.</HI> 13.5. <HI>Amos</HI> 3.2. <HI>Rom.</HI> 8.29. 2 <HI>Tim.</HI> 2.19. Again, the&s;e whom God &s;o dearly loves he quickens them together with Chri&s;t, and makes them &s;it in Heavenly places in him, <HI>Eph.</HI> 2.4, 5, 6. But he doth not the&s;e things to all Men what&s;oever, as needs no proof.</P>
<P>Secondly, The&s;e for whom Chri&s;t Died, God freely with him be&s;tows all things upon them, <HI>Rom.</HI> 8.32. and it cannot be otherwi&s;e, as the Text plainly imports: but God does not be&s;tow all things upon all Men what&s;oever, without exception; &s;eeing he never be&s;tows any Saving Grace, Life Eternal, or Glo|ry upon any Reprobate: Therefore, certainly, Chri&s;t did not Dye for Reprobates.</P>
<P>Thirdly, The&s;e for whom Chri&s;t Died cannot come into Con|demnation: but all Reprobates come Eternally into Condemna|tion, as the Adver&s;aries will not (I think) deny: Therefore Chri&s;t Died not for any Reprobate. I prove the <HI>Major</HI> from <HI>Rom.</HI> 8.34. where the Apo&s;tle Argues thus; <HI>Who is he that Con|demneth? It is Chri&s;t that Died, &amp;c.</HI> here the Apo&s;tle brings Chri&s;ts Dying for a Man, as an Infallible Proof and Argument, that, that Man &s;hall not come into Condemnation, but &s;hall &s;urely be ju&s;tified; for &s;eeing Chri&s;t hath Died for him, (&s;ays he) who then &s;hall Condemn him. Now if Chri&s;t had Died for all Men what&s;oever, <HI>Pauls</HI> Argument had been quite void, and utterly null, &s;eeing the mo&s;t part are, for all Chri&s;ts Death, Eternally Damned; and the <HI>Arminians</HI> plainly contradict this Text, affirm|ing, that Chri&s;t Died for Reprobates, who are Eternally Damned.</P>
<P>Fourthly, Chri&s;t did not Dye for the&s;e for whom he would not pray, &s;eeing it's much le&s;s to pray for one, and to lend him but a good wi&s;h, than to Dye for him; nor can it be conceived, that he who will not be&s;tow a &s;mall Intreaty for me, will ever be&s;tow his Life for me: But Chri&s;t would not &s;o much as pray for all Men what&s;oever, <HI>John</HI> 17.9. <HI>I pray not for the World,</HI> (&s;ays Chri&s;t) <HI>but for them which thou ha&s;t given me:</HI> Therefore,
<PB N="140" REF="91">certainly, Chri&s;t did not Dye for all Men what&s;oever, but only for the Elect whom God had given him out of the World.</P>
<P>Fifthly, All who&s;e iniquities Chri&s;t bare, (that is, Died for) &s;hall &s;urely be ju&s;tified, <HI>I&s;ai.</HI> 53.11. But all Men what&s;oever will never be ju&s;tified, as will not be denied: Therefore, Chri&s;t did not bear the iniquities of, or Dye for all Men what&s;oever. The <HI>Major</HI> is clear in the place cited, where the Prophet peremp|torily and po&s;itively argues from Chri&s;ts bearing of the iniquities of a Man, that therefore he &s;hall ju&s;tifie him; and he gives this as the ground, why he &s;hall ju&s;tifie many, <HI>viz.</HI> Becau&s;e He &s;hall bear their iniquities; and &s;o who&s;e iniquities &s;oever Chri&s;t bare, &s;hall &s;urely be ju&s;tified; and that &s;ome who&s;e iniquities Chri&s;t bare, &s;hall not be ju&s;tified, does utterly de&s;troy and make void the Prophets Inference; and therefore it cannot be &s;aid.</P>
<P>Sixthly, For whom&s;oever Chri&s;t by his Death obtained Re|conciliation with God, the&s;e much more he &s;aves by his Life, <HI>Rom.</HI> 5.10. But all Men what&s;oever are not &s;aved by the Life of Chri&s;t, as the event proves: Therefore Chri&s;t did not by his Death purcha&s;e a Reconciliation with God for all Men what&s;oever.</P>
<P>Seventhly, All for whom Chri&s;t Died, are by God appointed to obtain Salvation through him: <HI>God</HI> (&s;ays the Apo&s;tle 2 <HI>The&s;.</HI> 5.9, 10.) <HI>hath not appointed us to Wrath, but to obtain Salva|tion by Je&s;us Chri&s;t who died for us;</HI> where the Apo&s;tle &s;hews, that Chri&s;ts Death is a mean appointed of God to procure the Salvation of the&s;e for whom he died; and &s;o God intended the Salvation of all, for whom Chri&s;t died: but God never intended the Salvation of all Men what&s;oever: Therefore, neither did Chri&s;t dye for all Men what&s;oever. The <HI>Major</HI> is proved al|ready, nor do the <HI>Arminians</HI> deny it; but, on the contrary, af|firm, That God did from Eternity intend the Salvation of all Men what&s;oever, by an Antecedent Conditional Decree, as they call it. I prove the <HI>Minor:</HI> For fir&s;t; If God intended the Salvation of all Men what&s;oever, then all Men what&s;oever would &s;urely be &s;aved, &s;eeing what&s;oever God purpo&s;es and intends, doth Infallibly come to pa&s;s: <HI>God is in the Heavens, he hath done what&s;oever he plea&s;ed,</HI> P&s;al. 115.3. and 134.6. <HI>The Lord of Ho&s;ts hath &s;worn, &s;urely, as I have thought &s;o &s;hall it come to po&s;s, as I have purpo&s;ed &s;o &s;hall it &s;tand,</HI> I&s;ai. 14.24. <HI>The Lord
<PB N="141" REF="91">of Ho&s;ts hath purpo&s;ed, and who &s;hall di&s;annul it?</HI> I&s;ai. 14.27. <HI>I will work and who &s;hall let it?</HI> I&s;ai. 43.13. <HI>My Coun&s;el &s;hall &s;tand, and I will do all my Plea&s;ure,</HI> I&s;ai. 60.10. <HI>The Coun&s;el of the Lord, that &s;hall &s;tand,</HI> Prov. 19.21. But, it's mo&s;t fal&s;e that all Men what&s;oever &s;hall be &s;aved, as needs no proof: Therefore, God never intended the Salvation of all Men what&s;oever. Secondly, Many men are ordained to Condemna|tion, though ju&s;tly to be incurred by them for their &s;ins fir&s;t com|mitted, before they be condemned: Therefore, certainly, God hath not appointed all Men what&s;oever to Salvation, &s;eeing he cannot appoint, one and the &s;ame Man both to Salvation and Con|demnation, and in good earne&s;t intend both to &s;ave and to damn one and the &s;ame Man. Nay, no Man of wi&s;dom can &s;eriou&s;ly in|tend to do any thing upon a Condition, which he certainly knows will never come to pa&s;s: For, How &s;hall any Man of a &s;ound mind, &s;eriou&s;ly intend to do that which he, in the mean time, certainly knows he &s;hall never do? Nay, this is impo&s;&s;ible. The Antecedent is al&s;o manife&s;t; <HI>For God hath made the wicked for the day of Evil,</HI> Prov. 16.4. God &s;ends many Men &s;trong De|lu&s;ions, that they may believe Lyes and be Damned; and &s;o he intends their Damnation, (though not as the End; for that is the Glory of his Ju&s;tice) 2 <HI>The&s;.</HI> 2.11, 12. <HI>and there are &s;ome Men who were before of old Ordained to Condemnation, Jud.</HI> 4. And what needs more? for what&s;oever God doth within time, he from Eternity purpo&s;ed and intended to do it; otherwi&s;e he be|hooved to do it, either again&s;t his intention and purpo&s;e; or el&s;e be|&s;ide his intention and purpo&s;e, that is, without having intended and purpo&s;ed it, or its contrary; or el&s;e la&s;tly, he behooved to be|gin the intention and purpo&s;e thereof within time; all of which are Bla&s;phemous and Repugnant, as needs no demon&s;tration: But it is mo&s;t evident, that God within time condemns many Men for their Sins, <HI>Matth.</HI> 25.32, 41. Therefore he from Eternity intended and purpo&s;ed to condemn them; and yet they are ju&s;tly damned for their &s;ins fir&s;t committed, before they be condemned. I may not here &s;tand to examine all the mi&s;erable Eva&s;ions, whereby <HI>Arminians</HI> and <HI>Je&s;uits</HI> indeavour to Elude this Argument; otherwi&s;e this one Argument would &s;well into a Volume. But what is &s;aid, may be &s;ufficient for &s;uch as love truth, and for confounding of the Adver&s;aries, if the grounds here given be but rightly managed.</P>
<PB N="142" REF="92" MS="y">
<P>La&s;tly, All for whom Chri&s;t died are redeemed from the cur&s;e of the Law, <HI>Galat.</HI> 3.13. <HI>Chri&s;t hath redeemed us</HI> (&s;ays the Apo&s;tle) <HI>from the Cur&s;e of the Law, being made a Cur&s;e for us,</HI> that is, being Crucified for us, as he there explains; and &s;o Chri&s;t being made a Cur&s;e, that is, his being Crucified for any Man, redeems that Man from the Cur&s;e of the Law, according to the Apo&s;tle; and &s;o if Chri&s;t was Crucified for all Men what|&s;oever, then all Men what&s;oever are, certainly, redeemed from the Cur&s;e: but all Men what&s;oever are not not redeemed from the Cur&s;e: Therefore Chri&s;t was not Crucified, and did not Dye for all Men what&s;oever.</P>
<P>But here the <HI>Arminians</HI> and <HI>Je&s;uits</HI> meet us with their ordi|nary di&s;tinction, <HI>viz.</HI> That Chri&s;t hath not indeed by his Death redeemed all Men what&s;oever from the Cur&s;e Ab&s;olutely; but that, for all that, he hath redeemed them from it Conditionally, <HI>viz.</HI> upon condition of their believing, which condition, becau&s;e all men what&s;oever do not perform, therefore it comes to pa&s;s, that all men what&s;oever are not ab&s;olutely Redeemed, but only the&s;e few who perform the Condition. But contrariwi&s;e, I cannot &s;tand here to declare all the ab&s;urdities that are wrapt up in this <HI>Je&s;uitico-Arminian</HI> Eva&s;ion, otherwi&s;e I &s;hould exceedingly tran&s;|gre&s;s my &s;cope of brevity. Only for overthrowing this univer|&s;al Conditional Redemption, I &s;hall &s;ubjoyn two or three of the Arguments which our Divines mo&s;t ordinarily bring again&s;t it. Therefore, for clearing the &s;tate of the Que&s;tion, I grant, that the method and order of the application of the purcha&s;ed Re|demption (taking it for the Price payed by the Mediator to the Ju&s;tice of God) is Conditional, that is, it is applied to us upon Condition of Faith, either Actual, or (at lea&s;t) Seminal and Inclinative; yet, &s;o as the Redeemer hath al&s;o by his Death pur|cha&s;ed the Condition it &s;elf to all the Redeemed, and in due time actually conferreth the &s;ame upon them. If this would &s;atisfie our Adver&s;aries, we &s;hould con&s;ent, and the Controver&s;ie were ended. But this is not the thing in Controver&s;ie betwixt us: But the thing controverted betwixt them and us, is concerning Chri&s;ts Dying it &s;elf, and the very work of Redemption it &s;elf, if the&s;e were performed Conditionally for all Men; and &s;o if Chri&s;t Died for, and Redeemed all Men Conditionally. For example, a Man procures ab&s;olutely a Pardon from the Prince
<PB N="143" REF="92">for &s;ome Malefactor; but yet, he firmly re&s;olves that he &s;hall never know of it, nor it be applied to him for his comfort, until by the per&s;ua&s;ion of a Friend, who, he knows, will &s;urely prevail with him, (this is the holy Spirit with Sinners) he come and own him for his Deliverer, and Saviour, who procured the &s;ame.</P>
<P>The <HI>Arminians</HI> and <HI>Je&s;uits</HI> affirm, That Chri&s;t Died Condi|tionally, though not Ab&s;olutely, for all men, without exception. This we utterly deny, and though the Affirmer only be bound to prove his Affirmation, yet until they do that, I &s;hall confirm our Negation. Therefore fir&s;t, If Chri&s;t Died for and Redeemed Reprobates upon condition of their Believing, then God intended that; &s;eeing Chri&s;t did not Dye for, or Redeem any man either again&s;t, or be&s;ide Gods intention: But God never intended that Chri&s;t &s;hould Dye for, or Redeem any Reprobate upon condi|tion of Believing; &s;eeing &s;o he &s;hould have intended the Re|demption of Reprobates, and that upon a condition which he infallibly fore&s;aw would never come to pa&s;s, which &s;ort of Inten|tion cannot even befall any may of &s;ound mind; much le&s;s can it befall the Infinitly-Wi&s;e God.</P>
<P>Secondly, According to this Doctrine whereby Chri&s;t is &s;aid by his Death to have Redeemed all men what&s;oever Condition|ally, Chri&s;t &s;hall by his Death have purcha&s;ed Redemption, upon condition of their Believing, for the&s;e who long before his Death were already actually damned in Hell, for whom there was no place left for Redemption; which is extreamly ab&s;urd, that a price &s;hould be exacted from the Redeemer for the&s;e who them|&s;elves were then Suffering, and Eternally, without hope, to &s;uffer the Vengeance of Eternal Fire for their Sins. This cannot &s;tand with Ju&s;tice.</P>
<P>Thirdly, If Chri&s;t hath Redeemed Reprobates Conditionally, then the performance of the Condition, <HI>viz.</HI> Believing, is either in their own power, or el&s;e it is a gift of God, (whether pur|cha&s;ed by Chri&s;ts Death, or by God be&s;towed, without being thereby purcha&s;ed, all is one to our pre&s;ent Argument.) It is not in their own power, <HI>Joh.</HI> 6.44. and 15.5. 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 2.14. <HI>Eph.</HI> 2.8. <HI>Philip</HI> 1.29. <HI>Heb.</HI> 12.2. If then the Condition be a gift of God, then God either be&s;tows it upon Reprobates, or not: if he doth, then he either be&s;tows it upon them Ab&s;o|lutely, or el&s;e Conditionally; if Ab&s;olutely, then Reprobates
<PB N="144" REF="93">&s;hall thereby be made believers, and &s;o be &s;aved, &s;eeing (as is &s;uppo&s;ed) God doth Ab&s;olutely be&s;tow &s;aving Faith upon them; if Conditionally, then, &s;eeing Faith is the condition (by the Adver&s;aries own principles) the &s;ence hereof, will be, that God be&s;tows Faith in Chri&s;t upon Reprobates, upon condition that they fir&s;t, have Faith in him; which is both non&s;en&s;e and it al|&s;o implies a contradiction that they &s;hould believe when they have no Faith, as is &s;uppo&s;ed. If then, God doth not be&s;tow Faith upon Reprobates, then, they cannot be &s;aid to be redeemed; &s;e|ing &s;o, their Redemption (as is clear, from what is now &s;aid) depends upon a Condition, which is neither in their own power, nor yet doth God be&s;tow it upon them; and &s;o, it is, utterly impo&s;&s;ible for them ever to perform. And will any Man, &s;ay, that a Man is Redeemed, when yet, his Redemption is not made &s;o much as po&s;&s;ible to him? his Redemption is upon the &s;uppo&s;iti|ons and grounds now laid down as impo&s;&s;ible for him, as when a Man &s;ays, if ye will bring down the Stars, I will give you my Daughter, the Marriage with his Daughter is impo&s;&s;ible. How then comes it to be a thing actual, when yet it is impo&s;&s;ible? I confe&s;s that object would be worth the &s;eeing, that were at once actual, and yet impo&s;&s;ible.</P>
<P>Fourthly, if Chri&s;t by his death Redeemed all men what&s;o|ver, only upon Condition of believing, and otherwi&s;e Re|deemed them not, then he by his death Redeemed only be|lievers, and none el&s;e, as is manife&s;t: But all men what&s;oever are not believers: therefore Chri&s;t did not by his death re|deem all men what&s;oever, from the Adver&s;aries own principles; and yet, they contend that Chri&s;t by his death Redeemed all men what&s;oever; and &s;o they directly contradict them&s;elves, and their univer&s;al Conditional Redemption is repugnant.</P>
<P>La&s;tly, (for I will &s;tand no longer, upon a negative e&s;pe|cially) if Chri&s;t died for all men what&s;oever, (give it what name they will) then he &s;atisfied Ju&s;tice, for all mens &s;ins what&s;oever: But, the Con&s;equent is mo&s;t fal&s;e and ab&s;urd: there|fore &s;o is the antecedent, from which it follows. The fal&s;hood of the Con&s;equent, and its ab&s;urdity are obvious: for if Chri&s;t &s;atisfied Ju&s;tice for all Mens &s;ins what&s;oever, then, all Re|probates are mo&s;t unju&s;tly Condemned, Seing their &s;ins for which they are Condemned, are by Chri&s;t &s;atisfied for; and &s;o
<PB N="145" REF="93">their Condemnation is, an Act of great inju&s;tice, done both to Chri&s;t and them, which cannot be charged upon God, with|out extream Bla&s;phemy. I Prove the Connexion of the <HI>Major,</HI> becau&s;e, the very immediate end and Intention of Chri&s;t, dying for any Man, was to &s;atisfie Ju&s;tice for his &s;ins, as appears from <HI>I&s;aia.</HI> 53, 8, 9, 10. <HI>Mat.</HI> 26, 28. <HI>Rom.</HI> 4, 25. and 5, 9, 10, 2, <HI>Cor.</HI> 5, 21. <HI>Galat.</HI> 3, 13. <HI>Heb.</HI> 9.26, 28, and 10, 12. 1 <HI>Pet.</HI> 2, 24. In all which places, it is manife&s;t that for whom&s;oever Chri&s;t died, he died, to &s;atisfie Ju&s;tice for their &s;ins: for, it is ex|pre&s;ly a&s;&s;erted in the&s;e Texts, that, <HI>He was &s;mitton for their Tran&s;gre&s;&s;ions; made his Soul an offering for their &s;ins; Shed his Blood for the Remi&s;&s;ion of their &s;ins; reconciled them to God, by his Blood; was delivered to die for their Offences; was made &s;in for them; was made a cur&s;e for them, to deliver them from the cur&s;e; appeared to put away their &s;in, by the Sacrifice of him&s;elf; Offered him&s;elf a Sacrifice for their &s;ins; bare their &s;ins in his Bo|dy on the Tree.</HI> All which, declares, that for whom&s;oever Chri&s;t died, he died to &s;atisfie Ju&s;tice for their &s;ins.</P>
<P>If they An&s;wer, that Chri&s;t &s;atisfied for all Mens &s;ins what|&s;oever, upon condition of their beleiving, (as they u&s;e) and o|therwi&s;e not. Unto this I &s;hall &s;ub&s;ume, that not all Men what|&s;oever beleive, but only &s;ome Few: Therefore, from the Ene|mies own principles, he did not &s;atisfie for all Mens &s;ins what&s;o|ever, but only for believers &s;ins, and none el&s;e; and &s;o their principles involves a Contradiction, <HI>viz.</HI> he &s;atisfied for all Mens &s;ins what&s;oever (&s;ay they) and yet, from the&s;e &s;ame very principles, he did not &s;atisfie for all Mens &s;ins what&s;oever, but only for believers &s;ins.</P>
<P>Secondly, &s;eeing misbelief is a chief and Mother-&s;in, Chri&s;t hath &s;urely &s;atisfied for it al&s;o, among&s;t the re&s;t, for all, for who&s;e &s;ins he did &s;atisfie; otherwi&s;e he could not at all, have Redeemed them from the cur&s;e, if he had left any of their &s;ins un&s;atisfied for; and &s;o, if Chri&s;t died and &s;atisfied for any Man, that is, for all that, Condemned, then &s;till that Man, is Con|demned for that, which yet is &s;atisfied for, which is an Act of extream inju&s;tice. What? did not Chri&s;t &s;atisfie for all their &s;ins, for whom he &s;atisfied? if not; how came he to &s;atisfie for a part, and not the re&s;t? and how are they &s;aid, to be Redeemed by a partial &s;atisfaction, which cannot Redeem any Man? and
<PB N="146" REF="94">who &s;hould &s;atisfie for the re&s;t, of their &s;ins? If then, (which is certain) Chri&s;t &s;atisfied for all their &s;ins, for whom he did &s;a|tisfie, and &s;o for their misbelief, among the re&s;t, I would gladly know, if Chri&s;t &s;atisfied for all Men what&s;oever, for what Re|probates are Condemned: for it cannot, without the greate&s;t in|ju&s;tice be, for their &s;ins, which (as is &s;uppo&s;ed) are all &s;atisfied for: misbelief and all. I cannot &s;tand no longer upon this. But who &s;o plea&s;es may &s;ee this univer&s;al Conditional Redemption, very &s;olidly, and yet very breifly Confuted in worthy Mr. <HI>Durhams</HI> Expo&s;ition of the Book of the <HI>Rev.</HI> from pag. 299 the pag. 326.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 TYPE="survey">
<HEAD>Objections An&s;wered.</HEAD>
<P>But, now we mu&s;t hear what our Adver&s;aries, have to &s;ay for them&s;elves. Therefore Fir&s;t, they in&s;tance that Scripture (1, <HI>Joh.</HI> 2, 2.) where its &s;aid, that Chri&s;t was a Propitiation for the &s;ins, of the whole World, that is (as they will) for the &s;ins of all Men what&s;oever.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> By the whole World, <HI>John</HI> does not mean all Men what|&s;oever, without exception; but his meaning is, that Chri&s;ts death was not only a Propitiation for the &s;ins, of the <HI>Jewes,</HI> and Men of their Nation, but al&s;o of the Nations of the <HI>Gentiles</HI> through|out the whole World; and for that cau&s;e, he calls it the whole World, becau&s;e the benefit of Chri&s;ts death, was not any more re&s;tricted, and limited, to the Nation of the <HI>Jewes,</HI> with their few Pro&s;elyts, as it was before, but was extended, to any Nati|on throughout the World, as well as to them. And that this mu&s;t be the meaning of this Text, the Scripture arguments which are already produced, again&s;t univer&s;al Redemption, from which, the Adver&s;aries, can make no eva&s;ion, (as is &s;hewed by the con|fetation, of their Chiefe&s;t devices and an&s;wers) doe Evidently prove, &s;eeing this Text of the Scripture does not contradict the&s;e, but is explained by them. Be&s;ide, the whole world and all Men doe not always, in the Scriptures, &s;ignifie all Men what&s;oever, without exception, as may be ea&s;ily &s;een <HI>I&s;ai.</HI> 40, 5, <HI>Joel.</HI> 2, 28, <HI>Joh.</HI> 12, 32. <HI>Rev.</HI> 13, 3.</P>
<P>Secondly, they object from 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 15, 22. where its &s;aid, <HI>For as in Adam all die, even &s;o in Chri&s;t &s;hall all be made alive.</HI> (Say they) Chri&s;t died for all men what&s;oever,</P>
<PB N="147" REF="94">
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> If they will have this Scripture to be meant of all men what&s;oever, without exception, it will prove that all men what|&s;oever &s;hall be made eventually to live in Chri&s;t: for the &s;ence of this Text is plainly eventual; (<HI>They &s;hall be made alive in Chri&s;t,</HI> &s;ays it) But the Adver&s;aries them&s;elves know that all men what&s;o|ever are not made eventually alive in Chri&s;t; and &s;o they cannot urge this Text, as meant of all men what&s;oever, but only of the&s;e who eventually are made partakers of Life. The meaning thereof is, That all that Dye, Dye in <HI>Adam,</HI> and he by his fall is the Author of their Death; So all that again get Life, they get it in Chri&s;t, and he is the Author thereof unto them, &s;eeing out of him there is no Life, <HI>Act.</HI> 4.12.</P>
<P>Thirdly, They object, That Chri&s;t <HI>is the Saviour of all Men, e&s;pecially of them that believe,</HI> 1 Tim. 4.1<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter">. Therefore Chri&s;t Died for all men what&s;oever. The Text cited, (for an&s;wer) is meant only of Gods general providence, which he hath over all men in this Life, in pre&s;erving them, and providing for them, which is chiefly extended towards Believers; otherwi&s;e in the &s;ence of the Adver&s;aries, who mean it, (by the objection) of Eternal Salvation, it will prove, that all men what&s;oever are Eternally &s;aved, e&s;pecially Believers, which, I am &s;ure, the Ad|ver&s;aries will acknowledge to be fal&s;e, and ab&s;urd too.</P>
<P>Fourthly, They object, That if <HI>Adam</HI> hath lo&s;t more than Chri&s;t hath re&s;tored, then <HI>Adam</HI> was &s;tronger than Chri&s;t, which is mo&s;t ab&s;urd.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> This Argument endeavours to prove, that the number of them that are eventually &s;aved, is greater than of the eventu|ally damned, contrary to the Scriptures, (<HI>Matth.</HI> 7.13, 14. and 20.16.) for as long as the number of the eventually lo&s;t is more than that of the &s;aved, <HI>Adam</HI> hath &s;till lo&s;t more, than are by Chri&s;t re&s;tored. Secondly, Chri&s;ts Death was indeed &s;ufficient to have expiated the &s;ins of all men, and to have re|&s;tored all that <HI>Adam</HI> lo&s;t; but it was not appointed to expiate all mens &s;ins what&s;oever, but only of the Elect; and &s;o the Argu|ment reaches not that which it aims at. La&s;tly, It is an act of much greater power, to quicken one dead man, than to kill many Millions of living men; for, <HI>Adam</HI> was able to de&s;troy many Millions, but not to re&s;tore one man; and &s;o &s;till the Con&s;equence comes &s;hort.</P>
<PB N="148" REF="95">
<P>Fifthly, <HI>God will have all men to be &s;aved,</HI> 1 <HI>Tim.</HI> 2.4. Therefore Chri&s;t died for all men what&s;oever.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> The Apo&s;tle by all men, means not of all men what&s;oever; but of all Sorts, Ranks, and Degrees, of men, as the word, <HI>all,</HI> is frequently in the Scripture under&s;tood, as I partly before &s;hewed, and as it is expre&s;ly explained, <HI>Revel.</HI> 13.16. and &s;o the word, <HI>all,</HI> is meant of <HI>Genera &s;ingulorum,</HI> that is, all kinds of Men; Not of <HI>Singula generum,</HI> that is, every Individual man. An an&s;wer of the &s;ame kind may be given, to the Ob|jection which they draw from <HI>Heb.</HI> 2.9. where we have it turned, <HI>Chri&s;t ta&s;ted Death for every Man.</HI> But, the truth is, there is no more in the Original in this Text, but that Chri&s;t ta&s;ted Death for all, [<GAP DESC="foreign">] and the word, Men, is not in the Origi|nal; and &s;o it may be as well &s;upplied in our Language with the word Elect, or Believers, as with the word, Men; or, albeit it be &s;upplied with the word, Men, yet, it mu&s;t be under&s;tood as is &s;aid, of men of every Sort, Station, Condition, Calling, Quality, and Degree; not of every Individual Man, &s;eeing by our fore|going Arguments, that would be utterly fal&s;e.</P>
<P>Sixthly, We are forbidden to de&s;troy him for whom Chri&s;t Died, (<HI>Rom.</HI> 14.15.) and again, there are &s;ome (2 <HI>Pet.</HI> 2.1.) that deny the Lord that bought them: Therefore Chri&s;t Died for &s;ome, who for all that, may be de&s;troyed and damned.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> The Apo&s;tle in the fir&s;t cited Text means plainly of laying a &s;candal before a weak Brother, (of whom he there &s;peaks) whereby we de&s;troy him, as much as in us; and gives him an occa&s;ion and temptation to de&s;troy him&s;elf, if that could be; but it is not meant that any for whom Chri&s;t Died, do, or can eventually peri&s;h; yea, in that &s;ame Chapter, (<HI>Ver.</HI> 4.) the Apo&s;tle expre&s;ly &s;ays the contrary, where he confidently affirms, That <HI>he &s;hall be holden up.</HI> The &s;econd place cited, does not mean of the&s;e 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 Hi&s;torical &s;ence through &s;ome com|mon Illuminations; and from the external pollutions of the World through &s;ome common Operations; from all which they did once &s;eem to the Church to be al&s;o bought and redeemed from Hell, and were &s;o in her Judgment of Charity, according to which re&s;pects the Apo&s;tle there &s;peaks, mo&s;t part whereof may
<PB N="149" REF="95">be &s;een in that &s;ame Chapter, (<HI>Ver.</HI> 18.20.21.) where the Apo&s;tle &s;ays, That the&s;e men had e&s;caped the Error of the World, and the Pollutions thereof, and had got &s;ome knowledge of the way of Righteou&s;ne&s;s, <HI>viz.</HI> an External, Moral, and Hi&s;torical knowledge: and the re&s;t of it is declared by <HI>John,</HI> (1 <HI>Joh.</HI> 2.19.) where the Apo&s;tle &s;ays, That &s;uch Per&s;ons (of the &s;ame &s;ort that <HI>Peter</HI> here &s;peaks of) went out from them, that they might be made manife&s;t, but were not of them; where he teaches, that the&s;e never were of the number of the truly Re|deemed; but that before their Apo&s;ta&s;ie they were not di&s;cerned from them, and had the &s;ame Judgment of Charity with them.</P>
<P>Seventhly, The promi&s;es of the Go&s;pel are univer&s;al to all: Therefore Chri&s;t Died for all men what&s;oever.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> They are univer&s;al to all Believers, <HI>(Who&s;oever believes &s;hall be &s;aved)</HI> not unto all men; it's no where &s;aid, who&s;oever is a man &s;hall be &s;aved.</P>
<P>Eighthly, They object, That except Chri&s;t have died for all men what&s;oever, many to whom the Go&s;pel is preached, and are exhorted to Believe, &s;hall have nothing that they can Believe; or if they believe, they &s;hall believe a fal&s;hood: But the&s;e things are ab&s;urd.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> It is fal&s;e, that they &s;hall have nothing to Believe; for they &s;hall have to believe, that <HI>Chri&s;t is a &s;ufficient Saviour able to &s;ave to the utmo&s;t, all that come unto God by him, (Heb.</HI> 7.25.) and, that he will al&s;o &s;ave all that come to God by him, (<HI>Joh.</HI> 3.36. and 5.24. and 6.37.47.) and &s;o they have al&s;o to believe, that Salvation is offered to them&s;elves in parti|cular, and that they &s;hall &s;urely be &s;aved, if they will receive and embrace Chri&s;t as he is offered in the Go&s;pel; and while they believe the&s;e things, they &s;hall believe no fal&s;hood, but a mo&s;t certain and &s;ure truth. And if thereupon they &s;hall flee unto Chri&s;t for refuge, and re&s;olutely cleave unto him, it &s;hall be a clear evidence to them, that they are of the number of the&s;e for whom Chri&s;t died, &s;eeing no Reprobate did ever truly flee unto Chri&s;t as his only Refuge, and cordially adhere unto him, <HI>Joh.</HI> 10.26.</P>
<P>La&s;tly, They object, That every man is bound to believe, that Chri&s;t died for him: Therefore Chri&s;t died for all men what&s;oever, &s;eeing we cannot be bound to believe fal&s;hoods and lies.</P>
<PB N="150" REF="96">
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> I utterly deny the Antecedent, &s;eeing many in the world never had any means to hear of Chri&s;ts Death, who therefore are not bound to believe &s;o much as that he died for any man, &s;eeing no man is bound to believe that which was never held forth unto him, nor could he in any Moral diligence know of.</P>
<P>Secondly, Neither are all who hear and profe&s;s the Go&s;pel bound to believe that Chri&s;t died for them, but only &s;uch as have em|braced Chri&s;t on his own Go&s;pel-terms, who&s;e Faith in Chri&s;t and Repentance towards God are Infallible evidences, that Chri&s;t hath Died for them. Nor can there be any thing more ab&s;urdly &s;aid, than that every man, even that hears the Go&s;pel preached, is bound to believe that Chri&s;t died for him, whether he have embraced Chri&s;t, or not: for, then every man that hears the Go&s;|pel &s;hould be al&s;o bound to believe, that he &s;hall be &s;aved, whe|ther he embrace Chri&s;t, or not; &s;eeing for whom&s;oever Chri&s;t Died, he al&s;o &s;aves them, <HI>Rom.</HI> 5.10. and 8.32. 1 <HI>The&s;.</HI> 5.9, 10.</P>
<P>Thou wilt &s;ay, Why then are the&s;e for whom Chri&s;t Died not, Exhorted to believe in Him?</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> They are not exhorted to believe, that Chri&s;t died for them, except they &s;hall fir&s;t make choice of, and embrace him for their Lord and Saviour, as the Go&s;pel offers him.</P>
<P>Secondly, They are exhorted to believe in Chri&s;t, or to ac|cept of him as their alone Lord and Saviour, upon his own terms to &s;hew them what is their Duty, and to make them without excu&s;e, in that there was &s;o much pains and means be&s;towed upon them to &s;hew them their Duty, and the way to Salvation; and yet they would not obey and embrace, but rejected the Mercy of God and Life Eternal, when it was offered to them upon con|dition of their believing in Chri&s;t Je&s;us. But thou wilt &s;ay, They cannot believe in Chri&s;t: How then can they be unexcu&s;able for not doing it? &s;eeing they could not help it.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> But it's their own fault, that they cannot believe in him, their inward &s;inful Corruption is the cau&s;e thereof.</P>
<P>Secondly, They are unwilling, as well as unable; and there|fore they are capable enough to become unexcu&s;able; &s;eeing they are both unwilling, and it's their own fault that they are unable.</P>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="14" TYPE="query">
<PB N="151" REF="96">
<HEAD>Fourteenth QUERY.</HEAD>
<P><HI>What makes a Believer? Whether or not is it by believing in the Light, according to Chri&s;ts Doctrine, who &s;ays, He is the Light of the World, and doth en|lighten every one that comes into the world, that all men through him might Believe? and who follows him &s;hall not walk in darkne&s;s: for he is the Light, and &s;ays, That</HI> he that believes is &s;aved. <HI>Then is not the Light &s;aving which he believes? and he that does not believe in the Light is damned already. Then is not the Light, or his di&s;obedience to it, his Condemnation? Yea; or Nay?</HI></P>
<DIV3 TYPE="survey">
<HEAD>S&V;RVEY.</HEAD>
<P>It is one of the chief Articles of the <HI>Quakers</HI> Creed, that all men what&s;oever are &s;ufficiently enlightned for Conver&s;ion and Salvation, (as their <HI>Confe&s;&s;ion</HI> al&s;o a&s;&s;erts, <HI>pag.</HI> 5, 15, 16, 32, 33, 34.) as al&s;o, that they have &s;ufficient Grace to be Converted and Saved, <HI>Quakeri&s;m no Popery,</HI> pag. 66, 67, 68, 69, 71. Therefore I &s;hall divide this Survey into two Sections; the fir&s;t concerning Univer&s;al Light, the &s;econd concerning Univer&s;al Grace.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="1" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. I. <HI>Concerning &V;niver&s;al Sufficient Light.</HI></HEAD>
<P>The Que&s;tion here is plain, <HI>viz.</HI> Whether or not there is a &s;ufficient Light, for Conver&s;ion, and Salvation, in all men what&s;o|ever, without exception? The <HI>Quakers</HI> affirm, that there is, I deny it; and albeit the Affirmer is &s;till obliged to prove, not the Denier; yet, I prove my Negative.</P>
<PB N="152" REF="97">
<P>Therefore fir&s;t, <HI>The Natural Man does not di&s;cern, neither can he know the things of the Spirit of God,</HI> 1 Cor. 2.14. <HI>Ergo,</HI> Natural Men are not &s;ufficiently enlightned for Conver&s;ion, or Salvation. The <HI>Quakers</HI> expound this Text, &s;ometimes of the unrenewed part in a Man, and &s;ometimes of Natural Rea&s;on, which (&s;ay they) is here meant by the Natural Man. But Con|trariwi&s;e, it is plain, that <HI>Paul</HI> does there compare di&s;tinct Per|&s;ons of Men. Secondly, I appeal the Analogy of Faith, for this their Figurative Glo&s;s. Thirdly, Though we give them their own Glo&s;s, they profit nothing, &s;eeing many, yea, mo&s;t of men, are not renewed, and have no other Light, but of Natural Rea&s;on, being de&s;titute of the Spirit, and not having the light of the glorious Go&s;pel &s;hining in unto them; (2 <HI>Cor.</HI> 4.3, 4. <HI>Jud.</HI> 19.) and &s;o the&s;e men cannot di&s;cern Spiritually, or with a Spiritual evi|dence, &s;eeing a Spiritual act cannot be produced, without a Spi|ritual Principle proportioned thereunto, more than a Hor&s;e can produce acts of Rea&s;on; for, nothing can act above it's Sphere and Capacity.</P>
<P>Secondly, There are many in the World that are covered with gro&s;s darkne&s;s; Many have their under&s;tanding darkened, and are alienated from the Life of God through the ignorance that is in them, becau&s;e of the blindne&s;s of their hearts, (<HI>I&s;ai.</HI> 60.2. <HI>Ephe&s;.</HI> 4.18.) Believers them&s;elves in their unrenewed &s;tate were under the power of darkne&s;s, (<HI>Ephe&s;.</HI> 5.8. <HI>Colo&s;.</HI> 1.13.) and even within the pale of the Vi&s;ible Church, there are many to whom it is not given to know <HI>the My&s;teries of the Kingdom of God;</HI> and God hath not given them a Heart to perceive, Eyes to &s;ee, nor Ears to hear, but their Eyes are &s;hut that they cannot &s;ee, and their Hearts that they cannot under&s;tand, there is a Vail thereupon, (<HI>Matth.</HI> 13.11. <HI>Deut.</HI> 29.4. <HI>I&s;ai.</HI> 44.18. <HI>Rom.</HI> 11.7, 8.) Are the&s;e then &s;ufficiently enlightned for Con|ver&s;ion and Salvation? then black ignorance, blindne&s;s, and darkne&s;s, &s;ufficiently enlightens.</P>
<P>But the <HI>Quakers</HI> reply in their <HI>Confe&s;&s;ion,</HI> (page 8.) That it is not the brain-knowledge that is blinded in any man, but only the &s;en&s;ible knowledge of feeling. But the reply &s;ignifies no|thing.</P>
<P>For fir&s;t, I inquire, if the brain-knowledge, without the &s;en|&s;ible knowledge of feeling, be &s;ufficient to Salvation? if it be,
<PB N="153" REF="97">then they who are quite &s;tupid, and have no con&s;cience or &s;ence of &s;in at all, but are pa&s;t feeling, (as it is 1 <HI>Tim.</HI> 4.2. <HI>Ephe&s;.</HI> 4.19.) are &s;ufficiently enlightned to Salvation, which I do not be|lieve. If then, the brain-knowledge alone, without &s;omewhat of the other, be not &s;ufficient to Salvation, then (with the Ad|ver&s;aries own grant) all men what&s;oever are not &s;ufficiently en|lightned to Salvation, &s;eeing they grant the &s;en&s;ible knowledge of feeling to be blinded in many.</P>
<P>Secondly, All men have not even the brain-knowledge of Chri&s;t Crucified, and the New Covenant, as is clear in experience, (for, How many <HI>Americans</HI> and others can tell us one word of Chri&s;t?) and the Scriptures al&s;o declares it, <HI>P&s;al.</HI> 147.20. <HI>Rom.</HI> 10.14. and 15.20.21. <HI>Ephe&s;.</HI> 2.12. how then are &s;uch men utterly ignorant of Chri&s;t, and &s;o of the way to Salvation, (<HI>Joh.</HI> 14.6. <HI>Act.</HI> 4.12.) and are not within the Covenant, (as Believers Children are, who though they be not capable of actual know|ledge, yet they belong to the Covenant) but are Strangers to the Covenants of Promi&s;e, and Aliens to the Church of God, (<HI>Eph.</HI> 2.12.) How (I &s;ay) are the&s;e &s;ufficiently enlightned to Sal|vation? If the&s;e be &s;ufficiently enlightned thereunto, then not a &s;mall whi&s;per of Chri&s;t or the Covenant can be needful. And, I am &s;ure, if they never heard of Chri&s;t, they can neither know Him, believe in Him, love Him, nor obey His Go&s;pel.</P>
<P>La&s;tly, There are many, even who have heard of Chri&s;t, that, in&s;tead of brain-knowledge, are given up to &s;trong brain-Delu|&s;ions, to believe black Errors and Lies, that bring on their E|ternal Damnation, 2 <HI>The&s;.</HI> 2.11, 12. It is therefore mo&s;t fal&s;e, that the brain-knowledge is not blinded in any man.</P>
<P>But the <HI>Quakers</HI> here object from <HI>Joh.</HI> 1.9. where it's &s;aid, That Chri&s;t enlightens every one that comes into the World, which they expound of a Light &s;ufficient to Salvation.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> I deny their Expo&s;ition, which they &s;hall never prove; for, the Text only &s;ays, That he enlightens every one that comes into the World, which indeed is mo&s;t true in regard of what&s;oever kind, or degree of Light any man in the whole world hath; for, every man is enlightned with &s;ome kind of Light, <HI>viz.</HI> either the Light of Natural Rea&s;on; or el&s;e, both with that, and the Super|natural Light of Grace al&s;o, all which they have from Chri&s;t, who is the Eternal Son of God, by whom all things were made,
<PB N="154" REF="98">(<HI>John</HI> 1.3. <HI>Colo&s;.</HI> 1.16. <HI>Heb.</HI> 1.2.) and is al&s;o our Spiritual enlightner; (<HI>Matth.</HI> 11.27. <HI>John</HI> 1.16, 17. and 8.12. and 12.46.) But that he enlightens every man that comes into the World, with a light &s;ufficient to Salvation, is neither &s;aid in this Text of <HI>John,</HI> nor any where el&s;e of Scripture; but is, on the contrary, therein &s;trongly contradicted, &s;ome few Te&s;timo|nies whereof I have produced. That which the <HI>Quakers</HI> add here, <HI>viz.</HI> That he enlightens every man that comes into the World, <HI>That all men through him might believe,</HI> is not &s;o written in the Text, but only in the Seventh Ver&s;e there preceeding, it's &s;aid, That <HI>John</HI> bare witne&s;s of the Light, <HI>That all men through him might believe;</HI> but the truth is, the word, <HI>men,</HI> is not in the Original, but only the word, <HI>all,</HI> which may be as well &s;upplied with the word, <HI>Elect,</HI> as the word, <HI>Men;</HI> and albeit it were in the Original, yet (for the rea&s;ons before given) it behooved to be under&s;tood of all Sorts, Stations, and Degrees of Men, (or <HI>Ge|nera &s;ingulorum</HI>) not of every Individual Man, (or <HI>Singula ge|nerum</HI>) and &s;urely, <HI>Johns</HI> witne&s;s was neither then, nor yet is come, to every mans ears in the whole World.</P>
<P>Secondly, It u&s;es to be objected, That, that which may be known of God, was manife&s;t to the <HI>Gentiles, Rom.</HI> 1.19. Therefore, even the <HI>Gentiles</HI> were &s;ufficiently enlightened.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> The knowledge that the Apo&s;tle there &s;peaks of, was only a natural knowledge of God, from the light of Natural Rea&s;on, and the works of Creation, (which was common with them to the Devil) and therefore was no ways &s;ufficient for Salvation, con|&s;idering al&s;o how &s;mall a portion we have retained of it &s;ince the Fall; albeit it is indeed &s;ufficient for conviction, and to make un|excu&s;able. They &s;hould therefore prove, that the&s;e knew God in Chri&s;t, or God, as Redeemer, and his new Covenant, or el&s;e they profit not.</P>
<P>Thirdly, They object, That the <HI>Gentiles</HI> had a light in their Con&s;ciences, accu&s;ing, or el&s;e excu&s;ing them, <HI>Rom.</HI> 2.15.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> If that light of a Natural Con&s;cience, which the <HI>Gentiles</HI> had, be &s;ufficient to Salvation, (as the <HI>Quakers</HI> &s;trongly in&s;inuate in their <HI>Confe&s;&s;ion of Faith,</HI> pag. 6, 15, 16, 32, 33, 34.) then the Devil al&s;o, who wants not the Light of a Natural Con|&s;cience, is &s;ufficiently enlightened to Salvation.</P>
<P>Secondly, If that light of a Natural Con&s;cience, which the
<PB N="155" REF="98"><HI>Gentiles</HI> had, be &s;ufficient to Salvation, then the meer light of Nature and Rea&s;on, and that when it is corrupted and darkened, without the Supernatural light of Grace, or &s;o much as one Go&s;pel|promi&s;e, (which the <HI>Gentiles</HI> knew not) is &s;ufficient to Salvation; which, who &s;ays, is a deep-dyed Athei&s;t. They &s;ometimes have &s;aid to me, That the <HI>Gentiles</HI> were &s;ufficiently enlightned, even in re&s;pect of the Covenant of Grace, when it was manife&s;ted to <HI>Adam,</HI> or any other of their fore-Fathers.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> We were once &s;ufficiently enlightned in <HI>Adam,</HI> in order to the Covenant of Works; but we are not &s;till &s;o now, our under|&s;tanding is darkened by the Fall: But, in re&s;pect of the Cove|nant of Grace, <HI>Adam</HI> was never our head and undertaker, and &s;o his enlightning is nothing to us.</P>
<P>Secondly, Will their fore-Fathers enlightning at a great di&s;tance of time, worn out, and extinct, prove, that the <HI>Gentiles</HI> had &s;till a &s;ufficient light? Nay, then, let them prove, (for it's as ea&s;ie) that a blind man &s;ees &s;ufficiently to read, becau&s;e, his Father who had Eyes, &s;aw to do it; or, that all men are &s;ufficiently innocent, and able to do their Duty perfectly, becau&s;e <HI>Adam</HI> was once &s;o, and then we &s;hall need no Saviour.</P>
<P>But, Say the <HI>Quakers,</HI> is not the light then &s;aving, which he believes?</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> Chri&s;t Je&s;us, who is meant in the Scriptures, pointed at, (<HI>viz. Joh.</HI> 1.9. and 8.12.) is indeed a &s;aving light; but the light of Nature and Rea&s;on, which is the only light that is uni|ver&s;ally in all men, (as was proved at the Survey of the fourth Query) is not &s;o.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="2" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. II. <HI>Concerning &s;ufficient Grace in all Men.</HI></HEAD>
<P>The Que&s;tion here is, Whether there be &s;ufficient Grace in all Men, <HI>Turks, Pagans, Heathens, &amp;c.</HI> able to convert them, and &s;o &s;ave them? The <HI>Quakers</HI> boldly affirm, that there is; and they do not mean of objective Grace, or Grace offered only to all, (which &s;ome plead for, right, or wrong, my pre&s;ent purpo&s;e is not concerned) but of &s;ubjective Grace, whereby the will is
<PB N="156" REF="99">made able, and put into Hapacity and freedom to convert and turn to God, as <HI>George Keith</HI> affirms in his <HI>Quakeri&s;m no Popery,</HI> page 66. But I utterly deny, that there is Grace in all men &s;uffi|cient for Conver&s;ion; and though &s;till the Affirmer ought to prove, not the Denyer, yet I prove my Negative.</P>
<P>Therefore fir&s;t, There is not &s;ufficient light for Conver&s;ion in all men, as is proved: Therefore, neither is there &s;ufficient Grace in all men for Conver&s;ion. The Con&s;equence is ea&s;ie, &s;eeing Grace without Light, will be very blind Grace; nor can the will be renewed, and the under&s;tanding left unrenewed, and in darkne&s;s; for, how then &s;hall it behave, &s;eeing, <HI>Nil volitum quin praecognitum, ignoti nulla cupido.</HI></P>
<P>Secondly, Every &s;ufficient Cau&s;e is able to produce the Effect; or el&s;e, it is no ways &s;ufficient, as is palpable. But there is no Grace in Reprobates and Unrenewed Men, able to convert them, &s;ubdue the re&s;i&s;tance of their will, and bring it in &s;ubjection to God: Therefore there is not a &s;ufficient Grace to Conver&s;ion in them. The <HI>Minor</HI> only needs proving, and I prove it, becau&s;e the Natural Man cannot, by any a&s;&s;i&s;tance, di&s;cern the things of the Spirit, and the carnal mind, which is enmity again&s;t God, cannot by any a&s;&s;i&s;tance, be&mdash;&s;ubject to his Law, (1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 2.14. <HI>Rom.</HI> 8.7.) Nay, he mu&s;t be a Spiritual man that does either, &s;eeing a Spiritual act can never proceed from a Natural or Carnal Principle, more than a Hor&s;e can make a Syllogi&s;m, or define an Object: But Reprobates and Unrenewed men are in|tirely Natural Men, and Carnal minded. Therefore there is no Grace in Reprobates and Unrenewed Men, whereby they can either di&s;cern the things of the Spirit, or to be&mdash;&s;ubject to his Law; and &s;o, I am &s;ure, it cannot convert them. The <HI>Minor</HI> of this al&s;o only needs proving, which is ea&s;ie; for Reprobates and Unrenewed Men, neither have Chri&s;t, nor the Spirit of Chri&s;t, (2 <HI>Cor.</HI> 13.5. 1 <HI>Joh.</HI> 5.12. <HI>Rom.</HI> 8.9, 10. <HI>Galat.</HI> 4.6.) and &s;o they cannot be Spiritual, but intirely Natural and Carnal, being without Chri&s;t, and without his Spirit.</P>
<P>Thirdly, No Man can come to Chri&s;t, except the Father draw him, <HI>Joh.</HI> 6.44. but he draws not all men what&s;oever: There|fore all men what&s;oever have not &s;ufficient Grace, enabling them to go to Chri&s;t, and &s;o to convert and turn to God. The <HI>Major</HI> is Chri&s;ts plain a&s;&s;ertion in the place cited. The <HI>Minor</HI>
<PB N="157" REF="99">is clear from <HI>Joh.</HI> 6.45. where Chri&s;t po&s;itively affirms, That every man that hath heard and learned of the Father, comes to him: But all men what&s;oever come not to Chri&s;t, (<HI>John</HI> 5.40. and 10.26. and 12.39. 2 <HI>The&s;.</HI> 3.2.) Therefore all men what&s;oever do not hear and learn of the Father, and &s;o are not drawn by him; and &s;o the whole Argument is evidently proved.</P>
<P>La&s;tly, Conver&s;ion e&s;&s;entially con&s;i&s;ts in the Habits, Powers, and Principles of Grace; not in the actual operations of Grace; otherwi&s;e Believers would lo&s;e, and recover their Conver&s;ion, and &s;o be in a &s;tate of Nature and Grace, as often as they are not, and again are, in the actual exerci&s;e and operations of Grace; and &s;o every Convert would be an Apo&s;tate fallen from Grace when he &s;leeps, or is not actually exerci&s;ing his Grace, which is utterly ab&s;urd, &s;o to lo&s;e, and recover continually his union with, and relation to Chri&s;t, and his right unto Eternal Life: But, who&s;oever hath &s;ufficient Grace, mu&s;t, certainly, have the Powers, Principles, or Habits of Grace: Therefore, who&s;oever hath &s;ufficient Grace, is, certainly, a Convert; and &s;o if all men have &s;ufficient grace, then they are al&s;o all Converts, which I do not yet believe. The <HI>Major</HI> is proved clearly already. I prove the <HI>Minor, viz.</HI> that who&s;oever hath &s;ufficient Grace, mu&s;t, cer|tainly, have the Powers, Principles, or Habits of Grace; becau&s;e, without the&s;e, there cannot be &s;ufficient Grace: for, there cannot be &s;ufficient Grace, where the actions and operations of Grace are impo&s;&s;ible, as cannot be denied: But where the Powers, Principles, or Habits of Grace are wanting, there, the actions and operations of Grace are impo&s;&s;ible; &s;eeing every action and operation is impo&s;&s;ible, without the Principles and Powers whereupon it nece&s;&s;arily depends, as no man can be ignorant of. Therefore, without the Powers, Principles, or Habits of Grace, there can be no &s;ufficient Grace.</P>
<P>They will, (may be) &s;ay, that habits are not &s;imply nece&s;&s;a|ry for producing of Acts, but, only for the more ea&s;ie and ready producing of them. Unto this I reply that, though, that be true in re&s;pect of natural and acquired habits (as even their acquiring, &s;hews that &s;ame Acts proceeded the habit, <HI>viz.</HI> the&s;e by which it was fir&s;t acquired) yet it is mo&s;t fal&s;e, in regard of &s;upernatural and infu&s;ed habits, as both their nature, and their purcha&s;e (no ways, but by infu&s;ion) may &s;hew that they nece&s;&s;arily preceed
<PB N="158" REF="100" MS="y">all Acts; yea, and otherwi&s;e, a Man might live graciou&s;ly with|out grace, and grace would be &s;imply needle&s;s, which a &s;worn Athei&s;t will not dare to &s;ay.</P>
<P>But they object for univer&s;al &s;ufficient grace, that, the <HI>Gentiles do the things contained in the Law, Rom.</HI> 2, 14: therefore they had &s;ufficient grace.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> They did the&s;e things by Nature, (&s;ayes the Text) not by grace. Secondly, a Man, may do things Naturaly good, and contained in the Law, and yet be void of grace, &s;eeing he may do them, but yet not from gracious principles of Faith and Love, nor for gracious ends both which (as al&s;o the gracious manner) are requi&s;it to a gracious action, <HI>Rom.</HI> 14, 23. 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 10, 31.</P>
<P>Secondly, they object, <HI>that the grace of God that bringeth &s;al|vation, hath appeared to all Men, Tit.</HI> 2, 11.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> By the grace of god, the Apo&s;tle there means, the graci|ous Doctrine of the Go&s;pel, (whereunto, teaching, which is a&s;crib|ed to it in the following ver&s;e, is mo&s;t proper) and by all Men, is meant Men of all ranks, Stations, Qualities, &amp;c. As the word, <HI>all,</HI> is often taken: for the Go&s;pel was not then come to every Mans ears in the whole world. This objection <HI>George Keith</HI> makes, in his <HI>Quakeri&s;m no Popery,</HI> pag. 66.</P>
<P>Thirdly, they object, that <HI>the manife&s;tation of the Spirit, is given to every Man to profit withal,</HI> 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 12, 7.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> The Apo&s;tle &s;peaks only of the members of Chri&s;ts body here, by the Context, not of all Men what&s;oever. again, lay|ing a&s;ide the Context, the meaning is ea&s;ie, <HI>viz.</HI> that to whom|&s;oever, the manife&s;tation of the Spirit is given, it is given them for profiting; as when <HI>Paul</HI> &s;ays <HI>Colo&s;.</HI> 1, 28.) <HI>whom we preach, warning every Man, in all wi&s;dom,</HI> he does not mean, that they had then got every Man in the World warned, but that whom|&s;oever they warned, they warned them wi&s;ely, and not imprudent|ly; as when I &s;ay &s;uch a Man, &s;peakes to every Man wi&s;ely, I doe not mean that he hath &s;poken to all the World, but whom&s;oever he &s;peakes to, he does it wi&s;ely and di&s;creetly. And ju&s;t &s;o, when I &s;ay, &s;uch a Man honoureth every Man, or all Men for advantage.</P>
<P>Fourthly, <HI>George Keith</HI> object (in his <HI>Quakeri&s;m no Popery,</HI> pag. 66) from <HI>Rom.</HI> 5, 18. That <HI>as by the offence of one judgment come upon all men to condemnation: even &s;o by the righteou&s;ne&s;s
<PB N="159" REF="100" MS="y">of one, the free gift came upon all Men unto ju&s;tification of life.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> the meaning is plainly, as in the former objection, that as on whom&s;oever the offence came, it came unto Condemnation, &s;o on whom&s;oever the righteou&s;ne&s;s came, it came unto ju&s;tifica|tion, &s;o he is comparing the force and effects, of the offence of <HI>Adam,</HI> and the force and effects of Chri&s;t's righteou&s;ne&s;s and merits together, which is his &s;cope in the whole Context, as may ea&s;ily be &s;een, but e&s;pecially in the 16, <HI>Ver.</HI> And if he were comparing the quantity and latitude, of the objects together, up|on whom the offence, and the righteou&s;ne&s;s came, making them equal (as the <HI>Quakers</HI> objection intends, then it would prove that all Men were as actually in a State of ju&s;tification by Chri&s;t, as ever they were in a State of Damnation by <HI>Adam,</HI> which is utterly fal&s;e.</P>
<P>From this univer&s;al grace, the <HI>Quakers</HI> draw their free-will in all Men, even natural and unrenewed Men to convert and turn unto God at their option and choice, as <HI>George Keith</HI> boldly (with holy boldne&s;s him&s;elf calls it) affirms in his <HI>Quakeri&s;m no Popery,</HI> pag. 66, 67, 68, 69.</P>
<P>But the Scriptures &s;ays, (<HI>Jer.</HI> 24, 7. <HI>Ezek.</HI> 11, 19, and 36, 26,) that its God that gives us the new heart, which we cannot make our &s;elves by the help of univer&s;al grace, nor does that u|niver&s;al grace be&s;tow it (or el&s;e in the <HI>Quakers</HI> principles, all Men would be converts) nor can we turn to God without it. They declare, that it's God that converts us, and not our &s;elves, by our free-will and univer&s;al grace a&s;&s;i&s;ting (<HI>Jer.</HI> 31, 18. <HI>Joh.</HI> 3, 5. and 6, 44. <HI>Jam.</HI> 1 18. 1 <HI>Pet.</HI> 1; 3.) They al&s;o po&s;itively teach that men that want a true Spiritual union with Chri&s;t, by Faith, can doe nothing, <HI>viz.</HI> that's acceptable and Spiritually good (<HI>Joh.</HI> 15, 5.) and all unrenewed men are &s;uch.</P>
<P>And it's mo&s;t ab&s;urd to &s;ay, that there is an ability, and free|will in Reprobates and unrenewed men, by means of a &s;ufficient grace in them, to convert and turn to god, or forbear at their Devotion and choice; for &s;o the efficacy of grace, in the point of Conver&s;ion, is made plainly dependent on man's free-will; which that I may prove, we mu&s;t know that the <HI>Quakers</HI> (with their dear Friends the <HI>Je&s;uits</HI>) doe &s;ay, that God be&s;towes this his grace upon all men only to make them capable, and able, and their free will to Convert, or not, at their choice, and con&s;ent, or
<PB N="160" REF="101">Di&s;&s;ent; but that he does not make his grace, &s;o Powerful on the<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter"> as Infallibly and peremptorily to through and effect the work, &s;o as it cannot but come to pa&s;s; for this he will not doe left he take away the Freedom of their will, whereunto he &s;till leaves them to chu&s;e, or refu&s;e; con&s;ent, or di&s;&s;ent. Now then,</P>
<P>Fir&s;t, this univer&s;al grace, is not effectual of it &s;elf, to Convert any man; or el&s;e, &s;eing every man hath it a&s;well as another (as the Adver&s;aries affirm) it would Convert them all; otherwi&s;e it cannot be called effectual, as not throughing and effecting that work in many. From whom then hath it, to be effectual? not from God; for he only makes men able, and free thereby to be Con|verted, leaving them to their free-will, to chu&s;e or refu&s;e. not from the Devil, I am &s;ure: <HI>Ergo,</HI> it mu&s;t Infallibly, have its effi|cacy from mans free-will, which, by chu&s;ing and Inclining, applies it that way effectually, which otherwi&s;e had mi&s;given.</P>
<P>Secondly, this univer&s;al grace in the bu&s;ine&s;s of Conver&s;ion, works at mens Option and Choice; for, if they Incline it concurs, if not, it forbears: Therefore it is therein clearly Subordinate to mans free-will, and determined thereunto by his Promotion; and &s;o in effecting that work, plainly depends on him, and his free-will. The con&s;equence is plain from the Definition of a Predeter|mining and Predetermined, and a Subordinant and Subordinate cau&s;e contained in the Antecedent, from whence I infer to the things defined in the con&s;equence.</P>
<P>But <HI>George Keith</HI> denies (<HI>Quakeri&s;m no Popery,</HI> pag. 67, 68.) that &s;o the efficacy of grace &s;hall depend upon mans free-will, becau&s;e, when it hath not its efficacy in order to Conver&s;ion in men who &s;top and re&s;i&s;t it, yet it hath its efficacy in rendring them unexcu&s;able, and in being a ju&s;t ground of their Condemnation, which is all that God Intended by it in &s;uch Re&s;i&s;ters: for God in|tended only that it &s;hould convert &s;uch as re&s;i&s;t it not, and be a ground of ju&s;t Condemnation again&s;t Re&s;i&s;ters. But, Fir&s;t, it cannot be &s;o &s;aid to be effectual to Conver&s;ion (concerning which the debate here is) but only that its either Effectually to it, or the other thing mentioned, which al&s;o every good Advice and Exhortation will be. Here there is no efficacy to Conver&s;ion, more then to Non-conver&s;ion, &s;eeing it can con&s;i&s;t with either of them, at the parties option. Secondly, you &s;ay, it was not intended for their conver&s;ion who re&s;i&s;t it How do they then re&s;i&s;t it, who are
<PB N="161" REF="101">not thereby converted, when they do not cro&s;s its Errand and Intent? I am &s;ure, if they cro&s;&s;ed its Intent and Errand, they would plainly re&s;i&s;t it. And &s;o its &s;till re&s;i&s;ted, be it cro&s;&s;ed, or not. What an ill natur'd grace is this, that nothing can plea&s;e. Thirdly, its a&s;much Intended, for the Conver&s;ion of them that re&s;i&s;t, as of them that re&s;i&s;t not; &s;eeing its Intended, for the Conver&s;ion of any of them that re&s;i&s;t not, and of none of them, if they re&s;i&s;t (you &s;ay.) And &s;o, if it be not Intended for the Conver&s;ion of the one, neither is it of the other, and &s;o it cannot concur to any mans con|ver&s;ion, Except it do it without God's Intention and De&s;ign; and &s;o if it Convert any man, its fal&s;e to its Ma&s;ter and Author. Ile have nothing to do with this Ill-natur'd, and fal&s;e grace. God &s;end me better.</P>
<P><HI>George Keith,</HI> (in the 68, <HI>pag.</HI> of his fore&s;aid Book) endea|vours to retort our Arguments here, alledging that, as they &s;ay, their univer&s;al grace is re&s;i&s;tible in order to Conver&s;ion, &s;o we &s;ay that the grace of God may be re&s;i&s;ted in order to perfection; and &s;o we are in the &s;ame difficulty, as he will.</P>
<P>But, <HI>George Keith</HI> is hugely mi&s;taken (as when not?) for we are not in his danger, or difficulty as yet, &s;eeing there is no pari|ty; Fir&s;t, becau&s;e we never &s;aid that we had &s;ufficient grace here, to perfection (God hath not &s;een it fit &s;o to mea&s;ure forth unto us &s;o &s;oon, that he may exerci&s;e our Faith, Patience, Humility, Self-Denyal, Repentance, &amp;c. And rai&s;e our affections to Heaven where we &s;hall have enough.) But the Adver&s;aries do &s;ay that all men have &s;ufficient grace to Conver&s;ion; and therefore we cannot be &s;aid to re&s;i&s;t that which we have not, nor plead we have. This quite de&s;troyes, the pretended retor&s;ion. Secondly, we ne|ver &s;aid that the grace of God, works at our Inclination, Beck, and Choice towards perfection, or not towards it, and &s;o that we are the determiners of his grace, in order to growth (as we, &s;ee from your Principles, ye <HI>Quakers</HI> &s;ay of that univer&s;al pretend|ed grace, in order to Conver&s;ion) but that God, by his grace al|ways determins us. to the growth he de&s;igns it for, not our free-will, his grace. Thirdly, we may indeed, re&s;i&s;t both the means and motions of grace, and not improve grace, as we &s;hould and might too; but God makes it &s;till effectual to the growth by him de&s;ign|ed, and when he plea&s;es, not we; which ye <HI>Quakers</HI> deny he does, le&s;t he take away the Freedom of your will, whereunto he mu&s;t
<PB N="162" REF="102">leave his grace to be turned this way, or that, as ye choice. By all the&s;e, no Parity there is to be found here for a Retor&s;ion.</P>
<P>The <HI>Quakers</HI> again&s;t this Doctrine do object, the many Ex|hortations that are in Scripture unto our Conver&s;ion and turning to God. Whereunto I an&s;wer, That the&s;e Exhortations do not &s;hew what we can do, but what we ought to do; and that &s;o putting us to it, we may know our inability to do, that we may &s;ee our lo&s;tne&s;s, and flee to Chri&s;t. And Secondly, The&s;e Ex|hortations are given in Scripture, as a means by which God does Effectually, by his Spirits Efficacy joyned, work Conver&s;ion in his Elect, who promi&s;cuou&s;ly live among&s;t the re&s;t of the Mul|titude. And Thirdly, They are given to make the wicked the more unexcu&s;able, when they will not Obey, nor receive Grace offered, and turn, that they may be &s;aved.</P>
<P>Upon this univer&s;al Grace, and their free-will thereby, they al&s;o build the Apo&s;tacy of the Saints, alledging, that they may totally and finally fall away, who have true and real beginnings of Sanctification, as <HI>George Keith</HI> alledges, (in his <HI>Quakeri&s;m no Popery,</HI> page 73.) but it's all in vain: for, the Scriptures tell us, that God cau&s;es the&s;e, to whom he gives a new heart, to walk in his Statutes and keep his Judgments, without departing from him, (<HI>Jer.</HI> 32.40. <HI>Ezek.</HI> 36.26.) and that the&s;e that are once planted in the Hou&s;e of God, &s;hall &s;till bring forth fruit in old age, and &s;o &s;hall per&s;evere, (<HI>P&s;al.</HI> 92.13, 14.) and that whom&s;oever God effectually calls, he al&s;o ju&s;tifies and glorifies them, (<HI>Rom.</HI> 8.3.) and that he hath made them Heirs, and joynt Heirs of God with Chri&s;t, and given them the Spirit, as an earne&s;t thereof, (<HI>Rom.</HI> 8.15, 17. 2 <HI>Cor.</HI> 1.22. and 5.5. <HI>Ephe&s;.</HI> 1.13, 14. <HI>Galat.</HI> 4.6, 7.) and that Believers are kept by the Power of God through Faith unto Salvation: (1 <HI>Pet.</HI> 1.5.) and that who&s;oever is born of God, doth not commit Sin, (with full con&s;ent, or unto death) for his Seed, which is incorruptible, (1 <HI>Pet.</HI> 1.23.) remains in him, &s;o that he cannot &s;in, <HI>viz.</HI> with full con&s;ent, or unto Death, (1 <HI>Joh.</HI> 3.9.) becau&s;e he is born of God. I do not here &s;tand to Argument from the&s;e Scriptures, becau&s;e both they are of them&s;elves clear, and like|wi&s;e they have been often handled before, by our Writers again&s;t <HI>Je&s;uits</HI> and <HI>Arminians.</HI></P>
<P>But, they u&s;e to object mo&s;t ordinarily, from the many Ex|hortations
<PB N="163" REF="102">that we have in Scripture to per&s;everance, which (they alledge) imports, that true and real Saints may fall totally and finally away. But they mi&s;take: for the&s;e Exhortations are given as a means, by which God, by his Spiritual Efficacy joyned, de&s;igns, and carries on the Saints per&s;everance, and to &s;hew others their Duty, wherein if they fail, to be their ditty, as was before &s;aid.</P>
<P><HI>George Keith</HI> objects, (<HI>Quakeri&s;m no Popery,</HI> pag. 74.) The&s;e who received the Seed in &s;tony ground, (as it is explained, <HI>Matth.</HI> 13.5. <HI>Matth.</HI> 4.5.) who afterwards fell finally away.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> The&s;e were temporary Believers, never really or truly Regenerated and Sanctified, (as is &s;ure from the Scriptures we have cited pre&s;ently to the contrary) but they had a profe&s;&s;ion of Conver&s;ion, and a temporary Current Flood of Affection, ari&s;ing from &s;ome Carnal Motives of Plea&s;ure, Advantage, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> and thereupon al&s;o they &s;eemed to the Church to be really and truly Converted; albeit it was not &s;o, and they were never really Re|generated, or Sanctified; for, if they had been &s;o, they had not fallen finally away, &s;eeing (be&s;ide what is above &s;aid) the gifts and calling of God are without Repentance, <HI>Rom.</HI> 11.29.</P>
<P>Secondly, He objects from <HI>Rom.</HI> 11.19, 20. where it's &s;aid, That the <HI>Jews</HI> were broken off from the Covenant, that we <HI>Gentiles</HI> might be graffed in. But this &s;ays nothing either, &s;eeing many profe&s;&s;ed Members are broken off; but they were never truly and really Sanctified or Regenerated, which are the only Per&s;ons concerning whom the Que&s;tion is, nor were the&s;e <HI>Jews</HI> whom the Apo&s;tle there &s;peaks of, &s;o much as profe&s;&s;ed Members of the Go&s;pel and Chri&s;tian Church.</P>
<P>Thirdly, He objects from <HI>Heb.</HI> 10.29. (&s;ee the place, for I will not &s;tand to repeat the words) where the Apo&s;tle &s;peaks only of &s;uch as had received (though in a great degree) &s;ome common illuminations of the Spirit, and &s;ome common operations of his Grace; but not of the&s;e who were truly Regenerated and truly Sanctified, though they had once e&s;caped the external Pollutions of the World, as <HI>Peter</HI> &s;ays, (2 <HI>Pet.</HI> 2.20.) and for all this, I appeal the Scriptures which I have produced to the contrary, which are both plain and unan&s;werable. And when he again ob|jects from the 2 <HI>Pet.</HI> 2.18. I an&s;wer likewi&s;e, that the Apo&s;tle there means of men that Externally, and in the Eyes of the World
<PB N="164" REF="103">were clean e&s;caped from them who live in Error; but were not really &s;o, or really and truly Sanctified; for, the&s;e that go away from us, are not of us, (<HI>Joh.</HI> 2.19.) although they may for a time profe&s;s and &s;eem to be of us, and in our Judgment of Charity (when we know no relevant ground again&s;t it) be &s;o con&s;trued.</P>
<P>La&s;tly, He objects to us from <HI>Jud.</HI> 4.5, 6. where truly I hardly &s;ee any Apo&s;tacy, but that of the Angels that fell from their Primaeve Condition, which will never infer the Apo&s;tacy of any mean Saint, &s;eeing none of the&s;e is &s;o ab&s;olutely at the Devils Devotion. Or, if he means of the&s;e in the fourth Ver&s;e, who were crept in, and turn'd the Grace of God into wantonne&s;s, that is only meant of the means of Grace, (which are often called Grace, (<HI>Tit.</HI> 2.11.) and the offers of Grace; not of Grace once really and &s;ubjectively infu&s;ed, or conferred, which would have per&s;evered to Salvation; whereas the&s;e men there &s;poken of, were before of old Ordained to Condemnation, &s;ays the Text.</P>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="15" TYPE="query">
<HEAD>Fifteenth QUERY.</HEAD>
<P><HI>Whether or not the Prophets, Chri&s;t, and the Apo&s;tles, and holy Men of God, did preach down Perfection? and &s;aid, that Men &s;hould not be perfect while they were on Earth, but that they &s;hould carry about a Body of Death with them, while they were on this &s;ide of the Grave? Let us &s;ee where this is written by any of them all?</HI></P>
<DIV3 TYPE="survey">
<HEAD>S&V;RVEY.</HEAD>
<P>The <HI>Quakers</HI> here are fighting with their own Shadow, and however this mock-In&s;pirer drops in the <HI>Quakers</HI> own Principles, &s;ure I am, he is a ba&s;e Traducer of other mens Doctrine: for, What Mini&s;ter of ours did ever preach, that Men &s;hould not be perfect here in this Life? &s;ure enough, they &s;hould be perfect; but the Que&s;tion is not, what is their Duty, and what they &s;hould be; but what is their Reach and Attainments. The Saints are indeed
<PB N="165" REF="103">perfectly ju&s;tified here-away, (<HI>Rom.</HI> 8.1.) nor can a Remi&s;&s;ion, or Pardon of Sins, or an Imputation of Righteou&s;ne&s;s be under|&s;tood, except it be a full Pardon, and a full Imputation.</P>
<P>The Que&s;tion therefore, is only concerning the Saints their Sanctification in this Life, in regard of which, I mu&s;t di&s;tingui&s;h a <HI>Perfection of Parts;</HI> which is, when we have a degree of every Grace, and are renewed in &s;ome mea&s;ure in every power and faculty of the whole Man, though we be not come to the ju&s;t and due mea&s;ure in any of them; <HI>And a Perfection of De|grees,</HI> which con&s;i&s;ts in the compleat mea&s;ure of our Conformity, and our exact Corre&s;pondence to the Law of God, in re&s;pect of all what&s;oever it requires.</P>
<P>But <HI>George Keiths</HI> Divine Conde&s;cen&s;ion, or <GAP DESC="foreign">, (wherein he abu&s;es &s;ome worthy Men) does not con&s;i&s;t in Gods remitting, or nullifying of his Law in it's Direction, and Obligation, as our Rule, which cannot be, (<HI>Matth.</HI> 5.18, 19.) but in the Di|vine acceptance of the Righteou&s;ne&s;s of a Redeemer, and Surety, in&s;tead of our own Per&s;onal Righteou&s;ne&s;s of Works.</P>
<P>The fir&s;t kind of Perfection I willingly yield to the Saints in this Life, &s;eeing every true and real Saint hath &s;ome mea&s;ure of every Grace, and is in &s;ome degree renewed in every power and faculty of the whole Man, <HI>Ephe&s;.</HI> 4.24. <HI>Colo&s;.</HI> 3.10.</P>
<P>But that any man is Perfect in this Life, in the &s;econd &s;ence of Perfection, (which yet is the mo&s;t proper) &s;o as to be altogether &s;inle&s;s, (as <HI>George Keith</HI> would have it, in his <HI>Quakeri&s;m no Popery,</HI> pag. 37. 38.) I utterly deny; and albeit the Affirmer be &s;till obliged to prove, not I the Denier, yet I prove it. Fir&s;t, Becau&s;e <HI>David</HI> &s;ays, (<HI>P&s;al.</HI> 19.12.) <HI>Who can under&s;tand his Errors?</HI> and he prays, (<HI>P&s;al.</HI> 143.2.) That God would not enter into judgment with him: <HI>for in thy &s;ight</HI> (&s;ays he) <HI>no man living &s;hall be ju&s;tified, viz.</HI> by his own Righteou&s;ne&s;s and Goodne&s;s; and &s;o he intreats not to be Examined, or Judged, according to what he was in him&s;elf, and I &s;till believe, that he was as perfect as any <HI>Quaker,</HI> or <HI>George Keith,</HI> an <HI>Ante&s;ignanus,</HI> or Banner-Bearer among&s;t them.</P>
<P>Secondly, <HI>Solomon,</HI> who was as wi&s;e as any <HI>Quaker,</HI> &s;ays, (<HI>Prov.</HI> 20.7.) <HI>Who can &s;ay, I have made my heart clean, I am pure from my &s;in?</HI> The <HI>Quakers</HI> an&s;wer him, (for&s;ooth) that they can &s;ay it. Let them be doing then, and contradict him,
<PB N="166" REF="104">and the holy Spirit too, by who&s;e In&s;piration he was ordered, in writing of that: for I cannot hinder them. Their Moon is at the Full.</P>
<P>Thirdly, The Apo&s;tle tells us, (<HI>Galat.</HI> 5.17.) That <HI>the Fle&s;h lu&s;teth again&s;t the Spirit, and the Spirit again&s;t the Fle&s;h in Believers,</HI> (for he &s;peaks not of others, who are all Fle&s;h, or wholly Carnal, and have no Spirit, or Renewed part) <HI>&s;o, that they cannot</HI> (behold how peremptory the Expre&s;&s;ion is) <HI>do the things that they would.</HI> Such men are not perfect then, albeit the <HI>Quakers</HI> may (po&s;&s;ibly) differ from the Apo&s;tles Judg|ment.</P>
<P>Fourthly, The Apo&s;tle <HI>John</HI> &s;ays mo&s;t peremptorily, (1 <HI>Joh.</HI> 1.8.) That, <HI>if we &s;ay, we have no Sin, we deceive our &s;elves, and the truth is not in us.</HI> The <HI>Quakers</HI> an&s;wer, That the &s;ame Apo&s;tle &s;ays, (<HI>Chap.</HI> 3.9.) That <HI>who&s;oever is born of God doth not commit Sin; for, his Seed remains in him, and he cannot &s;in, becau&s;e he is born of God.</HI> But fir&s;t, This Text cannot be meant of a full and compleat Perfection, &s;eeing every Man hath Sin, and he deceives him&s;elf that thinks otherwi&s;e, by the former Text; and he that hath any Sin, cannot be compleatly Perfect. Secondly, If this la&s;t Text were meant of Perfection, it would prove every true Convert, from the very fir&s;t new breath in him, (&s;eeing, even then, <HI>he is born of God,</HI> which is the Apo&s;tles ground, why he cannot commit Sin in the manner that he means) to be compleatly Perfect, and exempted from Sin; which, yet, I think, the <HI>Quakers</HI> them&s;elves will not &s;ay. The Apo&s;tle therefore in the fir&s;t Text, means of Sin dwelling in the be&s;t of Saints here away, and therefore he expre&s;&s;es it by, <GAP DESC="foreign">, &s;ignifying, to have &s;in; and in the &s;econd Text, he means of &s;in, not only dwel|ling, but reigning in us, and made (as it were) a trade of, and acted with full con&s;ent, (which Renewed Men cannot do) and therefore he expre&s;&s;es this by, <GAP DESC="foreign">, &s;ignifying, to make, and devi&s;e, or contrive Sin, (as it were) by Trade. <HI>George Keith</HI> an&s;wers, That though we have Sin in us, yet, it is not our Sin, but our Temptation, (<HI>Quakeri&s;m no Popery,</HI> pag. 38. 39.) and that this does not infer Actual Sin however. Contrariwi&s;e, The Apo&s;tle calls it Sin, and that peremptorily, certifying us, <HI>That we deceive our &s;elves, if we &s;ay we have it not.</HI> How then does <HI>George Keith</HI> call it only a Temptation to Sin? and,
<PB N="167" REF="104">Whether &s;hall we believe him, or the Apo&s;tle that calls it ex|pre&s;ly Sin? Secondly, If it be not our Sin, who&s;e Sin (I pray) is it? it's not the Devils, &s;eeing not he, <HI>but we have it,</HI> (&s;ays the Text) and, I am &s;ure, they will not be &s;o impudently Bla&s;phe|mous, as to a&s;cribe it to God: Therefore, it is certainly ours, &s;ee|ing it mu&s;t be &s;ome bodies, and it will al&s;o mud and defile our actions.</P>
<P>Fifthly, The Apo&s;tle <HI>Paul,</HI> (who was, I believe, more perfect than any <HI>Quaker</HI>) mo&s;t heavily complains, (<HI>Rom.</HI> 7.15. <HI>ver.</HI> to the end) of his Corruption, Imperfection, and Sin dwelling in him again&s;t his will, his heart, and his &s;trong Inclinations to the contrary; and therefore, certainly, he was not perfect, and I know not who dare pretend beyond him. But <HI>George Keith</HI> re|plies (<HI>Quakeri&s;m no Popery,</HI> pag. 39. 40.) That the Apo&s;tle is not there de&s;cribing his then-pre&s;ent-Condition, but the Condi|tion of him&s;elf and others, as they were in the &s;trugling and warfare E&s;tate, before the Victory was attained. But Contrari|wi&s;e, he is de&s;cribing his then-pre&s;ent-Condition; for, he was not then perfect, nor long after it, when he wrote the Epi&s;tle from <HI>Rome</HI> to the <HI>Philippians,</HI> (compare <HI>Philip.</HI> 3.12. with <HI>Rom.</HI> 1.11, 13, 15. and 15.22, 23.) which was &s;everal years after his writing of the Epi&s;tle to the <HI>Romans;</HI> and, certainly, he had got the Victory over his Corruption then, (I mean in the very time that he points at, whether it were pre&s;ent, or pa&s;t) &s;eeing it was thrown out of his affection, and he hated it, (<HI>ver.</HI> 15.) and he was come the length of delighting in the Law of God, after the Inward Man, (<HI>ver.</HI> 22.) and with the mind he &s;erved the Law of God, (<HI>ver.</HI> 25.) all which import a great Victory, al|though the Enemies were not all utterly de&s;troyed and gone, yet their force was broken. And albeit the Law in his Members was &s;till drawing him into, or towards captivity, (which <HI>George Keith</HI> thinks ab&s;urd to &s;ay of the Apo&s;tle at that time) yet, this expre&s;&s;es only the endeavours of his Natural Corruption, not it's &s;ucce&s;s; for his unrenewed part was Carnal, &s;old under Sin, and no good thing dwelt in it: and what ab&s;urdity is there here? and when the Apo&s;tle &s;umms all into one Conclu&s;ion, (<HI>ver.</HI> 25.) that with the mind then, he him&s;elf &s;erved the Law of God, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> I &s;ee not a po&s;&s;ibility for <HI>George Keiths</HI> Meta&s;chemati&s;mus, except he will &s;ay, that the Apo&s;tle did not at that time, when he wrote
<PB N="168" REF="105">this Epi&s;tle to the <HI>Romans,</HI> with the mind &s;erve the Law of God, but that he did it only before, when he was in the &s;trugling and warfare-E&s;tate, before he had got the Victory, which will both be fal&s;e enough, and ab&s;urd enough, as I judge.</P>
<P>Sixthly, <HI>There is not a ju&s;t man upon Earth,</HI> (&s;ays <HI>Solomon, Eccle&s;.</HI> 7.20.) <HI>that doth good and &s;inneth not: Ergo,</HI> there is no man upon Earth Perfect. <HI>George Keith</HI> an&s;wers to this, (<HI>Quakeri&s;m no Popery,</HI> pag. 40.) That the Verb being in the &s;econd future, may be turned in the Potential Mood, There is not a ju&s;t man upon Earth, that doth good, and may not Sin.</P>
<P>But fir&s;t, The Verb is in the Indicative Mood; and therefore our Tran&s;lation has the advantage.</P>
<P>Secondly, <HI>Solomon</HI> is explaining &s;omething that people might be ignorant of, which was not a bare po&s;&s;ibility of mens &s;inning, (for who could be ignorant of that?) but it mu&s;t be meant of their actual &s;inning, and &s;hort-coming, and that even in their be&s;t performances, in regard of the manner.</P>
<P>Thirdly, <HI>No man can &s;ay he is pure from his Sin,</HI> (Prov. 20.9.) and the Apo&s;tle <HI>Paul</HI> was not fully pure from it, when he wrote to the <HI>Romans</HI> and <HI>Philippians,</HI> (<HI>Rom.</HI> 7.23.24. <HI>Philip.</HI> 3.12.) and as long as a man is not pure from his Sin, he is not perfect, nor can his actions (morally con&s;idered) be perfect either; a Fountain not fully pure, &s;ends not forth perfect pure water, and &s;till proportionably, the goodne&s;s and perfection of the Fruit, follows upon the goodne&s;s and perfection of the Tree, (<HI>Matth.</HI> 7.17.) and that it can no ways exceed. Add al&s;o the&s;e three Scriptures, 1 <HI>King.</HI> 8.46. <HI>I&s;ai.</HI> 64.6. <HI>Jam.</HI> 3.2.</P>
<P>La&s;tly, I canot but admire, that any man &s;hould &s;o far lo&s;e all &s;ence of &s;in, and &s;hort-coming in his Duty, as to think, that he is come up to the full mea&s;ure required in Gods Law, <HI>to love the Lord his God with all his Heart, Soul, and Mind, and his Neighbour as him&s;elf.</HI> Surely, there is no man that dare pretend to an exact performance hereof; and therefore, there is no man compleatly perfect, and exactly &s;inle&s;s.</P>
<P>But the Adver&s;aries object, That all the works and gifts of God are perfect, and that therefore our Sanctification, being a work and gift of God, mu&s;t be perfect.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> This objection endeavours to prove, that our Sanctifica|tion is perfect in the very fir&s;t moment of our Conver&s;ion and
<PB N="169" REF="105">Regeneration, &s;eeing even then, it is a work and gift of God, as well as afterwards, and this undoes the Argument.</P>
<P>Secondly, All Gods works and gifts are perfect, if they be con|&s;idered Ab&s;tractively, and meerly as flowing, and depending from him; (for, Who can impute evil unto him?) Not &s;o always, if they be con&s;idered Concretively, and as inhering and exi&s;ting 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 &s;o the Argument proves nothing.</P>
<P>Secondly, They object, That <HI>David</HI> pleaded often with God upon the account of his Righteou&s;ne&s;s, praying, that God would judge him according thereunto: Therefore his Righteou&s;ne&s;s be|hooved to be perfect.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;. David</HI> meant of the Righteou&s;ne&s;s of his Cau&s;e, com|pared with his Enemies Cau&s;e, who wrongfully Per&s;ecuted him; but not of the inherent Righteou&s;ne&s;s of his Per&s;on before God, (<HI>P&s;al.</HI> 19.12. and 143.2.) and when &s;ometimes, in confidence of his Sincerity, he de&s;ires God to judge him, he does not mean of being judged by him according to the &s;everity and &s;trictne&s;s of the Law, <HI>Secundum ju&s;titiam di&s;trictam,</HI> (which &s;incerity, with|out perfection cannot &s;atisfie) as may be under&s;tood from the Scriptures la&s;t cited; but he means of being judged according to the lenity and compa&s;&s;ion of a merciful Father in Chri&s;t.</P>
<P>Thirdly, They object, That the heart of &s;everal of the Kings of <HI>Judah</HI> is in Scripture expre&s;ly &s;aid to have been perfect, 2 <HI>King.</HI> 20.30. 2 <HI>Chron.</HI> 15.17.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> Perfection is there meant of the Perfection of Parts, or &s;incerity, (which are both one) not of the Perfection of Degrees; for, that none of the&s;e were gradually perfect, may be &s;een from 2 <HI>Chron.</HI> 16.7.10. and 32.25, 26. <HI>I&s;ai.</HI> 38.17. the &s;ame is to be &s;aid of that large Commendation given to good <HI>Jo&s;ias;</HI> (2 <HI>King.</HI> 23.25.) for, that he was not gradually perfect, is al&s;o clear from 2 <HI>Chron.</HI> 35.22. In this &s;ence <HI>Job</HI> is al&s;o called perfect, (<HI>Job.</HI> 1.8.) and yet, he peremptorily denies him&s;elf to be gra|dually perfect, <HI>Job.</HI> 9.20. and &s;ometimes 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 <HI>Cor.</HI> 2.6. <HI>Philip.</HI> 3.15.) where the Original word, <GAP DESC="foreign">,
<PB N="170" REF="106">will render Adult or Grown, and &s;o it is rendred <HI>Heb.</HI> 5.14. where the whole Context (which I may not &s;tand upon) &s;hews it to be meant comparatively; and &s;o al&s;o it be&s;t agrees with the Scope and Context of the particular places them&s;elves; and where <HI>Paul</HI> claims unto him&s;elf that comparative Perfection, (<HI>Philip.</HI> 3.15.) he, for all that denies him&s;elf to have reached an ab&s;olute gradual perfection, <HI>ver.</HI> 12. there.</P>
<P>Fourthly, They object from 1 <HI>Joh.</HI> 17, 9. (<HI>Quakeri&s;m no Popery,</HI> pag. 39.) where it's &s;aid, He is faithful upon our Con|fe&s;&s;ion, to forgive us our Sins, and that the blood of Je&s;us Chri&s;t clean&s;eth us from all Sin.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> As to ju&s;tification, I yield this clean&s;ing to be perfect, as to all &s;ins pa&s;t, and a &s;ure ground thereby laid for pardon of fu|ture Sins, &s;eeing the gifts and calling of God are without Repen|tance, and whom he ju&s;tifies he glorifies, <HI>Rom.</HI> 8.39. and 11.29. But of &s;anctification it mu&s;t be under&s;tood only Inchoatively, not perfectly; and the Verb, <HI>Clean&s;eth,</HI> in the Pre&s;ent Ten&s;e, imports the work not to be ended in this life, but &s;till adoing, (albeit <HI>George Keith</HI> would infer the contrary) for, that which is before clean, needs no more clean&s;ing.</P>
<P>Fifthly, They object, That the Apo&s;tle &s;ays, (1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 7.28.) <HI>That though a Woman Marry, &s;he hath not &s;inned:</HI> Therefore, there are &s;ome actions (at lea&s;t) free of all &s;in.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> If this objection proved any thing, it would prove, that Reprobates, and <HI>Pagans,</HI> al&s;o have perfect works. Secondly, I an&s;wer, that <HI>Paul</HI> there means of the action of Marriage con|&s;idered in re&s;pect of it's nature and kind, and in order to its proper object, as ab&s;tracted from all particular circum&s;tances which may attend it, which way the action hath no evil in it; otherwi&s;e it could not be lawful to Marry; (whereas to forbid Marriage, is a Doctrine of Devils, 1 <HI>Tim.</HI> 4.1, 2, 3.) Neverthele&s;s, albeit the action of Marriage &s;o con&s;idered, be not &s;inful, yet, &s;eeing every particular action is nece&s;&s;arily exerci&s;ed in &s;everal Circum&s;tances wherewith it ought, or ought not to be cloathed, it may ea&s;ily be defiled and become &s;inful by the Ve&s;ture of evil Circum&s;tances, (in&s;tead whereof, it &s;hould have been cloathed with good ones) e&s;pecially adding the impurity, and uncleanne&s;s of the Agent which exerts it &s;elf in every particular action.</P>
<P>Sixthly, The <HI>Quakers</HI> object, (and hereby they endeavour to
<PB N="171" REF="106">prove the perfection, both of the Saints, and of their good works in this life) The Saints (&s;ay they) have in this life perfect good works: Therefore, the Saints in this life mu&s;t be perfect. They prove the Con&s;equence, becau&s;e perfect Effects crave perfect Cau&s;es. They prove the Antecedent, becau&s;e they are acceptable to God; and becau&s;e if they be not perfect, then they are &s;in|ful: but &s;inful they cannot be, &s;eeing God commands them, who commands not things &s;inful.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> Our good works are acceptable to God thorow Chri&s;t, into whom all believers are by Faith Ingrafted, and thorow whom alone both their per&s;ons, and good works are accepted: but none of aur good works here-away ore in them&s;elves acceptable to God, &s;eeing they are &s;till Imperfect. Again God accepts them as they are good, that is, Sincerely done, not as they are Imper|fect, and &s;o evill; and &s;o from their acceptation their perfection follows not. To the Second I An&s;wer, that God Com|mands our good works, not as we perform them, but as we ought to perform; nor yet as they are defective as to the De|gree, he does not Command their gradual defect; but he Com|mands them as they are good in re&s;pect of their Nature and kind. So the objection peri&s;hes.</P>
<P>Seventhly, they endeavour, to prove that Chri&s;tians have (at lea&s;t) &s;ome perfect Actions in this Life, and for that purpo&s;e they Inquire of us, if the Apo&s;tles &s;inned in writing the Scrip|ures?</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> Fir&s;t, this will not prove, the perfection of any Action of any man now living, except they can fir&s;t prove him to have as large a mea&s;ure of grace, and of the Spirit's Influence, and A&s;&s;i&s;|tance, as the Apo&s;tles 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 Apo&s;tles were but Pen-men; for the Holy Gho&s;t dictated all) may con|&s;i&s;t with &s;ome Degree of imperfection, as the Action is con&s;idered Morally, and as lyable to the Law of God: (<HI>David,</HI> and <HI>A&s;aph</HI> wrote Scriptures when they were not perfect, <HI>P&s;al.</HI> 51, 10. and 73, 22.) or el&s;e (be&s;ide the In&s;tances given) what will they &s;ay 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 &s;atisfaction, I An&s;wer
<PB N="172" REF="107">that in that Action, the Apo&s;tles did not at all &s;in upon the matter (which yet is the mo&s;t Formal &s;en&s;e of the objection, which thus propo&s;ed directly imports the matter) &s;eeing the matter of the A|ction did perfectly agree, with the Law of God, as al&s;o the Acti|on of an unrenewed man may doe. Secondly, there was much good in it compared with all the re&s;t of the cau&s;es, (and &s;o it was &s;incere, and of another nature and kind, then any Action of an unrenewed man is, or can be) &s;eeing 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 obedi|ence to God) were all, certainly, good. Yet con&s;idering it as a Moral Action, lyable to God's Law, it was &s;urely (for the rea|&s;ons given) Defective and Imperfect, as to the exact and com|pleat Degree of love to God and men, and re&s;pect 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.</P>
<P>They will (may be) &s;ay, that then, the Scriptures would be in danger to Contract &s;ome Impurity from the Impurity of the A|gent and Action of writing.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> That is fal&s;e, as appears from our In&s;tances of an Hypo|crite and Printer and of <HI>David,</HI> and <HI>A&s;aph,</HI> when they were not pure, or perfect. And if the Doctrine written did nece&s;&s;arily Contract any impuritie from the impurity of the writer, by the &s;ame Rea&s;on (and with more Rea&s;on, &s;eeing the Tongue is a more Immediat In&s;trument of the Heart then the Hand) the Doctrine Preached &s;hould Contract &s;ome Impurity from the Impurity of the Preacher; which is manife&s;tly fal&s;e to the Worlds eye. Chri&s;t was the external object of the per&s;ecutive Actions of the <HI>Jews,</HI> yet he Contracted no Impurity from thence.</P>
<P>But the <HI>Quakers</HI> urge, &s;aying, though we cannot do all we ought to do; yet that which we do, we may do it perfectly.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> This reply mu&s;t either be under&s;tood, of diver&s;e Actions, &s;o that the &s;en&s;e &s;hall be; though we cannot do all the good Acti|ons we ought to do, yet that Action, or the&s;e Actions, which we do, we may do it, or them perfectly, which &s;eeing by (Perfectly) they mu&s;t mean the perfection of Degrees (and otherwi&s;e it would be nothing to their purpo&s;e of a &s;inle&s;s perfection which they plead) we mu&s;t deny, becau&s;e of the&s;e, and many other Scriptures (<HI>Prov.</HI> 20, 9. <HI>Eccle&s;.</HI> 7, 20. <HI>Galat.</HI> 5, 17. <HI>Rom.</HI> 7, 21.)
<PB N="173" REF="107">or el&s;e that reply mu&s;t be under&s;tood, of one and the &s;ame Action; And &s;o the &s;en&s;e is though we cannot do, an Action in that per|fect degree of goodne&s;s, that we ought, yet in that degree of goodne&s;s wherein we do it, we may do it perfectly, where (it being the perfection of degrees, which is here Controverted, and by the Adver&s;aries pleaded for, and otherwi&s;e, we &s;hould have no debate with them here) their reply involves a &s;trong Contradiction, <HI>viz.</HI> that any Action performed below that degree of goodne&s;s which it ought to have, &s;hould notwith&s;tanding be performed perfectly in re&s;pect of the perfection of Degrees, &s;eeing &s;o it would both want, and yet not want, &s;ome Degree of goodne&s;s which it ought to have. For the&s;e rea&s;ons, I ju&s;tly deny the latter part of their propo&s;ition.</P>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="16" TYPE="query">
<HEAD>Sixteenth QUERY.</HEAD>
<P><HI>Can any man be &s;aved by his own works, Self-righte|ou&s;ne&s;s, will wor&s;hip? And are not all men in Self-righte|ou&s;ne&s;s that are not in the righteou&s;ne&s;s of Chri&s;t Je&s;us? And are not all of their own works that be out of the light, and the Faith that is the gift of God? And are not all in their will-wor&s;hips that are not in the wor&s;hip that Je&s;us Chri&s;t the Heavenly man &s;et up above Sixteen hun|dred years Since, that is in the Spirit, and the truth? So, mu&s;t not every man come to the truth, and to the Spirit, in their own hearts, if they come to the wor&s;hip Je&s;us Chri&s;t Set up? And are not your Catechi&s;ms, Confe&s;&s;ion of Faith, and Directories your own works, and your own wor&s;hip which ye have &s;et down for People to fall down and do wor&s;hip to, and be Saved by? And have ye not &s;et up this &s;ince the Apo&s;tles days, and &s;ince Chri&s;t &s;et up his wor&s;hip?</HI></P>
<DIV3 TYPE="survey">
<HEAD>S&V;RVEY.</HEAD>
<P>Becau&s;e this Survey will divide it &s;elf into three Subjects, and
<PB N="174" REF="108">it would be too long together, therefore I &s;hall order it into three Sections. The Fir&s;t &s;hall, Vindicat us from a Popi&s;h Salvation, or ju&s;tification by works, or Inherent Righteou&s;ne&s;s, and &s;hall fix a Popi&s;h ju&s;tification upon the <HI>Quakers.</HI> The Second &s;hall very breifly confuted their Popi&s;h ju&s;tification. The Third &s;hall over|turn an exception made by the <HI>Quakers</HI> again&s;t the charge of a Popi&s;h ju&s;tification which we ju&s;tly lay to their door.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="1" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. 1. <HI>Vindicating us from a Popi&s;h Salvation and Ju&s;tification, and fixing a Popi&s;h Ju&s;tification upon the Quakers.</HI></HEAD>
<P>The great &s;cope of this Querie, is to make us &s;eem guilty of holding a Popi&s;h Salvation by works, albeit the whole Chri&s;ti|an World knoweth what a lewd Calumny this is, It having been the con&s;tant Doctrine of ours and all other Prote&s;tant Churches, a|gain&s;t the Papi&s;ts, that the good works of the Saints are not the cau&s;es, or Meritorious procurers of their Salvation, and it is found|ed upon Scripture-Te&s;timony as clear as the Sun. For eternal Life is none of our merit and due, but is the Free gift of God (<HI>Rom.</HI> 6, 23.) <HI>And by grace, not by works we are Saved</HI> (<HI>Ephe~&s;.</HI> 2, 5, 8, 9.) not by works of Righteou&s;ne&s;s, which we have done, but according to his mercy he Saveth us (<HI>Tit.</HI> 3.5.) And the be&s;t of our works are in this Life imperfect, (as is proven) and &s;o they cannot merit any good, but Contrarily every defect and &s;hort coming of our Duty, Merits, Damnation, and the Cur&s;e (<HI>Deut.</HI> 27, 26. <HI>Galat.</HI> 3, 10.) And if our good works could merit, then we might tru&s;t to them, which the Apo&s;tle dare not do, (<HI>Philip.</HI> 39 Nor is there any proportion betwixt our be&s;t works, and eternal Life (<HI>Rom.</HI> 8, 18.) And therefore they cannot merit it.</P>
<P>The whole Prote&s;tant Church hath no le&s;s always abhorred the Doctrine of ju&s;tification by our own Inherent Righteou&s;ne&s;s and good works, from the &s;ame clear Evidence of the Scripture (for which &s;ee <HI>Rom.</HI> 3, <HI>Chap.</HI> from <HI>Ver&s;.</HI> 20. to the end, and the whole <HI>Chap.</HI> following. As al&s;o <HI>Galat.</HI> 2, 16, 21. and 3, 10 11. and 5, 4. <HI>Philip.</HI> 3, 9.) and &s;eeing, that is &s;till imperfect in this life, it can neither be the cau&s;e, nor Condition, of our ju&s;tification be|fore God, in <HI>who&s;e &s;ight no man living &s;hall be ju&s;tified</HI> (<HI>P&s;al.</HI> 143,
<PB N="175" REF="108">2.) <HI>viz.</HI> by any Righteou&s;ne&s;s inherent or inward in him&s;elf.</P>
<P>Neverthele&s;s albeit our inherent Righteou&s;ne&s;s and good works be not nece&s;&s;ary to Salvation, as Efficient or Meritorious cau&s;es thereof; yet they are nece&s;&s;ary indi&s;pen&s;ably thereunto by nece&s;|&s;ity of pre&s;ence, or as pure Antecedents, without which no man is Saved (excepting the&s;e that Die Immediately after Conver&s;ion, and Infants from the Actual performance of good works.) For which &s;ee <HI>Mat.</HI> 3.10. and 5.20. and 25. from <HI>ver&s;.</HI> 34. to the end, and <HI>Rom.</HI> 2.9, 10. and 8.13. 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 6.9, 10. <HI>Galat.</HI> 5.21. and 6.8. <HI>Heb.</HI> 12.14.</P>
<P>And albeit our inherent, or inward Righteou&s;ne&s;s be neither the Cau&s;e, nor Condition of our ju&s;tification before God; yet it is &s;till an in&s;eparable Concomitant of ju&s;tifying Faith. For which &s;ee <HI>Rom.</HI> 8.1, 9, 10. 2 <HI>Cor.</HI> 5.17. <HI>Jam.</HI> 2.17.20. 1 <HI>Joh.</HI> 3.3.</P>
<P>But what if the <HI>Quakers</HI> be Guilty of a <HI>Popi&s;h</HI> ju&s;tification? Do not the <HI>Quakers</HI> hold ju&s;tification by a Righteou&s;ne&s;s wrought within them, and formally inward and inherent in them&s;elves? in this they joyn hands with the <HI>Papi&s;ts</HI> in one of their mo&s;t Fun|damental Errors, which does indeed contradict the very De&s;ign and Current of the Go&s;pel (which is to Teach us to &s;eek Righ|teou&s;ne&s;s for ju&s;tification in Chri&s;t, and not in our &s;elves) yea, and the very plain De&s;ign of Chri&s;ts Death. See <HI>Rom.</HI> 3.25. and 10.4. <HI>Galat.</HI> 2.16, 21. and 5.4.</P>
<P>But the <HI>Quakers</HI> endeavour to elude this our Charge, pretend|ing that they are far from holding ju&s;tification by their own In|herent Righteou&s;ne&s;s, with the <HI>Papi&s;ts;</HI> but by the alone Impu|ted Righteou&s;ne&s;s of Chri&s;t. Thus they pretend in their Con|fe&s;&s;ion of Faith, pag. 4.21, 22. But the <HI>Quakers</HI> will not &s;o Cheat and deceive the Chri&s;tian world; for fir&s;t (in that 21. pag. Cited, where they purpo&s;ely handle this Que&s;tion, and pretend as is now &s;aid) they deny us to be ju&s;tified by a Righteou&s;ne&s;s received of us by Faith, calling that but an Act of the Creaturely skill, and an Imputation which is an Act of mans Spirit and forging, and a Fiction and Imagination in the Crea|turely will and power.</P>
<P>Hence then, they deny us to be ju&s;tified by the Righteou&s;ne&s;s received of us by Faith, and &s;o con&s;equently by the Imputed Righteou&s;ne&s;s of Chri&s;t; &s;eeing the Righteou&s;ne&s;s of his Obedi|ence and Sufferings, Imputed to us in Ju&s;tification, is not a di|ver&s;e
<PB N="176" REF="109">Righteou&s;ne&s;s from the Righteou&s;ne&s;s of Faith, but is one and the &s;ame, as is clear from <HI>Rom.</HI> 3.21, 22, 24, 25. and 4.6, 11, 13, 22, 23, 24. and 9.30. and 10.4, 10. <HI>Galat.</HI> 2.16. and 3.8. and 5.5. Secondly, this ju&s;tification held by the <HI>Quakers</HI> mu&s;t either be, by the Righteou&s;ne&s;s received by Faith, or el&s;e by the Righteou&s;ne&s;s of the Law, and its works; for there is no other third &s;ort of Righteou&s;ne&s;s known, to compet in this point, but the&s;e are always &s;tated as the only two Members of the Di&s;tinction (for which &s;ee <HI>Rom.</HI> 3.28. and 4.2, 3, 4, 5. and 9.30, 31, 32. and 10.3, 5, 6. <HI>Galat.</HI> 3.11, 12.) But the <HI>Quakers</HI> plainly deny the Ju&s;tification held by them to be by the former; yea, they Scoff and Mock at that more, than ever <HI>Papi&s;t</HI> did, as is evident from their preceeding Language. Therefore they do inevitably hold Ju&s;tification by the latter, wherein they manife&s;t|ly joyn hands with the <HI>Papi&s;ts,</HI> for all their pretexts to cover it.</P>
<P>Again (in the fore-Cited 22. page of their Confe&s;&s;ion) they have the&s;e words; and becau&s;e (&s;ay they) we are again&s;t the latter (<HI>viz.</HI> Ju&s;tification by a Righteou&s;ne&s;s received by Faith, whereof they were la&s;t &s;peaking) we are Clamoured upon, as if we denied the Imputation of Chri&s;ts Righteou&s;ne&s;s, when it is only to the&s;e that are not made Righteous by it, to walk, as he al&s;o walked. Here they hold Ju&s;tification by a Righteou&s;ne&s;s Making their walk Righteous, which is the plain inherent Righ|teou&s;ne&s;s of our Life and Conver&s;ation.</P>
<P>But the <HI>Qu&acirc;kers</HI> (in that la&s;t Cited pag. of their Confe&s;&s;ion) go on and add, that it is not Acts of Righteou&s;ne&s;s as done by them, nor as inherent in them, as Acts, by which they are accepted of God, and ju&s;tified before him; but they are accepted of God, and ju&s;tified before him by Chri&s;t the Author and worker of the&s;e Acts in them.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> That is well. I &s;ee then the <HI>Quakers</HI> hold not them&s;elves to be ju&s;tified by all Acts done by them, or inherent in them (as when they commit Bla&s;phemy, may be) and truly this is all they have yeilded, or &s;aid for their Vindication: for if they were ju&s;tified by any thing upon the very formal account of its being done by, or inherent in them, then they &s;hould be ju&s;tified by every thing done by, or inherent in them: for a <HI>Quatenus ad omne &s;equitur univer&s;aliter.</HI> But why would not the <HI>Quakers</HI> &s;ay (if they intended to make any Faith of a vindication) that they hold not ju&s;tification by Acts of Righteou&s;ne&s;s done by, or inherent
<PB N="177" REF="109">in them, as they are Acts of Righteou&s;ne&s;s, and gracious Acts, and not meerly, as they are Acts done by, or inherent in them? Which &s;eeing they inclined not to &s;ay, e&s;pecially where they are &s;o purpo&s;ely endeavouring to purge them&s;elves from the &s;u&s;pici|on of a <HI>Popi&s;h</HI> ju&s;tification, we &s;ee, they do but prevaricat, and throw du&s;t in the eyes of the Vulgar.</P>
<P>But <HI>George Keith</HI> is in this point mo&s;t plain (in his <HI>Quakeri&s;m no Popery</HI>) and as po&s;itive as any <HI>Papi&s;t</HI> I have &s;een. For in the 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50, 52, 53. pages thereof, he expre&s;ly and po&s;itively Teaches, that our inward graces and vertues of Repen|tance, Conver&s;ion, Faith as a Work, Love, Hope, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> are the Righteou&s;ne&s;s whereby we are ju&s;tified before God, and that im|mediately (page 53.) which was never true of Faith it &s;elf, which does not ju&s;tifie immediately by it &s;elf, but only Correlatively, by its object which it apprehends and relies upon, <HI>viz.</HI> the Righteou&s;ne&s;s of Chri&s;t. And in his Definition of ju&s;tification there (page 47) he gives us no other material Cau&s;e of ju&s;tification before God, but our meer graces of Repentance and Conver&s;ion. And he cunningly pleads moderate Merit (page 46, 47.) but mo&s;t openly and plainly (page 55, 56.) and he quite confounds ju&s;tification and &s;anctifica|tion, leaving no imaginable Di&s;tinction betwixt the&s;e two, making us to be ju&s;tified by inward Righteou&s;ne&s;s, and &s;anctified by the very &s;ame (pages 46, 47, 50, 53. compared) which in his <HI>Popi&s;h</HI> Principles, he is (I Confe&s;s) forced to do.</P>
<P>And is not <HI>George Keith</HI> plainly <HI>Popi&s;h</HI> in this point, who holds ju&s;tification by inherent Righteou&s;ne&s;s immediately; gives us no other material Cau&s;e of our Righteou&s;ne&s;s before God, but that only; pleads moderate Merit in us by it; allows Faith in the bu&s;ine&s;s only as a work with the re&s;t; and confounds ju&s;tification and &s;anctification together? <HI>Bellarmine</HI> him&s;elf was never more <HI>Popi&s;h</HI> than thus, which all know that are acquaint with him upon the Controver&s;ie.</P>
<P>But <HI>George Keith</HI> endeavours to &s;hift our Charge of a <HI>Popi&s;h</HI> ju&s;tification, becau&s;e he (&s;eemingly) yields (pag. 44, 46, 47.) that our inward Grace and Righteou&s;ne&s;s are not the procuring cau&s;e of our ju&s;tification, by way of &s;trict Merit, and in a way of &s;trict Ju&s;tice, &s;trictly and rigidly con&s;idered, as when the work is of equal worth and dignity to the Reward, as he explains it, page 55. But I would fain know the other Member of this di&s;tinction
<PB N="178" REF="110">from the Author. He tells us their inherent grace and Righteou&s;|ne&s;s are not the procuring cau&s;e of their Ju&s;tification, by way of &s;trict Merit, and &s;trict Ju&s;tice, &s;trictly and rigidly con&s;idered. How many, <HI>Stricts, Strictlies,</HI> and <HI>Rigidlies</HI> are there here? he has, certainly, been exceedingly concerned, and eagerly careful to get his Minute and imperfect inherent Righteou&s;ne&s;s, at lea&s;t, next Neighbour to the &s;tricte&s;t Merit and Ju&s;tice; and it would not fail, nor he be feared for it in any thing, but that; and yet he has been as careful, as he could, to cover his meaning in this, which mu&s;t be the other Member of his di&s;tinction. We &s;ee then, that, if Ju&s;tice will not exact the very rigid Rigour of the Law from the <HI>Quakers,</HI> and take the very <HI>&s;ummum Jus</HI> (which u&s;es to be called the <HI>&s;ummum Nefas</HI>) they think to merit their ju&s;ti|fication by their inherent Righteou&s;ne&s;s at Gods Tribunal. And this, and what this great Ringleader of the <HI>Quakers,</HI> we &s;ee, hath &s;aid before, &s;hews that they hold as <HI>Popi&s;h</HI> a ju&s;tification, as the <HI>Pope</HI> him&s;elf, I believe, does.</P>
<P>But <HI>George Keith</HI> is yet re&s;olved to &s;hake off this <HI>Popi&s;h</HI> ju&s;tifi|cation, in the eyes of the world, and to fix it, for&s;ooth, upon us too (in his <HI>Quakeri&s;m no Popery,</HI> page 48.) fir&s;t, becau&s;e they differ both from the <HI>Papi&s;ts</HI> and us, in holding the Act of God in ju&s;tification to be really Inward, which the <HI>Papi&s;ts</HI> and we (&s;ays he) do not.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> Indeed it is true, that upon our believing, the Go&s;pel-promi&s;es pronounces the Sentence, nor have we, nor need we any immediate Dictates to warrand that; but we may &s;oon, or late, get a Tran&s;cript thereof Inwardly for our Formal a&s;&s;urance; and &s;o we do not differ wholly from this point that <HI>George Keith</HI> would have us differ, as to the Inwardne&s;s of the Act, or Copy of the Act rather out of the&s;e Divine Records; but we differ hugely from them as to the Immediatene&s;s of the Act, I grant; but I never heard that that was called <HI>Popi&s;h</HI> till now; but that a <HI>Popi&s;h</HI> ju&s;tification was always reckoned upon inherent Righteou&s;ne&s;s as the Meritorious, or material Cau&s;e thereof; although <HI>George Keith</HI> denies that a man can Ta&s;te of Spiritual Food, except he get it, in his En|thu&s;ia&s;tick way, immediately (<HI>Quakeri&s;m no Popery,</HI> page 16.) as if (for&s;ooth) a man could not Ta&s;te Meat conveighed to him in any Ve&s;&s;el, or Di&s;h, and this fully an&s;wers a long Di&s;cour&s;e which he there has upon this matter, &s;eeing the Promi&s;es are the
<PB N="179" REF="110">Ve&s;&s;els conveighing to us all our Spiritual Comforts, of Ju&s;tifica|tion, Salvation, <HI>&amp;c.</HI></P>
<P>Secondly, to &s;hake it off him&s;elf, and fix it upon us, he &s;ays (page 48.) that, in regard of the Object, they Teach that we are the Object thereof, not only as having our &s;ins Pardoned for Chri&s;ts &s;ake, but as being Righteous in the &s;ight of God (<HI>viz.</HI> by inherent Righteou&s;ne&s;s, whereof he &s;till &s;peaks) through Chri&s;t dwelling in us. But in this he is &s;till <HI>Popi&s;h,</HI> not we, in holding him&s;elf to be the Object of Ju&s;tification, as being, or becau&s;e he is (for all is one) Antecedently Inherently Righteous, and there|fore ju&s;tified; which we never held, but that we are ju&s;tified by Faith, as laying hold and relying on Chri&s;ts Righteou&s;ne&s;s; where Faith is not con&s;idered as a work, or immediately in it &s;elf, or as it qualifies its &s;ubject; But Correlatively, as apprehending and getting hold of the Object (<HI>viz.</HI> Chri&s;ts Righteou&s;ne&s;s) let <HI>George Keith</HI> think this Di&s;tinction as nice as he will (as he calls it &s;cornfully in his <HI>Quakeri&s;m no Popery,</HI> page 45, 46.) which was not &s;o nice to the Apo&s;tle <HI>Paul,</HI> who &s;till oppo&s;es ju&s;tification by Faith, and by works, and &s;o does not con&s;ider Faith therein as a work but under another Notion and Formality. See (I pray) how he oppo&s;es them, <HI>Rom.</HI> 3.27, 28. and 4.2, 3, 4, 5. and 9.32. and 10.5, 6. <HI>Galat.</HI> 3.11, 12. Yea, the very Attributes of the Deity admit of a Formal Preci&s;ion upon their divers Con&s;ide|rations and Connotations; and (I am &s;ure) the Attributes of God have as &s;trict an Identity, as the Predicates of any E&s;&s;ence be&s;ide can have. And when he Quarrels &s;uch di&s;tinctions as not plain for In&s;truction, I mu&s;t an&s;wer him that, then, Con|fu&s;ion is certainly plain Doctrine, as he thinks: but <HI>qui ben&eacute; di&s;tinguit, ben&eacute; docet.</HI> But why is <HI>George</HI> him&s;elf &s;o nice (<HI>Qua|keri&s;m no Popery,</HI> page 52.) to di&s;tingui&s;h Faith, as Receptive, from it &s;elf, as Inward Righteou&s;ne&s;s; Unto this I will &s;ay, with rea&s;on, as he has &s;aid (page 8. of his book) without rea&s;on, to a man of very great worth, <HI>Turpe e&s;t Doctori (&amp; immediate in|&s;pirato) cum culpa redarguit ip&s;um.</HI></P>
<P>The next thing that comes in this Query (all the petty Que&s;ti|ons whereof I will re&s;olve in this Section) is a Con&s;equence which they draw from the Mill to the Moon. Chri&s;t (&s;ay they) &s;et up his wor&s;hip above Sixteen Hundred years &s;ince in Spirit, and in truth; &s;o mu&s;t not every man come to the Truth, and to the
<PB N="180" REF="111">Spirit in their own hearts, if they come to the Wor&s;hip he &s;et up.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> I &s;hall not &s;tand long in Taxing the Antecedent whereby they &s;eem to in&s;inuate that there was no Spiritual Wor&s;hip and con&s;equently Wor&s;hippers under the Old-Te&s;tament, which is mo&s;t evidently fal&s;e; for then the&s;e had no Faith in God, nor love to, or fear of him; but were all Black Athei&s;ts, and mu&s;t all be Damned.</P>
<P>Chri&s;ts meaning therefore in that place (<HI>viz. Joh.</HI> 4.23.) is not that there was no Spiritual Wor&s;hip in the Church before that time; but that the vail of Ceremonies, wherewith the Spiritual Wor&s;hip was, as it were, covered and hidden under the Old-Te&s;tament, &s;hould be removed and taken away under the New, and the Wor&s;hip rendred more &s;imple and more clear, and the Spi|rituality thereof more appear, and be expre&s;&s;ed externally, as it is plainly declared in the event 2 <HI>Cor.</HI> 3.13. with 18. as al&s;o the Context of the place &s;hews, that it is of the removing of that vail of Ceremonies whereof he &s;peaks, under which the Wor&s;hip was tied unto Typical places. But how &s;hall it be inferred from that, that the Wor&s;hip under the New-Te&s;tament &s;hall not be vailed with Ceremonies, Types, and &s;hadows, as before it was, but &s;hall be more &s;imple, manife&s;t, and clear; that therefore every man under the New-Te&s;tament mu&s;t come to the Truth, and to the Spirit in his own heart? here is a Con&s;equence led by the <HI>Quakers,</HI> in a weighty matter of Faith, &s;o quite blind, and wild, that the Chimeraes of <HI>Utopia</HI> may &s;ooner break the Bars of Impo&s;&s;i|bility, and the Bolts of their nece&s;&s;ary Impri&s;onment, then it &s;hall ever be e&s;tabli&s;hed with one grain weight, or Scruple, of either Scripture, or Rea&s;on. But of the Light within (which here they aim at) we have &s;aid enough already.</P>
<P>But, &s;ay the <HI>Quakers</HI> near the clo&s;e of this Query, are not your Catechi&s;ms, Confe&s;&s;ions of Faith, and Directories your own works, and your own Wor&s;hip that ye have &s;et down (they &s;hould have &s;aid, &s;et up) for people to fall down and do Wor&s;hip to, and be &s;aved by?</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> Who&s;e works &s;oever the&s;e are, I have at the Survey of their Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Queries &s;ufficiently in the general vindicated them again&s;t all the <HI>Quakers</HI> Cavillations.</P>
<P>Secondly, I have al&s;o vindicated our Church from the Doctrine of Salvation by works, and I will not repeat.</P>
<P>Thirdly, does the explaining, and opening up, or clearing of
<PB N="181" REF="111">the Principles of Religion, and our Chri&s;tian Faith, by Catechi&s;m, Confe&s;&s;ion, Vive-voice, or otherways, by the very deed done, make men Guilty of holding a Salvation by works? O brave! the Apo&s;tles that were diligent in the&s;e things are much Guiltier then, then we are.</P>
<P>As for the Wor&s;hipping of the&s;e, and the Will-wor&s;hip which here they are plea&s;ed to charge us with, we &s;hall meet with the&s;e in the next Query.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="2" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. II. <HI>Confuting the</HI> Quakers <HI>Popi&s;h Ju&s;tification.</HI></HEAD>
<P>Upon this Debate I will not &s;tand long, it hath been &s;o much to&s;&s;ed already betwixt our Writers and the <HI>Papi&s;ts;</HI> only I &s;hall bring two, or three forcible Arguments again&s;t our being ju&s;tified before God by any Righteou&s;ne&s;s wrought, or inherent within us, my A&s;&s;ertion being,</P>
<P>That we are ju&s;tified before God by the Righteou&s;ne&s;s of Chri&s;t without us, Imputed by God unto us, upon our apprehending and Imbracing of Chri&s;t and his Righteou&s;ne&s;s offered to us, by Faith; and not by any Righteou&s;ne&s;s wrought, or inherent in us. Before we prove that we are not ju&s;tified by any Righteou&s;ne&s;s wrought, or inherent in us, but by Chri&s;ts without us Imputed to us, we &s;hall premi&s;e this ground, <HI>viz.</HI> that in the Scripture our own Law-righteou&s;ne&s;s, and the Righteou&s;ne&s;s of our works are &s;till taken for one and the &s;ame thing, and &s;tated in oppo&s;ition to Chri&s;ts Righteou&s;ne&s;s received by Faith, in this point of Ju&s;tifi|cation (as I have often &s;hewed before from the&s;e following Scrip|tures, <HI>viz. Rom.</HI> 3. <HI>chap.</HI> from <HI>ver.</HI> 20. to the end. and 4.2, 3, 4, 5.6. and 9.30, 31, 32. and 10.3, 5, 6. <HI>Galat.</HI> 2.16, 21. and 3.11, 12. and 5.4. <HI>Philip.</HI> 3.9.) nor can the Righteou&s;ne&s;s of our works, and our Law-righteou&s;ne&s;s be diver&s;e upon any account that is po&s;&s;ible to be &s;hewn by any man, and (I pray) con&s;ider the Scriptures that I have Cited, which I may not &s;tand to form in|to Arguments, and which are &s;o clear that they need not; the&s;e things premi&s;ed I Argue.</P>
<P>Fir&s;t, we are ju&s;tified before God by the Righteou&s;ne&s;s of Faith, which is the righteou&s;ne&s;s of Chri&s;ts obedience and &s;ufferings without us (for he did not obey and die within us) as we have be|fore
<PB N="182" REF="112">proved: <HI>Ergo</HI> we are not ju&s;tified before him by a righte|ou&s;ne&s;s wrought, or inherent within us, &s;eeing that which Chri&s;t wrought and &s;uffered in his own Per&s;on, before we were born, without us was not then, nor is it now over again, by way of reproduction (which if they &s;ay, is &s;till <HI>Popi&s;h</HI> enough) wrought within us.</P>
<P>Secondly, We are ju&s;tified before God <HI>freely by his Grace, through the redemption that is in Je&s;us, Rom.</HI> 3, 24. <HI>Eph.</HI> 1, 7. <HI>Col.</HI> 1, 14. <HI>Ergo,</HI> we are ju&s;tified by the &s;atisfaction of Chri&s;t without us, not by any righteou&s;ne&s;s wrought, or inherent within us. The antecedent is the Apo&s;tles. I prove the con&s;equence, be|cau&s;e, fir&s;t, a man cannot be freely ju&s;tified or pronounced righte|ous by a judge, becau&s;e he is per&s;onally in him&s;elf Inherently righ|teous; for he is bound in all ju&s;tice to pronounce a man righteous that is &s;uch, and it is not done freely or <HI>gratis,</HI> and if he do otherwi&s;e he does mo&s;t unju&s;tly. Secondly, I prove the con&s;equence, becau&s;e this redemption whereby we are ju&s;tified is in Je&s;us, in whom the righteou&s;ne&s;s wrought, or inherent in us is not; except the <HI>Quakers</HI> Bla&s;phemou&s;ly will have every ju&s;tified man to be Je&s;us, and that he and we &s;hall be the &s;ubject of one and the &s;ame thing, and &s;o the &s;ame &s;ubject, &s;eeing one and the &s;ame thing cannot be &s;ubjected in two divers &s;ubjects, e&s;pecially &s;eeing here the redemption of Chri&s;t is &s;ubjected in his humane nature, which is in Heaven (and in the divine nature it cannot) and &s;o it would in a ju&s;tified man on the earth be &s;eparated from it &s;elf in Heaven, which is utterly repugnant.</P>
<P>Thirdly, We are not ju&s;tified by faith as it is any part of our inward righteou&s;ne&s;s, or a work wrought within us, albeit, <HI>George Keith</HI> thinks this di&s;tinction too nice: <HI>Ergo,</HI> we are not ju&s;tified by any righteou&s;ne&s;s wrought, or inherent within us, &s;eeing faith is one of the be&s;t parts of that righteou&s;ne&s;s, and fir&s;t in the order of nature, which could not have been pa&s;t by in the bu&s;ine&s;s. The Antecedent I prove, becau&s;e, in the point of ju&s;tification, faith, and works are &s;till Stated in a diametral oppo&s;ition (as I &s;hewed before, I will not repeat) Which, if faith ju&s;tified as a work, would be an oppo&s;ing of ju&s;tification by works, to a ju&s;tification by works, and would infer that we are ju&s;tified by works, and not by works, which is both Contradiction, and Non&s;ence.</P>
<P>Fourthly, The righteou&s;ne&s;s wrought and inherent in our &s;el|ves is a righteou&s;ne&s;s of works, or el&s;e <HI>Adams</HI> could not have been
<PB N="183" REF="112">&s;uch, nor do the adver&s;aries deny it; but <HI>George Keith</HI> mocks at our di&s;tinction of faith in ju&s;tification as it is not con&s;idered as a work, but Correlatively, as being too nice, curious, and altoge|ther Impertinent in handling controver&s;ies of Religion, and a work only delighted in by vain Janglers (<HI>Quakeri&s;m no Popery,</HI> pag. 45, 46) for which I think him both Impertinent and Bla&s;|phemous, in reflecting &s;o upon the Spirit of God, who (as is &s;hewed) doth thus di&s;tingui&s;h faith in this point: But we are not ju&s;tified before God by the righteou&s;ne&s;s of works, even our works of grace, proceeding from the Spirit of God in us; for the Apo&s;tle never grants any Intere&s;t to any of our works in Ju&s;tification, but &s;till excludes all of them, and whatever affords any matter of glory|ing in our &s;elves (<HI>Rom.</HI> 3.27.28. and 4.2.) and uncontrollably, any man that is ju&s;tified by his judge becau&s;e of his inherent righte|ou&s;ne&s;s in him&s;elf, hath &s;till &s;ome matter of glorying in him&s;elf, becau&s;e the inherent righteou&s;ne&s;s of his own per&s;on, in ju&s;tice brought him off. And the &s;ame Apo&s;tle al&s;o mo&s;t peremptorily &s;ays (<HI>Rom.</HI> 4.4. and 11.6.) That if we be ju&s;tified by works, then it cannot be by Grace, and that becau&s;e of a clear contra|diction; for (&s;ays he) that which is of works cannot be of Grace; otherwi&s;e works are no more works, nor Grace any more Grace, but their Natures, on both hands, are quite de&s;troyed. We are not then ju&s;tified by any Righteou&s;ne&s;s wrought, or inherent in our &s;elves.</P>
<P>La&s;tly, we are not ju&s;tified before God by our own Law-righte|ou&s;ne&s;s, as is evident from <HI>Rom.</HI> 3.20, 21. and 10.3, 5. <HI>Galat.</HI> 2.21. and 3.11, 12. and 5.4. <HI>Philip.</HI> 3.9. But all the righteou&s;ne&s;s wrought, or inherent in us, is our own Law-righteou&s;ne&s;s: therefore we are not ju&s;tified before God by any Righteou&s;ne&s;s wrought, or inherent in us. The Scriptures Cited clearly prove the <HI>Major.</HI> I prove the <HI>Mi|nor;</HI> for fir&s;t, its a&s;much our Law-righteou&s;ne&s;s, as <HI>Adams</HI> could have been if he had &s;tood to this day, being as Inward and inherent, and as formally and &s;ubjectively ours, as his could have been to him; nor could he, without the Grace of God have had his, more than we ours. Secondly, it con&s;i&s;ts in our doing and working; and I &s;hewed before, that the Righteou&s;ne&s;s of our doings and works, and our Righteou&s;|ne&s;s of the Law are the &s;ame thing, and &s;o does the Apo&s;tle (<HI>Rom:</HI> 10.5. <HI>Galat.</HI> 3.12.) when he, after <HI>Mo&s;es,</HI> De&s;cribes the Righteou&s;|ne&s;s of the Law, and di&s;tingui&s;hes it thereby from the Righteou&s;|ne&s;s of Faith, which con&s;i&s;ts not therein. Thirdly, the Righte|ou&s;ne&s;s
<PB N="184" REF="113">wrought, or inherent within a man conforms him to the Law in him&s;elf (though as long as its imperfect, it cannot ju&s;ti|fie him before God, but &s;till leaves him under the Cur&s;e, <HI>Deut.</HI> 27.26.) and, upon the account of its formal and &s;ubjective union with him, it gives him, and only him, its Intrin&s;ical Denomination, as an Immanent form; albeit efficiently and tran&s;iently it is wrought by the Spirit of God. Upon all the&s;e accounts it is a mans Law-righteou&s;ne&s;s mo&s;t clearly: or el&s;e no Righteou&s;ne&s;s could ever have been &s;uch that can be imagined.</P>
<P><HI>George Keith</HI> then mu&s;t not tell us over again (as once he hath in his <HI>Quakeri&s;m no Popery,</HI> page 53.) that our own Law-righ|teou&s;ne&s;s is only that which a man worketh in, and by him&s;elf, without the Grace and Spirit of God: for I have briefly demon|&s;trated, that all the Righteou&s;ne&s;s wrought, or inherent within us is our own Law-righteou&s;ne&s;s.</P>
<P>But <HI>George</HI> objects (<HI>Quakeri&s;m no Popery,</HI> page 43, 44, 45.) that Repentance, Love, and Hope are nece&s;&s;ary to ju&s;tification; and the&s;e are all Inward, and are Righteou&s;ne&s;s: Therefore we are ju&s;tified by an inward Righteou&s;ne&s;s wrought and inherent within us.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> I deny the Con&s;equence; for fir&s;t, though the&s;e be ne|ce&s;&s;ary to ju&s;tification by way of Pre&s;ence and Exi&s;tence, and no man wanting them can be ju&s;tified (which is &s;ure) yet they are not nece&s;&s;ary thereunto as our immediate Righteou&s;ne&s;s whereby we mu&s;t be ju&s;tified, or as the Meritorious, or material Cau&s;e thereof before God, let the Merit be never &s;o Moderate. Let <HI>George Keith</HI> trie his hand, if he can prove that they are thus ne|ce&s;&s;ary, which he has not done as yet, nor &s;hall he ever do. Nor &s;econdly are they nece&s;&s;ary even as a Condition thereunto, nor Faith it &s;elf as a work, qualitatively, or as a part of our inward Righteou&s;ne&s;s; but only in its Relative con&s;ideration, as receiv|ing, apprehending, and relying upon its object (<HI>viz.</HI> Chri&s;ts Righteou&s;ne&s;s) as is plainly before proved. And many things are nece&s;&s;ary in order to a Bargain-making, which are not the con|dition clo&s;ing the Bargain, as here hearing of the Word, convicti|on of Guilt. <HI>&amp;c.</HI> in Adult per&s;ons are, in an ordinary Method, nece&s;&s;ary to ju&s;tification, though both of them may be where the Bargain &s;hall never be clo&s;ed. And though where the&s;e Graces mentioned in the Objection truly are, the Bargain is certain, yet
<PB N="185" REF="113">none of the&s;e Formalizes it, and receives Chri&s;t with his Righteou&s;|ne&s;s, nor have they an aptitude &s;o to do; but that is proper to Faith in its Relative con&s;ideration.</P>
<P>Its nece&s;&s;ary unto Marriage to know of a Party, and to hear of &s;ome offers and terms; yet none of the&s;e clo&s;es the Marriage-cove|nant, but that is done by the mutual con&s;ent and acceptance of the Parties.</P>
<P>Secondly, the <HI>Quakers,</HI> may be, will object that much u&s;ed, and abu&s;ed Text of <HI>James (Jam.</HI> 2.21.) where its &s;aid that <HI>Abraham</HI> was ju&s;tified by works.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> The Text is not meant of the Pronounciation thereof be|fore God (for, I am &s;ure) <HI>Abraham</HI> was a ju&s;tified man, before his re&s;olution to offer up <HI>I&s;aac</HI> (whereof the Text expre&s;ly &s;peaks) yea, before <HI>I&s;aac</HI> was born, Comparing <HI>Rom.</HI> 4.10. with <HI>Gen.</HI> 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 ju&s;tification before God, is &s;ure, &s;eeing the Scriptures Cited &s;hew very peremptorily that he was a ju&s;tifi|ed man before he offered that work, by which <HI>James</HI> there &s;ays he was ju&s;tified. And the Apo&s;tles clear Scope in the place is to hold forth, that ju&s;tifying Faith cannot be alone, but mu&s;t and will be accompanied with other graces, and vertues, and good works, which give Lu&s;tre and Glory thereunto (which there he calls the perfecting of it) and without which it will be found but a dead Faith.</P>
<P>And when thirdly it is objected, that men will be judged ac|cording to, or by their words and works (as the Scriptures often &s;ay) the &s;ame an&s;wer is to be given, <HI>viz.</HI> they will be judged according to, or by them Declaratively, as Solemn Witne&s;&s;es and Te&s;timonies of the State they are in, manife&s;ting before all the Equity of Gods procedure; not as Cau&s;es, or Conditions, except in the Damned, who&s;e evil works are indeed the Merito|rious Cau&s;e of their Mi&s;ery.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 TYPE="appendix">
<HEAD>An <HI>Appendix</HI> concerning the Merit of our good Works.</HEAD>
<P><HI>George Keith</HI> (in his <HI>Quakeri&s;m no Popery,</HI> page 55, 56, 57.) Teaches al&s;o that the good works of the Saints are Meritorious of the Reward of happine&s;s, though not in the &s;tricte&s;t &s;ort of merit,
<PB N="186" REF="114">which he calls Condignity, or de&s;erving a Reward, &s;o as the Merit is equal in worth and dignity to the Reward; yet &s;o as to obtain (<HI>viz.</HI> Meritoriou&s;ly, for po&s;itively he pleads for their merit here) from God by promi&s;e as he out of his Infinite boun|ty hath &s;een fit to be&s;tow, <HI>viz.</HI> unto &s;uch a merit; and though he refu&s;es all Condign merit both here, and likewi&s;e in the 72 page of the book, as that &s;ignifies an equality betwixt the Merit and the Reward, yet he &s;till &s;ticks, though &s;ubtilly, to a Condig|nity below an equality, page 57, and in all his Arguments he &s;till aims to prove a worth and merit in the very works them|&s;elves. But I mu&s;t A&s;&s;ert, that there is no merit in any of our good, or be&s;t works, in any &s;en&s;e of merit thats proper what&s;oever, to obtain from God any good thing, much le&s;s the Reward of Heaven. I &s;hortly prove it. Therefore fir&s;t, the be&s;t of our works in this life are imperfect (as we have before now proved) and comes far &s;hort of that which we owe: <HI>Ergo</HI> they can never merit any good at the hands of God, but, upon the contrary the Cur&s;e and Damnation Eternally, which is due to them who do not exactly in all things keep the Law of God, <HI>Deut.</HI> 27.26. <HI>Galat.</HI> 3.10.</P>
<P>Secondly, Eternal Life is the Gift of God, &s;ays the Apo&s;tle <HI>Rom.</HI> 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. <HI>George Keith</HI> an&s;wers 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 becau&s;e he hath obliged me and made me his Debtor? <HI>viz.</HI> I merit from him becau&s;e I owe him. When I give a Beggar a Farthing then, I become his Debtor, and mu&s;t give him another in payment of my Debt to him, and then we are free; and if I give him a third, becau&s;e now this is a free Gift again, I over again become his Debtor. Is not that fine Non-&s;en&s;e, and &s;trong, Contradiction?</P>
<P>Thirdly, the Apo&s;tle &s;ays (<HI>Ephe&s;.</HI> 2.5.8.) that by Grace we are &s;aved, and not by works: Therefore our good works do not merit the Reward of Heaven in any proper &s;ignification of merit be it never &s;o moderate, and remote from &s;trictne&s;s; e&s;pecially &s;eeing the &s;ame Apo&s;tle tells us (<HI>Rom.</HI> 11.6.) that that which is of works cannot be of grace, nor that which is of grace be of works,
<PB N="187" REF="114">becau&s;e, of a clear contradiction, and the de&s;troying of both their Natures which he their &s;hews. The <HI>Quakers</HI> then (with their dear Friends the <HI>Papi&s;ts</HI>) mu&s;t either confe&s;s Salvation not to be by any merit of our Works, or el&s;e they mu&s;t deny it to be by Grace, flat contrary to the Scriptures. <HI>George Keith's</HI> An&s;wer, that, as the Reward is of Grace, &s;o the Merit is of Grace, is al|ready de&s;troyed; for I cannot merit by a free Gift of Grace, &s;eeing I can never merit by becoming a Debtor to a man; for then the more I receive from him he &s;hould be the more my Debtor, not I his; whereas, in all &s;en&s;e and rea&s;on, I mu&s;t owe him the more, in&s;tead of meriting.</P>
<P>Now when <HI>George Keith</HI> yields this merit not to be equal in dignity and worth unto the Reward, I cannot but commend his Mode&s;ty; for its very much that the <HI>Quakers</HI> cannot merit above <HI>Adams</HI> merit, if he had &s;tood in his Obedience; for nothing that he could have done (all being &s;till due to his great Sovereign) could have merited properly, nor could it ever have been equal to the Reward of happine&s;s. And the difference betwixt the two Covenants is not, that, under the fir&s;t, good works would have Merit Condignly; not &s;o under the Second (for, as to the Fir&s;t, that is fal&s;e.) But, it lies here, that, under the Fir&s;t, good works behooved to be compleatly performed, as the Condition, before we got, or had a right unto the reward; but, in the Second, Cove|nant, we have right upon our fir&s;t Entering into, and clo&s;ing of the Covenant, by Faith unto the Inheritance, before the perfor|mance of good works.</P>
<P>But, <HI>George Keith</HI> objects there (pag. 56,) that the Saints are &s;aid to be worthy of the Kingdom of God, and of walking with Chri&s;t in white (2 <HI>The&s;.</HI> 1.5. <HI>Revel.</HI> 3, 4) which Infers, at lea&s;t, a &s;uitablene&s;s.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> Fir&s;t, their worth is not reckoned in them&s;elves, but in Chri&s;t. Secondly, a &s;utablene&s;s doth not Infer, a dignity and merit; A poor man in great need (yea, though no good man) is a &s;utable object of an Alms, though he does not merit it from us; he hath no <HI>Jus per&s;onae</HI> into it.</P>
<P>Again he objects, that God rewards our good works; and there|fore they mu&s;t have &s;ome worthine&s;s in them.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> God's rewarding &s;o far beyond any worth, that dare be pretended, in our good works, proves that it is not for their
<PB N="188" REF="115">worth, but upon &s;ome other account, that we obtain the reward, <HI>viz.</HI> upon Chri&s;ts account, in whom, by his free grace, we have obtained Redemption, and Salvation.</P>
<P>Thirdly, he objects that, <HI>a meek and quiet Spirit, is in the &s;ight of God, of great price.</HI> 1 <HI>Pet.</HI> 3, 4.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> Fir&s;t, our Souls al&s;o are of great price, in the &s;ight of God; yet we do not for that merit Heaven. Secondly, doubtle&s;s God has a great e&s;teem of vertues, of one of which the Apo&s;tle here &s;peaks in the ab&s;tract con&s;ideration from vice; but in us they are mixed with Relicks of vice, and imperfect, and &s;o cannot merit. Thirdly, though they were in us perfect, yet they could not merit at Gods hands, unto whom all that we can do, &s;till is our bound Duty; this then will not infer moderate merit, till we be perfect in &s;uch Ver|tues, and even then our merit will be very moderate, &s;eeing all will &s;till be due, and unequal to the reward. And whereas he there alledges, that this our Doctrine of the imperfection, and not me|riting of our good works, tends to the le&s;&s;ening of the e&s;teem of righteou&s;ne&s;s among&s;t men; I mu&s;t tell him, that this happens only among&s;t proud men, who will not be Righteous, except they can merit by it, as the <HI>Phari&s;ees</HI> who would not &s;ubmit to the Righteou&s;ne&s;s of the Redeemer, but would be Righteous in them|&s;elves, without that whereby they lo&s;t both. And I mu&s;t tell him, it but only keeps us humble, in the e&s;teem of our own Righteou&s;|ne&s;s, that we overvalue not that. And I mu&s;t tell him it makes us Diligent to look after more than our pre&s;ent reach is, and not to re&s;t in our mea&s;ures attained. And, I am &s;ure, theirs lo&s;es the&s;e advantages of humility and diligence (which are great and profitable duties) and of forcing men out of them&s;elves to Chri&s;t for Refuge and Righteou&s;ne&s;s, which are the weighty in|tents of Law and Go&s;pel. The&s;e things may declare, which of our principles here is be&s;t, and according to Truth and Godline&s;s. But I make ha&s;t, Studying all the brevity I can, without an&s;wer|ing every one of their Calumnies, though loath to omit any of their objections in a Succinct and brief method, which &s;till I Study, being loath to burden the Reader with any needle&s;s di&s;|cour&s;e.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="3" TYPE="section">
<PB N="189" REF="115">
<HEAD>SECT. III. <HI>An Examination of one Exception more made by the Quakers again&s;t our Charge of a Popi&s;h ju&s;tification.</HI></HEAD>
<P>The <HI>Quakers,</HI> albeit they expre&s;ly and po&s;itively teach Ju&s;ti|fication, by an inward Righteou&s;ne&s;s inherent and wrought with|in them, (as is now abundantly &s;hewed) yet they deny (in their <HI>Confe&s;&s;ion, pag.</HI> 4.21, 22.) that they hold a <HI>Popi&s;h</HI> ju&s;tificati|on; but that they hold ju&s;tification by the alone Imputed Righte|ou&s;ne&s;s of Chri&s;t, and complain, that they are Clamoured upon as if they denyed the Imputation of Chri&s;ts Righteou&s;ne&s;s; And &s;o (according to this their Doctrine) the Imputed Righteou&s;ne&s;s of Chri&s;t, is Inherently and Inwardly wrought in the ju&s;tified. And &s;o, they hope to be Vindicated from their <HI>Popi&s;h</HI> ju&s;tificati|on, by adding thereunto, an uncurable Contradiction in Nature and Rea&s;on. Which, that I may &s;hew, I &s;hall premi&s;e Fir&s;t.</P>
<P>That, the Imputed Righteou&s;ne&s;s of Chri&s;t, con&s;i&s;ts in his Death, and Sufferings for us (I do not exclude his active obe|dience, though I mention only the&s;e, as above all exception) as is mo&s;t manife&s;t from the&s;e Scriptures, <HI>I&s;ai.</HI> 53.5, 6, 8, 11, 12. <HI>Matth.</HI> 26.28. <HI>Rom.</HI> 3.24, 25, and 5, 9, 10. and 8, 33, 34. <HI>Galat.</HI> 3.13. <HI>Ephe&s;.</HI> 1.7. 2 <HI>Cor.</HI> 5.21. <HI>Heb.</HI> 9.26, 28. and 10, 22. 1 <HI>Pet.</HI> 2.24. <HI>I&s;ai.</HI> 42.21</P>
<P>Secondly, I mu&s;t premi&s;e, that if the imputed Righteou&s;|ne&s;s of the Redeemer thus manife&s;tly con&s;i&s;ting in his Death and, Sufferings for us, by which Imputed we are Ju&s;tified, Reconciled, Delivered, from the Cur&s;e, be really inward and formally In|herent in the Ju&s;tified; then &s;o nece&s;&s;arily mu&s;t his Death and Pa&s;&s;ion have been; or el&s;e the &s;ame very thing, &s;hall be formally inward where the very &s;elf &s;ame thing was never formally in|ward, <HI>viz.</HI> Chri&s;ts imputed Righteou&s;ne&s;s &s;hall be formally in|ward in the Ju&s;tified where his Death and Pa&s;&s;ion, wherein that Righteou&s;ne&s;s con&s;i&s;ts, was never formally inward; which in|volves a &s;trong Contradiction.</P>
<P>Thirdly, I premi&s;e, that if the Death and Pa&s;&s;ion of Chri&s;t hath been formally inward in all that have hitherto been ju&s;tified (as is now clearly inferred, by the force of our proceeding Rea&s;ons from this
<PB N="190" REF="116">Di&s;tracted exception of the <HI>Quakers</HI>) then Chri&s;t hath formally Died and been Crucified in them all, (I &s;peak not here of Chri&s;t my&s;tical, but of Chri&s;t in his own Per&s;on, as is plain.) Seeing the Death and Pa&s;&s;ion of Chri&s;t cannot formally fall out, or hap|pen to be, except where Chri&s;t formally Dies and &s;uffers, as is Evident, and the contrary involves a plain Contradiction.</P>
<P>Hence from this wild exception of the <HI>Quakers,</HI> this Conclu&s;ion mo&s;t manife&s;tly follows; <HI>viz. that Chri&s;t hath Died and been Crucified, in all that have hitherto been Ju&s;tified;</HI> from which Conclu&s;ion,</P>
<P>I Argue Fir&s;t, (be&s;ide that thus Chri&s;t behooved to have Died often &s;ince the World began, contrary to <HI>Heb.</HI> 9.25, 26, 28. and 10, 12, 14.) That if Chri&s;t hath Died and been Crucified in all that have hitherto been Ju&s;tified, then his Human Body behooved to have been locally pre&s;ent in each of theirs, and &s;o Penetrated with each of theirs (for the &s;ame Room contains a man when Ju&s;tified, as before) &s;eeing no man can formally and truly Die, or have his Soul &s;eparated from his Body, in the place where his Body is not formally pre&s;ent, but where it is: But the con|&s;equent is a &s;trong repugnancy, an utter Contradiction; for &s;o the penetration of Bodies is a&s;&s;erted, which is utterly repugnant; and let the <HI>Quakers</HI> (with <HI>Papi&s;ts</HI>) con&s;ider, if the whole great Fabrick of the World, may be contained in one &s;mall Nut-&s;hel; for the penetration of all Bodies, and of the all integral parts thereof, is as ea&s;ie as the penetration of any two of them, &s;eeing their quantitative matter and Nature, from which the repugnancy of their penetration ari&s;es, is all of the &s;ame kind,</P>
<P>Secondly, I argue, that if Chri&s;t hath formally Died und been Crucified in all that have hitherto been Ju&s;tified, then Chri&s;t, in his manhood, behooved to have been formally inward in them all, &s;eeing men cannot Die except where they are, or were antece|dently immediately pre&s;ent, as can never be contradicted: But the con&s;equent involves here al&s;o a mo&s;t horrid Contradiction; &s;eeing &s;o Chri&s;ts manhood &s;hall have been often, &s;ince his A|&s;cen&s;ion, multiplyed unto the diver&s;e and di&s;tant places of the Earth where the Ju&s;tified lived, being at the &s;ame time, and to the end of the World Sub&s;tantially and Formally contained al&s;o in Heaven; (<HI>Act.</HI> 3.21. <HI>Heb.</HI> 8.4. and 10, 12 13. <HI>Colo&s;.</HI> 3.1.) And if Chri&s;ts Individual manhood can, by any po&s;&s;ibili|ty
<PB N="191" REF="116">be &s;o multiplyed unto diver&s;e and di&s;tant places at once, then &s;o may the Individual manhood of any man, &s;eeing Chri&s;ts man|hood is of the &s;ame e&s;&s;ential Nature and Kind, with the man|hood of every man (<HI>Acte</HI> 2.30. <HI>Rom.</HI> 1.3. <HI>Gal.</HI> 4.4. <HI>Heb.</HI> 2.14, 16, 17.) And &s;o one and the &s;ame man &s;hall be capa|ble to be multiplyed, &s;o as to be at <HI>London</HI> and <HI>Jeru&s;alem</HI> both at once, yea in all places and corners of the Earth at once, &s;ee|ing his multiplication to all of them is as po&s;&s;ible, as to any two of them.</P>
<P>But, the&s;e things are utterly repugnant, and blind <HI>Popi&s;h</HI> ficti|ons; for then one and the &s;ame man, might in the &s;ame In&s;tant of time be both exceedingly warm, and yet extreamly cold; both wounded, and not wounded; dead, and yet not dead; blind, and yet not blind; hang'd, and yet not hang'd. For it would be a &s;trange fire that, warming the man at <HI>London,</HI> would al&s;o reach him at <HI>Jeru&s;alem,</HI> where he may be on the Street in a cold Fro&s;t and Snow. Such a fire would burn all by the way, I fear. Would it not be a long Dagger that wounding, or killing him at <HI>Lon|don,</HI> would al&s;o reach him at <HI>Jeru&s;alem,</HI> and wound, or kill him there too? And yet it would be a &s;trong Contradiction to be o|therwi&s;e. It would be &s;trange if he lo&s;t his eyes at <HI>London,</HI> where no body is troubling him, becau&s;e &s;ome body hath pluckt them out at <HI>Jeru&s;alem;</HI> and yet it behooved to be &s;o, or el&s;e he &s;hould be blind, and yet not blind both at once, and behooved al&s;o to have before, more eyes then two, &s;eeing he hath lo&s;t two (as is &s;uppo&s;ed) and yet he &s;ees. Would it not be very &s;trange, if the man, being a hanging at <HI>Jeru&s;alem,</HI> &s;hould by &s;ome &s;ecret and blind Influence of the Hang-man there, be al&s;o forced to the Gibbet at <HI>London,</HI> where no man is offering him any Violence, nay albeit, all in the City were by force endeavouring his re&s;cue? for hang and die, he mu&s;t in the one place as well as in the other; or el&s;e he &s;hall be hang'd, and yet not hang'd; dead, and yet not dead both at once.</P>
<P>So al&s;o, if the &s;ame Individual man could be in many diver&s;e and di&s;tant places at once, let him be in <HI>London, York,</HI> and <HI>New-Ca&s;tle</HI> all at once; let him remain &s;till at <HI>York</HI> &s;ome days; at <HI>Lon|don,</HI> let him take journey, upon &s;ome occa&s;ion, to <HI>York;</HI> from <HI>New-Ca&s;tle</HI> al&s;o let him take journey to <HI>Edinburgh.</HI> Now this man is both drawing nearer, and removing further from him&s;elf at
<PB N="192" REF="117"><HI>York,</HI> and that in re&s;pect of local nearne&s;s; and he is both mov|ing, and not moving in re&s;pect of local motion all at once, and he is al&s;o both di&s;tant and yet not di&s;tant from <HI>York</HI> at once, &s;ee|ing by the way in his journey to <HI>York,</HI> and <HI>Edinburgh,</HI> he behoov|ed to be di&s;tant there-from, and not pre&s;ent therein; and yet this is in one and the &s;ame re&s;pect, <HI>viz.</HI> of local di&s;tance. Let not the <HI>Je&s;uits</HI> then tell us of diver&s;e re&s;pects here.</P>
<P>Are not the&s;e a number of brave Contradictions Nur&s;ed in the bo&s;om of the <HI>Quakers,</HI> exception Vindicating them (as they hope) from a <HI>Popi&s;h</HI> Ju&s;tification? nay by this addition of Con|tradictions they have made, their Ju&s;tification much wor&s;e, in place of bettering it, and have laid the way al&s;o fairly for the <HI>Popi&s;h</HI> tran&s;ub&s;tantiation &s;eeing their exception here includes the very Grounds, wherewith the <HI>Papi&s;ts</HI> endeavour (but without &s;uc|ce&s;s) to &s;upport that.</P>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="7" TYPE="query">
<HEAD>Seventeenth QUERY.</HEAD>
<P><HI>Whether or not the Scriptures do not &s;ay, that</HI> he that believes hathcea&s;ed from his own works as God did from his, and entred into his re&s;t? <HI>and whether or not your directory, and Church-maid Faith, and Catechi&s;ms, and Confe&s;&s;ions be not your own works? and ye follow them, and wor&s;hip them, and not cea&s;e from them. And whether or not in &s;o doing, ye keep people and your &s;elves in your own works, and from the re&s;t? or we de&s;ire you &s;hew us what difference their is betwixt Spiritual</HI> Babylon <HI>and</HI> Sodom, <HI>and</HI> Egypts <HI>works of their hands, and Temporal</HI> Babylon <HI>and</HI> Sodom, <HI>and</HI> Egypts <HI>works of their hands, and their wor&s;hip. Of each di&s;tingui&s;h, I de&s;ire you, Di&s;tingui&s;h the my&s;tery from a plain out|ward Idol.</HI></P>
<DIV3 TYPE="survey">
<HEAD>S&V;RVEY.</HEAD>
<P>The <HI>Quakers</HI> are &s;till in the &s;ame tune; here the &s;cope of their query is mo&s;tly to throw calumnies upon the Church of God in <HI>Britain,</HI> and to per&s;uade the World (if they could) to believe, that &s;he did &s;et up her Directory, Confe&s;&s;ion and Catechi&s;m, as an
<PB N="193" REF="117">outward Idol for people to wor&s;hip. O impudent &s;landerers! men of &s;eared Con&s;ciences! whom did ever our Church bid wor&s;hip the&s;e? or who ever did it in our Church? But this is no new thing with the <HI>Quakers,</HI> who (it &s;eems) have Monopolized the whole trade of accu&s;ing the Brethren, and outed the Devil of a great part of his Imployment. For they never almo&s;t open their mouth without either Bla&s;pheming God and his truth, or &s;landering of men. They are certainly extreamly galled at the heart with our Confe&s;&s;ion, Catechi&s;m, &amp;c. For though the&s;e had been the in|tire Subject of three of their queries, and a part of a Fourth be|fore, yet here they cannot forget them; and, if truth will not take their part again&s;t them, they'l out brave the Devil in lying.</P>
<Q>Flectere &s;i nequeant &s;uperos, acheronta movebunt</Q>
<P>In the next place, the Ground whereby the <HI>Quakers</HI> Condemn here our Confe&s;&s;ion, Catechi&s;m, &amp;c. is becau&s;e they are our own works. But by our own works the <HI>Quakers</HI> either mean of evil works, or of good works: if of evil works, they &s;hould have proved them to be evil, before they had con|demned them, which I defie them, and their in&s;pirer both to do. But why do they enveigh here again&s;t our Faith al&s;o? they have long &s;ince rejected Faith, as its taken Correlatively, and as rela|ted to its object which it apprehends and relies upon. And do they now Condemn it ab&s;olutely, as it is a quality and a work? nay then (I am &s;ure) they have neither Faith, nor Truth. Or is it only our Faith in the Concret, and in <HI>Hypothe&s;i</HI> which they Con|demn here? they &s;hould have given &s;ome grounds for that then, or el&s;e their Sentence is unju&s;t.</P>
<P>If the <HI>Quakers,</HI> by our own works, mean of good works, then they Condemn our good works. What then would they have us to do? <HI>viz.</HI> evil, or nothing; if evil, the advice is evil; if nothing, then they would have a Chri&s;tian to be a meer dead Corps, or a <HI>Lots</HI> wife Metamorpho&s;ed into a pillar of Salt, never imploy|ed in doing any thing, but continuing as a &s;en&s;les Trunk to be a prodigie on Earth, and a mocking-&s;tock to Heaven. Is this the <HI>Quakers</HI> vaunted of perfection, con&s;i&s;ting in the omi&s;&s;ion, of all manner of works and doing nothing? This would agree better to a dog after he is dead, then to Chri&s;tians alive, who if they do
<PB N="194" REF="118">not &s;omething, and that good, neglect a duty whereunto they are obliged.</P>
<P>The Scripture which they here hint at, (from <HI>Heb.</HI> 4, 10.) does not Condemn our good works, which are every where in Scripture, exhorted to and Commanded. The Apo&s;tle therefore means there, only of our works, proceeding from our Corrupt Na|ture, which works are evil, from which he a&s;&s;erts that every be|liever hath cea&s;ed, <HI>viz.</HI> Inchoatively, as the Apo&s;tle in the ve|ry place Intimats, while he calls it <HI>an entering into re&s;t;</HI> the work of Sanctification and Holine&s;s being Begun in us, and we Enter|ed into the re&s;t thereof, though it be not Perfected, till we be going hence.</P>
<P>But, &s;ay the <HI>Quakers,</HI> whether or not, in &s;o doing, do ye not keep people, and your &s;elves in your own works, and from the re&s;t? But, what kind of re&s;t, do the <HI>Quakers</HI> mean of here? if they mean the re&s;t of Sanctification, Holine&s;s, or Heaven, I have be|fore &s;hewed, that our Confe&s;&s;ions, Catechi&s;ms, &amp;c. Are inferior helps and means, Conducing to &s;et us forward to that re&s;t, they are &s;o far from keeping us from it. Or do they mean the re&s;t of Idlene&s;s and Sloath? It may be they do; for they will not &s;o much as pray to God, Except when they Incline to it by a free motion, and In&s;tigation within.</P>
<P>The <HI>Quakers,</HI> in the Clo&s;e of their query, require us to di&s;tin|gui&s;h betwixt Temporal <HI>Babylon</HI> and <HI>Egypt,</HI> and Spiritual <HI>Baby|lon</HI> and <HI>Egypt.</HI></P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> I have hitherto abundantly vindicated our Church from the A&s;per&s;ion of being a Spiritual <HI>Babylon,</HI> wherewith the <HI>Qua|kers,</HI> do ordinarily and wickedly traduce her, and it is the &s;cope of this Epilogue of their Queries (they mu&s;t end as they began, &s;landering and accu&s;ing the Brethren) and it may be al&s;o &s;een in their Confe&s;&s;ion of Faith, <HI>pag.</HI> 122, 124. Upon the other hand, I have charged home, the <HI>Quakers</HI> with their Errors, Bla&s;phe|mies, Contradictions (and &s;hall do in a Po&s;t-&s;cript, with their Papi&s;m and with Irre&s;i&s;tible Evidence, have made good every Article of my charge again&s;t them.</P>
<P>Only, in the general, to this part of the Query I An&s;wer, that Temporal <HI>Babylon</HI> and <HI>Egypt,</HI> are under&s;tood properly of the places &s;o called by the Inhabitants, and were a tipe of the Spiri|tual: but Spiritual <HI>Babylon</HI> and <HI>Egypt,</HI> are my&s;tically and impro|perly
<PB N="195" REF="118">under&s;tood, and are the Anti-tipe of the other. And hitherto the <HI>Quakers</HI> (po&s;&s;ibly) will con&s;ent. But we will, &s;urely, di&s;cord in the Application: for the <HI>Quakers</HI> make that great <HI>Babylon</HI> Spi|ritually and my&s;tically &s;o called, &s;o much &s;poken of in the Book of <HI>Revelation,</HI> to be only inward, in the hearts of people. See their Confe&s;&s;ion, <HI>pag.</HI> 114, 115, 121, 122 138, 140. Where they alleadge that great Spiritual <HI>Babylon,</HI> to be within, in the hearts of people, and affirm the great Whore, and my&s;tery <HI>Babylon</HI> to be our wi&s;dom, and the Bea&s;t be our will whereupon our wi&s;dom &s;its</P>
<P>I Confe&s;s, the <HI>Pope</HI> is deeply obliged to the <HI>Quakers,</HI> and (be|like) &s;ome of them, are a&s;much obliged to him; he is not &s;o unrea&s;onable, as to make them work for nothing. The whole <HI>Prote&s;tant</HI> Church hath hitherto, proclaimed the <HI>Pope,</HI> to be the great <HI>Antichri&s;t</HI> and <HI>Bea&s;t,</HI> and the Church of <HI>Rome,</HI> to be that my&s;tery <HI>Babylon,</HI> great Whore, and Mother of Harlots. The <HI>Quakers</HI> are &s;o tender of his and her credit, as to Contribute their be&s;t endeavors, by a new Invention, becau&s;e all other devices have long &s;ince failed, for Enervating our Churches libel, and for wip|ing the reproach from off them both.</P>
<P>But go to; is my&s;tery-Babylon our wi&s;dom, and the Bea&s;t and Antichri&s;t our will. Let the <HI>Quakers</HI> then An&s;wer the&s;e few fol|lowing Arguments.</P>
<P>Fir&s;t, albeit all Hereticks are Commonly called <HI>Antichri&s;ts</HI> (1 <HI>Joh.</HI> 2, 18.) yet the great <HI>Antichri&s;t,</HI> &s;ingularly and Eminently &s;o called, was not revealed in the time of the Apo&s;tles, but to be afterwards revealed, 2 <HI>The&s;.</HI> 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8. But it cannot be &s;aid that the Corrupt wills of men were not then revealed.</P>
<P>Secondly, it cannot be under&s;tood how the Kings who give their power for a &s;ea&s;on to the Bea&s;t (<HI>Revel.</HI> 17, 12, 13,) and afterwards, de&s;troy the Whore (<HI>ver.</HI> 16. there) &s;hall de&s;troy the carnal wi&s;dom of all men, &s;o that it &s;hall be found no more at all, as it is &s;aid of that great Whore <HI>Babylon,</HI> after the&s;e Kings have de&s;troyed her. <HI>Revel.</HI> 18, 21.</P>
<P>Thirdly, &s;eeing they will have our wi&s;dom to be <HI>Babylon</HI> the great Whore, what then are the&s;e Seven mountains whereupon that Whore &s;its? and what are the&s;e Seven Kings, Five whereof were fallen before the Book of <HI>Revelation</HI> was written, one then was and another was not then come; which are the Seven heads of
<PB N="196" REF="119">that whores <HI>Bea&s;t;</HI> and what again are the&s;e Ten Kings, which are the horns of that <HI>Bea&s;t? Revel,</HI> 17.3, 5, 9, 10, 12. how &s;hall the&s;e things be applyed to the Seat, Heads, and Horns of our wi&s;dom and will? Such an application will be an excellent Romance, ile warrand.</P>
<P>Fourthly, the great whore <HI>Babylon</HI> hath in her, Harpers, Pipers, Trumpeters, Craftmen, Mil&s;tones, Bridegrooms, Brides, &amp;c. <HI>Revel.</HI> 18, 22, 23. But, are all the&s;e things, in peoples hearts in their wi&s;|dom? The <HI>Quakers</HI> would make <HI>Heraclitus</HI> turn a plain <HI>Democritus,</HI> nay, almo&s;t a dead man to laugh him&s;elf alive, by their jocund and facetious humor.</P>
<P>La&s;tly, the place where <HI>Babylon</HI> &s;tood, <HI>becomes an Habitation of Devils, the hold of every foul Spirit, and a Cage of every un|clean and hateful Bird,</HI> after her de&s;truction, by the ten Kings, <HI>Revel.</HI> 18, 2. But I would think, that after the de&s;truction of our carnal and corrupt wi&s;dom, that the Devil, and all his foul Spirits &s;hould get the le&s;s acce&s;s unto, and wor&s;e lodging into our hearts where our carnal wi&s;dom before remained.</P>
<P>Hence we &s;ee, what a wild Romance, the <HI>Quakers</HI> glo&s;s upon the <HI>Bea&s;t,</HI> and great whore, amounts unto, and upon how Ridiculous a fiction their apology for the <HI>Pope,</HI> and Church of <HI>Rome</HI> is founded; and yet, I think, the great Doctors of the <HI>Quakers,</HI> de&s;erves re|wards at their hands: for they have done what, they could (and who can do more?) Albeit the &s;ucce&s;s and event, (which who can help?) does not an&s;wer their de&s;ires.</P>
<P>And now, I hope, that boi&s;terous wind of Arrogance, and &s;torm of pride, wherewith that &s;upercilious In&s;cription of the <HI>Quakers,</HI> the haughty Harbinger of the&s;e Queries, did In&s;olently &s;well, is a little calm'd; and, I tru&s;t, I have by the evidence, of Irre&s;tible truth &s;o overturned, their Bulwarks and da&s;hed the force of their Heretical Armado of fal&s;hoods that they &s;hall not &s;o confidently hereafter Summon the Armies of <HI>I&s;rael</HI> with a defiance. But if their courage be &s;o undaunted, that no routing, of their Forces can abate it, nor Impo&s;e &s;ilence upon them, but they will &s;till be &s;mattering, and will yet rally upon us with the new &s;upply of a Reply; then I mu&s;t, require them at the In&s;tance of all rational Creatures to &s;peak Rea&s;on and &s;en&s;e; for, (in earne&s;t, not in je&s;t I &s;ay it) they are often &s;o ob&s;cure in their Aenigmatical Riddles, and ab&s;tru&s;e Expre&s;&s;ions of my&s;terious and Cloudy non-&s;en&s;e that they
<PB N="197" REF="119">tran&s;cend and over-reach the mo&s;t Metaphy&s;ical capacity of all mortals. This demand is &s;o exceedingly rea&s;onable that, I pre|&s;ume, if any <HI>Quaker,</HI> &s;hall as yet have the boldne&s;s, to Compear in the defence of their heretical Intere&s;t, it will, without further pre&s;&s;ing, be accepted and granted. Another thing I mu&s;t de&s;ire of the <HI>Quakers, viz.</HI> That, they trouble us not with new contro|ver&s;ies (as their manner is, when, they are overpower'd and non|plus'd in any one purpo&s;e, to skip away to another, and from that again to a third, without either yeilding, or &s;atisfying) untill they have Fir&s;t, methodically, in form and order, an&s;wered and &s;ati&s;|fied this Survey of their pre&s;ent Queries; and this I expect to &s;ee at the Greek calends. let the <HI>Quakers</HI> then, who, I have often heard are Threatening a reply, perform the&s;e Conditions therein, which mo&s;t ju&s;tly I demand; or el&s;e, I a&s;&s;ure them, for ought I yet know, I will trouble my &s;elf no more with their Confu&s;e Rap&s;odies of nau&s;eous non-&s;en&s;e.</P>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 TYPE="postscript">
<HEAD>A Po&s;t&s;cript, for <HI>George Keith,</HI> which I divide into two Sections. The fir&s;t &s;hall wipe off his calumnies of Popery, ca&s;t upon us. The Second, &s;hall fix Popery upon him, and the re&s;t of his Brethren <HI>Quakers.</HI></HEAD>
<DIV3 N="1" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. I. <HI>An&s;wers &s;ome Calumnies of Popery ca&s;t upon us by</HI> George <HI>Alias Mr.</HI> George Keith.</HEAD>
<P>Sir, I have read &amp; peru&s;ed your Book, which ye Intitle, <HI>Quakeri&s;m no Popery,</HI> (albeit the Book it &s;elf belies the Title) and I have redargued all your Erronious principles whereupon, you treat therein, together with your <HI>Confe&s;&s;ion of Faith</HI> &s;igned by many of the hands of your Brethren; as al&s;o, I have Surveyed and exami|ned, the preceeding Queries, that were &s;ent unto me, by a Convent of your tribe, though &s;igned, but with one of their hands. I come now to the calumnies of Popery, which ye endeavour to throw upon us.</P>
<PB N="198" REF="120">
<P>And Fir&s;t, I find you intend to fix Popery upon us, becau&s;e the Authority, which our Mini&s;ters have by Ordination, came through the hands of the <HI>Roman</HI> Church. I an&s;wer you, that your Con|&s;equence is utterly null: for albeit, the authority of our Mini&s;ters, came through their hands, yet the authority was not theirs, but Chri&s;ts; it was not humane, but divine; and therefore, this can|not infer Popery upon us, &s;eeing that authority, as to its &s;ub&s;tance, was not a <HI>Popi&s;h</HI> invention but a Divine In&s;titution; albeit as to the manner, of conveying there was <HI>Popi&s;h</HI> Super&s;titions and Obliga|tions joyned with it, which were &s;inful, and behooved to be Re|pented of, by &s;uch of our reformers as had their Ordination at their hands; and therefore, that Ordination is &s;till valid, as to the &s;ub&s;tance, albeit as to the manner it was wrong. And if their Or|dination had not held valid, &s;ub&s;tantially con&s;idered, neither could any mans Bapti&s;m, Baptized in the&s;e times by <HI>Popi&s;h</HI> Mi|ni&s;ters; but behooved to have been done over again, as not done be|fore by &s;uch as had Authority; but that was neither done, nor ever thought needful to be done by any of our reformers, or any Di|vine &s;ince.</P>
<P>Nor can this infer (as ye would have it, in your <HI>Quakeri&s;m no Popery,</HI> pag. 89,) that we therefore, own the <HI>Popes</HI> Authority, &s;eeing to own that were to acknowledge his <HI>Papal</HI> Supremacy and U&s;urpation, to comply therewith, and adhere thereunto, which we from our hearts abhorr: But all that we in this point a&s;&s;ert, is, that the <HI>Pope</HI> and his Clergy (albeit exceeding corrupt) had the Authority of Chri&s;ts Church in their hands, which, though by them clogged and corrupted extrin&s;ecally in the conveyance, yet retained its Intrin&s;ecal force, remaining &s;till valid, as to the &s;ub|&s;tance; as Water running through a mire mudding it does not lo&s;e the Nature of Water &s;ub&s;tantially, though extrin&s;ically it is made Impure.</P>
<P>Nor can our Mini&s;ters, be therefore ju&s;tly called <HI>Popes</HI> Emi&s;&s;a|ries (as you ba&s;ely there reproach them) &s;eeing their Commi&s;&s;ion was not upon the <HI>Popes</HI> Errand, but Chri&s;ts; nor was the Autho|rity they had the <HI>Popes,</HI> but Chri&s;ts. Whereas the <HI>Popes,</HI> or <HI>An|tichri&s;ts</HI> Emi&s;&s;aries were always under&s;tood of the&s;e who by his Authority, as <HI>Pope,</HI> were &s;ent upon his &s;pecial Errands through the World, to its woful experience of much mi&s;chief, deceitful <HI>Plots,</HI> mo&s;t Cruel and Inhumane Ma&s;&s;acres, and imparallel'd Blood|&s;hed
<PB N="199" REF="120">(even among&s;t <HI>Turks,</HI> Heathens and Infidels) contrived and practi&s;ed by them, as the only &s;utable In&s;truments of a Scarlet dyed whore Drunk with the Blood of the Saints and Martyrs of Je&s;us.</P>
<P>But Sir, you ask there how the <HI>Pope</HI> and his Clergy came to have this Authority and power of Ordination in their hands; and you alledge, he mu&s;t have it either as Chri&s;tian, or as Antichri|&s;tian, whereupon ye (in vain) build a heap of needle&s;s deductions, to prove our Mini&s;try Antichri&s;tian, pag. 89, 90, 91, 92. But to cut off your long di&s;cour&s;e there, I mu&s;t tell you, he neither had it as Chri&s;tian (if your reduplication be formal, as it ought, and as it &s;urely is in the Second member of the di&s;tinction) or el&s;e all Chri&s;tians would have it. <HI>A quatenus ad omne,</HI> &amp;c. niether had he it as Antichri&s;tian, or Antichri&s;t; for &s;o he has none of Gods Authority, but the Devils plain Commi&s;&s;ion; Nor are the&s;e two terms Contradictory, but contrary, and follows the rules there|of, &s;eeing many things, and per&s;ons too, are neither Chri&s;tian, nor Antichri&s;tian. But I &s;hall &s;hew you a Third, <HI>viz.</HI> He has it, and his Clergy al&s;o, as fir&s;t Ordained a <HI>Presbyter</HI> and Mini&s;ter of the Church, before he, or they, by their Acts and Con&s;titutions, can a&s;cend the Papal chair; and &s;o they thus having it, and not be|ing <HI>de facto</HI> by any Execution of Law taken from them, they can &s;urely Communicate the &s;ame, &s;o as to be valid. I &s;peak of them here as before the Reformation, not as they are now to be con&s;idered, which is another matter, but not in the cour&s;e of my pre&s;ent purpo&s;e.</P>
<P>And for that you &s;ay, that many of the fir&s;t Reformers had no outward Ordination, or call, nor were in Orders, it is mo&s;t fal&s;e; for they had the Peoples Earne&s;t intreaties (though but of few &s;uch Mini&s;ters I read) and al&s;o the approbation, of other Reformers that were in Orders, which was equivalent to Ordination, though it wanted &s;ome of the Solemn rights thereof; and the&s;e times are to be con&s;idered too, when the reformed Church was but a con|&s;tituting out of confu&s;ion and darkne&s;s. So that this will not ju&s;ti|fie your Enthu&s;ia&s;tick Immediate calls, which I know, ye here aim at by this.</P>
<P>But you &s;ay, (pag. 92, 93.) that the <HI>Roman</HI> Church did at that time, (<HI>viz.</HI> before the Reformation) Fundamentally err, in wor&s;hiping a piece of Bread, and her other gro&s;&s;e Idolatries, &s;o that
<PB N="200" REF="121">&s;he could not be a true Church. And &s;o could not have any Church-authority, for ordaining Go&s;pel-mini&s;ters.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> Idolatry is a corruption in wor&s;hip and practi&s;e, not an Error in Judgment or principles, and it doth not always unchurch Phy&s;ically and Entitatively (as the &s;everal gro&s;&s;e Idolatries of the <HI>Jewi&s;h</HI> Church, both in the wilderne&s;s, and in the Land of <HI>Judea</HI> demon&s;trat) though it exceedingly corrupts Morally, and takes away her Moral purity. Secondly, a fundamental Error may either be Formal and Direct, when it is formally and directly held by a Church; and then it altogether unchurches them, as being quite off the foundation. ye <HI>Quakers</HI> look to this who directly deny all per&s;ons in the Godhead. Or a fundamental Error may be Con&s;equential and Material only when it is not their direct and formal principle; but only by con&s;equence un&s;een and un|perceived by them (and which if they &s;aw followed, being &s;incere|ly Ingenuous, they would Renounce that principle) it follows from their formal and direct principle. And though in this ca&s;e a Church is not morally pure or true, yet it doth not Phy&s;ically and Entitatively take away the being of a Church from her: Tran|&s;ub&s;tantiation doth con&s;equentially de&s;troy Chri&s;ts humane body, and &s;o his humane Nature, and denies his coming in the Fle&s;h; yet this fundamental error being only Material and Con&s;equen|tial, not direct and formal, and &s;o not formally &s;uch, could not unchurch them before the Reformation, when the con&s;equence, in that darkne&s;s, was not perceived, nor Intended to be held; or el&s;e the <HI>Jewi&s;h</HI> Church often, the Churches of <HI>Galatia,</HI> and many others &s;ince, had been quite unchurched (when yet they were not) for their Con&s;equential fundamental Errors.</P>
<P>But Sir, the Ca&s;e is now hugely alter'd, and the Scene changed, after that our Reformers have, by vive Demon&s;tration, &s;hewed the <HI>Papi&s;ts</HI> (their Clergy at lea&s;t) the unavoidable Con&s;equence, who yet &s;till pertinaciou&s;ly hold the principle, which it cannot be conceived how they can do it, in &s;uch Circum&s;tances of &s;hining Light, without allowing the Con&s;equence al&s;o. There is al&s;o a va&s;t difference betwixt the <HI>Papi&s;t</HI>-Church now, and before the Council of <HI>Trent,</HI> when many Errors that were before that, but taught, or held by &s;ome particular per&s;ons, greater, or &s;maller, but not turn'd into a Law, are now by publick Con&s;ent, and Con&s;titution of their Canon, or Church-law, become their
<PB N="201" REF="121">univer&s;al and Church-profe&s;&s;ion, as &s;he is &s;uch a Church, <HI>viz. Popi&s;h.</HI> And this makes her Guilty now in her very publick and &s;tated Notion of &s;uch a Church, and the Errors, if Fundamental (which now I meddle not with, becau&s;e I need not) quite Un|churches; whereas the other of particular per&s;ons cannot do it; or el&s;e no Church could be long in &s;afety.</P>
<P>It may be, ye will retort this in what I &s;aid concerning Con&s;e|quential-Scripture above, <HI>viz.</HI> that if the Terms <HI>Material,</HI> and <HI>Con&s;equential,</HI> be diminutive, as here is &s;aid, then Con&s;equential-Scripture will not be of equal Authority with that formally and expre&s;ly Taught. But there is no parity of rea&s;on for this Con|&s;equence, &s;eeing men do not always &s;ee or perceive what follows from the Principles they hold; nor frequently would they, if they &s;aw it, hold, or own &s;uch Principles. But God cannot be Guilty of Ignorance, but &s;ees mo&s;t perfectly all that follows from every Principle; and therefore every Con&s;equence of his Word is as much by him intended, and &s;o is as much of Divine Authority, as that which is mo&s;t expre&s;ly and formally therein Enunciated. There is no place here then for a Retor&s;ion.</P>
<P>Having Di&s;cu&s;&s;ed this head, I come to your following Libel of <HI>Popery,</HI> again&s;t us, charged in your Twelfth Section of that Book of yours often named; Where fir&s;t ye charge us with <HI>Popery,</HI> in A&s;&s;erting the three Per&s;ons in the Godhead, and a Trinity. But in this the Scriptures are as <HI>Popi&s;h,</HI> from which I have proved the three Per&s;ons in the Deity. And the Concrete al&s;o of the word, <HI>Trinity,</HI> is in the Scripture (1 <HI>Joh.</HI> 5.7.) and it is the only ab|&s;tract thereof. But the <HI>Quakers</HI> are herein Bla&s;phemous, and quite off the Foundation too; for if the Attributes of God, and per&s;ons in the Godhead be not Fundamental, nothing can be &s;uch. Your Ordination would, &s;urely, be a meer Nullity.</P>
<P>Secondly, ye alledge we are <HI>Popi&s;h</HI> in affirming of Original Sin in Infants, who have not &s;inned Actually; and Thirdly, be|cau&s;e we deny your univer&s;al Grace.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> Indeed your Principles in both the&s;e are <HI>Je&s;uitically Popi&s;h</HI> (and <HI>Je&s;uits</HI> are the wor&s;t of <HI>Papi&s;ts,</HI> both in their Erroneous Principles, and Bloody Practices) for ye and they both joyn exactly in the&s;e again&s;t the Scripture, as I have before fully pro|ved.</P>
<P>Fourthly, ye &s;ay we are <HI>Popi&s;h,</HI> in affirming that humane
<PB N="202" REF="122">Learning and Natural Parts are more e&s;&s;ential qualifications of a Mini&s;ter, then the Grace of God.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> Sir I de&s;cribed a Mini&s;ter for the&s;e of your Profe&s;&s;ion be|fore; and ye needed not have done it over again: for &s;till, I &s;ee, ye would have an ignorant, nay unnatural Dunce. I have known men but moderately Learn'd be Mini&s;ters with us, becau&s;e of their Piety, and fit Faculty for exhorting: But a man utterly void of Learning, and Natural Parts too (thats an Idiot, I think) can|not in an ordinary Method (and we cannot now, upon any ground of Scripture, look for extraordinary In&s;piration to &s;upply &s;uch wants) be fit to Teach; for how &s;hall a man Teach others that which he knows not him&s;elf? a man of great Gifts, though real|ly wanting Grace, may be able to In&s;truct and Teach others, as <HI>Judas,</HI> 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 <HI>Popi&s;h,</HI> &s;eeing the Scriptures &s;hew that &s;ome without Grace have been Mini&s;ters, and called by Chri&s;t him&s;elf to that Office; but requires, that none without Gifts be admitted there|unto. 1. <HI>Tim.</HI> 3.2. <HI>Tit.</HI> 1.9.</P>
<P>Fifthly, ye &s;ay we are <HI>Popi&s;h,</HI> becau&s;e our Mini&s;terial Authori|ty is tran&s;mitted by external Ordination from Age to Age, and that this makes a Mini&s;ter, though he have no Inward call, who is thereby Authorized.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> The fir&s;t was in the Apo&s;tles time practi&s;ed, <HI>viz.</HI> The tran&s;mitting of Mini&s;terial Authority by Ordination (<HI>Act.</HI> 14.23. 1 <HI>Tim.</HI> 4.14. 2 <HI>Tit.</HI> 1.5.) and for the &s;econd, it gives him Mini&s;terial Authority, and &s;o makes him a Mini&s;ter &s;urely; nor is the Church obliged, or capable to know his Inward Call, with|out which his Mini&s;terial Acts are &s;till valid. None of the&s;e are any ways <HI>Popi&s;h,</HI> I am &s;ure; not the fir&s;t, for the Scriptures Cited; nor yet the &s;econd, for the rea&s;on given.</P>
<P>Sixthly ye alleadge, we are <HI>Popi&s;h,</HI> in affirming that Clergy|men ought to be di&s;tingui&s;ht from others by their Black Coats; &s;o that it is not Lawful for hone&s;t Trade&s;men, &s;uch as the Apo&s;tles were, to Preach, who have not pa&s;t their Apprentice&s;hip at the Univer&s;ity.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> For the Clergy their wearing of Black Coats, I never learnt that our Church made it nece&s;&s;ary, and another Garb not Gaudy unlawful; but that they accounted it the Grave&s;t and mo&s;t
<PB N="203" REF="122">&s;utable, I acknowledge; and I do not think it <HI>Popi&s;h</HI> to be Grave. As for the Apo&s;tles Preaching, who were &s;ome of them before, Trade&s;men, they were immediately Called and In&s;pired, which now adays cannot be look'd for, as is &s;hewed in our Survey. Nor is it <HI>Popi&s;h</HI> to refu&s;e men the Pulpit who can do no good in it; for they mu&s;t be apt to Teach that get that, by Scripture Command.</P>
<P>Seventhly, ye alleadge we are <HI>Popi&s;h</HI> becau&s;e we &s;tudy our Ser|mons before we come to the Pulpit, and does not wait till the Spirit come.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> do ye think, Sir, that a Mini&s;ter of the Go&s;pel should not both by prayer, reading and &s;erious meditation prepare him&s;elf be|fore he come to Preach to the people? And is it <HI>Popi&s;h</HI> if he do? <HI>viz. Paul</HI> exhorted <HI>Timothy</HI> to be a <HI>Papi&s;t (1 Tim.</HI> 4.13, 14, 15.) When he enjoyned him to read much, and meditate much, for the increa&s;e of his gifts, that his profiting might appear to all. But, Sir, what makes your Spirit Study &s;o much? for they &s;ay to me, he will Study &s;ometimes a whole day almo&s;t, for the wrabling out of a quarter of an hours non-&s;en&s;e. It may be, he is a <HI>Papi&s;t,</HI> and I very much fear, it be too true.</P>
<P>Eightly, ye alleadge, we are <HI>Popi&s;h,</HI> becau&s;e our Mini&s;ters have a modified, or &s;et &s;tipend for their maintenance.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> But, (pray you Sir) was the Law of God, ordaining, the Tenths for the <HI>Tribe</HI> of <HI>Levi Popi&s;h</HI> too? Its true that Law, as peculiar to that Church, is expired, but the Common equity there|of is &s;till a binding example and pattern, for the Peoples incoura|ging of Mini&s;ters with a &s;utable maintenance; and, if ye plea&s;e, ye may &s;ee (1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 9, <HI>chap.</HI>) How the Apo&s;tle at large proves that Mini&s;ters have <HI>a jus per&s;onae,</HI> that is a right in Law and Rea&s;on, unto a competency to live by, and that decently; for it reflects up|on the Go&s;pel and their Ma&s;ter to &s;ee them beggars, and brings contempt upon their Mini&s;tery. But, Sir, its &s;u&s;pected, ye have more Incouragement under hand, then others have above board. Your Ninth parallel of our <HI>Popi&s;h</HI> principles alleadged by you where|in ye divide parties of the &s;ame Religion, and &s;tate them (as it were) into factions, I do not incline to meddle with; for I would rather be ambitious to heal, or hide, than to enlarge, or widen the&s;e dif|ferences, which are to wide already.</P>
<P>Tenthly, ye alleadge, we are <HI>Popi&s;h,</HI> becau&s;e we affirm that men
<PB N="204" REF="123">&s;hould not delay their wor&s;hiping of God, till they be Actually In|fluenced thereunto by the Spirit.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> I have &s;hewed your Athei&s;m in this point already at my preface, and how ye hereby overturn almo&s;t the duty of all men both to God and man; and, I am &s;ure, we &s;hall never be <HI>Papi&s;ts</HI> for oppo&s;ing you in that Doctrine of Hells broatching.</P>
<P>Eleventhly, twelfthly, and thirteenthly, ye &s;ay we are <HI>Popi&s;h,</HI> in affirming, Bapti&s;m, with Water, Infants-Bapti&s;m and the Lords Supper to be Ordinances of the Go&s;pel of a &s;tanding Nature.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> We affirm they are, and have proved above, that they are from the Scripture; and therefore no <HI>Popery</HI> here to be found.</P>
<P>Fourteenthly, ye alleadge we are <HI>Popi&s;h,</HI> becau&s;e we hold it law|ful for Chri&s;tians to Swear.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> But in this we are no more <HI>Popi&s;h,</HI> then the Scriptures are, which &s;hew it to be a duty, being duely Circum&s;tantiated (&s;ee <HI>I&s;ai.</HI> 19, 18, and 65, 16. <HI>Jer.</HI> 12, 16.) nor do I think that <HI>Abraham</HI> was <HI>Popi&s;h</HI> when he &s;wore to <HI>Abimelech,</HI> and cau&s;ed his own &s;er|vant to &s;wear to him (<HI>Gene&s;.</HI> 21.24. and 24.3.9.) And I won|der if <HI>Paul</HI> was &s;o <HI>Popi&s;h</HI> (2 <HI>Cor.</HI> 1.18.23.) or was the Angel <HI>Po|pi&s;h</HI> that &s;wore by him that liveth for ever and ever; (<HI>Revel.</HI> 10.6.) Nay what think ye when God him&s;elf &s;wears? (<HI>I&s;ai.</HI> 54.9. and 62.8. <HI>Heb.</HI> 6.17.) Will ye impute <HI>Popery</HI> unto God too? But, you will &s;ay, we are forbidden to &s;wear at all, <HI>Matt.</HI> 5.34. <HI>Jam.</HI> 5.12.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> We are there forbidden to &s;wear by creatures, whereof both places &s;peaks, and enumerats &s;everal of them, and all idle and ra&s;h &s;wearing is there al&s;o forbidden (no doubt) but we are not forbidden there to &s;wear Holy oaths, Oaths in judgment when cal|led thereunto, or Oaths upon nece&s;&s;ity for vindicating truth, as the Apo&s;tle <HI>Pauls</HI> was. And that no more is meant in the&s;e two Texts is both clear in the very places them&s;elves, and likewi&s;e from the Scriptures and examples which I have brought for &s;wearing, as is explained.</P>
<P>Fifteenthly, You alleadge, we are <HI>Popi&s;h,</HI> becau&s;e we hold it law|ful for Chri&s;tians to fight and kill there oppo&s;its in the quarrel.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> Truly I do not think any offen&s;ive war lawful, where any Prince, or people Invades another, without ju&s;t cau&s;e. But when a Prince or his People are unju&s;tly abu&s;ed by their evil neigh|bours of whom they can have no legal redre&s;s, becau&s;e they can get no Court that they will an&s;wer to on Earth, then, I am &s;ure,
<PB N="205" REF="123">it is lawful, nay nece&s;&s;ary for him, and his &s;ubjects to redre&s;s their abu&s;es by Arms. There are &s;o many In&s;tances of this in Scripture, that I will not cite one of them; only I &s;hall propo&s;e a ca&s;e which may, and does often fall out betwixt neighbouring Princes. What if any neighbouring Chri&s;tian Prince &s;hould invade unju&s;tly the I&s;le of <HI>Britain?</HI> &s;hould our King and his &s;ubjects &s;it &s;till, and let him take it, and not re&s;i&s;t him? All the World then might call us both fools and cowards. I a&s;&s;ure you <HI>George,</HI> I would both fight in the quar|rel, and kill all I could, till we were once ma&s;ters of them (what ever ye would do) and judge it my duty thus to &s;erve my King, and &s;ave my Countrey from &s;lavery.</P>
<P>Sixteenthly, ye alleadge, we are <HI>Popi&s;h,</HI> becau&s;e we &s;ay, the civil Magi&s;trate may puni&s;h men for their errours in doctrine, and wor|&s;hip.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> Do you think that the&s;e are not puni&s;hable; when a man mu&s;t be hang'd for &s;tealing a hor&s;e, what &s;hall he de&s;erve for mur|thering of a Soul by Damnable Here&s;ies? is not a Soul more worth then a hor&s;e, think ye? Are not fal&s;e Prophets ordained to be even put to death, who lead people away from the wor&s;hip of the true God? (<HI>Deut.</HI> 13.5.) And, I am &s;ure, ye do not wor&s;hip the true God, &s;eeing ye acknowledge no per&s;on in the Deity; and &s;o can not wor&s;hip any of them. <HI>The Magi&s;trate bears not the &s;word in vain,</HI> but is to be a revenger of wrath upon them that do evil (<HI>Rom.</HI> 13.4.) which &s;oul-de&s;troyers are highly guilty of (contradict, if ye dare) and therefore he is bound to puni&s;h them.</P>
<P>La&s;tly, Ye alleadge, we are <HI>Popi&s;h,</HI> in affirming it lawful for men to kneel, bow, and take off their hats to one another.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> Seeing ye think it unlawful, then we &s;ee, ye place wor|&s;hip into it, and count it a duty to keep on your hats, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> which I mu&s;t think the heighth of Super&s;tition and Folly, till you produce &s;cripture-precept for it, which I can never expect to &s;ee. When two hor&s;es meet, they will neigh to one another. What! will you not be &s;o civil as a hor&s;e, Sir? But I &s;hall &s;ay no more to this here, having in my Preface, in touching the fifth Commandment, pro|ved that external reverence (in the general, what ever is the cu&s;tom of the Country in the&s;e things, if they hold of Divine wor&s;hip) is thereby enjoyned.</P>
<P>For that which ye tell us Eighteenthly, concerning peoples or|naments, and recreations, I thought it not worthy to be numbred.
<PB N="206" REF="124">For Albeit, I know the&s;e things are too often abu&s;ed (and I am &s;ure, we are &s;orrier for it, than you are) yet, &s;eeing all the gifts of God have a lawful u&s;e, and the&s;e ornaments are &s;uch, they may be law|fully u&s;ed, and were u&s;ed when <HI>Popery</HI> was not known. And as for games, though &s;ome may be unlawful, and others unfit, yet others of them are very lawful, and healthful too. And as for &s;porting, and Comedies, I am &s;ure, ye may &s;uffer me to break a je&s;t upon you, without thinking me <HI>Popi&s;h;</HI> and &s;chool-boyes, for putting them to diligence, to act an innocent comedy, which only we allow.</P>
<P>You &s;ay, Sir, you could have in&s;tanced &s;everal other particulars of our <HI>Popi&s;hne&s;s.</HI> But none of the&s;e that ye have in&s;tanced holds good. And I doubt nothing of your willingne&s;s, but that, if ye could have found any thing to charge us with of that nature, it would &s;oon have been laid to our door, e&s;pecially &s;eeing ye have li|belled &s;o many <HI>Popi&s;h</HI> principles again&s;t us, which, we &s;ee clearly, do not hold good, and ye are therein found a traducing calumniator greatly allied to the Devil, the accu&s;er of the brethren. I &s;ay not this for your hurt, Sir, but that you may, con&s;ider what &s;tate ye are in and repent, if that be po&s;&s;ible, after ye have &s;o abu&s;ed the Truths of Je&s;us, and his inheritance.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="2" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>Second Section, fixing <HI>Popery</HI> upon the <HI>Quakers</HI></HEAD>
<P>Having di&s;cu&s;&s;ed your charge of <HI>Popery</HI> calumniou&s;ly <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 word"> again&s;t us, I &s;hall pre&s;ent a true one again&s;t you, and that very breifly.</P>
<P>Fir&s;t, Therefore (for I re&s;olve to adhere to the order of the que|ries above di&s;patched) It is a <HI>Popi&s;h rule,</HI> and a great one too, <HI>That ignorance is the Mother of Devotion,</HI> and ye (both in tho&s;e queries, <HI>Quakeri&s;m no Popery</HI> pag. 98.) are not a jot behind with them in that, where ye condemn all means of knowledge, both humane and divine; and con&s;equently knowledge it &s;elf, &s;eeing we cannot reach knowledge without the u&s;e of the means of knowledge, whereby through Gods ble&s;&s;ing we may attain unto it; for extraordinary In&s;piration is now cea&s;ed (as is proved before) nor mu&s;t we tempt God to work extraordinary miracles, and neglect and de&s;pi&s;e the ordinary means which he had allowed.</P>
<P>Secondly, the <HI>Papi&s;ts</HI> deny the Scriptures to have any authority over us, or in order to us, untill they get it from the Church,
<PB N="207" REF="124">whereby they mean the <HI>Pope,</HI> and his Clergy; and do al&s;o deprive the whole body of the people, or Laity (as they call them) of the u&s;e of the Scriptures. And do not ye al&s;o deny the Scriptures to be our rule, at lea&s;t, our principal rule, and endeavour to cau&s;e all men reject them, at lea&s;t, as the principal rule? Witne&s;s the pro|ceeding Queries, and your <HI>Quakeri&s;m no Popery.</HI> And is not this one di&s;h indifferent dre&s;&s;ings? for both of you aim to bring the Scriptures low, yea to nought, without your approbation; they without their <HI>Pope</HI> and Councils approbation; yea without the approbation of your light and &s;entiments within; and &s;o both of you agree exactly in &s;ubjecting the Scripture-authority to the au|thority of another rule, which, Inevitably, mu&s;t be as ye appre|hend. I am &s;ure, in both the&s;e articles ye are as like the <HI>Pope,</HI> as any ba&s;tard can be like his father.</P>
<P>Thirdly, The <HI>Papi&s;ts</HI> and ye agree, in denying Infant Bapti&s;m, an external Chri&s;tian Sabbath-day, and P&s;alms-&s;inging to be or|dinances of Divine In&s;titution under the Go&s;pel; they alleadging|them to be only traditional; ye, that they are &s;uper&s;titious will|<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 span">. All which things we have &s;een in your queries, <HI>Con|<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 span"> faith,</HI> and <HI>Quakeri&s;m no Popery.</HI></P>
<P>Sixthly, (<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 word"> have put three Articles into the la&s;t) The <HI>Papi&s;ts</HI> deny Bread and Wine to be in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, affirming that, after the prie&s;ts con&s;ecration, it is no more Bread and Wi<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter">e, but is &s;ub&s;tantially changed into the very body and blood <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 word"> Chri&s;t; &s;o your brethren divinely In&s;pired, as ye are, in their fixth query here mock and &s;coff at the eating of bread, and drink|ing of wine in that Sacrament, making way (it &s;eems) for that <HI>Popi&s;h</HI> Tran&s;ub&s;tantiation; whereof we are the more confirmed, becau&s;e at the Sixteenth Query (as I cleared before) they lay down an a&s;&s;ertion that cannot &s;tand without the very grounds of that Tran&s;ub&s;tantiation.</P>
<P>Seventhly, The <HI>Papi&s;ts</HI> a&s;&s;ert the Infallibility of their <HI>Pope</HI> and Councils, and make that a ground of defence for their Church-con&s;titutions, and whole religion, rejecting all that want the au|thority of &s;uch Infallible guides; So, do not you a&s;&s;ert the Infalli|bility of your teachers (Albeit often they are rather lunatick) and oppo&s;e our Confe&s;&s;ion, directory, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> upon the very account of the fallibility of the&s;e that formed them, though to no purpo&s;e, as is &s;hewed.</P>
<PB N="208" REF="125">
<P>Eightly, The Je&s;uit <HI>Papi&s;ts</HI> (wor&s;e then any of the re&s;t) &s;tifly deny original &s;in, and a&s;&s;ert univer&s;al redemption, univer&s;al light, univer&s;al grace, free-will in natural unrenewed men unto good, and the Apo&s;tacy of the Saints (all which I have &s;hewed to be contrary to the Scriptures.) and in all the&s;e the <HI>Quakers</HI> are not a jot behind them, but on the contrary, do exceedingly out-reach them.</P>
<P>Fourteenthly, (For there are &s;ix articles in my la&s;t charge) the &s;ame Je&s;uit <HI>Papi&s;ts</HI> hold perfection to be attainable in this life; Wherein ye are indeed more po&s;itive then they, albeit &s;till again&s;t the Scriptures (as is before proved) which &s;hew us, that accord|ing to Gods way of di&s;po&s;ition (for the debate depends not on <HI>potentia ab&s;oluta</HI>) who will have us here to have a continual war with our corruptions (that the victories of his grace may be the more glorious, we the more humble, and dependant on him) Wee &s;hall never here be fully perfect, or freed from all corruption. And, Sir, methinks ye &s;trongly &s;avour of &s;upererogation too, while ye &s;ay <HI>Quakeri&s;m no Popery,</HI> Pag. 37.38.) that ye can attain a &s;inle&s;s perfection in this life, and yet grow in more degrees of grace for, Sir, when ye are altogether &s;inle&s;s, and &s;o neither God, nor his law can ask any more of you, as not being defective, or un|conform in a jot (or el&s;e ye cannot be &s;inle&s;s) ye may &s;pare that which ye have more than is required and due, to a needful friend, or throw it into the Roman-Churches grand trea&s;ury of merit, and be Canonized next day for a Saint, for exceeding your duty, and giving that overplus to the Church.</P>
<P>Fifteenthly, Ye hold ju&s;tification by your inherent righteou&s;ne&s;s, and &s;alvation by the merit of works as much as any <HI>Papi&s;t,</HI> nay as the <HI>Pope</HI> him&s;elf does, as is &s;hewed.</P>
<P>Sevententhly, (for there are two in the la&s;t) your brethren have endeavoured what they can in your <HI>Confe&s;&s;ion of Faith</HI> (as we &s;aw before) And ye in your <HI>Quakeri&s;m no Popery</HI> (Pag. 94) do &s;weetly al&s;o combine, to clear the <HI>Pope</HI> from that reproachful name of <HI>An|tichri&s;t,</HI> they alleadging that the <HI>Antichri&s;t</HI> is our will, and the Whore our wi&s;dom that &s;its upon the &s;ame; ye affirming that <HI>An|tichri&s;t,</HI> more &s;trictly taken, is a &s;pirit &s;itting in mans heart Proper|ly, which the <HI>Pope</HI> certainly, is not, and &s;o according to you, Sir, we cannot, at lea&s;t Properly, call the <HI>Pope Antichri&s;t.</HI> Ye are un|der&s;tood, Sir.</P>
<P>Eighteenthly, Ye hold the <HI>Apocryphal</HI> books, at lea&s;t many of
<PB N="209" REF="125">them to be of divine In&s;piration, and con&s;equently of equal autho|rity with the Scriptures; for every doctrine divinely In&s;pired is of Infallible divine authority: and Scripture a&s;&s;urance, or autho|rity can ri&s;e no higher. And herein, Sir, ye al&s;o joyn with the <HI>Pa|pi&s;ts.</HI> And when ye ask (which is your only argument) by what rule of faith we know, that the&s;e <HI>Apocryphal</HI> books are not of di|vine authority, or equal to the Scriptures? &s;eeing the Scriptures &s;ays not whether they are or not. I An&s;wer, that though by ex|pre&s;s Scripture &s;entence, or plain po&s;itive &s;aying, this cannot be cleared, yet &s;eeing the&s;e books do all of them want Scripture-&s;tile (which by the re&s;t of the undoubted Scriptures compared we ea&s;i|ly &s;ee;) and they were not found in the original language of the Old Te&s;tament; and they are never cited in the New Te&s;tament; and in many of them there are things frivolous written, yea quite un&s;utable; and in &s;ome of them the writer excu&s;es his failings; and they were never accounted any part of Canonical Scripture in the Old Te&s;tament-times; and this pa&s;&s;es without any reproof from Chri&s;t, or his Apo&s;tles (though mo&s;t material) when they are repro|ving all the other vices of that Old-Te&s;tament-Church. We may clearly &s;ee that the&s;e <HI>Apocryphal</HI> 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 the&s;e things mi&s;&s;es none of the&s;e books.</P>
<P>As for what ye object, Sir, of many books wanting that might be u&s;eful (as ye &s;ay) in the Scripture-Canon, I mu&s;t tell you (to cut &s;hort) that I am not here concerned what books are wanting, that is none of the pre&s;ent controver&s;ie; but it is concerning &s;ome books (<HI>viz.</HI> the&s;e called <HI>Apocryphal</HI>) which ye will have added to the Canon with the re&s;t that are known to be Canonical, and which we deny to be Canonical, and requires you, the affirmers, to prove that they are &s;uch; and though not obliged, as being the denyers; yet we have proved they are not &s;uch. And hereby I cut off, your tedious rap&s;ody of confu&s;ed arguments, whereby ye have wa&s;ted more paper in your <HI>Quakeri&s;m no Popery</HI> (pag. 60.61.62.63.) then all your work was worth.</P>
<P>But the <HI>Quakers</HI> have one grand principle, of following the Dictate within as the principal rule, at lea&s;t, which it would &s;eem, and <HI>George Keith</HI> al&s;o in&s;inuates (<HI>Quakeri&s;m no Popery,</HI> pag. 49.59, 103.) will never reconcile with that other grand principle of <HI>Popery,</HI> to believe as the Church of <HI>Rome</HI> believes. But unto this
<PB N="210" REF="126">I An&s;wer, that a great number (we &s;ee) of the direct principles of the <HI>Quakers</HI> are but meer <HI>Popi&s;h</HI> doctrines disgui&s;ed (nay all of their principles almo&s;t, except &s;ome that are much wor&s;e, being more Bla&s;phemous, then ever a <HI>Papi&s;t</HI> held) and that, of following the dictate within, is but a reflex principle obliging them the more to follow their direct principles, which (we &s;ee) are generally <HI>Po|pi&s;h.</HI> And &s;o when their great doctors teach their di&s;ciples to fol|low their Dictate within, they do in effect, teach them to believe as the Church of <HI>Rome</HI> does; yet not &s;o, as to di&s;cover their de&s;ign and make every man wi&s;e of their &s;ecret; but &s;ubtilly under a di&s;gui&s;e, They are no fools, Albeit, they can <HI>de&s;ipere in loco.</HI></P>
<P>Sir, I have vindicated our Church from the Intire frivolous charge of <HI>Popery,</HI> Calumniou&s;ly ca&s;t upon her by you in your <HI>Quakeri&s;m no Popery;</HI> and upon the other hand, I have libelled again&s;t your eighteen real <HI>Popi&s;h</HI> principles, from which ye can make no eva&s;ion, or tergiver&s;ation, they are all &s;o clear in the pre|ceeding &s;urvey. And therefore I mu&s;t here tell you, that your <HI>Quakeri&s;m no Popery</HI> &s;hould have been called, <HI>Quakeri&s;m no Ve|rity:</HI> for there is hardly one true word in it all which I do'nt &s;ay to irritate or exa&s;perate you, but rather with a de&s;ire from my heart (if it be po&s;&s;ible) to convince you: for I know you are a Scholar; but (alace! your gifts and parts are ill Imployed again&s;t the truths, laws, and ordinances of Je&s;us, which his dear purcha&s;e of them, teaches their great value. Be no more a &s;tated Enemy to the&s;e; or el&s;e dread|ful and terrible &s;hall the event be unto you, and all who thus tread upon his truths, and Bla&s;pheme his Per&s;on as you do, and tram|ple under foot al&s;o his whole In&s;titutions and ordinances.</P>
</DIV3>
<DIV3 N="2" TYPE="postscript">
<HEAD>A Second Po&s;t&s;cript for Doctor <HI>Everards</HI> Gho&s;t.</HEAD>
<P>There is one Doctor <HI>Everard</HI> (I wi&s;h he had been never heard) who hath publi&s;hed a book which he calls, <HI>Go&s;pel Trea&s;ury opened up, or the Holie&s;t of all Un-vailing;</HI> and this Book he hath divi|ded into two parts, In the fir&s;t part whereof (Pag. 150.206.347.) he a&s;&s;erts that, after we are regenerated, it is no more we that think, &s;ee, &s;peak, goe, wi&s;h, will, rejoyce; but that it is God that does them, and that it mu&s;t be Chri&s;t the Son of God in us that loves God, fears God, obeys God, and believes in God; and (&s;ays he) though that may &s;eem a Paradox, yet it is a truth; for Indeed and in truth (&s;ays he) there is nothing fears God, but God;
<PB N="211" REF="126">nothing obeys God, but God; nothing loves God, but God. And again he affirms (Pag. 442.443.444. part &s;econd) that the good man is &s;o &s;wallowed up in God, that wanting &s;en&s;e, will, de&s;ire, he now (as the word requires) covets nothing; but now God in him wills, knows, de&s;ires, reads, writes, preaches, gives, prays, hears, and is all things: for God (&s;ays he) de&s;ires not our works, but our Sabbath, and that him&s;elf in us, without hindrance may work, know, prai&s;e, pray, hear, crown, and reward him|&s;elf in us. Thus the Doctor teaches, the great &s;um of all which is, <HI>That nothing obeys God, but God only.</HI> The <HI>Quakers</HI> &s;eem to joyn with the Doctor in this his wild principle, while at the la&s;t of their Queries here, they &s;eem to require our re&s;ting, or not working, and condemn our Confe&s;&s;ions, Catechi&s;ms, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> upon that very ground becau&s;e they are our works; and to my &s;ure experience I do know that this book of Doctor <HI>Everard</HI> hath predi&s;po&s;ed &s;eve|ral per&s;ons, and been their preamble unto <HI>Quaking,</HI> and therefore that this treati&s;e may be &s;omewhat compleat, I re&s;olve here to an|&s;wer this principle of the Doctor, and to confute it, and two, or three more of his po&s;itions that have &s;ome alliance with the princi|ples of the <HI>Quakers.</HI></P>
<P>Therefore fir&s;t, (again&s;t the Doctors fore&s;aid principle) it is not God that believes in Chri&s;t crucified, accepts and receives his righteou&s;ne&s;s for ju&s;tification, that looks for &s;alvation through his merits; It is not God that loaths him&s;elf for &s;in, &s;orrows for his &s;in, confe&s;&s;es his &s;in, and denies him&s;elf, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> And the&s;e are all works of obedience commanded of God, and exerci&s;ed in the godly; and therefore the Doctors principle here is mo&s;t fal&s;e. 2ly. Angels and men are either obliged to obey God, or not; if not, then they may doe what they plea&s;e, they cannot &s;in; and &s;o al&s;o fallen Angels, and reprobate men are all mo&s;t unju&s;tly damned for their di&s;obedience, wherewith they cannot be ju&s;tly charged &s;eeing (as is &s;uppo&s;ed) they are not obliged to obey. If then they be obliged to obey God, then the holy Angels that &s;tood, obeys God, or not; if they do, then &s;omething obeys God, that is not God (again&s;t the Doctors principle) &s;eeing Angels are not God, I am &s;ure; if not, then the holy Angels that &s;tood are di&s;obedient to God, &s;eeing they are obliged to obey God, and yet does it not; and that is to &s;ay, the Angels that &s;tood are fallen Angels. 3ly. If nothing obeys God, but God, then never any of all the
<PB N="212" REF="127">creatures obeyed God to this day, &s;eeing none of them is God; and all the creatures are equally guilty, or not guilty of di&s;obedience to God, &s;eeing not one of them ever obeyed him. But the&s;e things are ab&s;urd Romances. Fourthly, whatever obeys God mu&s;t be commanded to obey him, &s;eeing all obedience is to &s;ome command and Law: But God is not commanded to obey, &s;eeing all the commandments are directed to creatures, and God is not under the Law he hath given to them, nor hath he any &s;uperior &s;overaign; and though Chri&s;t was under the Law as man, yet he was never under it as God, or el&s;e &s;o &s;hould the Father and Spirit al&s;o, &s;eeing they are all one and the &s;ame God, though they be di&s;tinct per&s;ons. Therefore God cannot be &s;aid to obey God in any proper &s;peech, and the Doctor (we &s;ee by his expre&s;&s;ions above rehear&s;ed) means properly. La&s;tly, the Doctor here contradicts him&s;elf; for if God requires our Sabbath, and not working (as he affirms) and the regenerate and good man does &s;o lay a&s;ide all works, as he no more thinks, &s;ees, &s;peaks, goes, wi&s;hes, wills, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> (as he affirmeth too) then the good man obeys God, In doing that which God re|quires of him; and yet the Doctor denies that any thing obeys God, but God him&s;elf.</P>
<P>But the Doctor (may be) would object, that the good works of the Saints are in the Scripture a&s;cribed to God, and &s;aid to be done by his power, <HI>Ephe&s;.</HI> 1.19. <HI>Philip.</HI> 1.6. and 2.13. 2 <HI>The&s;.</HI> 1.11.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> God is indeed a very &s;pecial Title the principal efficient cau&s;e of all our good works, and the Scriptures a&s;cribe that unto him; But no Scripture &s;aith that in our works of obedience only God obeyeth him&s;elf in us; for the rea&s;ons given that could not be. Nor can it be &s;aid that it is God that in us wi&s;hes, wills, prays, believes, de&s;ires, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> Seeing the&s;e actions are not Immanent in God, but are meerly tran&s;ient as to him; and its Impo&s;&s;ible for any per&s;on to will, wi&s;h, de&s;ire, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> by any act not Immanent in it &s;elf, <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter">s any man knows. But the&s;e good works and actions, whereun|to we are quickened and determined by God and his grace and Spirit, are Formally &s;ubjected in us, and Immanent; and &s;o being Intrin&s;ecally united and Informing us, cannot but give us their Intrin&s;ecal and formal denomination for an act of love being Im|manent, or united to my will, or affections, cannot but denomi|nate me as loving &s;ome object, and it cannot &s;o denominate any other per&s;on, as is manife&s;t: Though God therefore workes in us
<PB N="213" REF="127">the acts of obedience, faith, repentance; yet it is not God that obeys, believes, repents, <HI>&amp;c.</HI></P>
<P>The <HI>Quakers</HI> afford us another objection from <HI>Gal.</HI> 2.20, where <HI>Paul</HI> denies him&s;elf to live (<HI>viz.</HI> Spiritually) but that Chri&s;t lived in him.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;. Paul</HI> does not there deny him&s;elf to live Spiritually, or vitally to exerce the operations of a Spiritual life; or el&s;e, if that were, Then <HI>Paul</HI> was then Spiritually as dead a man, as before he was converted, which is mo&s;t fal&s;e, and in the very next words he declares him&s;elf to live, <HI>viz.</HI> Spiritually. When therefore he de|nies him&s;elf to live Spiritually, but Chri&s;t in him, he plainly means of the fountain and &s;ource, or &s;tock and &s;upply of his Spiritual life, <HI>viz.</HI> That that was not in him&s;elf, or in nature, but in Chri&s;t the redeemer, and &s;o the objection proves not their point.</P>
<P>The Doctor teaches al&s;o in that &s;ame book (Pag. 16.17.299.361. part fir&s;t, And Pag. 27.29.259.264.265. part &s;econd) That take but off all accidents from every creature, and that which remains is Chri&s;t and God; as if we take away all height and depth, greatne&s;s and littlene&s;s, weight and mea&s;ure, heat and cold, mat|ter and form: for (&s;ays he) the&s;e are all accidents; and then that which is left is Chri&s;t, is God: God is the &s;ub&s;tance of all things, and all the creatures are but meer accidents, and they are not only Gods workman&s;hip, as mo&s;t men teach and believe, but al&s;o God is their very &s;ub&s;tance and Being, he is their very E&s;&s;ence and Be|ing. Thus he.</P>
<P>But if the&s;e things were &s;o, God would be the mo&s;t pa&s;&s;ive Be|ing in all the world, for &s;o he &s;hould be the pa&s;&s;ive &s;ubject where|into all creatures &s;hould inhere as meer accidents, and he &s;hould be the pa&s;&s;ive and changed &s;ubject in all their mutations, and al|terations; This would make a very changeable God, more changeable then the Moon, or Wind. 2ly. If God be the very, Being and E&s;&s;ence of every creature, then every creature is E&s;&s;en|tially God Almighty, Infinite, Eternal, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> for that who&s;e Being and E&s;&s;ence is God, mu&s;t, in re&s;pect of its E&s;&s;ence, or E&s;&s;entially, be God; or el&s;e, in re&s;pect of its E&s;&s;ence, it will be both God, and not God, which is a Contradiction. 3ly. If God be the Being and E&s;&s;ence of every creature, then the Being and E&s;&s;ence of every creature is an uncreated Being, &s;eeing God is &s;uch; and &s;o every creature as to its E&s;&s;ence, or E&s;&s;entially is not a creature, that is to
<PB N="214" REF="128">&s;ay, it is E&s;&s;entially not it &s;elf. 4ly. Every evil action is a creature, if then God be the being of every creature, then he is the being of every evil action too; and &s;o the &s;in inhering into every evil action &s;hall inhere into God <HI>(ab&s;it Bla&s;phemia)</HI> who is the being of the action. La&s;tly, If all creatures be but meer accidents, and if God be the very E&s;&s;ence and Being of every creature, then God &s;hall al&s;o be an accident meerly, he being the very e&s;&s;ence and Be|ing of the&s;e created accidents as the Doctor will. Bla&s;phemous, Ab&s;urd, and Repugnant.</P>
<P>The Doctor al&s;o teaches (pag. 83.84.343. part fir&s;t) that if we &s;peak of God Ab&s;tractedly from all creatures; &s;o the Father, Son, and Spirit are all one. But if we come to &s;peak of any thing created, then we divide the Godhead into Per&s;ons, and there is Im|mediatly Father, Son, and Spirit. When God puts forth him|&s;elf in the creating of any creature, here now the Word is &s;poken and came forth from the bo&s;om of his Father; before there was any creature made, there was neither Father, Son, nor Spirit in the Godhead as divided: for the Trinity is expre&s;&s;ed only in re|lation to creatures. Thus he.</P>
<P>But by the Onene&s;s, or Unity of the Father, Son, and Spirit, as God is &s;poken of Ab&s;tractedly from Creatures, the Doctor either means of the Onene&s;s of their E&s;&s;ence and Godhead; and thus they are &s;till one, what ever way we &s;peak of them, &s;eeing they are &s;till but one God; or el&s;e he thereby means of the Unity and Onene&s;s of their per&s;ons, and this way (which is the way he doth mean, which appears by his oppo&s;ing the di&s;tinction of their per&s;ons in the &s;econd member of his <HI>Antithe&s;is</HI> to the unity mentioned in the fir&s;t) the Doctor teaches meer bla&s;phemy, in denying that there was any di&s;tinction of per&s;ons in the Godhead, before God made any creature, and except in relation to creatures: for &s;o, if God had never made any creature (which might ea&s;ily have been, &s;ee|ing he did not create by nece&s;&s;ity, or impul&s;ion) there &s;hould never-have been three per&s;ons in the Godhead, nay nor any per&s;on; for before God made any creature there was neither Father, Son, nor Spirit in the Godhead, and the Trinity is expre&s;&s;ed only in relation to creatures, &s;ays the Doctor. So al&s;o the three di&s;tinct per&s;ons in the Godhead mu&s;t be meerly temporary created within time, if there was no di&s;tinct per&s;on in the &s;ame before the creatures were made. Yea &s;o the per&s;ons in the Godhead &s;hall be debitors to the
<PB N="215" REF="128">creatures for their Sub&s;i&s;tences and Per&s;ons, without whom (if we will believe the Doctor) they would never have been. Its all Bla&s;phemous.</P>
<P>Again the Doctor teaches (pag. 284.285. part fir&s;t) that throughout the Old Te&s;tament from the beginning of <HI>Gene&s;is</HI> to the la&s;t of the Prophets there runs an Allegory; and (pag. 86. part &s;econd) all the Scriptures (&s;ays he) are Figurative.</P>
<P>But in the Old Te&s;tament it is &s;aid, That there is a God, that we ought to wor&s;hip him, that God created man, That man fell and &s;inned, That we ought to repent and believe, that God will be merciful to returning penitent &s;inners, that he is a ble&s;&s;ed man who&s;e &s;ins are forgiven. Are the&s;e, and many the like expre&s;&s;ions to be Allegorically under&s;tood? If the Doctor denyed the things a&s;&s;erted by the&s;e expre&s;&s;ions, and we, to prove the affirmatives thereof again&s;t him, urged the&s;e Scripture-&s;ayings, would he di|&s;tingui&s;h with an Allegorically true, Properly fal&s;e? If that di&s;tin|ction were (valid or relevant, then all were gone. And are the whole Scriptures Figurative? Then (be&s;ide what is ju&s;t now &s;aid) That Chri&s;t was born, &s;uffered, &s;atisfied Ju&s;tice, is ri&s;en again, A&s;|cended; That there is a life to come, a Heaven, a Hell, a day of General judgment, that believers &s;hall be &s;aved, and the re&s;t damned; the&s;e I &s;ay, &s;hall be all Figurative &s;ayings, and to be under&s;tood Figuratively. And what can be &s;aid wor&s;e? for &s;o the whole foundations are de&s;troyed, if the&s;e &s;ayings be Improperly meant.</P>
<P>La&s;tly, (for I will &s;tand no longer) that Allegoricall Doctor teaches al&s;o (pag. 289.294.318.320. 322.323.334.342.347.348. part fir&s;t) That the whole Scriptures have two mea|nings, one whereof he calls Outward, Grammatical, and Literal; The other Inward, Hidden, and Spiritual. Where, if he had &s;aid, that one and the &s;ame meaning of the Scripture may be under|&s;tood with two &s;orts of Evidences; one of them External, Hi&s;tori|call, and Grammatical, only; The other Internal, Supernatural, and Spiritual, he had not aberred from the truth. Or if he had &s;aid, that there may be &s;ometimes in one text two meanings, the one &s;ubordinate to, and typified by the other (which yet is not Properly two meanings but one and the &s;ame compounded meaning, or meaning compounded) he had likewi&s;e &s;aid truth. But &s;o he nei|ther &s;ays, nor can be meaned: for in the places cited he often
<PB N="216" REF="129">affirms, that the Outward and Literal meaning of the Scripture is but Excrements good for nothing, can give no nouri&s;hment, is not only dead, but killing and de&s;tructive; yea in &s;ome of the&s;e places he denies the literal &s;en&s;e to be Gods mind, and affirms it to be but humane; Nay, he flatly al&s;o denies the Scriptures to be the Word of God; or that ever any man did as yet &s;ee, hear, or read the truth. The other &s;en&s;e of the Scriptures he calls &s;aving, and an excellent mean of life to us.</P>
<P>The&s;e things declare that the Doctor means of two Co-ordinate and Inconnexed meanings, and not of Subordinate meanings, &s;ee|ing the&s;e meanings devi&s;ed by him have no Re&s;pect, Connexion, or Relation with one another, &s;eeing the one is but dead De&s;tructive Excrements, and the other is Saving and nouri&s;hing. But it is not &s;o with cau&s;es Subordinate, which joyntly concur to produce the effect, each in their own &s;phere and order, as is known.</P>
<P>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 &s;en&s;es, and con&s;e|quently their Author to be an Impo&s;tor and deceiver <HI>(Ab&s;it Bla&s;|phemia)</HI> with his Doubtful and two-fac'd meanings, and his vari|able, and <HI>Proteus</HI>-like Intended &s;en&s;es, for they can have no more meanings, then their Author intended therein, &s;eeing a meaning affix'd on the Scriptures which there Author never intended therein, is not the meaning of the Scriptures, or el&s;e every wre&s;ted meaning would be their meaning.</P>
<P>But Secondly, more particularly again&s;t the Doctor. Is the lite|ral &s;en&s;e of the Scriptures, that teach us very plainly Chri&s;ts Incar|nation, Death, Re&s;urrection, A&s;cen&s;ion, and the u&s;e and ends thereof, good for nothing, but a <HI>non</HI>-nouri&s;hing and de&s;troying Excrement? He &s;eems indeed to &s;ay &s;o (pag. 52. part fir&s;t) where he affirms that we mu&s;t fir&s;t wave the knowledge of the Hi&s;tory of Chri&s;t Externally, before we come to the knowledge of the true Chri&s;t (hereby he In&s;inuats that the External Chri&s;t is no true Chri&s;t) that is able to &s;ave our Souls, But if the&s;e things a&s;|&s;erted by the Doctor be true, Then its no matter, or harm to us, Albeit the letter and Hi&s;tory of the knowledge of Chri&s;t were all fal&s;e, &s;eeing that is good for nothing, can give no nouri&s;hment (as he will) and mu&s;t be waved before we come to know the true
<PB N="217" REF="129">and &s;aving Chri&s;t. What can it matter to us then though it were all fal&s;e? &s;eeing it can do us no good, is but <HI>non</HI>-nouri&s;hing and de&s;tructive Excrements; nay, it hinders us to know the true and &s;aving Chri&s;t; for we cannot know him (as the Doctor alleadges) until it be fir&s;t waved; and &s;o its an oppo&s;it enemy to the know|ledge of him.</P>
<P>Secondly, If it be true that the literal &s;en&s;e of the Scriptures is not Gods mind (as the Doctor affirms) then we may Counter-act the whole Scriptures in their literal &s;en&s;e, and yet be guiltles, &s;eeing, though we do &s;o, yet we do nothing again&s;t the mind and meaning of God in his Word, according to the Doctors doctrine, and then we may commit Idolatry, Adultery, and what not?</P>
<P>Thirdly. If the Literal &s;en&s;e of the Scriptures be not Gods meaning, how comes the Doctor to call it Scripture-&s;en&s;e at all, or Scripture-meaning? The Doctor herein manife&s;tly contradicts him&s;elf, &s;eeing the Scripture can never have any &s;en&s;e, or mean|ing, be&s;ide the mind and meaning of its Author therein by him intended, as is both clear in it &s;elf, and ju&s;t now I proved.</P>
<P>Fourthly, For his denying the Scriptures to be the Word of God I &s;hall oppo&s;e unto this the Survey of the <HI>Quakers</HI> Third Query, above where I have di&s;cu&s;&s;ed that que&s;tion. But when he denies that ever any man as yet heard, or read the truth, he &s;peaks a little too Tran&s;cendentally: for if he means of the truth of Propo|&s;ition, or Enunciation (which is only to the purpo&s;e; for we are not concerned with the Metaphy&s;ical Incomplex truth of Being, but with the Complex truth of Oration here) then he either takes truth in the Ab&s;tract form; and &s;o never man henceforth &s;hall hear, or read it, more then heretofore, &s;eeing in the Ab&s;tract form it is not a thing Legible, or Audible; or el&s;e he takes truth Concretive|ly&punc; and as it denominats &s;ome particular Enunciation, or Enuncia|tions true, &s;o that the means that never man as yet heard, or read a true &s;aying, or Enunciation to this day; and then he denies that him&s;elf ever &s;pake, 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 wor&s;e) &s;o he denies the Scriptures (which many man hath read and heard) to be true. Its a very &s;trange and a &s;ad bu&s;ine&s;s too, if we never heard a word of truth.</P>
<P>But the Doctor (I know) will &s;ay, that only Chri&s;t is the truth.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> Chri&s;t cannot be the Formal truth of any Enunciation, or
<PB N="218" REF="130">Oration, which is nothing but a meer relation of Conformity be|twixt it and its Object; but Chri&s;t is called the truth, becau&s;e 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.</P>
<P>Albeit, the Doctor makes many wranglings to clear him&s;elf of being thought a contemner and vilifier of the Literal &s;en&s;e of Scripture; yet all comes to this at the la&s;t and mo&s;t (which he never parts with) that the literal &s;en&s;e of the Scripture can do no good; but will kill and de&s;troy us, except we reach another &s;en&s;e beyond that, and hidden under it, having no connexion there|with, or relation thereunto, The ab&s;urdity whereof I have very briefly &s;hewed. And be&s;ide, we &s;ee, he refu&s;es to own the literal &s;en&s;e as Divine but as a thing meerly Humane, denying it to be the mind of God. And &s;o no Apology can bring him fairly, off.</P>
<P>But the Doctor objects (pag. 52.318. part fir&s;t) that the Literal &s;en&s;e of the Scripture is not &s;aving, nor the mind of God, &s;eeing the Devil, and natural men can reach that.</P>
<P><HI>An&s;.</HI> But the Doctor &s;uppo&s;es here a manife&s;t fal&s;hood, <HI>viz.</HI> that the Scriptures have one &s;en&s;e reached by the Devil, and na|tural men; and another which they know nothing of, and can|not reach, which, I have &s;hewed to be mo&s;t ab&s;urd, the Devil, and &s;ome men unrenewed know as many &s;en&s;es 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 &s;en&s;e of the Scripture more than the other, and which the other cannot reach; but that the one knows the &s;ame &s;en&s;e of Scripture with an Internal, Spiritual, Supernatural, and &s;a|ving evidence; which the other knows only with an Hi&s;torical, Grammatical, External, and Common evidence; and &s;o there are very diver&s;e kinds of evidences in their acts of knowledge, pro|ceeding from E&s;&s;entially diver&s;e principles of light and Eyes to &s;ee with; But the Object known is the &s;ame.</P>
<P><HI>I have therefore here In&s;erted, and briefly confuted the&s;e principles of the Doctor, which indeed are a con&s;iderable part (though not all)
<PB N="219" REF="130">of the &s;ub&s;tance of that his fore&s;aid book, becau&s;e the</HI> Quakers <HI>know (and I in &s;ure experience too, by the nece&s;&s;ary and Inevitable, though Involun|tary conver&s;e I have had with them) who are deeply concerned with the &s;ame principles; and (as I hinted before) I never almo&s;t knew any (and I have known too many) that once became the Di&s;ciples and Pro&s;elyts of that book, but in end they became profe&s;&s;ed</HI> Quakers; <HI>and there|fore I judged it very convenient here (though &s;hortly) to give an Antidote again&s;t it.</HI></P>
</DIV3>
</DIV2>
<TRAILER>FINIS.</TRAILER>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT>
</EEBO>
</ETS>
