the great ground of the change he gives it the honour of his most frequent appearings thereafter to his Disciples Luk. 24.13 15. Joh. 20.19 26. and again of that glorious manifestation of himself in the pouring forth of the Spirit at the Pentecost Act. 2.1 2 3 4. and again it was on this day as shall be shewed that he made that glorious appearance to John in the Isle of Patmos Revel 1.10 again the first day of the week was by the Apostles and the Church following their Masters Example which is binding in things imitable and that by Divine Precept Ephes 5.1 observed for the Celebrating of Gods Publick Worship as a day set apart for that work as appears from Act. 20.7 1 Cor. 16.1 2. where we have not a meer bare Example or instance of the Churches meeting for once or twice to Gods Publick Worship on that day set down but also we have their constant custom of so doing clearly in both places imported yea further the last of these two Texts shews that that day was set apart for the Publick Divine Worship while it expresly requires the publick Collections of Charity for the Poor a Pendicle of the Publick Worship to be made on that day and shews that the same order was also given to other Churches as well as to them of Corinth And lastly the Holy Ghost hath recorded to us these singular Priviledges and peculiar Honour bestowed by Christ upon this first day of the week above all other days as also the Churches observing of it for Gods Publick Worship and that constantly and as a day set apart for that use and the like he doth not mention of any other day which is very observable What is all this for then for some reason uncontrovertibly and yet no other can be given or fall under imagination or else I intreat the Quakers to shew us it if they can But that the first day of the week is a day peculiarly set apart and sanctified by Christ for the Exercise of his Publick Worship and which he would have his Church peculiarly to regard as designed for that holy use beyond and above all other days as was accordingly done by the Apostles and Church in the pure Primitive times The change of the day then is most surely by Divine Authority But Secondly when Christ foretels the Disciples of the Destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple by Vespasian Matth. 24.20 which was fourty years and upwards after Christs Ascension and so it was long after the planting of the Gospel-Church and exautorating of the Ceremonial Law He bids them pray that their flight might not be in the Winter nor on the Sabbath-day There is a Sabbath-day both name and thing under the New Testament which Christ wills his Disciples to pray that their flight might not be thereupon because it would be grievous to them to be forced to travel for preservation of their natural Lives on that day which was Instituted for Gods Publick Worship and their Spiritual comfort Neither is it possible to get the Sabbath-day here mentioned meaned of every day seeing then they behooved either to flee on the Sabbath-day or else never Nor yet can it be meant of an uncertain day or some day Indeterminately for then the Disciples could not have known what day to pray that their flight might not be upon and Christs Exhortation had been vain and to no use or purpose which is most absurd and false This one Scripture proves a Christian External Sabbath-day against all Contradicters and that the first day of the week must be this Christian Sabbath-day appears from the Claim and Interest above declared which it hath under the New Testament unto that honourable Title and peculiar Denomination above all other days and that by Divine Warrant Thirdly There is a particular determinate day under the New Testament which hath by the mind and sentiments of the Scripture a peculiar relation unto the Lord Christ above all other days whatsoever and so it is separated from the common condition of all other days having a peculiar Divine relation which no other hath and thereby a preheminence and dignity before all of them and so it must be an Holy Day seeing common days are not separated from the condition of common days except we please to speak plain contradiction That there is such a particular determinate day under the New Testament is clear from Revel 1.10 where John says He was in the Spirit on the Lords-day which cannot be meant of every day seeing then he could not have been in the Spirit but on the Lords-day whereas it is most evident that John distinctly points at a particular day having some peculiar relation to Christ above all others But the Quakers like Dictators say that the Lords-day here is meant of an uncertain time called the Lords-day because of the Lords special appearing thereupon But their Commentary is most false and cannot agree with the Apostles Scope which is as to shew the certain Person Who received the Vision viz. John and the certain place of the World Where In the Isle of Patmos and the certain kind of frame Wherein While he was in the Spirit so also the certain kind of day or the certain day of the week whereupon he received the Vision and so an uncertain time cannot stand with the Scope Secondly Let the Quakers if they can prove that an uncertain time is here meant or else their Gloss upon the Text will be justly thought uncertain Thirdly Our Adjective does not very perfectly turn the word which in the Original Language is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying Dominick or more clearly pertaining to the Lord which plainly imports a particular determinate day adding 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with it which is in the Text having a peculiar and stated relation to the Lord above others which by common right are his also Having dispatched the Quakers uncertain time I affirm that the Lords-day here is meant of the first day of the week determinately seeing it hath a peculiar interest into that Denomination above all other days whatsoever for it is the day of Christs glorious Resurrection and ceasing from the great work of Redemption whereof it is a Remembrance it is the day of his frequent appearings to his Disciples thereafter it is the day of his glorious pouring forth of the Spirit and enduing the Apostles with Power from on High it is the day set apart for his Publick Worship and observed also for that use by the Apostles and Church in the pure Primitive time and finally it is the day which the Holy Ghost hath particularly noted unto us as alone honoured by Christ and his Church with such peculiar Priviledges all which is before proved Seeing then the first day of the week hath upon so many special accompts so peculiar an Interest into that Denomination which no other can pretend to The Lords day here mentioned must be inevitably understood of the same seeing the best right must and ought to gain the Cause except
of God ver 9. he calls it the Word of God ver 13. Secondly the Predictions Doctrine and Sayings of the Prophets which are written in the Scriptures are in Scripture most expresly called the Word of the Lord and yet these are not Christ the Co-substantial Word therefore there is another Word of God and which is written in the Scriptures beside Christ the Co-substantial Word The Antecedent I prove from 1 King 16.12 2 King 9.36 2 King 23.16 2 Chron. 36.22 Ezra 1.1 In all these places the Predictions and Doctrine of these Prophets are most expresly called the Word of the Lord. Thirdly it is said Isai 28.13 that the Word of the Lord was unto Israel Precept upon Precept and Line upon Line where the Precepts and Doctrine contained in the Scripture-lines are called the Word of the Lord But sure it is Christ himself is not these written Precepts or Doctrine therefore there is beside Christ the Co-substantial Word another Word of God which is written in the Scriptures Fourthly Hosea calls the beginning of his Prophecies and Doctrine The beginning of the Word of the Lord by Hosea which cannot be the beginning of Christ the Son of God by Hosea I am sure but it must be the beginning of the Doctrine and Prophecies taught and Prophesied and there written by him therefore there is beside Christ the Eternal Word another Word of God which is written in the Scriptures Fifthly to be a Word that the Lord hath spoken and to be the Word of the Lord is all one thing me-thinks but there is a Word which the Lord hath spoken which is not Christ and which is written in the Scriptures Therefore there is a Word of the Lord beside Christ and the same is written in the Scriptures The Minor is clear from Isai 37.22 where the Prophet says This is the Word that the Lord hath spoken concerning Senacherib and this Word is there written The Virgin the Daughter of Sion hath despised thee c. But surely that Word is not Christ Christ is not a complex Oration or saying Sixthly the whole Doctrine of the Prophets if the Quakers will trust them is the Word of the Lord and yet it is not Christ the Son of God seeing they always ascribe it to him with a Thus saith the Lord and what God saith must certainly be his Word for to speak and not say a word is pretty repugnant and may pass for a good Jest amongst men that are merry therefore there is a Word of the Lord beside Christ and the same is written in the Scriptures seeing the Doctrine of the Prophets is written there Seventhly there is a Word of God which is the Sword of the Spirit and an Instrument in his hand Ephes 6.17 But Christ the Son of God is not the Sword of the Spirit nor an Instrument in his hand seeing the Second person of the Godhead cannot work from the Third because so their Order of working would quite contradict their Order of Subsisting which is utterly repugnant much less can the Second person be the Instrument of the Third and if by the Spirit here be meant the New man in us Christ in his Person cannot be an Instrument thereof either nor of any Creature whatsoever that ever had a Being or Existence Therefore there is another Word of God beside Christ the Son of God Lastly for we need stand no longer in a matter so manifest The Word of Christ spoken by him within time is the Word of God seeing Christ is God as well as man and yet it is not Christ himself as needs no Proof But there is a Word of Christ spoken by him within time and it is written in the Scriptures Joh. 5.24 and 8.31 37. and 12.48 and 15.3 Colos 3.16 Rev. 3.8 Therefore there is beside Christ the Eternal Word another Word of God which is spoken within time and written in the Scriptures Thou wilt say perhaps seeing most part of the Quakers are content to yield to the Scriptures the Title of Gods Words and almost all of them of Gods Testimony it would seem that this Debate is only about the naming of the Scripture What then were the hazard to gratifie the Quakers in this point as Wise men use to please Children and Fools sometimes Answer Though all the Quakers without exception should yield the Scriptures the Titles of Gods Words and Gods Testimony and yet some of them do it not as we shall see ere we end the Survey of this Query yet there is a manifest hazard in denying the Title of the Word of God to the Scriptures For let it once be denied with the Quakers that the Scriptures are the Word of God and then grant what they will to get their Negative once admitted it plainly follows that they have never been spoken by the Mouth of the Lord seeing what any person speaks must needs be his Word or else he speaks and holds his peace as the Jest is and this puts the Scriptures into the same condition with the Doctrine and Dreams of false Prophets and brangles their Divine Authority See Deut. 18.20 21. Jerem. 23.16 21. Ezek. 13.7 and 22.28 Again let it once be granted that the Scriptures are not Intituled The Word of God and have no Interest to be so called and then all the Exhortations given in the Scriptures for hearkening to the Word believing and obeying the Word c. and all the commendations of its efficacy and sweetness must be transferred from the Word of God written in the Scriptures unto Christ the Co-substantial Word immediately who as he is Jealous of his own Glory so he will not have his Word rob'd of its due Authority and Excellency which he had Communicated thereunto And so that which the Quakers design and this is their Formal aim in this Affair is to take all men off from the written Word of God as their rule for grant that such a thing hath not such a name and then whatever is spoken under that name must be applyed unto some other Subject so named and not unto a Subject which was never so named And thus again they indeavour to overthrow the Use End and Repute of the Scriptures so far as they can And thus to deny the Scriptures the Title of The Word of God strikes at their Divine Authority and overthrows their use and regard And therefore we are Commanded to hold fast the Form of sound words 2 Tim. 1.13 But say the Quakers the Scriptures are the Words of God Exod. 20. Therefore they infer they are not the Word of God Ans But so by the Antecedent the Quakers destroy their own Cause and contradict themselves for if the Scriptures be the Words of God then I am sure there are Words of God beside Christ and yet they deny there is any seeing the written words of the Scripture are not Christ the Son of God Again this consequence is as if I should say Such a Book contains the Doctrines of
the Quakers Ergo not the Doctrine of the Quakers The Ten Commands are the Moral Laws Ergo not the Moral Law Is not that well Argued without Logick But what are not whole Sermons and Predictions of the Prophets and Christs whole Doctrine called by them and him the Word of the Lord and his Word as may be seen in almost all our preceeding Arguments Is not the whole Doctrine of the Scriptures called a Word of Prophecy 2 Pet. 1.19 20. Does not Paul call the whole Revealed Truths of God Sound Doctrine and the Doctrine of God 1 Tim. 1.10 and 6.1 Tit. 1.9 and 2.10 And must the Prophets and Apostles Christ and the Holy Ghost learn from the Quakers how their Doctrine should be named will they not allow the Scriptures their Essential Attribute which these gives them that they are the Word of God or albeit we very well know that there are many more words in the Scripture than one why will they not admit of that common Unity here which is not denied in other common Natures and a denomination conformable By these things the objection is both answered and overthrown Again they insinuate another Argument whereby they indeavour to wrest the Title of the Word of God from the Scriptures The Scriptures say they signifies Writings Therefore they mean to infer they are not the Word of God Ans It doth equally follow therefore they are not the Words of God as the Word of God as all may see and so the consequent of their present Argument contradicts the Antecedent of their former Objection and so we may see that the Quakers are but Jugling while they yield the Scriptures the Title of Gods Words whereof their present Argument again indeavours to rob them Secondly our Question is not what the word Scripture signifies but what the Doctrine written in the Scriptures is which the signification of that Word cannot Define But lastly for clear satisfaction I distinguish their Consequent thus viz. That because the Scriptures signifies Writings therefore as to the external Form and Mode which they have from the Writers Pen they are not the Word of God be it so therefore as to their enunciat Doctrine or Sentence they are not the Word of God it follows not For in the Scripture there are two things to be considered viz their Doctrine and Sentence which is the Word of God and their external Form or Mode which they have from the Pen of the Writer which gives the Word of God the Denomination of Written and therefore we call the Scriptures The Written Word Because we said that the Quakers by indeavouring to Wrest the Title of the Word of God from the Scriptures do strike at their Divine Authority therefore I shall here give a short Touch of the Notes and Arguments whereby the Scriptures are clearly Demonstrated to be from God and of Divine Inspiration such as are the Majesty of the Style of the Scriptures above all other Writings under great simplicity of words the Divine purity of the Doctrine savoring wholly of holiness and vertue The Divine Scope of the Doctrine which is to give all glory to God The Efficacy of the Doctrine in the hearts of men above all other Doctrines in the world The Infallible accomplishment of the Predictions therein contained as they were fore-told the wonderful consent of all the parts thereof being written by so many diverse Pen-men so far distant from one another both in time and place which was never to be seen in any other Book in the World especially of divers mens Writing The manifold Miracles whereby God hath born Witness thereunto which Satan could never so much as Counterfeit The irreconcilable hatred of Satan and the World against it more than against all other Books in the World The firm stability thereof and the special hand of God which appears in the preserving and transmitting thereof from Age to Age notwithstanding all the Malice of Satan and the Devices of him and his wicked Instruments against it The miserable end of the greatest Persecutors and enemies thereof The Testimony of the many Martyrs Sealing their Witness thereunto with their Blood and the Testimony of the whole Church thereunto which have a piece of weight in their own Order The Scriptures cannot be from evil men or Angels seeing they shew their villany denounce their Doom which Galls them and prescribe a Method of living quite contrary to their Inclination Nor can good Angels or Men be their Author for upon the one hand they durst not have so usurped upon God as to feign his Authority and Commission to so many Laws Ordinances Threatnings and Promises of their own meer Invention and upon the other hand if they had done it they could not have been good Angels or Men Therefore the Scriptures must be from God himself These things put together which I have but named are sufficient to convince that the Scriptures are from God and of Divine Authority and are enough irresistibly to stop the Mouths of all Contradicters Notwithstanding for the full assurance and through persuasion of Faith that the Scriptures are from God and of Divine Inspiration the Spirit is requisite by his effectual Working in with and by the same upon our hearts and minds to Seal up their Divine Authority unto us And yet this makes nothing in the least for the Quakers who Teach to follow a Spirit abstracted and separated from the Scriptures For beside that we shall shew at the following Query that the Spirit speaking in the Scriptures most straitly Ties us to the Scriptures as our Supreme Rule in all matters of Faith It is also evident that it is in with and by the Word of God written in the Scriptures that the Spirit manifests himself unto and in our hearts both in the enlightning of our Minds and renewing of our Wills and Affections as these Scriptures following Witness Psal 19.7.8 Joh. 4.41 Joh. 14.26 Joh. 15.3 Joh. 17.20 Act. 17.11.12 Rom. 15.4 Ephes 6.17 Heb. 4.12 Isai 59.21 These and a Thousand places more that I might instance do manifestly convince that the written Word of God is an Organ and Instrument in the Spirits hand whereby he Enlightens Renews and Sanctifies us more and more himself also as a Physical Cause does immediately influencing the Effect seeing all Effects must depend immediately upon God if they include any real being But say the Quakers whether or not is all that is written from Genesis to Revelation a Rule for your Faith and Manners Ans No doubt we are bound to believe all Scripture Enunciation from the beginning to the end seeing all of it was given by Inspiration of God and written for our Learning 2 Tim. 3.16 2 Pet. 1.21 Luke 24.25 Act. 24.14 1 Cor. 10.11 There is no more doubt we are bound to obey all the Commands of the Moral Law seeing that is of a perpetual binding force Mat. 5.18.19 with whatsoever is of common equity Philip. 4.8 9. or whatever injoyning any piece
Consequent which way it is indeed requisite yea so Reason is requisite for perceiving every word of God and without it we should not be capable of the Principles of Religion more than Brutes are So also our Ears are a necessary Instrument for hearing the Word Preached or Read and our Eyes for Reading of it Thirdly It uses to be objected That the Gospel is above Reason Answ The Gospel is above Reason in regard of the matter and mysteries which it teaches which Reason cannot reach or understand but not in respect of the manner how it teaches them which is suited and accommodated to human capacity Or else no Man upon the accompt that he is endued with Reason should be one whit more capable so much as Grammatically and Historically to understand any one saying of the Gospel than his Sheep and Oxen which is beyond all measure absurd for then Brutes should be no less capable of the Gospel Doctrine than Men and Men no more than Brutes Lastly It is objected That the Learned only are able to perceive Consequences Answ That is most false seeing not only the Learned but also the unlearned have a rational discursive faculty and some measure of the use thereof except they be Distracted or in meer Infancy and so being furnisht with the Principles are capable to discern their evident Consequences both in things Natural and Supernatural albeit the Learned are indeed able more promptly to perceive Consequences and to perceive more Consequences lying far remote from the Principles and therefore they are ordinarily more knowing than the unlearned Now by the Quakers grudging of Grammar Logick and Philosophy unto Ministers of the Gospel and by their opposition to the Scripture-Rule and Scripture-Consequence a Man may if he be curious learn the Description of a Minister of the Quakers choice viz. He must neither have Grammar Logick nor Philosophy he must reject the Rule at least the Supremacy of the Rule of Scripture both Express and by good Consequence That is to say He must not know how to speak Sence nor how to Define Divide Judge or Argument he must abandon the Light of Nature and throw by the Word of God at most being but a Secondary-Rule and a Subservant to their Queen Regent the Light within That the Quakers may not think I wrong them this Description is their Principles clearly explained by me in the foregoing Queries And will not such a Man be a rare Minister a worthy Messenger an Interpreter among a Thousand he is very like to have more feet than hands methinks SECT III. Concerning Baptism with Water Being now arrived at the main Subject of the present Query which is Baptism before I handle the Question concerning Infant-Baptism I must here inquire whether Baptism with Water be an Ordinance of Divine Institution under the New Testament and to continue to the end of the World for albeit the the Quakers have here omitted it yet it is the main and most proper debate concerning Baptism betwixt us and them wherein the Quakers take the Negative yea and George Keith charges Baptism with Water upon us as a Popish Doctrine forsooth in his Quakerism no Popery page 100. Wherever Baptism is mentioned in the New-Testament and the word Water is not expresly added the Quakers do always deny Baptism with Water to be there meant sometimes alledging it to be meant of the Baptism of Doctrine which is when the Word is Preached to People sometimes of the work of Regeneration and sometimes of enduing with the extraordinary Gifts of the Spirit all which are in the Scriptures Metaphorically and Improperly sometimes called Baptism Matth. 21.25 Joh. 1.33 Act. 1.5 And this they do that if success would answer they may not be forced to acknowledge Baptism with Water to be an Ordinance of Divine Institution under the New Testament We shall therefore as we proceed clear every Text that we make use of where need is from the false Glosses of the Adversaries This premised I Assert against the Quakers that Baptism with Water is an Ordinance of Divine Institution under the New Testament and an Ordinance which it shall be evident is appointed to continue to the end of the World I prove it First The Baptism of John was an Ordinance of Divine Appointment belonging to the New Testament but that was with Water Matth. 3.11 Mark 1.8 Therefore Baptism with Water is an Ordinance of Divine Institution belonging to the New Testament The Scriptures cited prove the Minor I prove the Major For that the Baptism of John was of Divine Appointment is clear from Matth. 21.25 Luk. 7.30 Joh. 1.33 And that it belonged to the New Testament appears seeing John was the very first Minister of the New Testament way of Dispensation for which see Matth. 11.12 13. Luk. 16.16 Together with the breaking forth whereof and never till then God appointed this Ordinance of Baptism with Water to be dispensed by John Secondly The Baptism with Water dispensed by the Disciples or Apostles of Christ was an Ordinance of Divine Appointment under the New Testament as we shall presently see But the Baptism of John was substantially one and the same therewith for their Author or Efficient cause was the same by comparing Luk. 7.30 Joh. 1.33 with Matth. 28.19 Joh. 4.1 2. Act. 10.48 Their External Matter or outward Element was the same by comparing Matth. 3.11 with Act. 10.47 Their Internal Matter or the thing signified and their ends and so also their Internal form which results from their Institution and Ends were the same by comparing Mark 1.4 Luk. 3.3 with Act. 2.38 and 22.16 So then they being one and the same as to all their causes are undeniably the same Baptism Substantially and I defie any Man to shew any substantial point wherein they differ and so the one being an Ordinance of the New Testament so must the other But say the Quakers with Papists The Baptism of John was substantially different from Christs Baptism seeing John Baptized only with Water but Christ Baptized with the Holy Ghost and with Fire Ans This objection cannot prove the Baptism of John to be substantially different from the Baptism dispensed by Christs Apostles at his Order seeing theirs so dispensed was no less with Water than his and they could no more Baptize with the Holy Ghost and with Fire than he Therefore John does not there viz. Luke 3.16 distinguish his Baptism from Christs External Baptism Administred by his Apostles but he distinguishes his own Work and Office and of all Ministers in Baptism from the Work and Office of Christ viz. That he and other Ministers do Administer the Water and External Sign but that its Christ that bestows the inward Grace and thing signified Secondly It is objected here That these who were Baptized with Johns Baptism were again Baptized with Christs by Paul Act. 19.3 4 5. Ergo Johns Baptism did substantially differ from Christs or else these would not have needed to be Baptized over
Joh. 2.19 where the Apostle says That such Persons of the same sort that Peter here speaks of went out from them that they might be made manifest but were not of them where he teaches that these never were of the number of the truly Redeemed but that before their Apostasie they were not discerned from them and had the same Judgment of Charity with them Seventhly The promises of the Gospel are universal to all Therefore Christ Died for all men whatsoever Ans They are universal to all Believers Whosoever believes shall be saved not unto all men it 's no where said whosoever is a man shall be saved Eighthly They object That except Christ have died for all men whatsoever many to whom the Gospel is preached and are exhorted to Believe shall have nothing that they can Believe or if they believe they shall believe a falshood But these things are absurd Ans It is false that they shall have nothing to Believe for they shall have to believe that Christ is a sufficient Saviour able to save to the utmost all that come unto God by him Heb. 7.25 and that he will also save all that come to God by him Joh. 3.36 and 5.24 and 6.37.47 and so they have also to believe that Salvation is offered to themselves in particular and that they shall surely be saved if they will receive and embrace Christ as he is offered in the Gospel and while they believe these things they shall believe no falshood but a most certain and sure truth And if thereupon they shall flee unto Christ for refuge and resolutely cleave unto him it shall be a clear evidence to them that they are of the number of these for whom Christ died seeing no Reprobate did ever truly flee unto Christ as his only Refuge and cordially adhere unto him Joh. 10.26 Lastly They object That every man is bound to believe that Christ died for him Therefore Christ died for all men whatsoever seeing we cannot be bound to believe falshoods and lies Ans I utterly deny the Antecedent seeing many in the world never had any means to hear of Christs Death who therefore are not bound to believe so much as that he died for any man seeing no man is bound to believe that which was never held forth unto him nor could he in any Moral diligence know of Secondly Neither are all who hear and profess the Gospel bound to believe that Christ died for them but only such as have embraced Christ on his own Gospel-terms whose Faith in Christ and Repentance towards God are Infallible evidences that Christ hath Died for them Nor can there be any thing more absurdly said than that every man even that hears the Gospel preached is bound to believe that Christ died for him whether he have embraced Christ or not for then every man that hears the Gospel should be also bound to believe that he shall be saved whether he embrace Christ or not seeing for whomsoever Christ Died he also saves them Rom. 5.10 and 8.32 1 Thes 5.9 10. Thou wilt say Why then are these for whom Christ Died not Exhorted to believe in Him Ans They are not exhorted to believe that Christ died for them except they shall first make choice of and embrace him for their Lord and Saviour as the Gospel offers him Secondly They are exhorted to believe in Christ or to accept of him as their alone Lord and Saviour upon his own terms to shew them what is their Duty and to make them without excuse in that there was so much pains and means bestowed upon them to shew them their Duty and the way to Salvation and yet they would not obey and embrace but rejected the Mercy of God and Life Eternal when it was offered to them upon condition of their believing in Christ Jesus But thou wilt say They cannot believe in Christ How then can they be unexcusable for not doing it seeing they could not help it Ans But it 's their own fault that they cannot believe in him their inward sinful Corruption is the cause thereof Secondly They are unwilling as well as unable and therefore they are capable enough to become unexcusable seeing they are both unwilling and it 's their own fault that they are unable Fourteenth QUERY What makes a Believer Whether or not is it by believing in the Light according to Christs Doctrine who says He is the Light of the World and doth enlighten every one that comes into the world that all men through him might Believe and who follows him shall not walk in darkness for he is the Light and says That he that believes is saved Then is not the Light saving which he believes and he that does not believe in the Light is damned already Then is not the Light or his disobedience to it his Condemnation Yea or Nay SVRVEY It is one of the chief Articles of the Quakers Creed that all men whatsoever are sufficiently enlightned for Conversion and Salvation as their Confession also asserts pag. 5 15 16 32 33 34. as also that they have sufficient Grace to be Converted and Saved Quakerism no Popery pag. 66 67 68 69 71. Therefore I shall divide this Survey into two Sections the first concerning Universal Light the second concerning Universal Grace SECT I. Concerning Vniversal Sufficient Light The Question here is plain viz. Whether or not there is a sufficient Light for Conversion and Salvation in all men whatsoever without exception The Quakers affirm that there is I deny it and albeit the Affirmer is still obliged to prove not the Denier yet I prove my Negative Therefore first The Natural Man does not discern neither can he know the things of the Spirit of God 1 Cor. 2.14 Ergo Natural Men are not sufficiently enlightned for Conversion or Salvation The Quakers expound this Text sometimes of the unrenewed part in a Man and sometimes of Natural Reason which say they is here meant by the Natural Man But Contrariwise it is plain that Paul does there compare distinct Persons of Men. Secondly I appeal the Analogy of Faith for this their Figurative Gloss Thirdly Though we give them their own Gloss they profit nothing seeing many yea most of men are not renewed and have no other Light but of Natural Reason being destitute of the Spirit and not having the light of the glorious Gospel shining in unto them 2 Cor. 4.3 4. Jud. 19. and so these men cannot discern Spiritually or with a Spiritual evidence seeing a Spiritual act cannot be produced without a Spiritual Principle proportioned thereunto more than a Horse can produce acts of Reason for nothing can act above it's Sphere and Capacity Secondly There are many in the World that are covered with gross darkness Many have their understanding darkened and are alienated from the Life of God through the ignorance that is in them because of the blindness of their hearts Isai 60.2 Ephes 4.18 Believers themselves in their unrenewed state were
for that which is before clean needs no more cleansing Fifthly They object That the Apostle says 1 Cor. 7.28 That though a Woman Marry she hath not sinned Therefore there are some actions at least free of all sin Ans If this objection proved any thing it would prove that Reprobates and Pagans also have perfect works Secondly I answer that Paul there means of the action of Marriage considered in respect of it's nature and kind and in order to its proper object as abstracted from all particular circumstances which may attend it which way the action hath no evil in it otherwise it could not be lawful to Marry whereas to forbid Marriage is a Doctrine of Devils 1 Tim. 4.1 2 3. Nevertheless albeit the action of Marriage so considered be not sinful yet seeing every particular action is necessarily exercised in several Circumstances wherewith it ought or ought not to be cloathed it may easily be defiled and become sinful by the Vesture of evil Circumstances instead whereof it should have been cloathed with good ones especially adding the impurity and uncleanness of the Agent which exerts it self in every particular action Sixthly The Quakers object and hereby they endeavour to prove the perfection both of the Saints and of their good works in this life The Saints say they have in this life perfect good works Therefore the Saints in this life must be perfect They prove the Consequence because perfect Effects crave perfect Causes They prove the Antecedent because they are acceptable to God and because if they be not perfect then they are sinful but sinful they cannot be seeing God commands them who commands not things sinful Ans Our good works are acceptable to God thorow Christ into whom all believers are by Faith Ingrafted and thorow whom alone both their persons and good works are accepted but none of aur good works here-away ore in themselves acceptable to God seeing they are still Imperfect Again God accepts them as they are good that is Sincerely done not as they are Imperfect and so evill and so from their acceptation their perfection follows not To the Second I Answer that God Commands our good works not as we perform them but as we ought to perform nor yet as they are defective as to the Degree he does not Command their gradual defect but he Commands them as they are good in respect of their Nature and kind So the objection perishes Seventhly they endeavour to prove that Christians have at least some perfect Actions in this Life and for that purpose they Inquire of us if the Apostles sinned in writing the Scripures Ans First this will not prove the perfection of any Action of any man now living except they can first prove him to have as large a measure of grace and of the Spirit 's Influence and Assistance as the Apostles had when they wrote the Scriptures which will be hard enough I think for them to get done Secondly the writing of the Scriptures wherein the Prophets and Apostles were but Pen-men for the Holy Ghost dictated all may consist with some Degree of imperfection as the Action is considered Morally and as lyable to the Law of God David and Asaph wrote Scriptures when they were not perfect Psal 51 10. and 73 22. or else beside the Instances given what will they say of an Hypocrites writing over in whole or in part the whole Scriptures and of every Action of Printing while our Printers print them over But Thirdly for full satisfaction I Answer that in that Action the Apostles did not at all sin upon the matter which yet is the most Formal sense of the objection which thus proposed directly imports the matter seeing the matter of the Action did perfectly agree with the Law of God as also the Action of an unrenewed man may doe Secondly there was much good in it compared with all the rest of the causes and so it was sincere and of another nature and kind then any Action of an unrenewed man is or can be seeing the principles thereof love to God and men The ends thereof the glory of God and good of Souls the form and manner wherein it was done in obedience to God were all certainly good Yet considering it as a Moral Action lyable to God's Law it was surely for the reasons given Defective and Imperfect as to the exact and compleat Degree of love to God and men and respect to the glory of God and good of Souls and Acting in it in pure obedience to Gods Command wherewith every perfect Action is to be qualified They will may be say that then the Scriptures would be in danger to Contract some Impurity from the Impurity of the Agent and Action of writing Ans That is false as appears from our Instances of an Hypocrite and Printer and of David and Asaph when they were not pure or perfect And if the Doctrine written did necessarily Contract any impuritie from the impurity of the writer by the same Reason and with more Reason seeing the Tongue is a more Immediat Instrument of the Heart then the Hand the Doctrine Preached should Contract some Impurity from the Impurity of the Preacher which is manifestly false to the Worlds eye Christ was the external object of the persecutive Actions of the Jews yet he Contracted no Impurity from thence But the Quakers urge saying though we cannot do all we ought to do yet that which we do we may do it perfectly Ans This reply must either be understood of diverse Actions so that the sense shall be though we cannot do all the good Actions we ought to do yet that Action or these Actions which we do we may do it or them perfectly which seeing by Perfectly they must mean the perfection of Degrees and otherwise it would be nothing to their purpose of a sinless perfection which they plead we must deny because of these and many other Scriptures Prov. 20 9. Eccles 7 20. Galat. 5 17. Rom. 7 21. or else that reply must be understood of one and the same Action And so the sense is though we cannot do an Action in that perfect degree of goodness that we ought yet in that degree of goodness wherein we do it we may do it perfectly where it being the perfection of degrees which is here Controverted and by the Adversaries pleaded for and otherwise we should have no debate with them here their reply involves a strong Contradiction viz. that any Action performed below that degree of goodness which it ought to have should notwithstanding be performed perfectly in respect of the perfection of Degrees seeing so it would both want and yet not want some Degree of goodness which it ought to have For these reasons I justly deny the latter part of their proposition Sixteenth QUERY Can any man be saved by his own works Self-righteousness will worship And are not all men in Self-righteousness that are not in the righteousness of Christ Jesus And
are not all of their own works that be out of the light and the Faith that is the gift of God And are not all in their will-worships that are not in the worship that Jesus Christ the Heavenly man set up above Sixteen hundred years Since that is in the Spirit and the truth So must not every man come to the truth and to the Spirit in their own hearts if they come to the worship Jesus Christ Set up And are not your Catechisms Confession of Faith and Directories your own works and your own worship which ye have set down for People to fall down and do worship to and be Saved by And have ye not set up this since the Apostles days and since Christ set up his worship SVRVEY Because this Survey will divide it self into three Subjects and it would be too long together therefore I shall order it into three Sections The First shall Vindicat us from a Popish Salvation or justification by works or Inherent Righteousness and shall fix a Popish justification upon the Quakers The Second shall very breifly confuted their Popish justification The Third shall overturn an exception made by the Quakers against the charge of a Popish justification which we justly lay to their door SECT 1. Vindicating us from a Popish Salvation and Justification and fixing a Popish Justification upon the Quakers The great scope of this Querie is to make us seem guilty of holding a Popish Salvation by works albeit the whole Christian World knoweth what a lewd Calumny this is It having been the constant Doctrine of ours and all other Protestant Churches against the Papists that the good works of the Saints are not the causes or Meritorious procurers of their Salvation and it is founded upon Scripture-Testimony as clear as the Sun For eternal Life is none of our merit and due but is the Free gift of God Rom. 6 23. And by grace not by works we are Saved Ephēs 2 5 8 9. not by works of Righteousness which we have done but according to his mercy he Saveth us Tit. 3.5 And the best of our works are in this Life imperfect as is proven and so they cannot merit any good but Contrarily every defect and short coming of our Duty Merits Damnation and the Curse Deut. 27 26. Galat. 3 10. And if our good works could merit then we might trust to them which the Apostle dare not do Philip. 39 Nor is there any proportion betwixt our best works and eternal Life Rom. 8 18. And therefore they cannot merit it The whole Protestant Church hath no less always abhorred the Doctrine of justification by our own Inherent Righteousness and good works from the same clear Evidence of the Scripture for which see Rom. 3 Chap. from Vers 20. to the end and the whole Chap. following As also Galat. 2 16 21. and 3 10 11. and 5 4. Philip. 3 9. and seeing that is still imperfect in this life it can neither be the cause nor Condition of our justification before God in whose sight no man living shall be justified Psal 143 2. viz. by any Righteousness inherent or inward in himself Nevertheless albeit our inherent Righteousness and good works be not necessary to Salvation as Efficient or Meritorious causes thereof yet they are necessary indispensably thereunto by necessity of presence or as pure Antecedents without which no man is Saved excepting these that Die Immediately after Conversion and Infants from the Actual performance of good works For which see Mat. 3.10 and 5.20 and 25. from vers 34. to the end and Rom. 2.9 10. and 8.13 1 Cor. 6.9 10. Galat. 5.21 and 6.8 Heb. 12.14 And albeit our inherent or inward Righteousness be neither the Cause nor Condition of our justification before God yet it is still an inseparable Concomitant of justifying Faith For which see Rom. 8.1 9 10. 2 Cor. 5.17 Jam. 2.17.20 1 Joh. 3.3 But what if the Quakers be Guilty of a Popish justification Do not the Quakers hold justification by a Righteousness wrought within them and formally inward and inherent in themselves in this they joyn hands with the Papists in one of their most Fundamental Errors which does indeed contradict the very Design and Current of the Gospel which is to Teach us to seek Righteousness for justification in Christ and not in our selves yea and the very plain Design of Christs Death See Rom. 3.25 and 10.4 Galat. 2.16 21. and 5.4 But the Quakers endeavour to elude this our Charge pretending that they are far from holding justification by their own Inherent Righteousness with the Papists but by the alone Imputed Righteousness of Christ Thus they pretend in their Confession of Faith pag. 4.21 22. But the Quakers will not so Cheat and deceive the Christian world for first in that 21. pag. Cited where they purposely handle this Question and pretend as is now said they deny us to be justified by a Righteousness received of us by Faith calling that but an Act of the Creaturely skill and an Imputation which is an Act of mans Spirit and forging and a Fiction and Imagination in the Creaturely will and power Hence then they deny us to be justified by the Righteousness received of us by Faith and so consequently by the Imputed Righteousness of Christ seeing the Righteousness of his Obedience and Sufferings Imputed to us in Justification is not a diverse Righteousness from the Righteousness of Faith but is one and the same as is clear from Rom. 3.21 22 24 25. and 4.6 11 13 22 23 24. and 9.30 and 10.4 10. Galat. 2.16 and 3.8 and 5.5 Secondly this justification held by the Quakers must either be by the Righteousness received by Faith or else by the Righteousness of the Law and its works for there is no other third sort of Righteousness known to compet in this point but these are always stated as the only two Members of the Distinction for which see Rom. 3.28 and 4.2 3 4 5. and 9.30 31 32. and 10.3 5 6. Galat. 3.11 12. But the Quakers plainly deny the Justification held by them to be by the former yea they Scoff and Mock at that more than ever Papist did as is evident from their preceeding Language Therefore they do inevitably hold Justification by the latter wherein they manifestly joyn hands with the Papists for all their pretexts to cover it Again in the fore-Cited 22. page of their Confession they have these words and because say they we are against the latter viz. Justification by a Righteousness received by Faith whereof they were last speaking we are Clamoured upon as if we denied the Imputation of Christs Righteousness when it is only to these that are not made Righteous by it to walk as he also walked Here they hold Justification by a Righteousness Making their walk Righteous which is the plain inherent Righteousness of our Life and Conversation But the Quâkers in that last Cited pag. of their Confession go on and add that it