Quakers are but Men at the most and I think scarce that by the forfeiture they have made of their Reason Sixthly They object from Jam. 1.21 where the Apostle Exhorts us That laying aside all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness we would receive with meekness the Ingrafted Word which is able to save our Souls Therefore say they the Word which we are to receive is an Ingrafted Word within us Ans First The Original word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be as well rendred Apt to be Ingrafted and then where is the Argument I pray Secondly The context will not allow the Quakers Gloss for it 's a Word that we are to receive and hear and which is able to save our Souls a Character not given to the Light or Dictate within any whereof Scripture but to the Scripture it is expresly given 2 Tim. 3.15 and we cannot in proper speech be said to receive or hear a Dictate within which we have already and is not audible properly Therefore they cannot gain their point here without diverting the words from a proper to an improper sence for which they must shew some necessity of the Analogy of Faith or else it cannot be granted then Thirdly The Apostle does not here Exhort us to commit our selves to the conduct of the Light and Dictate within as our Rule but he exhorts us to receive the Word of God the length of Ingrafting that is so as it may take root and so grow and become fruitful in us and that we let it not pass out at one ear as it comes in at the other being forgetful and negligent hearers and so the meaning clearly is Receive the word not forgetfully and negligently but receive it Ingrafted and rooting-wise Any Man by reading the context downward may see that James there opposes receiving of the Ingrafted Word or Word Ingrafted to the receiving of the Word forgetfully superficially and carelesly and not to the receiving of an External Word as the Quakers here expound taking the grounds of their Gloss out of their own Brain-sick heads alone being no ways grounded on the Context or agreeable to any other place of the Scripture whereas our Exposition is clearly founded on the Context and evidently arises therefrom and hath also the warrant of other Scriptures Nothing here then for the Quakers Seventhly They object wonderfully but it 's a lying wonder like the rest from Heb. 6.1.2 where the Apostle Exhorts these Hebrews That leaving the Principles of the Doctrine of Christ they would go on towards perfection not laying again the foundation of Repentance from dead works and of Faith towards God of the Doctrine of Baptisms and laying on of hands of the Resurrection of the Dead and of Eternal Judgment See the Quakers Confession page 63 68 77 80. where they urge this Text against the Law so they call the whole Scriptures and against the Priests so they call the Ministers of the Gospel as all know and against Baptism with Water and the Lords Supper Answ But so abusing and wresting the Text for banishing of External Ordinances out of the Church they with the same breath infer That there ought or needs not be any of the Principles of the Doctrine of Christ in the Church for the Apostle Exhorts to leave these also and that in the first branch of the Exhortation And did Paul in earnest Exhort them to reject these Did he Exhort them to reject the Foundation of Repentance and of Faith towards God which here he calls these Principles The Building will surely go to Ruine then when the Foundation is gone Is not that a brave Doctrine come from an immediate Dictate Any Man though half blind may see that the Apostle means that they should not stick always at the learning of the first common Catechetical or Rudimental Principles of Religion which he taxes them for ignorance of in the close of the former Chapter but that having laid the Foundation of these not thrown them away as the Quakers here expound they should aspire and indeavour after a further Proficience and Growth in the Knowledge of Christ and Gospel Mysteries Eightly The Quakers object in this Query That in the Primitive World Enoch Noah Abraham Isaac and Jacob c. had not any written Word to be the Rule of Faith and Manners and therefore they mean to infer and George Keith explains it fully in his Quakerism no Popery page 109. 111. neither now is the written Word our Rule Answ A brave consequence forsooth as if I should say Christ was not come in the Flesh in the Primitive World Ergo neither as yet is he come Or in the Primitive World there were no Scriptures written Ergo neither afterwards I was not born in the Primitive World am not I born as yet then I can hardly believe so for Non-entities cannot act and write as I am doing just now The External manner of Dispensation used with those of the Primitive World can do nothing to the Quakers now who live not in the Primitive World except perhaps by conceipt and fancy but in the last times after the word of God is committed to writing and we commanded to observe that as our Rule George Keith a Man more cunning than his Neighbours albeit he acknowledges the Scriptures for a compleat External Rule yet he contends with all his might That the Dictate within is the Principal Rule and the Scriptures but a Secondary Rule he will allow the second Room or the Footstool to the Scriptures but the Throne in the Palace and chief Seat in the Quakers Synagoue must be reserved for their great Diana the Dictate within Therefore though this great Dagon hath broke his neck already before the Ark yet to defend his Honour lying in the Dust He objects Ninthly Quakerism no Popery page 9. 13. That the Testimony of the Spirit within is greater than the External Testimony of the Scripture and therefore the Dictate within must be the Principal Rule not the Scriptures But first I Answ That George Keith drives the Plough before the Oxen for he must first prove or else nothing to his point that every Man is furnisht with an immediate Dictate of the Spirit within him which we deny any Man to have and he shall never prove to reveal to him Infallibly the Doctrine of Salvation and then and not till then it may be to the purpose to prove it 's Mens principal Rule by its Greatness for be it great or small it can be no Rule to them who have it not more than the Sun can enlighten me when he Shines not in my Hemisphere and so the Argument is a meer impertinence For An sit is before Quid sit Let him prove then and he shall be great Apollo that every man hath such an immediate Dictate within him and then he comes time enough to prove that it and not the Scriptures is his greater and more principal Rule Secondly let the Testimony of the Light within be
must Rise with Christ Jesus And if they be Risen with him then seek these things that are above And is not Bread and Wine from below and if the Apostle puts them to seek these things that are above then he brought them off these things that are below for he says to the Corinthians The things that are seen are Temporal but the things that are not seen are Eternal This he Spoke when they were Jangling and in a Disorder about outward things Doth he not bring them off things that are Seen to things that are not seen and whether or not ye ever intend ye your selves called Ministers or your Hearers shall come any nearer to Christs Death and Die and be Buried with him but only to take Bread and Wine in Remembrance of Christs Death lest ye and they should come to forget Christs Death Answer us plainly these things Yea or Nay SVRVEY Their Doctrine here doth very well agree with George Keiths Quakerism no Popery page 100. where he flatly denies the Supper of the Lord to be any standing Ordinance of Christ and will have it forsooth a Popish Principle and Practice as also with their Heretical Confession of Faith wherein they deny all manner of External Ordinances pages 24 25 26 27 77 78 79 92 93 102 103 104 105 122 130 133 135. Before we come to a particular Disquisition upon this Query we must expunge that restrictive Clause After Supper out of the principal Question which is first in order as not being any part of the Sacrament Instituted having any mystical meaning neither being any where of Scripture commanded but being only an External Circumstance of that first Supper of our Lord meerly occasional because of the Passover taken before it which according to its Institution Exod. 12. was to be Celebrated at Even In the room whereof because Christ was to Institute the gospel-Gospel-Supper it behooved to be taken after it and not before it being thereby to abolish and Antiquat the Passover And if we were tied to every circumstance of that first Gospel-Supper then we behooved always to take it in an Upper Room and with Twelve only in Company yea and after a Paschal Lamb too And albeit a Quaker should answer that this last named Circumstance would be against Sciripture abrogating the Jewish Ceremonies yet it is hard to reply that all matters of Faith and parts of Religious Worship must be not only not against Scripture but according thereunto and having Divine Appointment therein see Isai 8.20 Jer. 7.31 32. and 19.5 6. Matth. 15.9 Mark 7.7 Colos 2.20 21 22. When therefore the Quakers shall be able to prove that that Circumstance of time when the first Gospel-Supper was Celebrated is any Constituent part of the Sacrament with mystical signification Instituted by Christ Jesus or that it is any where of Scripture Commanded then and not till then we shall 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 seeing all parts of Religious Worship must have positive Scripture-Warrant which if they want they will be plain contrary to Scripture general Precepts forbidding all Will-Worship after the commandments of Men. Having thrust out that limitating Clause After Supper from the state of the Question we find the state thereof to be yet Vitious for it may either be understood of common eating of Bread and drinking of Wine and so it is no Gospel Ordinance seeing Drunkards and Heathens can do that unto excess in a Tavern But Secondly It may be understood though with much ado as it is proposed of Sacramental eating and drinking of Bread and Wine Consecrated Sanctified and set apart for a sacred Symbol of Christs Death for signifying and sealing all the benefits thereof to the worthy Receivers their Spiritual nourishment in Christ and Communion with him and with each other In this sence I confidently assert the eating of Bread and drinking of Wine as the Quakers mockingly term it to be an excellent Gospel-Ordinance Instituted by Christ Jesus to be observed in his Church to the Worlds end This conclusion is so clear from Matth. 26. Chap. and Luk. 22. that nothing can be more clear For first We have in both places Christs Fact and Deed set down that he took Bread and Wine and blessed them that he brake the Bread and put the Wine into the Cup and that he distributed it to the Disciples and did eat and drink thereof with them Secondly We have Christs express Commandment albeit the blind Quakers cannot see it injoyning the whole action to be in like manner done by his Church and People afterwards This do c. Luk. 22.19 Thirdly We have his Word of Promise Sacramentally enunciating the thing signified or Internal matter of the External Signs and Symbols by a Metonimy attributing the name of the thing signified to the Sign expressing the Sacramental Union and Relation of the one to the other wherein consists the Internal form of the Sacrament This is my Body given for you This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood shed for you Luk. 22.19 20. Lastly We have the Explication of the end of this Sacred Ordinance which is that it should be for a memorial of Christ Death This do in Remembrance of Me Luk. 22.19 Now what blindness is happened to the Quakers that they cannot here read Christs Institution of the Gospel-Supper consisting of his own Fact and a Commandment to his Church to do the like thereafter with a rich Promise annexed and the End of the work declared Can any thing be devised more clear than this Or Can the Quakers number their own Fingers What shall we think of them when they can neither Read nor hear when it is Read by others this clear Institution of the Eucharist but that they are possessed with a blind and deaf Spirit that deprives them both of sight and hearing Secondly For a further assurance if need were that the Eucharist is a Gospel Ordinance of Divine Institution we have the Practice of the Apostles and the whole Church after the pouring forth of the Spirit Act. 20.7 1 Cor. 10.16 in which places there is not only the Example of the Churches Practice set down but also further we have their accustomed use thereof clearly imported as any Man by reading and considering the places may see Thirdly The Apostle in the first Epistle to the Corinthians eleventh Chapter while he is correcting several abuses that were crept in into the Worship there amongst the rest calls them to the first Institution of the Lords Supper where in the 23. Verse he affirms that it was an Ordinance he had received of the Lord and delivered unto them and in the 26. Verse he shews the duration of it to be until Christs coming again Now what an extream distraction shall it be to say That Christ delivered an Ordinance unto Paul to be by him delivered unto
the Church and to be by Her observed till Christs coming again at the day of general Judgment and that for shewing forth his Death until then which notwithstanding is not a Gospel-Ordinance Instituted by Christ it's a horrid contradiction to say so Is this the Spirit of Revelation I should say of occaecation and fascination that the Quakers boast of Oh miserable Guide and grand Cheat who instead of a plain Path as he pretends doth thus conduct them continually into the dark mists of Cimmerian Clouds or rather into the Chimerical Desarts of Utopia where all their Principles seems to concenter in the common place of Contradiction But say the Quakers here Is that a standing Command or is left to People seeing it 's said As oft as ye eat this Bread and drink this Cup do it in Remembrance of his Death and for shewing forth his Death till he come again Was this Coming to the end of the World Or was it till his coming to dwell in his Apostles c. See their Heretical Confession of Faith where they harp the same string page 26 27 77 78 79 80. Ans O miseri Quae tanta Insania cives Quis furor here is a whole heap of Romantick Fictious and Phantastick Dreams For first here they alledge that Christ did not dwell in his Apostles when the first Gospel-Supper was Celebrated and the same they also largely insinuate in their Confession pages 72 74 75. and so they behoove to be all at that time unregenerated Men meerly in Nature seeing Christ by his Spirit dwells in all Regenerated Persons and Believers as these Scriptures witness Rom. 8.9 10. 2 Cor. 13.5 Galat. 4.6 1 Joh. 3.24 But it is most false that Christ did not dwell in his Apostles when the first Gospel-Supper was Celebrated and that they were then unregenerated Men seeing Christ plainly declares that they were clean though not all Joh. 13.10 by this meaning of Judas the Traitor And again he affirms that they were clean through the Word that he had spoken unto them Joh. 15.3 and again he says that they had received the Word of God and kept it and knew surely that he came out from God and that the Father had sent him Joh. 17.6 7 8. and these are things which Flesh and Blood never revealed unto them and the natural Man cannot discern Matth. 16.17 1 Cor. 2.14 It is indeed true God had not at that time when the first Gospel-Supper was Celebrated furnisht the Apostles with the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit to accomplish them for their extraordinary work that ensued but that was done at the Pentecost but that Christ did not Spiritually dwell in them before the Pentecost the Scriptures cited declares to be false And as for that which Christ says to Peter Luk. 22.32 When thou art Converted strengthen thy Brethren it is not meant of the Conversion of his state as if he had been at that time unregenerated but it is meant of his Conversion from a particular Fact or his Rising after a Fall as beside what is already said is clear in the Text it self for Christ there tells him that he had prayed for him that his Faith might not fail which intimates that he then had Faith and that it should not be totally extinguisht by the temptation he was to meet with seeing Christs prayers were always heard Joh. 11.42 Secondly They thereby insinuate That the Gospel-Supper should be allowed to none but unregenerated Persons in whom Christ dwells not who will surely take it unworthily and eat and drink their own Damnation therein 1 Cor. 11.29 for they do not here deny but acknowledge that the Apostles were by Christ admitted to the Gospel-Supper before he came as they would have it to dwell in them but they will not have them partaking of it after Christ is once come to dwell in them alledging that to be its period and term day but Christ dwells in all Regenerated Persons as is proved Therefore they allow the Gospel-Supper to none but Unregenerated Persons who cannot discern the Lords Body nor shew forth his Death which is not a bare Historical Remembrance of a thing past but consists in our Spiritual feeding by Faith upon Christ Crucified and the application by Faith of him and all the benefits of his Redemption to our selves in our thankfulness to him for so great benefits and in our love towards him and each other which things Unregenerated Men meerly Carnal cannot do Rom. 8.7 8. 1 Cor. 2.11 14. So then the Quakers in this point do directly contradict the Holy Ghost who requires 1 Cor. 11.25 26 29. that none come to the Gospel-Supper that cannot discern the Lords Body and shew forth his Death Thirdly They thereby alledge That there is not a standing Command left to the Church for Celebrating the Lords Supper which I have shewed to be most false from Luk. 22.19 and 1 Cor. 11.23 24. in both which places we have a clear Command set down Do this in Remembrance of Me which Command seeing it was never to this day repealed or else let the Quakers shew where that is Recorded must be as yet standing still in force otherwise they may as well say that all the Commands are repealed together without any ground as that this is repealed and not standing when they can shew us no ground for it from the whole Word of God Fourthly They thereby alledge that the coming again of Christ mentioned 1 Cor. 11.26 and which is no where else in all the Scriptures mentioned upon this purpose is meant of Christs coming to dwell in his Apostles viz. at the pouring forth of the Spirit at the Pentecost after which time they will not deny that Christ dwelt in them as their Confession of Faith owns pages 72 73 74 75. albeit they plainly teach that he did not dwell in them before that time But it 's impossible that Christs Coming again mentioned there 1 Cor. 11.26 should be meant of Christs pouring forth of the Spirit or coming at the Pentecost seeing Christs coming at the Pentecost was already past long before the writing of that Epistle to the Corinths whereas his coming there mentioned is held forth as a thing meerly future and not past now it 's a flat contradiction to say a thing meerly future and not past is already past and so his coming again mentioned in the Text of the Corinths cannot be meant of his coming at the Pentecost Again The Eucharist was Celebrated by the Apostles and the Church after the Pentecost when Christ either dwelt in the Apostles or else never Act. 2.42 and 20.7 1 Cor. 10.16 and 11.28 Therefore the period of the Gospel Eucharist could not be at the pouring out of the Spirit at the Pentecost What Did not Christ dwell in these Corinthians whom Paul writes to seeing they were sanctified in Christ Jesus and justified in the Name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God and they were Temples to the
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
67. R COnditional redemption refuted pag. 143. External Reverence by signs and gestures warrantable vid. Courtesie and Capping Lawful and how The Righteousness whereby we are justified not inward in us pag. 181. The imputed Righteousness of Christ not inward in us ibid. The Righteousness of our good works do not merit life to us p. 186. S THe Christian Sabbath of Divine Institution pag. 104. The Christian Sabbath by whom and by what reasons proved to be changed pag. 106. Jewish Sabbaths abolish'd infer nothing against our Christian Sabbath pag. 105. The Scriptures of Divine Inspiration pag. 18. The Scriptures not a dead Letter pag. 11. The Scriptures the Word of God explained and proved pag. 12. The Scriptures pure pag. 16. The Scriptures a complete rule of Faith and Manners proved pag. 18. The Scriptures not meer Saints words proved pag. 20. The Scriptures a more sure way quoad nos then any Revelation how immediate soever explained pag. 25. The Scriptures have but one sense and no more pag. 216. The Scriptures are not every where Figurative pag. 215. Original sin in all men proved pag. 132. Original sin not the Devil pag. 131. Original sin not our punishment or temptation only but our sin also pag. 133. Swearing in due Circumstances lawful necessary religious p. 204. God not the substance of any Creature proved pag. 213. The Lords Supper of Divine Institution pag. 95. The Gospel-Supper described ibid. The Gospel-Supper not from below pag. 102. The Gospel-Supper to continue to the end of the world pag. 99. T TRuth distinguished and explained pag. 217. Christ how said to be the Truth pag. 218. W THe great Whore not our Wisdom sitting upon our will vid. the great Beast c. The Unction 1 Joh. 2.20 how said to teach all things p. 43. The title of the Word of God bereft from the Scriptures enervates their Authority and use pag. 16. The engrafted Word Jam. 1.21 how and whereof understood pag. 45. Works the condition of the first Covenant or the differencing Character of Law-righteousness pag. 183. None of our good works meritorious of Salvation pag. 186. Salvation by works denied by Protestants and how pag. 174. Rewarding of good works infers not merit proved pag. 187. Worthiness of the Saints to walk with Christ c. in Scripture-sense does not infer the merit of their works ibid. Gods esteem of the Saints vertues of meekness c. infers not their merit pag. 188. A Believers ceasing from his own works Heb. 4.10 how meant pag. 194. QUAKERS DISARM'D OR A Short Survey of some Queries lately Emitted by the Quakers where in the first place follows their Inscription INSCRIPTION Some Queries as followeth from the people called Quakers for one or all of the Ministers in Scotland to answer SVRVEY IT is indeed a Beautifying Ornament for sumptuous Buildings to have comely Frontispieces but for an empty Shop to have a rich and splendid Sign it is but small glory This Fore-runner advances with such a shew of Courage and Resolution that one would conjecture each of his Followers to be Companion to Achilles but they resembling nothing less than that which they were pretended to be it cannot but Coargue both the Arrogance and weakness of the Authors What great reason was there to have Bravado'd all the Ministers in Scotland with these Impious Queries Pray let not him that putteth on his Armour boast as he that putteth it off Do the Quakers think that all the Ministers in Scotland yea or that any of them shall be so amuzed with these Queries or puzled to answer them Nay then tell it not in Gath publish it not in Askelon lest the Daughters of the uncircumcised triumph We hope there are few Ministers in Scotland so daunted or consternat with the presumptuous bravery and windy Bravadoes of the Insolent Quakers but that if the Eagle might catch Flies they durst without Seconds undertake the cause against all the Quakers in Britain But because the Quakers are distemper'd with an high Feverish Fit of Intoxicating Delusion therefore I shall pass by the Insolence of their supercilious and haughty Inscription and proceed to their Queries which I shall not only answer but according to the brevity of my Scope shall perspicuously overthrow and refel the Heretical Positions of the Adversaries upon the several Heads therein contained to the stopping of the mouth of the reproachful Gainsayer If the Quakers then desire to be Instructed Let them not be as the Horse or as the Mule which have no understanding Psal 32.8 9. First QUERY Whether or not Grammar or Logick and the many Tongues and Languages which began in Babylon is an Infallible Rule to make a Minister of Christ and whether or not Elisha the Ploughman Amos the Herdsman Peter and John the Fishermen who could hardly read a Letter with many others who were not bred up in these things Logick and Grammar and the many Languages if they could not be Ministers of Christ Jesus yea or nay SVRVEY Very well does the Scope of this Query agree with their forenamed Book Entituled The principles of Truth wherein pag. 56. and 125. they condemn all humane Learning But the Questionist here doth either through malice or ignorance pervert the whole state of the Question for who ever heard that the Church of Scotland which here he endeavours to Slander or any other Church made humane Arts and Sciences an Infallible rule to make a Minister of Christ Then they should never have required more of any man in order to his admission to that Office but his alone sufficient skill in Grammar and Logick which the Adversaries themselves know to be most false and therefore we must hold them for malicious Slanderers The Infallible rule is set down in the first Epistle to Timothy Chapter third and to Titus Chapter first and not in Despauter or Aristotle's School Nevertheless Logick and Grammar are ordinary means of Knowledge exceedingly requisite in a Minister whose lips should preserve Knowledge Malac. 2.7 and should be apt to Teach and able to convince the gainsayers 1 Tim. 3.2 Tit. 1.9 and the Quakers should have distinguished betwixt that which is requisite and useful for a Minister and that which is sufficient to make a Minister seeing a rational faculty is requisite and useful for a Minister for Beasts and irrational Creatures would be but bad Ministers me-thinks and yet a rational faculty is not sufficient to make a Minister But what just ground of Quarrel can any man have against Learning Is it not commended in Daniel Dan. 1.4.17 and in Moses Act. 7.22 may they not see the excellency of Christs Ministery held forth by a comparison with the Tongue of the Learned as an high commendation thereof Isai 50.4 and may they not see the loss and disadvantage of the want of it from Isai 29.12 14. 2 Pet. 3.16 But more particularly Grammar is an Art teaching how to Speak or Write a Language right so as it may be Sence and
of God ver 9. he calls it the Word of God ver 13. Secondly the Predictions Doctrine and Sayings of the Prophets which are written in the Scriptures are in Scripture most expresly called the Word of the Lord and yet these are not Christ the Co-substantial Word therefore there is another Word of God and which is written in the Scriptures beside Christ the Co-substantial Word The Antecedent I prove from 1 King 16.12 2 King 9.36 2 King 23.16 2 Chron. 36.22 Ezra 1.1 In all these places the Predictions and Doctrine of these Prophets are most expresly called the Word of the Lord. Thirdly it is said Isai 28.13 that the Word of the Lord was unto Israel Precept upon Precept and Line upon Line where the Precepts and Doctrine contained in the Scripture-lines are called the Word of the Lord But sure it is Christ himself is not these written Precepts or Doctrine therefore there is beside Christ the Co-substantial Word another Word of God which is written in the Scriptures Fourthly Hosea calls the beginning of his Prophecies and Doctrine The beginning of the Word of the Lord by Hosea which cannot be the beginning of Christ the Son of God by Hosea I am sure but it must be the beginning of the Doctrine and Prophecies taught and Prophesied and there written by him therefore there is beside Christ the Eternal Word another Word of God which is written in the Scriptures Fifthly to be a Word that the Lord hath spoken and to be the Word of the Lord is all one thing me-thinks but there is a Word which the Lord hath spoken which is not Christ and which is written in the Scriptures Therefore there is a Word of the Lord beside Christ and the same is written in the Scriptures The Minor is clear from Isai 37.22 where the Prophet says This is the Word that the Lord hath spoken concerning Senacherib and this Word is there written The Virgin the Daughter of Sion hath despised thee c. But surely that Word is not Christ Christ is not a complex Oration or saying Sixthly the whole Doctrine of the Prophets if the Quakers will trust them is the Word of the Lord and yet it is not Christ the Son of God seeing they always ascribe it to him with a Thus saith the Lord and what God saith must certainly be his Word for to speak and not say a word is pretty repugnant and may pass for a good Jest amongst men that are merry therefore there is a Word of the Lord beside Christ and the same is written in the Scriptures seeing the Doctrine of the Prophets is written there Seventhly there is a Word of God which is the Sword of the Spirit and an Instrument in his hand Ephes 6.17 But Christ the Son of God is not the Sword of the Spirit nor an Instrument in his hand seeing the Second person of the Godhead cannot work from the Third because so their Order of working would quite contradict their Order of Subsisting which is utterly repugnant much less can the Second person be the Instrument of the Third and if by the Spirit here be meant the New man in us Christ in his Person cannot be an Instrument thereof either nor of any Creature whatsoever that ever had a Being or Existence Therefore there is another Word of God beside Christ the Son of God Lastly for we need stand no longer in a matter so manifest The Word of Christ spoken by him within time is the Word of God seeing Christ is God as well as man and yet it is not Christ himself as needs no Proof But there is a Word of Christ spoken by him within time and it is written in the Scriptures Joh. 5.24 and 8.31 37. and 12.48 and 15.3 Colos 3.16 Rev. 3.8 Therefore there is beside Christ the Eternal Word another Word of God which is spoken within time and written in the Scriptures Thou wilt say perhaps seeing most part of the Quakers are content to yield to the Scriptures the Title of Gods Words and almost all of them of Gods Testimony it would seem that this Debate is only about the naming of the Scripture What then were the hazard to gratifie the Quakers in this point as Wise men use to please Children and Fools sometimes Answer Though all the Quakers without exception should yield the Scriptures the Titles of Gods Words and Gods Testimony and yet some of them do it not as we shall see ere we end the Survey of this Query yet there is a manifest hazard in denying the Title of the Word of God to the Scriptures For let it once be denied with the Quakers that the Scriptures are the Word of God and then grant what they will to get their Negative once admitted it plainly follows that they have never been spoken by the Mouth of the Lord seeing what any person speaks must needs be his Word or else he speaks and holds his peace as the Jest is and this puts the Scriptures into the same condition with the Doctrine and Dreams of false Prophets and brangles their Divine Authority See Deut. 18.20 21. Jerem. 23.16 21. Ezek. 13.7 and 22.28 Again let it once be granted that the Scriptures are not Intituled The Word of God and have no Interest to be so called and then all the Exhortations given in the Scriptures for hearkening to the Word believing and obeying the Word c. and all the commendations of its efficacy and sweetness must be transferred from the Word of God written in the Scriptures unto Christ the Co-substantial Word immediately who as he is Jealous of his own Glory so he will not have his Word rob'd of its due Authority and Excellency which he had Communicated thereunto And so that which the Quakers design and this is their Formal aim in this Affair is to take all men off from the written Word of God as their rule for grant that such a thing hath not such a name and then whatever is spoken under that name must be applyed unto some other Subject so named and not unto a Subject which was never so named And thus again they indeavour to overthrow the Use End and Repute of the Scriptures so far as they can And thus to deny the Scriptures the Title of The Word of God strikes at their Divine Authority and overthrows their use and regard And therefore we are Commanded to hold fast the Form of sound words 2 Tim. 1.13 But say the Quakers the Scriptures are the Words of God Exod. 20. Therefore they infer they are not the Word of God Ans But so by the Antecedent the Quakers destroy their own Cause and contradict themselves for if the Scriptures be the Words of God then I am sure there are Words of God beside Christ and yet they deny there is any seeing the written words of the Scripture are not Christ the Son of God Again this consequence is as if I should say Such a Book contains the Doctrines of
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
therewith as a Sacred Symbol due to all the visible Disciples all which we have before proved The passage of Scripture here cited by the Quakers out of the Epistle to the Hebrews Heb. 9.10 will not help their Erroneous Cause for the Apostle does not there speak of the Gospel-Baptism for the evident grounds now given and as is clear from the Context it self where he speaks of Old Testament Ordinances only nor was that imposed on the Israelites in Old Testament times but began with the New But the Baptisms he there speaks of are the legal washings and purifications that were imposed upon the Israelites in the time of the Old Testament such as are described in Numb 19. Chap. Levit. 11 12 13 14 15. Chapters SECT IV. Concerning Infant-Baptism Being now come to Infant-Baptism upon which I am sure I shall need to say very little in regard that Reverend and Worthy Mr. Baxter hath in his Book against Tombs so fully and excellently discussed the Point that I can hardly expect that ever any Man shall add to him but only because this may come into the hands of some Persons who have not seen that Therefore though very briefly I shall not altogether seem to say nothing but still referring the Reader to the foresaid excellent Book The Question therefore is Whether the Infants of Believing Parents or Professing to believe which is all one to the Church ought to be Baptized or not Whereunto I answer affirmatively that they ought be Baptized I prove it But first I must Premise that the Covenant is the same in Substance under the Old Testament and the New For which see Rom. 4.11 12 13. and 11.17 24. Galat. 3.8 9. and 4.28 Heb. 6. from Ver. 12. to the end Secondly I must Premise That the Children of Believers have the same Interest into the Covenant with the Parents for which see Gen. 17. ch Act. 2.39 Matth. 19.14 Luk. 18.16 and for that cause Paul calls the Children of Believers Holy 1 Cor. 7.14 viz. Externally Federally and in regard of Church-Membership and not because they were not Bastards for so the Children of meer Pagans might as well have been called Holy but because they were descended of Believing Parents though but on the one side which is the very reason that he gives in the Text why they are Holy Thirdly I must premise that Circumcision was the initiating Seal under the Old Testament which is evident by the early Administration thereof upon the Eight Day and that by Divine Appointment Gen. 17. Having premised these things I prove my Conclusion First Children of Believers were by a Divine Right Circumcised under the Old Testament but Baptism under the New Testament is succeeded in the room of Circumcision under the Old Therefore the Children of Believers ought to be Baptized under the New Testament Only that needs proving that Baptism under the New Testament is succeeded in the room of Circumcision under the Old which I prove First because they both Seal the very same thing and Secondly because as Circumcision was the initiating Seal under the Old Testament so is Baptism under the New That they both Seal the same thing is clear by comparing Rom. 4.11 with Mark 1.4 Act. 2.38 where Circumcision is declared to be a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith and Baptism is held forth to be a Symbol or Pledge of the Remission of Sins now the Imputation of Christs Righteousness is really one and the same thing with Remission of Sins as also may be seen Rom. 4.6 7 8. albeit the respects be divers And again as Circumcision under the Old Testament was a Symbol of inward Mortification and Repentance so is Baptism under the New for which compare Deut. 10.16 and 30.6 and Jer. 4.4 and Rom. 2.28 29. with Mark 1.4 and Act. 2.38 and 19.4 from all which it is clear that Baptism is a Symbol and Seal of the same things whereof Circumcision was Secondly that as Circumcision was the Initiating Seal under the Old Testament so is Baptism under the New I prove First because the Apostles Dispensed it so early to the Disciples at the first appearing of their New Breath and Interest into the Covenant as we shewed before Secondly because by Baptism we are said to put on Christ Galat. 3.7 Thirdly the Lords Supper which I shall prove to be of Divine Institution at the Survey of their next Query is a Symbol or Seal of our Growth and Nourishment into the Covenant Therefore Baptism which is the other Seal must be the Seal of our New Birth and Entry into the Covenant For it were absurd to say we had two sorts of Seals for our Growth and Confirmation thereof 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 so it ought far rather to be Sealed We shall add as the Epilogue of this Argument that the Apostle Teaches Celos 2.11 12. that our Burial with Christ in Baptism is our Circumcision in Christ which shews that Baptism is succeeded to us in the Room of Circumcision But the Anti-pedobaptists except against the Argument that Baptism is not succeeded in the Room of Circumcision because Circumcision was Dispensed to none but Males and on the eighth day exactly and because Circumcision was not a Figure of Baptism Ans But our preceeding Arguments prove that Baptism is succeeded in the Room thereof seeing it exactly acts the Part and Office that Circumcision formally acted as the Initiating Seal which shews it to be come in the Room and place thereof As for that that Baptism is not Tyed to the Circumstance of the eighth day as Circumcision was that says nothing for albeit Baptism be succeeded in the Room of Circumcision in the substance of its work yet it does not therefore follow that it should succeed to the external Circumstances of Circumcision for so not Baptism but the Circumstances thereof should have succeeded to the Circumstances of Circumcision which is not the Question nor any thing we plead for Again Circumcision in the Institution was restricted to the eighth day which Baptism is not and so it is not Tyed to that Circumstance That Circumcision was Dispensed only to Males says nothing neither seeing women by Nature were not capable thereof and therefore it stood in the Room thereof to them to be the Daughters of Circumcised Fathers But they are capable of Baptism and are not excepted from it as they were from Circumcision but on the contrary women are Baptized as well as men Act. 8.12 and 16.15 For that that in the matter of Succession they require the Cedent to be a Figure of the Successor I believe it is spoken in Jest otherwise they will have every Cedent a Figure of his Assigny and every Servant removing at the Term to be a Figure of the other that comes in his place which is Ridiculous Secondly whosoever is Adopted and received within the
and with submission is manifest from the Scriptures for which instead of many see only Matth. 6.11 1 Tim. 5.8 and if any Man would have us no ways looking after our Corporal necessaries either he would have us to live without them which a Quaker may try upon himself or else to use no means at least for the obtaining of them and then we shall Plow and Sow no more but be supplied by Miracles The passage of Scripture which they cite from 2 Cor. 4.18 will no ways Patronise their Erroneous Cause though they also cite it to the same very purpose in their Confession page 79. For the Apostle in that place is speaking of his afflictions troubles and the loss of worldly things which he endured for the Gospel and these he opposes there unto Eternal Life calling these the things that are seen and this the thing that is not seen and these troubles and the loss of these enjoyments he counted but a small business and a light affliction as it is there ver 17. But will any Man say that he counted it but a light affliction to be deprived of the Gospel-Supper This would not have become Paul But I need not Apologize for him he purges himself sufficiently of this for the whole purpose of that Chapter shews his meaning to be of the things that I have said Again the External Signs in the Lords Supper rightly considered as signifying and exhibiting Christ and his benefits are so far from turning our Eyes or hearts to things that are below and seen that on the contrary they are an excellent means of of elevating them unto and setting them upon the things that are above and not seen That the Corinthians were jangling and in a disorder when Paul wrote the second Epistle to them from which the Quakers cite this passage I truly perceive not yea the Seventh Chapter thereof witnesses the contrary and so the Quakers have mistaken the second Epistle for the first In the Close of this Query the Quakers shew themselves related to the Accuser of the Brethren for glory to God there are many Ministers amongst us who have intended not without success that both themselves and their Hearers should come nearer Christs Death than the eating and drinking of Bread and Wine for a bare Historical Remembrance of his Death as the Quakers here insinuate it to have been whom because their Epistles of Commendation are written upon the hearts of many Thousands we shall not need here further either to vindicate or commend them Seventh QUERY Whether or not Christ and the Apostles gave forth a Command that they should keep the Sabbath-day let us see where it is written in the Scriptures but the first day of the Week the Saints did meet together this is Scripture but let us see the Scripture for a Sabbath-day in the New-Testament which speaks for a rest for the People of God But is this a day yea or nay SVRVEY The Quakers Position here is That there is no day under the New Testament appointed to be kept as an External Christian Sabbath-day more than another but that all days are of equal Condition and Holiness as beside what they here say they also teach more plainly in their Confession of Faith page 42. against which I assert that there is an External Christian Sabbath-day appointed to be observed under the New Testament distinct from all other days whatsoever For proving of this Conclusion I need not bring the ordinary Argument from the light of Nature concerning some portion of our time and days to be set apart from all civil and worldly Imployments to the exercise of Gods Publick Worship which none but a profest Atheist will deny knowing that the party I have to deal with scarce both of Religion and Reason do but little value it But first We are commanded in the fourth Commandment to keep holy unto God one day of seven and this Commandment is Moral and so perpetual extending to all Ages of the Church Therefore there is a command for keeping an External Sabbath-day under the New-Testament as well as the Old The consequence is of it self clear to any Man The first part of the Antecedent is also clear from Exod. 20. Chap. I prove the second part thereof viz. that this Commandment is Moral and so perpetual because God proclaimed it with his own Voice from Mount Sinai to the whole Assembly of Israel he wrote it with his own Finger he inserted it into the midst of the rest of the Moral Precepts he wrote it upon the Tables of Stone shewing its perpetual duration and he caused put it into the Ark of the Testimony with the rest of the Moral Precepts all which is clear from Exod. 20. Chap. throughout and 25.16 and 31.18 and 32.15 16. Deut. 9.10 and 10.4 But God never conferred the like honour upon any Precept meerly Ceremonial as is plain from the Scriptures Again all the reasons of this Commandment are intirely Moral and stand upon common and perpetual equity Ergo so must the Command it self be The reasons chiefly are seeing he himself rested after six days work finished and he allows us six days to our work Therefore in all reason and equity we ought to rest after so many days allowed to our work and give God a seventh Lastly If this Command were not Moral then there should not be Ten but only Nine Commandments of that Law which is plain contrary to Deut. 4.13 and 10.4 where Moses manifestly speaks of the Moral Law which God spake in the Mount out of the midst of the Fire and plainly affirms that there are Ten Commandments thereof from which Law Christ shews us that one jot shall not pass away till Heaven and Earth pass and that the least Commendment thereof must be perpetually observed Matth. 5.18 19. But the Quakers answer That the Sabbath commanded in the fourth Commandment was the last day of the week which is abrogated Unto this I reply that the accommodation of the particular time or dyet to the last day of the week is indeed abrogated but not the substance of the Command which for the convincing reasons now given is plainly Moral and so perpetual and as yet in force and so it doth no less now injoyn the first day of the week to be observed the accomodation of the particular Dyet being made unto the first day then it did then injoyn the last day of the week to be observed by reason of the then-accommodation made unto the last day seeing it still retains its Authority for a seventh day or one day of seven to be kept holy unto God wherein the substance of the Precept consists which of them soever he shall pitch upon and determine As for the change of the particular day from the last to the first of the week doubtless Christ himself in his own Person is the Author thereof seeing beside that he Rose thereupon and rested from the great work of Redemption which is
I prove the Consequence because Singing of Psalms was no Jewish Ceremony and if the Adversaries will say so let them prove their Affirmative as they are obliged and until then I shall confirm the Negative viz. that Singing of Psalms is no Jewish Ceremony because first I cannot think that Christ joyned a Jewish Ceremony after the Gospel-Supper when he Sung a Hymn or Psalm as it is on the Margine of some of our Bibles Mat. 26.30 Mark 14.26 Nor that Paul and Silas used any Jewish Ceremony especially there not being any fear of Offence and stumbling of weak Brethren there when in Prison they Sung Praises unto God Act. 16.25 Again the Apostle does very plainly Exhort the Christians of the New Testament Ephes 5.19 and Colos 3.16 to speak unto themselves in Psalms Hymns and Spiritual Songs Singing and making Melody in their hearts unto the Lord and Teaching and Admonishing one another in Psalms and Hymns and Spiritual Songs Singing with Grace in their hearts unto the Lord In which Texts he shews that that piece of Worship is edifying both to our selves and also to others that joyn with us while he says speaking to our selves in Psalms and Admonishing one another in Psalms And Secondly that it is a comfortable and Heart-chearing Duty while he says making Melody in your hearts And Thirdly that it glorifies God while he says doing it unto the Lord Therefore Singing of Psalms can be no Jewish Ceremony having these Examples and Precepts for it to the Church of the New Testament Secondly In the first Epistle to the Corinthians Chap. 14.15.26 The Apostle in the one place of the Chapter and Verses Cited sharply reproves the Corinthians for their Disorder and Confusion in Singing in the publick Assemblies because every one of them had a Psalm by themselves and did not all joyn together and in the other place he directeth them how to Sing Psalms aright viz. with the Spirit and with the understanding also that is not only with the Breath or voice which there he calls the Spirit and the signification from the Original word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 most properly signifies the Breath or Wind but also in a known Tongue which the whole Context there declares he means when he says with the Understanding and so the Apostle does here Reform the abuse that was crept in into their publick Singing of Psalms and directs them how to do it aright But a Superstitious Will-worship such as Singing of Psalms must be if it be not of Divine Institution can never be performed aright it involves a plain Contradiction to say so What did Paul direct men how to Worship God aright by a Superstitious Will-worship Nay surely not Singing of Psalms then must undeniably be an Ordinance of Divine Institution under the Gospel Thirdly the Apostle James says Jam. 5.13 Is any man afflicted let him pray is any man merry let him Sing Psalms Therefore Singing of Psalms hath a Divine Warrant under the New Testament The Quakers answer that he bids us Sing Psalms only when we are merry But it seems then that the Quakers are never never Merry but are a number of Sullen Dull and Melancholick Hypocondriack Drones who cannot at all Sing Psalms Secondly there is no such exclusion in the Text as is pretended otherwise the Apostle bids us pray only when we are afflicted also seeing both these are pronounced with one Breath and the manner of the Expression and extent of the Terms are the same in both and the Quakers can shew no ground for exclusion in the one more than the other notwithstanding they may see how frequently and continually we are commanded to pray Ephes 6.18 Phil. 4.6 1 Thes 5.17 They may also see Christ and his Disciples Singing when by all Circumstances it appears they were Sorrowful seeing they were so both presently before and after as appears from Mat. 26.22 Mark 14.26 compared with Mat. 26.30.38 Mark 14.19.34 Joh. 13.21 The Apostle therefore by Merriness and Affliction points at the frame and case unto which these Duties are most especially suited no ways excluding the excercise of them in other frames and cases But let us give them for once not granting that the Apostle does there appoint us to Sing Psalms only when we are Merry yet Singing of Psalms shall by this Text even in the Adversaries own Sence be of Divine Institution under the New Testament or else in their Principles we may in our Merry and Joyful frames offer a Superstitious Will-worship unto God which I have not yet learnt to believe The Quakers applying this Text of James in the 130 page of their Confession of Faith answer us that there is none Merry but the Ransomed of the Lord and therefore they mean to infer for that is their Scope in the place that none should Sing Psalms but these But First then certainly the Quakers are Convict that they themselves are none of the Ransomed of the Lord seeing they here allow the Ransomed of the Lord to Sing Psalms which yet they cannot be persuaded to do Secondly all the Members of the visible Church professing Faith in Christ and subjecting to his Ordinances are by visible Profession and in some degree of the judgment of Charity the Ransomed of the Lord Therefore the Quakers by their own principles ought to allow them to Sing Psalms Thirdly others also beside the Ransomed of the Lord are bound to Worship God except some special piece of Worship by some special Conditions which it requires doth exclude them as the Lords Supper excludes all that do not or cannot Examine themselves discern the Lords Body and shew forth his Death albeit the Church in admitting persons must walk by probabilities and can reach no further and both it and Baptism excludes all that want a visible Interest into the Covenant But Singing of Psalms is a piece of Gods appointed Worship as is shewed and there is no special condition Recorded in all the Scripture that debars any man from Singing and joyning therein or else let the Quakers shew it if they can If they shall say as we see they do say that the Unransomed by this Text are excluded from Singing Psalms they shall speak falsly for beside our former reasons given already to this exception the Text exhorts any man Whatsoever he be unto that duty but especially when he is in a joyful frame And giving without granting the Ransomed only to be meant yet Psalms-singing will still be of Divine Institution if these be allowed and in the judgment of Charity these will be all the professing Members of the Church subjecting to Divine Ordinances And whereas they here alledge that the Ransomed only are Merry or joyful that is also false for others beside these are sometimes joyful Mat. 13.20 Luk. 8.13 and so the exception is to no purpose But the Quakers insinuate here an Argument against Psalms-singing viz. that its very unsuitable to make Songs of Davids sad Cases of Mourning Weeping Lamenting
supposed are all satisfied for misbelief and all I cannot stand no longer upon this But who so pleases may see this universal Conditional Redemption very solidly and yet very breifly Confuted in worthy Mr. Durhams Exposition of the Book of the Rev. from pag. 299 the pag. 326. Objections Answered But now we must hear what our Adversaries have to say for themselves Therefore First they instance that Scripture 1 Joh. 2 2. where it s said that Christ was a Propitiation for the sins of the whole World that is as they will for the sins of all Men whatsoever Ans By the whole World John does not mean all Men whatsoever without exception but his meaning is that Christs death was not only a Propitiation for the sins of the Jewes and Men of their Nation but also of the Nations of the Gentiles throughout the whole World and for that cause he calls it the whole World because the benefit of Christs death was not any more restricted and limited to the Nation of the Jewes with their few Proselyts as it was before but was extended to any Nation throughout the World as well as to them And that this must be the meaning of this Text the Scripture arguments which are already produced against universal Redemption from which the Adversaries can make no evasion as is shewed by the confetation of their Chiefest devices and answers doe Evidently prove seeing this Text of the Scripture does not contradict these but is explained by them Beside the whole world and all Men doe not always in the Scriptures signifie all Men whatsoever without exception as may be easily seen Isai 40 5 Joel 2 28 Joh. 12 32. Rev. 13 3. Secondly they object from 1 Cor. 15 22. where its said For as in Adam all die even so in Christ shall all be made alive Say they Christ died for all men whatsoever Ans If they will have this Scripture to be meant of all men whatsoever without exception it will prove that all men whatsoever shall be made eventually to live in Christ for the sence of this Text is plainly eventual They shall be made alive in Christ says it But the Adversaries themselves know that all men whatsoever are not made eventually alive in Christ and so they cannot urge this Text as meant of all men whatsoever but only of these who eventually are made partakers of Life The meaning thereof is That all that Dye Dye in Adam and he by his fall is the Author of their Death So all that again get Life they get it in Christ and he is the Author thereof unto them seeing out of him there is no Life Act. 4.12 Thirdly They object That Christ is the Saviour of all Men especially of them that believe 1 Tim. 4 1◠Therefore Christ Died for all men whatsoever The Text cited for answer is meant only of Gods general providence which he hath over all men in this Life in preserving them and providing for them which is chiefly extended towards Believers otherwise in the sence of the Adversaries who mean it by the objection of Eternal Salvation it will prove that all men whatsoever are Eternally saved especially Believers which I am sure the Adversaries will acknowledge to be false and absurd too Fourthly They object That if Adam hath lost more than Christ hath restored then Adam was stronger than Christ which is most absurd Ans This Argument endeavours to prove that the number of them that are eventually saved is greater than of the eventually damned contrary to the Scriptures Matth. 7.13 14. and 20.16 for as long as the number of the eventually lost is more than that of the saved Adam hath still lost more than are by Christ restored Secondly Christs Death was indeed sufficient to have expiated the sins of all men and to have restored all that Adam lost but it was not appointed to expiate all mens sins whatsoever but only of the Elect and so the Argument reaches not that which it aims at Lastly It is an act of much greater power to quicken one dead man than to kill many Millions of living men for Adam was able to destroy many Millions but not to restore one man and so still the Consequence comes short Fifthly God will have all men to be saved 1 Tim. 2.4 Therefore Christ died for all men whatsoever Ans The Apostle by all men means not of all men whatsoever but of all Sorts Ranks and Degrees of men as the word all is frequently in the Scripture understood as I partly before shewed and as it is expresly explained Revel 13.16 and so the word all is meant of Genera singulorum that is all kinds of Men Not of Singula generum that is every Individual man An answer of the same kind may be given to the Objection which they draw from Heb. 2.9 where we have it turned Christ tasted Death for every Man But the truth is there is no more in the Original in this Text but that Christ tasted Death for all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the word Men is not in the Original and so it may be as well supplied in our Language with the word Elect or Believers as with the word Men or albeit it be supplied with the word Men yet it must be understood as is said of men of every Sort Station Condition Calling Quality and Degree not of every Individual Man seeing by our foregoing Arguments that would be utterly false Sixthly We are forbidden to destroy him for whom Christ Died Rom. 14.15 and again there are some 2 Pet. 2.1 that deny the Lord that bought them Therefore Christ Died for some who for all that may be destroyed and damned Ans The Apostle in the first cited Text means plainly of laying a scandal before a weak Brother of whom he there speaks whereby we destroy him as much as in us and gives him an occasion and temptation to destroy himself if that could be but it is not meant that any for whom Christ Died do or can eventually perish yea in that same Chapter Ver. 4. the Apostle expresly says the contrary where he confidently affirms That he shall be holden up The second place cited does not mean of these mens being bought and redeemed from Hell but of their being bought redeemed or delivered from the ignorance of the World in a Moral or Historical sence through some common Illuminations and from the external pollutions of the World through some common Operations from all which they did once seem to the Church to be also bought and redeemed from Hell and were so in her Judgment of Charity according to which respects the Apostle there speaks most part whereof may be seen in that same Chapter Ver. 18.20.21 where the Apostle says That these men had escaped the Error of the World and the Pollutions thereof and had got some knowledge of the way of Righteousness viz. an External Moral and Historical knowledge and the rest of it is declared by John 1
Ministers with a sutable maintenance and if ye please ye may see 1 Cor. 9 chap. How the Apostle at large proves that Ministers have a jus personae that is a right in Law and Reason unto a competency to live by and that decently for it reflects upon the Gospel and their Master to see them beggars and brings contempt upon their Ministery But Sir it s suspected ye have more Incouragement under hand then others have above board Your Ninth parallel of our Popish principles alleadged by you wherein ye divide parties of the same Religion and state 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 these differences which are to wide already Tenthly ye alleadge we are Popish because we affirm that men should not delay their worshiping of God till they be Actually Influenced thereunto by the Spirit Ans I have shewed your Atheism in this point already at my preface and how ye hereby overturn almost the duty of all men both to God and man and I am sure we shall never be Papists for opposing you in that Doctrine of Hells broatching Eleventhly twelfthly and thirteenthly ye say we are Popish in affirming Baptism with Water Infants-Baptism and the Lords Supper to be Ordinances of the Gospel of a standing Nature Ans We affirm they are and have proved above that they are from the Scripture and therefore no Popery here to be found Fourteenthly ye alleadge we are Popish because we hold it lawful for Christians to Swear Ans But in this we are no more Popish then the Scriptures are which shew it to be a duty being duely Circumstantiated see Isai 19 18 and 65 16. Jer. 12 16. nor do I think that Abraham was Popish when he swore to Abimelech and caused his own servant to swear to him Genes 21.24 and 24.3.9 And I wonder if Paul was so Popish 2 Cor. 1.18.23 or was the Angel Popish that swore by him that liveth for ever and ever Revel 10.6 Nay what think ye when God himself swears Isai 54.9 and 62.8 Heb. 6.17 Will ye impute Popery unto God too But you will say we are forbidden to swear at all Matt. 5.34 Jam. 5.12 Ans We are there forbidden to swear by creatures whereof both places speaks and enumerats several of them and all idle and rash swearing is there also forbidden no doubt but we are not forbidden there to swear Holy oaths Oaths in judgment when called thereunto or Oaths upon necessity for vindicating truth as the Apostle Pauls was And that no more is meant in these two Texts is both clear in the very places themselves and likewise from the Scriptures and examples which I have brought for swearing as is explained Fifteenthly You alleadge we are Popish because we hold it lawful for Christians to fight and kill there opposits in the quarrel Ans Truly I do not think any offensive war lawful where any Prince or people Invades another without just cause But when a Prince or his People are unjustly abused by their evil neighbours of whom they can have no legal redress because they can get no Court that they will answer to on Earth then I am sure it is lawful nay necessary for him and his subjects to redress their abuses by Arms. There are so many Instances of this in Scripture that I will not cite one of them only I shall propose a case which may and does often fall out betwixt neighbouring Princes What if any neighbouring Christian Prince should invade unjustly the Isle of Britain should our King and his subjects sit still and let him take it and not resist him All the World then might call us both fools and cowards I assure you George I would both fight in the quarrel and kill all I could till we were once masters of them what ever ye would do and judge it my duty thus to serve my King and save my Countrey from slavery Sixteenthly ye alleadge we are Popish because we say the civil Magistrate may punish men for their errours in doctrine and worship Ans Do you think that these are not punishable when a man must be hang'd for stealing a horse what shall he deserve for murthering of a Soul by Damnable Heresies is not a Soul more worth then a horse think ye Are not false Prophets ordained to be even put to death who lead people away from the worship of the true God Deut. 13.5 And I am sure ye do not worship the true God seeing ye acknowledge no person in the Deity and so can not worship any of them The Magistrate bears not the sword in vain but is to be a revenger of wrath upon them that do evil Rom. 13.4 which soul-destroyers are highly guilty of contradict if ye dare and therefore he is bound to punish them Lastly Ye alleadge we are Popish in affirming it lawful for men to kneel bow and take off their hats to one another Ans Seeing ye think it unlawful then we see ye place worship into it and count it a duty to keep on your hats c. which I must think the heighth of Superstition and Folly till you produce scripture-precept for it which I can never expect to see When two horses meet they will neigh to one another What! will you not be so civil as a horse Sir But I shall say no more to this here having in my Preface in touching the fifth Commandment proved that external reverence in the general what ever is the custom of the Country in these things if they hold of Divine worship is thereby enjoyned For that which ye tell us Eighteenthly concerning peoples ornaments and recreations I thought it not worthy to be numbred For Albeit I know these things are too often abused and I am sure we are sorrier for it than you are yet seeing all the gifts of God have a lawful use and these ornaments are such they may be lawfully used and were used when Popery was not known And as for games though some may be unlawful and others unfit yet others of them are very lawful and healthful too And as for sporting and Comedies I am sure ye may suffer me to break a jest upon you without thinking me Popish and school-boyes for putting them to diligence to act an innocent comedy which only we allow You say Sir you could have instanced several other particulars of our Popishness But none of these that ye have instanced holds good And I doubt nothing of your willingness but that if ye could have found any thing to charge us with of that nature it would soon have been laid to our door especially seeing ye have libelled so many Popish principles against us which we see clearly do not hold good and ye are therein found a traducing calumniator greatly allied to the Devil the accuser of the brethren I say not this for your hurt Sir but that you may consider what state
ye are in and repent if that be possible after ye have so abused the Truths of Jesus and his inheritance Second Section fixing Popery upon the Quakers Having discussed your charge of Popery calumniously 〈◊〉 against us I shall present a true one against you and that very breifly First Therefore for I resolve to adhere to the order of the queries above dispatched It is a Popish rule and a great one too That ignorance is the Mother of Devotion and ye both in those queries Quakerism no Popery pag. 98. are not a jot behind with them in that where ye condemn all means of knowledge both humane and divine and consequently knowledge it self seeing we cannot reach knowledge without the use of the means of knowledge whereby through Gods blessing we may attain unto it for extraordinary Inspiration is now ceased as is proved before nor must we tempt God to work extraordinary miracles and neglect and despise the ordinary means which he had allowed Secondly the Papists deny the Scriptures to have any authority over us or in order to us untill they get it from the Church whereby they mean the Pope and his Clergy and do also deprive the whole body of the people or Laity as they call them of the use of the Scriptures And do not ye also deny the Scriptures to be our rule at least our principal rule and endeavour to cause all men reject them at least as the principal rule Witness the proceeding Queries and your Quakerism no Popery And is not this one dish indifferent dressings for both of you aim to bring the Scriptures low yea to nought without your approbation they without their Pope and Councils approbation yea without the approbation of your light and sentiments within and so both of you agree exactly in subjecting the Scripture-authority to the authority of another rule which Inevitably must be as ye apprehend I am sure in both these articles ye are as like the Pope as any bastard can be like his father Thirdly The Papists and ye agree in denying Infant Baptism an external Christian Sabbath-day and Psalms-singing to be ordinances of Divine Institution under the Gospel they alleadgingthem to be only traditional ye that they are superstitious will 〈…〉 All which things we have seen in your queries Con 〈…〉 faith and Quakerism no Popery Sixthly 〈◊〉 have put three Articles into the last The Papists deny Bread and Wine to be in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper affirming that after the priests consecration it is no more Bread and Wiâ—e but is substantially changed into the very body and blood 〈◊〉 Christ so your brethren divinely Inspired as ye are in their fixth query here mock and scoff at the eating of bread and drinking of wine in that Sacrament making way it seems for that Popish Transubstantiation whereof we are the more confirmed because at the Sixteenth Query as I cleared before they lay down an assertion that cannot stand without the very grounds of that Transubstantiation Seventhly The Papists assert the Infallibility of their Pope and Councils and make that a ground of defence for their Church-constitutions and whole religion rejecting all that want the authority of such Infallible guides So do not you assert the Infallibility of your teachers Albeit often they are rather lunatick and oppose our Confession directory c. upon the very account of the fallibility of these that formed them though to no purpose as is shewed Eightly The Jesuit Papists worse then any of the rest stifly deny original sin and assert universal redemption universal light universal grace free-will in natural unrenewed men unto good and the Apostacy of the Saints all which I have shewed to be contrary to the Scriptures and in all these the Quakers are not a jot behind them but on the contrary do exceedingly out-reach them Fourteenthly For there are six articles in my last charge the same Jesuit Papists hold perfection to be attainable in this life Wherein ye are indeed more positive then they albeit still against the Scriptures as is before proved which shew us that according to Gods way of disposition for the debate depends not on potentia absoluta 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 shall never here be fully perfect or freed from all corruption And Sir methinks ye strongly savour of supererogation too while ye say Quakerism no Popery Pag. 37.38 that ye can attain a sinless perfection in this life and yet grow in more degrees of grace for Sir when ye are altogether sinless and so neither God nor his law can ask any more of you as not being defective or unconform in a jot or else ye cannot be sinless ye may spare that which ye have more than is required and due to a needful friend or throw it into the Roman-Churches grand treasury of merit and be Canonized next day for a Saint for exceeding your duty and giving that overplus to the Church Fifteenthly Ye hold justification by your inherent righteousness and salvation by the merit of works as much as any Papist nay as the Pope himself does as is shewed Sevententhly for there are two in the last your brethren have endeavoured what they can in your Confession of Faith as we saw before And ye in your Quakerism no Popery Pag. 94 do sweetly also combine to clear the Pope from that reproachful name of Antichrist they alleadging that the Antichrist is our will and the Whore our wisdom that sits upon the same ye affirming that Antichrist more strictly taken is a spirit sitting in mans heart Properly which the Pope certainly is not and so according to you Sir we cannot at least Properly call the Pope Antichrist Ye are understood Sir Eighteenthly Ye hold the Apocryphal books at least many of them to be of divine Inspiration and consequently of equal authority with the Scriptures for every doctrine divinely Inspired is of Infallible divine authority and Scripture assurance or authority can rise no higher And herein Sir ye also joyn with the Papists And when ye ask which is your only argument by what rule of faith we know that these Apocryphal books are not of divine authority or equal to the Scriptures seeing the Scriptures says not whether they are or not I Answer that though by express Scripture sentence or plain positive saying this cannot be cleared yet seeing these books do all of them want Scripture-stile which by the rest of the undoubted Scriptures compared we easily see and they were not found in the original language of the Old Testament and they are never cited in the New Testament and in many of them there are things frivolous written yea quite unsutable and in some of them the writer excuses his failings and they were never accounted any part of Canonical Scripture in the Old Testament-times and this passes without
have got a better Imployment with the Quakers it seems than he had with his unthankful Master But say the Quakers the Apostle bids Christians beware lest any man spoil them through Philosophy Colos 2.8 and we are commanded to avoid Prophane and vain Bablings and oppositions of Science falsly so called 1 Tim. 6.20 Ans The Apostle does not in these Texts condemn true Philosophy subsisting within its own Sphere neither can that be condemned for the reasons now given But that which he condemns is sophisticate and corrupt Philosophy which we call Sophistry and Philosophy extended beyond its Sphere to the measuring of an Object not included within its Principles This the Apostle shews to be his meaning by adding Exegetically in the first Text cited the Term Vain deceit after the Tradition of men that is of mens own meer Dreaming and Devising having no ground in the light of Nature and reason and so whereof God is not the Author and by calling it in the last place Science falsly so called none of which can be said of true Philosophy moving within its own Orb and not transgressing the Sphere of its activity as is before demonstrated The thing then that we are there commanded to avoid is Sophisticate and corrupt Philosophy as Aristotles Eternity of the world or Democritus's opinion of the worlds being made by the Concourse of Atoms Manicheus's two supreme Causes of all things the Platonick and Manichean conceit about the making of the Soul of man of the Divine substance Epicurus's mortality of the Soul of man Pithagoras's Transmigration of the Soul out of one Body into another The Fate of the Stoicks That and the like corrupt Philosophy we are commanded to avoid and beside this we are also commanded to beware of Philosophy diverted from its own proper use and object in considering the works of Nature and God as the Author of Nature to the measuring of Gospel truths which the Heathen Philosophers in these times foolishly did according to their Inclusion in or Exclusion from Natural Philosophical Principles upon which they do not depend but upon a Principle of an higher Order viz. Divine Revelation Beside these two things there is nothing else in Philosophy that can be Condemned and so there is nothing here against true and genuine Philosophy only which I defend which for our Demonstations given is neither Foolosophy nor Witchcraft as the Quakers in bitter Contempt have often called it in my hearing Third QUERY Whether or not the Scriptures are the Word or the Words of God Seeing the Scriptures say themselves God spake all these words Exod. 20. and he that adds to the words in the last of the Revelation Plagues are added to him And what doth the Scripture signifie Doth it not signifie Writings and whether all that is Written in the Scriptures from Genesis to Revelation be a Rule for your Faith and Manners and every tittle of it from the one end of the Book to the other both in the Old and new Testament If not Distinguish what part is to be obeyed and what not And whether every tittle from the beginning of Genesis to the end of the Revelation is the Word or the Words of God SVRVEY The principal Position of the Quakers upon this Head is that there is not another Word of God beside Christ the Co-substantial and Eternal Word and this they assert of purpose that they may elude all the Testimonies of Scripture which Tie us to the external written Word of God as our Rule and whereby the Efficacy thereof is commended for all these Scripture-Testimonies they will have to be understood of Christ the Eternal Co-substantial Word dwelling within them and all men as they alledg and teaching them immediately by himself present within them without an external written Platform which they are pleased to reproach with the Nick-name of a Dead Letter contrary to Joh. 20.31 Act. 7.28 Rom. 15.4 2 Tim. 3.15 16 17. which places declare the written Word of God to be lively Oracles and an excellent instrument of Faith Growth Comfort and Life unto us See also Heb. 4.12 where the Word of God is said to be Quick and Powerful and compared to a Two-edged Sword and that by the Word of God here is not meant Christ the Co-substantial Word but the external Word of God spoken within time which Word is written in the Scriptures as shall presently be shewed appears from many other Parallel places of Scripture where the Efficacy of the external Word is held forth in most Parallel expressions and by the very same Comparison for which see Ephes 6.17 which place we shall presently prove to be meant of the external Word and Rev. 1.16 Rev. 2.12 16. Rev. 19.15 In which places by the Sword of Christs Mouth and the Two-edged Sword going out of his Mouth which are the Expressions there can be no other thing meant but the external Word of Christ spoken by his Mouth nor do I ever read that Christ himself is compared so but his Word only It is true the Law or legal Covenant considered as strictly legal but never the whole Scriptures which pray observe is in respect of guilty Sinners such as we all are called a Killing Letter but not at all a Dead Letter dead Dogs neither Bark nor Bite and a Ministration of Death and Condemnation 2 Cor. 3.6 7 9. because it Accuseth Curseth and Condemneth such as are Guilty of the Breache thereof though yet the same be a notable Mean to shew Sinners their lostness without a Redeemer and their absolute need of Christ and to Whip and lash them home unto him These things are evident Now for clearing the state of the main Question we must premise first that the Quakers acknowledge the Scriptures to be Gods Testimony and Gods Words they do not as yet at least all of them openly deny the Scriptures to have been given by Divine Inspiration only they do generally deny them to be the Word of God for say they only Christ is the Word of God Secondly we must premise that we do not say that there is another Eternal Co-substantial or Co-equal Word of God beside Christ But that beside Christ the Co-substantial Word there is another Word of God which was spoken within time written in the Scriptures which we call the external written Word These things being premised We assert that beside Christ the Co-substantial and Co-equal Word there is another Word of God which is written in the Scriptures For first the Commandments of God are not Christ the Eternal Son of God as is clear but the Commandments of God are the Word of God therefore there is a Word of God which is not Christ the Co-substantial Word and that Word of God is written in the Scriptures seeing Gods Commandments are written there undeniably I prove the Minor from Psal 119.172 where David calls the Commandments of God his Word and from Mark 7.9 10. with 13. where that which Christ calls the Commandment
Holy Ghost that dwelt in them 1 Cor. 1.2 and 6.11 19. and yet they did Celebrate the gospel-Gospel-Supper among them and that by Divine Appointment 1 Cor. 10.16 and 11.21 23 24 28. and so the Gospel-Supper was appointed to be Celebrated by People in whom Christ doth already and previously dwell yea none else but such are allowed to partake of it as is shewed before But need they then Bread and Wine say the Quakers to put them in Remembrance of him after Christ is come to dwell in them Ans Now the Quakers begin to dispute and prove their Thesis against the Gospel-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 Apostle affirms 1 Cor. 8.2 and 13.9.12 that our knowledge in this life is still short of that which it ought to be and is but in part and that all of it is but dark and through a Glass which shews that we have need of Means and Ordinances as so many Perspicils or Glasses to help our weak and dim-sighted Eyes without which we cannot take up the object This conceipted Perfection of theirs I shall discuss at the Fifteenth Query when I come to it But whaâ— Do these in whom Christ dwells need nothing to put them in Remembrance of him for the Argument carries as much against every such thing as against the Gospel-Supper as is manifest indeed this very well Homologates with their Confession where they decry all manner of External Ordinances calling them Unclean Carnal Dead Babylonish Heathenish Observations and the Whores Cup of Abominations in several places thereof for which see it pages 10 24 77 79 87 92 102 104 105 108 111 122 130 133 135. But I am sure it suits not with the Scriptures any where that shews 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 Memorial of what Christ hath done and Suffered for us and our memories that are especially weak in Spiritual things have great need of Remembrancers Joh. 14.26 Philip. 3.1 2 Pet. 1.13 and 3.1 2. The Divine Institution of the Gospel-Supper and the Commandment given to the Church to Celebrate the same is enough to warrant our practice of it methinks and our Imperfection in this life proclaims our need of it and other helps and means yea Adam 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 stood in his obedience much more need have we of a Pledge to strengthen our weak Faith In the next place to shew us their good skill in Physical Philosophy they give us a very learned and no less true definition of Death To Dye with Christ say they is to come to the Death with him But is it so Then never a Malefactor Died upon a Gibbet but they Died always by the way while they were coming to it seeing 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 Hezekiah shewed himself more expert in Physicks when he distinguished betwixt the Birth and coming to the Birth Isa 37.3 but he did not learn his Philosophy at the Quakers School it seems They would have defined Death much better with Aristotle that it is the loss of heat and moisture because the loss of these infers it or if they will stand to my Judgment Death is the separation of Soul and Body because it is the very dissolution of their Union But I shall pass this only I behoove to notice the ignorance of their Inspirer in Naturals as well as Spirituals In the next place they do again vainly repeat that their foolish Argument now refuted and answered viz. That they that are in the death of Christ and buried with him need not Bread and Wine to put them in Remembrance of his Death the contrary whereof is abundantly shewed already and we will not repeat only I cannot but with astonishment wonder that seeing Christ so peremptorily commands it whether it were needful for us or not This do in Remembrance of Me they dare with their Brain-sick fancies directly contradict Divine Commands Oh! who but the Quakers that have gotten a new Christ of their own to be saved by would refuse any Token that Christ 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 House of his friends But say the Quakers the Apostle says they must rise with Christ Jesus and if they be risen with him then seek these things that are above and is not Bread and Wine from below Ans Here is another Argument against 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 Gospel-Supper Secondly I answer That the seeking of things that are above does not exclude but on the contrary includes the use of the means which God hath appointed for attaining them seeing then the Lords-Supper is one of the means appointed of God for our better attaining things above the use thereof is not there viz. Colos 3.1 disallowed more than the use of Water is in Baptism of which before Thirdly Let the Elements be from whence they will yet I have shewed that the Gospel-Supper Celebrated under these External Elements as the Symbols is an Ordinance Instituted by Christ to be observed by the Gospel Church till his coming to the last Judgment And what then can the Quakers say to enervat Christs Institution Fourthly There is nothing in the Gospel-Supper that is from below excepting the meer External Elements materially and entitatively considered for the Institution the Internal Substance the Mystical Signification the Ends and Effects thereof are all of them things Heavenly and from above and so though Bread and Wine Entitatively considered be from below yet the Sacrament of the Supper and Bread and Wine taken Sacramentally are not from below for Bread and Wine simply or in themselves do not make a Gospel Eucharist more than a Body without a Soul makes a Man as is palpable from many things above said The seeking therefore of these things above mentioned Colos 3.1 is meant only in opposition to the seeking of Corporal commodities belonging to this Life and that not in every respect either but as the chief scope of our Actions Mat. 6.33 or to fulfil our Lusts Rom. 13.14 or with inordinate care and affection Colos 3.2 Luk. 12.22 or with anxious distrust Luk. 12.29 or by unlawful means or without submission to God for that we may seek our worldly necessaries also as Secundary means moderately without anxious care by lawful means for the right use