the Son being the very express of his Person and exact transumpt must be one also and distinct from the Fathers Person They answer The Word is wrong turned here and that it s turned right in Heb. 11.1 where it 's called Substance But contrariwise the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Original which properly signifies a Subsistence or Person and in an Intelligent Being subsisting distinct it always signifies a Person and so the Union of Christs two Natures in one Person is usually called the Hypostatical Union and to turn the word Substance here would be guilty of Arianism and would infer that Christ is not the same in Substance with the Father but another Substance like his Substance It is then no unscriptural Notion but these things by the way Now to the main point I assert against George Keith and his Complices That the Scriptures are the principal Rule of Faith and Manners and not any Dictat within and I prove it first that the Scriptures are and next that the Dictat within is not First then The Scriptures we have seen already are by Divine Authority ordained to be the Rule of our Faith and Manners and there is no Divine Authority ordaining any other Rule either above them or of equal Authority with them or else let it be shewed and till then let them consider that we are still sent to the Scriptures as the Rule of all matters of Faith and Duty Isai 8.20 Luk. 16.29.31 2 Pet. 1.19 but never to any Dictat within they do not say To the Dictat within but to the Law and Testimony to Moses and the Prophets c. Therefore the Scriptures are infallibly the principal Rule seeing there is none above them or equal with them Secondly The Scriptures are the Rule ruling of Faith and Manners and not ruled by any other Rule or else they are a Rule ruling thereof and themselves ruled by another superior Rule there cannot be a third thing said for the members of the distinction are contradictory But the Scriptures are not a Rule ruling and ruled seeing a Rule is therefore ruled by another Rule because it is not essentially right but fallible and may deceive or else it needed no Rule to rule it but I hope the Quakers will not say That the Scriptures are fallible and may deceive seeing they are of Divine Inspiration and the Word or Words as the Quakers yield of the most High God Therefore the Scriptures are the Rule ruling and not ruled of Faith and Manners and so the principal Rule thereof Thirdly The Scriptures have Intrinsecal and Essential Authority within themselves without derivation from any other Rule contradict who dare seeing they are the Word of God and he deeds not I judge derive Authority to his Word from any other Rule Humane or Divine Ergo they are the Supream and Principal Rule of Faith and Manners George Keith will may be indeavour to retort this Argument as inferring That the Dictat of the Spirit within is the principal Rule as well as the Scriptures seeing that is the Word of God as well as they But by his favour An sit is before Quid sit and Prius est esse quam tale vel tale esse he should first prove that there is such an infallible immediate objective Dictat as he calls it in every Man and then he says something For I deny that there is such a Dictat of the Spirit in every Man to be his Rule seeing every Man hath not the Spirit but Believers only Rom. 8.9 1 Joh. 4.13 Jude 19. and if every Man have the Rule of Faith revealed to him by a Dictat within Why have not Americans as much knowledge of that Rule as we Christians nor do I believe that any Man hath such an immediate Dictat for revealing to him the Doctrine of Salvation who can read or hear for others I am not concerned nor means of nor is there any necessity thereof that being so abundantly manifested in the Scriptures And whatever particular event a Man may have immediately revealed to him and he therefore bound to believe it This concerns not our Argument concerning the Doctrine of Salvation and the Scriptures wherein that was not contained more than the particular commands of a Prince to one two or three of his Subjects will infer that not his publick Laws but his private immediate commands must be the rule to all Nor needs a Believer an immediate objective Dictat to assure him that he is a Child of God as George Keith would have it seeing an effective illumination of the Spirit upon our understanding which is also called Subjective in regard of us opening and enlightning it's eyes to behold the Scripture-marks and inabling it to reflect upon and discern the graces of the Soul in their gracious actings will do the business infallibly though not immediately but per medium for having these Premises and that assistance and the mind not diverted it will be forced to the consequence by the clearness of the objective connexion seeing the meanest Saint cannot resist such evidence of consequence nor can a thousand Dictates within meerly objective make a Man one whit the wiser without subjective light to perceive them more than a Man pur-blind can see the Sun-shining till his eyes be opened albeit George Keith spurns at this distinction between Objective and Subjective which in regard of the Spirit is called Effective as Antichristian and deceitful in his Quakerism no Popery pages 83.84 as if he would for ever confound an Object with an Efficient Cause or a Subject Fourthly A Rule that hath authority over all other Rules and none over it must inevitably be the Principal and Supream Rule But the Scriptures are such a Rule Ergo they are the Supream Principal Rule I prove the Minor the Major needs not because we may not receive any Rule from without or Dictat within which agrees not with the Scriptures as George Keith seemingly also confesses in his Quakerism no Popery pag. 28. to the Law and Testimony if they agree not with that there is no light in them he is Cursed that Preaches another Gospel and not agreeing with that we have and so cannot be Blessed that receives it The Plagues are added to them that add to the Scripture-Rule much more to such as Teach or receive a contrary Rule on the other hand we may nay we are bound to receive the Scripture-Doctrine though it do not agree with the Dictate within or any other pretended Rule as is clear from many things foresaid and the Quakers will not deny sure These things hold firm Again it does not hold that we must not receive the Scriptures if they agree not with the Dictat within but may receive the Dictat within tho it disagree with the Scriptures And so the Scriptures have Authority over all other Rules and none else hath Authority over them Now albeit we have sufficiently already affronted the Dictate within yet
viz. Joh. 1.9 and 8.12 is indeed a saving light but the light of Nature and Reason which is the only light that is universally in all men as was proved at the Survey of the fourth Query is not so SECT II. Concerning sufficient Grace in all Men. The Question here is Whether there be sufficient Grace in all Men Turks Pagans Heathens c. able to convert them and so save them The Quakers boldly affirm that there is and they do not mean of objective Grace or Grace offered only to all which some plead for right or wrong my present purpose is not concerned but of subjective Grace whereby the will is made able and put into Hapacity and freedom to convert and turn to God as George Keith affirms in his Quakerism no Popery page 66. But I utterly deny that there is Grace in all men sufficient for Conversion and though still the Affirmer ought to prove not the Denyer yet I prove my Negative Therefore first There is not sufficient light for Conversion in all men as is proved Therefore neither is there sufficient Grace in all men for Conversion The Consequence is easie seeing Grace without Light will be very blind Grace nor can the will be renewed and the understanding left unrenewed and in darkness for how then shall it behave seeing Nil volitum quin praecognitum ignoti nulla cupido Secondly Every sufficient Cause is able to produce the Effect or else it is no ways sufficient as is palpable But there is no Grace in Reprobates and Unrenewed Men able to convert them subdue the resistance of their will and bring it in subjection to God Therefore there is not a sufficient Grace to Conversion in them The Minor only needs proving and I prove it because the Natural Man cannot by any assistance discern the things of the Spirit and the carnal mind which is enmity against God cannot by any assistance be subject to his Law 1 Cor. 2.14 Rom. 8.7 Nay he must be a Spiritual man that does either seeing a Spiritual act can never proceed from a Natural or Carnal Principle more than a Horse can make a Syllogism or define an Object But Reprobates and Unrenewed men are intirely Natural Men and Carnal minded Therefore there is no Grace in Reprobates and Unrenewed Men whereby they can either discern the things of the Spirit or to be subject to his Law and so I am sure it cannot convert them The Minor of this also only needs proving which is easie for Reprobates and Unrenewed Men neither have Christ nor the Spirit of Christ 2 Cor. 13.5 1 Joh. 5.12 Rom. 8.9 10. Galat. 4.6 and so they cannot be Spiritual but intirely Natural and Carnal being without Christ and without his Spirit Thirdly No Man can come to Christ except the Father draw him Joh. 6.44 but he draws not all men whatsoever Therefore all men whatsoever have not sufficient Grace enabling them to go to Christ and so to convert and turn to God The Major is Christs plain assertion in the place cited The Minor is clear from Joh. 6.45 where Christ positively affirms That every man that hath heard and learned of the Father comes to him But all men whatsoever come not to Christ John 5.40 and 10.26 and 12.39 2 Thes 3.2 Therefore all men whatsoever do not hear and learn of the Father and so are not drawn by him and so the whole Argument is evidently proved Lastly Conversion essentially consists in the Habits Powers and Principles of Grace not in the actual operations of Grace otherwise Believers would lose and recover their Conversion and so be in a state of Nature and Grace as often as they are not and again are in the actual exercise and operations of Grace and so every Convert would be an Apostate fallen from Grace when he sleeps or is not actually exercising his Grace which is utterly absurd so to lose and recover continually his union with and relation to Christ and his right unto Eternal Life But whosoever hath sufficient Grace must certainly have the Powers Principles or Habits of Grace Therefore whosoever hath sufficient Grace is certainly a Convert and so if all men have sufficient grace then they are also all Converts which I do not yet believe The Major is proved clearly already I prove the Minor viz. that whosoever hath sufficient Grace must certainly have the Powers Principles or Habits of Grace because without these there cannot be sufficient Grace for there cannot be sufficient Grace where the actions and operations of Grace are impossible as cannot be denied But where the Powers Principles or Habits of Grace are wanting there the actions and operations of Grace are impossible seeing every action and operation is impossible without the Principles and Powers whereupon it necessarily depends as no man can be ignorant of Therefore without the Powers Principles or Habits of Grace there can be no sufficient Grace They will may be say that habits are not simply necessary for producing of Acts but only for the more easie and ready producing of them Unto this I reply that though that be true in respect of natural and acquired habits as even their acquiring shews that same Acts proceeded the habit viz. these by which it was first acquired yet it is most false in regard of supernatural and infused habits as both their nature and their purchase no ways but by infusion may shew that they necessarily preceed all Acts yea and otherwise a Man might live graciously without grace and grace would be simply needless which a sworn Atheist will not dare to say But they object for universal sufficient grace that the Gentiles do the things contained in the Law Rom. 2 14 therefore they had sufficient grace Ans They did these things by Nature sayes the Text not by grace Secondly a Man may do things Naturaly good and contained in the Law and yet be void of grace seeing he may do them but yet not from gracious principles of Faith and Love nor for gracious ends both which as also the gracious manner are requisit to a gracious action Rom. 14 23. 1 Cor. 10 31. Secondly they object that the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all Men Tit. 2 11. Ans By the grace of god the Apostle there means the gracious Doctrine of the Gospel whereunto teaching which is ascribed to it in the following verse is most proper and by all Men is meant Men of all ranks Stations Qualities c. As the word all is often taken for the Gospel was not then come to every Mans ears in the whole world This objection George Keith makes in his Quakerism no Popery pag. 66. Thirdly they object that the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every Man to profit withal 1 Cor. 12 7. Ans The Apostle speaks only of the members of Christs body here by the Context not of all Men whatsoever again laying aside the Context the meaning is easie viz. that to
But what shall we do with the Isle of Britain which I believe was first used by Heathens must we therefore leave it let the Quakers be first gone then Again if Artificial or School-Logick be a gift of God and he its Author then it cannot be unlawful among Christians wherever it was first used seeing the Gifts of God are not unlawful among Christians Now that it is a gift of God is evident seeing it must either be a gift of God or else a fruit of Adams Fall and mans corruption for there is no other thing to be said But it s against all Religion reason and sense to say that Adams Fall or mans corruption should cause us to understand how to Define Divide c. therefore it must be a gift of God But say the Quakers Elisha the Ploughman Amos the Herdsman Peter and John the Fishermen were not bred up in Grammar and Logick and yet they were Ministers of Christ Ans What then I pray must all Ministers be exactly in every point such as these were or is it good consequence to argue from an extraordinary Fact to an ordinary fixed Rule let them go on then and argue from all the extraordinary works that God hath at any time done in the first publishing of the Law and Gospel unto ordinary fixed Rules for the same reason carries all These men being extraordinarily called of God to an extraordinary work were by him extraordinarily furnisht with whatever was needful for their work and so though by their education they acquired no Logick or Grammar yet beside natural Logick and experimental Grammar in their Native Tongue which they wanted not by extraordinary Inspiration or Infusion they had asmuch of them as was requisite for their work Must God then be Tempted or can they tie him to do that same thing ordinarily which he hath sometimes done extraordinarily This is a proud prescribing of Laws to God not to men We must therefore wait for the blessing of God upon our diligent use of the ordinary means of knowledge and not with the Quakers tempting God look without ground for extraordinaries every day whereof they are as scarce as any Society in the world beside for all their vain boasting Behold here also the Quakers Blindness they alledge that Peter and John had no Grammar and Languages whereas it is manifest that God at the Pentecost among other things bestowed the gift of Tongues upon them before he would send them forth to publish the Gospel to the world which notably enervats the adversaries position and highly commends the use of Grammar and Tongues Second QUERY Or how long was it after Christ and the Apostles days that that Grammar Logick and Philosophy and Schools of learning were set up to make Ministers of Christ Jesus SVRVEY It seems the Quakers are in a perpetual Dream for Schools of learning were set up before Moses's time seeing Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians Act. 7.22 and the Sciences taught at Babylon were long before Christs days Dan. 1.4 and they were set up for the increase of Knowledge maintaining of Equity and the preservation of humane Societies But wherein I pray can it be liable to censure that every man cast in his mite of the small Reliques of Natures yet sparkling light into the common Treasury for the good and benefit of Mankind for every man hath not all knowledge to need no help of his Neighbors gifts but every one his several portion which when it is communicated it is profitable to others but when it is suppressed and kept up it is a spark of light held Prisoner and a portion of knowledge concealed in unrighteousness This abundantly justifies Schools of learning But what do the Quakers feign Philosophy to be Is it not an Habit or Doctrine teaching us to know God and his works so far as by the light of Nature and reason we can reach them Is it unlawful then to Study to know God and his works Then an Atheist and a brutish fool such as is described Psal 32.9 Psal 92.6 will be fittest to be a Minister to the Quakers Or is it unlawful to Study to know God and his works by means of the light of Nature and reason Then the Heathen world could never lawfully Study any knowledge of God and his works seeing they had no other or better means Nay then the light of Nature and reason must be rejected and abandon'd as an unlawful and sinful means for that purpose and certainly good for no other purpose imaginable if not for that Now that Philosophy teaches us to know somewhat concerning God and his works is most manifest For it teaches us to know that there is a God that he is Infinite Eternal Omniscient Omnipotent Unchangeable c. that every thing either is or is not that nothing can both be and not be at once that of every contradiction the one part is true and the other false that every whole is more than its part that every cause is prior in Nature to its effect that nothing can work before it exist that all Creatures are changeable that every man is a rational Creature the Quakers I fear should be excepted that the Soul of man is immortal that no action can be without some Subject nor without some Effect nor any Union without some extremes that no brute is a man nor darkness any positive being These things and a Thousand times more that I may not here stand to reckon Philosophy teaches us to know concerning God and his works the truth whereof is evident which if the Adversaries question let them come forward with sharp-edged Arguments and not dare us always with meer blunt assertions These things prove that Philosophy teaches us to know several things concerning God and his works And I am sure those that have the greatest knowledge and deepest reach into these and other Philosophical principles may lawfully communicate the same to others for their Instruction nay they may not lawfully conceal it in unrighteousness as is before shewed Again Philosophy as I argued of Logick is either a gift of God and then it cannot be unlawful among Christians or else it is a fruit of Adams Fall and mans corruption seeing God is the Author of all we have beside But it cannot be an effect or fruit of these for what ignorant Dunce or impudent face will or dare say that Adams Fall or mans corruption hath taught men the foresaid Principles and Conclusions of Philosophy which were instanced What Is it unlawful for Christians to endeavour after some knowledge of God and his works let them consider and answer these Scriptures then Job 37.14 Psal 77.12 Psal 92.5 6. Psal 3.2 Rom. 1.19 20. Every man hath some Philosophy either Natural or else both that and Artificial also It s a strange Doctrine that Teaches that the more ignorant Ass a man is he is the more fit to be a Christian or a Minister Balaams Sadle-bearer would
of the Spirit of Truth to imbrace a Doctrine that is not the Rule this is liker to be an evidence of the contrary Or How shall it be an evidence of the Spirit of Error to reject such Doctrine this also is rather an evidence of the contrary providing the Rule be retained Lastly God denounces all the plagues mentioned in the Scriptures quake that dreads then against every Man that shall presume to add in matters of Faith and Duty for of these its meant to the Doctrine and Rules written in the Scriptures Therefore the Scriptures do certainly contain the Rule and whole Rule of Faith and Manners The antecedent is laid down Rev. 22.18 where it is peremptorily said That if any Man shall add unto these things that are written in the Scriptures for there is the like reason and no other or more reason against adding to this Book of the Revelation and the rest of the holy Scriptures after the Canon is compleated and this Sanction is added here in the close of this Book as the close of the whole Scriptures God shall add to him all the plagues written in the Book The consequence is also evident For if not the Scriptures but some other Doctrine were the Rule then we not only might add to the Scriptures in matters of Faith and Duty but we ought of necessity to set up that other Doctrine as the Rule and Directory of both which is much worse methinks than any partial adding and so we could not be liable to such a doom for a partial adding And hence by a few arguments of many that may be produced we see that the Scriptures are the infallible Rule of our Faith and Manners that sure Word of Prophecy whereunto we ought to take heed and if an Angel from Heaven shall preach another Gospel to us than that which Christ and the Apostles did let him be accursed Every new Dispensation of the Covenant by the Ministery of Men though it were but only new in the manner was confirmed by Miracles and Wonders Exod. 4.28.30 Deut. 34.11 12. 2 Cor. 12.12 Heb. 2.4 much more need hath the Quakers Doctrine of such confirmations being new not only in the manner but also in the matter contrary to the Doctrine formerly dictated by the Holy Ghost and left upon Record unto us nor heard we ever of so great a company of Inspired Teachers as all the Doctors of the Quakers pretend to be and never one Miracle or Wonder to be had amongst them all excepting only their extream Infatuation and Brain-sickness or that they still retain the proportion and features of Human bodies having quite enervated their rational essence SECT II. Proving the Scriptures to be the principal Rule and overthrowing the Light within George Keith an Arch Quaker and a Man too learned as he imploys it doth here distinguish our Arguments yielding us That the Scriptures are the most compleat external Rule of Faith that is in the World but That they are not for all that the Principal Rule of Faith but only a Secundary Rule thereof and that the Spirit or his Dictat within is the Principal Rule in his Quakerism no Popery pages 9.13 25 59 108 109 110 111. and like Proteus turning himself into all shaces 〈…〉 â—mes designs Christ himself oftner the Spirit 〈…〉 he 〈…〉 of the Spirit within to be 〈…〉 oftnest the dictat◠〈…〉 But I am sure if George Keith be in earnest while he would have Christ himself or the Spirit himself to be our Rule he is beside himself For a Person cannot be a Rule of Faith for that must be some complex Proposition Direction or Precept and the like but Christ and the Spirit are Persons and so they cannot be a Rule of Faith The Major is already proved nor will the Quakers deny it But George Keith as many of his Brethren to my hearing doth flatly refuse the Minor as an uncertain unscriptural notion and a barbarous heathenish term to speak of a Person in the Godhead in his Quakerism no Popery page 97.104 and so according to him there are no Persons at all in the Godhead ah Blasphemy for if there be I am sure we may say there are and if Men believe that there are Three Persons in the Godhead they will not refuse to say the same The Quakers then do reject both the thing and notion and believe not there are Three Persons in the Godhead And therefore that there are I shall shortly prove First The Father Son and Holy Ghost are each of them an Intelligent Being subsisting incommunicably or distinctly from another Ergo each of them is a Person The consequence being from the Definition to the thing defined cannot be denied without a broad contradiction for if they grant the Antecedent that is the thing which all the World understands by a Person The Antecedent I prove for that each of them is an Intelligent Being Subsisting the Quakers dare not deny and their great Works declare it and that they subsist Incommunicably or distinctly from one another though in the same Godhead I prove because one and the same Subsistence cannot beget it Self or be begotten by it Self nor proceed from it Self as is palpable but the Father begets the Son the Son is begotten by him and the Holy Ghost proceeds from both and so they must be distinct Subsistences or subsist distinctly Secondly There are Three that bear Record in Heaven the Father Son and the Holy Ghost 1 John 5.7 Ergo they must either be Three Persons or Three Gods which is the beight of impossibility or let the Quakers shew how they will call them Three for though they also be one viz. one God yet the same Text cited says they are Three too I could never get any other answer to this from a Quaker but That they are three Manifestations viz. of Moses of Christ and of the Spicit But if these were the Father Son and Holy Ghost the World is much elder than they and then Who made it Thirdly While Christ proves Himself the Light of the World against the Jews who denied it He says John 8.17 18. It is also written in your Law That the Testimony of two Men is true I am one that bears Witness of my Self and the Father that sent Me beareth Witness of Me. Now Christ and the Father could not have been two Witnesses according to their Law except they be two distinct Persons for their Law admitted the Testimony of two Men proof enough because it was the Testimony of two Persons and otherwise the Testimony had not been admitted as proof enough Christ then clearly teaches Himself and the Father to be two Persons while he asserts that their Witnessing was proof enough according to their Laws demand Lastly Christ is said to be the express Image in the Original Language Character of the Fathers Person Heb. 1.3 Therefore the Father is a Person and Christ also and distinct Persons for the Father is plainly called so and