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
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
could never be acquired by Experience such as the Doctrine of Predestination of the Hypostatical union of God and man in one Person of Justification by the Righteousness of Christ of the general Judgment of the three persons in the Godhead And what think the Quakers of the Prophetical part of Scripture Infallibly foretelling things at a great distance to come Are these Narrations of Saints Experiences Or was the knowledge of them got by Experience O learned Divines Hence we may see that at least some of the Quakers prefer themselves and their Doctrine to the Prophets and Apostles and their Doctrine which is say they but the Saints Words and Testimony from their own particular Experiences but the Quakers Doctrine must be Divinely Inspired forsooth Fourth QUERY Whether or not the Scriptures were the Rule of Enochs Faith Noahs Faith and Holy men in the Old World and Second World Whether or not they were a Rule to Abrahams Faith Isaac and Jacobs Faith and Moses 's Faith and all the Patriarchs And whether or not they had Scriptures till Moses did Write them Answer these things by plain Scripture SVRVEY This Query comprehends the great controversie with the Quakers concerning the Rule of Faith and Manners and therefore because my Survey will be large I shall divide it into three Sections In the first I shall prove the Scriptures to be the Rule of Faith and Manners In the Second I shall confute an exception or distinction which some of the more subtil of our adversaries offer to our Arguments In the third I shall answer their Objections SECT I. Proving the Scriptures to be the Infallible Rule The thing that the Quakers drive at in this Query is that because Enoch Noah and others in the Primitive world had not a written Word of God for the Rule of their Faith That therefore neither should the Written Word of God be the Rule of our Faith This beside that it is their known Principles as Witnesseth their foresaid Confession of Faith called The Principles of Truth wherein they most frequently cry up the Light within every man as his only Rule and decry the Scriptures and all external Ordinances to their utmost Breath as may be seen pag. 5 78 79 80 92 102 103 124 133 136 140 Is either the Scope of this their present Query or else it hath no Scope at all and so it must be the fruit of some Distraction they having thereby intended nothing Well then the Quakers must either acknowledge Scripture-Testimony for Truth as I hope they will seeing they here require us to answer by Scripture and then we shall soon see an end of the Question from the Scripture or else they must deny Scripture-Testimony to be true and shall proclaim God a Lyar whose Testimony the Scriptures are and by whose Inspiration they were given as is proved in the former Queries Survey which is the height of Blasphemy These things premised I Assert against the Quakers that the Scriptures are the Infallible Rule of our Faith and Manners That the Scriptures are Infallible is sufficiently proved at the Survey of their former Query where we proved them to be of Divine Inspiration and the Word of the Living God and not of any meer Creature and so they cannot deceive so that for their Infallibility we need say no more That therefore the Scriptures are the Rule of Faith and Manners I prove For first That must be the Rule of Faith and Manners by which every matter of Faith and Manners ought to be examin'd seeing every thing that is examined must be examined by its Rule or else it will be done by Guess and Rule of Thumb as the Jest is But every matter of Faith and Manners ought to be examined by the Scriptures Ergo the Scriptures are the Rule of Faith and Manners The Major is proved already I prove the Minor from Isai 8.20 Where we are expresly Commanded to go to the Law and the Testimony with every matter of Faith and Manners and it is positively declared that if it be not according to these there is no Light in it which is a sufficient Prohibition to receive it And the Law and Testimony are the Scriptures Exod. 32.15 and 34.29 Deut. 31.24 26. 2 King 22.8 Neh. 8.1 3 8. Psal 78.5 Secondly Christ says to the Sadducees upon a great Article of Faith that ignorance of the Scriptures caused them to err therein Ergo the Scriptures are the Rule of Faith The Antecedent is Taught by Christ himself Mat. 22.29 Mark 12.24 Ye err saith he not knowing the Scriptures and because ye know not the Scriptures I prove the Consequence because if the ignorance of any other Doctrine except the Rule of Faith should cause a man to err upon an Article of Faith then though a man did perfectly know the Rule of Faith yet he might err in the Faith through ignorance But the Consequent inferred is repugnant for then he knows all the Articles of his Faith and yet he believes wrong through ignorance that is because he knows not what to believe Therefore the Antecedent from which it is inferred is also repugnant Thirdly Christ sends all men to the Scriptures for the Rule of Faith and Duty Ergo the Scriptures are certainly the Rule of both The consequence is Infallible seeing Christ did not mistake himself The Antecedent is clear from Luke 16.28 29 30 31. Where while Christ is delivering his Doctrine for all men in the parable of the Rich Glutton he sends all men to the Scriptures for their Direction and Rule in the intire business of Repentance and Salvation and that they may not be Eternally Damned and so he shews we must stand to them upon pain of Damnation and delcares that if they listen not to the Scriptures there is no more hope of them and he 'l give them no other Rule to Guide and Direct them They have Moses and the Prophets says he that is the Scriptures written by them let them hear them and if they will not hear them one arisen from the Dead which he refuses to grant them will not get them perswaded There is a bundle of Arguments in one Text proving the Scriptures to be our Rule Fourthly the Jews at Berea are highly commended for examining by the Scripture the Doctrine of Grace Preached to them even by a Paul Act. 17.11 12. that they might know if the things which he Taught were so as the Text says for albeit Paul was an infallibly-inspired Apostle yet seeing they knew not that and he being but newly arrived unto them they had no proof of his Doctrine and there being great danger from abounding false Teachers they are therefore highly commended for putting his Doctrine to the Test and Tryal of the Fore-constitute Scriptures wherewith every Doctrine of Religion was in substance and matter to consent and agree and they otherwise not to receive it Isai 8.20 Therefore the Scriptures are the undoubted Rule of Faith and Duty The Consequence
granting all this to be most true yet the Knot is not untied For how shall I know and discern an Imposture of the Devil meeting with my deceitful heart from the Dictate of the Spirit without some Rule to trie it by Thou wilt answer that the Dictates of the Spirit have a Self-evidence in themselves to assure that they are his Dictates and hereby they shall be known But first the Spirit does not now adays Inlighten us in that measure as to make us immediately Inspired and Infallible seeing George Keith himself may possibly both Speak and Write and so think too in a mixture for all his Spirit Secondly all men have not the Spirit to direct them Infallibly though he did do it to them that have him by an immediate Dictate Thirdly let the Dictate within have a Self-evidence unto him to whom it is actually presented yet the Devil a cunning Serpent and subtil Sophister and a great pretended Saint too when he transforms himself into an Angel of Light can present an Imposture unto another man that wants that Dictate or to him that had it at another time but now he at the time present actually hath not that Dictate with so much seeming Evidence as with the concurrence of a deceitful heart will make it be received for a Divine Truth for he had strong Delusions in his Treasury 2 Thes 2.11 or Efficacious as the word is which mainly consists in their seeming Evidence What shall we do now if we want a Rule to discern the one from the other by viz. we 'l fall into the Devils Catch-net as before the Scriptures were Written they were but very few that escaped his Snare whereas with the spreading of the Scriptures into the World the Worship of the true God and Religion grew also nor is the true God at this day Worshipped where the Scriptures are wanting SECT III. Answering the Quakers Objections First therefore they Object from Deut. 30.11 12 13 14. Where Moses affirms that the Commandment which he Commanded the Israelites was not hidden from them or far off but was nigh them in their Mouth and in their Heart Therefore the Light within in the heart is the Rule See this Objection in the Quakers Confession of Faith above-named pag. 136. Ans It is so manifest how straitly Moses Ties the Israelites to the external written Word of the Scriptures for which see Deut. 17.18 19 20. and 28.58 and 30.10 and 31.9 10 11. 12 13 26. and 32.46 That it is a wonder that any man can be so impudently Effronted as to urge this Text against scripture-Scripture-Rule and for Establishing the Light within for the Rule It is sure by the Scriptures Cited and by the Context of the place Objected that Moses straitly Ties them to the Scripture-Rule and so he cannot mean in the Text objected to absolve them from it or send them to the Light within as the Rule Therefore they cannot gain their point here Secondly Moses Means as Paul expounds him Rom. 10.6 7 8 9. compared with vers 5. of the easiness of the conditions of the Covenant of Grace in regard of the conditions of the Covenant of Works which both in themselves are more hard and difficult and also want that Promise and Efficacy of the Spirit which is joyned with the Covenant of Grace to make it effectual In which Sence it can make nothing at all for the Quakers Thirdly I grant that this Text further Imports that the Doctrine of the Scriptures Written by Moses was in regard of things necessary to Salvation in some where or other so perspicuous and plain that it was not hidden to these Israelites to whom he there Speaks but that they in some measure understood it viz. some of them with an External Historical and Grammatical Evidence only as men unrenewed others of them with a Spiritual Internal and saving Evidence also as renewed men who albeit the Object be the same yet they see with other eyes and another Evidence then the other But is there any thing here for the Government of the Dictate within Nay neither less nor more but on the direct contrary comparing 9 10. Verses there with 15 16 17 18. he ties them to the Scriptures as their chief Rule under the pain of Death and Perishing But the Quakers are so exact at consequences that they can infer from any Text a flat and direct contradiction to it self Their Spirit hates Logick Secondly They object from Jerem. Chap. 31. Vers 31 32 33 34. where God says He will make a new Covenant with the House of Israel and Judah not according to the Covenant he made with their Fathers when he brought them out of Egypt which Covenant they brake but this is the Covenant says he that I will make with the House of Israel after those days I will put my Law in their inward parts and write it in their hearts and they shall no more teach every Man his Neighbour and Brother saying Know the Lord for they shall all know me saith the Lord Therefore say the Quakers What needs Scripture-rule under the New Testament seeing the Law is written on peoples hearts See this objection in their foresaid Confession of Faith page 112. Ans First This Text will not serve the Quakers turn for all men whatsoever for these on whose hearts the Law here is to be written are also to have all their iniquities forgiven and to know the Lord as the Text says But these things come not to pass in all men whatsoever and so it cannot prove that the Dictat within is to be the Rule for all men whatsoever Secondly The Law was written in some measure upon the hearts of Gods People in Old Testament times and yet they were straitly tied to the external Scipture-rule as was even now shewed and so the writing of the Law upon our hearts does not absolve us from Scripture-rule more than them or establish the Dictat within for the Rule Thirdly The Law is never perfectly written upon our hearts in this Life as shall be proved at their Query concerning Perfection and the Scriptures are an effectual Instrument whereby God doth more and more write his Law upon the hearts of his People Psal 119.93 98 99. 104. Joh. 14.26 Joh. 20.31 Act. 17.11 12. Rom. 10.14 Eph. 6.17 2 Tim. 3.16 Seeing then the Word of God written in the Scriptures is an Instrument by which God writes his Law upon our hearts enlightning instructing renewing correcting us albeit he can work without Instruments if so he pleases it is evident that this Text of Jeremiah is so far from overthrowing the External Rule of Scripture that on the contrary it includes it 's subordinate influence in the writing of the Law upon the hearts of People as a thing requisite seeing the Instrument of any work is requisite to the work till it be finished Therefore Fourthly We say that the Prophet is there comparing the new Dispensation of the Covenant under the Gospel
They object That Christ promises to send his Spirit to guide us into all Truth Joh. 16.13 Therefore there is no need of External Rules and Ordinances to guide us yea in their Confession where they propound this Objection they contend That all External Ordinances ought to be rejected because of this promise of the Spirit See their Confession pages 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82. Where they so triumph in this Argument as if now they had incontrollably gained the day and for ever banished all External Ordinances out of the Church and had no more to do but sing Te Deum Victory We have won But he that Reckons without his Host may come to Reckon twice Therefore I answer first That this promise is only made to Believers Joh. 7.38 39. and 14.17 and so it will not serve their turn for absolving all Men from External Rules and committing them to the conduct of their Dictate within Secondly Though they should crack and rent their Brains to do it they will never prove from hence that the Spirit is to guide us without the Word and External Rule of Scripture which yet is the very thing in Controversie and which they must either prove or else lose the Cause for all their boasting for Christ does not promise here nor any where in Scripture That the Spirit shall guide us without the written Word and so from this Text they can never prove their point Thirdly I proved at the Survey of their third Query above and in my Answer to their second Objection here That the written Word of God is an Organ and Instrument whereby the Spirit of God worketh upon our hearts enlightning converting renowing and quickening us thereby and so the Spirit is not here promised to guide us without the written Word but with it Lastly We have the word of that same Spirit for it and that since he was poured out in the largest measure That it is not he but a Spirit of Error that leads men when they hearken not to the Doctrine of the Apostles which is written in the Scripture 1 Joh. 4.6 He exhorts us to take heed to the Scriptures 2 Pet. 1.19 20. He affirms the Scriptures were written for our learning and that we might have hope Rom. 15.4 He affirms that the Scriptures are profitable for Reproof Doctrine Correction and Instruction in Righteousness 2 Tim. 3.16 He threatens to take away their part out of the Book of Life that diminish from the Scripture-rule Rev. 22.19 He pronounces them blessed that read hear and keep the Doctrine of the Scripture Rev. 22.7 and 1.3 Whoever then rejects the Scripture-Rule he intends not to learn or have hope or profit any more in the way of Righteousness or be blessed but to have his part taken out of the Book of Life Will not that Man be a good Christian and a happy Saint no doubt Christ then means nothing less than to absolve us from the External Rule of Scripture in this Text of John which the Quakers here wrest to that purpose Vaunting themselves of an Abortive Victory which shall never see the Sun like so many windy Bravadilloes Et preterea nihil Fifthly They object from the first Epistle of John 2.20 27. where Saint John says But ye have an Unction from the holy One and ye know all things and the anointing which ye have received abideth in you and ye need not that any Man Teach you Therefore there is no need of External Rules and Teaching seeing there is an Unction within that teaches all things Answ First The Apostle does not say That all men whatsoever have that Unction to teach them but only such as he writes to viz. Believers and so this Text will not serve their turn for all men Secondly He does not say That that anointing teaches without the External written Word yea in this same Epistle Ch. 4.6 Ch. 5.13 He plainly shews the contrary where he affirms That those that are of God hearken to and so are taught by for there is no other end of their hearkening but to be taught their External Doctrine which is written in the Scriptures and that he wrote this same Epistle of purpose to be an Instrument of Faith and Knowledge unto them And would they then force an Argument from this Epistle against scripture-Scripture-Rule nay there is in this Epistle evident demonstrations establishing it Thirdly We have before shewed That the Spirit teaches us by the External written Word and the Quakers with all their wranglings can never make it appear that he teaches us without it For all the Texts which they produce or can produce prove no more but only that the Spirit teaches us which we never denied but heartily acknowledge but not one Text in all the Scriptures can prove that the Spirit teaches us without the External Word which is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and yet the Quakers by a new sort of Logick invented by their Alogical Spirit for the abuse of Mankind do from every Scripture-Text where it is said That the Spirit teaches us very bruto-rationally infer Ergo he teaches us without any External Mean or Rule As for that of their knowing all things it is not to be understood of all things whatsoever without exception or else they had been too wise and their knowledge too infinite but it is meant of all things Essential to Salvation which they knew in some measure though not perfectly 1 Cor. 8.2 and 13.9.12 and therefore still needed Scripture-Rule to teach them more knowledge And therefore that part of the Text That they needed not that any man should teach them is the same with that of Jeremiah whereof before and hath the same comparative meaning That the knowledge of Christ and of the Covenant was now so manifest and clear that having received the anointing for opening the eyes of their understanding viz. Effectively which is therefore called Eye-salve Rev. 3.18 which an inward objective Dictate cannot well be called that they might be able to behold it They in regard of and compared with their Fathers living under the Old Testament Dispensation did scarce seem to need a Teacher which is most true For though they needed still Teaching yet in comparison of them they might all rather have been Teachers of others and so the Scope of the place is to commend the New-Testament Dispensation above that of the Old and to decry External Ordinances and Rules or Teaching by Men Yea and if it were meant so then the Apostle did here by his Practice contradict his Doctrine and by his Doctrine condemned his Practice as needless and idle for which he had a sad Accompt to make according to Christs Doctrine Matth. 12.36 and if the Quakers think that this Text overturneth all Teaching by Men we again Charge them in their own Principles and by the Law they live on to give over their Teaching and spreading of their damnable Delusions by Word or Writ for I am sure the
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
Questions within the limits of one and the same Query or separating any part thereof from another that it may be seen that I have not in the least injured the Adversaries but have only sometimes for a distincter Method alter'd the place of a Total Query The Quakers also Inscribed their Queries all which here follows and first the Inscription Quakers Inscription Some Queries as followeth from the People called Quakers for one or all of the Ministers in Scotland to Answer 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 Plow-man 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 Second QUERY Whether or not the Scriptures were the Rule of Enochs Faith Noahs Faith and holy men in the old world and second world Whether or not they were a Rule to Abrahams Faith Isaacs and Jacobs Faith and Moses 's Faith and all the Patriarchs And whether or not they had Scriptures till Moses did write them Answer these things by plain Scripture Third 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 Fourth 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 title 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 title from the beginning of Genesis to the end of the Revelation is the Word or the Words of God Fifth QUERY Whether or not the Prophets Christ and the Apostles and holy men of God did Preach down perfection and said that men should not be perfect while they were on Earth but said men should carry about a body of Death with them while they were on this side of the Grave let us see where this is written by any of them all Sixth QUERY Whether or not your singing of Davids Psalms his Prayers Prophesies Fastings Reproaches Weepings Mournings Lamentations and Complaints how he was Mocked have any Warrant in the Scripture and you bring all these together in Meeter without distinction Have ye not done this your selves Or did the Apostles it to the Saints in the Primitive times Or have ye the same Spirit the Apostles had Or a larger measure of it than the Apostles had by which ye have turned these into Meeter since the Apostles days And what was the Psalms Hymns and Spiritual Songs they sang in the Primitive times Answer these things by plain Scripture Seventh QUERY Whether or not your Directory Confession of Faith and Catechisms be an Infallible Rule for you and your people to walk by Or whether or not equal with the Scriptures or above the Scriptures And whether of them is the better Book And whether or not have ye an Infallible Spirit to give forth such a Directory or Catechism or Confession of Faith as ye have done And whether or not the Scriptures are not a better Directory than any ye can make which were given forth by the Holy Ghost by the holy men of God who had the Infallible Spirit Eighth QUERY Whether or not is your Sanctification your Justification and your Faith and Grace the Gifts of these without sin as they are Manifested within you Yea or Nay Ninth 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 Tenth QUERY Whether is there any Scripture or Command in all the New Testament for the Sprinkling of Infants Let us see Scripture without adding or diminishing for it that ye do not bring the Plagues upon you for it for the Plagues are added to them that adds for we do expect plain Scripture from you for this without any shuffling Meanings or Consequences or else never pretend scripture-Scripture-Rule more but acknowledge that it hath been your Meanings and Consequences that hath been your Rule Eleventh QUERY Whether doth the Scriptures say in the New Testament that eating of Bread and drinking of Wine after Supper was an Ordinance of Christ And whether do ye practise this as Christ and his Apostles did after Supper Do not ye take it before Dinner Did Christ or his Apostles do so What Scripture have ye for your Rule for this for they took it in the night And Christ says as oft as ye eat of this Bread and Drink of this Wine c. is that a standing Command Or is it left to people seeing it s said as oft as ye Eat this and Drink this do it in remembrance of his Death and shewing his Death until he come again Was this coming to the end of the world Or was it until his coming to dwell in his Apostles who said he would come and dwell and walk in them Need they then Bread and Wine to put them in Remembrance of him And doth not Christ say Eat this and Drink this in remembrance of his Death And doth not the Apostle say that they must die with Christ and to die with him is to come to the Death with him And they that be in the Death of Christ and die with Christ must they have Bread and Wine to put them in remembrance of his Death Yea or Nay And doth not the Apostle say that they must Die with Christ and be Buried with him And when the people are Dead and Buried with Christ must they have Bread and Wine to put them in remembrance of Christs Death Answer this yea or nay And 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 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 spake when they were Jangling and in a disorder about
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
is plain seeing they would never have been commended for examining and trying his Doctrine by the Scriptures except the Scriptures were the Rule or for making that a Rule for examining and receiving of Doctrines of Faith which is no Rule of matters of Faith Nay for this they would have been deservedly discommended Fifthly The Scriptures are able to make us Wise unto Salvation 2 Tim. 3.15 Therefore they contain the Rule of Faith and Duty The Consequence is easie seeing without the Rule of these we cannot be wise unto Salvation but plainly ignorant of the way thereunto having no Rule to direct us Sixthly the whole Scriptures were given by Inspiration of God and they were written purposely for the Churches Instruction and Learning as is before shewed Therefore they must surely be the Rule of Faith and Duty for I am sure there is nothing wanting here that is requisite to the Constituting of them for a publick Rule or else let the Quakers if they can shew us what that is for I can not perceive it without the Spectacles of their Eagle-eyed Inspirer Seventhly That Doctrine must be the Rule of Faith and Manners which in all matters of Faith and Manners we ought to observe and take heed to as a Doctrine full of shining light for our instruction and direction but that is the Scriptures Therefore the Scriptures are the Rule of Faith and Manners The Major is clear nor do the Quakers deny it The Minor is laid down in 2 Pet. 1.19 20. where Peter after his rehearsing of the glorious Revelation on the Mount at the Transfiguration which was as glorious a Revelation as any else he addeth That they had a more sure Word of Prophecy whereunto they did well to take heed as unto a light shining c. knowing this first that no Prophecy of the Scripture is of any private Interpretation here it is clear that it is the Scriptures which he calls the more sure Word of Prophecy and prefers before all transient Revelations not as if the Scriptures were more certain in themselves Quoad se than Gods immediate voice from Heaven but because they are a more sure way in regard of us Quoad nos they being a Written yea Sealed and Sworn Evidence and Contract of the whole Bargain and Terms of Salvation and Life delivered into our custody to be perused by us upon all occasions and this gives more assurance in regard of our weakness than a passing Revelation and is more ready for our constant direction than a transient Revelation which we cannot always command nor retain often in our memory till we understand nor are all men able to bear them That on the Mount made the Disciples roave and mistake exceedingly Mark 9.6 The Quakers answer in their Confession of Faith or Principles of Truth page 135 136 140. That by the more sure Word of Prophecy the Apostle means the Light within us and so they deny our Minor But contrariwise the 20 Verse there where he cautions the interpreting of the Scripture-Prophecy clearly coheres with the 19 Verse as a caution subjoyned concerning the same thing which he had there called The more sure Word of Prophecy and so by the more sure Word of Prophecy must be meant the Scriptures because of the clear coherence Secondly I must demand of the Quakers to shew if they can How the Dictat or Light within is more sure than Gods immediate Voice from Heaven such as that was at the Transfiguration I have shewed how the Scriptures are called and are so in regard of us but I cannot understand how the Light within can be or be called so Thirdly The Testimony of other Scriptures produced and to be produced will not permit this violent Gloss Again They ordinarily answer to this Scripture That in it we are only appointed to take heed to the Scriptures until the day dawn and the day-Star arise into our hearts that is as they expound till the Holy Ghost be bestowed on us but no longer But contrariwise First by this answer they retract their former Gloss upon the Text and confess the more sure Word of Prophecy here to be meant of the Scriptures and not the Light within Secondly By this answer they overturn one of their own chiefest Principles viz. That all men ought to follow the Light within for now they yield That such as have not received the Holy Ghost and these are not few are exhorted here to follow the Scriptures and not the Light within them Thirdly Hereby they insinuate That the Scriptures in their Opinion serve for nothing to Renewed Men and Believers who are born of the Spirit and Sealed therewith Joh. 3.5 Rom. 8.9 Eph. 1.13 and so the Scriptures as they will are recommended only to Men unrenewed and so that blessing pronounced upon the Readers Hearers and Keepers of the things written in the Scriptures Revel 1.3 and 22.7 is designed and belongs only to unrenewed Men seeing the reading hearing and keeping of the things written therein whereunto the blessing is annexed belongs only to them as the Quakers will What Does not Paul Peter and John direct all their Epistles and the Book of the Revelation to the Churches the Saints and them that had obtained like precious Faith with them delivering them many Rules of Faith and Manners therein See their Inscriptions I pray and these will inform you better Eightly That must be the Rule of Faith by which we are commanded to try the Spirits 1 John 4.1 seeing we cannot try the Spirits or Doctrines without the Rule for that were to try them by guess But that whereby we are commanded to try the Spirits must certainly be the Scriptures seeing the Quakers do not as yet openly profess the Popish Lesbian Rule of Believing as the Church of Rome does and it cannot be the dictat or light within that we are to try them by seeing that is as fallible as their Light whose Doctrines I try and George Keith a Ring-leading Quaker confesses the possibility of their declining from Infallibility both in Speaking and Writing and consequently in Examining or Judging too in his Quakerism no Popery page 33. and beside the Dictat within hath no Divine Institution to be the Rule and if it were the Rule then the Dictat within every diverse Man would be the Rule to try the Dictat or Dectrine proceeding from the Dictat in another which would make the Dictat of every Man both Superior and Inferior to the Dictat of another Superior when it tries and examines and Inferior when it or its Doctrine is tried and examined which is repugnant Ninthly John shews us 1 John 4.6 That the true and sound imbracing of their Doctrine now written in the Scriptures is a manifest evidence of the Spirit of Truth and the rejecting of it a manifest evidence of the Spirit of Error and so their Doctrine written in the Scriptures must be the Rule of Faith and Manners For How shall it be an evidence
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
2.38 and 8.16 and 10.48 Lastly It must be a desperate cause that forces it's Patrons to such contrary defences presently they affirmed that Baptism with Water was dispensed in the Name of the Lord now they cry About Ship and deny that Baptism in the Name of the Lord is Baptism with Water Are not these Men indeed in a mixture who in the unjust defence of falshood thus run upon such desperate 〈◊〉 of splitting Contradiction But fourthly They except against the same Text that Baptism with Water cannot be meant therein because the Apostles say they had no commission to Baptize with Water seeing Paul says 1 Cor. 1.17 that Christ sent him not to Baptize but to Preach the Gospel Ans But in despight of this Exception all our forementioned Arguments do plainly prove the Baptism mentioned in the Text to be Baptism with Water and so also that the Apostles had a Commission to Baptize with Water Secondly The Quakers are bound by this their reasoning to acknowledge the Baptism there mentioned viz. 1 Cor. 1.17 to be Baptism with Water or else they will lose the whole ground pretended for their exception which acknowledged as we have also before proved it truly to be it presently appears from the Context of the same place that the Apostles had a Commission for Baptizing with Water seeing Paul plainly there declares that he Baptized some of these Corinthians which doubtless he did not without Commission or else he had been a manifest Intruder and Usurper of an Office in the Church and Worship of God for which he had no Order or Warrant which must be false I answer therefore lastly that the meaning of these words of Paul is plainly Comparative viz. that Baptism was not the principal and chief work that he was sent for but the Preaching of the Gospel such as is the meaning of that expression Hos 6.6 I desired Mercy and not Sacrifice and such as is the meaning of that Joh. 15.22 If I had not come and spoken unto them they had not had sin that is nothing compared to what they now have Lastly They except against the same Text that Baptism with Water cannot be meant therein because say they it is not therein expresly mentioned Ans First A Man might upon this ground much rather argue against Christs demonstration Luk. 20.37 that the rising of the dead is not expresly taught Exod. 3.6 from whence he brings his Argument where God says I am the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob and that therefore such a thing cannot be there meant Or that Circumâ—sion of the flesh of the Foreskin is not expresly mentioned under every distinguishing Character thereof Galat. 5.2 3. where the flesh of the Foreskin is omitted and that therefore it cannot be that which is there meant but our Spiritual Circumcision in Christ that is our Regeneration must be the thing which Paul there disputes against and condemns and is not that well argued Secondly As Baptism with Water is not here expresly named in respect of every punctilio of its designation So far less is any of the forementioned improper Baptisms here expresly mentioned seeing the name Baptism is proper to that of Water and not to the other Therefore by the Quakers own Rule none of these is meant here either and so if the Rule be good no sort of Baptism is here meant but the word Baptizing is set down here for an impertinent Cipher signifying nothing Thirdly I have shewed before that there is much Doctrine meant in the Scriptures which is not therein expresly taught but implicitly only and so this Rule of the Quakers is most false I answer therefore lastly that albeit the word Water be not here Matth. 28.19 formally exprest yet the circumstances of the Text the Analogy of Faith and other Scriptures that I have compared it with in my Arguments do manifestly and irresistibly demonstrate the Baptism here mentioned to be Baptism with Water Let the Quakers answer my Arguments if they can I mean at the Greek Calends All the particular exceptions of the Quakers against our Argument from that Text of Matthew being so overthrown and answered The Quakers have as yet one general Argument whereby they hope to overturn Baptism with Water viz. Baptism with Water say they was but a figure that Christ might be made manifest to Israel who had diverse Baptisms imposed on them till the time of Reformation but Christ the Substance being come the shadows must flee away This Objection they lay down in their Confession of Faith page 25. Ans Whether Baptism with Water be a Figure or not I have now abundantly proved it to be an Ordinance of the New Testament Divinely Appointed due in the Churches Court to all the visible or appearing Disciples of the New Testament and necessary to Salvation under the same and to continue to the end of the World And what then dare the Quakers say against it Or how dare they oppose their own meer Brain-sick fancies to the Word of God and Dictates of the Holy Ghost Secondly Let Baptism with Water be a Figure manifesting Christ to Jews and Gentiles too that is to say a sacred Symbol of Christs blood shed not to be shed and so not a shadow of a thing to come on the Cross and a Seal of Remission of Sins there through Yet Christ by his Incarnation Death and Resurrection did not cancel all manner of Figures universally seeing the Bow in the Cloud is still a Figure to us or a Symbol and Pledge rather that God will no more destroy the World by Water Gen. 9.11 12 13. Nor did he thereby cancel all manner of Figures I would rather call them sacred Signs and Symbols if the Quakers would too representing Christ and his Passion and Blood Shed for we shall moreover prove at the Survey of their next ensuing Query that Christ hath Ordained Bread and Wine to be in the Eucharist a Sacred Sign and Symbol of his Body and Blood to the Worlds end But he hath only cancelled thereby Old Testament Figures shadowing forth Him and His Death and Passion to come Thirdly If Baptism with Water was only a Figure to manifest unto Israel Christ Jesus why then did the Apostles dispense it afterwards to the whole Disciples of the Gentile Church without ever cashiering it and with so much speed and diligence after the appearing of their Discipleship Lastly Gospel Baptism which is done with Water as the External Symbol is so far from being a shadow that should have fled away when Christ came in the Flesh and Dyed and the time of Reformation was come that on the direct contrary it then first received its Institution after Christ was come and together with the breaking forth of that Reformation viz. the New Testament way of Dispensation and is by Christ put into the Commission of the Ministers of that Reformation as an Ordinance to be continued to the Worlds end and was thereafter accordingly carried along
day of general judgment pag. 99. Conditions of the two Covenants described and distinguished pag. 187. A Confession requisite in a Church and why pag. 123. Our Confession of Westminster materially Scripture-sentence p. 128. Consequential fundamental errors do not Physically and Entitatively unchurch pag. 200. Consequential Scripture is Infallible Scripture-rule p. 63. Consequential Scripture necessary to prove Jesus the true Messias pag. 64. Consequential Scripture necessary against Idolatry pag. 65. Consequential Scripture not founded upon Principles of meer humane reason pag. 66. Consequential Scripture no addition to the Scripture ibid. Conversion wherein it essentially consists pag. 157. The Disciples converted before the first Gospel Supper pag. 97. The Covenant the same in substance under both Testaments p. 85. Courtesie and Capping lawful among Christians pag. 205. D ONe day of seven a Sabbath-day Moral and perpetual pag. 104. Every day not a Christian Holy-day proved pag. 111. The Lords day mentioned Revel 1.10 not meant of any indeterminate day pag. 108. The Lords day meant determinately of the first day of the week ibid. Death described pag. 100. The Decrees of God are eternal pag. 141. Conditional Decrees in God depending upon conditions not by him determined vain and repugnant pag. 143. The Dictate in all men not the principal Rule pag. 33. The Dictate in all men not Essentially right ibid. The Dictate in all men subjected to the Scriptures pag. 35. A Dictate of the Spirit Immediate and Objective in no man p. 49. A Dictate within Immediate and Objective not needful pag. 32. Christ died not for all men but only for the Elect proved p. 138. A Directory of a Church distinguisht into two Notions pag. 120. A Directory warrantable in a Church pag. 122. Church Directories not Infallible pag. 123. A Directory formed rightly of a mixed nature depending partly upon Scripture general Precepts and partly flowing from Christian prudence pag. 128. E EFfective enlightning of the Spirit distinct from Objective p. 32. Effective enlightning of the Spirit sufficient without Immediate Objective ibid. Efficacy of grace not dependent on mans free will pag. 159. Efficacy of grace from whence pag. 161. The Quakers alternative Efficacy of grace confuted pag. 160. Christs enlightning of every man that comes into the world how to be understood pag. 154. F FAith the only condition of the new Covenant pag. 181. Faith not considered as a work in justification pag. 183. Fighting lawful for Christians against unjust Invaders pag. 204. Free will to Convert not in any unrenewed man pag. 159. Free will in unrenewed men to gracious actions inconsistent with the Efficacy of grace pag. 160. G EXtraordinary Gifts not an Infallible evidence of saving grace pag. 74. The Gospel not Properly but only Synecdochically called the power of God pag. 130. Grace without light proportionable can do nothing p. 156. Grammar described and explained pag. 3. Grammar lawful among Christians and necessary for some men pag. 4. How the Spirit Guides us into all truth pag. 42. H INward habits nourished and maintained by external means p. 41. Supernatural habits simply necessary for supernatural actions pag. 157. Holiness of Believers Children 1 Cor. 7.14 what it does import pag. 85. I SInning by meer Imitation confuted pag. 133. Infants have interest into the Kingdom of Heaven pag. 88. Immediate Inspiration of the Doctrine of grace ceased in the Church and not now upon any ground of promise to be lookt for p. 55. Interpretation of Scripture is needful in the Church pag. 52. Interpretation of Scripture is of Divine Institution and explained what it is pag. 55. Scriptures may be Interpreted by men whose gifts are fallible p. 59. Scriptures are the rule of Interpreting Scriptures pag. 58. The meaning of Scripture Interpreted by Scripture is Scripture-rule pag. 61. Interpreting of Scriptures is no adding to the Scriptures ibid. Justification how it is held by Protestants pag. 174. Justification how it is held by the Quakers pag. 175. Justification by inherent or inward Righteousness either as a cause or condition refuted pag. 181. K KIlling in just defence against the unjust Invaders of a Kingdom lawful vid. fighting lawful for Christians How the kingdom of God is said to be within us Luk. 17.2 p. 40. Knowledge in Divine things how it differs in renewed and unrenewed men pag. 37. L LAnguages how necessary to be learnt and why pag. 4. Christ as God was never under the Law pag. 212. How the Law is said to be written upon our hearts Jer. 30.33 pag. 38. Learning how necessary for a Minister pag. 5. Sufficient light in all men to Salvation confuted pag. 151. Light within all men not the principal Rule pag. 33. Christ how said to live in a true Christian explained pag. 213. Logick described and divided pag. 5. Logick a gift of God pag. 6. Logick lawful and necessary among Christians ibid. Lies reported in the Scripture not Scripture-sentence pag. 19. M MErit of good works pregnant with contradictions and confuted pag. 186. An External Ministery to continue to the worlds end in the Church pag. 60. N BY Nature all men are corrupt pag. 132. Natural men are not sufficiently enlightened to Conversion or Salvation pag. 151. Natural parts are necessary for a Minister pag. 202. O IT is not God that obeys God in us pag. 212. Ordination of our first Reformers in time of Popery was valid quoad substantiam pag. 199. Ordination in the time of Popery before the Reformation did not necessarily make these Ordained the Popes Emissaries p. 198. Ministerial Authority received by external Ordination pag. 202. P A Great difference betwixt Papists now and before the Council of Trent pag. 200. Perfection distinguished and described pag. 165. Perfection of degrees in this life confuted ibid. Perfection in a Moral sence not inferred upon the agent or action by Scripture writing pag. 171. Perfection not inferred from the acceptance of our good works ibid. Paul not perfect when be wrote to the Romans pag. 167. The persons in the God-head proved pag. 29. The persons in the God-head Eternal pag. 214. Philosophy described and explained pag. 8. Philosophy among Christians lawful pag. 9. Philosophy a gift of God ibid. Philosophy how rightly used and how not ibid. The Dictate within the principal rule of Faith according to the Quakers pag. 28. The principal rule the Scriptures not the Dictate within pag. 30. Psalms-metring requires not immediate Inspiration pag. 118. Psalms-singing of Divine Institution pag. 112. Psalms made upon sad lots may be Sung pag. 115. Psalms that are not our case may be Sung pag. 116. Psalms threatning Curses against notorious wicked men may be Sung pag. 117. What Psalms were sung in the Primitive Church pag. 118. Punishing of evil doers a duty incumbent to the Magistrates p. 205. Q QUakers Jesuitical and Popish in their Principles pag. 206. Quakers smell deeply of Supererogation pag. 208. Quakers great Slanderers pag. 206. A Quakers Minister described according to their own Principles pag.
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
because it is worthy of a Thousand Deaths for its proud Usurpation we shall reach it some few Blows more in particulari Specie First therefore the principal Rule of Faith and Manners must be Essentially right and Infallible or else we can trust nothing to it with any assurance and all were gone it would mislead and deceive us But the Dictate within every man is not Essentially Right Ergo it is not the principal Rule I prove the Minor because many men have not the Spirit as all unrenewed men Rom. 8.9 1 Joh. 4.13 Jud. 19. and so their Dictate within not proceeding from the Spirit cannot be Essentially Right or the principal Rule of Faith and Manners and this destroys the Quakers Principle that the Dictate within every man is the principal Rule Nor doth the Spirit Teach even Believers by an inward immediate objective Dictate seeing God and Nature do nothing in vain and Beings ought not to be multiplied without some necessity which here there is none that can be shewed for seeing the whole Doctrine of Salvation is abundantly made known in the Scriptures so that our understandings being subjectively Enlightened and our Eyes in any measure opened we may plainly see therein the exactness and purity of the Law the Riches of the Promises and in fine our whole Rule by the good help of other means and Ordinances appointed to further our Instruction and Knowledge in these by opening up and explaining their Doctrine and Sence and so clearing the Object quoad nos or in order to our understanding And what needs then I pray another objective Rule Neither is there any reason for the continuance of the immediate Inspiration of the Doctrine of Salvation in the Church more than all the other extraordinary Gifts which are gone long since the Intire Rule of Faith and Manners being now compleated and publickly Recorded which is as Infallible as any immediate Dictate seeing it is the Word of God that cannot Lie and it is more sure for us than any in regard of the Devils Cunning who can and often does bear in a strong Delusion with so much of seeming Evidence as makes it be received for a Divine Dictate And what needs more George Keith who pleads that the Dictate within is the principal Rule and Touchstone of all Doctrines in his Quakerism no Popery pag. 59. albeit most inconsistently as I think he grants the same Authority to the Scriptures pag. 28 thereof does yield that for all their Infallible Dictate yet its possible for them and that is much indeed both to Speak and Write and so to think too in a mixture Quakerism no Popery pag. 33 that is to say Fallibly for if he means of a Mid-way betwixt Fallibly and Infallibly which I am not yet acquainted with nor ever read it he speaks like a man in a mixture Infallible Contradiction For all the World cannot find me a midst betwixt Fallible and Infallible George Keith then it seems is not Infallibly or immediately Inspired for he can both Speak and Write in a mixture which a man immediatly Inspired cannot be Guilty of Habernus confitentem reum Secondly that cannot be the principal Rule of Faith and Manners which hath no Divine Institution to Warrant it or else it is but an Usurper But the Dictate within every I or any man hath no Divine Institution to Warrant it to be the principal Rule of these or else produce it if they can for all they have hitherto produced shall be Confuted and Answered too when I come to to their Objections Therefore the Dictate within every man or any man is not the principal Rule of Faith and Manners Thirdly a Rule to be examined by another Rule cannot be the principal Rule of Faith and Manners I am sure But the Dictate within all men is such Therefore it is not the principal Rule of Faith and Manners The Minor I prove from Isai 8.20 To the Law and to the Testimony says the Text if they speak not according to this Word it is because there is no Light in them where all Dictates or Doctrines of Faith and Manners are very expresly commanded to be Tryed and examined by the Scripture and if they agree not with that not to receive them seeing so there is no Light in them they are but Dictates of Darkness And again George Keith Confesses that all Doctrines and Principles of Christian Religion are to be applyed to the Scriptures as a Test and Touchstone in all external Debates and Disputations whatsoever and if they agree not therewith to be denied and disowned for ever Quakerism no Popery pag 28. and so the Scriptures are a Superiour Rule to the Dictate within if it be a Doctrine of the Christian Religion seeing it must be examined by these as a Test and Touchstone and rejected if it agree not therewith I can say no more than is dropt twixt sleeping and waking perhaps from the Pen of an Adversary Fourthly the Scriptures we have seen before are the principal Rule of Faith and Manners positively Ergo the Dictate within cannot be such a Rule The Consequence is plain seeing two Rules each of them positively principal are repugnant for so each of them should be above and below the other Fifthly if the Dictate within be the principal Rule of Faith and Manners then we must either follow its Directions absolutely and without Questioning or Trying them or else conditionally only that they be right if conditionally only then we must examine them by some other Rule to know if they be right or not and so they are not the principal Rule against the supposition nor Infallible seeing an Infallible Rule needs no Superior Rule to be examined by being it self Essentially right If then we must follow the directions of the Dictate within absolutely and without any Tryal then he whose Dictate within prompts him to think that Christ has not two distinct Natures or that he has two distinct Persons aswel as Natures or that he is not Co-eternal Co-equal and Co-substantial with the Father or First person or that his Sufferings and Death was not a Satisfaction for our Sins or that God is a Corporeal Being subject to all humane Passions or that in the Eucharist the Bread is substantially Changed into the Body of Christ or that the Pope is Infallible and so a great Quaker or else each of them a small Pope or that we are not Justified by the Righteousness of the Redeemer I say all of these and other such deluded Hereticks must absolutely follow these Principles as their principal Rule And if the Dictate within bid a man Worship the Sun and Moon and Idols of Gold and Silver worship the Devil and cut his own Throat too he is bound to obey his Rule There is nothing can be answered to these things but this viz. That these and such like evil Directions cannot proceed from the Spirit of God but allanerly from a mans own self and the Devil But
greater or not the Scriptures we see are Divinely appointed to be the Rule and principal Rule and nothing can Infer against that that the utmost of racked Invention is able to devise Nor did or does God always make use of the greater Witnesses for Testifying his Will to us or else he had still imployed Angels and not men to Teach us and Christ had continued to this day and the worlds end in his Ministery upon the Earth instead of giving us men of like Passions to Teach us It is plentiful security unto us that we have a Rule of Faith and Duty altogether Infallible and an Evidence Written Sealed and Sworn to Heb. 6.17 18. delivered into our hand for our more chearful assurance to be perused by us upon all occasions for resolving our doubts directing our Duty and confirming our Faith George Keith uses a number of more Arguments in his Quakerism no Popery pages 108 109 110 111. indeavouring to prove the Dictate within and sometimes the Spirit himself and sometimes Christ himself as his Arguments run to be a better Rule than the Scriptures But in general they are all Guilty of the same very Impertinence that his Argument now Discussed was liable to and therefore the very same Answers that are given to this Argument destroy them every one so that we need not Arraign them particularly But George Keith brings one Argument to prove that God Teaches us by an immediate Dictate within viz. because its absurd to say that God Speaks no more Intelligibly and perceptibly in an immediate way to the Souls of his people than to the Earth to bring forth Grass or to the Fish to Vomit out Jonah Ans That he speaks more Intelligibly or perceptibly to his people than to such unreasonably Creatures as these is granted But that he does it in an immediate way to us I deny it let George prove it He does indeed immediately inlighten us with a Divine Beam of Light in our understandings Effectively opening our Eyes yea he always works with his Word made by himself effectual as the immediate principal efficient of its gracious effects in us that we may understand what is written in the Scriptures and know assuredly that it is he that speaks to us therein and so speaks to us much more Intelligibly than to unreasonable Creatures whom he never dealt so with But that it is absurd if he do it not by an Objective immediate inward Dictate I utterly deny let him prove it if he can But does not George Keith think it absurd to say that a man is Taught by an unerring immediate Dictate within who cannot upon his Life tell how many Gods there are or who is the Redeemer And so much for the Rule of Faith and Manners shall suffice Fifth QUERY Whether is there any Scripture or Command in all the New Testament for the Sprinkling of Infants Let us see Scripture without Adding or Diminishing for it that ye do not bring the Plagues upon you for it for the Plagues are Added to them that Add for we do expect plain Scripture from you for this without any Shuffling Meanings or Consequences or else never pretend Scripture Rule more but acknowledge that it hath been your Meanings and Consequences that hath been your Rule SVRVEY This Query very well Homologates with their Confession of Faith often forementioned pag. 25 77 79 96 126. where they deny not only Infant-Baptism but moreover all Baptism with Water to be any Divine Ordinance belonging to the New Testament But they here impose upon us two Conditions or Laws of our Disputation being the absurd fruit of their foolish Dictate within which before we handle the main Subject of the Query which is Baptism it will not be amiss to Discuss These two Conditions are That we neither interpret Scripture nor draw Consequences there-from for Establishing of our Doctrine or Thesis or else that we never pretend Scripture Rule more This Certification is so Important and Peremptory that it will not be unworthy of the while to enquire into their Demands whereunto it is annexed Therefore we must divide our Survey of this Query into four parts The first shall be concerning Scripture-Interpretation The second concerning Scripture-consequence or Consequential Scripture The third concerning Baptism with Water and the fourth concerning Infant-Baptism SECT I. Concerning Scripture-Interpretation While the Quakers here oppose Scripture-Interpretation they are indeed very like themselves and Speak in their own Language for what external Ordinance can a Quaker taking his Dictate within for his Rule like to hear of Therefore when they cannot get the Scriptures overthrown from being our Rule their next indeavour is that at least they may render useless and unedifying to the Bulk and Body of the people asmuch of them as they can even all the Texts thereof and these are not a few which without the help and labours of a Gifted Interpreter they cannot understand and all the Doctrine thereof which is not explicitly and formerly Enunciat therein though yet it be materially really and truly therein contained and by sound Consequence Infallibly follows there-from One thing I shall here promise to the Quakers and more no man can demand and that is that whatever Scripture I shall bring for proving of our Doctrine the meaning thereof which I shall alledge shall either be undeniably even to a Quaker clear of it self or else I shall evidently and irresistibly prove and make good the same and manifestly overthrow the forged meaning of the Quakers thereupon and I think that is very fair But that we may come to the Questions to be here handled I must premise first that the Scriptures ought not to be Expounded according to any mans fore-conceived private Judgment and Opinion that is 〈…〉 2 Pâ—â— 1.20 But they are to be Expounded according to the Analogy of Faith in general and by Comparison with other Scriptures that Speak more clearly to the matter or by the Scope Connexion and Dependence of the purpose in the place it self compared with its Antecedents and Consequents Thus the Apostle Paul says Let us Prophesie according to the proportion in the Original Analogy of Faith Rom. 12.6 and I think it is proved before that the Scriptures are the Rule of all Doctrines of Faith and Manners Secondly I must premise that the Scriptures are in several places so plain and easie especially in respect of things Essential and simply necessary to Salvation that men of very common Capacities may even without an Interpreter attain in some measure to understand them as is clear both in the Scripture Deut. 30.11 Psal 19.7 and 119.130 and also from Experience For thus we see that the attentive Reading or Hearing of the Scriptures though without Commentaries does beget some measure of Knowledge especially of the most Important and Essential Truths which are therein with most frequency and plainness delivered in men of very ordinary and common Capacities yea and otherwise we could expect no more
the black Hereticks that ever were in the World should at once arise from the dead and alass there are too many of them still alive in their Successors and should in favour of their accursed Delusions most grosly abuse and wrest the holy Scriptures as all Hereticks do and pervert invert and deprave the meaning thereof and so of God speaking therein Yet no man even the most eminently gifted Ministers of Christ were bound by vertue of any standing Appointment or Law of God otherwise Scripture-Interpreting will clearly have a standing Divine Institution to step out and by the grounds of Context the Analogy of Faith or comparison with other Scriptures more clear c. to refute these false wrested meanings vindicate the Texts abused and clear and demonstrate their Genuine and true meaning But that is most false absurd and impious For then the most eminently gifted and able Ministers of Christ whose special Office is to labour in the Word and Doctrine and are bound to their utmost or else to nothing at all to preserve and promote the purity of the meaning of the Scriptures among the people and to convince and stop the mouths of the Gainsayers thereof Tit. 1.9 11. might lawfully without the breach of any standing Divine Appointment or Law stand and look on and see the Scriptures abused perverted and depraved in their meaning and instead of their true meaning horrible falshoods fictions and blasphemies fathered upon them and so on God whose Word they are to the highest dishonour of God imaginable the treading under foot of the precious Truth the over-flowing of the Christian World with Soul-damning Errors and the manifest ruining of poor Souls without indeavouring to prevent remedy or hinder the same by the exercise of a talent that God hath given them If that be not absurd false and impious nothing can be such Nay it involves a contradiction to say that Ministers who are required to convince the Gainsayers of the Truth and so of the true meaning of the Scriptures and to stop their mouths might lawfully suffer these things to be done and not oppose themselves for the defence of Gods truth according to their abilities and occasions The Quakers being beaten from their former standing and being loth to allow us the benefit of Scripture-Interpretation as thereby fore-seeing the danger of their Heretical Interest do betake themselves to another shift and alledge that however necessary or Divinely appointed Scripture-Interpretation may be yet Men that are Fallible may not Interpret the Scriptures Therefore it will be necessary for us to prove the contrary which before we do that the state of the Question may be cleared I grant that these whose Explications formally as such and as raught by them are Authentical and Faith-worthy must of necessity be Infallible or immediately Inspired The Quakers must seek after such Explications as these in the Canonical Writings of the Prophets and Apostles For it is not so with the ordinary Ministers of the Church whose Explications are not formally as such and as taught by them Authentical and Faith-worthy nor is it lawful for any Man so to receive them but allanerly upon the accompt of their agreement with and demonstration from the Scriptures whose Infallible Testimony is sufficient to warrant and assure the meaning delivered Secondly I grant that in the matter of Scripture-Interpretation the Supream and Magisterial Authority from which there is no appeal but it ought to be simply stood to resideth in the Scriptures themselves or in the Spirit their Author speaking therein seeing their Verdict and Sentence in places speaking to the purpose more clearly and such means as reside in them are the alone Rule and Directory of our Interpretations thereof in places more dark and obscure as appears from many things aforesaid The Authority therefore which our Ministers have for Interpreting Scripture is only a Ministerial Authority for Interpreting the Scriptures by their own Verdict and Sentence as the Rule and Judge of their Interpretations whereunto they are Subjected and by whose determination they stand or fall as true Interpretations or forged wrestings seeing the Scriptures are the Rule of Faith by which we are to try and judge Mens Doctrines in matters of Faith having premised these things for clearing our mind and preventing mistakes I Assert that Men who are not endued with an Infallible gift and so are not Infallible but Fallible may Interpret the Scriptures And I prove it For first These Levites that expounded the Scriptures Neh. 8.8 were not Infallible in their Gift seeing there is no proof or evidence thereof possible to be produced nor had they any other extraordinary thing accompanying them in their Birth Call Doctrine or Works or else let it be shewed nor was it any Priviledge of the Ordinary Officers of that Church to be Infallible and yet their Practice thereof is there Recorded to their high Commendation and as Edifying to the People Therefore Teachers that are not Infallible may Interpret Scripture Or else their practice thereof should have been condemned as unlawful instead of being commended Secondly A Fallible Teacher may have a far greater and more distinct knowledge of the meaning of the Scriptures than many other Men also Fallible seeing it is his special Office to labour in the Word and Doctrine and if he does his Duty he is much more in searching of the Scriptures than Men of other particular Callings and hath many more helps and means for it than the commoner sort of Christians and bulk of the People neither have all Men an equal knowledge in any thing Therefore a Fallible Teacher may Interpret the Scriptures The consequence is easie seeing whatever measure of Scripture-meaning such a Man discerneth beyond others he may I hope seasonably make it known to them for their Instruction and Edification May he not Nay I do not see so well how he may not Thirdly if all that Interpret the Scriptures must necessarily upon that accompt be Infallible then no man now adays may presume to Interpret them seeing there is no man now adays Infallible as is before often shewed But that is most false seeing it is now proved that Scripture-Interpretation is an Ordinance of Divine Institution reaching to the end of the world and so it binds and obliges all according to their ability and the Churches exigency whose Office it is to labour in the Word and Doctrine and from the Word to Teach people the mind and Will of God even to the end of the world albeit they be not Infallible but fallible Nor heard I ever of a Divine Institution reaching to the end of the world and yet obliging no body and if this oblige any man it cannot miss the Teachers Lastly seeing the Quakers affirm that Scripture-Interpreting doth necessarily require an Infallible Gift we must require them to exhibit the grounds of their affirmation or else it will be readily thought that they affirm so without any ground and so it must be
accompted a meer blind conjecture and a groundless Fable All the ground that ever I learned from them is this viz. Because a man of a fallible Gift cannot assure people of the meaning Ans It is true there can no assurance thereof arise unto them from such a mans Infallibity which he hath not and as little from a Quaker pretending to it but can give no evidence to make it appear But what then can he not give them assurance thereof from the clear Infallible Scriptures by whose Testimony the meaning is to be Demonstrated we are not to Build our Faith upon the mans Gift but upon the Scriptures that can give as great assurance as any Infallible Gift seeing they are the Infallible Word of God To the Law and to the Testimony if mens Doctrines agree not with these receive them not Lastly I assert against the Quakers who with peremptory Certifications seem to deny it in this Query That when the Scriptures are explained by the Scriptures the meaning held forth and delivered is scripture-Scripture-Rule and so it is no addition as the Adversaries here alledge nor is it our meaning but the meaning of the Scriptures and so we may still pretend scripture-Scripture-Rule for all that I prove it First the meaning of the Scriptures represented and Taught by themselves is certainly scripture-Scripture-Rule for seeing the Scriptures are our Rule as is proved the meaning Taught by them is the very Enunciat Doctrine the Soul and Sentence of that Rule as is palpable But when the Scriptures are explained by the Scriptures the meaning held forth and delivered is the meaning of the Scriptures represented and Taught by themselves and the contrary involves an incurable Contradiction Therefore when the Scriptures are explained by the Scriptures the meaning held forth and delivered is certainly scripture-Scripture-Rule Secondly Scripture-Doctrine Taught by the Scriptures is scripture-Scripture-Rule or else nothing can be such if that be not But when the Scriptures are explained by the Scriptures the meaning held forth and delivered is Scripture-Doctrine Taught by the Scriptures seeing the meaning of the Scripture is surely Scripture-Doctrine nor can these be diverse or else the Scriptures should mean what they Teach not and Teach what they mean not which is repugnant Therefore when the Scriptures are explained by the Scriptures the meaning held forth and delivered is manifestly scripture-Scripture-Rule Lastly if when the Scriptures are explained by themselves the meaning held forth by them be not scripture-Scripture-Rule then the scripture-Scripture-Rule is some other thing really distinct from the meaning of the Scriptures held forth thereby But that is impossible to be or to be explained for so the scripture-Scripture-Rule should by it self mean nothing seeing another meaning then that which is held forth by the Scriptures it can never have Ergo when the Scriptures are explained by themselves the meaning held forth is Inevitably scripture-Scripture-Rule But say the Quakers in this Query Interpreting of the Scriptures is an adding to them against which the Plagues are Denounced Rev. 22. Chap. Ans This Objection proves if it prove any thing that all Scripture Expounding by men fallible or not so is utterly unlawful as an adding to the scripture-Scripture-Rule But I deny that Interpreting of the Scriptures is an adding to the scripture-Scripture-Rule let the Quakers Try if they can prove it for their big Assertion is not current for Proof for I have shewed before that Scripture-Expounding is necessary in the Church and of Divine Institution to the Worlds end such as adding to the Scripture Rule is not and so they cannot be the same thing To add to the Scriptures is to impose some false meaning upon them disagreeing therewith or to set up any other Doctrine as of equal Authority with them I wish the Quakers would notice this who continually impose false meanings on the Scriptures and have set up a new Doctrine contrary to the Scriptures not only as of equal Authority with the same but above them O impudent wickedness But by the Scriptures to unfold clear and Demonstrate their own Genuine and true meaning hath not a shadow into it of adding to the scripture-Scripture-Rule seeing as is proved so the meaning delivered is the Scriptures own true meaning which therefore cannot be any addition thereunto But blind Arguments are all that can be expected from Brain-sick Doctors whom we find frequently speaking like men indeed in a mixture SECT II. Concerning Scripture-Consequence or Consequential Scripture I come now to the second Imperious condition which the Quakers like Dictators demand of us and that is that we do not draw Consequences from the Scriptures for Establishing our Doctrine otherwise that we never pretend Scripture-Rule more This I confess is a very unjust Cowardise That they should require us to throw down our Arms and then they will fight us I see the Quakers would fight a Dead man even out of Breath They 'l go to Wars in time of Peace I like the Jest well If the Quakers be so dastardly why did they not send their Queries to some Brute where they should have found a Party sutable to their mind which would not have troubled them with Consequences But as for us we must crave their Pardon seeing by our Creation and Essence we are Rational which chiefly consists in a Discursive or Illative Faculty fitted for discerning of Consequences of purpose that being furnisht with the principles of Nature or Grace we might be capable to perceive the particular Conclusions which they implicitly really and truly contain I shall not need to be long in Discussing this Question concerning Scripture-Consequence nor shall I need many words for clearing the state of the Question but in one word it is Whether or not that which by good Consequence is deduced and drawn from the Scriptures be scripture-Scripture-Rule We see by the Certification of the Quakers demand that they deny and take the Negative of the Question But I Assert that whatsoever by good Consequence follows or is deduced from the Scriptures is Infallible scripture-Scripture-Rule And I prove it For first Scripture-Doctrine is scripture-Scripture-Rule or else nothing can be such Now whatever by good Consequence follows or is deduced from the Scriptures must be Scripture-Doctrine otherwise a good Consequence might infer from the Scriptures that which is not Scripture-Doctrine or that which they Teach not or a Consequence inferring from the Scriptures that which they Teach not and is not their Doctrine should be a good Consequence which involves a direct Contradiction seeing so a Consequence manifestly evil should be a good Consequence Hence then whatever by good Consequence follows or is deduced from the Scriptures is evidently scripture-Scripture-Rule Secondly Christ plainly affirms Luk. 20.37 that that Scripture principle I am the God of Abraham the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob does shew and Teach the Resurrection of the Dead Now it does not expresly and formally Teach that it says not expresly that the Dead shall Rise again but only it follows therefrom by
good Consequence and no otherways because God who is the God of the Living being their God their Dust which is their one half albeit the meaner half behooved to be Raised and Quickened again as being a part of their Essences Here then Christ Teaches that that which by good Consequence may be Inferred from Scripture-principles the same the Scripture shews and Teaches and so it is Scripture-Doctrine and so it is uncontrolably scripture-Scripture-Rule Thirdly if that which by good Consequence is inferred from the Scriptures be not Scripture-Rule then there was no Scripture-Rule in all the Old Testament Ordaining David or Solomon c. to be Circumcised and so the Circumcising of them behooved to be a meer Will-worship wanting Scripture-Warrant contrary to Joh. 7.22 23. My Proposition which I propounded I easily prove for in no where of all the Old Testament it is in Formal and Express Terms said David shall be or ought to be Circumcised but only by sure Consequence it follows from the universal Command for Circumcising every Male Gen. 17. That therefore David shall be or ought to be Circumcised nor is it otherwise to be found in all the Old Testament The Quakers then must admit that particular Conclusion by good Consequence following from the universal Command to be Scripture-Rule and so that which by good Consequence follows from Scripture-principles to be Scripture-Rule or else they must deny that there was any Scripture-Rule in all the Old Testament Ordaining David to be Circumcised for its impossible there should be any scripture-Scripture-Rule Ordaining David to be Circumcised except it be a scripture-Scripture-Rule that David ought to be Circumcised or else he was both Ordained to be and yet ought not to be Circumcised at once Fourthly if that which by good Consequence is inferred from the Scriptures be not scripture-Scripture-Rule then there is no scripture-Scripture-Rule in all the Old Testament Testifying and Witnessing that Jesus the Son of Mary is the Saviour of the world which is most false and contrary to the Scriptures Joh. 5.39 46. Act. 10.43 and 18.28 and 28.23 My Proposition which I laid down I prove because it is no where of all the Old Testament in express Terms said that Jesus the Son of Mary is the Saviour of the world But by Infallible Consequence it follows and may be inferred from many of the Old Testament Scripture-principles nor is it otherwise but by good Consequence therein to be found It must therefore be granted that that particular Conclusion which by good Consequence follows from these Old Testament Scripture-principles and is no otherwise to be found therein is Scripture-Rule which is that we plead for or else they must deny that there is any Scripture-Rule in all the Old Testament Testifying and Witnessing that Jesus the Son of Mary is the Saviour of the world for there cannot be scripture-Scripture-Rule Witnessing and shewing that Jesus the Son of Mary is the Saviour except it be a scripture-Scripture-Rule that Jesus the Son of Mary is the Saviour otherwise the Scriptures Testifying that shall be scripture-Scripture-Rule as is supposed and yet the very substantial Doctrine of their Testimony shall not be scripture-Scripture-Rule which is repugnant Lastly If that which by good consequence follows from Scripture-Principles be not scripture-Scripture-Rule then we are no where in all the Scriptures forbidden to worship a Dog or Cat c. which is a most absurd falshood seeing then the worshipping of these things could be no transgression of the Law of God for the whole Law of God is delivered to us in the Scriptures otherwise the Scriptures would be defective and not manifest our whole Duty in order to Salvation which is contrary to Deut. 5.32 Isai 8.20 Luc. 16.28 29. 2 Tim. 3.15 Rev. 22.18 My proposition laid down I evidently prove for it is not in formal and express Terms said in all the Scriptures Thou shalt not worship a Dog or Cat albeit it is expresly said That we shall have no other Gods but the true God and shall Worship and Serve him only Exod. 20.3 Matth. 4.10 from whence by evident consequence it follows but not without a consequence in all the Scriptures that we may not Worship a Dog or Cat. Will the Quakers then deny the Worshipping of these Creatures to be forbidden in the Scriptures and so to be unlawful because without a Consequence we cannot get any Scripture forbidding it and whereby to prove it unlawful If they stand to their Principles here of necessity they must do it as the Argument irresistibly infers upon them The Quakers may hence see how justly we may as yet pretend Scripture-Rule notwithstanding our consequences seeing we have unanswerably proved that that which by good consequence is inferred from Scripture-Principles is scripture-Scripture-Rule and we have convinced their wild Principles in this point to dash and run upon contradictions to disagree from the Doctrine and Practice of Christ to make way for denying Jesus the Son of Mary to be the Saviour of the World for the Scriptures of the Old Testament do by clear consequence though not without a consequence mightily witness and assure that great Article of Faith and to lead the way to Will-Worship in the Church yea for the grossest of Idolatry We see then how little reason we have to grant these impious demands of the Quakers But the Quakers here object That to draw consequences from the Scriptures is to add to the Scripture-Rule against which all the plagues in the book of God are denounced Answ By this Objection the Quakers shew how unlawful they think Scripture-Consequences to be But I have abundantly shewed that that which by good consequence is inferred from Scripture-Principles is no addition to the scripture-Scripture-Rule but is it self very scripture-Scripture-Rule and how should it be an adding to scripture-Scripture-Rule to draw forth more expresly and distinctly by consequence the same Doctrine which it really and truly teaches though more Implicitly Is it an adding to the Scripture to shew more expresly it 's own Doctrine Then the Scriptures own Doctrine should be an addition to the Scripture-Rule they have a great dexterity in speaking of Contradictions Secondly It uses to be objected That if that which by good consequence is inferred from Scripture-Principles be Scripture-Rule and so a Rule of Divine Faith then our Divine Faith whereby we believe that Scripture-Rule so inferred shall stand upon reason which is most absurd seeing the inferring of a consequence is an act of reason Answ I deny the Sequel or consequence of the Major proposition because when a conclusion is by good consequence inferred from Scripture-Principles Reason is not the Argument or Motive wherefrom the conclusion follows and is inferred and moves and constrains us to assent thereunto seeing the Conclusion is not inferred from the natural Principles or Premises of Reason but from Supernatural Scripture-Principles as is most manifest Reason therefore is only requisite here as a necessary Instrument for perceiving and discerning the consequence or connexion of the Antecedent with the
Consequent which way it is indeed requisite yea so Reason is requisite for perceiving every word of God and without it we should not be capable of the Principles of Religion more than Brutes are So also our Ears are a necessary Instrument for hearing the Word Preached or Read and our Eyes for Reading of it Thirdly It uses to be objected That the Gospel is above Reason Answ The Gospel is above Reason in regard of the matter and mysteries which it teaches which Reason cannot reach or understand but not in respect of the manner how it teaches them which is suited and accommodated to human capacity Or else no Man upon the accompt that he is endued with Reason should be one whit more capable so much as Grammatically and Historically to understand any one saying of the Gospel than his Sheep and Oxen which is beyond all measure absurd for then Brutes should be no less capable of the Gospel Doctrine than Men and Men no more than Brutes Lastly It is objected That the Learned only are able to perceive Consequences Answ That is most false seeing not only the Learned but also the unlearned have a rational discursive faculty and some measure of the use thereof except they be Distracted or in meer Infancy and so being furnisht with the Principles are capable to discern their evident Consequences both in things Natural and Supernatural albeit the Learned are indeed able more promptly to perceive Consequences and to perceive more Consequences lying far remote from the Principles and therefore they are ordinarily more knowing than the unlearned Now by the Quakers grudging of Grammar Logick and Philosophy unto Ministers of the Gospel and by their opposition to the scripture-Scripture-Rule and Scripture-Consequence a Man may if he be curious learn the Description of a Minister of the Quakers choice viz. He must neither have Grammar Logick nor Philosophy he must reject the Rule at least the Supremacy of the Rule of Scripture both Express and by good Consequence That is to say He must not know how to speak Sence nor how to Define Divide Judge or Argument he must abandon the Light of Nature and throw by the Word of God at most being but a Secondary-Rule and a Subservant to their Queen Regent the Light within That the Quakers may not think I wrong them this Description is their Principles clearly explained by me in the foregoing Queries And will not such a Man be a rare Minister a worthy Messenger an Interpreter among a Thousand he is very like to have more feet than hands methinks SECT III. Concerning Baptism with Water Being now arrived at the main Subject of the present Query which is Baptism before I handle the Question concerning Infant-Baptism I must here inquire whether Baptism with Water be an Ordinance of Divine Institution under the New Testament and to continue to the end of the World for albeit the the Quakers have here omitted it yet it is the main and most proper debate concerning Baptism betwixt us and them wherein the Quakers take the Negative yea and George Keith charges Baptism with Water upon us as a Popish Doctrine forsooth in his Quakerism no Popery page 100. Wherever Baptism is mentioned in the New-Testament and the word Water is not expresly added the Quakers do always deny Baptism with Water to be there meant sometimes alledging it to be meant of the Baptism of Doctrine which is when the Word is Preached to People sometimes of the work of Regeneration and sometimes of enduing with the extraordinary Gifts of the Spirit all which are in the Scriptures Metaphorically and Improperly sometimes called Baptism Matth. 21.25 Joh. 1.33 Act. 1.5 And this they do that if success would answer they may not be forced to acknowledge Baptism with Water to be an Ordinance of Divine Institution under the New Testament We shall therefore as we proceed clear every Text that we make use of where need is from the false Glosses of the Adversaries This premised I Assert against the Quakers that Baptism with Water is an Ordinance of Divine Institution under the New Testament and an Ordinance which it shall be evident is appointed to continue to the end of the World I prove it First The Baptism of John was an Ordinance of Divine Appointment belonging to the New Testament but that was with Water Matth. 3.11 Mark 1.8 Therefore Baptism with Water is an Ordinance of Divine Institution belonging to the New Testament The Scriptures cited prove the Minor I prove the Major For that the Baptism of John was of Divine Appointment is clear from Matth. 21.25 Luk. 7.30 Joh. 1.33 And that it belonged to the New Testament appears seeing John was the very first Minister of the New Testament way of Dispensation for which see Matth. 11.12 13. Luk. 16.16 Together with the breaking forth whereof and never till then God appointed this Ordinance of Baptism with Water to be dispensed by John Secondly The Baptism with Water dispensed by the Disciples or Apostles of Christ was an Ordinance of Divine Appointment under the New Testament as we shall presently see But the Baptism of John was substantially one and the same therewith for their Author or Efficient cause was the same by comparing Luk. 7.30 Joh. 1.33 with Matth. 28.19 Joh. 4.1 2. Act. 10.48 Their External Matter or outward Element was the same by comparing Matth. 3.11 with Act. 10.47 Their Internal Matter or the thing signified and their ends and so also their Internal form which results from their Institution and Ends were the same by comparing Mark 1.4 Luk. 3.3 with Act. 2.38 and 22.16 So then they being one and the same as to all their causes are undeniably the same Baptism Substantially and I defie any Man to shew any substantial point wherein they differ and so the one being an Ordinance of the New Testament so must the other But say the Quakers with Papists The Baptism of John was substantially different from Christs Baptism seeing John Baptized only with Water but Christ Baptized with the Holy Ghost and with Fire Ans This objection cannot prove the Baptism of John to be substantially different from the Baptism dispensed by Christs Apostles at his Order seeing theirs so dispensed was no less with Water than his and they could no more Baptize with the Holy Ghost and with Fire than he Therefore John does not there viz. Luke 3.16 distinguish his Baptism from Christs External Baptism Administred by his Apostles but he distinguishes his own Work and Office and of all Ministers in Baptism from the Work and Office of Christ viz. That he and other Ministers do Administer the Water and External Sign but that its Christ that bestows the inward Grace and thing signified Secondly It is objected here That these who were Baptized with Johns Baptism were again Baptized with Christs by Paul Act. 19.3 4 5. Ergo Johns Baptism did substantially differ from Christs or else these would not have needed to be Baptized over
albeit there are diversities of gifts amongst Believers yet they have all the same Spirit 1 Cor. 12.4 13. But behold here a rare fansie The Quakers require either at least the same measure or else a larger measure of the Spirit than the Apostles had for turning the Psalms into Meeter What will no less measure of the Spirit than the Apostles had serve to understand Poetry and the Notes of Musick Must we be immediatly Inspired for these two O brave Morology The Quakers it seems will not allow a Boy to sing a Song nor a Minstreller to play his Tune both which requires something of Musick without immediate Inspiration forsooth Spectatum admissi risum teneatis amici The Quakers it seems do not like to be Precenters lest perhaps they get little Salary Lastly They ask what the Psalms were that were sung in the Primitive times Ans They were certainly the same that we now sing seeing these only are written in the Scriptures though the Quakers may have other Psalms in their wild Scripture-Book within and appointed by God to be sung as beside that we are Ordained to sing Psalms and there is no other to choose upon is clear from 2 Chron. 29.30 where the Church of Israel sang praises to God with the words of David and Asaph says the Text by the command of the good King and great Reformer These that would see any further concerning some scruples about Psalms-singing let them read worthy Mr. Durhams Exposition of the Song of Solomon from page 48. to page 53. where they may find some doubts resolved which I purposely here omit because there they may be found though little or nothing here medled with be there touched Ninth QUERY Whether or not your Directory Confession of Faith and Cathechisms be an Infallible Rule for you and your People to walk by or whether or not equal with the Scriptures or above the Scriptures and whether of them is the better Book and whether or not have ye an Infallible Spirit to give forth such a Directory or Catechism or Confession of Faith as ye have done and whether or not the Scriptures are not a better Directory than any ye can make which were given forth by the Holy Ghost by the holy Men of God who had the Infallible Spirit SVRVEY This Inspirer of the Quakers is surely no Spirit of Truth but a manifest Deviser of Lies seeing almost in every Sentence that drops from his mouth he impudently slanders the Church of God in Britain for who ever heard that any Protestant Church did hold any thing of Ecclesiastical Constitution formally as such for an Infallible Rule But on the contrary it hath always been the Doctrine of all Protestant Churches and as much of the Church of Britain as any other as may be seen in the fourth Article of the 31. Chapter of her Confession of Faith that all Synods and Councels since the Apostles days are liable to Error and that therefore their Constitutions formally as such are not to be made the Rule of Divine Faith and Religious Practice and yet there is much more hope of an unerring Spirit in a whole Synod of Orthodox Church-Guides than in any Brainsick Quaker falsly pretending thereunto The Quakers do not here quarrel with our Directory Confession or Catechism as to their subject sentence and the particular definitions which they contain or else they should have instanced the particulars which they judge to be wrong and not agreeable to the Stripture that we might have known what to vindicate which until they do I cannot gratifie them with particular defences Their quarrel therefore here is at the very common form of a Directory Confession or Catechism in a Church and that Church-Guides should presume to Constitute these and so all Churches are concerned in this affair seeing all of them have their Confessions Catechisms and Directories and yet no doubt this quarrel is chiefly intended against the Directory Confession and Catechism of the Church of God in Britain Therefore that we may in the general vindicate these we shall begin with the Directory Therefore first a Church-Directory may be taken in a large and improper sence as comprehending rules concerning parts of the publick Worship of God it self and the religious manner thereof as their immediate object directly regarded and if these Rules teach and direct no other Worship nor any other religious manner of the Worship but the very same which the Scripture directs and teaches then they can never be found fault with seeing even every particular Minister hath authority and is obliged by his Office to teach and enjoyn his Flock the Worship of God and the religious manner thereof from the Scripture yea that is his chief work and I must still think that a Synod of Ministers conveened in Christs name have no less authority nor can be any less obliged Such Rules there are in our Directory as the Rules appointing the Sabbath-day to be kept holy Psalms to be sung Ministers to do their work faithfully diligently c. all which are very Scripture-Rules particularly taught therein and their immediate objects are constituent parts or religious manners of the Worship But Secondly a Church-Directory may be taken in a more strict and proper sence as restricted to and meerly comprehending Rules or Directions concerning the External Circumstances of the Publick Worship and Government of Gods House And for vindicating our Directory in the general as was explained taken in this proper notion We must observe first that as it is utterly impossible to exerce any action except under the vesture of several circumstances So likewise the publick Worship of God cannot be performed except under the vesture of various Circumstances as needs no demonstration Secondly I must observe that as the vesture of unbeseeming undecent and disorderly circumstances in the exercise of Gods Publick Worship doth very much deform and disgrace the work as all may know and so cannot but very much hinder Edification and beget Scandals So the Vesture of comely decent and orderly circumstances therein doth greatly beautifie and adorn the work by the Rule of Contraries and so doth promote and advance Edification and Growth which by the contrary are exceedingly letted and hindered Thirdly I must observe that these External Circumstances of Gods Publick Worship are not in the Scripture particularly defined and determined seeing it is no where of Scripture particularly defined what time of the day or night the publick Worship shall begin how long it shall last what order shall be observed in reading preaching praying singing hearing c. But only they are therein determined in the general as to their common form of order and decency that decency and order must be observed therein seeing all things must be so done in the Church 1 Cor. 14.40 which command is manifesty transgressed by the undecency and disorder of one small Circumstance and so it plainly injoyns to maintain order and decency in all the Circumstances
of Gods Publick Worship Lastly I must observe that it properly belongs to the Church-Guides and they are bound to see to the maintaining of decency and order in the Circumstances of Gods Publick Worship for seeing God commands to maintain decency and order therein and they are the Watchmen and Rulers who have the Care and Oversight of the Church Act. 20.28 Rom. 12.8 1 Thes 5.12 1 Tim. 3.5 and 5.17 Heb. 13.7 17. 1 Pet. 5.2 it must of necessity belong unto them and they must be thereunto obliged Having observed these things I hope I may assert that Church-Officers and Judicatures have Divine Warrant and Authority to make and set forth Church-Directories for regulating the External Circumstances of Gods Publick Worship in a decent and orderly way or so as they may be decent and orderly This assertion is clear from our preceeding Observations whereunto I shall add an Argument or two First therefore God commands Church-Officers and Judicacatures to maintain Decency and Order in the whole Circumstances of his Publick Worship as is clear from our preceeding Observations and yet he hath no where particularly condescended upon or defined these Circumstances as is before shewed also Therefore the Church-Officers and Judicatures have certainly Divine Warrant and Authority particularly to condescend upon define and determine them The Consequence which now only needs proving is easily proved for seeing God hath commanded Church-Officers and Judicatures to maintain Decency and Order in these Circumstances and yet hath not himself particularly defined and determined them either he hath given them Warrant and Authority particularly to define and determine the same which is the thing we plead for or else he hath commanded them to maintain Order and Decency in Circumstances never to be defined or ordered but left still to be confused undesined and unordered and so they must do it by random and blind chance Which is extreamly absurd seeing so he should have commanded Contradictions viz. order in Circumstances never to be ordered Secondly Church-Directories rightly regulating the External Circumstances of Gods Publick Worship so that they may be decent and well ordered according to the Scripture do conduce and contribute to set forward a Spiritual Good and Edification as is most clear from our preceeding Observations But it 's beyond all doubt that Church-Officers and Judicatories have Warrant and Authority to do such things as may conduce and contribute to set forward the Spiritual Good and Edification of the Churches of their Oversight or else they cannot have Warrant to do any thing Therefore sure it is Church-Officers and Judicatories have Authority and Warrant to make such Directories rightly regulating the External Circumstances of Gods Publick Worship in the Churches of their Oversight Thou wilt may be say that men can have no Authority to determine any part of Gods Worship not determined in the Scripture Therefore men can have no Authority particularly to determine these Circumstances not so determined in the Scriptures Ans The Antecedent I willingly yield but I utterly deny the Consequence seeing the things we now speak of and which alone are the immediate object of a Church-Directory in this strict and proper acception are no part of the Worship in their particular nature but are meer External Circumstances of that which is the Worship as is evident from all before-said These common Rules made by Church-Authority according to the general Precepts and Rules of Scripture do not of themselves bind Conscience nor doth the Authority from whence they immediately proceed of it self bind Conscience neither is their immediate object in its particular nature any part of Gods Worship as said is Nevertheless they being formed according to the general Precepts of Scripture for Order and Decency these bind Conscience and the general End of Edification it binds Conscience and Conscience is also bound not to despise but reverence lawful Church-Authority it being Gods Ordinance and we cannot contemn any of his Ordinances and be guiltless and therefore we may not in wilful conceit reject such Constitutions of the Church albeit out of the case of Scandal-giving and if it do not proceed from a contempt of Church-Authority or from some unruly Humor of Spirit we may upon causes just and reasonable lawfully sometimes intermit and forbear the observation of them These things I have said to prevent Objections And hence I hope it appears that Church-Officers have an Authority to Make and Constitute Church-Directories for ordering the External Circumstances of Gods Publick Worship according to the general Precepts of the Scripture albeit I grant that such Directories are not Infallible and so of themselves no Bond of Conscience nor Rule of Divine Faith As for our Confession and Catechism if the Quakers judge them to be unsound in any of their particular Definitions when the Quakers shall instance them it shall be time enough to make their Apology But while they declare themselves Enemies to the very common form of a Confession and Catechism in a Church herein they proclaim their Hostile mind against Ministers their feeding of the Flock and Edifying of the Body of Christ seeing these Compendious Breviaries of the most fundamental points of Scripture Doctrine and Christian Principles do exceedingly conduce for a method of easier learning and more distinct understanding of the same and that partly because of their succinct and compendious form shortly representing to us and quickly conducting and directing us to the most principal substance of the whole Scripture-Doctrine which is methodically summed in them and which by our own private Industry we could neither soon nor easily distinctly gather out of the whole body of the Scriptures and partly because of their greater Explication each of their Definitions or Enunciations being the perspicuous sentence of many parallel Scriptures compared together and so by their Consociated Beams and United Rays more powerfully Shining like so many Stars and Luminaries placed together into one Constellation and lastly because of their chained Conjunction being united placed and joyned together in a distinct and continual method These things do very much contribute not only to the more speedy learning but also to the more distinct understanding of the most necessary points of Scripture-Doctrine and so of the rest also as having some connexion with or relation unto these And hence also these methodized Models of the most Essential Principles of Scripture-Doctrine wisely formed from the Scriptures are a notable mean to guard people against Delusions and Errors which Corrupt Men are continually broaching in the Church seeing they being in that manner Succinctly and Methodically summed and so quickly learned and more distinctly understood are as it were a Measuring Line in every serious Mans hand to find out the truth or falshood of every Mans Doctrine What Ought not Ministers and have they not Authority to publish from the Scripture the Principles of Religion to the People and that in the most perspicuous and ready way they can have they
Ninth Query and it is evident that these are not another Gospel but are Institutions of the same Gospel preached by the Apostles But secondly taking our Directory in a more strict and proper notion of a Church-Directory as that is restricted to and meerly contains Directions concerning the External Circumstances of the Publick Worship and Government of Gods House I must for Answer to their present Query concerning it first suppose the particular Directions thereof to be materially right and conform to the Scripture general Precepts above mentioned which here once for all I warn seeing I will not here stand to vindicate every particular Direction thereof in particular If the Quakers had quarrelled any particular Direction thereof I behooved to have vindicated it particularly but seeing they have held themselves in the general so must I. These things supposed and taking our Directory in the foresaid strict notion I answer that our Directory thus taken is not simply Gospel or Scripture-Rule but partly Ecclesiastical Constitution it is Gospel or Scripture-Rule in respect of its fundamental ground and chief consideration which consists in the Institution and Rule for maintaing Order and Decency and promoting Edification seeing that is scripture-Scripture-Rule it is Ecclesiastical constitution in respect of the particular definition and accommodation of these Circumstances which is an Act elicited by the habit of Christian Prudence conform to the general Rules and Institutions of the Scripture forementioned Hence it appears that though the directions of our Directory thus taken be not simply Gospel-Rules yet neither are they another Gospel seeing in respect of their fundamental ground and chief consideration they are Institutions of the same Gospel preached by the Apostles as is shewed and in so far as they are Ecclesiastical Constitutions they are warranted by the Gospel preached by the Apostles as in regard of particulars I suppose until the Quakers particularly quarrel and in the general I have proved it above at the Survey of their Ninth Query But another Gospel hath no warrant in the Gospel preached by the Apostles but is contrary thereunto and condemned therein Again another Gospel is some Doctrine beside or contrary to the Gospel preached by the Apostles urged as necessary to Salvation and an absolute bond of Conscience and Rule of Divine Faith and so a Doctrine in its matter only beside being thus urged becomes contrary But our Church-Directory beside its agreement with the Scripture general Rules was never so urged as the Practice of our Church sufficiently attests As for our Confession of Faith and Catechism I affirm that albeit as to the formal Constitution which they have from Ecclesiastical Authority they be not Infallible or Canonical otherwise all Ecclesiastical Constitutions would be such yet considering them Materially as to the whole Articles confessed in the one and the whole Definitions delivered in the other and for the questionary part it is no matter seeing that affirms nothing nor denies they are universally and throughout very Scripture-Sentence very gospel-Gospel-Rule and Law together either expresly and formally or materially implicitly and by good consequence taught therein Let the Quakers condescend upon any Article or Proposition believed or taught in the one or the other that is not either expresly or implicitly and by good consequence contained in the Scriptures which until they do I must superseed particular Apologizing for them Only I have already sufficiently defended them in the general according as they have impugned them and so many of their particular Enunciations as the Quakers elsewhere in these Queries have particularly impeached I have also particularly maintained and vindicated in my Surveys The Quakers then may see that I affirm the whole Enunciations of our Confession and Catechism materially taken to be very Gospel and Law Rules together and so they are not another Gospel seeing another Gospel does not teach and confess the same Truths which the Gospel preached by the Apostles does And I have told them before that as to their formal Constitution by Ecclesiastical Authority they have not the same Authority which the Gospel preached by the Apostles had we do not equalize them therewith Let the Quakers see to their own Confession of Faith and a black Faith I am sure wherein there is scarce a Sentence that is not contrary to the Gospel preached by the Apostles a good part of which we have already seen and shall see more hereafter As for the Sentence of Scripture here Cited from the Epistle to the Romans a man would wonder to what purpose it is here Quoted But here is the business the Quakers feign to themselves a sort of a Dumb-Gospel without any words or Orations and this they seem to alledge to have a real and strict Identity with the power of God which is as senseless a Dream as can well be faln upon which the very Context of the place Cited overthrows while it calls the Gospel the power of God to Believers only intimating that it is not such unto unbelievers on whose hearts it does not so powerfully work whereas the power of God properly taken is still the same in respect of all the world The Gospel is called the Word of Truth and the word preached Ephes 1.13 Colos 1.5 Heb. 4.2 Which cannot be said of the power of God The Gospel was committed to Pauls trust 1 Thes 2.4 1 Tim. 1.11 But the power of God was never committed to the trust of any meer Creature The Apostle therefore calls the Gospel the power of God by a Figure called Synecdoche attributing the name of the Principal Cause to the Instrument because it is an effectual Instrument of the power of God So the Preaching of the Cross is called the power of God to them that are Saved 1 Cor. 1.18 not by way of Identity but thus Synecdochically as is declared So also the Samaritans reputed Simon Magus the great power of God Act. 8.10 not by way of Identity for I think they were not Quakers but they called him so Synecdochically because in their conceit he was a great Instrument thereof Twelfth QUERY What is Original Sin Whether it be not the Devil yea or nay for doth not the Original signifie the beginning and what did Christ come to destroy was it not the Devil and his works SVRVEY This Inspirer of the Quakers it seems must be a great Jester but I think him a great Fool too to suggest in his sport such Romances and Fictions unto simple Men void of understanding who to his infamy and disgrace thus report them in Earnest The Devil is indeed a very sinful Creature but that he should be very Sin it self is a horrible Fiction For first then Original Sin must be a Person seeing the Devil is a Person Secondly God made the Devil but God made not Original Sin seeing he cannot be the Author of sin therefore Original Sin is not the Devil The Minor is proved already I prove the Major God made all Creatures otherwise they could
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