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-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
MY Lord Bishop of Edinburgh laving appointed me to reveiw and examine a Book Compiled by Mr. John Alexander Preacher of the Gospel Intituled Jesuitico Quakerism Examin'd or Quakers Confuted These are assuring that it not only Contains nothing contrary to the Christian Religion to the Doctrine Worship or Government of the Church of Scotland but that it exactly though briefly compriseth the Marrow of many great Truths in order to the vindication of those solid Articles of our Faith ignorantly and unreasonably invaded by that Heretical fry of Quakers and that with knowledge and care the Author hath Refuted their Irreligious and Blasphemous Positions so that it may prove a very useful Book And therefore I humbly judge it very deserving to be Imprinted This is Testified by John Hamilton Leith Octob. 16. 1679. Jesuitico-Quakerism Examined OR A CONFUTATION OF The Blasphemous and unreasonable Principles of THE QUAKERS With a Vindication of the Church of God IN BRITAIN FROM Their Malicious Clamours and Slanderous Aspersions By John Alexander Preacher of the Gospel Isaiah 8.20 Te the Law and to the Testimony if they speak not according to this word it is because there is no light in them Luk. 16.29 31. They have Moses and the Prophets let them hear them If they hear not Moses and the Prophets neither will they be perswaded though one rose from the dead 1 John 4.1 Beloved believe not every Spirit but trie the Spirits whether they are of God because many false Prophets are gone out into the world LONDON Printed for Dorman Newman at the Sign of the Kings Arms in the Poultry 1680. To the Right Honorable Sir Robert Clayton Knight Lord Mayor of the Famous City of London the Author wisheth Grace Mercy and Peace MY Lord this ensuing Treatise comes to Salute the World and appear upon the publick Stage under the Honorable Shade and Patrociny of your name not presuming to add any Lustre thereunto whereof it is uncapable and whereof your Lordships Prudence and Vertues have been such publick Heraulds to the World that I shall rather impose a Cessation to my Pen and enjoyn my self a necessary silence as my highest Encomium than be Guilty with Apelles in forming of the Image of interweaving the constrained Failzeurs of my best Rhetorick with your Lordships deserved Commendation But knowing the hazard of these publick Scenes and the Worlds view where there is always a Momus ready to carp it comes to seek shelter under your Lordships favorable Protection whereunto it is also encouraged with good hopes of obtaining the cheerful Countenance of your Authority because of your Pious and Laudable Zeal against all the enemies of our Orthodox Faith and the Divine Truth especially these pernicious and beyond all Heathens most inhumane Proto-plasta's of Quakerism I mean the Jesuits unto whom the latter Profession owes the Founding of their Order and a great many of their Principles be they never so shie and nice to Confess it It doth also with Modest humility lay claim to one interest into your Lordships Tutelage because albeit it was elsewhere conceived and had the form of one Embryo yet it hath received its just measures for a regular Birth within the precinct of your Honorable Jurisdiction and though of Scottish Parentage yet it is truly London Born I know very well there are many in this declining Age of Christianity who account all Disputations about Principles of Religion how necessary soever providing men live well to be but vain Jangling wherein they exactly Homologate the Quakers as I well know but their provision though it were granted to be enough which it is not is impossible if people be misled in necessary Principles seeing no man can live well who mistakes his Rode-way and follows wrong directions and lies and therefore as we are very heartily willing to Discharge all Debates about Opinions which yield no fruit to Edification and make us no sounder Christians so their great care is to have all the other Cashiered also But when the most necessary Truths are boldly invaded and our common Faith in danger to be supplanted it looks not like Christian Courage or Zeal but is rather a plain betraying of Truth for us to hold our peace and suffer the enemy how contemptible soever they may seem by their real Triumphs though but counterfeited Trophees of a pretended Victory erected meerly upon our Cowardise and Sloth not the overthrow of our Cause or their Strength to gather Proselytes and increase their numbers This is not to be valiant for the Truth upon the Earth Christ did not so let the Sadduces a contemptible and foolish people pass without a demonstrative Confutation Paul also fought with Beasts at Ephesus and his Epistles declare what care he took at the Spirits direction too to redargue the Errors of his time This Tractate shall not much value the obloquy and Sarcasms of these men nor of any other whom nothing can please which is not either the fruit of their proper Invention or else at least adequately adjusted to their prejudicate apprehensions and foreconceived Opinions if it be but which is its great ambition acceptable to your Lordship and Edifying to such as desire to know and love the Truth And though reflecting upon the Brutish absurdity of the party against whom I have Embarqu'd in this Province not only renouncing all true Principles of Religion but also stifling their very faculties of reason my adopting of this piece so high may almost seem unsutable yet when I contemplate the great Worth and Excellency of the Subject Matter and Theme I am to treat upon being no less then the whole Divine Ordinances of the Gospel and the most precious and many of them most necessary Truths of Jesus I hope my Nuncupation shall no ways be thought incongruous if I have but been so happy as rightly to encounter the Adversaries and dextrously to vindicate and display the Standard of the Sacred Truth which with what force and evidence I have done I submit to your Lordships Vmpirage and Judgment whom that God may bless and make prosperous here and eternally happy hereafter is the earnest Prayer of your Lordships most Obedient Servant John Alexander TO THE READER THese seventeen following Queries of the Quakers having come to my hand with a direction bearing my Name I did for some time stand in Bivio doubting with my self if it should be worth the while to bring them to the Anvil one while fearing lest Truth through my weakness should be at a disadvantage and another while accounting it almost an unnecessary undertaking to offer to redargue such distracted and Brutish Errors the very Grossness whereof might alone be sufficient to overthrow and Crush their Reputation with every man not depriv'd of sense and rob'd of a sound mind But after more mature and due consideration that an undervalued and neglected enemy proves ordinarily the most dangerous and that unsavory Hemlock except it be digged out and Exfundat may grow and
wilful Seducers and malicious Opposers of the Truth whose Blasphemous Mouths must be stopt and their Heretical fury repressed that the Truth may not be Troden under foot and the simple Seduced who are easily ensnared where such men get way and are not Redargued That which hath deceived and been a Snare unto many simple and ignorant people is some hairy Garments of a few and but a few external Duties of the second Table of the Law wherewith these Instruments of Satan have Clothed themselves But such should remember that false Apostles and Ministers of Satan do Transform themselves into the Apostles of Christ and Ministers of Righteousness even as Satan also Transforms himself into an Angel of light 2 Cor. 11.13 14 15. and false Prophets being inwardly Wolves do notwithstanding come in Sheeps Clothing Mat. 7.15 and even Resisters of the Truth put on a form of Godliness 2 Tim. 3.5 8. and however these Doctors of the Quakers Mask and Vizorn themselves with some few externals of the second Table yet how even in Doctrine they trample generally upon the whole Moral Law but more especially upon the first Table thereof which yet in reason ought to have the first room is not obscure For as for the First Commandment it is notour to all acquaint with the Principles of the Quakers how manifestly even in Doctrine they contradict and oppose the same while they Impudently deny that any man who hath not received the Spirit ought to Worship God This is so known a Tenet of the Quakers that we need hardly to produce Testimonies thereof but it may be seen in a Book of theirs Published in the year 1668 entituled The Principles of Truth or a Declaration of their Faith in the 81 82 and 92 pages whereof they expresly Teach and I shall repeat their very words That all men ought First to wait Vntil they receive the Spirit in Truth Then in the same Truth to worship God in Spirit who is a Spirit In plain Terms that is to say men must first wait until they receive the Spirit before they offer to meddle in worshipping of God The same also may be seen in a most virulent Printed Pamphlet of theirs Intituled in the beginning of the Chapters or Sections thereof for I had it without a Title page The Principles of the Priest so they call the Ministers of Scotland of whom they there speak of such a Place and such a Place in the 14. and 15 pages whereof they directly Impugn and oppose this Position and Principle alledged by them to have been Taught by Mr. John Carstairs Minister at Glasgow viz. That all men whatsoever ought to Worship God Unto this their Atheistical Doctrine is Subalternate that other impious Principle of theirs That no man ought to Pray to God till he be actually moved thereunto and Influenced by the Spirit otherwise Mr. George Keith one of their Chief Apostles affirms it is but Will-worship and Superstition in his Quakerism no Popery page 99. and 100. Good Reader allow me to take a small word of these Mad Principles and I shall do it very briefly Therefore first all men whatsoever they be are bound to Fear Reverence Love and praise God say the Contrary who dare but these are all most principal Arts or parts of the Worship of God Therefore this Principle of the Quakers is both False and Prophane Secondly Obedience to God Essentially and Indispensably includes worshipping of God seeing it includes a subjecting and stooping to his Yoke and Soveraignity and a doing of Homage and Honour unto him and this also includes Reverence all which are no mean parts of his most Substantial and Moral worship Well then if no man ought to Worship God until first he receive the Spirit then no man ought to obey God until first he receive the Spirit seeing obedience Essentially includes Worship and cannot be performed without it as is shewed but it is utterly Atheistical Profane and Absurd to say that no man ought to obey God until first he receive the Spirit for then no unrenewed man ought to obey God seeing such men have not received the Spirit Joh. 14.17 Rom. 8.9 if then unrenewed men ought not to obey God then they are not under any Law of God and he requires no obedience of them for if they be under any Law of his and if he requires any Duty of them I am sure the Quakers will never get them exempted from it Well then if unrenewed men be not under any Command or Law of God and he requires no Duty of them then it follows Infallibly first that let unrenewed men do what they will they cannot sin against God seeing such as are not under any Command or Law of God cannot trasgress any Law of his and so sin against him see Rom. 4.15 1 Joh. 3.4 Such men then in the Quakers Principles may deny disown reject hate and Contemn God Worship the Devil and Debauch at their pleasure and yet they cannot sin against God for all that seeing they are not under any Law of God Secondly it follows thereupon that Reprobates are all most unjustly Condemned for their sinning against God seeing they not having received the Spirit are not under Law to God as is supposed and so cannot be Guilty of sinning against him Thirdly it follows thereupon that unrenewed men cannot sin albeit they should never so much Counte-ract and Contraveen all the Precepts of the second Table of the Law also seeing these that Transgress no Law of God nor any Command of his cannot be sinners seeing Sin is a Transgression of the Law and where no Law is there is no Transgression they are not capable of Trangressng a Law who are not under it and bound to obey it Hence then in the Quakers Principles unrenewed men may Lawfully Dishonour and Defame all men Murder commit Adultery Steal bear false Witness and what not Is not that a sweet Doctrine that tends so directly to all mischief and wickedness losing all men that have not received the Spirit from all Bonds of God and cutting asunder all the Divine Cords of their Duty are not the Sage Doctors of these black Mysteries of Satan very Divinely Inspired Do they not seem to be very Pious Would it not be a sweet world if these Principles were put in practise God preserve us from from so Impious a Piety and such stark Mad Inspirations which I am sure are the very quintessence of the Devils whole Treasury and the utmost of his strength and endeavour Hence falls that other Lewd and Prophane Principle of the Quakers subalternate to their Doctrine here presently Confuted viz. That no man ought to Pray to God until he be actually moved and influenced thereunto by the Spirit seeing calling upon God is a part of Moral Worship or of our Obedience to the Moral Law whereunto all men are obliged Pour out thy wrath upon the Heathen that know thee not and upon the Kingdoms that call not on thy
of God ver 9. he calls it the Word of God ver 13. Secondly the Predictions Doctrine and Sayings of the Prophets which are written in the Scriptures are in Scripture most expresly called the Word of the Lord and yet these are not Christ the Co-substantial Word therefore there is another Word of God and which is written in the Scriptures beside Christ the Co-substantial Word The Antecedent I prove from 1 King 16.12 2 King 9.36 2 King 23.16 2 Chron. 36.22 Ezra 1.1 In all these places the Predictions and Doctrine of these Prophets are most expresly called the Word of the Lord. Thirdly it is said Isai 28.13 that the Word of the Lord was unto Israel Precept upon Precept and Line upon Line where the Precepts and Doctrine contained in the Scripture-lines are called the Word of the Lord But sure it is Christ himself is not these written Precepts or Doctrine therefore there is beside Christ the Co-substantial Word another Word of God which is written in the Scriptures Fourthly Hosea calls the beginning of his Prophecies and Doctrine The beginning of the Word of the Lord by Hosea which cannot be the beginning of Christ the Son of God by Hosea I am sure but it must be the beginning of the Doctrine and Prophecies taught and Prophesied and there written by him therefore there is beside Christ the Eternal Word another Word of God which is written in the Scriptures Fifthly to be a Word that the Lord hath spoken and to be the Word of the Lord is all one thing me-thinks but there is a Word which the Lord hath spoken which is not Christ and which is written in the Scriptures Therefore there is a Word of the Lord beside Christ and the same is written in the Scriptures The Minor is clear from Isai 37.22 where the Prophet says This is the Word that the Lord hath spoken concerning Senacherib and this Word is there written The Virgin the Daughter of Sion hath despised thee c. But surely that Word is not Christ Christ is not a complex Oration or saying Sixthly the whole Doctrine of the Prophets if the Quakers will trust them is the Word of the Lord and yet it is not Christ the Son of God seeing they always ascribe it to him with a Thus saith the Lord and what God saith must certainly be his Word for to speak and not say a word is pretty repugnant and may pass for a good Jest amongst men that are merry therefore there is a Word of the Lord beside Christ and the same is written in the Scriptures seeing the Doctrine of the Prophets is written there Seventhly there is a Word of God which is the Sword of the Spirit and an Instrument in his hand Ephes 6.17 But Christ the Son of God is not the Sword of the Spirit nor an Instrument in his hand seeing the Second person of the Godhead cannot work from the Third because so their Order of working would quite contradict their Order of Subsisting which is utterly repugnant much less can the Second person be the Instrument of the Third and if by the Spirit here be meant the New man in us Christ in his Person cannot be an Instrument thereof either nor of any Creature whatsoever that ever had a Being or Existence Therefore there is another Word of God beside Christ the Son of God Lastly for we need stand no longer in a matter so manifest The Word of Christ spoken by him within time is the Word of God seeing Christ is God as well as man and yet it is not Christ himself as needs no Proof But there is a Word of Christ spoken by him within time and it is written in the Scriptures Joh. 5.24 and 8.31 37. and 12.48 and 15.3 Colos 3.16 Rev. 3.8 Therefore there is beside Christ the Eternal Word another Word of God which is spoken within time and written in the Scriptures Thou wilt say perhaps seeing most part of the Quakers are content to yield to the Scriptures the Title of Gods Words and almost all of them of Gods Testimony it would seem that this Debate is only about the naming of the Scripture What then were the hazard to gratifie the Quakers in this point as Wise men use to please Children and Fools sometimes Answer Though all the Quakers without exception should yield the Scriptures the Titles of Gods Words and Gods Testimony and yet some of them do it not as we shall see ere we end the Survey of this Query yet there is a manifest hazard in denying the Title of the Word of God to the Scriptures For let it once be denied with the Quakers that the Scriptures are the Word of God and then grant what they will to get their Negative once admitted it plainly follows that they have never been spoken by the Mouth of the Lord seeing what any person speaks must needs be his Word or else he speaks and holds his peace as the Jest is and this puts the Scriptures into the same condition with the Doctrine and Dreams of false Prophets and brangles their Divine Authority See Deut. 18.20 21. Jerem. 23.16 21. Ezek. 13.7 and 22.28 Again let it once be granted that the Scriptures are not Intituled The Word of God and have no Interest to be so called and then all the Exhortations given in the Scriptures for hearkening to the Word believing and obeying the Word c. and all the commendations of its efficacy and sweetness must be transferred from the Word of God written in the Scriptures unto Christ the Co-substantial Word immediately who as he is Jealous of his own Glory so he will not have his Word rob'd of its due Authority and Excellency which he had Communicated thereunto And so that which the Quakers design and this is their Formal aim in this Affair is to take all men off from the written Word of God as their rule for grant that such a thing hath not such a name and then whatever is spoken under that name must be applyed unto some other Subject so named and not unto a Subject which was never so named And thus again they indeavour to overthrow the Use End and Repute of the Scriptures so far as they can And thus to deny the Scriptures the Title of The Word of God strikes at their Divine Authority and overthrows their use and regard And therefore we are Commanded to hold fast the Form of sound words 2 Tim. 1.13 But say the Quakers the Scriptures are the Words of God Exod. 20. Therefore they infer they are not the Word of God Ans But so by the Antecedent the Quakers destroy their own Cause and contradict themselves for if the Scriptures be the Words of God then I am sure there are Words of God beside Christ and yet they deny there is any seeing the written words of the Scripture are not Christ the Son of God Again this consequence is as if I should say Such a Book contains the Doctrines of
the Quakers Ergo not the Doctrine of the Quakers The Ten Commands are the Moral Laws Ergo not the Moral Law Is not that well Argued without Logick But what are not whole Sermons and Predictions of the Prophets and Christs whole Doctrine called by them and him the Word of the Lord and his Word as may be seen in almost all our preceeding Arguments Is not the whole Doctrine of the Scriptures called a Word of Prophecy 2 Pet. 1.19 20. Does not Paul call the whole Revealed Truths of God Sound Doctrine and the Doctrine of God 1 Tim. 1.10 and 6.1 Tit. 1.9 and 2.10 And must the Prophets and Apostles Christ and the Holy Ghost learn from the Quakers how their Doctrine should be named will they not allow the Scriptures their Essential Attribute which these gives them that they are the Word of God or albeit we very well know that there are many more words in the Scripture than one why will they not admit of that common Unity here which is not denied in other common Natures and a denomination conformable By these things the objection is both answered and overthrown Again they insinuate another Argument whereby they indeavour to wrest the Title of the Word of God from the Scriptures The Scriptures say they signifies Writings Therefore they mean to infer they are not the Word of God Ans It doth equally follow therefore they are not the Words of God as the Word of God as all may see and so the consequent of their present Argument contradicts the Antecedent of their former Objection and so we may see that the Quakers are but Jugling while they yield the Scriptures the Title of Gods Words whereof their present Argument again indeavours to rob them Secondly our Question is not what the word Scripture signifies but what the Doctrine written in the Scriptures is which the signification of that Word cannot Define But lastly for clear satisfaction I distinguish their Consequent thus viz. That because the Scriptures signifies Writings therefore as to the external Form and Mode which they have from the Writers Pen they are not the Word of God be it so therefore as to their enunciat Doctrine or Sentence they are not the Word of God it follows not For in the Scripture there are two things to be considered viz their Doctrine and Sentence which is the Word of God and their external Form or Mode which they have from the Pen of the Writer which gives the Word of God the Denomination of Written and therefore we call the Scriptures The Written Word Because we said that the Quakers by indeavouring to Wrest the Title of the Word of God from the Scriptures do strike at their Divine Authority therefore I shall here give a short Touch of the Notes and Arguments whereby the Scriptures are clearly Demonstrated to be from God and of Divine Inspiration such as are the Majesty of the Style of the Scriptures above all other Writings under great simplicity of words the Divine purity of the Doctrine savoring wholly of holiness and vertue The Divine Scope of the Doctrine which is to give all glory to God The Efficacy of the Doctrine in the hearts of men above all other Doctrines in the world The Infallible accomplishment of the Predictions therein contained as they were fore-told the wonderful consent of all the parts thereof being written by so many diverse Pen-men so far distant from one another both in time and place which was never to be seen in any other Book in the World especially of divers mens Writing The manifold Miracles whereby God hath born Witness thereunto which Satan could never so much as Counterfeit The irreconcilable hatred of Satan and the World against it more than against all other Books in the World The firm stability thereof and the special hand of God which appears in the preserving and transmitting thereof from Age to Age notwithstanding all the Malice of Satan and the Devices of him and his wicked Instruments against it The miserable end of the greatest Persecutors and enemies thereof The Testimony of the many Martyrs Sealing their Witness thereunto with their Blood and the Testimony of the whole Church thereunto which have a piece of weight in their own Order The Scriptures cannot be from evil men or Angels seeing they shew their villany denounce their Doom which Galls them and prescribe a Method of living quite contrary to their Inclination Nor can good Angels or Men be their Author for upon the one hand they durst not have so usurped upon God as to feign his Authority and Commission to so many Laws Ordinances Threatnings and Promises of their own meer Invention and upon the other hand if they had done it they could not have been good Angels or Men Therefore the Scriptures must be from God himself These things put together which I have but named are sufficient to convince that the Scriptures are from God and of Divine Authority and are enough irresistibly to stop the Mouths of all Contradicters Notwithstanding for the full assurance and through persuasion of Faith that the Scriptures are from God and of Divine Inspiration the Spirit is requisite by his effectual Working in with and by the same upon our hearts and minds to Seal up their Divine Authority unto us And yet this makes nothing in the least for the Quakers who Teach to follow a Spirit abstracted and separated from the Scriptures For beside that we shall shew at the following Query that the Spirit speaking in the Scriptures most straitly Ties us to the Scriptures as our Supreme Rule in all matters of Faith It is also evident that it is in with and by the Word of God written in the Scriptures that the Spirit manifests himself unto and in our hearts both in the enlightning of our Minds and renewing of our Wills and Affections as these Scriptures following Witness Psal 19.7.8 Joh. 4.41 Joh. 14.26 Joh. 15.3 Joh. 17.20 Act. 17.11.12 Rom. 15.4 Ephes 6.17 Heb. 4.12 Isai 59.21 These and a Thousand places more that I might instance do manifestly convince that the written Word of God is an Organ and Instrument in the Spirits hand whereby he Enlightens Renews and Sanctifies us more and more himself also as a Physical Cause does immediately influencing the Effect seeing all Effects must depend immediately upon God if they include any real being But say the Quakers whether or not is all that is written from Genesis to Revelation a Rule for your Faith and Manners Ans No doubt we are bound to believe all Scripture Enunciation from the beginning to the end seeing all of it was given by Inspiration of God and written for our Learning 2 Tim. 3.16 2 Pet. 1.21 Luke 24.25 Act. 24.14 1 Cor. 10.11 There is no more doubt we are bound to obey all the Commands of the Moral Law seeing that is of a perpetual binding force Mat. 5.18.19 with whatsoever is of common equity Philip. 4.8 9. or whatever injoyning any piece
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
Consequent which way it is indeed requisite yea so Reason is requisite for perceiving every word of God and without it we should not be capable of the Principles of Religion more than Brutes are So also our Ears are a necessary Instrument for hearing the Word Preached or Read and our Eyes for Reading of it Thirdly It uses to be objected That the Gospel is above Reason Answ The Gospel is above Reason in regard of the matter and mysteries which it teaches which Reason cannot reach or understand but not in respect of the manner how it teaches them which is suited and accommodated to human capacity Or else no Man upon the accompt that he is endued with Reason should be one whit more capable so much as Grammatically and Historically to understand any one saying of the Gospel than his Sheep and Oxen which is beyond all measure absurd for then Brutes should be no less capable of the Gospel Doctrine than Men and Men no more than Brutes Lastly It is objected That the Learned only are able to perceive Consequences Answ That is most false seeing not only the Learned but also the unlearned have a rational discursive faculty and some measure of the use thereof except they be Distracted or in meer Infancy and so being furnisht with the Principles are capable to discern their evident Consequences both in things Natural and Supernatural albeit the Learned are indeed able more promptly to perceive Consequences and to perceive more Consequences lying far remote from the Principles and therefore they are ordinarily more knowing than the unlearned Now by the Quakers grudging of Grammar Logick and Philosophy unto Ministers of the Gospel and by their opposition to the Scripture-Rule and Scripture-Consequence a Man may if he be curious learn the Description of a Minister of the Quakers choice viz. He must neither have Grammar Logick nor Philosophy he must reject the Rule at least the Supremacy of the Rule of Scripture both Express and by good Consequence That is to say He must not know how to speak Sence nor how to Define Divide Judge or Argument he must abandon the Light of Nature and throw by the Word of God at most being but a Secondary-Rule and a Subservant to their Queen Regent the Light within That the Quakers may not think I wrong them this Description is their Principles clearly explained by me in the foregoing Queries And will not such a Man be a rare Minister a worthy Messenger an Interpreter among a Thousand he is very like to have more feet than hands methinks SECT III. Concerning Baptism with Water Being now arrived at the main Subject of the present Query which is Baptism before I handle the Question concerning Infant-Baptism I must here inquire whether Baptism with Water be an Ordinance of Divine Institution under the New Testament and to continue to the end of the World for albeit the the Quakers have here omitted it yet it is the main and most proper debate concerning Baptism betwixt us and them wherein the Quakers take the Negative yea and George Keith charges Baptism with Water upon us as a Popish Doctrine forsooth in his Quakerism no Popery page 100. Wherever Baptism is mentioned in the New-Testament and the word Water is not expresly added the Quakers do always deny Baptism with Water to be there meant sometimes alledging it to be meant of the Baptism of Doctrine which is when the Word is Preached to People sometimes of the work of Regeneration and sometimes of enduing with the extraordinary Gifts of the Spirit all which are in the Scriptures Metaphorically and Improperly sometimes called Baptism Matth. 21.25 Joh. 1.33 Act. 1.5 And this they do that if success would answer they may not be forced to acknowledge Baptism with Water to be an Ordinance of Divine Institution under the New Testament We shall therefore as we proceed clear every Text that we make use of where need is from the false Glosses of the Adversaries This premised I Assert against the Quakers that Baptism with Water is an Ordinance of Divine Institution under the New Testament and an Ordinance which it shall be evident is appointed to continue to the end of the World I prove it First The Baptism of John was an Ordinance of Divine Appointment belonging to the New Testament but that was with Water Matth. 3.11 Mark 1.8 Therefore Baptism with Water is an Ordinance of Divine Institution belonging to the New Testament The Scriptures cited prove the Minor I prove the Major For that the Baptism of John was of Divine Appointment is clear from Matth. 21.25 Luk. 7.30 Joh. 1.33 And that it belonged to the New Testament appears seeing John was the very first Minister of the New Testament way of Dispensation for which see Matth. 11.12 13. Luk. 16.16 Together with the breaking forth whereof and never till then God appointed this Ordinance of Baptism with Water to be dispensed by John Secondly The Baptism with Water dispensed by the Disciples or Apostles of Christ was an Ordinance of Divine Appointment under the New Testament as we shall presently see But the Baptism of John was substantially one and the same therewith for their Author or Efficient cause was the same by comparing Luk. 7.30 Joh. 1.33 with Matth. 28.19 Joh. 4.1 2. Act. 10.48 Their External Matter or outward Element was the same by comparing Matth. 3.11 with Act. 10.47 Their Internal Matter or the thing signified and their ends and so also their Internal form which results from their Institution and Ends were the same by comparing Mark 1.4 Luk. 3.3 with Act. 2.38 and 22.16 So then they being one and the same as to all their causes are undeniably the same Baptism Substantially and I defie any Man to shew any substantial point wherein they differ and so the one being an Ordinance of the New Testament so must the other But say the Quakers with Papists The Baptism of John was substantially different from Christs Baptism seeing John Baptized only with Water but Christ Baptized with the Holy Ghost and with Fire Ans This objection cannot prove the Baptism of John to be substantially different from the Baptism dispensed by Christs Apostles at his Order seeing theirs so dispensed was no less with Water than his and they could no more Baptize with the Holy Ghost and with Fire than he Therefore John does not there viz. Luke 3.16 distinguish his Baptism from Christs External Baptism Administred by his Apostles but he distinguishes his own Work and Office and of all Ministers in Baptism from the Work and Office of Christ viz. That he and other Ministers do Administer the Water and External Sign but that its Christ that bestows the inward Grace and thing signified Secondly It is objected here That these who were Baptized with Johns Baptism were again Baptized with Christs by Paul Act. 19.3 4 5. Ergo Johns Baptism did substantially differ from Christs or else these would not have needed to be Baptized over
Covenant hath a Divine right unto Baptism under the New Testament but Children of believing Parents are by God Adopted and received within the Covenant as is plain from Gen. 17. ch Mat. 19.14 Act. 2.39 1 Cor. 7.14 Therefore Children of believing Parents have a Divine right unto Baptism under the New Testament The Minor is Evident by the Scriptures Cited I prove the Major because Baptism under the New Testament is the Initiating Seal and Symbol belonging and appended to our Entry and Reception into the Covenant as was before proved under the New Testament and so it belongs to every person that is received into the Covenant upon the accompt of their Reception or else it shall belong to their Entry and Reception as is supposed and above proved and yet not to them as Entered and Received which involves a manifest Contradiction Thirdly all who are probably Partakers of the Spirit of Grace and Regeneration have a Divine Right under the New Testament unto Baptism in the Churches Court and she ought to admit them thereunto as was before proved from Act. 10.47 48. But the Children of believing Parents are probably Partakers of the Spirit of Grace and Regeneration under the New Testament Therefore they have a right unto Baptism in the Churches Court and she is bound to admit them thereunto The Major was evidently proved before I prove the Minor for Gods taking them in within the Covenant Gen. 17. chap. makes it probable His promising to Circumcise the hearts of the Children as well as the Parents Deut. 30.6 makes it probable Gods Sanctifying some of the Children of believers from the Womb Jerem. 1.5 Luk. 1.15 makes it probable Pauls calling them Holy 1 Cor. 7.14 viz. federally and externally makes it probable And if it were not probable that the Children of Believers did partake of the Spirit of Grace and Regeneration then it could not be probable that any of them Dying in Non-age should be Saved seeing none but such as are Born of Water and of the Spirit can enter into the Kingdom of God Joh. 3.5 And lastly for I am sure I need no more Christs declaring and asserting their Interest into the Kingdom of Heaven Mat. 19.14 Luk. 18.16 whereunto they cannot enter without being Regenerated makes it probable These things make it Infallibly certain as to the Kind or Quoad Speciem and probable as to particular persons or Quoad Individua But against this Last the Quakers except with the Aâ—abaptists That Christ does not in these Texts say that the Kingdom of Heaven pertained to these Infants that were brought to him and such other Natural Infants but unto Spiritual Infants whom he means of when he says Of such is the Kingdom of Heaven Ans But then Christs reasoning runs thus suffer little Children these were true Natural Infants that were brought to Christ as we shall presently see wanting Interest in the Kingdom of Heaven to come unto me for the Kingdom of Heaven belongs to mature persons regenerated which are Spiritual Infants and Infants Improperly so called This would have been so bad a Consequence that it would have bereft the Discourse of all Sence Secondly hereby they shew that in their opinion there are no Infants that have Interest into the Kingdom of Heaven otherwise they should have granted Christs words in respect of Infants properly so called and then farewel to the Objection Thirdly we here appeal the Analogy of Faith without some necessity from which the words must not be detorted from a proper to an Improper Sence Secondly they except that these were not young Infants that were brought to Christ but grown to some pretty Age because Christ says Suffer them to come intimating that they themselves could Walk Ans But when I Marvel did Come begin so necessarily to signifie walking on ones own Feet A man is said to Come from America albeit he should lie all the while in a Ships Cabin The Text shews that these Children came not on their own Feet For in the Text of Luke they are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Sucking Infants And in all the Texts there is a word used for their bringing that signifies to bear or carry 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Again Christ took them in his Arms and Blessed them but never a word of his Teaching them These that brought them spoke as the Texts Intimate but never a word in their head And if they had been in any small measure capable of Christs Doctrine the Disciples it seems would not have forbidden their coming Lastly they except against the Body of the Argument that it cannot be discerned if Infants have received the Spirit or not Ans I have shewed before how as to the Kind quoad Speciem it may be Infallibly discerned and probably as to Individuals Now probable Evidences are sufficient for the Baptism of particular persons Old or Young or else none at all should be admitted to Baptism seeing heart-searching is Gods Prerogative Jer. 17.9 10. nor did the Apostles themselves Infallibly discern peoples hearts as may be seen Act. 8.13 with 23. and 9.26 27. 1 Joh. 2.19 Fourthly all the visible or appearing Disciples of Christ ought to be Baptized under the New Testament as is evident from Mat. 28.19 Where Christ commands to make all Nations his Disciples Baptizing them c. From which Text it is as clear as Noontyde that whoever is once visibly or appearingly become Christs Disciple for the Church cannot go beyond probabilities here ought to be Baptized and that forthwith assoon as it can be conveniently done as the Expression imports Go make them Disciples Baptizing as if they should be Baptized in the very same instant that their Interest and Discipleship appears without requiring or expecting any further that as being the Condition being once probably discovered But the Children of believing Parents are visible Disciples of Christ Therefore they ought to be Baptized under the New Testament The Major needs no more proving I prove the Minor for all the visible Members of Christs School are his visible Disciples seeing to be a Member of ones School and to be his Disciple are both one thing as is undeniable but the Children of believing Parents are visible Members of Christs School seeing Christs School is his Church whereof the Children of believers are certainly Members seeing they were Members thereof in the time of the Old Testament and doubtless Christs coming in the Flesh when the Grace of God was enlarged hath not deprived them of so merciful a Priviledge surely not and since God received them into the Covenant we never heard of his putting them out again and they are Holy viz. federally and in order to Church-membership and of such is the Kingdom of Heaven all which iâ— already declared The Anabaptists use to urge this Text of Matthew against Infant-Baptism reading the words as they are in our Translation Go ye therefore and Teach all Nations Baptizing them c. From whence they
the Church and to be by Her observed till Christs coming again at the day of general Judgment and that for shewing forth his Death until then which notwithstanding is not a Gospel-Ordinance Instituted by Christ it's a horrid contradiction to say so Is this the Spirit of Revelation I should say of occaecation and fascination that the Quakers boast of Oh miserable Guide and grand Cheat who instead of a plain Path as he pretends doth thus conduct them continually into the dark mists of Cimmerian Clouds or rather into the Chimerical Desarts of Utopia where all their Principles seems to concenter in the common place of Contradiction But say the Quakers here Is that a standing Command or is left to People seeing it 's said As oft as ye eat this Bread and drink this Cup do it in Remembrance of his Death and for shewing forth his Death till he come again Was this Coming to the end of the World Or was it till his coming to dwell in his Apostles c. See their Heretical Confession of Faith where they harp the same string page 26 27 77 78 79 80. Ans O miseri Quae tanta Insania cives Quis furor here is a whole heap of Romantick Fictious and Phantastick Dreams For first here they alledge that Christ did not dwell in his Apostles when the first Gospel-Supper was Celebrated and the same they also largely insinuate in their Confession pages 72 74 75. and so they behoove to be all at that time unregenerated Men meerly in Nature seeing Christ by his Spirit dwells in all Regenerated Persons and Believers as these Scriptures witness Rom. 8.9 10. 2 Cor. 13.5 Galat. 4.6 1 Joh. 3.24 But it is most false that Christ did not dwell in his Apostles when the first Gospel-Supper was Celebrated and that they were then unregenerated Men seeing Christ plainly declares that they were clean though not all Joh. 13.10 by this meaning of Judas the Traitor And again he affirms that they were clean through the Word that he had spoken unto them Joh. 15.3 and again he says that they had received the Word of God and kept it and knew surely that he came out from God and that the Father had sent him Joh. 17.6 7 8. and these are things which Flesh and Blood never revealed unto them and the natural Man cannot discern Matth. 16.17 1 Cor. 2.14 It is indeed true God had not at that time when the first Gospel-Supper was Celebrated furnisht the Apostles with the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit to accomplish them for their extraordinary work that ensued but that was done at the Pentecost but that Christ did not Spiritually dwell in them before the Pentecost the Scriptures cited declares to be false And as for that which Christ says to Peter Luk. 22.32 When thou art Converted strengthen thy Brethren it is not meant of the Conversion of his state as if he had been at that time unregenerated but it is meant of his Conversion from a particular Fact or his Rising after a Fall as beside what is already said is clear in the Text it self for Christ there tells him that he had prayed for him that his Faith might not fail which intimates that he then had Faith and that it should not be totally extinguisht by the temptation he was to meet with seeing Christs prayers were always heard Joh. 11.42 Secondly They thereby insinuate That the Gospel-Supper should be allowed to none but unregenerated Persons in whom Christ dwells not who will surely take it unworthily and eat and drink their own Damnation therein 1 Cor. 11.29 for they do not here deny but acknowledge that the Apostles were by Christ admitted to the Gospel-Supper before he came as they would have it to dwell in them but they will not have them partaking of it after Christ is once come to dwell in them alledging that to be its period and term day but Christ dwells in all Regenerated Persons as is proved Therefore they allow the Gospel-Supper to none but Unregenerated Persons who cannot discern the Lords Body nor shew forth his Death which is not a bare Historical Remembrance of a thing past but consists in our Spiritual feeding by Faith upon Christ Crucified and the application by Faith of him and all the benefits of his Redemption to our selves in our thankfulness to him for so great benefits and in our love towards him and each other which things Unregenerated Men meerly Carnal cannot do Rom. 8.7 8. 1 Cor. 2.11 14. So then the Quakers in this point do directly contradict the Holy Ghost who requires 1 Cor. 11.25 26 29. that none come to the Gospel-Supper that cannot discern the Lords Body and shew forth his Death Thirdly They thereby alledge That there is not a standing Command left to the Church for Celebrating the Lords Supper which I have shewed to be most false from Luk. 22.19 and 1 Cor. 11.23 24. in both which places we have a clear Command set down Do this in Remembrance of Me which Command seeing it was never to this day repealed or else let the Quakers shew where that is Recorded must be as yet standing still in force otherwise they may as well say that all the Commands are repealed together without any ground as that this is repealed and not standing when they can shew us no ground for it from the whole Word of God Fourthly They thereby alledge that the coming again of Christ mentioned 1 Cor. 11.26 and which is no where else in all the Scriptures mentioned upon this purpose is meant of Christs coming to dwell in his Apostles viz. at the pouring forth of the Spirit at the Pentecost after which time they will not deny that Christ dwelt in them as their Confession of Faith owns pages 72 73 74 75. albeit they plainly teach that he did not dwell in them before that time But it 's impossible that Christs Coming again mentioned there 1 Cor. 11.26 should be meant of Christs pouring forth of the Spirit or coming at the Pentecost seeing Christs coming at the Pentecost was already past long before the writing of that Epistle to the Corinths whereas his coming there mentioned is held forth as a thing meerly future and not past now it 's a flat contradiction to say a thing meerly future and not past is already past and so his coming again mentioned in the Text of the Corinths cannot be meant of his coming at the Pentecost Again The Eucharist was Celebrated by the Apostles and the Church after the Pentecost when Christ either dwelt in the Apostles or else never Act. 2.42 and 20.7 1 Cor. 10.16 and 11.28 Therefore the period of the Gospel Eucharist could not be at the pouring out of the Spirit at the Pentecost What Did not Christ dwell in these Corinthians whom Paul writes to seeing they were sanctified in Christ Jesus and justified in the Name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God and they were Temples to the
viz. Joh. 1.9 and 8.12 is indeed a saving light but the light of Nature and Reason which is the only light that is universally in all men as was proved at the Survey of the fourth Query is not so SECT II. Concerning sufficient Grace in all Men. The Question here is Whether there be sufficient Grace in all Men Turks Pagans Heathens c. able to convert them and so save them The Quakers boldly affirm that there is and they do not mean of objective Grace or Grace offered only to all which some plead for right or wrong my present purpose is not concerned but of subjective Grace whereby the will is made able and put into Hapacity and freedom to convert and turn to God as George Keith affirms in his Quakerism no Popery page 66. But I utterly deny that there is Grace in all men sufficient for Conversion and though still the Affirmer ought to prove not the Denyer yet I prove my Negative Therefore first There is not sufficient light for Conversion in all men as is proved Therefore neither is there sufficient Grace in all men for Conversion The Consequence is easie seeing Grace without Light will be very blind Grace nor can the will be renewed and the understanding left unrenewed and in darkness for how then shall it behave seeing Nil volitum quin praecognitum ignoti nulla cupido Secondly Every sufficient Cause is able to produce the Effect or else it is no ways sufficient as is palpable But there is no Grace in Reprobates and Unrenewed Men able to convert them subdue the resistance of their will and bring it in subjection to God Therefore there is not a sufficient Grace to Conversion in them The Minor only needs proving and I prove it because the Natural Man cannot by any assistance discern the things of the Spirit and the carnal mind which is enmity against God cannot by any assistance be subject to his Law 1 Cor. 2.14 Rom. 8.7 Nay he must be a Spiritual man that does either seeing a Spiritual act can never proceed from a Natural or Carnal Principle more than a Horse can make a Syllogism or define an Object But Reprobates and Unrenewed men are intirely Natural Men and Carnal minded Therefore there is no Grace in Reprobates and Unrenewed Men whereby they can either discern the things of the Spirit or to be subject to his Law and so I am sure it cannot convert them The Minor of this also only needs proving which is easie for Reprobates and Unrenewed Men neither have Christ nor the Spirit of Christ 2 Cor. 13.5 1 Joh. 5.12 Rom. 8.9 10. Galat. 4.6 and so they cannot be Spiritual but intirely Natural and Carnal being without Christ and without his Spirit Thirdly No Man can come to Christ except the Father draw him Joh. 6.44 but he draws not all men whatsoever Therefore all men whatsoever have not sufficient Grace enabling them to go to Christ and so to convert and turn to God The Major is Christs plain assertion in the place cited The Minor is clear from Joh. 6.45 where Christ positively affirms That every man that hath heard and learned of the Father comes to him But all men whatsoever come not to Christ John 5.40 and 10.26 and 12.39 2 Thes 3.2 Therefore all men whatsoever do not hear and learn of the Father and so are not drawn by him and so the whole Argument is evidently proved Lastly Conversion essentially consists in the Habits Powers and Principles of Grace not in the actual operations of Grace otherwise Believers would lose and recover their Conversion and so be in a state of Nature and Grace as often as they are not and again are in the actual exercise and operations of Grace and so every Convert would be an Apostate fallen from Grace when he sleeps or is not actually exercising his Grace which is utterly absurd so to lose and recover continually his union with and relation to Christ and his right unto Eternal Life But whosoever hath sufficient Grace must certainly have the Powers Principles or Habits of Grace Therefore whosoever hath sufficient Grace is certainly a Convert and so if all men have sufficient grace then they are also all Converts which I do not yet believe The Major is proved clearly already I prove the Minor viz. that whosoever hath sufficient Grace must certainly have the Powers Principles or Habits of Grace because without these there cannot be sufficient Grace for there cannot be sufficient Grace where the actions and operations of Grace are impossible as cannot be denied But where the Powers Principles or Habits of Grace are wanting there the actions and operations of Grace are impossible seeing every action and operation is impossible without the Principles and Powers whereupon it necessarily depends as no man can be ignorant of Therefore without the Powers Principles or Habits of Grace there can be no sufficient Grace They will may be say that habits are not simply necessary for producing of Acts but only for the more easie and ready producing of them Unto this I reply that though that be true in respect of natural and acquired habits as even their acquiring shews that same Acts proceeded the habit viz. these by which it was first acquired yet it is most false in regard of supernatural and infused habits as both their nature and their purchase no ways but by infusion may shew that they necessarily preceed all Acts yea and otherwise a Man might live graciously without grace and grace would be simply needless which a sworn Atheist will not dare to say But they object for universal sufficient grace that the Gentiles do the things contained in the Law Rom. 2 14 therefore they had sufficient grace Ans They did these things by Nature sayes the Text not by grace Secondly a Man may do things Naturaly good and contained in the Law and yet be void of grace seeing he may do them but yet not from gracious principles of Faith and Love nor for gracious ends both which as also the gracious manner are requisit to a gracious action Rom. 14 23. 1 Cor. 10 31. Secondly they object that the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all Men Tit. 2 11. Ans By the grace of god the Apostle there means the gracious Doctrine of the Gospel whereunto teaching which is ascribed to it in the following verse is most proper and by all Men is meant Men of all ranks Stations Qualities c. As the word all is often taken for the Gospel was not then come to every Mans ears in the whole world This objection George Keith makes in his Quakerism no Popery pag. 66. Thirdly they object that the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every Man to profit withal 1 Cor. 12 7. Ans The Apostle speaks only of the members of Christs body here by the Context not of all Men whatsoever again laying aside the Context the meaning is easie viz. that to
his danger or difficulty as yet seeing there is no parity First because we never said that we had sufficient grace here to perfection God hath not seen it fit so to measure forth unto us so soon that he may exercise our Faith Patience Humility Self-Denyal Repentance c. And raise our affections to Heaven where we shall have enough But the Adversaries do say that all men have sufficient grace to Conversion and therefore we cannot be said to resist that which we have not nor plead we have This quite destroyes the pretended retorsion Secondly we never said that the grace of God works at our Inclination Beck and Choice towards perfection or not towards it and so that we are the determiners of his grace in order to growth as we see from your Principles ye Quakers say of that universal pretended grace in order to Conversion but that God by his grace always determins us to the growth he designs it for not our free-will his grace Thirdly we may indeed resist both the means and motions of grace and not improve grace as we should and might too but God makes it still effectual to the growth by him designed and when he pleases not we which ye Quakers deny he does lest he take away the Freedom of your will whereunto he must leave his grace to be turned this way or that as ye choice By all these no Parity there is to be found here for a Retorsion The Quakers against this Doctrine do object the many Exhortations that are in Scripture unto our Conversion and turning to God Whereunto I answer That these Exhortations do not shew what we can do but what we ought to do and that so putting us to it we may know our inability to do that we may see our lostness and flee to Christ And Secondly These Exhortations are given in Scripture as a means by which God does Effectually by his Spirits Efficacy joyned work Conversion in his Elect who promiscuously live amongst the rest of the Multitude And Thirdly They are given to make the wicked the more unexcusable when they will not Obey nor receive Grace offered and turn that they may be saved Upon this universal Grace and their free-will thereby they also build the Apostacy of the Saints alledging that they may totally and finally fall away who have true and real beginnings of Sanctification as George Keith alledges in his Quakerism no Popery page 73. but it 's all in vain for the Scriptures tell us that God causes these to whom he gives a new heart to walk in his Statutes and keep his Judgments without departing from him Jer. 32.40 Ezek. 36.26 and that these that are once planted in the House of God shall still bring forth fruit in old age and so shall persevere Psal 92.13 14. and that whomsoever God effectually calls he also justifies and glorifies them Rom. 8.3 and that he hath made them Heirs and joynt Heirs of God with Christ and given them the Spirit as an earnest thereof Rom. 8.15 17. 2 Cor. 1.22 and 5.5 Ephes 1.13 14. Galat. 4.6 7. and that Believers are kept by the Power of God through Faith unto Salvation 1 Pet. 1.5 and that whosoever is born of God doth not commit Sin with full consent or unto death for his Seed which is incorruptible 1 Pet. 1.23 remains in him so that he cannot sin viz. with full consent or unto Death 1 Joh. 3.9 because he is born of God I do not here stand to Argument from these Scriptures because both they are of themselves clear and likewise they have been often handled before by our Writers against Jesuits and Arminians But they use to object most ordinarily from the many Exhortations that we have in Scripture to perseverance which they alledge imports that true and real Saints may fall totally and finally away But they mistake for these Exhortations are given as a means by which God by his Spiritual Efficacy joyned designs and carries on the Saints perseverance and to shew others their Duty wherein if they fail to be their ditty as was before said George Keith objects Quakerism no Popery pag. 74. These who received the Seed in stony ground as it is explained Matth. 13.5 Matth. 4.5 who afterwards fell finally away Ans These were temporary Believers never really or truly Regenerated and Sanctified as is sure from the Scriptures we have cited presently to the contrary but they had a profession of Conversion and a temporary Current Flood of Affection arising from some Carnal Motives of Pleasure Advantage c. and thereupon also they seemed to the Church to be really and truly Converted albeit it was not so and they were never really Regenerated or Sanctified for if they had been so they had not fallen finally away seeing beside what is above said the gifts and calling of God are without Repentance Rom. 11.29 Secondly He objects from Rom. 11.19 20. where it 's said That the Jews were broken off from the Covenant that we Gentiles might be graffed in But this says nothing either seeing many professed Members are broken off but they were never truly and really Sanctified or Regenerated which are the only Persons concerning whom the Question is nor were these Jews whom the Apostle there speaks of so much as professed Members of the Gospel and Christian Church Thirdly He objects from Heb. 10.29 see the place for I will not stand to repeat the words where the Apostle speaks only of such as had received though in a great degree some common illuminations of the Spirit and some common operations of his Grace but not of these who were truly Regenerated and truly Sanctified though they had once escaped the external Pollutions of the World as Peter says 2 Pet. 2.20 and for all this I appeal the Scriptures which I have produced to the contrary which are both plain and unanswerable And when he again objects from the 2 Pet. 2.18 I answer likewise that the Apostle there means of men that Externally and in the Eyes of the World were clean escaped from them who live in Error but were not really so or really and truly Sanctified for these that go away from us are not of us Joh. 2.19 although they may for a time profess and seem to be of us and in our Judgment of Charity when we know no relevant ground against it be so construed Lastly He objects to us from Jud. 4.5 6. where truly I hardly see any Apostacy but that of the Angels that fell from their Primaeve Condition which will never infer the Apostacy of any mean Saint seeing none of these is so absolutely at the Devils Devotion Or if he means of these in the fourth Verse who were crept in and turn'd the Grace of God into wantonness that is only meant of the means of Grace which are often called Grace Tit. 2.11 and the offers of Grace not of Grace once really and subjectively infused or conferred which would have persevered to
Christ was under the Law as man yet he was never under it as God or else so should the Father and Spirit also seeing they are all one and the same God though they be distinct persons Therefore God cannot be said to obey God in any proper speech and the Doctor we see by his expressions above rehearsed means properly Lastly the Doctor here contradicts himself for if God requires our Sabbath and not working as he affirms and the regenerate and good man does so lay aside all works as he no more thinks sees speaks goes wishes wills c. as he affirmeth too then the good man obeys God In doing that which God requires of him and yet the Doctor denies that any thing obeys God but God himself But the Doctor may be would object that the good works of the Saints are in the Scripture ascribed to God and said to be done by his power Ephes 1.19 Philip. 1.6 and 2.13 2 Thes 1.11 Ans God is indeed a very special Title the principal efficient cause of all our good works and the Scriptures ascribe that unto him But no Scripture saith that in our works of obedience only God obeyeth himself in us for the reasons given that could not be Nor can it be said that it is God that in us wishes wills prays believes desires c. Seeing these actions are not Immanent in God but are meerly transient as to him and its Impossible for any person to will wish desire c. by any act not Immanent in it self â—s any man knows But these good works and actions whereunto we are quickened and determined by God and his grace and Spirit are Formally subjected in us and Immanent and so being Intrinsecally united and Informing us cannot but give us their Intrinsecal and formal denomination for an act of love being Immanent or united to my will or affections cannot but denominate me as loving some object and it cannot so denominate any other person as is manifest Though God therefore workes in us the acts of obedience faith repentance yet it is not God that obeys believes repents c. The Quakers afford us another objection from Gal. 2.20 where Paul denies himself to live viz. Spiritually but that Christ lived in him Ans Paul does not there deny himself to live Spiritually or vitally to exerce the operations of a Spiritual life or else if that were Then Paul was then Spiritually as dead a man as before he was converted which is most false and in the very next words he declares himself to live viz. Spiritually When therefore he denies himself to live Spiritually but Christ in him he plainly means of the fountain and source or stock and supply of his Spiritual life viz. That that was not in himself or in nature but in Christ the redeemer and so the objection proves not their point The Doctor teaches also in that same book Pag. 16.17.299.361 part first And Pag. 27.29.259.264.265 part second That take but off all accidents from every creature and that which remains is Christ and God as if we take away all height and depth greatness and littleness weight and measure heat and cold matter and form for says he these are all accidents and then that which is left is Christ is God God is the substance of all things and all the creatures are but meer accidents and they are not only Gods workmanship as most men teach and believe but also God is their very substance and Being he is their very Essence and Being Thus he But if these things were so God would be the most passive Being in all the world for so he should be the passive subject whereinto all creatures should inhere as meer accidents and he should be the passive and changed subject in all their mutations and alterations This would make a very changeable God more changeable then the Moon or Wind. 2ly If God be the very Being and Essence of every creature then every creature is Essentially God Almighty Infinite Eternal c. for that whose Being and Essence is God must in respect of its Essence or Essentially be God or else in respect of its Essence it will be both God and not God which is a Contradiction 3ly If God be the Being and Essence of every creature then the Being and Essence of every creature is an uncreated Being seeing God is such and so every creature as to its Essence or Essentially is not a creature that is to say it is Essentially not it self 4ly Every evil action is a creature if then God be the being of every creature then he is the being of every evil action too and so the sin inhering into every evil action shall inhere into God absit Blasphemia who is the being of the action Lastly If all creatures be but meer accidents and if God be the very Essence and Being of every creature then God shall also be an accident meerly he being the very essence and Being of these created accidents as the Doctor will Blasphemous Absurd and Repugnant The Doctor also teaches pag. 83.84.343 part first that if we speak of God Abstractedly from all creatures so the Father Son and Spirit are all one But if we come to speak of any thing created then we divide the Godhead into Persons and there is Immediatly Father Son and Spirit When God puts forth himself in the creating of any creature here now the Word is spoken and came forth from the bosom of his Father before there was any creature made there was neither Father Son nor Spirit in the Godhead as divided for the Trinity is expressed only in relation to creatures Thus he But by the Oneness or Unity of the Father Son and Spirit as God is spoken of Abstractedly from Creatures the Doctor either means of the Oneness of their Essence and Godhead and thus they are still one what ever way we speak of them seeing they are still but one God or else he thereby means of the Unity and Oneness of their persons and this way which is the way he doth mean which appears by his opposing the distinction of their persons in the second member of his Antithesis to the unity mentioned in the first the Doctor teaches meer blasphemy in denying that there was any distinction of persons in the Godhead before God made any creature and except in relation to creatures for so if God had never made any creature which might easily have been seeing he did not create by necessity or impulsion there should never-have been three persons in the Godhead nay nor any person for before God made any creature there was neither Father Son nor Spirit in the Godhead and the Trinity is expressed only in relation to creatures says the Doctor So also the three distinct persons in the Godhead must be meerly temporary created within time if there was no distinct person in the same before the creatures were made Yea so the persons in the Godhead shall be debitors to