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
outward things Doth he not bring them off things that are seen to things that are not seen And whether or not ye ever intend ye your selves called Ministers or your hearers shall come any nearer to Christs Death and Die and be Buried with him but only to take Bread and Wine in remembrance of Christs Death lest ye and they should come to forget Christs Death Answer us plainly these things Yea or Nay 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 Thirteenth QUERY Whether or not did Christ die for all the ungodly in the world and Sinners that they should live and die in their ungodliness and sins or live unto him and whether or not did Christ shed his blood for all men and was a Propitiation for the sins of all men and whether or not these that do not hold this are these that make Sects and are out of the same Spirit and Doctrine of the Apostles Fourteenth QUERY What makes a Believer Whether or not is it by believing in the Light according to Christs Doctrine who says He is the Light of the World and doth enlighten every one that comes into the world that all men through him might Believe and who follows him shall not walk in darkness for he is the Light and says That he that believes is saved Then is not the Light saving which he believes and he that does not believe in the Light is damned already Then is not the Light or his disobedience to it his Condemnation Yea or Nay Fifteenth QUERY Can any man be saved by his own works Self-righteousness will-Will-worship and are not all men in the Self-righteousness that are not in the Righteousness of Christ Jesus and are not all of their own works that be out of the Light and the Faith that is the Gift of God and are not all in their will-Will-worships that are not in the worship that Jesus Christ the heavenly man set up above Sixteen hundred years since that is in the Spirit and the Truth So must not every man come to the Truth and to the Spirit in their own hearts if they come to the worship Jesus Christ set up and are not your Catechisms Confessions of Faith and Directories your own works and your own worship which ye have set down for people to fall down and do worship to and be saved by and have ye not set up this since the Apostles days and since Christ set up his worship Sixteenth QUERY Whether or not your Directory and Catechism and Confession of Faith be Gospel yea or nay And if so whether it be not another Gospel then that which the Apostles Preached who said the Gospel was the power of God Rom. 1.16 Seventeenth QUERY Whether or not the Scriptures do not say that he that believes hath ceased from his own works as God did from his and entred into his rest and whether or not your Directory and Church-maid Faith and Catechisms and Confessions be not your own works and ye follow them and worship them and not cease from them And whether or not in so doing ye keep people and your selves in your own works and from the Rest or we desire you shew us what difference their is betwixt Spiritual Babylon and Sodom and Egypts works of their hands and Temporal Babylon and Sodom and Egypts works of their hands and their worship Of each distinguish I desire you Distinguish the mystery from a plain outward Idol These Queries were Subscribed I. S. and I could fill up his Name at length but I forbear for some reasons that I think more pertinent to Conceal than Divulge unto the world This is the true Transcript of their Queries which were directed unto me as is said which I can Attest by many others that saw and read them before they came to my hand and some after that knows they owned them and they are also the true Pourtraiture of their known Principles and beside I have in this Controversie carried along two of their most famous Books yet extant the Positions whereof which I always Cite do exactly agree with the Scope and Import of these Queries viz. their Confession of Faith Subscribed by Eight or Nine of their most famous Ring-leaders in England by them called The Principles of Truth or a Declaration of their Faith and their Quakerism no Popery written by Mr. George Keith and Subscribed both by him and Mr. Robert Barclay two of their chiefest Luminaries and greatest Apostles forsooth in Scotland This Book Mr. Keith writes against Reverend Mr. Menzies Professor of Theology at Aberdeen a man of so great Veneration and Learning that it may be justly thought a daring boldness for him to have meddled against him So that no man knowing the Quakers Principles or searching these grounds will in the least doubt the faithfulness of my Transcription beside what Credit may be allowed unto my own Ingenuity who never loved the straining of any mans Principle too sore in Consequences unclear and remote much less the fixing of Principles falsly upon such as disclaimed them But of this I need say no more for the Quakers Principles are known and these Queries they will own An Alphaâ—â—â—ical TABLE A GRacious Acts necessarily require gracious Principles proved pag. 157. Adam a common Representative head of Mankind pag. 134. The Analogy of Faith what it is pag. 78. Apocryphal Books not Canonical or of immediate Inspiration pag. 209. Apostacy of the Saints confuted pag. 162. Christian assurance needs not immediate Dictates p. 32. Authority of the Scripture-rule over all other Rules proved ibid. The Pope before the Reformation had Church-Authority and how pag. 199. B THe Baptism of John and the Apostles the same in substance p. 69. Baptism with Water of Divine Institution under the Gospel p. 68. Baptism with Water only properly called Baptism p. 78. Baptism with Water meant in the Text of Matthew Matthew 28.19 proved p. 76. Baptism with Water necessary to Salvation and how p. 74. Baptism with Water not an Old-Testament Ceremony p. 68. Baptism succeeded in the room of Circumcision p. 86. Baptism of Believers Infants a Divine Institution under the Gospel ibid. Baptism the Initiating Seal proved ibid. Probable Evidences enough for admission to Baptism p. 88. The great Beast mentioned in the Revel not our will pag. 195. Bilocation pregnant with Contradictions p. 191. Blasphemies reported in Scripture not Scripture-sentence p. 20. C EXtraordinary calls attended with extraordinary Furniture pag. 7. An inward call not necessary to the validity of Ministerial Acts. pag. 202. A Catechism requisite in a Church and why pag. 123. Our Westminster Catechism aimed at materially Scripture-sentence pag. 129. How the Command is said to be nigh unto us Deut. 30.14 p. 37. Christs coming again mentioned 1 Cor. 11.26 not meaned of his coming at the Pentecost but at the
are not all of their own works that be out of the light and the Faith that is the gift of God And are not all in their will-will-worships that are not in the worship that Jesus Christ the Heavenly man set up above Sixteen hundred years Since that is in the Spirit and the truth So must not every man come to the truth and to the Spirit in their own hearts if they come to the worship Jesus Christ Set up And are not your Catechisms Confession of Faith and Directories your own works and your own worship which ye have set down for People to fall down and do worship to and be Saved by And have ye not set up this since the Apostles days and since Christ set up his worship SVRVEY Because this Survey will divide it self into three Subjects and it would be too long together therefore I shall order it into three Sections The First shall Vindicat us from a Popish Salvation or justification by works or Inherent Righteousness and shall fix a Popish justification upon the Quakers The Second shall very breifly confuted their Popish justification The Third shall overturn an exception made by the Quakers against the charge of a Popish justification which we justly lay to their door SECT 1. Vindicating us from a Popish Salvation and Justification and fixing a Popish Justification upon the Quakers The great scope of this Querie is to make us seem guilty of holding a Popish Salvation by works albeit the whole Christian World knoweth what a lewd Calumny this is It having been the constant Doctrine of ours and all other Protestant Churches against the Papists that the good works of the Saints are not the causes or Meritorious procurers of their Salvation and it is founded upon Scripture-Testimony as clear as the Sun For eternal Life is none of our merit and due but is the Free gift of God Rom. 6 23. And by grace not by works we are Saved Ephēs 2 5 8 9. not by works of Righteousness which we have done but according to his mercy he Saveth us Tit. 3.5 And the best of our works are in this Life imperfect as is proven and so they cannot merit any good but Contrarily every defect and short coming of our Duty Merits Damnation and the Curse Deut. 27 26. Galat. 3 10. And if our good works could merit then we might trust to them which the Apostle dare not do Philip. 39 Nor is there any proportion betwixt our best works and eternal Life Rom. 8 18. And therefore they cannot merit it The whole Protestant Church hath no less always abhorred the Doctrine of justification by our own Inherent Righteousness and good works from the same clear Evidence of the Scripture for which see Rom. 3 Chap. from Vers 20. to the end and the whole Chap. following As also Galat. 2 16 21. and 3 10 11. and 5 4. Philip. 3 9. and seeing that is still imperfect in this life it can neither be the cause nor Condition of our justification before God in whose sight no man living shall be justified Psal 143 2. viz. by any Righteousness inherent or inward in himself Nevertheless albeit our inherent Righteousness and good works be not necessary to Salvation as Efficient or Meritorious causes thereof yet they are necessary indispensably thereunto by necessity of presence or as pure Antecedents without which no man is Saved excepting these that Die Immediately after Conversion and Infants from the Actual performance of good works For which see Mat. 3.10 and 5.20 and 25. from vers 34. to the end and Rom. 2.9 10. and 8.13 1 Cor. 6.9 10. Galat. 5.21 and 6.8 Heb. 12.14 And albeit our inherent or inward Righteousness be neither the Cause nor Condition of our justification before God yet it is still an inseparable Concomitant of justifying Faith For which see Rom. 8.1 9 10. 2 Cor. 5.17 Jam. 2.17.20 1 Joh. 3.3 But what if the Quakers be Guilty of a Popish justification Do not the Quakers hold justification by a Righteousness wrought within them and formally inward and inherent in themselves in this they joyn hands with the Papists in one of their most Fundamental Errors which does indeed contradict the very Design and Current of the Gospel which is to Teach us to seek Righteousness for justification in Christ and not in our selves yea and the very plain Design of Christs Death See Rom. 3.25 and 10.4 Galat. 2.16 21. and 5.4 But the Quakers endeavour to elude this our Charge pretending that they are far from holding justification by their own Inherent Righteousness with the Papists but by the alone Imputed Righteousness of Christ Thus they pretend in their Confession of Faith pag. 4.21 22. But the Quakers will not so Cheat and deceive the Christian world for first in that 21. pag. Cited where they purposely handle this Question and pretend as is now said they deny us to be justified by a Righteousness received of us by Faith calling that but an Act of the Creaturely skill and an Imputation which is an Act of mans Spirit and forging and a Fiction and Imagination in the Creaturely will and power Hence then they deny us to be justified by the Righteousness received of us by Faith and so consequently by the Imputed Righteousness of Christ seeing the Righteousness of his Obedience and Sufferings Imputed to us in Justification is not a diverse Righteousness from the Righteousness of Faith but is one and the same as is clear from Rom. 3.21 22 24 25. and 4.6 11 13 22 23 24. and 9.30 and 10.4 10. Galat. 2.16 and 3.8 and 5.5 Secondly this justification held by the Quakers must either be by the Righteousness received by Faith or else by the Righteousness of the Law and its works for there is no other third sort of Righteousness known to compet in this point but these are always stated as the only two Members of the Distinction for which see Rom. 3.28 and 4.2 3 4 5. and 9.30 31 32. and 10.3 5 6. Galat. 3.11 12. But the Quakers plainly deny the Justification held by them to be by the former yea they Scoff and Mock at that more than ever Papist did as is evident from their preceeding Language Therefore they do inevitably hold Justification by the latter wherein they manifestly joyn hands with the Papists for all their pretexts to cover it Again in the fore-Cited 22. page of their Confession they have these words and because say they we are against the latter viz. Justification by a Righteousness received by Faith whereof they were last speaking we are Clamoured upon as if we denied the Imputation of Christs Righteousness when it is only to these that are not made Righteous by it to walk as he also walked Here they hold Justification by a Righteousness Making their walk Righteous which is the plain inherent Righteousness of our Life and Conversation But the Quâkers in that last Cited pag. of their Confession go on and add that it
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-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
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
again with Christs Ans The Antecedent is most false for that would depress the dignity of the Baptism wherewith Christ was Baptized being that of John far below the dignity of that wherewith Simon Magus was Baptized and would infer that Christ entertained a more absolute and compleat Communion with the Church of the Old Testament all whose ordinary Covenant-Seals he partaked of than with the Church of the New and that though he sanctified in his own Person all the other ordinary Seals of both Testaments yet he denied that Honour and Priviledge to his own External Baptism dispensed under the New Testament Nor is the Antecedent any ways proved by that place of the Acts cited for the sence of that Fifth Verse which is wrested for a ground to this Objection is not that these Men were Baptized over again by Paul but the sence is that after they had heard that Doctrine from John the sum whereof Paul repeats in the preceeding Verse there they were Baptized by the same John when he Preached it to them and not by Paul now when he Repeats it Secondly The Apostles after Christs Ascention and the powring forth of the Spirit did with great diligence and studious care Baptize the New Testament Disciples with Water and were very forward in promoting that Ordinance amongst them Therefore Baptism with Water must certainly be an Ordinance of the New Testament Divinely Instituted The Consequence is clear seeing if it had not been an Ordinance of Divine Institution belonging to the New Testament they would never have been so diligent and forward for promoting the Interest thereof in the New-Testament Church amongst the Disciples after Christs Ascention and the powring forth of the Spirit otherwise they had manifestly betrayed their trust in such a studious and diligent promoting of an Ordinance in the Church which was not allowed of God and they had no Commission for which cannot be said they did and so much the less because all this passes on without any reproof from God or shadow of alteration in them The Consequence being so clearly proved I next prove the Antecedent from the Apostles constant and speedy dispensing of Baptism with Water to the New-Testament Disciples after the foresaid Events and that presently without delay after their appearing to be Disciples as appears from several Scripture-Texts of the New Testament First From Act. 8.36 38. and Act. 10.47 in which two Texts Water is so expresly mentioned that I need not prove it to be Baptism with Water that is meant and where they were most speedy in dispensing it at the first appearance of the parties Discipleship A second Text is Act. 2.41 where the Disciples were Baptized assoon as ever their Discipleship appeared And that this Baptism here is not meant of any of these forementioned improperly so called Baptisms and consequently that it must be meant of Baptism with Water which only is properly called Baptism as we shall afterwards see I prove Because the Baptism here mentioned pre-requires Conversion and Regeneration ver 38. and 41. to the partaking thereof and so it cannot be meant of the work of Conversion or Regeneration otherwise it should pre-require it self before partaking of it self that is it self without it self which is a strong contradiction Again It pre-supposes hearing yea receiving of the Gospel Doctrine in such Adult Persons as these were as may be seen ver 41. which the Baptism of Doctrine cannot do for that were it self pre-supposed to it self and a contradiction still And lastly the Baptism here mentioned is in the Text ver 38. plainly distinguisht from the miraculous Gifts of the Spirit And moreover is enjoyned as a necessary sacred Pledge of the Remission of Sins viz. by necessity of precept and when it can be had such as never were these Gifts of the Spirit and so Baptism here must be meant of Baptism with Water or the word Baptize razed out of the Text. A third Text is Act. 8.12 13. where these Disciples were quickly Baptized after their Discipleship appeared And neither can Baptism here be meant of the work of Conversion or Regeneration seeing Simon Magus participated of it who yet was no true Convert or Regenerated Person as is there clear Nor can it be meant of the Baptism of Doctrine for it is there plainly declared That they believed the things concerning the Kingdom of God and Christ whether savingly or meerly historically really or in profession only it matters nothing to our present Argument before they partaked of the Baptism there mentioned but they could not believe these things before they in some measure partaked of the Gospel Doctrine which reveals them Nor lastly can it be meant of their enduing with the miraculous gifts of the Spirit seeing it is there expresly denied that any of these Baptized Samaritans were for a time after endued with these A fourth Text is Act. 18.8 where many of the Corinthians presently upon their Discipleship appearing were Baptized and this Text can neither be meant of the Baptism of Doctrine nor the work of Conversion or Regeneration seeing the Baptism therein mentioned pre-supposes in Adult Persons such as these were we shall speak afterwards of Infants the hearing of the Gospel-Doctrine and believing But the Baptism of Doctrine cannot pre-suppose the first of these nor yet the work of Conversion the last of them or else they should pre-suppose themselves to partaking of themselves And to mean it of enduing with the miraculous gifts of the Spirit were most of all impertinent nor were these bestowed upon every Believer as the Baptism there mentioned is plainly imported to have been A fifth Text is 1 Cor. 1.13 with 17. Where the Apostle asks these Corinthians if they were Baptized in the name of Paul and affirms that Christ sent him not to Baptize that is it was not his principal Work for the Expression is comparative but to preach the Gospel Now Baptism here cannot be meant of the Baptism of Doctrine for the Apostle plainly distinguishes it from that Nor can it be meant of the work of Conversion for then Paul denies that it was his main Errand to Convert People which is false and contrary to his very Commission Act. 26.17 18. and he should contradict himself in this first Chapter of the Epistle where he thanks God he Baptized so few of them and in the fourth Chapter of this same Epistle Verse 15. where he affirms that through the Gospel he had converted so many of them Nor can it be meant of enduing with the miraculous gifts of the Spirit for the Baptism here mentioned is intimated to have been common to all of them such as these gifts were not The last Text shall be Act. 22.16 And now why tarriest thou arise and be Baptized says Ananias to Paul Now he needed not arise to be Converted or to hear the Gospel which Ananias could Preach to him Sitting nor yet that he might receive the Miraculous Gifts of the Spirit albeit there
the great ground of the change he gives it the honour of his most frequent appearings thereafter to his Disciples Luk. 24.13 15. Joh. 20.19 26. and again of that glorious manifestation of himself in the pouring forth of the Spirit at the Pentecost Act. 2.1 2 3 4. and again it was on this day as shall be shewed that he made that glorious appearance to John in the Isle of Patmos Revel 1.10 again the first day of the week was by the Apostles and the Church following their Masters Example which is binding in things imitable and that by Divine Precept Ephes 5.1 observed for the Celebrating of Gods Publick Worship as a day set apart for that work as appears from Act. 20.7 1 Cor. 16.1 2. where we have not a meer bare Example or instance of the Churches meeting for once or twice to Gods Publick Worship on that day set down but also we have their constant custom of so doing clearly in both places imported yea further the last of these two Texts shews that that day was set apart for the Publick Divine Worship while it expresly requires the publick Collections of Charity for the Poor a Pendicle of the Publick Worship to be made on that day and shews that the same order was also given to other Churches as well as to them of Corinth And lastly the Holy Ghost hath recorded to us these singular Priviledges and peculiar Honour bestowed by Christ upon this first day of the week above all other days as also the Churches observing of it for Gods Publick Worship and that constantly and as a day set apart for that use and the like he doth not mention of any other day which is very observable What is all this for then for some reason uncontrovertibly and yet no other can be given or fall under imagination or else I intreat the Quakers to shew us it if they can But that the first day of the week is a day peculiarly set apart and sanctified by Christ for the Exercise of his Publick Worship and which he would have his Church peculiarly to regard as designed for that holy use beyond and above all other days as was accordingly done by the Apostles and Church in the pure Primitive times The change of the day then is most surely by Divine Authority But Secondly when Christ foretels the Disciples of the Destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple by Vespasian Matth. 24.20 which was fourty years and upwards after Christs Ascension and so it was long after the planting of the Gospel-Church and exautorating of the Ceremonial Law He bids them pray that their flight might not be in the Winter nor on the Sabbath-day There is a Sabbath-day both name and thing under the New Testament which Christ wills his Disciples to pray that their flight might not be thereupon because it would be grievous to them to be forced to travel for preservation of their natural Lives on that day which was Instituted for Gods Publick Worship and their Spiritual comfort Neither is it possible to get the Sabbath-day here mentioned meaned of every day seeing then they behooved either to flee on the Sabbath-day or else never Nor yet can it be meant of an uncertain day or some day Indeterminately for then the Disciples could not have known what day to pray that their flight might not be upon and Christs Exhortation had been vain and to no use or purpose which is most absurd and false This one Scripture proves a Christian External Sabbath-day against all Contradicters and that the first day of the week must be this Christian Sabbath-day appears from the Claim and Interest above declared which it hath under the New Testament unto that honourable Title and peculiar Denomination above all other days and that by Divine Warrant Thirdly There is a particular determinate day under the New Testament which hath by the mind and sentiments of the Scripture a peculiar relation unto the Lord Christ above all other days whatsoever and so it is separated from the common condition of all other days having a peculiar Divine relation which no other hath and thereby a preheminence and dignity before all of them and so it must be an Holy Day seeing common days are not separated from the condition of common days except we please to speak plain contradiction That there is such a particular determinate day under the New Testament is clear from Revel 1.10 where John says He was in the Spirit on the Lords-day which cannot be meant of every day seeing then he could not have been in the Spirit but on the Lords-day whereas it is most evident that John distinctly points at a particular day having some peculiar relation to Christ above all others But the Quakers like Dictators say that the Lords-day here is meant of an uncertain time called the Lords-day because of the Lords special appearing thereupon But their Commentary is most false and cannot agree with the Apostles Scope which is as to shew the certain Person Who received the Vision viz. John and the certain place of the World Where In the Isle of Patmos and the certain kind of frame Wherein While he was in the Spirit so also the certain kind of day or the certain day of the week whereupon he received the Vision and so an uncertain time cannot stand with the Scope Secondly Let the Quakers if they can prove that an uncertain time is here meant or else their Gloss upon the Text will be justly thought uncertain Thirdly Our Adjective does not very perfectly turn the word which in the Original Language is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying Dominick or more clearly pertaining to the Lord which plainly imports a particular determinate day adding 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with it which is in the Text having a peculiar and stated relation to the Lord above others which by common right are his also Having dispatched the Quakers uncertain time I affirm that the Lords-day here is meant of the first day of the week determinately seeing it hath a peculiar interest into that Denomination above all other days whatsoever for it is the day of Christs glorious Resurrection and ceasing from the great work of Redemption whereof it is a Remembrance it is the day of his frequent appearings to his Disciples thereafter it is the day of his glorious pouring forth of the Spirit and enduing the Apostles with Power from on High it is the day set apart for his Publick Worship and observed also for that use by the Apostles and Church in the pure Primitive time and finally it is the day which the Holy Ghost hath particularly noted unto us as alone honoured by Christ and his Church with such peculiar Priviledges all which is before proved Seeing then the first day of the week hath upon so many special accompts so peculiar an Interest into that Denomination which no other can pretend to The Lords day here mentioned must be inevitably understood of the same seeing the
be Jesus and that he and we shall be the subject of one and the same thing and so the same subject seeing one and the same thing cannot be subjected in two divers subjects especially seeing here the redemption of Christ is subjected in his humane nature which is in Heaven and in the divine nature it cannot and so it would in a justified man on the earth be separated from it self in Heaven which is utterly repugnant Thirdly We are not justified by faith as it is any part of our inward righteousness or a work wrought within us albeit George Keith thinks this distinction too nice Ergo we are not justified by any righteousness wrought or inherent within us seeing faith is one of the best parts of that righteousness and first in the order of nature which could not have been past by in the business The Antecedent I prove because in the point of justification faith and works are still Stated in a diametral opposition as I shewed before I will not repeat Which if faith justified as a work would be an opposing of justification by works to a justification by works and would infer that we are justified by works and not by works which is both Contradiction and Nonsence Fourthly The righteousness wrought and inherent in our selves is a righteousness of works or else Adams could not have been such nor do the adversaries deny it but George Keith mocks at our distinction of faith in justification as it is not considered as a work but Correlatively as being too nice curious and altogether Impertinent in handling controversies of Religion and a work only delighted in by vain Janglers Quakerism no Popery pag. 45 46 for which I think him both Impertinent and Blasphemous in reflecting so upon the Spirit of God who as is shewed doth thus distinguish faith in this point But we are not justified before God by the righteousness of works even our works of grace proceeding from the Spirit of God in us for the Apostle never grants any Interest to any of our works in Justification but still excludes all of them and whatever affords any matter of glorying in our selves Rom. 3.27.28 and 4.2 and uncontrollably any man that is justified by his judge because of his inherent righteousness in himself hath still some matter of glorying in himself because the inherent righteousness of his own person in justice brought him off And the same Apostle also most peremptorily says Rom. 4.4 and 11.6 That if we be justified by works then it cannot be by Grace and that because of a clear contradiction for says he that which is of works cannot be of Grace otherwise works are no more works nor Grace any more Grace but their Natures on both hands are quite destroyed We are not then justified by any Righteousness wrought or inherent in our selves Lastly we are not justified before God by our own Law-righteousness as is evident from Rom. 3.20 21. and 10.3 5. Galat. 2.21 and 3.11 12. and 5.4 Philip. 3.9 But all the righteousness wrought or inherent in us is our own Law-righteousness therefore we are not justified before God by any Righteousness wrought or inherent in us The Scriptures Cited clearly prove the Major I prove the Minor for first it s asmuch our Law-righteousness as Adams could have been if he had stood to this day being as Inward and inherent and as formally and subjectively ours as his could have been to him nor could he without the Grace of God have had his more than we ours Secondly it consists in our doing and working and I shewed before that the Righteousness of our doings and works and our Righteousness of the Law are the same thing and so does the Apostle Rom 10.5 Galat. 3.12 when he after Moses Describes the Righteousness of the Law and distinguishes it thereby from the Righteousness of Faith which consists not therein Thirdly the Righteousness wrought or inherent within a man conforms him to the Law in himself though as long as its imperfect it cannot justifie him before God but still leaves him under the Curse Deut. 27.26 and upon the account of its formal and subjective union with him it gives him and only him its Intrinsical Denomination as an Immanent form albeit efficiently and transiently it is wrought by the Spirit of God Upon all these accounts it is a mans Law-righteousness most clearly or else no Righteousness could ever have been such that can be imagined George Keith then must not tell us over again as once he hath in his Quakerism no Popery page 53. that our own Law-righteousness is only that which a man worketh in and by himself without the Grace and Spirit of God for I have briefly demonstrated that all the Righteousness wrought or inherent within us is our own Law-righteousness But George objects Quakerism no Popery page 43 44 45. that Repentance Love and Hope are necessary to justification and these are all Inward and are Righteousness Therefore we are justified by an inward Righteousness wrought and inherent within us Ans I deny the Consequence for first though these be necessary to justification by way of Presence and Existence and no man wanting them can be justified which is sure yet they are not necessary thereunto as our immediate Righteousness whereby we must be justified or as the Meritorious or material Cause thereof before God let the Merit be never so Moderate Let George Keith trie his hand if he can prove that they are thus necessary which he has not done as yet nor shall he ever do Nor secondly are they necessary even as a Condition thereunto nor Faith it self as a work qualitatively or as a part of our inward Righteousness but only in its Relative consideration as receiving apprehending and relying upon its object viz. Christs Righteousness as is plainly before proved And many things are necessary in order to a Bargain-making which are not the condition closing the Bargain as here hearing of the Word conviction of Guilt c. in Adult persons are in an ordinary Method necessary to justification though both of them may be where the Bargain shall never be closed And though where these Graces mentioned in the Objection truly are the Bargain is certain yet none of these Formalizes it and receives Christ with his Righteousness nor have they an aptitude so to do but that is proper to Faith in its Relative consideration It s necessary unto Marriage to know of a Party and to hear of some offers and terms yet none of these closes the Marriage-covenant but that is done by the mutual consent and acceptance of the Parties Secondly the Quakers may be will object that much used and abused Text of James Jam. 2.21 where it s said that Abraham was justified by works Ans The Text is not meant of the Pronounciation thereof before God for I am sure Abraham was a justified man before his resolution to offer up Isaac whereof the Text expresly speaks yea before
Isaac was born Comparing Rom. 4.10 with Gen. 17. chap. But of the Solemn Declaration thereof before the world by the clear Fruits and Evidences of one in that State and that it cannot be meant of his justification before God is sure seeing the Scriptures Cited shew very peremptorily that he was a justified man before he offered that work by which James there says he was justified And the Apostles clear Scope in the place is to hold forth that justifying Faith cannot be alone but must and will be accompanied with other graces and vertues and good works which give Lustre and Glory thereunto which there he calls the perfecting of it and without which it will be found but a dead Faith And when thirdly it is objected that men will be judged according to or by their words and works as the Scriptures often say the same answer is to be given viz. they will be judged according to or by them Declaratively as Solemn Witnesses and Testimonies of the State they are in manifesting before all the Equity of Gods procedure not as Causes or Conditions except in the Damned whose evil works are indeed the Meritorious Cause of their Misery An Appendix concerning the Merit of our good Works George Keith in his Quakerism no Popery page 55 56 57. Teaches also that the good works of the Saints are Meritorious of the Reward of happiness though not in the strictest sort of merit which he calls Condignity or deserving a Reward so as the Merit is equal in worth and dignity to the Reward yet so as to obtain viz. Meritoriously for positively he pleads for their merit here from God by promise as he out of his Infinite bounty hath seen fit to bestow viz. unto such a merit and though he refuses all Condign merit both here and likewise in the 72 page of the book as that signifies an equality betwixt the Merit and the Reward yet he still sticks though subtilly to a Condignity below an equality page 57 and in all his Arguments he still aims to prove a worth and merit in the very works themselves But I must Assert that there is no merit in any of our good or best works in any sense of merit that 's proper whatsoever to obtain from God any good thing much less the Reward of Heaven I shortly prove it Therefore first the best of our works in this life are imperfect as we have before now proved and comes far short of that which we owe Ergo they can never merit any good at the hands of God but upon the contrary the Curse and Damnation Eternally which is due to them who do not exactly in all things keep the Law of God Deut. 27.26 Galat. 3.10 Secondly Eternal Life is the Gift of God says the Apostle Rom. 6.23 therefore it is no ways merited by any good work of ours for that which a man merits is not Gifted to him but it is his due George Keith answers to this that both the Works and Merits are a free Gift and the Reward too But I rejoyn how can I merit at a mans hand by his free Gift unto me Can I merit at his hand because he hath obliged me and made me his Debtor viz. I merit from him because I owe him When I give a Beggar a Farthing then I become his Debtor and must give him another in payment of my Debt to him and then we are free and if I give him a third because now this is a free Gift again I over again become his Debtor Is not that fine Non-sense and strong Contradiction Thirdly the Apostle says Ephes 2.5.8 that by Grace we are saved and not by works Therefore our good works do not merit the Reward of Heaven in any proper signification of merit be it never so moderate and remote from strictness especially seeing the same Apostle tells us Rom. 11.6 that that which is of works cannot be of grace nor that which is of grace be of works because of a clear contradiction and the destroying of both their Natures which he their shews The Quakers then with their dear Friends the Papists must either confess Salvation not to be by any merit of our Works or else they must deny it to be by Grace flat contrary to the Scriptures George Keith's Answer that as the Reward is of Grace so the Merit is of Grace is already destroyed for I cannot merit by a free Gift of Grace seeing I can never merit by becoming a Debtor to a man for then the more I receive from him he should be the more my Debtor not I his whereas in all sense and reason I must owe him the more instead of meriting Now when George Keith yields this merit not to be equal in dignity and worth unto the Reward I cannot but commend his Modesty for its very much that the Quakers cannot merit above Adams merit if he had stood in his Obedience for nothing that he could have done all being still due to his great Sovereign could have merited properly nor could it ever have been equal to the Reward of happiness And the difference betwixt the two Covenants is not that under the first good works would have Merit Condignly not so under the Second for as to the First that is false But it lies here that under the First good works behooved to be compleatly performed as the Condition before we got or had a right unto the reward but in the Second Covenant we have right upon our first Entering into and closing of the Covenant by Faith unto the Inheritance before the performance of good works But George Keith objects there pag. 56 that the Saints are said to be worthy of the Kingdom of God and of walking with Christ in white 2 Thes 1.5 Revel 3 4 which Infers at least a suitableness Ans First their worth is not reckoned in themselves but in Christ Secondly a sutableness doth not Infer a dignity and merit A poor man in great need yea though no good man is a sutable object of an Alms though he does not merit it from us he hath no Jus personae into it Again he objects that God rewards our good works and therefore they must have some worthiness in them Ans God's rewarding so far beyond any worth that dare be pretended in our good works proves that it is not for their worth but upon some other account that we obtain the reward viz. upon Christs account in whom by his free grace we have obtained Redemption and Salvation Thirdly he objects that a meek and quiet Spirit is in the sight of God of great price 1 Pet. 3 4. Ans First our Souls also are of great price in the sight of God yet we do not for that merit Heaven Secondly doubtless God has a great esteem of vertues of one of which the Apostle here speaks in the abstract consideration from vice but in us they are mixed with Relicks of vice and imperfect and so cannot merit Thirdly
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
and with submission is manifest from the Scriptures for which instead of many see only Matth. 6.11 1 Tim. 5.8 and if any Man would have us no ways looking after our Corporal necessaries either he would have us to live without them which a Quaker may try upon himself or else to use no means at least for the obtaining of them and then we shall Plow and Sow no more but be supplied by Miracles The passage of Scripture which they cite from 2 Cor. 4.18 will no ways Patronise their Erroneous Cause though they also cite it to the same very purpose in their Confession page 79. For the Apostle in that place is speaking of his afflictions troubles and the loss of worldly things which he endured for the Gospel and these he opposes there unto Eternal Life calling these the things that are seen and this the thing that is not seen and these troubles and the loss of these enjoyments he counted but a small business and a light affliction as it is there ver 17. But will any Man say that he counted it but a light affliction to be deprived of the Gospel-Supper This would not have become Paul But I need not Apologize for him he purges himself sufficiently of this for the whole purpose of that Chapter shews his meaning to be of the things that I have said Again the External Signs in the Lords Supper rightly considered as signifying and exhibiting Christ and his benefits are so far from turning our Eyes or hearts to things that are below and seen that on the contrary they are an excellent means of of elevating them unto and setting them upon the things that are above and not seen That the Corinthians were jangling and in a disorder when Paul wrote the second Epistle to them from which the Quakers cite this passage I truly perceive not yea the Seventh Chapter thereof witnesses the contrary and so the Quakers have mistaken the second Epistle for the first In the Close of this Query the Quakers shew themselves related to the Accuser of the Brethren for glory to God there are many Ministers amongst us who have intended not without success that both themselves and their Hearers should come nearer Christs Death than the eating and drinking of Bread and Wine for a bare Historical Remembrance of his Death as the Quakers here insinuate it to have been whom because their Epistles of Commendation are written upon the hearts of many Thousands we shall not need here further either to vindicate or commend them Seventh QUERY Whether or not Christ and the Apostles gave forth a Command that they should keep the Sabbath-day let us see where it is written in the Scriptures but the first day of the Week the Saints did meet together this is Scripture but let us see the Scripture for a Sabbath-day in the New-Testament which speaks for a rest for the People of God But is this a day yea or nay SVRVEY The Quakers Position here is That there is no day under the New Testament appointed to be kept as an External Christian Sabbath-day more than another but that all days are of equal Condition and Holiness as beside what they here say they also teach more plainly in their Confession of Faith page 42. against which I assert that there is an External Christian Sabbath-day appointed to be observed under the New Testament distinct from all other days whatsoever For proving of this Conclusion I need not bring the ordinary Argument from the light of Nature concerning some portion of our time and days to be set apart from all civil and worldly Imployments to the exercise of Gods Publick Worship which none but a profest Atheist will deny knowing that the party I have to deal with scarce both of Religion and Reason do but little value it But first We are commanded in the fourth Commandment to keep holy unto God one day of seven and this Commandment is Moral and so perpetual extending to all Ages of the Church Therefore there is a command for keeping an External Sabbath-day under the New-Testament as well as the Old The consequence is of it self clear to any Man The first part of the Antecedent is also clear from Exod. 20. Chap. I prove the second part thereof viz. that this Commandment is Moral and so perpetual because God proclaimed it with his own Voice from Mount Sinai to the whole Assembly of Israel he wrote it with his own Finger he inserted it into the midst of the rest of the Moral Precepts he wrote it upon the Tables of Stone shewing its perpetual duration and he caused put it into the Ark of the Testimony with the rest of the Moral Precepts all which is clear from Exod. 20. Chap. throughout and 25.16 and 31.18 and 32.15 16. Deut. 9.10 and 10.4 But God never conferred the like honour upon any Precept meerly Ceremonial as is plain from the Scriptures Again all the reasons of this Commandment are intirely Moral and stand upon common and perpetual equity Ergo so must the Command it self be The reasons chiefly are seeing he himself rested after six days work finished and he allows us six days to our work Therefore in all reason and equity we ought to rest after so many days allowed to our work and give God a seventh Lastly If this Command were not Moral then there should not be Ten but only Nine Commandments of that Law which is plain contrary to Deut. 4.13 and 10.4 where Moses manifestly speaks of the Moral Law which God spake in the Mount out of the midst of the Fire and plainly affirms that there are Ten Commandments thereof from which Law Christ shews us that one jot shall not pass away till Heaven and Earth pass and that the least Commendment thereof must be perpetually observed Matth. 5.18 19. But the Quakers answer That the Sabbath commanded in the fourth Commandment was the last day of the week which is abrogated Unto this I reply that the accommodation of the particular time or dyet to the last day of the week is indeed abrogated but not the substance of the Command which for the convincing reasons now given is plainly Moral and so perpetual and as yet in force and so it doth no less now injoyn the first day of the week to be observed the accomodation of the particular Dyet being made unto the first day then it did then injoyn the last day of the week to be observed by reason of the then-accommodation made unto the last day seeing it still retains its Authority for a seventh day or one day of seven to be kept holy unto God wherein the substance of the Precept consists which of them soever he shall pitch upon and determine As for the change of the particular day from the last to the first of the week doubtless Christ himself in his own Person is the Author thereof seeing beside that he Rose thereupon and rested from the great work of Redemption which is
for that which is before clean needs no more cleansing Fifthly They object That the Apostle says 1 Cor. 7.28 That though a Woman Marry she hath not sinned Therefore there are some actions at least free of all sin Ans If this objection proved any thing it would prove that Reprobates and Pagans also have perfect works Secondly I answer that Paul there means of the action of Marriage considered in respect of it's nature and kind and in order to its proper object as abstracted from all particular circumstances which may attend it which way the action hath no evil in it otherwise it could not be lawful to Marry whereas to forbid Marriage is a Doctrine of Devils 1 Tim. 4.1 2 3. Nevertheless albeit the action of Marriage so considered be not sinful yet seeing every particular action is necessarily exercised in several Circumstances wherewith it ought or ought not to be cloathed it may easily be defiled and become sinful by the Vesture of evil Circumstances instead whereof it should have been cloathed with good ones especially adding the impurity and uncleanness of the Agent which exerts it self in every particular action Sixthly The Quakers object and hereby they endeavour to prove the perfection both of the Saints and of their good works in this life The Saints say they have in this life perfect good works Therefore the Saints in this life must be perfect They prove the Consequence because perfect Effects crave perfect Causes They prove the Antecedent because they are acceptable to God and because if they be not perfect then they are sinful but sinful they cannot be seeing God commands them who commands not things sinful Ans Our good works are acceptable to God thorow Christ into whom all believers are by Faith Ingrafted and thorow whom alone both their persons and good works are accepted but none of aur good works here-away ore in themselves acceptable to God seeing they are still Imperfect Again God accepts them as they are good that is Sincerely done not as they are Imperfect and so evill and so from their acceptation their perfection follows not To the Second I Answer that God Commands our good works not as we perform them but as we ought to perform nor yet as they are defective as to the Degree he does not Command their gradual defect but he Commands them as they are good in respect of their Nature and kind So the objection perishes Seventhly they endeavour to prove that Christians have at least some perfect Actions in this Life and for that purpose they Inquire of us if the Apostles sinned in writing the Scripures Ans First this will not prove the perfection of any Action of any man now living except they can first prove him to have as large a measure of grace and of the Spirit 's Influence and Assistance as the Apostles had when they wrote the Scriptures which will be hard enough I think for them to get done Secondly the writing of the Scriptures wherein the Prophets and Apostles were but Pen-men for the Holy Ghost dictated all may consist with some Degree of imperfection as the Action is considered Morally and as lyable to the Law of God David and Asaph wrote Scriptures when they were not perfect Psal 51 10. and 73 22. or else beside the Instances given what will they say of an Hypocrites writing over in whole or in part the whole Scriptures and of every Action of Printing while our Printers print them over But Thirdly for full satisfaction I Answer that in that Action the Apostles did not at all sin upon the matter which yet is the most Formal sense of the objection which thus proposed directly imports the matter seeing the matter of the Action did perfectly agree with the Law of God as also the Action of an unrenewed man may doe Secondly there was much good in it compared with all the rest of the causes and so it was sincere and of another nature and kind then any Action of an unrenewed man is or can be seeing the principles thereof love to God and men The ends thereof the glory of God and good of Souls the form and manner wherein it was done in obedience to God were all certainly good Yet considering it as a Moral Action lyable to God's Law it was surely for the reasons given Defective and Imperfect as to the exact and compleat Degree of love to God and men and respect to the glory of God and good of Souls and Acting in it in pure obedience to Gods Command wherewith every perfect Action is to be qualified They will may be say that then the Scriptures would be in danger to Contract some Impurity from the Impurity of the Agent and Action of writing Ans That is false as appears from our Instances of an Hypocrite and Printer and of David and Asaph when they were not pure or perfect And if the Doctrine written did necessarily Contract any impuritie from the impurity of the writer by the same Reason and with more Reason seeing the Tongue is a more Immediat Instrument of the Heart then the Hand the Doctrine Preached should Contract some Impurity from the Impurity of the Preacher which is manifestly false to the Worlds eye Christ was the external object of the persecutive Actions of the Jews yet he Contracted no Impurity from thence But the Quakers urge saying though we cannot do all we ought to do yet that which we do we may do it perfectly Ans This reply must either be understood of diverse Actions so that the sense shall be though we cannot do all the good Actions we ought to do yet that Action or these Actions which we do we may do it or them perfectly which seeing by Perfectly they must mean the perfection of Degrees and otherwise it would be nothing to their purpose of a sinless perfection which they plead we must deny because of these and many other Scriptures Prov. 20 9. Eccles 7 20. Galat. 5 17. Rom. 7 21. or else that reply must be understood of one and the same Action And so the sense is though we cannot do an Action in that perfect degree of goodness that we ought yet in that degree of goodness wherein we do it we may do it perfectly where it being the perfection of degrees which is here Controverted and by the Adversaries pleaded for and otherwise we should have no debate with them here their reply involves a strong Contradiction viz. that any Action performed below that degree of goodness which it ought to have should notwithstanding be performed perfectly in respect of the perfection of Degrees seeing so it would both want and yet not want some Degree of goodness which it ought to have For these reasons I justly deny the latter part of their proposition Sixteenth QUERY Can any man be saved by his own works Self-righteousness will worship And are not all men in Self-righteousness that are not in the righteousness of Christ Jesus And