SECT. I. Proving the Scriptures to be the Infallible Rule.

The thing that the Quakers drive at in this Query, is, that be­cause Enoch, Noah, and others in the Primitive world had not a written Word of God for the Rule of their Faith; That therefore neither should the Written Word of God be the Rule of our Faith. This, beside that it is their known Principles (as Witnesseth their fore­said Confession of Faith, called, The Principles of Truth, wherein they most frequently cry up the Light within every man as his only Rule, and decry the Scriptures and all external Ordinances to their ut­most Breath, as may be seen pag. 5, 78, 79, 80, 92, 102, 103, 124, 133, 136, 140) Is either the Scope of this their pre­sent Query, or else it hath no Scope at all, and so it must be the fruit of some Distraction, they having thereby intended nothing. Well then, the Quakers must either acknowledge Scripture-Testimony for Truth (as I hope they will, seeing they here re­quire us to answer by Scripture) and then we shall soon see an end of the Question from the Scripture; or else they must deny Scripture-Testimony to be true, and shall proclaim God a Lyar, whose Testimony the Scriptures are, and by whose Inspiration they were given (as is proved in the former Queries Survey) which is the height of Blasphemy.

These things premised, I Assert, against the Quakers, that the Scriptures are the Infallible Rule of our Faith and Man­ners.

That the Scriptures are Infallible is sufficiently proved at the [Page 23]Survey of their former Query; where we proved them to be of Di­vine Inspiration, and the Word of the Living God, and not of any meer Creature, and so they cannot deceive; so that for their Infallibility we need say no more. That therefore the Scriptures are the Rule of Faith and Manners I prove.

For first, That must be the Rule of Faith and Manners by which every matter of Faith and Manners ought to be examin'd seeing eve­ry thing that is examined must be examined by its Rule, or else it will be done by Guess and Rule of Thumb, as the Jest is. But every matter of Faith and Manners ought to be examined by the Scriptures: Ergo the Scriptures are the Rule of Faith and Manners. The Major is pro­ved already. I prove the Minor from Isai. 8.20. Where we are ex­presly Commanded to go to the Law and the Testimony with eve­ry matter of Faith and Manners, and it is positively declared, that if it be not according to these, there is no Light in it, which is a suffi­cient Prohibition to receive it. And the Law and Testimony are the Scriptures. Exod. 32.15. and 34.29. Deut. 31.24, 26. 2 King. 22.8. Neh. 8.1, 3, 8. Psal. 78.5.

Secondly, Christ says to the Sadducees upon a great Article of Faith, that ignorance of the Scriptures caused them to err therein: Ergo the Scriptures are the Rule of Faith. The Antecedent is Taught by Christ himself, Mat. 22.29. Mark. 12.24. Ye err (saith he) not knowing the Scriptures, and because ye know not the Scriptures. I prove the Consequence, because if the igno­rance of any other Doctrine, except the Rule of Faith, should cause a man to err upon an Article of Faith; then though a man did perfectly know the Rule of Faith, yet he might err in the Faith through ignorance. But the Consequent inferred is repug­nant (for then he knows all the Articles of his Faith, and yet he believes wrong through ignorance, that is, because he knows not what to believe:) Therefore the Antecedent from which it is inferred is also repugnant.

Thirdly, Christ sends all men to the Scriptures for the Rule of Faith and Duty: Ergo the Scriptures are certainly the Rule of both. The consequence is Infallible, seeing Christ did not mistake himself. The Antecedent is clear from Luke. 16.28, 29, 30, 31. Where while Christ is delivering his Doctrine for all men in the parable of the Rich Glutton, he sends all men to the Scriptures for their Direction and Rule in the intire business of Repentance and [Page 24]Salvation, and that they may not be Eternally Damned (and so he shews we must stand to them upon pain of Damnation) and delcares, that if they listen not to the Scriptures, there is no more hope of them, and he'l give them no other Rule to Guide and Direct them. They have Moses and the Prophets (says he) that is the Scriptures written by them, let them hear them, and if they will not hear them, one arisen from the Dead (which he re­fuses to grant them) will not get them perswaded. There is a bundle of Arguments in one Text proving the Scriptures to be our Rule.

Fourthly, the Jews at Berea are highly commended for examin­ing by the Scripture the Doctrine of Grace Preached to them even by a Paul (Act. 17.11, 12.) that they might know if the things which he Taught were so, as the Text says; for albeit Paul was an infallibly-inspired Apostle, yet seeing they knew not that, and he being but newly arrived unto them, they had no proof of his Doctrine, and there being great danger from abounding false Teachers, they are therefore highly commended for putting his Doctrine to the Test and Tryal of the Fore-constitute Scrip­tures, wherewith every Doctrine of Religion was in substance and matter to consent and agree, and they otherwise not to re­ceive it, Isai. 8.20. Therefore the Scriptures are the undoubted Rule of Faith and Duty. The Consequence is plain, seeing they would never have been commended for examining and trying his Doctrine by the Scriptures, except the Scriptures were the Rule, or for making that a Rule for examining and receiving of Doctrines of Faith, which is no Rule of matters of Faith; Nay, for this they would have been deservedly discommended.

Fifthly, The Scriptures are able to make us Wise unto Salva­tion. 2 Tim. 3.15. Therefore they contain the Rule of Faith and Duty. The Consequence is easie, seeing without the Rule of these, we cannot be wise unto Salvation, but plainly ignorant of the way thereunto, having no Rule to direct us.

Sixthly, the whole Scriptures were given by Inspiration of God, and they were written purposely for the Churches Instructi­on and Learning, as is before shewed: Therefore they must surely be the Rule of Faith and Duty; for, I am sure, there is nothing wanting here that is requisite to the Constituting of them for a publick Rule; or else let the Quakers (if they can) shew [Page 25]us what that is; for I can not perceive it, without the Spectacles of their Eagle-eyed Inspirer.

Seventhly, That Doctrine must be the Rule of Faith and Manners, which in all matters of Faith and Manners we ought to observe and take heed to, as a Doctrine full of shining light for our instruction and direction: but that is the Scriptures: Therefore the Scriptures are the Rule of Faith and Manners. The Major is clear, nor do the Quakers deny it. The Minor is laid down in 2 Pet. 1.19, 20. where Peter, after his rehearsing of the glorious Revelation on the Mount; at the Transfiguration (which was as glorious a Revelation as any else) he addeth, That they had a more sure Word of Prophecy, whereunto they did well to take heed as unto a light shining, &c. knowing this first, that no Prophecy of the Scripture is of any private Inter­pretation; here it is clear, that it is the Scriptures which he calls, the more sure Word of Prophecy, and prefers before all transient Revelations; not as if the Scriptures were more certain in them­selves (Quoad se) than Gods immediate voice from Heaven; but because they are a more sure way in regard of us; (Quoad nos) they being a Written, yea Sealed and Sworn Evidence and Contract of the whole Bargain and Terms of Salvation and Life, delivered into our custody to be perused by us upon all occa­sions; and this gives more assurance, in regard of our weakness, than a passing Revelation, and is more ready for our constant direction, than a transient Revelation, which we cannot always command, nor retain often in our memory till we understand; nor are all men able to bear them; That on the Mount made the Disciples roave and mistake exceedingly, Mark. 9.6.

The Quakers answer, (in their Confession of Faith, or Prin­ciples of Truth, page 135, 136, 140.) That by the more sure Word of Prophecy, the Apostle means the Light within us, and so they deny our Minor. But contrariwise the 20 Verse there, where he cautions the interpreting of the Scripture-Prophecy, clearly coheres with the 19 Verse, as a caution subjoyned con­cerning the same thing which he had there called, The more sure Word of Prophecy; and so by the more sure Word of Prophecy must be meant the Scriptures, because of the clear coherence. Se­condly, I must demand of the Quakers to shew, (if they can) How the Dictat or Light within is more sure than Gods immediate [Page 26]Voice from Heaven, such as that was at the Transfiguration? I have shewed how the Scriptures are called, and are so in regard of us; but I cannot understand, how the Light within can be, or be called so. Thirdly, The Testimony of other Scriptures pro­duced, and to be produced, will not permit this violent Gloss.

Again, They ordinarily answer to this Scripture, That in it we are only appointed to take heed to the Scriptures, until the day dawn, and the day-Star arise into our hearts, that is (as they ex­pound) till the Holy Ghost be bestowed on us, but no longer. But contrariwise; First, by this answer, they retract their former Gloss upon the Text, and confess the more sure Word of Pro­phecy here, to be meant of the Scriptures, and not the Light within. Secondly, By this answer, they overturn one of their own chiefest Principles, viz. That all men ought to follow the Light within: for now they yield, That such as have not receiv­ed the Holy Ghost, (and these are not few) are exhorted here to follow the Scriptures, and not the Light within them. Thirdly, Hereby they insinuate, That the Scriptures (in their Opinion) serve for nothing to Renewed Men and Believers, who are born of the Spirit and Sealed therewith, ( Joh. 3.5. Rom. 8.9. Eph. 1.13.) and so the Scriptures (as they will) are recommended only to Men unrenewed; and so that blessing pronounced upon the Readers, Hearers, and Keepers of the things written in the Scrip­tures, ( Revel. 1.3. and 22.7.) is designed and belongs only to unrenewed Men, seeing the reading, hearing, and keeping of the things written therein, whereunto the blessing is annexed, belongs only to them, as the Quakers will. What? Does not Paul, Peter, and John direct all their Epistles, and the Book of the Revela­tion to the Churches, the Saints, and them that had obtained like precious Faith with them, delivering them many Rules of Faith and Manners therein? See their Inscriptions (I pray,) and these will inform you better.

Eightly, That must be the Rule of Faith by which we are commanded to try the Spirits, (1 John 4.1.) seeing we cannot try the Spirits or Doctrines without the Rule; for that were to try them by guess: But that whereby we are commanded to try the Spirits, must certainly, be the Scriptures, seeing the Quakers do not as yet openly profess the Popish Lesbian Rule, of Believing as the Church of Rome does; and it cannot be the dictat or light [Page 27]within, that we are to try them by, seeing, that is as fallible, as their Light whose Doctrines I try; and George Keith (a Ring­leading Quaker) confesses the possibility of their declining from Infallibility, both in Speaking and Writing, (and consequently in Examining or Judging too) in his Quakerism no Popery, page 33. and beside, the Dictat within hath no Divine Institu­tion to be the Rule; and if it were the Rule, then the Dictat with­in every diverse Man would be the Rule to try the Dictat or De­ctrine proceeding from the Dictat in another, which would make the Dictat of every Man both Superior and Inferior to the Dictat of another; Superior when it tries and examines, and Inferior when it, or its Doctrine is tried and examined, which is repug­nant.

Ninthly, John shews us, (1 John 4.6.) That the true and sound imbracing of their Doctrine, (now written in the Scrip­tures) is a manifest evidence of the Spirit of Truth, and the rejecting of it, a manifest evidence of the Spirit of Error; and so their Doctrine written in the Scriptures, must be the Rule of Faith and Manners: For, How shall it be an evidence of the Spirit of Truth, to imbrace a Doctrine that is not the Rule? this is liker to be an evidence of the contrary; Or, How shall it be an evidence of the Spirit of Error, to reject such Doctrine? this also is rather an evidence of the contrary, providing the Rule be retained.

Lastly, God denounces all the plagues mentioned in the Scrip­tures (quake that dreads then) against every Man that shall pre­sume to add in matters of Faith and Duty, (for of these its meant) to the Doctrine and Rules written in the Scriptures. Therefore the Scriptures do certainly contain the Rule and whole Rule of Faith and Manners. The antecedent is laid down, Rev. 22.18. where it is peremptorily said, That if any Man shall add unto these things that are written in the Scriptures, (for there is the like reason, and no other, or more reason, against adding to this Book of the Revelation, and the rest of the holy Scriptures, after the Canon is compleated; and this Sanction is added here in the close of this Book, as the close of the whole Scriptures) God shall add to him all the plagues written in the Book. The con­sequence is also evident: For, if not the Scriptures, but some o­ther Doctrine were the Rule, then we not only might add to the [Page 28]Scriptures in matters of Faith and Duty, but we ought, of necessity, to set up that other Doctrine, as the Rule and Directory of both, which is much worse, methinks, than any partial adding; and so we could not be liable to such a doom for a partial adding.

And hence by a few arguments of many that may be produced, we see, that the Scriptures are the infallible Rule of our Faith and Manners, that sure Word of Prophecy whereunto we ought to take heed; and if an Angel from Heaven shall preach another Gospel to us, than that which Christ and the Apostles did, let him be accursed. Every new Dispensation of the Covenant by the Ministery of Men, though it were but only new in the manner, was confirmed by Miracles and Wonders, ( Exod. 4.28.30. Deut. 34.11, 12. 2 Cor. 12.12. Heb. 2.4.) much more need hath the Quakers Doctrine of such confirmations, being new, not only in the manner, but also in the matter contrary to the Doctrine formerly dictated by the Holy Ghost, and left upon Record unto us; nor heard we ever of so great a company of Inspired Teachers, as all the Doctors of the Quakers pretend to be, and never one Miracle or Wonder to be had amongst them all, excepting only their extream Infatuation and Brain-sickness, or that they still retain the proportion and features of Human bodies, having quite enervated their rational essence.

SECT. II. Proving the Scriptures to be the principal Rule, and overthrowing the Light within.

George Keith an Arch- Quaker, and a Man too learned as he imploys it, doth here distinguish our Arguments, yielding us; That the Scriptures are the most compleat external Rule of Faith that is in the World; but, That they are not for all that, the Principal Rule of Faith, but only a Secundary Rule thereof; and that the Spirit, or his Dictat within, is the Principal Rule, (in his Quakerism no Popery, pages 9.13, 25, 59, 108, 109, 110, 111.) and, like Proteus turning himself into all shaces, [...] [...]mes designs Christ himself, oftner the Spirit [...] he [...] of the Spirit within, to be [...] oftnest the dictat [...] [...]

But, I am sure, if George Keith be in earnest while he would have Christ himself, or the Spirit himself to be our Rule, he is beside himself; For a Person cannot be a Rule of Faith, for that must be some complex Proposition, Direction, or Precept, and the like: but Christ and the Spirit are Persons, and so they cannot be a Rule of Faith. The Major is already proved, nor will the Quakers deny it. But George Keith (as many of his Brethren, to my hearing) doth flatly refuse the Minor, as an un­certain unscriptural notion, and a barbarous heathenish term to speak of a Person in the Godhead, in his Quakerism no Popery, page 97.104. and so, according to him, there are no Persons at all in the Godhead; (ah Blasphemy!) for if there be, I am sure, we may say there are; and if Men believe that there are Three Persons in the Godhead, they will not refuse to say the same. The Quakers then do reject both the thing and notion, and believe not there are Three Persons in the Godhead: And therefore that there are, I shall shortly prove.

First, The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are each of them an Intelligent Being, subsisting incommunicably, or distinctly from another: Ergo, each of them is a Person. The conse­quence, being from the Definition to the thing defined, cannot be denied without a broad contradiction; for, if they grant the Antecedent, that is the thing which all the World understands by a Person. The Antecedent I prove, for that each of them is an Intelligent Being, Subsisting, the Quakers dare not deny, and their great Works declare it; and that they subsist Incommuni­cably, or distinctly from one another, (though in the same Godhead) I prove, because one and the same Subsistence cannot beget it Self, or be begotten by it Self, nor proceed from it Self, as is palpable: but the Father begets the Son, the Son is begotten by him, and the Holy Ghost proceeds from both; and so they must be distinct Subsistences, or subsist distinctly.

Secondly, There are Three that bear Record in Heaven, the Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost, 1 John 5.7. Ergo, they must either be Three Persons, or Three Gods, (which is the beight of impossibility) or let the Quakers shew, how they will call them Three; for, though they also be one, viz. one God, yet the same Text cited, says they are Three too. I could never get any other answer to this from a Quaker, but, That they are [Page 30]three Manifestations, viz. of Moses, of Christ, and of the Spi­cit. But, if these were the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, the World is much elder than they, and then, Who made it?

Thirdly, While Christ proves Himself the Light of the World against the Jews, who denied it, He says, ( John 8.17, 18.) It is also written in your Law, That the Testimony of two Men is true; I am one that bears Witness of my Self, and the Father that sent Me beareth Witness of Me. Now Christ and the Father could not have been two Witnesses according to their Law, except they be two distinct Persons: for, their Law admitted the Testimony of two Men proof enough, because it was the Testimony of two Persons, and otherwise the Testimony had not been admitted as proof enough. Christ then clearly teaches Himself and the Father to be two Persons, while he asserts that their Witnessing was proof enough according to their Laws demand.

Lastly, Christ is said to be the express Image (in the Original Language Character) of the Fathers Person; ( Heb. 1.3.) Therefore the Father is a Person, and Christ also, and distinct Persons; for the Father is plainly called so, and 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 its 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, [Page 31]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 [Page 32]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 [Page 33]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 because it is worthy of a Thousand Deaths for its proud Usurpation, we shall reach it some few Blows more in par­ticulari Specie.

First therefore, the principal Rule of Faith and Manners must be Essentially right and Infallible; or else we can trust nothing to it with any assurance, and all were gone, it would mislead and deceive us: But the Dictate within every man is not Essentially Right: Ergo it is not the principal Rule. I prove the Minor, be­cause many men have not the Spirit, as all unrenewed men ( Rom. 8.9. 1 Joh. 4.13. Jud. 19.) and so their Dictate within, not proceeding from the Spirit, cannot be Essentially Right, or the principal Rule of Faith and Manners; and this destroys the Qua­kers Principle, that the Dictate within every man is the princi­pal Rule. Nor doth the Spirit Teach even Believers by an in­ward immediate objective Dictate, seeing God and Nature do nothing in vain, and Beings ought not to be multiplied without some necessity, which here there is none that can be shewed; for seeing the whole Doctrine of Salvation is abundantly made known in the Scriptures, so that our understandings being subjectively Enlightened, and our Eyes in any measure opened, we may plain­ly see therein the exactness and purity of the Law, the Riches of the Promises, and, in fine, our whole Rule by the good help of other means and Ordinances appointed to further our Instructi­on and Knowledge in these, by opening up and explaining their Doctrine and Sence, and so clearing the Object, quoad nos, or in order to our understanding. And what needs then (I pray) another objective Rule?

Neither is there any reason for the continuance of the immedi­ate Inspiration of the Doctrine of Salvation in the Church, more than all the other extraordinary Gifts (which are gone long since) the Intire Rule of Faith and Manners being now compleated, and publickly Recorded, which is as Infallible as any immediate Dictate, seeing it is the Word of God that cannot Lie; and it is more sure for us than any, in regard of the Devils Cunning, who can, and often does bear in a strong Delusion with so much of seeming Evidence, as makes it be received for a Divine Dictate. And what needs more? George Keith who pleads that the Dictate within, is the principal Rule and Touchstone of all Doctrines (in his Quakerism no Popery, pag. 59. albeit most inconsistently (as I think) he grants the same Authority to the Scriptures, pag. 28 thereof) does yield that, for all their Infallible Dictate, yet its possible for them (and that is much indeed) both to Speak and Write (and so to think too) in a mixture ( Quakerism no Popery, pag. 33) that is to say, Fallibly: for if he means of a Mid-way betwixt, Fallibly and Infallibly, (which I am not yet acquainted with, nor ever read it) he speaks, like a man in a mixture, Infal­lible Contradiction. For all the World cannot find me a midst betwixt Fallible, and Infallible. George Keith then (it seems) is not Infallibly, or immediately Inspired: for he can both Speak and Write in a mixture, which a man immediatly Inspired can­not be Guilty of. Habernus confitentem reum.

Secondly, that cannot be the principal Rule of Faith and Man­ners which hath no Divine Institution to Warrant it; or else it is but an Usurper. But the Dictate within every, I or any man, hath no Divine Institution to Warrant it to be the principal Rule of these; or else produce it (if they can) for all they have hither­to produced shall be Confuted and Answered too when I come to to their Objections. Therefore the Dictate within every man, or any man, is not the principal Rule of Faith and Man­ners.

Thirdly, a Rule to be examined by another Rule cannot be the principal Rule of Faith and Manners, I am sure: But the Dictate within all men is such; Therefore it is not the principal Rule of Faith and Manners. The Minor I prove from Isai. 8.20. To the Law and to the Testimony (says the Text) if they speak not according to this Word, it is because there is no Light in them; [Page 35]where all Dictates, or Doctrines of Faith and Manners are very expresly commanded to be Tryed and examined by the Scripture, and if they agree not with that, not to receive them; seeing so, there is no Light in them, they are but Dictates of Darkness. And again, George Keith Confesses, that all Doctrines and Principles of Christian Religion are to be applyed to the Scriptures, as a Test and Touchstone in all external Debates and Disputations whatso­ever, and if they agree not therewith, to be denied and disowned for ever ( Quakerism no Popery, pag, 28.) and so the Scriptures are a Superiour Rule to the Dictate within (if it be a Doctrine of the Christian Religion) seeing it must be examined by these as a Test and Touchstone, and rejected, if it agree not therewith. I can say no more, than is dropt (twixt sleeping and waking per­haps) from the Pen of an Adversary.

Fourthly, the Scriptures (we have seen before) are the prin­cipal Rule of Faith and Manners positively: Ergo the Dictate within cannot be such a Rule. The Consequence is plain, seeing two Rules, each of them positively principal, are repugnant; for so each of them should be above, and below the other.

Fifthly, if the Dictate within be the principal Rule of Faith and Manners, then we must either follow its Directions absolutely, and without Questioning or Trying them; or else conditionally only that they be right, if conditionally only, then we must examine them by some other Rule, to know if they be right, or not; and so they are not the principal Rule (against the supposition) nor Infallible, see­ing an Infallible Rule needs no Superior Rule to be examined by, be­ing it self Essentially right. If then we must follow the directions of the Dictate within absolutely, and without any Tryal, then he whose Dictate within prompts him to think that Christ has not two distinct Natures, or that he has two distinct Persons aswel as Na­tures, or that he is not Co-eternal, Co-equal, and Co-substan­tial with the Father, or First person, or that his Sufferings and Death was not a Satisfaction for our Sins, or that God is a Corpo­real Being subject to all humane Passions, or that in the Eucharist the Bread is substantially Changed into the Body of Christ, or that the Pope is Infallible (and so a great Quaker, or else each of them a small Pope) or that we are not Justified by the Righteousness of the Redeemer; I say, all of these, and other such deluded Here­ticks must absolutely follow these Principles as their principal Rule. [Page 36]And if the Dictate within bid a man Worship the Sun and Moon, and Idols of Gold and Silver, worship the Devil, and cut his own Throat too, he is bound to obey his Rule. There is nothing can be answered to these things but this, viz. That these and such like evil Directions cannot proceed from the Spirit of God, but allanerly from a mans own self and the Devil. But 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 Self­evidence 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 [Page 38]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 Scripture­rule 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 [Page 39]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, with the old Dispensation thereof under the Law, and he pro­mises in the Name of the Lord, That the new Dispensation of the Covenant shall be attended with a greater measure of the Spirit for writing the Law upon Mens hearts, than was bestowed under the old. This Commentary agreeth with other Scriptures, (2 Cor. 3.6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11.) whereas the Quakers Gloss is most false and contrary to the same, as appears from what is above said in the Survey of this Query.

As for that part of the Text, They shall not teach every Man. his Neighbour, it is also a comparative expression, holding forth, that the Light under the Gospel Dispensation shall be so great and clear, and so far exceed that under the Old Testament, that, in comparison with these under it, we shall scarce seem to need a Teacher, which is most true in the event. See the like expression, Hos. 6.6. I will have Mercy, and not Sacrifice; that is, (as needs no proof) he required Mercy more than Sa­crifice; for he required Sacrifice also.

Secondly, This part of the Text, as it is urged by the Qua­kers, against all external Teaching by the Scripture and a publick Ministery, doth much rather overthrow all Christian mutual Teaching and Neighbourly Exhortation, than Teaching by Scripture-Rule, or a Publick Ministery, seeing the Teaching whereof it speaks is, of Brother with Brother, and Neighbour with Neighbour. And seeing the Quakers urge this Text against all external Teaching under the New Testament, (as I in expe­rience know they do, and their Principles of following the Dictat within leads them to it) we charge them in their own Principles, and as they would not go over the belly of their Light, to give over teaching of their Blasphemous Errors: for there is none [Page 40]busier to teach Truth, than they (alas!) are to broach and spread these.

Thirdly, They object from Luk. 17.20, 21. where Christ being asked of the Pharisees, When the Kingdom of God (that is the Messias Kingdom: for the Question is plainly concerning that) should come, He answers them, That the Kingdom of God comes not with observation: for behold (says He) the Kingdom of God is within you. See this objection in their Confession of Faith, pages 124, 133, 134, 135.

Ans. As to the first part of the Text here alledged, it is not much different from, or rather it is a consequent of that which Christ saith before Pilate, ( Joh. 18.36.) My Kingdom is not of this World, and the meaning clearly is that, because the King­dom of Christ is Spiritual, (which that Text of John asserts) therefore it comes not with worldly, Pomp, and Shew, and is not conspicuous for worldly Splendor, (which is the meaning of this Text of Luke) so as Men of the World can always discern it, as other Kingdoms: for, though it cannot be denied that Christ had a Kingdom even at that time amongst the Jews; yet these Pharisees did not discern it.

But if the Quakers would have the meaning of that saying to be, that the Kingdom of Christ hath no external Laws, Rules, and Ordinances in, or with it, (unto which scope they do indeed wrest it in the pages of their Confession last cited, and in which sence alone, and none else, it would serve the Quakers purpose a­gainst external Ordinances, or for Establishing their inward un­warrantable Dictat, as all see) their Commentary shall be most false; seeing Christ had a Kingdom in the World in the days of the Old Testament, and a much larger in the days of the A­postles under the New, and yet there were external Laws, Rules, and Ordinances in, or with it at both these times, see Deut. 30.10. and 31.9, 10, 11, 12, 24, 26. Nehem. 8.8. 2 King. 23.2, 3. Isai. 8.20. Matth. 28.19, 20. Luk. 16.29. and 22.19. Joh. 5.39.46, 47. and 20.31. Act. 8.35. and 17.11. and 18.28. and 28.23. Rom. 15.4. 1 Tim. 4.13. 2 Tim. 2.2. and 3.15, 16. and 4.2. These Testimonies, and a thousand more that might be instanced, do irresistably prove against all Contradictors, that there were External Ordi­nances of Scripture, Sacraments, Preaching, &c. in, or with [Page 41]the Kingdom of Christ, not only under the Old Testament, but also under the New; and so the Quakers Gloss upon this Text of Luke is most false, That would have the Dictat within to be the Rule of Faith and Manners, because the Kingdom of God comes not with observation, that is, as they infer, it is all within, there is nothing external in it. As for the second part of the Text alledged, (Behold the Kingdom of God is within you) it may be as well, yea much better translated, Behold the King­dom of God is in the midst of you, or amongst you: for the Ori­ginal word [...] will read any of the ways, (as it is marked on the Margin of our Bibles, among you) and the nature and condition of the Party to whom Christ there speaks, being wick­ed Enemies of Christ and his Kingdom, cannot so well admit of our vulgar translation: (The Kingdom of God is within you) and in translating it the other way, it will be as much, if not more unto Christs Scope; for, because these Pharisees expected that the Messiahs Kingdom should come with worldly Pomp and Grandure, (of which conceipt neither were Christs own Disciples free, Matth. 20.21.) Therefore to confute that fancy, He tells them, That the Kingdom of God comes not in that manner with worldly Pomp and Splendor: for behold, (says He) the Kingdom of God is even now amongst you, though ye perceive it not, because ye look for a Kingdom with worldly Pomp and Grandure.

Secondly, The Kingdom of God, that is, the Messiahs Kingdom, was certainly come in the Apostles days after the powring forth of the Spirit, and the Gospel spread through the Gentile-world, (as the Quakers dare not, I think, deny) and yet it was accom­panied with External Laws and Ordinances, whereunto the Church was straitly tied, (as I have many times before proved) and it was as much within Gods People then as now: Therefore this Text can afford them no ground for overturning of External Laws and Ordinances in the Church, and Establishing their Dictate within for the Rule.

Thirdly, Let the Kingdom of God be within us, what then? Will that necessarily infer the exclusion of all External helps and means for the inchoating, promoting, and maintaining thereof in us? Nay, by no means; For how many things are there in­ward in us, which yet are inchoate, nourished and maintained [Page 42]by external helps and means, as the habits of Grammar, Logick, Mathematicks, &c. and have not all Tradesmen their External Rules, for all their inward habit of the Art? yea, our very Lives (that are inward enough, I think) are upheld and nourished by the help of things External. Why do not the Quakers nourish their Lives, that are Essentially inward, with some inward dish of meat, and let alone External meat and drink? These things dash the Argument in pieces, which runs with a pur-blind con­sequence from an infirm Antecedent.

Fourthly, 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 [Page 44]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 [Page 45]had a sad Accompt to make, according to Christs Doctrine, Matth. 12.36. and if the Quakers think that this Text over­turneth all Teaching by Men, we again Charge them in their own Principles, and by the Law they live on, to give over their Teaching, and spreading of their damnable Delusions by Word or Writ: for, I am sure, the Quakers are but Men at the most, and I think, scarce that, by the forfeiture they have made of their Reason.

Sixthly, They object from Jam. 1.21. where the Apostle Exhorts us, That laying aside all filthiness and superfluity of naugh­tiness, we would receive with meekness the Ingrafted Word, which is able to save our Souls: Therefore, (say they) the Word which we are to receive is an Ingrafted Word within us.

Ans. First, The Original word [ [...]] may be as well rendred, Apt to be Ingrafted, and then where is the Argument, I pray?

Secondly, The context will not allow the Quakers Gloss: for it's a Word that we are to receive, and hear, and which is able to save our Souls, (a Character not given to the Light or Dictate within, any whereof Scripture, but to the Scripture it is ex­presly given, 2 Tim. 3.15.) and we cannot in proper speech be said to receive or hear a Dictate within, which we have already, and is not audible properly: Therefore they cannot gain their point here, without diverting the words from a proper to an im­proper sence, for which they must shew some necessity of the Ana­logy of Faith; or else it cannot be granted then.

Thirdly, The Apostle does not here Exhort us to commit our selves to the conduct of the Light and Dictate within, as our Rule; but he exhorts us to receive the Word of God the length of Ingrafting, (that is, so as it may take root, and so grow and become fruitful in us) and that we let it not pass out at one ear as it comes in at the other, being forgetful and negligent hearers; and so the meaning clearly is, Receive the word, not forgetfully and negligently, but receive it Ingrafted and rooting-wise. Any Man by reading the context downward may see, that James there opposes receiving of the Ingrafted Word, or Word Ingrafted, to the receiving of the Word forgetfully, superficially and carelesly; and not to the receiving of an External Word, as the Quakers here expound, taking the grounds of their Gloss out of their own [Page 46]Brain-sick heads alone, being no ways grounded on the Context, or agreeable to any other place of the Scripture; whereas our Exposition is clearly founded on the Context, and evidently arises therefrom, and hath also the warrant of other Scriptures. No­thing here then for the Quakers.

Seventhly, They object wonderfully (but it's a lying wonder like the rest) from Heb. 6.1.2. where the Apostle Exhorts these Hebrews, That leaving the Principles of the Doctrine of Christ, they would go on towards perfection, not laying again the foundation of Repentance from dead works, and of Faith to­wards God, of the Doctrine of Baptisms, and laying on of hands, of the Resurrection of the Dead, and of Eternal Judgment. See the Quakers Confession, page 63, 68, 77, 80. where they urge this Text against the Law, (so they call the whole Scrip­tures) and against the Priests, (so they call the Ministers of the Gospel, as all know) and against Baptism with Water, and the Lords Supper.

Answ. But so abusing and wresting the Text for banishing of External Ordinances out of the Church, they with the same breath infer, That there ought, or needs not be any of the Principles of the Doctrine of Christ in the Church; for, the Apostle Exhorts to leave these also, and that in the first branch of the Exhortation; And did Paul (in earnest) Exhort them to reject these? Did he Exhort them to reject the Foundation of Repentance and of Faith towards God, which here he calls these Principles? The Building will surely go to Ruine then, when the Foundation is gone. Is not that a brave Doctrine come from an immediate Dictate?

Any Man, though half blind, may see, that the Apostle means, that they should not stick always at the learning of the first common Catechetical, or Rudimental Principles of Religion, (which he taxes them for ignorance of, in the close of the for­mer Chapter) but that, having laid the Foundation of these, (not thrown them away, as the Quakers here expound) they should aspire and indeavour after a further Proficience and Growth in the Knowledge of Christ and Gospel Mysteries.

Eightly, The Quakers object in this Query, That in the Primitive World, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, &c. had not any written Word to be the Rule of Faith and Manners; [Page 47]and therefore, (they mean to infer, and George Keith explains it fully in his Quakerism no Popery, page 109. 111.) neither now is the written Word our Rule.

Answ. A brave consequence forsooth; as if I should say, Christ was not come in the Flesh in the Primitive World: Ergo, neither as yet is he come. Or, in the Primitive World there were no Scriptures written: Ergo, neither afterwards. I was not born in the Primitive World, am not I born as yet then? I can hardly believe so: for, Non-entities cannot act and write, as I am doing just now. The External manner of Dispensation used with those of the Primitive World, can do nothing to the Quakers now, (who live not in the Primitive World, except perhaps by conceipt and fancy) but in the last times, after the word of God is committed to writing, and we commanded to observe that as our Rule.

George Keith, a Man more cunning than his Neighbours, albeit he acknowledges the Scriptures for a compleat External Rule, yet, he contends with all his might, That the Dictate within is the Principal Rule, and the Scriptures but a Secondary Rule, he will allow the second Room, or the Footstool to the Scriptures; but the Throne in the Palace, and chief Seat in the Quakers Synagoue must be reserved for their great Diana, the Dictate within. Therefore, though this great Dagon hath broke his neck already before the Ark, yet to defend his Honour lying in the Dust,

He objects Ninthly, ( Quakerism no Popery, page. 9. 13.) That the Testimony of the Spirit within is greater than the Ex­ternal Testimony of the Scripture; and therefore the Dictate within must be the Principal Rule, not the Scriptures.

But first I Answ. That George Keith drives the Plough before the Oxen: for, he must first prove, (or else nothing to his point) that every Man is furnisht with an immediate Dictate of the Spirit within him (which we deny any Man to have, and he shall never prove) to reveal to him Infallibly the Doctrine of Salva­tion, and then, and not till then, it may be to the purpose, to prove, it's Mens principal Rule, by its Greatness: for be it great or small, it can be no Rule to them who have it not, more than the Sun can enlighten me, when he Shines not in my Hemisphere; and so the Argument is a meer impertinence: For, An sit, is be­fore [Page 48] Quid sit. Let him prove then, (and he shall be great Apollo) that every man hath such an immediate Dictate within him, and then he comes time enough to prove that it, and not the Scrip­tures, is his greater and more principal Rule.

Secondly, let the Testimony of the Light within be greater, or not, the Scriptures (we see) are Divinely appointed to be the Rule and principal Rule, and nothing can Infer against that, that the utmost of racked Invention is able to devise. Nor did, or does God always make use of the greater Witnesses for Testifying his Will to us; or else he had still imployed Angels, and not men to Teach us, and Christ had continued to this day, and the worlds end in his Ministery upon the Earth, instead of giving us men of like Passions to Teach us. It is plentiful security unto us, that we have a Rule of Faith and Duty altogether Infallible, and an Evi­dence Written, Sealed, and Sworn to ( Heb. 6.17, 18.) deli­vered into our hand for our more chearful assurance, to be perused by us upon all occasions for resolving our doubts, directing our Duty, and confirming our Faith. George Keith uses a number of more Arguments (in his Quakerism no Popery, pages 108, 109, 110, 111.) indeavouring to prove the Dictate within (and some­times the Spirit himself, and sometimes Christ himself, as his Ar­guments run) to be a better Rule than the Scriptures. But in ge­neral they are all Guilty of the same very Impertinence that his Ar­gument now Discussed was liable to; and therefore the very same Answers that are given to this Argument destroy them every one, so that we need not Arraign them particularly.

But George Keith brings one Argument to prove that God Teaches us by an immediate Dictate within, viz. because its ab­surd to say, that God Speaks no more Intelligibly and percepti­bly in an immediate way to the Souls of his people, than to the Earth to bring forth Grass, or to the Fish to Vomit out Jonah.

Ans. That he speaks more Intelligibly or perceptibly to his people, than to such unreasonably Creatures as these, is granted; But that he does it in an immediate way to us, I deny it, let George prove it. He does indeed immediately inlighten us with a Divine Beam of Light in our understandings. Effectively opening our Eyes (yea he always works with his Word, made by himself effectual, as the immediate principal efficient of its gracious effects [Page 49]in us) that we may understand what is written in the Scriptures, and know assuredly that it is he that speaks to us therein; and so speaks to us much more Intelligibly, than to unreasonable Crea­tures, whom he never dealt so with.

But that it is absurd if he do it, not by an Objective immediate inward Dictate, I utterly deny, let him prove it, if he can. But does not George Keith think it absurd to say, that a man is Taught by an unerring immediate Dictate within, who cannot, upon his Life, tell how many Gods there are, or who is the Redeemer? And so much for the Rule of Faith and Manners shall suffice.

SECT. I. Concerning Scripture-Interpretation.

While the Quakers here oppose Scripture-Interpretation they are indeed very like themselves, and Speak in their own Language: for what external Ordinance can a Quaker (taking his Dictate within for his Rule) like to hear of? Therefore when they cannot get the Scriptures overthrown from being our Rule, their next in­deavour is, that, at least, they may render useless and unedifying to the Bulk and Body of the people, asmuch of them as they can, even all the Texts thereof (and these are not a few) which, with­out the help and labours of a Gifted Interpreter, they cannot un­derstand; and all the Doctrine thereof which is not explicitly and formerly Enunciat therein, though yet it be materially, really, and truly therein contained, and by sound Consequence Infallibly follows there-from.

One thing I shall here promise to the Quakers (and more no man can demand) and that is, that whatever Scripture I shall bring for proving of our Doctrine, the meaning thereof, which I shall alledge, shall either be undeniably (even to a Quaker) clear of it self; or else I shall evidently and irresistibly prove and make good the same, and manifestly overthrow the forged meaning of the Quakers thereupon; and, I think that is very fair. But that we may come to the Questions to be here handled.

I must premise first, that the Scriptures ought not to be Expound­ed according to any mans fore-conceived private Judgment and Opinion (that is, [...] 2 P [...]. 1.20.) But they are to [Page 51]be Expounded according to the Analogy of Faith in general, and by Comparison with other Scriptures that Speak more clearly to the matter, or by the Scope, Connexion, and Dependence of the purpose in the place it self, compared with its Antecedents and Con­sequents. Thus the Apostle Paul says, Let us Prophesie according to the proportion (in the Original Analogy) of Faith (Rom. 12.6.) and (I think) it is proved before, that the Scriptures are the Rule of all Doctrines of Faith and Manners.

Secondly, I must premise, that the Scriptures are in several places so plain and easie, especially in respect of things Essential, and simply necessary to Salvation, that men of very common Capacities, may even without an Interpreter, attain in some mea­sure to understand them, as is clear both in the Scripture ( Deut. 30.11. Psal. 19.7. and 119.130.) and also from Experience. For thus we see that the attentive Reading, or Hearing of the Scriptures (though without Commentaries) does beget some measure of Knowledge, especially of the most Important and Essen­tial Truths (which are therein with most frequency and plainness delivered) in men of very ordinary and common Capacities; yea, and otherwise, we could expect no more knowledge of these Truths, amongst men of such Capacity, though they should never so much Peruse the Scriptures, than amongst Americans that never heard of them; and in vain should such men be appointed to take heed to the Scriptures ( Isai. 8.20. Luk. 16.29. Joh. 5.39. 2 Pet. 1.19.) if the Scriptures were every where so difficult and obscure, that they could no ways understand them.

Thirdly, I must premise, that for Gods Holy and Wise ends (for a view whereof see Mr. Durhams excellent Key presixed to his Exposition of the Song of Solomon, pages 32, 33, 34.) the Style of the Scriptures are in many other places so difficult and dark (I mean in respect of our understanding) that until they be In­terpreted by men called of God (though mediately) and furnisht with Gifts for that end, their particular meaning cannot be rea­ched by men of no mean understanding; yea even those of the great­est gift do not, without much diligence joyned with great capaci­ty, nor yet fully as to all particulars understand them, as is evi­dent by the Song of Solomon, and the many Mystical Prophecies contained in the Books of Ezekiel, Daniel, Zechariah, Revelation, &c. And yet these same obscure places, if they be skilfully Inter­preted [Page 52]according to the Analogy of Faith in general, and by comparison with other parallel places of Scripture more perspi­cuous and plain, or by the scope, connexion, dependance, and circumstances of the place it self, will, without difficulty be understood, and the sence delivered from the foresaid grounds, understood to be the true meaning of the Text, by Men of very ordinary Judgment; for many can discern the truth of an Ex­position, when the clear grounds thereof are represented distinct­ly before their eyes, who cannot by themselves search out the methods to find these grounds, and apply them thereunto, as is both clear in all experience, and also the one work (in reason) is much easier than the other. Yea the Doctrine and grounds of a Scripture-Text not a little perspicuous, being skilfully compared (which a well gifted Interpreter, and whose daily work it is, is much more able to do, than Men of ordinary reach, common Endowments, and other Imploys) with the Doctrine and grounds delivered in other parallel places of Scripture in any measure clear, though none of the clearest, they do by their consociated beams and united rays more powerfully shine and more copiously send forth their light, than any one of them apart could ever have done, even as a number of bright shining Stars being placed into one Constellation, do more powerfully shine, than any one of them apart could have done.

Lastly, I shall add, that the whole Scriptures were written for our Learning, and are useful for Edification, as appears from Rom. 15.4. 2 Tim. 3.16. These things premised;

I Assert against the Quakers, (who both here, and many a time to my face have denied it) That Scripture-Interpretation is necessary in the Church for Peoples understanding, or better un­derstanding of the Scriptures, and Edification, or further Edifi­cation by them, and I prove it because,

If there be many Scriptures profitable for Edification, and written for the Churches Learning, which, at least, a great part, yea, the far most part of the Church cannot without Interpreta­tion particularly understand, or so fully understand, and so be edified, or so far edified by them; and with the help of Inter­pretation may in some measure, particularly understand, or more fully understand, and so receive edification, or a further edification by them; then Scripture Interpretation is needful in [Page 53]the Church, that such People may understand, or further under­stand these Scriptures, and so be edified, or further edified by them, as is most evident: But the former is true, by our premised Discourse preceeding: therefore the latter also must be true.

Secondly, The Levites Expounded the Scriptures to the People, ( Nehem. 8.7, 8.) Philip Expounded them to the Eunuch, (Act. 8.30, 31, 34, 35.) Christ Expounded his Parables (which are now a part of the Scriptures) to his Dis­ciples, ( Mark. 4.34.) He Expounded the Scriptures to the two Disciples, ( Luk. 24.27.) and albeit this was Christ Ex­pounding them, (as the Quakers impertinently use to reply unto our Argument) yet his expounding of them shews, that Scripture-Interpretation is useful and necessary in the Church, otherwise his Expounding had been a needless and idle work, which is a piece of Blasphemy; ( Matth. 12.36.) Therefore Scripture-Interpretation is needful in the Church; otherwise the Expounding thereof by the foresaid Persons had been a meer needless and idle work; and the need thereof is yet further evi­dent, seeing it is plainly shewed, ( Neh. 8.8.) that Exposition is a mean for peoples understanding the Scriptures. Nor did Christs own Disciples frequently understand his Parables, until he Expounded them, ( Matth. 13.36. Luk. 8.9.) nor did the Eunuch understand what he read ( Act. 8.30, 31.) until it was Expounded to him.

Thirdly, Peter affirms, (2 Pet. 3.16.) That there are some things in Pauls Epistles (which are Scripture) hard to be under­stood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, together with se­veral other Scriptures, to their own destruction: Therefore there is need of Scripture-Interpretation in the Church, seeing Scriptures hard to be understood do need explaining, that they may be understood, and People instructed and edified by them, for which purpose they were written; and it's needful to prevent (as much as can be) the mistaking and wresting of them, and Peoples falling into Soul-destroying Errors thereby: though all this happens through Mens ignorance and wavering humor, (as the Text says) and is not the Scriptures fault. Nor can it be answered, (as some do) That by some things here Peter does not mean some of the Doctrine taught by Paul, but some of the Extrinsecal Objects represented thereby, seeing the things [Page 54]hard to be understood here mentioned, are such as are liable to wresting, which therefore must be understood of the Doctrine it self, seeing that may be wrested, but the Extrinsecal Objects cannot: for wresting is a changing of the Sence, which belongs to Discourse and Sayings. Again, where Peter says, That the unlearned wrest these things hard to be understood, as also they do the other Scriptures, he plainly intimates, that these things hard to be understood, are themselves Scriptures too; otherwise the Sence runs very ill, (I think) viz. the unlearned wrest some of the External Objects of Pauls Doctrine, as also they do the other Scriptures.

Fourthly, I must enquire of the Quakers, if (in their Prin­ciples) Men of mean capacities understand the Scriptures every where; as for example, all that is written in the Canticles, Eze­chiel, Daniel, Zechariah, Revelation, &c. which yet was written and is useful for our Learning and Instruction: if they say, Yea, I shall need no more to bring their Principles in discredit with all Men, seeing the whole Christian World knoweth the contrary; If they say, Nay; then there is need of Scripture-Interpretation in the Church for explaining such Scriptures by the foresaid means, that People may understand them, and be edified by them, which is that we plead for.

Lastly, It is too clear in experiencce, that Men of corrupt minds, through addictedness to their own fore-conceived private Opinions, or through ignorance, (which by docility and dili­gence might have been prevented or removed) or through ma­lice against the Truth, or for advancing some Carnal design, &c. do frequently by false Glosses and wrested Sences, (and none busier than Quakers) by violence indeavouring to make them speak the language of their Interest, abuse and cast a mist upon very clear Scriptures, in order to Peoples understanding, especially of meaner capacities: Therefore it is in this case necessary by the Context, the Analogy of Faith, and comparison with other Scriptures, &c. That these Scriptures be vindicated from such false Glosses, and their Genuine and true Sence demonstated and cleared. The Antecedent needs no more proving; for (alas!) it is too manifest in experience, that every Erronious Teacher violently wrests and perverts the Sence of the Scriptures, as much as he can, in favour of his Heretical Doctrine, and thereby leads [Page 55]many into damnable Delusions. The Consequence is also mani­fest, seeing when the Scriptures are abused and wrested, it is ne­cessary for the preservation of their true meaning, and so of the truth in the Church, and for preventing of black Soul-damning Errors, and the manifest ruine of poor Souls, (to say nothing of the Glory of God, which all Men are bound to defend according to their place and means) that they be vindicated, and their true sence and meaning demonstrated and cleared; and this work is especially called for from such as labour in the Word and Do­ctrine, who must be able to convince the Gain-sayers of the Truth, and stop their Mouths, Tit. 1.9, 11.

Secondly, I Assert, (against the Quakers, who (we see from their Query) deny it) That the true Genuine, and sound Inter­pretation of the Scriptures is an Ordinance of Divine appoint­ment, reaching even to the end of the World. I prove it,

First, To teach People the Mind and Will of God from the Scriptures, is an Ordinance of Divine Institution, reaching to the end of the World: But to Interpret the Scriptures truly, is to teach People the Mind and Will of God from the Scriptures: Therefore to Interpret the Scriptures truly, is an Ordinance of Divine Institution, reaching to the end of the World. I easily prove the Major, because that God hath appointed Teachers and teaching in his Church, and that unto the end of the World, till that day when all the Saints shall come to a state of compleat Perfection, is clear from Matth. 28.19, 20. Ephes. 4.11, 12, 13. and that it is the Mind and Will of God they are appointed to teach, (I am sure) no man can deny; and that it is from the Scriptures they ought to teach Gods Mind and Will is most evident, seeing these are the Rule of our Faith and Manners, and the Word of God, (as is proved before) wherein Gods Mind and Will concerning our Faith and Manners is revealed. And the immediate Inspiring of the Doctrine of Salvation is long since ceased in the Church, as all the other extraordinary Gifts, and George Keith himself may both speak and write in a mixture. The Minor of the Argument is also manifest, seeing to bring forth, shew, clear, and demonstrate the Genuine and true meaning of the Scriptures, or of the Spirit speaking therein, is to teach the Mind and Will of God from the Scriptures; or else we are not [...] the wiser concerning the Mind and Will of God in the [Page 56]Scriptures, by knowing the true meaning thereof, which is [...] flat contradiction: But to Interpret the Scriptures truly, is to bring forth, shew, clear, and demonstrate the Genuine and true mean­ing thereof, or of the Spirit speaking therein; or else a true Interpretation does not make known the true meaning, which again is a contradiction: Therefore to Interpret the Scripture truly, is to teach the Mind and Will of God from the Scriptures.

Secondly, The Levites Expounded the Scriptures to the People, ( Nehem. 8.7, 8.) and their doing thereof is Recorded there as highly commendable: Therefore Scripture-Interpreting had certainly a Divine Institution at that time. The Antecedent is clear in the place cited: I prove the Consequence, because if it had not been at that time of Divine Institution, that practice and deed of these ordinary Officers of that Church would not have been commendable, but most blameable, as an Innovating an [...] up-setting of a publick Office and Ordinance in Gods House of their own meer Invention, and wanting a Divine Institutio [...] to warrant it. See Levit. 10.1, 2. Deut. 5.32. Jerem. 19.5, 6. I hope the Quakers will not say, that that Practice and Dee [...] of these Officers was extraordinary, and done by a particula [...] command relating only to that one single action of these Officers, or only to these Individual Officers. For first, there is no ground can be given of such an Assertion, and so it is altogether ground­less. Secondly, if these had any particular Command, let it be shewed. Thirdly, these were but ordinary Officers, and there is no footstep of their acting extraordinarily in any thing can be be shewed. Lastly, I have shewed before, that Scripture-Inter­pretation is ordinarily needful in the Church, for her Instruction and Edification; and so that practice of these Levites could not be of such an extraordinary nature, as is pretended, seeing practices of that nature are not wont to be ordinarily needful.

Having proved that Scripture-Interpreting had a Divine In­stitution under the Old Testament, the Quakers must either yield it to be an Institution still as yet in force, which we plead for; or else they must say, that Scripture-Interpreting was an Ordinance meerly Jewish and Ceremonial; (all which kind of Religious Ordinances are indeed abrogated) But it's most false that Scrip­ture-Interpreting was a Jewish Ceremony: for there can no ground be given for this; and so it must be reckoned a groundless [Page 57]Fable. Secondly, Scripture-Interpretation is as yet needful in the Church we see: but Jewish Ceremonies are not so, as all know. Thirdly, The Apostles still continued and constantly retained Scripture-Interpretation in the New-Testament Church, even while they were bending their Doctrine against the conti­nuance and retaining of Jewish Ceremonies, (for an instance whereof, see Pauls Epistles to the Romans, Galatians, and Hebrews, where much of his work is the citing and explaining several Scripture-Texts of the Old-Testament.) But, sure it is, the Apostles did not still continue and constantly retain Jewish Cere­monies in the New Testament Church, and even while they were bending their Doctrine against the doing thereof by others; for though the Apostles might sometimes condescend to the practice of a smaller Ceremony for the weaks sake, yet this was not a constant retaining of them, but only done upon some oc­casional emergencies. Therefore, surely, Scripture-Interpreting cannot be a Jewish Ceremony.

Thirdly, If Scripture-Interpreting be not an Ordinance of Divine Institution, and that to continue under the New Testa­ment to the Worlds end, Then though all the black Hereticks that ever were in the World should at once arise from the dead, (and alass! there are too many of them still alive in their Succes­sors) and should, in favour of their accursed Delusions, most grosly abuse and wrest the holy Scriptures, (as all Hereticks do) and pervert, invert, and deprave the meaning thereof, and so of God speaking therein; Yet no man, even the most eminently gifted Ministers of Christ were bound by vertue of any standing Appointment, or Law of God, (otherwise Scripture-Interpret­ing will clearly have a standing Divine Institution) to step out, and by the grounds of Context, the Analogy of Faith, or com­parison with other Scriptures more clear, &c. to refute these false wrested meanings, vindicate the Texts abused, and clear and de­monstrate their Genuine and true meaning: But that is most false, absurd, and impious. For then the most eminently gifted and able Ministers of Christ, whose special Office is to labour in the Word and Doctrine, and are bound to their utmost (or else to nothing at all) to preserve and promote the purity of the mean­ing of the Scriptures among the people, and to convince and stop the mouths of the Gainsayers thereof, ( Tit. 1.9, 11.) might [Page 58]lawfully, without the breach of any standing Divine Appoint­ment or Law, stand and look on, and see the Scriptures abused, perverted, and depraved in their meaning, and instead of their true meaning, horrible falshoods, fictions, and blasphemies father­ed upon them, and so on God whose Word they are, (to the highest dishonour of God imaginable, the treading under foot of the precious Truth, the over-flowing of the Christian World with Soul-damning Errors, and the manifest ruining of poor Souls) without indeavouring to prevent, remedy, or hinder the same, by the exercise of a talent that God hath given them. If that be not absurd, false, and impious, nothing can be such. Nay, it involves a contradiction to say, that Ministers who are required to convince the Gainsayers of the Truth, (and so of the true meaning of the Scriptures) and to stop their mouths, might lawfully suffer these things to be done, and not oppose themselves for the defence of Gods truth, according to their abilities and occasions.

The Quakers being beaten from their former standing, and being loth to allow us the benefit of Scripture-Interpretation, as thereby fore-seeing the danger of their Heretical Interest, do betake themselves to another shift, and alledge that however necessary, or Divinely appointed Scripture-Interpretation may be, yet Men that are Fallible may not Interpret the Scriptures. Therefore it will be necessary for us to prove the contrary, which before we do, that the state of the Question may be cleared, I grant that these whose Explications formally as such, and as raught by them are Authentical and Faith-worthy, must of ne­cessity be Infallible, or immediately Inspired. The Quakers must seek after such Explications as these, in the Canonical Writings of the Prophets and Apostles. For it is not so with the ordinary Ministers of the Church, whose Explications are not formally as such, and as taught by them Authentical and Faith­worthy, nor is it lawful for any Man so to receive them; but al­lanerly upon the accompt of their agreement with, and demon­stration from the Scriptures, whose Infallible Testimony is suffi­cient to warrant and assure the meaning delivered.

Secondly, I grant, that in the matter of Scripture-Interpreta­tion, the Supream and Magisterial Authority from which there is no appeal, but it ought to be simply stood to, resideth in the Scriptures themselves, or in the Spirit their Author speaking [Page 59]therein, seeing their Verdict and Sentence in places speaking to the purpose more clearly, and such means as reside in them, are the alone Rule and Directory of our Interpretations thereof in places more dark and obscure, as appears from many things a­foresaid. The Authority therefore which our Ministers have for Interpreting Scripture, is only a Ministerial Authority for Interpreting the Scriptures by their own Verdict and Sentence, as the Rule and Judge of their Interpretations, whereunto they are Subjected, and by whose determination they stand or fall, as true Interpretations, or forged wrestings; seeing the Scriptures are the Rule of Faith by which we are to try and judge Mens Doctrines in matters of Faith: having premised these things for clearing our mind, and preventing mistakes,

I Assert, that Men who are not endued with an Infallible gift, and so are not Infallible, but Fallible, may Interpret the Scrip­tures. And I prove it.

For first, These Levites that expounded the Scriptures ( Neh. 8.8.) were not Infallible in their Gift, seeing there is no proof or evidence thereof possible to be produced, nor had they any other extraordinary thing accompanying them in their Birth, Call, Doctrine or Works; (or else let it be shewed) nor was it any Priviledge of the Ordinary Officers of that Church to be Infallible; and yet their Practice thereof is there Recorded to their high Commendation, and as Edifying to the People: Therefore Teachers that are not Infallible may Interpret Scrip­ture; Or else their practice thereof should have been condemn­ed as unlawful, instead of being commended.

Secondly, A Fallible Teacher may have a far greater and more distinct knowledge of the meaning of the Scriptures, than many other Men also Fallible, seeing it is his special Office to labour in the Word and Doctrine, and (if he does his Duty) he is much more in searching of the Scriptures than Men of other particular Callings, and hath many more helps and means for it, than the commoner sort of Christians and bulk of the People, neither have all Men an equal knowledge in any thing: Therefore a Fallible Teacher may Interpret the Scriptures. The consequence is easie, seeing whatever measure of Scripture­meaning such a Man discerneth beyond others, he may (I hope) seasonably make it known to them for their Instruction and Edi­fication, [Page 60]May he not? Nay, I do not see so well how he may not.

Thirdly, if all that Interpret the Scriptures must necessarily upon that accompt be Infallible, then no man now adays may pre­sume to Interpret them, seeing there is no man now adays Infal­lible, as is before often shewed: But that is most false, seeing it is now proved, that Scripture-Interpretation is an Ordinance of Divine Institution reaching to the end of the world, and so it binds and obliges all (according to their ability and the Churches exi­gency) whose Office it is to labour in the Word and Doctrine, and from the Word to Teach people the mind and Will of God, even to the end of the world, albeit they be not Infallible, but fal­lible; Nor heard I ever of a Divine Institution reaching to the end of the world, and yet obliging no body; and if this oblige any man, it cannot miss the Teachers.

Lastly, seeing the Quakers affirm that Scripture-Interpreting doth necessarily require an Infallible Gift, we must require them to exhibit the grounds of their affirmation; or else it will be readily thought that they affirm so without any ground; and so it must be accompted a meer blind conjecture, and a groundless Fable. All the ground that ever I learned from them is this, viz. Because a man of a fallible Gift cannot assure people of the meaning.

Ans. It is true, there can no assurance thereof arise unto them from such a mans Infallibity which he hath not, and as little from a Quaker pretending to it, but can give no evidence to make it appear. But what then? can he not give them assurance thereof from the clear Infallible Scriptures, by whose Testimony the mean­ing is to be Demonstrated? we are not to Build our Faith upon the mans Gift, but upon the Scriptures, that can give as great assu­rance as any Infallible Gift, seeing they are the Infallible Word of God. To the Law and to the Testimony; if mens Doctrines agree not with these, receive them not.

Lastly, I assert (against the Quakers, who with peremptory Certifications seem to deny it in this Query) That, when the Scriptures are explained by the Scriptures, the meaning held forth and delivered is Scripture-Rule; and so it is no addition (as the Adversaries here alledge) nor is it our meaning, but the mean­ing of the Scriptures; and so we may still pretend Scripture-Rule, for all that. I prove it.

First, the meaning of the Scriptures represented and Taught by themselves is, certainly, Scripture-Rule; for seeing the Scrip­tures are our Rule (as is proved) the meaning Taught by them is the very Enunciat Doctrine, the Soul and Sentence of that Rule, as is palpable: But, when the Scriptures are explained by the Scriptures, the meaning held forth and delivered is the meaning of the Scriptures represented and Taught by themselves, and the contrary involves an incurable Contradiction: Therefore, when the Scriptures are explained by the Scriptures, the meaning held forth and delivered is, certainly, Scripture-Rule.

Secondly, Scripture-Doctrine Taught by the Scriptures is Scripture-Rule, or else nothing can be such, if that be not: But, when the Scriptures are explained by the Scriptures, the meaning held forth and delivered is Scripture-Doctrine Taught by the Scriptures, seeing the meaning of the Scripture is, surely, Scrip­ture-Doctrine, nor can these be diverse, or else the Scriptures should mean what they Teach not, and Teach what they mean not, which is repugnant. Therefore, when the Scriptures are explained by the Scriptures, the meaning held forth and delivered is, manifestly, Scripture-Rule.

Lastly, if when the Scriptures are explained by themselves the meaning held forth by them be not Scripture-Rule, then the Scrip­ture-Rule is some other thing really distinct from the meaning of the Scriptures held forth thereby: But that is impossible to be, or to be explained; for so the Scripture-Rule should by it self mean nothing, seeing another meaning then that which is held forth by the Scriptures it can never have: Ergo, when the Scriptures are explained by themselves, the meaning held forth is, Inevitably, Scripture-Rule.

But say the Quakers in this Query, Interpreting of the Scrip­tures is an adding to them, against which the Plagues are De­nounced, Rev. 22. Chap.

Ans. This Objection proves (if it prove any thing) that all Scripture Expounding by men fallible, or not so, is utterly un­lawful, as an adding to the Scripture-Rule. But I deny that In­terpreting of the Scriptures is an adding to the Scripture-Rule (let the Quakers Try if they can prove it; for their big Assertion is not current for Proof) for I have shewed before that Scripture-Expounding is necessary in the Church, and of Divine Institution [Page 62]to the Worlds end, such as adding to the Scripture Rule is not; and so they cannot be the same thing. To add to the Scriptures is to impose some false meaning upon them disagreeing therewith, or to set up any other Doctrine as of equal Authority with them (I wish the Quakers would notice this, who continually impose false meanings on the Scriptures, and have set up a new Doctrine con­trary to the Scriptures, not only as of equal Authority with the same, but above them. O impudent wickedness! But by the Scriptures to unfold, clear, and Demonstrate their own Genuine and true meaning hath not a shadow into it of adding to the Scrip­ture-Rule, seeing (as is proved) so the meaning delivered is the Scriptures own true meaning, which therefore cannot be any addi­tion thereunto. But blind Arguments are all that can be expected from Brain-sick Doctors, whom we find frequently speaking like men indeed in a mixture.

SECT. II. Concerning Scripture-Consequence, or Consequential Scripture.

I come now to the second Imperious condition which the Qua­kers, like Dictators, demand of us, and that is, that we do not draw Consequences from the Scriptures for Establishing our Doctrine; otherwise that we never pretend Scripture-Rule more. This, I confess, is a very unjust Cowardise, That they should require us to throw down our Arms, and then they will fight us. I see the Quakers would fight a Dead man even out of Breath. They'l go to Wars in time of Peace. I like the Jest well. If the Quakers be so dastardly, why did they not send their Queries to some Brute, where they should have found a Party sutable to their mind, which would not have troubled them with Consequences. But as for us, we must crave their Pardon, seeing by our Creation and Essence we are Rational, which chiefly consists in a Discursive or Illa­tive Faculty fitted for discerning of Consequences, of purpose, that being furnisht with the principles of Nature, or Grace, we might be capable to perceive the particular Conclusions which they implicitly, really and truly contain.

I shall not need to be long in Discussing this Question concern­ing Scripture-Consequence, nor shall I need many words for [Page 63]clearing the state of the Question; but, in one word, it is, Whe­ther or not that which by good Consequence is deduced and drawn from the Scriptures, be Scripture-Rule? We see by the Certifica­tion of the Quakers demand, that they deny and take the Nega­tive of the Question. But,

I Assert that whatsoever by good Consequence follows or is de­duced from the Scriptures is Infallible Scripture-Rule. And I prove it.

For first, Scripture-Doctrine is Scripture-Rule, or else nothing can be such. Now whatever by good Consequence follows, or is deduced from the Scriptures must be Scripture-Doctrine; other­wise a good Consequence might infer from the Scriptures that which is not Scripture-Doctrine, or that which they Teach not; or a Consequence inferring from the Scriptures that which they Teach not, and is not their Doctrine, should be a good Conse­quence, which involves a direct Contradiction, seeing so a Con­sequence manifestly evil should be a good Consequence. Hence then, whatever by good Consequence follows, or is deduced from the Scriptures is evidently Scripture-Rule.

Secondly, Christ plainly affirms ( Luk. 20.37.) that that Scripture principle, I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, does shew and Teach the Resurrection of the Dead.

Now it does not expresly and formally Teach that, it says not expresly that the Dead shall Rise again; but only it follows there­from by good Consequence, and no otherways, because God, who is the God of the Living, being their God, their Dust (which is their one half, albeit the meaner half) behooved to be Raised and Quickened again, as being a part of their Essences. Here then Christ Teaches that that which by good Consequence may be In­ferred from Scripture-principles, the same the Scripture shews and Teaches, and so it is Scripture-Doctrine; and so it is, uncontro­lably, Scripture-Rule.

Thirdly, if that which by good Consequence is inferred from the Scriptures be not Scripture-Rule, then there was no Scripture-Rule in all the Old Testament Ordaining David, or Solomon, &c. to be Circumcised; and so the Circumcising of them behooved to be a meer Will-worship wanting Scripture-Warrant, contrary to Joh. 7.22, 23. My Proposition which I propounded I easily [Page 64]prove, for in no where of all the Old Testament it is in Formal and Express Terms said [ David shall be, or ought to be Cir­cumcised] but only by sure Consequence it follows from the universal Command for Circumcising every Male ( Gen. 17.) That therefore David shall be, or ought to be Circumcised; nor is it otherwise to be found in all the Old Testament.

The Quakers then must admit that particular Conclusion by good Consequence following from the universal Command to be Scripture-Rule (and so that which by good Consequence follows from Scripture-principles to be Scripture-Rule) or else they must deny that there was any Scripture-Rule in all the Old Testament Ordaining David to be Circumcised; for its impossible there should be any Scripture-Rule Ordaining David to be Circum­cised, except it be a Scripture-Rule that David ought to be Circum­cised; or else he was both Ordained to be, and yet ought not to be Circumcised at once.

Fourthly, if that which by good Consequence is inferred from the Scriptures be not Scripture-Rule, then there is no Scripture-Rule in all the Old Testament Testifying and Witnessing that, Jesus the Son of Mary is the Saviour of the world, which is most false, and contrary to the Scriptures, Joh. 5.39, 46. Act. 10.43. and 18.28. and 28.23. My Proposition which I laid down I prove, because it is no where of all the Old Testament in express Terms said that Jesus the Son of Mary is the Saviour of the world; But by Infallible Consequence it follows, and may be inferred from many of the Old Testament Scripture-principles; nor is it otherwise but by good Consequence therein to be found. It must therefore be granted, that that particular Conclusion, which by good Consequence follows from these Old Testament Scripture­principles, and is no otherwise to be found therein, is Scripture-Rule, which is that we plead for; or else they must deny that there is any Scripture-Rule in all the Old Testament, Testifying and Witnessing that Jesus the Son of Mary is the Saviour of the world; for there cannot be Scripture-Rule Witnessing and shewing that Jesus the Son of Mary is the Saviour, except it be a Scripture-Rule that Jesus the Son of Mary is the Saviour; otherwise the Scriptures Testifying that, shall be Scripture-Rule (as is suppo­sed) and yet the very substantial Doctrine of their Testimony shall not be Scripture-Rule, which is repugnant.

Lastly, If that which by good consequence follows from Scripture-Principles be not Scripture-Rule, then we are no where in all the Scriptures forbidden to worship a Dog, or Cat, &c. which is a most absurd falshood, seeing then the worship­ping of these things could be no transgression of the Law of God; for the whole Law of God is delivered to us in the Scrip­tures; otherwise the Scriptures would be defective, and not ma­nifest our whole Duty in order to Salvation, which is contrary to Deut. 5.32. Isai. 8.20. Luc. 16.28, 29. 2 Tim. 3.15. Rev. 22.18. My proposition laid down, I evidently prove: for it is not in formal and express Terms said in all the Scriptures, Thou shalt not worship a Dog, or Cat, albeit it is expresly said, That we shall have no other Gods but the true God, and shall Worship and Serve him only, ( Exod. 20.3. Matth. 4.10.) from whence by evident consequence it follows, (but not without a consequence in all the Scriptures) that we may not Worship a Dog, or Cat. Will the Quakers then deny the Wor­shipping of these Creatures to be forbidden in the Scriptures, and so to be unlawful, because without a Consequence we cannot get any Scripture forbidding it, and whereby to prove it unlaw­ful? If they stand to their Principles here, of necessity they must do it, as the Argument irresistibly infers upon them.

The Quakers may hence see how justly we may as yet pretend Scripture-Rule, notwithstanding our consequences, seeing we have unanswerably proved, that that which by good consequence is inferred from Scripture-Principles is Scripture-Rule; and we have convinced their wild Principles in this point to dash and run upon contradictions, to disagree from the Doctrine and Practice of Christ, to make way for denying Jesus the Son of Mary to be the Saviour of the World, (for the Scriptures of the Old Testament do by clear consequence, though not without a con­sequence, mightily witness and assure that great Article of Faith) and to lead the way to Will-Worship in the Church, yea, for the grossest of Idolatry. We see then how little reason we have to grant these impious demands of the Quakers.

But the Quakers here object, That to draw consequences from the Scriptures, is to add to the Scripture-Rule, against which all the plagues in the book of God are denounced.

Answ. By this Objection, the Quakers shew how unlawful they [Page 66]think Scripture-Consequences to be. But I have abundantly shew­ed, that that which by good consequence is inferred from Scripture-Principles, is no addition to the Scripture-Rule, but is it self very Scripture-Rule; and how should it be an adding to Scripture-Rule to draw forth more expresly and distinctly, by consequence, the same Doctrine which it really and truly teaches, though more Implicitly? Is it an adding to the Scripture to shew more expresly it's own Doctrine? Then the Scriptures own Doctrine should be an addition to the Scripture-Rule: they have a great dexterity in speaking of Contradictions.

Secondly, It uses to be objected, That if that which by good consequence is inferred from Scripture-Principles be Scripture-Rule, and so a Rule of Divine Faith, then our Divine Faith whereby we believe that Scripture-Rule so inferred, shall stand upon reason, (which is most absurd) seeing the inferring of a consequence is an act of reason.

Answ. I deny the Sequel, or consequence of the Major pro­position; because when a conclusion is by good consequence in­ferred from Scripture-Principles, Reason is not the Argument or Motive wherefrom the conclusion follows and is inferred, and moves and constrains us to assent thereunto, seeing the Conclusion is not inferred from the natural Principles or Premises of Reason, but from Supernatural Scripture-Principles, as is most manifest.

Reason therefore is only requisite here as a necessary Instru­ment for perceiving and discerning the consequence, or connexion of the Antecedent with the Consequent, which way it is indeed requisite; yea, so Reason is requisite for perceiving every word of God, and without it we should not be capable of the Principles of Religion more than Brutes are. So also our Ears are a ne­cessary Instrument for hearing the Word Preached, or Read, and our Eyes for Reading of it.

Thirdly, It uses to be objected, That the Gospel is above Reason.

Answ. The Gospel is above Reason, in regard of the matter and mysteries which it teaches, which Reason cannot reach or understand; but not in respect of the manner how it teaches them, which is suited and accommodated to human capacity; Or else no Man, upon the accompt that he is endued with Reason, should be one whit more capable, so much as Grammatically and [Page 67]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; [Page 68]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 [Page 69]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 [Page 70]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 [Page 71]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, [Page 72]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 was some necessity for his arising to be Baptized with Water, that he might go where there was Water.

Seeing then the Circumstances of these Texts will not permit these improperly so called Baptisms to be meant therein, and its certain that some sort of Baptism is meant therein (or else the word, Baptize, must be razed out of them) It inevitably fol­lows, that Baptism with Water must be therein meant; or else no Baptism at all, which Impudence it self dare not say, and so much the less, seeing the Circumstances of these Texts do very well agree with the Circumstances of Baptism in other Texts where the word, Water, is expresly added. And in these Texts we see what care the Apostles took for the speedy Administration of the Baptism therein mentioned to the Disciples appearing such, and to all appearing such. And these things evidently prove our Ante­cedent of this second Argument.

Thirdly, our third principal Argument for proving Baptism with Water to be an Ordinance of Divine Institution under the New Testament is taken from Act. 2.38. (which Text I have now proved to be meant of Baptism with Water) where Peter Injoyns Baptism with Water to all these New Testament Disciples, as a necessary Sacred Symbol or Pledge (for Sacred it must be, in regard of its Sacred and Spiritual signification of a Spiritual Benefit) of the Remission of Sins. For his Injoyning them to be Baptized for the Remission of Sins doth plainly hold forth some necessity thereof, though not by necessity of Mean, yet by necessi­ty of Precept.

Therefore Baptism with Water must be an Ordinance of the New Testament Divinely Instituted. For, certainly, Cancelled Jewish Ceremonies (much less Humane inventions, or any thing not appointed of God) could never thereafter be necessary for Justification, or Remission of Sins; though sometimes they might be necessary for avoiding the Offence, and stumbling of weak brethren, as Act. 15.29. and 16.3.

Fourthly, whoever under the New Testament hath probably received the Spirit of Grace hath a right, in the Churches Court, unto Baptism with Water, and she is bound to admit them there­unto: Therefore Baptism with Water is, surely, an Ordinance of the New Testament Divinely Instituted; or otherwise these could never have any Right thereunto, in her Court, nor she be bound to admit them into it, without a Divine appointment making it due unto them; but, on the contrary, they should be [Page 74]Bound to abstain from it, and she to Discharge them therefrom, as unwarrantable Will-worship in the Scriptures Condemned, Colos. 2.20, 21, 22. These things clearly prove the Consequence. The Antecedent is proved by Peter (Act. 10.47.) where he says, Can any man forbid water, that these should not be Baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost, as well as we? where, by the Holy Ghost (as often else where, Act. 1.5. and 8.16, 17. and 19.6.) is meaned the Miraculous Gifts of the Holy Ghost, as is clear from the Context.

So then Peter Argues here from these Gifts of the Spirit bestowed on them as a probable Evidence (though not an Infallible one. See Mat. 7.22.) of the Spirit of Grace bestowed on them, That therefore they had a Right unto Baptism with Water, and no man could Debar them from it; for that were absurd, as the Ex­pression bears, Can any man forbid, &c. So then, according to the Apostle, a probable Evidence of the Spirit of Grace received doth immediately infer a Right, in the Churches Court (to which his Discourse is here directed) unto Baptism Water; and so who­ever hath probably received the Spirit of Grace hath that Right, and the Church is bound to admit them to it, and they are as ab­surd as Quakers, that would Debar them from it. These things plainly prove the Antecedent.

Fifthly, there is one Baptism mentioned Ephes. 4.5. which is, certainly, an Ordinance of Divine Institution, and belongs to the New Testament, as can never be gotten denyed: But that must be Baptism with Water, and can be no other: for when Paul says, There is one Baptism, either he means of one properly so called, which is Baptism with Water, seeing the signification of the Word [Baptize] Primarily and properly agrees unto it; or else he means, there is one Baptism Improperly and Metaphorically so called: but that cannot be, seeing there is not one, but many of these sorts of Baptisms, as we have already seen, whereof therefore to mean it would be a contradiction to the Text.

Sixthly, Baptism with Water is necessary to Salvation under the New Testament, viz. by necessity of Precept, and so as not the simple privation of it when it cannot be had, but the Con­tempt of it when it may be had is Damnable: Therefore Baptism with Water must be an Ordinance of Divine Institution under the New Testament. The Consequence is manifest, seeing a material [Page 75]piece of Divine Worship necessary to Salvation, not appointed of God, is a Will-worship necessary thereunto, which is repug­nant to the Scriptures. I prove the Antecedent. The Baptism mentioned ( Mark. 16.16.) is there made a necessary Antece­dent of Salvation under the New Testament by the plain Sentence of the Text: But the Baptism there mentioned is Baptism with Water: Therefore Baptism with Water is necessary to Salvation under the New Testament. The Major needs no more proving. I prove the Minor, because the Baptism mentioned in that Text of Mark doth in adult persons (we shall speak afterwards of In­fants) pre-require Faith in Christ (as the Text shews) without which some way appearing by external Signs they have not a visible Interest, and cannot be accompted Disciples by the Church: but the Baptism of Doctrine does not pre-require that; or else no man might be admitted to partake of the Gospel-Doctrine, but such as before-hand probably believe; and so it should never have been Preached to the Gentile-world. Nor does the work of Conversion pre-require Faith in Christ to a mans partaking of it self; otherwise it should pre-require it self (without which there can be no such Faith) before partaking of it self, that is, it self without it self, which is repugnant. Nor yet can it be meant of enduing with the extraordinary Gifts of the Spirit, seeing these were never necessary to Salvation, as this Baptism mentioned in the Text is. And, I am sure the Quakers will not say, that Baptism here is meant of the Baptism of the Cross (under which they do not use to seek shelter) or in any other Text that we have named, seeing the Apostles, and other Ministers of Christ, are the immediate Administrators of the Baptism mentioned here, and in all of these; but were not so of the Cross, they had no Com­mission for that. Seeing then there is a Baptism meant herein Mark. 16.16. And it cannot agree with any of these Impro­perly so called Baptisms, but only with Baptism with Water, which is properly so called, it must Inevitably, be meant of Bap­tism with Water wherewith it agrees; or let the Quakers prove that it disagrees with that too, and then, I am sure, it shall agree with none at all, and we must raze the word [Baptize] out of the Text.

Secondly, I prove the Antecedent of this Argument, from the first Epistle of Peter, 3.21. where the Apostle shews Baptism [Page 76]with Water to be necessary to Salvation under the New Testament, while he says, The like Figure whereunto, even Baptism, doth also now Save us. And that Baptism here is meant of Baptism with Water, appears by the comparison which he uses, comparing our Saving by Baptism to Noahs Saving by Water, as being, the last the Type, and the first the Anti-type (for the word which we have here turned [like Figure] is in the Original Language [ [...], Anti-type.] Now there must be some near resemblance betwixt a Type and its Anti-type, which is very little, or rather none here, betwixt Noahs Temporal Saving by Water and any of these Improper Baptisms; but very great betwixt that and our Eternal Saving by Baptism with Water, which may be understood by comparing them, which we may not stay to do. Secondly, the explication which he subjoyns, in place of a Caution, shewing how Baptism now Saves us, viz. that its not by putting away the filth of the Flesh, or by the meer external washing of the Body (which Water had a fitness to do) or by the very work wrought (as Papists would) but by its object which it signifies and Seals, viz. the Blood of Christ which causeth the Answer of a good Con­science towards God, will not allow it to be meant of any other Baptism, but Baptism with Water, which he so carefully explains; nor can any man make Sence of the explication, applying it to any of these Improper Baptisms.

Lastly, Christ gives most express Commission to his Apostles, and other succeeding Ministers of the New Testament (for the Apostles were not to live to the worlds end, which is the duration of the Commission) to Baptize with Water all the Disciples that should come unto him under the New Testament to the end of the world. Mat. 28.19, 20. Therefore Baptism with water must, uncontrolably, be an Ordinance of the New Testa­ment Divinely Instituted, and to continue to the end of the world. The Consequence hereof is beyond the exception of all the world. The Antecedent will also be clear, if I can but prove, that by Baptism here is meant Baptism with Water, which if I do not (good Reader) I Intreat thee believe me not henceforth.

Therefore first, the Baptism here mentioned in this Text of Matthew pre-requires Discipleship in the party to be Baptized (for the Words in the Original Language are, Go make Disciples all Nations, Baptizing them, &c. [...]). But the Baptism [Page 77]of Doctrine does not pre-require that; or else a man might not Preach the Gospel to any that is not beforehand a Disciple; and so it should never have been Preached to the Gentile, or Heathen world. Nor does Conversion pre-require Discipleship; or else no man might indeavour the Conversion of an Heathen, or Pagan, or of any man who is not before-hand a Disciple. Nor can the Mi­raculous Gifts of the Spirit be here understood by Baptism, seeing the Baptism here mentioned is to continue to the end of the world, which these Gifts were not, as no man, even a Quaker, will deny. Therefore, seeing none of these Improper Baptisms are here meant, and some Baptism is meant, it must be meant of Bap­tism with water, seeing the Text cannot agree with any other.

Secondly, the Baptism mentioned here in Matthew, is the same with that mentioned in Mark (Mark. 16.16.) seeing Matthew here, and Mark there are manifestly giving a Narration of the self-same thing, and Commission, as needs no proof: But that Baptism mentioned in Mark is Baptism with Water, as is before proved: Therefore so also is this mentioned here in Mat­thew, seeing they are the very same, as said is.

Thirdly, the whole Tenor and Circumstances of the Commissi­on for Baptism in this Text of Matthew do agree with the Bap­tism with Water thereafter dispensed by the Apostles, and other Ministers in their times, at their Order, and can agree with no other: Therefore the same must be here meant, and no other. The Consequence is so easie that, except we resolve utterly to abandon and renounce our Reason, and turn absolute Brutes, we must un­derstand every Saying of that wherewith it agrees, and not of that wherewith it disagrees. I prove the Antecedent. For this Com­mission in Matthew for Baptism pre-requires the Discipleship of the Party [ Go make Disciples, Baptizing, &c.] or it requires that they first be made Disciples before they be Baptized, or none to be Baptized but Disciples, as is most clear. 2dly. It requires them to Baptize all the Disciples of whatsoever Nation (if they appear to be such viz.) as the Connexion of this Baptism with the Condition required, whereupon it is to be dispensed, declares; and the Relative word [Them] not being restricted with any limitating Circumstance, does still repeat its whole Antecedent, and is of the same full extent therewith. 3dly. It requires them without delay, with the first convenience after the appearing of [Page 78]their Discipleship to Baptize them, [Go make them Disciples, Baptizing] as if it should instantly be done, there being no more now to be waited for, after discovery of the condition; and by this all needless delays are cut off. And lastly, It requires the Baptism therein mentioned, to be dispensed in the Name of the Lord, as is plainly exprest in the Text. These things express the tenor and circumstances of this Commission, such as are any ways Intrinsecal. Now all these things do plainly agree unto the Baptism with Water, thereafter dispensed by the foresaid Persons, and (as is already proved) cannot agree with any other. That they agree unto that, I prove; for the Baptism with Water dispensed by them, pre-required Discipleship, or it was dispensed to none but Disciples. Secondly, It was dispensed to all that became Disciples, (and appeared such to the Church) of whatever Nation. Thirdly, It was without delay dispensed to them, upon the appearing of their Discipleship. Fourthly, It was dispensed to them in the Name of the Lord. All which ap­pears from our second, third, and fourth Arguments before, and the many Scriptures cited therein. See Act. 2.41. and 8.12, 13, 36, 37. and 10.47. and 18.8. and 22.16. and 1 Cor. 1.13.

Lastly, All the Baptisms, except Baptism with Water, that can be alledged or pretended to be meant in this Text of Mat­thew, (as the Baptism of Doctrine, of Conversion, of the miraculous Gifts of the Spirit, and let the Baptism of the Cross be added too) are only Improperly and Metaphorically so called, as needs little demonstration, (I think) seeing pouring, dipping, sprinkling, and washing (which the word, Baptize, signifies in the Original Language, being [...]) cannot be proper to any of these, and to that any of them agreeth in a proper sence, as any Man, without preserves, may see. Having premised this ground, I again prove, that the Baptism mentioned in this Text of Matthew, and in all the Texts that I have named, (which here I advertise, that this evident Argument may be cumula­tively applied to every one of them) is Baptism with Water; Because we may not throw about the words of any Text of Scrip­ture from a proper to an improper meaning, except some ne­cessity, either of the Analogy of Faith in general, (which is the constant and perpetual sentence of many perspicuous and bright [Page 79]shining Scriptures concerning things essential to Salvation;) or else of the particular scope and circumstances of the Context it self, constrain us so to do; otherwise we may, without any ne­cessity constraining us, at our alone will and meer pleasure, with­out any other ground imaginable moving us, throw about from a proper to an improper meaning, the most properly meant say­ing in all the whole Scriptures, and reject the proper sence and meaning of every Text, and make them every where at our meer pleasure, to speak improperly: but that is utterly absurd, and would enervat and turn to nothing the very body of the Scrip­tures, as needs no Demonstration, I am sure: but there is no such necessity in this or any Text we have Argued from, to throw about the word, Baptism, from being meant properly of Baptism with Water, to be meant of any of the fore-mentioned improperly so called Baptisms; Or else, we charge the Quakers to shew and make good that necessity, (if they can) which we defie them and a whole Legion of their Inspirers ever to do. Therefore, by this irrefragable Argument from the Analogy of Faith, Bap­tism with Water (which alone is properly so called) is both meant here in Matthew, and in all the Texts that we have named. Analogum per se positum stat pro principali Analogato.

Having so demonstrated, that Baptism with Water is meant in that Text of Matthew; hence it is manifest, that Baptism with Water is an Ordinance which God hath appointed to be continued to the end of the World; for the promise there sub­joyned of Christs presence with his Ministers there Commission­ated alway even unto the end of the World, for their encourage­ment in the Execution of that their Commission, doth most plainly shew their Commission to be of that continuance. Secondly, I have shewed, that Baptism with Water was once in the New Testament Church necessary unto Salvation, (as was explained) and due in the Churches Court, to all who probably had receiv­ed the Spirit of Grace. Let the Quakers shew us, (if they can) when it became unnecessary, and when, or where that Bond and Tie was taken off the New Testament Church. Thirdly, seeing by all our preceeding Arguments, it is evident that Baptism with Water was once of Divine Institution under the New Testament, the Quakers must either yield the continuance thereof to be to the end of the World; or else, they must say, That it is since [Page 80]the Institution repealed again. Let them shew us then, where the repealing thereof is Recorded, or to be found in the Scriptures, which are the Supream Rule of Faith and Manners; for the Quakers bare word (spoken (may be) in a mixture when the Moon was at the Full) is not enough for it. And if they can shew us nothing for it, (which is sure) and yet will say, It is repealed, they may upon the same ground, (that is to say, with­out any ground) say, that the Commandments to repent, be­lieve, fear, and love God, and all the rest of them, are repealed, and then we may do what we please, and follow the Light within at the top-speed.

But now, because in Justice we are bound to give the Quakers fair Game, we must hear what they have to say against our pre­ceeding Doctrine; and we need not doubt, but their Infallible heads are furnisht with forcible Arguments.

Therefore first, because from thence they fear their greatest danger, (albeit I have proved the business by many other con­vincing Arguments, and could without that Argument irresistibly make good the point) they assault the Argument from Matthew with several devices.

First then, They alledge that Baptizing in that Text is the same with Disciple-making, which is not meant of Baptizing with Water; and so neither is that.

Ans, First, They ought to shew us some necessary ground for this Metaphorical Commentary upon the word, Baptize, which we have not seen as yet. Secondly, Unto this conceipt we shall oppose our second and last Arguments, whereby it is proved, that Baptism with Water is meant in the Text, in despight of this Exception. Consider the Arguments; for we need not repeat them. Thirdly, All their grounds for this Exception is, because when it is said, Go make Disciples, &c. the word, Baptize, is subjoined in the Present Tence of the Participle, Baptizing: but by this ground (if good) Teaching, which presently follows too, and in the same manner, shall also be the same with Disciple-making; and so the whole Commission shall consist of one and the same thing thrice repeated; which is most absurd, and no Man, though as absurd as a Quaker, will say it. For, who shall think, or why, that Christ commit­ted such a three-fold Tautology in delivering so short a Com­mission? that would neither have suited the wisdom of the Per­son, nor the nature of the thing.

Secondly, They except against the same Text, (with their old Friend Socinus) that the Apostles dispensed their Baptism with Water only in the Name of the Lord Jesus, whereas the Baptism mentioned in this Text of Matthew is to be dispensed in the Name of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; and so they cannot be one and the same.

Ans. By this Argument they might as well prove, that Paul Preached not in the Name of any other Person of the Trinity, but of the Lord Jesus only, because he only is mentioned, ( Act. 9.27, 29.) or that he and Timothy served no other Person of the Trinity, because he only is mentioned, Philip. 1.1. Se­condly, I shall oppose unto this Exception my first, second, and fourth Arguments, whereby, maugre this exception, Baptism with Water is proved to be meant in this Text of Matthew. Thirdly, The rest of the Trinity are omitted in the History, (though it follows not, that so they were in the action) partly for shorten­ing the Narration, (which is usual) and partly because, it be­ing the great doubt and controversie of the time, If Jesus was the true Messias; for that cause his name is more frequently mentioned, than the rest of the Trinity, in the whole New Testament.

Thirdly, They except against the same Text, that the A­postles are therein commanded to Baptize in the Name of the Lord, which sort of Baptizing is with the Spirit, (say they) not at all with Water.

Ans. Unto this Exception I shall first oppose all my Argu­ments, whereby, over the belly thereof, I have proved Baptism with Water to be meant in the Text. Secondly, Was not Bap­tism with Water (say ye) dispensed in the Name of the Lord? See it done, (I pray) and commanded to be done, that ye may not pretend ignorance hereafter, Act. 2.38. and 8.16. and 10.48. Lastly, It must be a desperate cause that forces it's Patrons to such contrary defences; presently they affirmed, that Baptism with Water was dispensed in the Name of the Lord; now they cry, About Ship, and deny that Baptism in the Name of the Lord is Baptism with Water. Are not these Men indeed in a mixture, who in the unjust defence of falshood thus run upon such desperate. [...] of splitting Contradiction?

But fourthly, They except against the same Text, that Bap­tism with Water cannot be meant therein, because the Apostles (say they) had no commission to Baptize with Water, seeing Paul says, (1 Cor. 1.17.) that Christ sent him not to Baptize, but to Preach the Gospel.

Ans. But in despight of this Exception, all our forementioned Arguments do plainly prove the Baptism mentioned in the Text to be Baptism with Water, and so also that the Apostles had a Commission to Baptize with Water. Secondly, The Quakers are bound by this their reasoning to acknowledge the Baptism there mentioned, ( viz. 1 Cor. 1.17.) to be Baptism with Wa­ter, (or else they will lose the whole ground pretended for their exception) which acknowledged, (as we have also before proved it truly to be) it presently appears from the Context of the same place, that the Apostles had a Commission for Baptizing with Water, seeing Paul plainly there declares, that he Baptized some of these Corinthians, which (doubtless) he did not without Commission; or else, he had been a manifest Intruder and U­surper of an Office in the Church and Worship of God, for which he had no Order, or Warrant, which must be false. I answer therefore lastly, that the meaning of these words of Paul is plainly Comparative, viz. that Baptism was not the principal and chief work that he was sent for, but the Preaching of the Gospel; such as is the meaning of that expression, ( Hos. 6.6.) I desired Mercy, and not Sacrifice: and such as is the meaning of that, ( Joh. 15.22.) If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin, that is, nothing compared to what they now have.

Lastly, They except against the same Text, that Baptism with Water cannot be meant therein, because (say they) it is not therein expresly mentioned.

Ans. First, A Man might upon this ground much rather argue against Christs demonstration, ( Luk. 20.37.) that the rising of the dead is not expresly taught, ( Exod. 3.6. from whence he brings his Argument) where God says, I am the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; and that therefore such a thing cannot be there meant. Or that Circum [...]sion of the flesh of the Foreskin is not expresly mentioned under every distinguishing Character thereof, ( Galat. 5.2, 3.) where the flesh of the [Page 83]Foreskin is omitted; and that therefore it cannot be that which is there meant, but our Spiritual Circumcision in Christ, that is, our Regeneration, must be the thing which Paul there disputes against and condemns: and is not that well argued? Secondly, As Baptism with Water is not here expresly named, in respect of every punctilio of its designation; So far less is any of the fore­mentioned improper Baptisms here expresly mentioned, seeing the name Baptism, is proper to that of Water, and not to the other: Therefore, by the Quakers own Rule, none of these is meant here either; and so (if the Rule be good) no sort of Baptism is here meant, but the word Baptizing, is set down here for an impertinent Cipher signifying nothing. Thirdly, I have shewed before, that there is much Doctrine meant in the Scrip­tures, which is not therein expresly taught, but implicitly only; and so this Rule of the Quakers is most false. I answer there­fore lastly, that albeit the word Water, be not here ( Matth. 28.19.) formally exprest; yet the circumstances of the Text, the Analogy of Faith, and other Scriptures that I have compared it with in my Arguments, do manifestly and irresistibly demonstrate the Baptism here mentioned, to be Baptism with Water. Let the Quakers answer my Arguments if they can, I mean at the Greek Calends.

All the particular exceptions of the Quakers against our Argu­ment from that Text of Matthew, being so overthrown and answered; The Quakers have as yet one general Argument, whereby they hope to overturn Baptism with Water, viz. Bap­tism with Water (say they) was but a figure, that Christ might be made manifest to Israel, who had diverse Baptisms imposed on them, till the time of Reformation; but Christ the Substance being come, the shadows must flee away. This Objection they lay down in their Confession of Faith, page 25.

Ans. Whether Baptism with Water be a Figure, or not, I have now abundantly proved it to be an Ordinance of the New Testament, Divinely Appointed, due in the Churches Court to all the visible, or appearing Disciples of the New Testament, and necessary to Salvation under the same, and to continue to the end of the World. And what then dare the Quakers say against it? Or, how dare they oppose their own meer Brain-sick fancies to the Word of God and Dictates of the Holy Ghost? [Page 84]Secondly, Let Baptism with Water be a Figure manifesting Christ to Jews and Gentiles too, (that is to say, a sacred Symbol of Christs blood shed (not to be shed, and so not a shadow of a thing to come) on the Cross, and a Seal of Remission of Sins there through;) Yet Christ, by his Incarnation, Death, and Re­surrection did not cancel all manner of Figures universally, seeing the Bow in the Cloud is still a Figure to us, or a Symbol and Pledge rather, that God will no more destroy the World by Water, ( Gen. 9.11, 12, 13.) Nor did he thereby cancel all manner of Figures, (I would rather call them sacred Signs and Symbols, if the Quakers would too) representing Christ and his Passion and Blood Shed; (for we shall moreover prove at the Survey of their next ensuing Query, that Christ hath Or­dained Bread and Wine to be in the Eucharist a Sacred Sign and Symbol of his Body and Blood to the Worlds end.) But he hath only cancelled thereby Old Testament Figures, shadowing forth Him, and His Death and Passion to come. Thirdly, If Baptism with Water was only a Figure to manifest unto Israel Christ Je­sus, why then did the Apostles dispense it afterwards to the whole Disciples of the Gentile Church, without ever cashiering it, and with so much speed and diligence after the appearing of their Discipleship? Lastly, Gospel Baptism, which is done with Wa­ter as the External Symbol, is so far from being a shadow that should have fled away, when Christ came in the Flesh and Dyed, and the time of Reformation was come, that, on the direct con­trary, it then first received its Institution after Christ was come, and together with the breaking forth of that Reformation, ( viz. the New Testament way of Dispensation) and is by Christ put into the Commission of the Ministers of that Reformation, as an Ordinance to be continued to the Worlds end, and was thereafter accordingly carried along therewith, as a Sacred Symbol due to all the visible Disciples; all which we have before proved. The passage of Scripture here cited by the Quakers out of the Epistle to the Hebrews, ( Heb. 9.10.) will not help their Erroneous Cause: for the Apostle does not there speak of the Gospel-Baptism for the evident grounds now given, and as is clear from the Context it self, (where he speaks of Old Testament Ordinances only) nor was that imposed on the Israelites in Old Testament times, but began with the New: But the Baptisms he there [Page 85]speaks of, are the legal washings and purifications that were im­posed upon the Israelites in the time of the Old Testament, such as are described in Numb. 19. Chap. Levit. 11, 12, 13, 14, 15. Chapters.

SECT. IV. Concerning Infant-Baptism.

Being now come to Infant-Baptism, upon which, I am sure, I shall need to say very little, in regard that Reverend and Worthy Mr. Baxter hath in his Book against Tombs, so fully and ex­cellently discussed the Point, that I can hardly expect that ever any Man shall add to him; but only because this may come into the hands of some Persons who have not seen that, Therefore (though very briefly) I shall not altogether seem to say nothing, but still referring the Reader to the foresaid excellent Book.

The Question therefore is, Whether the Infants of Believing Parents, or Professing to believe, (which is all one to the Church) ought to be Baptized, or not? Whereunto I answer affirmatively, that they ought be Baptized. I prove it. But first I must Premise, that the Covenant is the same in Substance under the Old Testament and the New. For which see Rom. 4.11, 12, 13. and 11.17, 24. Galat. 3.8, 9. and 4.28. Heb. 6. from Ver. 12. to the end.

Secondly, I must Premise, That the Children of Believers have the same Interest into the Covenant with the Parents: for which see Gen. 17. ch. Act. 2.39. Matth. 19.14. Luk. 18.16. and for that cause Paul calls the Children of Believers Holy, (1 Cor. 7.14) viz. Externally, Federally, and in regard of Church-Membership, and not because they were not Bastards, (for so the Children of meer Pagans might as well have been called Holy) but because they were descended of Believing Pa­rents (though but on the one side) which is the very reason that he gives in the Text, why they are Holy.

Thirdly, I must premise, that Circumcision was the initiat­ing Seal under the Old Testament, which is evident by the early Administration thereof upon the Eight Day, and that by Divine Appointment, Gen. 17. Having premised these things, I prove my Conclusion.

First, Children of Believers were by a Divine Right Circum­cised under the Old Testament: but Baptism under the New Testament is succeeded in the room of Circumcision under the Old: Therefore the Children of Believers ought to be Baptized under the New Testament. Only that needs proving, that Baptism under the New Testament is succeeded in the room of Circumcision under the Old: which I prove, First, because they both Seal the very same thing; and Secondly, because as Cir­cumcision was the initiating Seal under the Old Testament, so is Baptism under the New. That they both Seal the same thing is clear by comparing Rom. 4.11. with Mark. 1.4. Act. 2.38. where Circumcision is declared to be a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith, and Baptism is held forth to be a Symbol, or Pledge of the Remission of Sins: now the Imputation of Christs Righteousness is really one and the same thing with Remission of Sins (as also may be seen Rom. 4.6, 7, 8.) albeit the respects be divers. And again, as Circumcision under the Old Testament was a Symbol of inward Mortification and Repentance, so is Baptism under the New, for which compare Deut. 10.16. and 30.6. and Jer. 4.4. and Rom. 2.28, 29. with Mark. 1.4. and Act. 2.38. and 19.4. from all which it is clear that Baptism is a Symbol and Seal of the same things whereof Circumcision was.

Secondly, that as Circumcision was the Initiating Seal under the Old Testament, so is Baptism under the New. I prove, First, because the Apostles Dispensed it so early to the Disciples at the first appearing of their New Breath and Interest into the Covenant, as we shewed before. Secondly, because by Baptism we are said to put on Christ. Galat. 3.7.

Thirdly, the Lords Supper (which I shall prove to be of Di­vine Institution at the Survey of their next Query) is a Symbol or Seal of our Growth and Nourishment into the Covenant: There­fore Baptism, which is the other Seal, must be the Seal of our New Birth and Entry into the Covenant. For it were absurd to say, we had two sorts of Seals for our Growth and Confirmation there­of, and our Birth and Entry into the Covenant left altogether without Seal: nay we have much more need to be Confirmed concerning this, than that; and so it ought far rather to be Sealed.

We shall add, as the Epilogue of this Argument, that the [Page 87]Apostle Teaches ( Celos. 2.11, 12.) that our Burial with Christ in Baptism is our Circumcision in Christ, which shews that Bap­tism is succeeded to us in the Room of Circumcision.

But the Anti-pedobaptists except against the Argument, that Baptism is not succeeded in the Room of Circumcision, because Circumcision was Dispensed to none but Males, and on the eighth day exactly, and because Circumcision was not a Figure of Baptism.

Ans. But our preceeding Arguments prove that Baptism is suc­ceeded in the Room thereof, seeing it exactly acts the Part and Office that Circumcision formally acted as the Initiating Seal, which shews it to be come in the Room and place thereof.

As for that, that Baptism is not Tyed to the Circumstance of the eighth day, as Circumcision was, that says nothing; for albeit Baptism be succeeded in the Room of Circumcision in the substance of its work, yet it does not therefore follow that it should succeed to the external Circumstances of Circumcision: for so, not Baptism, but the Circumstances thereof should have succeeded to the Circumstances of Circumcision, which is not the Question, nor any thing we plead for. Again, Circumcision in the Institution was restricted to the eighth day, which Baptism is not, and so it is not Tyed to that Circumstance.

That Circumcision was Dispensed only to Males says, nothing neither, seeing women by Nature were not capable thereof; and therefore it stood in the Room thereof to them to be the Daughters of Circumcised Fathers. But they are capable of Baptism, and are not excepted from it, as they were from Circumcision; but, on the contrary, women are Baptized, as well as men. Act. 8.12. and 16.15.

For that, that in the matter of Succession they require the Ce­dent to be a Figure of the Successor, I believe it is spoken in Jest; otherwise they will have every Cedent a Figure of his Assigny, and every Servant removing at the Term to be a Figure of the other that comes in his place, which is Ridiculous.

Secondly, whosoever is Adopted and received within the 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 [Page 88]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 A [...]abaptists) That Christ does not in these Texts say, that the Kingdom of [Page 89]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 [Page 90]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 i [...] 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 Infer that all that are to be Baptized ought first to be Taught, whereof Children are not capable; and there­fore ought not to be Baptized. But, beside that the Jews Chil­dren were admitted to the Initiating Seal, who were as uncapable of Teaching as ours, The truth is, the word in the Original Lan­guage [Page 91]is [...], which doth not signifie to Teach, but to Make Disciples, which all know that know the Language; and it is plainly distinguisht in the Text from [...], which follows in the beginning of the very next Verse, and in the Native Ety­mology signifies to Teach; and so this Text is so far from favor­ing their Error, that it clearly overthrows it, as we have now shewed.

But the Anabaptists still object, that Christ, after he had Com­manded his Apostles and Ministers to go and Preach the Gospel to all the world, adds, that he that believes, and is Baptized shall be Saved, Mark. 16.16. Therefore Christ pre-requires Faith unto Baptism: but Children cannot believe, therefore they ought not to be Baptized. Some answer to the Minor of this Argument, that, though Children cannot actually believe, yet they are ca­pable of the Seeds and Principles of Faith, or of a Seminal and Inclinative Faith; which I grant is true, but seeing the Argu­ment urges actual Faith (which they have not adverted to) it belongs not to the answer thereof.

I answer therefore, and grant that actual believing is pre-required unto Baptism in adult persons come to some years of discretion (according to these Scriptures, Mark. 16.16. Act. 2.38. and 8.12, 13. and 18.8.) and therefore they must give a serious Profession thereof, or some probable Evidence thereof must be had before the Church admit them to Baptism, seeing (as is supposed) they are either before, Strangers unto the Cove­nant; or else, if that be not, yet, if they refuse the Gospel-offer, they fore-fault their Interest; and so without the Profession of their Faith, or some probable evidence thereof, they have not a visible Interest. But these things are not pre-required of the Children of believing Parents, who have an Interest (not fore­faulted by any refusal) upon the accompt of their descent from Christian Parents Professing the Faith, whose Children are with themselves taken in within the Covenant (as is before shewed) and it stands in the room of a Profession to them, that they are by God taken in within the Covenant, and born within the Church of Christian Parents professing the Faith. All which is still further clear in the Circumcision of the Jews Children, nor can any thing be said against the one which does not with equal force assault the other.

Again they object, that Baptism is a perfect Ordinance; and [Page 92]that therefore it ought to be Dispensed to none but Folk that are perfect, such as Children are not.

Ans. If this Consequence of the Anabaptists be but good, we must send all Gods Ordinances away to Heaven, seeing there are no perfect Folk upon Earth, as shall be made appear afterwards; and by the same Argument none but perfect Folk should be ad­mitted to any Ordinance of God, and then (I'le warrant) the Churches shall be Scant enough. But how can Baptism which Seals to us the Remission of our Sins require us to be before-hand perfect, and so have no Sin to be Remitted? But they urge, that, Baptism being a perfect Ordinance, does at least require such as are capable of perfection, which Children are not.

Ans. Our perfection is not absolved in the very Instant of our Baptism, but is carried on by degrees while we live in this world, and not absolved till we go hence to the other world; Therefore Baptism does not require that we be capable to be perfected that very Instant of its Administration to us: for it will be enough if we by degrees become capable of perfection, according as by de­grees our perfection is to be carried on. This distinguishes the Major, which I positively have denyed, and they could never have proved with all John of Leidens Logick. Again, Perfection is opposed either to a Negative Imperfection, which is the want of any thing, which if we had it, we would be the more perfect, but it is not competent to us, nor is it our fault to want it; and this sort of Imperfection all Creatures must be content to be for ever liable unto, and they shall never be perfect in the Sence of Perfection opposite to this kind of Imperfection; and so Perfection in this Sence cannot be pre-required to Baptism, seeing it will not be required to Heaven it self. Or Secondly, Perfection is opposed to a Privative and Culpable Imperfection, which is the want of a thing that by the Law we are obliged to have, and it is our fault to want it; and of Perfection opposite to this kind of Imperfection Infants are capable, as well as adult persons, seeing if Adam had stood in his Obedience, there had been no Privative, or Culpable Imperfection in any of his Children how young soever, more than in himself, which, if Infants were not capable of the Perfection we now speak of, as well as adult persons, could not have been. Any that would see Infant-Baptism more largely and accurately handled, I refer them to that fore-named Excellent piece of Learned [Page 93]and Worthy Mr. Baxter against Tombs, which through Gods Blessing has been a great means of putting a stop to that wild Error amongst us.

SECT. I. Concerning Ʋniversal Sufficient Light.

The Question here is plain, viz. Whether or not there is a sufficient Light, for Conversion, and Salvation, in all men whatso­ever, without exception? The Quakers affirm, that there is, I deny it; and albeit the Affirmer is still obliged to prove, not the Denier; yet, I prove my Negative.

Therefore first, The Natural Man does not discern, neither can he know the things of the Spirit of God, 1 Cor. 2.14. Ergo, Natural Men are not sufficiently enlightned for Conversion, or Salvation. The Quakers expound this Text, sometimes of the unrenewed part in a Man, and sometimes of Natural Reason, which (say they) is here meant by the Natural Man. But Con­trariwise, it is plain, that Paul does there compare distinct Per­sons of Men. Secondly, I appeal the Analogy of Faith, for this their Figurative Gloss. Thirdly, Though we give them their own Gloss, they profit nothing, seeing many, yea, most of men, are not renewed, and have no other Light, but of Natural Reason, being destitute of the Spirit, and not having the light of the glorious Gospel shining in unto them; (2 Cor. 4.3, 4. Jud. 19.) and so these men cannot discern Spiritually, or with a Spiritual evi­dence, seeing a Spiritual act cannot be produced, without a Spi­ritual Principle proportioned thereunto, more than a Horse can produce acts of Reason; for, nothing can act above it's Sphere and Capacity.

Secondly, There are many in the World that are covered with gross darkness; Many have their understanding darkened, and are alienated from the Life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their hearts, ( Isai. 60.2. Ephes. 4.18.) Believers themselves in their unrenewed state were under the power of darkness, ( Ephes. 5.8. Colos. 1.13.) and even within the pale of the Visible Church, there are many to whom it is not given to know the Mysteries of the Kingdom of God; and God hath not given them a Heart to perceive, Eyes to see, nor Ears to hear, but their Eyes are shut that they cannot see, and their Hearts that they cannot understand, there is a Vail thereupon, ( Matth. 13.11. Deut. 29.4. Isai. 44.18. Rom. 11.7, 8.) Are these then sufficiently enlightned for Con­version and Salvation? then black ignorance, blindness, and darkness, sufficiently enlightens.

But the Quakers reply in their Confession, (page 8.) That it is not the brain-knowledge that is blinded in any man, but only the sensible knowledge of feeling. But the reply signifies no­thing.

For first, I inquire, if the brain-knowledge, without the sen­sible knowledge of feeling, be sufficient to Salvation? if it be, [Page 153]then they who are quite stupid, and have no conscience or sence of sin at all, but are past feeling, (as it is 1 Tim. 4.2. Ephes. 4.19.) are sufficiently enlightned to Salvation, which I do not be­lieve. If then, the brain-knowledge alone, without somewhat of the other, be not sufficient to Salvation, then (with the Ad­versaries own grant) all men whatsoever are not sufficiently en­lightned to Salvation, seeing they grant the sensible knowledge of feeling to be blinded in many.

Secondly, All men have not even the brain-knowledge of Christ Crucified, and the New Covenant, as is clear in experience, (for, How many Americans and others can tell us one word of Christ?) and the Scriptures also declares it, Psal. 147.20. Rom. 10.14. and 15.20.21. Ephes. 2.12. how then are such men utterly ignorant of Christ, and so of the way to Salvation, ( Joh. 14.6. Act. 4.12.) and are not within the Covenant, (as Believers Children are, who though they be not capable of actual know­ledge, yet they belong to the Covenant) but are Strangers to the Covenants of Promise, and Aliens to the Church of God, ( Eph. 2.12.) How (I say) are these sufficiently enlightned to Sal­vation? If these be sufficiently enlightned thereunto, then not a small whisper of Christ or the Covenant can be needful. And, I am sure, if they never heard of Christ, they can neither know Him, believe in Him, love Him, nor obey His Gospel.

Lastly, There are many, even who have heard of Christ, that, instead of brain-knowledge, are given up to strong brain-Delu­sions, to believe black Errors and Lies, that bring on their E­ternal Damnation, 2 Thes. 2.11, 12. It is therefore most false, that the brain-knowledge is not blinded in any man.

But the Quakers here object from Joh. 1.9. where it's said, That Christ enlightens every one that comes into the World, which they expound of a Light sufficient to Salvation.

Ans. I deny their Exposition, which they shall never prove; for, the Text only says, That he enlightens every one that comes into the World, which indeed is most true in regard of whatsoever kind, or degree of Light any man in the whole world hath; for, every man is enlightned with some kind of Light, viz. either the Light of Natural Reason; or else, both with that, and the Super­natural Light of Grace also, all which they have from Christ, who is the Eternal Son of God, by whom all things were made, [Page 154]( John 1.3. Colos. 1.16. Heb. 1.2.) and is also our Spiritual enlightner; ( Matth. 11.27. John 1.16, 17. and 8.12. and 12.46.) But that he enlightens every man that comes into the World, with a light sufficient to Salvation, is neither said in this Text of John, nor any where else of Scripture; but is, on the contrary, therein strongly contradicted, some few Testimo­nies whereof I have produced. That which the Quakers add here, viz. That he enlightens every man that comes into the World, That all men through him might believe, is not so written in the Text, but only in the Seventh Verse there preceeding, it's said, That John bare witness of the Light, That all men through him might believe; but the truth is, the word, men, is not in the Original, but only the word, all, which may be as well supplied with the word, Elect, as the word, Men; and albeit it were in the Original, yet (for the reasons before given) it behooved to be understood of all Sorts, Stations, and Degrees of Men, (or Ge­nera singulorum) not of every Individual Man, (or Singula ge­nerum) and surely, Johns witness was neither then, nor yet is come, to every mans ears in the whole World.

Secondly, It uses to be objected, That, that which may be known of God, was manifest to the Gentiles, Rom. 1.19. Therefore, even the Gentiles were sufficiently enlightened.

Ans. The knowledge that the Apostle there speaks of, was only a natural knowledge of God, from the light of Natural Reason, and the works of Creation, (which was common with them to the Devil) and therefore was no ways sufficient for Salvation, con­sidering also how small a portion we have retained of it since the Fall; albeit it is indeed sufficient for conviction, and to make un­excusable. They should therefore prove, that these knew God in Christ, or God, as Redeemer, and his new Covenant, or else they profit not.

Thirdly, They object, That the Gentiles had a light in their Consciences, accusing, or else excusing them, Rom. 2.15.

Ans. If that light of a Natural Conscience, which the Gentiles had, be sufficient to Salvation, (as the Quakers strongly insinuate in their Confession of Faith, pag. 6, 15, 16, 32, 33, 34.) then the Devil also, who wants not the Light of a Natural Con­science, is sufficiently enlightened to Salvation.

Secondly, If that light of a Natural Conscience, which the [Page 155] Gentiles had, be sufficient to Salvation, then the meer light of Nature and Reason, and that when it is corrupted and darkened, without the Supernatural light of Grace, or so much as one Gospel­promise, (which the Gentiles knew not) is sufficient to Salvation; which, who says, is a deep-dyed Atheist. They sometimes have said to me, That the Gentiles were sufficiently enlightned, even in respect of the Covenant of Grace, when it was manifested to Adam, or any other of their fore-Fathers.

Ans. We were once sufficiently enlightned in Adam, in order to the Covenant of Works; but we are not still so now, our under­standing is darkened by the Fall: But, in respect of the Cove­nant of Grace, Adam was never our head and undertaker, and so his enlightning is nothing to us.

Secondly, Will their fore-Fathers enlightning at a great distance of time, worn out, and extinct, prove, that the Gentiles had still a sufficient light? Nay, then, let them prove, (for it's as easie) that a blind man sees sufficiently to read, because, his Father who had Eyes, saw to do it; or, that all men are sufficiently innocent, and able to do their Duty perfectly, because Adam was once so, and then we shall need no Saviour.

But, Say the Quakers, is not the light then saving, which he believes?

Ans. Christ Jesus, who is meant in the Scriptures, pointed at, ( 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 [Page 156]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 [Page 157]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 [Page 158]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 whom­soever, the manifestation of the Spirit is given, it is given them for profiting; as when Paul says Colos. 1, 28.) whom we preach, warning every Man, in all wisdom, he does not mean, that they had then got every Man in the World warned, but that whom­soever they warned, they warned them wisely, and not imprudent­ly; as when I say such a Man, speakes to every Man wisely, I doe not mean that he hath spoken to all the World, but whomsoever he speakes to, he does it wisely and discreetly. And just so, when I say, such a Man honoureth every Man, or all Men for advantage.

Fourthly, George Keith object (in his Quakerism no Popery, pag. 66) from Rom. 5, 18. That as by the offence of one judgment come upon all men to condemnation: even so by the righteousness [Page 159]of one, the free gift came upon all Men unto justification of life.

Ans. the meaning is plainly, as in the former objection, that as on whomsoever the offence came, it came unto Condemnation, so on whomsoever the righteousness came, it came unto justifica­tion, so he is comparing the force and effects, of the offence of Adam, and the force and effects of Christ's righteousness and merits together, which is his scope in the whole Context, as may easily be seen, but especially in the 16, Ver. And if he were comparing the quantity and latitude, of the objects together, up­on whom the offence, and the righteousness came, making them equal (as the Quakers objection intends, then it would prove that all Men were as actually in a State of justification by Christ, as ever they were in a State of Damnation by Adam, which is utterly false.

From this universal grace, the Quakers draw their free-will in all Men, even natural and unrenewed Men to convert and turn unto God at their option and choice, as George Keith boldly (with holy boldness himself calls it) affirms in his Quakerism no Popery, pag. 66, 67, 68, 69.

But the Scriptures says, ( Jer. 24, 7. Ezek. 11, 19, and 36, 26,) that its God that gives us the new heart, which we cannot make our selves by the help of universal grace, nor does that u­niversal grace bestow it (or else in the Quakers principles, all Men would be converts) nor can we turn to God without it. They declare, that it's God that converts us, and not our selves, by our free-will and universal grace assisting ( Jer. 31, 18. Joh. 3, 5. and 6, 44. Jam. 1 18. 1 Pet. 1; 3.) They also positively teach that men that want a true Spiritual union with Christ, by Faith, can doe nothing, viz. that's acceptable and Spiritually good ( Joh. 15, 5.) and all unrenewed men are such.

And it's most absurd to say, that there is an ability, and free­will in Reprobates and unrenewed men, by means of a sufficient grace in them, to convert and turn to god, or forbear at their Devotion and choice; for so the efficacy of grace, in the point of Conversion, is made plainly dependent on man's free-will; which that I may prove, we must know that the Quakers (with their dear Friends the Jesuits) doe say, that God bestowes this his grace upon all men only to make them capable, and able, and their free will to Convert, or not, at their choice, and consent, or [Page 160]Dissent; but that he does not make his grace, so Powerful on the [...] as Infallibly and peremptorily to through and effect the work, so as it cannot but come to pass; for this he will not doe left he take away the Freedom of their will, whereunto he still leaves them to chuse, or refuse; consent, or dissent. Now then,

First, this universal grace, is not effectual of it self, to Convert any man; or else, seing every man hath it aswell as another (as the Adversaries affirm) it would Convert them all; otherwise it cannot be called effectual, as not throughing and effecting that work in many. From whom then hath it, to be effectual? not from God; for he only makes men able, and free thereby to be Con­verted, leaving them to their free-will, to chuse or refuse. not from the Devil, I am sure: Ergo, it must Infallibly, have its effi­cacy from mans free-will, which, by chusing and Inclining, applies it that way effectually, which otherwise had misgiven.

Secondly, this universal grace in the business of Conversion, works at mens Option and Choice; for, if they Incline it concurs, if not, it forbears: Therefore it is therein clearly Subordinate to mans free-will, and determined thereunto by his Promotion; and so in effecting that work, plainly depends on him, and his free-will. The consequence is plain from the Definition of a Predeter­mining and Predetermined, and a Subordinant and Subordinate cause contained in the Antecedent, from whence I infer to the things defined in the consequence.

But George Keith denies ( Quakerism no Popery, pag. 67, 68.) that so the efficacy of grace shall depend upon mans free-will, because, when it hath not its efficacy in order to Conversion in men who stop and resist it, yet it hath its efficacy in rendring them unexcusable, and in being a just ground of their Condemnation, which is all that God Intended by it in such Resisters: for God in­tended only that it should convert such as resist it not, and be a ground of just Condemnation against Resisters. But, First, it cannot be so said to be effectual to Conversion (concerning which the debate here is) but only that its either Effectually to it, or the other thing mentioned, which also every good Advice and Exhortation will be. Here there is no efficacy to Conversion, more then to Non-conversion, seeing it can consist with either of them, at the parties option. Secondly, you say, it was not intended for their conversion who resist it How do they then resist it, who are [Page 161]not thereby converted, when they do not cross its Errand and Intent? I am sure, if they crossed its Intent and Errand, they would plainly resist it. And so its still resisted, be it crossed, or not. What an ill natur'd grace is this, that nothing can please. Thirdly, its asmuch Intended, for the Conversion of them that resist, as of them that resist not; seeing its Intended, for the Conversion of any of them that resist not, and of none of them, if they resist (you say.) And so, if it be not Intended for the Conversion of the one, neither is it of the other, and so it cannot concur to any mans con­version, Except it do it without God's Intention and Design; and so if it Convert any man, its false to its Master and Author. Ile have nothing to do with this Ill-natur'd, and false grace. God send me better.

George Keith, (in the 68, pag. of his foresaid Book) endea­vours to retort our Arguments here, alledging that, as they say, their universal grace is resistible in order to Conversion, so we say that the grace of God may be resisted in order to perfection; and so we are in the same difficulty, as he will.

But, George Keith is hugely mistaken (as when not?) for we are not in 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 [Page 162]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 [Page 163]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 [Page 164]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 Salvation; whereas these men there spoken of, were before of old Ordained to Condemnation, says the Text.

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, [Page 175]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 [Page 176]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 is not Acts of Righteousness as done by them, nor as inherent in them, as Acts, by which they are accepted of God, and justified before him; but they are accepted of God, and justified before him by Christ the Author and worker of these Acts in them.

Ans. That is well. I see then the Quakers hold not themselves to be justified by all Acts done by them, or inherent in them (as when they commit Blasphemy, may be) and truly this is all they have yeilded, or said for their Vindication: for if they were justified by any thing upon the very formal account of its being done by, or inherent in them, then they should be justified by every thing done by, or inherent in them: for a Quatenus ad omne sequitur universaliter. But why would not the Quakers say (if they intended to make any Faith of a vindication) that they hold not justification by Acts of Righteousness done by, or inherent [Page 177]in them, as they are Acts of Righteousness, and gracious Acts, and not meerly, as they are Acts done by, or inherent in them? Which seeing they inclined not to say, especially where they are so purposely endeavouring to purge themselves from the suspici­on of a Popish justification, we see, they do but prevaricat, and throw dust in the eyes of the Vulgar.

But George Keith is in this point most plain (in his Quakerism no Popery) and as positive as any Papist I have seen. For in the 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50, 52, 53. pages thereof, he expresly and positively Teaches, that our inward graces and vertues of Repen­tance, Conversion, Faith as a Work, Love, Hope, &c. are the Righteousness whereby we are justified before God, and that im­mediately (page 53.) which was never true of Faith it self, which does not justifie immediately by it self, but only Correlatively, by its object which it apprehends and relies upon, viz. the Righteousness of Christ. And in his Definition of justification there (page 47) he gives us no other material Cause of justification before God, but our meer graces of Repentance and Conversion. And he cunningly pleads moderate Merit (page 46, 47.) but most openly and plainly (page 55, 56.) and he quite confounds justification and sanctifica­tion, leaving no imaginable Distinction betwixt these two, making us to be justified by inward Righteousness, and sanctified by the very same (pages 46, 47, 50, 53. compared) which in his Popish Principles, he is (I Confess) forced to do.

And is not George Keith plainly Popish in this point, who holds justification by inherent Righteousness immediately; gives us no other material Cause of our Righteousness before God, but that only; pleads moderate Merit in us by it; allows Faith in the business only as a work with the rest; and confounds justification and sanctification together? Bellarmine himself was never more Popish than thus, which all know that are acquaint with him upon the Controversie.

But George Keith endeavours to shift our Charge of a Popish justification, because he (seemingly) yields (pag. 44, 46, 47.) that our inward Grace and Righteousness are not the procuring cause of our justification, by way of strict Merit, and in a way of strict Justice, strictly and rigidly considered, as when the work is of equal worth and dignity to the Reward, as he explains it, page 55. But I would fain know the other Member of this distinction [Page 178]from the Author. He tells us their inherent grace and Righteous­ness are not the procuring cause of their Justification, by way of strict Merit, and strict Justice, strictly and rigidly considered. How many, Stricts, Strictlies, and Rigidlies are there here? he has, certainly, been exceedingly concerned, and eagerly careful to get his Minute and imperfect inherent Righteousness, at least, next Neighbour to the strictest Merit and Justice; and it would not fail, nor he be feared for it in any thing, but that; and yet he has been as careful, as he could, to cover his meaning in this, which must be the other Member of his distinction. We see then, that, if Justice will not exact the very rigid Rigour of the Law from the Quakers, and take the very summum Jus (which uses to be called the summum Nefas) they think to merit their justi­fication by their inherent Righteousness at Gods Tribunal. And this, and what this great Ringleader of the Quakers, we see, hath said before, shews that they hold as Popish a justification, as the Pope himself, I believe, does.

But George Keith is yet resolved to shake off this Popish justifi­cation, in the eyes of the world, and to fix it, forsooth, upon us too (in his Quakerism no Popery, page 48.) first, because they differ both from the Papists and us, in holding the Act of God in justification to be really Inward, which the Papists and we (says he) do not.

Ans. Indeed it is true, that upon our believing, the Gospel-promises pronounces the Sentence, nor have we, nor need we any immediate Dictates to warrand that; but we may soon, or late, get a Transcript thereof Inwardly for our Formal assurance; and so we do not differ wholly from this point that George Keith would have us differ, as to the Inwardness of the Act, or Copy of the Act rather out of these Divine Records; but we differ hugely from them as to the Immediateness of the Act, I grant; but I never heard that that was called Popish till now; but that a Popish justification was always reckoned upon inherent Righteousness as the Meritorious, or material Cause thereof; although George Keith denies that a man can Taste of Spiritual Food, except he get it, in his En­thusiastick way, immediately ( Quakerism no Popery, page 16.) as if (forsooth) a man could not Taste Meat conveighed to him in any Vessel, or Dish, and this fully answers a long Discourse which he there has upon this matter, seeing the Promises are the [Page 179]Vessels conveighing to us all our Spiritual Comforts, of Justifica­tion, Salvation, &c.

Secondly, to shake it off himself, and fix it upon us, he says (page 48.) that, in regard of the Object, they Teach that we are the Object thereof, not only as having our sins Pardoned for Christs sake, but as being Righteous in the sight of God ( viz. by inherent Righteousness, whereof he still speaks) through Christ dwelling in us. But in this he is still Popish, not we, in holding himself to be the Object of Justification, as being, or because he is (for all is one) Antecedently Inherently Righteous, and there­fore justified; which we never held, but that we are justified by Faith, as laying hold and relying on Christs Righteousness; where Faith is not considered as a work, or immediately in it self, or as it qualifies its subject; But Correlatively, as apprehending and getting hold of the Object ( viz. Christs Righteousness) let George Keith think this Distinction as nice as he will (as he calls it scornfully in his Quakerism no Popery, page 45, 46.) which was not so nice to the Apostle Paul, who still opposes justification by Faith, and by works, and so does not consider Faith therein as a work but under another Notion and Formality. See (I pray) how he opposes them, Rom. 3.27, 28. and 4.2, 3, 4, 5. and 9.32. and 10.5, 6. Galat. 3.11, 12. Yea, the very Attributes of the Deity admit of a Formal Precision upon their divers Conside­rations and Connotations; and (I am sure) the Attributes of God have as strict an Identity, as the Predicates of any Essence beside can have. And when he Quarrels such distinctions as not plain for Instruction, I must answer him that, then, Con­fusion is certainly plain Doctrine, as he thinks: but qui bené distinguit, bené docet. But why is George himself so nice ( Qua­kerism no Popery, page 52.) to distinguish Faith, as Receptive, from it self, as Inward Righteousness; Unto this I will say, with reason, as he has said (page 8. of his book) without reason, to a man of very great worth, Turpe est Doctori (& immediate in­spirato) cum culpa redarguit ipsum.

The next thing that comes in this Query (all the petty Questi­ons whereof I will resolve in this Section) is a Consequence which they draw from the Mill to the Moon. Christ (say they) set up his worship above Sixteen Hundred years since in Spirit, and in truth; so must not every man come to the Truth, and to the [Page 180]Spirit in their own hearts, if they come to the Worship he set up.

Ans. I shall not stand long in Taxing the Antecedent whereby they seem to insinuate that there was no Spiritual Worship and consequently Worshippers under the Old-Testament, which is most evidently false; for then these had no Faith in God, nor love to, or fear of him; but were all Black Atheists, and must all be Damned.

Christs meaning therefore in that place ( viz. Joh. 4.23.) is not that there was no Spiritual Worship in the Church before that time; but that the vail of Ceremonies, wherewith the Spiritual Worship was, as it were, covered and hidden under the Old-Testament, should be removed and taken away under the New, and the Worship rendred more simple and more clear, and the Spi­rituality thereof more appear, and be expressed externally, as it is plainly declared in the event 2 Cor. 3.13. with 18. as also the Context of the place shews, that it is of the removing of that vail of Ceremonies whereof he speaks, under which the Worship was tied unto Typical places. But how shall it be inferred from that, that the Worship under the New-Testament shall not be vailed with Ceremonies, Types, and shadows, as before it was, but shall be more simple, manifest, and clear; that therefore every man under the New-Testament must come to the Truth, and to the Spirit in his own heart? here is a Consequence led by the Quakers, in a weighty matter of Faith, so quite blind, and wild, that the Chimeraes of Utopia may sooner break the Bars of Impossi­bility, and the Bolts of their necessary Imprisonment, then it shall ever be established with one grain weight, or Scruple, of either Scripture, or Reason. But of the Light within (which here they aim at) we have said enough already.

But, say the Quakers near the close of this Query, are not your Catechisms, Confessions of Faith, and Directories your own works, and your own Worship that ye have set down (they should have said, set up) for people to fall down and do Worship to, and be saved by?

Ans. Whose works soever these are, I have at the Survey of their Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Queries sufficiently in the general vindicated them against all the Quakers Cavillations.

Secondly, I have also vindicated our Church from the Doctrine of Salvation by works, and I will not repeat.

Thirdly, does the explaining, and opening up, or clearing of [Page 181]the Principles of Religion, and our Christian Faith, by Catechism, Confession, Vive-voice, or otherways, by the very deed done, make men Guilty of holding a Salvation by works? O brave! the Apostles that were diligent in these things are much Guiltier then, then we are.

As for the Worshipping of these, and the Will-worship which here they are pleased to charge us with, we shall meet with these in the next Query.

SECT. II. Confuting the Quakers Popish Justification.

Upon this Debate I will not stand long, it hath been so much tossed already betwixt our Writers and the Papists; only I shall bring two, or three forcible Arguments against our being justified before God by any Righteousness wrought, or inherent within us, my Assertion being,

That we are justified before God by the Righteousness of Christ without us, Imputed by God unto us, upon our apprehending and Imbracing of Christ and his Righteousness offered to us, by Faith; and not by any Righteousness wrought, or inherent in us. Before we prove that we are not justified by any Righteousness wrought, or inherent in us, but by Christs without us Imputed to us, we shall premise this ground, viz. that in the Scripture our own Law-righteousness, and the Righteousness of our works are still taken for one and the same thing, and stated in opposition to Christs Righteousness received by Faith, in this point of Justifi­cation (as I have often shewed before from these following Scrip­tures, viz. Rom. 3. chap. from ver. 20. to the end. and 4.2, 3, 4, 5.6. and 9.30, 31, 32. and 10.3, 5, 6. Galat. 2.16, 21. and 3.11, 12. and 5.4. Philip. 3.9.) nor can the Righteousness of our works, and our Law-righteousness be diverse upon any account that is possible to be shewn by any man, and (I pray) consider the Scriptures that I have Cited, which I may not stand to form in­to Arguments, and which are so clear that they need not; these things premised I Argue.

First, we are justified before God by the Righteousness of Faith, which is the righteousness of Christs obedience and sufferings without us (for he did not obey and die within us) as we have be­fore [Page 182]proved: Ergo we are not justified before him by a righte­ousness wrought, or inherent within us, seeing that which Christ wrought and suffered in his own Person, before we were born, without us was not then, nor is it now over again, by way of reproduction (which if they say, is still Popish enough) wrought within us.

Secondly, We are justified before God freely by his Grace, through the redemption that is in Jesus, Rom. 3, 24. Eph. 1, 7. Col. 1, 14. Ergo, we are justified by the satisfaction of Christ without us, not by any righteousness wrought, or inherent within us. The antecedent is the Apostles. I prove the consequence, be­cause, first, a man cannot be freely justified or pronounced righte­ous by a judge, because he is personally in himself Inherently righ­teous; for he is bound in all justice to pronounce a man righteous that is such, and it is not done freely or gratis, and if he do otherwise he does most unjustly. Secondly, I prove the consequence, because this redemption whereby we are justified is in Jesus, in whom the righteousness wrought, or inherent in us is not; except the Quakers Blasphemously will have every justified man to 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 [Page 183]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, its 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 [Page 184]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 [Page 185]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.

Its 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 its 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.

SECT. III. An Examination of one Exception more made by the Quakers against our Charge of a Popish justification.

The Quakers, albeit they expresly and positively teach Justi­fication, by an inward Righteousness inherent and wrought with­in them, (as is now abundantly shewed) yet they deny (in their Confession, pag. 4.21, 22.) that they hold a Popish justificati­on; but that they hold justification by the alone Imputed Righte­ousness of Christ, and complain, that they are Clamoured upon as if they denyed the Imputation of Christs Righteousness; And so (according to this their Doctrine) the Imputed Righteousness of Christ, is Inherently and Inwardly wrought in the justified. And so, they hope to be Vindicated from their Popish justificati­on, by adding thereunto, an uncurable Contradiction in Nature and Reason. Which, that I may shew, I shall premise First.

That, the Imputed Righteousness of Christ, consists in his Death, and Sufferings for us (I do not exclude his active obe­dience, though I mention only these, as above all exception) as is most manifest from these Scriptures, Isai. 53.5, 6, 8, 11, 12. Matth. 26.28. Rom. 3.24, 25, and 5, 9, 10. and 8, 33, 34. Galat. 3.13. Ephes. 1.7. 2 Cor. 5.21. Heb. 9.26, 28. and 10, 22. 1 Pet. 2.24. Isai. 42.21

Secondly, I must premise, that if the imputed Righteous­ness of the Redeemer thus manifestly consisting in his Death and, Sufferings for us, by which Imputed we are Justified, Reconciled, Delivered, from the Curse, be really inward and formally In­herent in the Justified; then so necessarily must his Death and Passion have been; or else the same very thing, shall be formally inward where the very self same thing was never formally in­ward, viz. Christs imputed Righteousness shall be formally in­ward in the Justified where his Death and Passion, wherein that Righteousness consists, was never formally inward; which in­volves a strong Contradiction.

Thirdly, I premise, that if the Death and Passion of Christ hath been formally inward in all that have hitherto been justified (as is now clearly inferred, by the force of our proceeding Reasons from this [Page 190]Distracted exception of the Quakers) then Christ hath formally Died and been Crucified in them all, (I speak not here of Christ mystical, but of Christ in his own Person, as is plain.) Seeing the Death and Passion of Christ cannot formally fall out, or hap­pen to be, except where Christ formally Dies and suffers, as is Evident, and the contrary involves a plain Contradiction.

Hence from this wild exception of the Quakers, this Conclusion most manifestly follows; viz. that Christ hath Died and been Crucified, in all that have hitherto been Justified; from which Conclusion,

I Argue First, (beside that thus Christ behooved to have Died often since the World began, contrary to Heb. 9.25, 26, 28. and 10, 12, 14.) That if Christ hath Died and been Crucified in all that have hitherto been Justified, then his Human Body behooved to have been locally present in each of theirs, and so Penetrated with each of theirs (for the same Room contains a man when Justified, as before) seeing no man can formally and truly Die, or have his Soul separated from his Body, in the place where his Body is not formally present, but where it is: But the con­sequent is a strong repugnancy, an utter Contradiction; for so the penetration of Bodies is asserted, which is utterly repugnant; and let the Quakers (with Papists) consider, if the whole great Fabrick of the World, may be contained in one small Nut-shel; for the penetration of all Bodies, and of the all integral parts thereof, is as easie as the penetration of any two of them, seeing their quantitative matter and Nature, from which the repugnancy of their penetration arises, is all of the same kind,

Secondly, I argue, that if Christ hath formally Died und been Crucified in all that have hitherto been Justified, then Christ, in his manhood, behooved to have been formally inward in them all, seeing men cannot Die except where they are, or were antece­dently immediately present, as can never be contradicted: But the consequent involves here also a most horrid Contradiction; seeing so Christs manhood shall have been often, since his A­scension, multiplyed unto the diverse and distant places of the Earth where the Justified lived, being at the same time, and to the end of the World Substantially and Formally contained also in Heaven; ( Act. 3.21. Heb. 8.4. and 10, 12 13. Colos. 3.1.) And if Christs Individual manhood can, by any possibili­ty [Page 191]be so multiplyed unto diverse and distant places at once, then so may the Individual manhood of any man, seeing Christs man­hood is of the same essential Nature and Kind, with the man­hood of every man ( Acte 2.30. Rom. 1.3. Gal. 4.4. Heb. 2.14, 16, 17.) And so one and the same man shall be capa­ble to be multiplyed, so as to be at London and Jerusalem both at once, yea in all places and corners of the Earth at once, see­ing his multiplication to all of them is as possible, as to any two of them.

But, these things are utterly repugnant, and blind Popish ficti­ons; for then one and the same man, might in the same Instant of time be both exceedingly warm, and yet extreamly cold; both wounded, and not wounded; dead, and yet not dead; blind, and yet not blind; hang'd, and yet not hang'd. For it would be a strange fire that, warming the man at London, would also reach him at Jerusalem, where he may be on the Street in a cold Frost and Snow. Such a fire would burn all by the way, I fear. Would it not be a long Dagger that wounding, or killing him at Lon­don, would also reach him at Jerusalem, and wound, or kill him there too? And yet it would be a strong Contradiction to be o­therwise. It would be strange if he lost his eyes at London, where no body is troubling him, because some body hath pluckt them out at Jerusalem; and yet it behooved to be so, or else he should be blind, and yet not blind both at once, and behooved also to have before, more eyes then two, seeing he hath lost two (as is supposed) and yet he sees. Would it not be very strange, if the man, being a hanging at Jerusalem, should by some secret and blind Influence of the Hang-man there, be also forced to the Gibbet at London, where no man is offering him any Violence, nay albeit, all in the City were by force endeavouring his rescue? for hang and die, he must in the one place as well as in the other; or else he shall be hang'd, and yet not hang'd; dead, and yet not dead both at once.

So also, if the same Individual man could be in many diverse and distant places at once, let him be in London, York, and New-Castle all at once; let him remain still at York some days; at Lon­don, let him take journey, upon some occasion, to York; from New-Castle also let him take journey to Edinburgh. Now this man is both drawing nearer, and removing further from himself at [Page 192] York, and that in respect of local nearness; and he is both mov­ing, and not moving in respect of local motion all at once, and he is also both distant and yet not distant from York at once, see­ing by the way in his journey to York, and Edinburgh, he behoov­ed to be distant there-from, and not present therein; and yet this is in one and the same respect, viz. of local distance. Let not the Jesuits then tell us of diverse respects here.

Are not these a number of brave Contradictions Nursed in the bosom of the Quakers, exception Vindicating them (as they hope) from a Popish Justification? nay by this addition of Con­tradictions they have made, their Justification much worse, in place of bettering it, and have laid the way also fairly for the Popish transubstantiation seeing their exception here includes the very Grounds, wherewith the Papists endeavour (but without suc­cess) to support that.