MY Lord Bishop of Edinburgh laving appointed me to reveiw and examine a Book Compiled by Mr. John Alexander Preacher of the Gospel, Entitled Jesuitico Quakerism Examined, or Quakers Confuted.  
These are assuring that it not only Contains, nothing contrary to the Christian Religion, to the Doctrine, Worship, or Government of the Church of Scotland; but that it exactly (though briefly) compriseth the Marrow of many great Truths, in order to the vindication of those solid Articles of our Faith, ignorantly and unreasonably invaded by that Heretical fry of Quakers: and that with knowledge and care the Author hath Refuted their Irreligious and Blasphemous Positions; so that it may prove a very useful Book; And therefore I humbly judge it very deserving to be Imprinted. This is Testified by  
John Hamilton. Leith Octob. 16. 1679.   

Jesuitico-Quakerism Examined, OR A CONFUTATION OF The Blasphemous and unreasonable Principles of THE QUAKERS; With a Vindication of the Church of God IN BRITAIN, FROM Their Malicious Clamours, and Slanderous Aspersions.  
By John Alexander, Preacher of the Gospel.  Isaiah 8.20. 
Te the Law and to the Testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.  Luk. 16.29, 31. 
They have Moses and the Prophets, let them hear them. If they hear not Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one risen from the dead.  1 John 4.1. 
Beloved, believe not every Spirit, but try the Spirits, whether they are of God: because many false Prophets are gone out into the world.  
LONDON, Printed for Dorman Newman at the Sign of the King's Arms in the Poultry. 1680.   

To the Right Honourable Sir Robert Clayton Knight, Lord Mayor of the Famous City of London, the Author wisheth Grace, Mercy and Peace.  
MY Lord, this ensuing Treatise comes to Salute the World, and appear upon the public Stage under the Honourable Shade and Patrociny of your name, not presuming to add any Lustre thereunto, whereof it is uncapable, and whereof your Lordship's Prudence and Virtues have been such public Heralds to the World, that I shall rather impose a Cessation to my Pen, and enjoin myself a necessary silence, as my highest Encomium, than be Guilty, with Apelles in forming of the Image, of interweaving the constrained Failzeurs of my best Rhetoric with your Lordship's deserved Commendation.  
But knowing the hazard of these public Scenes, and the World's view, where there is always a Momus ready to carp, it comes to seek shelter under your Lordship's  Protection, whereunto it is also encouraged with good hopes of obtaining the cheerful Countenance of your Authority, because of your Pious and Laudable Zeal against all the enemies of our Orthodox Faith, and the Divine Truth; especially these pernicious and (beyond all Heathens) most inhuman Proto-plasta's of Quakerism (I mean the Jesuits) unto whom the latter Profession owes the Founding of their Order, and a great many of their Principles, be they never so  and nice to Confess it.  
It doth also with Modest humility lay claim to one interest into your Lordship's Tutelage because, albeit it was elsewhere conceived, and had the form of one Embryo, yet it hath received its just measures for a regular Birth within the precinct of your Honourable Jurisdiction, and though of Scottish Parentage, yet it is truly London Born.  
I know very well there are many in this declining Age of Christianity, who account all Disputations about Principles of Religion, how necessary soever, providing men live well, to be but vain Jangling (wherein they exactly Homologate the Quakers (as I well know) but their provision, though it were granted to be enough (which it is not) is impossible, if people be misled in necessary Principles; seeing no man can live well who mistakes his Rode-way; and follows wrong directions and lies) and therefore as we are very hearty willing to Discharge all Debates about Opinions which yield no fruit to Edification, and make us no sounder Christians; so their great care is to have all the other Cashiered also.  
But when the most necessary Truths are boldly invaded, and our common Faith in danger to be supplanted, it looks not like Christian Courage, or Zeal, but is rather a plain betraying of Truth, for us to hold our peace, and suffer the enemy how contemptible soever they may seem, by their real Triumphs, though but counterfeited Trophies of a pretended Victory, erected merely upon our Cowardice and Sloth, not the overthrow of our Cause, or their Strength, to gather Proselytes, and increase their numbers. This is not to be valiant for the Truth upon the Earth. Christ did not so let the Sadduces (a contemptible and foolish people) pass without a demonstrative Confutation. Paul also fought with Beasts at Ephesus, and his Epistles declare what care he took, at the Spirits direction too, to redargue the Errors of his time.  
This Tractate shall not much value the obloquy and Sarcasms of these men, nor of any other whom nothing can please, which is not either the fruit of their proper Invention, or else, at least, adequately adjusted to their prejudicated apprehensions, and foreconceived Opinions; if it be but (which is its great ambition) acceptable to your Lordship, and Edifying to such as desire to know and love the Truth.  
And though, reflecting upon the Brutish absurdity of the party against whom I have Embarked in this Province, not only renouncing all true Principles of Religion, but also stifling their very faculties of reason, my adopting of this piece so high may almost seem unsuitable, yet when I contemplate the great Worth and Excellency of the Subject, Matter, and Theme I am to treat upon, being no less than the whole Divine Ordinances of the Gospel, and the most precious, and many of them most necessary Truths of Jesus, I hope my Nuncupation shall no ways be thought incongruous, if I have but been so happy, as rightly to encounter the Adversaries, and dextrously to vindicate and display the Standard of the Sacred Truth, which with what force and evidence I have done I submit to your Lordship's umpirage and Judgement, whom that God may bless, and make prosperous here, and eternally happy hereafter, is the earnest Prayer of your Lordship's most Obedient Servant,  
John Alexander.   

TO THE READER.  
THese seventeen following Queries of the Quakers, having come to my hand with a direction bearing my Name, I did for some time stand in Bivio, doubting with myself if it should be worth the while to bring them to the Anvil; one while fearing lest Truth through my weakness should be at a disadvantage; and another while accounting it almost an unnecessary undertaking to offer to redargue such distracted and Brutish Errors, the very Grossness whereof might alone be sufficient to overthrow and Crush their Reputation with every man not deprived of sense, and robbed of a sound mind. But after more mature and due consideration, that an undervalved and neglected enemy proves ordinarily the most dangerous, and that unsavoury Hemlock except it be digged out and Exfundat, may grow and spread in otherwise most pleasant and beautiful Gardens, perpending also the meaning and Intention of the particular Providence conveying these Queries to my hand, which by the prospect and view of its contexed Method and inferior Circumstances, seemed to call me, either to give answer thereunto, or else, in so far betraying Truth by my silence, to have been Interpreted, either a Tacit consenter to the Doctrine 〈◊〉 the Adversaries (which my Soul abhors) or at least a Distruster of the Cause Professed by us, and Impugned by them; I could not but contribute my endeavours for vindication of the Truth, and stopping of the Mouths of the reproachful Adversaries, who, like so many Rhabshakehs, have in these Queries, and others of their Blasphemous Papers disgorged as many lies against God and his Truth, and as many slanders against the Church of God in Britain, as if they had exchanged both Persons and Offices with the Father of lies and Accuser of the Brethren. And who are these uncircumcised Philistines (recouncing Baptism which is in the room thereof) that they should defy the Camp of the Lord, and Armies of Israel? Is it because there is neither Sword nor Spear in our Israel, that the Quakers have given so proud a Challenge and windy Defiance to all the Ministers in Scotland? Nay, I hope, few of these are so ill provided, or unworthy of their name and place, but that, without Reserves, they dare sustain the Quarrel against the chiefest Luminaries and First-Magnitude Stars in the new Eccentric Quaking-world. And whether I be a Minister or not (its all a matter) I hope by perspicuous and convincing Demonstration of the irresistible Truth in the following Survey so to detect their Fallacies, explode their Errors, and exterge their Calumnies, as they shall not henceforth be so extravagant in their Challenges, or prodigal of their Cartels against such a Party, having all the Protestant Sister-Churches engaged in the same Quarrel. Or if (because a Fool beaten in a Mortar will not be wise) they shall hereafter dare us with such another bragging appeal, they shall but so much the more discover their own Nakedness to the world, and that though with much Impudence they will still be Babbling, yet how Cowardly and Mightless they are for doing (leaving thereby to our Cause the glory of Victory, and to their own the due Infamy of an overthrow) except they shall first dissolve and undo the Knots of my demonstrative Arguments in the following Survey.  
In this ensuing Treatise I have endeavoured as much Brevity as may consist with Perspicuity, having no where stood on enlarging Amplifications, except where the right handling of the purpose doth necessarily require it; nor have I Cited any humane Testimonies against the Adversaries, seeing these they do not value, except when they think they make for them, especially ad hominem, and therefore I would not have the work by the unprofitable accession of these to swell; neither have I adduced any Argument lying far remote from the Principles, because such long Deductions are by the unlearned more hardly perceived: But after a brief state of the Question (which the disingenuous Quakers almost every where pervert) I have delivered a few evident Arguments thereby irresistibly establishing our Doctrine, and overthrowing the contradictory Doctrine of the Adversaries, and thereafter I propose, and answer their Objections, where (except in some few Questions that under the same dress have been handled formerly betwixt our Writers on the one part, and the Papists, Anabaptists, Arminians, etc. on the other part, where the Objections are long ago abundantly answered by our Writers, though even in these also I propose and and answer some of the chiefest, together with these lately devised by the Quakers) I adduce and Answer all that (so far as I can learn) they have to say against us, or for themselves, in defence of their Heretical Doctrine whereunto their following Queries relate, which indeed comprehend the very Cardinal hinges and essential Principles wherein the very Life and Soul of Quakerism consists, and wherewith it stands and falls.  
The Scripture hath indeed foretell us that in the latter days men shall bring in damnable Heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them (2 Pet. 2.1.) and that they shall give heed to seducing Spirits, and Doctrines of Devils (1 Tim. 4.1.) and shall not endure sound Doctrine, but after their own lusts heap up Teachers to themselves, and turn away their ears from the Truth, and hearken unto Fables (2. Tim. 4.3.4.) and that Heresies must, be that these who are approved may be made manifest (1 Cor. 11.19.) But as Christ says, that offences must come, but woe to that man by whom they come (Mat. 18.7.) So we may well say, that though Heresies must be, yet woe, and a heavy woe, to the Authors thereof: for whatever Innocency some impious Fools Atheistically Sceptic in matters of Faith, and the Principles of Religion do ascribe unto Heresy, yet the Scripture doth far otherwise pronounce thereof, calling it a work of the flesh (Galat. 5.20.) and a thing that overthroweth the Faith (2 Tim. 2.18.) and a Doctrine of Devils (1 Tim. 4.1.) and knitting and connecting Damnation, swift Destruction, and the Lake of Fire and Brimstone unto Heretics, false Teachers, and false Prophets (2 Thes. 2.11, 12. 2 Pet. 2.1. Rev. 19.20.) nor is there any Censure in Scripture more peremptory than that against Heretics (Tit. 3.10.) and the Followers of false Prophets and blind Guides are in the same danger with the Leaders (Jer. 14.15, 16. Mat. 15.4. 2 Thes. 2.11.12.) and surely Quakerism is one of the chiefest Heresies and most damnable Delusions that ever set foot in the Christian world. For, beside that by their rejecting of all manner of external Ordinances, their denying the Scriptures to be the Rule, and setting up the Light within for the Rule, they do directly strike at the Foundation of all, with one Blow overturning (so far as they can) the whole Rule of Faith and Duty, and setting a New one of their own Invention in the room thereof; Beside this (I say) this Heresy is a very Sink, or an universal System of almost all the gross Errors which hitherto have annoyed the Church of God, as cannot be unknown to such as know the Errors which heretofore have troubled the Church, and have occasion of Converse with the Quakers, or of reading their Books. And therefore people had need to beware of them (Mat. 7.15.) for their word eateth as doth a Canker. 2 Tim. 2.17.18.  
Yet we do not look upon all of the Profession of Quaking in the same manner, or as Constituted in the same Category of Degrees: for we know that some of them are through simplicity and weakness seduced, who may as yet (peradventure) obtain repentance to the acknowledging of the Truth, and be recovered out of the snare of the Devil, whose Recovery, as it is one of the special designs of this small Treatise, so we hearty pray God to make it successful for that end. Others of them are wilful Seducers and malicious Opposers of the Truth, whose Blasphemous Mouths must be stopped, and their Heretical fury repressed, that the Truth may not be Trodden under foot, and the simple Seduced, who are easily ensnared where such men get way, and are not Redargued.  
That which hath deceived and been a Snare unto many simple and ignorant people is some hairy Garments of a few (and but a few) external Duties of the second Table of the Law wherewith these Instruments of Satan have Clothed themselves. But such should remember, that false Apostles and Ministers of Satan do Transform themselves into the Apostles of Christ and Ministers of Righteousness, even as Satan also Transforms himself into an Angel of light (2 Cor. 11.13, 14, 15.) and false Prophets being inwardly Wolves do notwithstanding come in Sheep's Clothing (Mat. 7.15.) and even Resisters of the Truth put on a form of Godliness (2 Tim. 3.5, 8.) and however these Doctors of the Quakers Mask and Vizorn themselves with some few externals of the second Table; yet how even in Doctrine they trample generally upon the whole Moral Law, but more especially upon the first Table thereof, which yet in reason ought to have the first room, is not obscure.  
For, as for the First Commandment, it is notour to all acquaint with the Principles of the Quakers how manifestly even in Doctrine, they contradict and oppose the same, while they Impudently deny that any man who hath not received the Spirit ought to Worship God.  
This is so known a Tenet of the Quakers that we need hardly to produce Testimonies thereof, but it may be seen in a Book of theirs Published in the year 1668, entitled The Principles of Truth, or a Declaration of their Faith, in the 81, 82, and 92 pages whereof they expressly Teach (and I shall repeat their very words) That all men ought First to wait Until they receive the Spirit in Truth, Then in the same Truth to worship God in Spirit, who is a Spirit. In plain Terms that is to say, men must first wait until they receive the Spirit before they offer to meddle in worshipping of God. The same also may be seen in a most virulent Printed Pamphlet of theirs Entitled in the beginning of the Chapters or Sections thereof (for I had it without a Title page) The Principles of the Priest (so they call the Ministers of Scotland of whom they there speak) of such a Place, and such a Place, in the 14. and 15 pages whereof they directly Impugn and oppose this Position and Principle alleged by them to have been Taught by Mr. John carstair's Minister at Glasgow, viz. That all men whatsoever ought to Worship God.  
Unto this their Atheistical Doctrine is Subalternate that other impious Principle of theirs, That no man ought to Pray to God till he be actually moved thereunto, and Influenced by the Spirit; otherwise Mr. George Keith one of their Chief Apostles affirms it is but Will-worship and Superstition, in his Quakerism no Popery, page 99 and 100 Good Reader allow me to take a small word of these Mad Principles, and I shall do it very briefly.  
Therefore first, all men whatsoever they be are bound to Fear, Reverence, Love, and praise God; say the Contrary who dare: but these are all most principal Arts or parts of the Worship of God: Therefore this Principle of the Quakers is both False and Profane.  
Secondly, Obedience to God Essentially and Indispensably includes worshipping of God, seeing it includes a subjecting and stooping to his Yoke and Sovereignty, and a doing of Homage and Honour unto him, and this also includes Reverence, all which are no mean parts of his most Substantial and Moral worship. Well then, if no man ought to Worship God until first he receive the Spirit, than no man ought to obey God until first he receive the Spirit, seeing obedience Essentially includes Worship and cannot be performed without it, as is showed: but it is utterly Atheistical, Profane, and Absurd to say, that no man ought to obey God until first he receive the Spirit: for then not unrenewed man ought to obey God, seeing such men have not received the Spirit (Joh. 14.17. Rom. 8.9.) if then unrenewed men ought not to obey God, than they are not under any Law of God, and he requires no obedience of them (for if they be under any Law of his, and if he requires any Duty of them, I am sure, the Quakers will never get them exempted from it) Well then, if unrenewed men be not under any Command or Law of God, and he requires no Duty of them, than it follows Infallibly, first, that let unrenewed men do what they will they cannot sin against God, seeing such as are not under any Command or Law of God cannot trasgress any Law of his, and so sin against him (see Rom. 4.15. 1 Joh. 3.4.) Such men then (in the Quakers Principles) may deny, disown, reject, hate, and Contemn God, Worship the Devil, and Debauch at their pleasure; and yet they cannot sin against God for all that, seeing they are not under any Law of God. Secondly, it follows thereupon that Reprobates are all most unjustly Condemned for their sinning against God, seeing they (not having received the Spirit) are not under Law to God (as is supposed) and so cannot be Guilty of sinning against him. Thirdly it follows thereupon that unrenewed men cannot sin albeit they should never so much Counte-ract and Contraveen all the Precepts of the second Table of the Law also, seeing these that Transgress no Law of God nor any Command of his cannot be sinners, seeing Sin is a Transgression of the Law, and where no Law is there is no Transgression, they are not capable of Trangressng a Law who are not under it and bound to obey it. Hence then (in the Quakers Principles) unrenewed men may Lawfully Dishonour, and Defame all men, Murder, commit Adultery, Steal, bear false Witness, and what not?  
Is not that a sweet Doctrine that tends so directly to all mischief and wickedness, losing all men that have not received the Spirit from all Bonds of God, and cutting asunder all the Divine Cords of their Duty? are not the Sage Doctors of these black Mysteries of Satan very Divinely Inspired? Do they not seem to be very Pious? Would it not be a sweet world if these Principles were put in practice? God preserve us from from so Impious a Piety, and such stark Mad Inspirations, which (I am sure) are the very quintessence of the Devils whole Treasury, and the utmost of his strength and endeavour.  
Hence falls that other Lewd and Profane Principle of the Quakers subalternate to their Doctrine here presently Confuted, viz. That no man ought to Pray to God until he be actually moved and influenced thereunto by the Spirit, seeing calling upon God is a part of Moral Worship, or of our Obedience to the Moral Law, whereunto all men are obliged. Pour out thy wrath upon the Heathen that know thee not, and upon the Kingdoms that call not on thy name. Psal. 79.6. Jer. 10.25.  
But the Quakers have somewhat to say in defence of this their impious Doctrine, viz. unrenewed men (say they) cannot but sin in their Worship to God: Ergo they ought not to Worship him.  
Ans. By this Quaking-Argument no man on Earth should offer to Worship God, seeing there is somewhat of sin cleaving to the best Actions of the Saints hereaway, being still defective in the measure, and degrees of goodness prescribed by the Law, and coming from an heart that is not perfectly clean (Prov. 20.9.) but the Flesh still lusting against the Spirit, so that we cannot do the things that we would (Gal. 5.17.) much less can we reach the whole Dimensions of our Duty. Again, even the Ploughing, and so the Eating, Sleeping, etc. of the wicked is sin (Prov. 21.4.) shall the wicked than do nothing at all, because whatever they do, they will go about in a sinful manner? I think not. And hence we deny the Consequence of their Argument.  
Secondly, no man indeed is obliged to sin, but yet all men are obliged to worship God, which is another thing, and is (I am sure) no thing, but a Duty; and that unrenewed men sin in the manner of performance it is their own fault proceeding from the corruption of their hearts, which can never excuse them from their Duty. Does men's Faults that they are Guilty of absolve them from their Duty, and Discharge their obligation to the Law? say it not for shame. And hence again we deny the Consequence.  
Lastly, the worship and obedience performed by unrenewed men (such as it is, or may be called: for it is not simply obedience, but it is only such, and so called in respect of the matter and substance of the Act, which is according to the Law, though the Principles, Manner, and End are not) is much better than a total rejection of the Commandment, seeing that is good in respect of the matter and substance of the Act which agrees with the Law, as for example, when an unrenewed man gives a poor man an Alms, or does any other Action commanded by the Law: But the total rejection of the Commandment, is upon all accounts and every way evil. And hence again we defy the Consequence. See this objection in the Quakers Pamphlet  called the Priest's Principles in the 14 and 15 pages thereof.  
Again they object, that no worship is acceptable to God but that which is in the Spirit; and that therefore no man ought to worship God that hath not received the Spirit.  
Ans. Albeit no obedience or worship which unrenewed men are in that state able to perform, be acceptable to God, yet they are still obliged to worship God, and that with an acceptable worship; nor does or can their Inability to perform acceptable worship; take away their obligation to perform it, seeing we did all once receive ability in our common Parent and representative head Adam, and the losing of it is our fault whereof we are Guilty (Rom. 5.12.19.) and whereby we can never be excused from our Duty, or God and his Law lose their Authority over us. And hence the Consequence perishes. Secondly, we have showed already that the worship and obedience of unrenewed men (such as it is, as was explained) is better than their total disobedience and utter rejection of the Commandment (its better to live Chaste, though neither Principles, Manner, nor End be good, than to commit Adultery with our Neighbour's Wife.) And hence again falls the Consequence. See this Objection in their forementioned Book called, The Principles of Truth, or a Declaration of their Faith, pag. 81, 90, 91.  
The Quakers while they are handling this head in their Book called, The Principles of Truth in the pages Cited, are so extremely confident of victory to their Heretical sentiments thereupon, That they provoke and appeal all the prudent Orthodox and Learned Divines in Europe, and every Quarter of the world, with the wisest of the Sons of men to produce their strong reasons, and encounter them in this point, as if, forsooth, they had intended to outstrip the Devil, not only in the defence of lies, but also in his Arrogance and Pride, in daring so many learned and worthy Champions of the Truth. But they must needs run whom the Devil drives.  
As for the 〈◊〉 Commandment, it is most manifest how they do oppose themselves thereunto, by their rejecting, wresting, and abusing the word of God, which is a most glorious piece of his name, and in their opposing and trampling upon his precious Truth, and avowing of Error and Blasphemy; yea it is evident how lightly they regard this Commandment by their very swallowing down of their Meat and Drink (as so many Brutes) without Prayer and Thanksgiving, without which (if they will believe the Apostle 1 Tim. 4.3, 4, 5.) they are not sanctified. Let them seriously consider the Text: for the Apostle does there expressly say that God hath created our Meat to be received with Thanksgiving (and so the receiving of it without that is contrary to God's appointment) and that every Creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, upon this condition taken in (and so no otherwise, viz. to us) if it be received with Thanksgiving, and he adds a reason to prove that its good, viz. because it is Sanctified by the Word of God (allowing us the use of it) and Prayer, which asketh God's blessing thereupon. And albeit the same Apostle says (Tit. 1.15.) Unto the pure all things are pure, yet he does not say that without Prayer and Thanksgiving they will be so, or blessed in their use; nor does he in this Text contradict or retract what he says in the forecited Text where he explains how they are Sanctified and made pure to us, viz. by the Word of God and Prayer; and so the one Text supplies and explains the other.  
The Fourth Commandment they do openly impugn in one of their following Queries, unto which place we refer the Controversy.  
The Quakers respects unto the Fifth Commandment is sufficiently known by their denying to all men that external Civil Reverence which it plainly enjoins, and their opposing and condemning the practice thereof in others as unlawful and Idolatrous. Thus Mr. George Keith one of their chiefest Antesignani declares all bowing and taking off of Hats unlawful, in his Quakerism no Popery, page 100, 101.  
Now that this command enjoins us to give Civil Reverence to men is most manifest, seeing it enjoins to give Civil honour to men: Ergo Civil Reverence, seeing honour void of all Reverence is a plain contradiction, honour being nothing else but a paying of Reverence and regard. And that this command enjoins the external part, as well as the internal, cannot be doubted, seeing the Precept is given unto the whole man, not the Soul only; nor can the Body (being capable of the Duty) be exempted from the Law of God more than the Soul, they being equally liable to his Sovereignty, and the Law and the Lawgiver not distinguishing or exempting.  
But the Quakers object that all worshipping of Creatures is Idolatry: but all external Reverencing of Creatures with bowing, etc. is a Worshipping of them: Ergo, etc.  
Ans. But why shall external Civil Reverence be Idolatry, and not the internal also, which the Quakers have often said to me they own and practise? Is it only the Body that is capable of Idolatry? Or is not the Soul as much capable of it? Why then do they condemn, or allow the one more than the other? half an eye may see the Inconsistency and confusion of these Principles.  
Ans. Secondly, that all worshipping of Creatures with Religious worship is indeed Idolatry (Exod. 20.5. Mat. 4.10.) But worshipping of Creatures with a Civil worship is not so, but on the contrary God commands and approves it (Exod. 20.12. Levit. 19.32. Luk. 14.10.) and will they say that Abraham committed Idolatry when he bowed to the Children of Heth (Gen. 23.7.) or that Jacob committed Idolatry when he bowed himself to the ground seven times to his Brother, and that, immediately after such a manifestation of God to him (Gen. 33.3.) or did Solomon commit Idolatry when he bowed himself to his Mother (1 King. 2.19.) Solomon was no Idolater at that time methinks.  
Again, the Quakers allege that Christ condemns all Honouring of Creatures (Joh. 5.44.) where he says, how can ye believe who receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only.  
Ans. Hereby they Impugn the very letter of the Fifth Commandment, and declare that (in their Opinion) no manner of Civil Reverence or regard is to be given to any man.  
Secondly, if Christ here condemns all Civil honouring of men, than he condemns that same Duty here which he himself elsewhere (Mat. 19.19. Luk. 18.20. Eph. 6.2. 1 Pet. 2.17.) and his Apostles commands, which is most false. Therefore thirdly I answer that the honour that Christ there speaks of, is meant of, the approbation and applause of one another as to their Life and Actions which these Pharisaical Jews Inordinately gaped after, and merely relied upon, without seeking therein to be approved of God.  
This is confirmed to be the meaning from other Parallel Scriptures where Christ says, that these Pharisaical Jews did all things for to be seen of men, and that they might have glory of men (Mat. 6.2, 5. Mat. 23.5.) that is to say (as is plain) in all their works they hunted after the mere applause and approbation of men. And again the Text itself shows this to be the meaning, in holding forth the receiving of the honour there meant as inconsistent with true Faith, which cannot agree to the receiving of that Civil honour enjoined in the Fifth Commandment; but it well agrees with that honour Taxed by Christ in the Pharisees both Negatively and Positively.  
We shall stand here no longer. Only it is too too notour what regard the Quakers have unto the Sixth and Ninth Commandments, while by opprobrious Rail and lying Calumnies (as witness all their Printed Pamphlets) they bear most false witness against, and endeavour to Murder the good Name and Reputation of all men who will not Dance unto their Tune, and cry a Confederacy unto their Soul-damning Delusions.  
These are the avowed Principles and open Practices of the Quakers, by which (Christian Reader) I thought it not amiss to give thee a small hint of the Superlative measures of Piety whereunto the Quakers shrewdly pretend, that thou mightest from the Claw (as we say) discern the Lion, and mightest not be soon shaken in mind, or suddenly carried away with the specious pretences of the Quakers, who by their huge claims unto Godliness (empty Casks and shallow Streams make most noise) and their dropping in of their Principles, especially among their younger Proselytes, under a number of Enigmatical Riddles wrapped up in the chiefest Clouds of Darkness, or a misrepresenting and transforming Veil (whereby they are Metamorphosed into another likeness, and the Snare is hid until the Prey be Catched, and the Poison till the Morsel be swallowed down) They have so Blindfolded the eyes, and misled some simple and ignorant people, that having once Espoused their Cause they are hard to be regained.  
Some are of mind, that it is in vain and to no purpose to offer to reason with, or redargue the Quakers, in regard of the unstayedness and mutability of their Principles proceeding from the variableness of their new pretended Revelations. But I am more Charitable to the Quakers. For, I am sure, though their Principles were as changeable as the Moon, and unstayed as the Weathercock, they must hold one of the parts of the Contradiction; and so they must either acknowledge and yield our Doctrine and Thesis, and then we are agreed; or else they must contradict our Doctrine and Thesis, and then let them answer our  Arguments. For they cannot hold both parts of the Contradiction, otherwise they shall contradict themselves, and be bound to hold and maintain our doctrine, as well as their own; and so their Principles shall consist of an Hodg-podge of Self-murthering contradictions each of them cutting another's throat. Nor can they hold none of the parts of Contradiction, but proclaim both of them to be together false; otherwise they shall proclaim all their own Principles and Positions to be false, as well as ours (like the Witches destroying a Friend for a Foes sake) for each of their Principles and Positions is one of the parts of a Contradiction (and sometimes both, viz. when they assert formal Repugnances) and I can easily give a contradictory Proposition to every one of them, or to any Proposition imaginable; yea, if none of the parts of the Contradiction were true, then there would be no true saying in the world, seeing every true saying is one of the parts of a Contradiction.  
But here I must cut off, and crave thy Pardon (Courteous Reader) for presuming so far upon thy good humour with so Large a Preface, albeit (I hope) I have lost no time to thee, or myself, either with Idle Self-Apologies, or otherwise vain and needless Compliments, but have been Travelling in matters both pertinent to the purpose in hand, and in themselves Important.  
That thou mayest be throughly Established in the Truth of Jesus, and mayest hold fast the mystery of Faith in a pure Conscience, being fruitful in every good work, receiving in end the Crown of Life is the earnest Prayer of the Author who is  
Thy unworthy Servant in all Christian Duty John Alexander.   

THE QUAKERS QUERIES.  
THe Quakers Queries here follow to be represented to one view, in the same Order as they were directed, and sent unto me, from a Convent of that Profession, though but Signed with one of their hands, where the Reader may see that in my Surveys I alter their Method as to order and place, that I might bring together such Queries as are Homogeneous, and of one, or like Nature; though without the least mutation of either their Matter, or Expression; or changing of the order of Questions, within the limits of one and the same Query, or separating any part thereof from another, that it may be seen that I have not in the least injured the Adversaries, but have only sometimes, for a distincter Method, altered the place of a Total Query. The Quakers also Inscribed their Queries, all which here follows, and, first the Inscription.  

Quakers Inscription.  
Some Queries, as followeth, from the People called Quakers, for one, or all of the Ministers in Scotland to Answer.   

First QUERY.  
Whether or not Grammar, or Logic, and the many Tongues and Languages, which began in Babylon, is an Infallible Rule to make a Minister of Christ? And whether or not Elisha the Ploughman, Amos the Herdsman, Peter and John the Fishermen, who could hardly read a letter, with many others who were not bred up in these things, Logic and Grammar, and the many Languages; if they could not be Ministers of Christ Jesus? Yea, or Nay.   

Second QUERY.  
Whether or not the Scriptures were the Rule of enoch's Faith, Noah's Faith, and holy men in the old world, and second world? Whether or not they were a Rule to Abraham's Faith, isaac's and jacob's Faith, and Moses 's Faith, and all the Patriarches? And whether or not they had Scriptures, till Moses did write them? Answer these things by plain Scripture.   

Third QUERY.  
Or how long was it after Christ and the Apostles days, That that Grammar, Logic, and Philosophy, and Schools of learning were set up to make Ministers of Christ Jesus.   

Fourth QUERY.  
Whether or not the Scriptures are the Word, or the words of God? seeing the Scriptures say themselves, God spoke all these words, Exod. 20. And he that adds to the words, in the last of the Revelation, Plagues are added to him. And what doth the Scripture signify? doth it not signify Writings? And whether all that is written in the Scriptures from Genesis to Revelation be a Rule for your Faith and Manners? and every title of it from the one end of the Book to the other, both in the Old and New Testament? If not; distinguish what part is to be obeyed, and what not. And whether every title from the beginning of Genesis to the end of the Revelation is the Word, or the Words of God?   

Fifth QUERY.  
Whether or not the Prophets, Christ, and the Apostles, and holy men of God did Preach down perfection, and said that men should not be perfect while they were on Earth, but said men should carry about a body of Death with them, while they were on this side of the Grave? let us see where this is written by any of them all.   

Sixth QUERY.  
Whether or not your singing of David's Psalms, his Prayers, Prophecies, Fast, Reproaches, Weep, Mournings, Lamentations, and Complaints how he was Mocked have any Warrant in the Scripture? and you bring all these together in Meeter, without distinction. Have ye not done this yourselves? Or did the Apostles it to the Saints in the Primitive times? Or have ye the same Spirit the Apostles had? Or a larger measure of it, than the Apostles had, by which ye have turned these into Meeter since the Apostles days? And what was the Psalms, Hymns and Spiritual Songs they sang in the Primitive times? Answer these things by plain Scripture.   

Seventh QUERY.  
Whether or not your Directory, Confession of Faith, and Catechisms be an Infallible Rule for you and your people to walk by? Or whether or not equal with the Scriptures, or above the Scriptures? And whether of them is the better Book? And whether or not have ye an Infallible Spirit to give forth such a Directory, or Catechism, or Confession of Faith, as ye have done? And whether or not the Scriptures are not a better Directory than any ye can make, which were given forth by the Holy Ghost, by the holy men of God who had the Infallible Spirit?   

Eighth QUERY.  
Whether or not is your Sanctification, your Justification, and your Faith and Grace the Gifts of these, without sin, as they are Manifested within you? Yea, or Nay.   

Ninth QUERY.  
Whether or not Christ and the Apostles gave forth a Command that they should keep the Sabbath-day? Let us see where it is written in the Scriptures. But the first day of the week the Saints did meet together. This is Scripture. But let us see the Scripture for a Sabbath-day in the New Testament, which speaks for a rest for the people of God. But is this a day? Yea, or Nay.   

Tenth QUERY.  
Whether is there any Scripture, or Command in all the New Testament for the Sprinkling of Infants? Let us see Scripture, without adding, or diminishing for it, that ye do not bring the Plagues upon you for it: for the Plagues are added to them that adds: for we do expect plain Scripture from you for this, without any shuffling Meanings, or Consequences; or else never pretend Scripture-Rule more; but acknowledge that it hath been your Meanings and Consequences that hath been your Rule.   

Eleventh QUERY.  
Whether doth the Scriptures say in the New Testament, that eating of Bread, and drinking of Wine, after Supper, was an Ordinance of Christ? And whether do ye practise this, as Christ and his Apostles did, after Supper? Do not ye take it before Dinner? Did Christ, or his Apostles do so? What Scripture have ye for your Rule for this? for they took it in the night. And Christ says, as oft as ye eat of this Bread, and Drink of this Wine, etc. is that a standing Command? Or is it left to people? seeing it's said, as oft as ye Eat this, and Drink this, do it in remembrance of his Death, and showing his Death, until he come again. Was this coming to the end of the world? Or was it, until his coming to dwell in his Apostles, who said, he would come, and dwell, and walk in them? Need they then Bread and Wine to put them in Remembrance of him? And doth not Christ say, Eat this, and Drink this in remembrance of his Death? And doth not the Apostle say, that they must die with Christ? and to die with him is to come to the Death with him. And they that be in the Death of Christ, and die with Christ, must they have Bread and Wine to put them in remembrance of his Death? Yea, or Nay. And doth not the Apostle say, that they must Die with Christ, and be Buried with him? And when the people are Dead, and Buried with Christ, must they have Bread and Wine to put them in remembrance of Christ's Death? Answer this, yea, or nay. And the Apostle says, they must rise with Christ Jesus; and if they be risen with him, then seek these things that are above. And is not Bread and Wine from below? and if the Apostle puts them to seek these things that are above, than he brought them off these things that are below: for he says to the Corinthians, the things that are seen are Temporal, but the things that are not seen are Eternal. This he spoke when they were Jangling, and in a disorder about outward things. Doth he not bring them off things that are seen, to things that are not seen? And whether or not ye ever intent, ye yourselves called Ministers, or your hearers shall come any nearer to Christ's Death, and Die, and be Buried with him, but only to take Bread and Wine in remembrance of Christ's Death, lest ye, and they should come to forget Christ's Death? Answer us plainly these things, Yea, or Nay.   

Twelfth QUERY.  
What is Original sin? Whether it be not the Devil? yea, or nay. For doth not the Original signify the beginning? And what did Christ come to Destroy? Was it not the Devil, and his works?   

Thirteenth QUERY.  
Whether or not did Christ die for all the ungodly in the world, and Sinners, that they should live and die in their ungodliness and sins, or live unto him? and whether or not did Christ shed his blood for all men, and was a Propitiation for the sins of all men? and whether or not these that do not hold this, are these that make Sects, and are out of the same Spirit and Doctrine of the Apostles?   

Fourteenth QUERY.  
What makes a Believer? Whether or not is it by believing in the Light, according to Christ's Doctrine, who says, He is the Light of the World, and doth enlighten every one that comes into the world, that all men through him might Believe? and who follows him shall not walk in darkness: for he is the Light, and says, That he that believes is saved. Then is not the Light saving which he believes? and he that does not believe in the Light is damned already. Then is not the Light, or his disobedience to it, his Condemnation? Yea; or Nay?   

Fifteenth QUERY.  
Can any man be saved by his own works, Self-righteousness, Will-worship? and are not all men in the Self-righteousness that are not in the Righteousness of Christ Jesus? and are not all of their own works that be out of the Light, and the Faith that is the Gift of God? and are not all in their Will-worships that are not in the worship that Jesus Christ, the heavenly man, set up above Sixteen hundred years since, that is in the Spirit, and the Truth? So must not every man come to the Truth, and to the Spirit in their own hearts, if they come to the worship Jesus Christ set up? and are not your Catechisms, Confessions of Faith, and Directories your own works, and your own worship which ye have set down for people to fall down, and do worship to, and be saved by? and have ye not set up this since the Apostles days, and since Christ set up his worship?   

Sixteenth QUERY.  
Whether or not your Directory, and Catechism, and Confession of Faith be Gospel? yea, or nay. And if so; whether it be not another Gospel, then that which the Apostles Preached, who said the Gospel was the power of God. Rom. 1.16.   

Seventeenth QUERY.  
Whether or not the Scriptures do not say, that he that believes hath ceased from his own works as God did from his, and entered into his rest? and whether or not your Directory, and Church-maid Faith, and Catechisms, and Confessions be not your own works? and ye follow them, and worship them, and not cease from them. And whether or not in so doing, ye keep people and yourselves in your own works, and from the Rest? or we desire you show us what difference their is betwixt Spiritual Babylon and Sodom, and Egypt's works of their hands, and Temporal Babylon and Sodom, and Egypt's works of their hands, and their worship. Of each distinguish, I desire you, Distinguish the mystery from a plain outward Idol.  
These Queries were Subscribed [1 S.] and I could fill up his Name at length, but I forbear, for some reasons that I think more pertinent to Conceal, than Divulge unto the world.  
This is the true Transcript of their Queries which were directed unto me, as is said, which I can Attest by many others that saw, and read them before they came to my hand; and some after, that knows they owned them; and they are also the true Portraiture of their known Principles; and beside, I have in this Controversy carried along two of their most famous Books yet extant, the Positions whereof (which I always Cite) do exactly agree with the Scope and Import of these Queries, viz. their Confession of Faith Subscribed by Eight, or Nine of their most famous Ringleaders in England (by them called The Principles of Truth, or a Declaration of their Faith) and their Quakerism no Popery, written by Mr. George Keith, and Subscribed both by him, and Mr. Robert Barclay, two of their chiefest Luminaries and greatest Apostles (forsooth) in Scotland. This Book Mr. Keith writes against Reverend Mr. Menzies Professor of Theology at Aberdeen, a man of so great Veneration and Learning, that it may be justly thought a daring boldness for him to have meddled against him. So that no man knowing the Quakers Principles, or searching these grounds, will, in the least, doubt the faithfulness of my Transcription; beside what Credit may be allowed unto my own Ingenuity, who never loved the straining of any man's Principle too sore, in Consequences unclear and remote; much less the fixing of Principles falsely upon such as disclaimed them. But of this I need say no more: for the Quakers Principles are known, and these Queries they will own.    

An Alphabetical TABLE.  

A  
GRacious Acts necessarily require gracious Principles proved. pag. 157.  
Adam a common Representative head of Mankind. pag. 134.  
The Analogy of Faith, what it is. pag. 78.  
Apocryphal Books not Canonical, or of immediate Inspiration. pag. 209.  
Apostasy of the Saints confuted. pag. 162.  
Christian assurance needs not immediate Dictates. p. 32.  
Authority of the Scripture-rule over all other Rules proved. ibid.  
The Pope (before the Reformation) had Church-Authority, and how. pag. 199.   

B  
THe Baptism of John and the Apostles the same in substance. p. 69.  
Baptism with Water of Divine Institution under the Gospel. p. 68  
Baptism with Water only properly called Baptism. p. 78.  
Baptism with Water meant in the Text of Matthew (Matthew 28.19.) proved. p. 76.  
Baptism with Water necessary to Salvation, and how. p. 74.  
Baptism with Water not an Old-Testament Ceremony. p. 68  
Baptism succeeded in the room of Circumcision. p. 86.  
Baptism of Believers Infants a Divine Institution under the Gospel. ibid.  
Baptism the Initiating Seal proved. ibid.  
Probable Evidences enough for admission to Baptism. p. 88  
The great Beast mentioned in the Revel. not our will. pag. 195.  
Bilocation pregnant with Contradictions. p. 191.  
Blasphemies reported in Scripture not Scripture-sentence. p. 20.   

C  
EXtraordinary calls attended with extraordinary Furniture. pag. 7.  
An inward call not necessary to the validity of Ministerial Acts. pag. 202.  
A Catechism requisite in a Church, and why. pag. 123.  
Our Westminster Catechism (aimed at) materially Scripture-sentence. pag. 129.  
How the Command is said to be nigh unto us. Deut. 30.14. p. 37.  
Christ's coming again mentioned (1 Cor. 11.26.) not meaned of his coming at the Pentecost, but at the day of general judgement. pag. 99  
Conditions of the two Covenants described and distinguished. pag. 187.  
A Confession requisite in a Church, and why. pag. 123.  
Our Confession of Westminster materially Scripture-sentence. p. 128.  
Consequential fundamental errors do not Physically and Entitatively unchurch. pag. 200.  
Consequential Scripture is Infallible Scripture-rule. p. 63.  
Consequential Scripture necessary to prove Jesus the true Messiah. pag. 64.  
Consequential Scripture necessary against Idolatry. pag. 65.  
Consequential Scripture not founded upon Principles of mere humane reason. pag. 66.  
Consequential Scripture no addition to the Scripture. ibid.  
Conversion wherein it essentially consists. pag. 157.  
The Disciples converted before the first Gospel Supper. pag. 97.  
The Covenant the same in substance under both Testaments. p. 85.  
Courtesy and Capping lawful among Christians. pag. 205.   

D  
ONe day of seven a Sabbath-day Moral and perpetual. pag. 104.  
Every day not a Christian Holiday proved. pag. 111.  
The Lord's day (mentioned Revel. 1.10.) not meant of any indeterminate day. pag. 108.  
The Lord's day meant determinately of the first day of the week. ibid.  
Death described. pag. 100  
The Decrees of God are eternal. pag. 141.  
Conditional Decrees in God depending upon conditions not by him determined vain and repugnant. pag. 143.  
The Dictate in all men not the principal Rule. pag. 33.  
The Dictate in all men not Essentially right. ibid.  
The Dictate in all men subjected to the Scriptures. pag. 35.  
A Dictate of the Spirit Immediate and Objective in no man. p. 49.  
A Dictate within Immediate and Objective not needful. pag. 32.  
Christ died not for all men, but only for the Elect proved. p. 138.  
A Directory of a Church distinguished into two Notions. pag. 120.  
A Directory warrantable in a Church. pag. 122.  
Church Directories not Infallible. pag. 123.  
A Directory form rightly of a mixed nature, depending partly upon Scripture general Precepts, and partly flowing from Christian prudence. pag. 128.   

E  
EFfective enlightening of the Spirit distinct from Objective. p. 32.  
Effective enlightening of the Spirit sufficient, without Immediate Objective. ibid.  
Efficacy of grace not dependent on man's free will. pag. 159.  
Efficacy of grace, from whence. pag. 161.  
The Quakers alternative Efficacy of grace confuted. pag. 160.  
Christ's enlightening of every man that comes into the world, how to be understood. pag. 154.   

F  
FAith the only condition of the new Covenant. pag. 181.  
Faith not considered as a work in justification. pag. 183.  
Fight lawful for Christians against unjust Invaders. pag. 204.  
Free will to Convert not in any unrenewed man. pag. 159.  
Free will in unrenewed men to gracious actions inconsistent with the Efficacy of grace. pag. 160.   

G  
EXtraordinary Gifts not an Infallible evidence of saving grace. pag. 74.  
The Gospel not Properly, but only Synecdochically called the power of God. pag. 130.  
Grace without light proportionable can do nothing. p. 156.  
Grammar described, and explained. pag. 3.  
Grammar lawful among Christians, and necessary for some men. pag. 4.  
How the Spirit Guides us into all truth. pag. 42.   

H  
INward habits nourished and maintained by external means. p. 41.  
Supernatural habits simply necessary, for supernatural actions. pag. 157.  
Holiness of Believers Children (1 Cor. 7.14.) what it does import. pag. 85.   

I  
SInning by mere Imitation confuted. pag. 133.  
Infants have interest into the Kingdom of Heaven. pag. 88  
Immediate Inspiration of the Doctrine of grace ceased in the Church and not now, upon any ground of promise, to be looked for. p. 55.  
Interpretation of Scripture is needful in the Church. pag. 52.  
Interpretation of Scripture is of Divine Institution, and explained what it is. pag. 55.  
Scriptures may be Interpreted by men whose gifts are fallible. p. 59  
Scriptures are the rule of Interpreting Scriptures. pag. 58.  
The meaning of Scripture Interpreted by Scripture is Scripture-rule. pag. 61.  
Interpreting of Scriptures is no adding to the Scriptures. ibid.  
Justification how it is held by Protestants. pag. 174.  
Justification how it is held by the Quakers. pag. 175.  
Justification by inherent or inward Righteousness either as a cause, or condition refuted. pag. 181.   

K  
Kill in just defence against the unjust Invaders of a Kingdom lawful. vid. fight lawful for Christians.  
How the kingdom of God is said to be within us (Luk. 17.2.) p. 40.  
Knowledge in Divine things how it differs in renewed, and unrenewed men. pag. 37.   

L  
Language's how necessary to be learned, and why. pag. 4.  
Christ as God was never under the Law. pag. 212.  
How the Law is said to be written upon our hearts (Jer. 30.33.) pag. 38.  
Learning how necessary for a Minister. pag. 5.  
Sufficient light in all men to Salvation confuted. pag. 151.  
Light within all men not the principal Rule. pag. 33.  
Christ how said to live in a true Christian explained. pag. 213.  
Logic described and divided. pag. 5.  
Logic a gift of God. pag. 6.  
Logic lawful and necessary among Christians. ibid.  
Lies reported in the Scripture not Scripture-sentence. pag. 19   

M  
MErit of good works pregnant with contradictions, and confuted. pag. 186.  
An External Ministry to continue to the world's end in the Church. pag. 60.   

N  
BY Nature all men are corrupt. pag. 132.  
Natural men are not sufficiently enlightened to Conversion or Salvation. pag. 151.  
Natural parts are necessary for a Minister. pag. 202.   

O  
IT is not God that obeys God in us. pag. 212.  
Ordination of our first Reformers in time of Popery was valid quoad substantiam. pag. 199.  
Ordination in the time of Popery, before the Reformation did not necessarily make these Ordained, the Pope's Emissaries. p. 198.  
Ministerial Authority received by external Ordination. pag. 202.   

P  
A Great difference betwixt Papists now, and before the Council of Trent. pag. 200.  
Perfection distinguished and described. pag. 165.  
Perfection of degrees in this life confuted. ibid.  
Perfection in a Moral sense not inferred upon the agent, or action by Scripture writing. pag. 171.  
Perfection not inferred from the acceptance of our good works. ibid.  
Paul not perfect when be wrote to the Romans. pag. 167.  
The persons in the Godhead proved. pag. 29.  
The persons in the Godhead Eternal. pag. 214.  
Philosophy described and explained. pag. 8.  
Philosophy among Christians lawful. pag. 9  
Philosophy a gift of God. ibid.  
Philosophy how rightly used, and how not. ibid.  
The Dictate within the principal rule of Faith according to the Quakers. pag. 28.  
The principal rule the Scriptures, not the Dictate within. pag. 30.  
Psalms-metring requires not immediate Inspiration. pag. 118.  
Psalms-singing of Divine Institution. pag. 112.  
Psalms made upon sad lots may be Sung. pag. 115.  
Psalms that are not our case may be Sung. pag. 116.  
Psalms threatening Curses against notorious wicked men may be Sung. pag. 117.  
What Psalms were sung in the Primitive Church. pag. 118.  
Punishing of evil doers a duty incumbent to the Magistrates. p. 205.   

Q  
QUakers Jesuitical and Popish in their Principles. pag. 206.  
Quakers smell deeply of Supererogation. pag. 208.  
Quakers great Slanderers. pag. 206.  
A Quakers Minister described, according to their own Principles pag. 67.   

R  
COnditional redemption refuted. pag. 143.  
External Reverence by signs and gestures warrantable. vid.  
Courtesy and Capping Lawful, and how.  
The Righteousness whereby we are justified not inward in us. pag. 181.  
The imputed Righteousness of Christ not inward in us. ibid.  
The Righteousness of our good works do not merit life to us. p. 186.   

S  
THe Christian Sabbath of Divine Institution. pag. 104.  
The Christian Sabbath by whom, and by what reasons proved to be changed. pag. 106.  
Jewish Sabbaths abolished infer nothing against our Christian Sabbath. pag. 105.  
The Scriptures of Divine Inspiration. pag. 18.  
The Scriptures not a dead Letter. pag. 11.  
The Scriptures the Word of God explained and proved. pag. 12.  
The Scriptures pure. pag. 16.  
The Scriptures a complete rule of Faith and Manners proved. pag. 18.  
The Scriptures not mere Saints words proved. pag. 20.  
The Scriptures a more sure way (quoad nos) then any Revelation how immediate soever explained. pag. 25.  
The Scriptures have but one sense and no more. pag. 216.  
The Scriptures are not every where Figurative. pag. 215.  
Original sin in all men proved. pag. 132.  
Original sin not the Devil. pag. 131.  
Original sin not our punishment, or temptation only but our sin also. pag. 133.  
Swearing in due Circumstances, lawful, necessary, religious. p. 204.  
God not the substance of any Creature proved. pag. 213.  
The Lord's Supper of Divine Institution. pag. 95.  
The Gospel-Supper described. ibid.  
The Gospel-Supper not from below. pag. 102.  
The Gospel-Supper to continue to the end of the world. pag. 99   

T  
TRuth distinguished and explained. pag. 217.  
Christ how said to be the Truth. pag. 218.   

W  
THe great Whore not our Wisdom sitting upon our will. vid. the great Beast, etc.  
The Unction (1 Joh. 2.20.) how said to teach all things. p. 43.  
The title of the Word of God bereft from the Scriptures, enervates their Authority and use. pag. 16.  
The engrafted Word (Jam. 1.21.) how, and whereof understood. pag. 45.  
Works the condition of the first Covenant, or the differencing Character of Law-righteousness. pag. 183.  
None of our good works meritorious of Salvation. pag. 186.  
Salvation by works denied by Protestants, and how. pag. 174.  
Rewarding of good works infers not merit proved. pag. 187.  
Worthiness of the Saints to walk with Christ, etc. in Scripture-sense does not infer the merit of their works. ibid.  
God's esteem of the Saints virtues of meekness, etc. infers not their merit. pag. 188.  
A Believers ceasing from his own works (Heb. 4.10.) how meant. pag. 194.    

QUAKERS DISARMED. OR, A Short Survey of some Queries lately Emitted by the Quakers, where in the first place follows their Inscription.  
INSCRIPTION. Some Queries, as followeth, from the people called Quakers for one, or all of the Ministers in Scotland to answer.  

SURVEY.  
IT is indeed a Beautifying Ornament for sumptuous Buildings to have comely Frontispieces, but for an empty Shop to have a rich and splendid Sign it is but small glory. This Forerunner advances with such a show of Courage and Resolution, that one would conjecture each of his Followers to be Companion to Achilles; but they resembling nothing less than that which they were pretended to be, it cannot but Coargue both the Arrogance and weakness of the Authors. What great reason was there to have Bravadoed all the Ministers in Scotland with these Impious Queries? Pray, let not him that putteth on his Armour boast as he that putteth it off. Do the Quakers think that all the Ministers in Scotland, yea, or that any of them shall be so amuzed with these Queries, or puzzled to answer them? Nay, then tell it not in Gath, publish it not in Askelon, lest the Daughters of the uncircumcised triumph. We hope there are few Ministers in Scotland so daunted or consternat with the presumptuous bravery and windy Bravadoes of the Insolent Quakers, but that (if the Eagle might catch Flies) they durst, without Seconds, undertake the cause against all the Quakers in Britain. But because the Quakers are distempered with an high Feverish Fit of Intoxicating Delusion, therefore I shall pass by the Insolence of their supercilious and haughty Inscription, and proceed to their Queries, which I shall not only answer, but (according to the brevity of my Scope) shall perspicuously overthrow and refel the Heretical Positions of the Adversaries, upon the several Heads therein contained to the stopping of the mouth of the reproachful Gainsayer. If the Quakers then desire to be Instructed, Let them not be as the Horse, or as the Mule which have no understanding, Psal. 32.8, 9   

First QUERY.  
Whether or not Grammar, or Logic, and the many Tongues and Languages which began in Babylon, is an Infallible Rule to make a Minister of Christ? and whether or not Elisha the Ploughman, Amos the Herdsman, Peter, and John the fishermans, who could hardly read a Letter, with many others who were not bred up in these things, Logic, and Grammar, and the many Languages; if they could not be Ministers of Christ Jesus? yea, or nay.  

SURVEY.  
Very well does the Scope of this Query agree with their forenamed Book, Entitled The principles of Truth; wherein (pag. 56. and 125.) they condemn all humane Learning. But the Questionist here doth, either through malice or ignorance, pervert the whole state of the Question: for who ever heard that the Church of Scotland (which here he endeavours to Slander) or any other Church, made humane Arts and Sciences an Infallible rule to make a Minister of Christ? Then they should never have required more of any man in order to his admission to that Office, but his alone sufficient skill in Grammar and Logic, which the Adversaries themselves know to be most false, and therefore we must hold them for malicious Slanderers. The Infallible rule is set down in the first Epistle to Timothy Chapter third, and to Titus Chapter first; and not in Despauter, or Aristotle's School.  
Nevertheless Logic and Grammar are ordinary means of Knowledge, exceedingly requisite in a Minister, whose lips should preserve Knowledge (Malac. 2.7.) and should be apt to Teach, and able to convince the gainsayers (1 Tim. 3.2. Tit. 1.9.) and the Quakers should have distinguished betwixt that which is requisite and useful for a Minister, and that which is sufficient to make a Minister, seeing a rational faculty is requisite and useful for a Minister (for Beasts and irrational Creatures would be but bad Ministers, methinks) and yet a rational faculty is not sufficient to make a Minister.  
But what just ground of Quarrel can any man have against Learning? Is it not commended in Daniel? (Dan. 1.4.17.) and in Moses (Act. 7.22?) may they not see the excellency of Christ's Ministry held forth by a comparison with the Tongue of the Learned as an high commendation thereof (Isai. 50.4?) and may they not see the loss and disadvantage of the want of it from Isai. 29.12, 14. 2 Pet. 3.16?  
But more particularly, Grammar is an Art teaching how to Speak or Writ a Language right, so as it may be Sense, and may be understood; for it shows the Etymology and Gender of words, and how they are Declined, Conjugated, Constructed, etc. Would they then have a Minister not knowing how to Speak, and Writ Sense? It's like that so he would be somewhat more related to the Quakers; but (I am sure) he would be the less worthy of his Charge. Would they have me saying (like Highland-men learning English) They is man, for these are men? or put she for he, as they do. Alas! what Nonsense should the world then be troubled with? All men that know how to Speak any Language aright, have either Artificial Grammar, or else experience equivalent to Artificial Grammar; from my Cradle (for example) I have a long experience teaching me how to speak English, and that is a sort of experimental Grammar; but for learning how to speak Latin, Greek, etc. I was taught Rules of Grammar, as a much more expedite, ready, and accurate method of Learning.  
But it would seem, the Quakers here by Grammar mean Foreign Languages, or their Grammar, and so their Quarrel is that Ministers should learn Foreign Languages, or the Grammar thereof.  
But this is also most easy to refel; for any man may Lawfully learn a Foreign Language: therefore he may Lawfully learn the Grammar thereof, seeing whatever Language a man may Lawfully learn to speak, he may learn (I hope) to speak it right, and so as it may be Sense; or else it shall be Lawful for a man to learn to speak a Language, in which it is not Lawful for him to learn to speak Sense, which is ridiculous. The Antecedent I prove. If a man may not Lawfully learn Foreign Languages, than who should have Translated the Scriptures into our Mother-Tongue? for Hebrew and Greek (the original Languages wherein the Scriptures were first Written) are not our Mother-Tongue. Again, how should the Churches of divers Nations, speaking divers Languages, Communicate their Gifts and Knowledge one with another, or have any Correspondence together? or how should such Kingdoms have any Commerce, if none of them might learn another's Language, or else both, or all of them a third? and how should Americans, and those places of the World that have not as yet heard the Gospel, ever hear it, if they should not learn some body's Language that have the Gospel, or some body that hath the Gospel, theirs? These things prove it both Lawful and necessary that some men, especially Ministers, may learn Foreign Languages.  
But, say the Quakers, the many Languages began in Babylon; therefore (they mean to infer) they are not Lawful among Christians.  
Ans. But why then do the Quakers speak English? for, sure it is, that Language is no Ancienter than Babylon. When the Quakers shall have Taught all men to speak the one Primitive Language again, than it shall be time to lay aside the many Languages which began in Babylon. But what? was not the knowledge of divers Tongues one of the Gifts of the Spirit, which he bestowed at the Promulgation of the Gospel to all Nations, for the more speedy and easy publishing thereof (Acts. 2.4. 1 Cor. 12.10?) and do they think that the day of Pentecost, when the Disciples began to speak with divers Tongues, was a day of Babel's Confusion? if the Quakers did not wilfully shut their Eyes they might easily see that, albeit the Division of Tongues at Babel was a Judgement, making each of them ignorant of another's menaing; yet the knowledge of Tongues and Grammar are a blessing, causing people to understand one another, and so their effects are direct contrary.  
As for Artificial or School-Logick, it is an Art or practical Science directing our understanding how to Define, Divide, Judge, and Argument aright. For all the rules of Logic are concerning these foresaid operations of our understanding, and they proceed practically by way of direction, showing us how to do them, both which are evident to all that know any thing of School-Logick, and we could easily prove it, if that were the business here controverted betwixt us and the Quakers; but it is none of their present controversy with us; and if they shall offer to controvert that, I shall provoke them to instance (if they can) any rule of Logic which is not concerning these foresaid operations of our understanding, and which does not proceed practically and by way of Direction, which we defy them to do. These things then being so, it is infallibly manifest that if the rules of School-Logick be true, they cannot but direct us how to Define, Divide, Judge, and Argument aright, seeing they are all concerning these operations of our understanding, and all of them proceed practically by way of direction, so that if their Dictate and direction be true, they cannot direct us the wrong way, but must direct us aright; otherwise their direction should be false, and not true. But if the Quakers will accuse them of falsehood, I must conjure them to exhibit their reasons: for these Rules of Logic being derived from, and established upon the uncontrovertible and Supreme principles of the Light of Nature, of themselves evident, and being also approved by manifold experience, we cannot be such Traitors to the Light of Nature and reason, and such enemies to all experience, as upon the bare say of any Brainsick Quaker to reject them. A very great Novice at Logic can easily demonstrate the truth of any rule thereof irresistibly.  
Well then, seeing School-Logick directeth our understanding to Define, Divide, Judge, and Argument aright, it cannot but be very requisite for a Minister; he that knows not how to do these things, wants a piece of fitness that ought to be in a Minister; or if one utterly ignorant how to do them be no less fit, than he who is exquisitely skilful in them all, than Balaams' Ass should be as fit to be a Minister as any of the Sons of men, the meanest of whom hath some portion of Logic, either Artificial, or at least Natural, because he is born essentially Rational. He that knows nothing how to Define, Divide, etc. (if any such were) is in no better capacity than the Ass speaking to his Master. Take there the Quakers Minister very fit for Balaams Saddle if he had but four legs. Ignorance I see, is the Mother of the Quakers Devotion. Ye know my meaning, I hope.  
But the Quakers have often objected to me against the very Lawfulness of Logic among Christians, because (say they) it was first used among Heathens:  
Ans. Whether School-Logick was first used among Heathens or not, is not fully certain, but be it so or not, the consequence is void enough of Logic, as if nothing first used among Heathens were Lawful among Christians, forsooth; and so it shall not be lawful for Christians to speak Greek, Latin, Dutch, French, or English, or any other Language but Hebrew, which few have; and so they must speak nothing at all. What shall we think of these merry principles that would make weeping Heraclitus to change his humour, and laugh to Death almost? But what shall we do with the Isle of Britain, which (I believe) was first used by Heathens? must we therefore leave it? let the Quakers be first gone then. Again, if Artificial or School-Logick be a gift of God, and he its Author, than it cannot be unlawful among Christians wherever it was first used, seeing the Gifts of God are not unlawful among Christians; Now that it is a gift of God is evident, seeing it must either be a gift of God, or else a fruit of Adam's Fall and man's corruption, for there is no other thing to be said: But it's against all Religion, reason and sense, to say that Adam's Fall or man's corruption should cause us to understand how to Define, Divide, etc. therefore it must be a gift of God.  
But say the Quakers, Elisha the Ploughman, Amos the Herdsman, Peter and John the Fishermen, were not bred up in Grammar and Logic; and yet they were Ministers of Christ.  
Ans. What then I pray? must all Ministers be exactly in every point such as these were? or is it good consequence to argue from an extraordinary Fact to an ordinary fixed Rule? let them go on then, and argue from all the extraordinary works that God hath at any time done in the first publishing of the Law and Gospel, unto ordinary fixed Rules; for the same reason carries all. These men being extraordinarily called of God to an extraordinary work, were by him extraordinarily furnished with whatever was needful for their work; and so though by their education they acquired no Logic or Grammar, yet (beside natural Logic, and experimental Grammar in their Native Tongue, which they wanted not) by extraordinary Inspiration or Infusion, they had as much of them as was requisite for their work. Must God then be Tempted, or can they tie him to do that same thing ordinarily, which he hath sometimes done extraordinarily? This is a proud prescribing of Laws to God, not to men. We must therefore wait for the blessing of God upon our diligent use of the ordinary means of knowledge, and not with the Quakers (tempting God) look, without ground, for extraordinaries every day, whereof they are as scarce as any Society in the world beside, for all their vain boasting.  
Behold here also the Quakers Blindness, they allege that Peter and John had no Grammar and Languages, whereas it is manifest that God at the Pentecost (among other things) bestowed the gift of Tongues upon them before he would send them forth to publish the Gospel to the world, which notably enervats the adversaries position, and highly commends the use of Grammar and Tongues.    

Second QUERY.  
Or how long was it after Christ and the Apostles days, that that Grammar, Logic, and Philosophy, and Schools of learning were set up to make Ministers of Christ Jesus?  

SURVEY.  
It seems the Quakers are in a perpetual Dream; for Schools of learning were set up before Moses' time, seeing Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians (Act. 7.22.) and the Sciences taught at Babylon were long before Christ's days (Dan. 1.4.) and they were set up for the increase of Knowledge, maintaining of Equity, and the preservation of humane Societies. But wherein (I pray) can it be liable to censure, that every man cast in his mite of the small Relics of Natures yet sparkling light into the common Treasury for the good and benefit of Mankind? for every man hath not all knowledge (to need no help of his Neighbour's gifts) but every one his several portion, which when it is communicated, it is profitable to others, but when it is suppressed and kept up, it is a spark of light held Prisoner, and a portion of knowledge concealed in unrighteousness. This abundantly justifies Schools of learning.  
But what do the Quakers feign Philosophy to be? Is it not an Habit or Doctrine teaching us to know God and his works, so far as by the light of Nature and reason we can reach them? Is it unlawful then to Study to know God and his works? Then an Atheist and a brutish fool (such as is described Psal. 32.9. Psal. 92.6.) will be fittest to be a Minister to the Quakers. Or is it unlawful to Study to know God and his works by means of the light of Nature and reason: Then the Heathen world could never lawfully Study any knowledge of God and his works, seeing they had no other or better means. Nay, than the light of Nature and reason must be rejected and abandoned as an unlawful and sinful means for that purpose, and (certainly) good for no other purpose imaginable, if not for that.  
Now that Philosophy teaches us to know somewhat concerning God and his works is most manifest. For it teaches us to know that there is a God; that he is Infinite, Eternal, Omniscient, Omnipotent, Unchangeable, etc. that every thing either is, or is not; that nothing can both be, and not be at once; that of every contradiction the one part is true, and the other false; that every whole is more than its part; that every cause is prior in Nature to its effect; that nothing can work before it exist; that all Creatures are changeable; that every man is a rational Creature; (the Quakers I fear should be excepted) that the Soul of man is immortal; that no action can be without some Subject, nor without some Effect, nor any Union without some extremes; that no brute is a man, nor darkness any positive being. These things (and a Thousand times more that I may not here stand to reckon) Philosophy teaches us to know concerning God and his works, the truth whereof is evident, which if the Adversaries question, let them come forward with sharp-edged Arguments, and not dare us always with mere blunt assertions. These things prove that Philosophy teaches us to know several things concerning God and his works. And I am sure, those that have the greatest knowledge and deepest reach into these, and other Philosophical principles, may lawfully communicate the same to others for their Instruction, nay, they may not lawfully conceal it in unrighteousness, as is before showed.  
Again, Philosophy (as I argued of Logic) is either a gift of God, and then it cannot be unlawful among Christians; or else it is a fruit of Adam's Fall and man's corruption (seeing God is the Author of all we have beside) But it cannot be an effect or fruit of these; for what ignorant Dunce or impudent face will or dare say, that Adam's Fall, or man's corruption hath taught men the foresaid Principles and Conclusions of Philosophy which were instanced.  
What? Is it unlawful for Christians to endeavour after some knowledge of God and his works? let them consider and answer these Scriptures then. Job. 37.14. Psal. 77.12. Psal. 92.5, 6. Psal. 3.2. Rom. 1.19, 20. Every man hath some Philosophy, either Natural, or else both that and Artificial also. It's a strange Doctrine that Teaches, that the more ignorant Ass a man is, he is the more fit to be a Christian, or a Minister. Balaams' Sadle-bearer would have got a better Employment with the Quakers (it seems) than he had with his unthankful Master.  
But, say the Quakers, the Apostle bids Christians beware lest any man spoil them through Philosophy (Colos. 2.8.) and we are commanded to avoid Profane and vain Babble, and oppositions of Science falsely so called, 1 Tim. 6.20.  
Ans. The Apostle does not in these Texts condemn true Philosophy subsisting within its own Sphere, neither can that be condemned, for the reasons now given. But that which he condemns is sophisticate and corrupt Philosophy (which we call Sophistry) and Philosophy extended beyond its Sphere to the measuring of an Object not included within its Principles. This the Apostle shows to be his meaning, by adding Exegetically in the first Text cited, the Term, Vain deceit, after the Tradition of men (that is, of men's own mere Dreaming and Devising, having no ground in the light of Nature and reason, and so whereof God is not the Author) and by calling it in the last place, Science falsely so called; none of which can be said of true Philosophy moving within its own Orb, and not transgressing the Sphere of its activity, as is before demonstrated. The thing then that we are there commanded to avoid, is Sophisticate and corrupt Philosophy, as Aristotle's Eternity of the world; or Democritus' opinion of the world's being made by the Concourse of Atoms; Manicheus' two supreme Causes of all things; the Platonic and Manichean conceit about the making of the Soul of man of the Divine substance; Epicurus' mortality of the Soul of man; Pithagoras' Transmigration of the Soul out of one Body into another; The Fate of the Stoics. That and the like corrupt Philosophy we are commanded to avoid, and beside this, we are also commanded to beware of Philosophy diverted from its own proper use and object in considering the works of Nature, and God as the Author of Nature, to the measuring of Gospel truths (which the Heathen Philosophers in these times foolishly did) according to their Inclusion in, or Exclusion from Natural Philosophical Principles, upon which they do not depend, but upon a Principle of an higher Order, viz. Divine Revelation. Beside these two things, there is nothing else in Philosophy that can be Condemned; and so there is nothing here against true and genuine Philosophy (only which I defend) which, for our Demonstations given, is neither Foolosophy, nor Witchcraft, as the Quakers in bitter Contempt have often called it in my hearing.    

Third QUERY.  
Whether or not the Scriptures are the Word, or the Words of God? Seeing the Scriptures say themselves God spoke all these words (Exod. 20.) and he that adds to the words (in the last of the Revelation) Plagues are added to him. And what doth the Scripture signify? Doth it not signify Writings? and whether all that is Written in the Scriptures from Genesis to Revelation be a Rule for your Faith and Manners, and every tittle of it from the one end of the Book to the other both in the Old and new Testament? If not; Distinguish what part is to be obeyed, and what not. And whether every tittle from the beginning of Genesis to the end of the Revelation is the Word, or the Words of God?  

SURVEY.  
The principal Position of the Quakers upon this Head is, that there is not another Word of God beside Christ the Co-substantial and Eternal Word; and this they assert of purpose, that they may elude all the Testimonies of Scripture which Tie us to the external written Word of God as our Rule, and whereby the Efficacy thereof is commended: for all these Scripture-Testimonies they will have to be understood of Christ the Eternal Co-substantial Word dwelling within them, and all men (as they allege) and teaching them immediately by himself present within them, without an external written Platform, which they are pleased to reproach with the Nickname of a Dead Letter, contrary to Joh. 20.31. Act. 7.28. Rom. 15.4. 2 Tim. 3.15, 16, 17. which places declare the written Word of God to be lively Oracles, and an excellent instrument of Faith, Growth, Comfort and Life unto us. See also Heb. 4.12. where the Word of God is said to be Quick and Powerful, and compared to a Twoedged Sword; and that by the Word of God here, is not meant Christ the Co-substantial Word, but the external Word of God spoken within time (which Word is written in the Scriptures, as shall presently be showed) appears from many other Parallel places of Scripture, where the Efficacy of the external Word is held forth in most Parallel expressions, and by the very same Comparison, for which see Ephes. 6.17. (which place we shall presently prove to be meant of the external Word) and Rev. 1.16. Rev. 2.12, 16. Rev. 19.15. In which places by the Sword of Christ's Mouth, and the Twoedged Sword going out of his Mouth (which are the Expressions there) can be no other thing meant, but the external Word of Christ spoken by his Mouth, nor do I ever read that Christ himself is compared so, but his Word only.  
It is true, the Law or legal Covenant considered as strictly legal (but never the whole Scriptures, which, pray observe) is in respect of guilty Sinners (such as we all are) called a Killing Letter (but not at all a Dead Letter, dead Dogs neither Bark nor By't) and a Ministration of Death and Condemnation (2 Cor. 3.6, 7, 9) because it Accuseth, Curseth, and Condemneth such as are Guilty of the Breach thereof; though yet the same be a notable Mean to show Sinners their lostness without a Redeemer, and their absolute need of Christ, and to Whip and lash them home unto him. These things are evident.  
Now for clearing the state of the main Question, we must premise first, that the Quakers acknowledge the Scriptures to be God's Testimony and Gods Words; they do not as yet (at least all of them) openly deny the Scriptures to have been given by Divine Inspiration; only they do generally deny them to be the Word of God: for (say they) only Christ is the Word of God.  
Secondly, we must premise that we do not say that there is another Eternal, Co-substantial, or Coequal Word of God beside Christ. But that, beside Christ the Co-substantial Word, there is another Word of God which was spoken within time written, in the Scriptures, which we call the external written Word. These things being premised,  
We assert that, beside Christ the Co-substantial and Coequal Word, there is another Word of God which is written in the Scriptures. For first, the Commandments of God are not Christ the Eternal Son of God, as is clear: but the Commandments of God are the Word of God: therefore there is a Word of God which is not Christ the Co-substantial Word, and that Word of God is written in the Scriptures, seeing Gods Commandments are written there undeniably. I prove the Minor from Psal. 119.172. where David calls the Commandments of God his Word; and from Mark. 7.9, 10. with 13. where that which Christ calls the Commandment of God (ver. 9) he calls it the Word of God ver. 13.  
Secondly, the Predictions, Doctrine, and Say of the Prophets (which are written in the Scriptures) are in Scripture most expressly called the Word of the Lord, and yet these are not Christ the Co-substantial Word: therefore there is another Word of God (and which is written in the Scriptures) beside Christ the Co-substantial Word. The Antecedent I prove from 1 King. 16.12. 2 King. 9.36. 2 King. 23.16. 2 Chron. 36.22. Ezra. 1.1. In all these places the Predictions and Doctrine of these Prophets are most expressly called the Word of the Lord.  
Thirdly, it is said (Isai. 28.13.) that the Word of the Lord was unto Israel Precept upon Precept, and Line upon Line, where the Precepts and Doctrine contained in the Scripture-lines are called the Word of the Lord: But (sure it is) Christ himself is not these written Precepts or Doctrine: therefore there is beside Christ the Co-substantial Word, another Word of God which is written in the Scriptures.  
Fourthly, Hosea calls the beginning of his Prophecies and Doctrine, The beginning of the Word of the Lord by Hosea, which cannot be the beginning of Christ the Son of God by Hosea, I am sure; but it must be the beginning of the Doctrine and Prophecies taught and Prophesied and there written by him: therefore there is, beside Christ the Eternal Word, another Word of God which is written in the Scriptures.  
Fifthly, to be a Word that the Lord hath spoken, and to be the Word of the Lord is all one thing, methinks; but there is a Word which the Lord hath spoken, which is not Christ, and which is written in the Scriptures: Therefore there is a Word of the Lord, beside Christ, and the same is written in the Scriptures. The Minor is clear from Isai. 37.22. where the Prophet says, This is the Word that the Lord hath spoken concerning Senacherib (and this Word is there written) The Virgin the Daughter of Zion hath despised thee, etc. But surely, that Word is not Christ, Christ is not a complex Oration or saying.  
Sixthly, the whole Doctrine of the Prophets (if the Quakers will trust them) is the Word of the Lord (and yet it is not Christ the Son of God) seeing they always ascribe it to him with a, Thus saith the Lord, and what God saith must certainly be his Word; for to speak, and not say a word, is pretty repugnant, and may pass for a good Jest amongst men that are merry: therefore there is a Word of the Lord, beside Christ, and the same is written in the Scriptures, seeing the Doctrine of the Prophets is written there.  
Seventhly, there is a Word of God, which is the Sword of the Spirit and an Instrument in his hand, Ephes. 6.17. But Christ the Son of God is not the Sword of the Spirit, nor an Instrument in his hand, seeing the Second person of the Godhead cannot work from the Third, because so their Order of working would quite contradict their Order of Subsisting, which is utterly repugnant, much less can the Second person be the Instrument of the Third; and if by the Spirit here be meant the New man in us, Christ in his Person cannot be an Instrument thereof either, nor of any Creature whatsoever that ever had a Being, or Existence: Therefore there is another Word of God, beside Christ the Son of God.  
Lastly (for we need stand no longer in a matter so manifest) The Word of Christ spoken by him within time is the Word of God, seeing Christ is God as well as man; and yet it is not Christ himself, as needs no Proof: But there is a Word of Christ spoken by him within time (and it is written in the Scriptures) Joh. 5.24. and 8.31, 37. and 12.48. and 15.3. Colos. 3.16. Rev. 3.8. Therefore there is, beside Christ the Eternal Word, another Word of God which is spoken within time, and written in the Scriptures.  
Thou wilt say perhaps, seeing most part of the Quakers are content to yield to the Scriptures the Title of, God's Words, and almost all of them of, God's Testimony, it would seem that this Debate is only about the naming of the Scripture. What then were the hazard to gratify the Quakers in this point, as Wise men use to please Children and Fools sometimes?  
Answer. Though all the Quakers without exception, should yield the Scriptures the Titles of, God's Words, and God's Testimony (and yet some of them do it not, as we shall see ere we end the Survey of this Query) yet there is a manifest hazard in denying the Title of the Word of God to the Scriptures. For let it once be denied (with the Quakers) that the Scriptures are the Word of God, and then (grant what they will to get their Negative once admitted) it plainly follows that they have never been spoken by the Mouth of the Lord (seeing what any person speaks must needs be his Word, or else he speaks and holds his peace, as the Jest is) and this puts the Scriptures into the same condition with the Doctrine and Dreams of false Prophets, and brangles their Divine Authority. See Deut. 18.20, 21. Jerem. 23.16, 21. Ezek. 13.7. and 22.28. Again, let it once be granted that the Scriptures are not Entitled, The Word of God, and have no Interest to be so called, and then all the Exhortations given in the Scriptures for harkening to the Word, believing and obeying the Word, etc. and all the commendations of its efficacy and sweetness, must be transferred from the Word of God written in the Scriptures, unto Christ the Co-substantial Word immediately, who as he is Jealous of his own Glory, so he will not have his Word robbed of its due Authority, and Excellency which he had Communicated thereunto. And so that which the Quakers design (and this is their Formal aim) in this Affair, is to take all men off from the written Word of God as their rule: for grant that such a thing hath not such a name, and then whatever is spoken under that name must be applied unto some other Subject so named, and not unto a Subject which was never so named. And thus again they endeavour to overthrow the Use, End, and Repute of the Scriptures, so far as they can. And thus to deny the Scriptures the Title of, The Word of God, strikes at their Divine Authority, and overthrows their use and regard. And therefore we are Commanded to hold fast the Form of sound words. 2 Tim. 1.13.  
But, say the Quakers, the Scriptures are the Words of God, Exod. 20. Therefore (they infer) they are not the Word of God.  
Ans. But so by the Antecedent the Quakers destroy their own Cause, and contradict themselves; for if the Scriptures be the Words of God, then, I am sure, there are Words of God, beside Christ (and yet they deny there is any) seeing the written words of the Scripture are not Christ the Son of God. Again, this consequence is as if I should say, Such a Book contains the Doctrines of the Quakers: Ergo not the Doctrine of the Quakers. The Ten Commands are the Moral Laws: Ergo not the Moral Law. Is not that well Argued without Logic? But what? are not whole Sermons and Predictions of the Prophets, and Christ's whole Doctrine called by them and him the Word of the Lord, and his Word, as may be seen in almost all our preceding Arguments? Is not the whole Doctrine of the Scriptures called a Word of Prophecy? 2 Pet. 1.19, 20. Does not Paul call the whole Revealed Truths of God, Sound Doctrine, and the Doctrine of God? 1 Tim. 1.10. and 6.1. Tit. 1.9. and 2.10. And must the Prophets and Apostles, Christ and the Holy Ghost learn from the Quakers how their Doctrine should be named? will they not allow the Scriptures their Essential Attribute which these gives them, that they are the Word of God? or, albeit we very well know that there are many more words in the Scripture than one, why will they not admit of that common Unity here which is not denied in other common Natures, and a denomination conformable? By these things the objection is both answered and overthrown.  
Again, they insinuate another Argument whereby they endeavour to wrest the Title of the Word of God from the Scriptures. The Scriptures (say they) signifies Writings: Therefore (they mean to infer) they are not the Word of God.  
Ans. It doth equally follow; therefore they are not the Words of God, as the Word of God, as all may see; and so the consequent of their present Argument contradicts the Antecedent of their former Objection; and so we may see that the Quakers are but Juggling while they yield the Scriptures the Title of God's Words, whereof their present Argument again endeavours to rob them. Secondly, our Question is not what the word [Scripture] signifies, but what the Doctrine written in the Scriptures is, which the signification of that Word cannot Define. But lastly (for clear satisfaction) I distinguish their Consequent thus, viz. That because the Scriptures signifies Writings, therefore, as to the external Form and Mode which they have from the Writers Pen, they are not the Word of God, be it so; therefore as to their enunciat Doctrine, or Sentence they are not the Word of God, it follows not. For in the Scripture there are two things to be considered, viz, their Doctrine and Sentence, which is the Word of God, and their external Form or Mode which they have from the Pen of the Writer, which gives the Word of God the Denomination of, Written, and therefore we call the Scriptures The Written Word.  
Because we said that the Quakers, by endeavouring to Wrist the Title of the Word of God from the Scriptures, do strike at their Divine Authority, therefore I shall here give a short Touch of the Notes and Arguments whereby the Scriptures are clearly Demonstrated to be from God, and of Divine Inspiration; such as are the Majesty of the Style of the Scriptures above all other Writings, under great simplicity of words; the Divine purity of the Doctrine, savouring wholly of holiness and virtue; The Divine Scope of the Doctrine, which is to give all glory to God; The Efficacy of the Doctrine in the hearts of men above all other Doctrines in the world; The Infallible accomplishment of the Predictions therein contained, as they were foretell; the wonderful consent of all the parts thereof, being written by so many divers Penmen so far distant from one another both in time and place, which was never to be seen in any other Book in the World, especially of divers men's Writing; The manifold Miracles whereby God hath born Witness thereunto, which Satan could never so much as Counterfeit; The irreconcilable hatred of Satan and the World against it, more than against all other Books in the World; The firm stability thereof, and the special hand of God which appears in the preserving and transmitting thereof from Age to Age, notwithstanding all the Malice of Satan, and the Devices of him and his wicked Instruments against it; The miserable end of the greatest Persecutors and enemies thereof; The Testimony of the many Martyrs Sealing their Witness thereunto with their Blood, and the Testimony of the whole Church thereunto, which have a piece of weight in their own Order. The Scriptures cannot be from evil men, or Angels, seeing they show their villainy, denounce their Doom (which Galls them) and prescribe a Method of living quite contrary to their Inclination.  
Nor can good Angels; or Men be their Author; for, upon the one hand, they durst not have so usurped upon God, as to feign his Authority and Commission to so many Laws, Ordinances, Threaten, and Promises of their own mere Invention; and, upon the other hand, if they had done it, they could not have been good Angels or Men; Therefore the Scriptures must be from God himself. These things put together (which I have but named) are sufficient to convince that the Scriptures are from God, and of Divine Authority, and are enough irresistibly to stop the Mouths of all Contradicters.  
Notwithstanding, for the full assurance and through persuasion of Faith, that the Scriptures are from God, and of Divine Inspiration, the Spirit is requisite by his effectual Working in, with, and by the same upon our hearts and minds to Seal up their Divine Authority unto us. And yet this makes nothing in the least for the Quakers, who Teach to follow a Spirit abstracted and separated from the Scriptures. For, beside that we shall show at the following Query, that the Spirit speaking in the Scriptures, most straight Ties us to the Scriptures as our Supreme Rule in all matters of Faith; It is also evident that it is in, with, and by the Word of God (written in the Scriptures) that the Spirit manifests himself unto, and in our hearts, both in the enlightening of our Minds, and renewing of our Wills and Affections, as these Scriptures following Witness. Psal. 19.7.8. Joh. 4.41. Joh. 14.26. Joh. 15.3. Joh. 17.20. Act. 17.11.12. Rom. 15.4. Ephes. 6.17. Heb. 4.12. Isai. 59.21. These, and a Thousand places more that I might instance, do manifestly convince that the written Word of God is an Organ and Instrument in the Spirits hand, whereby he Enlightens, Renews, and Sanctifies us more and more, himself also (as a Physical Cause does) immediately influencing the Effect, seeing all Effects must depend immediately upon God, if they include any real being.  
But, say the Quakers, whether or not is all that is written from Genesis to Revelation a Rule for your Faith and Manners?  
Ans. No doubt we are bound to believe all Scripture Enunciation from the beginning to the end, seeing all of it was given by Inspiration of God and written for our Learning. 2 Tim. 3.16. 2 Pet. 1.21. Luke. 24.25. Act. 24.14. 1 Cor. 10.11. There is no more doubt we are bound to obey all the Commands of the Moral Law (seeing that is of a perpetual binding force Mat. 5.18.19.) with whatsoever is of common equity (Philip. 4.8, 9) or whatever enjoining any piece of Religious worship, under the New Testament, doth belong to Christians of our Calling and condition. The Quakers must here be content with these clear generals. But as far the Ceremonial Law of the Jews, that is indeed totally Abrogated as to its Obligation (albeit yet the same be many ways useful for our Instruction, but especially to convince us of our Natural uncleanness, and by the exact Accomplishment of its manifold Types in Jesus of Nazareth, to assure us that he is our Saviour and the True Messiah) together with their Judicial Law, which, in so far as it particularly respected that State, is exspired therewith, though, in so far as it is of common right, it still obliges all men, as is easy to be understood.  
Lastly the Quakers inquire, whether every tittle from Genesis to the Revelation be the Word, or the Words of God?  
Ans. It cannot be that this member of the Query is the same with the first already discussed; or else they have foolishly proposed it twice to us. But to be short, they seem here to inquire (if any new thing at all) whether every enunciation and sentence of the Scripture be of Divine Inspiration, and from God? Whereunto I answer affirmatively: for first, the main substantial Texts of Scripture cannot be doubted, because of the Notes and Arguments before given, most part whereof are Intrinsical, and do brightly shine in these with their enlightening Beams to full conviction. Secondly, for other Sentences of lesser importance, if the Quakers will say that some ill Seed-sower hath Inserted them, or any of them, since the Writing of the Scriptures, and so that they are not of Divine Inspiration, but a corruption of the Scripture; we shall first desire them to prove their affirmative, and until than we shall confirm our assertion. For seeing they were found in the same original Language inserted with the rest; seeing they have still some Connexion with, or Relation to the rest; seeing the Scriptures were by the Providence of God kept pure in the time of the Old Testament, as appears in that, that Christ and his Apostles in all reproofs to the Scribes and Pharisees never Taxed them for such a thing, nor at any time touches such a Question; seeing even the Writings of men may continue pure through many Ages, and if they be vitiated it can hardly escape discovery; seeing the Scriptures as they now are were transmitted to us by the Church, unto whom the Oracles of God were committed, and against whom the Gates of Hell shall not prevail (Rom. 3.2. 1 Tim. 3.15. Mat. 16.18.) and attested by her to be the true Word of God; seeing the very end of Gods committing his Word unto writing is for our Learning and Instruction, and that we might have hope and be Saved (Joh. 20.31. Rom. 15.4. 1 Cor. 10.11.) seeing God cares for the feeding of Ravens, clothing of Lilies, and for our Food and Raiment, how much more (to use Christ's own Argument in a matter of smaller moment, Luke. 12.28.) will he care for the purity of his own Word, which is of so weighty concernment to his Glory and his people's Salvation. These things, with God's special Providence over his Church, duly considered, do sufficiently secure our assertion; especially seeing the Quakers cannot prove any corruption in the Scriptures, which if they affirm, they are obliged to do.  
But the Quakers will (may be) say, that there are several mistakes of men, yea and lies written of in the Scriptures, such as the lies of Rahab, the Gibeonites, Sarah, etc. I, and there are several Blasphemies written of in the Scriptures too. But what shall follow from hence? That any enunciation of the Scripture doth Lie or Blaspheme? Nay by no means, seeing these Lies and Blasphemies are not Taught and Enunciat by the Scripture, or Enunciations and Doctrines thereof; but the Narration and History of them, is the thing Enunciat and Taught by the Scripture: for the Scriptures do not affirm what these persons said and affirmed; but only they affirm that such persons said and affirmed so, which is no Lie nor Blasphemy, as is clear. These Lies therefore are not Scripture Enunciations, but are only mere complex Predicats thereof, which the Scripture Attributes to their Authors that said them, as the subjects of its Enunciations in all such Cases.  
Some Quakers are upon this Head so grossly Athiestical as to say, that the Scriptures are but the Saints words, and Testimony from their own particular Experiences, unto which horrid Atheism their forementioned Confession of Faith called, The Principles of Truth (methinks in Derision and Scorn) doth also positively subscribe, pag. 100, 101, 102, 103, 127. But this impudent assertion of the Quakers cannot stand. For first, these foresaid Notes and Arguments that we above named, do convince the Scriptures to be of Divine Inspiration and Authority, and not the mere bare word of any Creature.  
Secondly, this Assertion of the Quakers involves a violent contradiction; for the Penmen of the Scriptures deliver their Doctrine in the Name and Authority of the Lord, asserting it to be his Word, his Will, his Command, whereof the Scriptures are every where so full that we need not stand to instance.  
If then it was but their own mere Word and Testimony, these Penmen of the Scripture are so far from being Saints, that of all men in the world they must have been the greatest Cheats, and Archest Impostors and Villains, seeing they have delivered us so many mere humane Precepts and Principles for the Rule of our Faith and Duty towards God and man, promising Eternal Life and Glory to the Obedient, and threatening Hell and Damnation to the Disobedient (a terrible Presumption for them to do by their own mere Authority, and that for Obedience or Disobedience to their mere Commands) and beside have wickedly Fathered all this upon God. To be Saints, and yet live and die such Impostors and Villains is Incurably repugnant.  
Thirdly, except the Quakers shall proceed further in their Distraction and Atheism, and Assert the Scriptures to be a Book of Falsehoods, Fictions and Lies, they must acknowledge the Scriptures to be somewhat more than the mere bare Word and Testimony of any Saint, seeing the Old Testament almost every where Asserts itself to be the Say of God; and in the New Testament the Doctrine and Miracles declared in the four Evangels is expressly therein ascribed unto Christ who is God, aswel as Man; The Apostles also often Assert the Divine Authority of their Doctrine. Except than they will conclude these Scriptures to be all mere Fictions and Lies, they must yield the Scriptures to be the Word of the Living God, either immediately declared by himself, or mediately by his Servants, by him unerringly directed.  
Fourthly, the Scriptures are full of Precepts, Prohibitions, Promises, and Threaten: But the Relation or Narration of an experience is none of all these: Ergo the Scriptures are not universally (at least) a Narration of Saints experiences.  
Lastly, there is much Doctrine Taught in the Scriptures that could never be acquired by Experience, such as, the Doctrine of Predestination, of the Hypostatical union of God and man in one Person, of Justification by the Righteousness of Christ, of the general Judgement, of the three persons in the Godhead. And what think the Quakers of the Prophetical part of Scripture, Infallibly foretelling things at a great distance to come? Are these Narrations of Saints Experiences? Or was the knowledge of them got by Experience? O learned Divines! Hence we may see that, at least, some of the Quakers prefer themselves and their Doctrine to the Prophets and Apostles and their Doctrine, which is (say they) but the Saints Words and Testimony from their own particular Experiences; but the Quakers Doctrine must be Divinely Inspired, forsooth.    

Fourth QUERY.  
Whether or not the Scriptures were the Rule of enoch's Faith, Noah's Faith, and Holy men in the Old World, and Second World? Whether or not they were a Rule to Abraham's Faith, Isaac and jacob's Faith, and Moses 's Faith, and all the Patriarches? And whether or not they had Scriptures till Moses did Write them? Answer these things by plain Scripture.  

SURVEY.  
This Query comprehends the great controversy with the Quakers concerning the Rule of Faith and Manners; and therefore because my Survey will be large, I shall divide it into three Sections. In the first I shall prove the Scriptures to be the Rule of Faith and Manners. In the Second I shall confute an exception, or distinction which some of the more subtle of our adversaries offer to our Arguments. In the third I shall answer their Objections.   

SECT. I. Proving the Scriptures to be the Infallible Rule.  
The thing that the Quakers drive at in this Query, is, that because Enoch, Noah, and others in the Primitive world had not a written Word of God for the Rule of their Faith; That therefore neither should the Written Word of God be the Rule of our Faith. This, beside that it is their known Principles (as Witnesseth their foresaid Confession of Faith, called, The Principles of Truth, wherein they most frequently cry up the Light within every man as his only Rule, and decry the Scriptures and all external Ordinances to their utmost Breath, as may be seen pag. 5, 78, 79, 80, 92, 102, 103, 124, 133, 136, 140) Is either the Scope of this their present Query, or else it hath no Scope at all, and so it must be the fruit of some Distraction, they having thereby intended nothing. Well then, the Quakers must either acknowledge Scripture-Testimony for Truth (as I hope they will, seeing they here require us to answer by Scripture) and then we shall soon see an end of the Question from the Scripture; or else they must deny Scripture-Testimony to be true, and shall proclaim God a Liar, whose Testimony the Scriptures are, and by whose Inspiration they were given (as is proved in the former Queries Survey) which is the height of Blasphemy.  
These things premised, I Assert, against the Quakers, that the Scriptures are the Infallible Rule of our Faith and Manners.  
That the Scriptures are Infallible is sufficiently proved at the Survey of their former Query; where we proved them to be of Divine Inspiration, and the Word of the Living God, and not of any mere 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 examined seeing every thing that is examined must be examined by its Rule, or else it will be done by Guests 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 expressly 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 saducees 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 entire business of Repentance and Salvation, and that they may not be Eternally Damned (and so he shows 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'll 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 persuaded. 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 Trial 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 easy, 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 Church's Instruction and Learning, as is before showed: 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 public Rule; or else let the Quakers (if they can) show 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, etc. 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 God's 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 subjoined 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 show, (if they can) How the Dictat or Light within is more sure than God's immediate Voice from Heaven, such as that was at the Transfiguration? I have showed 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 daystar arise into our hearts, that is (as they expound) till the Holy Ghost be bestowed on us, but no longer. But contrariwise; First, by this answer, they retract their former Gloss upon the Text, and confess the more sure Word of Prophecy here, to be meant of the Scriptures, and not the Light within. Secondly, By this answer, they overturn one of their own chiefest Principles, viz. That all men ought to follow the Light within: for now they yield, That such as have not received the Holy Ghost, (and these are not few) are exhorted here to follow the Scriptures, and not the Light within them. Thirdly, Hereby they insinuate, That the Scriptures (in their Opinion) serve for nothing to Renewed Men and Believers, who are born of the Spirit and Sealed therewith, (Joh. 3.5. Rom. 8.9. Eph. 1.13.) and so the Scriptures (as they will) are recommended only to Men unrenewed; and so that blessing pronounced upon the Readers, Hearers, and Keepers of the things written in the Scriptures, (Revel. 1.3. and 22.7.) is designed and belongs only to unrenewed Men, seeing the reading, hearing, and keeping of the things written therein, whereunto the blessing is annexed, belongs only to them, as the Quakers will. What? Does not Paul, Peter, and John direct all their Epistles, and the Book of the Revelation to the Churches, the Saints, and them that had obtained like precious Faith with them, delivering them many Rules of Faith and Manners therein? See their Inscriptions (I pray,) and these will inform you better.  
Eightly, That must be the Rule of Faith by which we are commanded to try the Spirits, (1 John 4.1.) seeing we cannot try the Spirits or Doctrines without the Rule; for that were to try them by guess: But that whereby we are commanded to try the Spirits, must certainly, be the Scriptures, seeing the Quakers do not as yet openly profess the Popish Lesbian Rule, of Believing as the Church of Rome does; and it cannot be the dictat or light within, that we are to try them by, seeing, that is as fallible, as their Light whose Doctrines I try; and George Keith (a Ring-leading Quaker) confesses the possibility of their declining from Infallibility, both in Speaking and Writing, (and consequently in Examining or Judging too) in his Quakerism no Popery, page 33. and beside, the Dictat within hath no Divine Institution to be the Rule; and if it were the Rule, than the Dictat within every divers Man would be the Rule to try the Dictat or doctrine 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 shows us, (1 John 4.6.) That the true and sound embracing 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 embrace 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 completed; 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, than we not only might add to the Scriptures in matters of Faith and Duty, but we ought, of necessity, to set up that other Doctrine, as the Rule and Directory of both, which is much worse, methinks, than any partial adding; and so we could not be liable to such a doom for a partial adding.  
And hence by a few arguments of many that may be produced, we see, that the Scriptures are the infallible Rule of our Faith and Manners, that sure Word of Prophecy whereunto we ought to take heed; and if an Angel from Heaven shall preach another Gospel to us, than that which Christ and the Apostles did, let him be accursed. Every new Dispensation of the Covenant by the Ministry 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 extreme 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 employs it, doth here distinguish our Arguments, yielding us; That the Scriptures are the most complete 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, oftener the Spirit 〈…〉 he 〈…〉 of the Spirit within, to be 〈…〉 oftenest the dictate 〈…〉  
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 itself, or be begotten by itself, nor proceed from itself, 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 show, how they will call them Three; for, though they also be one, viz. one God, yet the same Text cited, says they are Three too. I could never get any other answer to this from a Quaker, but, That they are three Manifestations, viz. of Moses, of Christ, and of the Spicit. But, if these were the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, the World is much elder than they, and then, Who made it?  
Thirdly, While Christ proves Himself the Light of the World against the Jews, who denied it, He says, (John 8.17, 18.) It is also written in your Law, That the Testimony of two Men is true; I am one that bears Witness of myself, 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 Father's 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 Father's Person. They answer. The Word is wrong turned here, and, that it's turned right in Heb. 11.1. where it's called Substance. But contrariwise, the word is [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] in the Original, which properly signifies a Subsistence, or Person, and in an Intelligent Being subsisting distinct, it always signifies a Person; and so the Union of Christ's two Natures in one Person, is usually called, the Hypostatical Union; and to turn the word Substance here, would be guilty of Arianism, and would infer, that Christ is not the same in Substance with the Father, but another Substance like his Substance. It is then no unscriptural Notion: but these things by the way. Now to the main point.  
I assert against George Keith and his Complices, That the Scriptures are the principal Rule of Faith and Manners, and not any Dictat within: and I prove it first, that the Scriptures are, and next, that the Dictat within is not.  
First then, The Scriptures (we have seen already) are by Divine Authority ordained to be the Rule of our Faith and Manners, and there is no Divine Authority ordaining any other Rule, either above them, or of equal Authority with them; or else, let it be showed, 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, etc. 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 Supreme and Principal Rule of Faith and Manners.  
George Keith will (may be) endeavour 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. Judas 19) and if every Man have the Rule of Faith revealed to him by a Dictat within, Why have not Americans as much knowledge of that Rule as we Christians? nor do I believe, that any Man hath such an immediate Dictat for revealing to him the Doctrine of Salvation, who can read or hear, (for others I am not concerned, nor means of;) nor is there any necessity thereof, that being so abundantly manifested in the Scriptures.  
And whatever particular event a Man may have immediately revealed to him, and he therefore bound to believe it, This concerns not our Argument concerning the Doctrine of Salvation, and the Scriptures wherein that was not contained, more than the particular commands of a Prince to one, two, or three of his Subjects, will infer that, not his public 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 enlightening its eyes to behold the Scripture-marks, and enabling 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 merely objective, make a Man one whit the wiser, without subjective light to perceive them, more than a Man purblind can see the Sunshining, 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 Supreme Rule. But the Scriptures are such a Rule: Ergo, they are the Supreme Principal Rule. I prove the Minor (the Major needs not) because we may not receive any Rule from without, or Dictat within, which agrees not with the Scriptures, (as George Keith seemingly also confesses in his Quakerism no Popery, pag. 28.) to the Law and Testimony, if they agree not with that, there is no light in them; he is Cursed that Preaches another Gospel and not agreeing with that we have, and so cannot be Blessed that receives it; The Plagues are added to them that add to the Scripture-Rule, much more to such as Teach, or receive a contrary Rule: on the other hand we may, nay, we are bound to receive the Scripture-Doctrine, though it do not agree with the Dictate within, or any other pretended Rule, as is clear from many things foresaid, and the Quakers will not deny, sure. These things hold firm. Again, it does not hold, that we must not receive the Scriptures if they agree not with the Dictat within, but may receive the Dictat within, though 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 misled 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 Being's ought not to be multiplied without some necessity, which here there is none that can be showed; 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 Sense, 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 Entire Rule of Faith and Manners being now completed, and publicly 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 Writ (and so to think too) in a mixture (Quakerism not Popery, pag. 33) that is to say, Fallibly: for if he means of a Midway 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 Writ in a mixture, which a man immediately Inspired cannot be Guilty of. Habernus confitentem reum.  
Secondly, that cannot be the principal Rule of Faith and Manners which hath no Divine Institution to Warrant it; or else it is but an Usurper. But the Dictate within every, I or any man, hath no Divine Institution to Warrant it to be the principal Rule of these; or else produce it (if they can) for all they have hitherto produced shall be Confuted and Answered too when I come to to their Objections. Therefore the Dictate within every man, or any man, is not the principal Rule of Faith and Manners.  
Thirdly, a Rule to be examined by another Rule cannot be the principal Rule of Faith and Manners, I am sure: But the Dictate within all men is such; Therefore it is not the principal Rule of Faith and Manners. The Minor I prove from Isai. 8.20. To the Law and to the Testimony (says the Text) if they speak not according to this Word, it is because there is no Light in them; where all Dictates, or Doctrines of Faith and Manners are very expressly commanded to be Tried 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 applied 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 not Popery, pag, 28.) and so the Scriptures are a Superior 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 dropped (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, than we must either follow its Directions absolutely, and without Questioning or Trying them; or else conditionally only that they be right, if conditionally only, than 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 itself Essentially right. If then we must follow the directions of the Dictate within absolutely, and without any Trial, than 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 Coeternal, Coequal, 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 Heretics must absolutely follow these Principles as their principal Rule. And if the Dictate within bid a man Worship the Sun and Moon, and Idols of Gold and Silver, worship the Devil, and cut his own Throat too, he is bound to obey his Rule. There is nothing can be answered to these things but this, viz. That these and such like evil Directions cannot proceed from the Spirit of God, but allanerly from a man's 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 try 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 enlighten us in that measure as to make us immediately Inspired and Infallible, seeing George Keith himself may possibly both Speak and Writ (and so think too) in a mixture, for all his Spirit. Secondly, all men have not the Spirit to direct them Infallibly, though he did do it to them that have him, by an immediate Dictate. Thirdly, let the Dictate within have a Self-evidence unto him to whom it is actually presented, yet the Devil, a cunning Serpent and subtle 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'll fall into the Devil's 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 , pag. 136.  
Ans. It is so manifest how straight 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 straight 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 joined with the Covenant of Grace to make it effectual. In which Sense 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 than the other. But is there any thing here for the Government of the Dictate within? Nay, neither less nor more; but, on the direct contrary, (comparing 9, 10. Verses there with 15, 16, 17, 18.) he ties them to the Scriptures as their chief Rule under the pain of Death and Perishing. But the Quakers are so exact at consequences, that they can infer from any Text a flat and direct contradiction to itself. Their Spirit hates Logic.  
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 broke: but this is the Covenant (says he) that I will make with the House of Israel, after those days I will put my Law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts, and they shall no more teach every Man his Neighbour and Brother, saying, Know the Lord: for, they shall all know me, saith the Lord: Therefore, (say the Quakers) What needs Scripture-rule under the New Testament, seeing the Law is written on people's 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 God's People in Old Testament times, and yet they were straight tied to the external Scipture-rule, as was even now showed; and so the writing of the Law upon our hearts does not absolve us from Scripture-rule, more than them, or establish the Dictat within for the Rule.  
Thirdly, The Law is never perfectly written upon our hearts in this Life, (as shall be proved at their Query concerning Perfection) and the Scriptures are an effectual Instrument, whereby God doth more and more write his Law upon the hearts of his People, (Psal. 119.93. 98, 99 104. Joh. 14.26. Joh. 20.31. Act. 17.11, 12. Rom. 10.14. Eph. 6.17. 2 Tim. 3.16.) Seeing then, the Word of God written in the Scriptures is an Instrument by which God writes his Law upon our hearts, enlightening, 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 men's 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 public Ministry, doth much rather overthrow all Christian mutual Teaching and Neighbourly Exhortation, than Teaching by Scripture-Rule, or a Public Ministry, 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 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 Messiah 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 alleged, 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 Show, and is not conspicuous for worldly Splendour, (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 sense 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, etc. in, or with 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 alleged, (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 Christ's Scope; for, because these Pharisees expected that the Messiahs' Kingdom should come with worldly Pomp and Grandeur, (of which conceit neither were Christ's 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 Splendour: 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 Grandeur.  
Secondly, The Kingdom of God, that is, the Messiahs' Kingdom, was certainly come in the Apostles days after the pouring 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 straight tied, (as I have many times before proved) and it was as much within God's 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 by external helps and means, as the habits of Grammar, Logic, Mathematics, etc. 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 purblind 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 rend 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 Controversy, 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, enlightening, 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 harken 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 shows 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 harkening, but to be taught) their External Doctrine, (which is written in the Scriptures) and that he wrote this same Epistle, of purpose, to be an Instrument of Faith and Knowledge unto them. And would they then force an Argument from this Epistle against Scripture-Rule? nay, there is in this Epistle evident demonstrations establishing it.  
Thirdly, We have before shown, 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 hearty 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 Logic 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 Eyesalve, 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 Father's 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, than the Apostle did here by his Practice contradict his Doctrine, and by his Doctrine condemned his Practice as needless and idle, for which he had a sad Account to make, according to Christ's 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 Engrafted Word, which is able to save our Souls: Therefore, (say they) the Word which we are to receive is an Engrafted Word within us.  
Ans. First, The Original word [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] may be as well rendered, Apt to be Engrafted, 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 expressly 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 sense, for which they must show some necessity of the Analogy of Faith; or else it cannot be granted then.  
Thirdly, The Apostle does not here Exhort us to commit ourselves 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 Engrafting, (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 Engrafted and rooting-wise. Any Man by reading the context downward may see, that James there opposes receiving of the Engrafted Word, or Word Engrafted, to the receiving of the Word forgetfully, superficially and carelessly; and not to the receiving of an External Word, as the Quakers here expound, taking the grounds of their Gloss out of their own Brainsick 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 Judgement. 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 Ruin 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 endeavour 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, etc. had not any written Word to be the Rule of Faith and Manners; and therefore, (they mean to infer, and George Keith explains it fully in his Quakerism no Popery, page 109. 111.) neither now is the written Word our Rule.  
Answ. A brave consequence forsooth; as if I should say, Christ was not come in the Flesh in the Primitive World: Ergo, neither as yet is he come. Or, in the Primitive World there were no Scriptures written: Ergo, neither afterwards. I was not born in the Primitive World, am not I born as yet then? I can hardly believe so: for, Nonentities 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 conceit 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 complete 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 Synagove 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 not 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 furnished 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 men's 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 mere impertinence: For, An sit, is before Quid sit. Let him prove then, (and he shall be great Apollo) that every man hath such an immediate Dictate within him, and then he comes time enough to prove that it, and not the Scriptures, is his greater and more principal Rule.  
Secondly, let the Testimony of the Light within be 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 employed Angels, and not men to Teach us, and Christ had continued to this day, and the world's end in his Ministry 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 cheerful 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.) endeavouring 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 enlighten us with a Divine Beam of Light in our understandings. Effectively opening our Eyes (yea he always works with his Word, made by himself effectual, as the immediate principal efficient of its gracious effects in us) that we may understand what is written in the Scriptures, and know assuredly that it is he that speaks to us therein; and so speaks to us much more Intelligibly, than to unreasonable Creatures, whom he never dealt so with.  
But that it is absurd if he do it, not by an Objective immediate inward Dictate, I utterly deny, let him prove it, if he can. But does not George Keith think it absurd to say, that a man is Taught by an unerring immediate Dictate within, who cannot, upon his Life, tell how many Gods there are, or who is the Redeemer? And so much for the Rule of Faith and Manners shall suffice.    

Fifth QUERY.  
Whether is there any Scripture or Command in all the New Testament for the Sprinkling of Infants? Let us see Scripture, without Adding or Diminishing for it, that ye do not bring the Plagues upon you for it; for the Plagues are Added to them that Add: for we do expect plain Scripture from you for this, without any Shuffling Meanings, or Consequences; or else never pretend Scripture Rule more, but acknowledge that it hath been your Meanings, and Consequences that hath been your Rule.  

SURVEY.  
This Query very well Homologates with their Confession of Faith often forementioned (pag. 25, 77, 79, 96, 126.) where they deny, not only Infant-Baptism, but moreover all Baptism with Water to be any Divine Ordinance belonging to the New Testament. But they here impose upon us two Conditions or Laws of our Disputation (being the absurd fruit of their foolish Dictate within) which, before we handle the main Subject of the Query (which is Baptism) it will not be amiss to Discuss. These two Conditions are,  
That we neither interpret Scripture, nor draw Consequences therefrom for Establishing of our Doctrine, or Thesis, or else that we never pretend Scripture Rule more. This Certification is so Important and Peremptory, that it will not be unworthy of the while to inquire into their Demands whereunto it is annexed.  
Therefore we must divide our Survey of this Query into four parts. The first shall be concerning Scripture-Interpretation; The second concerning Scripture-consequence, or Consequential Scripture; The third concerning Baptism with Water; and the fourth concerning Infant-Baptism.   

SECT. I. Concerning Scripture-Interpretation.  
While the Quakers here oppose Scripture-Interpretation they are indeed very like themselves, and Speak in their own Language: for what external Ordinance can a Quaker (taking his Dictate within for his Rule) like to hear of? Therefore when they cannot get the Scriptures overthrown from being our Rule, their next endeavour is, that, at least, they may render useless and unedifying to the Bulk and Body of the people, as much 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 therefrom.  
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 allege, shall either be undeniably (even to a Quaker) clear of itself; 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 man's fore-conceived private Judgement and Opinion (that is, 〈…〉 2 P●●. 1.20.) But they are to be Expounded according to the Analogy of Faith in general, and by Comparison with other Scriptures that Speak more clearly to the matter, or by the Scope, Connexion, and Dependence of the purpose in the place itself, compared with its Antecedents and Consequents. Thus the Apostle Paul says, Let us Prophesy 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 easy, 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 God's Holy and Wise ends (for a view whereof see Mr. durham's 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 furnished 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 joined 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, etc. And yet these same obscure places, if they be skilfully Interpreted 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, dependence, and circumstances of the place itself, will, without difficulty be understood, and the sense delivered from the foresaid grounds, understood to be the true meaning of the Text, by Men of very ordinary Judgement; 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 Employs) 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 People's 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 Church's 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 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 preceding: 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 shows, 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 mere needless and idle work; and the need thereof is yet further evident, seeing it is plainly showed, (Neh. 8.8.) that Exposition is a mean for people's understanding the Scriptures. Nor did Christ's 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 Paul's Epistles (which are Scripture) hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrist, 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 People's falling into Soul-destroying Errors thereby: though all this happens through men's ignorance and wavering humour, (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  Objects represented thereby, seeing the things hard to be understood here mentioned, are such as are liable to wresting, which therefore must be understood of the Doctrine itself, seeing that may be wrested, but the  Objects cannot: for wresting is a changing of the Sense, which belongs to Discourse and Say. 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 Sense runs very ill, (I think) viz. the unlearned wrest some of the External Objects of Paul's Doctrine, as also they do the other Scriptures.  
Fourthly, I must inquire 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, etc. 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, etc. do frequently by false Glosses and wrested Senses, (and none busier than Quakers) by violence endeavouring to make them speak the language of their Interest, abuse and cast a mist upon very clear Scriptures, in order to People's understanding, especially of meaner capacities: Therefore it is in this case necessary by the Context, the Analogy of Faith, and comparison with other Scriptures, etc. That these Scriptures be vindicated from such false Glosses, and their Genuine and true Sense demonstated and cleared. The Antecedent needs no more proving; for (alas!) it is too manifest in experience, that every Erroneous Teacher violently wrists and perverts the Sense of the Scriptures, as much as he can, in favour of his Heretical Doctrine, and thereby leads 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 ruin 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 sense 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 complete 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 God's 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 God's 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, show, 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 Scriptures, by knowing the true meaning thereof, which is ● flat contradiction: But to Interpret the Scriptures truly, is to bring forth, show, 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 , as an Innovating an● upsetting of a public Office and Ordinance in God's House of their own mere Invention, and wanting a Divine Institution 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 particular 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 showed. Thirdly, these were but ordinary Officers, and there is no footstep of their acting extraordinarily in any thing can be be showed. Lastly, I have showed 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 merely 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 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 Paul's 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 World's end, Then though all the black Heretics that ever were in the World should at once arise from the dead, (and alas! there are too many of them still alive in their Successors) and should, in favour of their accursed Delusions, most grossly abuse and wrest the holy Scriptures, (as all Heretics 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 virtue 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, etc. to refute these false wrested meanings, vindicate the Texts abused, and clear and demonstrate their Genuine and true meaning: But that is most false, absurd, and impious. For then the most eminently gifted and able Ministers of Christ, whose special Office is to labour in the Word and Doctrine, and are bound to their utmost (or else to nothing at all) to preserve and promote the purity of the meaning of the Scriptures among the people, and to convince and stop the mouths of the Gainsayers thereof, (Tit. 1.9, 11.) might lawfully, without the breach of any standing Divine Appointment or Law, stand and look on, and see the Scriptures abused, perverted, and depraved in their meaning, and instead of their true meaning, horrible falsehoods, 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 overflowing of the Christian World with Soul-damning Errors, and the manifest ruining of poor Souls) without endeavouring to prevent, remedy, or hinder the same, by the exercise of a talon 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 God's truth, according to their abilities and occasions.  
The Quakers being beaten from their former standing, and being loath to allow us the benefit of Scripture-Interpretation, as thereby foreseeing the danger of their Heretical Interest, do betake themselves to another shift, and allege 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 reached by them are Authentical and Faith-worthy, must of necessity be Infallible, or immediately Inspired. The Quakers must seek after such Explications as these, in the Canonical Writings of the Prophets and Apostles. For it is not so with the ordinary Ministers of the Church, whose Explications are not formally as such, and as taught by them Authentical and Faith-worthy, nor is it lawful for any Man so to receive them; but allanerly upon the account 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 Supreme and Magisterial Authority from which there is no appeal, but it ought to be simply stood to, resideth in the Scriptures themselves, or in the Spirit their Author speaking therein, seeing their Verdict and Sentence in places speaking to the purpose more clearly, and such means as reside in them, are the alone Rule and Directory of our Interpretations thereof in places more dark and obscure, as appears from many things aforesaid. The Authority therefore which our Ministers have for Interpreting Scripture, is only a Ministerial Authority for Interpreting the Scriptures by their own Verdict and Sentence, as the Rule and Judge of their Interpretations, whereunto they are Subjected, and by whose determination they stand or fall, as true Interpretations, or forged wrest; seeing the Scriptures are the Rule of Faith by which we are to try and judge men's 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 showed) nor was it any Privilege 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 easy, seeing whatever measure of Scripture-meaning such a Man discerneth beyond others, he may (I hope) seasonably make it known to them for their Instruction and Edification, May he not? Nay, I do not see so well how he may not.  
Thirdly, if all that Interpret the Scriptures must necessarily upon that account be Infallible, than no man now adays may presume to Interpret them, seeing there is no man now adays Infallible, as is before often showed: 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 Church's 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 accounted a mere 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 man's Infallibility 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 man's 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 men's 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 allege) 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 divers, 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, than 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 itself 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 showed before that Scripture-Expounding is necessary in the Church, and of Divine Institution to the World's 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 Brainsick 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 Dictator's, 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 Cowardice, 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'll 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 suitable 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 chief consists in a Discursive or Illative Faculty fitted for discerning of Consequences, of purpose, that being furnished with the principles of Nature, or Grace, we might be capable to perceive the particular Conclusions which they implicitly, really and truly contain.  
I shall not need to be long in Discussing this Question concerning Scripture-Consequence, nor shall I need many words for clearing the state of the Question; but, in one word, it is, Whether or not that which by good Consequence is deduced and drawn from the Scriptures, be Scripture-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 show and Teach the Resurrection of the Dead.  
Now it does not expressly and formally Teach that, it says not expressly 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) behoved 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 shows and Teaches, and so it is Scripture-Doctrine; and so it is, uncontrollably, Scripture-Rule.  
Thirdly, if that which by good Consequence is inferred from the Scriptures be not Scripture-Rule, than there was no Scripture-Rule in all the Old Testament Ordaining David, or Solomon, etc. to be Circumcised; and so the Circumcising of them behoved to be a mere Will-worship wanting Scripture-Warrant, contrary to Joh. 7.22, 23. My Proposition which I propounded I easily prove, for in no where of all the Old Testament it is in Formal and Express Terms said [David shall be, or aught 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 aught 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, than 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 Scripture-principles, and is no otherwise to be found therein, is Scripture-Rule, which is that we plead for; or else they must deny that there is any Scripture-Rule in all the Old Testament, Testifying and Witnessing that Jesus the Son of Mary is the Saviour of the world; for there cannot be Scripture-Rule Witnessing and showing 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, than we are not where in all the Scriptures forbidden to worship a Dog, or Cat, etc. which is a most absurd falsehood, 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 expressly 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 show how unlawful they think Scripture-Consequences to be. But I have abundantly showed, that that which by good consequence is inferred from Scripture-Principles, is no addition to the Scripture-Rule, but is itself very Scripture-Rule; and how should it be an adding to Scripture-Rule to draw forth more expressly and distinctly, by consequence, the same Doctrine which it really and truly teaches, though more Implicitly? Is it an adding to the Scripture to show more expressly 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, than 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 account that he is endued with Reason, should be one whit more capable, so much as Grammatically and Historically to understand any one saying of the Gospel, than his Sheep and Oxen, which is beyond all measure absurd: for then Brutes should be no less capable of the Gospel Doctrine than Men, and Men no more than Brutes.  
Lastly, It is objected, That the Learned only are able to perceive Consequences.  
Answ. That is most false, seeing not only the Learned, but also the unlearned have a rational discursive faculty, and some measure of the use thereof, (except they be Distracted, or in mere Infancy;) and so, being furnished 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, Logic, 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, Logic, 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 Sense, nor how to Define, Divide, Judge, or Argument; he must abandon the Light of Nature, and throw by the Word of God, at most being but a Secondary-Rule, and a Subservant to their Queen Regent, the Light within. That the Quakers may not think I wrong them, this Description is their Principles, clearly explained by me in the foregoing Queries. And will not such a Man be a rare Minister? a worthy Messenger? an Interpreter among a Thousand? he is very like to have more feet than hands, methinks.   

SECT. III. Concerning Baptism with Water.  
Being now arrived at the main Subject of the present Query, which is Baptism, before I handle the Question concerning Infant-Baptism; I must here inquire, whether Baptism with Water be an Ordinance of Divine Institution under the New Testament, and to continue to the end of the World; for albeit the the Quakers have here omitted it, yet it is the main and most proper debate concerning Baptism betwixt us and them, wherein the Quakers take the Negative, yea, and George Keith charges Baptism with Water upon us, as a Popish Doctrine, forsooth, in his Quakerism no Popery, page 100  
Wherever Baptism is mentioned in the New-Testament, and the word Water is not expressly added, the Quakers do always deny Baptism with Water to be there meant, sometimes alleging it to be meant of the Baptism of Doctrine; (which is, when the Word is Preached to People) sometimes of the work of Regeneration, and sometimes of enduing with the extraordinary Gifts of the Spirit; all which are in the Scriptures Metaphorically and Improperly sometimes called Baptism, Matth. 21.25. Joh. 1.33. Act. 1.5. And this they do, that (if success would answer) they may not be forced to acknowledge Baptism with Water to be an Ordinance of Divine Institution under the New Testament. We shall therefore, as we proceed, clear every Text that we make use of (where need is) from the false Glosses of the Adversaries. This premised,  
I Assert, (against the Quakers) that Baptism with Water is an Ordinance of Divine Institution under the New Testament, and an Ordinance which (it shall be evident) is appointed to continue to the end of the World. I prove it;  
First, The Baptism of John was an Ordinance of Divine Appointment belonging to the New Testament: but that was with Water, Matth. 3.11. Mark 1.8. Therefore Baptism with Water is an Ordinance of Divine Institution belonging to the New Testament. The Scriptures cited prove the Minor; I prove the Major: For that the Baptism of John was of Divine Appointment, is clear from Matth. 21.25. Luk. 7.30. Joh. 1.33. And that it belonged to the New Testament appears, seeing John was the very first Minister of the New Testament way of Dispensation, (for which, see Matth. 11.12, 13. Luk. 16.16.) Together with the breaking forth whereof (and never till then) God appointed this Ordinance of Baptism with Water to be dispensed by John. Secondly, The Baptism with Water dispensed by the Disciples or Apostles of Christ, was an Ordinance of Divine Appointment under the New Testament, as we shall presently see: But the Baptism of John was substantially one and the same therewith: for their Author, or Efficient cause was the same, (by comparing Luk. 7.30. Joh. 1.33. with Matth. 28.19. Joh. 4.1, 2. Act. 10.48.) Their External Matter, or outward Element was the same, (by comparing Matth. 3.11. with Act. 10.47.) Their Internal Matter, or the thing signified, and their ends (and so also their Internal form, which results from their Institution and Ends) were the same, (by comparing Mark 1.4. Luk. 3.3. with Act. 2.38. and 22.16.) So then they being one and the same as to all their causes, are, undeniably, the same Baptism Substantially; and I defy any Man to show 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 Christ's Baptism, seeing John Baptised only with Water, but Christ Baptised 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 Christ's Apostles at his Order, seeing theirs so dispensed was no less with Water than his, and they could no more Baptise with the Holy Ghost and with Fire, than he. Therefore John does not there (viz. Luke 3.16.) distinguish his Baptism from Christ's External Baptism Administered 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 Baptised with John's Baptism, were again Baptised with Christ's by Paul, Act. 19.3, 4, 5. Ergo, John's Baptism did substantially differ from Christ's; or else, these would not have needed to be Baptised over again with Christ's.  
Ans. The Antecedent is most false: for that would depress the dignity of the Baptism wherewith Christ was Baptised, (being that of John) far below the dignity of that wherewith Simon Magus was Baptised; and would infer, that Christ entertained a more absolute and complete 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 Privilege 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 sense of that Fifth Verse, (which is wrested for a ground to this Objection) is not, that these Men were Baptised over again by Paul; but the sense is, that after they had heard that Doctrine from John, the sum whereof Paul repeats in the preceding Verse there, they were Baptised by the same John when he Preached it to them, and not by Paul now when he Repeats it.  
Secondly, The Apostles after Christ's Ascension, and the pouring forth of the Spirit, did with great diligence and studious care Baptise 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 Christ's Ascension, and the pouring 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 expressly mentioned, that I need not prove it to be Baptism with Water that is meant, and where they were most speedy in dispensing it at the first appearance of the party's Discipleship.  
A second Text is, Act. 2.41. where the Disciples were Baptised 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 itself before partaking of itself, that is, itself without itself, which is a strong contradiction. Again, It presupposes 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 itself pre-supposed to itself, and a contradiction still.  
And lastly, the Baptism here mentioned, is in the Text (ver. 38.) plainly distinguished from the miraculous Gifts of the Spirit. And moreover is enjoined 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, Baptise, razed out of the Text.  
A third Text is, Act. 8.12, 13. where these Disciples were quickly Baptised 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 merely 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 last, can it be meant of their enduing with the miraculous gifts of the Spirit, seeing it is there expressly denied, that any of these Baptised 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 Baptised; and this Text can neither be meant of the Baptism of Doctrine, nor the work of Conversion or Regeneration, seeing the Baptism therein mentioned presupposes 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 Baptised in the name of Paul? and affirms, that Christ sent him not to Baptise, (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 Baptised 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 Baptised, 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 Baptised 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, Baptise, 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 itself 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 expressly 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 Enjoins 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 Enjoining them to be Baptised 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, Canceled 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 Church's 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 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 forbidden water, that these should not be Baptised, 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 forbidden, etc. So then, according to the Apostle, a probable Evidence of the Spirit of Grace received doth immediately infer a Right, in the Church's 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 denied: 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 [Baptise] 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 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 shows) without which some way appearing by external Signs they have not a visible Interest, and cannot be accounted 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 beforehand 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 man's partaking of itself; otherwise it should pre-require itself (without which there can be no such Faith) before partaking of itself, that is, itself without itself, 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 [Baptise] out of the Text.  
Secondly, I prove the Antecedent of this Argument, from the first Epistle of Peter, 3.21. where the Apostle shows Baptism 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 Noah's 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 Noah's 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 subjoins, in place of a Caution, showing how Baptism now Saves us, viz. that its not by putting away the filth of the Flesh, or by the mere 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 Sense 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 world's end, which is the duration of the Commission) to Baptise 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, uncontrollably, 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 Entreat thee believe me not henceforth.  
Therefore first, the Baptism here mentioned in this Text of Matthew pre-requires Discipleship in the party to be Baptised (for the Words in the Original Language are, Go make Disciples all Nations, Baptising them, etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉). But the Baptism 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 endeavour the Conversion of an Heathen, or Pagan, or of any man who is not beforehand 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 selfsame 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 easy 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, Baptising, etc.] or it requires that they first be made Disciples before they be Baptised, or none to be Baptised but Disciples, as is most clear. 2dly. It requires them to Baptise 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 words [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 their Discipleship to Baptise them, [Go make them Disciples, Baptising] 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 expressed 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, prerequired 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 alleged 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, Baptise, signifies in the Original Language, being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) cannot be proper to any of these, and to that any of them agreeth in a proper sense, 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 shining Scriptures concerning things essential to Salvation;) or else of the particular scope and circumstances of the Context itself, constrain us so to do; otherwise we may, without any necessity constraining us, at our alone will and mere 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 sense and meaning of every Text, and make them every where at our mere 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  improperly so called Baptisms; Or else, we charge the Quakers to show and make good that necessity, (if they can) which we defy 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 subjoined of Christ's presence with his Ministers there Commissionated always even unto the end of the World, for their encouragement in the Execution of that their Commission, doth most plainly show their Commission to be of that continuance. Secondly, I have showed, that Baptism with Water was once in the New Testament Church necessary unto Salvation, (as was explained) and due in the Church's Court, to all who probably had received the Spirit of Grace. Let the Quakers show 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 preceding 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 the Institution repealed again. Let them show us then, where the repealing thereof is Recorded, or to be found in the Scriptures, which are the Supreme 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 show 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 preceding Doctrine; and we need not doubt, but their Infallible heads are furnished 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 allege that Baptising in that Text is the same with Disciple-making, which is not meant of Baptising with Water; and so neither is that.  
Ans, First, They ought to show us some necessary ground for this Metaphorical Commentary upon the word, Baptise, which we have not seen as yet. Secondly, Unto this conceit we shall oppose our second and last Arguments, whereby it is proved, that Baptism with Water is meant in the Text, in despite 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, etc. the word, Baptise, is subjoined in the Present Tense of the Participle, Baptising: 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 threefold 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 controversy of the time, If Jesus was the true Messiah; 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 Baptise in the Name of the Lord, which sort of Baptising 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 its 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 falsehood 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 Baptise with Water, seeing Paul says, (1 Cor. 1.17.) that Christ sent him not to Baptise, but to Preach the Gospel.  
Ans. But in despite 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 Baptise 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 Baptising with Water, seeing Paul plainly there declares, that he Baptised 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 expressly mentioned.  
Ans. First, A Man might upon this ground much rather argue against Christ's demonstration, (Luk. 20.37.) that the rising of the dead is not expressly 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 expressly mentioned under every distinguishing Character thereof, (Galat. 5.2, 3.) where the flesh of the Foreskin is omitted; and that therefore it cannot be that which is there meant, but our Spiritual Circumcision in Christ, that is, our Regeneration, must be the thing which Paul there disputes against and condemns: and is not that well argued? Secondly, As Baptism with Water is not here expressly named, in respect of every punctilio of its designation; So far less is any of the forementioned improper Baptisms here expressly 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 Baptising, is set down here for an impertinent Cipher signifying nothing. Thirdly, I have showed before, that there is much Doctrine meant in the Scriptures, which is not therein expressly 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 expressed; 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 divers 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 Church's 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 mere Brainsick fancies to the Word of God and Dictates of the Holy Ghost? Secondly, Let Baptism with Water be a Figure manifesting Christ to Jews and Gentiles too, (that is to say, a sacred Symbol of Christ's 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 World's end.) But he hath only canceled 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 than 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 World's 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 itself, (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 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 Baptised, or not? Whereunto I answer affirmatively, that they ought be Baptised. 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 mere 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 Baptised 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 Christ's 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 shown before. Secondly, because by Baptism we are said to put on Christ. Galat. 3.7.  
Thirdly, the Lord's 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 Apostle Teaches (Celos. 2.11, 12.) that our Burial with Christ in Baptism is our Circumcision in Christ, which shows that Baptism is succeeded to us in the Room of Circumcision.  
But the Antipedobaptists 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 preceding 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 shows it to be come in the Room and place thereof.  
As for that, that Baptism is not Tied 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 Tied 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 Baptised, 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 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 account 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 Church's 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 Church's 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. God's Sanctifying some of the Children of believers from the Womb (Jerem. 1.5. Luk. 1.15.) makes it probable. Paul's 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, than it could not be probable that any of them Dying in Nonage 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) Christ's 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 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 Christ's 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 Sense. Secondly, hereby they show that, in their opinion, there are no Infants that have Interest into the Kingdom of Heaven; otherwise they should have granted Christ's words in respect of Infants properly so called; and then farewell 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 Sense.  
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 signify walking on one's own Feet? A man is said to Come from America, albeit he should lie all the while in a Ships Cabin. The Text shows 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 Christ's 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 showed before, how as to the Kind (quoad Speciem) it may be Infallibly discerned, and probably as to Individuals. Now probable Evidences are sufficient for the Baptism of particular persons, Old, or Young; or else none at all should be admitted to Baptism, seeing heart-searching is God's Prerogative (Jer. 17.9, 10.) nor did the Apostles themselves Infallibly discern people's 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 Baptised under the New Testament, as is evident from Mat. 28.19. Where Christ commands to make all Nations his Disciples, Baptising them, etc. From which Text it is as clear as Noontyde, that whoever is once visibly, or appearingly become Christ's Disciple (for the Church cannot go beyond probabilities here) ought to be Baptised, and that forthwith, assoon as it can be conveniently done, as the Expression imports, Go make them Disciples, Baptising, as if they should be Baptised 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 Baptised under the New Testament. The Major needs no more proving. I prove the Minor; for all the visible Members of Christ's 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 Christ's School, seeing Christ's 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) Christ's coming in the Flesh, when the Grace of God was enlarged, hath not deprived them of so merciful a Privilege; 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, Baptising them, etc. From whence they Infer that all that are to be Baptised aught first to be Taught, whereof Children are not capable; and therefore ought not to be Baptised. 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 is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which doth not signify to Teach, but to Make Disciples, which all know that know the Language; and it is plainly distinguished 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 favouring their Error, that it clearly overthrows it, as we have now showed.  
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 Baptised shall be Saved, Mark. 16.16. Therefore Christ pre-requires Faith unto Baptism: but Children cannot believe, therefore they ought not to be Baptised. 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 prerequired 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 forefault 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 prerequired of the Children of believing Parents, who have an Interest (not forefaulted by any refusal) upon the account of their descent from Christian Parents Professing the Faith, whose Children are with themselves taken in within the Covenant (as is before shown) 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 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 God's 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'll warrant) the Churches shall be Scant enough. But how can Baptism which Seals to us the Remission of our Sins require us to be beforehand 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 denied, and they could never have proved with all John of Leidens' Logic. 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 Sense of Perfection opposite to this kind of Imperfection; and so Perfection in this Sense cannot be prerequired to Baptism, seeing it will not be required to Heaven itself. 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 forenamed Excellent piece of Learned and Worthy Mr. Baxter against Tombs, which through God's Blessing has been a great means of putting a stop to that wild Error amongst us.    

Sixth QUERY.  
Whether doth the Scriptures say in the New Testament, that, Eating of Bread, and Drinking of Wine, after Supper, was an Ordinance of Christ? and whether do ye Practise this as Christ and his Apostles did after Supper? Do not ye take it before Dinner? Did Christ and his Apostles do so? What Scripture have ye for your Rule for this? for he took it in the night. And Christ says, as oft as ye Eat of this Bread, and Drink of this Wine, etc. Is that a standing Command? or is it left to people? Seeing its said, as oft as ye Eat this and Drink this, do it in Remembrance of his Death, and showing his Death till he come again. Was this coming to the end of the world? or was it until his coming to Devil in his Apostles, who said he would come and Dwell and walk in them? need they then Bread and Wine to put them in Remembrance of him? and doth not Christ say, Eat this, and Drink this in Remembrance of his Death? and doth not the Apostle say, that they must Die with Christ? and to Die with him is to come to the Death with him. And they that be in the Death of Christ, and Die with Christ, must they have Bread and Wine to put them in Remembrance of his Death? Yea, or Nay? and doth not the Apostle say, that they must Die with Christ, and be Buried with him? and when the people are Dead and Buried with Christ, must they have Bread and Wine to put them in Remembrance of Christ's Death? Answer this, Yea; or Nay. And the Apostle says, they must Rise with Christ Jesus. And if they be Risen with him, then seek these things that are above. And is not Bread and Wine from below? and if the Apostle puts them to seek these things that are above, than he brought them off these things that are below; for he says to the Corinthians, The things that are seen are Temporal, but the things that are not seen are Eternal. This he Spoke when they were Jangling and in a Disorder about outward things. Doth he not bring them off things that are Seen to things that are not seen? and whether or not ye ever intent, ye yourselves called Ministers, or your Hearers shall come any nearer to Christ's Death, and Die, and be Buried with him, but only to take Bread and Wine in Remembrance of Christ's Death, lest ye and they should come to forget Christ's Death? Answer us plainly these things, Yea; or Nay.  

SURVEY.  
Their Doctrine here doth very well agree with George Keiths Quakerism no Popery, (page 100) where he flatly denies the Supper of the Lord to be any standing Ordinance of Christ, and will have it (forsooth) a Popish Principle and Practice: as also with their Heretical Confession of Faith, wherein they deny all manner of External Ordinances, pages 24, 25, 26, 27, 77, 78, 79, 92, 93, 102, 103, 104, 105, 122, 130, 133, 135.  
Before we come to a particular Disquisition upon this Query, we must expunge that restrictive Clause [After Supper] out of the principal Question which is first in order, as not being any part of the Sacrament Instituted having any mystical meaning, neither being any where of Scripture commanded, but being only an External Circumstance of that first Supper of our Lord merely occasional, because of the Passover taken before it, which according to its Institution (Exod. 12.) was to be Celebrated at Even: In the room whereof, because Christ was to Institute the Gospel-Supper, it behoved to be taken after it, and not before it, being thereby to abolish and Antiquat the Passover. And if we were tied to every circumstance of that first Gospel-Supper, than we behoved always to take it in an Upper Room, and with Twelve only in Company, yea, and after a Paschal Lamb too; And albeit a Quaker should answer, that this last named Circumstance would be against Sciripture abrogating the Jewish Ceremonies; yet, it is hard to reply that all matters of Faith, and parts of Religious Worship, must be, not only not against Scripture, but according thereunto, and having Divine Appointment therein, (see Isai. 8.20. Jer. 7.31, 32. and 19.5, 6. Matth. 15.9. Mark 7.7. Colos. 2.20, 21, 22.) When therefore the Quakers shall be able to prove, that that Circumstance of time when the first Gospel-Supper was Celebrated is any Constituent part of the Sacrament with mystical signification Instituted by Christ Jesus, or, that it is any where of Scripture Commanded, then, and not till then, we shall acknowledge that we are in the wrong in taking it before Dinner; and this they are obliged to do, if they hold the Affirmative, (as here they pretend to do) seeing all parts of Religious Worship must have positive Scripture-Warrant, which if they want, they will be plain contrary to Scripture general Precepts, forbidding all Will-Worship after the commandments of Men.  
Having thrust out that limitating Clause [After Supper] from the state of the Question, we find the state thereof to be yet Vicious: for it may either be understood of common eating of Bread and drinking of Wine; and so it is no Gospel Ordinance, seeing Drunkards and Heathens can do that unto excess in a Tavern. But Secondly, It may be understood (though with much ado, as it is proposed) of Sacramental eating and drinking of Bread and Wine Consecrated, Sanctified, and set apart for a sacred Symbol of Christ's Death, for signifying and sealing all the benefits thereof to the worthy Receivers, their Spiritual nourishment in Christ, and Communion with him and with each other.  
In this sense, I confidently assert the eating of Bread and drinking of Wine (as the Quakers mockingly term it) to be an excellent Gospel-Ordinance Instituted by Christ Jesus, to be observed in his Church to the World's end. This conclusion is so clear from Matth. 26. Chap. and Luk. 22. that nothing can be more clear. For first, We have in both places Christ's Fact and Deed set down, that he took Bread and Wine and blessed them, that he broke the Bread, and put the Wine into the Cup, and that he distributed it to the Disciples, and did eat and drink thereof with them. Secondly, We have Christ's express Commandment, (albeit the blind Quakers cannot see it) enjoining the whole action to be, in like manner, done by his Church and People afterwards, This do, etc. Luk. 22.19. Thirdly, We have his Word of Promise Sacramentally enunciating the thing signified, or Internal matter of the External Signs and Symbols by a Metonimy, attributing the name of the thing signified to the Sign, expressing the Sacramental Union and Relation of the one to the other, wherein consists the Internal form of the Sacrament; This is my Body given for you; This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood shed for you, Luk. 22.19, 20. Lastly, We have the Explication of the end of this Sacred Ordinance, which is, that it should be for a memorial of Christ Death, This do in Remembrance of Me, Luk. 22.19. Now what blindness is happened to the Quakers, that they cannot here read Christ's Institution of the Gospel-Supper, consisting of his own Fact, and a Commandment to his Church to do the like thereafter, with a rich Promise annexed, and the End of the work declared? Can any thing be devised more clear than this? Or, Can the Quakers number their own Fingers? What shall we think of them, when they can neither Read, nor hear when it is Read by others this clear Institution of the Eucharist, but that they are possessed with a blind and deaf Spirit that deprives them both of sight and hearing?  
Secondly, For a further assurance (if need were) that the Eucharist is a Gospel Ordinance of Divine Institution, we have the Practice of the Apostles, and the whole Church after the pouring forth of the Spirit, Act. 20.7. 1 Cor. 10.16. in which places there is, not only the Example of the Churches Practise set down; but also further, we have their accustomed use thereof clearly imported, as any Man, by reading and considering the places, may see.  
Thirdly, The Apostle in the first Epistle to the Corinthians, eleventh Chapter, while he is correcting several abuses that were crept in into the Worship there, amongst the rest, calls them to the first Institution of the Lords Supper; where in the 23. Verse he affirms, that it was an Ordinance he had received of the Lord, and delivered unto them; and in the 26. Verse he shows the duration of it to be until Christ's coming again. Now what an extreme distraction shall it be to say, That Christ delivered an Ordinance unto Paul to be by him delivered unto the Church, and to be by Her observed till Christ's coming again at the day of general Judgement, and that for showing forth his Death until then, which notwithstanding is not a Gospel-Ordinance Instituted by Christ? it's a horrid contradiction to say so. Is this the Spirit of Revelation (I should say of occaecation and fascination) that the Quakers boast of? Oh miserable Guide and grand Cheat, who, instead of a plain Path, (as he pretends) doth thus conduct them continually into the dark mists of Cimmerian Clouds, or rather into the Chimerical Deserts of Utopia, where all their Principles seems to concentre in the common place of Contradiction!  
But, say the Quakers here, Is that a standing Command? or is left to People? seeing it's said, As oft as ye eat this Bread and drink this Cup, do it in Remembrance of his Death, and for showing forth his Death till he come again. Was this Coming to the end of the World? Or was it till his coming to dwell in his Apostles, etc. See their Heretical Confession of Faith, where they harp the same string, page 26, 27, 77, 78, 79, 80.  
Ans. O miseri, Quae tanta Insania, cives? Quis furor? here is a whole heap of Romantic Fictious and Fantastic Dreams. For first here they allege, that Christ did not dwell in his Apostles, when the first Gospel-Supper was Celebrated, (and the same they also largely insinuate in their Confession, pages 72, 74, 75.) and so they behoove to be all at that time unregenerated Men merely in Nature, seeing Christ by his Spirit dwells in all Regenerated Persons and Believers, as these Scriptures witness, Rom. 8.9, 10. 2 Cor. 13.5. Galat. 4.6. 1 Joh. 3.24. But it is most false, that Christ did not dwell in his Apostles when the first Gospel-Supper was Celebrated, and that they were then unregenerated Men, seeing Christ plainly declares, that they were clean, though not all, (Joh. 13.10) by this meaning of Judas the Traitor. And again he affirms, that they were clean through the Word that he had spoken unto them; (Joh. 15.3.) and again he says, that they had received the Word of God, and kept it, and knew surely that he came out from God, and that the Father had sent him, (Joh. 17.6, 7, 8.) and these are things which Flesh and Blood never revealed unto them, and the natural Man cannot discern, Matth. 16.17. 1 Cor. 2.14. It is indeed true, God had not at that time when the first Gospel-Supper was Celebrated, furnished the Apostles with the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, to accomplish them for their extraordinary work that ensued, but that was done at the Pentecost; but, that Christ did not Spiritually dwell in them before the Pentecost, the Scriptures cited declares to be false: And as for that which Christ says to Peter, (Luk. 22.32.) When thou art Converted, strengthen thy Brethren, it is not meant of the Conversion of his state, as if he had been at that time unregenerated; but it is meant of his Conversion from a particular Fact, or his Rising after a Fall, as (beside what is already said) is clear in the Text itself: for Christ there tells him, that he had prayed for him that his Faith might not fail, which intimates that he then had Faith, and that it should not be totally extinguished by the temptation he was to meet with, seeing Christ's prayers were always heard, Joh. 11.42.  
Secondly, They thereby insinuate, That the Gospel-Supper should be allowed to none, but unregenerated Persons in whom Christ dwells not, who will surely take it unworthily, and eat and drink their own Damnation therein, (1 Cor. 11.29.) for they do not here deny, but acknowledge, that the Apostles were by Christ admitted to the Gospel-Supper before he came (as they would have it) to dwell in them; but they will not have them partaking of it after Christ is once come to dwell in them, alleging that to be its period and term day: but Christ dwells in all Regenerated Persons, as is proved: Therefore they allow the Gospel-Supper to none, but Unregenerated Persons, who cannot discern the Lord's Body, nor show forth his Death, which is not a bare Historical Remembrance of a thing past, but consists in our Spiritual feeding by Faith upon Christ Crucified, and the application by Faith of him, and all the benefits of his Redemption to ourselves, in our thankfulness to him for so great benefits, and in our love towards him, and each other; which things Unregenerated Men merely Carnal cannot do, Rom. 8.7, 8. 1 Cor. 2.11, 14. So then the Quakers in this point do directly contradict the Holy Ghost who requires, (1 Cor. 11.25, 26, 29.) that none come to the Gospel-Supper that cannot discern the Lord's Body, and show forth his Death.  
Thirdly, They thereby allege, That there is not a standing Command left to the Church for Celebrating the Lords Supper, which I have showed to be most false from Luk. 22.19. and 1 Cor. 11.23, 24. in both which places we have a clear Command set down, Do this in Remembrance of Me; which Command, seeing it was never to this day repealed, (or else, let the Quakers show where that is Recorded) must be as yet standing still in force; otherwise they may as well say, that all the Commands are repealed together, without any ground, as that this is repealed and not standing, when they can show us no ground for it from the whole Word of God.  
Fourthly, They thereby allege, that the coming again of Christ mentioned, 1 Cor. 11.26. and which is not where else in all the Scriptures mentioned upon this purpose, is meant of Christ's coming to dwell in his Apostles, viz. at the pouring forth of the Spirit at the Pentecost, after which time they will not deny that Christ dwelled in them, (as their Confession of Faith owns, pages 72, 73, 74, 75.) albeit they plainly teach that he did not dwell in them before that time. But it's impossible that Christ's Coming again mentioned there, (1 Cor. 11.26.) should be meant of Christ's pouring forth of the Spirit, or coming at the Pentecost; seeing Christ's coming at the Pentecost was already passed long before the writing of that Epistle to the Corinth's, whereas his coming there mentioned is held forth as a thing merely future, and not past; now it's a flat contradiction to say, a thing merely future, and not past, is already past; and so his coming again mentioned in the Text of the Corinth's, cannot be meant of his coming at the Pentecost. Again, The Eucharist was Celebrated by the Apostles, and the Church after the Pentecost, (when Christ either dwelled in the Apostles, or else never) Act. 2.42. and 20.7. 1 Cor. 10.16. and 11.28. Therefore the period of the Gospel Eucharist could not be at the pouring out of the Spirit at the Pentecost. What? Did not Christ dwell in these Corinthians whom Paul writes to? seeing they were sanctified in Christ Jesus, and justified in the Name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God, and they were Temples to the Holy Ghost that dwelled in them, (1 Cor. 1.2. and 6.11, 19) and yet they did Celebrate the Gospel-Supper among them, and that, by Divine Appointment, (1 Cor. 10.16. and 11.21, 23, 24, 28.) and so the Gospel-Supper was appointed to be Celebrated by People in whom Christ doth already and previously dwell, yea none else but such are allowed to partake of it, as is showed before.  
But need they then Bread and Wine (say the Quakers) to put them in Remembrance of him, after Christ is come to dwell in them?  
Ans. Now the Quakers begin to dispute and prove their Thesis against the Gospel-Supper, and their Argument is a fruit of their conceited perfection in this life, from whence they infer, that they need no Ordinances; albeit the Apostle affirms, (1 Cor. 8.2. and 13.9.12.) that our knowledge in this life is still short of that which it ought to be, and is but in part, and that all of it, is but dark and through a Glass; which shows that we have need of Means and Ordinances, as so many Perspicils or Glasses to help our weak and dim-sighted Eyes, without which we cannot take up the object. This conceited Perfection of theirs I shall discuss at the Fifteenth Query, when I come to it. But, wha●? Do these in whom Christ dwells need nothing to put them in Remembrance of him, (for the Argument carries as much against every such thing, as against the Gospel-Supper, as is manifest?) indeed this very well Homologates with their Confession, where they decry all manner of External Ordinances, calling them Unclean, Carnal, Dead, Babylonish, Heathenish Observations, and the Whore's Cup of Abominations in several places thereof, for which see it, pages 10, 24, 77, 79, 87, 92, 102, 104, 105, 108, 111, 122, 130, 133, 135. But, I am sure, it suits not with the Scriptures any where, that shows us many Ordinances and Means appointed of God to keep us in mind of him, and our duty unto him, and particularly of the Sacred Supper, as a Memorial of what Christ hath done and Suffered for us; and our memories that are especially weak in Spiritual things, have great need of Remembrancers, Joh. 14.26. Philip. 3.1. 2 Pet. 1.13. and 3.1, 2. The Divine Institution of the Gospel-Supper, and the Commandment given to the Church to Celebrate the same, is enough to warrant our practice of it, (methinks) and our Imperfection in this life proclaims our need of it, and other helps and means; yea, Adam in Innocency had a Tree of Life allowed him of God to eat of, as a Symbol and Pledge of Life as long as he stood in his obedience, much more need have we of a Pledge to strengthen our weak Faith.  
In the next place, to show us their good skill in Physical Philosophy, they give us a very learned, and no less true definition of Death. To Die with Christ (say they) is to come to the Death with him. But, is it so? Then never a Malefactor Died upon a Gibbet, but they Died always by the way while they were coming to it, seeing they were coming to their Death while they were by the way, and to Die, and come to the Death is all one by this definition. Hezekiah shown himself more expert in Physics, when he distinguished betwixt the Birth and coming to the Birth, (Isa. 37.3.) but he did not learn his Philosophy at the Quakers School, it seems. They would have defined Death much better with Aristotle, that it is the loss of heat and moisture, because the loss of these infers it; or if they will stand to my Judgement, Death is the separation of Soul and Body, because it is the very dissolution of their Union. But I shall pass this, only I behoove to notice the ignorance of their Inspirer in Naturals; as well as Spirituals.  
In the next place they do again vainly repeat, that their foolish Argument now refuted and answered, viz. That they that are in the death of Christ, and buried with him, need not Bread and Wine to put them in Remembrance of his Death, the contrary whereof is abundantly showed already, and we will not repeat; only I cannot but with astonishment wonder, that seeing Christ so peremptorily commands it, (whether it were needful for us, or not) This do in Remembrance of Me, they dare with their Brainsick fancies directly contradict Divine Commands. Oh! who (but the Quakers that have gotten a new Christ of their own to be saved by) would refuse any Token that Christ had appointed for a Memorial of his Death, who wrote his love to us, which many waters could not quench, in the Characters of his Blood in the day that he was wounded for us in the House of his friends?  
But (say the Quakers) the Apostle says, they must rise with Christ Jesus; and if they be risen with him, then seek these things that are above; and is not Bread and Wine from below?  
Ans. Here is another Argument against the Lords-Supper, and whereby they reproach and condemn all the Ordinances that ever God appointed from the beginning of the World, whereof any External Element was from below, as well as the Gospel-Supper. Secondly, I answer, That the seeking of things that are above does not exclude, but on the contrary, includes the use of the means which God hath appointed for attaining them; seeing then the Lords-Supper is one of the means appointed of God for our better attaining things above, the use thereof is not there (viz. Colos. 3.1.) disallowed, more than the use of Water is in Baptism, of which before. Thirdly, Let the Elements be from whence they will, yet I have showed that the Gospel-Supper Celebrated under these External Elements, as the Symbols is an Ordinance Instituted by Christ to be observed by the Gospel Church, till his coming to the last Judgement. And what then can the Quakers say to enervat Christ's Institution? Fourthly, There is nothing in the Gospel-Supper that is from below, excepting the mere External Elements materially and entitatively considered; for the Institution, the Internal Substance, the Mystical Signification, the Ends, and Effects thereof are all of them things Heavenly and from above; and so, though Bread and Wine Entitatively considered be from below, yet, the Sacrament of the Supper, and Bread and Wine taken Sacramentally are not from below; for Bread and Wine simply, or in themselves do not make a Gospel Eucharist, more than a Body without a Soul makes a Man, as is palpable from many things above said.  
The seeking therefore of these things, above (mentioned Colos. 3.1.) is meant only in opposition to the seeking of Corporal commodities belonging to this Life, and that, not in every respect either; but as the chief scope of our Actions, (Mat. 6.33.) or to fulfil our Lusts, (Rom. 13.14.) or with inordinate care and affection, (Colos. 3.2. Luk. 12.22.) or with anxious distrust, (Luk. 12.29.) or by unlawful means, or without submission to God: for, that we may seek our worldly necessaries also, as Secundary means, moderately, without anxious care, by lawful means, for the right use, and with submission; is manifest from the Scriptures, for which, instead of many, see only Matth. 6.11. 1 Tim. 5.8. and if any Man would have us no ways looking after our Corporal necessaries, either he would have us to live without them, (which a Quaker may try upon himself) or else to use no means (at least) for the obtaining of them; and then we shall Blow and Sow no more, but be supplied by Miracles. The passage of Scripture which they cite from 2 Cor. 4.18. will no ways Patronise their Erroneous Cause; (though they also cite it to the same very purpose in their Confession, page 79.) For the Apostle in that place is speaking of his afflictions, troubles, and the loss of worldly things which he endured for the Gospel, and these he opposes there unto Eternal Life, calling these the things that are seen, and this the thing that is not seen; and these troubles, and the loss of these enjoyments he counted but a small business and a light affliction, (as it is there ver. 17.) But will any Man say, that he counted it but a light affliction to be deprived of the Gospel-Supper? This would not have become Paul. But I need not Apologise for him; he purges himself sufficiently of this; for the whole purpose of that Chapter shows his meaning to be of the things that I have said. Again, the External Signs in the Lord's Supper, rightly considered as signifying and exhibiting Christ and his benefits, are so far from turning our Eyes, or hearts to things that are below and seen, that on the contrary, they are an excellent means of of elevating them unto, and setting them upon the things that are above and not seen?  
That the Corinthians were jangling, and in a disorder when Paul wrote the second Epistle to them; (from which the Quakers cite this passage) I truly perceive not; yea, the Seventh Chapter thereof witnesss the contrary: and so the Quakers have mistaken the second Epistle for the first.  
In the Close of this Query, the Quakers show themselves related to the Accuser of the Brethren: for (glory to God) there are many Ministers amongst us, who have intended, not without success, that both themselves and their Hearers should come nearer Christ's Death, than the eating and drinking of Bread and Wine for a bare Historical Remembrance of his Death, (as the Quakers here insinuate it to have been) whom, because their Epistles of Commendation are written upon the hearts of many Thousands, we shall not need here further, either to vindicate or commend them.    

Seventh QUERY.  
Whether or not Christ and the Apostles gave forth a Command that they should keep the Sabbath-day? let us see where it is written in the Scriptures, but the first day of the Week the Saints did meet together: this is Scripture; but let us see the Scripture for a Sabbath-day in the New-Testament, which speaks for a rest for the People of God. But is this a day? yea, or nay?  

SURVEY.  
The Quakers Position here is, That there is no day under the New Testament appointed to be kept as an External Christian Sabbath-day more than another, but that all days are of equal Condition and Holiness, as (beside what they here say) they also teach more plainly in their Confession of Faith, page 42. against which I assert, that there is an External Christian Sabbath-day appointed to be observed under the New Testament, distinct from all other days whatsoever. For proving of this Conclusion, I need not bring the ordinary Argument from the light of Nature concerning some portion of our time and days to be set apart from all civil and worldly Employments to the exercise of God's Public Worship, (which none, but a professed Atheist will deny) knowing that the party I have to deal with (scarce both of Religion and Reason) do but little value it.  
But first, We are commanded in the fourth Commandment to keep holy unto God one day of seven, and this Commandment is Moral, and so perpetual, extending to all Ages of the Church: Therefore there is a command for keeping an External Sabbath-day under the New-Testament, as well as the Old. The consequence is of itself clear to any Man. The first part of the Antecedent is also clear from Exod. 20. Chap. I prove the second part thereof, viz. that this Commandment is Moral, and so perpetual, because God proclaimed it with his own Voice from Mount Sinai to the whole Assembly of Israel, he wrote it with his own Finger, he inserted it into the midst of the rest of the Moral Precepts, he wrote it upon the Tables of Stone showing its perpetual duration, and he caused put it into the Ark of the Testimony with the rest of the Moral Precepts; all which is clear from Exod. 20. Chap. throughout, and 25.16. and 31.18. and 32.15, 16. Deut. 9.10. and 10.4. But God never conferred the like honour upon any Precept merely Ceremonial, as is plain from the Scriptures. Again, all the reasons of this Commandment are entirely Moral, and stand upon common and perpetual equity: Ergo, so must the Command itself be. The reasons chief are, seeing he himself rested after six days work finished, and he allows us six days to our work: Therefore in all reason and equity we ought to rest after so many days allowed to our work, and give God a seventh. Lastly, If this Command were not Moral, then there should not be Ten, but only Nine Commandments of that Law, which is plain contrary to Deut. 4.13. and 10.4. where Moses manifestly speaks of the Moral Law which God spoke in the Mount out of the midst of the Fire, and plainly affirms that there are Ten Commandments thereof; from which Law Christ shows us, that one jot shall not pass away till Heaven and Earth pass, and that the least Commendment thereof must be perpetually observed, Matth. 5.18, 19  
But the Quakers answer, That the Sabbath commanded in the fourth Commandment was the last day of the week, which is abrogated. Unto this I reply, that the accommodation of the particular time or diet to the last day of the week is indeed abrogated; but not the substance of the Command, which (for the convincing reasons now given) is plainly Moral, and so perpetual, and as yet in force; and so it doth no less now enjoin the first day of the week to be observed, the accommodation of the particular Diet being made unto the first day, than it did then, enjoin the last day of the week to be observed, by reason of the then-accommodation made unto the last day, seeing it still retains its Authority for a seventh day, or one day of seven to be kept holy unto God, (wherein the substance of the Precept consists) which of them soever he shall pitch upon and determine.  
As for the change of the particular day, from the last to the first of the week, (doubtless) Christ himself in his own Person is the Author thereof, seeing (beside that he Risen thereupon, and rested from the great work of Redemption, which is the great ground of the change) he gives it the honour of his most frequent appearings thereafter to his Disciples, (Luk. 24.13, 15. Joh. 20.19, 26.) and again of that glorious manifestation of himself in the pouring forth of the Spirit at the Pentecost, (Act. 2.1, 2, 3, 4.) and again, it was on this day (as shall be showed) that he made that glorious appearance to John in the Isle of Patmos, (Revel. 1.10.) again, the first day of the week was by the Apostles and the Church (following their Master's Example, which is binding in things imitable, and that by Divine Precept, Ephes. 5.1.) observed for the Celebrating of God's Public Worship as a day set apart for that work, as appears from Act. 20.7. 1 Cor. 16.1, 2. where we have not a mere bare Example or instance of the Churches meeting for once or twice to God's Public Worship on that day set down, but also we have their constant custom of so doing clearly in both places imported; yea further, the last of these two Texts shows, that, that day was set apart for the Public Divine Worship, while it expressly requires the public Collections of Charity for the Poor, (a Pendicle of the Public Worship) to be made on that day, and shows that the same order was also given to other Churches, as well as to them of Corinth. And lastly, the Holy Ghost hath recorded to us these singular Privileges and peculiar Honour bestowed by Christ upon this first day of the week above all other days, as also the Churches observing of it for God's Public Worship, and that constantly, and as a day set apart for that use; and the like he doth not mention of any other day, which is very observable. What is all this for, then? for some reason, uncontrovertibly; and yet no other can be given, or fall under imagination; (or else I entreat the Quakers to show us it, if they can) But, that the first day of the week is a day peculiarly set apart and sanctified by Christ for the Exercise of his Public Worship, and which he would have his Church peculiarly to regard, as designed for that holy use, beyond and above all other days, as was accordingly done by the Apostles and Church in the pure Primitive times. The change of the day than is most surely by Divine Authority.  
But Secondly, when Christ foretells the Disciples of the Destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple by Vespasian, (Matth. 24.20.) which was forty years and upwards after Christ's Ascension, and so it was long after the planting of the Gospel-Church, and exautorating of the Ceremonial Law; He bids them pray, that their flight might not be in the Winter, nor on the Sabbath-day. There, is a Sabbath-day both name and thing under the New Testament, which Christ wills his Disciples to pray, that their flight might not be thereupon, because it would be grievous to them to be forced to travel for preservation of their natural Lives on that day which was Instituted for God's Public Worship, and their Spiritual comfort. Neither is it possible to get the Sabbath-day here mentioned, meaned of every day, seeing then they behoved either to flee on the Sabbath-day or else never: Nor yet can it be meant of an uncertain day, or some day Indeterminately; for then, the Disciples could not have known what day to pray, that their flight might not be upon, and Christ's Exhortation had been vain, and to no use or purpose, which is most absurd and false. This one Scripture proves a Christian External Sabbath-day against all Contradicters; and that the first day of the week must be this Christian Sabbath-day, appears from the Claim and Interest above declared, which it hath under the New Testament unto that honourable Title and peculiar Denomination above all other days, and that by Divine Warrant.  
Thirdly, There is a particular determinate day under the New Testament which hath, by the mind and sentiments of the Scripture, a peculiar relation unto the Lord Christ, above all other days whatsoever; and so it is separated from the common condition of all other days, having a peculiar Divine relation, which no other hath, and thereby a pre-eminence and dignity before all of them; and so it must be an Holy Day, seeing common days are not separated from the condition of common days, except we please to speak plain contradiction. That there is such a particular determinate day under the New Testament, is clear from Revel. 1.10. where John says, He was in the Spirit on the Lordsday, which cannot be meant of every day, seeing then, he could not have been in the Spirit but on the Lordsday, whereas it is most evident, that John distinctly points at a particular day having some peculiar relation to Christ above all others.  
But the Quakers (like Dictator's) say, that the Lordsday here is meant of an uncertain time, called the Lordsday, because of the Lords special appearing thereupon. But their Commentary is most false, and cannot agree with the Apostles Scope, which is, as to show the certain Person Who received the Vision, (viz. John) and the certain place of the World Where, (In the Isle of Patmos) and the certain kind of frame Wherein, (While he was in the Spirit) so also the certain kind of day, or the certain day of the week whereupon he received the Vision; and so an uncertain time cannot stand with the Scope. Secondly, Let the Quakers (if they can) prove that an uncertain time is here meant, or else their Gloss upon the Text will be justly thought uncertain. Thirdly, Our Adjective does not very perfectly turn the word, which in the Original Language is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, signifying Dominick, or (more clearly) pertaining to the Lord, which plainly imports a particular determinate day, (adding 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with it, which is in the Text) having a peculiar and stated relation to the Lord above others, which by common right are his also. Having dispatched the Quakers uncertain time, I affirm, that the Lordsday here is meant of the first day of the week determinately, seeing it hath a peculiar interest into that Denomination above all other days whatsoever; for, it is the day of Christ's glorious Resurrection, and ceasing from the great work of Redemption, (whereof it is a Remembrance;) it is the day of his frequent appearings to his Disciples thereafter; it is the day of his glorious pouring forth of the Spirit, and enduing the Apostles with Power from on High; it is the day set apart for his Public Worship, and observed also for that use by the Apostles and Church in the pure Primitive time; and finally, it is the day which the Holy Ghost hath particularly noted unto us, as alone honoured by Christ and his Church with such peculiar Privileges; all which is before proved. Seeing then the first day of the week hath, upon so many special accounts, so peculiar an Interest into that Denomination, which no other can pretend to; The Lord's day here mentioned, must be inevitably understood of the same, seeing the best right must and aught to gain the Cause, except we resolve utterly to abandon our Reason, or else determine against clear Justice. Let the Quakers then show us some other day with a better, or as good right; or else, prove from the Text, or otherwise, that some other day, certain or uncertain is meant, (which I defy them to do) otherwise these clear Scripture-grounds must bear more weight, than their mere bare word and naked assertions.  
But the Quakers will object against an External Sabbath-day under the New-Testament, that the Apostle condemns the observation of days and Sabbath-days, Galat. 4.10. Colos. 2.16.  
Ans. The Apostle does not there or any where else, condemn the observation of the Christian Sabbath-day, but only of the Jewish Sabbath-days, (with any others that never had Divine Warrant, against which the Argument infers a Fortiori) whereof, beside their ordinary weekly Sabbath-day, they had a great many, such as were the first and last days of every one of their three Solemn Feasts, viz. of the Passover, of Pentecost or Weeks, and of Tabernacles; as also their Feast of Trumpets on the first day of the seventh Month, and the Feast of Expiation or Atonement on the tenth day of the seventh Month; and beside all these, their New Moons, their Sabbath of Years, and great Jubilies; all which may be seen Levit. 23. and 25. Chap. and Numb. 10. Chap. And that it is such days as these, and not our Christian Sabbath-day, the observing whereof the Apostle condemns, is clear in the very Context of these two cited places; for in the first Text, he expressly names Months and Years, that is, New Moons and Sabbaths of Years, and the entire scope of the Epistle is bend against Jewish Ceremonies, pertaining to the then-Bondage-state of the Infant-Church under the Old-Testament, as any man reading it may see. And in the last Text, he ranks these Sabbaths which he rejects, with Meats, and Drinks and New Moons, and calls them shadows of things to come, of which kind our Christian Sabbath-day is not. Nor is all distinction of days, without exception, taken away here, more than the distinction of the Elements in the Lords-Supper from other common Meat and Drink, (which, that it is not taken away, I have proved at the Survey of the last Query) seeing, both Meats and Drinks and Days are here equally condemned, or not so. What? Does Paul here condemn the observation of the Christian Sabbath-day, which Christ teaches we shall have under the New-Testament? or, Does he rescind the fourth Commandment? or, Condemns he the observation of the Day which himself and the whole Church observed, as set apart for God's Public Worship? say not so, I pray.  
Again, they will Object that the same Apostle holds forth the Indistinction and equal Condition of all days, Rom. 14.5.6.  
Ans. That is most false, for the unanswerable reasons now given. Secondly, by the Context itself, the days there Treated of, are such as are in the same order with Ceremonial Meats and Drinks of Jewish observation, the estimation whereof above others was an Infirmity in the weaker sort to be born with by the stronger, until their better Information and Persuasion: But the Christian Sabbath-day is not of that sort, as is showed. Nor does Paul here any more overturn the distinction of the Christian Sabbath-day from other common days, then of the Elements in the Lords-Supper from other common Meat and Drink, which it is certain he does not overturn, seeing these in the Lords-Supper are of a very far different Condition from all common Meat and Drink, in regard of their Institution, Signification, Ends, Effects, etc.  
In the Close of their Query they tell us, that the Scriptures speaks for a Rest for the people of God. But is this Rest (say they) limited to a day?  
Ans. What then, I pray? the Scriptures promise the Eternal Rest of Heaven to all true Believers, whereof also their Grace and Sanctification is an Earnest and Degree inchoat and begun here, though not perfected. But will this prove that there should not be, or is not an external Sabbath-day under the New Testament? then neither should there have been any under the Old either, seeing the Rest of Heaven was promised to Believers then, as well as now. And all true Believers had some measure of Grace and Sanctification then, as well as now. Or will our resting from sin in some measure begun in this Life, or our Eternal Resting in Heaven in the next Life infer, that we should rest from our Duty in this Life? Forsooth such Consequences are very suitable to the Quakers Logic.  
But, say the Quakers (which is their last Gun) every day is a Holy day to a Christian.  
Ans. I grant a Christian should be Holy every day, and keep an Internal Sabbath, as they call it. But it will not from thence follow, that we have not an External Sabbath-day also; for Adam in Innocency when he maintained, and was bound to maintain a continual Internal Sabbath of Sanctification, had, for all that, an External Sabbath-day also (Gen. 2.3.) and the Jews under the Old Testament were bound to maintain an Internal Sabbath of Sanctification every day, and yet they had an External Sabbath-day also. For an External Sabbath-day requires, not only that we cease from sin and be holy, but also that we cease from all our Civil and worldly Employments, and Works that on other days are Lawful (excepting works of necessity and mercy which are every day Duties) and in that abstraction from the world, spend the whole day in the public and private Exercise of Divine Worship; which things could not be done every day even by Adam in Innocency. And if every day were a Holy day to us, we behoove either to Blow and Sow on Holy day, or else not do such things at all; both which are utterly absurd.    

Eighth QUERY.  
Whether or not your Singing of David's Psalms, his Prayers, Prophecies, Fast, Reproaches, Weep, Lamentations, and Complaints how he was Mocked have any Warrant in the Scripture? and you bring all these together in Meeter, without distinction. Have ye not done this yourselves? or did the Apostles it to the Saints in the Primitive times? or have ye the same Spirit the Apostles had? or a larger measure of it, than the Apostles had, by which ye have turned these into Meeter since the Apostles days? and what was the Psalms, Hymns, and Spiritual Songs they Sung in the Primitive times? Answer these things by plain Scripture.  

SURVEY.  
The State of the Question here is very plain. The Quakers deny our Singing of Psalms to be an Ordinance of the Gospel, or of Divine Institution under the New Testament. Contrary unto this,  
I Assert that Singing of Psalms is an Ordinance of the New Testament Divinely appointed. I prove it. Therefore first, Singing of Psalms was an Ordinance of Divine Institution under the Old Testament, 1 Chron. 16.9. Psal. 95.2. and 105.2. Therefore it must be so still under the New. The Scriptures Cited prove the Antecedent. I prove the Consequence, because Singing of Psalms was no Jewish Ceremony, and if the Adversaries will say so, let them prove their Affirmative, as they are obliged; and until than I shall confirm the Negative, viz. that Singing of Psalms is no Jewish Ceremony, because first, I cannot think that Christ joined a Jewish Ceremony after the Gospel-Supper, when he Sung a Hymn, or Psalm (as it is on the Margin of some of our Bibles) Mat. 26.30. Mark. 14.26. Nor that Paul and Silas used any Jewish Ceremony, especially there not being any fear of Offence and stumbling of weak Brethren there, when in Prison they Sung Praises unto God, Act. 16.25. Again, the Apostle does very plainly Exhort the Christians of the New Testament (Ephes. 5.19. and Colos. 3.16.) to speak unto themselves in Psalms, Hymns, and Spiritual Songs, Singing and making Melody in their hearts unto the Lord; and Teaching and Admonishing one another in Psalms, and Hymns, and Spiritual Songs, Singing with Grace in their hearts unto the Lord; In which Texts he shows, that that piece of Worship is edifying both to ourselves, and also to others that join with us, while he says, speaking to ourselves in Psalms, and Admonishing one another in Psalms. And Secondly, that it is a comfortable and Heart-chearing Duty, while he says making Melody in your hearts. And Thirdly, that it glorifies God, while he says, doing it unto the Lord: Therefore Singing of Psalms can be no Jewish Ceremony, having these Examples and Precepts for it to the Church of the New Testament.  
Secondly, In the first Epistle to the Corinthians (Chap. 14.15.26.) The Apostle, in the one place of the Chapter and Verses Cited, sharply reproves the Corinthians for their Disorder and Confusion in Singing in the public Assemblies, because every one of them had a Psalm by themselves, and did not all join together; and in the other place he directeth them how to Sing Psalms aright, viz. with the Spirit and with the understanding also, that is, not only with the Breath, or voice (which there he calls the Spirit; and the signification from the Original word, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, most properly signifies the Breath, or Wind) but also in a known Tongue, which the whole Context there declares he means when he says, with the Understanding; and so the Apostle does here Reform the abuse that was crept in into their public Singing of Psalms, and directs them how to do it aright. But a Superstitious Will-worship (such as Singing of Psalms must be, if it be not of Divine Institution) can never be performed aright, it involves a plain Contradiction to say so. What? did Paul direct men how to Worship God aright by a Superstitious Will-worship? Nay, surely not. Singing of Psalms than must undeniably be an Ordinance of Divine Institution under the Gospel.  
Thirdly, the Apostle James says (Jam. 5.13.) Is any man afflicted? let him pray, is any man merry? let him Sing Psalms: Therefore Singing of Psalms hath a Divine Warrant under the New Testament. The Quakers answer, that he bids us Sing Psalms only when we are merry. But, it seems then, that the Quakers are never, never Merry, but are a number of Sullen, Dull, and Melancholic hypocondriac Drones, who cannot at all Sing Psalms. Secondly, there is no such exclusion in the Text, as is pretended; otherwise the Apostle bids us pray only when we are afflicted also, seeing both these are pronounced with one Breath, and the manner of the Expression and extent of the Terms are the same in both; and the Quakers can show no ground for exclusion in the one, more than the other, notwithstanding they may see how frequently and continually we are commanded to pray, Ephes. 6.18. Phil. 4.6. 1 Thes. 5.17.  
They may also see Christ and his Disciples Singing when by all Circumstances it appears they were Sorrowful, seeing they were so both presently before and after, as appears from Mat. 26.22. Mark. 14.26. compared with Mat. 26.30.38. Mark. 14.19.34. Joh. 13.21. The Apostle therefore by Merriness and Affliction points at the frame and case unto which these Duties are most especially suited, no ways excluding the excercise of them in other frames and cases. But let us give them for once (not granting) that the Apostle does there appoint us to Sing Psalms only when we are Merry; yet Singing of Psalms shall by this Text (even in the Adversaries own Sense) be of Divine Institution under the New Testament; or else (in their Principles) we may in our Merry and Joyful frames offer a Superstitious Will-worship unto God, which I have not yet learned to believe.  
The Quakers applying this Text of James in the 130 page of their Confession of Faith answer us, that there is none Merry, but the Ransomed of the Lord; and therefore they mean to infer (for that is their Scope in the place) that none should Sing Psalms, but these.  
But First, then certainly the Quakers are Convict, that they themselves are none of the Ransomed of the Lord, seeing they here allow the Ransomed of the Lord to Sing Psalms, which yet they cannot be persuaded to do.  
Secondly, all the Members of the visible Church professing Faith in Christ, and subjecting to his Ordinances, are by visible Profession, and in some degree of the judgement of Charity, the Ransomed of the Lord: Therefore the Quakers (by their own principles) ought to allow them to Sing Psalms.  
Thirdly, others also, beside the Ransomed of the Lord, are bound to Worship God, except some special piece of Worship, by some special Conditions which it requires, doth exclude them, as the Lords Supper excludes all that do not, or cannot Examine themselves, discern the Lords Body, and show forth his Death (albeit the Church in admitting persons must walk by probabilities, and can reach no further) and both it and Baptism excludes all that want a visible Interest into the Covenant: But Singing of Psalms is a piece of God's appointed Worship (as is showed) and there is no special condition Recorded in all the Scripture that debars any man from Singing and joining therein; or else let the Quakers show it, if they can. If they shall say (as we see they do say) that the Unransomed by this Text are excluded from Singing Psalms, they shall speak falsely: for (beside our former reasons given already to this exception) the Text exhorts any man (Whatsoever he be) unto that duty, but especially when he is in a joyful frame. And giving (without granting) the Ransomed only to be meant, yet Psalms-singing will still be of Divine Institution, if these be allowed, and in the judgement of Charity these will be all the professing Members of the Church subjecting to Divine Ordinances. And whereas they here allege, that the Ransomed only are Merry, or joyful, that is also false, for others, beside these, are sometimes joyful (Mat. 13.20. Luk. 8.13.) and so the exception is to no purpose.  
But the Quakers insinuate here an Argument against Psalms-singing, viz. that its very unsuitable to make Songs of David's sad Cases of Mourning, Weeping, Lamenting, etc.  
Ans. But it's much more unsuitable for the Quakers to presume themselves Wiser than God and David, who have caused make, and made Songs on David's sad Cases, as the Title which (almost) every where they get, and which Christ gives them (Luk. 20.42. and 24.44.) sufficiently declares. If then they censure it as a fault in us to Sing David's sad Lots, much more do they Tax God and David for making Songs of them, and ordaining them to be Sung.  
Secondly, this proves only (if any thing) that we should not Sing Psalms made upon sad Cases. Why will not the Quakers Sing other Psalms?  
Thirdly, if the reading of these sad Lots of David can yield any Edification (which is certain) the Singing of them may yield the same, seeing Singing is nothing else but a Melodious kind of reading, a reading with a Tune.  
Fourthly, the Singing of David's Weep, Lament, Complaints, etc. is not therefore unsuitable to us, because the Cases were afflicting to David while he was under them: for albeit these were afflicting to him for the time; yet the after Memory of them is very comfortable to us (and to himself when they were over. Forsan & haec olim meminisse juvabit, said the Poet) unto whom the like Cases are also incident; for its comfortable to us to see the Path beaten by so worthy a Saint as David, and it would be sad to us to think that our Lot in such a Case never befell any Saint.  
Fifthly, the making Songs upon, and Singing of these sad Cases Teaches us, that even in our saddest Lots there is still some matter of praise to God, and for which we ought to Sing unto his Name, yea and also that we ought therein to cheer up our hearts rejoicing in God, and not give ourselves over to be swallowed up of heartless despondency. Thus far, beside the Divine Institution, (which is enough against all they can bring) I have satisfied the Exception.  
But, say the Quakers, With what confidence can a Man sing such passages as these, viz. We have not dealt falsely in thy Covenant, neither have our hearts turned back, Psal. 44.17, 18.  
Ans. This will only prove, (if it could prove any thing) that backslidden Christians may not sing such passages, and yet it hinders them not to sing other Psalms. The Quakers then are certainly convict, (as the truth is) that themselves are a backslidden People, seeing they have no confidence to sing such passages.  
Secondly, Wither now is the Quakers Perfection gone? perfect folk may sing them, or else none may.  
Thirdly, We may sing these as our sincere and constant adherence to God, (which is all their meaning) albeit we be not perfect in our obedience; and the greatest Saint in Israel could do no further.  
Fourthly, We may sing them as through grace, both possible and hoped for by us, though we be not as yet come that length.  
Fifthly, We may sing them as other men's attainments (for which we are bound to praise God) on their behalf, or putting ourselves in their room, though they be not our own attainments. Some of these ways any Man may sing them.  
But, say the Quakers, it's said, We have not dealt falsely, etc. which, if it be not so with us, we lie, seeing it's said, We.  
Ans. But then we may not read such passages either, if the Argument be good: for when we read them, we must read We, as well as sing We; again, this hinders us not to sing them as the attainments of others putting ourselves in their room, and acting in their behalf, which is ordinary in other things.  
Thirdly, Albeit it be not so with us at present, yet we may sing them in hope, fore-acting (as it were) the case wherein upon good grounds we hope to be Constituted, seeing we may praise God for things hoped for, and (as it were) pre-occupy the possession of them. See these two objections proposed in like terms and like instances, in the Quakers Confession of Faith, pages 129, 130.  
Again they object, That there are several places wherein there are many Curses pronounced, (as Psal. 109.) which therefore ought not to be sung, because thereby People are made to Curse.  
Ans. We curse no less in reading such passages, than in singing of th●m: if the Argument be good then, we may not read such Psalms. Secondly, I grant, we may not wish evil to any Man for his private Injuries or Enmity against us; (Matth. 5.44. Rom. 12.19, 20.) but where God hath in his Word pronounced Curses against notorious wicked M●n and Enemies of his Work and Interest, and hath ordained these Curses against them to be publicly sung, (for the Church's Triumph, and their terror) we may very lawfully sing them, nor should we refuse to obey, God appointing it. Thirdly, We may not indeed rejoice in any man's misery, as such; yet, when God is glorified by his Righteous Judgements upon such Persons, we may rejoice upon that account, Psal. 58.10. Revel. 19 Chap. to Ver. 6. Lastly, Seeing God himself hath caused make Psalms of these Curses, against such notorious Enemies to him, and hath ordained them to be sung, (seeing (as is now proved) he hath ordained us to sing the Psalms, and he hath no where excepted any Psalm from that general Rule) we may surely, sing such Psalms; Nay, we may not make exceptions at our own hand from Divine Rules, where the Rule itself excepts not. Who dare presume, without God's Authority, to diminish and restrict his Laws? Nay, they might as well make his whole Laws null and void, as so to retrench them, without his Authority. Answer my Arguments if they can.  
But, say the Quakers, Have ye not turned the Psalms into Meeter yourselves?  
Ans. What then? Did not also some of ourselves turn the Scriptures into our Mother Tongue? Must we cast them away for that? I, that's the business. But will ye tell me, Does not some of yourselves preach (if it might be called so) when your Spirit, (that often takes a long time to study his Sermon, (though ye yourselves take none, ye say, and condemns them that do, (Quakerism not Popery, page, 99) or else he has the Palsy in his Tongue) comes upon you? seeing we are appointed to sing Psalms, and we cannot do that, except they be Meetered, and the turning of Psalms into Meeter requires a good Musician, or good Poet, rather than an immediately Inspired Apostle; we may sing Psalms, though by others than Apostles they be put into a Metral form to us. Yea, seeing the Apostles did not Meeter them in our Language, and yet we are Ordained to sing them, which requires that they be Meetered in the same, they must be put into Meeter by some of ourselves, or else we cannot obey the command to sing them.  
But, say the Quakers, Have ye the same Spirit the Apostles had, or a larger measure of it than they had, by which ye have turned these into Meeter since the Apostles days?  
Ans. The same Spirit we have, though not the same measure: for, albeit there are diversities of gifts amongst Believers, yet they have all the same Spirit, 1 Cor. 12.4, 13. But behold here a rare fancy: The Quakers require either (at least) the same measure, or else a larger measure of the Spirit, than the Apostles had, for turning the Psalms into Meeter. What? will no less measure of the Spirit, than the Apostles had, serve to understand Poetry and the Notes of Music? Must we be immediately Inspired for these two? O brave Morology! The Quakers (it seems) will not allow a Boy to sing a Song, nor a Minstreller to play his Tune, (both which requires something of Music) without immediate Inspiration, forsooth. Spectatum admissi risum teneatis amici? The Quakers (it seems) do not like to be Precenters, lest (perhaps) they get little Salary.  
Lastly, They ask, what the Psalms were that were sung in the Primitive times?  
Ans. They were certainly, the same that we now sing, seeing these only are written in the Scriptures, (though the Quakers may have other Psalms in their wild Scripture-Book within) and appointed by God to be sung, as (beside that, we are Ordained to sing Psalms, and there is no other to choose upon) is clear from 2 Chron. 29.30. where the Church of Israel sang praises to God with the words of David and Asaph, says the Text, by the command of the good King and great Reformer. These that would see any further concerning some scruples about Psalms-singing, let them read worthy Mr. durham's Exposition of the Song of Solomon, from page 48. to page 53. where they may find some doubts resolved, which I purposely here omit, because there they may be found, though little, or nothing here meddled with, be there touched.    

Ninth QUERY.  
Whether or not your Directory Confession of Faith, and Cathechisms be an Infallible Rule for you and your People to walk by? or whether or not equal with the Scriptures, or above the Scriptures? and whether of them is the better Book? and whether or not have ye an Infallible Spirit to give forth such a Directory, or Catechism, or Confession of Faith, as ye have done? and whether or not the Scriptures are not a better Directory, than any ye can make, which were given forth by the Holy Ghost, by the holy Men of God who had the Infallible Spirit?  

SURVEY.  
This Inspirer of the Quakers is surely no Spirit of Truth, but a manifest Deviser of Lies, seeing almost in every Sentence, that drops from his mouth, he impudently slanders the Church of God in Britain: for, who ever heard that any Protestant Church did hold any thing of Ecclesiastical Constitution formally as such, for an Infallible Rule; But, on the contrary, it hath always been the Doctrine of all Protestant Churches, and as much of the Church of Britain as any other, (as may be seen in the fourth Article of the 31. Chapter of her Confession of Faith) that all Synods and Counsels since the Apostles days are liable to Error; and that therefore their Constitutions formally as such, are not to be made the Rule of Divine Faith and Religious Practice: and yet there is much more hope of an unerring Spirit in a whole Synod of Orthodox Church-Guides, than in any Brainsick Quaker falsely pretending thereunto.  
The Quakers do not here quarrel with our Directory Confession, or Catechism as to their subject sentence, and the particular definitions which they contain; or else, they should have instanced the particulars which they judge to be wrong, and not agreeable to the Stripture, (that we might have known what to vindicate) which until they do, I cannot gratify them with particular defences.  
Their quarrel therefore here is at the very common form of a Directory, Confession, or Catechism in a Church, and that Church-Guides should presume to Constitute these; and so all Churches are concerned in this affair, seeing all of them have their Confessions, Catechisms, and Directories; and yet (not doubt) this quarrel is chief intended against the Directory, Confession, and Catechism of the Church of God in Britain. Therefore, that we may in the general vindicate these, we shall begin with the Directory.  
Therefore first, a Church-Directory may be taken in a large and improper sense, as comprehending rules concerning parts of the public Worship of God itself, and the religious manner thereof, as their immediate object directly regarded; and if these Rules teach and direct no other Worship, nor any other religious manner of the Worship, but the very same which the Scripture directs and teaches, than they can never be found fault with, seeing even every particular Minister hath authority, and is obliged by his Office to teach and enjoin his Flock the Worship of God, and the religious manner thereof from the Scripture; yea, that is his chief work, and I must still think, that a Synod of Ministers convened in Christ's name have no less authority, nor can be any less obliged. Such Rules there are in our Directory, as the Rules appointing the Sabbath-day to be kept holy, Psalms to be sung, Ministers to do their work faithfully, diligently, etc. all which are very Scripture-Rules particularly taught therein, and their immediate objects are constituent parts, or religious manners of the Worship.  
But Secondly, a Church-Directory may be taken in a more strict and proper sense, as restricted to, and merely comprehending Rules, or Directions, concerning the External Circumstances of the Public Worship, and Government of God's House. And for vindicating our Directory, (in the general, as was explained) taken in this proper notion; We must observe first, that, as it is utterly impossible to exerce any action, except under the vesture of several circumstances; So likewise the public Worship of God cannot be performed, except under the vesture of various Circumstances, as needs no demonstration.  
Secondly, I must observe that, as the vesture of unbeseeming undecent, and disorderly circumstances in the exercise of God's Public Worship, doth very much deform and disgrace the work, (as all may know) and so cannot but very much hinder Edification, and beget Scandals; So the Vesture of comely, decent, and orderly circumstances therein, doth greatly beautify and adorn the work, (by the Rule of Contraries) and so doth promote and advance Edification and Growth, which by the contrary are exceedingly letted and hindered.  
Thirdly, I must observe, that these External Circumstances of Gods Public Worship, are not in the Scripture particularly defined and determined, seeing it is no where of Scripture particularly defined, what time of the day, or night the public Worship shall begin; how long it shall last; what order shall be observed in reading, preaching, praying, singing, hearing, etc. But only they are therein determined in the general, as to their common form of order and decency, that, decency and order must be observed therein, seeing all things must be so done in the Church, (1 Cor. 14.40.) which command is manifesty transgressed by the undecency and disorder of one small Circumstance; and so it plainly enjoins to maintain order, and decency, in all the Circumstances of Gods Public Worship.  
Lastly, I must observe, that it properly belongs to the Church-Guides, and, they are bound to see to the maintaining of decency, and order, in the Circumstances of Gods Public Worship: for, seeing God commands to maintain decency and order therein, and they are the Watchmen and Rulers who have the Care and Oversight of the Church, (Act. 20.28. Rom. 12.8. 1 Thes. 5.12. 1 Tim. 3.5. and 5.17. Heb. 13.7, 17. 1 Pet. 5.2.) it must, of necessity, belong unto them, and they must be thereunto obliged.  
Having observed these things, I hope, I may assert, that Church-Officers and Judicatures have Divine Warrant and Authority to make and set forth Church-Directories for regulating the External Circumstances of Gods Public Worship in a decent and orderly way, or so as they may be decent and orderly. This assertion is clear from our preceding Observations, whereunto I shall add an Argument, or two.  
First therefore, God commands Church-Officers and Judicacatures, to maintain Decency and Order in the whole Circumstances of his Public Worship, (as is clear from our preceding Observations) and yet he hath no where particularly condescended upon, or defined these Circumstances, as is before shown also: Therefore, the Church-Officers and Judicatures have, certainly, Divine Warrant and Authority particularly to condescend upon, define, and determine them. The Consequence (which now only needs proving) is easily proved: for, seeing God hath commanded Church-Officers and Judicatures to maintain Decency and Order in these Circumstances, and yet hath not himself particularly defined and determined them, either he hath given them Warrant and Authority particularly to define and determine the same, which is the thing we plead for; or else, he hath commanded them to maintain Order and Decency in Circumstances never to be defined or ordered; but left still to be confused, undesined, and unordered; and so they must do it by random and blind chance. Which is extremely absurd, seeing, so, he should have commanded Contradictions, viz. order in Circumstances never to be ordered.  
Secondly, Church-Directories rightly regulating the External Circumstances of Gods Public Worship; so that they may be decent and well ordered, according to the Scripture do conduce and contribute to set forward a Spiritual Good and Edification, as is most clear from our preceding Observations: But, it's beyond all doubt, that Church-Officers and Judicatories have Warrant and Authority to do such things as may conduce and contribute to set forward the Spiritual Good and Edification of the Churches of their Oversight; or else, they cannot have Warrant to do any thing: Therefore, sure it is, Church-Officers and Judicatories have Authority and Warrant to make such Directories, rightly regulating the External Circumstances of Gods Public Worship in the Churches of their Oversight.  
Thou wilt (may be) say, that men can have no Authority to determine any part of God's Worship not determined in the Scripture. Therefore men can have no Authority particularly to determine these Circumstances not so determined in the Scriptures.  
Ans. The Antecedent I willingly yield; but I utterly deny the Consequence, seeing the things we now speak of, and which alone are the immediate object of a Church-Directory in this strict and proper acception, are no part of the Worship in their particular nature, but are mere External Circumstances of that which is the Worship, as is evident from all before-said.  
These common Rules made by Church-Authority according to the general Precepts and Rules of Scripture, do not of themselves bind Conscience; nor doth the Authority from whence they immediately proceed of itself bind Conscience; neither is their immediate object in its particular nature, any part of God's Worship, as said is. Nevertheless, they being form according to the general Precepts of Scripture for Order and Decency, these bind Conscience; and the general End of Edification it binds Conscience; and Conscience is also bound not to despise, but reverence lawful Church-Authority, it being God's Ordinance, and we cannot contemn any of his Ordinances, and be guiltless; and therefore we may not in wilful conceit reject such Constitutions of the Church; albeit out of the case of Scandal-giving, and if it do not proceed from a contempt of Church-Authority, or from some unruly Humour of Spirit, we may upon causes just and reasonable, lawfully sometimes intermit and forbear the observation of them. These things I have said to prevent Objections.  
And hence, I hope, it appears, that Church-Officers have an Authority to Make and Constitute Church-Directories for ordering the External Circumstances of Gods Public Worship, according to the general Precepts of the Scripture; albeit I grant that such Directories are not Infallible, and so of themselves no Bond of Conscience, nor Rule of Divine Faith.  
As for our Confession and Catechism, if the Quakers judge them to be unsound in any of their particular Definitions, when the Quakers shall instance them, it shall be time enough to make their Apology. But while they declare themselves Enemies to the very common form of a Confession and Catechism in a Church; herein they proclaim their Hostile mind against Ministers, their feeding of the Flock, and Edifying of the Body of Christ; seeing these Compendious Breviaries of the most fundamental points of Scripture Doctrine and Christian Principles, do exceedingly conduce for a method of easier learning, and more distinct understanding of the same; and that partly because of their succinct and compendious form, shortly representing to us, and quickly conducting and directing us to the most principal substance of the whole Scripture-Doctrine, which is methodically summed in them, and which by our own private Industry we could neither soon, nor easily distinctly gather out of the whole body of the Scriptures; and partly, because of their greater Explication, each of their Definitions or Enunciations being the perspicuous sentence of many parallel Scriptures compared together, and so by their Consociated Beams and United Rays more powerfully Shining, like so many Stars and Luminaries placed together into one Constellation; and, lastly, because of their chained Conjunction, being united, placed, and joined together in a distinct and continual method. These things do very much contribute, not only to the more speedy learning, but also to the more distinct understanding of the most necessary points of Scripture-Doctrine; and so of the rest also, as having some connexion with, or relation unto these. And hence also these methodised Models of the most Essential Principles of Scripture-Doctrine wisely form from the Scriptures, are a notable mean to guard people against Delusions and Errors which Corrupt Men, are continually broaching in the Church; seeing they being in that manner Succinctly and Methodically summed, and so quickly learned, and more distinctly understood, are, as it were, a Measuring Line in every serious Man's hand to find out the truth, or falsehood of every Man's Doctrine.  
What? Ought not Ministers, and have they not Authority to publish from the Scripture the Principles of Religion to the People? and that in the most perspicuous and ready way they can? have they not Authority to feed the Flock and edify the Body of Jesus from his own Word in the nearest method? and have they not Authority to furnish and guard their People against damnable Delusions, and Soul-ruining Errors in the most easy and successful manner they can? If they have not Authority for, and be not bound to do these things, than they have not Authority for, nor are they bound to do any thing: Let all the Quakers in Britain answer but one mouthful of sense to it, if Ministers (whose Office must continue in the Church to the end of the World, and till that day when all the Saints shall be completely perfected, Matth. 28.19, 20. Ephes. 4.11, 12, 13.) be not given to the Church for the very forementioned ends, and if these be not the Incumbent Works of their Office. But it's vain to demand an answer which can never be found, or sense from these who (Impugning Grammar) declare themselves Enemies to Sencespeaking: And have not the Quakers also published a Confession of their black Faith, Entitled, The Principles of Truth, (viz. Per Antiphrasin; for they should have said, of Falsehood, Fiction, Error, Blasphemy, and Calumnies) printed in the year 1668. and we have also seen several of their sweet Catechisms.  
But, say the Quakers, Is not the Doctrine of Christian Religion as good in the Scriptures, as in any Confession or Catechism?  
Ans. Yes, no doubt, but what of that? will that infer any thing against a Confession or Catechism in a Church, whereby that good Doctrine of the Scriptures may be more speedily and distinctly learned? I would rather think, that the better the Doctrine of the Scriptures is, the means contributing to our more ready and distinct learning thereof should be the more useful and warrantable. So unfortunate are the Quakers, that their own Weapons turns upon themselves. Observe, that this Objection of the Quakers (if it could have proved any thing at all) would have Militated as much against all Preaching, as against a Confession or Catechism.  
Hence, though the Scriptures be a better Book than any Confession or Catechism in the World, as formally Constituted by Ecclesiastical Authority; yet a Confession or Catechism are not therefore unlawful or unwarrantable in a Church, as, I think, is clear enough from what I have said.  
But, say the Quakers, Whether or not have ye an Infallible Spirit to give forth such a Directory, Confession, and Catechism as ye have done?  
Ans. Hereby, the Quakers refuse that any Man may direct according to the Scripture, the External Circumstances of Gods Public Worship, or that any Man may Catechise, or give an Account or Confession of his Faith, (which every Man in due Circumstances is bound to do, (Matth. 10.32, 33. Rom. 10.9, 10. 1. Pet. 3.15.) but much more a Church; partly for satisfaction to other Churches; partly for distinguishing Orthodox Churches from Heretical Synagogues; and partly for a short and clear public Test of the Principles of her own Members) except he be Infallible, which any Man may see to tend to the banishing of all these Duties out of the World, seeing there is no Man now adays Infallibly Inspired for such things. But what great need (I pray) is there of men's Infallibility in this Affair; They are not to assure their Doctrine from their own Infallibility, but from the Infallible Scripture: shall not that be sufficient to assure it? I cannot but think so: To the Law, and to the Testimony then, instead of your Inspired Parts.  
What should be answered to the last Article of their Query, is manifest from what we have said already concerning a Directory, and it's needless to repeat.    

Tenth QUERY.  
Whether or not is your Sanctification, your Justification, and your Faith, and Grace, the gifts of these, without sin, as they are manifested within you? Yea, or Nay?  

SURVEY.  
Here is an obscure Riddle, a dark Aenigma, which where to find the sense of, is a little difficult; but, if it hath any sense, they seem to Query, Whether or not our Justification, Sanctification, etc. be the gifts of our Directory, Confession, and Catechism, whereof they were last speaking in the preceding Query. But what that term [Without Sin] stands for, here is not easily Divined; nor can it have any Errand or Connexion with the present Question; and therefore I must throw it by as an insignificant, and no less impertinent Cipher.  
I answer therefore to their present Question, That our Justification, Sanctification, etc. are the Gifts of God only, (Rom. 8.32, 33. Ephes. 2.8. Jam. 1.17.) and that the Question is void of sense, seeing the bestowing of a gift is an action properly relative to an Intelligent Being; for we do not receive gifts from Stocks, Stonee, or Brutes. Notwithstanding this does not presently exclude the use of all ordinary means; (for their meaning in this Query is plain, that our Justification, Sanctification, &c. cannot be the gifts of God, but must be the gifts of our Confession, Catechism, etc. because forsooth, we make use of these as ordinary means allowed of God for their proper ends above described.) For albeit our Corns be not the gifts of our Ploughs and Harrows, nor the continuance of our Lives the gifts of our Food and Raiment, but all these things are the gifts of God; yet we may not lay aside all Ploughing and Harrowing, and the Quakers (I believe) will not reject Food and Raiment. Let them therefore either permit us the use of Confessions, Directories, and other inferior helps and means conducible in their own order; or else by their own example, persuade the world, if they can, never to Plough or Sow more, never to Eat or Drink more. This is enough for Answer to this Query, which comes in but by way of Objection and Cavillation.    

Eleventh QUERY.  
Whether or not your Directory, and Catechism, and Confession of Faith be Gospel? Yea, or Nay? and if so; Whether it be not another Gospel than that which the Apostles Preached, who said the Gospel was the Power of God? Rom. 1.16.  

SURVEY.  
I have above at the Survey of the Ninth Query abundantly justified our Directory, (in the general, as was there explained) and proved that God hath given Warrant and Authority to Church-Guides and Judicatories for Making and Constituting these according to the general Precepts of Scripture, for maintaining Order and Decency, and promoting Edification in the Church; and therefore I shall not here needlessly repeat any thing to that purpose. Only I shall take notice, that seeing the Quakers oppose these things, they therefore declare, that it is their mind, that Church-Officers and Judicatories should not give Obedience to God's Commands, should slight Order and Decency, and the Church's Edification. There is the new-coined Directory of the Quakers; let all Men judge if it be not an Instrument of the Devil.  
But, for Answer to their Query, I say, That there are several Rules in our Directory, that materially considered, are very Scripture-Rules particularly delivered therein, (as I shown before at the Survey of the Ninth Query) and it is evident that these are not another Gospel, but are Institutions of the same Gospel preached by the Apostles.  
But secondly, taking our Directory in a more strict and proper notion of a Church-Directory, as that is restricted to, and merely contains Directions concerning the External Circumstances of the Public Worship and Government of God's House; I must for Answer to their present Query concerning it, first suppose the particular Directions thereof to be materially right and conform to the Scripture general Precepts above mentioned, (which here once for all I warn) seeing I will not here stand to vindicate every particular Direction thereof in particular. If the Quakers had quarrelled any particular Direction thereof, I behoved to have vindicated it particularly: but seeing they have held themselves in the general, so must I.  
These things supposed, and taking our Directory in the foresaid strict notion, I answer, that our Directory thus taken, is not simply Gospel, or Scripture-Rule, but partly Ecclesiastical Constitution; it is Gospel or Scripture-Rule in respect of its fundamental ground and chief consideration, which consists in the Institution and Rule for maintaing Order and Decency, and promoting Edification, seeing that is Scripture-Rule; it is Ecclesiastical constitution in respect of the particular definition and accommodation of these Circumstances, which is an Act elicited by the habit of Christian Prudence, conform to the general Rules and Institutions of the Scripture forementioned.  
Hence it appears, that though the directions of our Directory thus taken, be not simply Gospel-Rules, yet, neither are they another Gospel, seeing in respect of their fundamental ground and chief consideration, they are Institutions of the same Gospel preached by the Apostles, (as is showed) and in so far as they are Ecclesiastical Constitutions, they are warranted by the Gospel preached by the Apostles, as in regard of particulars, I suppose, until the Quakers particularly quarrel, and in the general I have proved it above at the Survey of their Ninth Query. But another Gospel hath no warrant in the Gospel preached by the Apostles, but is contrary thereunto, and condemned therein. Again, another Gospel is some Doctrine beside, or contrary to the Gospel preached by the Apostles, urged as necessary to Salvation, and an absolute bond of Conscience and Rule of Divine Faith, and so a Doctrine in its matter only beside, being thus urged becomes contrary. But our Church-Directory (beside its agreement with the Scripture general Rules) was never so urged, as the Practice of our Church sufficiently attests.  
As for our Confession of Faith and Catechism, I affirm, that albeit, as to the formal Constitution which they have from Ecclesiastical Authority, they be not Infallible, or Canonical; otherwise all Ecclesiastical Constitutions would be such; yet, considering them Materially, as to the whole Articles confessed in the one, and the whole Definitions delivered in the other, (and for the questionary part it is no matter, seeing that affirms nothing, nor denies) they are universally, and throughout, very Scripture-Sentence, very Gospel-Rule, and Law together, either expressly and formally, or materially, implicitly, and by good consequence, taught therein. Let the Quakers condescend upon any Article, or Proposition believed or taught in the one, or the other, that is not either expressly, or implicitly, and by good consequence contained in the Scriptures, which until they do, I must superseed particular Apologizing for them. Only I have already sufficiently defended them in the general, (according as they have impugned them) and so many of their particular Enunciations as the Quakers elsewhere in these Queries have particularly impeached, I have also particularly maintained and vindicated in my Surveys. The Quakers then may see, that I affirm the whole Enunciations of our Confession and Catechism materially taken to be very Gospel and Law Rules together; and so they are not another Gospel, seeing another Gospel does not teach and confess the same Truths, which the Gospel preached by the Apostles does. And I have told them before, that as to their formal Constitution by Ecclesiastical Authority, they have not the same Authority which the Gospel preached by the Apostles had, we do not equalise them therewith. Let the Quakers see to their own Confession of Faith, (and a black Faith, I am sure) wherein there is scarce a Sentence that is not contrary to the Gospel preached by the Apostles, a good part of which we have already seen, and shall see more hereafter.  
As for the Sentence of Scripture here Cited from the Epistle to the Romans, a man would wonder to what purpose it is here Quoted. But here is the business, the Quakers feign to themselves a sort of a Dumb-Gospel, without any words, or Orations, and this they seem to allege to have a real and strict Identity with the power of God; which is as senseless a Dream as can well be fallen upon, which the very Context of the place Cited overthrows, while it calls the Gospel the power of God to Believers only, intimating, that it is not such unto unbelievers, on whose hearts it does not so powerfully work, whereas the power of God properly taken, is still the same in respect of all the world.  
The Gospel is called the Word of Truth, and the word preached (Ephes. 1.13. Colos. 1.5. Heb. 4.2.) Which cannot be said of the power of God. The Gospel was committed to Paul's trust (1 Thes. 2.4. 1 Tim. 1.11.) But the power of God was never committed to the trust of any mere Creature.  
The Apostle therefore calls the Gospel the power of God by a Figure called Synecdoche, attributing the name of the Principal Cause to the Instrument, because it is an effectual Instrument of the power of God. So the Preaching of the Cross is called the power of God to them that are Saved (1 Cor. 1.18.) not by way of Identity, but thus Synecdochically, as is declared. So also the Samaritans reputed Simon Magus the great power of God (Act. 8.10.) not by way of Identity (for, I think, they were not Quakers) but they called him so Synecdochically, because in their conceit he was a great Instrument thereof.    

Twelfth QUERY.  
What is Original Sin? Whether it be not the Devil? yea; or nay? for doth not the Original signify the beginning? and what did Christ come to destroy? was it not the Devil, and his works?  

SURVEY.  
This Inspirer of the Quakers (it seems) must be a great Jester; but, I think him a great Fool too, to suggest in his sport such Romances and Fictions unto simple Men void of understanding, who, to his infamy and disgrace, thus report them in Earnest.  
The Devil is indeed a very sinful Creature; but that he should be very Sin itself is a horrible Fiction. For first then, Original Sin must be a Person, seeing the Devil is a Person. Secondly, God made the Devil: but God made not Original Sin, seeing he cannot be the Author of sin: therefore Original Sin is not the Devil. The Minor is proved already: I prove the Major; God made all Creatures, otherwise they could not be Creatures: but the Devil is a Creature: therefore, certainly, God made him.  
Secondly, If God made not the Devil, than the Devil is an Uncreated Independent Being, (for a Being he is) existing from himself; and so there is not one, but two Uncreated Independent Being's, the one of them Essentially Good, the other Essentially Evil, being the very same thing with Sin, as the Quakers would, (which is the demented Ghost of old Manicheus, before the time arisen from the dead:) but that is most absurd Blasphemy.  
Thirdly, If Original Sin be the Devil, than the Original Sin of all Mankind was existent before any Man had Sinned, and would have been to this day, though never Man had Sinned, seeing Mankind's continuance in Obedience would not have destroyed the Devils Being; but these things are ridiculous: and yet that which is aimed in this Query, hath been often said by Quakers in my face and hearing.  
Lastly, If Original Sin be the Devil, than there can be no Original Sin inherent in any Man, but we must be all born as Innocent and Spotless as ever Adam was Created; for, the Devil being a complete Substantial Being, can never inhere as an accident into any other Subject. But, it's most false, that we have no Original Sin, but are born Innocent and Clean, which by these few Scriptures I prove, Rom. 5.12. Death hath passed upon all Men, because all have Sinned, but all have not sinned actually, viz. Infants have not: Therefore it must be meant of Original Sin, seeing of one of the two it must be meant; or else the Apostle ignorantly mistakes the reason why Death passes upon all Men, (viz. because of Sin) but that cannot be said, John 3.6. That which is born of the Flesh is Flesh, Job 4.14. Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? no not one, viz. naturally and in an ordinary course. Again, I have proved that God Ordains Infants to be Baptised, which is given us for the Remission of our Sins, as is showed: Infants than must have Sin to be Remitted; otherwise there needed no Remission of Sin: but they have no actual Sin: Therefore Original Sin. Again, Except a Man be born again, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God, John 3.5. But Infants, as well as others, partake of the Kingdom of God, as is before proved: Therefore there are Infants born again; and so they must, surely, be sinful naturally, or else they could not be born again, or Regenerated. Again, David for the deeper sense of his own Vileness, ascends to the fountain, and source, of all the Evil and Uncleanness that he was liable unto, confessing that in iniquity he was form, and in sin his Mother conceived him, Psal. 51.5. where, what (I pray) would it have done to David's deeper sense, and further acknowledgement of his Vileness, (which, undeniably is his scope) that his Mother being in sin, (as Pelagianizers have learned to answer) did conceive him spotless and without sin? Nay, surely, the wanting of Original Sin would have made him to be the less vile, not the more; and beside, it was his own Sin, not his Mothers which he came to confess: and again lastly, We are by Nature Children of Wrath, (Ephes. 2.3.) therefore by nature we must be sinful, which must be Original Sin, seeing we have no other Sin by nature, and that we are born in. The Consequence is Infallible, seeing, we cannot be Children of wrath in that very respect, and under that very consideration, in which respect, and under which consideration, we are sinless and pure: for then as we are sinless and pure we should be heirs of wrath, which is an absurd Blasphemy: and cannot stand with the justice of God to curse a Man when he is Innocent: tell me not the instance of Christ Jesus, who though he was altogether spotless in himself inherently, yet, he stood in our room as our Cautioner, and all our sins were laid upon him, Isa. 53.6.  
Pelagianizers answer us, that the Posterity of Adam Sins only by Imitation, of their Predecessors. But Contrariwise, than we are only by Imitation, and not by Nature Children of wrath, (contrary to the Apostles Doctrine.) For we cannot by nature be Children of wrath, and yet by nature be pure and sinless. Secondly, I have showed that Infants have sin in them; but not by imitation (surely) seeing they are not capable to imitate therein: Therefore they must be sinful by nature, not by imitation. Thirdly, if we were made sinners only by Imitation, than some men might escape from that; for, we are not such perfect Apes, as to imitate necessarily what we see in others. Lastly, if Adam's sin be propagat to us only by Imitation, than we shall be made righteous in Christ only by imitation, of his righteousness also. But the consequent is utterly false: Therefore so is the antecedent from which it follows. The connexion of the Major (which only needs proving,) I prove from Rom. 5, 19 Where the Apostle declares that, as by one man's disobedience many were made Sinners: so by the obedience of one, shall many be made righteous. Which comparison requires some special proportion betwixt these members, so exactly compared, whereof there is scarce any shadow betwixt the imitation, and true and real Communication.  
Pelagianizers again answer that, though we be by nature corrupt, yet that corruption is not our sin, but our affliction and punishment only. Contrariwise, as the habit, principle, and seed of grace is grace (and so also all habits are still of the same nature with their acts) so also the seed and principle of sin must be sin. Rom. 7.23. is called the Law of sin, Warring against the Law of the mind; and so it's an enemy to grace, and the Image of God. Rom: 8.7. it's called in the very abstract (to show its wicked nature) Enmity against God, and that it is not, neither can be Subject to this Law. Galat. 5.17. Paul says, it lusteth against the Spirit, and is contrary thereunto. Shall that than which is the source, principle, and spring of all our actual sins; is enmity against God, his whole Image, and his Laws, and a contrary enemy to the Spirit; shall that (I say) not be sinful? nay, then, surely, there is no sin in the World, nor is it possible to render a definition of sin, if that be not sin.  
George Keith (in his Quakerism no Popery, page 75, 76) answers that our natural concupiscence doth not infer any real guiltiness upon us, nor makes us guilty of death, without our actual consent thereunto, and (which is more strange) that it doth not indwell in any, except where it is kindly received and obeyed; and, that therefore (which is his direct scope) our natural corruption is none of our sin, until we consent actually unto it. But contrariwise, the Scripture (which I believe much better) shows, that by the sin of Adam all were made sinners, and guilty of death (Rom. 5.16, 17, 18, 19) and, that by nature we are Children of wrath (Eph. 2.3.) and so George Keith strait contradicts the Apostle. Secondly Adam is not to be considered as a single Person in the matter in hand, but (as the Scriptures last cited proves) as a Common undertaker for, and representative head of all mankind; and so his deed in Law was the deed of all men, albeit they did not personally consent, even as the Public transactions, and deeds, of the representatives of a Kingdom, State, or City, are in Law the fact and deed of all. Thirdly, George Keith who (as I am informed) did dispute once for a Professors place, should have remembered (whatever be said of primo primi) that there are motus secundo primi, in us preceding our actual consent, which, when towards evil, are sinful, as when a temptation is tampered with, or somewhat listened unto, though in end it be rejected and the consent not given. Fourthly, gracious Principles, and gracious Inclinations are truly grace; or else a man is not gracious, though he be graciously principled and inclined: therefore sinful principles and inclinations, (that is, principles and inclinations bending to sin and evil) must be sin (by the rule of Contraries) yea the worst of sin, being the bitter Fountain and Source of all the rest. Fifthly George Keith grants (in the pages of his Book cited) that this natural Concupiscence in men, is an evil thing, and inclines to evil and sin (and so by a Metonymy, he allows it to be called Sin.) Therefore it must be properly and formally sinful, and not by a Motonymie only, seeing if it were not properly sinful, it would not incline so; for grace cannot incline to sin; nor can that which is neither good, nor evil, or sinful, incline more to evil, than to good.  
That which he says of our natural Concupiscence, it's not indwelling without our actual consent, and kindly reception; I cannot but think, he was in a strange mixture, when he dropped it from his ill-inspired pen. For I am sure, St. Paul says in a Text often handled (and by George Keith abused too, as shall after appear) that there was sin and corruption dwelling in him when he hated it, disallowed it, and gave no consent thereunto, nor kindly reception, Rom. 7 Chap. from Ver: 15, to, 23. and, certainly, our natural Concupiscence (which George Keith denys not to be in us, but there confesses, that it is (and it would be repugnant to be otherwise, as is clear) though he deny it to indwell in us, or to be our sin, till we actually consent to it) being an accident, must indwell into, and have union with some subject— of dependence, seeing it cannot exist without some vehicle, nor move one nails-breadth by itself. In whom then dwells it, when it is not consented unto? If he says, in the Devil (and he can say no other thing) than when he does not consent unto it, he has the Devil and it both to lodge, seeing if it be Subjected and dwells in the Devil, it cannot be in him without its Subject with it. And, in my opinion, he had better lodge it alone, as it and the devil too; for two such Devils are worse together, than any of them itself These are the dictates of a witty Inspirer.  
However, George here objecteth from Ezekiel 18, Chap: Ver: 4. where its said, the Soul that sinneth, it shall die. To prove, that, without an actual consent, unto our natural Concupiscence, we are not held guilty of death.  
Ans. The whole Chapter is concerning, the sins of nearest Parents, as is clear by reading it, and so makes nothing against original sin, derived from our first Parent Adam. Secondly, the manifest scope of the Chapter, is to give assurance to every man, of mercy upon his repentance and turning to God, whatever his Parents, or himself have been before. But will that infer, that such a man, who finds mercy upon his Repentance, never had original sin? O brave consequence! again, there is not the same reason of Adam, and of our other nearer Parents; for he was our common representative; not they; and therefore, we may be involved into his sin, though not into theirs, before we were capable actually to consent: for we do not stand and fall in any of them, but in him we did, as the Scriptures cited plainly proves.  
But, having dispatched George Keith, (albeit I will not stand upon all the objections here which are commonly brought, seeing, this Controversy hath been much handled betwixt our Writers and the Papists, where it may be seen) they have one great Objection which I must answer, and that is, That if our Nature be Originally sinful, that sin must either be propagated by the Soul, or by the Body, or by both. Not by the Soul; for seeing God alone creates that, so God should be the Author of Sin, which cannot be. Not by the Body; for so the Soul should be free of it, seeing the Body being a dull thing, cannot propagate it into the Soul. Not by both, for the first reason given especially.  
Ans. Whatever way it be propagated, I have showed from the Scripture that it is propagated, and therein we ought to acquiesce, though we could no ways comprehend the manner how it is propagated.  
Secondly, I answer, that there is not a sufficient Enumeration of the Parts: for our Natural Corruption is neither Originally propagated into the Body, by the Soul, nor into the Soul, by the Body; but by our Impure Natural Generation into both, which is evident, seeing, abstracting from, and laying aside our Natural Generation, and our dependence thereby upon Adam, neither our Souls, nor our Bodies had been naturally infected with that Plague. It descends therefore, most clearly, by our Natural Generation, not unto the Soul alone, or the Body alone, but unto the whole Compound consisting of both united, which is the direct Effect of Generation, seeing it is not Souls, or Bodies separated, but Men consisting of both united, that Men begets in their generative actions.  
In the following part of the Query, they begin to use Grammar against their Profession. Original (say they) signifies the beginning; and therefore Original Sin must be the Devil, forsooth. A brave Consequence indeed, which must stand upon the verity of this proposition, viz. the beginning is the Devil; which, if they hold for truth, than they must say, that God Created Heaven and Earth in the Devil, (Gen. 1.1.) and let them see to these Texts, (Colos. 1.18. Revel. 1.8.) where the beginning is attributed to Christ; but I never heard it ascribed Intransitively, (as they call it) and in the Nominative Case unto the Devil, till now. Origo (for I have learned my Latin) signifies a Root, Birth, Fountain, as well as a beginning; why then may it not signify (when the term Sin, is joined with it) the Sin which we have from our Root of Mankind, Adam? or the Sin we are born in? or, which is the Fountain and source of the rest? But let it only signify a beginning, why may not Original Sin signify the Sin of our beginning to come into the World? or, that Sin in us which is the beginning of the rest?  
For the last words of their Query, we must not think that Christ came to destroy or annihilate the Devil's Entity and Being, (as the Adversaries seem to mean) for the Devil is not dead yet; and the Scripture tells us, (Matth. 25.41, 46. Jud. 6.) That Hell Fire is prepared for him and his Angels: Christ's coming therefore to destroy the Devil through Death, (Heb. 2.14.) is meant of the destroying of his Power and Kingdom in the World, which yet will not be fully perfected until the Day of Judgement, as the Book of the Revelation throughly witnesseth.    

Thirteenth QUERY.  
Whether or not did Christ Die for all the  in the World and Sinners, that they should live and die in their Ungodliness and Sins, or live unto Him? and, Whether or not did Christ Shed his Blood for all Men, and was a Propitiation for the Sins of all Men? and, Whether or not these that do not hold this, are these that make Sects, and are out of the same Spirit and Doctrine of the Apostles?  

SURVEY.  
This Inspirer of the Quakers is either an ignorant Blockhead, or else a captious Sophister: for here we have a disjunctive Question, or Problem proposed by him in such a manner, that whatever Member thereof we yield, we are absurdly fanged: for, whether we say that Christ Died for all the Ungodly and Sinners in the World, that they should live and die in their Ungodliness and Sins; or, whether we say that he Died for all the Ungodly and Sinners in the World, that they should live to him, we still speak falsely and absurdly too: for the first way, we should say, that Christ Died for all these, that they might live and die in their ungodliness and sins, than which, nothing could be said worse; and the last way, we should say, that Christ Died for all Men in the World, Elect, and Reprobate, which is also both false and absurd. We must therefore purge the Question from a Plurality of Interrogations, (which is the true vice of every Member thereof) and propose it thus. Whether did Christ Die for all the Ungodly and Sinners in the World, or only for the Elect? That this is the true state of their present Question, their scope, and the rest of the Query declares; albeit the Adversaries either through ignorance could not, or for wickedness would not rightly propose it.  
It is the known Doctrine of the Quakers, (with Arminians and Jesuits) that Christ Died for all Men whatsoever, without exception, as also they do insinuate in their Confession, page 16. and 42. I shall not be prolix upon this Question, or else I should transgress my scope of Brevity: only I shall give a few clear Demonstrations from the Scriptures, whereby it shall be evident, that Christ did not Die for all Men whatsoever, Elect, and Reprobate, but only for the Elect, and this is the Assertion.  
Therefore first; for whomsoever Christ Died and shed his Blood, God loves them with a special love, yea, the greatest measure of love: but he loves not so all Men whatsoever: therefore Christ did not Dye and Shed his Blood for all Men whatsoever. The Major shall be evident by these plain and clear Scripture-Testimonies, 1 Joh. 4.9, 10. In this was manifested the love of God towards us, because he sent his only begotten Son into the World, that we might live through him: Herein is love, not that we loved Him, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be a Propitiation for our Sins, 1 Joh. 3.16. Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his Life for us, Rom. 5.8. But God commendeth his love to us in that while we were yet Sinners, Christ Died for us, John 15.13. Greater love hath no Man than this, that a Man lay down his Life for his Friends. These Scriptures make the Major as clear as Noonday. The Minor is no less evident; for God had never any special love to any Reprobate, and especially the greatest measure of Love: Depart from me, (says Christ to Reprobates, Matth. 7.23.) I never knew you, viz. with a knowledge attended with love; for, it is otherwise sure that he was not ignorant of them; but the meaning is plain, that he never knew them with any special love or kindness for them, which way it is often meant in the Scriptures, as Psal. 1.6. Jer. 1.5. Hes. 13.5. Amos 3.2. Rom. 8.29. 2 Tim. 2.19. Again, these whom God so dearly loves he quickens them together with Christ, and makes them sit in Heavenly places in him, Eph. 2.4, 5, 6. But he doth not these things to all Men whatsoever, as needs no proof.  
Secondly, These for whom Christ Died, God freely with him bestows all things upon them, Rom. 8.32. and it cannot be otherwise, as the Text plainly imports: but God does not bestow all things upon all Men whatsoever, without exception; seeing he never bestows any Saving Grace, Life Eternal, or Glory upon any Reprobate: Therefore, certainly, Christ did not Die for Reprobates.  
Thirdly, These for whom Christ Died cannot come into Condemnation: but all Reprobates come Eternally into Condemnation, as the Adversaries will not (I think) deny: Therefore Christ Died not for any Reprobate. I prove the Major from Rom. 8.34. where the Apostle Argues thus; Who is he that Condemneth? It is Christ that Died, etc. here the Apostle brings Christ's Dying for a Man, as an Infallible Proof and Argument, that, that Man shall not come into Condemnation, but shall surely be justified; for seeing Christ hath Died for him, (says he) who then shall Condemn him. Now if Christ had Died for all Men whatsoever, Paul's Argument had been quite void, and utterly null, seeing the most part are, for all Christ's Death, Eternally Damned; and the Arminians plainly contradict this Text, affirming, that Christ Died for Reprobates, who are Eternally Damned.  
Fourthly, Christ did not Die for these for whom he would not pray, seeing it's much less to pray for one, and to lend him but a good wish, than to Die for him; nor can it be conceived, that he who will not bestow a small Entreaty for me, will ever bestow his Life for me: But Christ would not so much as pray for all Men whatsoever, John 17.9. I pray not for the World, (says Christ) but for them which thou hast given me: Therefore, certainly, Christ did not Die for all Men whatsoever, but only for the Elect whom God had given him out of the World.  
Fifthly, All whose iniquities Christ bare, (that is, Died for) shall surely be justified, Isai. 53.11. But all Men whatsoever will never be justified, as will not be denied: Therefore, Christ did not bear the iniquities of, or Dye for all Men whatsoever. The Major is clear in the place cited, where the Prophet peremptorily and positively argues from Christ's bearing of the iniquities of a Man, that therefore he shall justify him; and he gives this as the ground, why he shall justify many, viz. Because He shall bear their iniquities; and so whose iniquities soever Christ bore, shall surely be justified; and that some whose iniquities Christ bare, shall not be justified, does utterly destroy and make void the Prophet's Inference; and therefore it cannot be said.  
Sixthly, For whomsoever Christ by his Death obtained Reconciliation with God, these much more he saves by his Life, Rom. 5.10. But all Men whatsoever are not saved by the Life of Christ, as the event proves: Therefore Christ did not by his Death purchase a Reconciliation with God for all Men whatsoever.  
Seventhly, All for whom Christ Died, are by God appointed to obtain Salvation through him: God (says the Apostle 2 Thes. 5.9, 10.) hath not appointed us to Wrath, but to obtain Salvation by Jesus Christ who died for us; where the Apostle shows, that Christ's Death is a mean appointed of God to procure the Salvation of these for whom he died; and so God intended the Salvation of all, for whom Christ died: but God never intended the Salvation of all Men whatsoever: Therefore, neither did Christ die for all Men whatsoever. The Major is proved already, nor do the Arminians deny it; but, on the contrary, affirm, That God did from Eternity intent the Salvation of all Men whatsoever, by an Antecedent Conditional Decree, as they call it. I prove the Minor: For first; If God intended the Salvation of all Men whatsoever, than all Men whatsoever would surely be saved, seeing whatsoever God purposes and intends, doth Infallibly come to pass: God is in the Heavens, he hath done whatsoever he pleased, Psal. 115.3. and 134.6. The Lord of Hosts hath sworn, surely, as I have thought so shall it come to poss, as I have purposed so shall it stand, Isai. 14.24. The Lord of Hosts hath purposed, and who shall disannul it? Isai. 14.27. I will work and who shall let it? Isai. 43.13. My Counsel shall stand, and I will do all my Pleasure, Isai. 60.10. The Counsel of the Lord, that shall stand, Prov. 19.21. But, it's most false that all Men whatsoever shall be saved, as needs no proof: Therefore, God never intended the Salvation of all Men whatsoever. Secondly, Many men are ordained to Condemnation, though justly to be incurred by them for their sins first committed, before they be condemned: Therefore, certainly, God hath not appointed all Men whatsoever to Salvation, seeing he cannot appoint, one and the same Man both to Salvation and Condemnation, and in good earnest intent both to save and to damn one and the same Man. Nay, no Man of wisdom can seriously intent to do any thing upon a Condition, which he certainly knows will never come to pass: For, How shall any Man of a sound mind, seriously intent to do that which he, in the mean time, certainly knows he shall never do? Nay, this is impossible. The Antecedent is also manifest; For God hath made the wicked for the day of Evil, Prov. 16.4. God sends many Men strong Delusions, that they may believe Lies and be Damned; and so he intends their Damnation, (though not as the End; for that is the Glory of his Justice) 2 Thes. 2.11, 12. and there are some Men who were before of old Ordained to Condemnation, Jud. 4. And what needs more? for whatsoever God doth within time, he from Eternity purposed and intended to do it; otherwise he behoved to do it, either against his intention and purpose; or else beside his intention and purpose, that is, without having intended and purposed it, or its contrary; or else lastly, he behoved to begin the intention and purpose thereof within time; all of which are Blasphemous and Repugnant, as needs no demonstration: But it is most evident, that God within time condemns many Men for their Sins, Matth. 25.32, 41. Therefore he from Eternity intended and purposed to condemn them; and yet they are justly damned for their sins first committed, before they be condemned. I may not here stand to examine all the miserable Evasions, whereby Arminians and Jesuits endeavour to Elude this Argument; otherwise this one Argument would swell into a Volume. But what is said, may be sufficient for such as love truth, and for confounding of the Adversaries, if the grounds here given be but rightly managed.  
Lastly, All for whom Christ died are redeemed from the curse of the Law, Galat. 3.13. Christ hath redeemed us (says the Apostle) from the Curse of the Law, being made a Curse for us, that is, being Crucified for us, as he there explains; and so Christ being made a Curse, that is, his being Crucified for any Man, redeems that Man from the Curse of the Law, according to the Apostle; and so if Christ was Crucified for all Men whatsoever, than all Men whatsoever are, certainly, redeemed from the Curse: but all Men whatsoever are not not redeemed from the Curse: Therefore Christ was not Crucified, and did not Die for all Men whatsoever.  
But here the Arminians and Jesuits meet us with their ordinary distinction, viz. That Christ hath not indeed by his Death redeemed all Men whatsoever from the Curse Absolutely; but that, for all that, he hath redeemed them from it Conditionally, viz. upon condition of their believing, which condition, because all men whatsoever do not perform, therefore it comes to pass, that all men whatsoever are not absolutely Redeemed, but only these few who perform the Condition. But contrariwise, I cannot stand here to declare all the absurdities that are wrapped up in this Jesuitico-Arminian Evasion, otherwise I should exceedingly transgress my scope of brevity. Only for overthrowing this universal Conditional Redemption, I shall subjoin two or three of the Arguments which our Divines most ordinarily bring against it. Therefore, for clearing the state of the Question, I grant, that the method and order of the application of the purchased Redemption (taking it for the Price paid by the Mediator to the Justice of God) is Conditional, that is, it is applied to us upon Condition of Faith, either Actual, or (at least) Seminal and Inclinative; yet, so as the Redeemer hath also by his Death purchased the Condition itself to all the Redeemed, and in due time actually conferreth the same upon them. If this would satisfy our Adversaries, we should consent, and the Controversy were ended. But this is not the thing in Controversy betwixt us: But the thing controverted betwixt them and us, is concerning Christ's Dying itself, and the very work of Redemption itself, if these were performed Conditionally for all Men; and so if Christ Died for, and Redeemed all Men Conditionally. For example, a Man procures absolutely a Pardon from the Prince for some Malefactor; but yet, he firmly resolves that he shall never know of it, nor it be applied to him for his comfort, until by the persuasion of a Friend, who, he knows, will surely prevail with him, (this is the holy Spirit with Sinners) he come and own him for his Deliverer, and Saviour, who procured the same.  
The Arminians and Jesuits affirm, That Christ Died Conditionally, though not Absolutely, for all men, without exception. This we utterly deny, and though the Affirmer only be bound to prove his Affirmation, yet until they do that, I shall confirm our Negation. Therefore first, If Christ Died for and Redeemed Reprobates upon condition of their Believing, than God intended that; seeing Christ did not Die for, or Redeem any man either against, or beside God's intention: But God never intended that Christ should Die for, or Redeem any Reprobate upon condition of Believing; seeing so he should have intended the Redemption of Reprobates, and that upon a condition which he infallibly foresaw would never come to pass, which sort of Intention cannot even befall any may of sound mind; much less can it befall the Infinitly-Wise God.  
Secondly, According to this Doctrine whereby Christ is said by his Death to have Redeemed all men whatsoever Conditionally, Christ shall by his Death have purchased Redemption, upon condition of their Believing, for these who long before his Death were already actually damned in Hell, for whom there was no place left for Redemption; which is extremely absurd, that a price should be exacted from the Redeemer for these who themselves were then Suffering, and Eternally, without hope, to suffer the Vengeance of Eternal Fire for their Sins. This cannot stand with Justice.  
Thirdly, If Christ hath Redeemed Reprobates Conditionally, than the performance of the Condition, viz. Believing, is either in their own power, or else it is a gift of God, (whether purchased by Christ's Death, or by God bestowed, without being thereby purchased, all is one to our present Argument.) It is not in their own power, Joh. 6.44. and 15.5. 1 Cor. 2.14. Eph. 2.8. Philip 1.29. Heb. 12.2. If then the Condition be a gift of God, then God either bestows it upon Reprobates, or not: if he doth, than he either bestows it upon them Absolutely, or else Conditionally; if Absolutely, than Reprobates shall thereby be made believers, and so be saved, seeing (as is supposed) God doth Absolutely bestow saving Faith upon them; if Conditionally, then, seeing Faith is the condition (by the Adversaries own principles) the sense hereof, will be, that God bestows Faith in Christ upon Reprobates, upon condition that they first, have Faith in him; which is both nonsense and it also implies a contradiction that they should believe when they have no Faith, as is supposed. If then, God doth not bestow Faith upon Reprobates, then, they cannot be said to be redeemed; seeing so, their Redemption (as is clear, from what is now said) depends upon a Condition, which is neither in their own power, nor yet doth God bestow it upon them; and so, it is, utterly impossible for them ever to perform. And will any Man, say, that a Man is Redeemed, when yet, his Redemption is not made so much as possible to him? his Redemption is upon the suppositions and grounds now laid down as impossible for him, as when a Man says, if ye will bring down the Stars, I will give you my Daughter, the Marriage with his Daughter is impossible. How then comes it to be a thing actual, when yet it is impossible? I confess that object would be worth the seeing, that were at once actual, and yet impossible.  
Fourthly, if Christ by his death Redeemed all men whatsoever, only upon Condition of believing, and otherwise Redeemed them not, than he by his death Redeemed only believers, and none else, as is manifest: But all men whatsoever are not believers: therefore Christ did not by his death redeem all men whatsoever, from the Adversaries own principles; and yet, they contend that Christ by his death Redeemed all men whatsoever; and so they directly contradict themselves, and their universal Conditional Redemption is repugnant.  
Lastly, (for I will stand no longer, upon a negative especially) if Christ died for all men whatsoever, (give it what name they will) than he satisfied Justice, for all men's sins whatsoever: But, the Consequent is most false and absurd: therefore so is the antecedent, from which it follows. The falsehood of the Consequent, and its absurdity are obvious: for if Christ satisfied Justice for all men's sins whatsoever, then, all Reprobates are most unjustly Condemned,  their sins for which they are Condemned, are by Christ satisfied for; and so their Condemnation is, an Act of great injustice, done both to Christ and them, which cannot be charged upon God, without extreme Blasphemy. I Prove the Connexion of the Major, because, the very immediate end and Intention of Christ, dying for any Man, was to satisfy Justice for his sins, as appears from Isaia. 53, 8, 9, 10. Mat. 26, 28. Rom. 4, 25. and 5, 9, 10, 2, Cor. 5, 21. Galat. 3, 13. Heb. 9.26, 28, and 10, 12. 1 Pet. 2, 24. In all which places, it is manifest that for whomsoever Christ died, he died, to satisfy Justice for their sins: for, it is expressly asserted in these Texts, that, He was smitton for their Transgressions; made his Soul an offering for their sins; Shed his Blood for the Remission of their sins; reconciled them to God, by his Blood; was delivered to die for their Offences; was made sin for them; was made a curse for them, to deliver them from the curse; appeared to put away their sin, by the Sacrifice of himself; Offered himself a Sacrifice for their sins; bore their sins in his Body on the Tree. All which, declares, that for whomsoever Christ died, he died to satisfy Justice for their sins.  
If they Answer, that Christ satisfied for all men's sins whatsoever, upon condition of their believing, (as they use) and otherwise not. Unto this I shall subsume, that not all Men whatsoever believe, but only some Few: Therefore, from the Enemies own principles, he did not satisfy for all men's sins whatsoever, but only for believers sins, and none else; and so their principles involves a Contradiction, viz. he satisfied for all men's sins whatsoever (say they) and yet, from these same very principles, he did not satisfy for all men's sins whatsoever, but only for believers sins.  
Secondly, seeing misbelief is a chief and Mother-sin, Christ hath surely satisfied for it also, amongst the rest, for all, for whose sins he did satisfy; otherwise he could not at all, have Redeemed them from the curse, if he had left any of their sins unsatisfied for; and so, if Christ died and satisfied for any Man, that is, for all that, Condemned, then still that Man, is Condemned for that, which yet is satisfied for, which is an Act of extreme injustice. What? did not Christ satisfy for all their sins, for whom he satisfied? if not; how came he to satisfy for a part, and not the rest? and how are they said, to be Redeemed by a partial satisfaction, which cannot Redeem any Man? and who should satisfy for the rest, of their sins? If then, (which is certain) Christ satisfied for all their sins, for whom he did satisfy, and so for their misbelief, among the rest, I would gladly know, if Christ satisfied for all Men whatsoever, for what Reprobates are Condemned: for it cannot, without the greatest injustice be, for their sins, which (as is supposed) are all satisfied for: misbelief and all. I cannot stand no longer upon this. But who so pleases may see this universal Conditional Redemption, very solidly, and yet very briefly Confuted in worthy Mr. durham's Exposition of the Book of the Rev. from pag. 299 the pag. 326.   

Objections Answered.  
But, now we must hear what our Adversaries, have to say for themselves. Therefore First, they instance that Scripture (1, Joh. 2, 2.) where it's said, that Christ was a Propitiation for the sins, of the whole World, that is (as they will) for the sins of all Men whatsoever.  
Ans. By the whole World, John does not mean all Men whatsoever, without exception; but his meaning is, that Christ's death was not only a Propitiation for the sins, of the Jews, and Men of their Nation, but also of the Nations of the Gentiles throughout the whole World; and for that cause, he calls it the whole World, because the benefit of Christ's death, was not any more restricted, and limited, to the Nation of the Jews, with their few Proselyts, as it was before, but was extended, to any Nation throughout the World, as well as to them. And that this must be the meaning of this Text, the Scripture arguments which are already produced, against universal Redemption, from which, the Adversaries, can make no evasion, (as is showed by the confetation, of their Chiefest devices and answers) do Evidently prove, seeing this Text of the Scripture does not contradict these, but is explained by them. Beside, the whole world and all Men do not always, in the Scriptures, signify all Men whatsoever, without exception, as may be easily seen Isai. 40, 5, Joel. 2, 28, Joh. 12, 32. Rev. 13, 3.  
Secondly, they object from 1 Cor. 15, 22. where its said, For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. (Say they) Christ died for all men whatsoever,  
Ans. If they will have this Scripture to be meant of all men whatsoever, without exception, it will prove that all men whatsoever shall be made eventually to live in Christ: for the sense of this Text is plainly eventual; (They shall be made alive in Christ, says it) But the Adversaries themselves know that all men whatsoever are not made eventually alive in Christ; and so they cannot urge this Text, as meant of all men whatsoever, but only of these who eventually are made partakers of Life. The meaning thereof is, That all that Dye, Dye in Adam, and he by his fall is the Author of their Death; So all that again get Life, they get it in Christ, and he is the Author thereof unto them, seeing out of him there is no Life, Act. 4.12.  
Thirdly, They object, That Christ is the Saviour of all Men, especially of them that believe, 1 Tim. 4. 1●. Therefore Christ Died for all men whatsoever. The Text cited, (for answer) is meant only of Gods general providence, which he hath over all men in this Life, in preserving them, and providing for them, which is chief extended towards Believers; otherwise in the sense of the Adversaries, who mean it, (by the objection) of Eternal Salvation, it will prove, that all men whatsoever are Eternally saved, especially Believers, which, I am sure, the Adversaries will acknowledge to be false, and absurd too.  
Fourthly, They object, That if Adam hath lost more than Christ hath restored, than Adam was stronger than Christ, which is most absurd.  
Ans. This Argument endeavours to prove, that the number of them that are eventually saved, is greater than of the eventually damned, contrary to the Scriptures, (Matth. 7.13, 14. and 20.16.) for as long as the number of the eventually lost is more than that of the saved, Adam hath still lost more, than are by Christ restored. Secondly, Christ's Death was indeed sufficient to have expiated the sins of all men, and to have restored all that Adam lost; but it was not appointed to expiate all men's sins whatsoever, but only of the Elect; and so the Argument reaches not that which it aims at. Lastly, It is an act of much greater power, to quicken one dead man, than to kill many Millions of living men; for, Adam was able to destroy many Millions, but not to restore one man; and so still the Consequence comes short.  
Fifthly, God will have all men to be saved, 1 Tim. 2.4. Therefore Christ died for all men whatsoever.  
Ans. The Apostle by all men, means not of all men whatsoever; but of all Sorts, Ranks, and Degrees, of men, as the word, all, is frequently in the Scripture understood, as I partly before shown, and as it is expressly explained, Revel. 13.16. and so the word, all, is meant of Genera singulorum, that is, all kinds of Men; Not of Singula generum, that is, every Individual man. An answer of the same kind may be given, to the Objection which they draw from Heb. 2.9. where we have it turned, Christ tasted Death for every Man. But, the truth is, there is no more in the Original in this Text, but that Christ tasted Death for all, [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] and the word, Men, is not in the Original; and so it may be as well supplied in our Language with the word Elect, or Believers, as with the word, Men; or, albeit it be supplied with the word, Men, yet, it must be understood as is said, of men of every Sort, Station, Condition, Calling, Quality, and Degree; not of every Individual Man, seeing by our foregoing Arguments, that would be utterly false.  
Sixthly, We are forbidden to destroy him for whom Christ Died, (Rom. 14.15.) and again, there are some (2 Pet. 2.1.) that deny the Lord that bought them: Therefore Christ Died for some, who for all that, may be destroyed and damned.  
Ans. The Apostle in the first cited Text means plainly of laying a scandal before a weak Brother, (of whom he there speaks) whereby we destroy him, as much as in us; and gives him an occasion and temptation to destroy himself, if that could be; but it is not meant that any for whom Christ Died, do, or can eventually perish; yea, in that same Chapter, (Ver. 4.) the Apostle expressly says the contrary, where he confidently affirms, That he shall be holden up. The second place cited, does not mean of these men's being bought and redeemed from Hell; but of their being bought, redeemed, or delivered from the ignorance of the World in a Moral, or Historical sense through some common Illuminations; and from the external pollutions of the World through some common Operations; from all which they did once seem to the Church to be also bought and redeemed from Hell, and were so in her Judgement of Charity, according to which respects the Apostle there speaks, most part whereof may be seen in that same Chapter, (Ver. 18.20.21.) where the Apostle says, That these men had escaped the Error of the World, and the Pollutions thereof, and had got some knowledge of the way of Righteousness, viz. an External, Moral, and Historical knowledge: and the rest of it is declared by John, (1 Joh. 2.19.) where the Apostle says, That such Persons (of the same sort that Peter here speaks of) went out from them, that they might be made manifest, but were not of them; where he teaches, that these never were of the number of the truly Redeemed; but that before their Apostasy they were not discerned from them, and had the same Judgement of Charity with them.  
Seventhly, The promises of the Gospel are universal to all: Therefore Christ Died for all men whatsoever.  
Ans. They are universal to all Believers, (Whosoever believes shall be saved) not unto all men; it's no no where said, whosoever is a man shall be saved.  
Eighthly, They object, That except Christ have died for all men whatsoever, many to whom the Gospel is preached, and are exhorted to Believe, shall have nothing that they can Believe; or if they believe, they shall believe a falsehood: But these things are absurd.  
Ans. It is false, that they shall have nothing to Believe; for they shall have to believe, that Christ is a sufficient Saviour able to save to the utmost, all that come unto God by him, (Heb. 7.25.) and, that he will also save all that come to God by him, (Joh. 3.36. and 5.24. and 6.37.47.) and so they have also to believe, that Salvation is offered to themselves in particular, and that they shall surely be saved, if they will receive and embrace Christ as he is offered in the Gospel; and while they believe these things, they shall believe no falsehood, but a most certain and sure truth. And if thereupon they shall flee unto Christ for refuge, and resolutely cleave unto him, it shall be a clear evidence to them, that they are of the number of these for whom Christ died, seeing no Reprobate did ever truly flee unto Christ as his only Refuge, and cordially adhere unto him, Joh. 10.26.  
Lastly, They object, That every man is bound to believe, that Christ died for him: Therefore Christ died for all men whatsoever, seeing we cannot be bound to believe falsehoods and lies.  
Ans. I utterly deny the Antecedent, seeing many in the world never had any means to hear of Christ's Death, who therefore are not bound to believe so much as that he died for any man, seeing no man is bound to believe that which was never held forth unto him, nor could he in any Moral diligence know of.  
Secondly, Neither are all who hear and profess the Gospel bound to believe that Christ died for them, but only such as have embraced Christ on his own Gospel-terms, whose Faith in Christ and Repentance towards God are Infallible evidences, that Christ hath Died for them. Nor can there be any thing more absurdly said, than that every man, even that hears the Gospel preached, is bound to believe that Christ died for him, whether he have embraced Christ, or not: for, than every man that hears the Gospel should be also bound to believe, that he shall be saved, whether he embrace Christ, or not; seeing for whomsoever Christ Died, he also saves them, Rom. 5.10. and 8.32. 1 Thes. 5.9, 10.  
Thou wilt say, Why then are these for whom Christ Died not, Exhorted to believe in Him?  
Ans. They are not exhorted to believe, that Christ died for them, except they shall first make choice of, and embrace him for their Lord and Saviour, as the Gospel offers him.  
Secondly, They are exhorted to believe in Christ, or to accept of him as their alone Lord and Saviour, upon his own terms to show them what is their Duty, and to make them without excuse, in that there was so much pains and means bestowed upon them to show them their Duty, and the way to Salvation; and yet they would not obey and embrace, but rejected the Mercy of God and Life Eternal, when it was offered to them upon condition of their believing in Christ Jesus. But thou wilt say, They cannot believe in Christ: How then can they be unexcusable for not doing it? seeing they could not help it.  
Ans. But it's their own fault, that they cannot believe in him, their inward sinful Corruption is the cause thereof.  
Secondly, They are unwilling, as well as unable; and therefore they are capable enough to become unexcusable; seeing they are both unwilling, and it's their own fault that they are unable.    

Fourteenth QUERY.  
What makes a Believer? Whether or not is it by believing in the Light, according to Christ's Doctrine, who says, He is the Light of the World, and doth enlighten every one that comes into the world, that all men through him might Believe? and who follows him shall not walk in darkness: for he is the Light, and says, That he that believes is saved. Then is not the Light saving which he believes? and he that does not believe in the Light is damned already. Then is not the Light, or his disobedience to it, his Condemnation? Yea; or Nay?  

SURVEY.  
It is one of the chief Articles of the Quakers Creed, that all men whatsoever are sufficiently enlightened for Conversion and Salvation, (as their Confession also asserts, pag. 5, 15, 16, 32, 33, 34.) as also, that they have sufficient Grace to be Converted and Saved, Quakerism no Popery, pag. 66, 67, 68, 69, 71. Therefore I shall divide this Survey into two Sections; the first concerning Universal Light, the second concerning Universal Grace.   

SECT. I. Concerning Universal 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 enlightened 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 its 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 Veil thereupon, (Matth. 13.11. Deut. 29.4. Isai. 44.18. Rom. 11.7, 8.) Are these then sufficiently enlightened 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, than they who are quite stupid, and have no conscience or sense of sin at all, but are past feeling, (as it is 1 Tim. 4.2. Ephes. 4.19.) are sufficiently enlightened to Salvation, which I do not believe. If then, the brain-knowledge alone, without somewhat of the other, be not sufficient to Salvation, than (with the Adversaries own grant) all men whatsoever are not sufficiently enlightened 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 enlightened to Salvation? If these be sufficiently enlightened thereunto, than 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 enlightened 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, (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 preceding, 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 behoved to be understood of all Sorts, Stations, and Degrees of Men, (or Genera singulorum) not of every Individual Man, (or Singula generum) and surely, John's witness was neither then, nor yet is come, to every man's 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 Gentiles had, be sufficient to Salvation, than the mere light of Nature and Reason, and that when it is corrupted and darkened, without the Supernatural light of Grace, or so much as one Gospel-promise, (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 enlightened, even in respect of the Covenant of Grace, when it was manifested to Adam, or any other of their forefather's.  
Ans. We were once sufficiently enlightened 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 enlightening is nothing to us.  
Secondly, Will their forefather's enlightening 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 easy) 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, etc. able to convert them, and so save them? The Quakers boldly affirm, that there is; and they do not mean of objective Grace, or Grace offered only to all, (which some plead for, right, or wrong, my present purpose is not concerned) but of subjective Grace, whereby the will is made able, and put into Hapacity and freedom to convert and turn to God, as George Keith affirms in his Quakerism no Popery, page 66. But I utterly deny, that there is Grace in all men sufficient for Conversion; and though still the Affirmer ought to prove, not the Denier, 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 easy, 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 entirely 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 easy; 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 entirely 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 Christ's plain assertion in the place cited. The Minor is clear from Joh. 6.45. where Christ positively affirms, That every man that hath heard and learned of the Father, comes to him: But all men whatsoever come not to Christ, (John 5.40. and 10.26. and 12.39. 2 Thes. 3.2.) Therefore all men whatsoever do not hear and learn of the Father, and so are not drawn by him; and so the whole Argument is evidently proved.  
Lastly, Conversion essentially consists in the Habits, Powers, and Principles of Grace; not in the actual operations of Grace; otherwise Believers would lose, and recover their Conversion, and so be in a state of Nature and Grace, as often as they are not, and again are, in the actual exercise and operations of Grace; and so every Convert would be an Apostate fallen from Grace when he sleeps, or is not actually exercising his Grace, which is utterly absurd, so to lose, and recover continually his union with, and relation to Christ, and his right unto Eternal Life: But, whosoever hath sufficient Grace, must, certainly, have the Powers, Principles, or Habits of Grace: Therefore, whosoever hath sufficient Grace, is, certainly, a Convert; and so if all men have sufficient grace, than 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 easy 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, shows 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 way, but by infusion) may show that they necessarily preceded 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, (says 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 requisite 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, etc. As the word, all, is often taken: for the Gospel was not then come to every Man's 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 Christ's body here, by the Context, not of all Men whatsoever. again, laying aside the Context, the meaning is easy, 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, speaks to every Man wisely, I do not mean that he hath spoken to all the World, but whomsoever he speaks 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 judgement come upon all men to condemnation: even so by the righteousness 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, than 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 freewill 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 ourselves 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 its God that converts us, and not ourselves, by our freewill 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 do 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 freewill; which that I may prove, we must know that the Quakers (with their dear Friends the Jesuits) do say, that God bestows 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 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 do left he take away the Freedom of their will, whereunto he still leaves them to choose, or refuse; consent, or descent. Now then,  
First, this universal grace, is not effectual of itself, to Convert any man; or else, seeing 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 freewill, to choose or refuse. not from the Devil, I am sure: Ergo, it must Infallibly, have its efficacy from man's freewill, which, by choosing and Inclining, applies it that way effectually, which otherwise had misgiven.  
Secondly, this universal grace in the business of Conversion, works at men's Option and Choice; for, if they Incline it concurs, if not, it forbears: Therefore it is therein clearly Subordinate to man's freewill, and determined thereunto by his Promotion; and so in effecting that work, plainly depends on him, and his freewill. 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 not Popery, pag. 67, 68) that so the efficacy of grace shall depend upon man's freewill, because, when it hath not its efficacy in order to Conversion in men who stop and resist it, yet it hath its efficacy in rendering 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 than to Non-conversion, seeing it can consist with either of them, at the party's option. Secondly, you say, it was not intended for their conversion who resist it How do they then resist it, who are 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 it's still resisted, be it crossed, or not. What an ill natured grace is this, that nothing can please. Thirdly, it's as much 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 man's 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. I'll have nothing to do with this Ill-natured, and false grace. God send me better.  
George Keith, (in the 68, pag. of his foresaid Book) endeavours to retort our Arguments here, alleging 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-denial, Repentance, etc. 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 destroys, 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 freewill, his grace. Thirdly, we may indeed, resist both the means and motions of grace, and not improve grace, as we should and might too; but God makes it still effectual to the growth by him designed, and when he pleases, not we; which ye Quakers deny he does, lest he take away the Freedom of your will, whereunto he must leave his grace to be turned this way, or that, as ye choice. By all these, no Parity there is to be found here for a Retorsion.  
The Quakers against this Doctrine do object, the many Exhortations that are in Scripture unto our Conversion and turning to God. Whereunto I answer, That these Exhortations do not show 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 joined, 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 freewill thereby, they also build the Apostasy of the Saints, alleging, that they may totally and finally fall away, who have true and real beginnings of Sanctification, as George Keith alleges, (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 Judgements, 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 joint Heirs of God with Christ, and given them the Spirit, as an earnest thereof, (Rom. 8.15, 17. 2 Cor. 1.22. and 5.5. Ephes. 1.13, 14. Galat. 4.6, 7.) and that Believers are kept by the Power of God through Faith unto Salvation: (1 Pet. 1.5.) and that whosoever is born of God, doth not commit Sin, (with full consent, or unto death) for his Seed, which is incorruptible, (1 Pet. 1.23.) remains in him, so that he cannot sin, viz. with full consent, or unto Death, (1 Joh. 3.9.) because he is born of God. I do not here stand to Argument from these Scriptures, because both they are of themselves clear, and likewise they have been often handled before, by our Writers against Jesuits and Arminians.  
But, they use to object most ordinarily, from the many Exhortations that we have in Scripture to perseverance, which (they allege) 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 joined, designs, and carries on the Saint's perseverance, and to show others their Duty, wherein if they fail, to be their ditty, as was before said.  
George Keith objects, (Quakerism not 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, etc. and thereupon also they seemed to the Church to be really and truly Converted; albeit it was not so, and they were never really Regenerated, or Sanctified; for, if they had been so, they had not fallen finally away, seeing (beside what is above said) the gifts and calling of God are without Repentance, Rom. 11.29.  
Secondly, He objects from Rom. 11.19, 20. where it's said, That the Jews were broken off from the Covenant, that we Gentiles might be graffed in. But this says nothing either, seeing many professed Members are broken off; but they were never truly and really Sanctified or Regenerated, which are the only Persons concerning whom the Question is, nor were these Jews whom the Apostle there speaks of, so much as professed Members of the Gospel and Christian Church.  
Thirdly, He objects from Heb. 10.29. (see the place, for I will not stand to repeat the words) where the Apostle speaks only of such as had received (though in a great degree) some common illuminations of the Spirit, and some common operations of his Grace; but not of these who were truly Regenerated and truly Sanctified, though they had once escaped the external Pollutions of the World, as Peter says, (2 Pet. 2.20.) and for all this, I appeal the Scriptures which I have produced to the contrary, which are both plain and unanswerable. And when he again objects from the 2 Pet. 2.18. I answer likewise, that the Apostle there means of men that Externally, and in the Eyes of the World were clean escaped from them who live in Error; but were not really so, or really and truly Sanctified; for, these that go away from us, are not of us, (Joh. 2.19.) although they may for a time profess and seem to be of us, and in our Judgement 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 Apostasy, but that of the Angels that fell from their Primaeve Condition, which will never infer the Apostasy of any mean Saint, seeing none of these is so absolutely at the Devil's Devotion. Or, if he means of these in the fourth Verse, who were crept in, and turned 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.    

Fifteenth QUERY.  
Whether or not the Prophets, Christ, and the Apostles, and holy Men of God, did preach down Perfection? and said, that Men should not be perfect while they were on Earth, but that they should carry about a Body of Death with them, while they were on this side of the Grave? Let us see where this is written by any of them all?  

SURVEY.  
The Quakers here are fight with their own Shadow, and however this mock-Inspirer drops in the Quakers own Principles, sure I am, he is a base Traducer of other men's Doctrine: for, What Minister of ours did ever preach, that Men should not be perfect here in this Life? sure enough, they should be perfect; but the Question is not, what is their Duty, and what they should be; but what is their Reach and Attainments. The Saints are indeed perfectly justified here-away, (Rom. 8.1.) nor can a Remission, or Pardon of Sins, or an Imputation of Righteousness be understood, except it be a full Pardon, and a full Imputation.  
The Question therefore, is only concerning the Saints their Sanctification in this Life, in regard of which, I must distinguish a Perfection of Parts; which is, when we have a degree of every Grace, and are renewed in some measure in every power and faculty of the whole Man, though we be not come to the just and due measure in any of them; And a Perfection of Degrees, which consists in the complete measure of our Conformity, and our exact Correspondence to the Law of God, in respect of all whatsoever it requires.  
But George Keiths Divine Condescension, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (wherein he abuses some worthy Men) does not consist in Gods remitting, or nullifying of his Law in its Direction, and Obligation, as our Rule, which cannot be, (Matth. 5.18, 19) but in the Divine acceptance of the Righteousness of a Redeemer, and Surety, instead of our own Personal Righteousness of Works.  
The first kind of Perfection I willingly yield to the Saints in this Life, seeing every true and real Saint hath some measure of every Grace, and is in some degree renewed in every power and faculty of the whole Man, Ephes. 4.24. Colos. 3.10.  
But that any man is Perfect in this Life, in the second sense of Perfection, (which yet is the most proper) so as to be altogether sinless, (as George Keith would have it, in his Quakerism no Popery, pag. 37. 38.) I utterly deny; and albeit the Affirmer be still obliged to prove, not I the Denier, yet I prove it. First, Because David says, (Psal. 19.12.) Who can understand his Errors? and he prays, (Psal. 143.2.) That God would not enter into judgement with him: for in thy sight (says he) no man living shall be justified, viz. by his own Righteousness and Goodness; and so he entreats not to be Examined, or Judged, according to what he was in himself, and I still believe, that he was as perfect as any Quaker, or George Keith, an Antesignanus, or Banner-Bearer amongst them.  
Secondly, Solomon, who was as wise as any Quaker, says, (Prov. 20.7.) Who can say, I have made my heart clean, I am pure from my sin? The Quakers answer him, (forsooth) that they can say it. Let them be doing then, and contradict him, and the holy Spirit too, by whose Inspiration he was ordered, in writing of that: for I cannot hinder them. Their Moon is at the Full.  
Thirdly, The Apostle tells us, (Galat. 5.17.) That the Flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the Flesh in Believers, (for he speaks not of others, who are all Flesh, or wholly Carnal, and have no Spirit, or Renewed part) so, that they cannot (behold how peremptory the Expression is) do the things that they would. Such men are not perfect then, albeit the Quakers may (possibly) differ from the Apostles Judgement.  
Fourthly, The Apostle John says most peremptorily, (1 Joh. 1.8.) That, if we say, we have no Sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. The Quakers answer, That the same Apostle says, (Chap. 3.9.) That whosoever is born of God doth not commit Sin; for, his Seed remains in him, and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. But first, This Text cannot be meant of a full and complete Perfection, seeing every Man hath Sin, and he deceives himself that thinks otherwise, by the former Text; and he that hath any Sin, cannot be completely Perfect. Secondly, If this last Text were meant of Perfection, it would prove every true Convert, from the very first new breath in him, (seeing, even then, he is born of God, which is the Apostles ground, why he cannot commit Sin in the manner that he means) to be completely Perfect, and exempted from Sin; which, yet, I think, the Quakers themselves will not say. The Apostle therefore in the first Text, means of Sin dwelling in the best of Saints here away, and therefore he expresses it by, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, signifying, to have sin; and in the second Text, he means of sin, not only dwelling, but reigning in us, and made (as it were) a trade of, and acted with full consent, (which Renewed Men cannot do) and therefore he expresses this by, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, signifying, to make, and devise, or contrive Sin, (as it were) by Trade. George Keith answers, That though we have Sin in us, yet, it is not our Sin, but our Temptation, (Quakerism not Popery, pag. 38. 39) and that this does not infer Actual Sin however. Contrariwise, The Apostle calls it Sin, and that peremptorily, certifying us, That we deceive ourselves, if we say we have it not. How then does George Keith call it only a Temptation to Sin? and, Whether shall we believe him, or the Apostle that calls it expressly Sin? Secondly, If it be not our Sin, whose Sin (I pray) is it? it's not the Devils, seeing not he, but we have it, (says the Text) and, I am sure, they will not be so impudently Blasphemous, as to ascribe it to God: Therefore, it is certainly ours, seeing it must be some bodies, and it will also mud and defile our actions.  
Fifthly, The Apostle Paul, (who was, I believe, more perfect than any Quaker) most heavily complains, (Rom. 7.15. ver. to the end) of his Corruption, Imperfection, and Sin dwelling in him against his will, his heart, and his strong Inclinations to the contrary; and therefore, certainly, he was not perfect, and I know not who dare pretend beyond him. But George Keith replies (Quakerism not Popery, pag. 39 40.) That the Apostle is not there describing his then-present-Condition, but the Condition of himself and others, as they were in the struggling and warfare Estate, before the Victory was attained. But Contrariwise, he is describing his then-present-Condition; for, he was not then perfect, nor long after it, when he wrote the Epistle from Rome to the Philippians, (compare Philip. 3.12. with Rom. 1.11, 13, 15. and 15.22, 23.) which was several years after his writing of the Epistle to the Romans; and, certainly, he had got the Victory over his Corruption then, (I mean in the very time that he points at, whether it were present, or past) seeing it was thrown out of his affection, and he hated it, (ver. 15.) and he was come the length of delighting in the Law of God, after the Inward Man, (ver. 22.) and with the mind he served the Law of God, (ver. 25.) all which import a great Victory, although the Enemies were not all utterly destroyed and gone, yet their force was broken. And albeit the Law in his Members was still drawing him into, or towards captivity, (which George Keith thinks absurd to say of the Apostle at that time) yet, this expresses only the endeavours of his Natural Corruption, not its success; for his unrenewed part was Carnal, sold under Sin, and no good thing dwelled in it: and what absurdity is there here? and when the Apostle sums all into one Conclusion, (ver. 25.) that with the mind then, he himself served the Law of God, etc. I see not a possibility for George Keiths Metaschematismus, except he will say, that the Apostle did not at that time, when he wrote this Epistle to the Romans, with the mind serve the Law of God, but that he did it only before, when he was in the struggling and warfare-Estate, before he had got the Victory, which will both be false enough, and absurd enough, as I judge.  
Sixthly, There is not a just man upon Earth, (says Solomon, Eccles. 7.20.) that doth good and sinneth not: Ergo, there is no man upon Earth Perfect. George Keith answers to this, (Quakerism not Popery, pag. 40.) That the Verb being in the second future, may be turned in the Potential Mood, There is not a just man upon Earth, that doth good, and may not Sin.  
But first, The Verb is in the Indicative Mood; and therefore our Translation has the advantage.  
Secondly, Solomon is explaining something that people might be ignorant of, which was not a bare possibility of men's sinning, (for who could be ignorant of that?) but it must be meant of their actual sinning, and short-coming, and that even in their best performances, in regard of the manner.  
Thirdly, No man can say he is pure from his Sin, (Prov. 20.9.) and the Apostle Paul was not fully pure from it, when he wrote to the Romans and Philippians, (Rom. 7.23.24. Philip. 3.12.) and as long as a man is not pure from his Sin, he is not perfect, nor can his actions (morally considered) be perfect either; a Fountain not fully pure, sends not forth perfect pure water, and still proportionably, the goodness and perfection of the Fruit, follows upon the goodness and perfection of the Tree, (Matth. 7.17.) and that it can no ways exceed. Add also these three Scriptures, 1 King. 8.46. Isai. 64.6. Jam. 3.2.  
Lastly, I cannot but admire, that any man should so far lose all sense of sin, and short-coming in his Duty, as to think, that he is come up to the full measure required in God's Law, to love the Lord his God with all his Heart, Soul, and Mind, and his Neighbour as himself. Surely, there is no man that dare pretend to an exact performance hereof; and therefore, there is no man completely perfect, and exactly sinless.  
But the Adversaries object, That all the works and gifts of God are perfect, and that therefore our Sanctification, being a work and gift of God, must be perfect.  
Ans. This objection endeavours to prove, that our Sanctification is perfect in the very first moment of our Conversion and Regeneration, seeing even then, it is a work and gift of God, as well as afterwards, and this undoes the Argument.  
Secondly, All God's works and gifts are perfect, if they be considered Abstractively, and merely as flowing, and depending from him; (for, Who can impute evil unto him?) Not so always, if they be considered Concretively, and as inhering and existing into us, who are impure, and in whom they are mixed with the remainders of Corruption, as water that is pure, as it comes from the Fountain, may be mudded by running through a miry place; and so the Argument proves nothing.  
Secondly, They object, That David pleaded often with God upon the account of his Righteousness, praying, that God would judge him according thereunto: Therefore his Righteousness behoved to be perfect.  
Ans. David meant of the Righteousness of his Cause, compared with his Enemy's Cause, who wrongfully Persecuted him; but not of the inherent Righteousness of his Person before God, (Psal. 19.12. and 143.2.) and when sometimes, in confidence of his Sincerity, he desires God to judge him, he does not mean of being judged by him according to the severity and strictness of the Law, Secundum justitiam districtam, (which sincerity, without perfection cannot satisfy) as may be understood from the Scriptures last cited; but he means of being judged according to the lenity and compassion of a merciful Father in Christ.  
Thirdly, They object, That the heart of several of the Kings of Judah is in Scripture expressly said to have been perfect, 2 King. 20.30. 2 Chron. 15.17.  
Ans. Perfection is there meant of the Perfection of Parts, or sincerity, (which are both one) not of the Perfection of Degrees; for, that none of these were gradually perfect, may be seen from 2 Chron. 16.7.10. and 32.25, 26. Isai. 38.17. the same is to be said of that large Commendation given to good Josias; (2 King. 23.25.) for, that he was not gradually perfect, is also clear from 2 Chron. 35.22. In this sense Job is also called perfect, (Job. 1.8.) and yet, he peremptorily denies himself to be gradually perfect, Job. 9.20. and sometimes again, Perfection is taken in the Scriptures comparatively, for a greater growth in the knowledge of God, and his ways, than others have reached to, (as 1 Cor. 2.6. Philip. 3.15.) where the Original word, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, will render Adult or Grown, and so it is rendered Heb. 5.14. where the whole Context (which I may not stand upon) shows it to be meant comparatively; and so also it best agrees with the Scope and Context of the particular places themselves; and where Paul claims unto himself that comparative Perfection, (Philip. 3.15.) he, for all that denies himself to have reached an absolute gradual perfection, ver. 12. there.  
Fourthly, They object from 1 Joh. 17, 9 (Quakerism not Popery, pag. 39) where it's said, He is faithful upon our Confession, to forgive us our Sins, and that the blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all Sin.  
Ans. As to justification, I yield this cleansing to be perfect, as to all sins past, and a sure ground thereby laid for pardon of future Sins, seeing the gifts and calling of God are without Repentance, and whom he justifies he glorifies, Rom. 8.39. and 11.29. But of sanctification it must be understood only Inchoatively, not perfectly; and the Verb, Cleanseth, in the Present Tense, imports the work not to be ended in this life, but still adoing, (albeit George Keith would infer the contrary) for, that which is before clean, needs no more cleansing.  
Fifthly, They object, That the Apostle says, (1 Cor. 7.28.) That though a Woman Marry, she hath not sinned: Therefore, there are some actions (at least) free of all sin.  
Ans. If this objection proved any thing, it would prove, that Reprobates, and Pagans, also have perfect works. Secondly, I answer, that Paul there means of the action of Marriage considered in respect of its nature and kind, and in order to its proper object, as abstracted from all particular circumstances which may attend it, which way the action hath no evil in it; otherwise it could not be lawful to Marry; (whereas to forbid Marriage, is a Doctrine of Devils, 1 Tim. 4.1, 2, 3.) Nevertheless, albeit the action of Marriage so considered, be not sinful, yet, seeing every particular action is necessarily exercised in several Circumstances wherewith it ought, or ought not to be clothed, it may easily be defiled and become sinful by the Vesture of evil Circumstances, (instead whereof, it should have been clothed with good ones) especially adding the impurity, and uncleanness of the Agent which exerts itself in every particular action.  
Sixthly, The Quakers object, (and hereby they endeavour to prove the perfection, both of the Saints, and of their good works in this life) The Saints (say they) have in this life perfect good works: Therefore, the Saints in this life must be perfect. They prove the Consequence, because perfect Effects crave perfect Causes. They prove the Antecedent, because they are acceptable to God; and because if they be not perfect, than they are sinful: but sinful they cannot be, seeing God commands them, who commands not things sinful.  
Ans. Our good works are acceptable to God thorough Christ, into whom all believers are by Faith Engrafted, and thorough whom alone both their persons, and good works are accepted: but none of aur good works here-away ore in themselves acceptable to God, seeing they are still Imperfect. Again God accepts them as they are good, that is, Sincerely done, not as they are Imperfect, and so evil; and so from their acceptation their perfection follows not. To the Second I Answer, that God Commands our good works, not as we perform them, but as we ought to perform; nor yet as they are defective as to the Degree, he does not Command their gradual defect; but he Commands them as they are good in respect of their Nature and kind. So the objection perishes.  
Seventhly, they endeavour, to prove that Christians have (at least) some perfect Actions in this Life, and for that purpose they Inquire of us, if the Apostles sinned in writing the Scriptures?  
Ans. First, this will not prove, the perfection of any Action of any man now living, except they can first prove him to have as large a measure of grace, and of the Spirit's Influence, and Assistance, as the Apostles had when they wrote the Scriptures, which will be hard enough (I think) for them to get done. Secondly, the writing of the Scriptures, (wherein the Prophets and Apostles were but Penmen; for the Holy Ghost dictated all) may consist with some Degree of imperfection, as the Action is considered Morally, and as liable to the Law of God: (David, and Asaph wrote Scriptures when they were not perfect, Psal. 51, 10. and 73, 22.) or else (beside the Instances given) what will they say of an Hypocrites writing over in whole, or in part, the whole Scriptures, and of every Action of Printing, while our Printers print them over? But Thirdly, for full satisfaction, I Answer that in that Action, the Apostles did not at all sin upon the matter (which yet is the most Formal sense of the objection, which thus proposed directly imports the matter) seeing the matter of the Action did perfectly agree, with the Law of God, as also the Action of an unrenewed man may do. Secondly, there was much good in it compared with all the rest of the causes, (and so it was sincere, and of another nature and kind, than any Action of an unrenewed man is, or can be) seeing the principles thereof (love to God and men.) The ends thereof (the glory of God, and good of Souls.) the form and manner wherein, it was done, (in obedience to God) were all, certainly, good. Yet considering it as a Moral Action, liable to God's Law, it was surely (for the reasons given) Defective and Imperfect, as to the exact and complete Degree of love to God and men, and respect to the glory of God and good of Souls, and Acting in it, in pure obedience to God's Command, wherewith every perfect Action is to be qualified.  
They will (may be) say, that then, the Scriptures would be in danger to Contract some Impurity from the Impurity of the Agent and Action of writing.  
Ans. That is false, as appears from our Instances of an Hypocrite and Printer and of David, and Asaph, when they were not pure, or perfect. And if the Doctrine written did necessarily Contract any impurity from the impurity of the writer, by the same Reason (and with more Reason, seeing the Tongue is a more Immediate Instrument of the Heart then the Hand) the Doctrine Preached should Contract some Impurity from the Impurity of the Preacher; which is manifestly false to the World's eye. Christ was the external object of the persecutive Actions of the Jews, yet he Contracted no Impurity from thence.  
But the Quakers urge, saying, though we cannot do all we ought to do; yet that which we do, we may do it perfectly.  
Ans. This reply must either be understood, of divers Actions, so that the sense shall be; though we cannot do all the good Actions we ought to do, yet that Action, or these Actions, which we do, we may do it, or them perfectly, which seeing by (Perfectly) they must mean the perfection of Degrees (and otherwise it would be nothing to their purpose of a sinless perfection which they plead) we must deny, because of these, and many other Scriptures (Prov. 20, 9 Eccles. 7, 20. Galat. 5, 17. Rom. 7, 21.) or else that reply must be understood, of one and the same Action; And so the sense is though we cannot do, an Action in that perfect degree of goodness, that we ought, yet in that degree of goodness wherein we do it, we may do it perfectly, where (it being the perfection of degrees, which is here Controverted, and by the Adversaries pleaded for, and otherwise, we should have no debate with them here) their reply involves a strong Contradiction, viz. that any Action performed below that degree of goodness which it ought to have, should notwithstanding be performed perfectly in respect of the perfection of Degrees, seeing so it would both want, and yet not want, some Degree of goodness which it ought to have. For these reasons, I justly deny the latter part of their proposition.    

Sixteenth QUERY.  
Can any man be saved by his own works, Self-righteousness, will worship? And are not all men in Self-righteousness that are not in the righteousness of Christ Jesus? And are not all of their own works that be out of the light, and the Faith that is the gift of God? And are not all in their will-worships that are not in the worship that Jesus Christ the Heavenly man set up above Sixteen hundred years Since, that is in the Spirit, and the truth? So, must not every man come to the truth, and to the Spirit, in their own hearts, if they come to the worship Jesus Christ Set up? And are not your Catechisms, Confession of Faith, and Directories your own works, and your own worship which ye have set down for People to fall down and do worship to, and be Saved by? And have ye not set up this since the Apostles days, and since Christ set up his worship?  

SURVEY.  
Because this Survey will divide itself into three Subjects, and it would be too long together, therefore I shall order it into three Sections. The First shall, Vindicat us from a Popish Salvation, or justification by works, or Inherent Righteousness, and shall fix a Popish justification upon the Quakers. The Second shall very briefly confuted their Popish justification. The Third shall overturn an exception made by the Quakers against the charge of a Popish justification which we justly lay to their door.   

SECT. 1. Vindicating us from a Popish Salvation and Justification, and fixing a Popish Justification upon the Quakers.  
The great scope of this Querie, is to make us seem guilty of holding a Popish Salvation by works, albeit the whole Christian World knoweth what a lewd Calumny this is, It having been the constant Doctrine of ours and all other Protestant Churches, against the Papists, that the good works of the Saints are not the causes, or Meritorious procurers of their Salvation, and it is founded upon Scripture-Testimony as clear as the Sun. For eternal Life is none of our merit and due, but is the Free gift of God (Rom. 6, 23.) And by grace, not by works we are Saved (Ephens. 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, than we might trust to them, which the Apostle dare not do, (Philip. 39 Nor is there any proportion betwixt our best works, and eternal Life (Rom. 8, 18.) And therefore they cannot merit it.  
The whole Protestant Church hath no less always abhorred the Doctrine of justification by our own Inherent Righteousness and good works, from the same clear Evidence of the Scripture (for which see Rom. 3, Chap. from Vers. 20. to the end, and the whole Chap. following. As also Galat. 2, 16, 21. and 3, 10 11. and 5, 4. Philip. 3, 9) and seeing, that is still imperfect in this life, it can neither be the cause, nor Condition, of our justification before God, in whose sight no man living shall be justified (Psal. 143, 2.) viz. by any Righteousness inherent or inward in himself.  
Nevertheless albeit our inherent Righteousness and good works be not necessary to Salvation, as Efficient or Meritorious causes thereof; yet they are necessary indispensably thereunto by necessity of presence, or as pure Antecedents, without which no man is Saved (excepting these that Die Immediately after Conversion, and Infants from the Actual performance of good works.) For which see Mat. 3.10. and 5.20. and 25. from vers. 34. to the end, and Rom. 2.9, 10. and 8.13. 1 Cor. 6.9, 10. Galat. 5.21. and 6.8. Heb. 12.14.  
And albeit our inherent, or inward Righteousness be neither the Cause, nor Condition of our justification before God; yet it is still an inseparable Concomitant of justifying Faith. For which see Rom. 8.1, 9, 10. 2 Cor. 5.17. Jam. 2.17.20. 1 Joh. 3.3.  
But what if the Quakers be Guilty of a Popish justification? Do not the Quakers hold justification by a Righteousness wrought within them, and formally inward and inherent in themselves? in this they join 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 ourselves) yea, and the very plain Design of Christ's 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 man's 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 divers 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 preceding Language. Therefore they do inevitably hold Justification by the latter, wherein they manifestly join hands with the Papists, for all their pretexts to cover it.  
Again (in the forecited 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 Christ's 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 yielded, 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, than 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 in them, as they are Acts of Righteousness, and gracious Acts, and not merely, 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 expressly and positively Teaches, that our inward graces and virtues of Repentance, Conversion, Faith as a Work, Love, Hope, etc. are the Righteousness whereby we are justified before God, and that immediately (page 53.) which was never true of Faith itself, which does not justify immediately by itself, 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 mere 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 Controversy.  
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 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 God's Tribunal. And this, and what this great Ringleader of the Quakers, we see, hath said before, shows 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 warrant 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 Enthusiastic way, immediately (Quakerism not Popery, page 16.) as if (forsooth) a man could not Taste Meat conveyed 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 Vessels conveying to us all our Spiritual Comforts, of Justification, Salvation, etc.  
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 Christ's 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 Christ's Righteousness; where Faith is not considered as a work, or immediately in itself, or as it qualifies its subject; But Correlatively, as apprehending and getting hold of the Object (viz. Christ's 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 not Popery, page 52.) to distinguish Faith, as Receptive, from itself, 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 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.  
Christ's 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 rendered 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 shows, 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 Chimaeras of Utopia may sooner break the Bars of Impossibility, and the Bolts of their necessary Imprisonment, than 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 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, than 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 Embracing 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 Christ's 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 Christ's Righteousness received by Faith, in this point of Justification (as I have often shown 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 divers upon any account that is possible to be shown 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 Christ's obedience and sufferings without us (for he did not obey and die within us) as we have before 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 itself 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 passed 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 shown 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 Nonsense.  
Fourthly, The righteousness wrought and inherent in our selves is a righteousness of works, or else adam's could not have been such, nor do the adversaries deny it; but George Keith mocks at our distinction of faith in justification as it is not considered as a work, but Correlatively, as being too nice, curious, and altogether Impertinent in handling controversies of Religion, and a work only delighted in by vain Janglers (Quakerism not Popery, pag. 45, 46) for which I think him both Impertinent and Blasphemous, in reflecting so upon the Spirit of God, who (as is showed) 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 ourselves (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, than 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 ourselves.  
Lastly, we are not justified before God by our own Law-righteousness, as is evident from Rom. 3.20, 21. and 10.3, 5. Galat. 2.21. and 3.11, 12. and 5.4. Philip. 3.9. But all the righteousness wrought, or inherent in us, is our own Law-righteousness: therefore we are not justified before God by any Righteousness wrought, or inherent in us. The Scriptures Cited clearly prove the Major. I prove the Minor; for first, it's as much our Law-righteousness, as adam's 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 shown before, that the Righteousness of our do and works, and our Righteousness of the Law are the same thing, and so does the Apostle (Rom: 10.5. Galat. 3.12.) when he, after Moses, Describes the Righteousness of the Law, and distinguishes it thereby from the Righteousness of Faith, which consists not therein. Thirdly, the Righteousness wrought, or inherent within a man conforms him to the Law in himself (though as long as its imperfect, it cannot justify 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 man's 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 not 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 try 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 itself 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. Christ's 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 Gild. etc. in Adult persons are, in an ordinary Method, necessary to justification, though both of them may be where the Bargain shall never be closed. And though where these Graces mentioned in the Objection truly are, the Bargain is certain, yet none of these Formalizes it, and receives Christ with his Righteousness, nor have they an aptitude so to do; but that is proper to Faith in its Relative consideration.  
It's necessary unto Marriage to know of a Party, and to hear of some offers and terms; yet none of these closes the Marriage-covenant, but that is done by the mutual consent and acceptance of the Parties.  
Secondly, the Quakers, may be, will object that much used, and abused Text of James (Jam. 2.21.) where it's said that Abraham was justified by works.  
Ans. The Text is not meant of the Pronounciation thereof before God (for, I am sure) Abraham was a justified man, before his resolution to offer up Isaac (whereof the Text expressly 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 show 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 virtues, and good works, which give Lustre and Glory thereunto (which there he calls the perfecting of it) and without which it will be found but a dead Faith.  
And when thirdly it is objected, that men will be judged according to, or by their words and works (as the Scriptures often say) the same answer is to be given, viz. they will be judged according to, or by them Declaratively, as Solemn Witnesses and Testimonies of the State they are in, manifesting before all the Equity of Gods procedure; not as Causes, or Conditions, except in the Damned, whose evil works are indeed the Meritorious Cause of their Misery.   

An Appendix concerning the Merit of our good Works.  
George Keith (in his Quakerism no Popery, page 55, 56, 57) Teaches also that the good works of the Saints are Meritorious of the Reward of happiness, though not in the strictest sort of merit, which he calls Condignity, or deserving a Reward, so as the Merit is equal in worth and dignity to the Reward; yet so as to obtain (viz. Meritoriously, for positively he pleads for their merit here) from God by promise as he out of his Infinite bounty hath seen fit to bestow, viz. unto such a merit; and though he refuses all Condign merit both here, and likewise in the 72 page of the book, as that signifies an equality betwixt the Merit and the Reward, yet he still sticks, though subtly, to a Condignity below an equality, page 57, and in all his Arguments he still aims to prove a worth and merit in the very works themselves. But I must Assert, that there is no merit in any of our good, or best works, in any sense of merit that's proper whatsoever, to obtain from God any good thing, much less the Reward of Heaven. I shortly prove it. Therefore first, the best of our works in this life are imperfect (as we have before now proved) and comes far short of that which we own: Ergo they can never merit any good at the hands of God, but, upon the contrary the Curse and Damnation Eternally, which is due to them who do not exactly in all things keep the Law of God, Deut. 27.26. Galat. 3.10.  
Secondly, Eternal Life is the Gift of God, says the Apostle Rom. 6.23. therefore it is no ways merited by any good work of ours; for that which a man merits is not Gifted to him, but it is his due. George Keith answers to this, that both the Works and Merits are a free Gift, and the Reward too. But I rejoin, how can I merit at a man's hand by his free Gift unto me? Can I merit at his hand because he hath obliged me and made me his Debtor? viz. I merit from him because I own him. When I give a Beggar a Farthing then, I become his Debtor, and must give him another in payment of my Debt to him, and then we are free; and if I give him a third, because now this is a free Gift again, I over again become his Debtor. Is not that fine Nonsense, and strong, Contradiction?  
Thirdly, the Apostle says (Ephes. 2.5.8.) that by Grace we are saved, and not by works: Therefore our good works do not merit the Reward of Heaven in any proper signification of merit be it never so moderate, and remote from strictness; especially seeing the same Apostle tells us (Rom. 11.6.) that that which is of works cannot be of grace, nor that which is of grace be of works, because, of a clear contradiction, and the destroying of both their Natures which he their shows. The Quakers then (with their dear Friends the Papists) must either confess Salvation not to be by any merit of our Works, or else they must deny it to be by Grace, flat contrary to the Scriptures. George Keith's Answer, that, as the Reward is of Grace, so the Merit is of Grace, is already destroyed; for I cannot merit by a free Gift of Grace, seeing I can never merit by becoming a Debtor to a man; for then the more I receive from him he should be the more my Debtor, not I his; whereas, in all sense and reason, I must owe him the more, instead of meriting.  
Now when George Keith yields this merit not to be equal in dignity and worth unto the Reward, I cannot but commend his Modesty; for its very much that the Quakers cannot merit above Adam's merit, if he had stood in his Obedience; for nothing that he could have done (all being still due to his great Sovereign) could have merited properly, nor could it ever have been equal to the Reward of happiness. And the difference betwixt the two Covenants is not, that, under the first, good works would have Merit Condignly; not so under the Second (for, as to the First, that is false.) But, it lies here, that, under the First, good works behoved to be completely performed, as the Condition, before we got, or had a right unto the reward; but, in the Second, Covenant, we have right upon our first Entering into, and closing of the Covenant, by Faith unto the Inheritance, before the performance of good works.  
But, George Keith objects there (pag. 56,) that the Saints are said to be worthy of the Kingdom of God, and of walking with Christ in white (2 Thes. 1.5. Revel. 3, 4) which Infers, at least, a suitableness.  
Ans. First, their worth is not reckoned in themselves, but in Christ. Secondly, a sutableness doth not Infer, a dignity and merit; A poor man in great need (yea, though no good man) is a suitable object of an Alms, though he does not merit it from us; he hath no Jus personae into it.  
Again he objects, that God rewards our good works; and therefore they must have some worthiness in them.  
Ans. God's rewarding so far beyond any worth, that dare be pretended, in our good works, proves that it is not for their worth, but upon some other account, that we obtain the reward, viz. upon Christ's account, in whom, by his free grace, we have obtained Redemption, and Salvation.  
Thirdly, he objects that, a meek and quiet Spirit, is in the sight of God, of great price. 1 Pet. 3, 4.  
Ans. First, our Souls also are of great price, in the sight of God; yet we do not for that merit Heaven. Secondly, doubtless God has a great esteem of virtues, of one of which the Apostle here speaks in the abstract consideration from vice; but in us they are mixed with Relics of vice, and imperfect, and so cannot merit. Thirdly, though they were in us perfect, yet they could not merit at God's hands, unto whom all that we can do, still is our bond Duty; this than will not infer moderate merit, till we be perfect in such Virtues, and even then our merit will be very moderate, seeing all will still be due, and unequal to the reward. And whereas he there alleges, that this our Doctrine of the imperfection, and not meriting of our good works, tends to the lessening of the esteem of righteousness amongst men; I must tell him, that this happens only amongst proud men, who will not be Righteous, except they can merit by it, as the Pharisees who would not submit to the Righteousness of the Redeemer, but would be Righteous in themselves, without that whereby they lost both. And I must tell him, it but only keeps us humble, in the esteem of our own Righteousness, that we overvalue not that. And I must tell him it makes us Diligent to look after more than our present reach is, and not to rest in our measures attained. And, I am sure, theirs loses these advantages of humility and diligence (which are great and profitable duties) and of forcing men out of themselves to Christ for Refuge and Righteousness, which are the weighty intents of Law and Gospel. These things may declare, which of our principles here is best, and according to Truth and Godliness. But I make haste, Studying all the brevity I can, without answering every one of their Calumnies, though loath to omit any of their objections in a Succinct and brief method, which still I Study, being loath to burden the Reader with any needless discourse.   

SECT. III. An Examination of one Exception more made by the Quakers against our Charge of a Popish justification.  
The Quakers, albeit they expressly and positively teach Justification, by an inward Righteousness inherent and wrought within them, (as is now abundantly showed) 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 denied the Imputation of Christ's 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 show, 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. Christ's 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 Distracted exception of the Quakers) than 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 behoved 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, than his Human Body behoved 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 Fabric of the World, may be contained in one small Nutshell; for the penetration of all Bodies, and of the all integral parts thereof, is as easy 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, than Christ, in his manhood, behoved 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 Christ's manhood shall have been often, since his Ascension, multiplied unto the divers 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 Christ's Individual manhood can, by any possibility be so multiplied unto divers and distant places at once, then so may the Individual manhood of any man, seeing Christ's manhood is of the same essential Nature and Kind, with the manhood of every man (Act 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 multiplied, 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 than one and the same man, might in the same Instant of time be both exceedingly warm, and yet extremely cold; both wounded, and not wounded; dead, and yet not dead; blind, and yet not blind; hanged, and yet not hanged. 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 plucked them out at Jerusalem; and yet it behoved to be so, or else he should be blind, and yet not blind both at once, and behoved also to have before, more eyes than 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 Hangman 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 hanged, and yet not hanged; dead, and yet not dead both at once.  
So also, if the same Individual man could be in many divers and distant places at once, let him be in London, York, and Newcastle all at once; let him remain still at York some days; at London, let him take journey, upon some occasion, to York; from Newcastle also let him take journey to Edinburgh. Now this man is both drawing nearer, and removing further from himself at 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 behoved to be distant therefrom, and not present therein; and yet this is in one and the same respect, viz. of local distance. Let not the Jesuits than tell us of divers 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.    

Seventeenth QUERY.  
Whether or not the Scriptures do not say, that he that believes hathceased from his own works as God did from his, and entered into his rest? and whether or not your directory, and Church-maid Faith, and Catechisms, and Confessions be not your own works? and ye follow them, and worship them, and not cease from them. And whether or not in so doing, ye keep people and yourselves in your own works, and from the rest? or we desire you show us what difference their is betwixt Spiritual Babylon and Sodom, and Egypt's works of their hands, and Temporal Babylon and Sodom, and Egypt's works of their hands, and their worship. Of each distinguish, I desire you, Distinguish the mystery from a plain outward Idol.  

SURVEY.  
The Quakers are still in the same tune; here the scope of their query is mostly to throw calumnies upon the Church of God in Britain, and to persuade the World (if they could) to believe, that she did set up her Directory, Confession and Catechism, as an outward Idol for people to worship. O impudent slanderers! men of seared Consciences! whom did ever our Church bid worship these? or who ever did it in our Church? But this is no new thing with the Quakers, who (it seems) have Monopolised the whole trade of accusing the Brethren, and outed the Devil of a great part of his Employment. For they never almost open their mouth without either Blaspheming God and his truth, or slandering of men. They are certainly extremely galled at the heart with our Confession, Catechism, etc. For though these had been the entire Subject of three of their queries, and a part of a Fourth before, yet here they cannot forget them; and, if truth will not take their part against them, they'll out brave the Devil in lying.  Flectere si nequeant superos, acheronta movebunt 
In the next place, the Ground whereby the Quakers Condemn here our Confession, Catechism, etc. is because they are our own works. But by our own works the Quakers either mean of evil works, or of good works: if of evil works, they should have proved them to be evil, before they had condemned them, which I defy them, and their inspirer both to do. But why do they inveigh here against our Faith also? they have long since rejected Faith, as it's taken Correlatively, and as related to its object which it apprehends and relies upon. And do they now Condemn it absolutely, as it is a quality and a work? nay then (I am sure) they have neither Faith, nor Truth. Or is it only our Faith in the Concrete, and in Hypothesi which they Condemn here? they should have given some grounds for that then, or else their Sentence is unjust.  
If the Quakers, by our own works, mean of good works, than they Condemn our good works. What then would they have us to do? viz. evil, or nothing; if evil, the advice is evil; if nothing, than they would have a Christian to be a mere dead Corpse, or a Lots wife Metamorphosed into a pillar of Salt, never employed in doing any thing, but continuing as a senseless Trunk to be a prodigy on Earth, and a mocking-stock to Heaven. Is this the Quakers vaunted of perfection, consisting in the omission, of all manner of works and doing nothing? This would agree better to a dog after he is dead, then to Christians alive, who if they do not something, and that good, neglect a duty whereunto they are obliged.  
The Scripture which they here hint at, (from Heb. 4, 10.) does not Condemn our good works, which are every where in Scripture, exhorted to and Commanded. The Apostle therefore means there, only of our works, proceeding from our Corrupt Nature, which works are evil, from which he asserts that every believer hath ceased, viz. Inchoatively, as the Apostle in the very place Intimats, while he calls it an entering into rest; the work of Sanctification and Holiness being Begun in us, and we Entered into the rest thereof, though it be not Perfected, till we be going hence.  
But, say the Quakers, whether or not, in so doing, do ye not keep people, and yourselves in your own works, and from the rest? But, what kind of rest, do the Quakers mean of here? if they mean the rest of Sanctification, Holiness, or Heaven, I have before shown, that our Confessions, Catechisms, etc. Are inferior helps and means, Conducing to set us forward to that rest, they are so far from keeping us from it. Or do they mean the rest of Idleness and Sloth? It may be they do; for they will not so much as pray to God, Except when they Incline to it by a free motion, and Instigation within.  
The Quakers, in the Close of their query, require us to distinguish betwixt Temporal Babylon and Egypt, and Spiritual Babylon and Egypt.  
Ans. I have hitherto abundantly vindicated our Church from the Aspersion of being a Spiritual Babylon, wherewith the Quakers, do ordinarily and wickedly traduce her, and it is the scope of this Epilogue of their Queries (they must end as they began, slandering and accusing the Brethren) and it may be also seen in their Confession of Faith, pag. 122, 124. Upon the other hand, I have charged home, the Quakers with their Errors, Blasphemies, Contradictions (and shall do in a Postscript, with their Papism and with Irresistible Evidence, have made good every Article of my charge against them.  
Only, in the general, to this part of the Query I Answer, that Temporal Babylon and Egypt, are understood properly of the places so called by the Inhabitants, and were a type of the Spiritual: but Spiritual Babylon and Egypt, are mystically and improperly understood, and are the Anti-tipe of the other. And hitherto the Quakers (possibly) will consent. But we will, surely, discord in the Application: for the Quakers make that great Babylon Spiritually and mystically so called, so much spoken of in the Book of Revelation, to be only inward, in the hearts of people. See their Confession, pag. 114, 115, 121, 122 138, 140. Where they allege that great Spiritual Babylon, to be within, in the hearts of people, and affirm the great Whore, and mystery Babylon to be our wisdom, and the Beast be our will whereupon our wisdom sits  
I Confess, the Pope is deeply obliged to the Quakers, and (belike) some of them, are as much obliged to him; he is not so unreasonable, as to make them work for nothing. The whole Protestant Church hath hitherto, proclaimed the Pope, to be the great Antichrist and Beast, and the Church of Rome, to be that mystery Babylon, great Whore, and Mother of Harlots. The Quakers are so tender of his and her credit, as to Contribute their best endeavours, by a new Invention, because all other devices have long since failed, for Enervating our Church's libel, and for wiping the reproach from off them both.  
But go to; is mystery-Babylon our wisdom, and the Beast and Antichrist our will. Let the Quakers then Answer these few following Arguments.  
First, albeit all Heretics are Commonly called Antichrists (1 Joh. 2, 18.) yet the great Antichrist, singularly and Eminently so called, was not revealed in the time of the Apostles, but to be afterwards revealed, 2 Thes. 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8. But it cannot be said that the Corrupt wills of men were not then revealed.  
Secondly, it cannot be understood how the Kings who give their power for a season to the Beast (Revel. 17, 12, 13,) and afterwards, destroy the Whore (ver. 16. there) shall destroy the carnal wisdom of all men, so that it shall be found no more at all, as it is said of that great Whore Babylon, after these Kings have destroyed her. Revel. 18, 21.  
Thirdly, seeing they will have our wisdom to be Babylon the great Whore, what then are these Seven mountains whereupon that Whore sits? and what are these Seven Kings, Five whereof were fallen before the Book of Revelation was written, one than was and another was not then come; which are the Seven heads of that whore's Beast; and what again are these Ten Kings, which are the horns of that Beast? Revel, 17.3, 5, 9, 10, 12. how shall these things be applied to the Seat, Heads, and Horns of our wisdom and will? Such an application will be an excellent Romance, i'll warrant.  
Fourthly, the great whore Babylon hath in her, Harpers, Pipers, Trumpeters, Craftmen, Millstones, Bridegrooms, Brides, etc. Revel. 18, 22, 23. But, are all these things, in people's hearts in their wisdom? The Quakers would make Heraclitus turn a plain Democritus, nay, almost a dead man to laugh himself alive, by their jocund and facetious humour.  
Lastly, the place where Babylon stood, becomes an Habitation of Devils, the hold of every foul Spirit, and a Cage of every unclean and hateful Bird, after her destruction, by the ten Kings, Revel. 18, 2. But I would think, that after the destruction of our carnal and corrupt wisdom, that the Devil, and all his foul Spirits should get the less access unto, and worse lodging into our hearts where our carnal wisdom before remained.  
Hence we see, what a wild Romance, the Quakers gloss upon the Beast, and great whore, amounts unto, and upon how Ridiculous a fiction their apology for the Pope, and Church of Rome is founded; and yet, I think, the great Doctors of the Quakers, deserves rewards at their hands: for they have done what, they could (and who can do more?) Albeit the success and event, (which who can help?) does not answer their desires.  
And now, I hope, that boisterous wind of Arrogance, and storm of pride, wherewith that supercilious Inscription of the Quakers, the haughty Harbinger of these Queries, did Insolently swell, is a little calmed; and, I trust, I have by the evidence, of Irrestible truth so overturned, their Bulwarks and dashed the force of their Heretical Armado of falsehoods that they shall not so confidently hereafter Summon the Armies of Israel with a defiance. But if their courage be so undaunted, that no routing, of their Forces can abate it, nor Impose silence upon them, but they will still be smattering, and will yet rally upon us with the new supply of a Reply; then I must, require them at the Instance of all rational Creatures to speak Reason and sense; for, (in earnest, not in jest I say it) they are often so obscure in their Enigmatical Riddles, and abstruse Expressions of mysterious and Cloudy nonsense that they transcend and overreach the most Metaphysical capacity of all mortals. This demand is so exceedingly reasonable that, I presume, if any Quaker, shall as yet have the boldness, to Compear in the defence of their heretical Interest, it will, without further pressing, be accepted and granted. Another thing I must desire of the Quakers, viz. That, they trouble us not with new controversies (as their manner is, when, they are overpowered and non-plused in any one purpose, to skip away to another, and from that again to a third, without either yielding, or satisfying) until they have First, methodically, in form and order, answered and satisfied this Survey of their present Queries; and this I expect to see at the Greek calends. let the Quakers then, who, I have often heard are Threatening a reply, perform these Conditions therein, which most justly I demand; or else, I assure them, for aught I yet know, I will trouble myself no more with their Confuse Rhapsodies of nauseous nonsense.    

A Postscript, for George Keith, which I divide into two Sections. The first shall wipe off his calumnies of Popery, cast upon us. The Second, shall fix Popery upon him, and the rest of his Brethren Quakers.  

SECT. I. Answers some Calumnies of Popery cast upon us by George Alias Mr. George Keith.  
Sir, I have read & perused your Book, which ye Entitle, Quakerism no Popery, (albeit the Book itself belies the Title) and I have redargued all your Erroneous principles whereupon, you treat therein, together with your Confession of Faith signed by many of the hands of your Brethren; as also, I have Surveyed and examined, the preceding Queries, that were sent unto me, by a Convent of your tribe, though signed, but with one of their hands. I come now to the calumnies of Popery, which ye endeavour to throw upon us.  
And First, I find you intent to fix Popery upon us, because the Authority, which our Ministers have by Ordination, came through the hands of the Roman Church. I answer you, that your Consequence is utterly null: for albeit, the authority of our Ministers, came through their hands, yet the authority was not theirs, but Christ's; it was not humane, but divine; and therefore, this cannot infer Popery upon us, seeing that authority, as to its substance, was not a Popish invention but a Divine Institution; albeit as to the manner, of conveying there was Popish Superstitions and Obligations joined with it, which were sinful, and behoved to be Repent of, by such of our reformers as had their Ordination at their hands; and therefore, that Ordination is still valid, as to the substance, albeit as to the manner it was wrong. And if their Ordination had not held valid, substantially considered, neither could any man's Baptism, Baptised in these times by Popish Ministers; but behoved to have been done over again, as not done before by such as had Authority; but that was neither done, nor ever thought needful to be done by any of our reformers, or any Divine since.  
Nor can this infer (as ye would have it, in your Quakerism no Popery, pag. 89,) that we therefore, own the Pope's Authority, seeing to own that were to acknowledge his Papal Supremacy and Usurpation, to comply therewith, and adhere thereunto, which we from our hearts abhor: But all that we in this point assert, is, that the Pope and his Clergy (albeit exceeding corrupt) had the Authority of Christ's Church in their hands, which, though by them clogged and corrupted extrinsecally in the conveyance, yet retained its Intrinsecal force, remaining still valid, as to the substance; as Water running through a mire mudding it does not lose the Nature of Water substantially, though extrinsically it is made Impure.  
Nor can our Ministers, be therefore justly called Pope's Emissaries (as you basely there reproach them) seeing their Commission was not upon the Pope's Errand, but Christ's; nor was the Authority they had the Popes, but Christ's. Whereas the Popes, or Antichrists Emissaries were always understood of these who by his Authority, as Pope, were sent upon his special Errands through the World, to its woeful experience of much mischief, deceitful Plots, most Cruel and Inhuman Massacres, and imparalleled Bloodshed (even amongst Turks, Heathens and Infidels) contrived and practised by them, as the only suitable Instruments of a Scarlet died whore Drunk with the Blood of the Saints and Martyrs of Jesus.  
But Sir, you ask there how the Pope and his Clergy came to have this Authority and power of Ordination in their hands; and you allege, he must have it either as Christian, or as Antichristian, whereupon ye (in vain) build a heap of needless deductions, to prove our Ministry Antichristian, pag. 89, 90, 91, 92. But to cut off your long discourse there, I must tell you, he neither had it as Christian (if your reduplication be formal, as it ought, and as it surely is in the Second member of the distinction) or else all Christians would have it. A quatenus ad omne, etc. niether had he it as Antichristian, or Antichrist; for so he has none of God's Authority, but the Devils plain Commission; Nor are these two terms Contradictory, but contrary, and follows the rules thereof, seeing many things, and persons too, are neither Christian, nor Antichristian. But I shall show you a Third, viz. He has it, and his Clergy also, as first Ordained a Presbyter and Minister of the Church, before he, or they, by their Acts and Constitutions, can ascend the Papal chair; and so they thus having it, and not being the facto by any Execution of Law taken from them, they can surely Communicate the same, so as to be valid. I speak of them here as before the Reformation, not as they are now to be considered, which is another matter, but not in the course of my present purpose.  
And for that you say, that many of the first Reformers had no outward Ordination, or call, nor were in Orders, it is most false; for they had the People's Earnest entreaties (though but of few such Ministers I read) and also the approbation, of other Reformers that were in Orders, which was equivalent to Ordination, though it wanted some of the Solemn rights thereof; and these times are to be considered too, when the reformed Church was but a constituting out of confusion and darkness. So that this will not justify your Enthusiastic Immediate calls, which I know, ye here aim at by this.  
But you say, (pag. 92, 93.) that the Roman Church did at that time, (viz. before the Reformation) Fundamentally err, in worshipping a piece of Bread, and her other gross Idolatries, so that she could not be a true Church. And so could not have any Church-authority, for ordaining Gospel-ministers.  
Ans. Idolatry is a corruption in worship and practise, not an Error in Judgement or principles, and it doth not always unchurch Physically and Entitatively (as the several gross Idolatries of the Jewish Church, both in the wilderness, and in the Land of Judea demonstrat) though it exceedingly corrupts Morally, and takes away her Moral purity. Secondly, a fundamental Error may either be Formal and Direct, when it is formally and directly held by a Church; and than it altogether unchurches them, as being quite off the foundation. ye Quakers look to this who directly deny all persons in the Godhead. Or a fundamental Error may be Consequential and Material only when it is not their direct and formal principle; but only by consequence unseen and unperceived by them (and which if they saw followed, being sincerely Ingenuous, they would Renounce that principle) it follows from their formal and direct principle. And though in this case a Church is not morally pure or true, yet it doth not Physically and Entitatively take away the being of a Church from her: Transubstantiation doth consequentially destroy Christ's humane body, and so his humane Nature, and denies his coming in the Flesh; yet this fundamental error being only Material and Consequential, not direct and formal, and so not formally such, could not unchurch them before the Reformation, when the consequence, in that darkness, was not perceived, nor Intended to be held; or else the Jewish Church often, the Churches of Galatia, and many others since, had been quite unchurched (when yet they were not) for their Consequential fundamental Errors.  
But Sir, the Case is now hugely altered, and the Scene changed, after that our Reformers have, by vive Demonstration, shown the Papists (their Clergy at least) the unavoidable Consequence, who yet still pertinaciously hold the principle, which it cannot be conceived how they can do it, in such Circumstances of shining Light, without allowing the Consequence also. There is also a vast difference betwixt the Papist-Church now, and before the Council of Trent, when many Errors that were before that, but taught, or held by some particular persons, greater, or smaller, but not turned into a Law, are now by public Consent, and Constitution of their Canon, or Church-law, become their universal and Church-profession, as she is such a Church, viz. Popish. And this makes her Guilty now in her very public and stated Notion of such a Church, and the Errors, if Fundamental (which now I meddle not with, because I need not) quite Unchurches; whereas the other of particular persons cannot do it; or else no Church could be long in safety.  
It may be, ye will retort this in what I said concerning Consequential-Scripture above, viz. that if the Terms Material, and Consequential, be diminutive, as here is said, than Consequential-Scripture will not be of equal Authority with that formally and expressly Taught. But there is no parity of reason for this Consequence, seeing men do not always see or perceive what follows from the Principles they hold; nor frequently would they, if they saw it, hold, or own such Principles. But God cannot be Guilty of Ignorance, but sees most perfectly all that follows from every Principle; and therefore every Consequence of his Word is as much by him intended, and so is as much of Divine Authority, as that which is most expressly and formally therein Enunciated. There is no place here then for a Retorsion.  
Having Discussed this head, I come to your following Libel of Popery, against us, charged in your Twelfth Section of that Book of yours often named; Where first ye charge us with Popery, in Asserting the three Persons in the Godhead, and a Trinity. But in this the Scriptures are as Popish, from which I have proved the three Persons in the Deity. And the Concrete also of the word, Trinity, is in the Scripture (1 Joh. 5.7.) and it is the only abstract thereof. But the Quakers are herein Blasphemous, and quite off the Foundation too; for if the Attributes of God, and persons in the Godhead be not Fundamental, nothing can be such. Your Ordination would, surely, be a mere Nullity.  
Secondly, ye allege we are Popish in affirming of Original Sin in Infants, who have not sinned Actually; and Thirdly, because we deny your universal Grace.  
Ans. Indeed your Principles in both these are Jesuitically Popish (and Jesuits are the worst of Papists, both in their Erroneous Principles, and Bloody Practices) for ye and they both join exactly in these against the Scripture, as I have before fully proved.  
Fourthly, ye say we are Popish, in affirming that humane Learning and Natural Parts are more essential qualifications of a Minister, than the Grace of God.  
Ans. Sir I described a Minister for these of your Profession before; and ye needed not have done it over again: for still, I see, ye would have an ignorant, nay unnatural Dunce. I have known men but moderately Learned be Ministers with us, because of their Piety, and fit Faculty for exhorting: But a man utterly void of Learning, and Natural Parts too (that's an Idiot, I think) cannot in an ordinary Method (and we cannot now, upon any ground of Scripture, look for extraordinary Inspiration to supply such wants) be fit to Teach; for how shall a man Teach others that which he knows not himself? a man of great Gifts, though really wanting Grace, may be able to Instruct and Teach others, as Judas, and many others have done, but a man void of Gifts and Knowledge, though he have Grace, cannot do it. And herein we are not Popish, seeing the Scriptures show that some without Grace have been Ministers, and called by Christ himself to that Office; but requires, that none without Gifts be admitted thereunto. 1. Tim. 3.2. Tit. 1.9.  
Fifthly, ye say we are Popish, because our Ministerial Authority is transmitted by external Ordination from Age to Age, and that this makes a Minister, though he have no Inward call, who is thereby Authorized.  
Ans. The first was in the Apostles time practised, viz. The transmitting of Ministerial Authority by Ordination (Act. 14.23. 1 Tim. 4.14. 2 Tit. 1.5.) and for the second, it gives him Ministerial Authority, and so makes him a Minister surely; nor is the Church obliged, or capable to know his Inward Call, without which his Ministerial Acts are still valid. None of these are any ways Popish, I am sure; not the first, for the Scriptures Cited; nor yet the second, for the reason given.  
Sixthly ye allege, we are Popish, in affirming that Clergymen ought to be distinguished from others by their Black Coats; so that it is not Lawful for honest Tradesmen, such as the Apostles were, to Preach, who have not past their Apprenticeship at the University.  
Ans. For the Clergy their wearing of Black Coats, I never learned that our Church made it necessary, and another Garb not Gaudy unlawful; but that they accounted it the Gravest and most suitable, I acknowledge; and I do not think it Popish to be Grave. As for the Apostles Preaching, who were some of them before, Tradesmen, they were immediately Called and Inspired, which now adays cannot be looked for, as is showed in our Survey. Nor is it Popish to refuse men the Pulpit who can do no good in it; for they must be apt to Teach that get that, by Scripture Command.  
Seventhly, ye allege we are Popish because we study our Sermons before we come to the Pulpit, and does not wait till the Spirit come.  
Ans. do ye think, Sir, that a Minister of the Gospel should not both by prayer, reading and serious meditation prepare himself before he come to Preach to the people? And is it Popish if he do? viz. Paul exhorted Timothy to be a Papist (1 Tim. 4.13, 14, 15.) When he enjoined him to read much, and meditate much, for the increase of his gifts, that his profiting might appear to all. But, Sir, what makes your Spirit Study so much? for they say to me, he will Study sometimes a whole day almost, for the wrabling out of a quarter of an hours nonsense. It may be, he is a Papist, and I very much fear, it be too true.  
Eightly, ye allege, we are Popish, because our Ministers have a modified, or set stipend for their maintenance.  
Ans. But, (pray you Sir) was the Law of God, ordaining, the Tenths for the Tribe of Levi Popish too? It's true that Law, as peculiar to that Church, is expired, but the Common equity thereof is still a binding example and pattern, for the People's encouraging of Ministers with a suitable maintenance; and, if ye please, ye may see (1 Cor. 9, chap.) How the Apostle at large proves that Ministers have a jus personae, that is a right in Law and Reason, unto a competency to live by, and that decently; for it reflects upon the Gospel and their Master to see them beggars, and brings contempt upon their Ministry. But, Sir, it's suspected, ye have more Encouragement under hand, than others have above board. Your Ninth parallel of our Popish principles alleged by you wherein ye divide parties of the same Religion, and state them (as it were) into factions, I do not incline to meddle with; for I would rather be ambitious to heal, or hid, than to enlarge, or widen these differences, which are to wide already.  
Tenthly, ye allege, we are Popish, because we affirm that men should not delay their worshipping of God, till they be Actually Influenced thereunto by the Spirit.  
Ans. I have showed your Atheism in this point already at my preface, and how ye hereby overturn almost the duty of all men both to God and man; and, I am sure, we shall never be Papists for opposing you in that Doctrine of Hell's broatching.  
Eleventhly, twelfthly, and thirteenthly, ye say we are Popish, in affirming, Baptism, with Water, Infants-Baptism and the Lords Supper to be Ordinances of the Gospel of a standing Nature.  
Ans. We affirm they are, and have proved above, that they are from the Scripture; and therefore no Popery here to be found.  
Fourteen, ye allege we are Popish, because we hold it lawful for Christians to Swear.  
Ans. But in this we are no more Popish, than the Scriptures are, which show it to be a duty, being duly Circumstantiated (see Isai. 19, 18, and 65, 16. Jer. 12, 16.) nor do I think that Abraham was Popish when he swore to Abimelech, and caused his own servant to swear to him (Genes. 21.24. and 24.3.9.) And I wonder if Paul was so Popish (2 Cor. 1.18.23.) or was the Angel Popish that swore by him that liveth for ever and ever; (Revel. 10.6.) Nay what think ye when God himself swears? (Isai. 54.9. and 62.8. Heb. 6.17.) Will ye impute Popery unto God too? But, you will say, we are forbidden to swear at all, Matt. 5.34. Jam. 5.12.  
Ans. We are there forbidden to swear by creatures, whereof both places speaks, and enumerats several of them, and all idle and rash swearing is there also forbidden (not doubt) but we are not forbidden there to swear Holy oaths, Oaths in judgement when called thereunto, or Oaths upon necessity for vindicating truth, as the Apostle Paul's was. And that no more is meant in these two Texts is both clear in the very places themselves, and likewise from the Scriptures and examples which I have brought for swearing, as is explained.  
Fifteenthly, You allege, we are Popish, because we hold it lawful for Christians to fight and kill there opposites in the quarrel.  
Ans. Truly I do not think any offensive war lawful, where any Prince, or people Invades another, without just cause. But when a Prince or his People are unjustly abused by their evil neighbours of whom they can have no legal redress, because they can get no Court that they will answer to on Earth, then, I am sure, it is lawful, nay necessary for him, and his subjects to redress their abuses by Arms. There are so many Instances of this in Scripture, that I will not cite one of them; only I shall propose a case which may, and does often fall out betwixt neighbouring Princes. What if any neighbouring Christian Prince should invade unjustly the Isle of Britain? should our King and his subjects sit still, and let him take it, and not resist him? All the World than might call us both fools and cowards. I assure you George, I would both fight in the quarrel, and kill all I could, till we were once masters of them (what ever ye would do) and judge it my duty thus to serve my King, and save my Country from slavery.  
Sixteenthly, ye allege, we are Popish, because we say, the civil Magistrate may punish men for their errors in doctrine, and worship.  
Ans. Do you think that these are not punishable; when a man must be hanged for stealing a horse, what shall he deserve for murdering of a Soul by Damnable Heresies? is not a Soul more worth than a horse, think ye? Are not false Prophets ordained to be even put to death, who lead people away from the worship of the true God? (Deut. 13.5.) And, I am sure, ye do not worship the true God, seeing ye acknowledge no person in the Deity; and so can not worship any of them. The Magistrate bears not the sword in vain, but is to be a revenger of wrath upon them that do evil (Rom. 13.4.) which soul-destroyers are highly guilty of (contradict, if ye dare) and therefore he is bound to punish them.  
Lastly, Ye allege, we are Popish, in affirming it lawful for men to kneel, bow, and take off their hats to one another.  
Ans. Seeing ye think it unlawful, than we see, ye place worship into it, and count it a duty to keep on your hats, etc. which I must think the height of Superstition and Folly, till you produce scripture-precept for it, which I can never expect to see. When two horses meet, they will neigh to one another. What! will you not be so civil as a horse, Sir? But I shall say no more to this here, having in my Preface, in touching the fifth Commandment, proved that external reverence (in the general, what ever is the custom of the Country in these things, if they hold of Divine worship) is thereby enjoined.  
For that which ye tell us Eighteenthly, concerning people's ornaments, and recreations, I thought it not worthy to be numbered. For Albeit, I know these things are too often abused (and I am sure, we are sorrier for it, than you are) yet, seeing all the gifts of God have a lawful use, and these ornaments are such, they may be lawfully used, and were used when Popery was not known. And as for games, though some may be unlawful, and others unfit, yet others of them are very lawful, and healthful too. And as for sporting, and Comedies, I am sure, ye may suffer me to break a jest upon you, without thinking me Popish; and schoolboys, for putting them to diligence, to act an innocent comedy, which only we allow.  
You say, Sir, you could have instanced several other particulars of our Popishness. But none of these that ye have instanced holds good. And I doubt nothing of your willingness, but that, if ye could have found any thing to charge us with of that nature, it would soon have been laid to our door, especially seeing ye have libelled so many Popish principles against us, which, we see clearly, do not hold good, and ye are therein found a traducing calumniator greatly allied to the Devil, the accuser of the brethren. I say not this for your hurt, Sir, but that you may, consider what state ye are in and repent, if that be possible, after ye have so abused the Truths of Jesus, and his inheritance.   

Second Section, fixing Popery upon the Quakers  
Having discussed your charge of Popery calumniously 〈◊〉 against us, I shall present a true one against you, and that very briefly.  
First, Therefore (for I resolve to adhere to the order of the queries above dispatched) It is a Popish rule, and a great one too, That ignorance is the Mother of Devotion, and ye (both in those queries, Quakerism no Popery pag. 98.) are not a jot behind with them in that, where ye condemn all means of knowledge, both humane and divine; and consequently knowledge itself, seeing we cannot reach knowledge without the use of the means of knowledge, whereby through God's blessing we may attain unto it; for extraordinary Inspiration is now ceased (as is proved before) nor must we tempt God to work extraordinary miracles, and neglect and despise the ordinary means which he had allowed.  
Secondly, the Papists deny the Scriptures to have any authority over us, or in order to us, until they get it from the Church, whereby they mean the Pope, and his Clergy; and do also deprive the whole body of the people, or Laity (as they call them) of the use of the Scriptures. And do not ye also deny the Scriptures to be our rule, at least, our principal rule, and endeavour to cause all men reject them, at least, as the principal rule? Witness the proceeding Queries, and your Quakerism no Popery. And is not this one dish indifferent dress? for both of you aim to bring the Scriptures low, yea to nought, without your approbation; they without their Pope and Councils approbation; yea without the approbation of your light and sentiments within; and so both of you agree exactly in subjecting the Scripture-authority to the authority of another rule, which, Inevitably, must be as ye apprehend. I am sure, in both these articles ye are as like the Pope, as any bastard can be like his father.  
Thirdly, The Papists and ye agree, in denying Infant Baptism, an external Christian Sabbath-day, and Psalms-singing to be ordinances of Divine Institution under the Gospel; they alleadgingthem to be only traditional; ye, that they are superstitious will 〈…〉. All which things we have seen in your queries, Con 〈…〉 faith, and Quakerism no Popery.  
Sixthly, (〈◊〉 have put three Articles into the last) The Papists deny Bread and Wine to be in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, affirming that, after the priest's consecration, it is no more Bread and Wi●e, but is substantially changed into the very body and blood 〈◊〉 Christ; so your brethren divinely Inspired, as ye are, in their fixth query here mock and scoff at the eating of bread, and drinking of wine in that Sacrament, making way (it seems) for that Popish Transubstantiation; whereof we are the more confirmed, because at the Sixteenth Query (as I cleared before) they lay down an assertion that cannot stand without the very grounds of that Transubstantiation.  
Seventhly, The Papists assert the Infallibility of their Pope and Councils, and make that a ground of defence for their Church-constitutions, and whole religion, rejecting all that want the authority of such Infallible guides; So, do not you assert the Infallibility of your teachers (Albeit often they are rather lunatic) and oppose our Confession, directory, etc. upon the very account of the fallibility of these that form them, though to no purpose, as is showed.  
Eightly, The Jesuit Papists (worse than any of the rest) stiffly deny original sin, and assert universal redemption, universal light, universal grace, freewill in natural unrenewed men unto good, and the Apostasy of the Saints (all which I have showed to be contrary to the Scriptures.) and in all these the Quakers are not a jot behind them, but on the contrary, do exceedingly outreach them.  
Fourteen, (For there are six articles in my last charge) the same Jesuit Papists hold perfection to be attainable in this life; Wherein ye are indeed more positive than they, albeit still against the Scriptures (as is before proved) which show us, that according to God's way of disposition (for the debate depends not on potentia absoluta) who will have us here to have a continual war with our corruptions (that the victories of his grace may be the more glorious, we the more humble, and dependant on him) We shall never here be fully perfect, or freed from all corruption. And, Sir, methinks ye strongly savour of supererogation too, while ye say Quakerism no Popery, Pag. 37.38.) that ye can attain a sinless perfection in this life, and yet grow in more degrees of grace for, Sir, when ye are altogether sinless, and so neither God, nor his law can ask any more of you, as not being defective, or unconform in a jot (or else ye cannot be sinless) ye may spare that which ye have more than is required and due, to a needful friend, or throw it into the Roman-Churches grand treasury of merit, and be Canonised next day for a Saint, for exceeding your duty, and giving that overplus to the Church.  
Fifteenthly, Ye hold justification by your inherent righteousness, and salvation by the merit of works as much as any Papist, nay as the Pope himself does, as is showed.  
Sevententhly, (for there are two in the last) your brethren have endeavoured what they can in your Confession of Faith (as we saw before) And ye in your Quakerism no Popery (Pag. 94) do sweetly also combine, to clear the Pope from that reproachful name of Antichrist, they alleging that the Antichrist is our will, and the Whore our wisdom that sits upon the same; ye affirming that Antichrist, more strictly taken, is a spirit sitting in man's heart Properly, which the Pope certainly, is not, and so according to you, Sir, we cannot, at least Properly, call the Pope Antichrist. Ye are understood, Sir.  
Eighteenthly, Ye hold the Apocryphal books, at least many of them to be of divine Inspiration, and consequently of equal authority with the Scriptures; for every doctrine divinely Inspired is of Infallible divine authority: and Scripture assurance, or authority can rise no higher. And herein, Sir, ye also join with the Papists. And when ye ask (which is your only argument) by what rule of faith we know, that these Apocryphal books are not of divine authority, or equal to the Scriptures? seeing the Scriptures says not whether they are or not. I Answer, that though by express Scripture sentence, or plain positive saying, this cannot be cleared, yet seeing these books do all of them want Scripture-stile (which by the rest of the undoubted Scriptures compared we easily see;) and they were not found in the original language of the Old Testament; and they are never cited in the New Testament; and in many of them there are things frivolous written, yea quite unsuitable; and in some of them the writer excuses his failings; and they were never accounted any part of Canonical Scripture in the Old Testament-times; and this passes without any reproof from Christ, or his Apostles (though most material) when they are reproving all the other vices of that Old-Testament-Church. We may clearly see that these Apocryphal books are no part of Scripture-Canon, or rule, place them in what degree ye will next; for that I care not, but a part or all of these things misses none of these books.  
As for what ye object, Sir, of many books wanting that might be useful (as ye say) in the Scripture-Canon, I must tell you (to cut short) that I am not here concerned what books are wanting, that is none of the present controversy; but it is concerning some books (viz. these called Apocryphal) which ye will have added to the Canon with the rest that are known to be Canonical, and which we deny to be Canonical, and requires you, the affirmers, to prove that they are such; and though not obliged, as being the deniers; yet we have proved they are not such. And hereby I cut off, your tedious rhapsody of confused arguments, whereby ye have wasted more paper in your Quakerism no Popery (pag. 60.61.62.63.) then all your work was worth.  
But the Quakers have one grand principle, of following the Dictate within as the principal rule, at least, which it would seem, and George Keith also insinuates (Quakerism not Popery, pag. 49.59, 103.) will never reconcile with that other grand principle of Popery, to believe as the Church of Rome believes. But unto this I Answer, that a great number (we see) of the direct principles of the Quakers are but mere Popish doctrines disguised (nay all of their principles almost, except some that are much worse, being more Blasphemous, then ever a Papist held) and that, of following the dictate within, is but a reflex principle obliging them the more to follow their direct principles, which (we see) are generally Popish. And so when their great doctors teach their disciples to follow their Dictate within, they do in effect, teach them to believe as the Church of Rome does; yet not so, as to discover their design and make every man wise of their secret; but subtly under a disguise, They are no fools, Albeit, they can desipere in loco.  
Sir, I have vindicated our Church from the Entire frivolous charge of Popery, Calumniously cast upon her by you in your Quakerism no Popery; and upon the other hand, I have libelled against your eighteen real Popish principles, from which ye can make no evasion, or tergiversation, they are all so clear in the preceding survey. And therefore I must here tell you, that your Quakerism no Popery should have been called, Quakerism no Verity: for there is hardly one true word in it all which I don't say to irritate or exasperate you, but rather with a desire from my heart (if it be possible) to convince you: for I know you are a Scholar; but (alace! your gifts and parts are ill Employed against the truths, laws, and ordinances of Jesus, which his dear purchase of them, teaches their great value. Be no more a stated Enemy to these; or else dreadful and terrible shall the event be unto you, and all who thus tread upon his truths, and Blaspheme his Person as you do, and trample under foot also his whole Institutions and ordinances.   

A Second Postscript for Doctor Everards' Ghost.  
There is one Doctor Everard (I wish he had been never heard) who hath published a book which he calls, Gospel Treasury opened up, or the Holiest of all Unvailing; and this Book he hath divided into two parts, In the first part whereof (Pag. 150.206.347.) he asserts that, after we are regenerated, it is no more we that think, see, speak, go, wish, will, rejoice; but that it is God that does them, and that it must be Christ the Son of God in us that loves God, fears God, obeys God, and believes in God; and (says he) though that may seem a Paradox, yet it is a truth; for Indeed and in truth (says he) there is nothing fears God, but God; nothing obeys God, but God; nothing loves God, but God. And again he affirms (Pag. 442.443.444. part second) that the good man is so swallowed up in God, that wanting sense, will, desire, he now (as the word requires) covets nothing; but now God in him wills, knows, desires, reads, writeth, preaches, gives, prays, hears, and is all things: for God (says he) desires not our works, but our Sabbath, and that himself in us, without hindrance may work, know, praise, pray, hear, crown, and reward himself in us. Thus the Doctor teaches, the great sum of all which is, That nothing obeys God, but God only. The Quakers seem to join with the Doctor in this his wild principle, while at the last of their Queries here, they seem to require our resting, or not working, and condemn our Confessions, Catechisms, etc. upon that very ground because they are our works; and to my sure experience I do know that this book of Doctor Everard hath predisposed several persons, and been their preamble unto Quaking, and therefore that this treatise may be somewhat complete, I resolve here to answer this principle of the Doctor, and to confute it, and two, or three more of his positions that have some alliance with the principles of the Quakers.  
Therefore first, (against the Doctor's foresaid principle) it is not God that believes in Christ crucified, accepts and receives his righteousness for justification, that looks for salvation through his merits; It is not God that loathes himself for sin, sorrows for his sin, confesses his sin, and denies himself, etc. And these are all works of obedience commanded of God, and exercised in the godly; and therefore the Doctor's principle here is most false. 2ly. Angels and men are either obliged to obey God, or not; if not, than they may do what they please, they cannot sin; and so also fallen Angels, and reprobate men are all most unjustly damned for their disobedience, wherewith they cannot be justly charged seeing (as is supposed) they are not obliged to obey. If then they be obliged to obey God, than the holy Angels that stood, obeys God, or not; if they do, than something obeys God, that is not God (against the Doctor's principle) seeing Angels are not God, I am sure; if not, than the holy Angels that stood are disobedient to God, seeing they are obliged to obey God, and yet does it not; and that is to say, the Angels that stood are fallen Angels. 3ly. If nothing obeys God, but God, than never any of all the creatures obeyed God to this day, seeing none of them is God; and all the creatures are equally guilty, or not guilty of disobedience to God, seeing not one of them ever obeyed him. But these things are absurd Romances. Fourthly, whatever obeys God must be commanded to obey him, seeing all obedience is to some command and Law: But God is not commanded to obey, seeing all the commandments are directed to creatures, and God is not under the Law he hath given to them, nor hath he any superior sovereign; and though Christ was under the Law as man, yet he was never under it as God, or else so should the Father and Spirit also, seeing they are all one and the same God, though they be distinct persons. Therefore God cannot be said to obey God in any proper speech, and the Doctor (we see by his expressions above rehearsed) means properly. Lastly, the Doctor here contradicts himself; for if God requires our Sabbath, and not working (as he affirms) and the regenerate and good man does so lay aside all works, as he no more thinks, sees, speaks, goes, wishes, wills, etc. (as he affirmeth too) then the good man obeys God, In doing that which God requires of him; and yet the Doctor denies that any thing obeys God, but God himself.  
But the Doctor (may be) would object, that the good works of the Saints are in the Scripture ascribed to God, and said to be done by his power, Ephes. 1.19. Philip. 1.6. and 2.13. 2 Thes. 1.11.  
Ans. God is indeed a very special Title the principal efficient cause of all our good works, and the Scriptures ascribe that unto him; But no Scripture saith that in our works of obedience only God obeyeth himself in us; for the reasons given that could not be. Nor can it be said that it is God that in us wishes, wills, prays, believes, desires, etc. Seeing these actions are not Immanent in God, but are merely transient as to him; and its Impossible for any person to will, wish, desire, etc. by any act not Immanent in itself, ●s any man knows. But these good works and actions, whereunto we are quickened and determined by God and his grace and Spirit, are Formally subjected in us, and Immanent; and so being Intrinsically united and Informing us, cannot but give us their Intrinsecal and formal denomination for an act of love being Immanent, or united to my will, or affections, cannot but denominate me as loving some object, and it cannot so denominate any other person, as is manifest: Though God therefore works in us the acts of obedience, faith, repentance; yet it is not God that obeys, believes, reputes, etc.  
The Quakers afford us another objection from Gal. 2.20, where Paul denies himself to live (viz. Spiritually) but that Christ lived in him.  
Ans. Paul does not there deny himself to live Spiritually, or vitally to exerce the operations of a Spiritual life; or else, if that were, Then Paul was then Spiritually as dead a man, as before he was converted, which is most false, and in the very next words he declares himself to live, viz. Spiritually. When therefore he denies himself to live Spiritually, but Christ in him, he plainly means of the fountain and source, or stock and supply of his Spiritual life, viz. That that was not in himself, or in nature, but in Christ the redeemer, and so the objection proves not their point.  
The Doctor teaches also in that same book (Pag. 16.17.299.361. part first, And Pag. 27.29.259.264.265. part second) That take but off all accidents from every creature, and that which remains is Christ and God; as if we take away all height and depth, greatness and littleness, weight and measure, heat and cold, matter and form: for (says he) these are all accidents; and than that which is left is Christ, is God: God is the substance of all things, and all the creatures are but mere accidents, and they are not only God's workmanship, as most men teach and believe, but also God is their very substance and Being, he is their very Essence and Being. Thus he.  
But if these things were so, God would be the most passive Being in all the world, for so he should be the passive subject whereinto all creatures should inhere as mere accidents, and he should be the passive and changed subject in all their mutations, and alterations; This would make a very changeable God, more changeable than the Moon, or Wind. 2ly. If God be the very, Being and Essence of every creature, than every creature is Essentially God Almighty, Infinite, Eternal, etc. for that whose Being and Essence is God, must, in respect of its Essence, or Essentially, be God; or else, in respect of its Essence, it will be both God, and not God, which is a Contradiction. 3ly. If God be the Being and Essence of every creature, than the Being and Essence of every creature is an uncreated Being, seeing God is such; and so every creature as to its Essence, or Essentially is not a creature, that is to say, it is Essentially not itself. 4ly. Every evil action is a creature, if then God be the being of every creature, than he is the being of every evil action too; and so the sin inhering into every evil action shall inhere into God (absit Blasphemia) who is the being of the action. Lastly, If all creatures be but mere accidents, and if God be the very Essence and Being of every creature, than God shall also be an accident merely, he being the very essence and Being of these created accidents as the Doctor will. Blasphemous, Absurd, and Repugnant.  
The Doctor also teaches (pag. 83.84.343. part first) that if we speak of God Abstractedly from all creatures; so the Father, Son, and Spirit are all one. But if we come to speak of any thing created, than we divide the Godhead into Persons, and there is Immediately Father, Son, and Spirit. When God puts forth himself in the creating of any creature, here now the Word is spoken and came forth from the bosom of his Father; before there was any creature made, there was neither Father, Son, nor Spirit in the Godhead as divided: for the Trinity is expressed only in relation to creatures. Thus he.  
But by the Oneness, or Unity of the Father, Son, and Spirit, as God is spoken of Abstractedly from Creatures, the Doctor either means of the Oneness of their Essence and Godhead; and thus they are still one, what ever way we speak of them, seeing they are still but one God; or else he thereby means of the Unity and Oneness of their persons, and this way (which is the way he doth mean, which appears by his opposing the distinction of their persons in the second member of his Antithesis to the unity mentioned in the first) the Doctor teaches mere blasphemy, in denying that there was any distinction of persons in the Godhead, before God made any creature, and except in relation to creatures: for so, if God had never made any creature (which might easily have been, seeing he did not create by necessity, or impulsion) there should never-have been three persons in the Godhead, nay nor any person; for before God made any creature there was neither Father, Son, nor Spirit in the Godhead, and the Trinity is expressed only in relation to creatures, says the Doctor. So also the three distinct persons in the Godhead must be merely temporary created within time, if there was no distinct person in the same before the creatures were made. Yea so the persons in the Godhead shall be debtors to the creatures for their Subsistences and Persons, without whom (if we will believe the Doctor) they would never have been. It's all Blasphemous.  
Again the Doctor teaches (pag. 284.285. part first) that throughout the Old Testament from the beginning of Genesis to the last of the Prophets there runs an Allegory; and (pag. 86. part second) all the Scriptures (says he) are Figurative.  
But in the Old Testament it is said, That there is a God, that we ought to worship him, that God created man, That man fell and sinned, That we ought to repent and believe, that God will be merciful to returning penitent sinners, that he is a blessed man whose sins are forgiven. Are these, and many the like expressions to be Allegorically understood? If the Doctor denied the things asserted by these expressions, and we, to prove the affirmatives thereof against him, urged these Scripture-saying, would he distinguish with an Allegorically true, Properly false? If that distinction were (valid or relevant, than all were gone. And are the whole Scriptures Figurative? Then (beside what is just now said) That Christ was born, suffered, satisfied Justice, is risen again, Ascended; That there is a life to come, a Heaven, a Hell, a day of General judgement, that believers shall be saved, and the rest damned; these I say, shall be all Figurative say, and to be understood Figuratively. And what can be said worse? for so the whole foundations are destroyed, if these say be Improperly meant.  
Lastly, (for I will stand no longer) that Allegorical Doctor teaches also (pag. 289.294.318.320. 322.323.334.342.347.348. part first) That the whole Scriptures have two meanings, one whereof he calls Outward, Grammatical, and Literal; The other Inward, Hidden, and Spiritual. Where, if he had said, that one and the same meaning of the Scripture may be understood with two sorts of Evidences; one of them External, Historical, and Grammatical, only; The other Internal, Supernatural, and Spiritual, he had not aberred from the truth. Or if he had said, that there may be sometimes in one text two meanings, the one subordinate to, and typified by the other (which yet is not Properly two meanings but one and the same compounded meaning, or meaning compounded) he had likewise said truth. But so he neither says, nor can be meaned: for in the places cited he often affirms, that the Outward and Literal meaning of the Scripture is but Excrements good for nothing, can give no nourishment, is not only dead, but killing and destructive; yea in some of these places he denies the literal sense to be God's mind, and affirms it to be but humane; Nay, he flatly also denies the Scriptures to be the Word of God; or that ever any man did as yet see, hear, or read the truth. The other sense of the Scriptures he calls saving, and an excellent mean of life to us.  
These things declare that the Doctor means of two  and Inconnexed meanings, and not of Subordinate meanings, seeing these meanings devised by him have no Respect, Connexion, or Relation with one another, seeing the one is but dead Destructive Excrements, and the other is Saving and nourishing. But it is not so with causes Subordinate, which jointly concur to produce the effect, each in their own sphere and order, as is known.  
Now to affix two Co-ordinat Inconnexed meanings upon the Scriptures is to make the true meaning thereof utterly uncertain; and to make them a clear Fraud and a Cheat put upon the World to deceive with their uncertain and Ambiguous senses, and consequently their Author to be an Impostor and deceiver (Absit Blasphemia) with his Doubtful and twofaced meanings, and his variable, and Proteus-like Intended senses, for they can have no more meanings, than their Author intended therein, seeing a meaning affixed on the Scriptures which there Author never intended therein, is not the meaning of the Scriptures, or else every wrested meaning would be their meaning.  
But Secondly, more particularly against the Doctor. Is the literal sense of the Scriptures, that teach us very plainly Christ's Incarnation, Death, Resurrection, Ascension, and the use and ends thereof, good for nothing, but a non-nourishing and destroying Excrement? He seems indeed to say so (pag. 52. part first) where he affirms that we must first wave the knowledge of the History of Christ Externally, before we come to the knowledge of the true Christ (hereby he Insinuats that the External Christ is no true Christ) that is able to save our Souls, But if these things asserted by the Doctor be true, Then it's no matter, or harm to us, Albeit the letter and History of the knowledge of Christ were all false, seeing that is good for nothing, can give no nourishment (as he will) and must be waved before we come to know the true and saving Christ. What can it matter to us then though it were all false? seeing it can do us no good, is but non-nourishing and destructive Excrements; nay, it hinders us to know the true and saving Christ; for we cannot know him (as the Doctor alleadges) until it be first waved; and so it's an opposite enemy to the knowledge of him.  
Secondly, If it be true that the literal sense of the Scriptures is not God's mind (as the Doctor affirms) than we may Counter-act the whole Scriptures in their literal sense, and yet be guiltless, seeing, though we do so, yet we do nothing against the mind and meaning of God in his Word, according to the Doctor's doctrine, and then we may commit Idolatry, Adultery, and what not?  
Thirdly. If the Literal sense of the Scriptures be not God's meaning, how comes the Doctor to call it Scripture-sense at all, or Scripture-meaning? The Doctor herein manifestly contradicts himself, seeing the Scripture can never have any sense, or meaning, beside the mind and meaning of its Author therein by him intended, as is both clear in itself, and just now I proved.  
Fourthly, For his denying the Scriptures to be the Word of God I shall oppose unto this the Survey of the Quakers Third Query, above where I have discussed that question. But when he denies that ever any man as yet heard, or read the truth, he speaks a little too Transcendentally: for if he means of the truth of Proposition, or Enunciation (which is only to the purpose; for we are not concerned with the Metaphysical Incomplex truth of Being, but with the Complex truth of Oration here) than he either takes truth in the Abstract form; and so never man henceforth shall hear, or read it, more than heretofore, seeing in the Abstract form it is not a thing Legible, or Audible; or else he takes truth Concretively▪ and as it denominats some particular Enunciation, or Enunciations true, so that the means that never man as yet heard, or read a true saying, or Enunciation to this day; and then he denies that himself ever spoke, or wrote a true word to any man's hearing, or reading, and cuts his own Throat, and I cannot help it; But (which is much worse) so he denies the Scriptures (which many man hath read and heard) to be true. It's a very strange and a sad business too, if we never heard a word of truth.  
But the Doctor (I know) will say, that only Christ is the truth.  
Ans. Christ cannot be the Formal truth of any Enunciation, or Oration, which is nothing but a mere relation of Conformity betwixt it and its Object; but Christ is called the truth, because he is the Author and Revealer, the Object and End of the Divine truth; for he makes it known, it treats of him as the main Subject, and it leads unto him.  
Albeit, the Doctor makes many wranglings to clear himself of being thought a contemner and vilifier of the Literal sense of Scripture; yet all comes to this at the last and most (which he never parts with) that the literal sense of the Scripture can do no good; but will kill and destroy us, except we reach another sense beyond that, and hidden under it, having no connexion therewith, or relation thereunto, The absurdity whereof I have very briefly showed. And beside, we see, he refuses to own the literal sense as Divine but as a thing merely Humane, denying it to be the mind of God. And so no Apology can bring him fairly, off.  
But the Doctor objects (pag. 52.318. part first) that the Literal sense of the Scripture is not saving, nor the mind of God, seeing the Devil, and natural men can reach that.  
Ans. But the Doctor supposes here a manifest falsehood, viz. that the Scriptures have one sense reached by the Devil, and natural men; and another which they know nothing of, and cannot reach, which, I have showed to be most absurd, the Devil, and some men unrenewed know as many senses of Scripture, as the Doctor does. But the difference betwixt a Natural and Spiritual man's knowledge of the Scripture is not, that the one of them knows a sense of the Scripture more than the other, and which the other cannot reach; but that the one knows the same sense of Scripture with an Internal, Spiritual, Supernatural, and saving evidence; which the other knows only with an Historical, Grammatical, External, and Common evidence; and so there are very divers kinds of evidences in their acts of knowledge, proceeding from Essentially divers principles of light and Eyes to see with; But the Object known is the same.  
I have therefore here Inserted, and briefly confuted these principles of the Doctor, which indeed are a considerable part (though not all) of the substance of that his foresaid book, because the Quakers know (and I in sure experience too, by the necessary and Inevitable, though Involuntary converse I have had with them) who are deeply concerned with the same principles; and (as I hinted before) I never almost knew any (and I have known too many) that once became the Disciples and Proselyts of that book, but in end they became professed Quakers; and therefore I judged it very convenient here (though shortly) to give an Antidote against it.    
FINIS.