SECT. I. Concerning Salutations by Gestures.
THE AUTHOUR.

HAving (after the Quaker-rate) saluted me with Reproaches, then page 10. 11. he tell­eth us that Quakers dearly owne Salutations, warranted by the Scriptures, such as Christ com­manded, and the Saints practised, but the saluta­tions that are amongst us, he calleth corrupt and I­dolatrous; and instanceth in bowing the Body, and uncovering the head: The reason alleadged to prove [Page 2] this to be Idolatry, is, because these things are the signification of our worship to GOD, and what is Re­ligious worship but that which is given to GOD? Answer, It is true, Religious Worship is given to GOD, and its that which is peculiar to GOD, and due to him alone, and giveing to the Creature, what is thus pecular to GOD? Is Idolatry, but bow­ing of the body and uncovering of the head is not of this nature. And therefore, worship is to be distin­guished, it is either Civil or Sacred, (this distinc­tion is founded on Scripture, of Civil-worship we read, Luke 14.10 Then shalt thou have worship in the presence of them that sit at meat with thee: We read of Sacred Religious worship; Matth. 4.10. Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him on­ly shalt thou serve.) Civil worship proceedeth from a reverencing of men, for their Stations, Relations, or some notable Qualifications, and this kind of worship, hath been given and received by the ho­liest of Saints, (neither is it any where forbidden in Scripture) and so Joseph upon his approach to his Father Jacob, he bowed himself with his face to the ground, Genesis 48.12. Abraham and Lot bowed themselves to the Angels, (supposing them to be men) Genes. 18.3. and 19.2. compared with Heb. 13 2. and the Angels accepted this worship without any reproof of them for it; yea, Abraham bowed himself twice before the people of the land, Gen. 23.7.12. and though every practise of Abraham is not to be so lowed, yet these practises which are not [Page 3] condemned in Scripture, neither by repehension or prohibitiō, why should we be blaimed for an imitatiō of the Saints in them? Seeing we mantain Sacred, Religious worship to be due, onely to GOD, and his glory must not be given to another as the Papists give to their Images, of which one of themselves a­ffirms, that it is the constant opinion of their Di­vines, that the Image is to be honoured and worship­ped with the same honour and worship which is given to him, whose Image it is. None can say, (unless they will be peevish and perverse) that we bow to men, to worship GOD, in and by them. It is known that the Papists speak of two kinds of Religious wor­ship, namely, absolute, which they give to GOD, or the Saints, and relative, which they give to their I­mages, and therefore Papists have no advantage, as to their Idolatrous worshipping of Images, from our allowable practise of bowing to men, thereby to testify a meer Civil respect to them.

The Gentle-man disputeth against bowing of the body as Idolatry, but he seemeth to justify Moses his doing Obeysance to his Father in law; And yet what is obeysance, but civil reverence by bow­ing the body, in token of that regard which we owe to some person of note?

SECT. II. Concerning Salutations by Words.

And as Salutations by Gestures are warranted by [Page 4] the Scriptures, so likewise are Salutations by words, Ruth 2. 4. And behold Boas came from Bethlehem, and said unto the Reapers the Lord be with you, and they answered him the Lord bless thee. And that command of Christs, (Matth. 10.5. when ye come into an house salute it; Its explained by the Evan­gelist Luke, chapter 10. verse 5. And into whatsoe­ver house ye enter, first say, peace be to this house. Now its known that the Jews in their ordinary Sa­lutations and Greetings, when they wished all hap­piness unto one another, they expressed it thus, Peace be to You: And from this, I inferre that bowing of the body, and expressing our affections by words, comprehending desires and good wishes, (though persons be not friends, but foes, Matth. 5.47.) is a­greeable to Scripture, and the practise of renow­ned Saints. As for taking of the Hatt, seeing it is not manifest from Scripture, that the Saints did wear Hatts, (the word so rendred Dan. 3.21. is varied on the margine Turbants, which were Head-garments peculiar to those Eastern Countries) it is no wonder that we do not read of their putting them Off, and yet this being one harmless way, whereby we express outward honour to those to whom it is due, why should it be quarrelled against? We must not think it enough to give Superiours inward ho­nour, the Scripture also calleth for outward honour, Levit. 19.32. Thou shalt rise up before the hoary head, and honour the face of the old man.

SECT. III. Containing an Answer to the Quakers Objection.

He saith, Its strange that we should say (consi­dering our principles) the kingdom of God consisteth not in words, for what is our Preaching, and the Scrip­ture it self, and the very Gospell according to us, but a company of words. Answer. Truely by the Scrip­tures we meane nothing else, but that Heavenly Doctrine, those divine instructions, or revelation of the mind and will of God, which the Lord exci­ted and moved Holy men of old, to speake and write for the good of his Church and People, and [...] (or the Gospel) according to us, is the doctrine of Christ, (the good newes and joyful ty­dings of Salvation by him to poor sinners) contain­ed in the Scriptures; And the Preaching of this Gospell hath been found the Power of God to the salvation of many a Soul, Rom. 1.16. Now if Qua­kers be for another Gospel, then they may justly be reputed subverters of the Christian Religion, and enemies to the Cross of Christ, and therefore liable to that curse which is threatned Gal. 1.8. And likewise know, that we use to distinguish be­tween the subject matter of the Scripture, or the doctrine which it contains, and the words or writ­tings containing, or expressing this Doctrine, the [Page 6] one is as the Blood, the other as the Veins in which it runneth.

SECT. I. The Danger of Asserting Saving and Sufficient Light to be in all.

He calleth it difingenuity for saying, that the opi­nion of all mens having sufficient Light in them ten­deth to put Christians in the same condition with Pa­gans. Ans. This Doctrine of Saving sufficient Light [Page 12] in all, naturally tends to it, for if Pagans have sav­ing Light, their state should be as safe as the state of of Real Christians. Where saving illumination is, there is also saving Faith, there being a concatina­tion between these Graces of the Spirit. That Scripture, while ye have the Light, believe in the Light, is understood of the Person of Christ, Ioh. 8.12. Ioh. 12.46. which the Jews then had a­mong them, and not of subjective inherent light, wrought in the soul by Christ, for this being a crea­ted thing is not to be believed in. If the Pagans light be sufficient, then there is no Spiritual benefit (let the Quaker call it as he will, whether the raising of the seed in them, or refreshing of them, the seed being raised) necessary to Salvation, that accrues to Christians by the Scriptures and the Gospel, but Pa­gans may have the same by their light, else their Light is not sufficient. Now is not the tendency of this opinion to make the Gospel a vaine and needless thing, and mens labour in Preaching the Gospel, wholly unnecessary? Yea, it tends to make men im­piously proud, as if they needed not to be be­holden to GOD for more light; And therefore if any of the Quakers judgdement, had been over­hearing David, when be prayed, Open mine eyes, that I may understand the wonderful things of the law, give me understanding that I may keep thy precepts. They might have been bold to correct David, say­ing look to the Light within thee, (thats sufficient) what needest thou pray for more?

[Page 13]Whereas he saith, page 17. That men are said to be brutish in their knowledge and to have no under­standing, because they turn their backs upon the light, and will not follow it. Answere. This is but petitio principis, a begging of the question, (which yet must not be given upon alms, without solid proof) taking it for granted, that persons who are bruitish in their knowledge, having no understanding, yet have sa­ving Light in them which they refuse to follow. Be­fore the Quaker speake of mens being in darkness, because of their opposition to the Light; It would concerne him first to prove, that the wicked who in Scripture, are called darkness, have saving Grace and Light in them. Can dead men have this sav­ing Light? And is not every man by Nature Spi­ritually dead? Ephes. 2.1. To assert that persons Spiritually dead, have saving grace and light in them, looks like a contradiction, for then they should be spiritually dead, and not spiritually dead: And though according to Scripture they be children of darkness, yet according to Quakers they should be children of light; for to be a child of light, is as much as to be one in whom there is saving grace and light, sufficient to guide him to please GOD, Luk. 16.8.

If it may well be supposed (as he saith) that the light in some is darkness, then the Quaker would do well in exhorting his Disciples, to bid them take heed of their light, (and not to it.) This was Christs way of exhortation, Luke 11.35. And as I re­member [Page 14] that phrase, take heed to the light of GOD within (which is so common among Quakers) is not to be found in all the Scripture.

Neither can saving light, which is from Christ in any sense be called darkness, as the Quaker insinuat­eth, calling it darkness to them that reject it, in that it giveth them not comfort and joy, &c. VVe owne that a disconsolate state wherein men walk without comfort, is called darkness, but this name is no where given to Christs saving light, which he setteh up in the soul; and though comfort and joy, be the result of the souls assurance and confidence of being in a state of light; yet this joy and comfort is not the proper effect of that light (which proceedeth from Christ) but of that Lord who gave the light, who is therefore stiled the God of all Comfort, 2. Cor. 1.4.

He denyeth, that having of saving light and grace presupposes Conversion, which he illustrateth by the similitude of a wound and plaister, the being healed of a wound presupposes the plaister, but the applicatiō of the plaister presupposeth not the being healed. Ans. What is this to the purpose? For when a man has saving light & grace, he is in part healed, cured of the dominion and reigning power of sin: And ths sup­poseth an application of healing grace, which is con­veyed into the soul, by the converting and sanctify­ing Power of the Spirit of GOD, and to make a difference between having of saving Grace, and be­ing in a state of Grace, is but the figment of the Quakers own braine. Its true, the wicked do not [Page 15] stand in grace; For how can they stand in that which they have not?

He addeth page 18. That there may be a sufficient light in men, who may be said after a certaine manner not to have the Spirit; as wicked persons have not the Spirit, bringing forth the fruits thereof in them, to wit, love, meekness, goodness, faith, &c. Answere. Can that person be said to have sufficient light, who is destitute of goodness, and wants faith which units to Christ, in whom the Christians strength and suf­ficiency lyes? Philp. 4.13. And without whom we can do nothing, Ioh. 15.5.

Besids having the spirit, implyes the souls receiv­ing of the spirit, and this phrase notes the implanta­tion of the Graces of the spirit in the soul, at its Con­version and Regeneration. VVhere the spirit of the LORD is, there is liberty, 2. Cor. 3.17. this spirit is a spirit of faith, 2. Cor. 4.13. and though the spirit reprove and convince the wicked, and by his motions call upon them, and strive with them, yet it will not follow, that they have sufficient light, or saving light; for men may have reproofes, striv­ings, convictions, that are far from saving grace: And unless the Quaker can make out that the Spi­rit calls upon every man, and strives with every man, in order to his conversion, then he cannot conclude that all have the Spirit, (even according to his own notion of mens having the Spirit) and if all have not the spirit, then all have not sufficient light, as for that place Ioh. 16.8. it rests for him to prove that [Page 16] the word world (which is homonymous) is there ta­ken for all and every one throughout the world.

SECT. II. The necessity of the Know­ledge of Christs out­ward Crucifixion.

He telleth us, page 19. 20. That the Apostle, 1. Cor. 2.2. Speaketh not of Christ as crucified out­wardly, but of him, as he was inwardly crucified in the Corinthians, as the word imports, being rightly translated out of the Greek, I determined no to know any thing [...]. i. e. in you. Answere. Here he hath no ground to except against our Translation, the words being solidly and soundly enough trans­lated, for by an ordinary Enallage, which particu­larly is called Protheseon Parallaga (which is the putting of one preposition for another) in, is rende­red among, and this is consonant to the Hebrew and Greek, see Genes. 34.30. ye have made me to stink, Bejoshev haaretz, in incoll [...]s ter [...]ae, and yet its trans­lated among the inhabitants of the Earth. Then Acts 6.8. Stephen did great wonders and miracles, [...], in populo, and yet who justly quarrel, if it be said that the wonders and miracles were wrought among the people. Then Luke 1.28. [...], Benedicta tu in mulieribus, [Page 17] but yet it must be rendered (for making it good sense) blessed art thou inter mulieres, among women, 1. Cor. 2.6. we speak wisdom [...], in perfectis, in the perfect, and yet the skilfullest Trans­lators render it, inter perfectos, among the perfect; Paul in delivering his message was not in them, though they wanted not inward fruits of that Gos­pel which he Preacht to and among them.

That it may appear how corruptly the Quaker would be translating the words, it must be conside­red that the doctrine of Quakers is, That Christ was crucified in the Corinthians, in the time of their un­belief, and at that time Christ was crucified in them in his suffering seed; that seed of Light and Truth, suffered in them under the burden of their transgres­sion. Now remark, that the knowledge of Christ mentioned, 1. Corinth. 2.2. was that which Paul rejoyced in, hence he saith, God forbid that I should glory save in the Cross of Christ; now it would not have been the Apostles joy, but his grief, to know that the Light of Christ was born down in them by their transgression: And therefore I must say it a­gaine, that text speaks of Christ outwardly crucified, and the obediential, heart affecting knowledge of Christ thus crucified, is the maine thing that all who profess Christianity, should aime to attaine unto. And as it is a calumny to insinuate, that that which we plead for, is a bare naming of Christs Death and Passion, so it is a gross abuse of that Scripture, 2. Cor. 5.16. to inferre from it, any thing against [Page 18] the knowledge of Christs outward Crucifixion. For the thing which the Apostle there condemns, is earthly and carnal thoughts of Christ, as if Christ as King of Israel, should begin an earthly and tempo­ral Kingdom, in this manner (saith the Apostle) from henceforth know we him no more, or we know him no more as a man living amongst us.

He addeth page 21. That the Blood of Christ knowne and felt within for Christ as he is within, is not without his Blood, which he giveth to them, who know not distinctly, the outward shedding of the Blood, as it was many hundred yeares ago. Answere. It is hard to take up what the Quaker means by Christs Blood within, he calls it spiritual, even the pure Blood of the Vine. But seeing he speaketh of it, as distinct from the outward shedding of Christs Blood; it would seeme that either he inclines to justify that which hath been charged upon some of his brethren, for saying, that they are not such fools, as to hope to be saved, by that JESUS, who was cru­cified at Jerusalem above sixteen hundred years ago: Or that which hath been charged upon others of them, who affirme, that CHRIST as man dwels in them. A doctrine that tends to overthrow the A­scention of Christ to Heaven, there to continue till the Restitution of all things, Act. 3.21. If the Quaker designe nothing by the Blood of Christ felt within, but the inward working of the Spirit, helping men believingly to apply Christs Blood which was shed at Jerusalem, (besides this, there is no other [Page 19] heart cleansing and conscience purging Blood, and e­very cleansing Grace in the Soul, is the fruit of this Blood.) Then it is his work to prove that they are wholly ignorant of this Blood, (that is, know no such thing as Christs Passion and Suffering) who yet are helped to a believing application of it, which if he do, then true Faith shal be a blind Faith, contrary to Esa. 53.11. by his knowledge shal my righ­teous servant justify many.

SECT. III. The tendency of the Quakers Principle, to introduce Paganisme.

He saith, as for thy deceitful insinuation to render us odious, that if our principles were generally owned, these Nations would be overspread in an Age or two with as palpable darkness, as the Heathens at this day are; seeing it hath no just ground, we returne it upon thee, as false and malicious, &c. Answere. Bona verba quaeso, soft words and hard arguments would become you better. If it be the Quakers principle, that the light within is a sufficient teacher, and that taking heed to this, there needs no more, then it is no deceit to affirme that this tends to introduce Paganisme, and that the general owning of it would make these Nations in a short time as the Heathen [Page 20] Nations at this day are. Now that this is their prin­ciple, our Quakers cannot deny, but by denying the writtings of their infallible friends, who in their Printed books call upon people to cease from their outside lights, and to returne to the light of Christ in them, saying, that they who look out at teachers without them, are strangers to that Covenant, by which all come to know the Lord, and need not that one teach another. I am credibly informed (by a Reverend Person whom I may trust) that upon oc­casion of his visiting a dying friend (in Aberdene) there was at that time in the house two Quakers, and both of them pressed so much upon the dying man, to take heed to the light within, (making this the chief and onely matter of their discourse) that my informer found fault with them, that they spake so much of taking heed to the light, and nothing of believing in Christ: Whereupon on of their fur­ther said, that if he took heed to the light there needed no more words, neither book without, nor teacher without: which in effect is, that the light within is so sufficient a teacher, that there needs no other to teach but that, neither the teaching of the Scriptures, nor the Ministry of men; and laying this Teaching aside, what a woful plight should these Nations (in an Age or two) be in? There is no doubt but dismal darkness would overspread them. It is like, that now the Quakers do see, how much this principle contradicts their own practise (and must of necessity tend to make them odious) for [Page 21] they have teachers, and teaching among themselves. And therefore its added, page 22. that the light must not only be taken heed unto, but believed, obeyed, and walked in, which who do, it will lead them to use the Scriptures, and lead them to the assemblies of Gods people, and to hear and receive the Ministry of those whom God sends. But some of the Quakers in England, to keep their principle from clashing with their practise, have been heard say, that their teaching is but to take people off from other teachers, that they may be brought to minde the light in them alone; and then they will cease teachings. Now when all Teaching ceaseth, except the inward teach­ing which the Indians have, how quickly shal we be like them, among whom the Name of CHRIST is not in rememberance.

SECT. IV. The Light GIVER must not be confounded with the Light given.

He addeth page 22. That they do not confound the Light Giver with the Light, or enlightening given. Ans. Ye do plainly confound them, for do ye not call that light Jesus Christ, wherewith all men are enlightened? And yet this light is but a ray or beame proceeding from Christ, and therefore [Page 22] he is said to be that True Light, which enlighteneth every man: clearly importing a difference between the light in all men, and Christ the Donator of this light. It is acknowledged that where the light, or enlightening from Christ is, there is Christ himself, namely, according to the nature of the light: which light in the wicked is common, but in the Godly is saving, and so Christ is in the one, as to a common, but in the other, in respect of a saving operation of light. Now when he saith that Christ is in all men, if his meaning be that as God, he is in all men, then we do not control him, for thus Christ is every where. If his meaning be that as man, he is in all men, then the Scripture controls him, which holdeth forth his Man-hood, must continue in Heaven, untill the time of the restitution of all things. If his meaning be that Christ is in all men to enlighten them that they may believe, then his proof is not sufficient, which is Ioh. 1.9. compared with 7. for this seventh verse, speaketh expresly of Iohn the Baptist, the fore-run­ner of Christ, as is evident by looking back to the preceeding verse, There was a man sent from God, whose name was John, the same came for a witness to bear witness of the light, that all men through him might believe. Here the Evangelist holdeth forth Iohns calling and the end of it, which was to bear testimony concerning Christ. This was the special scop of Iohns Ministry, to point out Christ in his ex­cellencies and usefulness to lost men, and to whom the offer of Christ comes (in the Ministry of the [Page 23] word) they are called upon to believe in Christ, none being excluded.

SECT. V. There is a Consistency between Mans Lapsed State, and the Remainders of the I­MAGE of GOD in him.

He asketh, how it is consistent (to affirme that some remainders of knowledge, and principles of good remaine in man after the ruins of Gods Image in him) with what we say, to wit, that there is no good thing at all in men unconverted, and that man fell wholly from God, as to all things that are good. Ans. Who of us do say so, without adding any limitation? And yet there is no inconsistency between these things (even as set down by you) if rightly under­stood, for though men unconverted have not any saving good, yet it followeth not, ergo, they are de­stitute of all good. The unconverted have precious Souls in them, which are of great excellency and worth; and there still remains in them some simili­tude of GOD, their Souls being Spiritual and Im­mortal. It is true man by the fall was bereaved of saving graces, in so much that true holiness, and [Page 24] saving knowlegde he hath not; yet he is not de­nuded of all knowledge: In him there are certaine notions concerning good and evil, which though they cannot direct to Salvation and Eternal happiness; yet if we live not up to them, they serve to leave us unexcusable.

Now it may be demanded, whether it be incon­sistent to say, that a City is wholly demolished, where­as there is some rubbish, and some foundations of houses still remaining? If this be not inconsistent, why should it be thought an inconsistency: To say, that though men be fallen off from GOD, yet he re­tains some fragments, and Relicts of the Image of GOD? As in very deed he doth, for the Image of GOD is the conformity of the creature to the Crea­tour, and the Soul of man is conformable to GOD in its nature, as it is a Spiritual and Immortal Sub­stance. Likewise, man hath not lost all his domi­nion over the creatures. And it is to be observed, that though there be light in the consciences of men that are corrupt, yet this light is not the cor­ruption of the conscience; but it is derived from Christ and cometh from him, as a bountiful Crea­tour: and in this respect the light of knowledge, reason, and understanding, that is in man since the fall, may be called the light of Jesus Christ, for he is that true light that thus enlighneth every man, that cometh into the world.

SECT. I. Shewing how the Quakers vilify the Scriptures.

Look to page 24.25. And we may easily per­ceive the Quakers dis-esteeme of the Scriptures, though in speaking to people, they would beare them in hand to the contrary. For,

1. They grant that they meet not to read the Scriptures, but to waite on the Lord, and they meet to worship GOD, whose worship is to be performed in Spirit and in Truth, and not in External Read­ing. Now do not these mens endeavours tend to dis­grace the Scriptures, in that they make an opposi­tion, between reading the Scriptures, and waiting on GOD, and Spiritual worshipping of him; as if the Lord could not be waited on, in the use of read­ing his Word. Was not the Eunuch in the duty of waiting, when sitting in his chariot he read the Prophet Isaias? This work was so well pleasing to GOD, that the Lord encouraged him in it, help­ing him to understand what before he knew not, Act. 8.28. Did not the Saints under the Old Testa­ment worship GOD in Spirit and in Truth? Surely [Page 26] the Lord required of them, sincere, Spirit worship, which they performed, (lifting up their Souls to GOD) and did not satisfy themselves with the bare outside and carcase of duty, Lament. 3.41. And yet they were not enemies to external Reading of the Scriptures, Act, 15.21. Moses of old time, hath in every City them that Preacht him, being Read in the Synagogue every Sabbath-day. And although Reading the Scriptures was a duty done under the Law, it doth not cease to be a duty under the Gos­pel, because it is no where repealed, but on the contrary, as it was commanded in the Old Testa­ment, so it is confirmed in the New, this being a special means of having the Word of GOD to dwel richly in us, Coloss. 3.16.

It is most agreeable to the Scriptures, for a Mi­nister to take the Bible and read a part of it, opening and applying it, see Nehem. 8.5.8. And Ezra o­pened the book in the sight of all the people, so they read in the book of the Law of GOD distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading. Christ himself took a text and applyed it, Luke 4.18.21. And albeit Christ did this in the synagogue, Quid inde? What then? did he not likewise Preach in the synagogue? And yet Preach­ing continues to be the Ministers duty, 2. Tim. 4.2.

As for that Scripture, 1. Cor. 14.29.30.31. it conduceth nothing to keep up the successive talk­ing of Quakers. For the Prophesying here mentio­ned was the act of Prophets, and it is restrained to [Page 27] them, all the Prophets who prophesie. Now the Gentle-man will have much ado, to prove all his brethren, who at their meetings take upon them to Preach, or rather (to use his owne terme) prate one after another to be Prophets: especially, to prove their women preachers to be in the number of them, for their preaching is expresly prohibited, verses 34.35. Let your women keep silence in the Church, for it is not permitted, unto them to speake, — it is a shame for women to speake in the Church. Neither doth the afore-cited Scripture make any thing against our way; for Ministers amongst us, sometimes speak two or three, and the spirits of the Prophets are subject to the Prophets. The Quakers themselves have not many speakers; for at times they sit dumbe, as if silence could promote their mutual edification: Was this the Churches way? Or the custome of the Apostles, and primi­tive Christians? Certainly this hemlock (or in­vention) hath sprung up since their late apostacy from the Truth.

Secondly, They will not have the Scriptures cal­led their Masters letter, no (forsooth) their Masters letter is written in their hearts, and there they are to find it, neither is their Master seperated from them, as those who use to write letters to servants to set them on work. But is not Christ as much se­perate from Quakers, as from the seven Churches of Asia? Or was he not as near those Famous Chur­ches, as them? And yet they had letters sent to [Page 28] them from their great LORD and Master, to direct them in their duty, Revel. 1.11. I am Alpha, and Omega, and what thou seest write in a book, and send it unto the seven Churches which are in Asia. Now will ye observe how much these persons bend their strength to evacuate the authority of the Scriptures; For they say, GOD requires us to do all our work by immediat counsel and direction, as if by the out­ward command contained in the Scriptures, GOD did not require any work of them: yea they will not allow the Scripture precepts the name of Commands; but call them the outward testimony, and signification of the Command, which (as they say) they regaird in its place, that is onely when they have an inward command, and so while this inward command is wanting, through their neligence in waiting, all that time, the Scripture loseth its authority, and is of no use to them. Is this to regard the Scriptures? Doth it not tend to forward and confirme negligent Atheists, in their contemptuous slighting, and un­dervaluing of the Scriptures? Oh! that all such would read and tremble at the reading of Ioh. 12.48. he that receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him, the word that I have spoken, the same shal judge him at the last day.

Thirdly, They preferre their silent waiting, to the reading of the Scriptures, as if we must first come to this, ere we can know the Scriptures aright. Now they should prove (which is not so much as touched upon) that their way of waiting is a meane [Page 29] appointed by GOD for right understanding of the Scriptures, or profitable speaking concerning them. Waiting in their notion is Apocriphal, not warran­ted by any Scripture. Some of them have defined it to be a silent posture of the heart without thinking good or evil. It seemeth to me, no better then mispēt time, to be employed in seeking such a posture of heart: the heart is such a stirring & working thing, that if it be not upon good, it will be busie enough in evil, as may be found in our daily experience. Accord­ing to Scripture, faith, patience, and hope, must be exercised in waiting, Psal. 40.1. Lam. 3.26. and can we be in the exercise of these graces without thinking good or evil? What an odd conceit is this?

Fourthly, Lest they should seeme to be too great enemies to the Scriptures, they confess it to be their desire to try Doctrines by the Scriptures. Ans. If this be their desire indeed, how is it then, that one of the Quakers seeing a Religious woman (in this Town) with a Bible in her hand, told her, she might as well read a Latine book as that Book? And why is it, that they do not desire their hearers to bring their Bibles, that so they may the better discerne whether the doctrines taught at their meetings, be answerable to the Scriptures? But happily they think not this convenient, lest their juglings should be found out; And I must tell the Gentle-man (that though he charge us with jugling) that the Quakers have been suspected from their first rise, as notable juglers, which R. Farmer, in his Mystery of ungodlyness [Page 30] sheweth by this instance, saith he, it is usual for Quakers to say, they owne the Scriptures, yea, we confirme and establish the Scriptures, and witness the Scriptures; Now saith he, an honest-man (that means plainly) would think they believed the Scrip­tures to be the written Word of GOD, and the rule of a Christian to walk by, in things to be be­lieved and practised, But saith he, these persons play the deceivers (not using words in that sense, they are usually understood) they meane otherwise, they say in express words else where, the Scriptures are not the Saints rule of knowing God and living to him. And indeed these are the words of one C. Atkinson a Quaker, (see his book, called the sword of the Lord furbished, in answere to the Ministers first principle) and a little after he insinuats, that to affirme the Scriptures to be the rule, is to put darkness for light, and light for darkness. Now let all unbyassed persons, judge whether these men put the Scriptures in their true place.

SECT. II. Proving the Scriptures to be the Word of GOD.

He addeth page 26. That every declaration of a mans mind, is not his word, for signs may be a declara­tion of his mind. Ans. Though a dumb man may de­clare [Page 31] his mind by signs,; yet this maketh nothing against the Scriptures, being the word of God, which are such a declaration of Gods mind, as he uttered and spake. If any thing can be accounted the proper word of one, that must be it, which he utters and speaks: Now the Truths, the Commands, and Pre­cepts, contained in the Scriptures, were uttered and spoken by God, Exod. 20.1. And God spake all these words, &c.

He saith, people usually distinguish between a mans word and his write. Ans. True: For they call the one verbum dictum, a word spoken, and the o­ther verbum scriptum, a word written; but can it be inferred from this, that the Scriptures are not the Word of GOD, which he hath committed to writ­ting, for the good of his Church and People.

He saith, the Word of GOD is like unto himself, spiritual, yea, spirit, and life, and therefore cannot be read with the external senses. Ans. The Word of GOD is twofold, 1. There is the coessential, coeter­nal word, namely, JESUS CHRIST, who is one with the Father, this Word properly cannot be read, though we may, and do read of it. 2. There is the Spiritual Word, the temporal expressed Word, or the Word written in time, now the external senses may be employed in reading this Word.

He saith, that these scriptures (Hos. 1.1. Joel. 1.1. Esay. 38.4.) are understood of that word from which the scriptures were given forth. Ans. It is not denyed, that the Lord spake by the Prophets, and [Page 32] was the authour of giving forth the scriptures, but yet that word of the Lord which came to the Pro­phets, is not mean'd of the Word made flesh, (as Quakers would have it) but of the mind and message of the Lord contained in Scripture Ieremiah 14.1. the word of the Lord that came to Ieremiah: Now what word was this, surely, none else but the mes­sage which the Prophet was to deliver from GOD, to the persons therein concerned, having reference to that dearth which should make Judah mourne and languish, verse 2. The same may be said of the other scriptures.

He addeth, What the Scripture saith and GOD saith, may be said, that they are one, because of their agreement. Ans. This is to advance humane writ­ings, and to equal them with the scriptures, when their sayings agree with what God saith.

He saith, every one that reads and heares the scrip­tures read, heareth not God immediatly. Answer. GOD himself speaketh in the Scriptures to them that have eares to hear him, Rev. 3.6. And though all that read and hear the Scriptures Read, hear not GOD immediatly, as the Prophtts who had truths revealed to them by immediat inspiration; yet when we read the Scriptures GOD speaks to us medi­atly, by his written Word: and believers so hear his voice, that at the reading and hearing of the Scriptures, they are forced to say the voice of GOD, and not the voice of man.

Page 27. He saith, (in answering 1. Thes. 2.13.) [Page 33] that the word which they heard of the Apostles, was the living word. Answ. The word which they heard of Paul, and received as the word of GOD, was the Scripture or written word, which speaketh of the essential and living word, or it was the doct­rine he preacht concerning Chtist, grounded on, and warranted by the Scriptures, compare 1. Thess. 2.13. with Act. 26.22.

He saith, that the Pharisees in striking at the first Command, did consequently strike at the living word which gave it forth. Ans. The Pharisees without doubt, were enemies to Christ, and struck at him many wayes; but yet the word, which they sought to make void, Mark 7. is plainly held forth, to be that written precept, honour thy father and thy mo­ther, compare verse 13. with verse 10.

He concludeth the matter, saying, that the reason why they may not call the scriptures the word of God, is, that people may be directed to that inward living word. Ans. If they believe the Scriptures to be true, they may and ought to call them the word of GOD, for the Scriptures call themselves the word of GOD, Ephes. 6.17. the sword of the spirit which is the word of GOD, this sword of the spirit, is not a carnal, but a spiritual weapon, even the holy Scrip­tures, (which are mighty through GOD, for repel­ling the temper, and cutting assunder temptations) this was the sword which Christ made use of, in his conflict with Satan, its written, and againe it is written, Matth. 4. Luke 4.

[Page 34]By calling the Scriptures the word of God, (which is a name due to them) this will make their testi­mony concerning Christ to be more regarded, and therefore the more effectual means to our closing with the living word. It seemeth Quakers have strange thoughts of the Scriptures, as if they were set up as an Idol, instead of that from whence they came. If we profess love to the Scriptures, and de­sire to obey them, this is not to Idolize them, and we are far from putting the Scriptures in Christs stead; Did they ever hear any of us call the Scrip­ture, the eternal Son of God, that Saviour who dyed and suffered, thereby paying a ransome for sinners Redemption? Do we not say, that though the Scriptures be the word of God, yet there is a vast dif­ference between them and Christ, he being the essen­tial, eternal word, and the Scriptures onely the word written in time? Why then should it be insinuate, that we call Christ the Scripture, and put the Scrip­ture in his stead, is not this unworthy dealing? We distinguish between Christ, the word, and the word of Christ, and though the Scripture be not that word which is Christ, yet it is the word of that word, Colos. 3.16. Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly.

SECT. II. Clearing the Scriptures to be the Rule.

He addeth, that it rests to be proved, that the [Page 35] Law and Testimony mentioned, Esay. 8.20. was not the inward law. Ans. The proof of this will not be difficult, for here the Prophet opposes what is writ­ten (as being no light) if it agree not to the law and testimony. Let people pretend what they will, to a law and word within: yet if they accord not with the Scripture law, or scripture word, there is no light of truth in them. It is undenyable that the outward law gets the name of testimony, this name was given unto the law written in the two Tables, in regard whereof, the Ark was called the Ark of the testimo­ny, because those Tables were laid up in the Ark, Exod. 25.16. 1. King. 8.9.

My intent in bringing that scripture Ioh. 7.49. was onely to prove the acceptation of the word law, for the outward law left upon record in the Scriptures though the Quaker maliciously glosses on it, as if in speaking for the law, we were crucifying Christ a­fresh, therein comparng us to the Pharisees: where­as the comparison will fit the Quakers a great deal better then us, their knowne rash censuring abun­dantly declares their conformity to Pharisees; for they can freely pronounce men damned and cursed, who will not take their gate of it, and this was the way of the Pharisees, this people (said they) who know not the law are cursed. Neither is it probable that Christ checkt the Lawyer, Luk. 10.26. in say­ing, how readest thou? But rather would have men in matters of Religion to consult the scriptures, and therefore in convincing ignorant and erroneous per­sons [Page 36] of their ignorance and errours; He alleadged the Scriptures against them, Matth. 22.31.32. When a question arose about devorcement, Christ had present recourse to the Scripture, Matth. 19.4. have ye not read, that he that made them at the be­ginning, made them male and female? So when the Pharisees accused Christs Disciples for breach of the Sabbath, Christ said unto them, have ye not read, what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him. Matth. 12.3. Christ then would have the scriptures the rule to walk by, and matters of Religion to be tryed by them: for he re­fers us to the scriptures for direction, and its his will that we resort to them (in controversies and doubts) for resolution.

He saith, page 28. That we seeme to lay much stresse upon this, that it cannot be made out to a Jew or Turk, that Jesus the Son of Mary, is in very deed the Christ without the Scripture. Answ. We lay so much stress on it, that we think Quakers can ne­ver prove this fundamental truth referring them to the light within, for they pretend following of their light in opposing Christ, as much as Quakers do at this day in opposing the precious ordinances and truths of Christ: And if Pauls course was com­mendable, so must ours, if against the Jews we should alledge scripture in demonstrating Christ to be the Messiah; for the Jews profess a belief of the scrip­tures, of the Old Testament. Though the inward testimony of the spirit be of great use to perswade and [Page 37] assure us of the divine authority of the scripture, yet it is false to affirme that this can be proved no other way, but by the spirits inward testimony: there are other arguments whereby the authority of the scrip­ture may be convincingly and solidly proved a­gainst Turks and Pagans, and all Anti-scripturists whatsoever. Let me crave leave to put Quakers in minde of one argument, which is excellently im­proved, by that judicious servant of GOD, Mr. Baxter, in his book of the Saints rest, page 239. Where he thus reasoneth, if the Scriptures be nei­ther the invention of Devils, nor of men, then they can be from none but GOD, (he takes it for gran­ted, that good Angels could not be guilty of forging the scriptures) now he proves at length (it would be needless to set down here the full proof of this ar­gument, because the book is common, and in the hands of many) that the Scripture is not the inven­tion of Devils, that no meer men were the inven­ters of Scripture, it was neither devised by good men, nor by bad men, then sure by no man, and consequently must of necessity proceed from GOD.

When the Ancient Fathers had to do with Pa­gans (who were strangers to the inward testimony of the spirit) they made use of other arguments, in proving the Scriptures Divinity: such as the Hea­venliness of the matter, the Majestie of the style, the efficacy of the Doctrine, the verity of the predictions, and by these and such like arguments, they confoun­ded the learnedst Pagans. And JOHN CALVIN, [Page 38] lib. 1. cap. 7. of his Instit: plainly supposeth that there are other arguments (besids the testimony of the spirit) to prove the divine authority of the Scrip­tures, saith he, verum quidem est, si argumentis a­gere libeat, multa posse in medium preferri quae facile evincant, siquis est in Coelo DEUS, Legem, & Pro­phetias, & Evangelium ab eo manasse i. e. True in­deed it is, that if we pleased to deale by arguments, many things might be produced, that may easily prove, that if there be a GOD in Heaven, that the Law, the Prophets, and the Gospel came from him. Now seeing the Quakers have cited CALVIN, I would advise them to look to the 9. chapter, where­in be fully sheweth, that fanatical men, who (forsaking scripture) betake themselves unto reve­lation, do overturne all principles of godliness.

He saith, that Ioh. 5.39. may be translated, ye search the scriptures, as Pasor translateth the words. Ans. The same Pasor, speaking of that scripture, the kingdom of God is within you, [...], he ren­dereth the words in medio vestro, in sinu gentis vestrae, that is, in the midst of you, in the bosome of your nation; and yet the Quakers will not admit of this translation. It is confessed that [...], is taken by some (even PROTESTANT Writters) in the in­dicative mood, though by that which followes, it appears to be imperative rather then indicative; for the great controversie at that time was, whether Christ was the Son of GOD, and the true Messiah, now Christ remits them to the scriptures (which the [Page 39] Jews deservedly had in high esteeme) as bearing witnesse unto him, search the scriptures and they are they which testify of me; As who would say, peruse them frequently, search them diligentlie, digging for these heavenly treasures, as men do for gold, who break every clod, that they may find the golden oare. Neither doth Christ check them, when he saith, in them ye think to have eternal life, this was a true thought, as to the scriptures pointing out the way to Eternal life, 2. Tim. 1.10.

Seeing the Quaker (page 29.) granteth that the scriptures are profitable, for doctrine, correction, re­proof, instruction in righteousness, why then, doth he not acknowledge them to be a perfect rule of faith and manners; VVhat more can be requisite to prove their perfection, then their teaching truth, confuting errour, reproving sin, and discovering du­ty. There is enough said, and delivered in the Scripture, to direct us in things to be believed and practised, and if the Scriptures do not actually profit us for this end, the blaime is to be laid at the door of our ignorance and perversnesse. Now the scrip­tures are thus profitabe that the man of God may be perfect. i. e. That the Minister of Jesus Christ may be compleate, and every way fitted for the work of his Calling, for though any man led by the spirit of GOD, may (in a general sense) be called the man of God; yet the Lord honours his Ministers with this tittle, and peculiarly attributs it to them, 1. Sam. 2.27. and 9.6. 1. King. 17.18.

SECT. III. Shewing that the Spirit within is not the Rule.

In stead of answering my argument, proving that the Spirit within is not the rule, he saith, did these Jews receive Christ who had the scriptures? Did they not reject him, and why? Because they hearkned not to the inward voice and testimony of the Father concerning him, and this was the testimony which he said, was greater then that of John. Ans. Look into the place where Christ speaks of this testimo­ny, and it will be found that it is no inward voice of the Father, there spoken of. See Ioh. 5.36. I have a greater witness then that of John for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me: That is his works in doing miracles, these were a more convincing witness of Christs being the promised Messiah, then that of John: And therefore, when Iohns Disciples askt, saying, art thou he that shal come, or do we look for another? Jesus answered, go and shew John these things which ye do hear and see, the blind re­ceive their sight, &c. As for that testimony which the Father gave concerning Christ, verse 37. it was not an inward voice and testimony, but an outward audible voice from Heaven, Matth. 3.17. compa­red [Page 41] with 2. Pet. 1.17.18. And Christ reproveth the unbelieving Jews, in that they were ignorant of the Father, though they gloried so much of him, as being the people whose Progenitors had heard the voice of GOD, Deut. 4.12. Now Christ sheweth that all this was nothing to them; for they were strangers to such manifestations of GOD, and they looked not like that people whose Ancestors had heard so much of GOD, ye have neither heard his voice, nor seen his shape.

He saith, there is not any word 1. Ioh. 4.1. of try­ing the spirits by the scriptures. Answer. It is suf­ficient if there be warrand in other places (though no express mention of it in this) for trying the spi­rits by the scripture. Now seeing every spirit (is not to be believed) that is, every doctrine propoun­ded as received by inspiration from Gods spirit, false teachers will be as ready as any to boast of the spirit: and therefore we must try from what spirit their doctrine cometh. And what surer and safer way can there be of trying, then that for which the Beraeans are commended, even in trying the A­postles themselves? They searched the Scriptures whether these things were so, Act. 17.11. and Christ appealed to the Scriptures, Ioh. 5.39.

He saith, cannot the spirits be tryed by the Spirit of God? How tryed Peter the spirit of Ananias and Saphirah? And is not the tryal and discerning of spi­rits the priviledge of the Saints now? Ans. We are speaking about the trying of Doctrines, now Ananias [Page 42] and Saphirah, their failing was not in a matter of Doctrine, but of Fact, by lying in keeping back pa [...] of the price of the possession, which Peter knew ex­traordinarily: as appears by the miraculous effect, that attended his reproving of this sin, which was their suddaine death, and present giving up of the Ghost, Act. 5.5.

As for discerning of spirits (if thereby he either intend the knowledge of the secret conceptions and inward thoughts of mens spirits, or a certaine in­fallible knowledge, who be truely spiritual, and who not.) It is not the priviledge of the Saints now, nei­ther was it ever a priviledge common to all the Saints, 1. Cor. 12.10. to another is given the work­ing of miracles, to anothter discerning of spirits. Though the Saints have that anointing in them which teacheth them all things; yet as hereby external teaching is not excluded (for Iohn himself was now teaching in writting this very Epistle to them) so is not trying of the spirits by an external rule, the a­nointings, teaching, may well consist with bringing Doctrines to the Touch-stone of the Word, doth not the anointing (or the spirit) direct us to the law and testimony? And if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

He saith, were there any more strongly delu­ded then the Pharisees, yet how much did they lay claime to the scriptures, how came they to be deluded, who were so skilled in the scriptures according to the letter of them? Ans. That the Pharisees were delu­ded, [Page 43] the Scripture is not to be blamed for this, the fault was in their blindness, hence they are so often called blind guids, Matth. 23.16.24.26. It is granted that deluded souls, such as are unlearned and unstable, may and do wrest the scriptures unto their own destruction, 2. Pet. 3.16. But yet there is e­nough said in the Scriptures, by which delusions might be discovered, and controversies ended: If men would be humble and studious in the use of helps and means, bringing not discutiendi acumen, a disputing head, but discendi pietatem, a pious heart, desirous to be instructed.

And for further clearing of our mind in this, it is to be considered, that albeit we look upon the scrip­tures, as a rule for finding out truth, and deciding controversies, yet that we may be right discerners, we judge a work of the spirit necessary, for remov­ing our natural depravedness, perversness, and ig­norance, so that though the scripture be sufficient for discovering delusions, and ending differences in genere objecti, yet the spirit is necessary in genere causae effectivae.

He addeth page 30. Though the same deluding spirit, who deceived first may deceive over againe, that makes nothing against the insufficiency of the spi­rit, to discover the delusion. Answer. We blaime not the spirit for mens falling into delusion at first, or for their continuance in delusions; Who can charge the spirit with insufficiency, as if he could not discover the tricks and deceits of Satan? Yet [Page 44] persons who reject the Scripture, refussing it to be the rule, pretending onely to an inward rule, they provoke the spirit to give them up to delusions, and open a gap for a deluding spirit to enter in. May not the History of I. Galpen, once a Quaker (be an admonition and warning to all that Sect) who by casting off external teaching, and hearkning to a voice within, was put upon mischievous and detestable practises. Sometimes he was led to the Fidlers house, and being told it was such a mans house, he answered, be it whose house it will, Christ led me hither, and hither I must go: Then was his hand forced to knock at the dore, and a voice bad him say, behold Christ stands at the dore and knocks: Other­while, he was carried upon his hands and knees out of the dores into the street, and when his wife would have stopt him, he said, he must not be stopt, he must forsake wife, children, and all to follow Christ. Sometimes, he was forced to take up a knife, and to put it to his throat, and the voice said open a hole there, and I will give eternal life. But in the end the Lord was pleased to give him repen­tance: whereupon he published a narration of those things, to discover the danger of these wayes, and to be for caution of others, to take heed how they go out of Gods wayes, and forsake his ordinances: lest falling into the errour of the wicked, they decline from their former stedfastnesse, and lest not receiv­ing the love of the truth, that they might be saved, God give them over to strong delusions to believe a [Page 45] lie. See this History set down largly by Mr. Samuel Clark, in his book called the Mirrour for Saints and sinners.

SECT. IV. The Quakers way is ineffectual to convince an Opposer.

Quakers in their way cannot convince a Gain­sayer, for what they call truth, others differing from them, call delusion and errour, and how can they produce any evidence (that they are not deluded) for the conviction of an unbeliever, who knoweth not the testimony of the spirit in them? And him­self hath not the spirit, being in the number of those who are without GOD, and without the Spirit. Suppose one say, that he hath a testimony of the spi­rit, to assure him of his gracious state, I would ask whether the testimony of the spirit be any otherwise then according to the Word of GOD? It is like, Quakers will confesse that every testimony speaking peace (being contrary to the word) that testimony is not the voice of the spirit of the Lord; but the voice of the spirit of delusion. Now I would ask (if tryal by the word be neglected) how is it possible to know whether this testimony speake according to the word, or whether it speake contrary to the word? If Qua­kers say, that they are assured by the same spirit [Page 46] that gives the testimony that it is according to the word, and other evidence they need not look after: the voice of the spirit that speaks in them, is that beyond which there needs no enquiry. Then I aske again, how can Quakers convince deluded persons, who pretend to the testimony of the spirit, in refe­rence to their gracious state? For they perswade themselves, that it is the voice of the spirit that speaks peace to them; and other evidence they will not look after, the testimony of the spirit, is that be­yond which there must be no enquity. Now will not Quakers according to their principles, be so far from convincing such of their mistake, that they will rather confirme them in their deceit?

Now according to us scripture is the rule (which lyes patent & open to both parties. And therfore a Papist of great note, is faine to acknowledge that Scriptu­ris nihil est certius, nihil est notius. i. e. nothing is more certaine and more evident then the Scrip­tures.) And this is profitable [...], that is, for conviction, and (as was said) though the Scrip­tures do not actually convince the stubborn and stiff-heretick; yet there is so much in them as may satisfy an inquisitive adversary, who is willing to know right from wrong, and truth from errour. Appollos migh­tily convinced the Jews by the Scriptures.

It is inconsequential to argue, that the Scripture or written word, is not the rule to us, (to whom GOD hath set down his mind in write) because it was not a rule to them who lived when the Scripture [Page 47] or written word was not.

As for the Prophets, the event of what they foretold, was that whereby they were to be tryed, Deut. 18.22. When a Prophet speaketh in the Name ef the LORD, if the thing follow not, that is, the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the Prophet hath spoken presumptuously, thou shalt not be affraid of him. Ierem. 28.9. The Prophet which pro­phesieth of peace, when the word of the LORD shal come to passe, then shal the Prophet be known that the Lord hath sent him. But because GOD for the try­all of his people, may sometimes suffer such things to fall out, as false-prophets fortell, Deut. 13.2. Therefore when men pretend themselves to be pro­phets sent of GOD, their doctrine must be brought to the rule and touch-stone of GODS written word, and thereby examined, Esay 8.20.

He saith, page 31. that we disjoyne the word and the spirit, because many preach and read the scrip­tures, and talk of them without the joyn'd concurrence of the spirit, which they ought not to do. Answer. He hath not offered to prove that the Scriptures should not be read or spoken of, without the concur­rence of the spirit, unless that be his proof (we say, they ought not to do) but upon what ground do ye say so? 1. The command for reading and speak­ing of the Scriptures, hath not this condition annex­ed to it, that we should read and speak of the scrip­tures, onely when we have a concurrence of the spirit, and never but then, where is there such a con­dition [Page 48] mentioned? 2. What shal be the carriage of wicked persons, who are strangers to the drawings and motion of the spirit, must the Bible be to them as an Almanack out of date? Shal it be to them, as a book useless to look into? 3. When the Saints want the concurrence of the spirit, may they not read and talk of the Scriptures, as a mean of good to their souls? Hovv many cold hearts have been rubbed and chaffed into spiritual heat, by read­ing and talking of the Scriptures; In so doing the Lord hath met vvith them, and made their hearts to burne within them: Now though the scrip­tures may be read and spoken of, without the con­currence of the spirit. Yet to affirme this, is not to disjoyne the Scriptures and the spirit, separating the one from the other; for still the Scriptures re­maine to be the endytment of the spirit, being spoken and breathed forth by the spirit, Act. 28.25. Well spake the Holy Ghost by Isaias the prophet unto our fathers, Act. 1.16. this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the holy Ghost spake by the mouth of David. Marke the Scriptures which Dav d and others of the Prophets penned, they are the breathings forth of the Holy Ghost himself.

Why doth the Quaker complaine so much, for my improving Esay 59.21. as if it made so much against me; whereas it is directly to that purpose, which it was alledged for; namely, that GODS Spirit and word go together, and doth not the Lord here promise, that the Spirit and Word should [Page 49] continue with his Church and People, to direct and instruct them in all necessaries, throughout all ages sucessivly, even unto the end of the world?

He asketh, cannot dead things kill, if men feed upon them? Answ. There is no doubt of it, yet the Scripture or that part of Scripture which is cal­led the law, is said to be killing in such a way, as dead things are not: And therefore this killing Letter is spoken of as being the ministration of death, and the ministration of condemnation; For the Law threatens death against the sinner, and curseth every one that abideth not in all things that are written therein, 2. Cor. 6.7.9. Now are the dead things which the Quaker reckons up, thus killing? It shal not be denyed, but feeding upon sand, gravel, stones, &c. will prove deadly and destructive to the body, even as the drinking in of the lifeless poysonous opinions of Quakers will prove hurtful and destruc­tive to the soul.

SECT. V. Quakers have learned their Lan­guage about the Scriptures from Papists.

Now any may perceive a Popish designe in all the Quakers reasonings against the Scriptures, for both Papists and they joyne in studing to disgrace them. [Page 50] Herein they very much resemble one another. Ye may hear how Quakers lisp after the Papists, and concurre with them in speaking the language of Ashdod.

So true is that of Tertullian, CHRIST is alwayes crucified between two theives.

He denyeth, That that more sure word of prophe­sie, 2. Pet. 1.19. is the scripture. Answer. Had it not been meet, not onely to have denyed this, but likewise confuted what was said, proving it to be so; Is not the Apostle more to be believed (then any [Page 52] Quaker) who expounds that more sure word of pro­phesie calling it, verse 20, not the word in the heart, but the prophesie rf Scripture, or Scripture prophesie, which is said to more [...] sure then a voice frō heaven; not as if there could be any uncertainty of the Lords voice speaking from Heaven: this is sure e­nough in it self, but yet Scripture prophesie is more sure quoad nos, as to us, because a trans [...]ient voice is more easily mistaken, or forgotten, then a stand­ing record.

SECT. I. Wherein is cleared the Quakers agreement with Papists in the Doctrine of Iustifi­cation.

Page 32. He raiseth a great storme against me, as displaying the banner of disingenuity, venting filthy imaginations, discovering vanity and malice, ex­tending my self in a foolish and vaine excursion. Ans. I wish the Gentle-man would reflect how much his pen & spirit hath been dipt in the gall of Asps, and remember [Page 53] that causa firma est semper querula. I have not leasure to answere his bitter revilings and rail­ings, and therefore passing them: I shal endeavour to trace him, according to the method he hath pro­posed, in giving (as he pretends) an honest, and plaine, and true account of their belief in the matter of Justification.

He saith, page 33. That we are justified by Ie­sus Christ, both as he appeared and was manifest in the flesh at Ierusalem, and also as he is made manifest and revealed in us, and thus Christ and his righteous­ness without, are not divided from his righteousness within, but we do receive him wholly, and undivi­ded the Lord our righteousness in the sight of God, and which ought not, nor cannot be divided. Ans. Here he insinuats that our opinion is, to divide the the righteousness of Chirst without, from his righteous­ness within, which is the calumny of Papists against us; as if we held that because Christs righteousness is imputed to men, there needed no other righteous­ness. When as we mantaine that inherent righte­ousness and imputed are inseparably annexed: so that every one that is justified hath holiness and righ­teousness wrought in him. We may not confound Justification and Sanctification (seeing the Scripture distinguisheth them) and yet we must not divide them. Now that the Quakers fraud and cheatry (which I supect he is guilty of) in this thing, may be discovered; it will be necessary to enquire how the word justifie (in the present affaire, namely [Page 54] as it imports the sinners Justification before God) is used in scripture: and in this PROTESTANTS and Papists are at variance. Papists say, that it signifies to make inherently just and righteous (as ca­lefaction signifies to make inherently hot) on the other hand PROTESTANTS affirme that it signifies not the making of a man just, by infused inherent righteousness; but to absolve, account, and pro­nounce a man righteous, Prov. 17.15. he that justi­fies the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the Lord. Marke, to justify is not to make inherently just and holy (for this would not be abominable, but acceptable to God) but it is to absolve and pronounce a man righteous, as to condemne, is to declare a man guilty, and accord­ingly sentence him to punishment.

Now in that he saith, that they are justified by Christ revealed in them, by which he understands grace and holiness wrought in them by Christ, (for he afterwards explains it to be that which in scripture is called Christ formed within.) Here he falls in with the Po­pish sense of Justification, by righteousness infused. And his more full agreement with Papists, will appear even in that, wherein page 34. 35. he saith, that they greatly differ from them. To make good this, I shal do two things. 1. Set down the words of G. Keith, in his paper to me, (which Mr. Barclay acknowledges to be in substance the same with that which he hath written) Saith he, I perceive that by the righteousness of Jesus Christ imputed, by which [Page 55] thou queries, if we be justified thou understandest not his work of righteousness, he worketh in his Saints, but his obedience and sufferings even unto death in the flesh (not excluding but including his souls sufferings) at Jerusalem. To which I thus Reply, that we are even iustified by the righteousness of his obedience and sufferings, in that Vessel or Man-hood not formally but causally; forasmuch, as by his obedience and sufferings therein, he was the procuring cause of that grace and power of his revealed in us, which produceth a work of righteousness wrought in us: by which we are formally (as the School-men speake) righteous, and this inward righteousnesse wrought by him in us, is truely and properly his Righteousnesse, and that on a twofold account. 1. For that by his obedience and sufferings, he procured an enterance to mens hearts, to become a Prince and a Saviour in them. Secondly, In that he is not onely the remote procuring cause in the manner aforesaid, but the immediat worker of it in us, by his immediate Arme and Power, so that he is well called the LORD our righteousness. Now that there is no inconsistency between these two, to be justified by the obedience of Jesus Christ in the flesh at Jerusalem, as the remote procuring cause, and to be justified by the work of Righteousness wrought by him in us, as the formal cause is manifest, being causes of different kinds, vvhich do not repugne one to another, but sweetly concurre to the produ­cing their effect. Thus far G. Keith.

[Page 56]Second thing to be done, is to shew wherein PROTESTANTS differ from Papists in the matter of Justification: which will be notably seen by the answer both of PROTESTANTS and Papists, to this important and weighty question, viz. what is that very thing, which causeth a poor believing sinner stand pardoned and so just before GOD, and for which he is pronounced righteous, or absolved from the accusation and condemnation of the law, and accepted unto eternal life. Now the Papists in answering this question, have recourse to infused, inherent righteousness, asse ting this to be the thing, whereby they are justified in the sight of GOD. But PROTESTANTS though they look upon a principle of Grace within, as an excellent gift of GOD; yet they cannot leane to that for Justifica­tion, but think their onely refuge to be the imputed righteousness of CHRIST, (namely, the satisfaction and merit of his Death, Passion, and Obedience in fulfilling the law) judging this to be the very thing by which Believers may appeare before GOD, and in the confidence whereof they may live and die: And for which they are accounted righteous, absol­ved from death, and accepted unto eternal life. Now let us hear the Quakers answere to the afore­mentioned question, and it will be found, that as Papists make the formal cause of Justification to be an inherent righteousness wrought in us, and inspi­red into us by the Spirit of GOD, so the Quakers do the same; for G. Keiths expresse vvords are; that [Page 57] we are justified by a work of righteousness wrought by Christ in us as the formal cause: And therefore when in their Printed book, they say, that they rely on Christ himself revealed in them, indwelling in them, as the ground and foundation of their Justification. What can their meaning be? (though they blind the eyes of the simple, by using words inoffensive in themselvs) but as G. Keith explaineth it, to wit, that Christ by his obedience and suffering, was the procuring cause of that grace and power of his revealed in us, which produceth a work of righteousness wrought in us by which we are formally righteous. Now is not this a manifest coincidency with Papists? For even they make the obedience and sufferings of Christ, the procuring cause of that grace and righteousness wrought in them, which they own as the formal cause of their first Justification. So that both Papists and Quakers deny the imputed righteousness of Christ, to be the very thing by which a Believer stands pardo­ned & so just before God & for which he is pronoun­ced righteous, or absolved from the cōdemnation of the law, and accepted unto eternal life: which is look'd upon as carrying with it such danger, that some PROTESTANTS are of opinion, that here­by the Church of Rome doth rase the very founda­tion. And upon this ground, Mr. Samuel Ham­mond undertakes to demonstrate the impossibility of Salvation, in and by the principles of Quakers, in his book, called, The Quakers house built upon the sand.

SECT. II. That Works are not Meritorious of Iustification.

He addeth, that he may not deny Justification by works, but plead for it, according to the true sense and mind of the spirit. Answ. Let him hold there and we shall go along with him, for we readily yeeld that by works, a man is declared and manifested to be a justified person, so that good works justify our justification: being notable evidences thereof, and signs of that faith whereby we are justified; for we are not justified by a barren faith, but by a faith which is fruitful in good works, and this is that which the Apostle drives at Iam. 2. But justification by works, such as the Quakers plead for, is not according to the true sense and mind of the spirit. Is it the mind of the spirit, that good works are the meritorious cause of Justification? Which Sam. Fisher (one of the Quakers ring-leaders) plainly asserts, exercit. 1. page 84. and page 88. he saith, there are good works which in different respects are called (truely enough) both Christs and ours, viz. ours, as done in and by our persons; Christs, as done only by his Power in us: and by these (call them as ye will, Christs or ours) is the justification of all, that ever were, or shal be justified, both deserved and effected.

[Page 59] Object. We understand it not any other way then thus, that all their merit or worth is from Christ. Ans. Where doth the scriptures say, that works wrought in us have merit in them (from Christ) to deserve justification? This is a Doctrine of your owne forging and not of Christs teaching. Though good works shall not want a reward, yet they do not merit. It is false to say, that reward and merit inferre one another. PROTESTANTS use to di­stinguish between a reward of merit, and a reward of grace: which distinction is grounded on scripture, compare the original words in Matth. 5.46. with Luk. 6.32. and in that you affirme the reward to be of grace, then it is not merited by works; the Apostle opposeth these two, making them incom­patible, Rom. 11.6. And if by grace, then it is no more of works, otherwise grace is no more grace, but if it be of works, then it is no more grace, otherwise work is no more work. We acknowledge that God of his rich mercy and goodness, hath promised to reward good works, and being faithful he will not deny himself, 2. Tim. 2.13. But a reward given by promise, doth not import merit and desert, the reward proceedeth from the bountie of the Giver, and not from the merit of the receiver.

Now the Quakers wisdome is much to be observ­ed, in that they refuse to owne the grossest sort of Papists (for then their draught would be found out, and their tendency sufficiently known) but they (under the specious name of new lights) can creep [Page 60] towards the moderate sort of them: who say, that works are not meritorious, but as they proceed from grace, and by vertue of Gods promise: when as in­deed, if works be of, and flow from the free grace of God, this inferrs that they are not meritorious; for that which doth merit, must not be done by the strength of another; especially his, at whose hands we look to merit.

It is evident that the Gentle-man is of a higher straine, then to be onely for a reward or merit (as he phraseth it) of free grace, and upon the account of the promise: Else how shal he be able to reconcile himself to his brother Sam. Fisher, who (exerc. 1. page 90.) maketh use of this Popish argument, namely, evil works are the meritorious cause of our condemnation, therfore good works are the meritorious cause of our justification, (insinuating that there is a meritorious dignity in good works, even as there is a meritorious indignity and sinfulness in evil works) this argument hath been often answered by a denyal of the consequence, because our evil works are per­fectly evil, but our good works are but imperfectly good. And giving but not granting, that our works were perfectly good, yet all the requisits to make a work meritorious would not agree to them.

He addeth, that the works that Papists seek to be justified by, are such as they believe, none can be justi­fied by. Ans. Though they do not go along with Papists in some of their practises, yet they owne their principle, as hath been abundantly cleared, [Page 61] and therefore their correspondence with Rome be­ing manifest, we must conclude, that in stead of coming out of Babylon, they are rather running to it.

His next work, page 36. Is to make people believe, that we are near a kin to Papists; But none who know what Popery is, are like to give him credit, yet if any be of such an easie faith, as to take upon trust what he saith, then no wonder if the blind leading the blind, both fall into the ditch.

We shal consider wherein he chargeth us as guil­ty of Popery, which he brancheth forth into several particulars. 1. Because we deny, that we are jus­tified by Christ dwelling in us. Ans. We affirme that we are justified by the righteousness of Christ, and when this righteousness is believingly applyed and laid hold on, then Christ dwels in us, is this Po­pery? Or can any that know the difference between Papists and us, think that we agree with them in the matter of our Justification? 2. He saith, accord­ing to us the way to attaine to a state of Justification, is not by believing in the light, wherewith Christ in­lightens every man that cometh into the world. Ans. That being a created work of light, it is not the ob­ject of faith, we are no where warranted to believe in a creature, but threatned with a curse if we do it. 3. He saith, that we deny, that men are to know their justification, or that they are in a justified estate, by the immediate testimony of the spirit, and so do Pa­pists, Ans. It is by us lookt upon as an errour in [Page 62] Papists, that they are against the certaine knowledge and assurance of Justification, and do so much cry up doubtings; but though Papists should oppose the knowledge of justification by an immediat testi­mony of the spirit, this will not prove it to be Pope­ry: Every thing that Papists mantaine, is not Po­pery, for it is known, they hold some truths in com­mon with the Orthodox: Popery is their super ad­ded inventions and corrupt additions to the truth, amongst which is their and your doctrine of justifi­cation by inherent righteousness.

SECT. III. We are not justified by good and Gracious Works wrought in us.

He saith, that Rom. 3.28. Gal. 2.16. The works of the law are excluded, but not the works of Christ in us. Ans. Either the works of the law which in these scriptures are excluded from justification, must be evil and sinful works, or else good and gra­cious works: they are not evil and sinful, for here the Apostle confutes such among the Romans and Galatians, as had corrupted the doctrine of justifi­cation; but it would be irrational to think, that their opinion was that sinful works did justify: could they imagine that to be the cause of justification, [Page 63] which deserveth and bringeth on condemnation? And therefore the Apostle excludeth (from justifi­tion) good and gracious works, and consequently the works of Christ in us, as not being the merito­rious cause of justification.

Further, we shal find that works simply and in general, are excluded from justification: and this is notably proved in the case of Abraham, who though a gracious and godly man, yet was not justi­fied by works, Rom. 4.2.3.4.5. For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory, but what saith the scripture, Abraham believed GOD, and it was counted to him for righteousness, now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt, but to him that worketh not, but believ­eth in him who justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Likewise works without that limitation (of the law) are excluded, Tit. 3.5. which scripture was cited by me, in opposition to justification by works, as the meritorious cause thereof, (verse 7. that being justified by his grace, we should be made heires according to the hope of e­ternal life,) and indeed works in us, and done by us, neither merit justification nor salvation, though they be the qualification of the persons that are justified and shal be saved, (for all such are regenerate and renewed by the Holy Ghost.) It is a known saying, good works are the way to the Kingdome, and not the cause of reigning: and we onely deny them to be meritorious causes of blessedness, in this respect [Page 64] the Apostle excludes works generally. And there­fore the Gentle-man might have kept in his insul­ting, triumphing words, why should he be at so much paines to make to himself a man of straw, and then take pleasure to undress him? There is no hazard to exclude the merit of works in justification, and yet to affirme them necessarily requisite in the sub­ject justified.

He telleth us page 38. That they justly cast off the accusation of Popery, having express testi­mony of scripture, that we are justified by workes, Jam. 2.24. Answer. Papists alledge the same scripture for justification by vvorks, and therefore one ansvvere shal serve you both: vve must distin­guish betvveen justification before GOD, and jus­tification before men: if vve speake of GOD, and being justified in his sight, and before his Tribunal, then vvorks cannot serve the turne, Job. 9.2.3. But how should man be just with GOD, if he will con­tend with him, he cannot answere him one of a thous­and. Yet vvorks are useful in respect of men, to declare and clear our Justification as to them: thus Abraham was justified by works, Jam. 2.21. that is, declared to be just; hereby he was approved as just and righteous in his own conscience, and before the World.

He saith, that good works are not ours, in that signification, as where it is said, Hebrews 4 10. he that hath entered to his rest, hath ceased from his own works. Answer. None of us do affirme that [Page 65] that good and gracious works are ours in that way that sinful works are; and therefore his answere is but a shift: he cannot deny good works of Christ in us to be called ours, for though we be enabled to them by Christ, (and so efficiently his) yet they are subjectivly our own, our own faith, and our own repentance (it is not Christ but we, who repent and believe.) Hence it is evident that if justification be by good works of Christ in us (then our good works justify us) for these are ours in respect of subject and inherency.

He addeth, that faith may be excluded from justi­fication, if it were granted to be imperfect. Answer. This is his groundless assertion, for the matter and substance of our justification is not faith; but the perfect righteousness of Christ apprehended by faith: and upon the account of this object of faith, to wit, Christs perfect righteousness: Which faith applyeth, therefore faith is said to be accounted for righteous­ness, Rom. 4.5.

He saith, that little faith is perfect in the measure of it, and though the Disciples had doubting, yet the faith was not doubting. Answer. According to this he might as well say, that light in the Aire (at the very first breaking in, and dawning of the day) is perfect light; for though the Aire then be part­ly light and partly dark, yet the light is not dark­ness: yea, he might call gold (attended and ming­led with a great deale of dross) perfect gold, because the gold is not dross. And page 39. he reasoneth [Page 66] no better, alledging that though we know but in part, yet our knowledge is not imperfect, we may know a thing in part, and that which we know of it we may know perfectly. Ans. It is needful to enquire, what is meant by imperfection, is not that imperfection, when there is not that degree of grace in us, which ought to be? Now when our faith is but little, and our knowledge in part, have we all that faith and knowledge that we ought to have? Or rather have we not cause to complaine, that we come short of the command? Who can say they know GOD, believe in him, and love him, in the highest degree that they are bound to do, if not, then these grace [...] must be imperfect?

Object. It is said of Abraham, that his faith was perfected by works, Jam. 2.22. Answer. This comes to no more, but that his faith was made known and discovered by his works; like that expression, where GODS strength is said ro be perfected in our weakness, 2. Cor. 12.9.

In answering that place Eccl. 7.20. he brings scriptures to prove, that there are righteous men who do good. But this was not the thing denyed, he should have proved that righteous men on earth do good so purely, that there is not the least fault or blemish cleaving thereunto. As for that scripture 1. Ioh. 3.9. he that is born of GOD sinneth not (it doth not prove an absolute freedom from sin; for this is contrary to the experiences of the Regenerat, and Saints in all Ages, who have bitterly bewailed, [Page 67] and ruefully mourned under the sense of their sins) the words in the Greek are, [...], that is he maketh not sin, sin is not his trade. Now a man makes a trade of sin, when in sinning he is in his Element, where he would be: there is no work so pleasing to him, as the work of sin. But this is not the disposition of a Regenerate Person.

He addeth that the Prophet Isaiah 64.6. saith not all our righteousness which is of thy working in us, who are Saints is as filthy rags. Answ. Nei­ther doth the Prophet say (as the Quaker brings him in speaking) all our righteousness, which we, e­ven the best of the Saints can performe, of and from themselves are as filthy rags. The Prophet speaketh in general (and plurally) of righteousnessess, and that in the person of the whole Church; and not relating onely to the wicked and ungodly, therefore he useth the word all, and our righteousness.

To affirme the Saints righteousness to be filthy rags, is no just ground to make us ashamed, for we do not reflect on the holy Spirit of GOD (as if filthiness did proceed from him) he is good in giv­ing us the least degree of grace: not being bound to give us any (his work of grace and holiness in us, is a special ornament to the soul, making it in beauty to resemble GOD) but in respect of us, im­perfection cleaveth to this grace, in that it is not all the grace which the Law of GOD requireth of us: being commanded to love GOD, with all our hearts souls, and minds, Matth. 22.37. The best action [Page 68] and works done and performed by us (as instru­ments) have something of the taint of sin adhering to them; where is the soul that is carried out in prayer, and other spiritual duties, with that love and delight, with that purity and fervency of spirit, which the spiritualness of the law doth call for? Now it is the sin which cleaveth to the Saints good works, which is to be throwne away, this indeed is not an ornament but a deformity, for which we should be humbled and ashamed in the sight of God.

He saith, page 40. 41. that the Saints are subor­dinate coworkers with Christ, but yet it followeth not that his works in them, and by them are defiled, and though it be said, who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean; this hinders not, but that the Lord can, and doth make clean, those who have been unclean, and so out of them who are made clean, can bring forth clean things. Answere. 1. We grant that there are thousands in Heaven whom the Lord hath made perfectly clean, and their actings have not the least impurity in them, Heb. 12.23. Revel. 21.27. 2. We grant that there be many on Earth who are sanctified and cleansed: yet their cleansing and sanctification is but in part, they are not throughly cleansed and perfectly sanctified; there is yet an unclean part in them, they have in them flesh as well as spirit; and however this unclean part, viz. the flesh, should be chained and kept down; Yet GODS People to their smart and grief, find the stirrings and rysings of it, and the resistance and op­position [Page 69] it makes; whereby they are hindred from doing good perfectly, Gal. 5.17. the flesh lasteth against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh, and these are contrary the one to the other, so that ye cannot do, the things that ye would. Rom. 7.19. the good that I would, I do not, but the evil which I would not, that I do. Now men being but in part holy, and in part carnal; therefore the works which proceed from them have some filth and taint of sin cleaving to them: there is sin in the best men to undo them, if GOD should deale with them in ri­gour, Psalm. 130.3. If thou Lord shouldst marke iniquity, O Lord who shal stand, 1. King. 8.46. for there is no man that sinneth not: And yet we deny not, but by degrees the clean part encreaseth, and the unclean is diminished; yea and at last all the uncleanness shal be wrought out: there is a happy time coming, when the children of GOD, shal not have spot or wrinkle, or any such thing; but this pri­viledge is reserved for them till they come to Hea­ven, for there is not a just man upon earth that doth good and sinneth not, Eccl. 7.20. Intimating that the just mans doing good is attended with sin: sin­fulness cleaveth to his good actions, as was formerly cleared by that similitude (which the Quaker hath not in the lest weakened) of clean water passing through an unclean pipe, and thereby receiving a tincture of uncleanness. The Gentleman that supposeth himself so well skilled in the outward creation, should have instructed me, what that outward water [Page 70] is, which is not capable of defilment: And having first done this, he might then (the more freely) have come to his supercilious application.

SECT. IV. Iustification is not by inherent Righteousness, but by the imputed Righteousness of IESUS CHRIST.

He addeth that justification is taken for the mak­ing a man righteous, and then it is all one with sanc­tification. Answer. Is not this to confound what the scripture distinguisheth? Now justification and sanctification in scripture are alwayes spoken of, as distinct benefits, 1. Cor. 6.11. But ye are sanctified, but ye are justified, Rom. 8.30. whom he called (namely to a conformity to the Image of his Son) them he also justified. And it is to be observed, that we need not contest with Quakers or Papists, whether the word justifie, signify to make righteous or no? Onely we say that the righteousness which doth make a man just, or justifyeth him, is not in­herent in him. And to assert justification, to be the [Page 71] making of a man righteous, by infused, inherent righteousness (or righteousness wrought in him) is to confound what GOD distinguisheth, and to alter the scripture sense of the word justify.

He addeth, page 42. that admitting the Apostle Phil. 3.9. speaketh not of his righteousness whilest he was a Pharisee, yet he was stil to deny the work and righteousness which was to proceed from his own will and spirit. Answere. The Apostle in the preceeding verses, disclaimed righteousness proceeding from his own will and spirit: but verses 8.9. he ryseth higher, and goeth a step further, even to the present time, (I account all things) intending the present graces and priviledges which he enjoyed, and disclaiming them in the matter of Justification; Paul durst not lean to any work of grace in him (the best mans graces being imperfect) as that which can endure GODS sight, his exact and severe tryal: and there­fore is that word, 1. Cor. 4.4. I know nothing by my self, yet am I not hereby justifyed: Notwithstand­ing his holy course of life, and obedience performed to the law, yet he saw a necessity to look after a more perfect righteousness then this: such as God himself cannot refuse as imperfect and insufficient, namely, the righteousness which is of GOD by faith.

Then in the following verse, there are the excel­lent fruits and advantages, which redound to them, who renouncing confidence in themselves, lay hold on Christ for righteousness. Such as 1. Increase of Knowledge. 2. Mortification of the Old-man. [Page 72] 3. Resurrection to newness of Life. To make these things the righteousnesse whereby we are justi­fied (as the Quaker doth) is to confound Justi­fication with Sanctification, for here the parts of Sanctification (namely, Mortification, and Vivification) are expresly mentioned.

He saith, My last argument from 2. Cor. 5.21. is most absurd and impious, for accordingly it would follow, that as Christ was made sin for us, who of him­self knew no sin, no not in the lest, so we may be made righteous before GOD, though we have no holy­ness, no faith, no good thing wrought in us. Answ. He indeed impudently and absurdly wrests my ar­gument, the strength of which lyeth in this: that as our sins are inherent in us, and imputed to Christ, so his righteousness is inherent in him, and imputed to us: Or as Christ was made sin for us, by the imputation of our sins to him, Isa. 53.6. so we are made righteous before GOD, by the imputation of his righteousness to us, he hath made him to be sin for us who knew no sin, that we might be made the righ­teousness of GOD in him, upon which words, one thus excellently glosseth, he sin, and we righteous­ness, and not ours; but the righteousness of GOD, and not in us, but in him: Even as he sin, not his own, but ours, nor in himself, but in us, so therefore are we the righteousness of GOD in him, as he is sin in us.

The Quakers inference is impious, and absurd to imagine, that GOD (considering his purity and [Page 73] justice) should accept one as righteous in his fight, and yet his person remaine abhored of GOD, as an unholy sinner; for the righteousness of Justifica­tion and Sanctification are twin blessings, which go together in regard of GODS actual application of them: And therefore it is a mistake arysing (to speak fairest) from ignorance, to insinuate that we are against inward righteousness and holyness; see­ing we profess that without this no man shal see the Lord. And though we plead for the imputation of Christs tighteousness as to Justification; yet we do nor hold, that there needs no other righteousness at all: We assert Justification and Sanctification to be inseparable companions, and that whosoever is justi­fied, hath inherent godliness and righteousness. And therefore it is false to say, that we strengthen the profane and wicked in their presumption; for we declare to them that while they continue wicked they are without hope, and can lay no just claim to Christs righteousness: and that they must be new creatures, of they can never come to the New Je­rusalem.

He asketh page 43. Whether the Apostles did sin in writting the Scriptures? Answer. There are two things that shal be said to satisfy this demand. 1. That this was a singular extraordinary case, and no doubt but GOD (he that made an immaculate Conception, in the womb of her that was a sinner) can preserve extraordinarily some singular action from impurity, such as the penning of the scriptures [Page 74] was. But what is this to us, who can pretēd to no such thing? 2. Though the matter contained and de­livered in the Scriptures, remaines inviolable and without the least defilment; yet what hazard is it to affirme, that the Apostles in penning the Scrip­tures were nor inflamed with love and zeal: Ac­cording to the utmost extent of the Law, though be­ing tall Cedars, their love and zeale was far above the love and zeale of others.

SECT. I. There is no Substantial difference between IOHNS Baptism, and CHRISTS.

Page 49. He acknowledges that Iohns Baptism (was with water) and that his Baptism and Christs Baptism agreed in the Authour, but he saith as to the matter they are not one, for Iohn himself distinguisheth them, Mark. 1.8. Answer. In this place Iohn maketh no difference between the matter of his Baptism and Christs Baptism, he onely sheweth a difference be­tween his office and work, and the office and work of Christ; all that Iohn could do was to administer the outward Element, but Christ could give the spi­rit by means of the outward Baptism: so that Iohn here depresseth himself & advanceth Christ, it being Christ alone who bestoweth what the outward Bap­tism signifieth. I indeed have baptized you with water [Page 82] but he shal baptize you with the Holy Ghost.

He saith, they agree not in the end, for the end of Iohns Baptism was but to point and shew forth the other, as the end of the shadow is to point to the substance. Ans. The Scripture speaking of Iohns Baptism, calleth it the Baptism of repentance for the remission of sins, Mark. 1.4. intimating that its end was to signify and seale remission of sin: which likewise is the end of Christs Baptism, Act. 2.38. Now Iohns Baptism and Christs agreeing not onely in the Authour, but also in the matter and end, this proveth thar there is no substantial difference between them.

Object. They differ in substance, for it is written Act. 19, 2.3.4.5. that there were of the Baptism of Iohn who had not so much as heard of the Holy Ghost. Answer. The meaning is not, that they heard not of the person of the Holy Ghost, being Disciples and Believers, they could not be totally ignorant of this, doubtless they were acquainted with the Scriptures, and from thence they could not but know, that there was a Holy Ghost; But the thing they were ignorant of, was the visible, miraculous, and extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost: which then flourished in the Church, and yet were not common to all that were Baptized, Act. 8.15.16. they prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Ghost, for as yet he was fallen upon none of them, one­ly they were baptized in the Name of the LORD JESUS. The Apostle did not anew baptize those persons that had been baptized with the Baptism of [Page 83] Iohn: onely he gave a right explanation of Iohns Baptism, and then laid hands on them, upon which followed the gifts of the Holy Ghost, viz, speaking with tongues and prophesying verse 6.

SECT. II. Shewing that Baptism with Wa­ter is an Ordinance of CHRIST and to be continued in the Church.

He addeth, That where Christ commands his Disciples to baptize, Matth. 28. there is no com­mand to baptize with water. Answ. The subse­quent practise of the Apostles may satisfy sober per­sons, that Christs command had reference to bap­tizing with water; Can there be a better comment upon the command then Apostolical practise? And it is observable that when Philip had preacht Christ to the Eunuch, and it would seeme had informed him of the ordinance of Baptism (however it is sure, the knowledge of it he had) immediatly upon the sight of water he desired to be baptized, Act. 8.37. see here is water what doth hinder me to be baptized. And that command of Christs (Matth. 28.) to his Apostles, as it doth not expresly speake of Baptism [Page 84] with water; so neither of Baptism with the spirit, and therefore if the Quaker exclude the one, he may likewise exclude the other.

Object. It is said baptize into the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and this is Baptism with the spirit- Answ. This is affirmed, but without proof. The Name of GOD hath various acceptations, and how doth he make good, that it is taken here in his sense, and not any other way? If by baptizing into the Name of GOD, he meane re­generating of men, making them just and holy like GOD: Then I say, this was commanded before, when our Lord said, go teach (or disciple) all nations, doth not this imply an endeavour to make them holy and righteous? And therefore if Baptizing them into the Name of GOD, import the same thing: this would inferre a needless tautology in the command of Christ, which the GOD of wisdom will not owne, in so short a summe of words.

He addeth page 50. That Peters words in bap­tizing Cornelius after he had received the spirit im­ply no command. Ans. Is it not (totidem verbis) in plaine terms said, he commanded them to be bap­tized in the Name of the LORD, Act, 10.48. and the Scripture phrase of doing a thing in the Name of the LORD, is as much as doing it at his com­mand, and by authority and warrand from him, Matth. 18.20. Where two or three are gathered to­gether in my Name (that is, in obedience to my command) there am I in the midst of them.

[Page 85] Object. That the Apostles received no commission to baptize with water, is clear from that of Paul, where he saith, I thank GOD I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius, and the houshold of Stepha­nus for I was not sent to baptize, but to preach the Gospel. 1. Cor. 1. Answer. If the Apostle had no commission to baptize with water, how was it then, that he thus baptized some? He would not have done this of his own head and self-will, Paul should have sinned in baptizing any at all without commission: and therefore we gather that he was sent indeed to Baptize, but his principal mission was to Preach; and this is not an adding to Scripture but the true meaning of it, which will be further cleare by comparing it with Hos. 6.6. for I desired mer­cy and not sacrifice. Now it is certaine that sacrifice was a thing that GOD required, but mercy was the principal thing, it was not so much sacrifice as mer­cy that GOD called for. Even so Christ sent Paul not so much to Baptize as to Preach; he sent him principally to Preach as being a more principal work. The Quakers instance about worshipping of Images, is altogether impertinent, the Religious worshipping of them (more or less) is absolutly for­bidden. But Paul had not such an absolute prohibi­tion as to baptizing with water, otherwise he had not adventured upon the baptizing of any.

He saith, That Scripture Matth. 28.19. relat­eth to the Baptism of the Spirit, and not to Baptism with Water. Arsw. Because this is the maine [Page 86] Scripture, that the continuance of VVater Baptism is grounded upon, it will be needful to clear that by Baptism here, is intended (not the Baptism of the spirit) but Baptism with water. For making out of which, two things are to be remarked, 1. That the Baptism here mentioned is held forth to be the action of the Apostles: hence Christ said to them, go and teach all Nations Baptizing them. Now to baptize with the Spirit, is spoken of as the peculiar action of Christ; to ascribe to men a power of Bap­tizing with the Spirit, is to attribute to them, what is peculiar to Christ, Matth. 3.11. he that cometh after me is mightyer then I, he shal baptize with the Holy Ghost. 2. The Baptism of the spirit, is a sanc­tifying, renewing, operation of the spirit in and u­pon the heart. Now if this Baptism were here in­tended, then the duty commanded should be confoun­ded with the promise, for the promise is, I will be with you, that is, by the assistance, presence, and powerful operation of my spirit, accompanying your labours, making them effectual upon the hearts of people: so that understanding the words of the Bap­tism of the spirit, there should be a confounding of the duty commanded, with the mercy and blessing promised: therfore the Baptism which Christ cōmanded is Baptism with Water (as is verified by the Apostles practise) which is to continue as the Preaching of the word, unto the end of the world.

Page 51. He undertaketh to elude the Scrip­tures cited by me, as holding forth the excellent [Page 87] end; and uses of Baptism, the first was Act. 2.28. To this, he saith, that here is no mention of outward water. Ans. Neither is there mention of outward water, 1 Cor. 1.16.17. and yet be grants that baptizing there hath reference to water. 2. He saith that repentance and remission of sins may be, and are found without water Baptism. Ans. Therefore, Baptism with water is not absolutly necessary to salvation, which we readily yeeld. 3. He saith, where Baptism with water is, both these are frequent­ly wanting. Answ. Ergo, the Papists are in an er­rour, who affirme that Baptism doth ex opere ope­rato, conferre grace.

Second Scripture is 1. Pet. 3.21. To this he saith, that the words following clear the meaning, not to be water Baptism, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh. Answ. These words do indeed manifest that Baptism of it self, is not available unto salvation, and so the Popish opus operatum, is struck at: as if by the meer receiving of Baptism, grace were con­veyed. The like may be said, to what he alledges in answering the other Scriptures, viz. Act. 22.6. Ephes. 5.26. Gal. 3.7. in all which he proceed­eth upon a wrong supposition, as if we thought that Baptism of it self (or by any force of the outward e­lement of water) were effectual to cleanse the soul, and to work grace and regeneration: Now this is far from our thoughts, who make the efficacy of it, to be onely the power and operation of the Holy Ghost, accompanying the ordinance in the right use of it.

[Page 88] He addeth, that Baptism with water is but a fi­gure, which was to give place to that one Baptism Epes. 4.5. Answer. This one Baptism was the Baptism which Christ commanded, and it hath been cleared, that this Baptism was Baptism with water: so that that one Baptism, cannot be called the substance, and Baptism with water the shadow seeing they are the same thing: and therefore it remaineth that baptism with water is an ordinance of Christ, and (the Lord concurring with it) a profi­table meane to further our Salvation. And where­as he reflects upon our baptizing of Infants, and the manner [...]f it: it must be adverted, that the quarrel betwixt Quakers and us, is not whether Baptism belong to Infants, or whether it should be by sprinkling or dipping: but they are against all Baptism with water (even of adult persons) not al­lowing this, so much as the name of an ordinance of JESUS CHRIST.

SECT. I. The Ordinance of the SVPPER is [Page 93] not abolished, but to be continued till the com­ing of CHRIST.

Page 54. He letteth of his great gun, (smal shot will not serve his turne) thinking to give this Ordi­nance deadly wound; But really, he maketh a noyse without doing the least spoyle. Let us examine the Scripture which he brings for the abolishing and ending of the LORDS SUPPER, it is 1. Cor. 10.15.16.17. I speake as unto wise men, judge ye what I say, the bread which we break, is it not the commu­nion of the Body of Christ. Then saith he, the A­postle proceeds to shew what that bread was, for we being many are one bread, and one body, for we are partakers of that one bread. Answer. There is not a word here concerning the abolishing of the the Lords Supper. This Scripture affords a notable argument to promote union and onness among the professing people of GOD: The drift of it being to shew, that as many graines of Wheat make up one loaf, so many members make up one Body of Christ; and partaking of that one bread, thereby they pro­fess union in love towards one another.

He asketh, What is that one Bread, is it the out­ward, or the inward? Ans. It is both the outward [Page 94] and the inward, and yet it is but one Bread, in re­gard of the Sacramental union, which if between the signe, and the thing signified: and by vertue of this union, the signe sometimes gets the name of the thing signified; as when Christ took the bread, say­ing, this is my Body. Now by this answer, our in­tent onely is to shew how truely the bread may be called one bread (and that this ordinance is to be continued, we shal prove another way) and therefore it is a pitiful evasion for him to say, that we might as well plead for the continuance of all the sacrifices and offerings, &c. Any one may see a non sequitur in his reasoning.

He addeth, page 55. That the Apostles and primi­tive Christians who had a large measure of the spirit, did use this ordinance, but it was not by necessity of command. Answer. It cannot be denyed but once there was a command to be in the use of this ordi­nance, Christ said, do this in rememberance of me. Now there is no repeale of this command, neither in express terms, nor by due consequence from scrip­ture: unless he can make (a formal or virtual ap­peal hereof) to appear, we have reason to think that the primitive Christians set about this ordinance, by vertue of a command, and that still we are oblig­ed to do the same.

He addeth, That we have no ground to say, that Christ enjoyns the observance of this ordinance, till his outward coming so many hundred years after. Answer. The Scripture is plaine that the duration [Page 95] and continuance of this ordinance must be, till Christ come, 1. Cor. 11.26. Now this coming of Christ is not to be understood of an internal com­ing, in a spiritual inward way of appearance in the hearts of his people; We deny not, but Christ promised thus to come to them, and hath made his promise good, by a plentiful infusion of the graces of his spirit into their hearts; after this manner he came to the Corinthians, who were called to be Saints, 1. Cor. 11.2. and had the Spirit of GOD dwelling in them. 1. Cor. 3.16. and were washed, justified, sanctified in the name of the Lord Jesus. 1. Cor. 11.6. and enriched in all knowledge, 1. Cor. 1.5. But notwithstanding this inward coming they continued in the practise of this ordinance; and that (as hath been cleared) necessitate praecepti, in regard of a command; and therefore that coming (untill which this ordinance must be continued) what other can it be, but even Christs coming to judgement? Spoken of by the Angel at his alcen­tion, when he shal come in like maner as he was seen go to Heaven, Act. 1.11. Now surely, Quakers must needs be great enemies to their own souls, who oppose this ordinance which the primitive Saints (who had the substance more then any of them) conscientiously practised, and the Lord ex­presly commanded: and plainly intimats his mind, that it should be perpetuated for the good and bene­fit of his Church, until his second coming to judge the World.

[Page 96]It is meeter to pass by the Gentle-mans empty words, which fill up page 56. then to make a repe­tition of, or any reply unto them. Onely it is to be considered that the difference between Quakers and us, is not about the qualification of persons, who should be admitted to the Lords Supper; but they rase the very ordinance it self.

SECT. I. Quakers are against a Mediate Call to the MINISTRIE: And an immediate Call they have not.

He addeth page 57. That it cannot be asserted in opposition to Quakers (who grant the same) that the Ministry of the word is an ordinance of Christ. Ans. In the Dialogue I pointed at a Ministry mediatly called, and are Quakers for a mediate call to the Ministry? At when men are set a part and or­dained to that Office, by fasting, prayer, and [Page 97] laying on of hands: It this be their mind, why do they speak against those who are thus ordained? As not being the Ministers of Christ, but having their Ministry from men.

He asketh, Why I cite Ephes. 4.11. Answer. To shew that Christ appointed Ministers to be in his Church, and here is touched the principal and publick Officers given to his Church: whereof the three first were extraordinary, and but temporary, and the three last ordinary and perpetual: For should these cease as the former? Then Christ (might come under that imputation, of not being faithful to his promise) who gave them to continue till we all come in the unity of the faith unto a perfect man.

He addeth, That it is owned by them that the Ministry is not common, yet that hinders not but that any of them may speake when the saints are met toge­ther, according to 1. Cor. 14.31. Answer. I would aske how he can make out, that the prophesying mentioned in that place is an ordinary Office? And if it be extraordinary, then it can be no foun­dation, for Quakers to build an ordinary practise upon. Besides when it is said, ye may all prophesie one by one, it is not to be understood of all the mem­bers of the Church indifferently; for some are for­bidden expresly to speak in the Church, verse 34. And therefore that all must be referred to the Pro­phets: all the Prophets may prophesie, and the same Apostle saith, all are not Prophets, 1. Cor. 12.29.

[Page 98] He alledgeth, it is not proved that some are called to the Ministry īmediatly without the intervention of men and some mediatly by men authorized for that pur­pose. Answer. Were not the Prophets and Apostles called immediatly? The Lord sent them by his own immediat command, Amos. 7.15. Matth. 16.1.6.7. was nor Timothy set a part to the work (me­diatly) by the laying on of the hands of the Presby­tery; 1. Timothy. 4.14. And it was given him in charge to lay hands suddainly on no man, 1. Tim. 5.22. we deny not but such (recorded in Scripture) as had a mediat outward Call to the Ministry, had also an inward Call (that is, competent qualifica­tions, gifts and abilities for the work) but it must be observed, that the inward call, and imme­diat call, are not the same thing: In Scripture the one is opposed to the other, Paul who was immediatly called to be an Apostle; opposeth himself, 1. To false Apostles, who were called by the meer autho­rity of men. 2. He opposes himself to ordinary Mi­nisters: who might have an inward call from GOD, and an outward call from men appointed by GOD for this work, see Gal. 1.1. Paul an Apostle not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ.

He addeth, That they who come preaching the Gos­pel, not in speach onely, but also in power and in the Holy Ghost, and in the evidence and demonstration of the spirit, give sufficient proof that they are called of GOD. Answer. Methinks then, he should have more favourable thoughts of PROTESTANT [Page 99] MINISTERS: who have been and are powerful Preachers of the Gospel, being able to give as evi­dences of their mission from GOD (besides their competent qualifications, and ordination to the Mi­nistry) the success of and some dayly assistance of the Spirit in their Labours; and yet the Quaker; in the heat and anger of their spirits, do not spare such. But stepping up to the Throne of Judgement, they impiously censure them, as deceivers, hypo­crites, and children of the Devil.

He maketh much ado, page 58. as if we were fal­ling in with Papists, in pleading for miracles; when as it is known we do not pretend to the doing of miracles; onely if men be so bold, as to assert an immediat call (which the Quakers do) such as the Apostles had: we think it meet that they shew the signs of their Apostoleship, and the tokens of their immediat call; which hath been alwayes accompa­nyed either with the working of miracles, foretelling of things to come, or some other extraordinary thing. Ionah foretold the destruction, which within fourty dayes was to come upon Nineveh. Iohns call was attended with extraordinary things at his con­ception and birth, and there were singular predictions concerning him.

Object. So there are special predictions concerning the Lords pouring forth of his Spirit, upon many in these latter dayes to prophesie. Answer. I suppose the special prediction which he aimes at, is, Joel 2.28. now this prediction was accomplished in the [Page 100] extraordinary pouring forth of the Spirit upon the Apostles: when they were filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with tongues: the Apostle urg­eth this, as the accomplishment of that promise in Joel. see Act. 2.15.16.17. When Quakers can manifest that Scripture predictions (of preparing the way of the Lord) are applyed to them by Angels and confirmed by the testimony of Christ, as they were to Iohn, we shal then look upon them, as cal­led as he was, but not till then.

He saith that Tit. 1.5. Act. 14.23. Prove not that those Elders had not the Call of the Spirit of GOD in themselves. Answer. What ever inward call they might have; yet they had not an imme­diat call, which is by the immed at voice and com­mand of GOD, without the intervention of men: and therefore in that Moses consecrated Aaron, it followeth that his call was not immediat (but rather an extraordinary mediat call) and yet he was called of GOD: being set a part in that way which the Lord had prescribed and appointed.

SECT. II. Proving the continuance of the MINISTRIE.

He addeth that my proof from Ephes. 4.12.13. [Page 101] is altogether impertinent, because we are against the perfection of the Sa nts in this life. Answer. This is a pregnant and pertinent proof to bold forth the continuance of the Ministry, the terme whereof is the day of judgement: For this Ministry must cōtinue till all the Elect come & meet in that compleat unity (not onely of opinion, but also of he art and affecti­on) which is called the unity of the faith, and it is that which the Saints shal attaine unto: being come to the state and degree of perfection in the life to come, which state is here called a perfect man.

Neither can it be gathered from verse 14. (that this perfection is on earth) where the Apostle onely sheweth that the Ministry of the word is a meane or­dained by God, to preserve & keep his People from the poyson of dangerous errours, and from the snares of subtile, crafty seducers. It is true, the Ministry is given for perfecting of the Saints, and hereby (as a meane) they are brought to perfection in parts, and pressed to seek after an absolute full perfection even in degrees. Now in casting of the Ministry that we plead for (namely a Ministry according to the order delivered by the Apostles and prescribed in the word.) Quakers manifest themselves to be enemies to the Ministry of Christ, and injurious to their own souls.

SECT. I. The observation of the SABBATH is warranted by the fourth Command.

He addeth page 59. That as the fourth Command requireth the observation of one day of seven, so it ex­presly instanceth that day, to be the seventh. Ans▪ Though the fourth Command instance in the se­venth day (that is for number) yet it speaketh not precisely of the seventh day in order from the crea­tion. It is said six dayes shalt thou labour, but the seventh is the Sabbath, mark, the seventh is the Sab­bath, the Lord saith not the seventh from the crea­tion. It is likewise worthy special observation to consider the preceptive and the benedictive part of the fourth Command, or the beginning and conclu­sion of it. In the beginning it is said, Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. In the conclusion it is said, Wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it; observe the phrase, not seventh day, but Sabbath day is blessed, so that the fourth Com­mand [Page 103] neither begins nor ends with that terme the seventh day, but with that of the Sabbath day: which is an evidence that the designe of this Command, is not to bind the Church to a precise keeping of the seventh day from the creation; for there is no express mention of that day in all the fourth Com­mand: the maine intendment therefore of the fourth Command is to prescribe a seventh day to be keept holy (after six dayes labour) which GOD ap­pointeth: And this to the People of GOD under the Old Testament, was the seventh day of the week, (it being appointed by GOD in the first institution of the Sabbath, Gen. 2 3.) but to us it is the first day of the week; the Sabbath being translated and changed to this day by divine authority, as will af­terwards appear.

1. Object. The keeping of one day of the week for a Sabbath is not perpetual, but abolished, Coloss. 2.16.17. let no man judge you in meat or drink, or in respect of a holy day, or new Moon, or of the Sab­bath dayes. Answer. Here the Apostle opposeth ceremonial ordinances, but not Gospel institutions. Indeed the Old Anabaptists, and Familists (with whom Quakers go along) they urged this text against all difference of dayes under the Gos­pel; though the Apostles onely designe be to de­cry the several sorts of dayes, which were in use a­mong the Jews, of which he gives an observable enu­meratiō: proceeding from their yearlie holy dayes, to their monethlie new Moons, and from them to their [Page 104] weeklie Sabbaths: so that granting the weekly Sab­bath to be here taken in, yet it maketh nothing a­gainst the Christian Sabbath, but against the old seventh day Sabbath.

2. Object. Rom. 14.6. plainlie holdeth forth all dayes to be alike. Answer. What was said be­fore, serveth to clear this Scripture, it speaketh of ceremonial daies: of such dayes as are in the rank with ceremonial meats, and therefore opposeth not the moral weekly Sabbath.

3. Object. Gal. 4.10.11. Ye observe daies and moneths, times, and years, I am affraid of you. Ans. There is a twofold observation of dayes, moral and ceremonial, now the Apostle speaketh not against the former, but the latter: he would not have Jewish times (such a their Sabbatical yeares, their annual feasts; their monethlie feasts, called new Moons, their weeklie seventh day, which is probably thought to be included in that clause ye observe dayes) to be ob­served (which the Jewish false teachers cryed up) but he was far from crying down the fourth Com­mand, which is no less binding then the rest of the Decalogue: it being delivered in the same majestick manner pressed with the same severitie, and written by the same finger of GOD, and put into the same Ark, with the rest. He that said, Thou shalt not commit adulterie; Thou shalt not steal; said like­wise, Remember the Sabbath day keep it holy: and therefore if persons take upon them to sacrifice this Command to their wild fancies, they need not spare [Page 105] the other Commands. And in very deed the Com­mands of GOD, are little beholden either to Pa­pists or Quakers; for Papists reject the second Command, and Quakers give the same usage to the fourth. And this puts me in mind of a Story I have heard concerning an Honest Countrey-man, who travelling on the rod, there were two who denyed the Sabbath, came up to him, upon a designe to try his knowledge; the question they propounded was con­cerning the number of the Commands, the well meaning man, knew the persons and shapt an answer su­table to their principles, telling them there were eight Cōmands: whereupon the Querists made sport, and upbraided the poor man with his profession, and his ignorance; but he gravely replyed, that the scripture indeed spake of ten Commands, Deut. 4.13. but they had taken away one Command, and the Pa­pists another: so that between them, they had brought the Commands from ten to eight.

In his answer to Matth. 24.20. where Christ intimats the continuance of a Sabbath. He saith, that Sabbath, is neither here nor else where said to be the first day of the week. Answer. Though there be no express mention in this place, of the first day of the week; yet in that it proves the continuance of a Sabbath, it overthrowes the Quakers opinion: who would be levelling all dayes, making them alike. And it is to be remarked, that Christ was come into the world, & relateth the sad things, which were to befal his Disciples, after he was ascended to the [Page 106] Father; and yet even then a Sabbath was in being

He addeth page 60. That as the outward Jew ma [...] not be put to fly on his outward Sabbath, so the inward Jew desireth much more that he may keep hi [...] Sabbath, which is his spiritual rest in Christ, Heb 4.9. Answer. The Apostle in this chapter speaketh of a rest, which Believers onely enter into; And sheweth, 1. That this rest is not the rest of the Sab­bath, verse 4. 2. That it is not the rest of the Land of Canaan, verse 8. If Jesus (that is Joshua) had given them rest, then would he not have spoken o [...] another rest. It followeth then that the rest which Believers onely shall enter into, is the rest of Hea­ven, verse 9. there remains therefore a rest for the people of GOD. Now because there is an eternal rest promised to the Believing, obedient people of GOD, saith this, any thing why they should not ob­serve one day of seven, as a Sabbath unto the Lord, Oh, the conscientious keeping of the Sabbath is a comfortable evidence of those that shal be admit­ted to this rest.

SECT. II. The first day of the Week is set a part for the Service of GOD by Divine Au­thority.

He addeth, If we have the same authority for [Page 107] keeping the first day of the week, as the Jews had for keeping their day, then let it be produced. Answer. It was produced before, but he would not see it: however for the sake of others we shal cōsider again that Scripture, Rev. 1.10. I was in the Spirit on the Lords day. Now that by the Lords day is meant the first day of the week, will be clear, if we advert that there are peculiar grounds, why this day is singular­ly to be called the Lords day, beyond other dayes; Because, 1. on this day our Lord arose, and ceased from the work of Redemption, Mark. 16.1.2. 2. On this day our Lord graciously (and frequent­ly) appeared unto his Disciples, Ioh. 20.19. 3. On this day our Lord declared himself to be the Son of GOD with Power, Rom. 1.4. 4. On this day our Lord plentifully poured his Spirit upon his Apostles, for Penticost (or the fifthtieth day from the Passo­ver) is computed to have fallen out that year on this day, Act. 2.1.2. Thus it is apparent that the first day of the week may (beyond other dayes) be peculiarly termed the Lords day. To this may be subjoyned the observation of famous Beza, who ob­serves out of an ancient Greek Manuscript, where­in the first day of the week, is expresly called the Lords day. Now this day being called the Lords, it imports that the Lord is the authour and institu­ter of it, this tittle (as I remember) the Lords, is in the New Testament attributed but to two things: namely, to the Supper ( [...]) and the day ( [...]) now the Supper is called the [Page 108] Lords, because he did institute and appoint it, and so the day is called the Lords, because Christ is the authour and appointer of it: and therefore in keep­ing this day we walk obediently to the fourth Com­mand, which requires on day (to be observed as a Sabbath) which the Lord appointeth: we then keep this day, because it is a day instituted and appoint­ed by the Lord.

Neither must those two expressions, the day of the Lord, and the Lords day, be confounded; for all dayes wherein GOD executeth judgement upon sinners are dayes of the Lord, Amos 5.18.20. But the Lords day mentioned Revel. 1. is but one, which at that time was known to the Churches to be the first day of the week. Ignatius (who lived in Iohns time) speaking of this day, saith, Omnis Christi a­mator, Dominicum celebret diem, Reginam & Prin­cipem dierum omnium: that is, let every one that loveth Christ keep holy the Lords day, which is the Queen and Empress of all dayes.

Whereas page 61. 62. he insinuats that every day, even all the dayes of our life, are to be given up unto the Lord and spent in his service. Answer. It is true, we ought daily to be employed in the worship and service of GOD; But as this will not inferre, that every day is to be keeps as a sabbath (which must be wholly consecrated to the service of GOD) so it makes nothing against the keeping of a weekly sabbath? for the Jews before Christ were bound e­very day to serve GOD; and yet they were tyed to [Page 109] the observance of a weekly Sabbath.

Thus my former charge is still made good against Quakers, that it is for the inventions of men, but the ordinances of Jesus Christ which they disowne.

SECT. I. It tends to the neglect of that Worship which is due to GOD.

He saith page 67. That they deny not true wor­ship, but onely our Idolatrous worship. Answer. If our Worship were Idolatrous, they had reason to de­ny it; but it is unreasonable to call our Worship Idolatrous, when they have not a shadow of reason to prove it to be so, unless the Gentle-man think that ( [...]) the Quakers naked affirmation is a sufficient reason. Now it is manifest that Quakers refuse GOD the worship which is due to him in [Page 120] the use of the creatures, in that they can, and do ad­venture to use these, without seeking GODS Bles­sing upon them: which hath been (by former Saints) accounted a profane custome, utterly unfit to be heard of, among Christians professing the know­ledge and fear of GOD! Are we not commanded to eat and drink to the glory of GOD? 1. Cor. 10.31. And must we not then look up to GOD, and desire his help to improve the creatures to his glo­ry? Besids the creatures of themselves cannot nou­rish us, if GOD deny his blessing, our eating and drinking can do us no good: and therefore we have need to address our selves to GOD by prayer; for by this means the blessing is obtained, and the crea­tures come to be sanctified to us, 1. Tim. 4.4.

Object. To receive the benefits and gifts of GOD with thanksgiving, and to witness it sanctified to us by the word and prayer is owned by us. Answer. Do Quakers witness the creatures sanctified to them by prayer, when yet they do not pray for the sanctifi­ed use of them? Pray, observe the way that Christ tooke (his example is worth our imitation) at the receiving of the creatures he lookt up to Heaven for a blessing, Mark. 6.14. and gave thanks, Matth. 15.36. and this appeares to have been his ordina­ry practise, he was knowne of his Disciples in break­ing bread: it being his ordinary manner to bless the bread (in some special way) which he break, where­by he was discerned and differenced from others Luk. 24.30.31.

[Page 121] Object. It is usual among us, when we sit down, to waite upon the Lord for sometime, that we may know our selves stated in his fear, and as there we stand, outward expressions may be uttered by us. Answer. When they are not thus stated in GODS fear, yet they have liberty and freedom to fall to meat: so it would seeme though they will not pray without fear, yet they can eate without fear, which is the character of wicked persons, Jude, verse 12. As for their waiting (its but an engine to overthrow Scripture precepts) seeing it hath reference to a new inward command, without which they do not hold themselves obliged, to express their desire in words, but as they are thus required of them.

He addeth page 68. That to say, that a man can­not, nor ought not to pray without (an impulse) the spirits drawing, and motion, hath no bad tendency, be­cause all such prayers, as are performed without the help of the spirit, are abomination, not true prayers, but hypocritical and deceitful. Answer. We grant these things. First, That the spirit teacheth and helpeth the Saints to pray, sometimes they are so stirred and moved to prayer, that they cannot be at quiet; but they must to some secret corner: and there poure out their complaints before the LORD, Gal. 4.6. Secondly, That the season when the spirit moveth to duty, should be laid hold on, Psal. 27.8. when thou saidst seek ye my face, my heart said unto thee, thy face I will seek. Thirdly, When the spirit moveth the w [...]ek is sweetest; then [Page 122] the Christian is cheerful in the exercise of duty. The joy that is in a little hearty praying, is beyond all the joyes that the world can afford, Isaiah. 56.7. Fourthly, Persons cannot pray aright without the spirit, and therefore the prayers of the wicked are said to be an abomination unto the Lord. Prov. 15.8. But it must be observed, that though prayer with­out the spirit be an abomination to GOD; yet o­mission of prayer is double abomination: the reason is, because to pray without the spirit, is a sin for the manner, but to neglect prayer is a sin, both as to mat­ter and manner.

He addeth, whosoever can pray to the Lord in­deed, let him pray, but that any can pray without the spirit, that we deny. Answer. May he not accord­ing to this way of reasoning, take men off from eat­ing? If they can eate to the glory of GOD indeed, then let them eate; but that they can eate to the glory of GOD, without the spirit: thats denyed. Likewise he may take men off from the works of their calling, for as the praying, so the plowing of the wicked is sin, Prov. 21.4.

A motion of the spirit, is an encouragement to, but it is not our alone warrant for prayer: GOD in his word hath commanded prayer, 1. Thess. 5.17. pray without ceasing: in obedience to this com­mand we ought to set to the duty. And if it be al­ledged that we should pray (when we have the spi­rit) without ceasing; but not otherwise: it may as well be said, that children should honour their [Page 123] Parents, and husbands love their wives, when they have a motion of the spirit to it; but in the ab­sence of this motion, they may omit these duties.

He asketh, what ground I have to believe, that some Quakers for the space of a whole yeare, have not so much as once bowed a knee to call upon GOD in their families? Answer. There is too much ground for the belief of it: their infrequency in family prayer, is too palpable. One of them confessed (whom I forbear to name) that now he was come to that pitch, that he prayed alwayes: and though heretofore he was wont to call his family together, and pray with them; yet he had not done so for a twelve moneth past. Is this a lovly Religion which takes men off from family prayer? It is a mise­rable shift, to tell that friends of truth, who have any whom they can joyne with: do meet, waite, and pray together. Now grant that persons in Quakers families were enemies to truth, would it not be a work of charity, and demonstration of love and tenderness to their souls, to pray with them, and for them? Must not Abraham keep up Reli­gion in his familie, because an Ishmael was in it? Nor David because of the presence of Absolom?

Page 69. He looketh upon me, as one wholly un­acquainted with the wayes and motions of the spirit, for supposing that an impulse of the spirit, may be de­nyed for many yeares. Answer. Is there not ground to suppose, that men may turne loose negligent, and defective in waiting, even for several yeares: [Page 124] If so, then the motions of the spirit may be denyed to them, (which he acknowledges are frequent, but to those that waite for them) and therefore all that time that they (who neglect to waite) want the mo­tions of the spirit: they must not adventure upon prayer: yea they must not pray, though they were at the gates of death, and in danger of present drowning.

It is true he conceives, that at such a season the breathings of the spirit will not be wanting to the Saints; but what shal the wicked do in this case; Must they keep silent? Shal it not be lawful for them, to follow the advice which the Apostle gave to Simon Magus? Act. 8.22. pray GOD if per­haps the thoughts of thy heart may be forgiven thee.

The Quakers principle is, that men should not pray without a motion of the spirit. Now suppose that persons contract guilt by their not waiting, hereby provoking the Lord to withhold the motions of his Spirit from them: then these motions being with-held, their not praying is not sin: and there­fore they need not to be troubled for their omission of prayer. Now doth not this tend to lull people asleep in security, and to keep them from charging themselves with that sin: which without repentance GOD will charge upon them? for he will call sin­ners to an account for their omissions, as well as for their commissions.

SECT. II. Quakerisme tends to render Mor­tification of sin useless.

He asketh page 70. Whether mortification of sin be useless, where the end of it (which is perfection) is attained? Answer. There is a twofold perfection; namely, comparative, and absolute; the Apostle speaketh of both these kinds of perfection, Philipp. 3. and denyeth to himself an absolute, compleate per­fection, verse 12. not as though I had already at­tained, either were already perfect. Yet he out­stripped many others in holiness, and so had a com­parative perfection, verse 13. let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded. Now when there is an absolute, compleate perfection (which is the thing the Quaker pleads for) without the least indwelling corruption and sin: to such there is no use for mortification. Persons need not to be ta­ken up in killing sin (which is the importance of the word mortifie) that have not sin in them to be killed.

He quarrels at my saying, the opinion of a sinless perfection in this life wounds the very vitals of Re­ligion, and here the Quaker triumphs (but it is be­fore [Page 126] the victory;) Asking, Whether the vitals of Religion consist in sinning or not sinning? Answer. The vitals of Religion consist in the means appoin­ted by GOD, (and diligent improvment thereof) for subduing and bearing down sin: such as prayer, repentance, mortification, believing, application of the Blood of Christ, And though the Quakers grant that these things are needful for attaining unto perfection yet supposing a sinles perfection to be actually attai­ned unto (by men in this world) what need is there then to pray for pardon of sin, to repent of sin, apply Christs blood for cleansing from sin? Seeing there is no sin to be pardoned, repented of, or cleansed from. And therefore (the Gentle-man not denying that such consequences do flow from his principle) he is faine to shift, saying, that they who come to perfection witness the true use of these things; but in the meane time he should remember, that (under a pretence of perfection) he takes them off from the practise and use of the aforementioned duties and means; and so Christianity in the vitals of it is struck at.

He accuses me of confusion and contradiction, be­cause (as he saith) I would inferre a sinless man to be a sinning man. Answer. Is it either confusion or a contradiction to affirme one of the Quakers con­ceitedly sinless men (to be sinful) who pretending to be without sin; yet discover much sin, by their pride, passion, bitterness, censuring and condemning others, and vilifying them by opprobrious termes, and railing accusations: if such say, they have no [Page 127] sin, they are but liars, and the truth is not in them, 1. Ioh. 1.8. It is remarkable, to consider whom the Apostle speaketh of, if we (saith he) what we? look to verse 1. we that have heard and seen and handled the word of life; verse third, we who have fellowship with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ, verse 7, we who (by our Justification) are cleansed from the guilt of all sin; yet it we say, we have no sin, we are not sincere but hypocrites, de­ceiving both our selves and others.

Object. This Scripture 1. Iob. 1.8. is conditional, otherwise it would contradict what followes, verse 9. and chapter 2.4. and chapter 3.9. Answer. There is no contradiction; but sweet agreement between these Scriptures: for verse 9. speaketh of forgivness of sin, (which consisteth in freedom from the guilt of sin) and this may be where sin is nor utterly a­bolished. And 1. Ioh. 2.4. is understood of a sincere nor absolutlie perfect keeping of the Com­mands of GOD. And as for 1. Ioh. 3.9. it was formerly opened, and may be further cleared by comparing it with chapter 5.16. where the Apostle speaketh of a sin unto death, which they that are born of GOD cannot commit, verse 18. we know that whosoever is born of GOD sinneth not, but he that is begotten of GOD, keepeth himself and the wicked one toucheth him not: That is, so as to draw him to that unpardonable sin, the Child of GOD is secured from this sin.